|
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. |
So the mike pence's of the world and kwark are completely wrong
|
Canada11360 Posts
On April 25 2017 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 11:12 Falling wrote:On April 24 2017 23:44 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2017 23:32 Danglars wrote:On April 24 2017 22:57 KwarK wrote:
The right to abortion in the United States didn't touch on when a fetus becomes a baby, it left that to the theologians and philosophers. Instead they addressed the issue of whether a woman could exercise her bodily autonomy to end the parasitic relationship with a fetus. I'm sure someone here is going to immediately accuse me of misusing the word parasite but I'm not using it to try and dismiss the value of the fetus, only to underline the degree to which the fetus fucks with the mother/host. The fetus exists and grows at the expense of the mother, it hijacks her blood stream, prioritizes itself for nutrients, uses her organs etc. It's not a mutual relationship. The Supreme Court ruled that the pregnant woman has the right to choose not to be subjected to pregnancy if she does not wish to be. The fetus is killed as an unfortunate side effect, precisely because it is a parasite and cannot live without continued support by the mother.
If you want to attack abortion in the United States the only grounds under which to do so are whether women have the right to bodily autonomy. It wouldn't actually make a difference if the fetus was alive and had human rights, the judgement didn't touch on that at all. If someone with organ failure hooked their bloodstream up to yours and forced your organs to work double time, with significant health costs to you, you would have the right to unplug them, even if doing so led to their death, even though they're a human. If four different people were dying and harvesting your organs would save all of them you would have the right to kill them rather than let them take the organs from you by force. You have a right to bodily autonomy in the United States, and that includes opting out of a pregnancy. The Supreme Court ruled that there's many different ways that a woman loses "woman has the right to choose not to be subjected to pregnancy if she does not wish to be." She waits too long or the state passes a law affecting third trimester/whatever. I can see how abortion supporters want to deny an alive growing human hisbor her autonomous rights in a stage where he or she is very dependent on the mother. You make the philosophical and moral judgement that the autonomy rights of the mother supersede the autonomy rights of the baby. Even arguing the intense kind of support in the location of the womb is the hinging point IS recognizing that the debate must be expanded to whether or not the sustenance is a legal right and others after birth. And no amount of parasitic dialogue will change the fact that you hold radical views on the subject way out of line with the population, and indeed the philosophy of science. Falling is much more eloquent than I am on the subject and I don't want to repeat the same arguments with less clarity. It is not so easy to dismiss human life claims to assert "No, just a parasite." They're very hard to dismiss on a multitude of subjects from "Back alley abortions would be much worse for society" to "Nobody sheds a tear over the morning after pill." Parasite dialogue probably means you're too far down the rabbit hole to be open and honest with where and why you've staked your position. I didn't call it a leech or a tick or anything like that. I called it a parasite because it exists in a complete state of dependence upon the mother, a relationship which has significant health costs to the mother and no benefits. You give me a better word for that relationship and I'll use it. But parasite is the best way to describe that relationship. Leech would have been hyperbolic, parasite is simply accurate. I'm not dismissing that it's human, quite the opposite, I said that even if it were a fully grown human adult, or indeed four human adults, it wouldn't matter and that bodily autonomy would override. You need to reread my argument and try again. Parasite does not make sense as a universal, objective descriptor of our offspring. I could only see it used metaphorically for whom the reason they give to abort is "that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%)" Guttmacher Institute 2005. This follows as 80-90% of women who have abortions in pretty much any age bracket are unmarried (CDC, 2013). I suppose these women, who've had the misfortune of becoming involved with a bang and run man, would view the baby as a parasite metaphorically. First I would note that a women's offspring being both 'contents of their body' and a 'parasite' is mutually exclusive though neither need be true. Now granted it is different people giving different defences, but the defence is incoherent except in its bedrock agreement that the offspring is anything, anything at all other than a baby. However, as you define parasite as being a) complete dependence upon the mother and b) no benefits. While a) is true barring significant medical improvement (and remains true outside of the womb except for modern innovation), b) is false and an absurd claim at that. The second requirement to define life is that the thing has the potential to reproduce at some time. How can the very thing that is required for the survival of our species be considered 'no benefit'. One of the very stages of our life cycle is parasitic and of no benefit? To be consistent, we would have to apply this loose definition to every embryonic animal, calling the essential earliest stage of a living being's life cycle parasitic and 'of no benefit.' Such a definition renders the entire concept of parasite meaningless, dissolving the categories. But beyond the biological necessity of the embryonic stage, then there's the actual desire to have children that seems to kick in at a certain point. I don't know about you, but I know a decent number of women that express a sort of baby fever, particularly if they are in their late 20's to early 30's, most especially if they are still unmarried. Apparently, it's not just an anecdotal observation either- Brase from Kansas Univerisity observed the effect in both men and women. As I understand it, one of the contributors to the supposed pay gap, at least in Law is that they cannot actually pay their rising star lawyers enough to stay- the women hit their early 30's and really want to start a family and so drop out regardless of the financial incentives. In what sense can something that people generally want at some point in their life be universally and objectively be a "parasite". If people get a sort of craving enough to scale back their career to have it, how can it be of 'no benefit'. No economic benefit, certainly. No career benefit, granted. But if as people so consistently desire and it is required to create the next generation (also nearly universally desired). Beneficial seems the more accurate descriptor than its opposite. Therefore, offspring cannot universally and objectively be considered 'parasite'. Biologically speaking it renders the idea of parasite incoherent. But it isn't an intrinsic property and so inaccurate. So then we are left with those unmarried women, abandoned by men unwilling to support them for whom birth would constitute a major and undesired interrupt to their lives. Subjectively, then and in their view, I suppose their offspring could be considered a parasite. Do you contend that it is a subjective metaphor for the few. Or do you contend that it is an accurate, universal descriptor for all offspring? Are offspring parasitical by very nature? On April 24 2017 16:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 16:22 Falling wrote:Like even if it's murder men just don't need to be involved period. Like just concede this one place, or continue to be so domineering that you can't let this go. That isn't the case in any other murder case, so if it is murder, why would it be so here? In what way am I being domineering? I am simply asking questions and pointing out the underlying premises. I don't think I've been rude or insulting. Every person (man, woman, baby, and anyone in between) that dies as a result of a political decision by the US government, said decision was ultimately decided by men. This would carve out a single type of human (if we're conceding it's killing babies) that would not be up to men to make the final determination on. Well, I mean it's not like it's a small number. Supposedly the US has killed more than 20 million people in 37 nations since WWII. Since 1970, 51 million offspring have been aborted in the US. If it's nothing, it's nothing, but if it's babies that's actually a fair amount of life and death power in the hands of women. That's about 25.5 million females to whom we are being obnoxious in denying autonomy of the body (from the premise of the second option). "It would be predicated on the fact the the baby being killed would have to be INSIDE the person making the decision." Why would location matter if it is a baby being killed? You and I will change environments throughout our lives, granted none more significantly than from our mother's womb, does the ethics of killing depend on location change? Of course of it isn't baby, then everything changes, but if you assume the second option, I don't see how location matters much. It is most definitely the contents of the woman as if you remove it, it ceases to live. Not really no- what you are talking about is dependency of which humans are by the most dependent of the mammals. Most mammals walk within the first couple hours. But at the point in which you have unique DNA, you do not have a part of the mother (else it would be her genetic code) but you have something else that is dependent upon the mother. What level of dependency allows ending a life vs not and why? So one is unwilling to concede even this one thing, fine. One can't stop it by force of law, and trying to will only make it worse. One think's abortion is murder, they can't leave this up to women to decide, they insist that men must have the final determination on this, let's at least focus on effective strategies and not political stunts. Look, I really don't know how I was to concede. To make your argument you tried using 'it is murder' as a premise, and I appreciate the attempt to assume another premise. But the conclusion doesn't follow once you use that presupposition. You seem to be coming from a fairly gendered perspective, the problematic patriarchy perhaps? But if you assume murder, the gender perspective falls by the wayside in all other instances of murder and would here as well. Else it then becomes "well the men are murdering lots and for equality sake, we need to allow women to match and surpass male murders. Doesn't that sound absurd? The proper conclusion from that premise should instead go after the other side: men kill too much, let's drop that rate rather than have women match and raise. For your 'men control everything, so just give women this one power' argument to work it has to assume that it isn't murder. No I'm saying that they can determine how we as a society will handle this kind of murder since men decide how we handle every other murder.
That still doesn't help or make sense because the direction is the wrong way. White men do most of the killing; therefore, let's give all and sundry minorities the ability to do the same. Straight people do most of the killing, so let's allow the LGB's into the action. Binary people do most of the killing, etc. One of the great dangers of surviving oppression is once given freedom, to turn around and perpetuate the same oppression on others. The right to murder is a dubious claim to equality at best- such a claim only makes sense if it is not murder, regardless of how much men do or do not control killing as a gendered group.
On April 25 2017 11:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 11:12 Falling wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 24 2017 23:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 23:32 Danglars wrote:On April 24 2017 22:57 KwarK wrote:
The right to abortion in the United States didn't touch on when a fetus becomes a baby, it left that to the theologians and philosophers. Instead they addressed the issue of whether a woman could exercise her bodily autonomy to end the parasitic relationship with a fetus. I'm sure someone here is going to immediately accuse me of misusing the word parasite but I'm not using it to try and dismiss the value of the fetus, only to underline the degree to which the fetus fucks with the mother/host. The fetus exists and grows at the expense of the mother, it hijacks her blood stream, prioritizes itself for nutrients, uses her organs etc. It's not a mutual relationship. The Supreme Court ruled that the pregnant woman has the right to choose not to be subjected to pregnancy if she does not wish to be. The fetus is killed as an unfortunate side effect, precisely because it is a parasite and cannot live without continued support by the mother.
