Twangbanger
Grandmaster
- Oct 9, 2010
- 7,137
- 113
Now that we've bulldozed all that out of the way, and gone on to the "least (potential) harm" doctrine, it must be asked:
Least harm to "whom?" Least harm to the "universe of interested parties?"
I'll put my belief out there. I believe that 2x > x*, and a zygote is a human life. But I believe that life is dependent on a host, and if that life was put there against the host's will, then that host still gets a vote/veto on whether that life continues. If I innocently accept counterfeit cash from someone or buy stolen property, and it gets found out, I get the shaft, despite the fact I'm innocent. It's "awful but lawful," and I'm ok with that, as a practical matter. This will invariably bring "gray areas" into view, and I'm fine with that. Let the people decide. Your mileage is allowed to vary. (But remember: some of the foregoing posters have established that "we cannot know" at what point rights attach; so if you're one of them, honor that in your response).
My practical consideration, is that abortion is not my #1 issue, it doesn't even make the top 5 for me, and I don't want "our side" getting made out to be "monsters" on this and being barred from political power for a generation, at a time when huge issues are up for grabs. I would rather the other side be made to defend the "monster position" they seem to be working on building.
If "Least Harm" is being advanced to 1) force raped women to carry to term, I don't find it convincing enough.
If it's being advanced to 2) outlaw a pill that prevents implantation of a zygote into a uterus, then sorta ditto, I don't think it's a strong enough argument to ride into the political wilderness.
* where x is a positive number
Least harm to "whom?" Least harm to the "universe of interested parties?"
I'll put my belief out there. I believe that 2x > x*, and a zygote is a human life. But I believe that life is dependent on a host, and if that life was put there against the host's will, then that host still gets a vote/veto on whether that life continues. If I innocently accept counterfeit cash from someone or buy stolen property, and it gets found out, I get the shaft, despite the fact I'm innocent. It's "awful but lawful," and I'm ok with that, as a practical matter. This will invariably bring "gray areas" into view, and I'm fine with that. Let the people decide. Your mileage is allowed to vary. (But remember: some of the foregoing posters have established that "we cannot know" at what point rights attach; so if you're one of them, honor that in your response).
My practical consideration, is that abortion is not my #1 issue, it doesn't even make the top 5 for me, and I don't want "our side" getting made out to be "monsters" on this and being barred from political power for a generation, at a time when huge issues are up for grabs. I would rather the other side be made to defend the "monster position" they seem to be working on building.
If "Least Harm" is being advanced to 1) force raped women to carry to term, I don't find it convincing enough.
If it's being advanced to 2) outlaw a pill that prevents implantation of a zygote into a uterus, then sorta ditto, I don't think it's a strong enough argument to ride into the political wilderness.
* where x is a positive number
Last edited: