Political Discussion

[Dirtbag Auntie]

This is where I sing my fave song “Blocked City Nights.” It’s musically Big City Nights by The Scorpions but I sing my own special lyrics about blocking people who roll in and pull this kind of garbage.

 

[LiamGallaghersBucketHat]

 

[Dtknuckles]

I believe y’all have all three asked variations of the same question, and a single answer we will suffice.

For me personally, I did not hold the same value for human life before coming to Christ as I do now. Some will use that as a way to write off my views on the subject, and so be it. (Though I never supported abortion even before then, at most I kept it at the uneasy arm’s length of “I’m not a woman, so it’s not my decision.”)

I do no believe that this has to be discussed in religious terms as ideas of the value of human life and the wrongness of murder should be fairly universal regardless of theistic views. I would expect the most ardent Christian, Muslim, and atheist to all be able to agree that murder is wrong. I believe the question at hand is what constitutes murder. Otherwise, there is no common ground to be found at all, and no point in engaging in the conversation.

Many things in life are not easily defined by a binary, some are. This is one of them. Either all human life is of intrinsic value, or none of it is. One position holds that the lives and dignity of individuals should be protected, the other allows those with power to subject those without to the most horrid treatment imaginable. There can be no metering of one life over another that doesn’t render all ideas of human rights as arbitrary and meaningless.

Even the life of the most horrendous person holds value. Regardless of the things they say or ideas they espouse, as long as they do not pose an immediate physical threat to another person’s life or physical well being, there can be no justification for taking their life.

Finally, how to protect the innocent from those who would do them harm is not a simple one size fits all solution. It’s many hard questions with many hard answers that must be wrestled with individually.

But you assert that human life has intrinsic value but don’t express the reason for that. The reason can’t simply be “because”

Rights are a human creation. There are no rights if you don’t have the ability to conceptualize them or enforce them through political means.

 

[User190425]

But you assert that human life has intrinsic value but don’t express the reason for that. The reason can’t simply be “because”

Rights are a human creation. There are no rights if you don’t have the ability to conceptualize them or enforce them through political means.

I believe you have this exactly backwards. Your rights flow not from society, but from the fact that you are a sentient and conscious human being. If you wish to call that “because” so be it. Our entire system of government is based on the concepts of natural law. Contained therein is the idea that each human life has intrinsic value and deserves protection. It has spent most of its existence not living up to that ideal, yet has continually improved in moving towards that end.

Governments (political means) only justly exist to recognize and act as guarantors to protect your rights. They do not grant them. To claim otherwise is to declare as legitimate every horrendous action undertaken by one group of people against another throughout all of history.

If you don’t believe that each human life has value, then let me ask these questions.

What makes murder wrong? Is it?
What makes slavery wrong? Is it?
What makes rape wrong? Is it?
What makes the ideas of eugenicists such as the mentally ill, disabled, or otherwise “non-productive” people should be sterilized or killed wrong? Are they?

I’m not asking this in a snarky or disingenuous way. The belief that each and every human life holds value and should be protected is such a foundational pillar of my worldview that I am legitimately struggling to understand your position as I believe it can justify all of these things I asked above.

 

[User190425]

 

[Nee Lewman]

I do understand your position though I don’t agree, and agree in that there are knock on effects for society to limiting and banning abortion. For me the answer of murder is never an acceptable solution to the hard questions of how to support families and the raising of children. While not your intention, the argument always reads to me as the idea that death is preferable to poverty or a hard life. I just can’t get onboard with that idea. It’s essentially a eugenics argument and that’s just not ever going to hold water for me. (I am the child of a 15yo girl who was a lifelong victim of incest. [I’m not a product of that abuse.] If you think I’m a hardliner, you should meet my mom.) We went far down that road in this country and it was reprehensible.

To your last sentence, I do think though that if the Casey decision had not lifted the allowable restrictions imposed by Roe, and the public messaging hadn’t shifted from “safe, legal, and rare” to “shout your abortion” it would have been a much harder lift to get this ruling. The majority of the public is of the same view as you hold with a cutoff of 12-15 weeks. Just as my hard line view is an outlier that does not necessarily help get the results I ultimately want (like in Kansas) the hardline views of the late term and casual use proponents that were at the media forefront helped lead to the factors in place for the change that just came down.

I have no idea where we are with this argument now, but your last paragraph speaks to the all or nothing attitude that outliers being in charge has brought us to. Arguing against the hardliners doesn’t require the middle ground to be decimated. That’s what we’ve done here. We’ve done away with what the country actually believes in your opinion because one group of extremists pushed us to it. The problem is that you believe it was the other side and not your side.

This attitude on all matters, my way or the Highway, will be what destroys this country and it’s grand experiment if left to continue unchecked causing normal people to treat each other poorly because of beliefs instead of actually doing what’s right for everyone.

