Abortion///cont.
- Thread starter quip
- Start date
I didn't mean the potential increasing or decreasing. I was attempting to ask if your assumption includes the idea that right is not something we create.
It does. It's reasoning from the foundation of our compact. Early on in the conversation I noted our mission statement and the founding contention that we are endowed with right by nature's God, that is, that right is inherent and the state then isn't the originator, only the guardian of it.
All sorts of potential risks logically impede us in the exercise of right, which is why you don't have the freedom to shoot your rifle into the air every time your favorite team scores a touchdown...okay, you'll have to take my word for it, but in most parts of the country that would be inherently dangerous and risk the lives of others.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Somebody is resurrecting threads again!
glassjester
Well-known member
Hello, Quip!
It seems that conception is only objective point at which one's right to life can begin. No other point in one's life can be objectively referred to as "the beginning."
"The beginning" is rather vague...beyond mere biology, that is.
glassjester
Well-known member
The beginning of that particular human being's life.
Correct, biologically speaking. Why should this be the benchmark for rights?
Because either rights are inherent, or they're pure invention. If pure invention then restraining abortion at all seem capricious and a product of unreasoned fiat. And yet even in the hardest of us there is a recognition that taking life at some point is simply unacceptable, whatever we think of the origin of that objection. So, if we believe there is a point at which right vests and becomes (subject to penalties for gross violations of our compact) inviolate, and we cannot establish that line of demarcation empirically, then given the potential for that point to vest anywhere along our chronological line of being, and understanding the prohibition and caveat, we must protect life at every point to avoid doing what we agree we will at some point have no right to accomplish.
Or, having vested right I'd challenge anyone to deny it along my chain of being back to conception without the application of an arbitrary litmus that must fail as an operation of reason, there being no absolute, certain argument to establish any arbitrary point over another in value. Certainly not enough to abrogate my established right.
If we cannot do that to me moving back, we should not do it to another moving forward.
glassjester
Well-known member
As I said before, it's the only objective "beginning." Declaring a beginning to one's right to be alive at any other point is at best arbitrary, and at worst a mere justification for killing.
I'm aware of your position, we've sparred prior on the specifics. As such, the same problems exist mainly in using "it's life" as a banner slogan. It's an unqualified, unqualifying declaration hoisted to elicit viscreal objections to abortion rather than practical ones. "It's Life" without discernment nor qualification instantly and conveniently eludes practical discourse such as, the moral estimation of incipient life against estabished rights being imperiled for the women in question or the impracticality and inefficacy of maintaining the right-to-life for inchoate life which fails naturally in the womb upwards of 75% of conceptions.
"It's Life" is simply an unqualified and impractical ideation, thus maintained solely for subjective determination ....for or against.
glassjester
Well-known member
Not just "it's life," but "It's an individual human being's life."
Why should anyone have the right to end it?
Rights are as often unpractical as they are essential. It would be far easier to remove many of them, if to consequences none of us would wish upon anyone short of Hitler (because we might as well dispense with that fellow from the start).
Without what discernment or qualification? And how is recognizing that neither of us can do a thing either convenient or eluding all but irrational discourse?
That's a bit of slight of hand though, quip. Or an unforgivable appeal to authority as argument. You could as easily have suggested, before slaves were free, "Yes, yes, that's one theory, but what of the inconvenience to those we KNOW are people?"
Rather, the question is whether the right should have been imputed in the first instance and I argue that reason and our own natures argue against the proposition.
We can't control a natural outcome. It doesn't follow that we should aid an unnatural one. It would indeed be impractical to attempt what we cannot accomplish, which is why the right to life asserts the thing we can.
I don't see anything in that which can be defined as a logical necessity, and so the argument and discussion on the point.
The mother lies within the moral and legal province to make her own determination.
Lon
Well-known member
It has to be. I've already told you, if we leave it up to societal norms, the day I decide you are less of a human for advocating abortion, is the day it will be 'moral' (relatively speaking) for me to 1) stop abortion and 2) end your life instead. You already know there are folks that would do that trade in a heartbeat. Question: What will you appeal to on that day? Relative morality? :nono: Either we have absolutes, in which Christianity protects the both of you, or you have values by some other based on 'their' morality. You are stuck in a Christian community, that allowed abortion by law, ONLY in order that doctors would make the hard decisions. Maybe, just maybe, you are better off than even in any other country of your own choice. :think:
:nono: else mothers would not be in prison for killing their own kids. It is always a lame excuse. As soon as a mother let her baby starve instead of allow the child to 'inconvenience' her for milk...
Your ethics always amount to situational and you always side, even against your own stated values against abortion. I never understand you. You are a conundrum.
Yet, that's the practical realities at hand as per the Roe/Wade deliberation.."it's life" wasn't sufficient then as it's not now. Want more than abstract debate on the matter, provide more than hoisted idealism.
I agree, which is why I always do. "It's life" doesn't really say more than, "Look, biology!" Absent a larger consideration everything is mechanics.