NYC Leftists Ready to Legalize FULL MURDER!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Don't insult my intelligence, Nibedicus. It's a silly parallel to draw from what I'd said, which is that as long as the fetus/baby/clump of cells (a term which I'm pretty sure I've never used until now) is growing inside the mother and not already born, it is her decision to accept it or reject it because it is her body and the organism growing inside her is her own biological property.

While you can make the argument that that dehumanizes the fetus/child/baby/clump of cells/whatever to a degree, it's a complete stretch to say that it dehumanizes human life so much that it could be used to justify slavery and genocide... Third trimester abortions will not make a case for slavery and genocide.

I know we're not talking about life or death anymore. We're nitpicking at what possible excuses some absolutely horrid women out there who would go through with a nine-month pregnancy and wait until their children are almost born just to mercilessly have killed them might use.

One having discretion on the value of another’s life implies that you attach the value of one life over another as the choice of one overrules the value of life of the other. This is only achieved thru devaluation of one life or an inequality of value of life w/c is not how society should be.

I never said that it was making a case for slavery or genocide, I am saying that they fall withn the same logical parameters and this is the kind of thing that happens when society forgets that all human life should be equal.

Well, that’s good to hear, so if that’s the case stop bringing it up. Of course we should nitpick the law. Ideas to improve things are often brought about by nitpicking its flaws and trying to find fixes for it. We disagree on how specific a law should be. You say that I shouldn’t care because it is such a small minority, and I return and say that the size of the minority is irrelevant and I return a question to you: Why shouldn’t a law be more specific? How is making it specific going to allow for abuse?

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
How specific can you make the law to prevent infanticidal mothers from getting their way without endangering mothers aborting for legitimate health risks and concerns backed by their own doctors?

Specifying what is acceptable and not acceptable reasons for late term abortion should be one. And listing the nuances of the wording and much much more than what the law offers us in this current iteration. It should be easy to list what constitutes life or death. Hell, just specifying “life” and then strongly specifying what constitutes “health” (not the “health” as currently defined as it includes familial/emotional/etc that can become subjective). Requiring that doctors need to be the ones to determine “threat to life” and not “medical practitioners” (or at least make a more acceptable list of medical practitioners who are actually qualified to determine life or death threats). And many others.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Specifying what is acceptable and not acceptable reasons for late term abortion should be one. And listing the nuances of the wording and much much more than what the law offers us in this current iteration. It should be easy to list what constitutes life or death. Hell, just specifying “life” and then strongly specifying what constitutes “health” (not the “health” as currently defined as it includes familial/emotional/etc that can become subjective). Requiring that doctors need to be the ones to determine “threat to life” and not “medical practitioners” (or at least make a more acceptable list of medical practitioners who are actually qualified to determine life or death threats). And many others.

How would your specific law read?

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
What's wrong with a nurse practitioner assessing the risk to the mother and performing the abortion?

How would your specific law read?

Because we want the most qualified person to make life or death decisions? Nothing against nurses, my wife’s mom is a nurse (her dad is a doctor).

I thought I already stated what the law should contain? You want me to write in in law-maker-ise?

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
How many women do you expect to go through the entire pregnancy then choose to abort at the point of birth, citing some half-assed bullshit excuse about their health?

Give women some credit, for ****'s sake.

Why would we allow an interpretation of the law to even allow half-assed bullshit to take place when it's easy to add an addendum to what "health" would refer to in this instance?

You do know that planned parenthood SELLS abortions right? It's not a FREE service they walk into and find benevolent information specialists to provide insight into their biology and birth process, they sell services to maintain their facilities.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
One having discretion on the value of another’s life implies that you attach the value of one life over another as the choice of one overrules the value of life of the other. This is only achieved thru devaluation of one life or an inequality of value of life w/c is not how society should be.

I never said that it was making a case for slavery or genocide, I am saying that they fall withn the same logical parameters and this is the kind of thing that happens when society forgets that all human life should be equal.

Well, that’s good to hear, so if that’s the case stop bringing it up. Of course we should nitpick the law. Ideas to improve things are often brought about by nitpicking its flaws and trying to find fixes for it. We disagree on how specific a law should be. You say that I shouldn’t care because it is such a small minority, and I return and say that the size of the minority is irrelevant and I return a question to you: Why shouldn’t a law be more specific? How is making it specific going to allow for abuse?

That is why I support women's right to abortion. The legalization of third trimester abortions in New York will give mothers at risk of harm, mothers who will give birth to stillborn children or children with severely impairing abnormalities the right to abort without being criminalized, as well as allowing their physicians to perform the abortions without the fear of legal or professional ramifications.

I have an entirely different view about the value of life. I believe, in a normative ethics/general sense, yes, human life has equal value. However, in reality and with applied ethics, it plays out much differently. For example, my father has infinitely more value than to me than my neighbor. If both were in peril and I could only save one, it would be my father every time, and I would not regret it beyond sympathy for my neighbor. Or, if an orphanage caught fire and I was pretty damned sure I couldn't go in to save any of them without coming back out alive and well, I wouldn't go in. If I was on the edge of that cliff you mentioned, and for some reason I could not pull up my midget friend and was about to plunge into certain death with him, I would let go. If the roles were reversed, I'd let go before I pulled him down with me, if he hadn't already let go.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Because we want the most qualified person to make life or death decisions? Nothing against nurses, my wife’s mom is a nurse (her dad is a doctor).

I thought I already stated what the law should contain? You want me to write in in law-maker-ise?

I'm not asking for all the legal jargon. Specifically, not generally, what do you believe the criteria should be for a health risk justifying the mother's third-trimester abortion?

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
That unborn child is not yet a member of society, and is a living organism growing within the mother. If it is wanted, then it will be born, and will surely bring the mother great joy as she raises it to become a member of society. If it is not wanted, then it may as well be considered a parasite. Can you imagine having something unwanted growing inside you while also changing your physical and chemical makeup?

That is why I support women's right to abortion. The legalization of third trimester abortions in New York will give mothers at risk of harm, mothers who will give birth to stillborn children or children with severely impairing abnormalities the right to abort without being criminalized, as well as allowing their physicians to perform the abortions without the fear of legal or professional ramifications.

I have an entirely different view about the value of life. I believe, in a normative ethics/general sense, yes, human life has equal value. However, in reality and with applied ethics, it plays out much differently. For example, my father has infinitely more value than to me than my neighbor. If both were in peril and I could only save one, it would be my father every time, and I would not regret it beyond sympathy for my neighbor. Or, if an orphanage caught fire and I was pretty damned sure I couldn't go in to save any of them without coming back out alive and well, I wouldn't go in. If I was on the edge of that cliff you mentioned, and for some reason I could not pull up my midget friend and was about to plunge into certain death with him, I would let go. If the roles were reversed, I'd let go before I pulled him down with me, if he hadn't already let go.

Life’s value isn’t judged by its value to society. Else we’d be getting rid of half the population. “Membership” is an arbitrary metric, life isn’t the Mickey Mouse club. A lot of ppl ca be seen as “parasites” as they live off other ppl’s work and contributions, but seeing as you’re more than willing to dehumanize a child and call them a parasite and seem perfectly ok at killing them because you call them thus, I still have my doubts on your sincerity when you talk about the value of human life. I’m beginning to think that you don’t consider kids in general as equal human beings.

There should always be the risk of legal or professional ramification when it comes to decisions as heavy as the taking of a life. There should be clear and strong rules that need to be followed and strong penalties on why they should be followed. There are very few things as absolute as death and the decision to take life should never be taken lightly. The foundation of your logic is deeply flawed.

The value of human life is subjective to the individual. It should never be subjective to law and society.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Why would we allow an interpretation of the law to even allow half-assed bullshit to take place when it's easy to add an addendum to what "health" would refer to in this instance?

You do know that planned parenthood SELLS abortions right? It's not a FREE service they walk into and find benevolent information specialists to provide insight into their biology and birth process, they sell services to maintain their facilities.

How specific can you make the law to prevent these ghoulish and fiendishly-dedicated infanticidal mothers you're so worried about from getting their way without endangering mothers needing to abort for legitimate health risks and concerns backed by their own doctors? What do you believe the criteria should be for a health risk justifying the mother's third-trimester abortion?

Not sure what your second point is, unless you're arguing that Planned Parenthood is just another soulless organizations looking to capitalize on a virtually untapped abortion market to make record profits.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Doctors are spread thin as it is, and nurse practitioners should be more than qualified to fill in.

I'm not asking for all the legal jargon. Specifically, not generally, what do you believe the criteria should be for a health risk justifying the mother's third-trimester abortion?

I disagree. Life is not something you take willy nilly. Again, it is comments like these that make me doubt your valuation of human life.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
How specific can you make the law to prevent these ghoulish and fiendishly-dedicated infanticidal mothers you're so worried about from getting their way without endangering mothers needing to abort for legitimate health risks and concerns backed by their own doctors? What do you believe the criteria should be for a health risk justifying the mother's third-trimester abortion?

Not sure what your second point is, unless you're arguing that Planned Parenthood is just another soulless organizations looking to capitalize on a virtually untapped abortion market to make record profits.

Apparently more specific then the current legislation which defines health as far more then simply bodily harm to the mother, I'm not going to continue to requote since you seem to not understand or don't care to acknowledge previous discussions illustrating the broad swath of what health entails or you simply lack the understanding.

My take is let women have abortions, make them safe, give them the services they need. Make sure that when there is a certain level of development in the fetus that we don't allow certain mental health exceptions(regarding the mother) to dictate action, easy peasy.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Life’s value isn’t judged by its value to society. Else we’d be getting rid of half the population. “Membership” is an arbitrary metric, life isn’t the Mickey Mouse club. A lot of ppl ca be seen as “parasites” as they live off other ppl’s work and contributions, but seeing as you’re more than willing to dehumanize a child and call them a parasite and seem perfectly ok at killing them because you call them thus, I still have my doubts on your sincerity when you talk about the value of human life. I’m beginning to think that you don’t consider kids in general as equal human beings.

There should always be the risk of legal or professional ramification when it comes to decisions as heavy as the taking of a life. There should be clear and strong rules that need to be followed and strong penalties on why they should be followed. There are very few things as absolute as death and the decision to take life should never be taken lightly. The foundation of your logic is deeply flawed.

The value of human life is subjective to the individual. It should never be subjective to law and society.

And I think you're too emotionally-invested in this issue as a father, as well as a man with religious beliefs, to seriously consider the perspective of a woman who does not want to bear children, be it for health reasons or personal reasons.

You accused me earlier of being pedantic, yet here you are going on about membership into society, which I only mentioned in response to this:

One having discretion on the value of another’s life implies that you attach the value of one life over another as the choice of one overrules the value of life of the other. This is only achieved thru devaluation of one life or an inequality of value of life w/c is not how society should be.

...and twisting the definition of parasite I used with another to draw another far-fetched parallel:

par·a·site
noun
noun: parasite; plural noun: parasites
1.
an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.
"the parasite attaches itself to the mouths of fishes"
2.
DEROGATORY
a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.
"the capitalist is really a parasite on the workers"
synonyms: hanger-on, cadger, leech, passenger, drone;

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
And I think you're too emotionally-invested in this issue as a father, as well as a man with religious beliefs, to seriously consider the perspective of a woman who does not want to bear children, be it for health reasons or personal reasons.

You accused me earlier of being pedantic, yet here you are going on about membership into society, which I only mentioned in response to this:

...and twisting the definition of parasite I used with another to draw another far-fetched parallel:

par·a·site
noun
noun: parasite; plural noun: parasites
1.
an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.
"the parasite attaches itself to the mouths of fishes"
2.
DEROGATORY
a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.
"the capitalist is really a parasite on the workers"
synonyms: hanger-on, cadger, leech, passenger, drone;

This is a logical debate, if you have a better argument then present it. You don’t suddenly get a better argument by trying to poison the well and calling me too heavily invested.

There’s nothing pedantic about considering “membership to society” and lack thereof as a valid reason for ending another life. You are no longer arguing points and are now simply complaining about getting called out.

Both is actually negative in connotation. One is just more literal than the other... facepalm and since the former is sufficiently negative to allow you to simply end a life based on potentially (as the law implies) entirely subjective reasons, then it definitely is the more negative of the two. While the latter is an actual derogatory term.

I am now wondering why you are even trying to move the debate to these irrelevant tangents and not addressing the actual arguments relevant to the debate.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I disagree. Life is not something you take willy nilly. Again, it is comments like these that make me doubt your valuation of human life.

I think you agree with me more than you think you do:

I would die for my daughter. Heck, I would kill to protect her. And when I held her for the first time it was clear that I loved her more than I do myself my wife and everyone else in the world. And if I ever had to make a choice between my wife and her, I would pick her 100 out 100 times. And my wife feels the same way.

Understand, I'm not trying to make this personal to get a rise out of you. Rather, that the argument that all human life is sacred and each has equal value goes out the window depending on the situation. Life isn't sacred if exceptions can be made depending on the circumstances.

There are many women who will give birth to their children and feel the same way you and your wife do about your daughter.

Likewise, there will be many who do not share your values and have no interest in motherhood, and should be allowed to chose not to have unwanted children.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
I think you agree with me more than you think you do:

Understand, I'm not trying to make this personal to get a rise out of you. Rather, that the argument that all human life is sacred and each has equal value goes out the window depending on the situation. Life isn't sacred if exceptions can be made depending on the circumstances.

There are many women who will give birth to their children and feel the same way you and your wife do about your daughter.

Likewise, there will be many who do not share your values and have no interest in motherhood, and should be allowed to chose not to have children.

Again, you didn’t read my post. Life is subjective to the individual, it should never be subjective to SOCIETY and LAW as those two need to be balanced and fair to ensure justice amongst the personal subjective valuation of life by the populace.

-_-

And the fact that even you are saying that some women would find lesser (or at extremes, no) value on the human life growing within them STRESSES the importance of the law protecting those who cannot protect themselves. Your logic actually helps my argument.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Again, you didn’t read my post. Life is subjective to the individual, it should never be subjective to SOCIETY and LAW as those two need to be balanced and fair to ensure justice amongst the personal subjective valuation of life by the populace.

-_-

And the fact that even you are saying that some women would find lesser (or at extremes, no) value on the human life growing within them STRESSES the importance of the law protecting those who cannot protect themselves. Your logic actually helps my argument.

It shouldn't be subjective, but all too often, it is subjective individually, socially, and by law. For the record, I don't think laws are particularly sacred, either. There are some laws based on ethical principles I generally agree with, but even something as serious as murder can be justified by law under self-defense or the protection of others.

What I said only helps your argument if we assume all lives are equal, in this case, if you equate the life of the mother with that of her unborn child, which is not what I'm arguing at all. My argument is that the life of the mother take priority over the life of her unborn child, and it should be up to her whether to give birth to it or abort it.

I know we won't agree, but this is a great discussion, and I look forward to continuing. It's been a long night, the sun is up, and I'm off to bed for a few hours before heading back to work. Have a good night, Nibedicus.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
It shouldn't be subjective, but all too often, it is subjective individually, socially, and by law. For the record, I don't think laws are particularly sacred, either. There are some laws based on ethical principles I generally agree with, but even something as serious as murder can be justified by law under self-defense or the protection of others.

What I said only helps your argument if we assume all lives are equal, in this case, if you equate the life of the mother with that of her unborn child, which is not what I'm arguing at all. My argument is that the life of the mother take priority over the life of her unborn child, and it should be up to her whether to give birth to it or abort it.

I know we won't agree, but this is a great discussion, and I look forward to continuing. It's been a long night, the sun is up, and I'm off to bed for a few hours before heading back to work. Have a good night, Nibedicus.

No, again, the value of life can be subjective to the individual. But society and the law should strive to for total objectivity It isn’t murder to kill someone in self defense (by definition) the differences between murder and justifiable homicide via self defense (or defense of others) is in the specificities of the law and its interpretation within the judiciary. That is why laws need to be precise and comprehensive to allow for the diffferences to be identified and abuse to be avoided. That is what we are arguing about this whole time.

Her life doesn’t take priority, but it is not be up to others to force her to sacrifice her life. This is why we need to draw a line on what would constitutes a risk to her health, w/c is vague according to the law and can easily become subjective. As snowdragon has pointed out, while there are few sane women who would abuse this vagueness. However, mental illness is a thing and some are just some bad ppl out there (use pregnancy as a weapon against their spouse or exes to hurt them or to extort money just as they do now with actual kids). The law should protect helpless children from ppl like that, don’t you think?

Alryt man, have a good day. Night! 👆

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
I have an entirely different view about the value of life. I believe, in a normative ethics/general sense, yes, human life has equal value. However, in reality and with applied ethics, it plays out much differently. For example, my father has infinitely more value than to me than my neighbor. If both were in peril and I could only save one, it would be my father every time, and I would not regret it beyond sympathy for my neighbor. Or, if an orphanage caught fire and I was pretty damned sure I couldn't go in to save any of them without coming back out alive and well, I wouldn't go in. If I was on the edge of that cliff you mentioned, and for some reason I could not pull up my midget friend and was about to plunge into certain death with him, I would let go. If the roles were reversed, I'd let go before I pulled him down with me, if he hadn't already let go.

Everyone is a deontological ethicist, they just do not all know it.

So Adam thinks ETHICS are a part of Nature?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Everyone is a deontological ethicist, they just do not all know it.

I'm a virtue ethicist.