What portions of his past behavior have led you to this expectation? That might be the silliest thing in this thread.
I have one question for the pro choice poster? 1. Which do you believe is more important getting to have sex with someone, or becoming a parent?
If there is a moral conflict, does that not suggest that you believe the fetus, even before reaching the viability state, has at least some moral rights? If not, why should there be a conflict?
No, good god people don't know how to analyze rights here. You can believe someone ought have the RIGHT to do something without believing their reasoning for EXERCISING that right is laudable. I don't think guns are good for society. When someone buys a gun I think it is bad for society. But they still have the RIGHT to do so as enumerated by the constitution (rights can come from a plethora of sources). The fetus doesn't have moral rights before viability. I really don't see your argument here.
Really?? Guns and reproduction, that is so off. What does the word laudable mean? moral? You don't believe human reproduction is good for society? The reason it is illegal to destroy a bald eagle egg is because the reproductive rights are protected because of the value of the species and that value is currently threatened or endangered. You must assign a value to human reproduction before you can decide if there is any basis to protect it. That is why rights are afforded- for protection. You cannot take any stand with regards to rights unless you assign a value to human reproduction on the abortion issue. I personally think a human fetus has higher value than a bald eagle egg. But I am probably in the minority. Any rights and protections afforded an eagle egg is fine with me also. (not so chicken eggs- btw- far less value)
Then, if I understand you correctly, I need to ask a follow up question. Why do you think it might be bad for society for a mother to abort her pregnancy if she finds that the baby will be born with Down Syndrome?
Less of a population = less political will to provide rights. I think the value of human beings shouldn't be compared on the basis of intelligence or disability. None of these interests, however, have any connection to whether the fetus has a rights claim. They are all thoughts from my personal beliefs.
It's all personal belief, and the question is not if the fetus has a rights claim, the question is the value of the fetus. There is no logical pro-choice position unless the value of the fetus is established. Why would you logically afford any rights to something of little value? And why wouldn't you afford rights to something of great value?
Rights come from a variety of sources. Without getting too meta, let's all agree that all humans have certain unalienable rights (yes, we can debate this but that's another argument for another time. Most reasonable people believe in human rights). The question then therefore becomes what is a human? I believe a fetus is a human at viability. I have already laid out arguments against potentiality. You're "value" questions are too subjective. You asked whether sex or parenting has more value, EXPECTING our intuitions to lead us to parenting. I think that it's more subjective. I quite enjoy having sex on a regular basis without becoming a parent. In fact, I would say that becoming a parent would be NEGATIVE in value for me at this point in life, and having sex with my girlfriend every day or every other day has empirically had a POSITIVE value in my life. All in all, I simply don't know what the **** you're talking about when it comes to "value." It's not related to rights. Something can be of high value without it being protected by rights, or vice-versa. For example, speech by the Westboro Church has negative VALUE for most people, but is still protected as a RIGHT. Free laptops for everyone would have extremely high VALUE for a lot of individuals, but it may not be a RIGHT.
SC1211 has already pretty much answered for me but to follow up there are a variety of reasons to not support think that people should be having abortions all the time yet still think abortion should be legal. At its minimum it is still a procedure with a potential for complications so that alone should be a consideration. We can also agree that cherry picking out our population though might not have good consequences for society overall. That said IVF that is happening already so on that basis using abortion to cherry pick might not be a good thing. Saying that though doesn't mean that we should ban IVF or abortion. As noted already we can disapprove of any situation that some practice is used while still thinking such practice should remain legal. You are trying to pain a moral conflict here that doesn't really exist by establishing an apriori that if we disapprove of one situation the only reason for that is because we accept one particular argument, the fetus has rights, there are other reasons for that disapproval.
No you are being illogical, free speech has a high value that is why some abusive forms of speech are protected because the value of free speech is high. Free laptops is not a true free value because someone HAS to pay for the construction of a laptop, laptops do not grow on trees, so you are misleading yourself to think that laptops could somehow be given without cost to anyone for everyone. Your points do not make sense and do not follow simple logic. I just wanted to know what you valued more, becoming a parent- and you answered it "In fact, I would say that becoming a parent would be NEGATIVE in value for me at this point in life, and having sex with my girlfriend every day or every other day has empirically had a POSITIVE value in my life." Not judging you, just wanted to understand motive in your posts. I think I understand a little better where you are coming from in your "pro-choice" belief.
Good to see you rhester. Except you have to consider choice in the matter. The crime is for a human to destroy a bald eagle egg in which case the eagle has no say in the destruction of its eggs. That is the same as if someone forced an abortion on someone else which would go against the very definition of pro-choice and would be at the minimum assault or murder. The only way comparison would work is if a bald eagle trampled its own eggs the eagle would be charged with a crime. That isn't the case and the policy is pro-choice for both species in regard to their reproduction.
You can separate out categories of free speech. Most western liberal democracies outlaw hate speech. Generally this type of speech rarely has value, but in the U.S. we protect it as a right. We can debate value, and the very fact that we disagree so strongly about the relative value of things shows this. Also, calling me illogical when you've not made one argument that doesn't rely on intuition, and went on some nonsensical diatribe on bald eagle eggs is comical. And yeah, I'm sure you're not "judging" me when you bold my quote and say you now "understand" my perspective. The judgement is oozing from your post, don't claim you're not, own up to it. It doesn't offend me in any way, as I'm perfectly content about the state of my life and in my beliefs.
Good to see you, and GO SERF's In a discussion of rights and protections choice is not given weight. For instance, I believe in equal rights for all people whether they want a choice in the matter. In fact when rights are afforded it is often to avoid choice becoming the matter- see the Civil Rights Movement Forcing an abortion removes choice but does not assign a value to the fetus, either society, God, or government must do that. A bald eagle can trample its own eggs without punishment. But a human cannot. All values where humans assign protection or rights must be determined by humans. It is wrong and illogical to think that a woman's choice favoring abortion is not consistent with the value of the fetus. As SC1211 rightly stated, sex with a girlfriend could have more value than the birth of a child to many people. Unless we understand the motives behind abortion, we won't understand why some people won't move their values. I certainly do not favor abolition of abortion, but I strongly value the fetus and am looking for answers that reduce abortions drastically. I do not support back ally abortion, and I do not support abortion on demand or the federal funding of abortion. So I seek compromise and methods to cut the number of abortions greatly without killing mothers.
I didn't say you were wrong, I just understand the value of sex with a girlfriend, been there. Lighten up, I am very passionate on the abortion subject, but it wasn't meant to be an attack. I think too many pro-choice supporters try to frame the issue around a choice a woman makes like 'I need to lose' weight, instead of 'Oh my God I never wanted to be pregnant and my boyfriend is going to kill me!' Abortion is a solution for the problem of people being careless with birth control, but what is sad the fetus is de-valued in the process.
Also we simply disagree to the value of the fetus, that simple. There have been times in my past if I would have gotten a girl pregnant I would want her to have an abortion. I certainly understand that and I wish more pro-choice supporters would frame the debate that way. IMO it is more realistic over the a woman's choice over her body thing.
