What should abortion laws be?

[Cecilie1200]

Just cause you repeat yourself doesn't make it right.

Since we agreed that you and I basically agree on when abortions should be allowed, the million dollar queston is do you think they should be illegal, and thus a punishable offense, at some point in the pregnancy?

I think that late term abortions should be illegal and a punishable offense. Though I would say that the punishment should be sterilization. Though to be honest I couldn't give you a specific time frame on when is "too late"

You want to forcibly perform an invasive surgical procedure on people's bodies as a legal punishment, but you support abortion because you don't think you have the right to tell women what to do with their bodies? Is THAT your idea of logic?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Besides morality has nothing to do with laws.

Ignoring the fact that the above comment is simply wrong,

why are you arguing the morality of the matter in a thread about law, if the two are unrelated?

Laws have to do with public opinion. I'm not arguing about morality.

Good Morning.

And public opinion is based on what, precisely, if not what the people who make up the public think is right and wrong?

 

[Ipsl]

The fact that abortions are killing is not a matter of opinion any more than the facts of what a fetus is are. When are you people going to get over thinking that biological/scientific fact is up for a vote?

Feel free to make the argument that killing unborn babies is moral, if you think you can manage it. But don't waste our time with a puerile attempt to assert that abortion isn't killing.

I don't think they are babies if they are unable to exist without the direct heklp from the mothers body. I also don't think it would be immoral to do have an abortion. Besides morality has nothing to do with laws. You want to base an argument on morals or ethics there is a different area for that.

Any other assumptions you'd like to make and continue to insult me?

I haven't insulted you . . . yet. If I decide to, trust me, you'll know, especially if you're really that thin-skinned. You might want to either toughen up or take yourself out of the political chats and go find a nice knitting group.

I have already said that what you think or what your opinion is of what a fetus is is irrelevant, since it's not up for debate. Continuing to assert your opinion as though it's a concrete base for anything just means that you aren't reading or paying attention to the posts you're putatively responding to. Trust me when I tell you that just pushing the reply button and spewing your talking points as though you're lecturing instead of conversing is one of the fastest ways to convince me that you're a troll deserving of no more from me than to mock you and laugh at you derisively. If you want polite conversation, you will observe the first rule thereof, which is "Converse with the person, not at her."

As to your erroneous belief that a fetus is not a baby while he cannot live without the mother's body, may I ask you where you found a definition of the word "baby" which included that particular criterion? Or is this just your own attempt to impose your personal opinions onto science?

I am appalled that you think the law has nothing to do with morality. Do you honestly think that we just make up laws willy-nilly, with no regard for what is right and wrong in the eyes of society? Just what do you think the purpose of the law IS, absent any moral considerations?

And excuse me, but this IS the area for arguments based on morals and ethics, because the topic of this thread is not "What are the laws NOW?" It is "What should the laws be?" And despite what you think, most people do not suggest laws divorced from any consideration of right and wrong, morality and ethics. I can't even imagine how one could make an argument for something to be the law without saying, in effect, ". . . because it's the right thing to do."

There have been many laws that have been overturned as a direct result the change in public opinion.

With regards to a fetus being a parasite, yes, that is my opinion as to its viability for being person. To me, a person is a person when it can survive on its own (not in the womb) The opinions on what is and isn't a person vary. I will coincide that aborting a fetus is killing just as ending the life of anything is killing. ie: trees, bugs, viruses, cows. I should have specified and said I don't believe it's murder.

It's very similar to pulling the plug on people on life support. Is (s)he defined as a person. By my logic I would say no. And yes I HAVE had to make that decision before. But I digress that was a tangent.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ignoring the fact that the above comment is simply wrong,

why are you arguing the morality of the matter in a thread about law, if the two are unrelated?

I'm not arguing about morality.

Good Morning.

. I also don't think it would be immoral to do have an abortion.

Laws have to do with public opinion.

Laws are a class of enforceable ethics.

Ethics are heavily influences by the morality of the persons who constitute the collective.

Ergo, law is ultimately based, in part, on common or shared morality

I think we're finally getting to the bottom of why so many people express such asinine, illogical opinions. Maybe some people really DO wander around saying things like, "I think this should be the law . . . just because." Apparently, it really is possible to have all manner of opinions and shoot your mouth off about them without ever actually thinking about them at all, let alone reasoning anything out.

 

[Ipsl]

The point is that public opinion changes, while people's morality generally do not. Conservative Christians haven't really changed their morals, but their majority in the country has declined and so their views are no longer our views as a nation.

So while something may be immoral to you, it may not be for the populous there by NOT making it public opinion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If it's not murder, then it's not a crime, Ips.

Not exactley true. There's manslaughter. You can be charged with a crime just for being negligent. Vehicular homicide for example. Murder specifically requires intent.

I think some states have a charge of voluntary manslaughter. I would be curious to know what crime Ipsl would like to convict women of for late-term abortions, which would carry the sentence of forcible bodily mutilation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm not arguing about morality.

Good Morning.

Laws have to do with public opinion.

Laws are a class of enforceable ethics.

Ethics are heavily influences by the morality of the persons who constitute the collective.

Ergo, law is ultimately based, in part, on common or shared morality

The point is though you can't say something should be legal or illegal solely based on morality since that has and will change.

Laws change, too. In fact, laws change as society's moral standards and priorities change.

 

[Ipsl]

I think just restating your position serves as a counterpoint. Why is it that people who think killing to prevent harm to the environment through overpopulation always think it's someone ELSE who should die?

So you do a agree that overpopulation is a problem. Thats good to know.

I'm sorry, but where did I say that I thought your silly presumption was correct? I just asked why you people always think it's a good idea for OTHER people to die to save the planet, rather than manning up and killing yourselves. It's like you don't really believe in the importance of the cause, or something.

Who is this you people you speak of? What group are you putting me in?

And you would be surprised at my lifestyle and how little I personally effect my environment.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

To me, a person is a person when it can survive on its own

This 'nonperson' has done more for humanity than you ever will

If you consider Mr. Hawking a 'nonperson', then it's clear that your concept of 'personhood' is totally meaningless and irrelevant.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't think they are babies if they are unable to exist without the direct heklp from the mothers body. I also don't think it would be immoral to do have an abortion. Besides morality has nothing to do with laws. You want to base an argument on morals or ethics there is a different area for that.

Any other assumptions you'd like to make and continue to insult me?

I haven't insulted you . . . yet. If I decide to, trust me, you'll know, especially if you're really that thin-skinned. You might want to either toughen up or take yourself out of the political chats and go find a nice knitting group.

I have already said that what you think or what your opinion is of what a fetus is is irrelevant, since it's not up for debate. Continuing to assert your opinion as though it's a concrete base for anything just means that you aren't reading or paying attention to the posts you're putatively responding to. Trust me when I tell you that just pushing the reply button and spewing your talking points as though you're lecturing instead of conversing is one of the fastest ways to convince me that you're a troll deserving of no more from me than to mock you and laugh at you derisively. If you want polite conversation, you will observe the first rule thereof, which is "Converse with the person, not at her."

As to your erroneous belief that a fetus is not a baby while he cannot live without the mother's body, may I ask you where you found a definition of the word "baby" which included that particular criterion? Or is this just your own attempt to impose your personal opinions onto science?

I am appalled that you think the law has nothing to do with morality. Do you honestly think that we just make up laws willy-nilly, with no regard for what is right and wrong in the eyes of society? Just what do you think the purpose of the law IS, absent any moral considerations?

And excuse me, but this IS the area for arguments based on morals and ethics, because the topic of this thread is not "What are the laws NOW?" It is "What should the laws be?" And despite what you think, most people do not suggest laws divorced from any consideration of right and wrong, morality and ethics. I can't even imagine how one could make an argument for something to be the law without saying, in effect, ". . . because it's the right thing to do."

There have been many laws that have been overturned as a direct result the change in public opinion.

And? What exactly was the point this was supposed to triumphantly make?

With regards to a fetus being a parasite, yes, that is my opinion as to its viability for being person. To me, a person is a person when it can survive on its own (not in the womb) The opinions on what is and isn't a person vary.

Which is meaningless, since - once again - what a fetus is and is not is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of medical and scientific fact. Biology is not decided by a vote. And you have yet to answer my other question, which is, "So what?"

I will coincide that aborting a fetus is killing just as ending the life of anything is killing. ie: trees, bugs, viruses, cows. I should have specified and said I don't believe it's murder.

It's irrelevant whether or not it's murder, since the question is whether or not it should be viewed as such. As I've said on another thread concerning a different topic, citing a law as an argument when that very law is the question at hand is circular reasoning and pointless, not to mention laughable.

It's very similar to pulling the plug on people on life support.

Not even remotely.

Is (s)he defined as a person. By my logic I would say no..

That also is not up for a vote. Nor am I seeing any "logic" in the offing here. All I've seen you do is assert that "such and so" is your opinion, so there. I'm still waiting to hear what this famous "logic" behind those opinions is.

And yes I HAVE had to make that decision before. But I digress that was a tangent.

Didn't ask, don't care, please do not spew your private life all over me. This is not your group therapy session, and I'm not getting paid to care about your personal problems. I will accept personal anecdotes to illustrate a point, if necessary, but this illustrates nothing except perhaps that you have an embarrassing tendency toward exhibitionism.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I'm not arguing about morality.

Good Morning.

Laws have to do with public opinion.

Laws are a class of enforceable ethics.

Ethics are heavily influences by the morality of the persons who constitute the collective.

Ergo, law is ultimately based, in part, on common or shared morality

I think we're finally getting to the bottom of why so many people express such asinine, illogical opinions. Maybe some people really DO wander around saying things like, "I think this should be the law . . . just because." Apparently, it really is possible to have all manner of opinions and shoot your mouth off about them without ever actually thinking about them at all, let alone reasoning anything out.

Was that a swipe at me?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The point is that public opinion changes, while people's morality generally do not. Conservative Christians haven't really changed their morals, but their majority in the country has declined and so their views are no longer our views as a nation.

So the common morality of the American public has changed, and the ethical and legal changes in America area reflection of that change?

In other words, you're arguing that I'm right and your asinine atteempts at semantics are the desperate mental gymnastics of an ignorant fool?

 

[Ipsl]

To me, a person is a person when it can survive on its own

This 'nonperson' has done more for humanity than you ever will

If you consider Mr. Hawking a 'nonperson', then it's clear that your concept of 'personhood' is totally meaningless and irrelevant.

He was not born that way for one, I should have specified.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

And you would be surprised at my lifestyle and how little I personally effect my environment.

In other words, you have no friends and noone with two functioning brain cells listens to you?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The point is that public opinion changes, while people's morality generally do not. Conservative Christians haven't really changed their morals, but their majority in the country has declined and so their views are no longer our views as a nation.

So while something may be immoral to you, it may not be for the populous there by NOT making it public opinion.

Individual people may not change their moral positions all that much, but societies do. And that is most often what is behind a change in the laws.

Christians HAVE changed over time. Certainly the moral stances based on a literal interpretation of Biblical values are still there as they always were, but where the majority of people and virtually all Christians used to accept that standard, today you have a wide range of Christians and so-called Christians running around, claiming all manner of moral standards. That is a change in society which has led to changes in many laws.

You're confused. I didn't say that laws were based on MY moral standards, or that public opinion was based on MY moral standards. I said public opinion, and the laws based thereon, are based on SOCIETY'S moral standards.

Please read for comprehension, because I get very tired of having to take two or three posts to explain a point that I made very clearly in the first one, simply because you didn't bother to read it, or read it but didn't think about what it actually meant.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

To me, a person is a person when it can survive on its own

This 'nonperson' has done more for humanity than you ever will

If you consider Mr. Hawking a 'nonperson', then it's clear that your concept of 'personhood' is totally meaningless and irrelevant.

He was not born that way for one, I should have specified.

Specified what? By your definition, he is a non-person since, leftto hisown devices, he could not sustain his own existence.

Did you mean you should have specified that you're an idiot and you have no idea what you're talking about or that you're a moron and don't think before you speak?

Does a soldier become a non-person the moment they're maimed by an IED and become a person again once a Corpsman has stabilized them? Or does the ability to survive on one's own without dependence upon another have nothing to do with what makes one a person?

 

[Cecilie1200]

So you do a agree that overpopulation is a problem. Thats good to know.

I'm sorry, but where did I say that I thought your silly presumption was correct? I just asked why you people always think it's a good idea for OTHER people to die to save the planet, rather than manning up and killing yourselves. It's like you don't really believe in the importance of the cause, or something.

Who is this you people you speak of? What group are you putting me in?

And you would be surprised at my lifestyle and how little I personally effect my environment.

Please go back and read for comprehension. I very clearly said in the post previous to the one you tried to respond to "people who think killing to prevent harm to the environment through overpopulation". You would not have to waste space asking me who I was talking about if you would just read the post carefully the first time.

You would be surprised how much I don't give a rat's ass about your lifestyle. If you feel the need to somehow "earn" your right to exist, that's your business and of no interest to me.

 

[Ipsl]

I'm sorry, but where did I say that I thought your silly presumption was correct? I just asked why you people always think it's a good idea for OTHER people to die to save the planet, rather than manning up and killing yourselves. It's like you don't really believe in the importance of the cause, or something.

Who is this you people you speak of? What group are you putting me in?

And you would be surprised at my lifestyle and how little I personally effect my environment.

Please go back and read for comprehension. I very clearly said in the post previous to the one you tried to respond to "people who think killing to prevent harm to the environment through overpopulation". You would not have to waste space asking me who I was talking about if you would just read the post carefully the first time.

You would be surprised how much I don't give a rat's ass about your lifestyle. If you feel the need to somehow "earn" your right to exist, that's your business and of no interest to me.

You seem to be the one who tried to hoist me by own petard only to have it back fire now you're saying it doesn't matter?

 

[Ipsl]

The point is that public opinion changes, while people's morality generally do not. Conservative Christians haven't really changed their morals, but their majority in the country has declined and so their views are no longer our views as a nation.

So while something may be immoral to you, it may not be for the populous there by NOT making it public opinion.

Individual people may not change their moral positions all that much, but societies do. And that is most often what is behind a change in the laws.

Christians HAVE changed over time. Certainly the moral stances based on a literal interpretation of Biblical values are still there as they always were, but where the majority of people and virtually all Christians used to accept that standard, today you have a wide range of Christians and so-called Christians running around, claiming all manner of moral standards. That is a change in society which has led to changes in many laws.

You're confused. I didn't say that laws were based on MY moral standards, or that public opinion was based on MY moral standards. I said public opinion, and the laws based thereon, are based on SOCIETY'S moral standards.

Please read for comprehension, because I get very tired of having to take two or three posts to explain a point that I made very clearly in the first one, simply because you didn't bother to read it, or read it but didn't think about what it actually meant.

And societies moral standards say that abortion is OK. So whats your point?

 

[Cecilie1200]

To me, a person is a person when it can survive on its own

This 'nonperson' has done more for humanity than you ever will

If you consider Mr. Hawking a 'nonperson', then it's clear that your concept of 'personhood' is totally meaningless and irrelevant.

And for the nitpicky record, Ipsl, it's a moderate grammatical faux pas, not to mention quite rude, to refer to any person as "it", even if you're talking hypothetically rather than about a specific person. The correct word for a person whose sex is not known is "he".

See, Prole, this is what I was saying. Apparently people really DO wander around, spouting about opinions which they've taken no time to truly contemplate or follow to their logical conclusions. It's baffling.