EPTHow about sterilizing inmates or people with severe mental disabilities?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1974
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
killa_robot
Canada1884 Posts
How about sterilizing inmates or people with severe mental disabilities? | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43853 Posts
On May 17 2015 03:09 IgnE wrote: Yes, obviously you can not say it. No one thinks that it is a moral imperative to fill the world with as much life as possible. Okay, next hypothetical. Sperm is heading towards egg, you have the same information as before. Can you morally prevent it from getting there, snuffing out that future whose value you entirely understand and appreciate? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43853 Posts
On May 17 2015 04:12 IgnE wrote: Yes, obviously. Okay. Now we have embryos created for IVF for you. You have two viable ones but only wanted one child. Can you morally pick one and discard the other? Again you know everything about the life that won't be if you make that choice. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43853 Posts
On May 17 2015 04:18 IgnE wrote: Yes, obviously. Are you pro choice? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43853 Posts
On May 17 2015 04:20 IgnE wrote: Yes, obviously. What makes you think that I wasn't? Thought experiment isn't for you then.  | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
I'm laughing so hard right now  | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23825 Posts
I suspected this was the case. Well the non-rape/incest/health position has been presented, now it's time for conservatives to offer a non-allabortionismurder + anything after conception is abortion counter proposal or something right? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to paint pro-choice as unreasonable and then avoid a pretty reasonable approach presented. As of now it doesn't seem to matter whether we are talking about the rare rape/incest case or the most common case of failed birth control, it doesn't seem like the pro-life side has a case to make regarding failed birth control? Should also probably focus on abortions within the first 12-16 weeks as that's the overwhelming majority of abortions. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4922 Posts
I told you I'm not going to discuss abortions, in general. So you can pose any question you like, any of your many, many hypothetical, but it won't do any good. I will say, however, that just because you were wise enough to finally talk about the majority of abortions, doesn't mean the 20% or whatever it is that think abortion is murder and should be very restricted have to somehow back off on their moral stance. The two things aren't connected. ( Warning: I don't actually know the number, I'm just picking one). You didn't concede anything by talking about the more relevant cases, unless you mean that you just gave up a political advantage. Meanwhile you are asking the others to make a fundamental change to their thinking. The two aren't comparable. People in this thread are discussing the morality of it for the most part, not so much the policy. It's mainly you that keeps bringing it up. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On May 17 2015 03:35 YoureFired wrote: I strongly agree. Abortions are morally very difficult and are also physically taxing, just like Plan B, and contraceptives are to me an obvious and easy alternative. I find it ridiculous when conservative voices push for: A) Abstinence-only education B) Reduced access to birth control, because apparently that encourages sex C) Reduced access to abortions, because more unwanted pregnancies TOTALLY won't happen with A) and B) You forgot D. D) Bitch about the cost of welfare going to mothers who have no business getting pregnant. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23825 Posts
On May 17 2015 05:44 Introvert wrote: You make it sound like some conservatives have a duty to respond. I told you I'm not going to discuss abortions, in general. So you can pose any question you like, any of your many, many hypothetical, but it won't do any good. I will say, however, that just because you were wise enough to finally talk about the majority of abortions, doesn't mean the 20% or whatever it is that think abortion is murder and should be very restricted have to somehow back off on their moral stance. The two things aren't connected. ( Warning: I don't actually know the number, I'm just picking one). You didn't concede anything by talking about the more relevant cases, unless you mean that you just gave up a political advantage. Meanwhile you are asking the others to make a fundamental change to their thinking. The two aren't comparable I'm just saying I agreed with you that it makes sense to talk about the most common cases. In an effort to move towards solutions I presented some ideas. Now in an effort to make some sort of progress I'm saying I'm curious as to what the acceptable conservative alternative is? What is the alternative idea for dealing with situations when contraceptives fail. It's not just common, it's the most common reason we end up with an abortion. If we (liberals and conservatives in general, not the two of us specifically) can't even have a dialogue around that, what is left as an alternative? | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On May 17 2015 05:52 heliusx wrote: You forgot D. D) Bitch about the cost of welfare going to mothers who have no business getting pregnant. They have to suffer so they learn to be personally responsible in the future and change their behaviour of the past to not get children.... | ||
|
KwarK
United States43853 Posts
On May 17 2015 05:54 puerk wrote: They have to suffer so they learn to be personally responsible in the future and change their behaviour of the past to not get children.... What about those who keep having children they can't afford? Should we torture them? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23825 Posts
On May 17 2015 05:55 KwarK wrote: What about those who keep having children they can't afford? Should we torture them? You mean enhanced behavior modification? | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On May 17 2015 05:55 KwarK wrote: What about those who keep having children they can't afford? Should we torture them? Obviously we should publicly shame them at a pranger. But to be real: they will all start behaving rational if government just stops supporting their stupidity. They will pull themselfs up by their bootstraps and raise those kids to be reasonable successful adults. And who could be opposed to that?.... | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
| ||