If you want to attack abortion in the United States the only grounds under which to do so are whether women have the right to bodily autonomy. It wouldn't actually make a difference if the fetus was alive and had human rights, the judgement didn't touch on that at all. If someone with organ failure hooked their bloodstream up to yours and forced your organs to work double time, with significant health costs to you, you would have the right to unplug them, even if doing so led to their death, even though they're a human. If four different people were dying and harvesting your organs would save all of them you would have the right to kill them rather than let them take the organs from you by force. You have a right to bodily autonomy in the United States, and that includes opting out of a pregnancy. The Supreme Court ruled that there's many different ways that a woman loses "woman has the right to choose not to be subjected to pregnancy if she does not wish to be." She waits too long or the state passes a law affecting third trimester/whatever. I can see how abortion supporters want to deny an alive growing human hisbor her autonomous rights in a stage where he or she is very dependent on the mother. You make the philosophical and moral judgement that the autonomy rights of the mother supersede the autonomy rights of the baby. Even arguing the intense kind of support in the location of the womb is the hinging point IS recognizing that the debate must be expanded to whether or not the sustenance is a legal right and others after birth. And no amount of parasitic dialogue will change the fact that you hold radical views on the subject way out of line with the population, and indeed the philosophy of science. Falling is much more eloquent than I am on the subject and I don't want to repeat the same arguments with less clarity. It is not so easy to dismiss human life claims to assert "No, just a parasite." They're very hard to dismiss on a multitude of subjects from "Back alley abortions would be much worse for society" to "Nobody sheds a tear over the morning after pill." Parasite dialogue probably means you're too far down the rabbit hole to be open and honest with where and why you've staked your position. I didn't call it a leech or a tick or anything like that. I called it a parasite because it exists in a complete state of dependence upon the mother, a relationship which has significant health costs to the mother and no benefits. You give me a better word for that relationship and I'll use it. But parasite is the best way to describe that relationship. Leech would have been hyperbolic, parasite is simply accurate. I'm not dismissing that it's human, quite the opposite, I said that even if it were a fully grown human adult, or indeed four human adults, it wouldn't matter and that bodily autonomy would override. You need to reread my argument and try again. Parasite does not make sense as a universal, objective descriptor of our offspring. I could only see it used metaphorically for whom the reason they give to abort is "that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%)" Guttmacher Institute 2005. This follows as 80-90% of women who have abortions in pretty much any age bracket are unmarried (CDC, 2013). I suppose these women, who've had the misfortune of becoming involved with a bang and run man, would view the baby as a parasite metaphorically. First I would note that a women's offspring being both 'contents of their body' and a 'parasite' is mutually exclusive though neither need be true. Now granted it is different people giving different defences, but the defence is incoherent except in its bedrock agreement that the offspring is anything, anything at all other than a baby. However, as you define parasite as being a) complete dependence upon the mother and b) no benefits. While a) is true barring significant medical improvement (and remains true outside of the womb except for modern innovation), b) is false and an absurd claim at that. The second requirement to define life is that the thing has the potential to reproduce at some time. How can the very thing that is required for the survival of our species be considered 'no benefit'. One of the very stages of our life cycle is parasitic and of no benefit? To be consistent, we would have to apply this loose definition to every embryonic animal, calling the essential earliest stage of a living being's life cycle parasitic and 'of no benefit.' Such a definition renders the entire concept of parasite meaningless, dissolving the categories. But beyond the biological necessity of the embryonic stage, then there's the actual desire to have children that seems to kick in at a certain point. I don't know about you, but I know a decent number of women that express a sort of baby fever, particularly if they are in their late 20's to early 30's, most especially if they are still unmarried. Apparently, it's not just an anecdotal observation either- Brase from Kansas Univerisity observed the effect in both men and women. As I understand it, one of the contributors to the supposed pay gap, at least in Law is that they cannot actually pay their rising star lawyers enough to stay- the women hit their early 30's and really want to start a family and so drop out regardless of the financial incentives. In what sense can something that people generally want at some point in their life be universally and objectively be a "parasite". If people get a sort of craving enough to scale back their career to have it, how can it be of 'no benefit'. No economic benefit, certainly. No career benefit, granted. But if as people so consistently desire and it is required to create the next generation (also nearly universally desired). Beneficial seems the more accurate descriptor than its opposite. Therefore, offspring cannot universally and objectively be considered 'parasite'. Biologically speaking it renders the idea of parasite incoherent. But it isn't an intrinsic property and so inaccurate. So then we are left with those unmarried women, abandoned by men unwilling to support them for whom birth would constitute a major and undesired interrupt to their lives. Subjectively, then and in their view, I suppose their offspring could be considered a parasite. Do you contend that it is a subjective metaphor for the few. Or do you contend that it is an accurate, universal descriptor for all offspring? Are offspring parasitical by very nature? On April 24 2017 16:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 16:22 Falling wrote:Like even if it's murder men just don't need to be involved period. Like just concede this one place, or continue to be so domineering that you can't let this go. That isn't the case in any other murder case, so if it is murder, why would it be so here? In what way am I being domineering? I am simply asking questions and pointing out the underlying premises. I don't think I've been rude or insulting. Every person (man, woman, baby, and anyone in between) that dies as a result of a political decision by the US government, said decision was ultimately decided by men. This would carve out a single type of human (if we're conceding it's killing babies) that would not be up to men to make the final determination on. Well, I mean it's not like it's a small number. Supposedly the US has killed more than 20 million people in 37 nations since WWII. Since 1970, 51 million offspring have been aborted in the US. If it's nothing, it's nothing, but if it's babies that's actually a fair amount of life and death power in the hands of women. That's about 25.5 million females to whom we are being obnoxious in denying autonomy of the body (from the premise of the second option). "It would be predicated on the fact the the baby being killed would have to be INSIDE the person making the decision." Why would location matter if it is a baby being killed? You and I will change environments throughout our lives, granted none more significantly than from our mother's womb, does the ethics of killing depend on location change? Of course of it isn't baby, then everything changes, but if you assume the second option, I don't see how location matters much. It is most definitely the contents of the woman as if you remove it, it ceases to live. Not really no- what you are talking about is dependency of which humans are by the most dependent of the mammals. Most mammals walk within the first couple hours. But at the point in which you have unique DNA, you do not have a part of the mother (else it would be her genetic code) but you have something else that is dependent upon the mother. What level of dependency allows ending a life vs not and why? So one is unwilling to concede even this one thing, fine. One can't stop it by force of law, and trying to will only make it worse. One think's abortion is murder, they can't leave this up to women to decide, they insist that men must have the final determination on this, let's at least focus on effective strategies and not political stunts. Look, I really don't know how I was to concede. To make your argument you tried using 'it is murder' as a premise, and I appreciate the attempt to assume another premise. But the conclusion doesn't follow once you use that presupposition. You seem to be coming from a fairly gendered perspective, the problematic patriarchy perhaps? But if you assume murder, the gender perspective falls by the wayside in all other instances of murder and would here as well. Else it then becomes "well the men are murdering lots and for equality sake, we need to allow women to match and surpass male murders. Doesn't that sound absurd? The proper conclusion from that premise should instead go after the other side: men kill too much, let's drop that rate rather than have women match and raise. For your 'men control everything, so just give women this one power' argument to work it has to assume that it isn't murder. Killing an embryo/fetus is like putting down a dog. "Murder" requires killing a person, a status a fetus hasn't yet achieved.
Well I guess that's a whole pandora's box of questions. Why is killing your offspring similar to putting down a dog? And ethically, why ought both be treated different from a human post-birth? What makes a person a person, how does one achieve that status and when? And why does that make a difference when killing a person?
For instance, biologically, genetically, etc human offspring is not a dog. And in regards to the difference between human offspring pre-birth and post-birth there are four main differences: size, level of development, environment, and level of dependence. Which of those four (or combination thereof) means we ought to treat our offspring as dogs and not as human offspring?
Oi. Such a flurry of posts. It is hard to keep up. By the way, I am sorry to derail it for so long on one topic but there's a lot of questions I wanted to ask, and as Kwark posted his parasite bit again, I wanted another go at it.
On April 25 2017 11:35 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 11:12 Falling wrote:On April 24 2017 23:44 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2017 23:32 Danglars wrote:On April 24 2017 22:57 KwarK wrote:
The right to abortion in the United States didn't touch on when a fetus becomes a baby, it left that to the theologians and philosophers. Instead they addressed the issue of whether a woman could exercise her bodily autonomy to end the parasitic relationship with a fetus. I'm sure someone here is going to immediately accuse me of misusing the word parasite but I'm not using it to try and dismiss the value of the fetus, only to underline the degree to which the fetus fucks with the mother/host. The fetus exists and grows at the expense of the mother, it hijacks her blood stream, prioritizes itself for nutrients, uses her organs etc. It's not a mutual relationship. The Supreme Court ruled that the pregnant woman has the right to choose not to be subjected to pregnancy if she does not wish to be. The fetus is killed as an unfortunate side effect, precisely because it is a parasite and cannot live without continued support by the mother.
