Where are the Jan 6 style hearings?
Tucker was pointing out that the lede from pretty much all MSM was that 'A fire broke out ...' in that office
I guess at the most obtuse, abstract level you'll have that when somebody firebombs your office
Where are the Jan 6 style hearings?
Again, "at conception" does not follow from the science. But, if we want to look at the statistics, the people who believe in "at conception" have a very high correlation with being religious. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I just don't know why people are so reluctant to say it. Rights are not a scientific discipline.Just cannot wrap your head around the science…
I don't see this as dog piling, you just have the minority opinion. And I wouldn't say that you're a heretic or that your opinion needs stomped out.Uh. LOL. I think you found them.
Well the dog piling is understandable. I'm the heretic (and a few others) that challenged the orthodox and people have to stomp that out.
I think I should have made it more clear. No, you've really been understanding of the distinction I've made between the science and when rights should apply. But I'm including Chip in the conversation, who did not or does not seem to make that distinction. It looks to me like he believes that science backs his opinion of where rights should apply. And when he reads this I have little doubt that he'll rebut it again. Gotta stamp out the heresy.
So I've been clear on what I think your position is in that regard, the mistake was mine for not establishing the scope. I don't think there's a disagreement between us in the paragraph I quoted.
No more arbitrary than at birth.I think "at conception" is arbitrary. In fact, I think most of those points along a pregnancy are arbitrary. Some of them, are down right immoral. And some of them aren't as morally compelling to the wider public. I have been of the mind that as far as a law based on morals is concerned, you're right, it should be something that is measurable and consistent. But also it should reflect the will of the people. "At conception" is not the will of the people. It's only the will of a subset.
See above. Human? Check. Alive? Check.Some of those points have justifications. Some not. Certainly just before the cord is cut has no justification. But at the point where an egg is fertilized, I don't see a more compelling moral story outside of belief in a soul.
Why doesn't the fetus have the same right not to be killed?It's as good a place as any? Why at conception?
He has a right to live in the sense that he has a right not to be killed. I certainly would not advocate for killing people unjustly. But, he doesn't have a right to be saved. It's that in our society, well most societies, we think it's immoral not to save him. Probably most people feel that it's a duty. In the case of an embryo, people just don't. Maybe because they don't identify with that.
Lincoln described the slavery issue as akin to "having a tiger by the tail, which we can neither hold onto, nor safely let go." Was he a "navel gazer?" History proves he was precisely correct.The same fear and navel-gazing is why it took so long to eradicate chattel slavery.
It's not a Capitol building. So not the same. So that would normally be a good reason not to have a commission and hearings and whatever. It's against a political group. But. That's not the reason why there isn't. It's because the Jan 6th commission was convened to marginalize political opponents.Tucker was pointing out that the lede from pretty much all MSM was that 'A fire broke out ...' in that office
I guess at the most obtuse, abstract level you'll have that when somebody firebombs your office
I'm not sure that you are arguing a gestating fertilized egg is not life. I would expect that you would agree from the time a planted seed shows its first shoot that that plant is alive, so too with the first cellular division of the zygoteI have said I think you've been very confident in your belief, so there's no worry that I have thought you were insecure. But I was commenting on the reluctance I see for people to admit that it is based on a religious belief. I don't think it's an issue that religion forms the basis of your belief. You have a right to your beliefs for whatever reason and you get to vote accordingly. If that means a total ban on Abortion, then that's what you want. But other people do get to push back on that.
Funny you should mention Einstein:Funny you should mention Einstein. Pretty smart, that guy...
“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.” - Albert Einstein
Haha, yeah. I started typing, thinking, "this time I'm going to be more concise." Didn't happen.Uh. LOL. I think you found them.
Well, that's pretty close to correct, though I wouldn't phrase it that way. Is that a bad thing? From my perspective, if I am to advocate in favor of a law, I must give a justification for it that doesn't rely on religion. If that's not the case, don't we just end up with what amounts, to all practical purposes, to theocracy?Anyway, what that last part sounds like to me is, "my views are based on my religion, but I have to find a secular reason for them too, so that the law I want doesn't sound like it's just based just on my views."
"At conception" is fundamentally different than any of the hypothetical criteria you mentioned. Before conception vs after conception, a fundamental change occurs in the nature of what we're talking about: before there was NOT a human organism, now there IS. Any other criterion mentioned would be inconsistent with how we treat human organisms outside of the womb.I think "at conception" is arbitrary. In fact, I think most of those points along a pregnancy are arbitrary.
