Against abortion and against person-hood?

[Town Heretic]

...Is the triumphal march of the crusade more personally/emotionally gratifying than the view from the trench?

I think I answered this in one of my priors. It's simply not an either/or as regards being dedicated to minimizing the point where many women feel compelled to put the option on their table and to argue against the option itself. In fact, given that some of those women would choose an illegal abortion (as some always did before Roe) it's of incredible importance that those who value the right or who value from the moral right or both do what is within their power to address the point and problem.

I reject the emotional angle as I did in its various incarnations in the other bits. While it should be satisfying to save a life or protect right, depending on your vantage, our motivation should be aimed a bit higher and encompass more than even the point itself.

 

[quip]

I reject the emotional angle as I did in its various incarnations in the other bits. While it should be satisfying to save a life or protect right, depending on your vantage, our motivation should be aimed a bit higher and encompass more than even the point itself.

Aim high/encompass...as in: Save life whilst protecting right?

This is a compromise I cannot not see you accepting...you're too emotionally vested in the "higher aim" of saving life through interdiction. Moreover, such appeal further serves to maintain exactly why you cannot simply "reject the emotional angle" a.k.a. the personal impetus sustaining said rational advance...they're part and parcel.

 

[Town Heretic]

Aim high/encompass...as in: Save life whilst protecting right?

Well, you accomplish the first while attempting the latter, but what I meant is if you believe in preserving the right and life your aim should move beyond the establishment of the law, which goes back to doing what can be done to minimize the likelihood of the choice being made, legally or else. I was nudging the point about prevention again, a point where I agreed with Pure.

This is a compromise I cannot not see you accepting...

What compromise? I can't reasonably say I'm concerned with crime if I'm unconcerned with the root of it. If I'm unconcerned with a thing that can alter the outcome then it isn't crime, but my safety and property that concerns me, by way of.

you're too emotionally vested in the "higher aim" of saving life through interdiction.

Rather, I'm invested in protecting against the violation of a right I am not entitled to abrogate. Beyond that, any man who says the question isn't one that moves him is lacking some essential part of his humanity that should put the rest of us on guard.

Moreover, such appeal further serves to maintain exactly why you cannot simply "reject the emotional angle" a.k.a. the personal impetus sustaining said rational advance...they're part and parcel.

Hopefully I've made it clear with my above that it isn't emotional connection I eschew at all, or reject. It's irrationality that confuses ardent feeling with reason and meets argument with declaration. By all means feel. By all means be impassioned by truth, but be certain that's the thing that leads you.

 

[PureX]

Everyone has their "rationale". So there is no lack of rationality, here. The problem is that our rationale is not based on our knowledge, but on emotionally sponsored opinion: that human life must be protected in any variation and at all cost, or, that individual autonomy must be protected in every variation and at all cost. And these views are simply not compatible. (Nor, according to logic and experience, are they achievable.) So compromise is going to have to be the order of the day. And in fact, it IS the order of the day, by law. The 'unborn" are being protected, to a degree, while the woman's right to choose what happens inside her own body is also being protected, to a point.

Like it or not (and many do not) we have reached our compromise.

 

[Town Heretic]

Everyone has their "rationale".

I'd agree a lot of people find reasons within a context. But reason is never an enemy of itself. Which means reason, logic, is a great way to check whether or not you're working backward from a belief or the other way around.

So there is no lack of rationality, here. The problem is that our rationale is not based on our knowledge, but on emotionally sponsored opinion:

My argument completely and demonstrably isn't, but I'll grant some, maybe most are. :idunno:

that human life must be protected in any variation and at all cost,

That wouldn't be my point, by way of. In fact, necessity will often require us to risk it. Rather, our right to be is fundamental, is the thing without which no other right has meaning. Else, see: my argument prior.

or, that individual autonomy must be protected in every variation and at all cost.

While autonomy isn't valued to the same degree and is necessarily limited between parties to the compact for a host of good reasons, the problem here is that you have to assume a want of vestment on the part of the unborn for this to become meaningful in the argument. Because once the unborn is seen as having an equal right then its autonomy is no less important and the argument from autonomy fails to find purchase.

And these views are simply not compatible. (Nor, according to logic and experience, are they achievable.) So compromise is going to have to be the order of the day.

Flawed premise to flawed conclusion. No. Supra.

And in fact, it IS the order of the day, by law. The 'unborn" are being protected, to a degree, while the woman's right to choose what happens inside her own body is also being protected, to a point.

It's not a compromise. It's an arbitrary line drawn along that chronological chain of being and should be rejected as such. It's political, not rational.

Like it or not (and many do not) we have reached our compromise.

Horsefeathers.

:e4e:

 

[quip]

Well, you accomplish the first while attempting the latter, but what I meant is if you believe in preserving the right and life your aim should move beyond the establishment of the law, which goes back to doing what can be done to minimize the likelihood of the choice being made, legally or else. I was nudging the point about prevention again, a point where I agreed with Pure.

Ok yet, the nature of abortion is such that in taking extreme measures to protect life comes at the cost of specific, currently established rights and liberties....likewise, similar consequence attenuate the unborn amidst the fervent, single-minded efforts at protecting the of rights and liberties for women.

What compromise?

This seems where you've lost grasp of the idea brought forth.

Abortion is a three pronged dilemma. The first is to save newborn life at the expense of liberties currently afforded to women. Second, the protection of liberties for women without concern nor recourse for the life of the unborn. Third is a compromise, an advance upon the causes and conditions leading to pregnancy and subsequent decision to abort with a concerted effort to protect unborn life while concurrently maintaining rights for women. This is what Px as been alluding to, replete with unsupported exclamations from you of: "Flawed premise to flawed conclusion" and "horsefeathers".

Please elucidate upon those objections.

 

[Town Heretic]

Ok yet, the nature of abortion is such that in taking extreme measures to protect life comes at the cost of specific, currently established rights and liberties....likewise, similar consequence attenuate the unborn amidst the fervent, single-minded efforts at protecting the of rights and liberties for women.

I don't see the question as one of defending or eliminating an extreme, only of protecting something that, where present, requires it. That said, I recognize that the impact of this can be considerable on the individual and that it carries with it a number of risks, economic and personal in nature. As a society we should, we must be as concerned with addressing those as we are with any other area of significant importance to the compact, especially given that a failure to do so increases the chances of a woman seeking an illegal abortion which is both then largely foreseeable and avoidable.

This seems where you've lost grasp of the idea brought forth.

Always possible, but I don't think I have. Let's see.

Abortion is a three pronged dilemma. The first is to save newborn life at the expense of liberties currently afforded to women. Second, the protection of liberties for women without concern nor recourse for the life of the unborn.

I don't think you have to be unconcerned to weigh one thing over another, but the summation of what's in play is fair enough.

Third is a compromise, an advance upon the causes and conditions leading to pregnancy and subsequent decision to abort with a concerted effort to protect unborn life while concurrently maintaining rights for women.

I missed the part where there's a compromise... In a compromise both parties typically gain and lose something. What does the pro-choice side lose in this and what does the pro-life gain that it shouldn't have to begin with? Or did you mean this as a stance leading to Roe which you see as that compromise?

I both should and will continue to make efforts for the sort of world where the option presents itself to no one, where the attendant complaints that should raise compassion in us have been eliminated, but there is nothing in what you say that should convince me or any rational soul to abandon an argument that meets and rejects the cobble, contradictory right with its arbitrary valuation and distinction.

This is what Px as been alluding to, replete with unsupported exclamations from you of: "Flawed premise to flawed conclusion" and "horsefeathers".

You mischaracterize both his advance and my response. He's said a good bit more and I've never yet offered a conclusion that was nothing more or less than declaration.

Please elucidate upon those objections.

With pleasure. :e4e:

 

[quip]

I missed the part where there's a compromise... In a compromise both parties typically gain and lose something. What does the pro-choice side lose in this and what does the pro-life gain that it shouldn't have to begin with? Or did you mean this as a stance leading to Roe which you see as that compromise?

I see you're still viewing this in a ham-fisted manner; a zero-sum crusade waged on behalf of the ill-trodden unborn where one side must prevail at the exclusion of the other. Rather though, its a compromise of principle, a personal effort on behalf of each - within their personal sphere - to actively assert their influence upon the importance of unborn life to those who're desperate and seek myopic short-term alleviation of their situation via their right to do so...all the while accepting the reality of their free choice, whichever path it leads.

 

[Crucible]

There's a difference between being truly 'pro-life' and simply being an idiot involved in a fruitless endeavor to outlaw something that is never going to be outlawed.

One would be much more fruitful in putting their energy into taking down the institution of abortion rather than trying to make it commensurate to 'murder'.

Otherwise, you are just a tool.
I can't imagine why anyone in their right mind would think abortion would be considered murder in this now vain, Babylonian society.

 

[Lon]

There's a difference between being truly 'pro-life' and simply being an idiot involved in a fruitless endeavor to outlaw something that is never going to be outlawed.

One would be much more fruitful in putting their energy into taking down the institution of abortion rather than trying to make it commensurate to 'murder'.

Otherwise, you are just a tool.
I can't imagine why anyone in their right mind would think abortion would be considered murder in this now vain, Babylonian society.

Whether or not it stops imho, must NOT stop the outcry against barbarism, whether it is seen as effectual or not, lest we be viewed as complicit in the atrocity for those of our posterity looking back. While I am completely prayerful and trusting in Sovereignty, I yet look to men through whom God may act as a priori to looking to rocks crying out as well. -Lon

 

[Lon]

I see you're still viewing this in a ham-fisted manner; a zero-sum crusade waged on behalf of the ill-trodden unborn where one side must prevail at the exclusion of the other. Rather though, its a compromise of principle, a personal effort on behalf of each - within their personal sphere - to actively assert their influence upon the importance of unborn life to those who're desperate and seek myopic short-term alleviation of their situation via their right to do so...all the while accepting the reality of their free choice, whichever path it leads.

Absolutely, the one is a right to live. The other? A support of poor-conceived whim and a miserable wave at consequence 'because-I can.' Your 'right' is a miserable excuse for existence and merely the childish self-absorbed whim of selfish egocentrism and its asserted right at the expense of another's life. With that, you are well within good company but wholly unacceptable on a Christian forum where death is an atrocity of assertion of petty self-important, self-absorbed barbarism, and self-interested whim.

You, Quip, admit so often that such should not be done, that your own hypocrisy and inconsistency over the matter is clearly seen. You can't be dishonest with us, or yourself. It is clearly seen by your flip-flopping: Here the 'whim of the mother' and then the 'right' when it suits the law to consider it, all the while abusing the one over the other, just as Roe/Wade allowed and was feared. It promotes continually, whim rather than right and decency and became rather a paid short-cut by tax-payers for poor behavior and erasing the consequences upon nothing but whim and self-indulgence, and at the cost of a life that would surely live otherwise. You'll consistently try and minimize that, but you can't. "Try" as hard as you like.

 

[quip]

Absolutely, the one is a right to live. The other? A support of poor-conceived whim and a miserable wave at consequence 'because-I can.' Your 'right' is a miserable excuse for existence and merely the childish self-absorbed whim of selfish egocentrism and its asserted right at the expense of another's life. With that, you are well within good company but wholly unacceptable on a Christian forum where death is an atrocity of assertion of petty self-important, self-absorbed barbarism, and self-interested whim.

You, Quip, admit so often that such should not be done, that your own hypocrisy and inconsistency over the matter is clearly seen. You can't be dishonest with us, or yourself. It is clearly seen by your flip-flopping: Here the 'whim of the mother' and then the 'right' when it suits the law to consider it, all the while abusing the one over the other, just as Roe/Wade allowed and was feared. It promotes continually, whim rather than right and decency and became rather a paid short-cut by tax-payers for poor behavior and erasing the consequences upon nothing but whim and self-indulgence, and at the cost of a life that would surely live otherwise. You'll consistently try and minimize that, but you can't. "Try" as hard as you like.

Make sure you clean up the floor when you're done Lon.

 

[PureX]

I missed the part where there's a compromise…

The pro-choice side gets to exercise their individual right to choose, but only up to a point. The pro-life side gets to declare abortion illegal, but only after that point. And that point is being established via both a long-standing legal tradition/precedent, and the common witness/experience of the human condition. The only reason you didn't "see it" is because you are only willing to "see it" one way: your way. And any other way of seeing it is being negated before it can even be posited (evidenced via your comments on this thread). It's why I disengaged my discussion with you. There was no more point to it. You are in 'auto-negate' mode.

:chuckle:

 

[Lon]

Make sure you clean up the floor when you're done Lon.

AT LEAST, you and I effectively communicate in no uncertain terms over the matter. :up:

 

[Rusha]

The pro-choice side gets to exercise their individual right to choose, but only up to a point. The pro-life side gets to declare abortion illegal, but only after that point.

And an unborn baby ends up dead every time they *choose* to abort ...

 

[Town Heretic]

I see you're still viewing this in a ham-fisted manner; a zero-sum crusade waged on behalf of the ill-trodden unborn where one side must prevail at the exclusion of the other.

I'm sorry you see it that way and I find your description a mischaracterization. If the argument stands then the right you speak for is an illusion that no one should ever have been entitled to exercise. If it doesn't it should be discarded. That's my position and the sum of the proffer argued and advanced in particular, inviting rebuttal on any particular.

It's why I disengaged with you in the debate.

I see...let me know when you finish finishing. lain:

 

[Delmar]

There's a difference between being truly 'pro-life' and simply being an idiot involved in a fruitless endeavor to outlaw something that is never going to be outlawed.

One would be much more fruitful in putting their energy into taking down the institution of abortion rather than trying to make it commensurate to 'murder'.

Otherwise, you are just a tool.
I can't imagine why anyone in their right mind would think abortion would be considered murder in this now vain, Babylonian society.

So what your saying is, why go around speaking the truth?

I sort of like this answer...

And an unborn baby ends up dead every time they *choose* to abort ...

 

[Delmar]

He probably read it slapped across a photograph published anonymously on the internet...seriously, he does that.

Any response on the contraceptive angle relating to resistance by many regarding the personhood movement. I have to admit I'd never really thought of it.

I think the point you raise is one reason personhood is not likely to prevail in American law. As for me, I will simply revert to an earlier statement. Do right and risk the consequences.

 

[quip]

I'm sorry you see it that way and I find your description a mischaracterization.

I'm sorry as well....more so to the fact you've offered nothing to illustrate my error.

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm sorry as well....more so to the fact you've offered nothing to illustrate my error.

You didn't illustrate an error, only declared the nature of the thing as you saw it. Why on earth should I work harder than you do?

But to do a pinch more then, ham fisted and crusade are wholly subjective and regrettable choices aimed to frame an ongoing response that I don't believe was fairly judged by you in applying them. My actual response on the point and in speaking to Pure began in and with reason offered and an invitation to difference upon the parts of it. It was too frequently met by a great deal of "you Christian absolutists" in essence (and piece by piece in fact). Through all that I met any inquiry and upheld the integrity of the argument, which was my point. Almost everything Pure said to me avoided doing the one necessary thing...instead he pretended he hadn't read an argument, tried to hide it under the word opinion and declared, ultimately, that he needn't meet it at all because...I believed it, because it was my opinion. Mostly an opinion is a view, predicated or not on fact and reason with a leaning toward the not. But there was the neat circle. My opinion, if you like to label it that, was predicated on reason and offered in that fashion. So attempting to assume you needn't consider or reject a thing because you mean to frame it as lacking the reasoning that would justify his usage...a neat and lazy circle that, at best. At worst, an underhanded tactic to avoid in route to offering what already is to be had in the spirit of compromise.

In light of that overall treatment and tactic, horsefeathers seemed kind.