Civilized Man May Soon Revile Abortion as it Does Slavery

[Defcon Shooter]

Sometime when you see a baby born to early or spontaneously aborts and it struggles to breath and kicks until it's finally succumbs. Then you tell me it's a decision for the mother to kill a child. Either life matters or it does not.

 

[Tanis143]

Now this is where it gets interesting. It was never argued classically, as far as I’m aware, that rational thought is the thing that distinguishes man from beast, and I don’t think it’s a compelling argument. There’s a clear gulf between the minds of humans and the minds of all animals, but there’s a broad range of mental and emotional capabilities among animals, some of which, while not as sophisticated as humans, can be described as rational thought. That doesn’t give them rights.

The philosophy of natural rights, including their origin, is a topic of remarkable depth. I’m looking forward to seeing what others have to say on it, but I’m mostly going to spectate for now because I’ve got a lot of work to get done tonight. But I will point out that in our Declaration of Independence, Jefferson, despite being possibly the most capable man alive at the time to expound on the origin of natural rights, chose to simply note that they are a self-evident truth. Much has been written by people smarter than all of us about the nature of human rights, but they all seemed to agree that, when you take a step back and look at nature, there’s a self-evident distinction between mankind and everything else, and it is the simple fact of being human that confers our rights. That’s not necessarily what it all comes down to, as much more has been written on the subject, but it’s a common line of thinking among 17th and 18th century philosophers. Most of them described this difference in terms of God creating mankind as separate and distinct from the rest of creation, but I don’t think that belief in God as the creator of all things is necessary to recognize the difference in nature between man and beast.

See, thats just the part that bears discussion and is also a part of the abortion discussion. Humans, genetically, are not that far removed from primates. Yes, I understand that those who follow the Christian faith believe that God created humans as a reflection of himself. However, even the most staunch churchgoer can recognize that humans are not that much different from other animals. We just have the highest brain function of land mammals (fun fact: Dolphins are right up there with us as far as brain functions go). We have the ability to reason and use logic (theoretically that is, maybe not so much in practice). So again, what gives us a right that is not evident for animals? My own opinion is that because we can say we have that right, we have it.

That being said, humans born without the capacity to grow in brain functions are not fully functional humans, so how does it justify that a right be given to them when animals who actually have a higher brain function do not have that same right?

Personally I'm against abortions as a measure of birth control. I can understand for rape/incest cases, and definitely if carrying the fetus to full term would endanger the life of the mother. But when a majority of abortions are performed because the mother feels they can not handle having a baby at that time, well I disagree with that. Its called responsibility. If you want to have sex, fine. Just make sure he has his raincoat on before you both play in the rain. Again, I'm not saying that to argue with anyone, just my own 2 cents.

 

[RugersGR8]

On Breitbart today--(Sorry, I erred about being on Drudge)

https://www.breitbart.com/education/2019/04/30/uc-san-diego-professor-compares-unborn-children-to-cancer/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_content=links&utm_campaign=20190430
UC San Diego Professor Compares Unborn Children to Cancer
by ALANA MASTRANGELO 30 Apr 2019

 

[Tanis143]

On Drudge today:

https://www.breitbart.com/education/2019/04/30/uc-san-diego-professor-compares-unborn-children-to-cancer/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_content=links&utm_campaign=20190430
UC San Diego Professor Compares Unborn Children to Cancer
by ALANA MASTRANGELO 30 Apr 2019

Meh, that comparison was used a long time ago, mostly as a joke. Considering most professors in Commiefornia are jokes, its no surprise he tried to use it as an actual comparison.

 

[Ethan N]

Well, it IS just that simple -- especially if you truly believe as I do that the government should not be in the business of dictating morality. Whether you like it or not, not everyone holds the same views on pregnancy you do. I am NOT advocating for abortion, though you seem hellbent on seeing it that way. I am, quite simply, against government intrusion into the very personal lives of it's citizens. I am also a staunch advocate for the right to die with dignity movement, and self-determination. These decisions should never be the purview of a government, as far as I am concerned.

Have a good evening, sir.

I’m not hellbent on seeing anything. I just wanted to understand your position, because you have been dodgy about addressing the threat to the rights of the child. I’m sorry that my preference to engage in open dialogue that examines an issue from all sides upset you.

Also, you don’t have a monopoly on libertarianism. I also don’t agree with government coercing morality, intruding into private matters, or trying to tell people they can’t decide when it’s time to die. But when someone’s actions conflict with another’s rights, government intervention is legitimate.

 

[Ethan N]

People with strongly-held indefensible views tend to get very upset when asked to defend them. In conversations about abortion this seems to be the most common type of response from people who are pro-abortion.

 

[GlockPride]

Even Democrats have the right to live, let alone a child who might grow up to vote Democrat.

I guess you FAILED to read the rest of my post....

 

[Annie]

People with strongly-held indefensible views tend to get very upset when asked to defend them. In conversations about abortion this seems to be the most common type of response from people who are pro-abortion.

Lmao! Go back and read Post 30. What were you saying about "not being hellbent" on seeing my posts as advocating for abortion?? And I think this is the first time in my life someone has accused me of not being succinct!

 

[Ethan N]

I guess you FAILED to read the rest of my post....

No, just wanted to add to your thoughts.

 

[Ethan N]

Lmao! Go back and read Post 30. What were you saying about "not being hellbent" on seeing my posts as advocating for abortion?? And I think this is the first time in my life someone has accused me of not being succinct!

“Pro-abortion” = pro-abortion “rights”
And I didn’t say I included you in that group. I only noted an overlap in how you responded. If I meant to accuse you of advocating for abortion, I would have done it rather than making a general statement about the tendencies of a group.

I read #30. Didn’t see anything that addresses the conflict of rights or your views on government’s role in such conflicts. Still waiting for you to defend your views. If your opinion is that you don’t care about some people’s rights as long as government doesn’t interfere with what you want to do (this is the best explanation I’ve been able to infer up to this point), just say so. Then we would at least know where you stand. And we’d know you’re more of an anarchist than a libertarian. Nothing wrong with that.