|
On November 04 2011 13:52 Viciousvx wrote:
I Suppose Everyone Here fails to understand how U.S Laws Work. This bill is to ban abortion completely in Indiana.
The Bill defunds Planned Parenthood Indiana The Only Progressive women's care united states in the entire united states. It was aready difficult with hard to find clinics, 6 doctors in the entirety of the U.S and states with different laws.
The Law could have been
"Water is a Liquid.......and planned parenthood will be defunded."
"Children are the offspring of Humans.......... and planned parenthood is defunded"
"team liquid is filled with idiots.......and planned parenthood is defunded"
Abortion is already relatively completely banned within the united states. This Bill is about The Nail in the Coffin for Women in Indiana.
it Distracts the public with ridiculous information, while the meat of the law is actually being fought or shrugged at by progressive groups.
GG to the Red State of Indiana.
Now you're just making stuff up.
|
I'm reposting this from the Herman Cain thread. I'm really surprised by some of the views that a lot of people seem to have about abortion. There is a huge difference between aborting a baby/fetus/fertilized egg and using contraceptives that prevent fertilization. Life exists past conception; and aborting a baby prior to or after the 20th week still amounts to the taking of a life.
On November 03 2011 13:23 chaoser wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 13:16 Krikkitone wrote:On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote:
(Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.) Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them) The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention. The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties)) ............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see) Psst, I'm talking about life at conception aka egg meeting the sperm, not fetuses. Ectopic pregnancies happen enough that hundreds of women will die each year if stupid shit like "life starting is defined as when conception occurs" is put into law. Doctors won't be able to operate on women to try to take the fertilized egg out and "kill it" to save the woman's life since they'd be murdering the "new life". Also most forms of birth control will be illegal since they work to "kill" the fertilized fetus. But hey, what do I know? I'm just in medical school.
Last I checked, life definitely starts at conception. A fertilized egg has the ability to grow and divide. I suppose the U.S. government has sidestepped the issue of taking a life by redefining when life begins, but that doesn't change the fact that abortion is the murder of a living being.
With that being said, the government also has the power to establish when it is legal to take a life (ie capital (capitol?) punishment). Even if laws were passed stating that life starts at conception (which it does) the government would still have the ability to declare abortion legal, although it would look a lot worse.
More on topicish: Herman Cain is pretty fucked now with all these sexual harassment complaints. Republicans seem increasingly desperate to find a suitable candidate whose name is not Mitt Romney but appear unable to do so.
|
On November 04 2011 11:38 sc4k wrote:
While I accept that the foetus does indeed carry the potential to turn into a human being, I believe that it is entirely the choice of the mother whether she allow this collection of cells to continue to drain her nutrients and turn into its own self or to terminate the process in favour of herself, for whatever reason.
What is your reasoning for your moral position on this matter? What is your basis for the line you've drawn? Why does the happenstance of the evolution of human reproduction (the point at which the baby won't die when it's cut off from nutrients) direct your choice of criteria?
|
On November 04 2011 13:40 arbitrageur wrote:
To supporters of free abortion in most cases (let's even assume the fetus has 0 capability to feel pain), i have the following question:
what's the difference between consciousness that exists at t=0 and consciousness that can possibly exist at t=future? Why is it that you value t=0 consciousness more than t=future consciousness? is there a difference between the atoms that constitute a current person's brain, that you'd value, and the future configuration of atoms that this fetus will grow up into at t=future? ]Why does the exact point that we currently exist in on the timeline even play into this moral consideration?
Condensed question: Plz adduce some rational or evidence based reasoning that justifies the value difference that you attribute to t=0 consciousness above and beyond t=future consciousness.
The most common reply to the potential future(t=future) argument is that just because something has the potential for X, doesn't mean it should be treated as X. Your question/argument is framed like this(although I'm pretty sure you've read the arguments/counterarguments already);
1. Beings with the characteristic of consciousness have a right to life.
2. Beings with the potential[possibility] for consciousness have a right to life.
3. Fetus'/Embryos/etc have the potential for consciousness.
4. Therefore, fetus'/embryos/etc have a right to life.
The standard argument against it states that the potential for 'X' doesn't mean treatment as 'X';
A) A person has the potential to or possibility of, being a home owner, but that doesn't mean they should be treated as a home owner. We all have the potential to be dead, but we don't treat people like corpses.
B) The other argument against it is that if you follow the idea placing value on potential, then you have to argue that a sperm or an egg has the potential to be a person with the right to life. Arguing the t=future leaves you with the idea that anything with the potential to become life has a right to life.
|
On November 04 2011 14:47 Myrkskog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2011 13:40 arbitrageur wrote:
To supporters of free abortion in most cases (let's even assume the fetus has 0 capability to feel pain), i have the following question:
what's the difference between consciousness that exists at t=0 and consciousness that can possibly exist at t=future? Why is it that you value t=0 consciousness more than t=future consciousness? is there a difference between the atoms that constitute a current person's brain, that you'd value, and the future configuration of atoms that this fetus will grow up into at t=future? ]Why does the exact point that we currently exist in on the timeline even play into this moral consideration?
Condensed question: Plz adduce some rational or evidence based reasoning that justifies the value difference that you attribute to t=0 consciousness above and beyond t=future consciousness. The most common reply to the potential future(t=future) argument is that just because something has the potential for X, doesn't mean it should be treated as X. Your question/argument is framed like this(although I'm pretty sure you've read the arguments/counterarguments already); 1. Beings with the characteristic of consciousness have a right to life. 2. Beings with the potential[possibility] for consciousness have a right to life. 3. Fetus'/Embryos/etc have the potential for consciousness. 4. Therefore, fetus'/embryos/etc have a right to life. The standard argument against it states that the potential for 'X' doesn't mean treatment as 'X'; A) A person has the potential to or possibility of, being a home owner, but that doesn't mean they should be treated as a home owner. We all have the potential to be dead, but we don't treat people like corpses. B) The other argument against it is that if you follow the idea placing value on potential, then you have to argue that a sperm or an egg has the potential to be a person with the right to life. Arguing the t=future leaves you with the idea that anything with the potential to become life has a right to life.
A) Of course that just because the potential exists doesn't mean you should treat the potential in a certain way. But I'm not making the claim. I'm asking the proponents of abortion to justify THEIR position that t=future is less valuable than t=0 consciousness.
What is the difference between 9 newborn babies at t=0 and 10 fetuses that will survive childbirth 90% of the time if they're not aborted? There are of course many differences. By what is your basis for taking one of those differences as your basis for concluding that abortion is fine?
What is the rational basis for this bias towards t=0? That's what I really want answered.
B) Yes, this is indeed the outcome of this type of thinking. Although a proponent wouldn't be arguing that killing sperm or egg is morally wrong because FAPP there's infinite of them, hence killing the sperm won't have any consequences. But somebody taking the position that I outlined in my previous post and that's ALSO a consequentialist or some type of scientific utilitarian is FORCED to conclude that never choosing to be pregnant is equally morally abhorrent as aborting a fetus which is equally morally abhorrent as sedating then killing a 1 day old baby (disregarding any flow on effects that any of these actions may cause).
I understand that this moral position is intuitively absurd. But remember that your intuition and gut reaction to a proposition is an evolved response. It only exists because it was selected or because of random drift, it is not the product of rationality..
|
^^^ these guys really should watch that video i posted on the page before. perhaps a few more of Mr Hicks' insights could help them.
there is only this moment.
|
On November 04 2011 14:04 Ryalnos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2011 13:52 Viciousvx wrote:
I Suppose Everyone Here fails to understand how U.S Laws Work. This bill is to ban abortion completely in Indiana.
The Bill defunds Planned Parenthood Indiana The Only Progressive women's care united states in the entire united states. It was aready difficult with hard to find clinics, 6 doctors in the entirety of the U.S and states with different laws.
The Law could have been
"Water is a Liquid.......and planned parenthood will be defunded."
"Children are the offspring of Humans.......... and planned parenthood is defunded"
"team liquid is filled with idiots.......and planned parenthood is defunded"
Abortion is already relatively completely banned within the united states. This Bill is about The Nail in the Coffin for Women in Indiana.
it Distracts the public with ridiculous information, while the meat of the law is actually being fought or shrugged at by progressive groups.
GG to the Red State of Indiana.
Now you're just making stuff up.
He is, but he is more right then you think. Roe v. Wade didn't make abortion legal per se, the SCOTUS said a women/(person) has a right to privacy until the baby is viable with artificial aid. There may very well come a day in our life time when starting at day one the baby is viable with artificial aid.
Unless there is a major change to the law, it's only logical and legal that states start lowering the date when abortion is illegal.
|
On November 04 2011 16:49 woody60707 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2011 14:04 Ryalnos wrote:On November 04 2011 13:52 Viciousvx wrote:
I Suppose Everyone Here fails to understand how U.S Laws Work. This bill is to ban abortion completely in Indiana.
The Bill defunds Planned Parenthood Indiana The Only Progressive women's care united states in the entire united states. It was aready difficult with hard to find clinics, 6 doctors in the entirety of the U.S and states with different laws.
The Law could have been
"Water is a Liquid.......and planned parenthood will be defunded."
"Children are the offspring of Humans.......... and planned parenthood is defunded"
"team liquid is filled with idiots.......and planned parenthood is defunded"
Abortion is already relatively completely banned within the united states. This Bill is about The Nail in the Coffin for Women in Indiana.
it Distracts the public with ridiculous information, while the meat of the law is actually being fought or shrugged at by progressive groups.
GG to the Red State of Indiana.
Now you're just making stuff up. He is, but he is more right then you think. Roe v. Wade didn't make abortion legal per se, the SCOTUS said a women/(person) has a right to privacy until the baby is viable with artificial aid. There may very well come a day in our life time when starting at day one the baby is viable with artificial aid.Unless there is a major change to the law, it's only logical and legal that states start lowering the date when abortion is illegal.
At that point we could probably extract the egg and let in grow in an artifical uterus. No prop.
|
I am entirely anti abortion after a certain amount of development, I'd say as soon as it starts to look more baby than egg is pretty much the line. But I am no doctor, it just doesent seem normal, although I get sick when I try to eat eggs too so that might have something to do with it. (but of course I will eat things eggs were used in)
|
On November 04 2011 14:30 arbitrageur wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2011 11:38 sc4k wrote:
While I accept that the foetus does indeed carry the potential to turn into a human being, I believe that it is entirely the choice of the mother whether she allow this collection of cells to continue to drain her nutrients and turn into its own self or to terminate the process in favour of herself, for whatever reason. What is your reasoning for your moral position on this matter? What is your basis for the line you've drawn? Why does the happenstance of the evolution of human reproduction (the point at which the baby won't die when it's cut off from nutrients) direct your choice of criteria?
Basically, I think that when you have the life of someone entirely dependant on you, you should be able to detach from this responsibility. You should be able to require of your human brethren 'please, look after this dependant person, I don't wish to do it any more'. But it goes further with childbirth, they are dependant on you more than in any other relationship in life, seeing as they are literally absorbing your nutrients like a parasite and living inside of you. Seeing as you are the one being relied on, and you are the one giving nutrients...I think it's reasonable to say that you can withdraw from this process at a point where it's not reasonable to say to your fellow humans 'please, look after this dependant person'.
I think my position is flexible. If we were running out of children, and had extremely efficient technology that could sustain children with minimal difficulty from 1 week after conception, I might see it right that abortions be outlawed and all foetuses be raised by the state if the parents don't want to be involved. Don't consider us to be in that position though...so I think abortions before a certain period are right and fair.
Also, I have thought up another argument that runs alongside what Mr. Hicks is saying. Basically, there is less justification for total anti-abortion if there are still kids waiting for families in the foster system. It might make me sympathetic towards the pro-lifers if the foster rate were so high that the state were WAITING for new opportunities to give children to expectant families. But as far as we can say that most of these foetuses will grow up shuffled through a foster care system, I'm not convinced we as a society have a right to demand that this occur.
|
On November 04 2011 12:50 Luepert wrote:
"In addition, doctors are required to tell women that abortions may cause infertility and that fetuses can experience pain at 20 weeks or earlier."
Is this supposed to be "later"?
Is this true? If so the law still allows causing pain to fetuses. Kind of weird they would even include that statement if they weren't even going to do anything about it.
more than likely they cannot feel pain before 24 weeks.
http://www.rcog.org.uk/news/rcog-release-rcog-updates-its-guidance
|
On November 04 2011 14:30 arbitrageur wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2011 11:38 sc4k wrote:
While I accept that the foetus does indeed carry the potential to turn into a human being, I believe that it is entirely the choice of the mother whether she allow this collection of cells to continue to drain her nutrients and turn into its own self or to terminate the process in favour of herself, for whatever reason. What is your reasoning for your moral position on this matter? What is your basis for the line you've drawn? Why does the happenstance of the evolution of human reproduction (the point at which the baby won't die when it's cut off from nutrients) direct your choice of criteria?
In both happiness and preference utilitarianism this has been answered so:
"If you are abducted against your will and hooked up to a sick but famous violinist who needs to share your kidneys for nine months, you do no wrong in detaching yourself, even if it means his death?"
On November 04 2011 23:37 njnick wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2011 12:50 Luepert wrote:
"In addition, doctors are required to tell women that abortions may cause infertility and that fetuses can experience pain at 20 weeks or earlier."
Is this supposed to be "later"?
Is this true? If so the law still allows causing pain to fetuses. Kind of weird they would even include that statement if they weren't even going to do anything about it.
more than likely they cannot feel pain before 24 weeks. http://www.rcog.org.uk/news/rcog-release-rcog-updates-its-guidance
Neither scientific knowledge nor truth have ever prevented politicians from doing something...
|
On November 04 2011 23:40 Brotkrumen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2011 14:30 arbitrageur wrote:On November 04 2011 11:38 sc4k wrote:
While I accept that the foetus does indeed carry the potential to turn into a human being, I believe that it is entirely the choice of the mother whether she allow this collection of cells to continue to drain her nutrients and turn into its own self or to terminate the process in favour of herself, for whatever reason. What is your reasoning for your moral position on this matter? What is your basis for the line you've drawn? Why does the happenstance of the evolution of human reproduction (the point at which the baby won't die when it's cut off from nutrients) direct your choice of criteria? In both happiness and preference utilitarianism this has been answered so: "If you are abducted against your will and hooked up to a sick but famous violinist who needs to share your kidneys for nine months, you do no wrong in detaching yourself, even if it means his death?" Show nested quote +On November 04 2011 23:37 njnick wrote:On November 04 2011 12:50 Luepert wrote:
"In addition, doctors are required to tell women that abortions may cause infertility and that fetuses can experience pain at 20 weeks or earlier."
Is this supposed to be "later"?
Is this true? If so the law still allows causing pain to fetuses. Kind of weird they would even include that statement if they weren't even going to do anything about it.
more than likely they cannot feel pain before 24 weeks. http://www.rcog.org.uk/news/rcog-release-rcog-updates-its-guidance Neither scientific knowledge nor truth have ever prevented politicians from doing something...
Well in the violinist case, you can detatch yourself (even if it would mean their death)... but you Can't kill them first and then detatch.
Ie you should be able to detach, but it must be in a way that attempts to preserve the violinist (after all, they Might live, especially if you are detatching from them with the help of a medical professional, that medical professional should be duty bound to care for the violinist as much as they care for you after the detatching)
Most current abortions are about killing the baby before it detatches (ie chopping it up in bits and then vacuming it out)
As such a law that outlawed "abortion" but allowed "forced premature "birth" " would be potentially reasonable.
Currently however abortion of a "viable" fetus (depending on the state) is legal. partially because "viable" is a moving and uncertain target. (ie its legal in many cases to kill the violinist because that makes the detatchment easier, even if the violinist has a chance, even a good chance to survive the detatching)
|
Holding a dogmatic viewpoint that life begins at conception is so ridiculous and insane I'm seriously amazed TL members can hold it. I thought we were a smart community? Didn't you watch Monty Python and The Meaning of Life?
|
On November 04 2011 23:57 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2011 23:40 Brotkrumen wrote:On November 04 2011 14:30 arbitrageur wrote:On November 04 2011 11:38 sc4k wrote:
While I accept that the foetus does indeed carry the potential to turn into a human being, I believe that it is entirely the choice of the mother whether she allow this collection of cells to continue to drain her nutrients and turn into its own self or to terminate the process in favour of herself, for whatever reason. What is your reasoning for your moral position on this matter? What is your basis for the line you've drawn? Why does the happenstance of the evolution of human reproduction (the point at which the baby won't die when it's cut off from nutrients) direct your choice of criteria? In both happiness and preference utilitarianism this has been answered so: "If you are abducted against your will and hooked up to a sick but famous violinist who needs to share your kidneys for nine months, you do no wrong in detaching yourself, even if it means his death?" On November 04 2011 23:37 njnick wrote:On November 04 2011 12:50 Luepert wrote:
"In addition, doctors are required to tell women that abortions may cause infertility and that fetuses can experience pain at 20 weeks or earlier."
Is this supposed to be "later"?
Is this true? If so the law still allows causing pain to fetuses. Kind of weird they would even include that statement if they weren't even going to do anything about it.
more than likely they cannot feel pain before 24 weeks. http://www.rcog.org.uk/news/rcog-release-rcog-updates-its-guidance Neither scientific knowledge nor truth have ever prevented politicians from doing something... Well in the violinist case, you can detatch yourself (even if it would mean their death)... but you Can't kill them first and then detatch. Ie you should be able to detach, but it must be in a way that attempts to preserve the violinist (after all, they Might live, especially if you are detatching from them with the help of a medical professional, that medical professional should be duty bound to care for the violinist as much as they care for you after the detatching) Most current abortions are about killing the baby before it detatches (ie chopping it up in bits and then vacuming it out) As such a law that outlawed "abortion" but allowed "forced premature "birth" " would be potentially reasonable. Currently however abortion of a "viable" fetus (depending on the state) is legal. partially because "viable" is a moving and uncertain target. (ie its legal in many cases to kill the violinist because that makes the detatchment easier, even if the violinist has a chance, even a good chance to survive the detatching)
So are you saying that if we don't directly kill the fetus, instead just take it out of the womb and let it die of natural causes it would be ok?
|
what's the difference between consciousness that exists at t=0 and consciousness that can possibly exist at t=future? Why is it that you value t=0 consciousness more than t=future consciousness? is there a difference between the atoms that constitute a current person's brain, that you'd value, and the future configuration of atoms that this fetus will grow up into at t=future? Why does the exact point that we currently exist in on the timeline even play into this moral consideration?
