6 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Too far to the other extreme indeed

but the whole reason to not legislate this is that we are far from consensus on it

let it be between them and their god. This is nothing but religious zealotry

 

My line is when a fetus can survive 24 hours outside the mother's body. It's one thing to require that a mother and parents ensure a newborn has required sustenance and ultimately upbringing. Biologically the line seems to be where a fetus is independently viable without recreating an artificial support system. 

Morally I would draw a line sooner. But as you say that's between a mother (and father hopefully) and their god.

54 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

My sperms are alive before that.  Dey wigglin my balls right now.  Then at conception it becomes an emryo.  Then it keeps evolving after that until it is BORN as a human.  And that is how we have recorded human lifespans throughout history.  You are successfully born, you live your human life, and then you die.

Wow.  

Sarcasm that draws blood

 

50 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

My line is when a fetus can survive 24 hours outside the mother's body. It's one thing to require that a mother and parents ensure a newborn has required sustenance and ultimately upbringing. Biologically the line seems to be where a fetus is independently viable without recreating an artificial support system. 

Morally I would draw a line sooner. But as you say that's between a mother (and father hopefully) and their god.

The fathers say/rights is a whooooole other messy quagmire 

2 hours ago, TEW said:

I'm pretty sure he's saying that 6 weeks after conception, the baby will not survive outside of the womb.

Which seems irrelevant in a moral sense. The question is when does life begin? After that point abortion is murder. That it might be inconvenient to carry the child to term, or a perceived burden, or anything else, is irrelevant. 

No - where life begins and "murder" isn't the issue and is a red herring for the whole abortion argument.   The "murder" scenario just falls into the hands of the religious argument against abortion  -- and we do not, or SHOULD not, make laws based on religious doctrine in a non-theocracy. 

Killing happens all the time -- legally - as part of human civilization.  We have the death penalty at the fed level and in some states, for various crimes.   We have wars, where it is allegedly "legal" to kill someone.  Really its a charade for murder on a massive scale.  We have wars that are NOT declared, yet killings take place -- such as drone strikes.   Bin Laden was arguably "murdered".   

30,000 deaths occur from car accidents each and EVERY year in the US alone.   Yet we don't ban cars.   We blissfully drive on, knowing that we could cause or be the victim of one of those 30,000 deaths (PER YEAR) at any given moment.   

We knew and know that cigarettes kill (albeit slowly) via lung cancer for many.  Cigs are still legal.  Opioids are legal - and people die. 

Doctors pull the "plug" on people on life support -- legally.   Some states it is legal to assist suicide under certain circumstances.  We can and should make killing LEGAL under certain circumstances.  Unwanted babies being one of those circumstances of just a few I listed above. 

You can label it "murder" if it makes you feel good.   The fact is, abortion has always been part of the human condition and likely always will be.   It is stupid to try to ban it in entirely.  Prohibitions won't work.   Should it be regulated to some extent? -- sure.   But heart beats and 6 weeks and stuff that is really about banning it entirely under the "guise" of regulation is absurd. 

Even if you call it killing or murder, it is what it is and should be allowed to happen at a reasonable time when a person:   1.  has ample opportunity to know they are pregnant   2.  And is then given sufficient time to make a difficult decision and carry out the abortion.     

What exactly those time periods might be could be up for reasonable debate.   But Roe vs. Wade sorta hit on the basic parameters that were roughly reasonable as far as timeliness.     All the rest is just nonsense and window dressing for the hysterical feel good about themselves anti-abortionists (not pro lifers, that's a euphemism) - who only hurt poor people with their bans or "essentially" bans with these new law.    Most average to wealthy people will just go somewhere else to get it done, if it is banned in their state or their country.  So it just causes more poor people and kids to have kids -- keeping them in a cycle of poverty.

For those who think abortion is morally wrong or "murder" -- fine.  Don't have an abortion.  

 

On 9/5/2021 at 4:09 PM, The_Omega said:

I’m not sure how you would compromise when you’re certain that life begins at conception. 

Where life begins is not relevant.

Where life begins and "murder" isn't the issue and is a red herring for the whole abortion argument.   The "murder" scenario just falls into the hands of the religious argument against abortion  -- and we do not, or SHOULD not, make laws based on religious doctrine in a non-theocracy. 

Killing happens all the time -- legally - as part of human civilization.  We have the death penalty at the fed level and in some states, for various crimes.   We have wars, where it is allegedly "legal" to kill someone.  Really its a charade for murder on a massive scale.  We have wars that are NOT declared, yet killings take place -- such as drone strikes.   Bin Laden was arguably "murdered".   

30,000 deaths occur from car accidents each and EVERY year in the US alone.   Yet we don't ban cars.   We blissfully drive on, knowing that we could cause or be the victim of one of those 30,000 deaths (PER YEAR) at any given moment.   

We knew and know that cigarettes kill (albeit slowly) via lung cancer for many.  Cigs are still legal.  Opioids are legal - and people die. 

Doctors pull the "plug" on people on life support -- legally.   Some states it is legal to assist suicide under certain circumstances.  We can and should make killing LEGAL under certain circumstances.  Unwanted babies being one of those circumstances of just a few I listed above. 

You can label it "murder" if it makes you feel good.   The fact is, abortion has always been part of the human condition and likely always will be.   It is stupid to try to ban it in entirely.  Prohibitions won't work.   Should it be regulated to some extent? -- sure.   But heart beats and 6 weeks and stuff that is really about banning it entirely under the "guise" of regulation is absurd. 

Even if you call it killing or murder, it is what it is and should be allowed to happen at a reasonable time when a person:   1.  has ample opportunity to know they are pregnant   2.  And is then given sufficient time to make a difficult decision and carry out the abortion.     

What exactly those time periods might be could be up for reasonable debate.   But Roe vs. Wade sorta hit on the basic parameters that were roughly reasonable as far as timeliness.     All the rest is just nonsense and window dressing for the hysterical feel good about themselves anti-abortionists (not pro lifers, that's a euphemism) - who only hurt poor people with their bans or "essentially" bans with these new law.    Most average to wealthy people will just go somewhere else to get it done, if it is banned in their state or their country.  So it just causes more poor people and kids to have kids -- keeping them in a cycle of poverty.

For those who think abortion is morally wrong or "murder" -- fine.  Don't have an abortion. 

 

1 hour ago, ToastJenkins said:

Too far to the other extreme indeed

but the whole reason to not legislate this is that we are far from consensus on it

let it be between them and their god. This is nothing but religious zealotry

 

I agree that there is no consensus. That doesn't mean you avoid legislation. And if that is the logic to be applied, then how many other legislative orders must be abandoned? There is hardly a consensus on anything. I can find 45% of the population to disagree with basically every law. Of the few legitimate functions of government, protection of life is chief among them.

And I hardly see this as a religious issue -- I am essentially an atheist myself (technically agnostic, but practically atheist). I don't think morality should be abandoned to the religious -- Gods, what a disaster that has been throughout history -- and there is no reason why one must think that there is a God in order to acknowledge the moral abomination that is the abortion of a child.

The question, as I said before, is one of the point of life? After that point, abortion is murder. It doesn't matter how inconvenient a child may be, how unprepared the parents may be, how much it may change the course of the lives of the child's parents: once there is life, killing that life is murder. Full stop.

We can argue what that point is, but it is certainly before birth. There are things like a heartbeat, brainwaves, movement, a body, etc. That it could not be ripped from the womb and survive is, again, irrelevant. We prosecute people for killing the unborn, and even a naturally born child will die without care.

So this is a scientific issue: determine the point of life, and beyond that point it is murder.

5 minutes ago, TEW said:

I agree that there is no consensus. That doesn't mean you avoid legislation. And if that is the logic to be applied, then how many other legislative orders must be abandoned? There is hardly a consensus on anything. I can find 45% of the population to disagree with basically every law. Of the few legitimate functions of government, protection of life is chief among them.

