A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Boss]

No, you're not. Welll...I mean, you are. We do it all the time - they're called morality laws, and they, invariably do nothing to curtail the behaviours they are meant to regulate, and only end up criminalizing individual choice. Which is why I, and other like myself, will always oppose you, and yours. Fortunately, more often than not, we tend to be a nation that values individual liberty over forced morality. And, when we make mistakes - for instance the 18th amendment - it doesn't take us long to correct ourselves.

EVERY law is a "morality law" ...that's exactly what laws ARE. There is literally no other purpose for a law than to establish a uniform moral boundary or limitation.

What YOU want is to be the moral authority over society. YOU want to decide what rules the rest of us follow based on YOUR sense of morality and disregarding all other opinions. Civilized societies don't work that way and what generally happens as a result of your type of thinking is civil war.

I am the one standing up for the individual liberty and rights of the unborn to live. You are standing against human rights and for something that is abhorrent and wrong that we shouldn't be doing as civilized people. And you really need to know, MY side will ultimately prevail in this battle.

 

[Czernobog]

No, you're not. Welll...I mean, you are. We do it all the time - they're called morality laws, and they, invariably do nothing to curtail the behaviours they are meant to regulate, and only end up criminalizing individual choice. Which is why I, and other like myself, will always oppose you, and yours. Fortunately, more often than not, we tend to be a nation that values individual liberty over forced morality. And, when we make mistakes - for instance the 18th amendment - it doesn't take us long to correct ourselves.

EVERY law is a "morality law" ...that's exactly what laws ARE. There is literally no other purpose for a law than to establish a uniform moral boundary or limitation.

No, they aren't. I already demonstrated this.

Nope. Standard crimes - murder, assault theft, etc. - are all about self- preservation. They are to protect me from you.

Take theft for instance. We all want what we want. When I see those really cool new Nikes of yours, I want them. So, I'll just take them. The problem is, if I can just take your shit, then that means, by extension, you can just take my shit. Well? I happen to like my shit, and don't want anyone taking it. So, for our mutual self-preservation, we agree that no one gets to take anyone's shit. Congratulations, a law is born - not out of some moralistic crap about controling the behaviour of others, but out of self-preservation.

And that same formula can be applied to all basic criminal laws. The problem comes in when some group thinks they have a superior moral perspective, and have the right to codify their morality. Every time morality is legislated, it never stops, or even slows down, the behaviour it is trying to eliminate. All it does is infringes on people's individual liberties.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk.

What YOU want is to be the moral authority over society. YOU want to decide what rules the rest of us follow based on YOUR sense of morality and disregarding all other opinions. Civilized societies don't work that way and what generally happens as a result of your type of thinking is civil war.

No, I don't. I want no one to claim moral authority over people's individual choices.

I am the one standing up for the individual liberty and rights of the unborn to live. You are standing against human rights and for something that is abhorrent and wrong that we shouldn't be doing as civilized people. And you really need to know, MY side will ultimately prevail in this battle.

The problem is we live in a nation where the Constitution is the legal authority determining who is eligible for the rights, and protections enumerated in the Constitution, and the Constitution does not recognise the "unborn" as legal entities.

 

[Rustic]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

There is no "easy" answer, but in an abortion the most innocent party out of the three ends up paying the ultimate price. I can understand how some can not be "fine" with that. But at the same time, one way or another it's absolutely none of the federal governments business... States issue

 

[Boss]

No, they aren't. I already demonstrated this.

Uhm... No... you DIDN'T.

Standard crimes - murder, assault theft, etc. - are all about self- preservation. They are to protect me from you.

This is a morally-based standard.

So, for our mutual self-preservation, we agree that no one gets to take anyone's shit. Congratulations, a law is born - not out of some moralistic crap...

Exactly out of some moralistic crap... that's exactly what it is. We mutually agree it is moral to respect each other's property. If there is no morality, I don't give a shit about respecting your right to property... if I am bigger than you or stronger... I can take your shit because I want it. You can't take my shit because I'll stomp your ass.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

There is no "easy" answer, but in an abortion the most innocent party out of the three ends up paying the ultimate price. I can understand how some can not be "fine" with that. But at the same time, one way or another it's absolutely none of the federal governments business... States issue

I don't even agree with that. It is not the business of any government - not fedral, and not state. Federal moralists, and State moralists are no different. The only difference is the size of the authoritarian government that they want dictating morality to individuals. This is a moral question, and best left to each individual to make their own moral decisions, and suffer whatever spiritual consequences may, or may not, issue from such decisions.

 

[Czernobog]

No, they aren't. I already demonstrated this.

Uhm... No... you DIDN'T.

Standard crimes - murder, assault theft, etc. - are all about self- preservation. They are to protect me from you.

