Hey, if the original definition doesn't work after testing it, I'm perfectly willing to go back and revise it. Think of it like the scientific method except you're more willing to argue against it because you don't like it (no one's ever allowed to revise their definitions, it seems).
I'm fine with you revising definitions. The whole point of testing your definitions through thought experiments is to get you to revise them. But I'm not fine with you doing it ad hoc, or with you trying to pretend that you're not doing it and we're somehow doing you an injustice.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Similarly, if person A consents to being locked in a cage by person B, person B should not be charged with kidnapping (which they would be if caught, under current law).
I do not believe that this example is adequate, although I understand your point, you must also take into account the court system. If I were found in a cage that I asked person A to put me in, I would probably not even go to court due to the fact that I wanted it to happen to begin with and, upon investigation, I would say so. But in the event that I lied and said that I didn't want it to happen, evidence to support the fact that I enjoy being locked in cages would probably surface, and I would probably not win my case. Then again, it's entirely possible that such a lie could land my captor in jail.
On the distinction issue: before a legal age of consent (18 in a large number of states, 16 in some, and 14 in others, disregarded in all) a person is legally unable to make a rational decision to have sexual relations with another person, therefore, some thug forcing penetration onto a passerby is as bad in the eyes of the law as an of-age male or female enjoying an intimate experience with their partner: the minor is not capable of making such decisions and it is assumed that they were being taken advantage of.
The victim of the thug is more likely to make a fuss over the matter because she was legitimately hurt in this situation. If a 17 year old girl has consentual sex with an 18 year old man, it is not likely that there will be any fuss unless an outside source has evidence to support that the act truly happened and has some adversion to the intimacy between those two individuals. I do not believe that the court would dish out as much of a sentence for the 18 year old "caught in the act" as compared to the thug who ravaged an innocent woman against her will.
On the actual bill: the controversial nature of the bill will most probably cause it to be shot down on the House floor when votes are cast. There are too many unclear definitions in regards to other laws (or lack thereof) and it will inevitably fail. In the event that it has a chance of passing, I would disagree with the bill given that it is not right for an underaged girl to bear a child against her will (or against the will of her parents) because of lack of maturity and the impact it will have on the rest of her life.
Now, it's true, the morality of abortions is questionable (I find it a non-issue because I do not feel that human rights themselves are justified, but that's an issue for another thread). However, the morality of the murder of living, breathing, THINKING people-people who are unquestionably alive... This is disgusting. This is patently disgusting. And I have no doubt that within a few months of this bill being passed, we're going to see cases of legal murder against abortion doctors.
...I suppose this is only slightly related, but ☺☺☺☺. I really hope this stuff doesn't pass, but I'm fairly sure that unless there's rioting in the streets or the supreme court steps in, that bill is going to pass in Iowa.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hey kids! Don't like rules? Tired of having your lulz censored by terrible, terrible people called "moderators"? Big fan of metal? Check out Metaln☺☺☺☺! This is probably the worst possible forum to advertise it on!
Added bonus: we're holding a songwriting contest in march with a registry drive going on right now! Check it out, plus the opportunity to earn $50!
Now, it's true, the morality of abortions is questionable (I find it a non-issue because I do not feel that human rights themselves are justified, but that's an issue for another thread). However, the morality of the murder of living, breathing, THINKING people-people who are unquestionably alive... This is disgusting. This is patently disgusting. And I have no doubt that within a few months of this bill being passed, we're going to see cases of legal murder against abortion doctors.
Only if you interpret the law in the most insanely alarmist light possible, as this article has. See its "Updates". There is no court of law in the country that would allow this law or any other to justify murder.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Fair enough. Let's hope those provisions are added.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hey kids! Don't like rules? Tired of having your lulz censored by terrible, terrible people called "moderators"? Big fan of metal? Check out Metaln☺☺☺☺! This is probably the worst possible forum to advertise it on!
Added bonus: we're holding a songwriting contest in march with a registry drive going on right now! Check it out, plus the opportunity to earn $50!
You know, its funny, George Carlin is trotted out a lot by people as someone who just "gets it". Or had the right ideas.