If you want to attack abortion in the United States the only grounds under which to do so are whether women have the right to bodily autonomy. It wouldn't actually make a difference if the fetus was alive and had human rights, the judgement didn't touch on that at all. If someone with organ failure hooked their bloodstream up to yours and forced your organs to work double time, with significant health costs to you, you would have the right to unplug them, even if doing so led to their death, even though they're a human. If four different people were dying and harvesting your organs would save all of them you would have the right to kill them rather than let them take the organs from you by force. You have a right to bodily autonomy in the United States, and that includes opting out of a pregnancy. The Supreme Court ruled that there's many different ways that a woman loses "woman has the right to choose not to be subjected to pregnancy if she does not wish to be." She waits too long or the state passes a law affecting third trimester/whatever. I can see how abortion supporters want to deny an alive growing human hisbor her autonomous rights in a stage where he or she is very dependent on the mother. You make the philosophical and moral judgement that the autonomy rights of the mother supersede the autonomy rights of the baby. Even arguing the intense kind of support in the location of the womb is the hinging point IS recognizing that the debate must be expanded to whether or not the sustenance is a legal right and others after birth. And no amount of parasitic dialogue will change the fact that you hold radical views on the subject way out of line with the population, and indeed the philosophy of science. Falling is much more eloquent than I am on the subject and I don't want to repeat the same arguments with less clarity. It is not so easy to dismiss human life claims to assert "No, just a parasite." They're very hard to dismiss on a multitude of subjects from "Back alley abortions would be much worse for society" to "Nobody sheds a tear over the morning after pill." Parasite dialogue probably means you're too far down the rabbit hole to be open and honest with where and why you've staked your position. I didn't call it a leech or a tick or anything like that. I called it a parasite because it exists in a complete state of dependence upon the mother, a relationship which has significant health costs to the mother and no benefits. You give me a better word for that relationship and I'll use it. But parasite is the best way to describe that relationship. Leech would have been hyperbolic, parasite is simply accurate. I'm not dismissing that it's human, quite the opposite, I said that even if it were a fully grown human adult, or indeed four human adults, it wouldn't matter and that bodily autonomy would override. You need to reread my argument and try again. Parasite does not make sense as a universal, objective descriptor of our offspring. I could only see it used metaphorically for whom the reason they give to abort is "that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%)" Guttmacher Institute 2005. This follows as 80-90% of women who have abortions in pretty much any age bracket are unmarried (CDC, 2013). I suppose these women, who've had the misfortune of becoming involved with a bang and run man, would view the baby as a parasite metaphorically. First I would note that a women's offspring being both 'contents of their body' and a 'parasite' is mutually exclusive though neither need be true. Now granted it is different people giving different defences, but the defence is incoherent except in its bedrock agreement that the offspring is anything, anything at all other than a baby. However, as you define parasite as being a) complete dependence upon the mother and b) no benefits. While a) is true barring significant medical improvement (and remains true outside of the womb except for modern innovation), b) is false and an absurd claim at that. The second requirement to define life is that the thing has the potential to reproduce at some time. How can the very thing that is required for the survival of our species be considered 'no benefit'. One of the very stages of our life cycle is parasitic and of no benefit? To be consistent, we would have to apply this loose definition to every embryonic animal, calling the essential earliest stage of a living being's life cycle parasitic and 'of no benefit.' Such a definition renders the entire concept of parasite meaningless, dissolving the categories. But beyond the biological necessity of the embryonic stage, then there's the actual desire to have children that seems to kick in at a certain point. I don't know about you, but I know a decent number of women that express a sort of baby fever, particularly if they are in their late 20's to early 30's, most especially if they are still unmarried. Apparently, it's not just an anecdotal observation either- Brase from Kansas Univerisity observed the effect in both men and women. As I understand it, one of the contributors to the supposed pay gap, at least in Law is that they cannot actually pay their rising star lawyers enough to stay- the women hit their early 30's and really want to start a family and so drop out regardless of the financial incentives. In what sense can something that people generally want at some point in their life be universally and objectively be a "parasite". If people get a sort of craving enough to scale back their career to have it, how can it be of 'no benefit'. No economic benefit, certainly. No career benefit, granted. But if as people so consistently desire and it is required to create the next generation (also nearly universally desired). Beneficial seems the more accurate descriptor than its opposite. Therefore, offspring cannot universally and objectively be considered 'parasite'. Biologically speaking it renders the idea of parasite incoherent. But it isn't an intrinsic property and so inaccurate. So then we are left with those unmarried women, abandoned by men unwilling to support them for whom birth would constitute a major and undesired interrupt to their lives. Subjectively, then and in their view, I suppose their offspring could be considered a parasite. Do you contend that it is a subjective metaphor for the few. Or do you contend that it is an accurate, universal descriptor for all offspring? Are offspring parasitical by very nature? On April 24 2017 16:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 16:22 Falling wrote:Like even if it's murder men just don't need to be involved period. Like just concede this one place, or continue to be so domineering that you can't let this go. That isn't the case in any other murder case, so if it is murder, why would it be so here? In what way am I being domineering? I am simply asking questions and pointing out the underlying premises. I don't think I've been rude or insulting. Every person (man, woman, baby, and anyone in between) that dies as a result of a political decision by the US government, said decision was ultimately decided by men. This would carve out a single type of human (if we're conceding it's killing babies) that would not be up to men to make the final determination on. Well, I mean it's not like it's a small number. Supposedly the US has killed more than 20 million people in 37 nations since WWII. Since 1970, 51 million offspring have been aborted in the US. If it's nothing, it's nothing, but if it's babies that's actually a fair amount of life and death power in the hands of women. That's about 25.5 million females to whom we are being obnoxious in denying autonomy of the body (from the premise of the second option). "It would be predicated on the fact the the baby being killed would have to be INSIDE the person making the decision." Why would location matter if it is a baby being killed? You and I will change environments throughout our lives, granted none more significantly than from our mother's womb, does the ethics of killing depend on location change? Of course of it isn't baby, then everything changes, but if you assume the second option, I don't see how location matters much. It is most definitely the contents of the woman as if you remove it, it ceases to live. Not really no- what you are talking about is dependency of which humans are by the most dependent of the mammals. Most mammals walk within the first couple hours. But at the point in which you have unique DNA, you do not have a part of the mother (else it would be her genetic code) but you have something else that is dependent upon the mother. What level of dependency allows ending a life vs not and why? So one is unwilling to concede even this one thing, fine. One can't stop it by force of law, and trying to will only make it worse. One think's abortion is murder, they can't leave this up to women to decide, they insist that men must have the final determination on this, let's at least focus on effective strategies and not political stunts. Look, I really don't know how I was to concede. To make your argument you tried using 'it is murder' as a premise, and I appreciate the attempt to assume another premise. But the conclusion doesn't follow once you use that presupposition. You seem to be coming from a fairly gendered perspective, the problematic patriarchy perhaps? But if you assume murder, the gender perspective falls by the wayside in all other instances of murder and would here as well. Else it then becomes "well the men are murdering lots and for equality sake, we need to allow women to match and surpass male murders. Doesn't that sound absurd? The proper conclusion from that premise should instead go after the other side: men kill too much, let's drop that rate rather than have women match and raise. For your 'men control everything, so just give women this one power' argument to work it has to assume that it isn't murder. You and Danglers are both quibbling with Kwark's use of the term parasite without addressing his actual argument. A person should not be compelled by the government to sacrifice their bodily autonomy, even to save the life of another. This is why a person can't be forced to donate a kidney, even though doing so can save dozens of lives.* Even if a drunk driver injures someone's liver or something, and the only way to save the person is to make the perpetrator donate an organ we wouldn't force them to because that would be atrocious. If a woman wants a fetus to be removed from her body she should not be compelled to keep it, even if it is equivalent to a human life (which I don't concede, by the way). If the fetus is viable outside the womb that's great, and I would support whatever efforts are necessary to help it to survive. If it isn't viable outside the womb that's kind of sad but it's better to abort it then to force a woman to undergo a pregnancy when she doesn't want to, keeping in mind that the mortality rate from childbirth is comparable to that of kidney donation in some states, and that even a normal childbirth can cause changes to a woman's body that impact her for the rest of her life. *This has to do with "Kidney chains." It's pretty cool, people should google it. Especially math nerds.
I don't think it is a quibble as what we are dealing with inside the womb is fundamental to the argument on both sides. Otherwise this thread would not insist on compare human offspring to 'contents of their body' 'parasites' 'putting down a dog' and 'kidneys', (or for that matter Latinize offspring). But anyways, the kidney transplant is not a good comparison and the bodily autonomy argument isn't really describing like actions (one of these things is not like the other.)
So one, your offspring is not another body part of the woman. It does not have the woman's DNA, but instead has an entirely unique genetic code for a brand new person.
In regards to compelled kidney donations (which, yes I realize is what you are talking about), it is still not comparable, not if what is in the womb is a living being. In the kidney donation case, kidneys are not voluntarily available and so the patient dies indirectly due to scarcity of resources. There is no direct action taken to end that persons life. People tried to do their best to help the patient as best they could, but there was not sufficient generosity. Sad certainly, but inaction did not violate the patient's bodily autonomy (if that is the big moral ought of our age.) But nobody's bodily autonomy is being preferred to the other.
The unborn offspring is an entirely unique circumstance. They are the most vulnerable, unable to protect their bodily autonomy and someone or someones directly takes action to end his or her life thus denying them autonomy (or, if you will potential autonomy, which they will inevitably develop given sufficient time.) So why is it that women's present autonomy is favoured over their offspring's autonomy. Does one need to be autonomous to have bodily autonomous considerations? Offspring are clearly in the margins, but in the same way of the developmentally challenged. Why then, is autonomy the ultimate moral consideration compared to protection of the vulnerable, dependent, and the weak? Where do we get this ought from?
@ChristianS
I was operating under the assumption that he meant it was a biological parasite. I set out to explain why that makes no sense, but that maybe it could be considered one figuratively. Morality, I don't know.
On April 25 2017 11:38 ShoCkeyy wrote:
My gf went through a miscarriage recently, and we were pretty sad about it, we were sad because of the idea that we were about to raise a human. But after thinking about it, she did not even notice when the baby left her body. So how do you give the status of a "person", to something so small that you don't really notice it's there. Mind you I'm not pro abortion, or pro life, I don't care what your choice is, because it should be up to the person that is actually carrying the baby.
It's interesting to me that there was sadness involved because I find this has often been the case to a greater and lesser degree. And it's interesting to think why that would that be the case. As to hardly noticing- I don't know. Humans are pretty resilient. And yet other people are just as convinced that they are a person regardless of how noticeable as you are that it isn't. Being convinced one way or the other isn't the same as what actually is.
Hm. I find I'm getting diminishing returns, the longer I write. Wall of text and all that. I'm trying to respond to as many as I can, but it's gotten pretty onerous.
|
On April 25 2017 12:40 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 12:39 biology]major wrote:
Why don't you blame god, the creator, or whoever that made women be the ones to carry a baby for 9 months? I'm not saying the fetus's rights are superior to the mom or dad's rights to autonomy. They are competing, and as such both deserve respect and each case needs to be evaluated independently. do you believe in souls or something?
and are you a scientific robot devoid of morality/emotion?
|
Canada11360 Posts
On April 25 2017 12:07 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 11:44 ChristianS wrote:
@Falling: not to put words in his mouth, but I think Kwark was using the term parasite in a biological sense, not a moral one. In biological terms the relation is either symbiotic or parasitic, and it's plainly not symbiotic because the fetus doesn't give anything back. It just consumes nutrients and grows. Any hypothetical future value it could have to the person doesn't change the biological classification. Put it this way, if it turned out you could sell a fully grown tapeworm for $100,000 a lot of people might want to grow tape worms in their intestines, but in a biological sense a tape worm would still be classified as a parasite.
The distinction is largely semantic anyway, but it would mean Kwark isn't saying "our offspring are parasites." He'd be saying a fetus is biologically a parasite. Once the child is viable outside the womb then by Kwark's reasoning, it no longer can legally be aborted. No. Kwark's view is quite clearly that it can be aborted at any time the mother desires, because of bodily autonomy. But what happens to the fetus after the pregnancy is aborted, would probably change if the fetus was viable. Other than that, your answer seems to clarify a point he was making and falling was misinterpreting. As for falling's wall of text: the desire to have children is clearly not applicable to women who want to abort their pregnancy. Even if at some other point in their lives they will desire children, at the pregnancy in question, they desire no such thing. So it seems irrelevant?
Not at all. As I understood it, Kwark was arguing that the embryo is biologically a parasite. To prove that, according to his definition of a parasite it needs to be entirely dependent and not at all beneficial. Because he is arguing that it is biologically a parasite, he must prove that it is universally a parasite. The fact that a majority of couples see offspring as beneficial and that objectively offspring are biologically required to propagate our species, in no way does an embryo meet the definition of a parasite. Not without messing with our entire idea of a biological parasite.
|
But God doesnt write our laws. Why should the baby be allowed to to demand these sacrifices only from its mother, and only for the first 9 months of its life. This is what I don't get. Either a child's right to live supersedes the parents', and medical procedures should be performed as necessary on bother father and mother until the child turns 18, as necessary to keep it alive, or the parents right to bodily autonomy supersedes the child's right to live, and the parents may chose to undergo pregnancy, give blood donations etc, or they may not.
