Abortion///cont.

[glassjester]

Lon's post was written to me, so I'm guessing you wrote about me.
How can my logic for full medicare et all for all children and disabled-for-life enable your twisted mind to figure out that I would support genocides?

You don't support any of the above, which just shows you up for a fraud..... :idunno:

Eider, would you agree that if the government met all the conditions you listed earlier, that abortion should be illegal?

 

[quip]

What makes the immoral cases immoral?

My moral compass.

The chemotherapy and ectopic pregnancy examples were about unintentional and indirect killing - the exact opposite of an abortion (the purpose of which is the death of the child).

Moot. The point is that the death of the fetus does frequently occurs. The moral standard being the fetus is and must be subjected to the (accepted) potential risk of death. As such, as a moral standard, this is entirely unjust and unacceptable for 11-day-olds...et al.

QED the fetus is indeed of moral consideration ...though not to the extent you or I share.

 

[glassjester]

My moral compass.

Elaborate?

Moot. The point is that the death of the fetus occurs. The moral standard being the fetus is and must be subjected to the potential risk. As such, this standard is unjust and unacceptable for 11-day-olds...et al.

QED the fetus is indeed of moral consideration ...though not to the extent you or I share.

You see no moral difference between intentionally killing a human being, and unintentionally killing a human being?

I find that hard to believe.

 

[quip]

Elaborate?





You see no moral difference between intentionally killing a human being, and unintentionally killing a human being?

I find that hard to believe.

Have you not absorbed anything I've stated?

 

[Lon]

Threre you go, wandering out of your own country in order to avoid answering those three simple questions:

There you go being distracted by illustration lain:

1. Would you support additional taxation or health plan cover (paid by the people) to provide full medicare et all for AL children to infancy or Junior age?

Again, you are trying to make 'mode' the rule. In this sense, it is little more than childish foot stomping for 'my way or the highway.'
Let me put it another way: I am for MAKING people responsible for their own responsibilities and have NO QUALMS making people pay for their own responsibilities wherever I cannot. As citizens, we pay taxes AND give as we are led.

2. Full WHOLE-LIFE medicare for all persons bornm disabled?

Again, you are trying to force "your cure" as if it is the 'only cure.' :nono: Nice try, but no.

3.Full medicare et all for rape births unto adulthood?

The problem: we are talking about law, that is indeed 'invasive' by demand. :nono: You are required, by law, to have auto insurance. There is no way, ever, you will convince me that taxes need to pay for it. Why? --> Driving is a privilege, not a right.

"If" you choose to exercise your 'privilege' and that privilege results in conception, laws can be written that insure you be responsible for what you chose.

Your not in Africa or wherever, so you need to answer for your own country.
Simple........ if you're genuine.

I AM genuine. You are making mandates and doing the childish foot-stomp.
Let's see if you even know what Pro-life means :think:
Did you realize you were trying to redefine terms? :think:
You have a tendency in this thread to try and push your own agendas and definitions. :think:

You have no clue what I believe about this.

I have a clue about how your illogical mind works. It is enough.

You just assume everything.
I would be prepared to support legislation to outlaw abortion!
You're just so prejudiced that you jump on any bandwagon. Prejudiced-is-you.
BUT..... full medicare et all for all children.

Yeah, I was pretty sure I got all of this about you. The problem is you are giving 'your' version of what must be done
and declaring that it is the 'only' pro-life stance. I'm more pro-life: "I don't care if you can support the child or not, you are not allowed to kill it. Period."

Full Medicare day-by-day for all disabled births FOR LIFE.
Full medicare to adulthood for births caused by rape.
Full sex education for all children.
Much better provision for adoption.
Special provision for women who might die in pregnancy or birth.

But you avoided supporting all of the above. That makes you a sham imo.

LOL! (sorry) "If you don't buy 'my' plan (which is supreme and unassailable!), then you are a sham!"
I don't know if it is what you mean to convey, but it is what you convey. I get you just fine. You just don't understand
your logical disconnect. I've said all thread in addressing you: Whether I am able or not, to assist you in caring for a being, that being 1) Must not be killed and 2) Is your responsibility and BOTH of these, whether I can help or assist you or not. It is my expectation and I would jail you for breaking laws. We have food banks, free medical help, etc. We have family centers, adoption agencies. IOW, everything you are crying for is already in place. You are just demanding that it be done according to your specs. There is no compulsion or need for your specific demands.

 

[glassjester]

Your error is in failing to morally discern between the two, circumstantially speaking.

Have you not absorbed anything I've stated?

I "absorbed" the part when you said that intent is moot.

 

[quip]

I "absorbed" the part when you said that intent is moot.

Intention is indeed moot within the context of moral comparison. You justly and morally subject the unborn (within the context) to a lesser moral standard to that of birthed individuals.

It is necessary to do so.

 

[Lon]

My moral compass.

