Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 159

Thread: Obama To Alter Abortion Policy

  1. #131
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Obama To Alter Abortion Policy

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    It's a valid point regardless of whether you find the citation of such ethical and moral concerns as "compelling." Are ethical and moral consideratins not appropriate considerations in debating public policy?
    That probably depends on the issue. I havent thought through every issue and every scenarios of every issue to make a definitive blanket statement. So I leave the matter open. That is, if someone makes a claim then the impetus is on them to prove its truth.

    And, so what if those concerns arise from an individual's religious beliefs or otherwise? Scrutinize the concerns themselves rather than impugning some perceived religious zealotry.
    that's what I am attempting to do. However, in my experience religion must be used otherwise the concept of a soul or immortal consciousness cannot be posited. Without such, such arguments are completely without support and fail miserably or worse, are left as arguments based on ignorance.

    Such arguments are not compelling for obvious reasons.

    I am not pretending that my judgment on the value or feasibility of such research. I am, though, exercising my judgment relative to the appropriateness of using fed taxpayer dollars to subsidize ESCR. That's not an issue that the scientific experts have any particular authority on.
    but I'm confused on why you focus attention on ESCR and not all subsidies of scientific research. That is I hear different arguments:
    1) Gov't should not subsidize any scientific research, period.
    2) Gov't should not subsidze ESCR research because there exist valid moral objections to it.
    3) Gov't should not subsidize ESCR because I don't think its worthwhile even if the appropriators disagree with me(moral arguments aside).

    I believe you are #2 but occasionally I feel like #1 and #3 appear in your arguments. Am I right or wrong?



    Um, I think you're conflating abortion and ESCR here. To my knowledge, those participating in the ESCR debate don't rely on any time measurement. It's the type and nature of the cells involved and the implications drawn from the use of those cells, err, embryoes.
    but only because they feel like the use of those cells kills a person that would have otherwise become a full person which is exactly the debate about abortion. That is, people object to destroying an acorn because it could become an oak tree.

    Ad I don't agree that morals can be derived from religious beliefs.
    did you mean to say you agree????

    However, religion is not the onyl source of moral and ethical considerations
    this seems to contradict with your previous statement? I'm confused.



    I find it immoral because it involves the destruction of human life for scientific research,
    which begs the question "when does human life become important and when does it cease to be important?" You left an unbounded assertion.

    I find it morally repugnant to consider a human embryo as simply a collection of cells that have no instrinsic value and, therefore, should be available to do with as we please,
    I figured such. But if you answer the above question we can delve further into the issue.



    I have presented a logically coherent argument that relies on facts and knowledge.
    we shall see if the premises are:
    1) Consistent with the conclusion
    2) Compelling enough such that they should supercede the alternative conclusions of others.



    So, children with physical deformities or mental defects have no right to life? Death row inmates have no right to life?
    No. I believe they all do.

    I offered up eugenics earlier as another example where ethical and moral considerations affected fed policy regarding eugenics. Do you also believe that humans born without favored genetic characteristics have no right to life?
    No.

    This is curious, your right to life consideration. What basis do you use to conclude that some humans have a right to life while others do not?
    I argue that being "human" and/or having human DNA has nothing to do with it. What matters is self-awareness, cogito ergo sum. (Note: one does not have to acknowledge ones self-awareness to be self-aware much like one does not have to understand how eyes function to see; one simply does because they are capable of such)


    I was addressing your point which argued that since scientific research is always virtuous then ethical and moral considerations have no place at the table. At least that is how I understood your comment.
    I most definitely believe ethical and moral considerations are important. I just have yet to encounter any sound moral or ethical argument against banning ESCR and/or abortion for all. In my experience it should remain a choice, not a requirement or a restriction.
    Last edited by scourge99; 01-22-09 at 04:38 PM.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  2. #132
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    02-13-09 @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,942

    Re: Obama To Alter Abortion Policy

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    That probably depends on the issue. I havent thought through every issue and every scenarios of every issue to make a definitive blanket statement. So I leave the matter open. That is, if someone makes a claim then the impetus is on them to prove its truth.
    Can you not answer a question directly?

    that's what I am attempting to do. However, in my experience religion must be used otherwise the concept of a soul or immortal consciousness cannot be posited. Without such, such arguments are completely without support and fail miserably or worse, are left as arguments based on ignorance.
    Dude, I'm not relying on concepts of soul or immortal consciousness. In fact, no one here is.

