|
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 13:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 13:42 Introvert wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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.
The law I want doesn't involve roving bands of law enforcement officers, which is what your description implied. However, I do want laws that penalize doctors who perform abortions, yes. I hope we're clear and I need not say more.
|
United States42259 Posts
On May 17 2019 13:54 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 13:48 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 13:42 Introvert wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. The law I want doesn't involve roving bands of law enforcement officers, which is what your description implied. However, I do want laws that penalize doctors who perform abortions, yes. I hope we're clear and I need not say more.
I note you’re still refusing to get into the discussion of the question and are still insisting on feigning outrage whenever I accurately characterize your position as one that requires enforcement.
I’ll restate an earlier post.
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 17 2019 14:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 13:54 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 13:48 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 13:42 Introvert wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. The law I want doesn't involve roving bands of law enforcement officers, which is what your description implied. However, I do want laws that penalize doctors who perform abortions, yes. I hope we're clear and I need not say more. I note you’re still refusing to get into the discussion of the question and are still insisting on feigning outrage whenever I accurately characterize your position as one that requires enforcement. I’ll restate an earlier post. 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?
I told you why I'm not going to discuss it with you.
However your hypo is not as illuminating as it appears at first glance. By way of example: most pro-lifers support exceptions for (legitimate) life-of-the-mother concerns. Sometime choices must be made. I don't think potentiality has a lot to do with it. I think exposure to pain or other such concerns must be considered (I would not begrudge a man who asks the doctors to save his wife at the expense of his unborn child). It's not because one is worth less. It's not because one is worth more. It's because numbers are only one concern. As I said, it's a balancing act of rights. Under the position you were advocating previously, if there was one embryo in the blaze and no one else it would not be worth a firefighter risking his life to get it. Someone on my side would disagree strongly.
The only absolutism here is "does a fetus have rights?" And as I have said, this is the question of the abortion debate. If that were agreed to everything else is merely a question of degree. Killing for convenience is murder.
Going to bed a wee bit early today, I may or may not come back to this. Nonetheless, I hope I have at least plausibly addressed your hypothetical situation.
|
On May 17 2019 11:03 Gorgonoth wrote:
I am going to attempt to provide an argument against abortion.
The reason why I believe abortion to be wrong, is that if all life is to be valued; and if life also begins at conception, then abortion is murder.
I don't want to have anything to do with women's lives. I want to protect the unborn child's life. I get to have a say what she does if she is doing something which violates another person's life. We say this all the time when we lock up criminals, we don't want to say anything about their lives unless they do something which is illegal, then they face the consequences of their actions. Murder is illegal, thus abortion should be as well.
This is an argument about when life begins, not about women's reproductive health. All of our lives we are in a process of development, we are always changing and growing, and this process starts at conception. The unborn is clearly growing, starting out from cells and at the later stages of the pregnancy it resembles a human body and in many cases could survive outside of the womb. But all throughout this time of development, the unborn, at whatever stage in its growth; Just as a 1-year-old child and a 9-year-old are in radically different stages of growth; it is still alive, growing, and of the same species as us, human. If life begins at conception then I consider all life in whatever stage it is in to be equally valuable, and deserving of human rights.
Many people are comfortable with abortion 2 days after conception, but not after the unborn could survive outside of the womb. This has led many to state that human life begins at viability. There are many issues with this logically. Viability is a moving target, a premature baby in rural West-Virginia may not get the same chance of living as one born at a state of the art facility simply because of the technology available. Is the baby who was delivered successfully in one place not viable in WV, not a human life? Premature babies survive earlier and with a higher success rate, every year as the technology progresses.
I have argued with many people who consider that life begins at birth. I find this idea to be preposterous because obviously, a baby one, two, or three weeks before birth has a high chance of surviving outside of the womb. An unborn child two days before birth is not a human? If the moment they go through the birth canal is the only thing that makes us human we are ignoring all the developmental process those babies went through to get to that place where the exit the birth canal. It is like considering a tadpole to not be a tadpole until the moment it goes on land; despite the fact that it was underwater developing limbs for a significant time.
I believe in free choice. With the exception of rape, women can choose to become pregnant or not. Birth Control ( which is essentially a calculated risk because of course birth control is fallible), Not having sex, giving her child up for adoption are all options that she can make. While i sympathize with the situations behind why a woman feels she needs to have an abortion, they never outweigh the fact that the act is still murder. When do I believe abortion is acceptable? When the woman is in mortal peril ( I believe JimmiLC outlined some difficulties to determining this, and I accept that it is a difficult situation to determine and I will do more research about how that is legislated). Rape is a very difficult topic, and while I feel like it puts an enormous strain on a young woman to carry a child when they didn't choose it especially at a young age, taking another life is still not morally right even when a woman has been violated in such a heinous way. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Watching my twitter feed during the Alabama decision I knew that the only thing people would take away is, "LOOK a bunch of old white southern men are telling women what to do, they're trying to take us back to the medieval times!!" 1. It's not a woman's body we are talking about. 2. The race, sex, regional upbringing, religion, etc of those making the decision should not be the thing under question.