And I hardly see this as a religious issue -- I am essentially an atheist myself (technically agnostic, but practically atheist). I don't think morality should be abandoned to the religious -- Gods, what a disaster that has been throughout history -- and there is no reason why one must think that there is a God in order to acknowledge the moral abomination that is the abortion of a child.

The question, as I said before, is one of the point of life? After that point, abortion is murder. It doesn't matter how inconvenient a child may be, how unprepared the parents may be, how much it may change the course of the lives of the child's parents: once there is life, killing that life is murder. Full stop.

We can argue what that point is, but it is certainly before birth. There are things like a heartbeat, brainwaves, movement, a body, etc. That it could not be ripped from the womb and survive is, again, irrelevant. We prosecute people for killing the unborn, and even a naturally born child will die without care.

So this is a scientific issue: determine the point of life, and beyond that point it is murder.

You are looking at this wrong -- "life" isn't the issue.  The definition of life or its beginning is a fools game.  Scientists can't even agree on the definition of what life is or what makes something alive.  Read this book (I did) called -- "Life's Edge":

  Carl Zimmer investigates one of the biggest questions of all: What is life? The answer seems obvious until you try to seriously answer it. Is the apple sitting on your kitchen counter alive, or is only the apple tree it came from deserving of the word? If we can’t answer that question here on earth, how will we know when and if we discover alien life on other worlds? The question hangs over some of society’s most charged conflicts—whether a fertilized egg is a living person, for example, and when we ought to declare a person legally dead.

Lists of what living things have in common do not add up to a theory of life. It’s never clear why some items on the list are essential and others not. Coronaviruses have altered the course of history, and yet many scientists maintain they are not alive. Chemists are creating droplets that can swarm, sense their environment, and multiply. Have they made life in the lab?

People with ideology hang ups dont go for scientific based reason.

to try to define life is not a scientific debate. Unless you want to go to the independently viable databpoint whichbyou just went against

12 minutes ago, TEW said:

 

So this is a scientific issue: determine the point of life, and beyond that point it is murder.

We "murder" legally under many circumstances.  Labelling abortion "murder" is just a distraction from the issue; and killing (whether you call it "murder" or otherwise) doesn't mean something should not be allowed.  

Killing happens all the time -- legally - as part of human civilization.  We have the death penalty at the fed level and in some states, for various crimes.   We have wars, where it is literally "legal" to kill someone  - strangers.  Really war is just a charade for murder on a massive scale.  We have wars that are NOT declared, yet killings take place -- such as drone strikes.   Bin Laden was arguably "murdered".   

30,000 deaths occur from car accidents each and EVERY year in the US alone.   Yet we don't ban cars.   We blissfully drive on, knowing that we could cause or be the victim of one of those 30,000 deaths (PER YEAR) at any given moment.   

We knew and know that cigarettes kill (albeit slowly) via lung cancer for many.  Cigs are still legal.  Opioids are legal - and people die. 

Doctors pull the "plug" on people on life support -- legally.   Some states it is legal to assist suicide under certain circumstances.  We can and should make killing LEGAL under certain circumstances.  Unwanted babies being one of those circumstances of just a few I listed above. 

You can label it "murder" if it makes you feel good.   The fact is, abortion has always been part of the human condition and likely always will be.   It is stupid to try to ban it in entirely.  Prohibitions won't work.   Should it be regulated to some extent? -- sure, like we regulate the death penalty, and other legalized "murders".   But heart beats and 6 weeks and stuff that is really about banning it entirely under the "guise" of regulation is absurd. 

Even if you call it killing or murder, it is what it is and should be allowed to happen at a reasonable time when a person:   1.  has ample opportunity to know they are pregnant   2.  And is then given sufficient time to make a difficult decision and carry out the abortion.     