I dont understand this middle ground where the child is inviolable only for the first 9 months, not thereafter.
|
On April 25 2017 12:41 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 11:20 IgnE wrote:On April 25 2017 11:12 Falling wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 24 2017 23:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 23:32 Danglars wrote:On April 24 2017 22:57 KwarK wrote:
The right to abortion in the United States didn't touch on when a fetus becomes a baby, it left that to the theologians and philosophers. Instead they addressed the issue of whether a woman could exercise her bodily autonomy to end the parasitic relationship with a fetus. I'm sure someone here is going to immediately accuse me of misusing the word parasite but I'm not using it to try and dismiss the value of the fetus, only to underline the degree to which the fetus fucks with the mother/host. The fetus exists and grows at the expense of the mother, it hijacks her blood stream, prioritizes itself for nutrients, uses her organs etc. It's not a mutual relationship. The Supreme Court ruled that the pregnant woman has the right to choose not to be subjected to pregnancy if she does not wish to be. The fetus is killed as an unfortunate side effect, precisely because it is a parasite and cannot live without continued support by the mother.
If you want to attack abortion in the United States the only grounds under which to do so are whether women have the right to bodily autonomy. It wouldn't actually make a difference if the fetus was alive and had human rights, the judgement didn't touch on that at all. If someone with organ failure hooked their bloodstream up to yours and forced your organs to work double time, with significant health costs to you, you would have the right to unplug them, even if doing so led to their death, even though they're a human. If four different people were dying and harvesting your organs would save all of them you would have the right to kill them rather than let them take the organs from you by force. You have a right to bodily autonomy in the United States, and that includes opting out of a pregnancy. The Supreme Court ruled that there's many different ways that a woman loses "woman has the right to choose not to be subjected to pregnancy if she does not wish to be." She waits too long or the state passes a law affecting third trimester/whatever. I can see how abortion supporters want to deny an alive growing human hisbor her autonomous rights in a stage where he or she is very dependent on the mother. You make the philosophical and moral judgement that the autonomy rights of the mother supersede the autonomy rights of the baby. Even arguing the intense kind of support in the location of the womb is the hinging point IS recognizing that the debate must be expanded to whether or not the sustenance is a legal right and others after birth. And no amount of parasitic dialogue will change the fact that you hold radical views on the subject way out of line with the population, and indeed the philosophy of science. Falling is much more eloquent than I am on the subject and I don't want to repeat the same arguments with less clarity. It is not so easy to dismiss human life claims to assert "No, just a parasite." They're very hard to dismiss on a multitude of subjects from "Back alley abortions would be much worse for society" to "Nobody sheds a tear over the morning after pill." Parasite dialogue probably means you're too far down the rabbit hole to be open and honest with where and why you've staked your position. I didn't call it a leech or a tick or anything like that. I called it a parasite because it exists in a complete state of dependence upon the mother, a relationship which has significant health costs to the mother and no benefits. You give me a better word for that relationship and I'll use it. But parasite is the best way to describe that relationship. Leech would have been hyperbolic, parasite is simply accurate. I'm not dismissing that it's human, quite the opposite, I said that even if it were a fully grown human adult, or indeed four human adults, it wouldn't matter and that bodily autonomy would override. You need to reread my argument and try again. Parasite does not make sense as a universal, objective descriptor of our offspring. I could only see it used metaphorically for whom the reason they give to abort is "that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%)" Guttmacher Institute 2005. This follows as 80-90% of women who have abortions in pretty much any age bracket are unmarried (CDC, 2013). I suppose these women, who've had the misfortune of becoming involved with a bang and run man, would view the baby as a parasite metaphorically. First I would note that a women's offspring being both 'contents of their body' and a 'parasite' is mutually exclusive though neither need be true. Now granted it is different people giving different defences, but the defence is incoherent except in its bedrock agreement that the offspring is anything, anything at all other than a baby. However, as you define parasite as being a) complete dependence upon the mother and b) no benefits. While a) is true barring significant medical improvement (and remains true outside of the womb except for modern innovation), b) is false and an absurd claim at that. The second requirement to define life is that the thing has the potential to reproduce at some time. How can the very thing that is required for the survival of our species be considered 'no benefit'. One of the very stages of our life cycle is parasitic and of no benefit? To be consistent, we would have to apply this loose definition to every embryonic animal, calling the essential earliest stage of a living being's life cycle parasitic and 'of no benefit.' Such a definition renders the entire concept of parasite meaningless, dissolving the categories. But beyond the biological necessity of the embryonic stage, then there's the actual desire to have children that seems to kick in at a certain point. I don't know about you, but I know a decent number of women that express a sort of baby fever, particularly if they are in their late 20's to early 30's, most especially if they are still unmarried. Apparently, it's not just an anecdotal observation either- Brase from Kansas Univerisity observed the effect in both men and women. As I understand it, one of the contributors to the supposed pay gap, at least in Law is that they cannot actually pay their rising star lawyers enough to stay- the women hit their early 30's and really want to start a family and so drop out regardless of the financial incentives. In what sense can something that people generally want at some point in their life be universally and objectively be a "parasite". If people get a sort of craving enough to scale back their career to have it, how can it be of 'no benefit'. No economic benefit, certainly. No career benefit, granted. But if as people so consistently desire and it is required to create the next generation (also nearly universally desired). Beneficial seems the more accurate descriptor than its opposite. Therefore, offspring cannot universally and objectively be considered 'parasite'. Biologically speaking it renders the idea of parasite incoherent. But it isn't an intrinsic property and so inaccurate. So then we are left with those unmarried women, abandoned by men unwilling to support them for whom birth would constitute a major and undesired interrupt to their lives. Subjectively, then and in their view, I suppose their offspring could be considered a parasite. Do you contend that it is a subjective metaphor for the few. Or do you contend that it is an accurate, universal descriptor for all offspring? Are offspring parasitical by very nature? On April 24 2017 16:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 16:22 Falling wrote:Like even if it's murder men just don't need to be involved period. Like just concede this one place, or continue to be so domineering that you can't let this go. That isn't the case in any other murder case, so if it is murder, why would it be so here? In what way am I being domineering? I am simply asking questions and pointing out the underlying premises. I don't think I've been rude or insulting. Every person (man, woman, baby, and anyone in between) that dies as a result of a political decision by the US government, said decision was ultimately decided by men. This would carve out a single type of human (if we're conceding it's killing babies) that would not be up to men to make the final determination on. Well, I mean it's not like it's a small number. Supposedly the US has killed more than 20 million people in 37 nations since WWII. Since 1970, 51 million offspring have been aborted in the US. If it's nothing, it's nothing, but if it's babies that's actually a fair amount of life and death power in the hands of women. That's about 25.5 million females to whom we are being obnoxious in denying autonomy of the body (from the premise of the second option). "It would be predicated on the fact the the baby being killed would have to be INSIDE the person making the decision." Why would location matter if it is a baby being killed? You and I will change environments throughout our lives, granted none more significantly than from our mother's womb, does the ethics of killing depend on location change? Of course of it isn't baby, then everything changes, but if you assume the second option, I don't see how location matters much. It is most definitely the contents of the woman as if you remove it, it ceases to live. Not really no- what you are talking about is dependency of which humans are by the most dependent of the mammals. Most mammals walk within the first couple hours. But at the point in which you have unique DNA, you do not have a part of the mother (else it would be her genetic code) but you have something else that is dependent upon the mother. What level of dependency allows ending a life vs not and why? So one is unwilling to concede even this one thing, fine. One can't stop it by force of law, and trying to will only make it worse. One think's abortion is murder, they can't leave this up to women to decide, they insist that men must have the final determination on this, let's at least focus on effective strategies and not political stunts. Look, I really don't know how I was to concede. To make your argument you tried using 'it is murder' as a premise, and I appreciate the attempt to assume another premise. But the conclusion doesn't follow once you use that presupposition. You seem to be coming from a fairly gendered perspective, the problematic patriarchy perhaps? But if you assume murder, the gender perspective falls by the wayside in all other instances of murder and would here as well. Else it then becomes "well the men are murdering lots and for equality sake, we need to allow women to match and surpass male murders. Doesn't that sound absurd? The proper conclusion from that premise should instead go after the other side: men kill too much, let's drop that rate rather than have women match and raise. For your 'men control everything, so just give women this one power' argument to work it has to assume that it isn't murder. Killing an embryo/fetus is like putting down a dog. "Murder" requires killing a person, a status a fetus hasn't yet achieved. Well I guess that's a whole pandora's box of questions. Why is killing your offspring similar to putting down a dog? And ethically, why ought both be treated different from a human post-birth? What makes a person a person, how does one achieve that status and when? And why does that make a difference when killing a person? For instance, biologically, genetically, etc human offspring is not a dog. And in regards to the difference between human offspring pre-birth and post-birth there are four main differences: size, level of development, environment, and level of dependence. Which of those four (or combination thereof) means we ought to treat our offspring as dogs and not as human offspring?
Dogs aren't people either, but they are conscious beings with memories embedded in the ongoing present. A person is an ethical subject and achieves that status at some point during childhood. I am against against killing post-birth babies for purely practical reasons not tied up with their ethical status as persons, as well as because of their status as conscious beings. Just like I am against killing dogs for no reason. I think killing a baby is usually a "lesser evil" than killing an adult ceteris paribus. But babies are given certain protections by society because of their presumed future status as persons, and for a variety of other factors tied to what killing a baby reveals about the person doing the killing, notions of the sacred, etc.
|
On April 25 2017 12:46 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 12:07 Acrofales wrote:On April 25 2017 11:44 ChristianS wrote:
@Falling: not to put words in his mouth, but I think Kwark was using the term parasite in a biological sense, not a moral one. In biological terms the relation is either symbiotic or parasitic, and it's plainly not symbiotic because the fetus doesn't give anything back. It just consumes nutrients and grows. Any hypothetical future value it could have to the person doesn't change the biological classification. Put it this way, if it turned out you could sell a fully grown tapeworm for $100,000 a lot of people might want to grow tape worms in their intestines, but in a biological sense a tape worm would still be classified as a parasite.
The distinction is largely semantic anyway, but it would mean Kwark isn't saying "our offspring are parasites." He'd be saying a fetus is biologically a parasite. Once the child is viable outside the womb then by Kwark's reasoning, it no longer can legally be aborted. No. Kwark's view is quite clearly that it can be aborted at any time the mother desires, because of bodily autonomy. But what happens to the fetus after the pregnancy is aborted, would probably change if the fetus was viable. Other than that, your answer seems to clarify a point he was making and falling was misinterpreting. As for falling's wall of text: the desire to have children is clearly not applicable to women who want to abort their pregnancy. Even if at some other point in their lives they will desire children, at the pregnancy in question, they desire no such thing. So it seems irrelevant? Not at all. As I understood it, Kwark was arguing that the embryo is biologically a parasite. To prove that, according to his definition of a parasite it needs to be entirely dependent and not at all beneficial. Because he is arguing that it is biologically a parasite, he must prove that it is universally a parasite. The fact that a majority of couples see offspring as beneficial and that objectively offspring are biologically required to propagate our species, in no way does an embryo meet the definition of a parasite. Not without messing with our entire idea of a biological parasite.
