Are You A Good Man....

[Tassman]

This is absurd. Pretty much the only people us use the idea of personhood are those trying to justify killing the defenseless unborn.

Come now, you make it sound as though hordes of wicked women are desperate to and are only being forcibly held back by good Christian folk like you.

Someone gases children and we call them a monster. Someone shoots up children in a school and we call them a monster. Some mom drowns her kids and we call her a monster. Someone kills their unborn children and we call them brave.

Do we? Who calls those who terminate pregnancies "brave". For the woman it's usually a very difficult decision

[stfoskey15]

OK, back to the original purpose of this thread. Are you a good man? Some there think it is morally acceptable to kill our offspring in the womb. Others think infanticide is morally acceptable. Just as in the past the Maoist or Stalinist believed it was morally acceptable to execute dissidents. Which makes it obvious that any behavior or moral position can be justified and labeled "good." Which guts the word good of all meaning, force of reason or authority.

Someone believing something is good does not make that thing good.

[seer]

Someone believing something is good does not make that thing good.

Then what does?

[Bill the Cat]

But that's not the point. We now understand more than our forefathers did on embryology. Our ethics should adjust to that new knowledge. Instead, the emotional reasons for continuing in ignorance are still king for the day. There simply is no logical reason to deny basic human rights to a human.

Historically, under English Common Law and U.S. law, the fetus has not been recognised as a person with full civil rights until viability, this has been true of most cultures...including the Jewish culture of Jesus.

You are wrong. Scotland, England, and others who followed Roman Law, and specifically Paulus, on the subject of inheritance rights for the unborn, all recognize the unborn as having separate rights "as if they were already born". See Roderick Paisley's explanation of Scottish Common Law (which includes that the rules are the same as in English Common Law)

http://aura.abdn.ac.uk/bitstream/han...=1&isAllowed=y

And this position was upheld in Roe v Wade when the Court ruled that a fetus is not a person under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But also maintained that the state has an interest in protecting the life of a fetus after viability, hence its ban on abortions after the first trimester...except in exceptional circumstances.

And they were as wrong on that as they were earlier in Hammer v. Dagenhart.

Furthermore, your argument for the rights of insensate fetuses comes at the expense of women's rights,

Wrong. They simply affirm the right to absolute dominion of each individual, and that the trust-dominion of a parent does not override the absolute dominion of the child at any point (Heh. I read new stuff too ). Meaning the dominion a parent has over their child means that they can curtail certain freedoms and rights, but not their right to life. That's why a mother can not just abandon her child to a dumpster after birth. Because her trust-dominion over the child does not include the right to violate the child's absolute dominion.

which you erroneously dismiss as unimportant.

When the rights of one infringe on the rights of another, then yes, it can be dismissed as unimportant.

Any claims made regarding the rights of the fetus must balance the sometimes competing rights of the woman and the fetus.

Correct. The woman has the rights of a trust-dominion and they both have the rights of absolute dominion when it comes to their lives. Her right to absolute dominion stops at her requirement to uphold her trust-dominion.

[Sparko]

Do we? Who calls those who terminate pregnancies "brave". For the woman it's usually a very difficult decision

These Women Are Brave Enough To Share Their Abortion Stories
https://thinkprogress.org/these-wome...s-933d571ed5f8

We are BRAVE (Building Reproductive Autonomy and Voices for Equity)
http://www.westernstatescenter.org/o...k/we-are-brave

[Sea of red]

OK, back to the original purpose of this thread. Are you a good man? Some there think it is morally acceptable to kill our offspring in the womb. Others think infanticide is morally acceptable. Just as in the past the Maoist or Stalinist believed it was morally acceptable to execute dissidents. Which makes it obvious that any behavior or moral position can be justified and labeled "good." Which guts the word good of all meaning, force of reason or authority.

People can convince themselves of literally anything, but this does not change the fact that some ideas are more based in reality than others, or that reality can be determined.

As for Mao and Stalin, those guys didn't even really believe in morals, or care to know about them, so I fail to see the relevance.

[seer]

People can convince themselves of literally anything, but this does not change the fact that some ideas are more based in reality than others, or that reality can be determined.

I have no idea what that means Red. Genocide is based in reality.

[stfoskey15]

Then what does?

That thing's impacts on the person who thought it and the world around them.

[seer]

That thing's impacts on the person who thought it and the world around them.

I have no idea what that means. Europeans came to The Americas, conquered the natives - took and exploited the land. That was a good thing for the Europeans.

