Re: Who did not bother to switch to 4E, and why?

LL wrote:
tussock wrote:

Meh. You keep claiming this moral authority crap is normal where you come from. Telling people how to live by plurality.

Even in the liberal USA and France exist laws against murder and
manslaughter. Morals are *enforced* by police, courts, the media, the people, i.e. society.

Laws against murder/killing do not need a "morals" argument.
All they need are a liberty argument. You can't infringe
on the liberty of another person by ending their life.

Society in the USA could decide that killing a fetus is a crime in the
second and third trimester.

Could---and may if enough whack-nuts get elected. But
that would require giving person-hood to a fetus that
is a *part* of a real person. And those rights would
put an end to many rights of the woman herself.

Yeah, yeah, yeah---you're not a "pro-life wing-nut" but
ALL your arguments are the same as theirs and *will* be
used to begin investigating each and every miscarriage
and controlling every substance that goes into womens'
bodies while they are pregnant.

You constantly consider the fetus as if it where a seperable entity from it's mother's whomb. It's not until the third trimester.

Which is not relevant. It's a human being much earlier than third
trimester and deserves human rights.

It is human tissue. Prove that it is a "being".

Willful termination of the next generation is perfectly natural for any creature that has to put effort into it's continued existance.

You think abortions nowadays happen for this reason in the USA or any
other civilized nation?

Of course. What other reason would you posit?!

Thread drift, old son. An argument against your specific point that "Society has, i.e. the people have, a right to enforce their morals against the will of minorities in a democracy."

Which it is not. The majority thinks of murder as immoral behaviour,

"Morality" of murder is moot.

so it tries to force people not to murder. Some people in the USA still
think that the afro-americans shouldn't have human rights.
The majority enforces its morals onto them.

Again, no "moral" argument necessary. Just a liberty one.

Now, you *might* argue that things like affirmative action
are an enforcement of one group's morals on another... But
if you want to do that, let me know your reasons.

See?
Liberty as an argument for slavery...

Bah. That was not only a strawman, but a weak one at that.

"There is oppression against the social body when a single one of its members is oppressed: there is oppression against each member when the social body is oppressed."

The point being that you refuse to accept the fetus as a human being
with human rights.

The point is, you have yet to prove that the tissue inside
a woman's womb is a "person". You merely assert it.

It's perfectly natural. People have been doing it for millenia.

People have done a lot of things. Many of them unnatural.

What makes what humans do "unnatural"? Are we somehow able
to circumvent nature?! We may circumvent *instinct* but
we are part of a natural universe and stuck within it...

You constantly consider the fetus as if it where a seperable entity from it's mother's whomb. It's not until the third trimester.

Irrelevant in the discussion of its human rights.
Why shouldn't it have human rights while in the womb?
It's a completely arbitrary criteria.

No more so than *your* completely arbitrary assertion.
Actually, to assert person-hood to womb-tissue is more
arbitrary.

Your argument: a fetus is not a human being,

At least be honest in your assessment. He has a *reason*
for his position---the tissue in womb is not considered
a human *being* because it has no defined consciousness
or thought processes until sometime near the end of the
second trimester. Ergo, there is *reason* here.

deserves no human rights, therefore abortion laws contradict liberty.

My argument: a fetus is a human being, therefore its rights must be

By *pure* assertion.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Doctor Assassinated in Church--Happy Now, Wingnuts??
    ... We don't have laws to enforce your morals or to enforce the religious ... if it is OK to violate the human rights of another person. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Humanism in 2006
    ... >>> Morality can only change from one code to another. ... morality, without morals being REALism. ... Human rights don't exist, never have, and never ... Your moral subjectivism makes you morally infallable ...
    (talk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Humanism in 2006
    ... > morality, without morals being REALism. ... Human rights don't exist, never have, and never ... Your moral subjectivism makes you morally infallable ...
    (talk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: question for Jeannie
    ... so, would they not be bound by their morals to enforce this by law, or at ... How many of you protestant Christians would not be ... held religious beliefs running for office, ...
    (sci.med.transcription)
  • Re: "IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE.... THEN LET ME SEE YOUR ..."
    ... people who use the phrase, "if you have nothing to hide .. ... to enforce my morals". ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)