    Such arguments are not compelling for obvious reasons.
    No, they are not obvious reasons and you simply cannot fairly dismiss any and all ethical and moral concerns because you think that ethical and moral arguments can only rely on religion.

    but I'm confused on why you focus attention on ESCR and not all subsidies of scientific research. That is I hear different arguments:
    1) Gov't should not subsidize any scientific research, period.
    2) Gov't should not subsidze ESCR research because there exist valid moral objections to it.
    3) Gov't should not subsidize ESCR because I don't think its worthwhile even if the appropriators disagree with me(moral arguments aside).

    I believe you are #2 but occasionally I feel like #1 and #3 appear in your arguments. Am I right or wrong?
    I am focusing on ESCR here only because that's the topic of the thread. Why you're attempting to generalize my position on public subsidies for scientific research I don't understand...

    I would agree wholeheartedly with #2 and #3. I'm not sure that enlightens the discussion, though.

    but only because they feel like the use of those cells kills a person that would have otherwise become a full person which is exactly the debate about abortion. That is, people object to destroying an acorn because it could become an oak tree.
    My issue, as I am not "they" is that ESCR that relies on harvesting embryoes simply to conduct research is morally repugnant given that alternatives to harvesting such embryoes exist that avoid those ethical and moral problems.

    did you mean to say you agree????

    this seems to contradict with your previous statement? I'm confused.
    My mistake. I was intending to say that morality is not only derived from religious sources.

    which begs the question "when does human life become important and when does it cease to be important?" You left an unbounded assertion.
    A human embryo is human life. A human embryo is not just a collection of cells scraped off the inside of a nose. As a matter of basic biological fact human embryos are actual human beings in the earliest stages of their natural development. Human embryos (or fetuses, or infants) do not differ in kind from mature human beings (as carrots or alligators differ from humans); rather the difference between human embryos (fetuses, infants) and adults is a difference merely in stage or degree of development of precisely the same kind of being.

    No. I believe they all do.
    I misunderstood your prior comment.

    No.
    Ok.

    I argue that being "human" and/or having human DNA has nothing to do with it. What matters is self-awareness, cogito ergo sum. (Note: one does not have to acknowledge ones self-awareness to be self-aware much like one does not have to understand how eyes function to see; one simply does because they are capable of such)
    As you can see above, I disagree.

    I most definitely believe ethical and moral considerations are important. I just have yet to encounter any sound moral or ethical argument against banning ESCR and/or abortion for all. In my experience it should remain a choice, not a requirement or a restriction.
    But, again, I am not talking about banning ESCR altogether, but rather discussing my support for restricting federal government funding of ESCR. And that argument does not rest solely on a ethical/moral argument, but other factors.

    As well, I am not an advocate of banning abortion altogether, either. I just want Roe overtunred so that the issue will be returned to the proper political forum.

  3. #133
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-06-09 @ 03:03 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    11,946

    Re: Obama To Alter Abortion Policy

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    I think Felicity, though, was making that argument.
    Naw..I just said it's a waste of money. But I would like to see a ban on it since I do perceive it as killing human beings--which it is. When a segment of human beings is under the total power of others and is "used" by another for the gain of those in power. That is slavery.

  4. #134
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Obama To Alter Abortion Policy

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    You're missing the trees in the forest. The states cannot, right now, unduly regulate abortion per the Supreme Court. The OP is arguing for an alternative environment where this public policy issue is returned to the political process where the states would then have the authority to impose regulations affecting abortions.

    Currently, what's happening, though, is that state's have attempted to regulate abortion by imposing, for example, notification laws, These have been routinely struck down.



    Huh? States like Illinois permit (or used to permit) babies surviving an attempted abortion to be left to die be it on a counter, in a custodial closet, or some other morally repugnant situation. We know this as it came up during the presidential campaign where Obama was rightly criticized for opposing a law that would have not permitted such hideous treatment of born babies despite the state law containing the same exact clauses as the federal law. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here.



