|
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 |
On May 17 2019 11:51 Kyadytim wrote:
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.
The "we need to protect the fetuses" argument is based on arguing for A) when life begins B) that human life is valuable. You seem to be insinuating that the validity of this argument is determined on the arguers' emotional response towards the issues of women's health (neonatal and pregnant health care) And you make a correlation, (one which I can neither refute or agree with because I have no data on whether that is true) between those who make pro-life arguments and opposition to these QOL laws for pregnant women.
To be clear, Yes, yes and yes we should be doing way more for pregnant women and supporting them much more.
However, the lack or abundance of this empathy does not itself mean affect the validity of the pro-life argument.
The same is true of me as well, If I am considering a principle, say UBI, my support or lack of support for it should not be based on the type of people who support it. Correlation is not causation. Just because all UBI supporters I come across seem arrogant( not true) and stuck up does not mean that this makes UBI any more or less valid.
|
United States42775 Posts
On May 17 2019 12:35 Gorgonoth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 11:51 Kyadytim wrote:
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. The "we need to protect the fetuses" argument is based on arguing for A) when life begins B) that human life is valuable. You seem to be insinuating that the validity of this argument is determined on the arguers' emotional response towards the issues of women's health (neonatal and pregnant health care) And you make a correlation, (one which I can neither refute or agree with because I have no data on whether that is true) between those who make pro-life arguments and opposition to these QOL laws for pregnant women. To be clear, Yes, yes and yes we should be doing way more for pregnant women and supporting them much more. However, the lack or abundance of this empathy does not itself mean affect the validity of the pro-life argument.
The same is true of me as well, If I am considering a principle, say UBI, my support or lack of support for it should not be based on the type of people who support it. Correlation is not causation. Just because all UBI supporters I come across seem arrogant( not true) and stuck up does not mean that this makes UBI any more or less valid.
You can't live in America and have no data on whether pro-lifers are supportive of increasing access to medical care and maternity leave. Both issues are very clearly delineated by party and you know damn well how the pro-life party feels about Federally mandated maternity leave.
You're pleading ignorance in lieu of conceding the point. The point stands either way, the plea of ignorance just makes you either stupid, dishonest, or both.
|
On May 17 2019 12:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 12:23 Introvert wrote: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.
Good heavens, you are ever so tiresome when you act as if you want a discussion but actually don't. I apologize for taking the questions in your original post as serious and not satirical or rhetorical.
As to the second bit- well they have surrendered. The act of becoming pregnant was the surrender, even if they wished to take it back (this counts for the father as well, he has his own part in this). The act has been done, the keys to the castle have been given up. Moreover, I find your repeated use of the word "force" to be highly assuming, as if it all state protected rights aren't protected in that way (as you said above!). So again, acting indignant with the language is a bullsh*t attempt to rhetorically pummel someone instead of argue. If the unborn are entitled to rights then yes, it will be protected with... force! You won't find me shrinking from that line.
|
United States42775 Posts
On May 17 2019 12:46 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 12:32 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 12:23 Introvert wrote: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. Good heavens, you are ever so tiresome when you act as if you want a discussion but actually don't. I apologize for taking the questions in your original post as serious and not satirical or rhetorical. As to the second bit- well they have surrendered. The act of becoming pregnant was the surrender, even if they wished to take it back (this counts for the father as well, he has his own part in this). The act has been done, the keys to the castle have been given up. Moreover, I find your repeated use of the word "force" to be highly assuming, as if it all state protected rights aren't protected in that way (as you said above!). So again, acting indignant with the language is a bullsh*t attempt to rhetorically pummel someone instead of argue. If the unborn are entitled to rights then yes, it will be protected with.. force! You won't find me shrinking from that line.
To your first paragraph "no u". I note that you have declined to contest the point that an embryo is a human though. You could have gone with the DNA thing, a lot of people do, but instead you're going to pretend that your failure to respond is dignified. You could have even have gone with potential life. Anything would have been better than the idiocy you went with.
If they'd surrendered then they wouldn't be fighting. What you're trying to say is that within your moral code you think they ought to have surrendered by now and therefore when you use force against them it's not really force, it's just restoring them to their proper state of surrendering which really, in your world, they'd already done. It's rhetorical nonsense. You can't decide if other people have surrendered a right on their behalf. If you want to strip a right from them then own that, strip it.
The language matters because stripping a right from another is a very different issue to a person voluntarily giving up that right. You choose to use surrender because it moves the blame from you to the target of your laws. I'm insisting that you use another word because their lack of surrender is the reason you need the laws in the first place, it is a precursor for this argument. There is no surrender, that is why you wish to send in the police to force these people to do as you want. You believe "the keys to the castle" should have been given up but it is evident that they have not been because they're still living in the castle and trying to evict the new guys. You can't claim that they have surrendered the castle while advocating for a law to send the police to evict them from said castle.
|
On May 17 2019 12:46 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 12:32 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 12:23 Introvert wrote: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. Good heavens, you are ever so tiresome when you act as if you want a discussion but actually don't. I apologize for taking the questions in your original post as serious and not satirical or rhetorical. As to the second bit- well they have surrendered. The act of becoming pregnant was the surrender, even if they wished to take it back (this counts for the father as well, he has his own part in this). The act has been done, the keys to the castle have been given up. Moreover, I find your repeated use of the word "force" to be highly assuming, as if it all state protected rights aren't protected in that way (as you said above!). So again, acting indignant with the language is a bullsh*t attempt to rhetorically pummel someone instead of argue. If the unborn are entitled to rights then yes, it will be protected with... force! You won't find me shrinking from that line.
So the victim of rape surrendered as well?
|
On May 17 2019 12:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 12:14 Gorgonoth 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? 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. 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".
No, it is not a non-issue. You stated that As a rule we require individuals to advocate for themselves to receive protections. If you use that logic, then suddenly anyone and everything that cannot advocate for itself may not be protected. It dosen't matter who is or who isnt advocating for the termination of the disabled, the fact is that they could be considered not to have human rights because of your definition.
My point is that it's nothing to do with you and it doesn't involve you. Abortion concerns me just as much as your neighbor murdering another one of your neighbors does to you. Murder is illegal. You have an interest in murder being illegal because you want a society where murder is not seen as a valid exercise of bodily autonomy.
