Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
HMM for female mutilation probably not many, they probably get away with it by having it done in countries that are fine with it. For circumcision probably the majority of Americans do not have a problem with it.
Why? Because:
A) Religion tells them to and their moral reasoning just halts at that point (authoritarian mindsets)
B) Argument from tradition fallacy
C) Ad populum fallacy (We don't want him to be "different", everyone else is doing it, etc)
It's a First Amendment issue. Both FGM and male circumcision are exercises of religion.
Same reason why Santeria priests/priestesses are permitted to perform live animal sacrifices in jurisdictions in which such is otherwise legally prohibited. First Amendment right.
Abortions In My Opinion should happen only under very strict circumstances. It should be banned among Teenagers. People who want a Abortion 'just or the heck of it' Should not be granted one unless their lie is seriously in danger.
Yes, teenagers should be punished for their awful sexual behavior by being forced to have children they don't want and won't take care of. Maybe they'll be left to starve, or abused. That'll teach 'em.
Nonsense . Pro choice folks argue for abortion rights past the stage of viability .
Maybe some do, most don't. Target your arguments and defenses at the rational middle ground not the lunatic fringe. Everyone loves to go after the easy targets, but setting up the extremists from either side as a strawman for the entire group is beyond played out at this point =3
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
In addition, a baby will just as assuredly die after delivery if it is not cared for, so this argument is nonsense also . A 3 hr old baby is no more "viable" left alone than an 8th month fetus .
Don't play dumb. You and I both know the difference between:
"Will die if huck it in the woods and don't feed it"
And
"Cannot draw breath, all organs failing moments after removal from the womb, dead on arrival or moments after"
They are almost entirely children of poor immigrants who routinely do not get regular healthcare anyway.
Oh, please. 'Poor immigrants?' Where are they getting the $$$$$ to travel overseas to immigrate? Price transatlantic flight tickets for a family of 4 recently?
It's a First Amendment issue. Both FGM and male circumcision are exercises of religion.
Same reason why Santeria priests/priestesses are permitted to perform live animal sacrifices in jurisdictions in which such is otherwise legally prohibited. First Amendment right.
Ok, so what? Something can be legal and immoral at the same time. Personally, I see it as an infringement on the bodily autonomy of the child since they are incapable of consent. If the supreme court doesn't see it that way, well - I disagree.
I do not think people should be free to "exercise their religion" on other people's bodies, that is pretty much the simplest way I can put it.
Ok, so what? Something can be legal and immoral at the same time. Personally, I see it as an infringement on the bodily autonomy of the child since they are incapable of consent. If the supreme court doesn't see it that way, well - I disagree.
I do not think people should be free to "exercise their religion" on other people's bodies, that is pretty much the simplest way I can put it.
Likewise, people shouldn't be forced by the government to violate their own religious beliefs.
Federal/State taxpayer-funded abortions? No. Fund them for those who cannot afford to pay via private sector charitable organizations. There's enough people who support it to fund it.
I believe the difference is who pays for what. You have all the freedom you want, just don't make government pay for it.
Exactly my point. If the government is not to interfere with your body, then the government shouldn't pay for body maintenance. If the government pays, it will have a say.
Likewise, people shouldn't be forced by the government to violate their own religious beliefs.
Federal/State taxpayer-funded abortions? No. Fund them for those who cannot afford to pay via private sector charitable organizations. There's enough people who support it to fund it.
Sure, I am against laws making abortions fully illegal, or laws impractically restricting access, or producing impractical and illogical overhead on the process(like requiring aborted fetuses to be buried or other dumb stuff like that), I don't really have a moral problem with them being privately funded at all.
There are some utilitarian rather than moral concerns with that idea though as the people who are the most likely to raise social failures that are drags on society as a whole are also the same people that are often the least likely to be able to afford to abort an unintentional pregnancy. The net cost to society from the increased crime alone is probably greater that the cost to subsidize it, even if we eliminated all social safety nets.
This argument is totally divorced from the morality arguments though, it is a pure cost/benefit question:
More poor desperate people having children that they will be financially, responsibly, or mentally incapable of raising = more crime and other social ills that come along with having a large population of poor desperate people raised to have no real skills and no respect.
So then the question becomes:
Stand on principle and do the thing that follows your philosophical convictions but may have detrimental long term effects
*or*
compromise because of the practical benefits of violating those philosophical convictions?
I tend to be a pragmatist so I would lean towards the second. More ideologically dogmatic people might lean towards the first.
Maybe some do, most don't. Target your arguments and defenses at the rational middle ground not the lunatic fringe. Everyone loves to go after the easy targets, but setting up the extremists from either side as a strawman for the entire group is beyond played out at this point =3
I'm referring to the movement as a whole which fights against any and all restrictions on abortion rights . The individual beliefs of pro choicers is irrelevant when the main pro choice groups want unrestricted abortions as a fundamental right.
Quote:
Don't play dumb. You and I both know the difference between:
"Will die if huck it in the woods and don't feed it"
And
"Cannot draw breath, all organs failing moments after removal from the womb, dead on arrival or moments after"
You cant fix a non viable fetus by feeding it.
No, your whole argument is the "viability" of a fetus, meaning it can't survive on its own. Neither can a newborn just out of the womb. Not my problem if that doesn't fit your preferred view . A baby is no more " viable" than a fetus . Both require care. Don't pretend that a baby is somehow more human and able to function simply by passing through the birth canal. That passage doesn't transform the fetus into something it wasn't before the exit . A fetus is a human in the womb . A baby just out of the womb is a human . A 6 yr old is a human 6 yrs out of the womb. A 20 yr old is a human 20 yrs out of the womb. All are human, just different developmental stages . But none changed suddenly from "non alive non human" to "alive human " simply by exiting the birth canal. They were before the exit what they were after the exit , an alive human being .
Last edited by wallflash; 02-01-2017 at 01:11 PM..
No, your whole argument is the "viability" of a fetus, meaning it can't survive on its own. Neither can a newborn just out of the womb. Not my problem if that doesn't fit your preferred view . A baby is no more " viable" than a fetus . Both require care. Don't pretend that a baby is somehow more human and able to function simply by passing through the birth canal. That passage doesn't transform the fetus into something it wasn't before the exit .
Actually my whole argument hinges on the presence of consciousness, but that was lost in the mix, me chatting about the viability was simply me chiming in on other posters discussing viability as a factor. I was simply magnanimous enough to let them frame the context of the discussion. At some point we will be able to go straight from egg + sperm to a viable human without it ever even needing to be inside a woman. That is why viability is not really the best metric to use, because as technology advances the point of viability changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
But none changed suddenly from "non alive non human" to "alive human " simply by exiting the birth canal.
At SOME point, SOMETHING changed from "non alive non human" to "alive human", unless you also classify human sperm and eggs as "alive humans". This is pretty much indisputable.
For me, I would say that moment is the emergence of consciousness. That to me is the point where abortion goes from morally neutral to morally questionable, depending on the circumstances involved.
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 02-01-2017 at 01:16 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
'Poor immigrants?' Where are they getting the $$$$$ to travel overseas to immigrate? Price transatlantic flight tickets for a family of 4 recently?
At some point we will be able to go straight from egg + sperm to a viable human without it ever even needing to be inside a woman. That is why viability is not really the best metric to use, because as technology advances the point of viability changes.