    False choice.

    If abortion is not a federal constitutional right that does not mean that a state cannot grant such a right to its residents via its own constitutional process.
    I think, perhaps, you have misinterpreted my position. You see, I am ardently pro-life and believe that there should be an outright Federal ban on this barbaric practice, however, I take issue with the specious legal reasoning that comes from people on both sides, i.e. that abortion - whether it's viewed as a right or murder - falls under the purview of State authority to grant or deny.

    In one instance abortion can be viewed as a right, as such, the States should not be able to infringe upon it. In another instance abortion is the murder of another person, as such, the States cannot permit it. Either way the authority of State governments has no bearing on the issue. Either abortion deserves Federal protection as a right or it should be roundly criminalized. I'm of the latter opinion.

  5. #135
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-06-09 @ 03:03 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    11,946

    Re: Obama To Alter Abortion Policy

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    I think, perhaps, you have misinterpreted my position. You see, I am ardently pro-life and believe that there should be an outright Federal ban on this barbaric practice, however, I take issue with the specious legal reasoning that comes from people on both sides, i.e. that abortion - whether it's viewed as a right or murder - falls under the purview of State authority to grant or deny.

    In one instance abortion can be viewed as a right, as such, the States should not be able to infringe upon it. In another instance abortion is the murder of another person, as such, the States cannot permit it. Either way the authority of State governments has no bearing on the issue. Either abortion deserves Federal protection as a right or it should be roundly criminalized. I'm of the latter opinion.
    To me, a federal ban is unnecessary--the human beings--even at the earliest stages are HUMAN BEINGS. Deliberately--hell, even ACCIDENTALLY--killing a human being due to malice, neglect, or passion is at the very least manslaughter. Don't we already have a "ban" against that? I believe it's the 14th amendment--
    " nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

  6. #136
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Obama To Alter Abortion Policy

    To me, a federal ban is unnecessary--the human beings--even at the earliest stages are HUMAN BEINGS. Deliberately--hell, even ACCIDENTALLY--killing a human being due to malice, neglect, or passion is at the very least manslaughter. Don't we already have a "ban" against that? I believe it's the 14th amendment--
    " nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
    I suppose a ban would be a little redundant if our government were to view the unborn as persons/human beings/whatever. Good point.

  7. #137
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Obama To Alter Abortion Policy

    Quote Originally Posted by Felicity View Post
    To me, a federal ban is unnecessary--the human beings--even at the earliest stages are HUMAN BEINGS. Deliberately--hell, even ACCIDENTALLY--killing a human being due to malice, neglect, or passion is at the very least manslaughter. Don't we already have a "ban" against that? I believe it's the 14th amendment--
    " nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
    Does it say "person" or "human" or "homo sapien sapien" or ... Nope just "person". Funny how, if I remember correctly, RvW decided fetuses were not "people". (I'll have to double check tonight. They may have just avoided the issue because they could come to no objective conclusion on the matter. Its been awhile since I read the opinion of the court).

    Oh yeah, and by your standards you must keep the braindead on life support until they atrophy to physical death otherwise you are a murderer.

    the absurdities one must undertake to be consistent.
    Last edited by scourge99; 01-22-09 at 05:58 PM.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  8. #138
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Obama To Alter Abortion Policy

    Does it say "person" or "human" or "homo sapien sapien" or ... Nope just "person". Funny how, if I remember correctly, RvW decided fetuses were not "people".
    I'm right because SCOTUS says so...good argument.

  9. #139
    Sage
    First Thought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas
    Last Seen
    12-01-10 @ 03:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,218

    Re: Obama To Alter Abortion Policy

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    I'm right because SCOTUS says so...good argument.
    SCotUS tends play a pretty big role in deciding what is lawful or not.
    "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

  10. #140
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Obama To Alter Abortion Policy

    Quote Originally Posted by EgoffTib View Post
    SCotUS tends play a pretty big role in deciding what is lawful or not.
    Lawful does not always equal correct. The de jure definition of a person does not necessarily translate into the de facto definition of a person.

Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •