Abortion: Legal or Illegal

Slartibartfast wrote: I'm not entirely sure that you are as lefty as you'd like to claim to be.  But I fully acknowledge that there isn't a purely right/left wing slant to the issue, but I know what I see and read so I won't give it up.  If you put it into a left/right construct you're not going to get consistency. The bugbears are not imagined and I hope one day you will able to take your blinders off.  (that was good, wasn't it?) I'm going do add that up i've been fairly consistent in my opionions so the whole statement should not have been surprising.  I've been accused of being disingenuous but if you spew out enough of your own opinions that's bound to happen.   I mean espousing contradictory things, not being disingenuous.

Negoba wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Apparently two "ethicists" (what is that word?) agree that the abortion argument extends to newborns.   Dude, that article is clearly pro-life rhetoric by every agent mentioned.   I've used the exact same arguments.   Because the fact is that the vast majority recoil at infanticide and then this line means you can't abort. (Contrapositive).

Did I claim it not to be? It quotes the paper directly though. I refereed to those quotes which I found abhorrent. You can say maybe I'm criticizing the punchlines without seeing the buildup, but I don't have access to their full paper.

I'm not sure what contrapositive you're talking about?

Slartibartfast wrote: Two ethicists walk into a bar... It still boils down for me that life does begin when the two sets of genetic material join to make a unique individual.  Even without the intervention of man or god that zygote does not automatically implant or develop into a baby.  There comes a point in development where you could argue that the state has a vested interest in forcing the woman to carry the pregnancy to term.  There are no easy answers as to when the state should intervene and force the woman to do that.  In the womb wanton baby murdering women are a right wing fallacy.

This might be interesting for some people here:

http://secularprolife.org/

Two ethicists walk into a bar...

It still boils down for me that life does begin when the two sets of genetic material join to make a unique individual.  Even without the intervention of man or god that zygote does not automatically implant or develop into a baby.  There comes a point in development where you could argue that the state has a vested interest in forcing the woman to carry the pregnancy to term.  There are no easy answers as to when the state should intervene and force the woman to do that.  In the womb wanton baby murdering women are a right wing fallacy.  Women who would carry to near birth and then decide to terminate on a whim might occur but they are the exception.  Termination for birth defects is a real problem that ought to be left up to the parents and their doctor.


Edited by Slartibartfast - February 29 2012 at 13:05

^ You beat me on this.

Well, these Nazis and Pocket-Mengeles actually point out that theres is no significant difference between murdering the unborn and the newborn children.

And this Orc is whining about "hate speech" and liberal "values":

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/02/%E2%80%9Cliberals-are-disgusting%E2%80%9D-in-defence-of-the-publication-of-%E2%80%9Cafter-birth-abortion%E2%80%9D/

Textbook wrote: I'm confused. I understand that utilitarianism doesn't work on religious people because utilitarianism is based on tangible value and religious people believe in higher intangible values.

It is not based on tangible values. That's the issue with it. If it had any tangible values, then I would be one.

Epig: I'm confused. I understand that utilitarianism doesn't work on religious people because utilitarianism is based on tangible value and religious people believe in higher intangible values.

Slartibartfast wrote: Epignosis wrote: Textbook wrote: As you are religious, you should be. You will notice that I have never once invoked religion in this discussion.  Were I an atheist, I would still be unmoved by utilitarian arguments on this subject. How can you be certain as you are not one? You are still pondering or have the utilitarian ideas.  But religion does matter otherwise tell me what that guy holding a big cross while standing in a group on the sidewalk across from the Chamblee women's health clinic in a small group holding bibles and praying was doing the last time I drove by?

I cannot speak for someone holding a cross at a women's health clinic.  I can only speak for myself, which is what I did.

Textbook wrote: As you are religious, you should be.

You will notice that I have never once invoked religion in this discussion.  Were I an atheist, I would still be unmoved by utilitarian arguments on this subject.