|
Author
|
Topic: Abortion questions...?
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Evidence?
slevesque writes: Actually, the terms pro-life and pro-choice are classic examples of Humpty-Dumpty definitions. I'll give the folk marketing the anti-abortion, pro-forced parenthood, pro-rape parenthood, pro-incest parenthood, pro illicit abortion, pro uncontrolled abortion position lots of credit for choosing the moniker "pro-life". But the fact is that they did just decide what the words would mean. There is a difference between inventing a new word you like, and giving it a definition, and taking a pre-existing word, who already has a definition, and redefine it how you like it ... But in the case of the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" it was an example of both creating and redefining new words. Choosing to create and define "pro-life" was a brilliant marketing ploy.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 244 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2011 4:49 PM | | slevesque has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Evidence?
slevesque writes: I guess I can call you pro-abortion-legalization 'cause pro-legalization is not specific to what is to be legalized (unless, I guess, it could apply to someone who wants ot legalize everything) Did abortion still happen when it was illegal?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 259 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2011 6:12 PM | | slevesque has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
step by step
If abortions were made illegal again would there still be abortions? Edited by jar, : fix subtitle
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 262 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2011 6:20 PM | | slevesque has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: step by step
If abortions are made illegal but continue to happen ... where will they be performed? who will performs them?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 268 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2011 6:36 PM | | slevesque has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: step by step
slevesque writes: In quebec ?  No but I think I know where you are going with this. Read my previous reply to CS if you want to know how I view the criminalization of abortion. I read that but it told me little. Do you think abortion should be illegal? If it is illegal ... where will they be performed? who will performs them?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 279 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2011 7:12 PM | | slevesque has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: step by step
slevesque writes: I read that but it told me little. Do you think abortion should be illegal? If it is illegal ... where will they be performed? who will performs them? I think in the best of worlds, abortion should be illegal since I think it is killing a human being. But, I do realize that in practice, this wouldn't be a smart move, because socially we do not see it as a morally wrong thing. The culture change is much more important then the law change. Only when the culture has changed can we then change the law. If you changed the culture would there be any reason to change the law?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 291 by slevesque, posted 01-31-2011 4:58 PM | | slevesque has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: step by step
slevesque writes: If you changed the culture would there be any reason to change the law? Because if it is a human being, then it is fundamentally wrong and the law should reflect that. Why? Is it immoral to kill someone in self defense?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 293 by slevesque, posted 01-31-2011 5:59 PM | | slevesque has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: step by step
slevesque writes: Why? Is it immoral to kill someone in self defense? Depends on the situation, if the intention was self-defense (therefore, a genuine accident), then no. But if the intention was to kill, then yes. I certainly don't hope your trying to make it seem like I'm painting all this in black and white. What I'm saying is that if a foetus is a human being, then it is wrong to kill it. Except you have presented no evidence that a foetus is a human being. BUT that still does not answer my question. Is it okay to kill in self defense? If the purpose is to save your live or save you from extreme danger, is it okay to protect yourself?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 295 by slevesque, posted 01-31-2011 6:20 PM | | slevesque has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: step by step
slevesque writes: Except you have presented no evidence that a foetus is a human being. BUT that still does not answer my question. Is it okay to kill in self defense? If the purpose is to save your live or save you from extreme danger, is it okay to protect yourself? But I did answer, I said if the intention is to protect yourself, then yes. If the intention was to kill the other, then no. It's the difference between, while being attacked, between accidentally pushing someone in front of a speedign car or purposefully doing so. Okay, so an abortion to protect the life and health of the mother is acceptable. Next question. Should cruel and unusual punishment be allowed?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 299 by slevesque, posted 01-31-2011 6:43 PM | | slevesque has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: step by step
slevesque writes: jar writes: Okay, so an abortion to protect the life and health of the mother is acceptable. Yes. Of course, if there should be some way to save the foetus and the mother, this should be done. Again, that is quibbling.
slevesque writes: jar writes: Should cruel and unusual punishment be allowed? Define 'cruel', define 'unusual'. And give a concrete example. A concrete example. Should someone who was raped be forced to live her life raising the child that resulted from that rape?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 302 by slevesque, posted 01-31-2011 7:14 PM | | slevesque has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: step by step
slevesque writes: jar writes: Again, that is quibbling. No not at all ... An ectopic pregancy will kill the mother if nothing is done. However, in some cases c-section plus incubation can save the foetus. In those cases, you should save it instead of just killing it with an abortion procedure. Possibly, we will see.
slevesque writes: jar writes: A concrete example. Should someone who was raped be forced to live her life raising the child that resulted from that rape? No, she would not have to live her life raising the child. In any case, a child is never a ''punishment''. Again, it is simply an assertion that a child is never a "punishment". So in the case of a woman who has been raped, is an abortion reasonable?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 305 by slevesque, posted 01-31-2011 7:39 PM | | slevesque has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: step by step
slevesque writes: So this "society of the future" rips the choice away from the woman? Begging the question epithet.
What "human life"? The only "life" that we can even substantially define is .......ding ding ding! the woman's! I think you would be hard-pressed to find an ethician who wouldn't define a 25 week old foetus as a human being, given that it has it's nervous system in place and, given the right care, could survive outside the womb. MIGHT survive outside the womb and then only at extreme expense. See Message 176. Edited by jar, : add link to earlier message.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 321 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 4:54 PM | | slevesque has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: step by step
slevesque writes: Do you, or do you not, agree that we should try and save both the foetus and the mother ? Depends on the circumstances of the particular event.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 325 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 5:10 PM | | slevesque has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
Message 338 of 403 (602963)
02-01-2011 10:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 337 by slevesque
02-01-2011 9:55 PM
|
|
Re: step by step
slevesque writes: Depends on the circumstances of the particular event. What circumstances would you be comfortable with simply aborting the foetus instead of trying your best to keep it alive. Many, many, many. Any time either the doctors or mother feel the risk is too great. Anytime the penalties that would be visited on the mother are more than she is willing to reasonable assume. When the society is unwilling to assume the financial, cultural and emotional imposition involved in saving the foetus. The point is that it is not MY decision to make.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 337 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 9:55 PM | | slevesque has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: step by step
slevesque writes: After millions of years of evolution of psychological mechanism hardwiring a child's head to have a father and a mother, how good do you think it is to put him with two fathers or mothers ? Very good; in fact far better than in many other possible scenarios. Now if you were advocating a strict licensing of parenthood, I might tend to agree with you.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 348 by slevesque, posted 02-02-2011 4:31 PM | | slevesque has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2