|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
don't we have a stand alone abortion thread? or did Kwark end up closing it? on that note Where's Kwark when you need him?
|
Within two weeks of announcing his candidacy for president, Ted Cruz's support among Republican voters has jumped by double digits in a new poll.
The Texas senator's support rose from 5 percent to 16 percent in a little over a month, according to a national survey of 443 national Republican primary voters released Wednesday by Public Policy Polling.
That puts him in "top tier of GOP contenders," PPP concluded, coming in third place behind Scott Walker, who led with 20 percent, and Jeb Bush, who had 17 percent.
Notably, Walker's support fell from 25 percent, while Bush's support stayed at 17 percent — a sign that Cruz may be siphoning support from the Wisconsin governor.
Behind Cruz were Ben Carson and Rand Paul tied with 10 percent; Marco Rubio and Mike Huckabee tied with 6 percent; Chris Christie with 4 percent and Rick Perry with 3 percent.
Cruz announced his candidacy at the evangelical Liberty University on March 23.
Source
|
On April 02 2015 02:14 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 01:48 Nyxisto wrote:On April 02 2015 01:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm sorry, but that last paragraph.. either we should allow killing children until they are 3-4 years old, or abortion should be completely banned? Anything else is a half-measure? Half-measure against what? What's wrong with it being arbitrary anyway, laws and politics being arbitrary is kind of like, an essential part of it?
I don't want to be rude, but do you think it's a requirement to have this type of strict adherence to principles even when they clearly conflict with reason to be a libertarian or is it just coincidental? Because it almost seems like the cornerstone of (the collective) your belief, that you should try to establish principles that cannot and should not ever be broken or mediated by human interaction, even if abandoning the principles makes for a better society. Which makes no sense, as another core principle seems to be that mediating interaction between people can replace every function of the state, but whatever.
Like honestly, making the claim that "abortion should either be completely illegal or legal until the baby is 3-4 years old" just strikes me as kind of this, exercise in taking 'the logical position' to absurdity, like you're trying to be a parody of an (arbiter-y) supercomputer that looks into the future and determines life worth based on accurate prediction and 100% adherence to utilitarianism I kind of understand the point though. a three day old foetus can't survive on its own and a two year old child can't, conciousness is a shaky argument, because it's also not quite clear when that starts, so there is no real qualitative difference. You can't just draw some arbitrary line, this doesn't work like traffic regulation. Either you have some clear point when a human is a human or you don't. The definition of a human life is not some consensus decision where you take everybody's opinion and then calculate the arithmetic mean. My view is that with pregnancy you pretty much have the starting point for human life. A sperm or an egg cell alone do not constitute a human. But when both come together you pretty much have a starting point for human life. From there on it's just gradual development. Why must there be a clear line between where it's human or not? We, as in, the collective humanity, can't even agree. You say that pregnancy is the starting point for human life, personally I don't think fetuses look enough like humans to constitute humans until at least 20 weeks in, maybe longer.. If not even humans can agree at what point a fetus becomes human, isn't that indicative of it just.. not being clear cut? I don't argue for consciousness, and I think the "can survive with assistance outside the embryo" is gonna be subject to change, so that doesn't fully work (although it's convenient at the moment because the technological level we are current at is largely in agreement with the highest age people are 'comfortable' with abortions anyway). But "at conception" or "at birth" don't work for me either - I think fetuses a day after conception look nothing even remotely close to people and watching a 1 day old fetus could not possibly give me any feeling of attachment, even if it were my own. Birth doesn't work for the opposite reason - a baby one day before birth looks far too much like an actual person for me to be anywhere near comfortable killing it. For me, the reasonable position essentially becomes the following ; Accept that unwanted pregnancies can happen. They can, even if people take precautions, and they happen even more often if people are reckless. Reckless people can probably be expected to not become parent of the year, maybe it's okay if they get to abort if they fuck up. (Although ideally they do not - and the best way to combat this is having inexpensive and very available birth control coupled with sex education stressing responsibility rather than abstinence. ) People who are otherwise reasonable but just unlucky (condom broke for example) should not be punished for this (and having a baby at the wrong stage of your life can certainly feel like punishment. ) At the same time, accept that there are many people in the world who feel an attachment towards 'unborn children'. Be it religious or otherwise, it is a reality that many people feel attachment for the unborn children and even if they don't consider it murder, they consider abortions, at best, a necessary evil. So how about we just set the time frame for legal abortions at a level where most people don't agree that it really resembles a person, but also one where people have ample opportunity to make an informed choice about whether to keep the baby or not? I mean, for most women, a late abortion is far more emotionally troubling than an early abortion is. Fact is - my proposed solution is basically exactly what most western countries have been doing for the past decades, but I don't understand what the problem with it is? Or, I do when it's a religious context, but then I ignore it because religion shouldn't be deciding policy anyway. 
It's just nice to see people here talk about this subject honestly. At least in the US, it's often times politicized. Last time I even mentioned abortion here I got a pm grilling me on it. Which lead to this person saying that I was a misogynist and so were the x% of women who shared my view. I've never even brought up the topic tangentially since then.
