Yes it sure does. But if “Moral = whatever the majority thinks” is wrong. Then who or what does decide what is moral and what is not?
That is your religious concept, and no one should force you to have an abortion, but that is the same with a woman, you don’t know her circumstance nor are you willing to sacrifice your family( or self) to provide,medical care, food, shelter,education or child care until the betus once becoming a born child is an adult.
If your holy and just God could prevent a conception( as he did in the OT) it says he closed the women’s wombs., He could prevent it from happening now. There are many women who want to conceive but cannot, but he allows a woman who is either over burdened with children and abuses them,or send them chidren that the woman cannot take care of physically, mentally or finacially.
We have sepration of Church and State and no religon should dictate to another.
I think the word was meant’ potential person’. Life began eon’s ago and every sperm that can fertilize an ova is human life weither it makes the ova or not. Many lives are sacrificed (in that sense) each time a man ejaculates. Look at all the human lives lost over the centuries MY, My!
Notice you say"Directs the path toward person hood, Saying then it hasn’t yet made the journy complete.
Is adultery morally wrong? Should we arrest Newt Gingrich?
For that matter, only 3 of the ten commandments are currently illegal, and I don’t see conservatives clamoring to change that anytime soon.
No, I didn’t. Next contention, please.
Because that’s what I said, right?
Is this going to be more of your “I’ll write a lot but not say a lot” thing? I hope not.
Is it nonsensical? Indeed, it is not. Either (1) you do not realize what you wrote out or (2) you are indeed ignorant of history. You said, and I’m going to quote you verbatim here:
There are three separate issues here.
1.) Choosing how you want to define “harm”.
2.) Choosing who you want to define as an “other”.
3.) Treating your own distinctions as self-evident and meaningful without explaining why they are correct.
The third I don’t need to elaborate on, because you’ll just ignore it, anyway. Besides, issues one and two are far more important. Summed up, your argument is one in which a group can only be harmed so long as the law allows it or defines them in a way which says they have no right to not be harmed (or have any basic protections under the law) under the basis of not being the same-- or equal-- to everyone else. It’s a proposition the Nazis would wholeheartedly agree with, since it’s what they actually did. Henceforth why I said, in post #348:
Incorrect. Prohibitions, for example, on gay marriage go by the wayside because people become more accepting of them and gays in general. Just look at the U.S., for example. It’s not really all that surprising that the states which have among the highest support for gay marriage have them legal in some form and the states with the lowest have them banned. The same thing goes for interracial marriages (at the time of Loving v. Virginia, they were mostly a southern thing), women voting and whatever else you want to throw out.
…But I’m sure you knew that. Why, exactly, do you continue to try to argue against me? Really. It’s mind-boggling.
I don’t remember ever saying that what’s considered moral and immoral was static. I don’t ever remember claiming that the law was written in stone and unable to be changed. Could you show me where I said, or even insinuated, as much?
And to quote myself, as it’s very applicable here:
Not this argument again. I don’t know how many times I have to explain this to you, but age is positively associated with abortion approval, meaning that older persons are more-- not less-- supportive of abortion than are younger persons. I don’t know what kind of backlash you’re hoping to see, but it won’t happen as you’re laboring under some faulty assumption. As older generations die off (mainly the ones who were born or came of age around the time Roe v. Wade happened) they’ll be replaced with people who have less favorable views of abortion (born in the 1980’s or later). It’s not a matter of if, but when. And, for the record, I’d bet a good amount of money that you’d see a similar pattern in Canada as well as social movements tend to adopt similar patterns between countries (especially nowadays since it’s easy to connect with people halfway around the world).
You are actually saying that societal consensus decides what is moral.
My logic may be faulty but doesn’t that mean that slavery in the 19th century was moral?
And racial segregation in the 20th century was moral – at least in the south?
And because there are still more pro-choicers out there than pro-lifers. Isn’t abortion moral?
Please explain to me where my logic has gone wrong.
Twice now I have written a detailed and thoughtful reply to OMG’s latest, and twice I have, while clicking back and forth among various tabs to compile and research my response, accidentally hit the little X, losing my work. Rather embarrassing and annoying, to be sure, but a reply is forthcoming, barring the thread getting closed in the meantime or something.
Could you please stop using my dead relatives to score political points? Could you please just cut it out? The holocaust is not an abstraction to me. The holocaust took quite a few of my relatives. The holocaust was the tatoos on my best friend’s mom’s arm. To this day I can still conjure up that memory and the look in her eyes as she tried to avoid my innocent questions about it.
The only truth is that the Ray Comforts of the world would not have given a damn about them when they were alive. He wouldn’t have uttered a word in protest or carried a single sign against Hilter, let alone volunteered during World War II to help fight against him. Stop using dead Jewish children. It’s like listening to a form of verbal necrophilia and equally as immoral.
It’s just disgusting. We Jews are not your strawmen or your convenient analogies or your trump cards. We’re certainly not for you to use to as a way of putting a law into place that most Jews do not agree with religiously or morally.
Do you understand this?
Most certainly not, since the argument against slavery was that it was immoral while one of the arguments, among many, for it were that those who wanted to outlaw slavery had no right to force their morals on those who did not. I wonder where I’ve heard that argument before…
But I digress. Back to an earlier point. It doesn’t matter what you think of the Holocaust comparison; it’s 100% valid. The Nazis used an elaborate set of legal codes to strip certain individuals of basic rights held by the rest of society, so much so to the point where those individuals were rendered as non-persons (i.e., they had no standing under the law). The fact of the matter is that rendering some segment of the population as non-persons in order to meet some goal is nothing new, and has been used in the past to rather catastrophic effects. The fact that most pro-choicers refuse to acknowledge that fact or stamp their collective feet in protest is their problem. It doesn’t make the comparison any less valid. The only time you hear the phrase “non-person” come up is when one is looking to act against another, and the “non-person” tag is always directed at the individual who is being acted against.