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. As I stated before, I do give up some bodily autonomy in order to conform to US law. If I had ultimate freedom, I could take a steak knife out of the kitchen and stab the nearest person I saw. And I still can in some ways, but I will suffer the appropriate consequence. Yup, I will give the government, a "third party" some control over my bodily autonomy because it means a safer place to live in. The law has changed with Anti-miscgenation, and I am glad they have. I have a claim to give my vote and opinon on somone else not being able to kill their unborn child because we each have a voice to support what we think is right. Just like we all agree that stabbing is wrong, and all act as third parties to each other in saying that stabbing is wrong.
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.
A fetus is human life and is elevated above semen for example, because it is the first step in the developmental process of a human. A 20 year old male can't exist without one time being a child, then a viable human baby inside the womb, then a zygote. Sperm may or may not lead to human life, but a zygote necessarily will start on a path to human life.
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"
Right, I thought you meant personal force. I do advocate for the illegality of it.
|
United States42775 Posts
Gorgonoth, none of your stuff about how an embryo is on one side of a line but semen is on the other is anything more than your personal belief. You're going to have to do much better than that. They're both human reproductive material. If you wish to use the line in a debate as a foundation for your argument then you need to prove the line. You can't just declare the line and expect everyone else to accept it.
It's the "God exists because the Bible tells me so" of arguments. It only works if you already believe in it. Most fertilized eggs don't make it and even if they did there's no reason to consider that the start when there's eggs, semen, and sex to consider.
On the rest of it with murder and steak knives etc, you're failing to understand the bodily autonomy aspect. The principle is that we are free to control our own bodies but not to control that of others. At no point does that argument allow for murder of others or stabbing or any other kind of infringement on the bodies of others. You can't get from "people should control what happens to their own bodies" to anyone could just murder anyone else. One does not follow from the other.
Person A killing person B is not wrong because it may offend person C, it's wrong because it is an imposition upon person B. If person B is fine with it, for example they have a degenerative disease, then person C can fuck off. Person C is not entitled to exercise the rights of person B on person B's behalf.
|
On May 17 2019 12:59 Gorgonoth wrote:
As I stated before, I do give up some bodily autonomy in order to conform to US law. If I had ultimate freedom, I could take a steak knife out of the kitchen and stab the nearest person I saw. And I still can in some ways, but I will suffer the appropriate consequence. Yup, I will give the government, a "third party" some control over my bodily autonomy because it means a safer place to live in. The law has changed with Anti-miscgenation, and I am glad they have. I have a claim to give my vote and opinon on somone else not being able to kill their unborn child because we each have a voice to support what we think is right. Just like we all agree that stabbing is wrong, and all act as third parties to each other in saying that stabbing is wrong.
What if that person has forcibly attached a tube to you that drains nutrition from your body and puts your life in some danger? Do you have a right to separate yourself from that person by force? Are you really suggesting that I can tap your bloodstream or digestive system against your will and take for myself? You have no recourse except to not let me attach my tube in the first place, but once it's there, too bad?
|
On May 17 2019 12:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 12:35 Gorgonoth wrote:On May 17 2019 11:51 Kyadytim wrote:
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. The "we need to protect the fetuses" argument is based on arguing for A) when life begins B) that human life is valuable. You seem to be insinuating that the validity of this argument is determined on the arguers' emotional response towards the issues of women's health (neonatal and pregnant health care) And you make a correlation, (one which I can neither refute or agree with because I have no data on whether that is true) between those who make pro-life arguments and opposition to these QOL laws for pregnant women. To be clear, Yes, yes and yes we should be doing way more for pregnant women and supporting them much more. However, the lack or abundance of this empathy does not itself mean affect the validity of the pro-life argument.
The same is true of me as well, If I am considering a principle, say UBI, my support or lack of support for it should not be based on the type of people who support it. Correlation is not causation. Just because all UBI supporters I come across seem arrogant( not true) and stuck up does not mean that this makes UBI any more or less valid. You can't live in America and have no data on whether pro-lifers are supportive of increasing access to medical care and maternity leave. Both issues are very clearly delineated by party and you know damn well how the pro-life party feels about Federally mandated maternity leave. You're pleading ignorance in lieu of conceding the point. The point stands either way, the plea of ignorance just makes you either stupid, dishonest, or both.
So you are now just attacking my character, but it doesn't bother me because you are just proving my point that I laid out in my original argument. The reason I said that I had no data is the point I was making is irrelevant to the whatever the data would say. Even if we conceded that the GOP's entire policy is horrible towards pregnant women etc. That dosen't matter to the core of the argument about abortion. That is why I said
To be clear, Yes, yes and yes we should be doing way more for pregnant women and supporting them much more.
However, the lack or abundance of this empathy does not itself mean affect the validity of the pro-life argument.
Should pro-life supporters also support access to medical care for pregnant women? Yes!
If they do not, does this mean that their pro-life argument is invalid? No!
I am not going to sweepingly agree to data that I haven't looked carefully over yet. It really dosen't bother me that you think I am ignorant because I wouldn't clearly come down on one side or another about which party does the worst.
|
United States42775 Posts
On May 17 2019 13:10 Gorgonoth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 12:42 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 12:35 Gorgonoth wrote:On May 17 2019 11:51 Kyadytim wrote:
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. The "we need to protect the fetuses" argument is based on arguing for A) when life begins B) that human life is valuable. You seem to be insinuating that the validity of this argument is determined on the arguers' emotional response towards the issues of women's health (neonatal and pregnant health care) And you make a correlation, (one which I can neither refute or agree with because I have no data on whether that is true) between those who make pro-life arguments and opposition to these QOL laws for pregnant women. To be clear, Yes, yes and yes we should be doing way more for pregnant women and supporting them much more. However, the lack or abundance of this empathy does not itself mean affect the validity of the pro-life argument.
