Zone1 A Question For Pro-Choicers

[ding]

Absolutely not, only that our standards should be standard.

Standards are standards. They just aren't always met. That's why laws have consequences when they aren't followed, right?

 

[ding]

So you think the crew of the Enola Gay were "baby killers" and should be punished? You're un-American.

I think anyone who rationalizes an "evil" as good doesn't understand the slippery slope they are standing on. Do you really believe they felt no remorse at all?

 

[alang1216]

Standards are standards. They just aren't always met. That's why laws have consequences when they aren't followed, right?

I'm not talking about violationsi. Our standards for when someone can take a life should be the same for all. It is fine to claim life is sacred, another to practice it. We do the former but not the later.

 

[alang1216]

I think anyone who rationalizes an "evil" as good doesn't understand the slippery slope they are standing on. Do you really believe they felt no remorse at all?

I'm sure they did but I also believe in the greater good. They risked their lives for that, not to kill babies so, to me they are heros.

 

[ding]

I'm not talking about violationsi. Our standards for when someone can take a life should be the same for all. It is fine to claim life is sacred, another to practice it. We do the former but not the later.

The standard is don't do it. Can you get a higher standard than that?

 

[ding]

I'm sure they did but I also believe in the greater good. They risked their lives for that, not to kill babies so, to me they are heros.

I imagine they saw it as the lesser of two evils. Which doesn't make it morally right. Justifying killing as morally good is a slippery slope.

 

[alang1216]

The standard is don't do it. Can you get a higher standard than that?

I would kill anyone who threatened my family. As a last resort maybe, but kill I would. Wouldn't you?

 

[alang1216]

I imagine they saw it as the lesser of two evils. Which doesn't make it morally right. Justifying killing as morally good is a slippery slope.

That is why there are standards, to draw a line.

 

[ding]

I would kill anyone who threatened my family. As a last resort maybe, but kill I would. Wouldn't you?

It's hard to say unless one is actually in that position. That is the honest answer. We can all pretend that we would fight instead of flee but until the actual moment is upon us, we will never truly know. But that's unimportant. I believe that if I did find myself in that position, I wouldn't be celebrating it, I would be feeling bad for having done it. Which is why I believe the accurate way to describe it is the lesser of two evils.

 

[ding]

That is why there are standards, to draw a line.

I believe the reason standards exist are for logical reasons (i.e. to avoid a specific consequence). That deviating from the standard will eventually - given enough time - result in a predictable surprise which reminds everyone of why that standard existed in the first place. It's not about drawing lines. It's about the statistical nature of not meeting the standard. Many times people get away with it.

 

[alang1216]

It's hard to say unless one is actually in that position. That is the honest answer. We can all pretend that we would fight instead of flee but until the actual moment is upon us, we will never truly know. But that's unimportant. I believe that if I did find myself in that position, I wouldn't be celebrating it, I would be feeling bad for having done it. Which is why I believe the accurate way to describe it is the lesser of two evils.

Isn't the lesser of two evils the moral choice. Would you condemn someone for choosing the lesser of two evils?

 

[alang1216]

I believe the reason standards exist are for logical reasons (i.e. to avoid a specific consequence). That deviating from the standard will eventually - given enough time - result in a predictable surprise which reminds everyone of why that standard existed in the first place. It's not about drawing lines. It's about the statistical nature of not meeting the standard. Many times people get away with it.

I doubt that. Look at how standards of justice changed from Roman times until today. Look at justice today in the West vs justice today in Afghanistan.

That's the beauty of standards, there are so many to choose from.

 

[JoeB131]

I haven't moved any goal posts in my argument That's your thing. Saying that there can be reasonable restrictions on abortion is hardly an equivocation

And a late term abortion is really no different than a vaginal birth but you're too stupid to know that

Neither one is any of your business.

The woman and her doctor. The only people who should have a say. Period.

 

[Leo123]

So you think the crew of the Enola Gay were "baby killers" and should be punished? You're un-American.

There was bo ‘abortion bomb’ try sticking to the subject.

 

[alang1216]

There was bo ‘abortion bomb’ try sticking to the subject.

Sorry, I thought the subject was killing babies.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Theocracies Dictating Necessities For Population Superiority "

* Legal Positivism Admits Perspectivism Of Subjective Norms *

I doubt that. Look at how standards of justice changed from Roman times until today. Look at justice today in the West vs justice today in Afghanistan.

That's the beauty of standards, there are so many to choose from.

A law exists only because there is an entity capable of issuing a retort for violations of its legal pretexts .

Given the myriad of whimsy for normative standards in the laws of nature , what would be an explanation for dictating a lie to woman , that she must not have an abortion , because having abortion would or could cause her eternal damnation in the life to come ?

An after life , a chance for eternal life , the life to come , being born again , a reincarnation , the transmutation of soles , are all metaphors for passing on ones genetic identity , one haploid at a time , so that another , both figuratively and literally as oneself , through a necessary sophisticated state , may have an opportunity to experience the sentience , sapience and introspection afforded by life , where failure to do so in perpetuity is ascribed the metaphors of final judgement and eternal damnation .

 

[dblack]

Sorry, I thought the subject was killing babies.

The subject is state regulation of procreation.

 

[pknopp]

Why do you always try to pretend you don't associate with the rest of the crazies on your side when called on it.

Here's the thing, no one is having an abortion at 22 weeks for contraceptive purposes. It just doesn't happen.

Back in the 90's when the debate over banning late term abortions was happening Dr Martin Haskell was testifying before congress. He was one of the few doctors performing late term abortions.

He was asked what was the main reason for later term abortions. He stated "maternal indications". When asked to further explain he said "age of the mother". That is, a young female will often times hide the fact she is pregnant until she is no longer able to hide it.

 

[ding]

Isn't the lesser of two evils the moral choice. Would you condemn someone for choosing the lesser of two evils?

I see the lesser of two evils as the lesser of two evils. That doesn't make it good only better than the other choice.

I don't condemn anyone. I can judge behaviors and actions better than I can judge the person. Judging people is a slippery slope.

 

[ding]

I doubt that. Look at how standards of justice changed from Roman times until today. Look at justice today in the West vs justice today in Afghanistan.

That's the beauty of standards, there are so many to choose from.

If you doubt it then you are at risk for experiencing predictable surprises because that's what happens when people normalize their deviance to standards. But putting that aside, you are confusing perception of the standard for the standard. For any given thing there will be a standard that is the highest standard. And it will exist for logical reasons independent of what man wishes it were. So while man is free to select any standard, he is not free from experiencing the consequences of choosing a lesser standard.

Even back when slavery was accepted as the standard , there were people who believed it was wrong and shouldn't be the standard. They believed there was a higher standard. And they were right too. So just because man has changed standards that doesn't negate the reality that standards exist for logical reasons and are independent of what man believes the standard to be.