|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States43166 Posts
On May 17 2019 04:21 Simberto wrote:
I am seriously wondering why people don't just gtfo those medieval hellholes.
(Yes, i know that it is not that easy, but still, if i were in such a place and were planning anything that might involve a move, i would try very hard to get away from there)
Lots of them do, the problem is that despite mass migration from rural states to urban states the constitution still awards the failed rural states a disproportionate amount of political power with which to impose their failures upon the rest of the country.
|
On May 17 2019 05:53 Danglars wrote:
Just please have a bigger understanding of the religious and moral/philosophical distinction besides the tired trope of men telling women what to do with their bodies. The Alabama bill was introduced by a woman and signed by a female governor. The percentages of men and women in various pro-life positions are not crazy lopsided. You don’t want to be the man telling women that they’re doing this to take away women’s rights and give them to men. I say this even when you think that’s one aspect of the end state of affairs. It increases rancor like you aren’t really a woman based on disagreement with your political positions.
I would like even less to be the man telling them what they aren't allowed to do with their bodies. Women are perfectly free to choose to be pro-life themselves, but that is a choice I will not take from them.
|
On May 17 2019 05:53 Danglars wrote:
Just please have a bigger understanding of the religious and moral/philosophical distinction besides the tired trope of men telling women what to do with their bodies. The Alabama bill was introduced by a woman and signed by a female governor. The percentages of men and women in various pro-life positions are not crazy lopsided. You don’t want to be the man telling women that they’re doing this to take away women’s rights and give them to men. I say this even when you think that’s one aspect of the end state of affairs. It increases rancor like you aren’t really a woman based on disagreement with your political positions.
It's not a trope, it's literal history. Many (Most?) people in the US associate their opposition to abortion along biblical lines, the bible is unquestionably a patriarchal document. The new testament less so, but still unambiguously patriarchal.
That women adhere to biblical philosophies doesn't mean they can't still be misogynistic or destructive to other women.
To me the many contradictions it takes to be a "pro-life" Republican/conservative demonstrates how this is clearly more about control over women's bodies than a preservation of life. When one looks at it from that perspective there are many less contradictions in the arguments.
|
On May 17 2019 07:17 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 05:53 Danglars wrote:
Just please have a bigger understanding of the religious and moral/philosophical distinction besides the tired trope of men telling women what to do with their bodies. The Alabama bill was introduced by a woman and signed by a female governor. The percentages of men and women in various pro-life positions are not crazy lopsided. You don’t want to be the man telling women that they’re doing this to take away women’s rights and give them to men. I say this even when you think that’s one aspect of the end state of affairs. It increases rancor like you aren’t really a woman based on disagreement with your political positions. I would like even less to be the man telling them what they aren't allowed to do with their bodies. Women are perfectly free to choose to be pro-life themselves, but that is a choice I will not take from them.
I think the distinguishing point is if you think women are free to choose political positions that affect other women. It looked like you were a man telling women which political and moral dividing lines they were allowed to support. I mean, without a man calling women “anti-woman” or “anti-women’s right’s.” I think the whole storyline of betraying your own sex is overplayed and just leads to increased political rancor (which might be a goal for all I know).
|
On May 17 2019 07:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 07:17 NewSunshine wrote:On May 17 2019 05:53 Danglars wrote:
Just please have a bigger understanding of the religious and moral/philosophical distinction besides the tired trope of men telling women what to do with their bodies. The Alabama bill was introduced by a woman and signed by a female governor. The percentages of men and women in various pro-life positions are not crazy lopsided. You don’t want to be the man telling women that they’re doing this to take away women’s rights and give them to men. I say this even when you think that’s one aspect of the end state of affairs. It increases rancor like you aren’t really a woman based on disagreement with your political positions. I would like even less to be the man telling them what they aren't allowed to do with their bodies. Women are perfectly free to choose to be pro-life themselves, but that is a choice I will not take from them. I think the distinguishing point is if you think women are free to choose political positions that affect other women. It looked like you were a man telling women which political and moral dividing lines they were allowed to support. I mean, without a man calling women “anti-woman” or “anti-women’s right’s.” I think the whole storyline of betraying your own sex is overplayed and just leads to increased political rancor (which might be a goal for all I know).
I'm not telling women what to do. That's literally my point. And women are fully capable of doing things that ultimately hurt them, the same as men. In fact, I would argue that's what Trump's base did when they voted for him. It's an anti-woman bill to outright ban abortion as a healthcare resource. I'm not budging on that. As soon as men start getting pregnant, I might reconsider.
On May 17 2019 07:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 05:53 Danglars wrote:
Just please have a bigger understanding of the religious and moral/philosophical distinction besides the tired trope of men telling women what to do with their bodies. The Alabama bill was introduced by a woman and signed by a female governor. The percentages of men and women in various pro-life positions are not crazy lopsided. You don’t want to be the man telling women that they’re doing this to take away women’s rights and give them to men. I say this even when you think that’s one aspect of the end state of affairs. It increases rancor like you aren’t really a woman based on disagreement with your political positions. It's not a trope, it's literal history. Many (Most?) people in the US associate their opposition to abortion along biblical lines, the bible is unquestionably a patriarchal document. The new testament less so, but still unambiguously patriarchal. That women adhere to biblical philosophies doesn't mean they can't still be misogynistic or destructive to other women. To me the many contradictions it takes to be a "pro-life" Republican/conservative demonstrates how this is clearly more about control over women's bodies than a preservation of life. When one looks at it from that perspective there are many less contradictions in the arguments.
