Can we compromise on abortion?

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I prefer to use driving as an analogy. It's actually not too difficult to avoid hurting someone with a gun. If I set out to drive my car, I have no intention of being involved in an accident. I know the car, as designed, has good brakes, steering, and so on. I take care to have car checked regularly to ensure everything is working. I check the tire pressures before I leave. Once on the road I use everything I know to drive safely (this is a sort of idealized me). I have insurance to recompense anyone hurt or property damaged. Despite all my precautions, it remains possible that I could be involved in an accident. There are no consequences of a criminal nature so long as all the above factors apply. What's more, nobody says I can't have my car repaired because I should have realized that driving is dangerous.

Exactly, you have provided beforehand for an eventuality you know could happen but don't expect to happen.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am pro life on the abortion issue. It is immoral to have a child you cannot support; However, it is also immoral to end a life you created through your actions.

Even if you can't support that life? How would that suddenly become moral?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Exactly, you have provided beforehand for an eventuality you know could happen but don't expect to happen.

But choosing to drive doesn't imply consent to a collision.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Excellent - do you also agree that there is no secular justification for abortion law prior to 22 weeks

No, I have been making the secular argument.

 

[fantome profane]

No, I have been making the secular argument.

Secular maybe. But I haven't really seen an argument. You have just been stating an opinion. And argument should be more than that.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

You confuse evidence with norms. Show with evidence that a human life has positive worth.

No I don't but that is an epistemological debate.

Human life has worth because people give it worth just like everything else we value. Do you not think the people you love have value?

 

[fantome profane]

No I don't but that is an epistemological debate.

Human life has worth because people give it worth just like everything else we value. Do you not think the people you love have value?

People.

A cluster of cells are not people. A cluster of human cells still does not mean people.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

It looks like your feelings were hurt.

Nope, where do you get that from? Many people here like to assume much about their opponents I have noticed.

The problem is that you never addressed the problems I brought up rationally. But when one only has an emotional argument then emotions seem rational to them.

Where are my arguments emotional? I am the one that has not accused anyone of hating women or wanting to punish women. We disagree and we are talking about that disagreement. Why accuse me of being emotional and not answer my post? All I said was "make fun if you want" which you were making fun of my take by saying I failed sex ed or some such. Even if I was mad about that it has nothing to do with my argument about abortion.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I answered that more than once and gave a reasonable solution. As usual you could not deal with it.

No, you did not answer the question. You answered a different question. If I am wrong please show me where you answered the questions "Do you think abortion up to birth should be legal? When would you restrict abortion?

This was your response.

Why make laws for problems that do not exist? By week 22 over 99% of the abortions that occur during a pregnancy have already happened. The remaining 1% are almost all tragedies in that they are medically necessary abortions. You appear to have a rather low opinion of women. In a matter as serious as this they do not tend to be any more whimsical than men, and in fact probably less so. And the very very very few women that would opt for such a procedure are all but guaranteed to be horrible mothers.

Why not just limit insurance coverage after 22 weeks? Only cover medically necessary abortions.

Is it 22 weeks then? or never? I am asking a clarifying question. Seems like you want no restrictions on abortions.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Yep, they're definitely accidents, by definition.

accident​

noun​

1
a
: an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance
Their meeting was an accident.

b
: lack of intention or necessity : CHANCE
They met by accident rather than by design.


2
a
: an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance
was involved in a traffic accident

b
medical : an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious
a cerebrovascular accident

c
law : an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought
d
US, informal

—used euphemistically to refer to an uncontrolled or involuntary act or instance of urination or defecation (as by a baby or a pet)

Definition of ACCIDENT

an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance; lack of intention or necessity : chance; an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Using a condom and having it break is an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance.
Using birth control pills and having a vasectomy and still getting pregnant is an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance.
Taking birth control pills without knowing that antihistamines can interfere with their effectiveness is an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance.

No. I have already explained this twice now. If you disagree then so be it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Where are my arguments emotional? I am the one that has not accused anyone of hating women or wanting to punish women.

Your arguments have been consistent with these motives. Whether they're your real motive is something you should be able to tell us... but so far, you've been quiet on what your motive is.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Even if you can't support that life? How would that suddenly become moral?

It does not become moral all of a sudden. The problem is destroying the life is an immoral act as well. The moral action once you create the life is to make sure the life is taken care of.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Secular maybe. But I haven't really seen an argument. You have just been stating an opinion. And argument should be more than that.

OK, then I guess our discussion is over. Thanks for the conversation.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

People.

A cluster of cells are not people. A cluster of human cells still does not mean people.

I never said a cluster of cells are people. I said people give the embryo value and worth.

 

[fantome profane]

I never said a cluster of cells are people. I said people give the embryo value and worth.

You asked

Do you not think the people you love have value?

I thought you were comparing a fetus to people. But if you are saying it is not, you have no argument.

I value my tonsils. But my tonsils are not people. I would not compare my tonsils to the people I love.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you did not answer the question. You answered a different question. If I am wrong please show me where you answered the questions "Do you think abortion up to birth should be legal? When would you restrict abortion?

This was your response.

Why make laws for problems that do not exist? By week 22 over 99% of the abortions that occur during a pregnancy have already happened. The remaining 1% are almost all tragedies in that they are medically necessary abortions. You appear to have a rather low opinion of women. In a matter as serious as this they do not tend to be any more whimsical than men, and in fact probably less so. And the very very very few women that would opt for such a procedure are all but guaranteed to be horrible mothers.

Why not just limit insurance coverage after 22 weeks? Only cover medically necessary abortions.

Is it 22 weeks then? or never? I am asking a clarifying question. Seems like you want no restrictions on abortions.

The answer is there. You are trying to write a law for no purpose. You phrased your question poorly. You should have asked if there time of a pregnancy when abortion should be illegal. I answered your poorly asked question in the best way that it could be answered. Your question was similar demanding a yes or no answer to:
"Have you quit beating your wife yet?"

Poorly asked questions do not need to be answered as asked.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It does not become moral all of a sudden. The problem is destroying the life is an immoral act as well. The moral action once you create the life is to make sure the life is taken care of.

Of course, when it comes to abortion law, the question isn't what you consider immoral for yourself personally, but what's moral to force on someone who doesn't accept your premises.

 

[Heyo]

I never said it was perfect or comprehensive. You said there were no programs available. That is what I was responding to.

I said that the bills that have been introduced to restrict abortion (even more) didn't come together with (more) assistance programs. The assistance programs were obviously not enough to deter women from having an abortion. I.e. the laws are there to control women, not to help them. You are defending these laws (or refuse to realize they exist) so you have to bear the consequence to be called misogynistic.
But your position is not only misogynistic, it is also misanthropic (and unrealistic). You are arguing for a law that puts sex under punishment. (With an exception if it is done to procreate.) You may not be religious but that is the most puritan **** I can think of.
Furthermore you advocate for a concept of responsibility that is totally unrealistic and my guess is that you won't apply that concept to other questions. Someone brought up driving. You know that even with all precautions you may cause injury or death to other people. Do you drive? Would you argue that you should be convicted of murder if your driving lead to the death of a person?

 

[Sargonski]

Misogyny can be secular.

Sure it can .. but Misogyny is not legitimate Justification for Law.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure it can .. but Misogyny is not legitimate Justification for Law.

I agree. Apparently @Clizby Wampuscat does not.