Unless I’m seriously misunderstanding abortion laws in this country and nearly every other one on Earth, I don’t think abortions one day from birth are typically legal.
Because the fetus is a human being.
If that reason does not move you, then I agree you should not give a damn about the fetus.
Who said that?
Any HUMAN that’s alive is automatically not worth killing.
An arm is human. I can chop off my arm if I want. What’s so different about a fetus?
Would you favourite our abolishing the death penalty? Stand your ground laws? Self defense laws?
My definition of a person would included “not being attached to the interior of another person.” Until a fetus can survive on its own, it is NOT a person. Like I believe, it is the woman’s uterus, and unless she want’s something in it, it should not be there.
When a man uses a woman’s reproductive system without her permission, it’s called “rape.” When a fetus does it, it’s called “pro-life.”
Beyond the trivially obvious answer that no doubt he believes an arm, by itself, is not human, I don’t think you can just get your arm chopped off if you want. There have been numerous stories about elective amputations for people with body dysmorphia disorders, and I think the basic issue is that performing such a procedure violates most doctor’s codes of ethics such as “first, do no harm”.
But most so called pro-choice people favor restricting abortions in the third trimester. No doubt the fetus theoretically and potentially can survive on its own; however, the fetus is attached to the interior of another person. Why do most pro-choice people oppose most abortions in the third trimester? Do you?
A brain dead motorcyclist is alive in the sense that they have cellular activity.
They have no mind though. Can we pull the plug on one of them?
If so, how is that different from a fetus with no mind? Please show your work.
I understand that difference. I’m not sure Bricker does. And to be fair, I’d like him to articulate why there’s a difference.
No. But if the fetus survives the abortion, it should not at that point be killed.
No.
It’s not different.
Why are you talking about giving away every bit of money one has? This has nothing to do with what was actually being discussed when Bricker showed he really doesn’t hold life as sacred as he holds his changepurse.
Absolutely. I’m an ardent opponent of the death penalty.
I think stand your ground laws create more death than save lives. I don’t favor them, as a general rule.
Self defense laws I do favor, because someone is entitled to defend their life – I don’t elevate the life of an attacker over the life of a would-be victim.
Oh, I get it, you’re a fucking loon. Are you of the opinion that everyone should be kept alive on heart/lung machines until they break down enough to start rotting on the gurney? You know what, I guess you don’t really need to answer, you’re a dipshit fanatic and that’s all we need to know.
See above. <3
I think it shows that every one of us faces questions over what is a worthwhile monetary sacrifice for our fellow man, and we all draw the line somewhere. I think the criticism should be more thoughtful and nuanced than what you did. Some things aren’t worth the money even if they save lives. We all decide that all the time. Other factors come in to play such as efficiency, unforeseen side effects, foreseen side effects, opportunity cost, cost benefit analyses, etc.
I disagree with Bricker about both fetuses and Terry-Schiavo-equivalents, but there’s certainly a significant difference between them, which is that fetuses presumably WILL develop human brain activity, which Terry-Schiavo-equivalents will not.
I am, however, a little bit curious, Bricker, whether your opposition to disconnecting the braindead from life support is that morally you see no difference at all between that and any other act that causes a “human” to “die”, or whether it’s more practical, in that it’s hard to be totally certain they’re really brain dead and will never recover, and you’d rather the law be overbroad rather than try to make distinctions that might be abused?
Another question for Bricker: suppose a law was passed that was, utterly 100% clearly and directly, nothing more than something to make getting an abortion a hassle. IE, “applicants must get 10 different forms and fill them all out in number 2 pencil, not straying outside the prescribed areas…” etc etc. Would you support that law? Given that abortion is constitutionally legal in the US, is/should it be legal for lower jurisdictions such as states to put totally arbitrary restrictions in place to make it more difficult to get abortions? Does it matter in answering that question what the feelings of the majority of the populace of that jurisdiction believes?
If separating two conjoined twins will cause one to die, but the other to live a normal life, who should decide if it should be done? If the parents say yes, should the government overrule them and take their children away.
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
A brain dead motorcyclist is alive in the sense that they have cellular activity.
They have no mind though. Can we pull the plug on one of them?
If so, how is that different from a fetus with no mind? Please show your work.
[/QUOTE]
It’s obviously different in the sense that the motorcyclist will never improve, only degrade, while the fetus will attain higher and higher levels of brain functions. A fetus is a small step away from a baby and a baby represents untapped potential. The motorcyclist is one small step from death.
I think I disagree with you most strongly with this issue of the relative values of different humans lives. You seem to be saying they are all the same worth, while I strongly disagree. A child with their whole life ahead of them is worth more than a prisoner on death row.