Did The "pro-life" Movement Permanently Change Because Of Romn

[havok579257]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1353088725' post='2511345']
My previous comment was about the universe and the concept of a universal morality system.

I'm not indifferent with regards to abortion, I will go out of my way to improve the chances of people having the choice to abort or not.
[/quote]

will you go out of your way to allow people the choice to murder blacks? how about babies after birth but before 1 year old? will you go out of you way to give people the choice to rape their neighbors?

[stevil]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1353090742' post='2511361']
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The effect of supporting the choice to have an abortion or not, is either prejudice or indifferentism for the baby being abort.
[/quote]
It's not that I am indifferent.
I respect that the baby is the responsibility of the parents (not me), I respect that the baby impacts the parents lives immensely (not mine), I respect that life is complex.
With regards to the babies life, it is the responsibility of the parents (not mine, not governments), it seems that the vast majority of society will not interfere with regards to abortion thus there is no conflict, no instability within society, thus it is not a governmental issue it is the domain of the parents.

If society is impacted then I would be willing to put this in the domain of government. I am not one for controlling adults, adults must be responsible to make their own decisions, only if society is impacted then I will consider government interference.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1353091691' post='2511365']

It's not that I am indifferent.
I respect that the baby is the responsibility of the parents (not me), I respect that the baby impacts the parents lives immensely (not mine), I respect that life is complex.
With regards to the babies life, it is the responsibility of the parents (not mine, not governments), it seems that the vast majority of society will not interfere with regards to abortion thus there is no conflict, no instability within society, thus it is not a governmental issue it is thep domain of the parents.

If society is impacted then I would be willing to put this in the domain of government. I am not one for controlling adults, adults must be responsible to make their own decisions, only if society is impacted then I will consider government interference.
[/quote]

That's a rather long and contradictory way of saying Knight is right.

You don't really care about or respect someone if you support someone else murdering them. But you have fun pretending.

[havok579257]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1353092209' post='2511371']
That's a rather long and contradictory way of saying Knight is right.

You don't really care about or respect someone if you support someone else murdering them. But you have fun pretending.
[/quote]

100% whole heartily agree.

[stevil]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1353092209' post='2511371']
That's a rather long and contradictory way of saying Knight is right.
[/quote]
This is a rather effective way to stop open conversation. Accuse me of being contradictory and suggest that we are trying to "win" a debate rather than to engage in respectful dialogue.


[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1353092209' post='2511371']
You don't really care about or respect someone if you support someone else murdering them. But you have fun pretending.
[/quote]
Again telling my what I think rather than asking me to elaborate. You know me better than I know myself, you must be a very prideful person with godly abilities to know a person's soul.

Firstly murder is a legal term, abortion is not against the law, therefore it is not murder.
Have I expressed my concern for the baby? No I haven't, so you don't know what my position is with regards to the baby's perspective.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1353091691' post='2511365']
It's not that I am indifferent.
I respect that the baby is the responsibility of the parents (not me), I respect that the baby impacts the parents lives immensely (not mine), I respect that life is complex.
With regards to the babies life, it is the responsibility of the parents (not mine, not governments), it seems that the vast majority of society will not interfere with regards to abortion thus there is no conflict, no instability within society, thus it is not a governmental issue it is the domain of the parents.

If society is impacted then I would be willing to put this in the domain of government. I am not one for controlling adults, adults must be responsible to make their own decisions, only if society is impacted then I will consider government interference.
[/quote]
So you are saying that society (by majority opinion) is who decides who may may be protected, or not protected.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1353093562' post='2511381']
Again telling my what I think rather than asking me to elaborate. You know me better than I know myself, you must be a very prideful person with godly abilities to know a person's soul.

Firstly murder is a legal term, abortion is not against the law, therefore it is not murder.
Have I expressed my concern for the baby? No I haven't, so you don't know what my position is with regards to the baby's perspective.
[/quote]

You don't even believe in right and wrong. So why get upset when you are incapable of proving me wrong? All you can do is offer your subjective opinion and inefficiently deny the effect of your opinion.

You can think all you like, it doesn't change the effect of your position. Again, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The effect of supporting the choice to have an abortion or not, is either prejudice or indifferentism for the baby being aborted. And again, You don't really care about or respect someone if you support someone else murdering them.

No more time for now. But really you have to face facts and that means facing the reality of the effect of your support for legal mass-murder.

Edited November 16, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[stevil]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1353093970' post='2511388']
So you are saying that society (by majority opinion) is who decides who may may be protected, or not protected.
[/quote]
I'm saying that the role of government and hence the use of law is to support a stable and functional society. Not necessarily to support majority opinion nor to protect people.

If the majority of people want religion outlawed I would not be in support of such a law. People can believe in gods all they want, it doesn't necessarily make society unstable.
I would not be in support of government outlawing dangerous sports e.g. boxing, mountain climbing etc.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1353094542' post='2511398']
I'm saying that the role of government and hence the use of law is to support a stable and functional society. Not necessarily to support majority opinion nor to protect people.

If the majority of people want religion outlawed I would not be in support of such a law. People can believe in gods all they want, it doesn't necessarily make society unstable.
I would not be in support of government outlawing dangerous sports e.g. boxing, mountain climbing etc.
[/quote]
Hmmm....

Many people (even non-religous persons) would make the argument that the concept of a group of people being able to define and classify fellow humans (granted there is a varience of opinion as to 'human') as not being equal is a fundamental flaw that would very likely lead to unstable society or a society not wanted by the majority of the people. Sort of a slippery slope.

[stevil]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1353095854' post='2511411']
Hmmm....

Many people (even non-religous persons) would make the argument that the concept of a group of people being able to define and classify fellow humans (granted there is a varience of opinion as to 'human') as not being equal is a fundamental flaw that would very likely lead to unstable society or a society not wanted by the majority of the people. Sort of a slippery slope.
[/quote]
I'd be open to hearing and considering that argument. How does abortion lead to unstable society?

[havok579257]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1353105443' post='2511455']
I'd be open to hearing and considering that argument. How does abortion lead to unstable society?
[/quote]

look what abortion is doing to the black population in america today. right now abortions outpace live births in america. given time the black population will not exist in america. imagine this for other races or the entire population.

[Winchester]

To be fair, a society with a population of 0 is the most stable of all.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1353105443' post='2511455']

I'd be open to hearing and considering that argument. How does abortion lead to unstable society?
[/quote]

Once society uses subjective reasoning to justify making certain persons non-persons and allows that group to be murdered in mass, any group can be subject to mass murder using similar subjective reasoning. Slippery slope.

[stevil]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1353110832' post='2511507']
Once society uses subjective reasoning to justify making certain persons non-persons and allows that group to be murdered in mass, any group can be subject to mass murder using similar subjective reasoning. Slippery slope.
[/quote]
The slippery slope argument is a fair argument.
If for example a religious group were in control and decided to kill all the Jews, I would certainly be concerned if they would ever decide to kill all the atheists.

With regards to abortion, lets say the morning after pill (is that considered equivalent to abortion by Catholics?)
I'm not concerned about my mother taking the morning after pill, it is way too late for that to worry me personally.

With regards to a pregnant woman, told that she has a high chance of dying if continuing with the pregnancy, I'm not concerned that the same reasoning will be used to kill me.

With regards to aborting a disabled fetus, maybe disabled people could be concerned. I might even become disabled in the future, you never know. but of course we aren't killing people post birth just yet, will we slide down that slope? I hope so in the case of euthanasia and death penalty for repeat violent offenders, but I will oppose for disabled post born peoplehhhh

[Aloysius]

personally, I wouldn't even entertain this line of reasoning. human life is sacred, whether you believe in God or gods or spirituality at all or not, I think you ought to believe that human life is sacred. I won't entertain this logic of morality, because it is no morality at all it is nothing but radical self-interest and it is repugnant to most humans. most atheists I know would never hold to the idea that human life wasn't sacred; whether that's just a cultural construct surrounding our biological instinct for self preservation or not, it's a beaver dam good concept and it ought to be upheld by every respectable human being, the selfish calculation of whether it would harm you or the cold calculating utilitarian query of whether it might 'destabilize society', those things are not morality. without some concept of human life as sacred and inviolable and inalienable, with a bit of variation on that terminology but an acknowledgment of the basic premise, then there is no morality. I do not recognize your morality and I don't think I could convince you on your own terms, your terms are inherently amoral (if not blatantly immoral)

so I will concede that you cannot argue against abortion without first holding the basic premise that every individual human life is sacred; however you personally define sacred, the vast majority of people would hold to some notion of that and would absolutely, if they were convinced that a fetus was an individual human life, be opposed to abortion. people who hold to respectable philosophies are simply caught up on the question of whether a fetus is an individual human life or not, that's where the respectable debate goes on. if you already acknowledge the fetus as an individual human being but are okay with it being killed and don't think anyone has any business stepping in to stop it from being killed on the basis that it doesn't concern you, well bugger for you, there is no use trying to convince you of anything quite frankly, every argument would have to come down to the basic premise of life as being valuable and requiring protection... but most people are much more sensible than all that, with or without religion they tend to hold to a concept of morality that says that it should be wrong to violate any individuals right to life, the sensible battleground remains the argument as to when life begins, which we feel we've got a pretty good scientific rationale behind.

either way, you stand as a pretty good case-in-point for those who argue that religion is necessary for true morality. your constructions of morality are really not moral at all, as I said they are radical self-interest and cold utilitarianism, and human sensibility tends to rightly reject them. but good luck with all that, and God bless