If I didn't manage to make it clear you do a good job of doing so.
|
On May 17 2019 06:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 04:21 Simberto wrote:
I am seriously wondering why people don't just gtfo those medieval hellholes.
(Yes, i know that it is not that easy, but still, if i were in such a place and were planning anything that might involve a move, i would try very hard to get away from there) Lots of them do, the problem is that despite mass migration from rural states to urban states the constitution still awards the failed rural states a disproportionate amount of political power with which to impose their failures upon the rest of the country.
Besides, if you're in America the medieval hellhole is very likely going to chase you if the Republicans have their way.
No abortions anywhere, that's Mike Pence's goal. I almost want to see it - from very, very far away - just to see what the introduction of such a thoughtlessly medieval mode of thought would do to things like single parenthood (cause it to skyrocket) and abandoned children (likewise).
I know progress offends some of these people, but many genies can't be put back in the bottle.
|
On May 17 2019 04:34 Nouar wrote:For me, it's the hypocrisy of valuing human life so much... but only if it comes from a US citizen, fuck immigrants. And only if they are unborn, fuck the grown poor, it's their own fault if they are poor. And we don't care anyway what shitty life they will have, raised by a raped single mother. God is a convenient excuse when it serves some interests, but the rest of the scriptures is very easily ignored. True for all religions. @ Danglars : if I need to set a bar on abortions, I would place it around 2 different times. The first is when the cerebral cortex starts working, as that's what we usually understand as "human life", conscience. Not just electrical reactions to stimuli. This is around 6 months. The second is when the would-be child is able to stay alive outside the womb (medically assisted). Probably around 6 monthes as well. Exemple timeline breakdown : www.zerotothree.orgAny later is too late, a decision should have been taken prior except in difficult cases like rape. These 6-8weeks policies are bullshit. Sometimes the mother is not even aware she is pregnant by that time. And then it gives her what. One week to take a decision she will have to deal with the rest of her life ? Just bullshit by idiot bigots thinking out of their arse, that don't realize they are destroying one life, maybe two, while they will never have to deal with the aftermath of their decision, for a belief they only care for when it's convenient and it doesn't relate to them.
This bold part is the point everyone missing.
My wife had an abortion 2 years ago. She didn't even realize till 7 weeks. In Turkey you can get an abortion in 10 weeks at most. (24 weeks if there is an anomaly) But doctors refuse if it reaches 8-9 weeks. We had to rush the decision. After 2 years, she realized she actually wanted to give birth to that child. She always says that was the worst decision she ever did. And belives thats my fault.
Unfortunately we are on the verge of divorce atm. If only we had a little more time to talk about it... I wouldn't.......
|
I am going to attempt to provide an argument against abortion.
The reason why I believe abortion to be wrong, is that if all life is to be valued; and if life also begins at conception, then abortion is murder.
I don't want to have anything to do with women's lives. I want to protect the unborn child's life. I get to have a say what she does if she is doing something which violates another person's life. We say this all the time when we lock up criminals, we don't want to say anything about their lives unless they do something which is illegal, then they face the consequences of their actions. Murder is illegal, thus abortion should be as well.
This is an argument about when life begins, not about women's reproductive health. All of our lives we are in a process of development, we are always changing and growing, and this process starts at conception. The unborn is clearly growing, starting out from cells and at the later stages of the pregnancy it resembles a human body and in many cases could survive outside of the womb. But all throughout this time of development, the unborn, at whatever stage in its growth; Just as a 1-year-old child and a 9-year-old are in radically different stages of growth; it is still alive, growing, and of the same species as us, human. If life begins at conception then I consider all life in whatever stage it is in to be equally valuable, and deserving of human rights.
Many people are comfortable with abortion 2 days after conception, but not after the unborn could survive outside of the womb. This has led many to state that human life begins at viability. There are many issues with this logically. Viability is a moving target, a premature baby in rural West-Virginia may not get the same chance of living as one born at a state of the art facility simply because of the technology available. Is the baby who was delivered successfully in one place not viable in WV, not a human life? Premature babies survive earlier and with a higher success rate, every year as the technology progresses.
I have argued with many people who consider that life begins at birth. I find this idea to be preposterous because obviously, a baby one, two, or three weeks before birth has a high chance of surviving outside of the womb. An unborn child two days before birth is not a human? If the moment they go through the birth canal is the only thing that makes us human we are ignoring all the developmental process those babies went through to get to that place where the exit the birth canal. It is like considering a tadpole to not be a tadpole until the moment it goes on land; despite the fact that it was underwater developing limbs for a significant time.
I believe in free choice. With the exception of rape, women can choose to become pregnant or not. Birth Control ( which is essentially a calculated risk because of course birth control is fallible), Not having sex, giving her child up for adoption are all options that she can make. While i sympathize with the situations behind why a woman feels she needs to have an abortion, they never outweigh the fact that the act is still murder. When do I believe abortion is acceptable? When the woman is in mortal peril ( I believe JimmiLC outlined some difficulties to determining this, and I accept that it is a difficult situation to determine and I will do more research about how that is legislated). Rape is a very difficult topic, and while I feel like it puts an enormous strain on a young woman to carry a child when they didn't choose it especially at a young age, taking another life is still not morally right even when a woman has been violated in such a heinous way. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Watching my twitter feed during the Alabama decision I knew that the only thing people would take away is, "LOOK a bunch of old white southern men are telling women what to do, they're trying to take us back to the medieval times!!" 1. It's not a woman's body we are talking about. 2. The race, sex, regional upbringing, religion, etc of those making the decision should not be the thing under question.