 

[Nee Lewman]

I believe you have this exactly backwards. Your rights flow not from society, but from the fact that you are a sentient and conscious human being. If you wish to call that “because” so be it. Our entire system of government is based on the concepts of natural law. Contained therein is the idea that each human life has intrinsic value and deserves protection. It has spent most of its existence not living up to that ideal, yet has continually improved in moving towards that end.

Governments (political means) only justly exist to recognize and act as guarantors to protect your rights. They do not grant them. To claim otherwise is to declare as legitimate every horrendous action undertaken by one group of people against another throughout all of history.

If you don’t believe that each human life has value, then let me ask these questions.

What makes murder wrong? Is it?
What makes slavery wrong? Is it?
What makes rape wrong? Is it?
What makes the ideas of eugenicists such as the mentally ill, disabled, or otherwise “non-productive” people should be sterilized or killed wrong? Are they?

I’m not asking this in a snarky or disingenuous way. The belief that each and every human life holds value and should be protected is such a foundational pillar of my worldview that I am legitimately struggling to understand your position as I believe it can justify all of these things I asked above.

Human rights exist because humans are sentient and conscious. But are extended to beings at conception (I.e. germinal stage and embryonic stage) who are weeks if not months away from sentience and consciousness?

 

[Dtknuckles]

Your rights flow not from society, but from the fact that you are a sentient and conscious human being. If you wish to call that “because” so be it.

The two most important words in this statement are sentient and conscious. However they need to be more clearly defined, because most life forms have some degree of the two. Questions need to be asked why humans have your protection and why not cows or lizards. If you really look at it embryos have less of these two qualities that cows and lizards.

What makes murder wrong? Is it?
What makes slavery wrong? Is it?
What makes rape wrong? Is it?
What makes the ideas of eugenicists such as the mentally ill, disabled, or otherwise “non-productive” people should be sterilized or killed wrong? Are they?

Most of the reasons I believe these are wrong are because they are destructive to the individual as well as society. They inflict both emotional and physical pain and make it hard for society to function. Notice it’s not because of some basic human right. It because of the consequences of the actions. Humanity has made this decision 1000x over. WW2 being one of those times.

You may say that rights are natural. But that’s only one part. I didn’t say that governments create rights, it’s that they don’t practically exist unless there is the political will to enforce them. You can scream all you want about privacy rights, but a court has to agree with you and they have to expend resources to enforce it.

 

[Dtknuckles]

My biggest question about abortion is that what affect does it have on the individuals who are involved and how does that extend to society in general. Once we get a hold on that we can better decide if it is good or bad for society. Even if it turns out to be destructive does it need to be legislated. There are a lot of things that are bad for society that are not legislated.

 

[User190425]

I have no idea where we are with this argument now, but your last paragraph speaks to the all or nothing attitude that outliers being in charge has brought us to. Arguing against the hardliners doesn’t require the middle ground to be decimated. That’s what we’ve done here. We’ve done away with what the country actually believes in your opinion because one group of extremists pushed us to it. The problem is that you believe it was the other side and not your side.

This attitude on all matters, my way or the Highway, will be what destroys this country and it’s grand experiment if left to continue unchecked causing normal people to treat each other poorly because of beliefs instead of actually doing what’s right for everyone.

My point was that the hardliners on the other side unintentionally assisted the hardliners on my side to accomplish the ends we were after and have been openly seeking since Roe because of the disgust they engendered in the general populace.

On the flip side, now that the legal landscape has changed, the hardliners on my side make it harder to get the results we want that require electoral victories because of the (justified) fear of how far we will take the prohibitions.

As I alluded to before, the “safe, legal, and rare” view of abortion as a tragic, but necessary option has always been the broadly held view of the general public. Polling going back to the Roe decision bears this out. I can see and acknowledge that my ideas are not in the mainstream, and at the same time continue to work towards those end goal because sometimes compromise isn’t an acceptable state of affairs. Right is right, and wrong is wrong and even a little bit of wrong in certain cases is wholly unacceptable.

 

[Nee Lewman]

My point was that the hardliners on the other side unintentionally assisted the hardliners on my side to accomplish the ends we were after and have been openly seeking since Roe because of the disgust they engendered in the general populace.

On the flip side, now that the legal landscape has changed, the hardliners on my side make it harder to get the results we want that require electoral victories because of the (justified) fear of how far we will take the prohibitions.

As I alluded to before, the “safe, legal, and rare” view of abortion as a tragic, but necessary option has always been the broadly held view of the general public. Polling going back to the Roe decision bears this out. I can see and acknowledge that my ideas are not in the mainstream, and at the same time continue to work towards those end goal because sometimes compromise isn’t an acceptable state of affairs. Right is right, and wrong is wrong and even a little bit of wrong in certain cases is wholly unacceptable.

But as you have acknowledged. It’s not a right or wrong issue. It’s a nuanced one with many variables. Your “side” which is dumb in this argument as it is a human argument, wants to make it right or wrong and do away with it.

I’m also sorry, but I take great issue with the concept that it’s okay to bring the children into a not pleasant life. If you are going to force birth than you need to pony up and help to raise the children effected in a manner that is acceptable.

That’s the only compromise for a no abortion reality. If you are going to legislate what other people subject their body and potential children to then you own a piece of what happens after.

 

[User190425]

Human rights exist because humans are sentient and conscious. But are extended to beings at conception (I.e. germinal stage and embryonic stage) who are weeks if not months away from sentience and consciousness?

Without outside action to interrupt that process, those factors will develop at a predictable stage of development. I’m fact, babies don’t develop the self awareness that would act as part of the consciousness until months after birth. Is it okay to kill them then? What magic happens that changes their status from not deserving protection to deserving it in traveling the few inches from inside of a woman, to outside?

But as you have acknowledged. It’s not a right or wrong issue. It’s a nuanced one with many variables. Your “side” which is dumb in this argument as it is a human argument, wants to make it right or wrong and do away with it.

I’m also sorry, but I take great issue with the concept that it’s okay to bring the children into a not pleasant life. If you are going to force birth than you need to pony up and help to raise the children effected in a manner that is acceptable.

That’s the only compromise for a no abortion reality. If you are going to legislate what other people subject their body and potential children to then you own a piece of what happens after.

I have acknowledged that it is a nuanced question for some, not for me. I believe I have been very consistent in my position that it is an issue of right and wrong. My position of abortion as murder is a true and sincere belief. So any compromise on the issue is to say that a little bit of murder is ok.

What to do afterwards in how to support mothers, children and families is a complicated question, but it is a separate question from the morality of the murder of babies.

 

[User190425]

The two most important words in this statement are sentient and conscious. However they need to be more clearly defined, because most life forms have some degree of the two. Questions need to be asked why humans have your protection and why not cows or lizards. If you really look at it embryos have less of these two qualities that cows and lizards.


Most of the reasons I believe these are wrong are because they are destructive to the individual as well as society. They inflict both emotional and physical pain and make it hard for society to function. Notice it’s not because of some basic human right. It because of the consequences of the actions. Humanity has made this decision 1000x over. WW2 being one of those times.

You may say that rights are natural. But that’s only one part. I didn’t say that governments create rights, it’s that they don’t practically exist unless there is the political will to enforce them. You can scream all you want about privacy rights, but a court has to agree with you and they have to expend resources to enforce it.

My biggest question about abortion is that what affect does it have on the individuals who are involved and how does that extend to society in general. Once we get a hold on that we can better decide if it is good or bad for society. Even if it turns out to be destructive does it need to be legislated. There are a lot of things that are bad for society that are not legislated.

Why does the effect on the individual matter if they have no inborn basic human right to their life separate and independent of society?

 

[Dtknuckles]

Why does the effect on the individual matter if they have no inborn basic human right to their life separate and independent of society?

Individual meaning the one who is carrying the child, father, and people performing the abortion.

As far as the embryo or unborn child it doesn’t have the same level of cognition to experience and remember emotional distress. A key component for me in all the other situations you point out.

 

[User190425]

Individual meaning the one who is carrying the child, father, and people performing the abortion.

Question still stands. What does the effect on the individual(s) matter (on any issue) if they have no inborn basic human rights separate and independent of what is recognized by society. This is the basis of the questions I posed about slavery, murder and underpins this one.

What makes the effect anything on an individual matter enough to balance it against the needs and desires of society as a whole?

 

[Bull Shannon]

Right is right, and wrong is wrong and even a little bit of wrong in certain cases is wholly unacceptable.

That’s fascism. I always avoid “discussions” with this guy because, eventually, the mask slips and it becomes clear we’re not exchanging ideas and he just wants to throw stones at the libs then play martyr when they throw them back (or loudly announce “your stones have no effect on me!”). The other side will always have enough nuanced drawbacks to appear utterly indefensible, and anything indefensible about his ideals is either beside the point or simply an unfortunate effect of the real world.

Engaging with this guy just gives him fuel, and while a welcoming and accepting attitude is what we strive for here, the point is kinda moot if he’s going to just stand firm in bad-faith debate.

He wouldn’t agree, but this guy’s a ding dang troll. I’m blocking this egg.

 

[Dtknuckles]

Question still stands. What does the effect on the individual(s) matter (on any issue) if they have no inborn basic human rights separate and independent of what is recognized by society. This is the basis of the questions I posed about slavery, murder and underpins this one.

What makes the effect anything on an individual matter enough to balance it against the needs and desires of society as a whole?

The affect on the individual is balanced agains the effect on society.

 

[folsom_lives]

Maybe this is too broad or depressing to ask, but what gives any life value? Is it the value assigned by society or by the self?

 

[NateOEB]

Jon Stewart's work around promoting and defending the PACT Act has been pretty inspiring.

 

[LiamGallaghersBucketHat]

The ghost of Chuck is amongst us….