But if you actually take the time to look through what he says and consider it... Its got more holes in it, and more terrible leaps of logic than just about anything I've ever seen posted on a blog or on these debate forums.
lets take a look at some quotes:
"Pro-life... these people aren't pro-life, they're killing doctors! What kind of pro-life is that?" -- Here he has attributed the acts of a very small minority with everyone who is pro-life. Not very sound reasoning.
"Conservatives don't give a ☺☺☺☺ about you until you reach military age. " -- Because its absolutely impossible to be a conservative and care about social programs. impossible. Certainly Churches don't do any kind of social work at all, and all they do is drain the community.
"Simple as it gets, anti-woman -- they don't like them. They don't like women. They believe a woman's primary role is to function as a broodmare for the state" -- yes, because arguing that they shouldn't be able to kill a fetus that is already there is the same as saying they should be forced to do nothing but get impregnated and give birth constantly.
No, George Carlin wasn't some great thinker, didn't raise good arguments, and didn't have the answer to the issue. He didn't need to, he was a comedian. He got paid to make people laugh.
Don't get me wrong, he's pretty funny. But that doesn't mean his arguments have any merit whatsoever. Most of them don't.
I'm wondering why we haven't considered or developed an artificial womb. Surely if we can implant fetus in a woman before too long we should be able to remove them and re-create that environment. Of course it would cost a butt load, but it would identify how people stood on the issue. (in terms of cost, definition of life et). (For those of you familiar with Battletech, think Clan breeding programs).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
If you were pregnant, and somebody deliberately put MTX or something else into your food to make you abort... At what gestational age would you view it as murdering your baby? When a 20 week body miscarried out of your womb, would you not consider I straight up murder? 34 weeks?
If you don't ever consider it murder, what would you consider to be appropriate criminal punishment by the state for that person?
Practical issues of a person's right to control her own body influence the pure ethical argument, and cognitive dissonance then makes people rationalize & formulate ridiculous arguments about 28 week, viable babies not being "human".
I want to know people's real philosophical standing on what constitutes human life based only on that entity's characteristics: if humans laid eggs instead of bearing live birth, please honestly offer up what gestational age would make you call that embryo-fetus-baby a "human".
I'm wondering why we haven't considered or developed an artificial womb. Surely if we can implant fetus in a woman before too long we should be able to remove them and re-create that environment. Of course it would cost a butt load, but it would identify how people stood on the issue. (in terms of cost, definition of life et). (For those of you familiar with Battletech, think Clan breeding programs).
We can't. Pregnancy is one aspect of science that we would probably be stumped about for years to come.
I define a person as:
Entity with genetic structure that is homologous to the species of homo sapiens that is able to sustain a beating heart under the current limits of our medical technology.
Coma: person
Sedatives: person
Cortical-brain dead: person
Brain-stem dead: gray zone
Heart stopped for a significant period of time: dead, not a person
>23 week old fetus: person
<23 week old fetus: not viable with current technology, therefore not a person.
This does mean that we need to be able to know about abnormalities before the 23 week period. I think we have some capacity, but not much else.
I would advocate abortions/forced labour under the circumstance that the mother's life is in danger. I don't think I would advocate abortions for anything else (this does not mean that I don't agree with statements such as a woman wanting an abortion from rape, but rather that I don't say that I advocate it for this purpose). Secondarily, I would provide the proper venue for a woman if she wants an abortion regardless of gestational age and regardless of reasoning behind it.
"Simple as it gets, anti-woman -- they don't like them. They don't like women. They believe a woman's primary role is to function as a broodmare for the state" -- yes, because arguing that they shouldn't be able to kill a fetus that is already there is the same as saying they should be forced to do nothing but get impregnated and give birth constantly.
I'll grant you that most of his assertions are false and that he does it for the sake of comedy, but this one I think I can understand.
Women are given less rights than men when you make abortion and birth control anything but readily available. Add to that the types of laws this whole topic was started on that make abortions impossible to get even for people who were forced into pregnancy and have no recourse because they are minors and you start to wonder how this movement could possibly be fueled by anything other than rampant misogyny.