[Tassman]

But that's not the point. We now understand more than our forefathers did on embryology. Our ethics should adjust to that new knowledge. Instead, the emotional reasons for continuing in ignorance are still king for the day. There simply is no logical reason to deny basic human rights to a human.

You are wrong. Scotland, England, and others who followed Roman Law, and specifically Paulus, on the subject of inheritance rights for the unborn, all recognize the unborn as having separate rights "as if they were already born". See Roderick Paisley's explanation of Scottish Common Law (which includes that the rules are the same as in English Common Law)

http://aura.abdn.ac.uk/bitstream/han...=1&isAllowed=y

And they were as wrong on that as they were earlier in Hammer v. Dagenhart.

Your opinion that the Supreme Court was wrong in its Landmark Ruling re Roe v Wade is not shared by the majority.

Wrong. They simply affirm the right to absolute dominion of each individual, and that the trust-dominion of a parent does not override the absolute dominion of the child at any point (Heh. I read new stuff too ). Meaning the dominion a parent has over their child means that they can curtail certain freedoms and rights, but not their right to life. That's why a mother can not just abandon her child to a dumpster after birth. Because her trust-dominion over the child does not include the right to violate the child's absolute dominion.

either way. After the first trimester the rights of the mother to abort are severely restricted in Law, just as the rights of the fetus are restricted in the first trimester.

When the rights of one infringe on the rights of another, then yes, it can be dismissed as unimportant.

Correct. The woman has the rights of a trust-dominion and they both have the rights of absolute dominion when it comes to their lives. Her right to absolute dominion stops at her requirement to uphold her trust-dominion.

That works both ways.

Any claims made regarding the rights of the fetus must balance the sometimes competing rights of the woman and the fetus.

[Bill the Cat]

Even our forefathers recognised that the gestating entity was human, yet they never accepted the absurd notion that an insensate fetus was entitled to full human rights and protections from the moment of conception.

You are wrong, as usual. They used English Common Law as a starting point to recognize the unborn, at any time in its gestation, had rights "as if they were already born".

It is equal in the only way that matters - it is just as much an individual as any later stage. That you continue to use imprecise terms to score cheap rhetorical points (failing most miserably in the process) is clear evidence that you are the one who is using emotional arguments.


It's the same concept. The unborn was classified "as if they were already born" when it came to matters of its interest, like inheritance. Were the "insensate fetus" not considered a person by English Common Law, then it would have no inheritance rights. But it was, thus your claim that Common Law didn't see them as a person is demonstrably false, yet again.

Your opinion that the Supreme Court was wrong in its Landmark Ruling re Roe v Wade is not shared by the majority.

So what? Since when is truth a matter of popularity?

either way.

Actually, your side is. They claim that the woman has absolute dominion to override the absolute dominion the unborn should have.

After the first trimester the rights of the mother to abort are severely restricted in Law, just as the rights of the fetus are restricted in the first trimester.

That's what I said. The mother's absolute dominion overrides the absolute dominion of the fetus, which is morally wrong. No one should EVER have their absolute dominion overridden unless they forfeit it through egregious criminal activity.

That works both ways.

But it shouldn't.

Any claims made regarding the rights of the fetus must balance the sometimes competing rights of the woman and the fetus.

But not when it comes to absolute dominion. The trust dominion the mother has should negate her ability to override the absolute dominion of the unborn, just as it does for the born. No one who is in custody of another should be allowed to kill them unless saving another life is paramount.

[stfoskey15]

I have no idea what that means. Europeans came to The Americas, conquered the natives - took and exploited the land. That was a good thing for the Europeans.

And bad for the natives. You need to take both things into account when you consider the consequences of an action.

[seer]

And bad for the natives. You need to take both things into account when you consider the consequences of an action.

Why? Is that what you "believe?"

[JimL]

Why? Is that what you "believe?"

Because the same could happen to you. Thats why in a society of men the law against murder, robbery, rape, or whatever, is good, becuase ultimately such laws are in the best interests of everyone. We don't say to "do unto others, as you would have them do unto you" simply for altruistic reasons, the reason is because ultimately such laws are in every individuals, ergo societies, best interests.

[seer]

Because the same could happen to you. Thats why in a society of men the law against murder, robbery, rape, or whatever, is good, becuase ultimately such laws are in the best interests of everyone. We don't say to "do unto others, as you would have them do unto you" simply for altruistic reasons, the reason is because ultimately such laws are in every individuals, ergo societies, best interests.

We sheesh Jim that didn't stop the Nazis, or Maoists or Europeans or Hutus or ISIS or Romans from slaughtering.