What exactly those time periods might be could be up for reasonable debate.   But Roe vs. Wade sorta hit on the basic parameters that were roughly reasonable as far as timeliness.     All the rest is just nonsense and window dressing for the hysterical feel good about themselves anti-abortionists (not pro lifers, that's a euphemism) - who only hurt poor people with their bans or "essentially" bans with these new law.    Most average to wealthy people will just go somewhere else to get it done, if it is banned in their state or their country.  So it just causes more poor people and kids to have kids -- keeping them in a cycle of poverty.

For those who think abortion is morally wrong or "murder" -- fine.  Don't have an abortion. 

 

7 minutes ago, caesar said:

No - where life begins and "murder" isn't the issue and is a red herring for the whole abortion argument.   The "murder" scenario just falls into the hands of the religious argument against abortion  -- and we do not, or SHOULD not, make laws based on religious doctrine in a non-theocracy. 

Killing happens all the time -- legally - as part of human civilization.  We have the death penalty at the fed level and in some states, for various crimes.   We have wars, where it is allegedly "legal" to kill someone.  Really its a charade for murder on a massive scale.  We have wars that are NOT declared, yet killings take place -- such as drone strikes.   Bin Laden was arguably "murdered".   

30,000 deaths occur from car accidents each and EVERY year in the US alone.   Yet we don't ban cars.   We blissfully drive on, knowing that we could cause or be the victim of one of those 30,000 deaths (PER YEAR) at any given moment.   

We knew and know that cigarettes kill (albeit slowly) via lung cancer for many.  Cigs are still legal.  Opioids are legal - and people die. 

Doctors pull the "plug" on people on life support -- legally.   Some states it is legal to assist suicide under certain circumstances.  We can and should make killing LEGAL under certain circumstances.  Unwanted babies being one of those circumstances of just a few I listed above. 

You can label it "murder" if it makes you feel good.   The fact is, abortion has always been part of the human condition and likely always will be.   It is stupid to try to ban it in entirely.  Prohibitions won't work.   Should it be regulated to some extent? -- sure.   But heart beats and 6 weeks and stuff that is really about banning it entirely under the "guise" of regulation is absurd. 

Even if you call it killing or murder, it is what it is and should be allowed to happen at a reasonable time when a person:   1.  has ample opportunity to know they are pregnant   2.  And is then given sufficient time to make a difficult decision and carry out the abortion.     

What exactly those time periods might be could be up for reasonable debate.   But Roe vs. Wade sorta hit on the basic parameters that were roughly reasonable as far as timeliness.     All the rest is just nonsense and window dressing for the hysterical feel good about themselves anti-abortionists (not pro lifers, that's a euphemism) - who only hurt poor people with their bans or "essentially" bans with these new law.    Most average to wealthy people will just go somewhere else to get it done, if it is banned in their state or their country.  So it just causes more poor people and kids to have kids -- keeping them in a cycle of poverty.

For those who think abortion is morally wrong or "murder" -- fine.  Don't have an abortion.  

 

No, it's not a red herring. It is literally the only question that matters in this debate. Intentionally killing an innocent life is illegal, and by any decent and sane moral standard it is indefensible.

Sure, killing happens all the time. The death penalty requires a conviction in a court of law where the defendant must  himself stand accused of murdering someone else. Even still I oppose it. Yes, war results in killing people. The legality of war is determined by the sovereign, and there are things called war crimes to protect the intentional killing of innocent people. 

Cars, cigs, etc are a totally separate issue. Intent matters. Victims matter. A person who smokes kills themselves. The use of cigs in public spaces is banned to prevent smokers from impeding on others. Yes, cars can kill people -- even innocent third parties. But responsibility is placed on drivers. If you intentionally kill someone with a car, it is murder. If you unintentionally kill someone with a car, it usually comes down to manslaughter. 

Assisted suicide is likewise unrelated. It involves the consent of the patient. It's their life. They decide to live or die. And pulling life support usually comes down to a will. Again, a choice of the patient. Life support isn't taken away for mere convenience.