So it sounds to me like you're saying that some morals are objective (like, "murder is wrong") but other things are not objective, like, "what is a person?"You don't have to convince me about objective morality. I think what is objectively moral is very narrow. Most of it is subjective. But there are some core morals that are objective across cultures and time.
I've got a few problems with this. First scientifically speaking life begins at conception, that single cell is life by scientific definition. Another is "potential human", it is human. It can be nothing else, it's not going to turn into a puppy or a kitten. It is human.
Regarding sentience, there have been multiple studies that show sentience doesn't develop until several months after birth. Now the possibility of sentience does develop much earlier in the womb, but actual sentience no. It also doesn't cover those with severe mental defects who will never become sentient, so where do you draw the line? Okay to kill after birth but before they develop actual sentience, severe mental defects anytime after birth?
Hello.
I created an account specifically to post in this thread, I hope that’s allowed here.
Mr Bennet makes some good points about when a human life begins, and I think I understand his points about a two-cell zygote and human rights.
However, he fails to address the conflict that occurs between the rights of the unborn and the rights of the pregnant, as well as the moral issue of forced birth.
Doesn’t the mother have the same rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as Mr Bennet wants to extend to the unborn? There is undeniable overlap between the rights of two people when they both occupy the same body. Does the right to life of the unborn have supremacy over the right to life of the pregnant?
If so, based in what? The foundational element of our legal system (and government) is consent. Without consent there is no liberty.
From my perspective, forcing a person to engage in an activity that may reasonably kill them is the exact opposite of liberty, and absolutely morally abhorrent.
Is there a side to this view I am missing? When Mr Bennet asserts that an unborn human has a right to life, does that right override the existing rights of the mother, including the right to choose to avoid reasonable forms of harm?
Doesn’t a mother’s right to life include the right to choose the least harmful path forward for her own life, or should the life of her unborn child legally negate her own?
Thank you for reading my post. I await the forum’s responses.
Granted, misstating my position does make for easier refutation of the erected straw man. If you wouldn't keep misstating me, I probably wouldn't have to keep rebutting.I think I should have made it more clear. No, you've really been understanding of the distinction I've made between the science and when rights should apply. But I'm including Chip in the conversation, who did not or does not seem to make that distinction. It looks to me like he believes that science backs his opinion of where rights should apply. And when he reads this I have little doubt that he'll rebut it again. Gotta stamp out the heresy.
Case in point. My position isn't founded on my religious beliefs. It is founded on the scientific understanding of what constitutes human life, the foundational assertion of our country that all humans have the unalienable right to life, and the inability of science to determine if there is a particular point of human development at which that unalienable right attaches.So I've been clear on what I think your position is in that regard, the mistake was mine for not establishing the scope. I don't think there's a disagreement between us in the paragraph I quoted.
I have said I think you've been very confident in your belief, so there's no worry that I have thought you were insecure. But I was commenting on the reluctance I see for people to admit that it is based on a religious belief. I don't think it's an issue that religion forms the basis of your belief. You have a right to your beliefs for whatever reason and you get to vote accordingly. If that means a total ban on Abortion, then that's what you want. But other people do get to push back on that.
Anyway, what that last part sounds like to me is, "my views are based on my religion, but I have to find a secular reason for them too, so that the law I want doesn't sound like it's just based just on my views."
I think "at conception" is arbitrary. In fact, I think most of those points along a pregnancy are arbitrary. Some of them, are down right immoral. And some of them aren't as morally compelling to the wider public. I have been of the mind that as far as a law based on morals is concerned, you're right, it should be something that is measurable and consistent. But also it should reflect the will of the people. "At conception" is not the will of the people. It's only the will of a subset.
Some of those points have justifications. Some not. Certainly just before the cord is cut has no justification. But at the point where an egg is fertilized, I don't see a more compelling moral story outside of belief in a soul.
It's as good a place as any? Why at conception?
An example of this would be murder. Pretty much all societies since civilization have developed a sense that the unjust intentional killing of a another person is morally wrong, even societies that eat people. It's all in how they define "unjust" and "person".
