Are You A Good Man....

[Tassman]

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.

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

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

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.

Only during the first trimester!

But it shouldn't.

...in your opinion!

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.

[Bill the Cat]

I've already shown you that was false in Common Law. The unborn was seen as a legitimate heir to a deceased father, separate from the mother, "as if they were already born".


And why do YOU get to determine what is "meaningful"? A fetus isn't equal to a teenager in any meaningful way either. See? Two can play that game.



The fetus was treated as a legitimate heir. That's proof that fetuses were not considered "insensate" or whatever other adjective you can try to use to dehumanize them. And as an aside, the only ones under Common Law who had "full civil rights" were adult white males. Everyone else had some civil right denied.


Neither was abolition at the founding of this country. Times change. Truth doesn't.



In the first trimester, the fetus HAS no absolute dominion, and the mother can violate her trust dominion. That's not balance.

Only during the first trimester!

That's still part of the lifetime of every one of us.

...in your opinion!

Which is scientifically supported.


In your emotionally driven logically deficient morally repugnant opinion.

[JimL]

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

Right, but the existence of good, that which is the best interests of humanity, doesn't, of itself, prevent one from doing evil.

[seer]

Right, but the existence of good, that which is the best interests of humanity, doesn't, of itself, prevent one from doing evil.

Jim, what you call evil they call good - good for them.

[stfoskey15]

Why? Is that what you "believe?"

They're people too. There's no good reason to believe one group of people is more important than any other group of people. And the European conquest of the Americas was obviously bad for the natives, at least in the short term. But part of it was accidental, as most of the deaths due to smallpox, measles, and other European diseases were the result of natural epidemics.

[seer]

They're people too. There's no good reason to believe one group of people is more important than any other group of people. And the European conquest of the Americas was obviously bad for the natives, at least in the short term. But part of it was accidental, as most of the deaths due to smallpox, measles, and other European diseases were the result of natural epidemics.

stfoskey, you are still only telling me what you believe. Obviously there are some who believe it is valid to exploit others for their own ends. I mean just look at human history.

[JimL]

Jim, what you call evil they call good - good for them.

Doesn't matter who calls it what, if a law or moral is ultimately in the best interests of society, of humanity, then that law or moral is good and ought to be followed whether that is understood or abused by certain individuals or not. If you understand why it is not good that you should be murdered, then you should understand why murder itself is evil.

[seer]

Doesn't matter who calls it what, if a law or moral is ultimately in the best interests of society, of humanity, then that law or moral is good and ought to be followed whether that is understood or abused by certain individuals or not. If you understand why it is not good that you should be murdered, then you should understand why murder itself is evil.

Jim, that is your opinion. Why care about the best interest of humanity? Especially if exploiting your fellow man gains you power and wealth.

[JimL]

Jim, that is your opinion. Why care about the best interest of humanity? Especially if exploiting your fellow man gains you power and wealth.

Because if you exploit others then there is much greater risk that you yourself will be exploited, and if you murder others, then there is a much greater chance that you will be murdered by others, so ultimately the laws or morals against these things are ultimately in the best interests of man, and of all men, i.e. of society. You can't separate yourself from society, from humanity, therefore whatever it is that is in the best interests of humanity is ultimately in the best interests of the individuals that comprise it.

[Tassman]

Jim, that is your opinion. Why care about the best interest of humanity? Especially if exploiting your fellow man gains you power and wealth.

Same old boring mantra!

We care about interests of others because we are genetically predisposed to care, it's an evolved survival mechanism for a social species such as us.

[Tassman]

I've already shown you that was false in Common Law. The unborn was seen as a legitimate heir to a deceased father, separate from the mother, "as if they were already born".

This was to protect the ownership of estates. You are invalidly extrapolating Property Law and applying it to Common Law.

And why do YOU get to determine what is "meaningful"? A fetus isn't equal to a teenager in any meaningful way either. See? Two can play that game.

Why do YOU

The fetus was treated as a legitimate heir. That's proof that fetuses were not considered "insensate" or whatever other adjective you can try to use to dehumanize them. And as an aside, the only ones under Common Law who had "full civil rights" were adult white males. Everyone else had some civil right denied.

Neither was abolition at the founding of this country. Times change. Truth doesn't.

In the first trimester, the fetus HAS no absolute dominion, and the mother can violate her trust dominion. That's not balance.

What's all this "dominion" crap? The mother has rights, which she's entitled to exercise during the first trimester.

Which is scientifically supported.

In your emotionally driven logically deficient morally repugnant opinion.

Such hubris!

[seer]

We care about interests of others because we are genetically predisposed to care, it's an evolved survival mechanism for a social species such as us.

Then we are also genetically predisposed to war, kill and steal... All perfectly natural...

[Tassman]

Then we are also genetically predisposed to war, kill and steal... All perfectly natural...

We care about interests of others because we are genetically predisposed to care, it's a natural survival mechanism for a social species such as us. And because of this we recognise "war, killing and stealing" as damage social cohesion and endeavour to remedy such destructive "natural" behaviour in our laws and international treaties. "All perfectly natural."

[seer]

We care about interests of others because we are genetically predisposed to care, it's a natural survival mechanism for a social species such as us. And because of this we recognize "war, killing and stealing" as damage social cohesion and endeavour to remedy such destructive "natural" behaviour in our laws and international treaties. "All perfectly natural."

That is just stupid. We don't recognize any such thing. We have been warring, dominating and killing, since day one and still are. The last Century saw the most devastating wars in human history, and this one is starting out just as violently. But hey, no worries, that is how the evolutionary process caused us to act.

[stfoskey15]

stfoskey, you are still only telling me what you believe. Obviously there are some who believe it is valid to exploit others for their own ends. I mean just look at human history.

Right. But fairness is important. Otherwise how will people be convinced of your morals? The whole point of having morals is to better (global) society, and exploitative people are not bettering society.

That is just stupid. We don't recognize any such thing. We have been warring, dominating and killing, since day one and still are. The last Century saw the most devastating wars in human history, and this one is starting out just as violently. But hey, no worries, that is how the evolutionary process caused us to act.

But on the whole we're getting better. If there's any truth to this list, all of the 18 deadliest wars in world history happened before 1950. And they all took place when the world had less than 40% the people it does today.