Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree231Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 16th, 2018, 12:29 PM   #361
Put some ice on that
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 26,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Actually it is very different. The weed laws are about the states letting people do something the Federal Government says they shouldn’t do. The abortion laws are about the states trying to stop people from doing something the Federal Government says they should be allowed to do.

I don’t know about you but I’m usually going to side with the people that say we should be allowed to do stuff that isn’t interfering with someone else’s rights.
The debate is unsolvable. The people who are against abortion see the fetus as a human being and no matter how much mental gymnastics is done by one side or the other everyone knows deep down inside that they are right. Now I just dont care as if that human is brought into the world unwanted the negitive far outweighs the positive of."saving that life" IMO. Neither side is going to convince the other so the best solution I see is just let it be a states decision. The states could greatly restrict it or all out ban it but anyone can be an hour or two away from gaining access. Both sides have the right to live amungst people who share their views. We also must remember that this very argument has happened in the past, we were just talking about slaves and not fetuses.
Sabcat is offline  
Old May 16th, 2018, 12:38 PM   #362
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 16,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
The debate is unsolvable. The people who are against abortion see the fetus as a human being and no matter how much mental gymnastics is done by one side or the other everyone knows deep down inside that they are right. Now I just dont care as if that human is brought into the world unwanted the negitive far outweighs the positive of."saving that life" IMO. Neither side is going to convince the other so the best solution I see is just let it be a states decision. The states could greatly restrict it or all out ban it but anyone can be an hour or two away from gaining access. Both sides have the right to live amungst people who share their views. We also must remember that this very argument has happened in the past, we were just talking about slaves and not fetuses.
I would argue that deep down everyone knows that a fetus is NOT a human being. If you’re in a hospital that is on fire and you can only save the one baby in the newborn ward or the 10,000 frozen embryos in the IVF ward no one...and I mean NO ONE...would even think twice.
Thanks from catus felis
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old May 16th, 2018, 12:59 PM   #363
Put some ice on that
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 26,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
I would argue that deep down everyone knows that a fetus is NOT a human being. If you’re in a hospital that is on fire and you can only save the one baby in the newborn ward or the 10,000 frozen embryos in the IVF ward no one...and I mean NO ONE...would even think twice.
Yup. Read that silly argument and posted the counter to it in the thread. (If you want I can link it again). Try using it if you hit and kill a pregnant woman w/ your car. You are charged w/ both lives.

Again, i am not really interested in that side of the debate as it is not solvable. I meet w/ a group of very serious libertarians and anarcho capitalists and we have done this one a dozen times. It splits the room. Both sides make logical arguments. The only solution is to remove the federal government.
Sabcat is offline  
Old May 16th, 2018, 01:26 PM   #364
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 16,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
Yup. Read that silly argument and posted the counter to it in the thread. (If you want I can link it again). Try using it if you hit and kill a pregnant woman w/ your car. You are charged w/ both lives.

Again, i am not really interested in that side of the debate as it is not solvable. I meet w/ a group of very serious libertarians and anarcho capitalists and we have done this one a dozen times. It splits the room. Both sides make logical arguments. The only solution is to remove the federal government.
AND the state government. Let each person decide.
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old May 16th, 2018, 01:47 PM   #365
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 16,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
Yup. Read that silly argument and posted the counter to it in the thread. (If you want I can link it again). Try using it if you hit and kill a pregnant woman w/ your car. You are charged w/ both lives.

Again, i am not really interested in that side of the debate as it is not solvable. I meet w/ a group of very serious libertarians and anarcho capitalists and we have done this one a dozen times. It splits the room. Both sides make logical arguments. The only solution is to remove the federal government.
That has nothing to do with my thought experiment. My scenario is about choosing between saving an embryo/fetus or saving a child. Hitting a pregnant woman in the crosswalk is not about choice and it’s not about my deep down beliefs.

You and I both know that if forced to choose between saving an embryo/fetus and saving a child 99.9% of people would choose the child and 99.9% of those people wouldn’t even think about saving the embryos. That is because we all know that an embryo is not a child.
Thanks from catus felis
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old May 16th, 2018, 02:59 PM   #366
Put some ice on that
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 26,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
That has nothing to do with my thought experiment. My scenario is about choosing between saving an embryo/fetus or saving a child. Hitting a pregnant woman in the crosswalk is not about choice and it’s not about my deep down beliefs.

You and I both know that if forced to choose between saving an embryo/fetus and saving a child 99.9% of people would choose the child and 99.9% of those people wouldn’t even think about saving the embryos. That is because we all know that an embryo is not a child.
As last time you posted this I will post the response to this public debate and give credit to the people making the arguments


Quote:

I'll answer the question as simply and honestly as I can: Yes, I would save the kid.