This argument only holds water if the choice is between killing the child and killing the mother. The right to liberty can never include being free to take the life of an innocent person. Ever. No matter how annoying/aggravating/inconvenient that person may be to us.Hello.
I created an account specifically to post in this thread, I hope that’s allowed here.
Mr Bennet makes some good points about when a human life begins, and I think I understand his points about a two-cell zygote and human rights.
However, he fails to address the conflict that occurs between the rights of the unborn and the rights of the pregnant, as well as the moral issue of forced birth.
Doesn’t the mother have the same rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as Mr Bennet wants to extend to the unborn? There is undeniable overlap between the rights of two people when they both occupy the same body. Does the right to life of the unborn have supremacy over the right to life of the pregnant?
If so, based in what? The foundational element of our legal system (and government) is consent. Without consent there is no liberty.
From my perspective, forcing a person to engage in an activity that may reasonably kill them is the exact opposite of liberty, and absolutely morally abhorrent.
Is there a side to this view I am missing? When Mr Bennet asserts that an unborn human has a right to life, does that right override the existing rights of the mother, including the right to choose to avoid reasonable forms of harm?
Doesn’t a mother’s right to life include the right to choose the least harmful path forward for her own life, or should the life of her unborn child legally negate her own?
Thank you for reading my post. I await the forum’s responses.
The suggestion is incorrect, which is why it invites refutation. The only way your suggestion would be correct would be if you were to assert that "right to life" is purely a religious concept/belief.Well that long part of the discussion was because I answered a question daring to suggest that there isn't a good secular argument for "at conception". You need the concept of a soul or something like that. Then people feel they must stamp out the heretics. And then long posts ensue.
Unalienable rights apply to humans.Emotional?
Inalienable rights apply to people. Where's the emotion?
That's a reductive argument, and an opinion that rights should apply at that point.I don't see this as dog piling, you just have the minority opinion. And I wouldn't say that you're a heretic or that your opinion needs stomped out.
You keep asking about science and when rights should apply. Per the science, it is human and alive. Simple as that.
I did say all of them are arbitrary. Except, with an abortion at birth, you're going to have a much larger agreement that it is immoral than shortly after conception.No more arbitrary than at birth.
Reductive: Check.See above. Human? Check. Alive? Check.
At some point I think it does. Right at conception? That's not as morally certain.Why doesn't the fetus have the same right not to be killed?
If you've followed the conversation, that's been my point all along, that it's all a lot more subjective than people think. Which is, I think, because it's based on the surety of a religious belief in a soul that gives a even a zygote a moral status that most people don't give it.You asked me "What gives that fertilized egg rights? Is it just the DNA encoding? I think claiming it is, is just as subjective as any claim. It does not follow."
Noted.My answer is above, but I'll repeat it. It's a living human.
My question to you was. "What gives you rights? What gives a newborn rights?"
Why do you have rights? I'm pretty sure you would agree that the govt doesn't grant rights, is that correct? So where do your rights come from?
Your first paragraph is the idea that makes people's heads explode. Some think the geeky simplicity of being able to say, "One moment there were [X] chromosomes, then afterward, there were [2-times-X] chromosomes...so therefore, since there's a sort of geeky mathematical simplicity to it which always leads to the same answer - the one I happen to like - it's therefore the only right way to reason this debate."I've thought about making that point, but I'm not sure people actually care about that because their moral beliefs require them to have another priority. But it would be good to get people to see that their confidence is not evidence of objective rightness. That it's not as clear cut for everyone else as it is for them. That moral laws need to be built on consensus or there will be great disagreement and conflict.
Personally, I wish SCOTUS had not taken this case now. We're already in the middle of a fierce culture war. If the "normal" people win, and the bat **** crazy stuff is tossed out of existence, maybe that's the time to have this conversation. But that's not why those 3 justices were appointed. They were put on the bench for this purpose. And it's unlikely to have been helpful.
But you haven't refuted it. You've defined a point backed by science that begins the scope of pregnancy that no one disputes. And then you attached rights to it. I can do the same with any other point in a pregnancy documented by science. But that would be as arbitrary as yours.The suggestion is incorrect, which is why it invites refutation. The only way your suggestion would be correct would be if you were to assert that "right to life" is purely a religious concept/belief.
If that's what you're asserting, then I readily admit that I've been discussing in vain. I don't think that's what you're asserting, though - and I don't think that's what you really want to assert, because there be dragons.