From a lefty I know..."Yeah, it's murder, but that's okay as long as I view the victim as an inconvenience."
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (88)
sorted by:
This is hilariously unscientific
It’s a life after a zygote is formed, there is no other biological definition of life. Semen and eggs are potential lives, not zygotes.
Which is a nonsensical argument. The zygote is designed to develop at a certain rate and sentience is not an objective measure, it’s a subjective one, it’s like saying marriage is between people that love each other. A zygote will always reach sentience if there is no interference. This is the same argument as a man put into a medical coma, if he is expected to fully recover is he not alive?
I've been wondering if a brain or nervous system is even a requirement for sentience, given what we know about green plants and other so-called "lower forms of life."
Sentience is the ability to feel physical things. If someone was unable to feel things for longer period of time, just like how, for instance, a few people on Earth don't feel pain at all, do you call them non-sentient and you think their mothers can "abort" them just for that?
More generally speaking, why is the ability to feel pain or pleasure be the argument for whether or not you can or can't kill a baby? I really don't see how the 2 are connected at all. Is a human, to you, just defined by their nervous system?
You are the communist of conservatism.
I'm with u/current_horror in regard to lolbert fatigue. Nothing personal, but your standard moral vs legal line is pretty ridiculous and has been the means by which neoconservatives (ie Trotskyites) have backed leftists for 70 years. "You can't legislate morality" has been a conservative line my whole life and its dead wrong.
All laws are written to promote a moral good. Homocide laws are written because preventing and punishing murder is a moral good. The Crean Air Act was written because preventing a polluted country is a moral good. Even fucking tax laws exist because supporting the operations of the government is (perceived) to be a moral good. Now some of these may be bad calls, but the principle remains.
Or, I should say the principle remains unless an actual conservative advocates for a law or moral position out of line with progressive ideology, then it's back to "you can't legislate morality" as our betters often tell us.
I disagree.
These things are done to maintain the authority of the state, which is based on moral principals enshrined in the Constitution. It may be a bit pedantic but I think it's an important distinction.
While it's acceptable to question, protest, and even disobey laws and still be a loyal citizen, opposing the Constitution is treason. While laws are dynamic, the Constitution is not (or at least shouldn't be).
The reason for this is that governments should never be the arbiters of the Constitution, that's for the courts to do in order to ensure a division of power so that special interest groups can't arbitrarily change everything.
You might think this is unimportant, but take a look at a country with no Constitutional authority, like Canada, to see the difference.