DescentBB

tunnelcat wrote:Well, why don't you come into the world of reality and accept that the human brain is usually under the influence of it's own chemicals most of the time.

and this excuses personal accountability how???

The frontal cortex sometimes gets overridden no matter how hard we try. If everyone always made the correct choices and didn't fall to their basal and hormonal instincts at times, the world be be a whole different place, wouldn't it? But I don't think God wanted everyone to be little cookie cutter perfect machines, or we wouldn't be very adaptable in a harsh and unforgiving world.

I live in the world of reality. I live in a world where, when I screw up I don't make excuses. I don't live in your fantasy world where I say "The devil made me do it" and not take PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY for my mistakes.

Your "personal accountability for your bad decision" argument only works if you already think that abortion is wrong. If you don't think that abortion wrong, then not getting an abortion is just sticking with your bad decision out of stubbornness. In fact, in that case, being accountable for your mistake would be getting the abortion.

Jeff250 wrote:Your "personal accountability for your bad decision" argument only works if you already think that abortion is wrong. If you don't think that abortion wrong, then not getting an abortion is just sticking with your bad decision out of stubbornness. In fact, in that case, being accountable for your mistake would be getting the abortion.

bingo, we have a winner(if the contest involves any actual logic)!!

Yea, twisted logic…

You can’t own up to a mistake by making a second mistake.

If Cuda's argument requires assuming that abortion is wrong, then it's circular.

Incorrect. CUDA's argument pertains to not taking responsibility for conceiving a life. Snuffing it out cannot be construed as taking responsibility, because it is curtailing the responsibility inherent in conceiving a life.

Would you say your babysitter is responsible if she locked your children in the basement so that they wouldn't play in the street? Is that being responsible?

EDIT: Hey Jeff, abortion isn't wrong because it's irresponsible, it's wrong because it's killing a child. It's irresponsible because it's ★■◆●ing irresponsible. At any point where it may by, virtue of a warped mind, be construed to be responsible, it's still murder. And by the ★■◆●ing way, how did you ever stop to think about who the responsibility is toward, primarily, in being responsible for the conception of a life? Is it not to the child itself?! How could you EVER argue that killing it is the responsible thing to do. Responsible to whom?!! Society? That's ★■◆●ing sick.

I would actually say it's a two-fold responsibility, in reality (should you ever choose to visit). Responsibility before God, who gives life, and responsibility to the child next.

ST wrote:Incorrect. CUDA's argument pertains to not taking responsibility for conceiving a life. Snuffing it out cannot be construed as taking responsibility, because it is curtailing the responsibility inherent in conceiving a life.

I was responding to Cuda's argument about taking responsibility for your mistakes. A similar response works for taking responsibility for human life. People who are pro-choice don't think that the immediate result of conception is a person, so they don't see there being any moral responsibility to treat it like one, so they don't see any moral responsibility to take. You can't argue that someone should take responsibility without first convincing them that they have responsibility, and arguing that someone has responsibility because they should take responsibility is backwards.

I'm not even trying to convince you here anything about when human life begins. I'm just trying to show you how the other side perceives things and why your arguments are ineffective on people who don't already agree with you.

ST wrote:Hey Jeff, abortion isn't wrong because it's irresponsible, it's wrong because it's killing a child.

The abortion debate boils down to when do our moral responsibilities for life begin and what properties induce those moral responsibilities.

ST wrote:Responsible to whom?

Everyone is responsible to themselves for their decisions in life. (Not exclusively, of course.)

Jeff250 wrote:

Foil wrote:Now, for the sake of argument, let's say it's a minute before the point you named. What exactly has changed between that minute and the next, that is enough to say "Before now, it was fine to destroy. After now, it's life is worthy of protection." ?

[...]

In fact, I don't think that even conception is immune to this argument. Pick a time when you want to say that a human was conceived. What morally changed then versus one microsecond prior that makes it that the human wasn't really conceived one microsecond prior? Maybe something is positioned minutely further away from something else?

Jeff250 wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:

Foil wrote:Now, for the sake of argument, let's say it's a minute before the point you named. What exactly has changed between that minute and the next, that is enough to say "Before now, it was fine to destroy. After now, it's life is worthy of protection." ?

[...]

In fact, I don't think that even conception is immune to this argument. Pick a time when you want to say that a human was conceived. What morally changed then versus one microsecond prior that makes it that the human wasn't really conceived one microsecond prior? Maybe something is positioned minutely further away from something else?

Indeed!

As you described it on the previous page, the "heap paradox", we see that none of the usual points for X = the point at which the life [begins / is human / should be protected by the state] are distinct enough to place a clear ethical threshold. This same principle holds for conception, birth, and even death as well.

...So what are we left with?

If life is a fuzzy progression from somewhere before conception to something after death, why are we drawing (fuzzy) moral lines at places like "birth"?

I think that the Supreme Court's decision to separate the law into three trimesters does a good job of approximating the fuzziness of the issue (things like people stretching what constitutes a woman's health aside) better than legislating some 0-or-1 moment.

This might seem like it makes the situation worse by having *multiple* magical points instead of just one. But a law that dealt with every situation perfectly justly would be infinitely complex. The law against grand theft isn't as fair to the people who stole either a dollar below or a dollar above the threshold, but it's something that we can practically enforce.

I don't think the issue is as complex as you make it out to be. It's made complex because there are so many proponents, not because everyone was sitting around scratching their heads wondering, "is a baby really a human being at this >< size?"

I'll go ahead and throw out there that I suspect that anyone wanting to abort a child conceived in "rape" is sadly lacking in pity.

Why the quotations?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:]I'll go ahead and throw out there that I suspect that anyone wanting to abort a child conceived in "rape" is sadly lacking in pity.

and I'll go ahead and throw out the thought that the above sentence marks you as an insensitive moron with the personal morality of a boxwood bush. Quotes around the word 'rape'? Odd and disgusting, all in one. To deign to tell a rape victim how to deal with a conception due to a violent, heinous act? Beyond subhuman, you ought to be ashamed of yourself, but clearly don't have the moral fiber to work up to that minimal standard.

Time to bring this thread to an end.