Support for Things That Harm Others

[ChristineM]

Leftist gibberish attempting to avoid addressing the brutal slaughter of babies in the womb.

More emotional pleading. They are not babies, they are fetuses. You need to learn some biology before making silly comments

 

[Viker]

So is a sledgehammer to the head. Come to think of it, are hammers tools, or weapons of war?

Guns can be seen in the same light.

I never heard about Marines relying on hammers in combat. A hammer is a horrible choice for a weapon in modern combat.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I've known multiple women who have had abortions (for some reason, women like to tell me such secrets, when they haven't told anyone else), including relatives. I was almost aborted, myself. Of course I think of other people. I don't know what bubbles you people have lived in, but I was never sheltered from the world.

One doesn't have to live in a bubble in order to come across new perspectives or reconsider theirs. If you and I lived elsewhere, we would encounter a lot of things that would be new to us as well.

Sometimes people can also overestimate their familiarity with different types of people, so there may be many things they don't know about yet.

I disagree with the premise that my views harm anyone.

Consider one of the scenarios I proposed earlier: you know a woman in a state where abortion is banned. Furthermore, traveling to another state to have the procedure is inaccessible to her. This significantly affects her physical and mental health, possibly to a life-threatening extent.

This kind of situation is far from unrealistic or impossible, and there have been deaths of women due to lack of access to abortion. In such a scenario, how, if at all, would the circumstances of the woman you knew factor into your views?

 

[ChristineM]

So is a sledgehammer to the head. Come to think of it, are hammers tools, or weapons of war?

Guns can be seen in the same light.

A sledgehammer was not designed to kill.

Although they can be misused. A gun, the gun, was specifically designed to kill

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

One doesn't have to live in a bubble in order to come across new perspectives or reconsider theirs. If you and I lived elsewhere, we would encounter a lot of things that would be new to us as well.

Sometimes people can also overestimate their familiarity with different types of people, so there may be many things they don't know about yet.



Consider one of the scenarios I proposed earlier: you know a woman in a state where abortion is banned. Furthermore, traveling to another state to have the procedure is inaccessible to her. This significantly affects her physical and mental health, possibly to a life-threatening extent.

This kind of situation is far from unrealistic or impossible, and there have been deaths of women due to lack of access to abortion. In such a scenario, how, if at all, would the circumstances of the woman you knew factor into your views?

It's not going to change my underlying belief that abortion takes a human life. So to me, it is the pro-abortion people who are harming others (killing them). At conception, a new person is created. Sure, things can go wrong naturally, as we see with miscarriages, which are very tragic events. I personally think exceptions should be made for true medical emergencies. Usually, you can't save the baby in those cases, anyway. It's still a loss but at least you can save the mother.

 

[Nakosis]

An extension of arguing for relativism of harm is that we end up with situations where someone may argue that, say, blasphemy is more harmful than murder (and this is an argument I have heard from a lot of people where I live).

Sure, we can each argue what we feel, but one person doesn't get to make that decision for the rest in a democracy.

In such cases, should a legal or political power give their view of harm as much consideration as something like a medical threat to life?

A legal or political power is a group of individuals. Sure these individuals should give consideration to medical threats among numerous other considerations. The larger more encompassing view the better, though we can't always guarantee that happening. We can encourage it and maybe that is the best we can do.

At what point does relativism become secondary to practical outcomes and effects?

I don't know. If I did, then I could be dictator and go about telling the rest of the world how they need to live their lives.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's not going to change my underlying belief that abortion takes a human life. At conception, a new person is created. Sure, things can go wrong naturally, as we see with miscarriages, which are very tragic events. I personally think exceptions should be made for true medical emergencies. Usually, you can't save the baby in those cases, anyway. It's still a loss but at least you can save the mother.

If you believe abortion takes a human life and would like to see that banned, then surely making a procedure inaccessible to a woman when it would alleviate a lot of suffering or even potentially save her life would also be a problem, wouldn't it?

I'm not sure what you mean by a "true medical emergency," but there's also the thorny issue of doctors' refusing to declare an abortion medically necessary in order to avoid any potential legal liability. Imagine being questioned in court about whether your recommendation of an abortion to a patient constituted participation in a felony.

 

[Nakosis]

A sledgehammer was not designed to kill.

Although they can be misused. A gun, the gun, was specifically designed to kill

Actually a gun was designed to accurately hit a target with a small projectile as efficiently as possible.

 

[Secret Chief]

The gun industry is a billion dollar death cult.

The gun industry is a billion dollar tool cult.

 

[ChristineM]

Actually a gun was designed to accurately hit a target with a small projectile as efficiently as possible.

Actually it was designed for war, killing the opposition, an offshoot of the canon, miniaturised, hand held, accurate killing tool.

Target shooting came much later

 

[Debater Slayer]

Sure, we can each argue what we feel, but one person doesn't get to make that decision for the rest in a democracy.

Not one person, but a constitutional republic doesn't rely on direct democracy to decide legislation pertaining to basic rights, and I think that's for the best. The alternative descends into mob rule in many cases, where popular sentiment overrides the rights of minorities.

A constitutional or representative republic seems to me the best middle ground between direct democracy (which is a system I find rife with problems) and dictatorship (which is a horrible system for many obvious reasons).

A legal or political power is a group of individuals. Sure these individuals should give consideration to medical threats among numerous other considerations. The larger more encompassing view the better, though we can't always guarantee that happening. We can encourage it and maybe that is the best we can do.

Agreed.

I don't know. If I did, then I could be dictator and go about telling the rest of the world how they need to live their lives.

I don't think supporting the principle of basic legal rights regardless of popular beliefs necessarily makes one a dictator. There's much more to dictatorship than that. Besides, doesn't the U.S. Constitution enumerate specific rights that shall not be infringed regardless of popular opinion? The First and Second Amendment come to mind.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If you believe abortion takes a human life and would like to see that banned, then surely making a procedure inaccessible to a woman when it would alleviate a lot of suffering or even potentially save her life would also be a problem, wouldn't it?

I'm not sure what you mean by a "true medical emergency," but there's also the thorny issue of doctors' refusing to declare an abortion medically necessary in order to avoid any potential legal liability. Imagine being questioned in court about whether your recommendation of an abortion to a patient constituted participation in a felony.

I don't agree with your premise that abortion "alleviates" suffering. It causes suffering and loss, either way you look at it. The whole point of it is to kill a human in the womb. I can stomach it if the woman's life is in peril, but you're not going to get me to approve of it itself.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don't agree with your premise that abortion "alleviates" suffering. It causes suffering and loss, either way you look at it. The whole point of it is to kill a human in the womb. I can stomach it if the woman's life is in peril, but you're not going to get me to approve of it itself.

When I say "alleviate suffering," I'm referring to the cases where it spares a woman significant physical and mental distress from carrying to term in an unwanted or medically dangerous pregnancy.

I don't think anyone has to personally approve of abortion in order to oppose a ban on it. The best ways to prevent abortion include access to contraceptives, proper reproductive health care, and robust sex education. Abortion bans merely create black markets and unsanitary, dangerous abortions. I don't view abortion as a desirable or beautiful thing either, but I regard it as a decision to be made by the woman and her doctor rather than the state or politicians. It's not their or my place to dictate what women should do with their bodies and health.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

When I say "alleviate suffering," I'm referring to the cases where it spares a woman significant physical and mental distress from carrying to term in an unwanted or medically dangerous pregnancy.

I don't think anyone has to personally approve of abortion in order to oppose a ban on it. The best ways to prevent abortion include access to contraceptives, proper reproductive health care, and robust sex education. Abortion bans merely create black markets and unsanitary, dangerous abortions. I don't view abortion as a desirable or beautiful thing either, but I regard it as a decision to be made by the woman and her doctor rather than the state or politicians. It's not their or my place to dictate what women should do with their bodies and health.

I support bans on elective abortion because I think it's evil to kill a human being merely because you don't want them or it was a mistake. Truly evil. It's not a society that is healthy that allows such things. It's like when people abort their kid in other countries merely because the baby has a high probability of having Downs Syndrome, as if they don't deserve to live (people with DS can be happy, healthy and successful like anyone else). Or abort their kid because they're female, as is common around the world. Also, there's many times when young women are pressured or forced into having an abortion; I've known multiple women who were in those situations. I've seen the tears and severe grief. These things are usually not talked about.

Of course pregnant women in need or crisis situations should be helped. And there already is a lot of help. Women with young children are basically coddled by the US welfare system. They get free food, health insurance and help with housing. You're not going to see a mother with kids homeless on the street. That just doesn't happen, and if it does, they'll get help faster than anyone else (the majority of homeless people are single men).

Like I said, I'm fine with exceptions for cases of medical emergency. Like what happened with that Indian woman in Ireland who suffered the septic pregnancy, I thought that was horrible and that they should've saved her. It should never be illegal or in any doubt that you should try to save a person's life in an emergency. There should be protections for doctors in that case. But that's as far as you'll get me to go when it comes to permissiveness with abortion. I can't go any further, in good conscience.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

More emotional pleading. They are not babies, they are fetuses. You need to learn some biology before making silly comments

Learning gets in the way of people's cherished certainties. Best avoided, in the view of many.

 

[Twilight Hue]

A sledgehammer was not designed to kill.

Although they can be misused. A gun, the gun, was specifically designed to kill

Really?

 

[Nakosis]

Not one person, but a constitutional republic doesn't rely on direct democracy to decide legislation pertaining to basic rights, and I think that's for the best. The alternative descends into mob rule in many cases, where popular sentiment overrides the rights of minorities.

We vote for our representative who are supposed to represent us. If they don't we can vote for a different representative.

A constitutional or representative republic seems to me the best middle ground between direct democracy (which is a system I find rife with problems) and dictatorship (which is a horrible system for many obvious reasons).

A representative system still depends on democracy.

I don't think supporting the principle of basic legal rights regardless of popular beliefs necessarily makes one a dictator. There's much more to dictatorship than that. Besides, doesn't the U.S. Constitution enumerate specific rights that shall not be infringed regardless of popular opinion? The First and Second Amendment come to mind.

These basic legal rights were decided by a democratic process. They can be changed by a democratic process.
In the US, this means the individual can't decide what these basic rights are.

We had slavery in the US for a while until that was change through the democratic process. Certainly having a constitution doesn't protect one from harm. It is through the democratic process we decide which harms one is protected from. Not all harms. For example the constitution does not prevent the death penalty which I personal don't see as moral. However, at this time others see this as morally acceptable. Taking someone else's life from them, can't get much more harmful than that.

 

[ChristineM]

Really?

Yup, misused

 

[Wildswanderer]

So do guns

Funny... mine has never killed anyone. It just sits there.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Denying abortion kills the innocent too
Death of Savita Halappanavar - Wikipedia

Abortion always kills. So you pick one case where a medical procedure was denied someone over 6 million dead babies in the US alone?
Not very convincing.