Because if you use logic like that every time you ejaculate without having 10 billion children you're effectively killing 10 billion children. It's broken logic. A "person" only starts to matter when it has developed consciousness, not if it can "potentially become a human being, maybe", because that would be stupid. That's just a weird way of looking at the world. How about we go arrest someone with iron because it can "potentially become a gun and owning guns is illegal here". Makes no sense.
|
This is a step in the right direction imo
|
i feel like you should be able to know that you are pregnant and eliminate the pregnancy WELL before 20 weeks (which is more than 4 months, mind you).
|
There is no difference between a 2 week old fetus and 2 month old fetus, both, if left to mature WILL be born into this world. There is no fucking moral difference, both is murder of an innocent human being, BTW I'm am a militant atheist and I'm pro life, go figure.
|
On November 04 2011 23:57 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2011 23:40 Brotkrumen wrote:On November 04 2011 14:30 arbitrageur wrote:On November 04 2011 11:38 sc4k wrote:
While I accept that the foetus does indeed carry the potential to turn into a human being, I believe that it is entirely the choice of the mother whether she allow this collection of cells to continue to drain her nutrients and turn into its own self or to terminate the process in favour of herself, for whatever reason. What is your reasoning for your moral position on this matter? What is your basis for the line you've drawn? Why does the happenstance of the evolution of human reproduction (the point at which the baby won't die when it's cut off from nutrients) direct your choice of criteria? In both happiness and preference utilitarianism this has been answered so: "If you are abducted against your will and hooked up to a sick but famous violinist who needs to share your kidneys for nine months, you do no wrong in detaching yourself, even if it means his death?" On November 04 2011 23:37 njnick wrote:On November 04 2011 12:50 Luepert wrote:
"In addition, doctors are required to tell women that abortions may cause infertility and that fetuses can experience pain at 20 weeks or earlier."
Is this supposed to be "later"?
Is this true? If so the law still allows causing pain to fetuses. Kind of weird they would even include that statement if they weren't even going to do anything about it.
more than likely they cannot feel pain before 24 weeks. http://www.rcog.org.uk/news/rcog-release-rcog-updates-its-guidance Neither scientific knowledge nor truth have ever prevented politicians from doing something... Well in the violinist case, you can detatch yourself (even if it would mean their death)... but you Can't kill them first and then detatch. Ie you should be able to detach, but it must be in a way that attempts to preserve the violinist (after all, they Might live, especially if you are detatching from them with the help of a medical professional, that medical professional should be duty bound to care for the violinist as much as they care for you after the detatching) Most current abortions are about killing the baby before it detatches (ie chopping it up in bits and then vacuming it out) As such a law that outlawed "abortion" but allowed "forced premature "birth" " would be potentially reasonable. Currently however abortion of a "viable" fetus (depending on the state) is legal. partially because "viable" is a moving and uncertain target. (ie its legal in many cases to kill the violinist because that makes the detatchment easier, even if the violinist has a chance, even a good chance to survive the detatching)
You are completely right. This is one of the flaws of the violinist argument.
Consider this though: Being forced into this position, do you have the obligation to damage your body to prevent damage to the violinist?
If it was possible to remove the connection without damage to the unwilling host, it should be done. So it becomes a question of degree. How much damage are you obligated to accept to prevent damage to the violinist? I would say none, as you were forced into this position and force cannot constitute obligation.
Same with abortion. Sure you could remove the fetus and try to make it survive, but this would involve a more damaging and invasive surgery than the regular abortion.
On November 05 2011 00:04 Grumbels wrote:
Holding a dogmatic viewpoint that life begins at conception is so ridiculous and insane I'm seriously amazed TL members can hold it. I thought we were a smart community? Didn't you watch Monty Python and The Meaning of Life?
Actually TL has some really smart posters. They are easy to spot too. This thread is a great example: In some posts you can tell the poster does not read the academic literature on the subject, but comes up with the current arguments for the position all on his own or spots flaws in current arguments. I find this impressive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