The same is true of me as well, If I am considering a principle, say UBI, my support or lack of support for it should not be based on the type of people who support it. Correlation is not causation. Just because all UBI supporters I come across seem arrogant( not true) and stuck up does not mean that this makes UBI any more or less valid. You can't live in America and have no data on whether pro-lifers are supportive of increasing access to medical care and maternity leave. Both issues are very clearly delineated by party and you know damn well how the pro-life party feels about Federally mandated maternity leave. You're pleading ignorance in lieu of conceding the point. The point stands either way, the plea of ignorance just makes you either stupid, dishonest, or both. So you are now just attacking my character, but it doesn't bother me because you are just proving my point that I laid out in my original argument. The reason I said that I had no data is the point I was making is irrelevant to the whatever the data would say. Even if we conceded that the GOP's entire policy is horrible towards pregnant women etc. That dosen't matter to the core of the argument about abortion. That is why I said To be clear, Yes, yes and yes we should be doing way more for pregnant women and supporting them much more. However, the lack or abundance of this empathy does not itself mean affect the validity of the pro-life argument.
Should pro-life supporters also support access to medical care for pregnant women? Yes! If they do not, does this mean that their pro-life argument is invalid? No! I am not going to sweepingly agree to data that I haven't looked carefully over yet. It really dosen't bother me that you think I am ignorant because I wouldn't clearly come down on one side or another about which party does the worst.
If you don't want to be accused of dishonestly claiming ignorance over the stances of major US political parties I would recommend against dishonestly claiming ignorance over the stances of major US political parties. If it's not important to the core of the argument then concede the point and move past it, don't lie about it.
If you do want to dishonestly claim ignorance then don't insist it's an attack on your character. It's not. It's just your character. I'm not saying your argument is wrong because you're dishonestly claiming ignorance, I'm just calling you out because of your dishonest claims of ignorance. Your argument about abortion is wrong regardless of your dishonesty.
|
On May 17 2019 12:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 12:46 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 12:32 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 12:23 Introvert wrote: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. Good heavens, you are ever so tiresome when you act as if you want a discussion but actually don't. I apologize for taking the questions in your original post as serious and not satirical or rhetorical. As to the second bit- well they have surrendered. The act of becoming pregnant was the surrender, even if they wished to take it back (this counts for the father as well, he has his own part in this). The act has been done, the keys to the castle have been given up. Moreover, I find your repeated use of the word "force" to be highly assuming, as if it all state protected rights aren't protected in that way (as you said above!). So again, acting indignant with the language is a bullsh*t attempt to rhetorically pummel someone instead of argue. If the unborn are entitled to rights then yes, it will be protected with.. force! You won't find me shrinking from that line. To your first paragraph "no u". I note that you have declined to contest the point that an embryo is a human though. You could have gone with the DNA thing, a lot of people do, but instead you're going to pretend that your failure to respond is dignified. You could have even have gone with potential life. Anything would have been better than the idiocy you went with. If they'd surrendered then they wouldn't be fighting. What you're trying to say is that within your moral code you think they ought to have surrendered by now and therefore when you use force against them it's not really force, it's just restoring them to their proper state of surrendering which really, in your world, they'd already done. It's rhetorical nonsense. You can't decide if other people have surrendered a right on their behalf. If you want to strip a right from them then own that, strip it. The language matters because stripping a right from another is a very different issue to a person voluntarily giving up that right. You choose to use surrender because it moves the blame from you to the target of your laws. I'm insisting that you use another word because their lack of surrender is the reason you need the laws in the first place, it is a precursor for this argument. There is no surrender, that is why you wish to send in the police to force these people to do as you want. You believe "the keys to the castle" should have been given up but it is evident that they have not been because they're still living in the castle and trying to evict the new guys. You can't claim that they have surrendered the castle while advocating for a law to send the police to evict them from said castle.
Of course I declined. I said my goal was to at least show that that particular issue was actually the relevant one. To that you replied
There's no reasonable basis for considering a fetus, in the early stages, as a person.
Why should I go further. Not only are the people who disagree wrong, they are unreasonable! So why should I have continued? Do you notice when this happens or not?
In my framing, the use of surrender has not moved the blame, the "blame" belongs to the parents, whether they acknowledge it or not. The child has rights that must be accounted for vis-a-vis the parents' rights. The laws are a recognition of reality, not a change in responsibility. But if you like you may replace "surrender" with " knowingly or unknowingly forfeit."
On May 17 2019 12:56 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 12:46 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 12:32 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 12:23 Introvert wrote: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. Good heavens, you are ever so tiresome when you act as if you want a discussion but actually don't. I apologize for taking the questions in your original post as serious and not satirical or rhetorical. As to the second bit- well they have surrendered. The act of becoming pregnant was the surrender, even if they wished to take it back (this counts for the father as well, he has his own part in this). The act has been done, the keys to the castle have been given up. Moreover, I find your repeated use of the word "force" to be highly assuming, as if it all state protected rights aren't protected in that way (as you said above!). So again, acting indignant with the language is a bullsh*t attempt to rhetorically pummel someone instead of argue. If the unborn are entitled to rights then yes, it will be protected with... force! You won't find me shrinking from that line. So the victim of rape surrendered as well?
Yes, that's obviously what I meant. Hard cases make bad law my friend! One day we can get to the incredibly small percentage of abortions that come from rape because in my formulation of balancing rights the situation has clearly changed (though not enough to obviously override the previous calculation).
+ Show Spoiler +Note: that's not what I meant.
|
United States42775 Posts
On May 17 2019 13:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 12:54 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 12:46 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 12:32 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 12:23 Introvert wrote: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. Good heavens, you are ever so tiresome when you act as if you want a discussion but actually don't. I apologize for taking the questions in your original post as serious and not satirical or rhetorical. As to the second bit- well they have surrendered. The act of becoming pregnant was the surrender, even if they wished to take it back (this counts for the father as well, he has his own part in this). The act has been done, the keys to the castle have been given up. Moreover, I find your repeated use of the word "force" to be highly assuming, as if it all state protected rights aren't protected in that way (as you said above!). So again, acting indignant with the language is a bullsh*t attempt to rhetorically pummel someone instead of argue. If the unborn are entitled to rights then yes, it will be protected with.. force! You won't find me shrinking from that line. To your first paragraph "no u". I note that you have declined to contest the point that an embryo is a human though. You could have gone with the DNA thing, a lot of people do, but instead you're going to pretend that your failure to respond is dignified. You could have even have gone with potential life. Anything would have been better than the idiocy you went with. If they'd surrendered then they wouldn't be fighting. What you're trying to say is that within your moral code you think they ought to have surrendered by now and therefore when you use force against them it's not really force, it's just restoring them to their proper state of surrendering which really, in your world, they'd already done. It's rhetorical nonsense. You can't decide if other people have surrendered a right on their behalf. If you want to strip a right from them then own that, strip it. The language matters because stripping a right from another is a very different issue to a person voluntarily giving up that right. You choose to use surrender because it moves the blame from you to the target of your laws. I'm insisting that you use another word because their lack of surrender is the reason you need the laws in the first place, it is a precursor for this argument. There is no surrender, that is why you wish to send in the police to force these people to do as you want. You believe "the keys to the castle" should have been given up but it is evident that they have not been because they're still living in the castle and trying to evict the new guys. You can't claim that they have surrendered the castle while advocating for a law to send the police to evict them from said castle. Of course I declined. I said my goal was to at least show that that particular issue was actually the relevant one. To that you replied Show nested quote +There's no reasonable basis for considering a fetus, in the early stages, as a person. Why should I go further. Not only are the people who disagree wrong, they are unreasonable! So why should I have continued? Do you notice when this happens or not? In my framing, the use of surrender has not moved the blame, the "blame" belongs to the parents, whether they acknowledge it or not. The child has rights that must be accounted for vis-a-vis the parents' rights. The laws are a recognition of reality, not a change in responsibility. But if you like you may replace "surrender" with " knowingly or unknowingly forfeit." Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 12:56 hunts wrote:On May 17 2019 12:46 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 12:32 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 12:23 Introvert wrote: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. Good heavens, you are ever so tiresome when you act as if you want a discussion but actually don't. I apologize for taking the questions in your original post as serious and not satirical or rhetorical. As to the second bit- well they have surrendered. The act of becoming pregnant was the surrender, even if they wished to take it back (this counts for the father as well, he has his own part in this). The act has been done, the keys to the castle have been given up. Moreover, I find your repeated use of the word "force" to be highly assuming, as if it all state protected rights aren't protected in that way (as you said above!). So again, acting indignant with the language is a bullsh*t attempt to rhetorically pummel someone instead of argue. If the unborn are entitled to rights then yes, it will be protected with... force! You won't find me shrinking from that line. So the victim of rape surrendered as well? Yes, that's obviously what I meant. Hard cases make bad law my friend! One day we can get to the incredibly small percentage of abortions that come from rape because in my formulation of balancing rights the situation has clearly changed (though not enough to obviously l override the previous calculation). + Show Spoiler +Note: that's not what I meant.
Who are these reasonable people who believe that an embryo is the same thing as a fully grown human being? Care to name any? I gave you a number of outs. You can go with "an embryo is not a part of the mother because it has distinct DNA". You can go with "an embryo has value because of its potential to become a human being, given time and nutrients". But if you really want to play this game then please go on and quote the ones who believe that an embryo is already the same thing.
You attack me for dismissing the idea out of hand as obviously unreasonable. If I'm wrong then tell me why.
As for forfeiting rights, that's barely any better. Again, they clearly do not believe they have forfeited the castle and you clearly do not believe they have quit the castle because you're sending the police in to take them by force. Better to say that you believe that they should have forfeited and that based upon that belief you are sending armed men to strip them of the right.
|
On May 17 2019 12:35 Gorgonoth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 11:51 Kyadytim wrote:
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. The "we need to protect the fetuses" argument is based on arguing for A) when life begins B) that human life is valuable. You seem to be insinuating that the validity of this argument is determined on the arguers' emotional response towards the issues of women's health (neonatal and pregnant health care) And you make a correlation, (one which I can neither refute or agree with because I have no data on whether that is true) between those who make pro-life arguments and opposition to these QOL laws for pregnant women. To be clear, Yes, yes and yes we should be doing way more for pregnant women and supporting them much more. However, the lack or abundance of this empathy does not itself mean affect the validity of the pro-life argument.
The same is true of me as well, If I am considering a principle, say UBI, my support or lack of support for it should not be based on the type of people who support it. Correlation is not causation. Just because all UBI supporters I come across seem arrogant( not true) and stuck up does not mean that this makes UBI any more or less valid.
My point was that in general people arguing for ending abortion in this country on the basis of "protecting unborn children" do not act on the belief that human life is valuable in most other circumstances. I intentionally limited that to other topics related to unborn children, but it also applies broadly to health care and the social safety net. The actions of pro-life Americans, taken as a whole, indicate a lack of sincerity when they profess to believe that human life is valuable.
Basically, I don't it's worth engaging with people who are arguing to ban abortion because protecting fetuses is important, because it's almost always a bad faith argument. The argument is a smokescreen to hide less socially acceptable reasons.
On May 17 2019 12:46 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 12:32 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 12:23 Introvert wrote: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. Good heavens, you are ever so tiresome when you act as if you want a discussion but actually don't. I apologize for taking the questions in your original post as serious and not satirical or rhetorical. As to the second bit- well they have surrendered. The act of becoming pregnant was the surrender, even if they wished to take it back (this counts for the father as well, he has his own part in this). The act has been done, the keys to the castle have been given up. Moreover, I find your repeated use of the word "force" to be highly assuming, as if it all state protected rights aren't protected in that way (as you said above!). So again, acting indignant with the language is a bullsh*t attempt to rhetorically pummel someone instead of argue. If the unborn are entitled to rights then yes, it will be protected with... force! You won't find me shrinking from that line.
This is a point of contention. People who support abortion rights generally disagree that a woman becoming pregnant, intentionally or otherwise, constitutes surrendering her right to decide what she does with her body.
|
On May 17 2019 13:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 13:13 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 12:54 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 12:46 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 12:32 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 12:23 Introvert wrote: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. Good heavens, you are ever so tiresome when you act as if you want a discussion but actually don't. I apologize for taking the questions in your original post as serious and not satirical or rhetorical. As to the second bit- well they have surrendered. The act of becoming pregnant was the surrender, even if they wished to take it back (this counts for the father as well, he has his own part in this). The act has been done, the keys to the castle have been given up. Moreover, I find your repeated use of the word "force" to be highly assuming, as if it all state protected rights aren't protected in that way (as you said above!). So again, acting indignant with the language is a bullsh*t attempt to rhetorically pummel someone instead of argue. If the unborn are entitled to rights then yes, it will be protected with.. force! You won't find me shrinking from that line. To your first paragraph "no u". I note that you have declined to contest the point that an embryo is a human though. You could have gone with the DNA thing, a lot of people do, but instead you're going to pretend that your failure to respond is dignified. You could have even have gone with potential life. Anything would have been better than the idiocy you went with. If they'd surrendered then they wouldn't be fighting. What you're trying to say is that within your moral code you think they ought to have surrendered by now and therefore when you use force against them it's not really force, it's just restoring them to their proper state of surrendering which really, in your world, they'd already done. It's rhetorical nonsense. You can't decide if other people have surrendered a right on their behalf. If you want to strip a right from them then own that, strip it. The language matters because stripping a right from another is a very different issue to a person voluntarily giving up that right. You choose to use surrender because it moves the blame from you to the target of your laws. I'm insisting that you use another word because their lack of surrender is the reason you need the laws in the first place, it is a precursor for this argument. There is no surrender, that is why you wish to send in the police to force these people to do as you want. You believe "the keys to the castle" should have been given up but it is evident that they have not been because they're still living in the castle and trying to evict the new guys. You can't claim that they have surrendered the castle while advocating for a law to send the police to evict them from said castle. Of course I declined. I said my goal was to at least show that that particular issue was actually the relevant one. To that you replied There's no reasonable basis for considering a fetus, in the early stages, as a person. Why should I go further. Not only are the people who disagree wrong, they are unreasonable! So why should I have continued? Do you notice when this happens or not? In my framing, the use of surrender has not moved the blame, the "blame" belongs to the parents, whether they acknowledge it or not. The child has rights that must be accounted for vis-a-vis the parents' rights. The laws are a recognition of reality, not a change in responsibility. But if you like you may replace "surrender" with " knowingly or unknowingly forfeit." On May 17 2019 12:56 hunts wrote:On May 17 2019 12:46 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 12:32 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 12:23 Introvert wrote: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. Good heavens, you are ever so tiresome when you act as if you want a discussion but actually don't. I apologize for taking the questions in your original post as serious and not satirical or rhetorical. As to the second bit- well they have surrendered. The act of becoming pregnant was the surrender, even if they wished to take it back (this counts for the father as well, he has his own part in this). The act has been done, the keys to the castle have been given up. Moreover, I find your repeated use of the word "force" to be highly assuming, as if it all state protected rights aren't protected in that way (as you said above!). So again, acting indignant with the language is a bullsh*t attempt to rhetorically pummel someone instead of argue. If the unborn are entitled to rights then yes, it will be protected with... force! You won't find me shrinking from that line. So the victim of rape surrendered as well? Yes, that's obviously what I meant. Hard cases make bad law my friend! One day we can get to the incredibly small percentage of abortions that come from rape because in my formulation of balancing rights the situation has clearly changed (though not enough to obviously l override the previous calculation). + Show Spoiler +Note: that's not what I meant. Who are these reasonable people who believe that an embryo is the same thing as a fully grown human being? Care to name any? I gave you a number of outs. You can go with "an embryo is not a part of the mother because it has distinct DNA". You can go with "an embryo has value because of its potential to become a human being, given time and nutrients". But if you really want to play this game then please go on and quote the ones who believe that an embryo is already the same thing. You attack me for dismissing the idea out of hand as obviously unreasonable. If I'm wrong then tell me why. As for forfeiting rights, that's barely any better. Again, they clearly do not believe they have forfeited the castle and you clearly do not believe they have quit the castle because you're sending the police in to take them by force. Better to say that you believe that they should have forfeited and that based upon that belief you are sending armed men to strip them of the right.
"Same thing" is vague and not really what I said. I didn't take the "outs" because you declared it unreasonable already. I wanted us to acknowledge the real issue and you came back it said it's not up for discussion, so ok then!
|
United States42775 Posts
On May 17 2019 13:29 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 13:19 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 13:13 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 12:54 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 12:46 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 12:32 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 12:23 Introvert wrote: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. Good heavens, you are ever so tiresome when you act as if you want a discussion but actually don't. I apologize for taking the questions in your original post as serious and not satirical or rhetorical. As to the second bit- well they have surrendered. The act of becoming pregnant was the surrender, even if they wished to take it back (this counts for the father as well, he has his own part in this). The act has been done, the keys to the castle have been given up. Moreover, I find your repeated use of the word "force" to be highly assuming, as if it all state protected rights aren't protected in that way (as you said above!). So again, acting indignant with the language is a bullsh*t attempt to rhetorically pummel someone instead of argue. If the unborn are entitled to rights then yes, it will be protected with.. force! You won't find me shrinking from that line. To your first paragraph "no u". I note that you have declined to contest the point that an embryo is a human though. You could have gone with the DNA thing, a lot of people do, but instead you're going to pretend that your failure to respond is dignified. You could have even have gone with potential life. Anything would have been better than the idiocy you went with. If they'd surrendered then they wouldn't be fighting. What you're trying to say is that within your moral code you think they ought to have surrendered by now and therefore when you use force against them it's not really force, it's just restoring them to their proper state of surrendering which really, in your world, they'd already done. It's rhetorical nonsense. You can't decide if other people have surrendered a right on their behalf. If you want to strip a right from them then own that, strip it. The language matters because stripping a right from another is a very different issue to a person voluntarily giving up that right. You choose to use surrender because it moves the blame from you to the target of your laws. I'm insisting that you use another word because their lack of surrender is the reason you need the laws in the first place, it is a precursor for this argument. There is no surrender, that is why you wish to send in the police to force these people to do as you want. You believe "the keys to the castle" should have been given up but it is evident that they have not been because they're still living in the castle and trying to evict the new guys. You can't claim that they have surrendered the castle while advocating for a law to send the police to evict them from said castle. Of course I declined. I said my goal was to at least show that that particular issue was actually the relevant one. To that you replied There's no reasonable basis for considering a fetus, in the early stages, as a person. Why should I go further. Not only are the people who disagree wrong, they are unreasonable! So why should I have continued? Do you notice when this happens or not? In my framing, the use of surrender has not moved the blame, the "blame" belongs to the parents, whether they acknowledge it or not. The child has rights that must be accounted for vis-a-vis the parents' rights. The laws are a recognition of reality, not a change in responsibility. But if you like you may replace "surrender" with " knowingly or unknowingly forfeit." On May 17 2019 12:56 hunts wrote:On May 17 2019 12:46 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 12:32 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 12:23 Introvert wrote: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. Good heavens, you are ever so tiresome when you act as if you want a discussion but actually don't. I apologize for taking the questions in your original post as serious and not satirical or rhetorical. As to the second bit- well they have surrendered. The act of becoming pregnant was the surrender, even if they wished to take it back (this counts for the father as well, he has his own part in this). The act has been done, the keys to the castle have been given up. Moreover, I find your repeated use of the word "force" to be highly assuming, as if it all state protected rights aren't protected in that way (as you said above!). So again, acting indignant with the language is a bullsh*t attempt to rhetorically pummel someone instead of argue. If the unborn are entitled to rights then yes, it will be protected with... force! You won't find me shrinking from that line. So the victim of rape surrendered as well? Yes, that's obviously what I meant. Hard cases make bad law my friend! One day we can get to the incredibly small percentage of abortions that come from rape because in my formulation of balancing rights the situation has clearly changed (though not enough to obviously l override the previous calculation). + Show Spoiler +Note: that's not what I meant. Who are these reasonable people who believe that an embryo is the same thing as a fully grown human being? Care to name any? I gave you a number of outs. You can go with "an embryo is not a part of the mother because it has distinct DNA". You can go with "an embryo has value because of its potential to become a human being, given time and nutrients". But if you really want to play this game then please go on and quote the ones who believe that an embryo is already the same thing. You attack me for dismissing the idea out of hand as obviously unreasonable. If I'm wrong then tell me why. As for forfeiting rights, that's barely any better. Again, they clearly do not believe they have forfeited the castle and you clearly do not believe they have quit the castle because you're sending the police in to take them by force. Better to say that you believe that they should have forfeited and that based upon that belief you are sending armed men to strip them of the right. "Same thing" is vague and not really what I said. I didn't take the "outs" because you declared it unreasonable already. I wanted us to acknowledge the real issue and you came back it said it's not up for discussion, so ok then!
You’re still not arguing your point. If you’re not going to argue it then what are you doing here? Apparently you believe so strongly in the humanness of fetuses that you want to send armed men to police the conduct of pregnant women, but you’re not willing to go into why?
I think it’s unreasonable because I think we all instinctively know that there is a difference between a baby and a fertilized egg. That a miscarriage at 1 month after conception is less awful than the baby dying at 1 month after birth. That a test tube with two embryos in it should be left to burn if it allows us to save an infant. I said it’s unreasonable because I think we’re all agreed that while potential life is precious it’s not as precious as when it enters the world.
Are we not agreed?
|
On May 16 2019 21:18 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2019 19:35 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 16 2019 03:12 Plansix wrote:
As much as I dislike Obama's policy on drone strikes, he was a step up from the previous administration starting two wars, one which we are still stuck in. Trump is impossible to predict.Great strides have been made in Syria, hopefully conflict can be avoided in Iran and Venezuela. Why do you say "be avoided"? The conflict with both those countries is actually rather easy to "avoid", just don't. Or do you mean something else?
Do you recall the photo of John Boltons notepad he was clutching a couple months ago? It had a note on it, 5,000 troops to Venezuela.
It’d be best to see Bolton gone, guy seems like a hawk.Remove the neocons that want war and to avoid becomes easy.
|
On May 17 2019 13:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 13:29 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 13:19 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 13:13 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 12:54 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 12:46 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 12:32 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 12:23 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 12:02 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 11:54 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
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
[quote]
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. Good heavens, you are ever so tiresome when you act as if you want a discussion but actually don't. I apologize for taking the questions in your original post as serious and not satirical or rhetorical. As to the second bit- well they have surrendered. The act of becoming pregnant was the surrender, even if they wished to take it back (this counts for the father as well, he has his own part in this). The act has been done, the keys to the castle have been given up. Moreover, I find your repeated use of the word "force" to be highly assuming, as if it all state protected rights aren't protected in that way (as you said above!). So again, acting indignant with the language is a bullsh*t attempt to rhetorically pummel someone instead of argue. If the unborn are entitled to rights then yes, it will be protected with.. force! You won't find me shrinking from that line. To your first paragraph "no u". I note that you have declined to contest the point that an embryo is a human though. You could have gone with the DNA thing, a lot of people do, but instead you're going to pretend that your failure to respond is dignified. You could have even have gone with potential life. Anything would have been better than the idiocy you went with. If they'd surrendered then they wouldn't be fighting. What you're trying to say is that within your moral code you think they ought to have surrendered by now and therefore when you use force against them it's not really force, it's just restoring them to their proper state of surrendering which really, in your world, they'd already done. It's rhetorical nonsense. You can't decide if other people have surrendered a right on their behalf. If you want to strip a right from them then own that, strip it. The language matters because stripping a right from another is a very different issue to a person voluntarily giving up that right. You choose to use surrender because it moves the blame from you to the target of your laws. I'm insisting that you use another word because their lack of surrender is the reason you need the laws in the first place, it is a precursor for this argument. There is no surrender, that is why you wish to send in the police to force these people to do as you want. You believe "the keys to the castle" should have been given up but it is evident that they have not been because they're still living in the castle and trying to evict the new guys. You can't claim that they have surrendered the castle while advocating for a law to send the police to evict them from said castle. Of course I declined. I said my goal was to at least show that that particular issue was actually the relevant one. To that you replied There's no reasonable basis for considering a fetus, in the early stages, as a person. Why should I go further. Not only are the people who disagree wrong, they are unreasonable! So why should I have continued? Do you notice when this happens or not? In my framing, the use of surrender has not moved the blame, the "blame" belongs to the parents, whether they acknowledge it or not. The child has rights that must be accounted for vis-a-vis the parents' rights. The laws are a recognition of reality, not a change in responsibility. But if you like you may replace "surrender" with " knowingly or unknowingly forfeit." On May 17 2019 12:56 hunts wrote:On May 17 2019 12:46 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 12:32 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 12:23 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 12:02 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 11:54 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
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
[quote]
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. Good heavens, you are ever so tiresome when you act as if you want a discussion but actually don't. I apologize for taking the questions in your original post as serious and not satirical or rhetorical. As to the second bit- well they have surrendered. The act of becoming pregnant was the surrender, even if they wished to take it back (this counts for the father as well, he has his own part in this). The act has been done, the keys to the castle have been given up. Moreover, I find your repeated use of the word "force" to be highly assuming, as if it all state protected rights aren't protected in that way (as you said above!). So again, acting indignant with the language is a bullsh*t attempt to rhetorically pummel someone instead of argue. If the unborn are entitled to rights then yes, it will be protected with... force! You won't find me shrinking from that line. So the victim of rape surrendered as well? Yes, that's obviously what I meant. Hard cases make bad law my friend! One day we can get to the incredibly small percentage of abortions that come from rape because in my formulation of balancing rights the situation has clearly changed (though not enough to obviously l override the previous calculation). + Show Spoiler +Note: that's not what I meant. Who are these reasonable people who believe that an embryo is the same thing as a fully grown human being? Care to name any? I gave you a number of outs. You can go with "an embryo is not a part of the mother because it has distinct DNA". You can go with "an embryo has value because of its potential to become a human being, given time and nutrients". But if you really want to play this game then please go on and quote the ones who believe that an embryo is already the same thing. You attack me for dismissing the idea out of hand as obviously unreasonable. If I'm wrong then tell me why. As for forfeiting rights, that's barely any better. Again, they clearly do not believe they have forfeited the castle and you clearly do not believe they have quit the castle because you're sending the police in to take them by force. Better to say that you believe that they should have forfeited and that based upon that belief you are sending armed men to strip them of the right. "Same thing" is vague and not really what I said. I didn't take the "outs" because you declared it unreasonable already. I wanted us to acknowledge the real issue and you came back it said it's not up for discussion, so ok then! You’re still not arguing your point. If you’re not going to argue it then what are you doing here? Apparently you believe so strongly in the humanness of fetuses that you want to send armed men to police the conduct of pregnant women, but you’re not willing to go into why?
I made my main point (i.e. what the abortion debate is actually about) and you declared one of the premises flat out unreasonable. So no. And the bolded part more evidence. That's a caricature and you know it (yes, I totally want a police state). Carry on.
|
On May 17 2019 13:02 KwarK wrote:
Gorgonoth, none of your stuff about how an embryo is on one side of a line but semen is on the other is anything more than your personal belief. You're going to have to do much better than that. They're both human reproductive material. If you wish to use the line in a debate as a foundation for your argument then you need to prove the line. You can't just declare the line and expect everyone else to accept it.
It's the "God exists because the Bible tells me so" of arguments. It only works if you already believe in it. Most fertilized eggs don't make it and even if they did there's no reason to consider that the start when there's eggs, semen, and sex to consider.
On the rest of it with murder and steak knives etc, you're failing to understand the bodily autonomy aspect. The principle is that we are free to control our own bodies but not to control that of others. At no point does that argument allow for murder of others or stabbing or any other kind of infringement on the bodies of others. You can't get from "people should control what happens to their own bodies" to anyone could just murder anyone else. One does not follow from the other.
Person A killing person B is not wrong because it may offend person C, it's wrong because it is an imposition upon person B. If person B is fine with it, for example they have a degenerative disease, then person C can fuck off. Person C is not entitled to exercise the rights of person B on person B's behalf.
From the moment of sperm-egg fusion, a human zygote acts as a complete whole, with all the parts of the zygote interacting in an orchestrated way to generate the structures and relationships required for the zygote to keep developing towards its mature state.
When we remove normal human cells, like skin cells, for example, they show no organization beyond what is normal for cells in isolation. Skin cells maintained in a laboratory will continue to divide and become a large mass of cells, but nothing more than that. Contrast that with a zygote which will develop, normally without interruptions and providing for random failure, a human.
The moment of conception, the sperm-egg fusion, an organism is created which is all human being ultimately come from. Within that zygote are what is necessary to develop in to a human. Semen, when removed from the body and placed in the same circumstances, will not create new life, but merely stay in the same state that it was before.
All of the above are observations, not personal beliefs.
That would be my explanation for why a zygote is different from any other cell.
You also did not respond to my challenge to your concept of "only that which can advocate for itself has protection"
Ok, you say I am failing to understand the bodily autonomy aspect which I do not think is so, So I will lay out a definition of it and proceed from there.
Ill use this definition "Bodily autonomy is defined as the right to self governance over one’s own body without external influence or coercion."
Living in the US, we sacrifice certain bodily autonomy. If we self-govern ourselves in a certian way which violates a law, we pay a penalty. I think that this principle is good, we agree to a set of behaviors that is just and un-just and set up a system of punishment.
If we believe and define that the unborn child is, in fact, a human being, then I have an interest in preventing a mother from killing her unborn child because the child cannot speak for itself, but is still a human and needs protection.
The bodily autonomy argument is secondary to the definition of the question what is a human life.
If we agree that the fetus is not a human life, then abortion is a legal way for a mother to excercise bodily autonomy.
But if we assert that at conception the fetus is a unique human life with protections, then for a mother to excercise bodily autonomy in a way which kills her child is illegal because of the laws we have in place in the US.
Anyways, thanks for the back and forth this will be my last post for the night.
|
United States42775 Posts
On May 17 2019 13:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 13:37 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 13:29 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 13:19 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 13:13 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 12:54 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 12:46 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 12:32 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 12:23 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 12:02 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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. Good heavens, you are ever so tiresome when you act as if you want a discussion but actually don't. I apologize for taking the questions in your original post as serious and not satirical or rhetorical. As to the second bit- well they have surrendered. The act of becoming pregnant was the surrender, even if they wished to take it back (this counts for the father as well, he has his own part in this). The act has been done, the keys to the castle have been given up. Moreover, I find your repeated use of the word "force" to be highly assuming, as if it all state protected rights aren't protected in that way (as you said above!). So again, acting indignant with the language is a bullsh*t attempt to rhetorically pummel someone instead of argue. If the unborn are entitled to rights then yes, it will be protected with.. force! You won't find me shrinking from that line. To your first paragraph "no u". I note that you have declined to contest the point that an embryo is a human though. You could have gone with the DNA thing, a lot of people do, but instead you're going to pretend that your failure to respond is dignified. You could have even have gone with potential life. Anything would have been better than the idiocy you went with. If they'd surrendered then they wouldn't be fighting. What you're trying to say is that within your moral code you think they ought to have surrendered by now and therefore when you use force against them it's not really force, it's just restoring them to their proper state of surrendering which really, in your world, they'd already done. It's rhetorical nonsense. You can't decide if other people have surrendered a right on their behalf. If you want to strip a right from them then own that, strip it. The language matters because stripping a right from another is a very different issue to a person voluntarily giving up that right. You choose to use surrender because it moves the blame from you to the target of your laws. I'm insisting that you use another word because their lack of surrender is the reason you need the laws in the first place, it is a precursor for this argument. There is no surrender, that is why you wish to send in the police to force these people to do as you want. You believe "the keys to the castle" should have been given up but it is evident that they have not been because they're still living in the castle and trying to evict the new guys. You can't claim that they have surrendered the castle while advocating for a law to send the police to evict them from said castle. Of course I declined. I said my goal was to at least show that that particular issue was actually the relevant one. To that you replied There's no reasonable basis for considering a fetus, in the early stages, as a person. Why should I go further. Not only are the people who disagree wrong, they are unreasonable! So why should I have continued? Do you notice when this happens or not? In my framing, the use of surrender has not moved the blame, the "blame" belongs to the parents, whether they acknowledge it or not. The child has rights that must be accounted for vis-a-vis the parents' rights. The laws are a recognition of reality, not a change in responsibility. But if you like you may replace "surrender" with " knowingly or unknowingly forfeit." On May 17 2019 12:56 hunts wrote:On May 17 2019 12:46 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 12:32 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 12:23 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 12:02 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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. Good heavens, you are ever so tiresome when you act as if you want a discussion but actually don't. I apologize for taking the questions in your original post as serious and not satirical or rhetorical. As to the second bit- well they have surrendered. The act of becoming pregnant was the surrender, even if they wished to take it back (this counts for the father as well, he has his own part in this). The act has been done, the keys to the castle have been given up. Moreover, I find your repeated use of the word "force" to be highly assuming, as if it all state protected rights aren't protected in that way (as you said above!). So again, acting indignant with the language is a bullsh*t attempt to rhetorically pummel someone instead of argue. If the unborn are entitled to rights then yes, it will be protected with... force! You won't find me shrinking from that line. So the victim of rape surrendered as well? Yes, that's obviously what I meant. Hard cases make bad law my friend! One day we can get to the incredibly small percentage of abortions that come from rape because in my formulation of balancing rights the situation has clearly changed (though not enough to obviously l override the previous calculation). + Show Spoiler +Note: that's not what I meant. Who are these reasonable people who believe that an embryo is the same thing as a fully grown human being? Care to name any? I gave you a number of outs. You can go with "an embryo is not a part of the mother because it has distinct DNA". You can go with "an embryo has value because of its potential to become a human being, given time and nutrients". But if you really want to play this game then please go on and quote the ones who believe that an embryo is already the same thing. You attack me for dismissing the idea out of hand as obviously unreasonable. If I'm wrong then tell me why. As for forfeiting rights, that's barely any better. Again, they clearly do not believe they have forfeited the castle and you clearly do not believe they have quit the castle because you're sending the police in to take them by force. Better to say that you believe that they should have forfeited and that based upon that belief you are sending armed men to strip them of the right. "Same thing" is vague and not really what I said. I didn't take the "outs" because you declared it unreasonable already. I wanted us to acknowledge the real issue and you came back it said it's not up for discussion, so ok then! You’re still not arguing your point. If you’re not going to argue it then what are you doing here? Apparently you believe so strongly in the humanness of fetuses that you want to send armed men to police the conduct of pregnant women, but you’re not willing to go into why? I made my main point (i.e. what the abortion debate is actually about) and you declared one of the premises flat out unreasonable. So no. And the bolded part more evidence. That's a caricature and you know it (yes, I totally want a police state). Carry on.
It’s not a caricature. If you want the law enforced by police, as you do, then you’re arguing for state sanctioned violence to be used against those who break it. I know we’ve trodden this ground before. Last time you conceded that you did want the police to enforce it so I’m not sure why you’re now denying that you want the law enforced.
|
United States42775 Posts
On May 17 2019 13:43 Gorgonoth wrote:
Semen, when removed from the body and placed in the same circumstances, will not create new life, but merely stay in the same state that it was before.
....That would be my explanation for why a zygote is different from any other cell.
I think you will find yourself disappointed by the zygote removed from body line of experimentation. It will go much the same way as the semen. A zygote is on the road but it’s a long way from the destination.
a zygote which will develop, normally without interruptions and providing for random failure, a human.
Your explanation of the inevitable progression towards birth also allowed for random failure, presumably to allow for the significant numbers of failures resulting in spontaneous miscarriage. Creating a baby is an incredibly complex process, cell division can easily go wrong, implantation in the uterine lining can fail, making it down the road is a question of probability, not certainty.
However if we allow for probability and argue that a zygote is the beginning of an inevitable march to a new human, assuming everything goes right and luck is on our side, could not the same be argued for unprotected sex? It still seems arbitrary. If everything goes right then a zygote can become a human but so can semen and an egg. Your inevitable march is far from inevitable and your start point is arbitrary. Why not start later after successful implantation of the egg in the uterine lining? Or earlier when the couple have sex?
You’re grandfathering in assumptions of luck after conception to show the path leading to a new human but excluding all uncertain events before conception from that path. It’s arbitrary.
my challenge to your concept of "only that which can advocate for itself has protection"
I don’t wish to imply that the disabled or otherwise impaired should have no protections. Your challenge was to that but that is not my position. You can attack that ground but I’ll attack it alongside you, that’s a eugenicist position.
My point was that, in principle, people should not restrict the autonomy of others. Allowing third parties to restrict the bodily autonomy of others (bodily autonomy being control over your own body, not some kind of freedom to stab others) rarely ends well. That’s how you end up banning consensual homosexual or interracial relationships, for example. I believe that only the parties directly involved are required to consent to what they do with their body.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