For the first issue, we are not talking about a part of the woman's body, but rather an unique life that is developing inside of her. Does a woman's body have twenty toes or two brains? No, the mother's body is playing the role of a special provider for the unborn child. This relationship, often incorrectly classified as parasitic, is a special symbiotic one but the child still retains its autonomy as a human life separate from the mother.
Secondly, I wish people would argue this issue on the basis of arguments for a different consideration of when life begins, rather than an emotional, sentimental, and tribal one. Do you disagree with the Alabama senate? Fine, then articulate how you think that a fetus isn't a human, but don't attack the religion or race of the state senators in Alabama. It is no different from me saying, "The black liberals in Philly raised the bridge tax again" That is a racist statement! Instead of arguing, "I think that raising taxes on the bridge toll negatively affects the working class who travel across this bridge multiple times a day." I attacked them on the basis of their race and political leaning. Saying White men should have no say in the politics of abortion is the same thing.
Sorry, this is un-exhaustive and rambly. If people respond to this I will do my best to give it a thought through reponse, but my response time may not be very fast.
|
I would think the GOP pushing a pure no abortion ever agenda would be costly. There is a sizable but notably minority that resonates with 18%. Most people on the US think abortion is fine until a point, what that point it depends on the person and how much they know about biology and their comfort level of the different procedures need for an abortion at said point.
This can be a segway for a democratic candidate to push further about healthcare. Giving birth is risky without some medically trained person assisting. Cost of births in hospitals is absurdly high without good insurance. The dems are still very interested in health care and likely to appear better than the failure of the repubs and trumps attempt at reform.
|
United States43166 Posts
Gorgonoth, if you're going to invoke the rights of the fetus on its behalf then what is to stop me invoking the rights of your semen on its behalf? The fundamental principle of non-interference in the bodily autonomy of others is at stake here. As a rule we require individuals to advocate for themselves to receive protections. For example if pigs could compellingly argue against bacon we would all be much more reluctant to eat them. But they can't and so they don't receive protections.
Your argument is built upon the claim that while the fetus cannot invoke its own rights it still has those rights and therefore you are morally justified in using force against others to deny them their bodily autonomy to protect the rights of the fetus. Let's suppose that argument works. Why can others not do the same? Why can they not invoke the rights of things you don't acknowledge to provide moral justification for their violence against you?
|
|
|
On May 17 2019 11:03 Gorgonoth wrote:I am going to attempt to provide an argument against abortion. + Show Spoiler +
The reason why I believe abortion to be wrong, is that if all life is to be valued; and if life also begins at conception, then abortion is murder.
I don't want to have anything to do with women's lives. I want to protect the unborn child's life. I get to have a say what she does if she is doing something which violates another person's life. We say this all the time when we lock up criminals, we don't want to say anything about their lives unless they do something which is illegal, then they face the consequences of their actions. Murder is illegal, thus abortion should be as well.
This is an argument about when life begins, not about women's reproductive health. All of our lives we are in a process of development, we are always changing and growing, and this process starts at conception. The unborn is clearly growing, starting out from cells and at the later stages of the pregnancy it resembles a human body and in many cases could survive outside of the womb. But all throughout this time of development, the unborn, at whatever stage in its growth; Just as a 1-year-old child and a 9-year-old are in radically different stages of growth; it is still alive, growing, and of the same species as us, human. If life begins at conception then I consider all life in whatever stage it is in to be equally valuable, and deserving of human rights.
Many people are comfortable with abortion 2 days after conception, but not after the unborn could survive outside of the womb. This has led many to state that human life begins at viability. There are many issues with this logically. Viability is a moving target, a premature baby in rural West-Virginia may not get the same chance of living as one born at a state of the art facility simply because of the technology available. Is the baby who was delivered successfully in one place not viable in WV, not a human life? Premature babies survive earlier and with a higher success rate, every year as the technology progresses.
I have argued with many people who consider that life begins at birth. I find this idea to be preposterous because obviously, a baby one, two, or three weeks before birth has a high chance of surviving outside of the womb. An unborn child two days before birth is not a human? If the moment they go through the birth canal is the only thing that makes us human we are ignoring all the developmental process those babies went through to get to that place where the exit the birth canal. It is like considering a tadpole to not be a tadpole until the moment it goes on land; despite the fact that it was underwater developing limbs for a significant time.
I believe in free choice. With the exception of rape, women can choose to become pregnant or not. Birth Control ( which is essentially a calculated risk because of course birth control is fallible), Not having sex, giving her child up for adoption are all options that she can make. While i sympathize with the situations behind why a woman feels she needs to have an abortion, they never outweigh the fact that the act is still murder. When do I believe abortion is acceptable? When the woman is in mortal peril ( I believe JimmiLC outlined some difficulties to determining this, and I accept that it is a difficult situation to determine and I will do more research about how that is legislated). Rape is a very difficult topic, and while I feel like it puts an enormous strain on a young woman to carry a child when they didn't choose it especially at a young age, taking another life is still not morally right even when a woman has been violated in such a heinous way. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Watching my twitter feed during the Alabama decision I knew that the only thing people would take away is, "LOOK a bunch of old white southern men are telling women what to do, they're trying to take us back to the medieval times!!" 1. It's not a woman's body we are talking about. 2. The race, sex, regional upbringing, religion, etc of those making the decision should not be the thing under question.
For the first issue, we are not talking about a part of the woman's body, but rather an unique life that is developing inside of her. Does a woman's body have twenty toes or two brains? No, the mother's body is playing the role of a special provider for the unborn child. This relationship, often incorrectly classified as parasitic, is a special symbiotic one but the child still retains its autonomy as a human life separate from the mother.
Secondly, I wish people would argue this issue on the basis of arguments for a different consideration of when life begins, rather than an emotional, sentimental, and tribal one. Do you disagree with the Alabama senate? Fine, then articulate how you think that a fetus isn't a human, but don't attack the religion or race of the state senators in Alabama. It is no different from me saying, "The black liberals in Philly raised the bridge tax again" That is a racist statement! Instead of arguing, "I think that raising taxes on the bridge toll negatively affects the working class who travel across this bridge multiple times a day." I attacked them on the basis of their race and political leaning. Saying White men should have no say in the politics of abortion is the same thing.
Sorry, this is un-exhaustive and rambly. If people respond to this I will do my best to give it a thought through reponse, but my response time may not be very fast.
I think you make a fair argument. I rarely talk about abortion in part because I can see both sides and know that there is no "correct" answer. It is about competing rights. It's the right of a woman to her own body versus the right of a fetus to life.
I think where you'll get push back is that anti-abortion laws do indeed stop a woman from having control over her own body. You downplay this part way too much. If a woman is pregnant, does she have the right to binge drink alcohol until she has a miscarriage/stillbirth? It's a perfectly legal "drug" which people are allowed to use in large quantities in normal circumstances. So is she now considered a murderer if she drinks until miscarriage? If yes, why did she lose her rights? If no, then what makes this different than other methods?
The simpler point is that the fetus is indeed parasitic. Most women are willing to accept the health consequences in order to have a baby, but it most definitely has a negative effect on a woman's body. I think a woman should have the right to her own body. In turn, I recognize that we are removing the right to life of a fetus. The compromise that I'd be willing to make is that if the baby is viable outside the womb, that we should put effort into extracting it and force the mother to deal with that procedure which likely isn't too much worse than the process of having an abortion.
What exactly constitutes viability could be answered by people who know the subject a lot better than me. I personally believe that if a baby could be removed and require no life support machines (just simple feeding), that we should extract and not allow abortions. However, should life-support count as viable? Could we extract a fertilized egg on day 2 and put it in a test tube until birth as a method of protecting life? The last one I disagree with. Life support seems like a more grey area to me.
You also have the issues of who the hell is going to pay for the unwanted child and we know the answer isn't Republicans, the same people who want to force that unwanted child into the world.
|
My biggest issue with the "we need to protect the fetuses" argument is that if people were really passionate about protecting fertilized eggs as human beings to the extent that anti-abortion activism demonstrates, there would be some visible level of passion towards providing better neonatal care and better health care for pregnant women from those people. If anything, there's strong correlation between strong opposition to abortion and opposition to things like better access to better neonatal, laws that make it easier for a pregnant woman to shift to lighter work while pregnant, etc.
Gorgonoth may or may not really believe that a person is a person from conception, but the overwhelming majority of people professing that belief are lying through their teeth when they say that it's their primary motivation for wanting to ban abortion, as demonstrated by the anti-abortion movement's apathy towards other things that would help the not yet born while also improving the quality of life of the expectant mother.
|
On May 17 2019 11:18 KwarK wrote:
Gorgonoth, if you're going to invoke the rights of the fetus on its behalf then what is to stop me invoking the rights of your semen on its behalf? The fundamental principle of non-interference in the bodily autonomy of others is at stake here. As a rule we require individuals to advocate for themselves to receive protections. For example if pigs could compellingly argue against bacon we would all be much more reluctant to eat them. But they can't and so they don't receive protections.
Your argument is built upon the claim that while the fetus cannot invoke its own rights it still has those rights and therefore you are morally justified in using force against others to deny them their bodily autonomy to protect the rights of the fetus. Let's suppose that argument works. Why can others not do the same? Why can they not invoke the rights of things you don't acknowledge to provide moral justification for their violence against you?
I don't want to write essays here but these two paragraphs don't make much sense to me.
The issue with your first paragraph has to do with "humanity." If you assign value to a human by virtue of being a human (as many do), then it is quite obvious why this applies to a fetus and not semen or egg alone. As a side-note, I'm not a fan of arguments about "potential."
Your second paragraph, building on the first, is also curious in that it requires the ability to invoke rights. This is certainly more vague than "is this 'clump of cells' a a biological human being or not." The question presented seems...odd. I don't think most people would be comfortable going that far, a newly born child is in no position to claim its rights either. But if that is the case, then it's preferred that such a statement is made plainly. The answer to your question
Why can others not do the same?
is certainly "do they have a legitimate claim to those rights?"
This is question, "could you do it on someone else's behalf" in and of itself, seems far less important, and the answer far more obvious.
edit: i'm purposely being very general here, in case this post comes off as vague itself. I'm curious if people are actually applying their mental faculties to these questions in any sort of sustained way and stepping back a bit helps, at least on this issue.
|
On May 17 2019 11:03 Gorgonoth wrote:
I am going to attempt to provide an argument against abortion.
The reason why I believe abortion to be wrong, is that if all life is to be valued; and if life also begins at conception, then abortion is murder.
I don't want to have anything to do with women's lives. I want to protect the unborn child's life. I get to have a say what she does if she is doing something which violates another person's life. We say this all the time when we lock up criminals, we don't want to say anything about their lives unless they do something which is illegal, then they face the consequences of their actions. Murder is illegal, thus abortion should be as well.
This is an argument about when life begins, not about women's reproductive health. All of our lives we are in a process of development, we are always changing and growing, and this process starts at conception. The unborn is clearly growing, starting out from cells and at the later stages of the pregnancy it resembles a human body and in many cases could survive outside of the womb. But all throughout this time of development, the unborn, at whatever stage in its growth; Just as a 1-year-old child and a 9-year-old are in radically different stages of growth; it is still alive, growing, and of the same species as us, human. If life begins at conception then I consider all life in whatever stage it is in to be equally valuable, and deserving of human rights.
Many people are comfortable with abortion 2 days after conception, but not after the unborn could survive outside of the womb. This has led many to state that human life begins at viability. There are many issues with this logically. Viability is a moving target, a premature baby in rural West-Virginia may not get the same chance of living as one born at a state of the art facility simply because of the technology available. Is the baby who was delivered successfully in one place not viable in WV, not a human life? Premature babies survive earlier and with a higher success rate, every year as the technology progresses.
I have argued with many people who consider that life begins at birth. I find this idea to be preposterous because obviously, a baby one, two, or three weeks before birth has a high chance of surviving outside of the womb. An unborn child two days before birth is not a human? If the moment they go through the birth canal is the only thing that makes us human we are ignoring all the developmental process those babies went through to get to that place where the exit the birth canal. It is like considering a tadpole to not be a tadpole until the moment it goes on land; despite the fact that it was underwater developing limbs for a significant time.
I believe in free choice. With the exception of rape, women can choose to become pregnant or not. Birth Control ( which is essentially a calculated risk because of course birth control is fallible), Not having sex, giving her child up for adoption are all options that she can make. While i sympathize with the situations behind why a woman feels she needs to have an abortion, they never outweigh the fact that the act is still murder. When do I believe abortion is acceptable? When the woman is in mortal peril ( I believe JimmiLC outlined some difficulties to determining this, and I accept that it is a difficult situation to determine and I will do more research about how that is legislated). Rape is a very difficult topic, and while I feel like it puts an enormous strain on a young woman to carry a child when they didn't choose it especially at a young age, taking another life is still not morally right even when a woman has been violated in such a heinous way. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Watching my twitter feed during the Alabama decision I knew that the only thing people would take away is, "LOOK a bunch of old white southern men are telling women what to do, they're trying to take us back to the medieval times!!" 1. It's not a woman's body we are talking about. 2. The race, sex, regional upbringing, religion, etc of those making the decision should not be the thing under question.
For the first issue, we are not talking about a part of the woman's body, but rather an unique life that is developing inside of her. Does a woman's body have twenty toes or two brains? No, the mother's body is playing the role of a special provider for the unborn child. This relationship, often incorrectly classified as parasitic, is a special symbiotic one but the child still retains its autonomy as a human life separate from the mother.
Secondly, I wish people would argue this issue on the basis of arguments for a different consideration of when life begins, rather than an emotional, sentimental, and tribal one. Do you disagree with the Alabama senate? Fine, then articulate how you think that a fetus isn't a human, but don't attack the religion or race of the state senators in Alabama. It is no different from me saying, "The black liberals in Philly raised the bridge tax again" That is a racist statement! Instead of arguing, "I think that raising taxes on the bridge toll negatively affects the working class who travel across this bridge multiple times a day." I attacked them on the basis of their race and political leaning. Saying White men should have no say in the politics of abortion is the same thing.
Sorry, this is un-exhaustive and rambly. If people respond to this I will do my best to give it a thought through reponse, but my response time may not be very fast.
Thank you for sharing you opinion. I don't think it was rambly. All the points you brought up were needed to avoid the kind of questions that always follow.
If all abortion is wrong, is there also a compromise at the early weeks that you agree with when the woman may obtain an abortion? Does this extend to abortifacient drugs, which may expel a recently implanted, fertilized egg from the mother's uterus?
I sympathize with your views on the political invective coming from extreme elements of the pro-choice left.
|
United States43166 Posts
On May 17 2019 11:54 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 11:18 KwarK wrote:
Gorgonoth, if you're going to invoke the rights of the fetus on its behalf then what is to stop me invoking the rights of your semen on its behalf? The fundamental principle of non-interference in the bodily autonomy of others is at stake here. As a rule we require individuals to advocate for themselves to receive protections. For example if pigs could compellingly argue against bacon we would all be much more reluctant to eat them. But they can't and so they don't receive protections.
