But they do oppose stem cell research, pointing to the fact that they really do believe that an embryo already is a living human being. What other reason would there be for opposing stem cell research? I mean, I guess one could spin it as oppression of women, since women suffer more from MS disease, and it could possibly be treated by stem cells, thus opposing stem cell research is anti-women. Boom. Patriarchy strikes again.Pro-lifers don't break into fertility clinics to implant all the surplus/due for discarding embryo human beings into volunteer human lifeboats, so I kind of don't believe them when they say they believe life starts at conception.
They also value "personal responsibility" for adults. An unborn child (in their conception) is incapable of personal responsibility, by virtue of being inside another human being, and thus murdering it (in their conception) is substantially different from murdering a person who has committed a serious crime.Absolutely not since they are demonstrably pro-death in so many other areas including support for war, opposition to social spending and gun control, and an immigration policy that kills people in the desert etc. etc.
"Pro-life" activists tend to present themselves as revering life for its own sake, as something of transcendent and non-negotiable value. If they're in fact arguing for a defined, empirical threshold for when it is and is not permissible to kill people, that undercuts their moral high-ground. It doesn't mean they're wrong, but it matters- at least, we can assume it matters, else they wouldn't act as if it does.They also value "personal responsibility" for adults. An unborn child (in their conception) is incapable of personal responsibility, by virtue of being inside another human being, and thus murdering it (in their conception) is substantially different from murdering a person who has committed a serious crime.
Certainly there is just simple moral grand standing and cognitive dissonance involved too, but still I find the explanation more plausible that they have a set of values and beliefs that they explicitly say and that they truly believe in, rather than them engaging in some elaborate ploy to keep down the ladies."Pro-life" activists tend to present themselves as revering life for its own sake, as something of transcendent and non-negotiable value. If they're in fact arguing for a defined, empirical threshold for when it is and is not permissible to kill people, that undercuts their moral high-ground. It doesn't mean they're wrong, but it matters- at least, we can assume it matters, else they wouldn't act as if it does.
America isn't a theocracy, even if the gop wishes it was.
How many people do you know that are motivated by keeping other people oppressed? Even if that is what their actions amount to, that almost never is their motivation. Unless one truly is a sociopath. People have the need to feel they are virtuous and doing the right thing. Even Hitler though that he was doing the world a favour by exterminating Jews, gays, Slavs and Roma etc. So that is why I find it hard to believe that people who oppose abortion rights are deliberately oppressing women.Why can't it be both?
It is not, but that is what distinguishes morality from taste: the wish that other people act out your preferences.America isn't a theocracy, even if the gop wishes it was.
Incitement Boy, I answered everything in the post you quoted with your posed questions that function as projected positions. If this is a Farm Boy is unintelligible to the ESL issue, maybe Gori has the patience to translate. I've none with hyperstraw today.
Of course, there is also hypocritical political self-labeling to judge such political activists from. The "Pro-Life" lobby, who rabbit on how "life is sacred," but are, in truth, with only a minority of exceptions, only Anti-Abortion and Anti-Euthanasia, but are pro-war, pro-capital punishment, pro-police impunity, pro-gun rights (guns are solely designed to kill, you know), anti-corporate and environmental regulation (which leads to a lot of death), anti-welfare and government-funded healthcare (more death), anti-Federal money to disaster relief, leaving it to State resources alone (with things like Katrina and Sandy and such, imagine the death), arming and supporting foreign regimes to kill their own people and neighbouring people, and I could go on. With such vile hypocrisy and two-faced standards in the political lobby's tag label and self-identifier, it's a bit hard NOT to suspect sinister ulterior motives and disingenuous agendas, I'm afraid to say.
Pro-lifers don't break into fertility clinics to implant all the surplus/due for discarding embryo human beings into volunteer human lifeboats, so I kind of don't believe them when they say they believe life starts at conception.
But they do oppose stem cell research, pointing to the fact that they really do believe that an embryo already is a living human being. What other reason would there be for opposing stem cell research? I mean, I guess one could spin it as oppression of women, since women suffer more from MS disease, and it could possibly be treated by stem cells, thus opposing stem cell research is anti-women. Boom. Patriarchy strikes again.
They also value "personal responsibility" for adults. An unborn child (in their conception) is incapable of personal responsibility, by virtue of being inside another human being, and thus murdering it (in their conception) is substantially different from murdering a person who has committed a serious crime.
Again, I'm not "pro life". Abort all the babies for all I care.
"Pro-life" activists tend to present themselves as revering life for its own sake, as something of transcendent and non-negotiable value. If they're in fact arguing for a defined, empirical threshold for when it is and is not permissible to kill people, that undercuts their moral high-ground. It doesn't mean they're wrong, but it matters- at least, we can assume it matters, else they wouldn't act as if it does.
Ideas? What I ideas? We don't speak the same language well enough even if we're both fluent to function well enough to share actual ideas if you're asking the questions you're asking in response to that post. I don't care who it's on for that one, let's say it's me. Unless, of course, your rhetorical thrust is somehow on point, thus that an 8 1/2 month pregnancy should be terminable for any non emergency reason at all. At which point a previous qualification comes into play, which is the answer regarding speakers sometimes really is "both."
Sounds perfectly reasonable. The cut off age really is 103 for me. Just feels right somehow.I believe we should be able to perform post birth abortions, up until the age of 100
I believe we should be able to perform post birth abortions, up until the age of 100, in fact in many places, including America, this already happens both formally and informally.
Also I have Dyslexia, so make of that what you will
I believe we should be able to perform post birth abortions, up until the age of 100,
That sounds like a certain early episode of South Park.Sounds perfectly reasonable. The cut off age really is 103 for me. Just feels right somehow.
But yeah, lots of capital punishment people around still.