This is a morally-based standard.

So, for our mutual self-preservation, we agree that no one gets to take anyone's shit. Congratulations, a law is born - not out of some moralistic crap...

Exactly out of some moralistic crap... that's exactly what it is. We mutually agree it is moral to respect each other's property. If there is no morality, I don't give a shit about respecting your right to property... if I am bigger than you or stronger... I can take your shit because I want it. You can't take my shit because I'll stomp your ass.

What a load of shit. Self-Preservation is not a moral decision - it is a biological imperative. Where the fuck did you get that bullshit from?!?!?

 

[Boss]

The problem is we live in a nation where the Constitution is the legal authority determining who is eligible for the rights, and protections enumerated in the Constitution, and the Constitution does not recognise the "unborn" as legal entities.

The Constitution didn't used to recognize slaves, blacks, minorities or women as legal entities. Sometimes we change the Constitution through Amendments or through legislation and court rulings. What it allows and doesn't allow has been changed numerous times through the years.

Again, what you appear to be trying to do here is fall back on the safety of what current law says. We're not arguing about what the current law is... we all know the current law allows you to kill the unborn. You'll never find anyone here who can refute that... it is the law. Our argument here is whether this should be the case. I don't think it should.

 

[Boss]

What a load of shit. Self-Preservation is not a moral decision - it is a biological imperative. Where the fuck did you get that bullshit from?!?!?

My respecting YOUR self-preservation is a MORAL decision.

 

[Rustic]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

There is no "easy" answer, but in an abortion the most innocent party out of the three ends up paying the ultimate price. I can understand how some can not be "fine" with that. But at the same time, one way or another it's absolutely none of the federal governments business... States issue

I don't even agree with that. It is not the business of any government - not fedral, and not state. Federal moralists, and State moralists are no different. The only difference is the size of the authoritarian government that they want dictating morality to individuals. This is a moral question, and best left to each individual to make their own moral decisions, and suffer whatever spiritual consequences may, or may not, issue from such decisions.

Do you know what the 10th amendment is?
No state/federal government should be telling any other state what to legislate... Don't like the actions of one state move to another that suits you better, that's the way it should be.

 

[Czernobog]

The problem is we live in a nation where the Constitution is the legal authority determining who is eligible for the rights, and protections enumerated in the Constitution, and the Constitution does not recognise the "unborn" as legal entities.

The Constitution didn't used to recognize slaves, blacks, minorities or women as legal entities. Sometimes we change the Constitution through Amendments or through legislation and court rulings. What it allows and doesn't allow has been changed numerous times through the years.

Again, what you appear to be trying to do here is fall back on the safety of what current law says. We're not arguing about what the current law is... we all know the current law allows you to kill the unborn. You'll never find anyone here who can refute that... it is the law. Our argument here is whether this should be the case. I don't think it should.

Then, by all means, you should support those personhood amendments that the moralists keep trying to pass. Good luck with that. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

 

[bornright]

I too am against the killing of a pre-born child. If you placed a fertilized egg inside a woman and she carried it full term. The genetics of the baby and the mother would not have anything in common. In other words the mother is no more than the carrier of the baby which makes the child a separate being. The baby is no more part of the mother than the father. Sterilize the mother for abortion to keep her from killing anymore pre-born babies.

 

[Czernobog]

What a load of shit. Self-Preservation is not a moral decision - it is a biological imperative. Where the fuck did you get that bullshit from?!?!?

My respecting YOUR self-preservation is a MORAL decision.

Go back,and reread the post. I never suggested that you agreed to laws against theft for my self-preservation; I said you did so for your self-preservation. I agree to abide those laws for my self-preservation. Not real good at the reading comprehension thing, are you?

 

[Jack4jill]

I too am against the killing of a pre-born child. If you placed a fertilized egg inside a woman and she carried it full term. The genetics of the baby and the mother would not have anything in common. In other words the mother is no more than the carrier of the baby which makes the child a separate being. The baby is no more part of the mother than the father. Sterilize the mother for abortion to keep her from killing anymore pre-born babies.

They'd have 50% in common, a bit more if it's a boy.

 

[Boss]

Then, by all means, you should support those personhood amendments that the moralists keep trying to pass. Good luck with that. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

Well you should understand that eventually it is going to work out in favor of human rights and at some point the unborn fetus will be constitutionally protected. This is far from the first battle for human rights and in our country, with our founding principles in place, human rights always prevail. Sometimes it takes a long time... decades in some cases... but eventually, human rights win.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

There is no "easy" answer, but in an abortion the most innocent party out of the three ends up paying the ultimate price. I can understand how some can not be "fine" with that. But at the same time, one way or another it's absolutely none of the federal governments business... States issue

I don't even agree with that. It is not the business of any government - not fedral, and not state. Federal moralists, and State moralists are no different. The only difference is the size of the authoritarian government that they want dictating morality to individuals. This is a moral question, and best left to each individual to make their own moral decisions, and suffer whatever spiritual consequences may, or may not, issue from such decisions.