The only factor that is different in the case of rape is the willingness of the woman to have had sex. However, if the question here is whether or not the fetus is a person, this should be irrelevant. The only reason I can see for these rape exceptions, therefore, is to punish women for having wanted sex.
I believe their should be a distinction between the two "types" of rape. Although statutory rape is not something I'm completely ok with, I do not regard it the same as violently raping someone who is saying no. Statutory rape just means society thinks person A involved isn't capable of knowing if they want to have sex and that person b involved is aware of this and chooses to manipulate person A. the sad truth is, this goes on long after legal consent age. I find it hard to hear about 20 year olds having sex with 16, 17 year olds and getting in trouble for it/being viewed the same as someone who rapes a woman against her own free will. Those two people are clearly different.
I think we need to change what statutory rape is, or change the legal consent age or perhaps some other idea I have yet to come up with. But as mentioned, a 20 year old who is dating a 17 year old and has sex is clearly not the same as a man of any age having non-consensual sex with someone.
I do however think anything under the age of 16 just seems sickening on every level.
This is certainly a tough subject to deal with in absolutes, and the more gray areas you involve, the more complicated it becomes. I just do not like where it is at the current moment.
I believe their should be a distinction between the two "types" of rape. Although statutory rape is not something I'm completely ok with, I do not regard it the same as violently raping someone who is saying no. Statutory rape just means society thinks person A involved isn't capable of knowing if they want to have sex and that person b involved is aware of this and chooses to manipulate person A. the sad truth is, this goes on long after legal consent age. I find it hard to hear about 20 year olds having sex with 16, 17 year olds and getting in trouble for it/being viewed the same as someone who rapes a woman against her own free will. Those two people are clearly different.
I think we need to change what statutory rape is, or change the legal consent age or perhaps some other idea I have yet to come up with. But as mentioned, a 20 year old who is dating a 17 year old and has sex is clearly not the same as a man of any age having non-consensual sex with someone.
I do however think anything under the age of 16 just seems sickening on every level.
This is certainly a tough subject to deal with in absolutes, and the more gray areas you involve, the more complicated it becomes. I just do not like where it is at the current moment.
I agree. Calling a 24 year old a sex offender for the rest of his life because three years earlier he had sex with his 17 year old girl friend and her parents got mad about it is bogus. I don't want to promote this type of behavior, but making this guy an outcast for the rest of his life is shameful of society. Now if he's 23 and touching 8 year olds he likely has some mental problems and possibly should be "marked".
There was a guyI used to hang out with who pled guilty to a breaking and entering charge to avoid just this type of situation. (His GF's little sister passed out drunk and he used his gf's key to bring her into her house. Her parents caught him putting her into bed.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
Women are given less rights than men when you make abortion and birth control anything but readily available. Add to that the types of laws this whole topic was started on that make abortions impossible to get even for people who were forced into pregnancy and have no recourse because they are minors and you start to wonder how this movement could possibly be fueled by anything other than rampant misogyny.
The only factor that is different in the case of rape is the willingness of the woman to have had sex. However, if the question here is whether or not the fetus is a person, this should be irrelevant. The only reason I can see for these rape exceptions, therefore, is to punish women for having wanted sex.
You start to wonder how this movement could be fueled by anything other than rampant misogyny? Really? That could *only* be the case if you discount the possibility that the pro-life advocates actually believe what they are saying.
If someone believes that a fetus or an embryo is a full human being deserving of all the protections associated with that its not in the least bit misogynistic to say that they shouldn't be killed. It's in fact the only reasonable conclusion of such a line of thought. In order to argue that the pro-life position must be misogynistic you have to believe that all pro-lifers are lieing and really agree with you on when the fetus/embryo becomes a person. Thats just plain ludicrous.
Most pro-life positions sympathize with the women who wants to have the abortion, but don't view her desire for a less encumbered 9 months as justification to murder a baby. (Before you get hung up on the terminology there, I'm talking about how we see the issue, not how you see it.)
However, if the question here is whether or not the fetus is a person, this should be irrelevant. -- The real issue here is working within the system. Its a known factor that they can't pass a law saying "abortion is banned" and have it have any effect. So what is the *best* possible solution (pragmatically) -- find the most legal ways to discourage abortion, and enact those.
It's not an example of misogyny, its an example of standing up for the moral and ethical rights of people who can't stand up for themselves.
There's really no nice way of honestly presenting a system of beliefs that gives men greater rights to their bodies than women have to theirs, though, despite what some supporters believe.
Where are you getting "greater rights" for men? If a man were somehow pregnant, I'm pretty sure most pro-lifers wouldn't want him to have an abortion either. This is a completely baseless attempt to demonize your opponents.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
In order to argue that the pro-life position must be misogynistic you have to believe that all pro-lifers are lieing and really agree with you on when the fetus/embryo becomes a person. Thats just plain ludicrous.
So, Tuss, you either agree with what I said above and think that all pro life people are actually lieing about when they think a fetus/embryo becomes a person or you are... what? Trolling? I'm not sure how to interpret this sentence any other way.
Where are you getting "greater rights" for men? If a man were somehow pregnant, I'm pretty sure most pro-lifers wouldn't want him to have an abortion either. This is a completely baseless attempt to demonize your opponents.
It creates a situation whereby a woman is expected to give up parts of her body for the sake of another, something we never expect a man to do even though we have ways in which a man can. Imagine the outrage if we had mandatory blood, marrow, tissue, and organ donations.
It's entire possible for something to be sexist without it being the explicit intent of its supporters. This is one of those cases.
I'm pretty sure that BS is right... pro-lifers aren't only in favor of banning abortions of women. They also oppose any intentional destruction of a fetus or embryo. Yes, that includes artificial insemination procedures.
What it all comes down to, however, is that it is 1) in no way sexist and 2) in no way misogynistic. The rule is applied uniformly to all people. No murdering people. Thats the rule. We don't allow the use of deadly force *ever* unless there is a real and imminent threat of deadly force on the actor.
It creates a situation whereby a woman is expected to give up parts of her body for the sake of another, something we never expect a man to do even though we have ways in which a man can. Imagine the outrage if we had mandatory blood, marrow, tissue, and organ donations.
The difference between these two situations is the difference between allowing something to happen and causing something to happen.
An abortion doesn't "allow" the fetus/embryo to die. It ACTIVELY causes it.
No, banning abortion would not be applied uniformly to all people. It would affect women the most. It already does affect women the most in the places it's banned.
Banning abortion gives a lump of cells with the potential for becoming a person greater rights to a woman's body than the woman herself has to her own body. This is something no man ever has to deal with. Suggesting it would cause a massive outcry.
That's why it is a sexist suggestion. That this isn't necessarily an intended effect doesn't matter.
Ok, lets dial this back a notch. Its becoming evidently apparent that you just think all pro life people are lieing and really don't believe that an embryo/fetus is a person.
Is that, or is that not true. (this is a yes or no question. Feel free to justify your answer all you want, but its still a yes or no question.)
Edit: note, that this part of the conversation stemmed from a statement that pro life standpoint was misogenistic. Mosogyny most definately requires an intent for women to be marginilzed.
No, banning abortion would not be applied uniformly to all people. It would affect women the most. It already does affect women the most in the places it's banned.
Banning abortion gives a lump of cells with the potential for becoming a person greater rights to a woman's body than the woman herself has to her own body. This is something no man ever has to deal with. Suggesting it would cause a massive outcry.
That's why it is a sexist suggestion. That this isn't necessarily an intended effect doesn't matter.
Gee, it sure is femnazi around here...
Seriously, get your head out of your ass. Only women can become pregnant, so stop bringing up the "men are so priveledged" argument - we don't have to deal with it, so it's a non-issue.
I'm pro-choice, but as far as the potential child having "more of a right to a woman's body than the woman herself" is dumb. Sure, we should take the woman's attitudes into account, but to completely justify the taking of a potential life without regard for the potential life itself (such as in cases of disease, rape, genetic disorders, etc.) is straight murder. I know it isn't a person yet, but to deny a life on selfish grounds means that you have no business reproducing (or risking reproduction) to begin with.
No, I do not believe that. I'm sorry for not making myself clear. What I am saying is just that it's difficult to to present a suggestion that boils down to restricting women's rights to their bodies without it coming off as sexist even if that line of thought never occurs to the person making the suggestion. A lot of things are said and honestly believed.