Your argument is built upon the claim that while the fetus cannot invoke its own rights it still has those rights and therefore you are morally justified in using force against others to deny them their bodily autonomy to protect the rights of the fetus. Let's suppose that argument works. Why can others not do the same? Why can they not invoke the rights of things you don't acknowledge to provide moral justification for their violence against you? I don't want to write essays here but these two paragraphs don't make much sense to me. The issue with your first paragraph has to do with "humanity." If you assign value to a human by virtue of being a human (as many do), then it is quite obvious why this applies to a fetus and not semen or egg alone. As a side-note, I'm not a fan of arguments about "potential." Your second paragraph, building on the first, is also curious in that it requires the ability to invoke rights. This is certainly more vague than "is this 'clump of cells' a a biological human being or not." The question presented seems...odd. I don't think most people would be comfortable going that far, a newly born child is in no position to claim its rights either. But if that is the case, then it's preferred that such a statement is made plainly. The answer to your question is certainly "do they have a legitimate claim to those rights?" This is question, "could you do it on someone else's behalf" seems far less important, and the answer far more obvious.
We don't give newborn children rights that supersede the autonomy of nearby adults. We don't mandate that people donate organs or blood to them. The entire issue of whether a newborn could advocate for its own rights is irrelevant because nobody is seeking to give them these rights.
Whereas a lot of people are advocating on behalf of fetuses to give them rights that supersede the autonomy of others, and with a rationale that is wholly undefined, often mystical, and without any obvious limit. If we can control people because of ensoulment at conception then we can control people for a lot of other equally spurious reasons.
It is also entirely unclear to me why you're arguing that semen shouldn't count as human genetic material but that an egg should. Especially if you don't want to get into potential as both have potential but neither is a person. Surely you would have to get into potential, at which point you'd have to work out how much potential is enough. If you refuse to get into potential personhood then we're agreed that neither is a person and we can all go home early.
Ultimately you can have whatever crazy beliefs you want and I can have whatever crazy beliefs I want but you shouldn't be able to limit my bodily autonomy with your beliefs about shit and I shouldn't be able to limit yours. Or if we are going to mandate this stuff then organ donations would be a far better place to start. One of the reasons that this always seems to be about controlling women is because the only time sacrifice of bodily autonomy is demanded is exclusively a women's issue.
|
On May 17 2019 11:18 KwarK wrote:
Gorgonoth, if you're going to invoke the rights of the fetus on its behalf then what is to stop me invoking the rights of your semen on its behalf? The fundamental principle of non-interference in the bodily autonomy of others is at stake here. As a rule we require individuals to advocate for themselves to receive protections. For example if pigs could compellingly argue against bacon we would all be much more reluctant to eat them. But they can't and so they don't receive protections.
Your argument is built upon the claim that while the fetus cannot invoke its own rights it still has those rights and therefore you are morally justified in using force against others to deny them their bodily autonomy to protect the rights of the fetus. Let's suppose that argument works. Why can others not do the same? Why can they not invoke the rights of things you don't acknowledge to provide moral justification for their violence against you?
Hey. If I am understanding what you're saying, In order for something to be protected, it must be able to advocate and argue its value for itself. Would this by proxy also mean that any person unable to articulate a defense of himself lose rights? What is stopping the termination of those with mental disabilities since they are not able to advocate for themselves?
What is stopping you from invoking my semen's rights on their behalf ( although thanks for the thought) is that they don't receive protection under U.S law, while human life does. I am invoking the right of the fetus because human life is protected In the Bill of Rights and I would mount a defense that life begins at conception. Also, a broader, personal reason being that I believe each human life is valuable.
Your argument is built upon the claim that while the fetus cannot invoke its own rights it still has those rights and therefore you are morally justified in using force against others to deny them their bodily autonomy to protect the rights of the fetus. Let's suppose that argument works. Why can others not do the same? Why can they not invoke the rights of things you don't acknowledge to provide moral justification for their violence against you?
Yes, I believe while a fetus can not defend itself it possesses rights because it is human life. I am not sure where you got the idea I advocated using force to stop abortions. I do not believe abortion should be a legal procedure, but If I were to harm a pregnant woman trying to perform an abortion that would not be right either.
Others can and do the same to me, and I am glad for it! If I, using my bodily autonomy, use a shotgun to kill someone, I will suffer the consequences for using my bodily autonomy in a way that is harmful to others. When a pregnant mother exercises bodily autonomy in a way that kills another human, that is wrong.
The US functions in a way that certain rights are accepted and others not. Human life is accepted as protected, but pigs, or semen or pet rocks are not. If person A says that he acknowledges the rights of pigs, and that I shouldn't eat them, he is entitled to his opinion, but Article 14 of the constitution says human life is protected, not pigs; and if he tried to kill me for doing that, he will face a consequence himself.
|
On May 17 2019 12:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 11:54 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 11:18 KwarK wrote:
Gorgonoth, if you're going to invoke the rights of the fetus on its behalf then what is to stop me invoking the rights of your semen on its behalf? The fundamental principle of non-interference in the bodily autonomy of others is at stake here. As a rule we require individuals to advocate for themselves to receive protections. For example if pigs could compellingly argue against bacon we would all be much more reluctant to eat them. But they can't and so they don't receive protections.