For the first issue, we are not talking about a part of the woman's body, but rather an unique life that is developing inside of her. Does a woman's body have twenty toes or two brains? No, the mother's body is playing the role of a special provider for the unborn child. This relationship, often incorrectly classified as parasitic, is a special symbiotic one but the child still retains its autonomy as a human life separate from the mother.
Secondly, I wish people would argue this issue on the basis of arguments for a different consideration of when life begins, rather than an emotional, sentimental, and tribal one. Do you disagree with the Alabama senate? Fine, then articulate how you think that a fetus isn't a human, but don't attack the religion or race of the state senators in Alabama. It is no different from me saying, "The black liberals in Philly raised the bridge tax again" That is a racist statement! Instead of arguing, "I think that raising taxes on the bridge toll negatively affects the working class who travel across this bridge multiple times a day." I attacked them on the basis of their race and political leaning. Saying White men should have no say in the politics of abortion is the same thing.
Sorry, this is un-exhaustive and rambly. If people respond to this I will do my best to give it a thought through reponse, but my response time may not be very fast.
White men, historically (especially in American history) have had their fingers in just about everything, many of which were extremely harmful, controlling, and yes... murderous. That is simply an objective fact, rather than an emotional argument. For example, we have a factual history of the genocide of the native American people, the stealing of their land, the slavery of African Americans (also rape/murder of many of them), and the denial of much of American women's right... such as that to vote and have equal pay.
White men don't really have a legitimate leg to stand on in almost any argument about rights, as they have historically in America been basically the primary offenders.
I say this as an American white man.
I think it is important to have a debate about when life is conceived, and when "cells" become a person with feelings and life. This kind of thing to me is the true discussion about abortion, and as a liberal where I start to get concerned about the taking of life vs. cells. It think there are many different viewpoints on both sides, and as far as I can tell, I'm not sure there is consensus about when life actually begins.
I haven't investigated the issue in great depth.
I did want to say that assuming you are a man (you talk like one), it doesn't seem that your arguments consider the woman's perspective much, and don't acknowledged the burden a woman carries through with a pregnancy.
Any man can stick his p*nis in another person for pleasure and then walk away, but pregnancy completely changes a woman's life for months, and for a lifetime if she keeps the child. In your discussion about adoption as an option... you don't seem to take into account the "symbiotic" relationship a mother has with her child and that giving a child up for adoption (if she can't care for it) requires the severing of a bond of bringing that child into the world. *That must be heartbreaking for many, and in your argument you simply state it as 1 of many "options." Why not just do A, B, or C, as if it was that simple.
I feel most of your post carried that lack of consideration to the points you made.
Another example is that a woman can actually die from birth. Nowhere in sex does the man risk any possibility of death. It's hard for me to consider many of your points because you don't appear to address the imbalance of responsibility between both genders in the act of creating life.
|
The best argument that can be made is that the law accidentally preserves life (under one specific, unbacked, understanding) during an effort to suppress women's rights. It's impossible to argue that the initial goal is preserving life. The law doesn't apply to fertilized eggs in labs and clinics, and as noted earlier, republican politics actively oppose a bunch of measures that would improve the odds of successfully carrying a pregnancy to term.
|
On May 17 2019 13:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2019 21:18 Godwrath wrote: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.
You actually agree with the left on something. Congrats. Of course, having someone as incompetent as Trump as president allows Bush retreads to get back into power. All these guys have to do is go on Fox News and pretend to be experts, say some nice things about Trump, and then he hires them. Bolton was a complete shitbag the first time around and yet Trump brought him back.
That would not have happened with a Democrat in the White House. Of course, Democrats do have their own shitbags too and we'll never know what would have happened with Clinton.
|
Just as a point of interest, does a non-pregnant woman have the right to shove a coat hanger up her vagina?
|
When viewed in an issue-based vacuum, I think there can be an irreducible dispute presented between folks who give moral weight to self-autonomy and those who think abortion is per se wrong. The act of drawing the line between the two, which is usually coterminous with figuring out where "life begins," is certainly ripe for disagreement, but at base, I think there can be a genuine dispute as to how to weigh those two competing concerns against one another.
But, and this is a big but, literally nothing controversial in this world exists in a vacuum, and this is where I think pro-choice clearly has the upper hand in terms of moral coherence and consequent authority. One cannot support anti-abortion efforts without tacitly lending their support to the political structures that utilize the issue in service of promoting various other ideas, and this is where the "pro life" label becomes a clear misnomer. The states that are putting the greatest restrictions on abortion are, totally without coincidence, some of the objectively worst states to live in if you are not a wealthy white person/family. Public education in those states is either categorically terrible or only good in high-gate suburbs. Health services are deplorably bad and/or simply inaccessible throughout the Deep South and much of the Midwest. Many of these states are the same states that make maintaining welfare eligibility extremely difficult (it basically becomes at least a part-time job), cut benefits whenever they can, and otherwise restrict the availability of public wealth that would go towards actually feeding the hungry, sheltering the poor, teaching the uneducated, etc.
Even Ohio, which is somewhat of an outlier in terms of my above description, has one of the worst infant and mother mortality in pregnancy rates in the nation, and yes, this absolutely connects with the state conservatives' project that claims to be "pro-life" while ignoring all of the other concerns regarding how one protects life outside of the abortion question. Here in Ohio, revenue sharing with municipalities/counties is continuously slashed, the availability of family planning and reproductive health resources is perennially tossed aside in the interest of tax cuts, and the stark contrasts between the good schools in the wealthy suburbs and those of the inner city and rural areas continue to sharpen. And all of that is championed by self-proclaimed "pro life" folk, which is plainly incoherent.
Coherency aside, here's also the plain public health argument that analogizes well with the failed war on drugs. I'd have to look up the stats again, but generally speaking, the availability of affordable abortion services correlates positively with reproductive health outcomes, and in terms of abortion prevalence itself, the rates go down as access goes up, much the same as injection sites, clean needle sharing, and low cost addiction treatments do far more to stymy drug use than criminalization and incarceration. Forcing women (and men) who find themselves in the oftentimes despair-filled situation where they need to contemplate abortion to resort solely to illegal means is a recipe for worsened health outcomes, domestic violence, and criminal liability if they are caught. Add in the fact that reproductive health services and family planning are also targeted by "pro life" folk regardless of their relation to abortion and it becomes clear that the "pro life" label is disingenuous at best, and outright wrong at worst.
|
|
|
It's not uncommon that there is a tension between the liberal or generic value that the republicans put forward to defend their position of stripping the rights of a minority group and their attitude when it comes to that value in other contexts. It's not against the gays, it's for religious freedom (=> muslim ban). It's not against the muslims, it's against terrorism and extremism (=> free speech and Charlottesville). It's not against trans people, it's to protect cis women (=> abortion laws). There are like seven different ones against black people and latinos depending on context.
The consistency is in the willingness to strip the rights of minority groups, the contradictions are in the pretenses. You are allowed to draw some conclusions.
|
On May 17 2019 14:58 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 14:25 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 13:54 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 13:48 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 13:42 Introvert wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. The law I want doesn't involve roving bands of law enforcement officers, which is what your description implied. However, I do want laws that penalize doctors who perform abortions, yes. I hope we're clear and I need not say more. I note you’re still refusing to get into the discussion of the question and are still insisting on feigning outrage whenever I accurately characterize your position as one that requires enforcement. I’ll restate an earlier post. 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? I told you why I'm not going to discuss it with you. However your hypo is not as illuminating as it appears at first glance. By way of example: most pro-lifers support exceptions for (legitimate) life-of-the-mother concerns. Sometime choices must be made. I don't think potentiality has a lot to do with it. I think exposure to pain or other such concerns must be considered (I would not begrudge a man who asks the doctors to save his wife at the expense of his unborn child). It's not because one is worth less. It's not because one is worth more. It's because numbers are only one concern. As I said, it's a balancing act of rights. Under the position you were advocating previously, if there was one embryo in the blaze and no one else it would not be worth a firefighter risking his life to get it. Someone on my side would disagree strongly. The only absolutism here is "does a fetus have rights?" And as I have said, this is the question of the abortion debate. If that were agreed to everything else is merely a question of degree. Killing for convenience is murder. Going to bed a wee bit early today, I may or may not come back to this. Nonetheless, I hope I have at least plausibly addressed your hypothetical situation.
No it isn't. The question of the debate is 'do the fetus's rights trump those of the mother'.
This isn't 'does a woman have the right to murder a person' it's 'does a person have the right to take over the woman's body for nine months without her say so and then claim twenty odd years of her life, potentially leave her with all kinds of maladies and change her body chemistry permanently'.
And no, a fetus's rights should not trump those of its mother. The state has no right to claim the mother's body as its property once she's pregnant. Attempting to reframe the argument doesn't get Conservatives away from this central hypocrisy.
|
On May 17 2019 15:03 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 11:03 Gorgonoth wrote:
I am going to attempt to provide an argument against abortion.
The reason why I believe abortion to be wrong, is that if all life is to be valued; and if life also begins at conception, then abortion is murder.
I don't want to have anything to do with women's lives. I want to protect the unborn child's life. I get to have a say what she does if she is doing something which violates another person's life. We say this all the time when we lock up criminals, we don't want to say anything about their lives unless they do something which is illegal, then they face the consequences of their actions. Murder is illegal, thus abortion should be as well.
This is an argument about when life begins, not about women's reproductive health. All of our lives we are in a process of development, we are always changing and growing, and this process starts at conception. The unborn is clearly growing, starting out from cells and at the later stages of the pregnancy it resembles a human body and in many cases could survive outside of the womb. But all throughout this time of development, the unborn, at whatever stage in its growth; Just as a 1-year-old child and a 9-year-old are in radically different stages of growth; it is still alive, growing, and of the same species as us, human. If life begins at conception then I consider all life in whatever stage it is in to be equally valuable, and deserving of human rights.
Many people are comfortable with abortion 2 days after conception, but not after the unborn could survive outside of the womb. This has led many to state that human life begins at viability. There are many issues with this logically. Viability is a moving target, a premature baby in rural West-Virginia may not get the same chance of living as one born at a state of the art facility simply because of the technology available. Is the baby who was delivered successfully in one place not viable in WV, not a human life? Premature babies survive earlier and with a higher success rate, every year as the technology progresses.
I have argued with many people who consider that life begins at birth. I find this idea to be preposterous because obviously, a baby one, two, or three weeks before birth has a high chance of surviving outside of the womb. An unborn child two days before birth is not a human? If the moment they go through the birth canal is the only thing that makes us human we are ignoring all the developmental process those babies went through to get to that place where the exit the birth canal. It is like considering a tadpole to not be a tadpole until the moment it goes on land; despite the fact that it was underwater developing limbs for a significant time.
I believe in free choice. With the exception of rape, women can choose to become pregnant or not. Birth Control ( which is essentially a calculated risk because of course birth control is fallible), Not having sex, giving her child up for adoption are all options that she can make. While i sympathize with the situations behind why a woman feels she needs to have an abortion, they never outweigh the fact that the act is still murder. When do I believe abortion is acceptable? When the woman is in mortal peril ( I believe JimmiLC outlined some difficulties to determining this, and I accept that it is a difficult situation to determine and I will do more research about how that is legislated). Rape is a very difficult topic, and while I feel like it puts an enormous strain on a young woman to carry a child when they didn't choose it especially at a young age, taking another life is still not morally right even when a woman has been violated in such a heinous way. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Watching my twitter feed during the Alabama decision I knew that the only thing people would take away is, "LOOK a bunch of old white southern men are telling women what to do, they're trying to take us back to the medieval times!!" 1. It's not a woman's body we are talking about. 2. The race, sex, regional upbringing, religion, etc of those making the decision should not be the thing under question.
For the first issue, we are not talking about a part of the woman's body, but rather an unique life that is developing inside of her. Does a woman's body have twenty toes or two brains? No, the mother's body is playing the role of a special provider for the unborn child. This relationship, often incorrectly classified as parasitic, is a special symbiotic one but the child still retains its autonomy as a human life separate from the mother.
Secondly, I wish people would argue this issue on the basis of arguments for a different consideration of when life begins, rather than an emotional, sentimental, and tribal one. Do you disagree with the Alabama senate? Fine, then articulate how you think that a fetus isn't a human, but don't attack the religion or race of the state senators in Alabama. It is no different from me saying, "The black liberals in Philly raised the bridge tax again" That is a racist statement! Instead of arguing, "I think that raising taxes on the bridge toll negatively affects the working class who travel across this bridge multiple times a day." I attacked them on the basis of their race and political leaning. Saying White men should have no say in the politics of abortion is the same thing.
Sorry, this is un-exhaustive and rambly. If people respond to this I will do my best to give it a thought through reponse, but my response time may not be very fast. White men, historically (especially in American history) have had their fingers in just about everything, many of which were extremely harmful, controlling, and yes... murderous. That is simply an objective fact, rather than an emotional argument. For example, we have a factual history of the genocide of the native American people, the stealing of their land, the slavery of African Americans (also rape/murder of many of them), and the denial of much of American women's right... such as that to vote and have equal pay. White men don't really have a legitimate leg to stand on in almost any argument about rights, as they have historically in America been basically the primary offenders. I say this as an American white man .