No, that does not prove that the embryos have no value or even less value. It also has absolutely no relation to the abortion question whatsoever. Allow me to explain.

First of all, the decision of who to save in a burning building is more an emotional one than a moral one. The whole reason we're put in the burning building for this hypothetical is to get us to forfeit our moral reasoning and adopt emotional reasoning. But emotional reasoning in a burning building is perfectly fine. In an abortion clinic, it isn't. My personal and emotional connection with my own child would lead me to save him over someone else's. Does that mean I don't recognize the value of someone else's child, or that it would be OK for me to kill someone else's child?

Second, there is a huge difference between leaving someone in a burning building because you cannot save them, and killing them outright. It is morally permissible to commit a good act (saving a child) which may indirectly lead to something bad (the embryos burning). In that case, my intention was to save the child, not to kill the embryos. Indeed, I did not kill the embryos. I just failed to save them from being killed. This is called the principle of double effect. So, just because it would be justified for me to leave the embryos to die does not mean it would be justified to kill them directly. In order for this to be similar to abortion, you'd have to had set the fire yourself. Or else you'd have to run into the room, grab the child, and then throw the embryos into the flames like a maniac.


Third, OK, but have I not proven that I value the embryos less by saving the child? Well, it doesn't matter how I value them personally. It's their intrinsic value that matters. I value my family over your family but your family has the same intrinsic value. I'm making the decision based, as I said before, on emotion. I can see the child. I hear him crying. I'm looking him in the eyes. I grab him. It's instinct. But there's also some logic to it. I don't really know how many of those embryos are still viable and whether they'll ever be implanted and given the chance to develop. Again: this calculation WOULD NOT justify killing the embryos under any circumstance, but it would justify my decision to save the child instead. By the way, if it were a five-year-old and a 70-year-old in there, I'd save the five-year-old. If it were a five-year-old and Patrick Tomlinson in there, I'm still saving the five-year-old. Sorry, Pat. But does that mean Pat's life has less value? Does that mean I could crush his skull and suck his brains out with a vacuum hose? No, it just means that my emotional impulse leads me to the child, not the pretentious pro-abortion dude who spends his time posing disingenuous hypotheticals.

What is intrinsic value? Intrinsic: belonging to a thing by its very nature. In other words, if human beings have intrinsic value at all, then they must have it from the first moment they exist as a distinct entity. If they do not have value, or if their value is less, then their value is not intrinsic and never will be. You see, all we've done by removing intrinsic value from the embryo is remove intrinsic value from the five-year-old, who was an embryo not long ago. I am not comfortable doing that. I do not think it's right or logical or moral. So the five-year-old must have intrinsic value. So the 70-year-old must have intrinsic value. So even Patrick Tomlinson has intrinsic value. So the embryo has intrinsic value.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/22380...ase-matt-walsh
Sabcat is offline  
Old May 16th, 2018, 03:07 PM   #367
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 10,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
The debate is unsolvable. The people who are against abortion see the fetus as a human being and no matter how much mental gymnastics is done by one side or the other everyone knows deep down inside that they are right. Now I just dont care as if that human is brought into the world unwanted the negitive far outweighs the positive of."saving that life" IMO. Neither side is going to convince the other so the best solution I see is just let it be a states decision. The states could greatly restrict it or all out ban it but anyone can be an hour or two away from gaining access. Both sides have the right to live amungst people who share their views. We also must remember that this very argument has happened in the past, we were just talking about slaves and not fetuses.
So you favor the state taking away rights....
goober is online now  
Old May 16th, 2018, 03:26 PM   #368
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 16,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
As last time you posted this I will post the response to this public debate and give credit to the people making the arguments




I'll answer the question as simply and honestly as I can: Yes, I would save the kid.

No, that does not prove that the embryos have no value or even less value. It also has absolutely no relation to the abortion question whatsoever. Allow me to explain.

First of all, the decision of who to save in a burning building is more an emotional one than a moral one. The whole reason we're put in the burning building for this hypothetical is to get us to forfeit our moral reasoning and adopt emotional reasoning. But emotional reasoning in a burning building is perfectly fine. In an abortion clinic, it isn't. My personal and emotional connection with my own child would lead me to save him over someone else's. Does that mean I don't recognize the value of someone else's child, or that it would be OK for me to kill someone else's child?

Second, there is a huge difference between leaving someone in a burning building because you cannot save them, and killing them outright. It is morally permissible to commit a good act (saving a child) which may indirectly lead to something bad (the embryos burning). In that case, my intention was to save the child, not to kill the embryos. Indeed, I did not kill the embryos. I just failed to save them from being killed. This is called the principle of double effect. So, just because it would be justified for me to leave the embryos to die does not mean it would be justified to kill them directly. In order for this to be similar to abortion, you'd have to had set the fire yourself. Or else you'd have to run into the room, grab the child, and then throw the embryos into the flames like a maniac.


Third, OK, but have I not proven that I value the embryos less by saving the child? Well, it doesn't matter how I value them personally. It's their intrinsic value that matters. I value my family over your family but your family has the same intrinsic value. I'm making the decision based, as I said before, on emotion. I can see the child. I hear him crying. I'm looking him in the eyes. I grab him. It's instinct. But there's also some logic to it. I don't really know how many of those embryos are still viable and whether they'll ever be implanted and given the chance to develop. Again: this calculation WOULD NOT justify killing the embryos under any circumstance, but it would justify my decision to save the child instead. By the way, if it were a five-year-old and a 70-year-old in there, I'd save the five-year-old. If it were a five-year-old and Patrick Tomlinson in there, I'm still saving the five-year-old. Sorry, Pat. But does that mean Pat's life has less value? Does that mean I could crush his skull and suck his brains out with a vacuum hose? No, it just means that my emotional impulse leads me to the child, not the pretentious pro-abortion dude who spends his time posing disingenuous hypotheticals.

What is intrinsic value? Intrinsic: belonging to a thing by its very nature. In other words, if human beings have intrinsic value at all, then they must have it from the first moment they exist as a distinct entity. If they do not have value, or if their value is less, then their value is not intrinsic and never will be. You see, all we've done by removing intrinsic value from the embryo is remove intrinsic value from the five-year-old, who was an embryo not long ago. I am not comfortable doing that. I do not think it's right or logical or moral. So the five-year-old must have intrinsic value. So the 70-year-old must have intrinsic value. So even Patrick Tomlinson has intrinsic value. So the embryo has intrinsic value.


https://www.dailywire.com/news/22380...ase-matt-walsh
Also does not explain my thought experiment.

I don’t care if the embryos belong to the person in question and is their only hope of conceiving a child and the child in question is a complete stranger. It is also not about the intrinsic value of the child or the embryo. It simply answers the question, deep down, do you think an embryo is the same as a child. In that situation you and I both know that 99.9% of people would say no. And they would say it without a second thought.

Of course that situation will most likely never happen outside of this thought experiment and outside of that situation you can answer the question any way you want.

But we both know that if push came to shove the embryo loses out almost every single time.

This isnt about the difference of saving vs killing either. I would never kill a puppy but given the choice between a puppy or a person, sorry Fido.

Now if you are so convinced that an embryo is a child then the solution is simple, don’t have an abortion but to force that belief on someone else is reprehensible.
Thanks from catus felis
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old May 16th, 2018, 03:32 PM   #369
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 16,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
So you favor the state taking away rights....
He doesn’t like the Federal Government telling a state what to do but has no problem with a state telling an individual what to do.

The reason most GOP/conservatives take that position is simple. They talk a good game about individual liberty but when it comes down to it they want to control the lives of others as much as the Democrats. Their problem is that the Federal Government on some of these issues (the “social” issues) is actually becoming more libertarian so they have to resort to “states rights” (which do not actually exist) to try and push their agenda.
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old May 16th, 2018, 06:12 PM   #370
Put some ice on that
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 26,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Also does not explain my thought experiment.

I don’t care if the embryos belong to the person in question and is their only hope of conceiving a child and the child in question is a complete stranger. It is also not about the intrinsic value of the child or the embryo. It simply answers the question, deep down, do you think an embryo is the same as a child. In that situation you and I both know that 99.9% of people would say no. And they would say it without a second thought.

Of course that situation will most likely never happen outside of this thought experiment and outside of that situation you can answer the question any way you want.

But we both know that if push came to shove the embryo loses out almost every single time.

This isnt about the difference of saving vs killing either. I would never kill a puppy but given the choice between a puppy or a person, sorry Fido.

Now if you are so convinced that an embryo is a child then the solution is simple, don’t have an abortion but to force that belief on someone else is reprehensible.

Also they are not in utero, fertilized and gestating. There is a big difference there. Again I don't care if you kill it. The differance is I have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that you are in fact killing it.

The real question would be there is a pregnant woman and one who is not and you could only save one.. everything else equal. choose?
Sabcat is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
abortion, ban, fetal, governor, heartbeat, iowa, law, signs



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
President Obama Signs Iowa Disaster Declaration The White House The White House 0 July 25th, 2014 06:00 AM
President Obama Signs Iowa Disaster Declaration The White House The White House 0 July 14th, 2014 11:21 AM
President Obama Signs Iowa Disaster Declaration The White House The White House 0 July 2nd, 2013 01:10 PM
President Obama Signs Iowa Disaster Declaration The White House The White House 0 May 31st, 2013 01:01 PM
President Obama Signs Iowa Disaster Declaration The White House The White House 0 May 7th, 2013 06:20 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.