|
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. |
On April 26 2017 01:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 01:30 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 01:27 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:21 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 01:16 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:13 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2017 01:09 farvacola wrote:
Why don't you believe in soul-stuff, maybenexttime? Define soul-stuff. The role that was historically attributed to a soul is currently attributed to brain functions. do fetuses have brain functions? Yes. Human brain-functions. I'm generally pro-choice, but I can't quite the understand the detachment in saying that a late-term fetus has no bodily rights. Shortly before birth, it's just a baby in the womb. A cesarean operation, for example, doesn't endow the baby with sentience. It's just opening up the womb and removing the baby that exists. You can't say it's removing a parasite. Parasitic=/=parasite. A late-term fetus is parasitic, absolutely. But it is not, factually speaking, a parasite. Denying the sentience of a late-term fetus doesn't do pro-choicers any credit. This is exactly the type of middle-ground that both sides need to move towards, and where we should rely heavily on clinical metrics. By which I don't mean calling it a parasite. I love House MD as much as anybody, but it's a bit sensationalist, imo. so do you eat pork? do you think a post-birth baby has more or less "human-like" brain functions than an adult pig? do you eat octopus? I was a vegetarian for many years. But, uh, what? We're talking about human babies. Not pigs. I'm genuinely not sure what this comparison is supposed to prove. But, yes, I do think a human baby is more human than an adult pig... Wow. I'm assuming he was addressing the question of sentience. There isn't any evidence that newborns are sentient, as far as I know. Obviously human babies are more human than pigs, but I'd bet on the pig to pass a mirror test before a newborn baby.
I would take that bet, actually.
But on the other hand, I put zero stock in the mirror test. The mirror test only proves something if you make a truck-load of assumptions as to what "true" consciousness is. Mirror-test falls more in the realm of pop-psychology than actual science.
An EEG, on the other hand, measures consciousness in a much more substantial way. A late-term fetus possesses this consciousness, which is the same you'd get from a new-born human-baby. If it isn't human consciousness, then you're categorizing it as... what?
Cut open a woman's womb in late-terms of pregnancy, and what you have transfers from a "fetus" into a "baby" only in semantics. Biologically... it's the same thing as it was shortly before, in the womb.
And you know, I am pro-choice. If demanded, I would say allow all abortions, as opposed to criminalizing them. But I'd love to see society reach a less sensationalized discourse on this subject. And, man... this thread is not comforting.
|
On April 26 2017 01:37 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 01:34 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:29 KwarK wrote:On April 26 2017 01:25 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:17 KwarK wrote:On April 26 2017 01:11 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:07 KwarK wrote:On April 26 2017 01:03 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote:On April 26 2017 00:51 IgnE wrote:
i really think this abortion stuff is not that hard, and yet the last several pages have demonstrated how unclearly/inconsistently so many otherwise intelligent individuals think about this topic. i am led to conclude that disagreements are mainly about soul-stuff and its presence/absence in fetuses even if the aforementioned confused individuals would rather not admit it. If I thought they had souls it wouldn't change it for me. The bodily autonomy argument is sound regardless of the humanity of the dependent party. oh really? then what's your theory for why we prosecute negligent parents who don't want to provide for their children? We prosecute child abuse. We don't prosecute surrendering children to the state as far as I am aware. The difference being that once they're born you can opt out without killing them and if you choose not to opt out then you're assuming responsibility. so in a world without a state apparatus to provide adoption services it would be morally permissible to let any dependents incapable of living on their own die? Morally? Perhaps not. Legally? Preferable to legally mandated slavery to keep them alive. You're pushing for a choice between two extremes here. Either an individual can declare that a dependent is not their responsibility and allow them to die or an individual who attempts to refuse responsibility must be declared a slave to their dependent. It's a pretty silly hypothetical but since you're pushing for it, I choose the former. i mean if you don't think we persons have any obligations to any other person then you are at least being consistent. personally i think its more than a little abhorrent that you think it would be morally permissible for a parent of a seven year old kid to abandon them to certain death simply because they got tired of "providing for them" by such actions as sharing food because they didn't want to be a "slave". so my comments about the rationale for abortion were directed towards people who believe that morality does in fact dictate some moral obligations to others I said it wouldn't be moral. I'm not sure where you're getting "morally permissible" but I specifically addressed the difference between that which is moral and that which should be legally enforced. This can't be the first time you've ever heard of someone having differing views on morality and legality. ok i misread it. but you did include the "perhaps" which makes me wonder why you have to hedge your bets or why you think we should legally allow something as morally impermissible as killing a person (endowed with personhood) who is dependent on us? obviously morals are not laws but your argument was about the immorality of abortion here. the justification for "legal permissibility" always hinged only on the arbitrary dictates of the state and has no force beyond that arbitrariness. Morality changes over time. There were long periods where having slaves (or similar) was morally acceptable and common. Anything talking about morality should use qualifiers about what we consider morally right now since it will change to be stricter or more allowable.
thanks for the qualification. it was implied
|
@IgnE: do you think it's okay for there to be humans who act deplorably, but for those acts to nevertheless be legal?