Surprised we've made it this far.
|
Drone is far better at advocating my point of view than I am. An arbitrary line in the sand that is chosen for pragmatic reasons makes sense to me. It's what most of our laws are based on anyway (picking traffic regulations is disingenious as a counterpoint is silly, as almost ALL our laws have pragmatically chosen decision boundaries, whether it is traffic, crime fighting, tax, privacy, pollution or something else). I personally think the line at 24 weeks makes sense. Anything less than 20 doesn't make much sense to me: at that stage the fetus is too blobby and not human enough. Anything after 32 doesn't make sense to me the other way, and it is too similar to murdering an innocent child.
Finally, there is the question of what rights the mother has to be the boss of what is in her body and what happens to it. If she really really really does not want a baby growing inside of her, why do we force her to do that? Does she not have the right to NOT have a baby grow inside of her?
And yes, she should not have gotten pregnant in the first place, but there are any number of reasons why responsible adults can get pregnant anyway. Moreover, I don't think being forced to have a baby is a fitting punishment for an irresponsible woman.
|
On April 02 2015 02:34 Acrofales wrote:
Drone is far better at advocating my point of view than I am. An arbitrary line in the sand that is chosen for pragmatic reasons makes sense to me. It's what most of our laws are based on anyway (picking traffic regulations is disingenious as a counterpoint is silly, as almost ALL our laws have pragmatically chosen decision boundaries, whether it is traffic, crime fighting, tax, privacy, pollution or something else). I personally think the line at 24 weeks makes sense. Anything less than 20 doesn't make much sense to me: at that stage the fetus is too blobby and not human enough. Anything after 32 doesn't make sense to me the other way, and it is too similar to murdering an innocent child.
Finally, there is the question of what rights the mother has to be the boss of what is in her body and what happens to it. If she really really really does not want a baby growing inside of her, why do we force her to do that? Does she not have the right to NOT have a baby grow inside of her?
And yes, she should not have gotten pregnant in the first place, but there are any number of reasons why responsible adults can get pregnant anyway. Moreover, I don't think being forced to have a baby is a fitting punishment for an irresponsible woman.
What about the father's wishes? What if he wants the kid?
What about adoption?
|
On April 02 2015 02:27 Millitron wrote:[...] Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 02:17 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 01:52 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 01:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm sorry, but that last paragraph.. either we should allow killing children until they are 3-4 years old, or abortion should be completely banned? Anything else is a half-measure? Half-measure against what? What's wrong with it being arbitrary anyway, laws and politics being arbitrary is kind of like, an essential part of it?
I don't want to be rude, but do you think it's a requirement to have this type of strict adherence to principles even when they clearly conflict with reason to be a libertarian or is it just coincidental? Because it almost seems like the cornerstone of (the collective) your belief, that you should try to establish principles that cannot and should not ever be broken or mediated by human interaction, even if abandoning the principles makes for a better society. Which makes no sense, as another core principle seems to be that mediating interaction between people can replace every function of the state, but whatever.
Like honestly, making the claim that "abortion should either be completely illegal or legal until the baby is 3-4 years old" just strikes me as kind of this, exercise in taking 'the logical position' to absurdity, like you're trying to be a parody of an (arbiter-y) supercomputer that looks into the future and determines life worth based on accurate prediction and 100% adherence to utilitarianism I personally do not believe abandoning principles can ever make for a better society. A more convenient society, maybe. But not better.[...] what about stuff that just flat out isn't practical yet so we settle for what we can get? Take animal rights for an example. We have a lot more in that regard than we used to some time ago (I'd assume). There's still a lot of fucked up stuff happening on a daily basis but in general people think that animals should at least die (somewhat) painless and not be tortured. I wouldn't be surprised if we get stricter rules in that direction in the near future as it becomes more viable but just isn't right now when we need/want our steaks to be non-tofu and affordable. I'm not actually a vegetarian or some PETA guy btw, just think it's heading towards stricter rules in the long run  Would you say it would be better to abandon all of that and let people torture animals as they want just because we don't want stricter laws on that yet? I don't see how this is related to what I said. Non-violence is a pretty important principle in western society. Torturing animals is pretty clearly against that principle. I don't know that it should be a criminal offense, but it should definitely warrant forced psychiatric help.
It is related in that in 50 years we might consider what we're letting people do to animals nowadays not legal as our definition of what's acceptable change.
Just as it has changed in the last years as well.
|
On April 02 2015 02:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Within two weeks of announcing his candidacy for president, Ted Cruz's support among Republican voters has jumped by double digits in a new poll.
The Texas senator's support rose from 5 percent to 16 percent in a little over a month, according to a national survey of 443 national Republican primary voters released Wednesday by Public Policy Polling.
That puts him in "top tier of GOP contenders," PPP concluded, coming in third place behind Scott Walker, who led with 20 percent, and Jeb Bush, who had 17 percent.
Notably, Walker's support fell from 25 percent, while Bush's support stayed at 17 percent — a sign that Cruz may be siphoning support from the Wisconsin governor.
Behind Cruz were Ben Carson and Rand Paul tied with 10 percent; Marco Rubio and Mike Huckabee tied with 6 percent; Chris Christie with 4 percent and Rick Perry with 3 percent.
Cruz announced his candidacy at the evangelical Liberty University on March 23. Source
Wow, his support went from nothing, to slightly more than nothing by saying he was running for President. He is the nightmare that keeps the GOP awake at night.
|
On April 02 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 02:34 Acrofales wrote:
Drone is far better at advocating my point of view than I am. An arbitrary line in the sand that is chosen for pragmatic reasons makes sense to me. It's what most of our laws are based on anyway (picking traffic regulations is disingenious as a counterpoint is silly, as almost ALL our laws have pragmatically chosen decision boundaries, whether it is traffic, crime fighting, tax, privacy, pollution or something else). I personally think the line at 24 weeks makes sense. Anything less than 20 doesn't make much sense to me: at that stage the fetus is too blobby and not human enough. Anything after 32 doesn't make sense to me the other way, and it is too similar to murdering an innocent child.
Finally, there is the question of what rights the mother has to be the boss of what is in her body and what happens to it. If she really really really does not want a baby growing inside of her, why do we force her to do that? Does she not have the right to NOT have a baby grow inside of her?
And yes, she should not have gotten pregnant in the first place, but there are any number of reasons why responsible adults can get pregnant anyway. Moreover, I don't think being forced to have a baby is a fitting punishment for an irresponsible woman. What about the father's wishes? What if he wants the kid? What about adoption?
The fathers wishes don't rise above the woman's right to control her body. Just like you can't force people with a rare blood type to donate blood in a crisis, even if it would save lives. And adoption is only valid if you assume the adoption system in the country can handle every unwanted pregnancy, which it cannot.
|
On April 02 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 02:34 Acrofales wrote:
Drone is far better at advocating my point of view than I am. An arbitrary line in the sand that is chosen for pragmatic reasons makes sense to me. It's what most of our laws are based on anyway (picking traffic regulations is disingenious as a counterpoint is silly, as almost ALL our laws have pragmatically chosen decision boundaries, whether it is traffic, crime fighting, tax, privacy, pollution or something else). I personally think the line at 24 weeks makes sense. Anything less than 20 doesn't make much sense to me: at that stage the fetus is too blobby and not human enough. Anything after 32 doesn't make sense to me the other way, and it is too similar to murdering an innocent child.
Finally, there is the question of what rights the mother has to be the boss of what is in her body and what happens to it. If she really really really does not want a baby growing inside of her, why do we force her to do that? Does she not have the right to NOT have a baby grow inside of her?
And yes, she should not have gotten pregnant in the first place, but there are any number of reasons why responsible adults can get pregnant anyway. Moreover, I don't think being forced to have a baby is a fitting punishment for an irresponsible woman. What about the father's wishes? What if he wants the kid? What about adoption?
The father does not have the right to dictate what happens in her body. He does have the right to try to convince her that they should have the baby. And one may assume that any functional relationship will have a lot of long talks about the matter. But ultimately it is the mother's choice.
|
On April 02 2015 02:37 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 02:27 Millitron wrote:[...] On April 02 2015 02:17 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 01:52 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 01:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm sorry, but that last paragraph.. either we should allow killing children until they are 3-4 years old, or abortion should be completely banned? Anything else is a half-measure? Half-measure against what? What's wrong with it being arbitrary anyway, laws and politics being arbitrary is kind of like, an essential part of it?
I don't want to be rude, but do you think it's a requirement to have this type of strict adherence to principles even when they clearly conflict with reason to be a libertarian or is it just coincidental? Because it almost seems like the cornerstone of (the collective) your belief, that you should try to establish principles that cannot and should not ever be broken or mediated by human interaction, even if abandoning the principles makes for a better society. Which makes no sense, as another core principle seems to be that mediating interaction between people can replace every function of the state, but whatever.
Like honestly, making the claim that "abortion should either be completely illegal or legal until the baby is 3-4 years old" just strikes me as kind of this, exercise in taking 'the logical position' to absurdity, like you're trying to be a parody of an (arbiter-y) supercomputer that looks into the future and determines life worth based on accurate prediction and 100% adherence to utilitarianism I personally do not believe abandoning principles can ever make for a better society. A more convenient society, maybe. But not better.[...] what about stuff that just flat out isn't practical yet so we settle for what we can get? Take animal rights for an example. We have a lot more in that regard than we used to some time ago (I'd assume). There's still a lot of fucked up stuff happening on a daily basis but in general people think that animals should at least die (somewhat) painless and not be tortured. I wouldn't be surprised if we get stricter rules in that direction in the near future as it becomes more viable but just isn't right now when we need/want our steaks to be non-tofu and affordable. I'm not actually a vegetarian or some PETA guy btw, just think it's heading towards stricter rules in the long run Would you say it would be better to abandon all of that and let people torture animals as they want just because we don't want stricter laws on that yet? I don't see how this is related to what I said. Non-violence is a pretty important principle in western society. Torturing animals is pretty clearly against that principle. I don't know that it should be a criminal offense, but it should definitely warrant forced psychiatric help. It is related in that in 50 years we might consider what we're letting people do to animals nowadays not legal as our definition of what's acceptable change. Just as it has changed in the last years as well.
That's principles evolving, not being abandoned. It's taking the principle of non-violence further, not giving it up.
On April 02 2015 02:42 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 02:34 Acrofales wrote:
Drone is far better at advocating my point of view than I am. An arbitrary line in the sand that is chosen for pragmatic reasons makes sense to me. It's what most of our laws are based on anyway (picking traffic regulations is disingenious as a counterpoint is silly, as almost ALL our laws have pragmatically chosen decision boundaries, whether it is traffic, crime fighting, tax, privacy, pollution or something else). I personally think the line at 24 weeks makes sense. Anything less than 20 doesn't make much sense to me: at that stage the fetus is too blobby and not human enough. Anything after 32 doesn't make sense to me the other way, and it is too similar to murdering an innocent child.
Finally, there is the question of what rights the mother has to be the boss of what is in her body and what happens to it. If she really really really does not want a baby growing inside of her, why do we force her to do that? Does she not have the right to NOT have a baby grow inside of her?
And yes, she should not have gotten pregnant in the first place, but there are any number of reasons why responsible adults can get pregnant anyway. Moreover, I don't think being forced to have a baby is a fitting punishment for an irresponsible woman. What about the father's wishes? What if he wants the kid? What about adoption? The father does not have the right to dictate what happens in her body. He does have the right to try to convince her that they should have the baby. And one may assume that any functional relationship will have a lot of long talks about the matter. But ultimately it is the mother's choice.
Then why can men be forced to pay child support for a child they didn't want? That if it was up to them, they would've aborted or put up for adoption?
Your position says women are the only one's with reproductive rights.
|
no, his position says that women should be able to make choices about their own body.
|
On April 02 2015 02:42 Millitron wrote:
Then why can men be forced to pay child support for a child they didn't want? That if it was up to them, they would've aborted or put up for adoption?
Your position says women are the only one's with reproductive rights.
That is correct, as they are the only ones who have reproductive systems capable of carrying children. When men can also give birth, they can do whatever they want.
On April 02 2015 02:48 Paljas wrote:
no, his position says that women should be able to make choices about their own body.
This guy gets it.
|
On April 02 2015 02:48 Paljas wrote:
no, his position says that women should be able to make choices about their own body.
So what reproductive rights do men have then, if they can't decide what happens to their off-spring?
|
On April 02 2015 02:42 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 02:37 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 02:27 Millitron wrote:[...] On April 02 2015 02:17 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 01:52 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 01:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm sorry, but that last paragraph.. either we should allow killing children until they are 3-4 years old, or abortion should be completely banned? Anything else is a half-measure? Half-measure against what? What's wrong with it being arbitrary anyway, laws and politics being arbitrary is kind of like, an essential part of it?
I don't want to be rude, but do you think it's a requirement to have this type of strict adherence to principles even when they clearly conflict with reason to be a libertarian or is it just coincidental? Because it almost seems like the cornerstone of (the collective) your belief, that you should try to establish principles that cannot and should not ever be broken or mediated by human interaction, even if abandoning the principles makes for a better society. Which makes no sense, as another core principle seems to be that mediating interaction between people can replace every function of the state, but whatever.
Like honestly, making the claim that "abortion should either be completely illegal or legal until the baby is 3-4 years old" just strikes me as kind of this, exercise in taking 'the logical position' to absurdity, like you're trying to be a parody of an (arbiter-y) supercomputer that looks into the future and determines life worth based on accurate prediction and 100% adherence to utilitarianism I personally do not believe abandoning principles can ever make for a better society. A more convenient society, maybe. But not better.[...] what about stuff that just flat out isn't practical yet so we settle for what we can get? Take animal rights for an example. We have a lot more in that regard than we used to some time ago (I'd assume). There's still a lot of fucked up stuff happening on a daily basis but in general people think that animals should at least die (somewhat) painless and not be tortured. I wouldn't be surprised if we get stricter rules in that direction in the near future as it becomes more viable but just isn't right now when we need/want our steaks to be non-tofu and affordable. I'm not actually a vegetarian or some PETA guy btw, just think it's heading towards stricter rules in the long run Would you say it would be better to abandon all of that and let people torture animals as they want just because we don't want stricter laws on that yet? I don't see how this is related to what I said. Non-violence is a pretty important principle in western society. Torturing animals is pretty clearly against that principle. I don't know that it should be a criminal offense, but it should definitely warrant forced psychiatric help. It is related in that in 50 years we might consider what we're letting people do to animals nowadays not legal as our definition of what's acceptable change. Just as it has changed in the last years as well. That's principles evolving, not being abandoned. It's taking the principle of non-violence further, not giving it up. Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 02:42 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 02:34 Acrofales wrote:
Drone is far better at advocating my point of view than I am. An arbitrary line in the sand that is chosen for pragmatic reasons makes sense to me. It's what most of our laws are based on anyway (picking traffic regulations is disingenious as a counterpoint is silly, as almost ALL our laws have pragmatically chosen decision boundaries, whether it is traffic, crime fighting, tax, privacy, pollution or something else). I personally think the line at 24 weeks makes sense. Anything less than 20 doesn't make much sense to me: at that stage the fetus is too blobby and not human enough. Anything after 32 doesn't make sense to me the other way, and it is too similar to murdering an innocent child.
Finally, there is the question of what rights the mother has to be the boss of what is in her body and what happens to it. If she really really really does not want a baby growing inside of her, why do we force her to do that? Does she not have the right to NOT have a baby grow inside of her?
And yes, she should not have gotten pregnant in the first place, but there are any number of reasons why responsible adults can get pregnant anyway. Moreover, I don't think being forced to have a baby is a fitting punishment for an irresponsible woman. What about the father's wishes? What if he wants the kid? What about adoption? The father does not have the right to dictate what happens in her body. He does have the right to try to convince her that they should have the baby. And one may assume that any functional relationship will have a lot of long talks about the matter. But ultimately it is the mother's choice. Then why can men be forced to pay child support for a child they didn't want? That if it was up to them, they would've aborted or put up for adoption? Your position says women are the only one's with reproductive rights.
abortion and child support are two different things. abortion is about the woman's rights in her own body. child support is about the child's rights to support.
|
On April 02 2015 02:51 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 02:42 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 02:37 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 02:27 Millitron wrote:[...] On April 02 2015 02:17 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 01:52 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 01:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm sorry, but that last paragraph.. either we should allow killing children until they are 3-4 years old, or abortion should be completely banned? Anything else is a half-measure? Half-measure against what? What's wrong with it being arbitrary anyway, laws and politics being arbitrary is kind of like, an essential part of it?