To a woman who does not wish to reproduce it is absolutely a parasite in a biological sense. If the parents want the child then you can argue in that context it is a symbiotic organism. If you want to break it down into life stages a fetus is still has a parasitic relationship with the mother for the duration of that stage, whatever fulfillment parents get after it is born does not take away what in a biological sense is a crippling of the mother while pregnant.
Just allow women to have abortions....use science to determine an acceptable legal definition of when a fetus has reached certain benchmarks for personhood and say no abortions after that point unless the mother is at high risk of death. I know personhood is nebulous thing to try to define since its it has been defined so differently across time and space but eh I would just follow the science on this one.
|
On April 25 2017 12:43 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 12:40 IgnE wrote:On April 25 2017 12:39 biology]major wrote:
Why don't you blame god, the creator, or whoever that made women be the ones to carry a baby for 9 months? I'm not saying the fetus's rights are superior to the mom or dad's rights to autonomy. They are competing, and as such both deserve respect and each case needs to be evaluated independently. do you believe in souls or something? and are you a scientific robot devoid of morality/emotion?
You deflected the question in a rather unsportsmanlike fashion. But to be the bigger man I'll answer yours anyway. No, I consider myself a highly moral person.
|
Canada11360 Posts
On April 25 2017 12:48 KlaCkoN wrote:
But God doesnt write our laws. Why should the baby be allowed to to demand these sacrifices only from its mother, and only for the first 9 months of its life. This is what I don't get. Either a child's right to live supersedes the parents', and medical procedures should be performed as necessary on bother father and mother until the child turns 18, as necessary to keep it alive, or the parents right to bodily autonomy supersedes the child's right to live, and the parents may chose to undergo pregnancy, give blood donations etc, or they may not.
I dont understand this middle ground where the child is inviolable only for the first 9 months, not thereafter.
Bad comparison. You realize there is a difference between direct action to end a life and performing and an endless plethora of possible medical procedures to make a life marginally better. One is pretty final. The other more a matter of preference- you could get all sorts of things done, but people got by without to a greater or lesser degree. Death makes that moot. Also, I don't know what impression you've been given, but most people against abortion are equally against infanticide amongst other things, which is after that 'inviolable... first 9 months'. Also, there is such a thing as child neglect or abuse that most people are against- anti-abortionists included. The act of not neglecting your child is also a matter of resource drain and life interpreted.
|
On April 25 2017 12:43 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 12:40 IgnE wrote:On April 25 2017 12:39 biology]major wrote:
Why don't you blame god, the creator, or whoever that made women be the ones to carry a baby for 9 months? I'm not saying the fetus's rights are superior to the mom or dad's rights to autonomy. They are competing, and as such both deserve respect and each case needs to be evaluated independently. do you believe in souls or something? and are you a scientific robot devoid of morality/emotion?
I am a moral, emotional soulless biological robot. Not sure why it's relevant
|
I'm just gonna set up two extreme hypotheticals. 1) women are randomly chosen by god/mystical pasta fairy to get pregnant at random times. They have 0 choice or consideration, and when it happens, it is a regular 9 month journey with the fetus. 2) Woman pressess a button on a wall, and once she does, she gets a baby inside her. It is a regular 9 month journey with the fetus.
Both of these situations are ridiculous, but theres only one thing separating them, choice. My only question is do you maintain your abortion views in both situations? If you shift your position from one hypothetical to the other then that means personal responsibility has some role in your morality. For me, in the first hypothetical woman has a right to abort at any time pre-viability. In the second, I would probably give her a week or 2 to change her mind.
Now in real life, women don't know half the time that they are even pregnant for a few weeks, and the dad is also sharing in this responsibility. So that makes me give the mom some more leniency, but it wouldn't be unrestricted. I remember i polled here a while back about this topic, and most people voted "she should be able to abort at anytime for any reason".
|
to make your hypothetical better you should include the feature that pushing the second button gives you orgasms and only has a small chance to make you pregnant which can further be decreased, but not eliminated, by wearing a glove
|
Canada11360 Posts
On April 25 2017 12:54 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 12:46 Falling wrote:On April 25 2017 12:07 Acrofales wrote:On April 25 2017 11:44 ChristianS wrote:
@Falling: not to put words in his mouth, but I think Kwark was using the term parasite in a biological sense, not a moral one. In biological terms the relation is either symbiotic or parasitic, and it's plainly not symbiotic because the fetus doesn't give anything back. It just consumes nutrients and grows. Any hypothetical future value it could have to the person doesn't change the biological classification. Put it this way, if it turned out you could sell a fully grown tapeworm for $100,000 a lot of people might want to grow tape worms in their intestines, but in a biological sense a tape worm would still be classified as a parasite.
The distinction is largely semantic anyway, but it would mean Kwark isn't saying "our offspring are parasites." He'd be saying a fetus is biologically a parasite. Once the child is viable outside the womb then by Kwark's reasoning, it no longer can legally be aborted. No. Kwark's view is quite clearly that it can be aborted at any time the mother desires, because of bodily autonomy. But what happens to the fetus after the pregnancy is aborted, would probably change if the fetus was viable. Other than that, your answer seems to clarify a point he was making and falling was misinterpreting. As for falling's wall of text: the desire to have children is clearly not applicable to women who want to abort their pregnancy. Even if at some other point in their lives they will desire children, at the pregnancy in question, they desire no such thing. So it seems irrelevant? Not at all. As I understood it, Kwark was arguing that the embryo is biologically a parasite. To prove that, according to his definition of a parasite it needs to be entirely dependent and not at all beneficial. Because he is arguing that it is biologically a parasite, he must prove that it is universally a parasite. The fact that a majority of couples see offspring as beneficial and that objectively offspring are biologically required to propagate our species, in no way does an embryo meet the definition of a parasite. Not without messing with our entire idea of a biological parasite. To a woman who does not wish to reproduce it is absolutely a parasite in a biological sense. If the parents want the child then you can argue in that context it is a symbiotic organism. If you want to break it down into life stages a fetus is still has a parasitic relationship with the mother for the duration of that stage, whatever fulfillment parents get after it is born does not take away what in a biological sense is a crippling of the mother while pregnant. Just allow women to have abortions....use science to determine an acceptable legal definition of when a fetus has reached certain benchmarks for personhood and say no abortions after that point unless the mother is at high risk of death. I know personhood is nebulous thing to try to define since its it has been defined so differently across time and space but eh I would just follow the science on this one.
How in the world does science determine personhood? What is a person and how does one become it? I see Igne thinks personhood occurs sometime after birth. I wonder when and why and what determines it. It's an ethical subject, but what does that mean? How do you follow science if it is nebulous and in what way is personhood scientific in the first place?
To a woman who does not wish to reproduce it is absolutely a parasite in a biological sense.
How is it biological if it is a minority desire. Isn't that subjective by definition?
If you want to break it down into life stages a fetus is still has a parasitic relationship with the mother for the duration of that stage, whatever fulfillment parents get after it is born does not take away what in a biological sense is a crippling of the mother while pregnant.
Parasite has a real world, scientific classification. The early stages of a mammal's life cycle is biologically, not a parasite. Not in any sense of the word. Not unless we break down our classification system to win a moral argument. No more than conflating any other phylum with a part of the human life cycle.
I am against against killing post-birth babies for purely practical reasons not tied up with their ethical status as persons, as well as because of their status as conscious beings. Just like I am against killing dogs for no reason.
You are against it- but is that a moral imperative or a matter of personal preference? Is there an 'ought' behind don't kill dogs and infants and if so why and how.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 25 2017 12:41 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2017 11:12 Falling wrote:On April 24 2017 23:44 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2017 23:32 Danglars wrote:On April 24 2017 22:57 KwarK wrote:
The right to abortion in the United States didn't touch on when a fetus becomes a baby, it left that to the theologians and philosophers. Instead they addressed the issue of whether a woman could exercise her bodily autonomy to end the parasitic relationship with a fetus. I'm sure someone here is going to immediately accuse me of misusing the word parasite but I'm not using it to try and dismiss the value of the fetus, only to underline the degree to which the fetus fucks with the mother/host. The fetus exists and grows at the expense of the mother, it hijacks her blood stream, prioritizes itself for nutrients, uses her organs etc. It's not a mutual relationship. The Supreme Court ruled that the pregnant woman has the right to choose not to be subjected to pregnancy if she does not wish to be. The fetus is killed as an unfortunate side effect, precisely because it is a parasite and cannot live without continued support by the mother.
