(bolding mine)
Animals, even humans, that aren’t born are not alive and thus cannot be killed.
This is twice in recent posts that you’ve tried to skate by using this kind of language, and I simply can’t let it go unnoted. It’s a bullshit appeal to emotion on your part.
No, I’m neither pro-choice nor pro-life. I don’t need to be on a team with a slogan in order to have opinions on issues.
Further, not a chance in hell that every single woman has very carefully considered all consequences with full knowledge before making a decision. That would make abortion the only decision item in humanity’s existence if it were so. I don’t think that they need to, so I don’t know why people in favor of loose restrictions on abortions feel the need to lie about how extensive a decision making process women go through. I know it sounds crazy, but my guess is that different women go to different lengths in their thought process. Shoot, I bet some even get forced into abortions against their will by men. Crazy, huh.
My point was not that some reasons are more valid than others, although I do think that is so. For example, I think it is a little more valid if someone chooses to abort because they know the baby will be born with some serious medical condition than if they don’t like the sex of the baby. However, my point was that the foundation of the argument should not be based on the outlier reasons. If 90% of abortions occur because people don’t want to have a kid, then I think it is a little strange to base an entire argument about the validity of abortions on the health of the mother aspect. I don’t think a person needs to ignore the health aspect, but it seems to be more of an ancillary reason.
Who says? You?
To the contrary – it’s very clear to me that an unborn child, one day from birth, is alive. Very few people would dispute this.
I don’t think I made that claim. I think I said it was more like 0.5% of abortions. I’m not stating that percentage with any certainty though; maybe it’s more like 5%. All basic common sense tells me it is less than 25%. The doubt about pre-eclampsia was more hyperbole. I don’t literally think it is zero; I think it is a very very low percentage, so low that it can essentially be ignored in normal conversations.
The Randy Alcorn book I cited earlier states “it is reasonable to expect a woman to endure a temporary minor inconvenience if they only alternative is the death of another human being.” Reasonable to whom? I’m making a salary and live in a house that could support six people. Should I be forced to live with and feed five other people because they could die otherwise?
I’ve already given you adequate rebuttal. It makes no difference for reasons I’ve already described. I simply note that your “all life is sacred” stance is a convenient one for someone with pro-life views, since it mandates doing nothing (and not letting the pregnant woman do anything) to end an unwanted pregnancy, while being completely unfalsifiable.
As a thought exercise, I can picture the following claims, adapted from your earlier posts:
I take it as given that since these views are contrary, at least one of them is incorrect. I can readily draft a few paragraphs that expand on position 2, but I’m curious by what process (if any) it could be determined which claim is incorrect and why.
I have no expectations of a closely-reasoned reply, but I’m open to the possibility.
As an additional note, I can well imagine that the discussion in this thread is bleeding over into the Scott Walker one, and vice-versa. The two threads may as well be merged at this point.
Bricker, can you address the two seemingly contradictory things you said about the value of life that I point out in post #201?
It’s totally fundamentally different. The women are already pregnant. That’s the whole point isn’t it? I see there being a massive difference between forcing a woman who is not pregnant into becoming pregnant versus wanting strong restrictions on abortions. It’s really not just semantics, and I think it borders on an ad hominem attack.
Most Americans want the status quo. Also, most Americans will give conflicting opinions depending upon how the question is asked. If pro-life means favoring restrictions on abortions then most Americans are pro-life. If pro-choice means allowing abortions in certain circumstances then most Americans are pro-choice.
I don’t agree with Bricker, and my ultimate favored outcome in the real world may align closer to yours, but that doesn’t mean I agree with you. In solely my opinion, in an ideal world, Bricker is closer to being right. In the real world, you are closer to being right. Of course, you may be right for all the wrong reasons and he may be wrong for all the right reasons.
But, as abortion is legal, why should she?
I’m skeptical that you are particularly knowledgeable about how much pain a pregnant woman goes through, or how common particularly painful pregnancies are. What would you say to a pregnant woman who told you she was in serious discomfort, and occasionally, terrible pain, who wanted to abort? Do you think this woman should have the right to end her pregnancy?
As long as you’re willing to have those opinions explored and questioned, fine. Just be aware that names make a convenient shorthand for a set of opinions, and you need to be able to accept graciously when accurate ones are used.
That makes no sense whatever, unless you’re claiming that no woman would ever willingly choose to have a child.
It doesn’t sound crazy, just patronizing. It also gets you into when you do and don’t accept the woman’s own decisions.
In general, no, but when patiently trying to enlighten a religious zealot like Bricker, it’s a convenient way to cut some crap quickly - *argumentum ad absurdam *is a valid tool.
Actually, I think most people dispute this, hence the legality of abortion.
What is your definition of “alive”?
I’m okay with the fetus being considered “alive.” My pro-choice position did not depend on trying to define it otherwise.
They’'re not contradictory. But they depend on context.
If I’m in an out-of-control train hurtling down the track, and I have a choice of running onto one line and fatally striking a single person, or remaining on the main line and striking a car containing ten people, my choice depends on factors beyond the number of people involved. Is the car sturdy? Might some of the ten survive? Might ALL of the ten survive?
I picked the ten to one ratio as a convenient shortcut for that kind of calculus. The hypo involved ten unborn children; I presume they’re already in some risky pregnancy situation, and the odds of certain death to one woman may not justify trying to save them with no guarantee.
You would be wrong, which is why most people DISfavor partial-birth abortion. hence, partial-birth abortion is generally illegal.
An organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and potential for reproduction.
…which is why all pro-lifers are breatharians, right? Because everything that’s considered alive is automatically worth not killing.
And I see absolutely nothing accurate about either the term pro-life or pro-choice nor do I see them even splitting people into two distinct groupings with similar opinions on the abortion issue.
I think you must have misread me, and possibly mistakenly written what you wrote. Every single woman who has an abortion is not fully knowledgeable about every aspect of abortion, pregnancy, raising a child, nor have they carefully considered every single aspect of it. Some women think very deeply about it and some women make more snap judgement decisions based upon individually important aspects to them. That’s basic common sense. That’s how every decision is made. If a woman desperately doesn’t want to raise a handicapped child and decides to abort then I think it is possible that they focus on that part of the decision making process and potentially aren’t as knowledgeable about some totally unrelated aspect such as child tax credits or something else seemingly mundane but potentially an important item for someone more worried about the financial costs of a normal child.
No, it makes me think that every person is different and thinks about and makes decisions differently. It makes someone claiming the contrary sound foolish in my opinion or perhaps just hopelessly naive. If a woman should have the right to have an abortion (subject to already existing restrictions) then what does it matter whether they are perfectly knowledgeable and have have spent some adequate amount of time considering all the possible issues. That sounds like something that people on the anti-abortion rights side would want. Should women fill out some decision matrix and pass a test first?
Fair enough, although I don’t not interpret this current exchange like that.
And again, I’d like you to actually answer the question posed to you. Why the fuck should anyone give a damn about the fetus?
Jesuit judo. Pretend that the rarest and most extreme case is common, apply the most extreme and unscientific terminology, and serve it up with a straight face.
“Partial birth”, my ass! Is that an accepted gynecological term? Of obstetric scientific origin? You pretend to offer a rational argument while loading it with irrational and unreasoning buzzwords. Are you on the pseudo-scientific advisory board?
Well, I’d assume in Bricker’s case, the fetus is alive and (being human) also “special”.
Being special and alive… that’s the key. If you’re just the latter, well, God gave us dominion over you (Genesis 1:28).