Here we go with the absolutism, again.
Only in the sense that it's absolutely true that if you support Roe you support what you'd call "forcing" the woman to carry to term. That you only want to "force" them late doesn't help you as a matter of principle.
Face it, Town, for all your willingness to debate the extremists around here, you are an absolutist at heart just as they are.
Complete nonsense that you won't objectively support.
It's why you keep falling for the idea that contradiction somehow negates the truth
No, which is why I haven't said anything of the sort. I'm just noting that not even you believe you.
when in fact the closer to the truth we humans get the more inherently contradictory it appears to us. Einstein called it "relativity".
That's not what Einstein called relativity. :nono: So we'll add Einstein to the people who wouldn't believe you.
Yeah, I'm not really bothered by that because the woman has had 6 months to decide what she's going to do. And she knows when the cut-off point is (at 6 months). So if she must follow through after that, so be it.
Great. Then you're admitting that your standard is subject to something. In this case a subjective valuation of when she's had enough time (instead, oddly enough, of the developmental position of the unborn). My argument is that we're all subject to the right that may well be vested and the protection attending.
No, the big difference is that I am not an absolutist.
You mean sometimes you aren't and that negates the value of the statement. Logic. It does a mind good.
And all I am saying is that we are not responsible for the impact of decisions that we did not make, nor force anyone else to make.
And I'd say you're mistaken, that if I allow a five year old to pick up a hand gun, etc... or, we can be, but mostly we aren't responsible.
You absolutist Christians
I'm not responsible and am only marginally interested in your bigotry, Pure. Again, setting aside your stereotype, my argument was created while I was an atheist. It's no more Christian than your position, it's just more rational.
seem to have a very difficult time, these days, understanding where your own moral responsibility ends and everyone else's begins.
Else, it's an old question, am I my brother's keeper? Or, to what extent do I bear responsibility of the actions of others and to what extent should I or must I act. The answer is complicated (supra). For instance, there are many moral decisions I simply can't impact beyond speaking to them, like whether or not another human being believes in God. And there are moral decisions that others make that I can and should impact, like crafting laws against theft or contracts being made by minors.
You haven't really presented an argument.
I have. In parts even.
You just dressed up your opinion to look like an argument,
No, I walked you and anyone interested in the question through an examination of it that should lead anyone to an informed opinion.
Because it's an "argument" from ignorance.
Nah. Though that's a good illustration of attempting to wrap feeling in the robes of something else. Or, that's an opinion too, only yours is informed by something other than reason. It's another good illustration of the danger in that sort of thing.
Basically all you're saying is that because we can't be sure when a human fetus becomes a human being we are obligated to treat it like one from it's conception.
That's a simple sum that finds its legs in the particulars.
That's an opinion based on fear of ignorance: fear of "getting it wrong".
Or, it's a recognition that at some point we have no right to act and acting to sever the unborn at that point from the right requires us to act in a way contrary to our own right. That said, you should fear killing someone from ignorance if you understand there's a possibility of it and you should do whatever you can to be sure you don't actually do that.
And reason based on the fear of being wrong isn't practical nor reasonable
Here's what's dishonest about that: it isn't based on fear. You only declared it was then declared why it's a problem. That's not meeting the argument. That's beating straw.
, since we are bound to "get it wrong" a good deal of the time, and we both understand and expect this in pretty much every other aspect of our lives, including our laws, and including laws dealing with life and death.
If we go forward to suit your hypocritical standard relating to the woman's autonomy then we risk abrogating a thing we understand we shouldn't without cause while protecting a thing (that woman's autonomy) that not even you believe is absolute. So, on the one hand we may be protecting what doesn't merit it and doing injury to the woman's at best partial autonomy (see: Roe, your own declarations/position and various laws that don't give her that in any number of ways, from ingestion to suicide) and on the other we may be depriving a thing we have no right to abrogate at all, given. Not really a difficult choice, rationally speaking.
We don't seem to be afraid of getting it wrong with the death penalty,
While I agree that it isn't an absolute bar and that's one reason I oppose the DP, I'd note that we also don't get it right with abortion. Or, arguing the law is wrong elsewhere isn't an argument for allowing it anywhere. That said, the DP is a bit different. Why? Because while there's no way to approach the unborn that reduces the chance of error in criminal cases we have all sorts of standards to help us make the likelihood of error extraordinarily exceptional with the implementation of the DP and that even outside of the procedures/process to determine guilt we have a fairly extensive appellate process as a safeguard. Is it an absolute safeguard? No, it's only the best we can fashion. The arguments for deterrence, among others, has convinced the society to risk the more marginal chance we get the thing wrong. I don't agree with it, but it's not a parallel to abortion, where we have no objective standard that creates a point to begin the marginalization of error, if you were to find marginalization acceptable on the point of that right.
or when engaged in warfare, or in other areas of life and law involving the deliberate ending of a person's life.
We actually approach warfare by a different set of rules necessitated by what it is and what we can reasonably control set against what necessity dictates we do.
So why should we treat this area of life and law differently?
We treat each consideration differently and it's logical to, though I find the DP deficient in that too.
Especially when we can't even be sure we ARE dealing with a person's life, yet, since they have manifested little evidence that they are a 'person'.
Rather, the unborn at any point may absolutely be and may not be and there's nothing to give us a sense of the margin. So there's as much evidence they are as there is they aren't.
It's an opinion based on your fear of 'getting it wrong'.
You said that once. It's still not true, though there's nothing wrong with being afraid that when you exercise your right to fire a weapon you might end the life of another. It will tend to make you take precautions relating to how you go about exercising that right. So that's to the good...it's just not the root of my argument.
That's not a rational construct because we are bound to get it wrong at least half the time
That's ironic...by which I mean you have no way of setting the odds so your complaint isn't what it says it is.
when we're acting in ignorance (which is most of the time).
If you aren't sure your action will work a harm and have another that can only work a good, choose the latter course.
