Mountaineer wrote:
moda0306 wrote:
Xan wrote:
Jan,
We're trying to be more civil around here lately, and I don't think equating every pro-lifer with the Westboro Baptist Church is productive along those lines.
Do you truly believe that the position that abortion is the premeditated killing of an innocent human is an untenable one that only unreasonable people can hold?
I would say that automatically labelling any fertilized egg as a "baby" (when this isn't really the correct term) is essentially equating anyone with an other-than-completely-100 %-pro-life stance to be the equivalent of a baby-killer.
Now maybe in God's eyes we are, but using language like that, while it may seem harmless, can tend to offend and shut off conversation rather than expand thought on the issue.
I am certainly not offended by it. Just one thought. It's obviously about the most sensitive topic one can try to touch on.
moda,
I appreciate your perspective, but I must say in all honesty that what I hear you saying is that when the pro-life people say "life begins at conception" and the pro-choice people are "put off" by that statement, you apparently want the pro-life to make their comments PC so the pro-choice people are not offended. I expect the pro-life people are very much put off by that line of reasoning as it seems slanted very one way and shuts down conversation.
This is different Mountaineer... IMO at least.
When having a discussion about something as ambiguous as morality, it is really important to make very clear what your premises are, and state them as such, rather than just burying them deep in some broader analysis. This was a HUGE bone I had to pick with Kshartle. He wouldn't state what his argument was in traditional rational logic format, and I couldn't tell how he was building it.
So if someone wants to say "life begins at conception," that is something we can then discuss. There's nothing "offensive" about this. It may have a bit of an ambiguous aspect to it, and might beg 10 more difficult questions, but at least it isn't along the lines of "Sure, let's have a debate about how young and innocent your baby has to be before it is ok to murder it."
You're simply not going to have a meaningful conversation if you insist on loading your statements with one-sided things like that. Let us be particular about the words we use. I required this of our anarchist friends, I TRY to require it of myself, and I think it will help any discussion coming from your direction.
But, by all means, if you believe some base-premise, state so, and don't be afraid of me being offended... and if liberals are, shame on them. Just try to do so in as honest, clear, and respectful a way as possible, no loading-up your commentary with passive-aggressive premise-building, please
.
And, if one does not believe life begins at conception, exactly when does it begin? That question usually gets several different responses which to me is proof the varying answers are not based on fact.
From my perspective, it seems we have a most strange culture that does not want to face facts (or does not want to admit what they are advocating). Murder of the inocent fertilized egg which is a future son or daughter is somehow OK but Texas proclaiming the death sentence for those convicted of murder isn't - completely irrational and extremely self-centered, selfish, from my point of view. If you don't want to start a new life, take precautions before jumping into the throws of passion for a real good feel good moment of pleasure - not the next day.
And, I'm not certain abortion is the most sensitve area to discuss; what to give the completely irrational self-centered unrepentant "LGBT" lifestyle a whirl?
... Mountaineer
Even if it were relevant to the debate about the value of life, the "selfishness" of people with different views on life and morality than your own would be a huge debatable premise all its own. We are all selfish. Either in that we wish to obtain more knowledge to make us feel more comfortable (or stimulated), or we wish to continue to reinforce the knowledge we already obtained (or think we have obtained).
But that's really not relevant.
Regarding inconsistency towards the value of a life, there are likely a few overarching discussion points that would have to get hashed out:
1) The death penalty is an action taken by agents of the state. Abortion is not. If I'm very anti-state, I could be anti-abortion AND anti-death-penalty without being pro-illegalization of abortion.
2) A fetus is tied to its mother. It is not an independent being. To enforce the rights of the fetus (if they have rights), you MUST take some form of control over the mother. This is (theoretically) not the case in most areas where the government protects our negative rights.
3) A zygote cannot feel pain or fear. It has no concept of any "wrong" being done to it. Therefore (perhaps) it is not a moral patient.
These are just ideas. Not my positions.
There are reasons that when a Christian (or an atheist) says "we cherish life," they don't mean the life of a mushroom, or an oak tree. They mean conscious life. If we really look at what makes "life" so precious, if it even is, one could argue that a zygote does not carry these traits, yet. The mere fact that they "might someday" carry these traits is perhaps worth mentioning, but as you can see, I can't even convince myself of any of this.
I would agree that people should be more responsible with actions they take, sexually. But that isn't an argument... that's just a "wish" that I have. I can't build an argument with much certainty that states that IF you end up pregnant with a 4-cell zygote, that elimination of that zygote is tantamount to murdering a conscious being. That is surely irrational, if looked at from some criteria of what we consider worthy of protection and, more importantly, why we deem it worthy.
But this all gets real messy... if an ape doesn't have a soul, does a person with the mental capacity of an ape?
Are we upsetting "God's will" by engaging in certain forms of medicine? Who decides? And why is it not just "valuing life" to do so?
Are all forms of euthenasia immoral? What about just letting someone starve to death or stop breathing if they can't on their own?
When does someone truly reach adulthood? When can I hold them responsible for a contract they enact in with me? Before that point, what forceful actions are parents morally able to perform against their child's wishes?
If we truly do value life, and we know SOME people will be falsely accused in our court-system, is it immoral to have a death penalty?
If we truly do value life, and we know SOME innocent people will suffer from our actions during even the most "justified" war, is it immoral to ever go to war?
It's hard to be rational in areas of ethics, ESPECIALLY when kids are involved. Most liberal-minded people on this topic aren't being particularly, uniquely selfish or irrational, but simply addressing the competing realities of the issue involved, and the extremely ambiguous nature of discussions on morality, especially, as mentioned, when dealing with minors.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
- Thomas Paine
I want a jaguar. Actually, two. One automobile and one feline. 
) of government, this is what I'm talking about...