If you want to attack abortion in the United States the only grounds under which to do so are whether women have the right to bodily autonomy. It wouldn't actually make a difference if the fetus was alive and had human rights, the judgement didn't touch on that at all. If someone with organ failure hooked their bloodstream up to yours and forced your organs to work double time, with significant health costs to you, you would have the right to unplug them, even if doing so led to their death, even though they're a human. If four different people were dying and harvesting your organs would save all of them you would have the right to kill them rather than let them take the organs from you by force. You have a right to bodily autonomy in the United States, and that includes opting out of a pregnancy. The Supreme Court ruled that there's many different ways that a woman loses "woman has the right to choose not to be subjected to pregnancy if she does not wish to be." She waits too long or the state passes a law affecting third trimester/whatever. I can see how abortion supporters want to deny an alive growing human hisbor her autonomous rights in a stage where he or she is very dependent on the mother. You make the philosophical and moral judgement that the autonomy rights of the mother supersede the autonomy rights of the baby. Even arguing the intense kind of support in the location of the womb is the hinging point IS recognizing that the debate must be expanded to whether or not the sustenance is a legal right and others after birth. And no amount of parasitic dialogue will change the fact that you hold radical views on the subject way out of line with the population, and indeed the philosophy of science. Falling is much more eloquent than I am on the subject and I don't want to repeat the same arguments with less clarity. It is not so easy to dismiss human life claims to assert "No, just a parasite." They're very hard to dismiss on a multitude of subjects from "Back alley abortions would be much worse for society" to "Nobody sheds a tear over the morning after pill." Parasite dialogue probably means you're too far down the rabbit hole to be open and honest with where and why you've staked your position. I didn't call it a leech or a tick or anything like that. I called it a parasite because it exists in a complete state of dependence upon the mother, a relationship which has significant health costs to the mother and no benefits. You give me a better word for that relationship and I'll use it. But parasite is the best way to describe that relationship. Leech would have been hyperbolic, parasite is simply accurate. I'm not dismissing that it's human, quite the opposite, I said that even if it were a fully grown human adult, or indeed four human adults, it wouldn't matter and that bodily autonomy would override. You need to reread my argument and try again. Parasite does not make sense as a universal, objective descriptor of our offspring. I could only see it used metaphorically for whom the reason they give to abort is "that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%)" Guttmacher Institute 2005. This follows as 80-90% of women who have abortions in pretty much any age bracket are unmarried (CDC, 2013). I suppose these women, who've had the misfortune of becoming involved with a bang and run man, would view the baby as a parasite metaphorically. First I would note that a women's offspring being both 'contents of their body' and a 'parasite' is mutually exclusive though neither need be true. Now granted it is different people giving different defences, but the defence is incoherent except in its bedrock agreement that the offspring is anything, anything at all other than a baby. However, as you define parasite as being a) complete dependence upon the mother and b) no benefits. While a) is true barring significant medical improvement (and remains true outside of the womb except for modern innovation), b) is false and an absurd claim at that. The second requirement to define life is that the thing has the potential to reproduce at some time. How can the very thing that is required for the survival of our species be considered 'no benefit'. One of the very stages of our life cycle is parasitic and of no benefit? To be consistent, we would have to apply this loose definition to every embryonic animal, calling the essential earliest stage of a living being's life cycle parasitic and 'of no benefit.' Such a definition renders the entire concept of parasite meaningless, dissolving the categories. But beyond the biological necessity of the embryonic stage, then there's the actual desire to have children that seems to kick in at a certain point. I don't know about you, but I know a decent number of women that express a sort of baby fever, particularly if they are in their late 20's to early 30's, most especially if they are still unmarried. Apparently, it's not just an anecdotal observation either- Brase from Kansas Univerisity observed the effect in both men and women. As I understand it, one of the contributors to the supposed pay gap, at least in Law is that they cannot actually pay their rising star lawyers enough to stay- the women hit their early 30's and really want to start a family and so drop out regardless of the financial incentives. In what sense can something that people generally want at some point in their life be universally and objectively be a "parasite". If people get a sort of craving enough to scale back their career to have it, how can it be of 'no benefit'. No economic benefit, certainly. No career benefit, granted. But if as people so consistently desire and it is required to create the next generation (also nearly universally desired). Beneficial seems the more accurate descriptor than its opposite. Therefore, offspring cannot universally and objectively be considered 'parasite'. Biologically speaking it renders the idea of parasite incoherent. But it isn't an intrinsic property and so inaccurate. So then we are left with those unmarried women, abandoned by men unwilling to support them for whom birth would constitute a major and undesired interrupt to their lives. Subjectively, then and in their view, I suppose their offspring could be considered a parasite. Do you contend that it is a subjective metaphor for the few. Or do you contend that it is an accurate, universal descriptor for all offspring? Are offspring parasitical by very nature? On April 24 2017 16:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 16:22 Falling wrote:Like even if it's murder men just don't need to be involved period. Like just concede this one place, or continue to be so domineering that you can't let this go. That isn't the case in any other murder case, so if it is murder, why would it be so here? In what way am I being domineering? I am simply asking questions and pointing out the underlying premises. I don't think I've been rude or insulting. Every person (man, woman, baby, and anyone in between) that dies as a result of a political decision by the US government, said decision was ultimately decided by men. This would carve out a single type of human (if we're conceding it's killing babies) that would not be up to men to make the final determination on. Well, I mean it's not like it's a small number. Supposedly the US has killed more than 20 million people in 37 nations since WWII. Since 1970, 51 million offspring have been aborted in the US. If it's nothing, it's nothing, but if it's babies that's actually a fair amount of life and death power in the hands of women. That's about 25.5 million females to whom we are being obnoxious in denying autonomy of the body (from the premise of the second option). "It would be predicated on the fact the the baby being killed would have to be INSIDE the person making the decision." Why would location matter if it is a baby being killed? You and I will change environments throughout our lives, granted none more significantly than from our mother's womb, does the ethics of killing depend on location change? Of course of it isn't baby, then everything changes, but if you assume the second option, I don't see how location matters much. It is most definitely the contents of the woman as if you remove it, it ceases to live. Not really no- what you are talking about is dependency of which humans are by the most dependent of the mammals. Most mammals walk within the first couple hours. But at the point in which you have unique DNA, you do not have a part of the mother (else it would be her genetic code) but you have something else that is dependent upon the mother. What level of dependency allows ending a life vs not and why? So one is unwilling to concede even this one thing, fine. One can't stop it by force of law, and trying to will only make it worse. One think's abortion is murder, they can't leave this up to women to decide, they insist that men must have the final determination on this, let's at least focus on effective strategies and not political stunts. Look, I really don't know how I was to concede. To make your argument you tried using 'it is murder' as a premise, and I appreciate the attempt to assume another premise. But the conclusion doesn't follow once you use that presupposition. You seem to be coming from a fairly gendered perspective, the problematic patriarchy perhaps? But if you assume murder, the gender perspective falls by the wayside in all other instances of murder and would here as well. Else it then becomes "well the men are murdering lots and for equality sake, we need to allow women to match and surpass male murders. Doesn't that sound absurd? The proper conclusion from that premise should instead go after the other side: men kill too much, let's drop that rate rather than have women match and raise. For your 'men control everything, so just give women this one power' argument to work it has to assume that it isn't murder. No I'm saying that they can determine how we as a society will handle this kind of murder since men decide how we handle every other murder. That still doesn't help or make sense because the direction is the wrong way. White men do most of the killing; therefore, let's give all and sundry minorities the ability to do the same. Straight people do most of the killing, so let's allow the LGB's into the action. Binary people do most of the killing, etc. One of the great dangers of surviving oppression is once given freedom, to turn around and perpetuate the same oppression on others. The right to murder is a dubious claim to equality at best- such a claim only makes sense if it is not murder, regardless of how much men do or do not control killing as a gendered group. Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 11:20 IgnE wrote:On April 25 2017 11:12 Falling wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 24 2017 23:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 23:32 Danglars wrote:On April 24 2017 22:57 KwarK wrote:
The right to abortion in the United States didn't touch on when a fetus becomes a baby, it left that to the theologians and philosophers. Instead they addressed the issue of whether a woman could exercise her bodily autonomy to end the parasitic relationship with a fetus. I'm sure someone here is going to immediately accuse me of misusing the word parasite but I'm not using it to try and dismiss the value of the fetus, only to underline the degree to which the fetus fucks with the mother/host. The fetus exists and grows at the expense of the mother, it hijacks her blood stream, prioritizes itself for nutrients, uses her organs etc. It's not a mutual relationship. The Supreme Court ruled that the pregnant woman has the right to choose not to be subjected to pregnancy if she does not wish to be. The fetus is killed as an unfortunate side effect, precisely because it is a parasite and cannot live without continued support by the mother.
If you want to attack abortion in the United States the only grounds under which to do so are whether women have the right to bodily autonomy. It wouldn't actually make a difference if the fetus was alive and had human rights, the judgement didn't touch on that at all. If someone with organ failure hooked their bloodstream up to yours and forced your organs to work double time, with significant health costs to you, you would have the right to unplug them, even if doing so led to their death, even though they're a human. If four different people were dying and harvesting your organs would save all of them you would have the right to kill them rather than let them take the organs from you by force. You have a right to bodily autonomy in the United States, and that includes opting out of a pregnancy. The Supreme Court ruled that there's many different ways that a woman loses "woman has the right to choose not to be subjected to pregnancy if she does not wish to be." She waits too long or the state passes a law affecting third trimester/whatever. I can see how abortion supporters want to deny an alive growing human hisbor her autonomous rights in a stage where he or she is very dependent on the mother. You make the philosophical and moral judgement that the autonomy rights of the mother supersede the autonomy rights of the baby. Even arguing the intense kind of support in the location of the womb is the hinging point IS recognizing that the debate must be expanded to whether or not the sustenance is a legal right and others after birth. And no amount of parasitic dialogue will change the fact that you hold radical views on the subject way out of line with the population, and indeed the philosophy of science. Falling is much more eloquent than I am on the subject and I don't want to repeat the same arguments with less clarity. It is not so easy to dismiss human life claims to assert "No, just a parasite." They're very hard to dismiss on a multitude of subjects from "Back alley abortions would be much worse for society" to "Nobody sheds a tear over the morning after pill." Parasite dialogue probably means you're too far down the rabbit hole to be open and honest with where and why you've staked your position. I didn't call it a leech or a tick or anything like that. I called it a parasite because it exists in a complete state of dependence upon the mother, a relationship which has significant health costs to the mother and no benefits. You give me a better word for that relationship and I'll use it. But parasite is the best way to describe that relationship. Leech would have been hyperbolic, parasite is simply accurate. I'm not dismissing that it's human, quite the opposite, I said that even if it were a fully grown human adult, or indeed four human adults, it wouldn't matter and that bodily autonomy would override. You need to reread my argument and try again. Parasite does not make sense as a universal, objective descriptor of our offspring. I could only see it used metaphorically for whom the reason they give to abort is "that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%)" Guttmacher Institute 2005. This follows as 80-90% of women who have abortions in pretty much any age bracket are unmarried (CDC, 2013). I suppose these women, who've had the misfortune of becoming involved with a bang and run man, would view the baby as a parasite metaphorically. First I would note that a women's offspring being both 'contents of their body' and a 'parasite' is mutually exclusive though neither need be true. Now granted it is different people giving different defences, but the defence is incoherent except in its bedrock agreement that the offspring is anything, anything at all other than a baby. However, as you define parasite as being a) complete dependence upon the mother and b) no benefits. While a) is true barring significant medical improvement (and remains true outside of the womb except for modern innovation), b) is false and an absurd claim at that. The second requirement to define life is that the thing has the potential to reproduce at some time. How can the very thing that is required for the survival of our species be considered 'no benefit'. One of the very stages of our life cycle is parasitic and of no benefit? To be consistent, we would have to apply this loose definition to every embryonic animal, calling the essential earliest stage of a living being's life cycle parasitic and 'of no benefit.' Such a definition renders the entire concept of parasite meaningless, dissolving the categories. But beyond the biological necessity of the embryonic stage, then there's the actual desire to have children that seems to kick in at a certain point. I don't know about you, but I know a decent number of women that express a sort of baby fever, particularly if they are in their late 20's to early 30's, most especially if they are still unmarried. Apparently, it's not just an anecdotal observation either- Brase from Kansas Univerisity observed the effect in both men and women. As I understand it, one of the contributors to the supposed pay gap, at least in Law is that they cannot actually pay their rising star lawyers enough to stay- the women hit their early 30's and really want to start a family and so drop out regardless of the financial incentives. In what sense can something that people generally want at some point in their life be universally and objectively be a "parasite". If people get a sort of craving enough to scale back their career to have it, how can it be of 'no benefit'. No economic benefit, certainly. No career benefit, granted. But if as people so consistently desire and it is required to create the next generation (also nearly universally desired). Beneficial seems the more accurate descriptor than its opposite. Therefore, offspring cannot universally and objectively be considered 'parasite'. Biologically speaking it renders the idea of parasite incoherent. But it isn't an intrinsic property and so inaccurate. So then we are left with those unmarried women, abandoned by men unwilling to support them for whom birth would constitute a major and undesired interrupt to their lives. Subjectively, then and in their view, I suppose their offspring could be considered a parasite. Do you contend that it is a subjective metaphor for the few. Or do you contend that it is an accurate, universal descriptor for all offspring? Are offspring parasitical by very nature? On April 24 2017 16:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 16:22 Falling wrote:Like even if it's murder men just don't need to be involved period. Like just concede this one place, or continue to be so domineering that you can't let this go. That isn't the case in any other murder case, so if it is murder, why would it be so here? In what way am I being domineering? I am simply asking questions and pointing out the underlying premises. I don't think I've been rude or insulting. Every person (man, woman, baby, and anyone in between) that dies as a result of a political decision by the US government, said decision was ultimately decided by men. This would carve out a single type of human (if we're conceding it's killing babies) that would not be up to men to make the final determination on. Well, I mean it's not like it's a small number. Supposedly the US has killed more than 20 million people in 37 nations since WWII. Since 1970, 51 million offspring have been aborted in the US. If it's nothing, it's nothing, but if it's babies that's actually a fair amount of life and death power in the hands of women. That's about 25.5 million females to whom we are being obnoxious in denying autonomy of the body (from the premise of the second option). "It would be predicated on the fact the the baby being killed would have to be INSIDE the person making the decision." Why would location matter if it is a baby being killed? You and I will change environments throughout our lives, granted none more significantly than from our mother's womb, does the ethics of killing depend on location change? Of course of it isn't baby, then everything changes, but if you assume the second option, I don't see how location matters much. It is most definitely the contents of the woman as if you remove it, it ceases to live. Not really no- what you are talking about is dependency of which humans are by the most dependent of the mammals. Most mammals walk within the first couple hours. But at the point in which you have unique DNA, you do not have a part of the mother (else it would be her genetic code) but you have something else that is dependent upon the mother. What level of dependency allows ending a life vs not and why? So one is unwilling to concede even this one thing, fine. One can't stop it by force of law, and trying to will only make it worse. One think's abortion is murder, they can't leave this up to women to decide, they insist that men must have the final determination on this, let's at least focus on effective strategies and not political stunts. Look, I really don't know how I was to concede. To make your argument you tried using 'it is murder' as a premise, and I appreciate the attempt to assume another premise. But the conclusion doesn't follow once you use that presupposition. You seem to be coming from a fairly gendered perspective, the problematic patriarchy perhaps? But if you assume murder, the gender perspective falls by the wayside in all other instances of murder and would here as well. Else it then becomes "well the men are murdering lots and for equality sake, we need to allow women to match and surpass male murders. Doesn't that sound absurd? The proper conclusion from that premise should instead go after the other side: men kill too much, let's drop that rate rather than have women match and raise. For your 'men control everything, so just give women this one power' argument to work it has to assume that it isn't murder. Killing an embryo/fetus is like putting down a dog. "Murder" requires killing a person, a status a fetus hasn't yet achieved. Well I guess that's a whole pandora's box of questions. Why is killing your offspring similar to putting down a dog? And ethically, why ought both be treated different from a human post-birth? What makes a person a person, how does one achieve that status and when? And why does that make a difference when killing a person? For instance, biologically, genetically, etc human offspring is not a dog. And in regards to the difference between human offspring pre-birth and post-birth there are four main differences: size, level of development, environment, and level of dependence. Which of those four (or combination thereof) means we ought to treat our offspring as dogs and not as human offspring? Oi. Such a flurry of posts. It is hard to keep up. By the way, I am sorry to derail it for so long on one topic but there's a lot of questions I wanted to ask, and as Kwark posted his parasite bit again, I wanted another go at it. Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 11:35 Mercy13 wrote:On April 25 2017 11:12 Falling wrote:On April 24 2017 23:44 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2017 23:32 Danglars wrote:On April 24 2017 22:57 KwarK wrote:
The right to abortion in the United States didn't touch on when a fetus becomes a baby, it left that to the theologians and philosophers. Instead they addressed the issue of whether a woman could exercise her bodily autonomy to end the parasitic relationship with a fetus. I'm sure someone here is going to immediately accuse me of misusing the word parasite but I'm not using it to try and dismiss the value of the fetus, only to underline the degree to which the fetus fucks with the mother/host. The fetus exists and grows at the expense of the mother, it hijacks her blood stream, prioritizes itself for nutrients, uses her organs etc. It's not a mutual relationship. The Supreme Court ruled that the pregnant woman has the right to choose not to be subjected to pregnancy if she does not wish to be. The fetus is killed as an unfortunate side effect, precisely because it is a parasite and cannot live without continued support by the mother.
If you want to attack abortion in the United States the only grounds under which to do so are whether women have the right to bodily autonomy. It wouldn't actually make a difference if the fetus was alive and had human rights, the judgement didn't touch on that at all. If someone with organ failure hooked their bloodstream up to yours and forced your organs to work double time, with significant health costs to you, you would have the right to unplug them, even if doing so led to their death, even though they're a human. If four different people were dying and harvesting your organs would save all of them you would have the right to kill them rather than let them take the organs from you by force. You have a right to bodily autonomy in the United States, and that includes opting out of a pregnancy. The Supreme Court ruled that there's many different ways that a woman loses "woman has the right to choose not to be subjected to pregnancy if she does not wish to be." She waits too long or the state passes a law affecting third trimester/whatever. I can see how abortion supporters want to deny an alive growing human hisbor her autonomous rights in a stage where he or she is very dependent on the mother. You make the philosophical and moral judgement that the autonomy rights of the mother supersede the autonomy rights of the baby. Even arguing the intense kind of support in the location of the womb is the hinging point IS recognizing that the debate must be expanded to whether or not the sustenance is a legal right and others after birth. And no amount of parasitic dialogue will change the fact that you hold radical views on the subject way out of line with the population, and indeed the philosophy of science. Falling is much more eloquent than I am on the subject and I don't want to repeat the same arguments with less clarity. It is not so easy to dismiss human life claims to assert "No, just a parasite." They're very hard to dismiss on a multitude of subjects from "Back alley abortions would be much worse for society" to "Nobody sheds a tear over the morning after pill." Parasite dialogue probably means you're too far down the rabbit hole to be open and honest with where and why you've staked your position. I didn't call it a leech or a tick or anything like that. I called it a parasite because it exists in a complete state of dependence upon the mother, a relationship which has significant health costs to the mother and no benefits. You give me a better word for that relationship and I'll use it. But parasite is the best way to describe that relationship. Leech would have been hyperbolic, parasite is simply accurate. I'm not dismissing that it's human, quite the opposite, I said that even if it were a fully grown human adult, or indeed four human adults, it wouldn't matter and that bodily autonomy would override. You need to reread my argument and try again. Parasite does not make sense as a universal, objective descriptor of our offspring. I could only see it used metaphorically for whom the reason they give to abort is "that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%)" Guttmacher Institute 2005. This follows as 80-90% of women who have abortions in pretty much any age bracket are unmarried (CDC, 2013). I suppose these women, who've had the misfortune of becoming involved with a bang and run man, would view the baby as a parasite metaphorically. First I would note that a women's offspring being both 'contents of their body' and a 'parasite' is mutually exclusive though neither need be true. Now granted it is different people giving different defences, but the defence is incoherent except in its bedrock agreement that the offspring is anything, anything at all other than a baby. However, as you define parasite as being a) complete dependence upon the mother and b) no benefits. While a) is true barring significant medical improvement (and remains true outside of the womb except for modern innovation), b) is false and an absurd claim at that. The second requirement to define life is that the thing has the potential to reproduce at some time. How can the very thing that is required for the survival of our species be considered 'no benefit'. One of the very stages of our life cycle is parasitic and of no benefit? To be consistent, we would have to apply this loose definition to every embryonic animal, calling the essential earliest stage of a living being's life cycle parasitic and 'of no benefit.' Such a definition renders the entire concept of parasite meaningless, dissolving the categories. But beyond the biological necessity of the embryonic stage, then there's the actual desire to have children that seems to kick in at a certain point. I don't know about you, but I know a decent number of women that express a sort of baby fever, particularly if they are in their late 20's to early 30's, most especially if they are still unmarried. Apparently, it's not just an anecdotal observation either- Brase from Kansas Univerisity observed the effect in both men and women. As I understand it, one of the contributors to the supposed pay gap, at least in Law is that they cannot actually pay their rising star lawyers enough to stay- the women hit their early 30's and really want to start a family and so drop out regardless of the financial incentives. In what sense can something that people generally want at some point in their life be universally and objectively be a "parasite". If people get a sort of craving enough to scale back their career to have it, how can it be of 'no benefit'. No economic benefit, certainly. No career benefit, granted. But if as people so consistently desire and it is required to create the next generation (also nearly universally desired). Beneficial seems the more accurate descriptor than its opposite. Therefore, offspring cannot universally and objectively be considered 'parasite'. Biologically speaking it renders the idea of parasite incoherent. But it isn't an intrinsic property and so inaccurate. So then we are left with those unmarried women, abandoned by men unwilling to support them for whom birth would constitute a major and undesired interrupt to their lives. Subjectively, then and in their view, I suppose their offspring could be considered a parasite. Do you contend that it is a subjective metaphor for the few. Or do you contend that it is an accurate, universal descriptor for all offspring? Are offspring parasitical by very nature? On April 24 2017 16:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 16:22 Falling wrote:Like even if it's murder men just don't need to be involved period. Like just concede this one place, or continue to be so domineering that you can't let this go. That isn't the case in any other murder case, so if it is murder, why would it be so here? In what way am I being domineering? I am simply asking questions and pointing out the underlying premises. I don't think I've been rude or insulting. Every person (man, woman, baby, and anyone in between) that dies as a result of a political decision by the US government, said decision was ultimately decided by men. This would carve out a single type of human (if we're conceding it's killing babies) that would not be up to men to make the final determination on. Well, I mean it's not like it's a small number. Supposedly the US has killed more than 20 million people in 37 nations since WWII. Since 1970, 51 million offspring have been aborted in the US. If it's nothing, it's nothing, but