Roe v. Wade is a joke. It was judicial fiat with no constitutional backing. People who got what they wanted champion it and people who don't like it decry it, but regardless there is no constitutional right to abortion or anything even close to such a thing. And if you get a bunch of conservative judges who overturn RvW, you'll be making this same argument. And that's the problem -- our nation was never meant to be ruled by judicial decree. So we should get this issue sorted out legally and scientifically. Determine when life begins and be done with it.

As far as people leaving to have abortions, or staying poor because of kids, it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter if not killing your kid makes you poorer. You can't just kill a person because they make you poorer, or else we'd have to liquidate about half of the US adult population weighing down the productive class of this country.

19 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

People with ideology hang ups dont go for scientific based reason.

to try to define life is not a scientific debate. Unless you want to go to the independently viable databpoint whichbyou just went against

Huh?

It's among the oldest scientific debates. "independently viable" doesn't pass muster either: A 7 year old is not "independently viable."

It will die on its own without support, but no one would argue shooting a 7 year old isn't murder because the child can't take care of itself. 

The 7 yo argument is a fraud. Life assumes availability of necessary food water air etc

A fetus isnt viable until quite near term. Like surfactant synthesis in the lungs etc. can it breathe? Can it take in food and air? Thats literally what life means in the scientific sense.

we need care by parents like any predator bc we are born relatively immature. Is a baby lion alive at birth? Clearly, it would also die if not fed by its mother. By your sillyness it would then be not alive

22 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

The 7 yo argument is a fraud. Life assumes availability of necessary food water air etc

A fetus isnt viable until quite near term. Like surfactant synthesis in the lungs etc. can it breathe? Can it take in food and air? Thats literally what life means in the scientific sense.

we need care by parents like any predator bc we are born relatively immature. Is a baby lion alive at birth? Clearly, it would also die if not fed by its mother. By your sillyness it would then be not alive

Not my sillyness. I'm not the one arguing viability.

If a child is born prematurely, it might be put on life support, and if you pulled the plug you would have murdered the child regardless of its inability to breath without assistance. Likewise, if you push a pregnant woman down the stairs and kill the child, you will be charged with murder. So clearly "viability" is not the standard here. 

If they are paying for their own abortion, who cares? If there's a God he'll sort that out when you get there. 

Claim rape or incest and dna is kept for pressing charges.

6 minutes ago, TEW said:

Not my sillyness. I'm not the one arguing viability.

If a child is born prematurely, it might be put on life support, and if you pulled the plug you would have murdered the child regardless of its inability to breath without assistance. Likewise, if you push a pregnant woman down the stairs and kill the child, you will be charged with murder. So clearly "viability" is not the standard here. 

No that would not be viable bc as you illustrate it would require extraordinary intervention.

the fact that you can be charged is evidence of nothing except that the zealots have managed to pass some laws based on emotion. 

3 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

Emotional nonsense. Its effectively a parasite for a long time after that.

one cell is not a human. It can become one perhaps.

How long is it one cell? Minutes? Seconds? Life has begun. With all of your smug condescension, you appear to be the emotional one. Modern science defines death as brain death, so the latest it should define the beginning of life is the moment brain function begins.

Just now, ToastJenkins said:

No that would not be viable bc as you illustrate it would require extraordinary intervention.

the fact that you can be charged is evidence of nothing except that the zealots have managed to pass some laws based on emotion. 

And yet many children are born "unviable" and live long, productive lives. Obviously they required intervention, but so does any child. These ones just to a greater degree.

Zealots? You think it is zealotry to protect innocent life?

Uh no im the scientist actually

the smug condescension comes from the religious zealots. Who by self appointment claim some enlightenment. You are the right wing version of woke. 

i think abortion is abhorrent. I believe in accountability. But i also think people should make their own decisions and we have little to no standing in such decisions. Until we can show such standing we should leave the decision in hands of the individual and they can resolve it with themselves and their god.

its not as if we need more people or want to pay for them.

 

5 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

 the zealots have managed to pass some laws based on emotion. 

You can say that for Roe V Wade as well as Texas state law.

4 minutes ago, TEW said:

And yet many children are born "unviable" and live long, productive lives. Obviously they required intervention, but so does any child. These ones just to a greater degree.

Zealots? You think it is zealotry to protect innocent life?

Yes zealots. Bc people do not agree that its a human life at conception.

had those sick kids died would anyone have been charged with murder? Obviously not.

 

 

2 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

Yes zealots. Bc people do not agree that its a human life at conception.

had those sick kids died would anyone have been charged with murder? Obviously not.

So if there is a disagreement, that makes all the people that disagree on an issue zealots? The only way to not be a zealot is to not have an opinion?

No, no one would have been charged with murder because murder requires the intent to kill. Doctors saving someone life are doing the opposite of that. Not a very hard differentiation.

 

2 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

Uh no im the scientist actually

the smug condescension comes from the religious zealots. Who by self appointment claim some enlightenment. You are the right wing version of woke. 

i think abortion is abhorrent. I believe in accountability. But i also think people should make their own decisions and we have little to no standing in such decisions. Until we can show such standing we should leave the decision in hands of the individual and they can resolve it with themselves and their god.

its not as if we need more people or want to pay for them.

 

 

11 hours ago, TEW said:

No, it's not a red herring. It is literally the only question that matters in this debate. Intentionally killing an innocent life is illegal, and by any decent and sane moral standard it is indefensible.

Sure, killing happens all the time. The death penalty requires a conviction in a court of law where the defendant must  himself stand accused of murdering someone else. Even still I oppose it. Yes, war results in killing people. The legality of war is determined by the sovereign, and there are things called war crimes to protect the intentional killing of innocent people. 

Cars, cigs, etc are a totally separate issue. Intent matters. Victims matter. A person who smokes kills themselves. The use of cigs in public spaces is banned to prevent smokers from impeding on others. Yes, cars can kill people -- even innocent third parties. But responsibility is placed on drivers. If you intentionally kill someone with a car, it is murder. If you unintentionally kill someone with a car, it usually comes down to manslaughter. 

Assisted suicide is likewise unrelated. It involves the consent of the patient. It's their life. They decide to live or die. And pulling life support usually comes down to a will. Again, a choice of the patient. Life support isn't taken away for mere convenience.

Roe v. Wade is a joke. It was judicial fiat with no constitutional backing. People who got what they wanted champion it and people who don't like it decry it, but regardless there is no constitutional right to abortion or anything even close to such a thing. And if you get a bunch of conservative judges who overturn RvW, you'll be making this same argument. And that's the problem -- our nation was never meant to be ruled by judicial decree. So we should get this issue sorted out legally and scientifically. Determine when life begins and be done with it.

As far as people leaving to have abortions, or staying poor because of kids, it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter if not killing your kid makes you poorer. You can't just kill a person because they make you poorer, or else we'd have to liquidate about half of the US adult population weighing down the productive class of this country.

You ignore the gist of my points.  We kill people all the time -- cause we MAKE it legal.  Just like we can and do make abortion legal.  There is nothing inherently moral about convicting someone for a crime and then killing them.  It is a legal fiction made up by humans.  Same with war.    We kill tons of innocent people in wars all the time.   Call it war, call it the death penalty, call it whatever.   And yes, you can call it abortion. 

You can make excuses for cars or make excuses for other products that kill -- assisted suicide and the like.   But it comes down to the same thing - people dying (some not by their own choice).

The fact is dude -- people will always have abortions -- whether you think it is immoral or not.   It is a fact of the human condition and pregnancy -- which requires another human to support the unborn during the term of pregnancy.    

You may not like it -- but its a fact of being human.  Making it illegal will just drive it underground or limit it even more to those with money.   

Awwwww poor little helpless fetus.   Your morals don't matter to me or others and should not be imposed on others.   People who want to totally ban abortion are just annoying scolds and imposing religious doctrine on civil society.   It makes THEM feel good to claim they are defending the helpless -- anti-abortion people are about themselves and being selfish -- it is about them being able to think they have a halo around their head.  No one cares about your moral crusades.   Butt the f out.