- Navigation
- Hot
- New
- Recent Comments
- Activity Feed
- Marketplace
- Members Directory
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Oh wait, if you are saying you religiously believe a living human zygote is not human, then your faith has given you a revelation I don't have.
I maintain it is forced servitude, regardless of the transition from erotic idea to walking human being. If it is a human at conception, it is servitude to a human. If it is human at 16 weeks, it begins as servitude to a thing, and transitions to servitude to a human.
I agree, it was voting along religious lines, and SCOTUS should know better. Even Scalia did better than that.
If abortion becomes illegal, the ProChoice community is going to force free care and income for the mother throughout pregnancy and the option for adoption following pregnancy. We are going to have a bunch more babies we don;t need, and more taxes to pay for these unwanted children, and little doubt there will be more crime.
It is technically human life (life, human DNA), this is objective. What is really at hand here is whether it is a human life "worthy" of "protecting" - and that is a non-scientific question. It doesn't require religion, there can be a philosophical reasoning behind that - because it is a philosophical question.
Fundamentally that is a discussion had in other areas. For example, citizens are almost universally afforded more rights than non-citizen residents.
As I see it there are two base positions, given the acceptance of human rights at all: "worthy" from conception vs "worthy" at some other point. In a way it is a bit like the old joke of "madam, we've already established what type of woman you are now we're just haggling over price."
The question of where that point is, will be largely philosophical and thus vary. For example, many people commonly accept "at birth" - though recent evidence shows many don't even accept birth but conceivably some other later point. Christian religious philosophy does have a basis in the at-birth with the phrase "And I shall breathe the breath of life into them" as something that can be interpreted that way.
Historically, christian position pre-Roe was the "quickening" - when mom can feel movement. Again, this is not an objective point in time. This is part of why Roe was a bad decision from the onset - regardless of one's perspective on the points above.
Now, as to the servitude angle. For the "pro-choice" group it isn't really about servitude. If it was, they would be "pro-choice" for everyone - men included. That would mean giving the male the option to not be forced into decades of servitude to support a person he did not want to. Yet, in my experience, raising this notion with them pushes them into rage over the idea that the man wouldn't "do his share" to support the child he didn't want.
As hard as it may be to imagine, this was not a major/controversial issue before Roe was handed down. Roe became a rallying point for both sides, and they've each cashed in on it since. The decision by the conservative appointed Justices was largely in-line with the religious and generally accepted view on it. If you swap "viability" and "the quickening" it is pretty much the same vague "standard." Which only demonstrated further that it is a philosophical assertion as to where human biological life becomes "worthy" of "protection" and rights.
If what was formerly known as a woman wants to get one....she has to answer to her conscience. And probably her creator. So, if the conditions are so egregious that those terms are acceptable to her....so be it. Generally speaking anyone who values life that little probably wouldn’t make a good parent anyway. I have 2 daughters that both say they aren’t having kids. And say it in an aggressive way trying to hurt their mother and I. I told them that in their case....that’s probably a good thing. I literally don’t care.
The whole thing is just kicked back to the states anyway.
If THEY want to burn something down...THEY can start locally.
You seek to compel a human adult against their will
You believe they are murdering a human being, and that human being's life begins at conception; therefore you have asserted a zygote is a human being.
It is up to you to prove this, and then have a valid reason to FORCE another person against their will.
I have provided comprehensive distinction between a zygote and a human being and an animal. I assert and demonstrate that sentience, self-awareness, feeling, and all things descriptive of sentient life are common to humans and animals and disparate from a zygote. Yet we willfully kill animals for food and sport.
The basis for the a zygote being a human being is religious, not logical.
Ayn was an atheist, and we have First Amendment protections against Government intrusion into personal religion, including atheism. John Galt's pledge:
"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
Yet here we are arguing about forcing a person to serve a single cell.
The hypocrisy and irony is absolutely nuclear.
The first question is: "Is this a human being?" Until then, morality of killing is irrelevant, unless one is also a vegetarian.
You openly called for thought and introspection. Were you including yourself or merely insisting that others agree with you?
As for proving a single cell is human, can it be ascertained that the cell functions and has the appropriate number and structure of chromosomes? Yes. It respirates, it excretes, it ingests, and it multiplies. It is life. Is it mature? Not in the slightest. It requires nurture and care. It will be many years - including time outside the womb - before it reaches maturity. But it will not become a cat. Or a fish. Or an insect. Or anything other than human.
I think that the real conflict on abortion is the method by which that life is terminated. If an accident or result of natural consequences, no one claims malfeasance. It is when another human being is involved in terminating that life that the moral dilemma arises: is such an event morally justifiable? One can divert into any minutiae, but that is the real question at hand.
Regularly by a few , I suspect because I will argue
My point just like you do.
You seek to compel a woman to your ethics (religion). You do the homework.
"no thinking is involved" ???
Show me how you can derive the principle of equal rights from the position of extrinsic value you have espoused. Seriously. That's a pure thought exercise.
Load more comments...