I don't want to be rude, but do you think it's a requirement to have this type of strict adherence to principles even when they clearly conflict with reason to be a libertarian or is it just coincidental? Because it almost seems like the cornerstone of (the collective) your belief, that you should try to establish principles that cannot and should not ever be broken or mediated by human interaction, even if abandoning the principles makes for a better society. Which makes no sense, as another core principle seems to be that mediating interaction between people can replace every function of the state, but whatever.
Like honestly, making the claim that "abortion should either be completely illegal or legal until the baby is 3-4 years old" just strikes me as kind of this, exercise in taking 'the logical position' to absurdity, like you're trying to be a parody of an (arbiter-y) supercomputer that looks into the future and determines life worth based on accurate prediction and 100% adherence to utilitarianism I personally do not believe abandoning principles can ever make for a better society. A more convenient society, maybe. But not better.[...] what about stuff that just flat out isn't practical yet so we settle for what we can get? Take animal rights for an example. We have a lot more in that regard than we used to some time ago (I'd assume). There's still a lot of fucked up stuff happening on a daily basis but in general people think that animals should at least die (somewhat) painless and not be tortured. I wouldn't be surprised if we get stricter rules in that direction in the near future as it becomes more viable but just isn't right now when we need/want our steaks to be non-tofu and affordable. I'm not actually a vegetarian or some PETA guy btw, just think it's heading towards stricter rules in the long run Would you say it would be better to abandon all of that and let people torture animals as they want just because we don't want stricter laws on that yet? I don't see how this is related to what I said. Non-violence is a pretty important principle in western society. Torturing animals is pretty clearly against that principle. I don't know that it should be a criminal offense, but it should definitely warrant forced psychiatric help. It is related in that in 50 years we might consider what we're letting people do to animals nowadays not legal as our definition of what's acceptable change. Just as it has changed in the last years as well. That's principles evolving, not being abandoned. It's taking the principle of non-violence further, not giving it up. On April 02 2015 02:42 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 02:34 Acrofales wrote:
Drone is far better at advocating my point of view than I am. An arbitrary line in the sand that is chosen for pragmatic reasons makes sense to me. It's what most of our laws are based on anyway (picking traffic regulations is disingenious as a counterpoint is silly, as almost ALL our laws have pragmatically chosen decision boundaries, whether it is traffic, crime fighting, tax, privacy, pollution or something else). I personally think the line at 24 weeks makes sense. Anything less than 20 doesn't make much sense to me: at that stage the fetus is too blobby and not human enough. Anything after 32 doesn't make sense to me the other way, and it is too similar to murdering an innocent child.
Finally, there is the question of what rights the mother has to be the boss of what is in her body and what happens to it. If she really really really does not want a baby growing inside of her, why do we force her to do that? Does she not have the right to NOT have a baby grow inside of her?
And yes, she should not have gotten pregnant in the first place, but there are any number of reasons why responsible adults can get pregnant anyway. Moreover, I don't think being forced to have a baby is a fitting punishment for an irresponsible woman. What about the father's wishes? What if he wants the kid? What about adoption? The father does not have the right to dictate what happens in her body. He does have the right to try to convince her that they should have the baby. And one may assume that any functional relationship will have a lot of long talks about the matter. But ultimately it is the mother's choice. Then why can men be forced to pay child support for a child they didn't want? That if it was up to them, they would've aborted or put up for adoption? Your position says women are the only one's with reproductive rights. abortion and child support are two different things. abortion is about the woman's rights in her own body. child support is about the child's rights to support.
Child support is just as much, if not more, of a punishment as pregnancy. Pregnancy lasts 9 months, child support lasts 18 years.
Why are you against punishing women for an unwanted pregnancy but totally OK with punishing men for one?
|
On April 02 2015 02:42 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 02:37 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 02:27 Millitron wrote:[...] On April 02 2015 02:17 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 01:52 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 01:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm sorry, but that last paragraph.. either we should allow killing children until they are 3-4 years old, or abortion should be completely banned? Anything else is a half-measure? Half-measure against what? What's wrong with it being arbitrary anyway, laws and politics being arbitrary is kind of like, an essential part of it?
I don't want to be rude, but do you think it's a requirement to have this type of strict adherence to principles even when they clearly conflict with reason to be a libertarian or is it just coincidental? Because it almost seems like the cornerstone of (the collective) your belief, that you should try to establish principles that cannot and should not ever be broken or mediated by human interaction, even if abandoning the principles makes for a better society. Which makes no sense, as another core principle seems to be that mediating interaction between people can replace every function of the state, but whatever.
Like honestly, making the claim that "abortion should either be completely illegal or legal until the baby is 3-4 years old" just strikes me as kind of this, exercise in taking 'the logical position' to absurdity, like you're trying to be a parody of an (arbiter-y) supercomputer that looks into the future and determines life worth based on accurate prediction and 100% adherence to utilitarianism I personally do not believe abandoning principles can ever make for a better society. A more convenient society, maybe. But not better.[...] what about stuff that just flat out isn't practical yet so we settle for what we can get? Take animal rights for an example. We have a lot more in that regard than we used to some time ago (I'd assume). There's still a lot of fucked up stuff happening on a daily basis but in general people think that animals should at least die (somewhat) painless and not be tortured. I wouldn't be surprised if we get stricter rules in that direction in the near future as it becomes more viable but just isn't right now when we need/want our steaks to be non-tofu and affordable. I'm not actually a vegetarian or some PETA guy btw, just think it's heading towards stricter rules in the long run Would you say it would be better to abandon all of that and let people torture animals as they want just because we don't want stricter laws on that yet? I don't see how this is related to what I said. Non-violence is a pretty important principle in western society. Torturing animals is pretty clearly against that principle. I don't know that it should be a criminal offense, but it should definitely warrant forced psychiatric help. It is related in that in 50 years we might consider what we're letting people do to animals nowadays not legal as our definition of what's acceptable change. Just as it has changed in the last years as well. That's principles evolving, not being abandoned. It's taking the principle of non-violence further, not giving it up. Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 02:42 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 02:34 Acrofales wrote:
Drone is far better at advocating my point of view than I am. An arbitrary line in the sand that is chosen for pragmatic reasons makes sense to me. It's what most of our laws are based on anyway (picking traffic regulations is disingenious as a counterpoint is silly, as almost ALL our laws have pragmatically chosen decision boundaries, whether it is traffic, crime fighting, tax, privacy, pollution or something else). I personally think the line at 24 weeks makes sense. Anything less than 20 doesn't make much sense to me: at that stage the fetus is too blobby and not human enough. Anything after 32 doesn't make sense to me the other way, and it is too similar to murdering an innocent child.
Finally, there is the question of what rights the mother has to be the boss of what is in her body and what happens to it. If she really really really does not want a baby growing inside of her, why do we force her to do that? Does she not have the right to NOT have a baby grow inside of her?
And yes, she should not have gotten pregnant in the first place, but there are any number of reasons why responsible adults can get pregnant anyway. Moreover, I don't think being forced to have a baby is a fitting punishment for an irresponsible woman. What about the father's wishes? What if he wants the kid? What about adoption? The father does not have the right to dictate what happens in her body. He does have the right to try to convince her that they should have the baby. And one may assume that any functional relationship will have a lot of long talks about the matter. But ultimately it is the mother's choice. Then why can men be forced to pay child support for a child they didn't want? That if it was up to them, they would've aborted or put up for adoption? Your position says women are the only one's with reproductive rights.
Where did I say I was in favour of men being forced to pay for child support for children they didn't want to be born?
However, lets face it, there is a LOT of nuance and relationships can be really messy. Also, 9 months is a long time (in some relationships). In some cases, it is completely justifiable to force the man to pay for child support even if he didn't want the child. In others it is outrageous (and in some, it is outrageous even if he did want the child).
|
On April 02 2015 02:54 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 02:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 02:42 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 02:37 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 02:27 Millitron wrote:[...] On April 02 2015 02:17 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 01:52 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 01:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm sorry, but that last paragraph.. either we should allow killing children until they are 3-4 years old, or abortion should be completely banned? Anything else is a half-measure? Half-measure against what? What's wrong with it being arbitrary anyway, laws and politics being arbitrary is kind of like, an essential part of it?
I don't want to be rude, but do you think it's a requirement to have this type of strict adherence to principles even when they clearly conflict with reason to be a libertarian or is it just coincidental? Because it almost seems like the cornerstone of (the collective) your belief, that you should try to establish principles that cannot and should not ever be broken or mediated by human interaction, even if abandoning the principles makes for a better society. Which makes no sense, as another core principle seems to be that mediating interaction between people can replace every function of the state, but whatever.
Like honestly, making the claim that "abortion should either be completely illegal or legal until the baby is 3-4 years old" just strikes me as kind of this, exercise in taking 'the logical position' to absurdity, like you're trying to be a parody of an (arbiter-y) supercomputer that looks into the future and determines life worth based on accurate prediction and 100% adherence to utilitarianism I personally do not believe abandoning principles can ever make for a better society. A more convenient society, maybe. But not better.[...] what about stuff that just flat out isn't practical yet so we settle for what we can get? Take animal rights for an example. We have a lot more in that regard than we used to some time ago (I'd assume). There's still a lot of fucked up stuff happening on a daily basis but in general people think that animals should at least die (somewhat) painless and not be tortured. I wouldn't be surprised if we get stricter rules in that direction in the near future as it becomes more viable but just isn't right now when we need/want our steaks to be non-tofu and affordable. I'm not actually a vegetarian or some PETA guy btw, just think it's heading towards stricter rules in the long run Would you say it would be better to abandon all of that and let people torture animals as they want just because we don't want stricter laws on that yet? I don't see how this is related to what I said. Non-violence is a pretty important principle in western society. Torturing animals is pretty clearly against that principle. I don't know that it should be a criminal offense, but it should definitely warrant forced psychiatric help. It is related in that in 50 years we might consider what we're letting people do to animals nowadays not legal as our definition of what's acceptable change. Just as it has changed in the last years as well. That's principles evolving, not being abandoned. It's taking the principle of non-violence further, not giving it up. On April 02 2015 02:42 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 02:34 Acrofales wrote:
Drone is far better at advocating my point of view than I am. An arbitrary line in the sand that is chosen for pragmatic reasons makes sense to me. It's what most of our laws are based on anyway (picking traffic regulations is disingenious as a counterpoint is silly, as almost ALL our laws have pragmatically chosen decision boundaries, whether it is traffic, crime fighting, tax, privacy, pollution or something else). I personally think the line at 24 weeks makes sense. Anything less than 20 doesn't make much sense to me: at that stage the fetus is too blobby and not human enough. Anything after 32 doesn't make sense to me the other way, and it is too similar to murdering an innocent child.
