A simplified abortion argument

About: abortion is none of the government's business!

Let me simplify my argument on the abortion issue. In order to say whether abortion should be legal or not you have to answer whether abortion is murder or not. Now sometime between conception and a full live birth is when abortion takes place. After birth abortion would become infanticide & is murder. Before conception it is just plain birth control. In between is where abortion either is murder or not. IMHO there are as many arguments that it is as there are that it isn't. To prove to a materialist or scientist that it is much more than just a viable tissue mass you will probably have to resort to religious argumentation. But we in the US hold religious matters to be separate from the matters of state.

Therefore keep matters of abortion private & remove abortion as a matter of the state - keep it protected from government intrusion or government sanction.

Those that trust in God - DO SO! Quit trying to legislate your religion!

Comments

Mark de LA says
This perspective is legislated could remove a good amount of polarity in politics today!

Seth says
Works for me

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-05-10 12:04:08 3528

Works for me

You may want to review it again - I have been editing it. On the other hand if we still agree I cherish the delicacy of this morsel where we both agree!

Seth says

M 2006-05-10 12:18:02 3528

seth 2006-05-10 12:04:08 3528

Works for me

You may want to review it again - I have been editing it. On the other hand if we still agree I cherish the delicacy of this morsel where we both agree!

Actually this is the first time i studied your reasoning and i started with the text in this item. Keeping faith based decisions out of legislation is an excellant idea. Too bad your president tends in the opposite direction.

Mark de LA says
Note also it works both ways. If this were enacted the way I hold the argument to sustain, abortion clinics could not receive public funding either! The problem with GWB with this issue is that it has already gone down the wrong path as a government matter. In that case one side has to win & we know which side GWB is on. If neither "side" has to win then the issue devolves to individual conscience. Let those whose conscience is not bothered fund the abortions privately.

Mark de LA says
You, Greg, must live in the "complexity" - I don't. I hate the murder in all forms. Abortion is rather easy to judge. I looked for a way out of the stale-mate. It really is an undecidable matter without religious or moral guidance both of which are not well decidable & probably not permitted by the first amendment. Cloning is not hard to judge either. Cellular development beyond a certain stage such as a blastocyst or something like that should not be permitted. See 3921. I can't see any need to clone except for growing new organs or replacement parts.
It's much simpler from the Golden Rule & the God perspective. I respect that you may or not believe in God. But, it does not matter since the truth of the matter doesn't depend upon your belief at all. The greatest mystery in the Universe is that of the conception & birth of a child. I think any God holds that as a sacred part of his creation. From the Golden Rule perspective I can't imagine a being looking forward to life, however burdened, that would not want that chance & the particular circumstances previously ordained by the Universe for a unique experience. I can imagine what pain & suffering might attend having that ripped away. I used the word imagine here a lot. I expect that God has more wisdom than I in this matter. Certainly government has a lot lot less!

Greg Dravus says
You may be interested in doing a little more ethics research: this matter is far more complex than you make it out to be. We have created a government by the people, and those people have passed many many rules on a wide variety of things: but this extremely complex issue falls inot a grey area. There will be many many more grey areas (cloning, for example) where nobody really has a "truth" or a "solution", and in these cases, we need highly educated and thoughtful analysis and debate - not simplied argument. Even your first point is wrong: that we must determine if this is murder to decide if it should be illegal. We murder people legally who are on death row. We murder people legally in the military. Do the work: study the law: study the sciences, and communication and argumentation and ethics. Then write a more thoughtful article.

Mark de LA says

And one penultimate point - so many who profess a pro-life position on the basis of religious tenets don't seem to follow their beliefs in God. Does God need man's laws to get the job done? I like brother Seth's notion - "When God raps with your soul..." it's not just words - it is much more of a reality (probably much more like lightning up your ass!). I suspect man does not need to pass laws if that is what can happen.

P.S. Please correct the paraphrase if you remember it, Seth.

Seth says

M 2006-08-16 07:56:40 3528

I like brother Seth's notion - "When God raps with your soul, it's not just words" ...
P.S. Please correct the paraphrase if you remember it, Seth.

You nailed it

Mark de LA says
Some people never learn. Abortion is none of the governments' business. South Dakota seems to think it is. RWG onward! Don't expect the Supremes to say so - they live & die for laws.

Seth says

M 2012-08-21 14:45:03 3528

seth 2012-08-21 13:44:50 3528

source: mark's other side link

Well i can easily accept that there are a small number of pregnancies from forcible rape in each state each year. So what? Is that suppose to justify including victims of rape in an abortion ban? I don't get any coherent "other side" in that argument.

This train of thought was examined in a facebook dialogue here.

Yeah, the facebook thingy didn't really examine anything .. just pointed a bit. The most extreme justification for abortion that is always trotted when abortion is discussed is "what about rape?". I used the term "other side" because the knee-jerk robot proponents of abortion immediately reacted as if what Akin said was just crazy without any thought behind it. Of course a lot of the abortion advocates claim a lot more cases of pregnancy that occurs during rape. I googled around and found that dominant. IMHO, the real other side of abortion is the potential child inside the womb wanting to be born. How you balance one against the other I do not know. How does a child born or rape approach the world if he/she knows that? How does the mother bring up a child she knows was the product of rape. How does she give away a baby she has brought to full term? These are too many questions way above my pay grade. I think Akin believes in giving the victim/potential mother all the loving support & nurturing to full term. It is still none of the business of the government & only the decision of the pregnant one. There is one question that I still have & that is the case of paternity & exchange of money in the case of full term birth; balancing that all out in the case the father doesn't want it. That's almost a case for the rights sphere or domain.

Well i think that on the one side you have the "right" of the woman to choose to be pregnant or not, and on the other side you have the question of Faith whether the fetus is a person with a "right" to be born. Rape doesn't really change that predicament. We agree that the government has no say in the matter whatsoever. Any law that legislates a right to be born dictates a matter of Faith. I see no reason to equivocate.

Mark de LA says

M 2012-08-21 08:48:53 3528

seth 2012-08-21 08:35:14 3528

source: in this item
"Therefore keep matters of abortion private & remove abortion as a matter of the state - keep it protected from government intrusion or government sanction. "

So i guess you oppose the plank being proposed for the Republican platform ...

source: Tampa, Florida (CNN)
The Republican Party is once again set to enshrine into its official platform support for "a human life amendment" to the Constitution that would outlaw abortion without making explicit exemptions for rape or incest, according to draft language of the platform obtained exclusively by CNN late Monday.

"Faithful to the 'self-evident' truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed," the draft platform declares. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."

... right?

Not quite that simple. An amendment OR not; the subject itself is not part of the government's business. The same goes for the other side supporting abortion in Obamacare paid for by the taxpayers. Until platforms & promises actually form the basis for action & prediction of action I'm not going to worry about this one. It is not now possible or yet to have a rational discussion of abortion as I have proposed. Case in point is the wolves of the left & the M$M going after Akin. The other side has never been brought up! They would prefer to tar & feather him as stupid or a fanatic. There are some radical feminists who call all sex rape!

c.f. (now being spun differently than when it came out) ... the explanations really blur the line between sex or something like it & what rape is.

Mark de LA says

seth 2012-08-21 13:44:50 3528

source: mark's other side link

This train of thought was examined in a facebook dialogue here.

Mark de LA says

.... hence the word "legitimate" in Akin's statements.

Mark de LA says

seth 2012-08-22 08:56:05 3528

M 2012-08-21 14:45:03 3528

seth 2012-08-21 13:44:50 3528

source: mark's other side link

This train of thought was examined in a facebook dialogue here.

Without faith & belief there is only force & violence - no morals no rights. This country was born out of violence in the name of religious freedom & representation. I've already agreed it's none of the government's business. Why prolong the argument? There are still some undecidable issues like the man's part in all of that. Incidentally, I talked to John Fuller yesterday & without prodding he aligned with the same idea as I have - it's just the individual's business.

Mark de LA says

M 2012-08-22 09:32:00 3528

Americans Having Fewer Babies Since 2008...

FLASHBACK: Sebelius: Decrease in Human Beings Will Cover Cost of Contraception Mandate...
..
Now we see how the Obama Administration is juggling the books. If you think the argument that Akin made is foolish read the flashback above.

Sibelius's argument doesn't work because of all the illegal aliens.

Mark de LA says

seth 2012-08-22 09:56:50 3528

source: M above
Without faith & belief there is only force & violence - no morals no rights

I agree with that generality ... but stating that generality does not inform the question of whether a specific faith based belief should be legislated by our government. Stating that here hits me as just another of your prevarications on the matter. I really do think that you are conflicted here. You abhor the murder of the child so much that you cannot stick with your principled argument. You feel with your heart the one side of the coin, while trying to rationally hold the other side in your mind. If that is true, it might help you to admit it publicly.

What you think about what I think is irrelevant to what I think! You seem to be trying to pick an argument long after I have concluded my position. Keep the ad hominem shit to yourself. Or just take the advice in this video!

A simplified abortion argument

About: abortion is none of the government's business!

Tags

Comments

See Also