Your argument is built upon the claim that while the fetus cannot invoke its own rights it still has those rights and therefore you are morally justified in using force against others to deny them their bodily autonomy to protect the rights of the fetus. Let's suppose that argument works. Why can others not do the same? Why can they not invoke the rights of things you don't acknowledge to provide moral justification for their violence against you? I don't want to write essays here but these two paragraphs don't make much sense to me. The issue with your first paragraph has to do with "humanity." If you assign value to a human by virtue of being a human (as many do), then it is quite obvious why this applies to a fetus and not semen or egg alone. As a side-note, I'm not a fan of arguments about "potential." Your second paragraph, building on the first, is also curious in that it requires the ability to invoke rights. This is certainly more vague than "is this 'clump of cells' a a biological human being or not." The question presented seems...odd. I don't think most people would be comfortable going that far, a newly born child is in no position to claim its rights either. But if that is the case, then it's preferred that such a statement is made plainly. The answer to your question Why can others not do the same? is certainly "do they have a legitimate claim to those rights?" This is question, "could you do it on someone else's behalf" seems far less important, and the answer far more obvious. We don't give newborn children rights that supersede the autonomy of nearby adults. We don't mandate that people donate organs or blood to them. The entire issue of whether a newborn could advocate for its own rights is irrelevant because nobody is seeking to give them these rights. Whereas a lot of people are advocating on behalf of fetuses to give them rights that supersede the autonomy of others. It is also entirely unclear to me why you're arguing that semen shouldn't count as human genetic material but that an egg should. Especially if you don't want to get into potential as both have potential but neither is a person. Surely you would have to get into potential, at which point you'd have to work out how much potential is enough. If you refuse to get into potential personhood then we're agreed that neither is a person and we can all go home early. Ultimately you can have whatever crazy beliefs you want and I can have whatever crazy beliefs I want but you shouldn't be able to limit my bodily autonomy with your beliefs about shit and I shouldn't be able to limit yours. Or if we are going to mandate this stuff then organ donations would be a far better place to start. One of the reasons that this always seems to be about controlling women is because the only time sacrifice of bodily autonomy is demanded is exclusively a women's issue.
We are balancing rights, as the phrase goes "no right is absolute." Moreover, in the case of abortion, there is a good argument that you have surrendered some of your rights when you became pregnant, by accident or not. And the right to live is at the top of the list, for the obvious reason that if don't have the right to live you don't have any rights at all. So in our moral consideration the most important question is "does this entity have the right to live?"
Therefore, by saying "neither is a person" you have already assumed the answer! If I chopped off your arm no one would argue that I'm violating the rights of your arm and not you. Meanwhile if you believe that a fetus is an entity entitled to human rights then it becomes perfectly obvious, perhaps even necessary, to advocate on its behalf and to pass laws banning certain practices, as is the case for other issues in every democratic country in the world. It's a tired example, but we have laws against murder. That's what this is, this also is partially why all these laws target the doctors and not the mothers.
I would be content if more of the pro-choice side could admit this is the question we are dealing with, instead of assuming the premises and then asking why everyone who disagrees is so wrong. Nothing said above is complicated or novel, but it is a harder question.
|
United States43166 Posts
On May 17 2019 12:14 Gorgonoth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 11:18 KwarK wrote:
Gorgonoth, if you're going to invoke the rights of the fetus on its behalf then what is to stop me invoking the rights of your semen on its behalf? The fundamental principle of non-interference in the bodily autonomy of others is at stake here. As a rule we require individuals to advocate for themselves to receive protections. For example if pigs could compellingly argue against bacon we would all be much more reluctant to eat them. But they can't and so they don't receive protections.
Your argument is built upon the claim that while the fetus cannot invoke its own rights it still has those rights and therefore you are morally justified in using force against others to deny them their bodily autonomy to protect the rights of the fetus. Let's suppose that argument works. Why can others not do the same? Why can they not invoke the rights of things you don't acknowledge to provide moral justification for their violence against you? Hey. If I am understanding what you're saying, In order for something to be protected, it must be able to advocate and argue its value for itself. Would this by proxy also mean that any person unable to articulate a defense of himself lose rights? What is stopping the termination of those with mental disabilities since they are not able to advocate for themselves? What is stopping you from invoking my semen's rights on their behalf ( although thanks for the thought) is that they don't receive protection under U.S law, while human life does. I am invoking the right of the fetus because human life is protected In the Bill of Rights and I would mount a defense that life begins at conception. Also, a broader, personal reason being that I believe each human life is valuable. Show nested quote +Your argument is built upon the claim that while the fetus cannot invoke its own rights it still has those rights and therefore you are morally justified in using force against others to deny them their bodily autonomy to protect the rights of the fetus. Let's suppose that argument works. Why can others not do the same? Why can they not invoke the rights of things you don't acknowledge to provide moral justification for their violence against you? Yes, I believe while a fetus can not defend itself it possesses rights because it is human life. I am not sure where you got the idea I advocated using force to stop abortions. I do not believe abortion should be a legal procedure, but If I were to harm a pregnant woman trying to perform an abortion that would not be right either. Others can and do the same to me, and I am glad for it! If I, using my bodily autonomy, use a shotgun to kill someone, I will suffer the consequences for using my bodily autonomy in a way that is harmful to others. When a pregnant mother exercises bodily autonomy in a way that kills another human, that is wrong. The US functions in a way that certain rights are accepted and others not. Human life is accepted as protected, but pigs, or semen or pet rocks are not. If person A says that he acknowledges the rights of pigs, and that I shouldn't eat them, he is entitled to his opinion, but Article 14 of the constitution says human life is protected, not pigs; and if he tried to kill me for doing that, he will face a consequence himself.
How many disabled people do you know who currently inhabit wombs? It's a non issue. Nobody except the extreme right is advocating for the termination of the disabled, there is no bodily autonomy conflict with the disabled. My point is that it's nothing to do with you and it doesn't involve you. And that if you give yourself permission to override the bodily autonomy of others on behalf of third parties then that's opening a box you will not like. You are a third party to a pregnancy and I suspect that, in general, you would oppose giving third parties control over bodily autonomy. Anti-miscegenation laws are in that box, for example.
A fetus isn't human life. It's human genetic material, just as semen is. Your belief that a fetus deserves legal protection ranks alongside my hypothetical response that semen does too. And blueballs would be far less of an imposition upon men than pregnancy is to women. Perhaps as a concession you'd be prepared to ban masturbation alongside abortion as a show of good faith? The anti-onanism crowd are asking far less of men than the anti-abortion crowd ask of women, and have far more biblical support for their arguments.
Advocating for illegality is advocating for the use of force. That's how laws are enforced. It's intellectually dishonest to say "I don't want force to be used against people who do it, I just want it to be illegal".
|
United States43166 Posts
On May 17 2019 12:23 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 12:02 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 11:54 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 11:18 KwarK wrote:
Gorgonoth, if you're going to invoke the rights of the fetus on its behalf then what is to stop me invoking the rights of your semen on its behalf? The fundamental principle of non-interference in the bodily autonomy of others is at stake here. As a rule we require individuals to advocate for themselves to receive protections. For example if pigs could compellingly argue against bacon we would all be much more reluctant to eat them. But they can't and so they don't receive protections.
Your argument is built upon the claim that while the fetus cannot invoke its own rights it still has those rights and therefore you are morally justified in using force against others to deny them their bodily autonomy to protect the rights of the fetus. Let's suppose that argument works. Why can others not do the same? Why can they not invoke the rights of things you don't acknowledge to provide moral justification for their violence against you? I don't want to write essays here but these two paragraphs don't make much sense to me. The issue with your first paragraph has to do with "humanity." If you assign value to a human by virtue of being a human (as many do), then it is quite obvious why this applies to a fetus and not semen or egg alone. As a side-note, I'm not a fan of arguments about "potential." Your second paragraph, building on the first, is also curious in that it requires the ability to invoke rights. This is certainly more vague than "is this 'clump of cells' a a biological human being or not." The question presented seems...odd. I don't think most people would be comfortable going that far, a newly born child is in no position to claim its rights either. But if that is the case, then it's preferred that such a statement is made plainly. The answer to your question Why can others not do the same? is certainly "do they have a legitimate claim to those rights?" This is question, "could you do it on someone else's behalf" seems far less important, and the answer far more obvious. We don't give newborn children rights that supersede the autonomy of nearby adults. We don't mandate that people donate organs or blood to them. The entire issue of whether a newborn could advocate for its own rights is irrelevant because nobody is seeking to give them these rights. Whereas a lot of people are advocating on behalf of fetuses to give them rights that supersede the autonomy of others. It is also entirely unclear to me why you're arguing that semen shouldn't count as human genetic material but that an egg should. Especially if you don't want to get into potential as both have potential but neither is a person. Surely you would have to get into potential, at which point you'd have to work out how much potential is enough. If you refuse to get into potential personhood then we're agreed that neither is a person and we can all go home early. Ultimately you can have whatever crazy beliefs you want and I can have whatever crazy beliefs I want but you shouldn't be able to limit my bodily autonomy with your beliefs about shit and I shouldn't be able to limit yours. Or if we are going to mandate this stuff then organ donations would be a far better place to start. One of the reasons that this always seems to be about controlling women is because the only time sacrifice of bodily autonomy is demanded is exclusively a women's issue. We are balancing rights, as the phrase goes "no right is absolute." Moreover, in the case of abortion, there is a good argument that you have surrendered some of your rights when you became pregnant, by accident or not. And the right to live is at the top of the list, for the obvious reason that if don't have the right to live you don't have any rights at all. So in our moral consideration the most important question is "does this entity have the right to live?" Therefore, by saying "neither is a person" you have already assumed the answer! If I chopped off your arm no one would argue that I'm violating the rights of your arm and not you. Meanwhile if you believe that a fetus is an entity entitled to human rights then it becomes perfectly obvious, perhaps even necessary, to advocate on its behalf and to pass laws banning certain practices, as is the case for other issues in every democratic country in the world. It's a tired example, but we have laws against murder. That's what this is, this also is partially why all these laws target the doctors and not the mothers. I would be content if more of the pro-choice side could admit this is the question we are dealing with, instead of assuming the premises and then asking why everyone who disagrees is so wrong. Nothing said above is complicated or novel, but it is a harder question.
There's no reasonable basis for considering a fetus, in the early stages, as a person. Not before it has synapses. Not before it's anything more than meat. The value it has is the value of the potential. It is precious because of what it can become, not what it is.
Neither is a person. That's simply the reality of it. If you want to make an argument from conception then I highly recommend you go for explaining that an embryo has distinct DNA separate from the mother. But don't try to convince me that the cells are a person when they have all the sentience and life of a barber shop floor.
I'd also like to correct you on your terminology when you claim that women have surrendered some of their rights because that is at the heart of the issue. The women getting abortions haven't surrendered, they still consider themselves entitled to get an abortion, they still believe they have those rights. If they'd surrendered we wouldn't have an argument, I have no interest in compelling someone who doesn't believe themselves entitled to get an abortion to get an abortion. Your goal is to use force to strip these women of a right they believe they have. You are attempting to creatively frame it as if they have already made a decision to abdicate that right but it is obvious from their conduct that they have done so such thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