What I find funniest about the whole thing is that, apparently, the way it works is that it’s not okay for, say, me to define Individual Y as a non-person to meet an end, but it’s perfectly okay for you to define Individual X as a non-person to meet an end. Actually, scratch that. It would be funny, if it wasn’t sad.
Indeed it was until society decided it wasn’t. Glad you’re catching on.
Yeah, that’s not true either. At least not in the U.S.
See above.
This is probably because older people remember when it was illegal. There weren’t that many fewer abortions just a lot fewer SAFE abortions. Its the same reason that vaccines are going out of style as people forget what the polio epidemic was like.
Except the OLDEST group – the one’s most likely to remember “the good old days”-- are the LEAST approving of abortion because they were this way in 1973. They haven’t shifted their views. Rather, they’ve merely aged. It’s those who were born or came of age around 1973 (people between about 35’ish and 60’ish) who are the most approving and that group would be too young to remember “the good old days”.
People may disapprove of abortion in the abtract. It does not mean they won’t get one if they feel they need to do so. I want abortion legal at least partially because my mother told she was raped and impregnated in 1963 and had to get one illegally. Not all of us are ignorant about history. Many of us certainly don’t want to see it repeated with regards to abortion. I’m sorry conservatives seem unable to confront that fact.
I remember posting an answer to some guy’s blog when he asked that question. This is how I answered him:
“It’s okay to kill a baby in the womb when god tells you to.” (referring to many OT instances of genocide allegedly commanded by god).
Yeah, those same “pro-lifers” have no problem when god kills, but still call themselves “pro-life”.
I figure the best way to deal with those people when they’re protesting outside a clinic is to tell them that unless they show that they have signed adoption papers, they can pike off.
The holocaust analogy fails on these points
-
it was people of a certain ethnic group that Hitler was after. The unborn are not an ethnic group, but are at an earlier state of development. Once they’re born, they have all their “rights” again. No Jew or gypsy, etc. could hope for any such reprieve in nazi germany.
-
If I remember correctly, most abortions are done before their is even a nervous system to register pain. Not so with the nazi holocaust.
That’s probably why the “non-person” tag is used with the unborn. Once they’re born though, they’re home free (well, from that problem anyway!) Again, that’s not something Hitler’s victims had to look forward to.
this thread is still going?
See. I wonder if people actually read what they type out.
Ehhh, no. The Nazis had a stated goal (heck, you should read the Nazi platform in 1920) and achieved that goal by effectively rendering those whom they wanted to get rid of as non-persons. It’s really quite simple. Really, it is.
What the hell does having a fully formed nervous system, the ability to feel pain or being born have to do with anything? I’d say it’s a red herring, but it’s not even. It’s a complete irrelevancy, because it has nothing to do with the actual issue, which is defining groups as non-persons (based on arbitrary criteria, mind you) in order to meet a stated end. If you want to get down to it you (and not just you, specifically) are doing nothing other than trying to claim that you’re different from person Y because while they differentiate based on A, you differentiate on B. That doesn’t make any sense, least because you provide no justification why your stated criteria are any more meaningful than someone else’s, and is done only to make yourself feel better.
Note how the pro-choicers in this thread won’t say “It’s wrong to define certain groups as non-persons”. Rather, it seems to be “It’s wrong to define certain groups as non-persons when I disagree with defining them as such. Otherwise, it’s a-okay to do”. Hell, no one even bothered to tackle the whole point about the only time you see something about a “non-person”, it’s being done to rationalize acting against that “non-persons”. Does that really make sense to you? It shouldn’t.
Is self defense moral? Is having childern that may starve to death Moral? Is war Moral?
[quote=“Omg_a_Black_Conservative, post:392, topic:606998”]
Most certainly not, since the argument against slavery was that it was immoral while one of the arguments, among many, for it were that those who wanted to outlaw slavery had no right to force their morals on those who did not. I wonder where I’ve heard that argument before…
But I digress. Back to an earlier point. It doesn’t matter what you think of the Holocaust comparison; it’s 100% valid. The Nazis used an elaborate set of legal codes to strip certain individuals of basic rights held by the rest of society, so much so to the point where those individuals were rendered as non-persons (i.e., they had no standing under the law). The fact of the matter is that rendering some segment of the population as non-persons in order to meet some goal is nothing new, and has been used in the past to rather catastrophic effects. The fact that most pro-choicers refuse to acknowledge that fact or stamp their collective feet in protest is their problem. It doesn’t make the comparison any less valid. The only time you hear the phrase “non-person” come up is when one is looking to act against another, and the “non-person” tag is always directed at the individual who is being acted against.
What I find funniest about the whole thing is that, apparently, the way it works is that it’s not okay for, say, me to define Individual Y as a non-person to meet an end, but it’s perfectly okay for you to define Individual X as a non-person to meet an end. Actually, scratch that. It would be funny, if it wasn’t sad.
Indeed it was until society decided it wasn’t. Glad you’re catching on.
Yeah, that’s not true either. At least not in the U.S.
See above.[/QUOTE
There is no comparison to the Holocost. It was a terrible crime against the already born people, Hitler took out his revenge agaist his Bilogical father who was Jewish and deserted him. The people slaughtered were all ready well born, and part of society,as were the slaves! A true tradgey which we must never allow, but like any one doing something for self defense, should have the right to their ownprotection or thei other family members. Nor should any woman be forced to carry a fetus etc. until it is a full human being, or forced to abort.