this whole debate comes down to a definition of when a fertilised egg becomes a live human

Why? People dont usually abort things that are dead and if it's not human then there's no need for an abortion. I reject the false equivalency objection that somehow a human embryo is not "human" the same way I reject that a toddler is somehow less human than an adult.

This "live human" stipulation is a pilpul fabrication meant to inject moral ambiguity. This allows abortion to be morally justified as an acceptable practice at least up until some arbitrary stage of development (even though it's clear that pregnancy, barring complication, means a baby is on the way.)

You will never get consensus on your "live human" criteria. That is by design.

I posit instead that the crux of this debate comes down to the sanctity of life and personal responsibility. Calling me cruel for "denying care" is odd considering I'm arguing to prevent the termination of healthy pregnancies conceived with full consent and knowledge of the man and woman involved. A pregnancy isn't a "risk ending badly" it's a blessing and a responsibility (for both woman AND man).

To break it down simply -- babies come from sex. More specifically they come from the product of sucessful egg-sperm fertilization (e.g. the early stage embryo and fetuses that are aborted by the millions each year) This occurs in the womb which is naturally equipped for this process. It's pretty clear what is going on.

Determining termination based on some level of cognizance is an arbitrary standard and frankly one that opens the door for other judgements that are only limited by imagination, rhetoric and charisma.

At what point does this evolve into screening fetuses, altering genomes and treating early human development like some science experiment. Aldous Huxley, a eugenicist, explores this future in his novel Brave New World.

"Stage-of-development" is a flawed argument because it presupposes that some qualifications must be met before an embryo or fetus reaches a status of personhoood when in reality the "clump of cells " has all the genetic instructions it requires to proceed through all stages of development at conception. Entertaining the idea that it somehow matters less because it is smaller, less developed, dependent on the mother etc is the pilpul I was talking about. If it wasn't a human then an abortion wouldn't be necessary because a dog, bird or fish embryo would die immediately.

It is not like contraception (e.g. a condom). A gamete on it's own will never develop into a human under any circumstances.

There can also be devastating psychological fallout from not getting an abortion, which would be why many people believe it should be a choice that the people involved get to make about themselves, rather than forcing it on them.

We are talking about people (man and woman) who decide to have sex and don't want to deal with the logical, predictable outcome. No one is forcing them to do anything. They have created this situation for themselves. It's that simple. The rest is just mental gymnastics for them not taking responsibility for their actions.

The only intellectually and morally honest argument for abortion is "I don't care".

Abortion should be legal in all cases

Respectfully I disagree. If one grants that abortion should be legal for rape/incest/LOTM (~1%) then it comes down to the other 99% which is what both sides actually care about. At this point the conversation shifts to personal liberty, bodily autonomy, stage-of-development or, in the case of Roe v. Wade, privacy. While there is some clever pilpul regarding ethics and/or the "dilemma" an unexpected pregnancy creates, in the overwhelming majority of cases the abortion decision comes down to convenience. Convenience meaning the prevention of struggle. Having to alter ones life or career to acommodate the needs of a(nother) child. It's no secret that sex causes pregnancy however many people feel they shouldnt have to deal with the consequences (women AND men). Human life is the most precious thing on earth which means it needs to be treated with the utmost care from conception to repose.

Abortion creates a culture of death. Assisted suicides would almost certainly not be a thing if abortion wasn't normalized first. It's no surprise that abortion traces its modern roots to the eugenics movement.

Furthermore something that is rarely discussed is the psychological fallout from abortion. It can be devastating for both women and men.

Are you 14?

patriot act and seeing the continuation of right wing authoritarianism

The Patriot Act was an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill.

🙂

You're just redefining terms. It's the same thing. If Twitter or Lemmy wants to block those things that's fine. I would agree that social networks should try to maintain some sense of decency on their platforms. The government shouldn't be involved though.

This is (mostly) a different point and I'm not going to engage with it. Suffice it to say that hate speech isn't a slippery slope it's the bottom of the mountain. If such a policy is ever enacted it will be abused and used to persecute people.

Teslas are impractical, cheaply made and expensive. That's why they aren't selling. Electric vehicles aren't selling in general because they don't make sense for the money. It's a forced meme by special interests.

While not pacifistic Christianity is non-violent. If someone claims to be a Christian and beats up a homosexual for "no reason" then they are sinning. This, also, is completely irrelevant to the argument I was making.

Everyone tries to enforce their views. You, I assume, want to enforce your world view of radical tolerance for [issue here] at the expense of someone elses ability to criticize it. Your neighbor might want to define hate speech as anything that violates Sharia law.

What we have now (which is no restriction on hate speech) is actually the best policy.

1. The Orthodox Christian God is all knowing. Evil is the absence of Good. (e.g. darkness is the absence of light)

2. Similarly this God is all powerful and has already defeated evil through the sanctification of man's nature through the death of Jesus Christ on the cross. Faith and cooperation with the Holy Spirit is how man communes with God.

3. Evil is the absence of good. So wherever people sin against God evil exists. Fallen beings exist as well because they too sinned against God but are eternally damned whereas man is redeemable.

God is indescribable and inconceivable. He created a church on Earth so that we can worship him. Worshipping God is good for us not just because God is good to us but because he literally is "good". In a world without God good and evil don't exist.

An army of leftists wouldn't fix anything

The proposals I listed are MUCH bigger issues.

Logic presupposes God. If God operates outside of time he can certainly operate outside of other frameworks we use to perceive the world. The human brain can fit in a bucket. Naturally understanding God is an impossibility.

The epicurian paradox presupposes false premises.

Define "good".

Evil is a privation of Good.

Why doesn't he add term limits for congress? And make stock trading illegal for congress? And ban lobbying? etc etc. This "anti-corruption" bill is really ignoring the elephant(s) in the room.

My point is that it's a moving target that will be abused. The government should not and thankfully cannot regulate speech based on the grounds of "hate". Hate is also not illegal. (At least in the US)

For example, Christians are taught to love the sinner but hate the sin. Homosexuality, drag queens, transgenderism are sins in Christianity. With your new law Christians are now censored because their worldview disagrees with yours.

Whoever has the right to define that term has immense power and that power will be abused just like the other labels in the meme.

What is hate speech?