Sweet Square
Full Member
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
That's a fairer appraisal than before but I feel it's still missing an important part of the discussion. Namely, what is meant by "life". One side will argue it's purely biological life which starts at conception while the other side will approach the concept of life differently, taking moral and ethical arguments into consideration (even on the pro-choice side there's no concensus on what life means exactly in this context). That's what makes it so difficult. A pro-choicer will argue that they're against terminating a living person, it's just that their definition of a living person is different.I'll rephrase how I call it then: "Protecting all life vs Being allowed to terminate life"
Hope it's better understood now.
This brings me back to a debate I once had in another thread here about the West trying to impose the it's civilisation, democracy and culture on the rest of the globe, because they are economically more powerful and the others have always depended on them.You're welcome to your opinion.
Considering there's a pattern in that more developed countries have far less strict abortion laws than less developed countries I'd say there's a direct relation there. Developed countries are generally more inclined to implement more progressive laws than developing countries are, and enabling abortion is progressive, not regressive. Hardly a coincidence that we're discussion this in relation to probably the most backwards state in the US.
Of course. The rest of the confederate states will follow suit in short order.Full scale attack on Roe V Wade at the moment .
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Fully agree with you. Which is why I strongly believe the debate in society is far from over.That's a fairer appraisal than before but I feel it's still missing an important part of the discussion. Namely, what is meant by "life". One side will argue it's purely biological life which starts at conception while the other side will approach the concept of life differently, taking moral and ethical arguments into consideration (even on the pro-choice side there's no concensus on what life means exactly in this context). That's what makes it so difficult. A pro-choicer will argue that they're against terminating a living person, it's just that their definition of a living person is different.
Funnily enough I don't recall other developed nations forcing us to have a referendum last year and I don't recall them forcing the 68% of people who voted Yes to do so but.. sure why not.This brings me back to a debate I once had in another thread here about the West trying to impose the it's civilisation, democracy and culture on the rest of the globe, because they are economically more powerful and the others have always depended on them.
The pattern you're referring to is a cultural pattern, historically the more developed countries of this world have been those of the Western civilisation and all those in the process of trying to become more developed copy the pattern of the more developed ones, including their civilisation, values and culture. We see an effort of globalisation of values which may (or not necessarily) be a good idea. Maybe I'm digressing a little bit.
(By the way, personally I don't oppose progressive to regressive but to conservative.)
Their official state motto.In Alabama, Performing Abortions Would Carry Harsher Penalties Than Many Sex Crimes
https://m.huffingtonpost.in/entry/i...71b88d11e?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
Wtf Alabama? This whole bill is fecking ridiculous.
The economic state of a country is a direct aggregation of the economic state of it's individuals.Okay, I take it you understand we are talking about the economic development of a country here, not of individuals. So, are you saying people in poor countries should stop procreating?
Perfectly understood.I'll rephrase how I call it then: "Protecting all life vs Being allowed to terminate life"
Hope it's better understood now.
I think the argument would be "protecting innocent life".Perfectly understood.
Georgia - abortion bans but has death penalty
Alabama - abortion bans but has death penalty
Missouri - abortion bans but has death penalty
So how does that work with the "pro-life = protecting all life" thing?
Protecting good-life.Perfectly understood.
Georgia - abortion bans but has death penalty
Alabama - abortion bans but has death penalty
Missouri - abortion bans but has death penalty
So how does that work with the "pro-life = protecting all life" thing?
I think you are from a developed country so your country didn't have to be forceed to do anything, you share the same Western civilisation and values... I guess.Funnily enough I don't recall other developed nations forcing us to have a referendum last year and I don't recall them forcing the 68% of people who voted Yes to do so but.. sure why not.
Again, so poor people shouldn't procreate unless they are sure and certain of being financially able to raise the kids?The economic state of a country is a direct aggregation of the economic state of it's individuals.
I am not saying that. Children should be born to parents willing and able to raise them to the best of the parents' ability.
Unless innocent life is lost in a hail of bullets. In which case nobody should ever be allowed to change the legislation to protect them.I think the argument would be "protecting innocent life".
Again, no, that is not what I mean. Procreation should not be limited to the rich/middle classes.Again, so poor people shouldn't procreate unless they are sure and certain of being financially able to raise the kids?
(If that's what you mean, you may be onto something, only I have never thought of it that way, before)
Yeah but we're talking about the most powerful western country there is right now and how one of their own states just made abortion illegal, so how does your argument hold up?I think you are from a developed country so your country didn't have to be forceed to do anything, you share the same Western civilisation and values... I guess.
Perfectly understood.
Georgia - abortion bans but has death penalty
Alabama - abortion bans but has death penalty
Missouri - abortion bans but has death penalty
So how does that work with the "pro-life = protecting all life" thing?
I think the argument would be "protecting innocent life".
Then they are not exactly pro-life according to MY definition because I oppose the death penalty as well.Protecting good-life.
It's like good-AIDS and bad-AIDS.
Well that part of my post was making reference to my argument on another thread, it may have been misleading to include that here (I recognised that it was a digression).Yeah but we're talking about the most powerful western country there is right now and how one of their own states just made abortion illegal, so how does your argument hold up?
Jackass opinions get jackass responses. Pro lifers really need to get their head on straight for the real priorities in this world.What a jackass response. Do you understand cell reproduction?
Let's have a civil debate.
A question I have for you, @Florida Man is when a pregnant mother is shot dead, why is the shooter charged with 2 murders?
If innocent life is lost in a hail of bullets you should of course strive to have more innocent bullets protecting against evil bullets.Unless innocent life is lost in a hail of bullets. In which case nobody should ever be allowed to change the legislation to protect them.
I think the argument would be "protecting innocent life".
Alright, well I haven't researched but aren't they also states that are against any form of gun control too?Protecting good-life.
It's like good-AIDS and bad-AIDS.
Good that you have that consistency.Then they are not exactly pro-life according to MY definition because I oppose the death penalty as well.
Pro-life means "pro-" "life". All life matters.
good logicThis:
I purposely didn't tag the poster because I don't want to start a discussion.
Imagine not starting a discussion on a discussion forum.good logic
That's literally what pro choice isIs it possible to be personally pro life and be pro choice for the general population? Surely I can't decide for others as well
But it is in the vast majority of the world. It's been so settled that it took a backwater state like Alabama in crazy Trumpian times to diverge from that settled status.Sorry, I wouldn't like to get into this debate today. I have been drawn into it far too deep already. I didn't come into this thread for that. I think we're derailing the thread. I initially came in simply to point out that I didn't think this particular debate will be totally settled anytime soon as there are still many people with strong views on both sides (and between).
And he thought I wouldn't noticeImagine not starting a discussion on a discussion forum.
Personally, I would classify that as an ethical (or moral) dilemma.To answer your question, because it was someone's opinion that it should be a law. Here's a question for you. Building is on fire, and you have the option of either saving a baby or thousands of fertilized eggs. Which do you save?
Maybe, but the baby is the one being saved in the end, not the other things.Personally, I would classify that as an ethical (or moral) dilemma.
good logic
Not that particular discussion. If you've been following my posts in this thread you would realise I've been avoiding to get into the For or Against debate, discussing more on the fact that the debate exists at all.Imagine not starting a discussion on a discussion forum.
Sorry, I wouldn't like to get into this debate today. I have been drawn into it far too deep already. I didn't come into this thread for that. I think we're derailing the thread. I initially came in simply to point out that I didn't think this particular debate will be totally settled anytime soon as there are still many people with strong views on both sides (and between).
Rather I hoped you wouldn't notice.And he thought I wouldn't notice
I don't see why should it even matter when "life" is conceived?. Its a question of women's rights with their own body.That's a fairer appraisal than before but I feel it's still missing an important part of the discussion. Namely, what is meant by "life". One side will argue it's purely biological life which starts at conception while the other side will approach the concept of life differently, taking moral and ethical arguments into consideration (even on the pro-choice side there's no concensus on what life means exactly in this context). That's what makes it so difficult. A pro-choicer will argue that they're against terminating a living person, it's just that their definition of a living person is different.
Maybe for you but for me it's not as clear-cut as that. It will be a tough choice for me and I honestly don't have an answer to it.Maybe, but the baby is the one being saved in the end, not the other things.
No.But it is in the vast majority of the world. It's been so settled that it took a backwater state like Alabama in crazy Trumpian times to diverge from that settled status.
We're just outsiders commentating on that change.
Are all anti-choice advocates vegans? Do they avoid stepping on ants, swapping flies and mosquitoe? Do you make sure microscopic organisms are always safe from predations?The main issue here is that one side advocates for life (inherently moderate) and the other side is arguing against life (inherently extreme).
See how controlling the language is a subtle way to try to win the debate?
I get that the thought of it is hard for some, but I'm certain that the actual human life will be saved in the end.Maybe for you but for me it's not as clear-cut as that. It will be a tough choice for me and I honestly don't have an answer to it.
Counting blue and green countries, that's literally the vast majority.
This guy gets itI don't see why should it even matter when "life" is conceived?. Its a question of women's rights with their own body.
It really isn't though. I feel like a lot of countries could do with updating their laws and a lot of them have only changed them recently (see Ireland). In the US they have been fighting abortions tooth and nail far longer than Trump has been president. It is simply a resurgence now that there is a conservative majority on the supreme court and they feel they can challenge Roe v Wade. I think this is a battle that si far from "won" in a quite significant part of the world.But it is in the vast majority of the world. It's been so settled that it took a backwater state like Alabama in crazy Trumpian times to diverge from that settled status.
We're just outsiders commentating on that change.
You'd just sit there in the fire with them then?Maybe for you but for me it's not as clear-cut as that. It will be a tough choice for me and I honestly don't have an answer to it.