If you do, do you acknowledge that it might be ethically superior to allow deplorable acts than to illegalize them?
Then all we would need to establish is that even if abortion is deplorable (which I don't necessarily concede), it is one of those cases where it is still better (lets pick utilitarian ethics) to allow it than to forbid it.
|
On April 26 2017 01:39 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 01:33 KwarK wrote:On April 26 2017 01:30 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 01:27 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:21 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 01:16 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:13 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2017 01:09 farvacola wrote:
Why don't you believe in soul-stuff, maybenexttime? Define soul-stuff. The role that was historically attributed to a soul is currently attributed to brain functions. do fetuses have brain functions? Yes. Human brain-functions. I'm generally pro-choice, but I can't quite the understand the detachment in saying that a late-term fetus has no bodily rights. Shortly before birth, it's just a baby in the womb. A cesarean operation, for example, doesn't endow the baby with sentience. It's just opening up the womb and removing the baby that exists. You can't say it's removing a parasite. Parasitic=/=parasite. A late-term fetus is parasitic, absolutely. But it is not, factually speaking, a parasite. Denying the sentience of a late-term fetus doesn't do pro-choicers any credit. This is exactly the type of middle-ground that both sides need to move towards, and where we should rely heavily on clinical metrics. By which I don't mean calling it a parasite. I love House MD as much as anybody, but it's a bit sensationalist, imo. so do you eat pork? do you think a post-birth baby has more or less "human-like" brain functions than an adult pig? do you eat octopus? I was a vegetarian for many years. But, uh, what? We're talking about human babies. Not pigs. I'm genuinely not sure what this comparison is supposed to prove. But, yes, I do think a human baby is more human than an adult pig... Wow. I'm assuming he was addressing the question of sentience. There isn't any evidence that newborns are sentient, as far as I know. Obviously human babies are more human than pigs, but I'd bet on the pig to pass a mirror test before a newborn baby. I would take that bet, actually. But on the other hand, I put zero stock in the mirror test. The mirror test only proves something if you make a truck-load of assumptions as to what "true" consciousness is. Mirror-test falls more in the realm of pop-psychology than actual science. An EEG, on the other hand, measures consciousness in a much more substantial way. A late-term fetus possesses this consciousness, which is the same you'd get from a new-born human-baby. If it isn't human consciousness, then you're categorizing it as... what?
An EEG is not capable of measuring consciousness. But we're back into the realm of arguing what consciousness is, which is a dumb thing to try to do. Insofar as we can link consciousness to externally observable acts that display an awareness of the world around it, most adult animals are more conscious than newborn humans, and in fact, many newborn animals are. Human newborns are quite remarkably helpless (and insofar as we can tell: oblivious).
|
On April 26 2017 01:38 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 01:30 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 01:27 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:21 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 01:16 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:13 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2017 01:09 farvacola wrote:
Why don't you believe in soul-stuff, maybenexttime? Define soul-stuff. The role that was historically attributed to a soul is currently attributed to brain functions. do fetuses have brain functions? Yes. Human brain-functions. I'm generally pro-choice, but I can't quite the understand the detachment in saying that a late-term fetus has no bodily rights. Shortly before birth, it's just a baby in the womb. A cesarean operation, for example, doesn't endow the baby with sentience. It's just opening up the womb and removing the baby that exists. You can't say it's removing a parasite. Parasitic=/=parasite. A late-term fetus is parasitic, absolutely. But it is not, factually speaking, a parasite. Denying the sentience of a late-term fetus doesn't do pro-choicers any credit. This is exactly the type of middle-ground that both sides need to move towards, and where we should rely heavily on clinical metrics. By which I don't mean calling it a parasite. I love House MD as much as anybody, but it's a bit sensationalist, imo. so do you eat pork? do you think a post-birth baby has more or less "human-like" brain functions than an adult pig? do you eat octopus? I was a vegetarian for many years. But, uh, what? We're talking about human babies. Not pigs. I'm genuinely not sure what this comparison is supposed to prove. But, yes, I do think a human baby is more human than an adult pig... Wow. A late-term fetus has sentience. It is human sentience. Abstract, and in many ways, lesser. But still human. This is going right off the deep-end. Again, denying the human-nature of late-term fetuses is really just fuel for the fire, and nothing more. so you are talking about soul-stuff here. "human-nature?" ousia? what makes it human? dna? a blastocyst is also human? are you telling me ANY level of consciousness in combination with human dna is privileged with all the rights of a human person? do you not see how that is just essentialist soul-stuff?
No, I am very clearly talking about consciousness, and asking you to question the consciousness of a late-term fetus.
You feel the need to categorize that as a "soul", or categorize me as religious?
That's a stretch and a half, and disappointing.
"What makes it human?" Common-fucking-sense. What makes a human-baby a human?
Well, you got me. None of us are human. Anarchy, ho.
|
On April 26 2017 01:41 Acrofales wrote:
@IgnE: do you thin it's okay for there to be humans who act deplorably, but for those acts to nevertheless be legal?
If you do, do you acknowledge that it might be ethically superior to allow deplorable acts than to illegalize them?
Then all we would need to establish is that even if abortion is deplorable (which I don't necessarily concede), it is one of those cases where it is still better (lets pick utilitarian ethics) to allow it than to forbid it.
yes but that still depends on an ultimately moral framework that has an opinion of what is and is not legally condemnable. if you realy believe that embryos are ensouled full persons and that killing it destroys a sacred human life i would fully expect that you would want to outlaw it. if you think its basically like killing a dog which would be immoral for the wrong reasons (like for fun) but permissible in other situations (like interfering with bodily autonomy) then you would not want to criminalize it
|
United States42839 Posts
On April 26 2017 01:36 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 01:14 KwarK wrote:On April 26 2017 01:07 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2017 00:56 KwarK wrote:On April 26 2017 00:50 maybenexttime wrote:
If I locked you up in my basement and you were totally dependent on me in terms of food, would you be infringing on my autonomy or would I be infringing on yours? The metaphor just doesn't work. I wouldn't be taking your food against your will, you would be choosing to feed me after imprisoning me. You could just let me go. An appropriate metaphor would need the following components. 1) Every time the captor tried to eat the prisoner would restrain them and help themselves to the content of the plate, leaving the captor only what remained. 2) The captor could be forced to have a prisoner against their will by a third party. 3) Every day the prisoner remains restrained there is a considerable chance that they will kill the captor and themselves. 4) The captor may have had no intention of taking a prisoner. 5) If the captor chooses to no longer keep the prisoner a prisoner then the prisoner dies. 1) The metaphor can account for that. Let's say I have my fridge in the basement and have no other source of food. I am not directly feeding you. You can help yourself to my food and limit the amount of food I can eat. 2) My argument doesn't deal with rape. No agency on the mother's side leads to an impasse, I agree (but it also does not lead to the conclusion that the mother's bodily autonomy should take precedence). 3) That can also be accounted for. I don't see a problem. 4) But knew there is a risk of this happening. 5) Or rather: releasing the prisoner necessitates killing him/her. That is the crux of the problem. Your liberty ends just where my nose begins. The mother's choice is limited as a consequence of her earlier choice. You can't go "Your liberty ends just where my nose begins" with pregnancy. It just doesn't work. The point of that metaphor is that you have liberty right up until you choose to interact with other people. If one party lives inside the other party then one of them has to lose their liberty. There is no "you control your body, I'll control mine". They live in the same body. It just doesn't work. You keep repeating these platitudes about bodily autonomy and liberty and none of them apply in the least bit to the situation at hand. I disagree. The mother doesn't lose her liberty. Her liberty is simply limited
This makes about as much sense as claiming that you haven't taken away someone's freedom of speech, you've merely limited their vocabulary.
|
On April 26 2017 01:46 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 01:38 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:30 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 01:27 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:21 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 01:16 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:13 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2017 01:09 farvacola wrote:
Why don't you believe in soul-stuff, maybenexttime? Define soul-stuff. The role that was historically attributed to a soul is currently attributed to brain functions. do fetuses have brain functions? Yes. Human brain-functions. I'm generally pro-choice, but I can't quite the understand the detachment in saying that a late-term fetus has no bodily rights. Shortly before birth, it's just a baby in the womb. A cesarean operation, for example, doesn't endow the baby with sentience. It's just opening up the womb and removing the baby that exists. You can't say it's removing a parasite. Parasitic=/=parasite. A late-term fetus is parasitic, absolutely. But it is not, factually speaking, a parasite. Denying the sentience of a late-term fetus doesn't do pro-choicers any credit. This is exactly the type of middle-ground that both sides need to move towards, and where we should rely heavily on clinical metrics. By which I don't mean calling it a parasite. I love House MD as much as anybody, but it's a bit sensationalist, imo. so do you eat pork? do you think a post-birth baby has more or less "human-like" brain functions than an adult pig? do you eat octopus? I was a vegetarian for many years. But, uh, what? We're talking about human babies. Not pigs. I'm genuinely not sure what this comparison is supposed to prove. But, yes, I do think a human baby is more human than an adult pig... Wow. A late-term fetus has sentience. It is human sentience. Abstract, and in many ways, lesser. But still human. This is going right off the deep-end. Again, denying the human-nature of late-term fetuses is really just fuel for the fire, and nothing more. so you are talking about soul-stuff here. "human-nature?" ousia? what makes it human? dna? a blastocyst is also human? are you telling me ANY level of consciousness in combination with human dna is privileged with all the rights of a human person? do you not see how that is just essentialist soul-stuff? No, I am talking about consciousness. I don't believe in the "soul". Argue fairly, if you want to falsely categorize me to this extent then I'll just move on.
If you really want to have this discussion, define consciousness. Also define human consciousness.
|
On April 26 2017 01:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 01:36 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2017 01:14 KwarK wrote:On April 26 2017 01:07 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2017 00:56 KwarK wrote:On April 26 2017 00:50 maybenexttime wrote:
If I locked you up in my basement and you were totally dependent on me in terms of food, would you be infringing on my autonomy or would I be infringing on yours? The metaphor just doesn't work. I wouldn't be taking your food against your will, you would be choosing to feed me after imprisoning me. You could just let me go. An appropriate metaphor would need the following components. 1) Every time the captor tried to eat the prisoner would restrain them and help themselves to the content of the plate, leaving the captor only what remained. 2) The captor could be forced to have a prisoner against their will by a third party. 3) Every day the prisoner remains restrained there is a considerable chance that they will kill the captor and themselves. 4) The captor may have had no intention of taking a prisoner. 5) If the captor chooses to no longer keep the prisoner a prisoner then the prisoner dies. 1) The metaphor can account for that. Let's say I have my fridge in the basement and have no other source of food. I am not directly feeding you. You can help yourself to my food and limit the amount of food I can eat. 2) My argument doesn't deal with rape. No agency on the mother's side leads to an impasse, I agree (but it also does not lead to the conclusion that the mother's bodily autonomy should take precedence). 3) That can also be accounted for. I don't see a problem. 4) But knew there is a risk of this happening. 5) Or rather: releasing the prisoner necessitates killing him/her. That is the crux of the problem. Your liberty ends just where my nose begins. The mother's choice is limited as a consequence of her earlier choice. You can't go "Your liberty ends just where my nose begins" with pregnancy. It just doesn't work. The point of that metaphor is that you have liberty right up until you choose to interact with other people. If one party lives inside the other party then one of them has to lose their liberty. There is no "you control your body, I'll control mine". They live in the same body. It just doesn't work. You keep repeating these platitudes about bodily autonomy and liberty and none of them apply in the least bit to the situation at hand. I disagree. The mother doesn't lose her liberty. Her liberty is simply limited This makes about as much sense as claiming that you haven't taken away someone's freedom of speech, you've merely limited their vocabulary.
The same applies to "Your liberty ends just where my nose begins". Does that mean we don't have any liberty whatsoever?
Our liberty is always limited. To what degree it is limited depends on the circumstances and those may change.
|
On April 26 2017 01:46 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 01:38 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:30 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 01:27 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:21 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 01:16 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:13 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2017 01:09 farvacola wrote:
Why don't you believe in soul-stuff, maybenexttime? Define soul-stuff. The role that was historically attributed to a soul is currently attributed to brain functions. do fetuses have brain functions? Yes. Human brain-functions. I'm generally pro-choice, but I can't quite the understand the detachment in saying that a late-term fetus has no bodily rights. Shortly before birth, it's just a baby in the womb. A cesarean operation, for example, doesn't endow the baby with sentience. It's just opening up the womb and removing the baby that exists. You can't say it's removing a parasite. Parasitic=/=parasite. A late-term fetus is parasitic, absolutely. But it is not, factually speaking, a parasite. Denying the sentience of a late-term fetus doesn't do pro-choicers any credit. This is exactly the type of middle-ground that both sides need to move towards, and where we should rely heavily on clinical metrics. By which I don't mean calling it a parasite. I love House MD as much as anybody, but it's a bit sensationalist, imo. so do you eat pork? do you think a post-birth baby has more or less "human-like" brain functions than an adult pig? do you eat octopus? I was a vegetarian for many years. But, uh, what? We're talking about human babies. Not pigs. I'm genuinely not sure what this comparison is supposed to prove. But, yes, I do think a human baby is more human than an adult pig... Wow. A late-term fetus has sentience. It is human sentience. Abstract, and in many ways, lesser. But still human. This is going right off the deep-end. Again, denying the human-nature of late-term fetuses is really just fuel for the fire, and nothing more. so you are talking about soul-stuff here. "human-nature?" ousia? what makes it human? dna? a blastocyst is also human? are you telling me ANY level of consciousness in combination with human dna is privileged with all the rights of a human person? do you not see how that is just essentialist soul-stuff? No, I am talking about consciousness. I don't believe in the "soul". Argue fairly, if you want to falsely categorize me to this extent then I'll just move on.
soul-stuff is an essentialist conception of consciousness that draws upon immaterial concepts like "human nature" to define a "human consciousness" as that stuff that appears on an eeg. if you dont see the metaphysical soul-stuff there you are just as self deluded and unrigorous as all the other crackpots arguing with kwark in this thread. you apparently think some eeg data tells us whether a consciousness is "human" or not in a meaningful moral sense.
|
On April 26 2017 01:47 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 01:46 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 01:38 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:30 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 01:27 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:21 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 01:16 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:13 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2017 01:09 farvacola wrote:
Why don't you believe in soul-stuff, maybenexttime? Define soul-stuff. The role that was historically attributed to a soul is currently attributed to brain functions. do fetuses have brain functions? Yes. Human brain-functions. I'm generally pro-choice, but I can't quite the understand the detachment in saying that a late-term fetus has no bodily rights. Shortly before birth, it's just a baby in the womb. A cesarean operation, for example, doesn't endow the baby with sentience. It's just opening up the womb and removing the baby that exists. You can't say it's removing a parasite. Parasitic=/=parasite. A late-term fetus is parasitic, absolutely. But it is not, factually speaking, a parasite. Denying the sentience of a late-term fetus doesn't do pro-choicers any credit. This is exactly the type of middle-ground that both sides need to move towards, and where we should rely heavily on clinical metrics. By which I don't mean calling it a parasite. I love House MD as much as anybody, but it's a bit sensationalist, imo. so do you eat pork? do you think a post-birth baby has more or less "human-like" brain functions than an adult pig? do you eat octopus? I was a vegetarian for many years. But, uh, what? We're talking about human babies. Not pigs. I'm genuinely not sure what this comparison is supposed to prove. But, yes, I do think a human baby is more human than an adult pig... Wow. A late-term fetus has sentience. It is human sentience. Abstract, and in many ways, lesser. But still human. This is going right off the deep-end. Again, denying the human-nature of late-term fetuses is really just fuel for the fire, and nothing more. so you are talking about soul-stuff here. "human-nature?" ousia? what makes it human? dna? a blastocyst is also human? are you telling me ANY level of consciousness in combination with human dna is privileged with all the rights of a human person? do you not see how that is just essentialist soul-stuff? No, I am talking about consciousness. I don't believe in the "soul". Argue fairly, if you want to falsely categorize me to this extent then I'll just move on. If you really want to have this discussion, define consciousness. Also define human consciousness.
No. I am asking people to consider the consciousness of a late-term fetus.
The deflections... Jesus Christ. I'm not defining, in absolute terms, what is consciousness, which is scientifically impossible, currently (which is why the mirror test is BS). I'm just asking "does a late-term fetus have a consciousness?"
We do know consciousness exists, obviously. And we can detect it, often through common-sense means, but also from brain-waves. EEG.
The struggles to avoid answering the question simply is kind of... I am disappointed. I'll take a break. Because, I'm a little flustered at the inane deflections.
If your guys' answer to people's concerns towards late-term abortions is to compare human-babies to pigs, or declare them simply "not human", then this discourse is permanently fucked. You're the ones drawing a line that shouldn't exist and can't be defined -- or should I say, is already clearly defined. If we can't accept that new-born babies are human, anatomically, biologically, common-sense, human, with a sentience that is human, then we've gone off the deep-end.
|
United States42839 Posts
On April 26 2017 01:46 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 01:41 Acrofales wrote:
@IgnE: do you thin it's okay for there to be humans who act deplorably, but for those acts to nevertheless be legal?
If you do, do you acknowledge that it might be ethically superior to allow deplorable acts than to illegalize them?
Then all we would need to establish is that even if abortion is deplorable (which I don't necessarily concede), it is one of those cases where it is still better (lets pick utilitarian ethics) to allow it than to forbid it. yes but that still depends on an ultimately moral framework that has an opinion of what is and is not legally condemnable. if you realy believe that embryos are ensouled full persons and that killing it destroys a sacred human life i would fully expect that you would want to outlaw it. if you think its basically like killing a dog which would be immoral for the wrong reasons (like for fun) but permissible in other situations (like interfering with bodily autonomy) then you would not want to criminalize it
Abortion isn't an attempt to kill the fetus. It's an attempt to remove the fetus from the uterus. They die because they're not capable of living outside of the uterus, not because people like killing them. If you were to have a c-section to remove a fetus at 8 months I wouldn't consider it mandatory to then kill the baby, just for the sake of completeness.
|
I find this obsession with "protecting the unborn children" to be just another typical modern hypocrisy. Essentially being against abortion means being in favor of the concept that the mother is required to provide her bodily functions in order to help the unborn child live. However there are millions of people over the world who die because of lack of some resources. Why don't the pro-life folks require everyone to give up as much as they can in order to prevent that? It's again the same "all humans are important, particularly those that we have a hard time forgetting about".
I get it, people dying sucks, we don't like it and there isn't a good reason to consider a child not a person just because it's still in a womb. But focusing on this one particular cause of human death is just emotional. As long as we aren't all required to give up everything we don't absolutely need for survival to help others not die, I don't see how women can be required to give up their bodily freedoms for the child. As long as the child is vitally dependent on the mother, she should be able to say no.
edit: kwark¨s post above is totally awesome
|
WASHINGTON ― Donald Trump’s Presidential Inaugural Committee acknowledged late Monday that a final report it filed with the Federal Election Commission this month was riddled with errors, many of which were first identified through a crowdsourced data project at HuffPost.
“We plan to amend our report to reflect any changes that we have become aware of, including many of those donor records or technical glitches that we have recently become aware of, as is common practice with FEC reporting,” an inaugural committee spokesman, Alex Stroman, said Monday evening.
The inaugural committee raised more than $100 million for Trump’s Jan. 20 festivities, which included two inaugural balls that drew a combined total of about 30,000 guests. The fundraising set new records. But according to Brendan Fischer, counsel to the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, “it doesn’t seem that any real effort was made to collect the information that is very clearly required by law.”
The scores of mistakes contained in the more than 500-page FEC filing can largely be traced to a fundraising and ticketing system the Republican Party introduced this year, which provided special online access codes to Trump supporters.
The access codes, mailed out in early January, entitled recipients to buy tickets, at $50 each, to the larger of Trump’s two inaugural balls. Within days, a secondary market for the access codes had sprung up, with some people asking their friends for codes, and others buying them on Ebay.
No two access codes were the same, and each code was good for a specific number of tickets, like rides at a carnival. Some codes were good for only two passes, while others were good for 100. But each code was tied to a specific address, meaning that if it was passed to someone else, that person’s name would be on the disclosure alongside the original code recipient’s address.
A Trump supporter who spoke to HuffPost Monday described how she used four different access codes ― each belonging to a different friend ― to purchase $400 worth of ball tickets.
“People who donated to Trump got these written fancy invitations, inviting them to the inauguration, with a cover letter that said, ‘Here’s an access code,’ and you had to enter a PIN,” she said.
“We needed an access code so we could get a ticket to the inauguration and the ball. We used that access code, but it wasn’t a donation. It was a ticket price,” said the woman, who requested anonymity because her job prohibits her from making political contributions.
“The inauguration website did not request my street address when I purchased the tickets, even though I paid for the tickets using my credit card,” she continued. “I also listed the individual name of each ticket holder and their email address for delivery of their ball tickets.”
According to available records, none of those names was submitted to the FEC as a Trump inauguration donor. Instead, the final report submitted by the 58th Presidential Inaugural Committee this month said the original donor made eight donations of $50 each, using four different addresses.
That such errors made their way into the official inauguration committee filing suggests that the committee failed to perform even basic checks to ensure that its record-keeping was accurate, a requirement under FEC guidelines.
“Even in light of the diminished reporting required by inaugural committees as opposed to campaigns, it doesn’t seem that they’ve done the basic reporting required by the FEC,” said Fischer. “These are not new rules, and this looks like negligence.”
These simple-looking errors in mailing addresses were first identified by volunteer fact-checkers as part of the Citizen Sleuth Project, which originated at HuffPost. By building a public and shared spreadsheet of Trump’s inauguration donors, accessible here, Citizen Sleuth was able to crowdsource the fact-checking part of investigating Trump’s inaugural donor records, With the help of more than 1,000 volunteers, a trove of detailed information was created about the more than 1,500 donations to Trump’s inaugural committee.
Fischer said the errors exposed by the Citizen Sleuth volunteers raise doubts about whether the Trump inauguration did basic due diligence, as required by law. By linking individual donations to the mailing address of the access code ― which was easy to pass around ― and not the address of the actual donor ― the Trump inaugural committee effectively created an alternate universe of donors records, he noted.
Source
|
United States42839 Posts
On April 26 2017 01:48 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 01:46 KwarK wrote:On April 26 2017 01:36 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2017 01:14 KwarK wrote:On April 26 2017 01:07 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2017 00:56 KwarK wrote:On April 26 2017 00:50 maybenexttime wrote:
If I locked you up in my basement and you were totally dependent on me in terms of food, would you be infringing on my autonomy or would I be infringing on yours? The metaphor just doesn't work. I wouldn't be taking your food against your will, you would be choosing to feed me after imprisoning me. You could just let me go. An appropriate metaphor would need the following components. 1) Every time the captor tried to eat the prisoner would restrain them and help themselves to the content of the plate, leaving the captor only what remained. 2) The captor could be forced to have a prisoner against their will by a third party. 3) Every day the prisoner remains restrained there is a considerable chance that they will kill the captor and themselves. 4) The captor may have had no intention of taking a prisoner. 5) If the captor chooses to no longer keep the prisoner a prisoner then the prisoner dies. 1) The metaphor can account for that. Let's say I have my fridge in the basement and have no other source of food. I am not directly feeding you. You can help yourself to my food and limit the amount of food I can eat. 2) My argument doesn't deal with rape. No agency on the mother's side leads to an impasse, I agree (but it also does not lead to the conclusion that the mother's bodily autonomy should take precedence). 3) That can also be accounted for. I don't see a problem. 4) But knew there is a risk of this happening. 5) Or rather: releasing the prisoner necessitates killing him/her. That is the crux of the problem. Your liberty ends just where my nose begins. The mother's choice is limited as a consequence of her earlier choice. You can't go "Your liberty ends just where my nose begins" with pregnancy. It just doesn't work. The point of that metaphor is that you have liberty right up until you choose to interact with other people. If one party lives inside the other party then one of them has to lose their liberty. There is no "you control your body, I'll control mine". They live in the same body. It just doesn't work. You keep repeating these platitudes about bodily autonomy and liberty and none of them apply in the least bit to the situation at hand. I disagree. The mother doesn't lose her liberty. Her liberty is simply limited This makes about as much sense as claiming that you haven't taken away someone's freedom of speech, you've merely limited their vocabulary. The same applies to "Your liberty ends just where my nose begins". Does that mean we don't have any liberty whatsoever?
No, this really isn't very complex. Assume that liberty represents a sphere around people. "Your liberty ends just where my nose begins" represents a room filled with the maximum number of inflatable balls, all inflated to the same size, as possible. They all have the same amount of liberty and none of them could be inflated further without compressing the ones around them.
With me so far?
That represents the maximum possible amount of liberty. The balls cannot be inflated further. The only limitation at this point is the size of the room (representing the physical constraints of the universe). Within the room each ball has the maximum potential liberty that it could have while keeping all balls equally inflated.
What you are describing is deflating one ball to inflate another ball more to create two balls with different levels of inflation. Completely different story. The fact that the balls aren't inflated infinitely doesn't mean that they're limited, they're all equally inflated to the maximum possible amount. That equates to maximum liberty.
|
On April 26 2017 01:36 maybenexttime wrote:
Similarly, I argue that the same happens when people choose to partake in an activity that can lead to a pregnancy.
If you leave the house and get shot, don't complain, that's on you. Every time you leave the house there's a risk you could get shot, and you know that because you know some people have guns.
See how stupid your argument is?
|
This entire discussion hinges on the theory that the mothers obligations and burden to the child end after birth. Many abortions are preformed for economic reasons and we cannot limit the discussion to the 9 months of pregnancy.
|
On April 26 2017 01:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 01:46 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:41 Acrofales wrote:
@IgnE: do you thin it's okay for there to be humans who act deplorably, but for those acts to nevertheless be legal?
If you do, do you acknowledge that it might be ethically superior to allow deplorable acts than to illegalize them?
Then all we would need to establish is that even if abortion is deplorable (which I don't necessarily concede), it is one of those cases where it is still better (lets pick utilitarian ethics) to allow it than to forbid it. yes but that still depends on an ultimately moral framework that has an opinion of what is and is not legally condemnable. if you realy believe that embryos are ensouled full persons and that killing it destroys a sacred human life i would fully expect that you would want to outlaw it. if you think its basically like killing a dog which would be immoral for the wrong reasons (like for fun) but permissible in other situations (like interfering with bodily autonomy) then you would not want to criminalize it Abortion isn't an attempt to kill the fetus. It's an attempt to remove the fetus from the uterus. They die because they're not capable of living outside of the uterus, not because people like killing them. If you were to have a c-section to remove a fetus at 8 months I wouldn't consider it mandatory to then kill the baby, just for the sake of completeness.
No, they die because they are ripped apart. What you are describing is the theory of abortion, as seen by the "pro-choice" people. That has very little to do with the practice of abortion.
On April 26 2017 01:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 01:48 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2017 01:46 KwarK wrote:On April 26 2017 01:36 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2017 01:14 KwarK wrote:On April 26 2017 01:07 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2017 00:56 KwarK wrote:On April 26 2017 00:50 maybenexttime wrote:
If I locked you up in my basement and you were totally dependent on me in terms of food, would you be infringing on my autonomy or would I be infringing on yours? The metaphor just doesn't work. I wouldn't be taking your food against your will, you would be choosing to feed me after imprisoning me. You could just let me go. An appropriate metaphor would need the following components. 1) Every time the captor tried to eat the prisoner would restrain them and help themselves to the content of the plate, leaving the captor only what remained. 2) The captor could be forced to have a prisoner against their will by a third party. 3) Every day the prisoner remains restrained there is a considerable chance that they will kill the captor and themselves. 4) The captor may have had no intention of taking a prisoner. 5) If the captor chooses to no longer keep the prisoner a prisoner then the prisoner dies. 1) The metaphor can account for that. Let's say I have my fridge in the basement and have no other source of food. I am not directly feeding you. You can help yourself to my food and limit the amount of food I can eat. 2) My argument doesn't deal with rape. No agency on the mother's side leads to an impasse, I agree (but it also does not lead to the conclusion that the mother's bodily autonomy should take precedence). 3) That can also be accounted for. I don't see a problem. 4) But knew there is a risk of this happening. 5) Or rather: releasing the prisoner necessitates killing him/her. That is the crux of the problem. Your liberty ends just where my nose begins. The mother's choice is limited as a consequence of her earlier choice. You can't go "Your liberty ends just where my nose begins" with pregnancy. It just doesn't work. The point of that metaphor is that you have liberty right up until you choose to interact with other people. If one party lives inside the other party then one of them has to lose their liberty. There is no "you control your body, I'll control mine". They live in the same body. It just doesn't work. You keep repeating these platitudes about bodily autonomy and liberty and none of them apply in the least bit to the situation at hand. I disagree. The mother doesn't lose her liberty. Her liberty is simply limited This makes about as much sense as claiming that you haven't taken away someone's freedom of speech, you've merely limited their vocabulary. The same applies to "Your liberty ends just where my nose begins". Does that mean we don't have any liberty whatsoever? No, this really isn't very complex. Assume that liberty represents a sphere around people. "Your liberty ends just where my nose begins" represents a room filled with the maximum number of inflatable balls, all inflated to the same size, as possible. They all have the same amount of liberty and none of them could be inflated further without compressing the ones around them. With me so far? That represents the maximum possible amount of liberty. The balls cannot be inflated further. The only limitation at this point is the size of the room (representing the physical constraints of the universe). Within the room each ball has the maximum potential liberty that it could have while keeping all balls equally inflated. What you are describing is deflating one ball to inflate another ball more. Completely different story.
This is a bad analogy. I can wave my hand freely as long as I don't slap you. Clearly, the size of the ball changes depending on the circumstances. Just because I can't throw my hand around in such a way that I slap you in the face, doesn't mean I lost my bodily autonomy. If you are not in my proximity, I can do whatever I want with my hand. If you come close, I can't. That doesn't mean my liberty was completely taken away from me. It was merely limited by the circumstances.
This applies to any sort of liberty.
|
On April 26 2017 02:10 Plansix wrote:
This entire discussion hinges on the theory that the mothers obligations and burden to the child end after birth. Many abortions are preformed for economic reasons and we cannot limit the discussion to the 9 months of pregnancy.
But that can be rather easily solved by just simplifying adoptions.
|
On April 26 2017 02:06 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 01:36 maybenexttime wrote:
Similarly, I argue that the same happens when people choose to partake in an activity that can lead to a pregnancy. If you leave the house and get shot, don't complain, that's on you. Every time you leave the house there's a risk you could get shot, and you know that because you know some people have guns. See how stupid your argument is?
Yay. The pivot is here.
It's actually far more likely for someone (talking USA here) to get shot in his/her own house by a family member or friend than to get randomly shot in the street. So statistically you're safer taking to the streets than staying at home 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
