NC Amendment 1 Passes (Constitutionally Prevents Gay Marriage)

So by that standard there is zero issue with late term abortions. You're comfortable with that being the standard for the procedure?

 

The old slippery slope technique. Get someone to admit they're uncomfortable with abortions in the eighth month, then roll them back to seeing an embryo as a human being.

 

Eating roasted almonds? Arsonist, you just burned down a forest! Caught a female trout? Son, the limit is 2 a day and you just caught 900.

If we applied this logic to anything other than humans, it is laughably silly.

 

it's a shades of gray situation at least as far as i'm concerned. it's only the black and white folks i disagree with (hat is bordering on black and white though).

 

Is it though? Plenty of 8 month old babies survive just fine.

If people can live with their decision, so be it. I know what I would do personally, but I can't pass of my morals on someone else. I think trying to define it as strictly an embryo then bam it's a baby the next day is something that's quite frankly impossible.

 

Not at all my intent. He did however indirectly say there wasn't a problem with terminating at nine months so long as that baby is still in the belly even though hundreds of thousands of kids no further along developmentally are out of the womb.

I'm just trying to get past this "simple argument" stuff. I don't think it's simple at all.

 

I'm starting to think the biggest problem in any social issue debate is that too many people think it is either A or B when it comes to discussing it, and that is far from the truth.

 

if the kid can survive on their own then it's clearly murder. everything from then to week 1 is debatable IMO.

 

As I've said repeatedly, there are severe limitations on the availability of late term abortions. It's a phony issue.

 

You implied it wouldn't be an issue regardless of ease of access.

 

I agree, but there's not necessarily a set date for that is what I'm saying. You go by a specific date, there will be a few that still make it on their own (statistical outliers so to speak) and you're back to arguing again.

 

no question.

 

Hat or other VN lawyers, what are the legal implications of committing a crime against a pregnant woman that results in her losing the baby? That isn't a loaded question. I actually am unsure of the answer and am curious.

 

Why in the world would you conflate Blue Moon and Zima? What is going on in that brain of yours?

 

Good hypo. It could certainly come up in the damages portion of a civil claim. On the criminal end, I'm not sure. Would have to look into.

 

neither of these hypotheticals equate logically. just saying. you can do better than this, IP.

 

Please break down why these analogies do not compare to a human embryo or fetus.

I have been keeping count how many times I have been told, "you can do better than this." I think I'm at 3 on this site. Strangely, they only come from people who vehemently disagree with me on the issue at hand. Even more strange, they are never accompanied by more than a "nuh-uh."

I'm just going to chalk it up as a sign of "general respect" but complete and utter disagreement on the subject.

 

I'll give you the almond. It's a reach, but... ok.

The vast majority of female fish, including trout, do not carry fertilized eggs inside their bodies.

EDIT: to say nothing of the moral inequivalency of almond trees, trout, and humans.

 

Hmm, you got me there. Guppies, then. Or more plausibly, shovel-nosed guitar fish.

As to the moral equivalency, that is irrelevant to my point: we don't see almonds as a forest, seeds as trees, or livebearing female fish as a school of fish. Why would we see an embryo or fetus as a human?

 

The almond also isn't growing. If you plant the seeds and then destroy them after they sprout but before they break through the ground, that's probably a better analogy.

Also, I'm pretty sure our moral feelings towards trees (or at least some folks' feelings) have a lot to do with their age anyways.