Finally, there is the question of what rights the mother has to be the boss of what is in her body and what happens to it. If she really really really does not want a baby growing inside of her, why do we force her to do that? Does she not have the right to NOT have a baby grow inside of her?
And yes, she should not have gotten pregnant in the first place, but there are any number of reasons why responsible adults can get pregnant anyway. Moreover, I don't think being forced to have a baby is a fitting punishment for an irresponsible woman. What about the father's wishes? What if he wants the kid? What about adoption? The father does not have the right to dictate what happens in her body. He does have the right to try to convince her that they should have the baby. And one may assume that any functional relationship will have a lot of long talks about the matter. But ultimately it is the mother's choice. Then why can men be forced to pay child support for a child they didn't want? That if it was up to them, they would've aborted or put up for adoption? Your position says women are the only one's with reproductive rights. abortion and child support are two different things. abortion is about the woman's rights in her own body. child support is about the child's rights to support. Child support is just as much, if not more, of a punishment as pregnancy. Pregnancy lasts 9 months, child support lasts 18 years. Why are you against punishing women for an unwanted pregnancy but totally OK with punishing men for one?
Because they are different things and not comparable. The only thing that brings them together is that a child is involved. Losing control of your body is not the same as being forced to pay some money each month.
On April 02 2015 02:50 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 02:48 Paljas wrote:
no, his position says that women should be able to make choices about their own body.
So what reproductive rights do men have then, if they can't decide what happens to their off-spring?
They don't have reproductive rights. They do have rights to custody after the child is born.
|
On April 02 2015 02:54 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 02:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 02:42 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 02:37 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 02:27 Millitron wrote:[...] On April 02 2015 02:17 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 01:52 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 01:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm sorry, but that last paragraph.. either we should allow killing children until they are 3-4 years old, or abortion should be completely banned? Anything else is a half-measure? Half-measure against what? What's wrong with it being arbitrary anyway, laws and politics being arbitrary is kind of like, an essential part of it?
I don't want to be rude, but do you think it's a requirement to have this type of strict adherence to principles even when they clearly conflict with reason to be a libertarian or is it just coincidental? Because it almost seems like the cornerstone of (the collective) your belief, that you should try to establish principles that cannot and should not ever be broken or mediated by human interaction, even if abandoning the principles makes for a better society. Which makes no sense, as another core principle seems to be that mediating interaction between people can replace every function of the state, but whatever.
Like honestly, making the claim that "abortion should either be completely illegal or legal until the baby is 3-4 years old" just strikes me as kind of this, exercise in taking 'the logical position' to absurdity, like you're trying to be a parody of an (arbiter-y) supercomputer that looks into the future and determines life worth based on accurate prediction and 100% adherence to utilitarianism I personally do not believe abandoning principles can ever make for a better society. A more convenient society, maybe. But not better.[...] what about stuff that just flat out isn't practical yet so we settle for what we can get? Take animal rights for an example. We have a lot more in that regard than we used to some time ago (I'd assume). There's still a lot of fucked up stuff happening on a daily basis but in general people think that animals should at least die (somewhat) painless and not be tortured. I wouldn't be surprised if we get stricter rules in that direction in the near future as it becomes more viable but just isn't right now when we need/want our steaks to be non-tofu and affordable. I'm not actually a vegetarian or some PETA guy btw, just think it's heading towards stricter rules in the long run Would you say it would be better to abandon all of that and let people torture animals as they want just because we don't want stricter laws on that yet? I don't see how this is related to what I said. Non-violence is a pretty important principle in western society. Torturing animals is pretty clearly against that principle. I don't know that it should be a criminal offense, but it should definitely warrant forced psychiatric help. It is related in that in 50 years we might consider what we're letting people do to animals nowadays not legal as our definition of what's acceptable change. Just as it has changed in the last years as well. That's principles evolving, not being abandoned. It's taking the principle of non-violence further, not giving it up. On April 02 2015 02:42 Acrofales wrote:On April 02 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 02:34 Acrofales wrote:
Drone is far better at advocating my point of view than I am. An arbitrary line in the sand that is chosen for pragmatic reasons makes sense to me. It's what most of our laws are based on anyway (picking traffic regulations is disingenious as a counterpoint is silly, as almost ALL our laws have pragmatically chosen decision boundaries, whether it is traffic, crime fighting, tax, privacy, pollution or something else). I personally think the line at 24 weeks makes sense. Anything less than 20 doesn't make much sense to me: at that stage the fetus is too blobby and not human enough. Anything after 32 doesn't make sense to me the other way, and it is too similar to murdering an innocent child.
Finally, there is the question of what rights the mother has to be the boss of what is in her body and what happens to it. If she really really really does not want a baby growing inside of her, why do we force her to do that? Does she not have the right to NOT have a baby grow inside of her?