Ok, then you would admit that, at the very least, its not misogynistic?
But it does give women de facto less rights to their own bodies. If abortion is banned, men have complete rights to theirs but women don't.
Because only women are put in this particular situation where the value of bodily autonomy must be weighed against the value of a life. This isn't sexism, it's just biology, so if you're going to complain to anyone, complain to Charles Darwin.
Blind people are legally prohibited from driving. This gives them de facto less freedom of action than the sighted. But is it unfair discrimination? Of course not. A blind man behind the wheel is in a situation where his freedom must be weighed against the risks to others' lives, and I think we'd all agree that the weight falls firmly on the side of the others' lives. Fate dealt the man a bad hand, and we should do everything reasonable to accommodate his disability, but unfortunately there have to be limits.
So it goes with abortion. I recognize that you don't see the life of a fetus as having a great deal of value. But what you have to recognize is that pro-lifers do. They see the life of the fetus as just as valuable as the lives put at risk by the blind driver. Therefore, if you are going to accuse them of being implicitly sexist, you must also accuse them (and, presumably, yourself) of being implicitly disablist.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No, there is no need to do that. Blind people aren't allowed to operate vehicles because they would pose an additional danger to themselves and others on account of being entirely unable to process vital input at the speeds necessary to drive safely. We just don't have tech that allows blind people to drive just as well (or as poorly, hrm) as those who can see. So that's why.
There is no such context to women having the right to decide whether they want to be pregnant or not.
Wait, why is there no such context? We just don't have the tech yet to implant an artificial womb in a man, thereby allowing him to become impregnated. Once that tech exists, does a prohibition against aboriton suddnely become nonsexist -- following your logic above to its natural conclusion it would have to.
Edit: Also, minor nitpick, abortion is the result of a decision about whether to remain pregnant or not. not the decision about whether to become pregnant.
No, there is no need to do that. Blind people aren't allowed to operate vehicles because they would pose an additional danger to themselves and others on account of being entirely unable to process vital input at the speeds necessary to drive safely. We just don't have tech that allows blind people to drive just as well (or as poorly, hrm) as those who can see. So that's why.
There is no such context to women having the right to decide whether they want to be pregnant or not.
A pregnant woman deciding that she doesn't want to be pregnant poses a danger to what a pro-lifer would call a life. It's not because she's unable to process sensory input, but that's clearly an irrelevant detail to the ethical situation. And she doesn't endanger herself, but if blind people were only allowed to drive, say, Volvos, they wouldn't endanger themselves either; the danger to the self, likewise, seems to be irrelevant to the situation. There is a parallel technical limitation, though: we don't have the tech to allow the fetus to survive outside the mother, or to make certain that she doesn't get pregnant in the first place.
So I'm really not seeing where my analogy fails me.
EDIT: Nath'd.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
A pregnant woman deciding that she doesn't want to be pregnant poses a danger to what a pro-lifer would call a life. It's not because she's unable to process sensory input, but that's clearly an irrelevant detail to the ethical situation. And she doesn't endanger herself, but if blind people were only allowed to drive, say, Volvos, they wouldn't endanger themselves either; the danger to the self, likewise, seems to be irrelevant to the situation. There is a parallel technical limitation, though: we don't have the tech to allow the fetus to survive outside the mother, or to make certain that she doesn't get pregnant in the first place.
So I'm really not seeing where my analogy fails me.
I'm fine with you revising definitions. The whole point of testing your definitions through thought experiments is to get you to revise them. But I'm not fine with you doing it ad hoc, or with you trying to pretend that you're not doing it and we're somehow doing you an injustice.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I do not believe that this example is adequate, although I understand your point, you must also take into account the court system. If I were found in a cage that I asked person A to put me in, I would probably not even go to court due to the fact that I wanted it to happen to begin with and, upon investigation, I would say so. But in the event that I lied and said that I didn't want it to happen, evidence to support the fact that I enjoy being locked in cages would probably surface, and I would probably not win my case. Then again, it's entirely possible that such a lie could land my captor in jail.
On the distinction issue: before a legal age of consent (18 in a large number of states, 16 in some, and 14 in others, disregarded in all) a person is legally unable to make a rational decision to have sexual relations with another person, therefore, some thug forcing penetration onto a passerby is as bad in the eyes of the law as an of-age male or female enjoying an intimate experience with their partner: the minor is not capable of making such decisions and it is assumed that they were being taken advantage of.
The victim of the thug is more likely to make a fuss over the matter because she was legitimately hurt in this situation. If a 17 year old girl has consentual sex with an 18 year old man, it is not likely that there will be any fuss unless an outside source has evidence to support that the act truly happened and has some adversion to the intimacy between those two individuals. I do not believe that the court would dish out as much of a sentence for the 18 year old "caught in the act" as compared to the thug who ravaged an innocent woman against her will.
On the actual bill: the controversial nature of the bill will most probably cause it to be shot down on the House floor when votes are cast. There are too many unclear definitions in regards to other laws (or lack thereof) and it will inevitably fail. In the event that it has a chance of passing, I would disagree with the bill given that it is not right for an underaged girl to bear a child against her will (or against the will of her parents) because of lack of maturity and the impact it will have on the rest of her life.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers?page=1
Same row of bills.
Now, it's true, the morality of abortions is questionable (I find it a non-issue because I do not feel that human rights themselves are justified, but that's an issue for another thread). However, the morality of the murder of living, breathing, THINKING people-people who are unquestionably alive... This is disgusting. This is patently disgusting. And I have no doubt that within a few months of this bill being passed, we're going to see cases of legal murder against abortion doctors.
This has to stop. I honestly think that George Carlin got it right. "Fetus? You're golden. Alive? You're on your own."
...I suppose this is only slightly related, but ☺☺☺☺. I really hope this stuff doesn't pass, but I'm fairly sure that unless there's rioting in the streets or the supreme court steps in, that bill is going to pass in Iowa.
Added bonus: we're holding a songwriting contest in march with a registry drive going on right now! Check it out, plus the opportunity to earn $50!
Only if you interpret the law in the most insanely alarmist light possible, as this article has. See its "Updates". There is no court of law in the country that would allow this law or any other to justify murder.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Added bonus: we're holding a songwriting contest in march with a registry drive going on right now! Check it out, plus the opportunity to earn $50!
You know, its funny, George Carlin is trotted out a lot by people as someone who just "gets it". Or had the right ideas.
But if you actually take the time to look through what he says and consider it... Its got more holes in it, and more terrible leaps of logic than just about anything I've ever seen posted on a blog or on these debate forums.
lets take a look at some quotes:
"Pro-life... these people aren't pro-life, they're killing doctors! What kind of pro-life is that?" -- Here he has attributed the acts of a very small minority with everyone who is pro-life. Not very sound reasoning.
"Conservatives don't give a ☺☺☺☺ about you until you reach military age. " -- Because its absolutely impossible to be a conservative and care about social programs. impossible. Certainly Churches don't do any kind of social work at all, and all they do is drain the community.
"Simple as it gets, anti-woman -- they don't like them. They don't like women. They believe a woman's primary role is to function as a broodmare for the state" -- yes, because arguing that they shouldn't be able to kill a fetus that is already there is the same as saying they should be forced to do nothing but get impregnated and give birth constantly.
No, George Carlin wasn't some great thinker, didn't raise good arguments, and didn't have the answer to the issue. He didn't need to, he was a comedian. He got paid to make people laugh.
Don't get me wrong, he's pretty funny. But that doesn't mean his arguments have any merit whatsoever. Most of them don't.
If you were pregnant, and somebody deliberately put MTX or something else into your food to make you abort... At what gestational age would you view it as murdering your baby? When a 20 week body miscarried out of your womb, would you not consider I straight up murder? 34 weeks?
If you don't ever consider it murder, what would you consider to be appropriate criminal punishment by the state for that person?
Practical issues of a person's right to control her own body influence the pure ethical argument, and cognitive dissonance then makes people rationalize & formulate ridiculous arguments about 28 week, viable babies not being "human".
I want to know people's real philosophical standing on what constitutes human life based only on that entity's characteristics: if humans laid eggs instead of bearing live birth, please honestly offer up what gestational age would make you call that embryo-fetus-baby a "human".
You think we haven't? It's much more difficult than you make it sound. There's a lot going on in a womb, and we don't even understand it all fully.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
We can't. Pregnancy is one aspect of science that we would probably be stumped about for years to come.
I define a person as:
Entity with genetic structure that is homologous to the species of homo sapiens that is able to sustain a beating heart under the current limits of our medical technology.
Coma: person
Sedatives: person
Cortical-brain dead: person
Brain-stem dead: gray zone
Heart stopped for a significant period of time: dead, not a person
>23 week old fetus: person
<23 week old fetus: not viable with current technology, therefore not a person.
This does mean that we need to be able to know about abnormalities before the 23 week period. I think we have some capacity, but not much else.
I would advocate abortions/forced labour under the circumstance that the mother's life is in danger. I don't think I would advocate abortions for anything else (this does not mean that I don't agree with statements such as a woman wanting an abortion from rape, but rather that I don't say that I advocate it for this purpose). Secondarily, I would provide the proper venue for a woman if she wants an abortion regardless of gestational age and regardless of reasoning behind it.
燃える時計秘密めく花の香り
www.pokemoncrossroads.com
Women are given less rights than men when you make abortion and birth control anything but readily available. Add to that the types of laws this whole topic was started on that make abortions impossible to get even for people who were forced into pregnancy and have no recourse because they are minors and you start to wonder how this movement could possibly be fueled by anything other than rampant misogyny.
The only factor that is different in the case of rape is the willingness of the woman to have had sex. However, if the question here is whether or not the fetus is a person, this should be irrelevant. The only reason I can see for these rape exceptions, therefore, is to punish women for having wanted sex.
I think we need to change what statutory rape is, or change the legal consent age or perhaps some other idea I have yet to come up with. But as mentioned, a 20 year old who is dating a 17 year old and has sex is clearly not the same as a man of any age having non-consensual sex with someone.
I do however think anything under the age of 16 just seems sickening on every level.
This is certainly a tough subject to deal with in absolutes, and the more gray areas you involve, the more complicated it becomes. I just do not like where it is at the current moment.
EDH
WB Teysa, Orzhov Scion
I agree. Calling a 24 year old a sex offender for the rest of his life because three years earlier he had sex with his 17 year old girl friend and her parents got mad about it is bogus. I don't want to promote this type of behavior, but making this guy an outcast for the rest of his life is shameful of society. Now if he's 23 and touching 8 year olds he likely has some mental problems and possibly should be "marked".
There was a guyI used to hang out with who pled guilty to a breaking and entering charge to avoid just this type of situation. (His GF's little sister passed out drunk and he used his gf's key to bring her into her house. Her parents caught him putting her into bed.)
You start to wonder how this movement could be fueled by anything other than rampant misogyny? Really? That could *only* be the case if you discount the possibility that the pro-life advocates actually believe what they are saying.
If someone believes that a fetus or an embryo is a full human being deserving of all the protections associated with that its not in the least bit misogynistic to say that they shouldn't be killed. It's in fact the only reasonable conclusion of such a line of thought. In order to argue that the pro-life position must be misogynistic you have to believe that all pro-lifers are lieing and really agree with you on when the fetus/embryo becomes a person. Thats just plain ludicrous.
Most pro-life positions sympathize with the women who wants to have the abortion, but don't view her desire for a less encumbered 9 months as justification to murder a baby. (Before you get hung up on the terminology there, I'm talking about how we see the issue, not how you see it.)
However, if the question here is whether or not the fetus is a person, this should be irrelevant. -- The real issue here is working within the system. Its a known factor that they can't pass a law saying "abortion is banned" and have it have any effect. So what is the *best* possible solution (pragmatically) -- find the most legal ways to discourage abortion, and enact those.
It's not an example of misogyny, its an example of standing up for the moral and ethical rights of people who can't stand up for themselves.