Do you know what the 10th amendment is?
No state/federal government should be telling any other state what to legislate... Don't like the actions of one state move to another that suits you better, that's the way it should be.

The problemm is Article 4. While the federal government cannot dictate what laws a state can, and cannot enact, the Constitution dictates that no state that wishes membership in the union may pass laws that are contradictory to the Constitution. As such, it cannot pass laws that infringe on an individual's right of self-determination. This is kind of where all of those "gays can't get married' laws got into trouble - they attempted to supersede protections given under the Constitution.

Same with state abortion bans - they supersede Constitutional protections, and attempt to recognise as citizens entities that the Constitution did not make concession for.

 

[Czernobog]

I too am against the killing of a pre-born child. If you placed a fertilized egg inside a woman and she carried it full term. The genetics of the baby and the mother would not have anything in common. In other words the mother is no more than the carrier of the baby which makes the child a separate being. The baby is no more part of the mother than the father. Sterilize the mother for abortion to keep her from killing anymore pre-born babies.

Okay, that is scientifically, and biologically inaccurate. The whole point of maternity, and paternity tests is that offspring have a great deal in common with their parents genetically. This is also the principle behind genetic markers for certain medical conditions.

 

[Boss]

What a load of shit. Self-Preservation is not a moral decision - it is a biological imperative. Where the fuck did you get that bullshit from?!?!?

My respecting YOUR self-preservation is a MORAL decision.

Go back,and reread the post. I never suggested that you agreed to laws against theft for my self-preservation; I said you did so for your self-preservation. I agree to abide those laws for my self-preservation. Not real good at the reading comprehension thing, are you?

My self-preservation is protected by Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson. I don't need your moralistic laws. You said those were to protect you from me... protecting people is a moral standard. Our whole entire Constitution and western civilization is based on the moral foundation of humans with inalienable rights.

EVERY law is morality-based... that's exactly what laws are.

 

[Czernobog]

Then, by all means, you should support those personhood amendments that the moralists keep trying to pass. Good luck with that. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

Well you should understand that eventually it is going to work out in favor of human rights and at some point the unborn fetus will be constitutionally protected. This is far from the first battle for human rights and in our country, with our founding principles in place, human rights always prevail. Sometimes it takes a long time... decades in some cases... but eventually, human rights win.

Really? Because you have a majority in both the House, and the Senate, and you still can't get the damned thing passed. Note, I didn't say you couldn't get it signed into law, implying that Obama is the only thing standing in the way. I said you can't even get it passed. It would seem that even your fellow conservatives think your opinion of what a fetus should be is flawed.

 

[Czernobog]

What a load of shit. Self-Preservation is not a moral decision - it is a biological imperative. Where the fuck did you get that bullshit from?!?!?

My respecting YOUR self-preservation is a MORAL decision.

Go back,and reread the post. I never suggested that you agreed to laws against theft for my self-preservation; I said you did so for your self-preservation. I agree to abide those laws for my self-preservation. Not real good at the reading comprehension thing, are you?

My self-preservation is protected by Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson. I don't need your moralistic laws. You said those were to protect you from me... protecting people is a moral standard. Our whole entire Constitution and western civilization is based on the moral foundation of humans with inalienable rights.

EVERY law is morality-based... that's exactly what laws are.

Ah, but you see, then my desire for your shit is supported by Mr. Colt. We're right back to your life, and well-being being jeopardized. We tried that approach, and found it didn't work very well. Which is why, for our mutual self-preservation, we decided that agreeing on preventative measures was simply more conducive to each other's self-preservation. Again, remember it was not my self-preservation that motivated you - it was yours.

 

[Boss]

Really? Because you have a majority in both the House, and the Senate, and you still can't get the damned thing passed. Note, I didn't say you couldn't get it signed into law, implying that Obama is the only thing standing in the way. I said you can't even get it passed. It would seem that even your fellow conservatives think your opinion of what a fetus should be is flawed.

I'm sorry... you're obviously mistaking me for someone else... I don't have any bills before Congress. I honestly don't know what you are talking about here. I've already stated, if your argument is about what the current laws say, you win... the law totally allows you to kill unborn fetuses. That's just not the argument I am having... nor am I arguing for any particular bill or pending legislation.

Furthermore, appeals to popularity are pointless here. Before blacks were ever given any constitutional rights, the overwhelming majority of people didn't think they deserved them. Just because you have a bunch of people who agree with your opinion doesn't mean that it's right. Never has, never will. That's why we're not a Democracy.