And yes, she should not have gotten pregnant in the first place, but there are any number of reasons why responsible adults can get pregnant anyway. Moreover, I don't think being forced to have a baby is a fitting punishment for an irresponsible woman. What about the father's wishes? What if he wants the kid? What about adoption? The father does not have the right to dictate what happens in her body. He does have the right to try to convince her that they should have the baby. And one may assume that any functional relationship will have a lot of long talks about the matter. But ultimately it is the mother's choice. Then why can men be forced to pay child support for a child they didn't want? That if it was up to them, they would've aborted or put up for adoption? Your position says women are the only one's with reproductive rights. abortion and child support are two different things. abortion is about the woman's rights in her own body. child support is about the child's rights to support. Child support is just as much, if not more, of a punishment as pregnancy. Pregnancy lasts 9 months, child support lasts 18 years. Why are you against punishing women for an unwanted pregnancy but totally OK with punishing men for one?
i dont consider either a punishment. also, child support goes for the mother and father; its not limited to the father.
|
On April 02 2015 02:42 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 02:37 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 02:27 Millitron wrote:[...] On April 02 2015 02:17 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 01:52 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 01:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm sorry, but that last paragraph.. either we should allow killing children until they are 3-4 years old, or abortion should be completely banned? Anything else is a half-measure? Half-measure against what? What's wrong with it being arbitrary anyway, laws and politics being arbitrary is kind of like, an essential part of it?
I don't want to be rude, but do you think it's a requirement to have this type of strict adherence to principles even when they clearly conflict with reason to be a libertarian or is it just coincidental? Because it almost seems like the cornerstone of (the collective) your belief, that you should try to establish principles that cannot and should not ever be broken or mediated by human interaction, even if abandoning the principles makes for a better society. Which makes no sense, as another core principle seems to be that mediating interaction between people can replace every function of the state, but whatever.
Like honestly, making the claim that "abortion should either be completely illegal or legal until the baby is 3-4 years old" just strikes me as kind of this, exercise in taking 'the logical position' to absurdity, like you're trying to be a parody of an (arbiter-y) supercomputer that looks into the future and determines life worth based on accurate prediction and 100% adherence to utilitarianism I personally do not believe abandoning principles can ever make for a better society. A more convenient society, maybe. But not better.[...] what about stuff that just flat out isn't practical yet so we settle for what we can get? Take animal rights for an example. We have a lot more in that regard than we used to some time ago (I'd assume). There's still a lot of fucked up stuff happening on a daily basis but in general people think that animals should at least die (somewhat) painless and not be tortured. I wouldn't be surprised if we get stricter rules in that direction in the near future as it becomes more viable but just isn't right now when we need/want our steaks to be non-tofu and affordable. I'm not actually a vegetarian or some PETA guy btw, just think it's heading towards stricter rules in the long run Would you say it would be better to abandon all of that and let people torture animals as they want just because we don't want stricter laws on that yet? I don't see how this is related to what I said. Non-violence is a pretty important principle in western society. Torturing animals is pretty clearly against that principle. I don't know that it should be a criminal offense, but it should definitely warrant forced psychiatric help. It is related in that in 50 years we might consider what we're letting people do to animals nowadays not legal as our definition of what's acceptable change. Just as it has changed in the last years as well. That's principles evolving, not being abandoned. It's taking the principle of non-violence further, not giving it up. [...]
and you've been saying that it always has to be a 100% or 0% line for you on the last page when the above shows that we're clearly settling for stuff that's reasonably possible even if we'd like to have a world in which noone has to suffer... but it's just not there.
|
On April 01 2015 17:29 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 15:50 Livelovedie wrote:On April 01 2015 15:39 cLutZ wrote:
That's a very strange standard. Certainly a non-justiciable standard. And one that would allow the killing of many children above age 3, and probably much later. Ultimately you wind up appealing to a certain quality as to what makes something a person, and then, what makes that person worthy of life. I think that definition is as good as any. So...people with mental disorders who can't possess a concept of self are not worthy of life? Okay, mein Herr... Sentience is a rotten way to judge the value of life. By that logic, a third of your whole life is "unworthy" because you're asleep and temporarily lose your awareness of self.
You aren't forming an argument yourself about what makes a thing worthy of life. Until you do, I can't take your argument seriously. Being human isn't a quality, it is a species classification. Other characteristics are then necessary defend the value we place on being human. I'm fine with saying that a right to life exists on a spectrum and certain people have a greater right to life than others.
The organism wakes up and its still self aware of what it is and what it has done... Or action have been done which show it is it views itself and acts as if it is a distinct individual/person.
On April 01 2015 17:35 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 15:50 Livelovedie wrote:On April 01 2015 15:39 cLutZ wrote:
That's a very strange standard. Certainly a non-justiciable standard. And one that would allow the killing of many children above age 3, and probably much later. Ultimately you wind up appealing to a certain quality as to what makes something a person, and then, what makes that person worthy of life. I think that definition is as good as any. No its not. Its much more subjective and nebulous than qualities such as "conception", "viability", and "birth" and after the last nearly all of the countervailing arguments in favor of abortion evaporate. Moreover, it results in the horrific result of killing walking, talking, 12 month olds who cannot articulate that very mature concept that you have laid out. And not just 12 months, you are in favor of killing average kids much older, like age 6 years +.
It's a empirical scientific question when an organism obtains that concept of self. The use of language would be likely the high cut-off point with arguments being made that non-verbal animals could have the right to life based on other characteristics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