if it's babies that's actually a fair amount of life and death power in the hands of women. That's about 25.5 million females to whom we are being obnoxious in denying autonomy of the body (from the premise of the second option). "It would be predicated on the fact the the baby being killed would have to be INSIDE the person making the decision." Why would location matter if it is a baby being killed? You and I will change environments throughout our lives, granted none more significantly than from our mother's womb, does the ethics of killing depend on location change? Of course of it isn't baby, then everything changes, but if you assume the second option, I don't see how location matters much. It is most definitely the contents of the woman as if you remove it, it ceases to live. Not really no- what you are talking about is dependency of which humans are by the most dependent of the mammals. Most mammals walk within the first couple hours. But at the point in which you have unique DNA, you do not have a part of the mother (else it would be her genetic code) but you have something else that is dependent upon the mother. What level of dependency allows ending a life vs not and why? So one is unwilling to concede even this one thing, fine. One can't stop it by force of law, and trying to will only make it worse. One think's abortion is murder, they can't leave this up to women to decide, they insist that men must have the final determination on this, let's at least focus on effective strategies and not political stunts. Look, I really don't know how I was to concede. To make your argument you tried using 'it is murder' as a premise, and I appreciate the attempt to assume another premise. But the conclusion doesn't follow once you use that presupposition. You seem to be coming from a fairly gendered perspective, the problematic patriarchy perhaps? But if you assume murder, the gender perspective falls by the wayside in all other instances of murder and would here as well. Else it then becomes "well the men are murdering lots and for equality sake, we need to allow women to match and surpass male murders. Doesn't that sound absurd? The proper conclusion from that premise should instead go after the other side: men kill too much, let's drop that rate rather than have women match and raise. For your 'men control everything, so just give women this one power' argument to work it has to assume that it isn't murder. You and Danglers are both quibbling with Kwark's use of the term parasite without addressing his actual argument. A person should not be compelled by the government to sacrifice their bodily autonomy, even to save the life of another. This is why a person can't be forced to donate a kidney, even though doing so can save dozens of lives.* Even if a drunk driver injures someone's liver or something, and the only way to save the person is to make the perpetrator donate an organ we wouldn't force them to because that would be atrocious. If a woman wants a fetus to be removed from her body she should not be compelled to keep it, even if it is equivalent to a human life (which I don't concede, by the way). If the fetus is viable outside the womb that's great, and I would support whatever efforts are necessary to help it to survive. If it isn't viable outside the womb that's kind of sad but it's better to abort it then to force a woman to undergo a pregnancy when she doesn't want to, keeping in mind that the mortality rate from childbirth is comparable to that of kidney donation in some states, and that even a normal childbirth can cause changes to a woman's body that impact her for the rest of her life. *This has to do with "Kidney chains." It's pretty cool, people should google it. Especially math nerds. I don't think it is a quibble as what we are dealing with inside the womb is fundamental to the argument on both sides. Otherwise this thread would not insist on compare human offspring to 'contents of their body' 'parasites' 'putting down a dog' and 'kidneys', (or for that matter Latinize offspring). But anyways, the kidney transplant is not a good comparison and the bodily autonomy argument isn't really describing like actions (one of these things is not like the other.) So one, your offspring is not another body part of the woman. It does not have the woman's DNA, but instead has an entirely unique genetic code for a brand new person. In regards to compelled kidney donations (which, yes I realize is what you are talking about), it is still not comparable, not if what is in the womb is a living being. In the kidney donation case, kidneys are not voluntarily available and so the patient dies indirectly due to scarcity of resources. There is no direct action taken to end that persons life. People tried to do their best to help the patient as best they could, but there was not sufficient generosity. Sad certainly, but inaction did not violate the patient's bodily autonomy (if that is the big moral ought of our age.) But nobody's bodily autonomy is being preferred to the other. The unborn offspring is an entirely unique circumstance. They are the most vulnerable, unable to protect their bodily autonomy and someone or someones directly takes action to end his or her life thus denying them autonomy (or, if you will potential autonomy, which they will inevitably develop given sufficient time.) So why is it that women's present autonomy is favoured over their offspring's autonomy. Does one need to be autonomous to have bodily autonomous considerations? Offspring are clearly in the margins, but in the same way of the developmentally challenged. Why then, is autonomy the ultimate moral consideration compared to protection of the vulnerable, dependent, and the weak? Where do we get this ought from? @ChristianS I was operating under the assumption that he meant it was a biological parasite. I set out to explain why that makes no sense, but that maybe it could be considered one figuratively. Morality, I don't know. Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 11:38 ShoCkeyy wrote:
My gf went through a miscarriage recently, and we were pretty sad about it, we were sad because of the idea that we were about to raise a human. But after thinking about it, she did not even notice when the baby left her body. So how do you give the status of a "person", to something so small that you don't really notice it's there. Mind you I'm not pro abortion, or pro life, I don't care what your choice is, because it should be up to the person that is actually carrying the baby. It's interesting to me that there was sadness involved because I find this has often been the case to a greater and lesser degree. And it's interesting to think why that would that be the case. As to hardly noticing- I don't know. Humans are pretty resilient. And yet other people are just as convinced that they are a person regardless of how noticeable as you are that it isn't. Being convinced one way or the other isn't the same as what actually is. Hm. I find I'm getting diminishing returns, the longer I write. Wall of text and all that. I'm trying to respond to as many as I can, but it's gotten pretty onerous.
No, just the ones within their own bodies.
|
On April 25 2017 13:17 IgnE wrote:
to make your hypothetical better you should include the feature that pushing the second button gives you orgasms and only has a small chance to make you pregnant which can further be decreased, but not eliminated, by wearing a glove
That's a great addition, but she knows the risks.
|
On April 25 2017 13:22 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 13:17 IgnE wrote:
to make your hypothetical better you should include the feature that pushing the second button gives you orgasms and only has a small chance to make you pregnant which can further be decreased, but not eliminated, by wearing a glove That's a great addition, but she knows the risks.
this is a garbage hypothetical that you should have thought through more before even posting it
let's also add a paired button to the second button that must be pushed by a man at the same time as the woman presses her second button
the paired button gives the man orgasms but he never gets pregnant
|
On April 25 2017 13:19 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 12:54 Slaughter wrote:On April 25 2017 12:46 Falling wrote:On April 25 2017 12:07 Acrofales wrote:On April 25 2017 11:44 ChristianS wrote:
@Falling: not to put words in his mouth, but I think Kwark was using the term parasite in a biological sense, not a moral one. In biological terms the relation is either symbiotic or parasitic, and it's plainly not symbiotic because the fetus doesn't give anything back. It just consumes nutrients and grows. Any hypothetical future value it could have to the person doesn't change the biological classification. Put it this way, if it turned out you could sell a fully grown tapeworm for $100,000 a lot of people might want to grow tape worms in their intestines, but in a biological sense a tape worm would still be classified as a parasite.
The distinction is largely semantic anyway, but it would mean Kwark isn't saying "our offspring are parasites." He'd be saying a fetus is biologically a parasite. Once the child is viable outside the womb then by Kwark's reasoning, it no longer can legally be aborted. No. Kwark's view is quite clearly that it can be aborted at any time the mother desires, because of bodily autonomy. But what happens to the fetus after the pregnancy is aborted, would probably change if the fetus was viable. Other than that, your answer seems to clarify a point he was making and falling was misinterpreting. As for falling's wall of text: the desire to have children is clearly not applicable to women who want to abort their pregnancy. Even if at some other point in their lives they will desire children, at the pregnancy in question, they desire no such thing. So it seems irrelevant? Not at all. As I understood it, Kwark was arguing that the embryo is biologically a parasite. To prove that, according to his definition of a parasite it needs to be entirely dependent and not at all beneficial. Because he is arguing that it is biologically a parasite, he must prove that it is universally a parasite. The fact that a majority of couples see offspring as beneficial and that objectively offspring are biologically required to propagate our species, in no way does an embryo meet the definition of a parasite. Not without messing with our entire idea of a biological parasite. To a woman who does not wish to reproduce it is absolutely a parasite in a biological sense. If the parents want the child then you can argue in that context it is a symbiotic organism. If you want to break it down into life stages a fetus is still has a parasitic relationship with the mother for the duration of that stage, whatever fulfillment parents get after it is born does not take away what in a biological sense is a crippling of the mother while pregnant. Just allow women to have abortions....use science to determine an acceptable legal definition of when a fetus has reached certain benchmarks for personhood and say no abortions after that point unless the mother is at high risk of death. I know personhood is nebulous thing to try to define since its it has been defined so differently across time and space but eh I would just follow the science on this one. How in the world does science determine personhood? What is a person and how does one become it? I see Igne thinks personhood occurs sometime after birth. I wonder when and why and what determines it. It's an ethical subject, but what does that mean? How do you follow science if it is nebulous and in what way is personhood scientific in the first place? Show nested quote +To a woman who does not wish to reproduce it is absolutely a parasite in a biological sense. How is it biological if it is a minority desire. Isn't that subjective by definition? Show nested quote +If you want to break it down into life stages a fetus is still has a parasitic relationship with the mother for the duration of that stage, whatever fulfillment parents get after it is born does not take away what in a biological sense is a crippling of the mother while pregnant. Parasite has a real world, scientific classification. The early stages of a mammal's life cycle is biologically, not a parasite. Not in any sense of the word. Not unless we break down our classification system to win a moral argument. No more than conflating any other phylum with a part of the human life cycle. Show nested quote +
I am against against killing post-birth babies for purely practical reasons not tied up with their ethical status as persons, as well as because of their status as conscious beings. Just like I am against killing dogs for no reason.
You are against it- but is that a moral imperative or a matter of personal preference? Is there an 'ought' behind don't kill dogs and infants and if so why and how.
You can leave it to science to determine certain biological benchmarks of development for determination. Otherwise you are just using an arbitrary morality you picked from the countless systems out there that you happen to agree with then apply that to everyone, regardless if they subscribe to it or not.
|
On April 25 2017 13:22 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 13:17 IgnE wrote:
to make your hypothetical better you should include the feature that pushing the second button gives you orgasms and only has a small chance to make you pregnant which can further be decreased, but not eliminated, by wearing a glove That's a great addition, but she knows the risks.
The "punishment" has to be fitting of the crime. You know that when you jaywalk you run the risk of getting hit by a car and dieing. Does that mean that if we have a magic button to revive people hit by cars, we should only use it for people who walked at green lights? Or should we allow it to be used on dead jaywalkers as well?
|
On April 25 2017 13:25 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 13:22 biology]major wrote:On April 25 2017 13:17 IgnE wrote:
to make your hypothetical better you should include the feature that pushing the second button gives you orgasms and only has a small chance to make you pregnant which can further be decreased, but not eliminated, by wearing a glove That's a great addition, but she knows the risks. this is a garbage hypothetical that you should have thought through more before even posting it let's also add a paired button to the second button that must be pushed by a man at the same time as the woman presses her second button the paired button gives the man orgasms but he never gets pregnant
the point of the hypothetical is not to mirror reality. Just to see if your stance on abortion changes from one extreme to the other. Does it or does it not? If it does not, then let's leave it at that. At least you are consistent.
|
On April 25 2017 13:27 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2017 13:22 biology]major wrote:On April 25 2017 13:17 IgnE wrote:
to make your hypothetical better you should include the feature that pushing the second button gives you orgasms and only has a small chance to make you pregnant which can further be decreased, but not eliminated, by wearing a glove That's a great addition, but she knows the risks. The "punishment" has to be fitting of the crime. You know that when you jaywalk you run the risk of getting hit by a car and dieing. Does that mean that if we have a magic button to revive people hit by cars, we should only use it for people who walked at green lights? Or should we allow it to be used on dead jaywalkers as well?
gotta make some special protections for those parasites!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