Where are you getting "greater rights" for men? If a man were somehow pregnant, I'm pretty sure most pro-lifers wouldn't want him to have an abortion either. This is a completely baseless attempt to demonize your opponents.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So, Tuss, you either agree with what I said above and think that all pro life people are actually lieing about when they think a fetus/embryo becomes a person or you are... what? Trolling? I'm not sure how to interpret this sentence any other way.
I'm pretty sure that BS is right... pro-lifers aren't only in favor of banning abortions of women. They also oppose any intentional destruction of a fetus or embryo. Yes, that includes artificial insemination procedures.
What it all comes down to, however, is that it is 1) in no way sexist and 2) in no way misogynistic. The rule is applied uniformly to all people. No murdering people. Thats the rule. We don't allow the use of deadly force *ever* unless there is a real and imminent threat of deadly force on the actor.
A fetus / embryo is no different. Period.
The difference between these two situations is the difference between allowing something to happen and causing something to happen.
An abortion doesn't "allow" the fetus/embryo to die. It ACTIVELY causes it.
Ok, lets dial this back a notch. Its becoming evidently apparent that you just think all pro life people are lieing and really don't believe that an embryo/fetus is a person.
Is that, or is that not true. (this is a yes or no question. Feel free to justify your answer all you want, but its still a yes or no question.)
Edit: note, that this part of the conversation stemmed from a statement that pro life standpoint was misogenistic. Mosogyny most definately requires an intent for women to be marginilzed.
Gee, it sure is femnazi around here...
Seriously, get your head out of your ass. Only women can become pregnant, so stop bringing up the "men are so priveledged" argument - we don't have to deal with it, so it's a non-issue.
I'm pro-choice, but as far as the potential child having "more of a right to a woman's body than the woman herself" is dumb. Sure, we should take the woman's attitudes into account, but to completely justify the taking of a potential life without regard for the potential life itself (such as in cases of disease, rape, genetic disorders, etc.) is straight murder. I know it isn't a person yet, but to deny a life on selfish grounds means that you have no business reproducing (or risking reproduction) to begin with.
Flame warning.
Ok, then you would admit that, at the very least, its not misogynistic?
Because only women are put in this particular situation where the value of bodily autonomy must be weighed against the value of a life. This isn't sexism, it's just biology, so if you're going to complain to anyone, complain to Charles Darwin.
Blind people are legally prohibited from driving. This gives them de facto less freedom of action than the sighted. But is it unfair discrimination? Of course not. A blind man behind the wheel is in a situation where his freedom must be weighed against the risks to others' lives, and I think we'd all agree that the weight falls firmly on the side of the others' lives. Fate dealt the man a bad hand, and we should do everything reasonable to accommodate his disability, but unfortunately there have to be limits.
So it goes with abortion. I recognize that you don't see the life of a fetus as having a great deal of value. But what you have to recognize is that pro-lifers do. They see the life of the fetus as just as valuable as the lives put at risk by the blind driver. Therefore, if you are going to accuse them of being implicitly sexist, you must also accuse them (and, presumably, yourself) of being implicitly disablist.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Wait, why is there no such context? We just don't have the tech yet to implant an artificial womb in a man, thereby allowing him to become impregnated. Once that tech exists, does a prohibition against aboriton suddnely become nonsexist -- following your logic above to its natural conclusion it would have to.
Edit: Also, minor nitpick, abortion is the result of a decision about whether to remain pregnant or not. not the decision about whether to become pregnant.
A pregnant woman deciding that she doesn't want to be pregnant poses a danger to what a pro-lifer would call a life. It's not because she's unable to process sensory input, but that's clearly an irrelevant detail to the ethical situation. And she doesn't endanger herself, but if blind people were only allowed to drive, say, Volvos, they wouldn't endanger themselves either; the danger to the self, likewise, seems to be irrelevant to the situation. There is a parallel technical limitation, though: we don't have the tech to allow the fetus to survive outside the mother, or to make certain that she doesn't get pregnant in the first place.
So I'm really not seeing where my analogy fails me.
EDIT: Nath'd.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
FYI - A good Medical Ethics summary, for anyone that wants to discuss ethical issues, rather than moral ones (since 'life' is mostly a moral value judgment about fetal development):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_ethics#Values_in_medical_ethics
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath