Is Joe Biden pro-life or pro-choice?

[HarryStotle]

Aquinas11:

Hume:

But the baby can’t impede hers, so we have a conflict.

Right, the baby CANT impede hers, hence no conflict

Of course it can. It will certainly harm her. Possibly greatly. And it might even kill her.

Those are substantial harms anyone would want to avoid.

And abortion kills the baby. No “might” about it.

 

[Aquinas11]

Of course it can. It will certainly harm her. Possibly greatly. And it might even kill her

So you only support abortion when mother life in danger? All other abortions immoral?

 

[Aquinas11]

Beat me to it

 

[Hume]

No it isn’t an end unless it is defended “for its own sake.”

There are plenty of American graves in France that give silent testimony to the contrary, sir.

Provide an example of freedom for its own sake and you might have taken a step towards defending your case, but merely asserting it is an important or necessary means does not make it an end in itself.

To be sure, my case hinges on liberty being the behavior null - not whatever your framework desires for satisfaction.

It’s simply the best ford I have for behavioral “undefined”. Again, if you have a better word, I’m all ears (eyes).

As far as defense for it’s own sake - I refer again to WW2. If not for freedom and liberty as ends, why did we go? It certainly wasn’t to conquer Germany and France.

I would suggest that your ‘clear violation of liberty’ argument requires that the personal liberty of the woman overrides the right to life (and, therefore, the personal liberty) of another human being.

Herein is the great flaw in your counter.

What “right to life”? Moreover, what “right to life” that overrides a woman’s right to liberty?

Those are two hoops to jump that you want considered as jumped by default. For sake of intellectual honesty, that’s a no-go.

Why ought the personal liberty of the woman override the moral principles that protect the right to life of another human being.

Because carrying that life endangers her own, obviously.

And please don’t deflect to the “bodily autonomy” point, because you yourself admitted that bodily autonomy depends upon the inviolable autonomy of the person.

I don’t think we actually established that semantic.

Bodily autonomy is the right of self-governance over ones own body. A fetus simply isn’t capable of that for two chief reasons - it lacks the cognitive ability to govern - and its body isn’t its own. It is intertwined with the body of its mother.

Now you have to make the case that personal autonomy supersedes all moral obligation and morality as a reality.

Again, no I don’t. I have to make the case that it is the behavioral null. The equivalent of “undefined” in a moral landscape.

I can’t make the horse drink, but I’ve lead it there a few times over these last posts.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Aquinas11:

Hume:

But the baby can’t impede hers, so we have a conflict.

Right, the baby CANT impede hers, hence no conflict

Of course it can. It will certainly harm her. Possibly greatly. And it might even kill her.

Those are substantial harms anyone would want to avoid.

And abortion kills the baby. No “might” about it.

Sure. No contest there.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Of course it can. It will certainly harm her. Possibly greatly. And it might even kill her

So you only support abortion when mother life in danger? All other abortions immoral?

She is endangered from the moment of conception.

Only a fool considers pregnancy a risk-free enterprise.

 

[Aquinas11]

It will certainly harm her. Possibly greatly. And it might even kill her

She is endangered from the moment of conception.

Only a fool considers pregnancy a risk-free enterprise.

We’ve gone from “kill her” to “possibly harm” to “endanger” and now to something other than “risk free”

Looks like you’ve just opened up a hole the size of a Mack truck to murder anything meeting The above criteria

My neighbor can “possibly harm” and “endanger” me with his second hand smoke that is not “risk free” - your logic says I can kill him

 

[Hume]

We’ve gone from “kill her” to “possibly harm” to “endanger” and now to something not “risk free”

We’ve not “gone” anywhere. Those words all apply. Women the world over are mildly harmed by pregnancy, greatly harmed by pregnancy and also killed by it.

They’re all true.

Looks like you’ve just opened up a hole the size of a Mack truck to murder anything meeting The above criteria

Sure, anything that imperils a woman against her will. Anything at all. That is a big standard, thankfully. It protects women from people who want to control their bodies.

My neighbor can “possibly harm” me with his second hand smoke - your logic says I can kill him

No you can’t, you’d violate him in the greatest way.

He’s a separate human being from you in a way that a fetus isn’t separate from its mother. Like it or not, its part of her.

Gotta put my youngest down to bed. Had a fun time, guys. Let’s do it again tomorrow if I’m not banned.

 

[Aquinas11]

Like it or not, its part of her.

No you already conceded it’s a “human being” with its own DNA.

I agree that the baby is a developing human. No question there. it has it’s own DNA.

Now you’re saying the mother can have two sets of DNA, since you’re now saying the baby (with its own DNA) is “part of her”

But it’s not autonomous apart from its mother. It does not yet have bodily autonomy. If she dies, it will die. So a fetus fails the autonomy test.

if mother dies , her one month old baby dies too so your logic says she can kill a one month old baby. Especially since the one month old baby isn’t “risk free” to the mother (your criteria for killing something)

 

[HarryStotle]

Aquinas11:

Hume:

Of course it can. It will certainly harm her. Possibly greatly. And it might even kill her

So you only support abortion when mother life in danger? All other abortions immoral?

She is endangered from the moment of conception.

Only a fool considers pregnancy a risk-free enterprise.

So is every person on earth endangered from the moment of conception, including the baby in the womb.

Only a fool considers life a risk-free enterprise.

If you want to give a right to murder others to anyone who thinks they are at risk just by the presence of someone around them, killing others will become quite commonplace.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

No it isn’t an end unless it is defended “for its own sake.”

There are plenty of American graves in France that give silent testimony to the contrary, sir.

Well, no, actually.

You have shown that liberty is highly valued. You haven’t shown that it is valued as an end in itself.

Money is highly valued, but very few would say it is valued in itself apart from what or who it can purchase.

I think you would be hard pressed to point out someone who values money for its own sake without any reference at all to what it can buy.

Just like money, liberty is a means to an end.

 

[Hume]

No you already conceded it’s a “human being” with its own DNA.

Yes it is. And it’s still part of her. It dwells in her body, feeding on the food she eats, absorbing the water she drinks, creating waste for her to to remove.

It’s part of her body; connected by an umbilicus that contains both their genetic material.

Now you’re saying the mother can have two sets of DNA, since you’re now saying the baby (with its own DNA) is “part of her”

No. This is just handwaving on your part because you somehow refuse to concede that a fetus requires the living systems of its mother.

It’s something readily understood by school-children. Young ones…

if mother dies , her one month old baby dies too…

No it doesn’t. How absurd…

Dad can care for it. Or granddad. Or grandma. Or another entirely unrelated person - like we see with various adoption systems.

A woman’s exclusive dominion over a fetus ends at birth. Its requirement of her body has concluded at that point.

 

[Hume]

So is every person on earth endangered from the moment of conception, including the baby in the womb.

Not bodily. Just mom.

Apropos “bodily autonomy”.

If you want to give a right to murder others to anyone who thinks they are at risk just by the presence of someone around them, killing others will become quite commonplace.

If someone presents a clear bodily threat to you, you have the right in virtually all jurisdictions to end that threat - up to and including lethal force if that’s what it takes.

“Stand your ground” laws, for example.

 

[OKComputer]

Sadly, he’s pro choice. It breaks my heart that all democrats have to be pro choice in order to advance in their party. There are no Zell Miller democrats anymore.

 

[Hume]

There are plenty of American graves in France that give silent testimony to the contrary, sir.

Well, no, actually.

You have shown that liberty is highly valued. You haven’t shown that it is valued as an end in itself.
[/quote]

 

[Aquinas11]

And it’s still part of her.

If it’s “part of her”, then it can’t be an external threat to “her body” under your “bodily autonomy” argument

I’ve lost track of the number of self-contractions in your argument

 

[Hume]

Sadly, he’s pro choice. It breaks my heart that all democrats have to be pro choice in order to advance in their party. There are no Zell Miller democrats anymore.

The Pew numbers show roughly 10% of dems are pro-life. But you’re right, that number is shrinking.

The Pew numbers also show roughly 34% of reps are pro choice. And that number is growing.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

And it’s still part of her.

If it’s “part of her”, then it can’t be an external threat to “her body” under your “bodily autonomy” argument

Who said “external”? It’s just a threat… Without her explicit consent, it has no right to stay there.

I’ve lost track of the number of self-contractions in your argument

shrug If you say so…

 

[Aquinas11]

No it doesn’t. How absurd…

Dad can care for it. Or granddad. Or grandma

Well under that theory, if mom dies while pregnant, fetus doesn’t die.

It can be delivered and cared for by doctor, nurses, etc.

Yet another self contradiction

 

[StudentMI]

So are you for anarchism? After all, bodily autonomy.