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.
On August 06 2015 20:32 Yoav wrote: Egh to the whole abortion debate. The argument is entirely about pro-life vs. pro-choice, even though most people are somewhere in the reasonable middle, with significant disagreements about where to draw the line. But those debates--over where you're talking about an infant and not an organ--don't get to be had because everybody's arguing about the poll numbers as to whether the people in favor of partial-birth abortion or the people against condoms and sex ed are more extreme.
Seriously? Let's debate the real criteria, which have nothing to do with public safety, financial concerns, government power or privacy or any of that, but instead have to do with what you think constitutes a human being. This has to be the debate. Within it, there are a number of reasonable positions. Go with nervous system function, vascular development, some marker of viability, point of individuation, whatever you want to argue for. But this liberal-conservative back and forth arguing only against the most extreme members of the other party is hardly helpful.
I'd be fine with a focus on reasonable discussion, but its mostly the crazies that come out, so unless there's a moderation plan to exclude the crazies from discussion, they're who's going to be doing a lot of the talking. Its just the nature of internet discussion that its the crazies show up a lot; and they're the ones people respond to a lot.
On August 06 2015 21:18 Velr wrote: Yeah... That pile of cells is clealry a human being. It hasn't yet developed lungs or any other organ required for (assisted) survival. Let's compare it to a 1 Month old.. Hell let's compare it to a 15 year old just for the sake of having a stupid argument.
Human beings aren't a collection of cells? If your lungs shut down, and you have to use synthetic ones, you're no longer a human being? Or if you were born with a dysfunction organ such that it never developed properly or at all, that makes you less human?
Only development of organs are required for survival? So a 1 month old baby left in an environment with no other humans has anything other than 0% survival?
Sorry to point this out but your drawing a line here yourself, arbitrarily, but being too bias to see it, which was kind of the previous posters point.
Good Job on misreading/interpreting my point on purpose, that is how you form a counter argument "APPLAUSE". I'm perfectly able to see the line and where I would draw it, but i couldn't say when exactly in the pregnacy that point is, i'll let doctors/scientists decide this. I won't have some arbitrary Moral/Religious code made up by people with no clue about the matter at hand decide that for me. Your "chance of survival" is also neat little question. What do you mean by survival exactly? Seconds/Minutes/Hours/Years?
@Yoav: Thats my Point. The Question is not "is there a line", the question is "where is the line"? Because "there is no line" is just as stupid as killing 1 month olds. I just can't understand how someone can be hard pro-live... I get that people are worried about the issue, I just think this is one of the fields where we just have to trust doctors/scientists because whoelse could ever find or know that line?
The line is pretty arbitrary, though. It's us who decide where the line is, and pro-life people draw the line at conception, most people draw it somewhere in the 20-24 week gestation. But there is no objective criteria that says "now the foetus is human". Human-ness is not a black/white case, in this situation, but a continuous scale of increasing human-ness. We simply need to agree on how at what point the human-ness is sufficient to trump the women's rights.
And for that, we don't only need to pinpoint the human-ness factor of a foetus, but also how much we value women's rights (and how much we value an X amount of human-ness). So no, you cannot simply conflate the argument to an arbitrary point you decide that a foetus is now a human. It really is more complex than that.
On August 06 2015 21:18 Velr wrote: Yeah... That pile of cells is clealry a human being. It hasn't yet developed lungs or any other organ required for (assisted) survival. Let's compare it to a 1 Month old.. Hell let's compare it to a 15 year old just for the sake of having a stupid argument.
Human beings aren't a collection of cells? If your lungs shut down, and you have to use synthetic ones, you're no longer a human being? Or if you were born with a dysfunction organ such that it never developed properly or at all, that makes you less human?
Only development of organs are required for survival? So a 1 month old baby left in an environment with no other humans has anything other than 0% survival?
Sorry to point this out but your drawing a line here yourself, arbitrarily, but being too bias to see it, which was kind of the previous posters point.
Good Job on misreading/interpreting my point on purpose, that is how you form a counter argument "APPLAUSE". I'm perfectly able to see the line and where I would draw it, but i couldn't say when exactly in the pregnacy that point is, i'll let doctors/scientists decide this. I won't have some arbitrary Moral/Religious code made up by people with no clue about the matter at hand decide that for me. Your "chance of survival" is also neat little question. What do you mean by survival exactly? Seconds/Minutes/Hours/Years?
@Yoav: Thats my Point. The Question is not "is there a line", the question is "where is the line"? Because "there is no line" is just as stupid as killing 1 month olds. I just can't understand how someone can be hard pro-live... I get that people are worried about the issue, I just think this is one of the fields where we just have to trust doctors/scientists because whoelse could ever find or know that line?
The only person misrepresenting your point is yourself. Lets break down your first post versus the second. You clearly make a sarcastic comment that a fetus is a ball of cells not a human, therefore inferring you believe that life does not start at conception. You then stated something about organ development being important and survival. I addressed both of these directly. You then say its stupid to compare a 1month old to a fetus (implying you don't consider the two equally human life, drawing your arbitrary line again) and you may as well compare it to a 15 year old.
So to then reply and go on a rant about religious arbitrary code and scientists deciding this line (as well as saying you can see the line but actually you defiantly can't? like what?) is a bit bizarre, and this was supposed to be your points in your previous post? I was supposed to get that your point was only about scientists drawing the line vs religious from your sarcastic comment that fetus are not human, not that your point was "a fetus is not a human". Ok.
On August 06 2015 22:47 Acrofales wrote: The line is pretty arbitrary, though. It's us who decide where the line is, and pro-life people draw the line at conception, most people draw it somewhere in the 20-24 week gestation. But there is no objective criteria that says "now the foetus is human". Human-ness is not a black/white case, in this situation, but a continuous scale of increasing human-ness. We simply need to agree on how at what point the human-ness is sufficient to trump the women's rights.
And for that, we don't only need to pinpoint the human-ness factor of a foetus, but also how much we value women's rights (and how much we value an X amount of human-ness). So no, you cannot simply conflate the argument to an arbitrary point you decide that a foetus is now a human. It really is more complex than that.
This is why human-ness is irrelevant.
The real question is, "Is it acceptable to take legal command of a woman's body and force her to go through pregnancy without her consent?". You have to ask this question because if you tell a woman she can't have an abortion, you are automatically saying that the right of the fetus trumps her rights to bodily freedom, and that's pretty questionable.
Once a baby is alive outside of the womb, if the mother doesn't want it, there are a variety of things she can do to remove the responsibility of caring for a child from her life without killing it, and these options don't force any further hardship on her like keeping a pregnancy to term and then giving up a baby would. Pregnancy is absolutely brutal to the body, can be quite dangerous, pretty much universally compromises the body's functioning, and can have serious permanent emotional, physical, and financial consequences. to force someone to go through that without their consent is, at least in my eyes, incredibly immoral.
To me, it amounts to forced labor, and I can't find a justification for that. And no, sex does not equal consent to be pregnant.
@UdderChaos: The one thing obvious to me, is that you really didn't get my point.
But from the rest of your post its pretty clear that your view on this subject is totally alien to me... "life starts at conception" yeah "pizza starts at wather and flour"... good riddance.
Wegandi, I have few questions for you. 1. Do you know any black people other than GH? 2. Have you lived with any black people? 3. Are you a vegetarian?
Hypothetical: What if we draw the line based on the woman and not the fetus?
I am pro-choice, but am growing increasingly uncomfortable with late-term abortions as I get older. Obviously it would require a lot of discussion and forethought, but why not just draw the line at X weeks, where X is the agreed-upon reasonable length of time it takes for a woman to consider all of her options and come to a decision regarding whether or not to get an abortion. Obviously abortions would still be legal after this point in the case of a health emergency, but I take issue with people who have had plenty of time to make a decision suddenly deciding to abort a viable fetus that, if it were delivered, could live.
It's clear that there will never be scientific proof that convinces all parties of when a fetus becomes a "life." Every person's definition of such is a belief not grounded in science, which makes sense because the concept of "life" transcends scientific definition a lot of the time. So why argue around that definition? I say the more appropriate action would be to convene a diverse (mostly female) group of people to decide how long is long enough to decide whether or not to get an abortion, and make them illegal after that point.
And continue to emphasize sex education. While abortion should remain legal, it should happen as little as possible, and most people would rather not get pregnant than go through that process. Educate kids and make contraceptives easily available, the effect is demonstrable.
Stratos: Would carrying a fetus for a prolonged period of time count as consent? I agree that forcing a woman to carry a child to term is wrong, but if she wants to terminate I feel there is an appropriate length of time within which to make that decision. In my eyes, late-term abortions that aren't related to health issues are just irresponsibility, and there is no reason for the brunt of that to fall on an innocent child.
On August 07 2015 00:45 Jormundr wrote: The pro-life position is that abortions are inherently immoral, unless you realllllllllllllly need one.
Considering that most pro-life individuals hold that position based on their religious beliefs, arguing morality with them is futile. Just tell them that you are pro-choice because the flying spaghetti monster told you it was moral. The ship has sailed on the argument that abortions should be illegal in all cases.
Or you could respect the fact that many, many pro choice people are religious too and avoid using childish pejoratives in proving your point. Rights and morals are highly interconnected in any case.
also most pro life people are wrong about religion's stance on abortion. like, not a little wrong, but "dude that quote in the bible is referring to bestiality not pregnancy" wrong.
On August 07 2015 00:58 farvacola wrote: Or you could respect the fact that many, many pro choice people are religious too and avoid using childish pejoratives in proving your point. Rights and morals are highly interconnected in any case.
Edit: ticklish is on target.
Where did I say that pro-choice people could not be religious? Do you disagree with my assertion that most people who hold the opinion "life begins at conception and all abortion is wrong" hold that opinion based on their religious beliefs? Like ticklish said, it's not necessarily an accurate representation of their faith, but it doesn't keep them from holding it.
And if their argument is "it's wrong because (I think) God said it was wrong," there is no real way to debate them except to point out that their interpretation of the Bible is wrong, which usually makes things worse.
On August 07 2015 00:37 ZasZ. wrote: Hypothetical: What if we draw the line based on the woman and not the fetus?
I am pro-choice, but am growing increasingly uncomfortable with late-term abortions as I get older. Obviously it would require a lot of discussion and forethought, but why not just draw the line at X weeks, where X is the agreed-upon reasonable length of time it takes for a woman to consider all of her options and come to a decision regarding whether or not to get an abortion. Obviously abortions would still be legal after this point in the case of a health emergency, but I take issue with people who have had plenty of time to make a decision suddenly deciding to abort a viable fetus that, if it were delivered, could live.
It's clear that there will never be scientific proof that convinces all parties of when a fetus becomes a "life." Every person's definition of such is a belief not grounded in science, which makes sense because the concept of "life" transcends scientific definition a lot of the time. So why argue around that definition? I say the more appropriate action would be to convene a diverse (mostly female) group of people to decide how long is long enough to decide whether or not to get an abortion, and make them illegal after that point.
And continue to emphasize sex education. While abortion should remain legal, it should happen as little as possible, and most people would rather not get pregnant than go through that process. Educate kids and make contraceptives easily available, the effect is demonstrable.
Stratos: Would carrying a fetus for a prolonged period of time count as consent? I agree that forcing a woman to carry a child to term is wrong, but if she wants to terminate I feel there is an appropriate length of time within which to make that decision. In my eyes, late-term abortions that aren't related to health issues are just irresponsibility, and there is no reason for the brunt of that to fall on an innocent child.
in regards to your 2nd paragraph, I don't think you can get an abortion for anything other than health emergencies for fetus at the viability point (though it depends whether you mean viability with or without extensive and expensive medical assistance). What info do you have to the contrary (if any)? I'm not sure what you consider to be late term, but third trimester abortions are banned everywhere except for health situations as far as I know.
The problem with basing the decision on having had time to think is that it becomes very hard to prove when a person become aware of the issue, and thus how much time they've had to think. Also, someone might not become aware until very very late.
NEW YORK -- The Democratic National Committee announced Thursday the schedule for its six primary debates, along with their network sponsors. The first contest, produced by CNN, will take place Oct. 13 in Nevada.
DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a post on Medium, said the "six debates will highlight the stark differences between Democrats and Republicans, and help ensure that whoever caucus goers and voters choose as the Democratic nominee will become the 45th President of the United States."
The DNC has taking tighter control of the process this cycle, after the number of debates ballooned to around two dozen in 2008. President Barack Obama didn't face any primary challengers in 2012.
Some 2o16 candidates aren't happy about having fewer debates, with the presumption that having fewer contests will favor the widely known front-runner, Hillary Clinton.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) sent a letter in June to Wasserman Schultz calling for more debates, perhaps even with Republicans, after the DNC announced there would be six.
On Wednesday in Iowa, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley blasted the "small cabal" of Democratic leaders in Washington in charge of the process.
The O'Malley campaign took aim at the DNC after the schedule was announced.
“By inserting themselves into the debate process, the DNC has ironically made it less democratic. The schedule they have proposed does not give voters -- nationally, and especially in early states -- ample opportunity to hear from the Democratic candidates for President," Senior Strategist Bill Hyers said in a statement. "If anything, it seems geared toward limiting debate and facilitating a coronation, not promoting a robust debate and primary process."
Hyers added that the DNC should remove itself from the debate process, "rather than giving the appearance of rigging the process and cutting off debate."
Wasserman Schultz said in the Medium post that all five Democratic candidates were briefed on the plans and "agreed to participate in the DNC sanctioned debate process."
I quite dislike the extent to which the national committees, Republican or Democrat, can influence the election process. I think that, considering they extent to which the parties are intertwined with the operation of government, they should be subject to some sort of government record keeping and public information laws; not sure which exactly.
On August 07 2015 01:55 zlefin wrote: I quite dislike the extent to which the national committees, Republican or Democrat, can influence the election process. I think that, considering they extent to which the parties are intertwined with the operation of government, they should be subject to some sort of government record keeping and public information laws; not sure which exactly.
The problem imo mostly comes from the 2 party system. Being the head figure of one of the 2 parties is so important because the rest does not matter. If it was actually possible to achieve something politically without them then the National Committees would hold a lot less power.
On August 07 2015 00:58 farvacola wrote: Or you could respect the fact that many, many pro choice people are religious too and avoid using childish pejoratives in proving your point. Rights and morals are highly interconnected in any case.
Edit: ticklish is on target.
Where did I say that pro-choice people could not be religious? Do you disagree with my assertion that most people who hold the opinion "life begins at conception and all abortion is wrong" hold that opinion based on their religious beliefs? Like ticklish said, it's not necessarily an accurate representation of their faith, but it doesn't keep them from holding it.
And if their argument is "it's wrong because (I think) God said it was wrong," there is no real way to debate them except to point out that their interpretation of the Bible is wrong, which usually makes things worse.
Lol, we very clearly agree in a general sense. I'm merely pointing out that the use of phrases like "flying spaghetti monster" belongs among those wearing fedoras and nowhere else. Otherwise, one needlessly curries disconnect among pro-choicers.
On an unrelated note, Wasserman Schultz has got to go. What a baffoon of a woman.
EPT
