Is This Only A Blob Of Cells?...

[add]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343544735' post='2459906']

Just because I am against government imposing a law. It doesn't mean I am for abortion.
If faced with this difficult decision, I don't know what my wife and I would do.
Of course though, it comes down to her, not me. But I will likely support her and she would likely consult with me.
[/quote]
It comes down to a married woman, the wife? Really? The blob is just as much yours, as hers.

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343544735' post='2459906']

Just because I am against government imposing a law. It doesn't mean I am for abortion.
If faced with this difficult decision, I don't know what my wife and I would do.
Of course though, it comes down to her, not me. But I will likely support her and she would likely consult with me.
[/quote]


I was actually speaking more generally, not to you; though your whole point was that people (yourself included) *don't* treat the unborn as human individuals.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343423599' post='2459450']
Society doesn't seem to care about the unborn baby. Life goes on for the rest of us, we are under no threat what-so-ever.
People are not taking up arms in defense of the unborn. People are not willing to risk their own lives in defense of them (besides a very, very small minority).
[/quote]

Most people who support abortion on demand do not act as if the unborn are the human individuals that science has proven them to be, because they do not afford them the same basic considerations they afford born human individuals. They do not support the unquestioned killing of two year olds, but they do so for unborn human individuals. There is a major disconnect between what they admit the unborn to be, and how they treat them. Most I have spoken with at length try to find "a problem" with the unborn themselves to justify this difference. "They aren't conscious," "They aren't moral agents," "They aren't people." is what I hear most (and I hear a lot).

Your ideology has more flaws in it that just how you apply it to abortion. You say that as long as enough people are willing to view a group as unpersons, the government to do it, too.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Tally Marx

[Tally Marx]

*than just how

*government should do it, too.

--I am not a morning person.

[Annie12]

Stevil, why don't we just change the laws to help the mother decide then? It seems like you would agree to this.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Annie12

[stevil]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1343567154' post='2459926']
I was actually speaking more generally, not to you; though your whole point was that people (yourself included) *don't* treat the unborn as human individuals.
[/quote]
Oh but I do treat it as a human individual. It is a human individual.
I just don't treat it the way you would want me to.

[stevil]

[quote name='add' timestamp='1343562495' post='2459917']
It comes down to a married woman, the wife? Really? The blob is just as much yours, as hers.
[/quote]
The baby isn't inside of me.
I won't force my wife, against her will, into an abortion clinic.
I won't force my wife, against her will, away from an abortion clinic.

[stevil]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1343567154' post='2459926']
Your ideology has more flaws in it that just how you apply it to abortion. You say that as long as enough people are willing to view a group as unpersons, the government to do it, too.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, you don't understand my ideology. It is simple really.
Position of government is to ensure a stable society. Government must recognise human nature and the culture that makes up that society. If society doesn't care, then it is not the goverment's place to impose restrictions on the choice of individuals.
Saying that "I say" anything about "unpersons" is dishonest.

[stevil]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1343581857' post='2459962']
Stevil, why don't we just change the laws to help the mother decide then? It seems like you would agree to this.
[/quote]
I'd be open to some suggestions. What do you have in mind?

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343588824' post='2459988']

Unfortunately, you don't understand my ideology. It is simple really.
Position of government is to ensure a stable society. Government must recognise human nature and the culture that makes up that society. If society doesn't care, then it is not the goverment's place to impose restrictions on the choice of individuals.
Saying that "I say" anything about "unpersons" is dishonest.
[/quote]


Then please correct my understanding.
As far as I can tell, you are saying that the opinions of the majority goes, no matter the topic at hand.  If society cares, then the law should reflect this.  If society doesn't care, then the law should reflect this as well.  Democracy.
Correct?
You are also saying that the only way society shows it cares about something is to become violent over it.
Correct?

Edited July 29, 2012 by Tally Marx

[Winchester]

We should extend the parental right to execute their children to a period of time beyond birth. Parents are in the best position to determine whether a child is deserving of life.

Fathers should be able to have a "legal" abortion. In other words, they would terminate all responsibility to the child, but also all rights to the child. I suppose a fee would have to be assessed, to make things fair.

[stevil]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1343592486' post='2460004']
Then please correct my understanding.
As far as I can tell, you are saying that the opinions of the majority goes, no matter the topic at hand. If society cares, then the law should reflect this. If society doesn't care, then the law should reflect this as well. Democracy.
Correct?
You are also saying that the only way society shows it cares about something is to become violent over it.
Correct?
[/quote]
No, not majority rules.

Instead, government intervention (with law) only when necessary, only when "no law" results in social conflict and instability.
So if a minority group like homosexuals want the legal ability to marry their loved ones, then I say, let them. It won't make society unstable so we don't need a law against it.
Same thing for abortion.

[Winchester]

It was worth a try.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Winchester

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343598294' post='2460033']

No, not majority rules.

Instead, government intervention (with law) only when necessary, only when "no law" results in social conflict and instability.
So if a minority group like homosexuals want the legal ability to marry their loved ones, then I say, let them. It won't make society unstable so we don't need a law against it.
Same thing for abortion.
[/quote]

A group that can make society unstable is very large, or very violent. Majority rules, or mob rule; you might not want to word it that way, but practically, it is the same thing. You want it to escalate to that point before something is done about it, so you are particularly advocating majority/mob rule.

Abortion does make an unstable society. A society that kills its own children, while grasping for differences and justifications that don't exist (like "personhood")...a society which arbitrarily decides to unquestioningly allow violence upon innocent human individuals...is an unstable society. If law if supposed to prevent violence, it has done a beaver dam bad job at it.

[stevil]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1343610488' post='2460104']
A group that can make society unstable is very large, or very violent. Majority rules, or mob rule; you might not want to word it that way, but practically, it is the same thing.
[/quote]
Let's think about human behaviour.
Lets say we remove law protecting property rights.
Humans see value in property. Property is important for survival. Property is transferable into food, shelter, clothing. Property can make our lives much easier.

So we remove the laws protecting property ownership. People can freely take property from others without consent.
This results in war.
Why? Because people will fight each other over property. Society will not be able to function with people guarding their stuff rather than working. Sub groups in society will form creating rules for that sub-group, protecting property ownership. Competing groups will fight each other over property.

So what happens if we remove laws protecting unborn babies from their mothers?
Some unborn babies die. People don't fight each other, people continue going to work, life goes on, society survives.

So, in your argument against abortion (wanting to make it illegal), you really haven't addressed what would make me want this law. Why would I want to support a law in order to force others how to behave?
I am interested in me, and how society impacts me.
I don't believe in morality (so morality is not an argument that impacts my decision making)
I don't believe all human life is sacred (so the argument of murder or the unborn baby being a human does not impact my decision making)

Why would I support transferring individual responsibility from the mother to the government (a bunch of politicians whom don't have to live with the baby, support the baby, take care of it, or give birth to it)?
Even if I was against abortion, why would I feel the need to force my personal opinion onto others especially if it doesn't concern me, it certainly doesn't endanger my life or harm me in any way when a mother aborts her pregnancy?

[Winchester]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343625624' post='2460158']

So what happens if we remove laws protecting unborn babies from their mothers?
Some unborn babies die. People don't fight each other, people continue going to work, life goes on, society survives.


[/quote]
The same goes for young children, or very sick people at any age. Or people gravely injured so that they become a burden to society. From a purely utilitarian standpoint, I can see many advantages to permitting these killings.