Well it's an odd thing to say considering the vastly higher in percentage terms of Black & Hispanic babies that are aborted.So it's white people wanting to bring those minority babies into the world.
Personally I'm not going to hold Turkish people alive today responsible for the Armenian genocide either.
Time to leave the identity politics stuff behind.
|
On May 17 2019 22:10 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 15:03 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 17 2019 11:03 Gorgonoth wrote:
I am going to attempt to provide an argument against abortion.
The reason why I believe abortion to be wrong, is that if all life is to be valued; and if life also begins at conception, then abortion is murder.
I don't want to have anything to do with women's lives. I want to protect the unborn child's life. I get to have a say what she does if she is doing something which violates another person's life. We say this all the time when we lock up criminals, we don't want to say anything about their lives unless they do something which is illegal, then they face the consequences of their actions. Murder is illegal, thus abortion should be as well.
This is an argument about when life begins, not about women's reproductive health. All of our lives we are in a process of development, we are always changing and growing, and this process starts at conception. The unborn is clearly growing, starting out from cells and at the later stages of the pregnancy it resembles a human body and in many cases could survive outside of the womb. But all throughout this time of development, the unborn, at whatever stage in its growth; Just as a 1-year-old child and a 9-year-old are in radically different stages of growth; it is still alive, growing, and of the same species as us, human. If life begins at conception then I consider all life in whatever stage it is in to be equally valuable, and deserving of human rights.
Many people are comfortable with abortion 2 days after conception, but not after the unborn could survive outside of the womb. This has led many to state that human life begins at viability. There are many issues with this logically. Viability is a moving target, a premature baby in rural West-Virginia may not get the same chance of living as one born at a state of the art facility simply because of the technology available. Is the baby who was delivered successfully in one place not viable in WV, not a human life? Premature babies survive earlier and with a higher success rate, every year as the technology progresses.
I have argued with many people who consider that life begins at birth. I find this idea to be preposterous because obviously, a baby one, two, or three weeks before birth has a high chance of surviving outside of the womb. An unborn child two days before birth is not a human? If the moment they go through the birth canal is the only thing that makes us human we are ignoring all the developmental process those babies went through to get to that place where the exit the birth canal. It is like considering a tadpole to not be a tadpole until the moment it goes on land; despite the fact that it was underwater developing limbs for a significant time.
I believe in free choice. With the exception of rape, women can choose to become pregnant or not. Birth Control ( which is essentially a calculated risk because of course birth control is fallible), Not having sex, giving her child up for adoption are all options that she can make. While i sympathize with the situations behind why a woman feels she needs to have an abortion, they never outweigh the fact that the act is still murder. When do I believe abortion is acceptable? When the woman is in mortal peril ( I believe JimmiLC outlined some difficulties to determining this, and I accept that it is a difficult situation to determine and I will do more research about how that is legislated). Rape is a very difficult topic, and while I feel like it puts an enormous strain on a young woman to carry a child when they didn't choose it especially at a young age, taking another life is still not morally right even when a woman has been violated in such a heinous way. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Watching my twitter feed during the Alabama decision I knew that the only thing people would take away is, "LOOK a bunch of old white southern men are telling women what to do, they're trying to take us back to the medieval times!!" 1. It's not a woman's body we are talking about. 2. The race, sex, regional upbringing, religion, etc of those making the decision should not be the thing under question.
For the first issue, we are not talking about a part of the woman's body, but rather an unique life that is developing inside of her. Does a woman's body have twenty toes or two brains? No, the mother's body is playing the role of a special provider for the unborn child. This relationship, often incorrectly classified as parasitic, is a special symbiotic one but the child still retains its autonomy as a human life separate from the mother.
Secondly, I wish people would argue this issue on the basis of arguments for a different consideration of when life begins, rather than an emotional, sentimental, and tribal one. Do you disagree with the Alabama senate? Fine, then articulate how you think that a fetus isn't a human, but don't attack the religion or race of the state senators in Alabama. It is no different from me saying, "The black liberals in Philly raised the bridge tax again" That is a racist statement! Instead of arguing, "I think that raising taxes on the bridge toll negatively affects the working class who travel across this bridge multiple times a day." I attacked them on the basis of their race and political leaning. Saying White men should have no say in the politics of abortion is the same thing.
Sorry, this is un-exhaustive and rambly. If people respond to this I will do my best to give it a thought through reponse, but my response time may not be very fast. White men, historically (especially in American history) have had their fingers in just about everything, many of which were extremely harmful, controlling, and yes... murderous. That is simply an objective fact, rather than an emotional argument. For example, we have a factual history of the genocide of the native American people, the stealing of their land, the slavery of African Americans (also rape/murder of many of them), and the denial of much of American women's right... such as that to vote and have equal pay. White men don't really have a legitimate leg to stand on in almost any argument about rights, as they have historically in America been basically the primary offenders. I say this as an American white man . Well it's an odd thing to say considering the vastly higher in percentage terms of Black & Hispanic babies that are aborted.So it's white people wanting to bring those minority babies into the world. Personally I'm not going to hold Turkish people alive today responsible for the Armenian genocide either. Time to leave the identity politics stuff behind.
As a purportedly Australian I'd expect a bit more awareness regarding acceptance of and how not to deal with genocide.
ignoring it isn't gonna make it disappear
While they aren't directly responsible for the actions of their ancestors, the current government is a step further behind you and doesn't recognise it.
Moreover you harvest the fruits, metaphorically speaking, of what your ancestors did. Just like with colonialism there's merit in talking about compensation for past crimes.
But that necessitates acceptance first which the Turkish government goes through lengths not to do.
|
On May 17 2019 21:20 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 14:58 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 14:25 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 13:54 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 13:48 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 13:42 Introvert wrote: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:[quote] 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 [quote] 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." [quote] 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. The law I want doesn't involve roving bands of law enforcement officers, which is what your description implied. However, I do want laws that penalize doctors who perform abortions, yes. I hope we're clear and I need not say more. I note you’re still refusing to get into the discussion of the question and are still insisting on feigning outrage whenever I accurately characterize your position as one that requires enforcement. I’ll restate an earlier post. 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? I told you why I'm not going to discuss it with you. However your hypo is not as illuminating as it appears at first glance. By way of example: most pro-lifers support exceptions for (legitimate) life-of-the-mother concerns. Sometime choices must be made. I don't think potentiality has a lot to do with it. I think exposure to pain or other such concerns must be considered (I would not begrudge a man who asks the doctors to save his wife at the expense of his unborn child). It's not because one is worth less. It's not because one is worth more. It's because numbers are only one concern. As I said, it's a balancing act of rights. Under the position you were advocating previously, if there was one embryo in the blaze and no one else it would not be worth a firefighter risking his life to get it. Someone on my side would disagree strongly. The only absolutism here is "does a fetus have rights?" And as I have said, this is the question of the abortion debate. If that were agreed to everything else is merely a question of degree. Killing for convenience is murder. Going to bed a wee bit early today, I may or may not come back to this. Nonetheless, I hope I have at least plausibly addressed your hypothetical situation. No it isn't. The question of the debate is 'do the fetus's rights trump those of the mother'. This isn't 'does a woman have the right to murder a person' it's 'does a person have the right to take over the woman's body for nine months without her say so and then claim twenty odd years of her life, potentially leave her with all kinds of maladies and change her body chemistry personally'. And no, a fetus's rights should not trump those of its mother. The state has no right to claim the mother's body as its property once she's pregnant. Attempting to reframe the argument doesn't get Conservatives away from this central hypocrisy.
Please tell me if I understand your position correctly. My impression is that you're attributing personhood to the being that "takes over the body" of its mother for nine months, and still saying that the being's existence is less important than the rights of the being's mother. I'm askimg because people who support abortion usually deny the personhood of the aborted.
|
On May 17 2019 22:10 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 15:03 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 17 2019 11:03 Gorgonoth wrote:
I am going to attempt to provide an argument against abortion.
The reason why I believe abortion to be wrong, is that if all life is to be valued; and if life also begins at conception, then abortion is murder.
I don't want to have anything to do with women's lives. I want to protect the unborn child's life. I get to have a say what she does if she is doing something which violates another person's life. We say this all the time when we lock up criminals, we don't want to say anything about their lives unless they do something which is illegal, then they face the consequences of their actions. Murder is illegal, thus abortion should be as well.
This is an argument about when life begins, not about women's reproductive health. All of our lives we are in a process of development, we are always changing and growing, and this process starts at conception. The unborn is clearly growing, starting out from cells and at the later stages of the pregnancy it resembles a human body and in many cases could survive outside of the womb. But all throughout this time of development, the unborn, at whatever stage in its growth; Just as a 1-year-old child and a 9-year-old are in radically different stages of growth; it is still alive, growing, and of the same species as us, human. If life begins at conception then I consider all life in whatever stage it is in to be equally valuable, and deserving of human rights.
Many people are comfortable with abortion 2 days after conception, but not after the unborn could survive outside of the womb. This has led many to state that human life begins at viability. There are many issues with this logically. Viability is a moving target, a premature baby in rural West-Virginia may not get the same chance of living as one born at a state of the art facility simply because of the technology available. Is the baby who was delivered successfully in one place not viable in WV, not a human life? Premature babies survive earlier and with a higher success rate, every year as the technology progresses.
I have argued with many people who consider that life begins at birth. I find this idea to be preposterous because obviously, a baby one, two, or three weeks before birth has a high chance of surviving outside of the womb. An unborn child two days before birth is not a human? If the moment they go through the birth canal is the only thing that makes us human we are ignoring all the developmental process those babies went through to get to that place where the exit the birth canal. It is like considering a tadpole to not be a tadpole until the moment it goes on land; despite the fact that it was underwater developing limbs for a significant time.
I believe in free choice. With the exception of rape, women can choose to become pregnant or not. Birth Control ( which is essentially a calculated risk because of course birth control is fallible), Not having sex, giving her child up for adoption are all options that she can make. While i sympathize with the situations behind why a woman feels she needs to have an abortion, they never outweigh the fact that the act is still murder. When do I believe abortion is acceptable? When the woman is in mortal peril ( I believe JimmiLC outlined some difficulties to determining this, and I accept that it is a difficult situation to determine and I will do more research about how that is legislated). Rape is a very difficult topic, and while I feel like it puts an enormous strain on a young woman to carry a child when they didn't choose it especially at a young age, taking another life is still not morally right even when a woman has been violated in such a heinous way. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Watching my twitter feed during the Alabama decision I knew that the only thing people would take away is, "LOOK a bunch of old white southern men are telling women what to do, they're trying to take us back to the medieval times!!" 1. It's not a woman's body we are talking about. 2. The race, sex, regional upbringing, religion, etc of those making the decision should not be the thing under question.
For the first issue, we are not talking about a part of the woman's body, but rather an unique life that is developing inside of her. Does a woman's body have twenty toes or two brains? No, the mother's body is playing the role of a special provider for the unborn child. This relationship, often incorrectly classified as parasitic, is a special symbiotic one but the child still retains its autonomy as a human life separate from the mother.
Secondly, I wish people would argue this issue on the basis of arguments for a different consideration of when life begins, rather than an emotional, sentimental, and tribal one. Do you disagree with the Alabama senate? Fine, then articulate how you think that a fetus isn't a human, but don't attack the religion or race of the state senators in Alabama. It is no different from me saying, "The black liberals in Philly raised the bridge tax again" That is a racist statement! Instead of arguing, "I think that raising taxes on the bridge toll negatively affects the working class who travel across this bridge multiple times a day." I attacked them on the basis of their race and political leaning. Saying White men should have no say in the politics of abortion is the same thing.
Sorry, this is un-exhaustive and rambly. If people respond to this I will do my best to give it a thought through reponse, but my response time may not be very fast. White men, historically (especially in American history) have had their fingers in just about everything, many of which were extremely harmful, controlling, and yes... murderous. That is simply an objective fact, rather than an emotional argument. For example, we have a factual history of the genocide of the native American people, the stealing of their land, the slavery of African Americans (also rape/murder of many of them), and the denial of much of American women's right... such as that to vote and have equal pay. White men don't really have a legitimate leg to stand on in almost any argument about rights, as they have historically in America been basically the primary offenders. I say this as an American white man . Well it's an odd thing to say considering the vastly higher in percentage terms of Black & Hispanic babies that are aborted.So it's white people wanting to bring those minority babies into the world. Personally I'm not going to hold Turkish people alive today responsible for the Armenian genocide either. Time to leave the identity politics stuff behind.
Lmao yet let minority babies die in cages on border. Trumpsters don't care for the lives born in these ridiculous states, because as soon as they're born, they're left to die as well, even if they're white. You want to stop abortions? Start funding more education. Red states have been defunding sex education for a long time now and there's data that proves education lowers risk of pregnancy.
|
United States42259 Posts
On May 17 2019 23:49 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 21:20 iamthedave wrote:On May 17 2019 14:58 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 14:25 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 13:54 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 13:48 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 13:42 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 13:37 KwarK wrote:On May 17 2019 13:29 Introvert wrote:On May 17 2019 13:19 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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. The law I want doesn't involve roving bands of law enforcement officers, which is what your description implied. However, I do want laws that penalize doctors who perform abortions, yes. I hope we're clear and I need not say more. I note you’re still refusing to get into the discussion of the question and are still insisting on feigning outrage whenever I accurately characterize your position as one that requires enforcement. I’ll restate an earlier post. 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? I told you why I'm not going to discuss it with you. However your hypo is not as illuminating as it appears at first glance. By way of example: most pro-lifers support exceptions for (legitimate) life-of-the-mother concerns. Sometime choices must be made. I don't think potentiality has a lot to do with it. I think exposure to pain or other such concerns must be considered (I would not begrudge a man who asks the doctors to save his wife at the expense of his unborn child). It's not because one is worth less. It's not because one is worth more. It's because numbers are only one concern. As I said, it's a balancing act of rights. Under the position you were advocating previously, if there was one embryo in the blaze and no one else it would not be worth a firefighter risking his life to get it. Someone on my side would disagree strongly. The only absolutism here is "does a fetus have rights?" And as I have said, this is the question of the abortion debate. If that were agreed to everything else is merely a question of degree. Killing for convenience is murder. Going to bed a wee bit early today, I may or may not come back to this. Nonetheless, I hope I have at least plausibly addressed your hypothetical situation. No it isn't. The question of the debate is 'do the fetus's rights trump those of the mother'. This isn't 'does a woman have the right to murder a person' it's 'does a person have the right to take over the woman's body for nine months without her say so and then claim twenty odd years of her life, potentially leave her with all kinds of maladies and change her body chemistry personally'. And no, a fetus's rights should not trump those of its mother. The state has no right to claim the mother's body as its property once she's pregnant. Attempting to reframe the argument doesn't get Conservatives away from this central hypocrisy. Please tell me if I understand your position correctly. My impression is that you're attributing personhood to the being that "takes over the body" of its mother for nine months, and still saying that the being's existence is less important than the rights of the being's mother. I'm askimg because people who support abortion usually deny the personhood of the aborted.
He’s using the violinist argument which posits that even if it were undoubtably a person, such as a renowned violinist, the state could not seize your body and mandate its use for the good of another.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
Person or not, individuals have the right to refuse consent for the use of their body by another. The typical defence against the violinist is the surrendering their rights through the choice to have sex argument attempted last night. It obviously has issues, such as non consensual sex, and it’s proponents are generally advocating against informed decision making with the surrender. I don’t think it works.
The surrendering of such a fundamental right as bodily autonomy can not be done accidentally or without informed consent. At the very least we would need an awful lot of sex education to meet the requirement that the surrender was done with full access to information. A girl who was taught that the rhythm method of birth control is effective by a Catholic school can not be reasonably viewed as having made a conscious decision to surrender bodily autonomy when she has what she has been assured is safe sex. Failures of contraception are also another very grey area. The use of contraceptives implies that there is no intention to surrender control of their body. If the parties clearly had no intention to surrender their rights then it’s pretty shady for the government to claim that it isn’t stripping their rights but rather that they volunteered.
|
|
|
On May 17 2019 17:16 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2019 13:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 16 2019 21:18 Godwrath wrote: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. You actually agree with the left on something. Congrats. Of course, having someone as incompetent as Trump as president allows Bush retreads to get back into power. All these guys have to do is go on Fox News and pretend to be experts, say some nice things about Trump, and then he hires them. Bolton was a complete shitbag the first time around and yet Trump brought him back. That would not have happened with a Democrat in the White House. Of course, Democrats do have their own shitbags too and we'll never know what would have happened with Clinton. In some ways, Bolton was too toxic even to get confirmed to be part of the Bush administration. As I mentioned in my previous post on him a few days back right before all the abortion stuff happened, Bolton's past was so bad and he had such obviously horrible character that he couldn't even make it through confirmation from a Republican-majority senate, and Bush ended up having to appoint him to a different job at the UN that didn't require confirmation.
He's a lifetime bureaucrat with no military experience, an incredibly short temper, and a history of abusing other people who has made it clear many times over the years that he wants to start wars with multiple countries. Him being a National Security Advisor is terrifying, and I stand by my previous claim that Bolton is scarier than Trump. But he said nice things about Trump on Fox News, so here we are.
|
On May 18 2019 01:34 JimmiC wrote:
The anti sex education stance is one of the most glaring inconsistencies. It is like people don't realize that Sex ed isn't about how to do sex right, or maximize pleasure, it is about how if you are going to have sex how to not get an unwanted pregnancy or STI.
It comes from the idea that sex is inherently bad and sinful, and the only reason to ever have sex is to produce more children as believers (and money-givers) for the church. If you start there, then of course sex ed is bad, because it promotes the idea of sex for reasons which are not producing children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
