NY Expands Abortion Law

[luthervol]

The lack of info in that article doesn’t prove or disprove what else they might have done.
Fact is the Obama admin was helping these guys out.

Brothers selling baby parts arrested by ICE - California Catholic Daily

I tried to find a reputable news source but got bored. (the Maters is more entertaining)
If they were breaking the law, they should pay the price.

 

[Roustabout]

I tried to find a reputable news source but got bored. (the Maters is more entertaining)
If they were breaking the law, they should pay the price.

Yup, that’s how we determine truth. What the mainstream media CHOOSES to cover.
You’re a puppet

Fact remains Hillary and Obama were for sale to criminals. But Russia!

 

[Wafflestomper]

Actually they aren’t viable until they are implanted.
If anything this argument calls into question the morality of artificial insemination.

Of course that is irrelevant if you hold that they are already persons.

 

[rjd970]

.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Yup, that’s how we determine truth. What the mainstream media CHOOSES to cover.
You’re a puppet

Fact remains Hillary and Obama were for sale to criminals. But Russia!

LOL....loother:

 

[Roustabout]

Of course that is irrelevant if you hold that they are already persons.

Personally, I don’t adhere to the notion of ”personhood.”
I do feel that it’s playing god.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Personally, I don’t adhere to the notion of ”personhood.”
I do feel that it’s playing god.

The purpose of the example is to get people to realize that they dont actually regard embryos in the same way as a child.

 

[Roustabout]

The purpose of the example is to get people to realize that they dont actually regard embryos in the same way as a child.

Neither do I. I don’t regard newborns the same way as an adult.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Neither do I. I don’t regard newborns the same way as an adult.

So answer the question then.

 

[Roustabout]

So answer the question then.

Assuming this is the question.
Why its status as "alive" matters in determining what rights, if any, it has

I’ve stated my position pretty clearly. I don’t believe humans have “rights.” I believe it is a universally accepted truth that human life has value. I don’t see the value of human life as having anything to do with rights. Rights follow value, not the other way around. I have the right to own a firearm, vote, etc. That doesn’t make me more valuable than a newborn who lacks those rights. I believe this value obligates us to nurture and protect human life. I hold to obligation and responsibility, not rights. Humans with functioning faculties have the responsibility to protect and nurture human life.

The issue of in vitro is a man made one. Human life begins at conception but pregnancy begins at implantation. It’s an interesting debate but one created out of exception to the natural order of things. So, those issues, like most dilemma, have to be dealt with separately. There is no reason to muddy the biological facts of natural pregnancy, which if I’m being candid is what I think you hope to do.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Assuming this is the question.
Why its status as "alive" matters in determining what rights, if any, it has

No, I was curious about your answer to which to save from a burning building: a 5 yr old or a jar of 1,000 human embryos.

I’ve stated my position pretty clearly.

Yeah.....gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you on that.

I don’t believe humans have “rights.”

I have the right to own a firearm, vote, etc.

I don’t see the value of human life as having anything to do with rights.

Rights follow value, not the other way around.

I believe it is a universally accepted truth that human life has value.

Even if that's the case, the question is whether all life has the same value, and why or why not.

The issue of in vitro is a man made one. Human life begins at conception but pregnancy begins at implantation. It’s an interesting debate but one created out of exception to the natural order of things. So, those issues, like most dilemma, have to be dealt with separately. There is no reason to muddy the biological facts of natural pregnancy, which if I’m being candid is what I think you hope to do.

That may be an interesting question, but it's not what I'm curious about. You seem to want to focus on the particulars of the example (i.e., whether we ought to artificially impregnate women) rather than answering the more fundamental question of whether all human life has some minimum level of value, or something like this.

 

[Roustabout]

No, I was curious about your answer to which to save from a burning building: a 5 yr old or a jar of 1,000 human embryos.

Yeah.....gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you on that.

I was extremely clear about my view on rights. Let me restate it. Inherent rights DO NOT EXIST.
I actually had it in my original post that rights are conferred and deleted thinking you'd see that implied. i was wrong. Do you really think the right to own a firearm is an inherent right? No, it's a right conferred upon me by society, which has made rules to maintain order. Those rights can change from society to society.
I will clarify when i said i don't see human life having anything to do with rights. I meant to say human value. Human value doesn't arise from rights. Human rights arise from the a priori belief that human life has value. No value, no rights.

Even if that's the case, the question is whether all life has the same value, and why or why not.

Of course you would save the five year old. A born person has more realized value. The fact that a born person has more realized value doesn't justify abortion or render the unborn unavailable. You could even say that an elderly dying person has less value (if you are looking at it strictly analytically) but that wouldn't justify me terminating their life or robbing them of their dignity.

That may be an interesting question, but it's not what I'm curious about. You seem to want to focus on the particulars of the example (i.e., whether we ought to artificially impregnate women) rather than answering the more fundamental question of whether all human life has some minimum level of value, or something like this.

Of course all human life has a minimum level of value. That's universally accepted. No one would try to artificially inseminate if it didn't. The act of attempting this confirms what you are asking. Hell, people have sued custody over embryos.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Of course you would save the five year old. A born person has more realized value. The fact that a born person has more realized value doesn't justify abortion or render the unborn unavailable. You could even say that an elderly dying person has less value (if you are looking at it strictly analytically) but that wouldn't justify me terminating their life or robbing them of their dignity.

Why the arbitrary assignment of extra value at birth? Isn't that idea pretty uniformly maligned by the pro-life community? What is then incoherent about saying that prior to birth, fetuses can be aborted because they don't have sufficient value. After all, if we're playing the game of presuppositions I could claim that it's universally accepted that fetuses don't inherently have a minimum value, such that they can't be killed; mind you, I know that isn't the case, but it also isn't the case that the opposite is universally accepted--at least, not in the way that I think you mean it.

Furthermore, if how "old" you are increases your value then it only makes sense that a neutral observer would always save the older human from the burning building. That isn't an intuitive conclusion either.

Why would you then "analytically" conclude that an elderly dying person has less value from what you've just said? I don't know how you can have it both ways. Some kind of a utilitarian system of human value?

Of course all human life has a minimum level of value. That's universally accepted. No one would try to artificially inseminate if it didn't. The act of attempting this confirms what you are asking. Hell, people have sued custody over embryos.

That doesn't follow. This seems to be the argument:

P1: Some people use artificial insemination to have a baby.
P2: People have sued over embryos.
C: It's universally accepted that all human life has a minimum level of value.

What???? How much value does a human have at conception and why does it increase as it gets older? And then decrease again at some point?

 

[Roustabout]

Why the arbitrary assignment of extra value at birth? Isn't that idea pretty uniformly maligned by the pro-life community? What is then incoherent about saying that prior to birth, fetuses can be aborted because they don't have sufficient value.

Depends how you are using value. You value yourself and friends and family above others. You REALIZE their value. As a child grows in the womb the mother comes to realize that value more and more. At birth even more. So, anyone would save the child as the can realize the value of a child.

After all, if we're playing the game of presuppositions I could claim that it's universally accepted that fetuses don't inherently have a minimum value, such that they can't be killed; mind you, I know that isn't the case, but it also isn't the case that the opposite is universally accepted--at least, not in the way that I think you mean it.

It’s a biological fact that a fetus is a developing human. We haven’t always had the technology to know that as we do today.

Furthermore, if how "old" you are increases your value then it only makes sense that a neutral observer would always save the older human from the burning building. That isn't an intuitive conclusion either.

Nice try, but it’s obvious where you got this wrong.

Why would you then "analytically" conclude that an elderly dying person has less value from what you've just said? I don't know how you can have it both ways. Some kind of a utilitarian system of human value?

That isn’t having it both ways. I likely have less life ahead of me than in front of me, but my wife doesn’t value me any less. That is why I used the term analytically.

That doesn't follow. This seems to be the argument:

P1: Some people use artificial insemination to have a baby.
P2: People have sued over embryos.
C: It's universally accepted that all human life has a minimum level of value

.
That’s your syllogism, not mine.

What???? How much value does a human have at conception and why does it increase as it gets older? And then decrease again at some point?

I never claimed a scale. I place a higher value on my family than you. That doesn’t mean you are without value.
I didn’t assign value. I said “realized” value.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Depends how you are using value. You value yourself and friends and family above others. You REALIZE their value. As a child grows in the womb the mother comes to realize that value more and more. At birth even more. So, anyone would save the child as the can realize the value of a child.


It’s a biological fact that a fetus is a developing human. We haven’t always had the technology to know that as we do today.


Nice try, but it’s obvious where you got this wrong.


That isn’t having it both ways. I likely have less life ahead of me than in front of me, but my wife doesn’t value me any less. That is why I used the term analytically.

.
That’s your syllogism, not mine.


I never claimed a scale. I place a higher value on my family than you. That doesn’t mean you are without value.
I didn’t assign value. I said “realized” value.

You trying to explain your system of human value:

 

[Roustabout]

You trying to explain your system of human value:
View attachment 202107

System?
I’m pointing out obvious truths that you already apply.
You resorting to this ******** shows what’s up.

There at philosophical positions and sociological, sorry you can’t know which is which.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

 

[Matt2496]

Stuff like this makes me absolutely despise Democrats.

WATCH: Democrat Rep On Abortion: Some Kids Are Unwanted, Kill Them Now Or Kill Them Later

 

[joevol33]

Stuff like this makes me absolutely despise Democrats.

WATCH: Democrat Rep On Abortion: Some Kids Are Unwanted, Kill Them Now Or Kill Them Later

And they're proud of it

 

[615vols]

Evil and disgusting.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Less New Yorkers = better world. /thread

 

[volfanjustin]

This is disgusting, modern democrats are terrible terrible people

 

[RikidyBones]

This is disgusting, modern democrats are terrible terrible people

lol no one has ever slept with these clowns. They are lying about getting abortions. need to have intercourse first.

 

[82_VOL_83]

This is disgusting, modern democrats are terrible terrible people

This is the party that looth claims is now society. I find it hard to believe that anyone can literally be that stupid.