Statesboro, GA, USA
Why should we believe any of them wrong and you right? What makes your morality better than theirs?
Whenever we debate anything concerning public policy, you say that my stance is pure abstract morality, and yours is founded in the world of pragmatism and strictly necessary.
It's a false claim. My point about morality has been that it cannot be divorced from your views anymore than mine. And my viewpoint is likewise just as rooted in the world of cause of and effect as yours. I just simply think you are skewing the data of reason, science, and morality to get at your conclusion.
You have to come up with better reasons to pass laws than just because they jibe with "your" morality.
This is an example of what I mentioned earlier, of how you misconstrue the pro-life position as a pushing of private abstract morals. The pro-life position has nothing to do with "my" morality. First of all, in a democratic society those who hold such a view are no small number, and those views should be represented. (Before you complain here, remember that you're the one who insisted that humanity was defined by consensus, not me.) Secondly, the argument really doesn't stand on abstract morality, but assumes a morality we all hold in common: the sanctity of human life. The rest of the arguments are based upon embryonic science and reason to show that it is untenable to say that a fetus is not human.
Ron, have you read anything of Francis Beckworth's arguments? If you had, I don't think you would try to say that it's obviously an attempt to make into law someone's private morals (akin to someone thinking it's wrong to dance or wear cotton). If you do so, then you've made a straw man to attack which is nothing like the real arguments.
Nope, those are examples of protecting people from other people.
So are anti-abortion laws. Why should a fetus (which embryologists unblinkingly tell us are human organisms separate from the mother) be considered non-human?
Me: Consensus has never defined truth, or else heliocentrism started with Copernicus. Neither did the Fuhrer (and many who shared his philosophy) believe certain classes of people to be human. Lack of total agreement says nothing about truth, or about what we should strive to do.
Ron: So, uh, you would content that lack of agreement is proof you're right? Sorry, Stephen, but not everyone is Copernicus and, thankfully, not everyone is Adolph Hitler. ... Copernicus and Hitler were wrong.
Ron, if we're going to debate, at least remember the context of my quotes. I refuted the consensus view of truth merely because YOU had used it in argument for your position of legal-pro-abortion. Of course refuting your claim of consensus by popularity, doesn't mean that I believe the opposite (unpopularity = truth). I was rather disregarding popular opinion as a measure of truth altogether. My positive arguments refer to science, reason, and commonly-held-moral-principles. A head count was your argument and I was simply disregarding that as valid debate. That's not a negative argument ... that is refuting yours.
Embryologists still tell is that a fetus is a human organism. Why should we confidently consider it non-human, to the point of sanctioning its killing?
(And BTW, Copernicus was right, it was Aristotle who was wrong about Geocentrism. My point was the Heliocentrism was right all along even when everyone by popular opinion thought the earth was stationary.)
Me: No one EVER disagreed with the sanctity of human life. What they disagreed on, always, was which groups were to be considered human.
Ron: Just as you did in this post, Stephen? Many people place the potential for human life farther back in the chain of events than you appear to do. Once again, what makes them wrong and you right?
The questioning is granted. I never said asking the question was wrong. What I said is that there are and have always been wrong answers. Segregationists, slaveowners, and Nationalist Socialists under the Third Reich were dead wrong about their views of humanity. So are abortionists and those who believe the propaganda that a fetus is a non-human.
As to beliefs that extend into mere potentiality, I (like you) feel that those beliefs should be limited to personal choices, though they may persuade whom they will. Why the difference? Because one is mired in abstract potentiality and the other in being. Embryologists tell is that fetus is a human organism in early development with a 4-chambered beating heart at 3 weeks, not a potential human organism. You're trying to link and draw commonalities between two very different arguments. You might even say the pro-life position (which would oppose making birth control illegal) represents a good balance between the Spirit of the Age mired in relativistic truth, and ultra-right religion which would impose personal convictions legally upon all. If a fetus is a human organism (not a potential), they warrant legal protection from arbitrary killing through abortion, in the same way a temporarily comatose patient on a mechanical ventilator would warrant protection from a vengeful family member "pulling the plug".
Don't obfuscate the distinction between pure potentiality and actuality ... unless you want to argue that protecting your wife from others is invalid because she hasn't achieved self-actualization. Are we completely human Ron?
I’m feeling generous though, lets call it 50%, so now we have half of the 43 million in orphanages and half with mothers that you’ve suggested would receive financial support from the state, presumably via taxation.
How much is that going to cost in total over the next 21 years?
You only feign generosity Grinch. Remember, I watch the movie every year at Christmas.
You're really tight-fisted, since you are presuming that the total number of abortions will be unwanted at birth and henceforth. I would say it is more than reasonable to think that the propaganda of not-human-yet teaching makes them much easier not to want.
I too was initially "unwanted" by my own parents since their pregnancy with me was 10 years after three children, unintended, and frankly unwelcome. It wasn't the best news, you might say. My mother literally cried at first. Never considering the professional-consumer-untruth that I wasn't yet human and could be disposed of conscience-free for a fee, they of course acquired a proper desire for me in time. They later concluded that I was a great blessing. Whether they still feel so, is up for debate. (kidding I hope)
I also know a woman at work named Gail who has a 17 year old child born with severe spina-bifida who nearly died during correction, who is MR and is permanently in a wheelchair. She is the absolute sunshine of Gail's life, is happier than most "normal" people, brings joy to others, and enjoys being alive. I think if Gail had believed in a dehumanizing dogma, the escape-hatch would have been more attractive and likely taken. Nor does presumed financial difficulty mean that there will be no way, or that someone else will have to foot all the bill. I could have reasoned away my own two adoptions (about 20K apiece) for similar reasons. The point is, your number isn't realistic, because neither economics nor emotions nor circumstances are static.