Yes it is. I’m glad you liked it:)
I’m fine with it. The woman’s right to not be pregnant trumps the fetus’s rights to live. Easy peasy. Also, an abortion is always easier on the woman physically than a live delivery, which is very important if she is having health issues, and she can get pregnant more quickly if it’s a problem with the fetus.
So it’s ok to murder the child to relieve a risk the mother bears as a result of choice? Without intervention, they could both die. Aren’t we playing God by intervening?
You mean about how they’re a bunch of doofuses whose bullying is kept barely in check by having to waste law-enforcement and court resources on drawing imaginary lines about what they can and can’t do, though even then there are occasional moments of assault and murder?
Those guys?
I didn’t put anyone down. I commented on Bricker’s posts only and purposely did not comment about you at all.
What name calling have I done? Compare that to yours.
So T minus one day it’s ok with you to terminate?
Actually, as an purely incidental note, I caught a few minutes of Oprah yesterday and she was interviewing Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York. She described herself as a good mother, “putting the oxygen mask” over her children first, or something along those lines.
Of course, this is exactly the wrong thing to do, and flight attendants will routinely tell you so during pre-flight safety briefings. If the oxygen masks descend during the flight, you should absolutely fit your own mask first. If you tend your child first, you could easily pass out in the process, dooming both of you.
Is this intended to refute the points I made, somehow?
Legally, sure, if I may interject. But I’m also confident in medical ethics such that a doctor won’t engage in such an action with an extremely compelling reason. Frankly, I’m okay with leaving it to the medical professionals rather than the lawmakers, and as a practical note, I expect a doctor who had a T-1 patient saying “I want an abortion” would write it off as the product of the stresses of late-term pregnancy.
I don’t see any flaw, here. True, we can’t pin down a precise instant when a fetus becomes human, but that doesn’t mean we can’t recognize a difference between a clump of fertilized cells small enough to fit in a coke spoon, and a human being. We can then pick a point towards the end of the former status, and say, “No abortions beyond this point, because this is the latest point where we can clearly differentiate between human and non-human status.”
It’s no different, really, then age of consent laws, or age of majority laws. If I have sex with someone when they’re seventeen years and three hundred sixty four days old, I’m a rapist. If I wait twenty four more hours, I’m not. Is that a wholly arbitrary and meaningless distinction? Does that law invalidate the concept of consensual sex entirely? Of course not: we recognize that the exact point where a person is capable of consenting to sex (or having a beer, or driving a car, or running for office) is not a precisely definable or fixed point, and we draw the line just a little past where we can comfortably say it’s already happened.
How can there be evidence to support a definition on which we do not agree?
If, for example, we said that a human being must weigh a minimum of 2 pounds, then we’d have an objective standard, and we could use it to determine when humanity vested in the fetus.
But since we don’t, you can hardly chide me for lack of evidence. The probative value of your evidence turns on my accepting your criteria for humanity.
Which I do not.
Yes, it’s reasonable.
I simply don’t agree, but I absolutely acknowledge that this is a reasonable position to take.
No, for several reasons. Under current law, of course, they acted legally. But even if abortion were made illegal, I would not agree to trying a mother for murder. I cannot believe that she made the decision to abort without believing – wrongly but sincerely – that she was taking the best possible option in front of her.
Are you implying that this crap
needs refuting? Seriously?
[quote=“cosmosdan, post:845, topic:580935”]
I didn’t put anyone down. I commented on Bricker’s posts only and purposely did not comment about you at all.
QUOTE]
I apologize.
Of course, once they’re in your home, you’re free to hunt them for sport.
It’s in the Constitution, somewhere in the back.
Also, I’d argue, a difference of kind.
I think my point is made at this point–it was “we are willing to trade inconvenience to save a life”, and now there is a nuance (involving duty of care). Which, as your response to Diana shows, you are aware involves a great deal of moral calculus–there are times when one must assume a duty of care, and times when one is only burdened with such a duty when one consents (via specific action) to that person.
I would note, further, that “putting a person into a situation where they require care” doesn’t create duty of care in many cases–if I throw you into a swimming pool, I’m not obligated to perform CPR on you if you start to drown (even though I might be legally liable for other things).
At this point I’d hope you could agree that there’s a fairly significant degree of nuance around the idea that a pregnant woman is obligated, in general, to care for the fetus, and it’s not necessarily as simplistic as your earlier answers would have us believe.
Why do people expect Bricker to do things other than quote the letter of the law? Why is it a stretch for Bricker to describe the law as it generally stands regarding duty-of-care?
Oh, mind you, I’m okay with post-viability abortions. I just would be willing to cope with a properly crafted compromise that excluded them.
Honestly? I just like debating Bricker to find his lines. It’s relaxing, when compared to other debates–he doesn’t often resort to anything other than reasonably supported positions (that emanate from his axioms). 
They are often classless, rude, and push the boundaries of law and good taste. Thought we’d settled that.
The specific instance mentioned is silly. Of course the JW could file suit. I could file suit against you right now, for hurting my feelings. Bored, silly people file lawsuits as a hobby, ferchrissake. That doesn’t mean that anything would come of it.
As an analogy for my duty to an “uninvited, unwanted” fetus in my body, it’s beyond ridiculous.
And I’m confident enough in the variability of human nature to be able to find patient/doctor combos that get around that ethical checkpoint. The world often turns out differently than I would like (expect). I expect that. That’s why I’d prefer the law give guidance and extra vigilance in late term abortion decisions.
Of course there can be evidence about things people don’t agree on. If I talk to a believer about evolution or the nature of the Bible , isn’t there evidence? The evidence I’m referring to is our current knowledge about development from conception to birth along with tradition in human society.
Appreciated. I also appreciate that you recognize your opinion is just that. It at least leaves the door open to discussion.
And this I find to be inconsistent in the logic and incredibly frequent in people who hold your position. We have serious laws about where the lines are drawn for homicide, and “the best possible option” is not a viable defense after you’ve killed someone.
And I say if you manage to find a doctor who’ll abort (as opposed to deliver) your perfectly healthy 39 and a half week fetus, you earned that abortion.