But you have to have the experience otherwise you won’t know that it is a baby****** in your tummy.
Well, you’ll know, but you won’t know know it, if you get my meaning. Your knowledge will not be within an acceptable range, it’ll be an insufficient level of “know”.
For some value of “know” – no.
“Know” means “No!”.
Fair and reasonable then.
Fair and reasonable now.
But not necessary then.
And not necessary now.
I recommend a third course, which is to get the courts to reject the law on the grounds of it being an undue burden to the exercise of rights. This is certainly not “illegal,” but it is also not appealing to the democratic process. Instead, it’s appealing to the courts to uphold the Constitution.
See, for it to be reasonable, there’d have to be a reason for it, and even then not a greater number of reasons against it. I sense this is the major point of contention.
“Fair”… that’s just not applicable at all.
Plus there’s your tacit admission to getting approval by doing what is popular instead of what is logical.
How did you react to the federal mandate that cigarette companies display pictures of people with throat stomas on their packaging?
And while I agree it’s appropriate to work to change laws you don’t like, I don’t agree you can refuse to accept their existence or legitimacy in the meantime.
“And, no, I do not agree to go by the numbers,” seems to dismiss the voters’ legitimacy, rather than accept it and argue for change.
Are you proposing we abandon our democracy in favor of a technocracy?
Or do you want to cut right to the chase and declare yourself Supreme Leader?
I notice you think that card is of greater value than it is.
Nyahh! It’s already the law!!11 is something that someone supporting segregation might have said, you know?
Were you planning to resign, or abdicate?
I imagine he plans on ascending bodily into heaven to become Jesus’ personal beard groomer.
That would fall under the umbrella of *legal avenues *which it was theorized that **Bricker **would take.
No, I’m proposing your democracy have greater respect for the ideals it supposedly claims, and that your population use reason instead of truthiness as their guide when it comes to legislation.
Well, and also not to be suckered by the Republican Party using emotional hotbutton issues to distract you from the manipulation of wealth in favour of their patrons.
Fine, I declare myself Supreme Leader. The limiting element is that I’m not deluded enough to think I should try to enforce my moral sense on people who I’ve decided but won’t admit are too stupid to run their own lives, so I’m only Supreme Leader on paper. Or computer screens, whatever.
Astonishing.
Understood.
Perhaps we could insert Walker into Bricker, or vice versa, while one or the other’s bladder is full and see how long it takes till he pukes his guts out. (I very nearly did, and I wasn’t even pregnant. Pardon me–I believe in full disclosure of every last detail.)
I think the only reason we dignify the life at conception argument is because of religion. I looked at those cites too and all I see is a bunch of meandering logic trying desperately not to mention god. To me, they are as unreasonable as saying droughts follow abortions. We simply have to disagree on this point because I don’t humor those types of arguments. If they have another argument, I’ll listen, but trying to equate the cells during early pregnancy with an actual birthed human being is, to me, ludicrous
Everyone has their line. If I were to cuss at you and insult you and ramble on about how the we’re all part of the universe and energy can’t be destroyed, and abortion is simply change so its ok, as is murder, then you wouldn’t give me the time of day either. I just have a lower threshold for what I consider obvious religious ploys. They can prove me wrong if they stick to facts but drag out the life and conception thing and I’ll just start zoning out
Its not simply about hypocrisy. That’s their means of getting to an irrational argument. It looks to me like you are saying that they may be likened to a stopped clock, accidentally correct. Well, if their argument is we should care about something, and I can show that they don’t care, I think that attacks the core of their reasoning and can, in fact, invalidate it. Like I said, I looked at those websites and the sum of their reasoning seems to be that life begins at conception and that its valuable. If that’s true, you’d think they would be more willing to do less in order to achieve more: support health care/sex ed./contraception to reduce more abortions. If they don’t, then their argument looks to be merely a religious one, which is intrinsically invalid based on the fact that its religious. Even if they are accidentally correct, they are not convincing, because if they don’t care about fetuses, why should I? That is a valid conclusion to take if the basis of your entire argument is that we should care. I already don’t care, you’re preaching to the choir here, so in order to mount a good argument, they need to not be hypocritical and actually care
Again here we will have to disagree. There is no watchmaker. Full stop. The only way we can argue its existence is from some kind of evidence. There is none. Therefore, this is not an argument from science but from faith. Your mistake as I see it is plain in your post, as you pair philosophy and science together. Rather, you should have said its not a “religious/philosophical” question but a scientific one. Science says there’s no watchmaker. There is no proof for such a thing and to speculate on the unknown is philosophy. Until we get proof of that, any kind of proof, then the correct and objective stance has to be that ID is false.
CERTAINLY even if there are disagreements, it does not meet the level of falsifiability necessary to be included alongside science classes. If they want to teach ID, it belongs in a philosophy or religious class, not science
The problem is that once one drops arguments like life begins at conception, or that its intrinsically valueable, then rationality goes out the door. Look what I asked Bricker above that you responded to. Murder is defined as bad, so we don’t do it. Abortion is not murder because its not defined as murder. If you want to change the definition, then its up to you to provide a justification that doesn’t begin with “its just valuable”. We kill people in war, on death row, or as self defense. Death is not intrinsically bad. Therefore, if we say a fetus doesn’t deserve life because it’s a fetus, we’ve associated it with the qualities that are already within those who we legally kill already. A valid opposing argument is not simply “but a fetus is life and life is valuable” when we see all around us that life is not so valuable that its always preserved. If you want to preserve it, its up to you to tell me why that particular thing should be preserved and do so without resorting to the things I mentioned above. Can you do that? I’m assuming you’re against abortion.
And let me respond to something you wrote to someone else. So what if a fetus looks to feel pain? Since when have we ever used feeling pain as justification that something shouldn’t be killed?
magellan01: Don’t you get it? Pro-life is axiomatically wrong. a pro-life atheist is either trying to hide his religious beliefs or he is stupid.
Can’t we just settle for “exceedingly rare”?
I suppose if I stretch things a bit, I could easily call myself a “pro-life”, in that I have a visceral reaction to abortion as being something I wish did not happen. But that is not an argument, it is simply what I feel. What I think is that I have no business telling a woman whether or not she is to bear a child. Even if the prospective child is mine own, time enough to show what a great Dad I can be when he starts to follow me around asking for food and money.
And I haven’t any doubt that someone could make an argument against abortion on a strictly non-religious basis. Thing is, very few of those who describe themselves as “pro-life” do so. It is primarily founded on religious and/or moral assumptions that I cannot even reasonably argue because I don’t share the assumptions the argument centers upon.
I am entirely willing to accept that an atheist may make an argument against abortion, I don’t see why I should care.
I don’t approve. Mandated speech is scarcely distinguishable from mandated silence.
I don’t like loyalty oaths, either, and I refuse to recite the pledge of allegiance.
If you have a secular case for it, then feel free to make it. I’m not going to go against the vast majority of instances where one tries and fails to do so and pretend there’s an equivalency.
I think there’s a very strong secular case for making abortion illegal. I just think it’s weaker than the case for keeping abortion legal, which is why I am pro-choice. Whether someone agrees with me or not can quite reasonably come down to how much weight they put on various factors involved, which is something that reasonable people can disagree about. (Which isn’t to say that I don’t think that a good portion of the people who disagree with me are frothing-at-the-mouth religious nutbars, but it’s certainly not ALL of them, and I don’t think we gain much by pointing out that a bunch of them are, and then patting ourselves on the back about how non-nutbar-y we are.)
Contrast that to an issue like, say, gay marriage, in which there is basically no secular argument for keeping gay marriage illegal at all. (Magellan notwithstanding.)