There you go. If enough of us have a moral compass that we can undo the laws that allow this atrocity, morality wins out by virtue of
majority. "My" moral compass is better than yours. Opinion? Sure, but that is all your moral compass is at that point.

Rather, a thread like this is trying to express what 'should' be one's moral compass.

It is wrong to stomp on valuable flowers. Unless you have a VERY good reason, you shouldn't do it. It doesn't matter if someone else planted them on your property. About laws: If there is a 'reason' I give you for the importance of those flowers, like them being of extreme value, or extremely rare, you may object, but should, for the greater good, be made to endure until those rare and/or valuable items can be transplanted.

(similar to the fireman example by concern and law)

 

[glassjester]

Intention is indeed moot within the context of moral comparison. You justly and morally subject the unborn (within the context) to a lesser moral standard to that of birthed individuals.

It is necessary to do so.

No lesser standard, man.

The deliberate killing of an innocent unborn baby is just as wrong as the deliberate killing of a born baby. And I don't support either of those.

You seem stuck on this particular point: Treating a pathology that inadvertently results in the death of an innocent human being, is not the same as deliberately killing an innocent human being.

 

[glassjester]

You haven't explain yet, Quip, what you believe makes immoral abortions immoral.

 

[quip]

No lesser standard, man.

The deliberate killing of an innocent unborn baby is just as wrong as the deliberate killing of a born baby. And I don't support either of those.

Not so, if you can morally justify killing it unintentionally.
Give me a scenario where a mother can justifiably kill her 11-day-old because her life is threatened by cancer. You can't because the standards are different...the circumstances differ.

You seem stuck on this particular point: Treating a pathology that inadvertently results in the death of an innocent human being, is not the same as deliberately killing an innocent human being.

Im saying that you may morally disagree, likewise I may disagree with a woman's reason to abort, she nonetheless holds the moral lattitude to do just that.

 

[quip]

You haven't explain yet, Quip, what you believe makes immoral abortions immoral.

I did.
My moral compass; your moral compass; a pregnant woman's moral compass....

 

[glassjester]

Not so, if you can morally justify killing it unintentionally.
Give me a scenario where a mother can justifiably kill her 11-day-old because her life is threatened by cancer. You can't because the standards are different...the circumstances differ.

Why would it have to be cancer? I can think of a situation where an 11-day-old might be unintentionally killed. Can't you?

Im saying that you may morally disagree, likewise I may disagree with a woman's reason to abort, she nonetheless holds the moral lattitude to do just that.

Yes, I understand.

I am asking why you might consider her reason to abort, immoral.

 

[Lon]

I did.
My moral compass; your moral compass; a pregnant woman's moral compass....

Thankfully, we don't allow sociopaths and mass murderers to vote (or do we) :think:

 

[quip]

Why would it have to be cancer? I can think of a situation where an 11-day-old might be unintentionally killed. Can't you?

Justifiably so, no.

Yes, I understand.

I am asking why you might consider her reason to abort, immoral.

Personal moral reasons...probably not much different from yours.

 

[quip]

Thankfully, we don't allow sociopaths and mass murderers to vote (or do we) :think:

Not convicted ones. (NM ..just clicked your link)

 

[glassjester]

Justifiably so, no.

Alright - how about a fireman choosing which door to break down in a burning apartment building? Behind one door there are two 3-year-olds, behind the other door is an 11-day-old. He only has time to rescue the occupants of one room.

Personal moral reasons...probably not much different to yours.

So I'm asking for a third time. What makes (according to your personal moral reasons) an immoral abortion immoral?

 

[quip]

Alright - how about a fireman choosing which door to break down in a burning apartment building? Behind one door there are two 3-year-olds, behind the other door is an 11-day-old. He only has time to rescue the occupants of one room.

What's the relevance?
Utilitarian-ly speaking....he should do the most good. That would be saving the two three year olds. Though NOT doing something would endanger all. Not relevant, necessary nor fully justifiable.

So I'm asking for a third time. What makes (according to your personal moral reasons) an immoral abortion immoral?

Sorry, personal is.....personal.

 

[glassjester]

What's the relevance?
Utilitarian-ly speaking....he should do the most good.

As should a doctor treating a cancer patient, or an ectopic pregnancy.

He is, in effect, treating two patients.

Ideally, he saves both. Worst case, he does nothing, and both patients die. Most likely, he saves one, and in so doing, the other dies. Still - he must not deliberately kill one, and then save the other.

Quite similar to a doctor treating conjoined twins.

Sorry, personal is.....personal.

Alright...

 

[quip]

As should a doctor treating a cancer patient, or an ectopic pregnancy.

He is, in effect, treating two patients.

Ideally, he saves both. Worst case, he does nothing, and both patients die. Most likely, he saves one, and in so doing, the other dies. Still - he must not deliberately kill one, and then save the other.

Quite similar to a doctor treating conjoined twins.

Ok.
None of that is under contention.