|
Phyzzle posted:It's life. It's alive and can dream and think, like a cat does, and it's wrong to inflict suffering. I view a fetus as a real, living thing, just not a human life. No, a fetus is 100% a human life. That's a biological fact. I think a better way for you to say this is that while a fetus is human that does not necessarily make it a person. Drunk Orc posted:I think of myself as pretty progressive but I don't think I should die just because my dad raped my mom, what's so weird about that? To be fair had you been aborted you wouldn't care.
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 10:14 |
|
|
Drunk Orc posted:I think of myself as pretty progressive but I don't think I should die just because my dad raped my mom, what's so weird about that? It's your mother's decision to use her body to care for you, the product of rape, if she chooses it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
I mean that's kind of an obtuse assumption made after the fact isn't? Living is pretty cool and telling people their mom would've been fully justified in effectively murdering them is kind of screwed up, man.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Drunk Orc posted:I think of myself as pretty progressive but I don't think I should die just because my dad raped my mom, what's so weird about that? If you had been aborted, you'd never have been alive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Drunk Orc posted:I mean that's kind of an obtuse assumption made after the fact isn't? Living is pretty cool and telling people their mom would've been fully justified in effectively murdering them is kind of screwed up, man. Well that depends on your mother and whether she is OK with doing that. Depending on her views living might not have been very cool at all for her, and possibly not for you either if she couldn't bring herself to look at you because of what you represented.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Drunk Orc posted:I mean that's kind of an obtuse assumption made after the fact isn't? you can't miss living before you're ever alive Drunk Orc posted:Living is pretty cool and telling people their mom would've been fully justified in effectively murdering them is kind of screwed up, man. that's the truth. your mother has a choice to bring you into this world or not. her decision does not need to be justified. consider what you're in favor of here, compulsory pregancy. think about that for a minute
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:you can't miss living before you're ever alive Well it's not like they have to keep the child, there are orphanages and stuff. Human life has intrinsic value beyond comprehension and the way you guys simply dismiss it as a personal choice is super eerie and kind of fascist sounding, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Drunk Orc posted:I mean that's kind of an obtuse assumption made after the fact isn't? What? Dead things do not care about anything, so that is not an assumption, no. Drunk Orc posted:Living is pretty cool and telling people their mom would've been fully justified in effectively murdering them is kind of screwed up, man. Murder is the unlawful killing of a person. Abortion is legal and a fetus isn't a person, so it's not murder. On a less pedantic note yeah I suppose it's a little messed up but that's not a good reason to criminalize abortion. Edit Drunk Orc posted:Well it's not like they have to keep the child, there are orphanages and stuff. Human life has intrinsic value beyond comprehension and the way you guys simply dismiss it as a personal choice is super eerie and kind of fascist sounding, to be honest. First, do you have any idea what the process of being pregnant and giving birth is like? Do you seriously want to force women to do that against their will? What the gently caress are you going to do, strap them to a hospital bed for nine months? That's a million times more fascist than abortion is. Also, human life only has value because we say it does. Value is applied, it is never intrinsic. Edit2 Have you seen an orphanage or foster home lately? Actually, I'm not even sure we still have orphanages any more, or if it's just foster homes. SedanChair probably knows more but I doubt that they are either numerous or particularly well funded. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
Man, its almost as if we don't have any orphans or homeless children that need help before we go around whining about a collection of cells....
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Drunk Orc posted:Well it's not like they have to keep the child, there are orphanages and stuff. she has the choice to not be pregnant, also Drunk Orc posted:Human life has intrinsic value beyond comprehension and the way you guys simply dismiss it as a personal choice is super eerie and kind of fascist sounding, to be honest. you should have played this troll out longer, it was soft but might have eventually gone somewhere if you were patient (much like a fetus) anyway human life isn't special, but consciousness is. this is why abortion should be permitted and we should have stronger protection for animals, especially animals which have higher order brain function
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Drunk Orc posted:Human life has intrinsic value beyond comprehension Nothing has intrinsic value, value is a human concept, it exists in our heads and we apply it where we choose to, it doesn't come from without.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
I'm being serious though? Is there really that much of a difference between deciding to kill an unborn because it's not financially viable for an individual or simply "isn't a good time", and exterminating people based on society not wanting to/being unable to provide for them? E: I totally agree with granting higher thinking animals more rights too, wasn't there a dolphin or monkey or something that a court ruled as a nonhuman person? crunk dork fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Drunk Orc posted:I'm being serious though? Is there really that much of a difference between deciding to kill an unborn because it's not financially viable for an individual or simply "isn't a good time", and exterminating people based on society not wanting to/being unable to provide for them? Yes, in the latter case you're killing an actual person, in the former you're not! Huge difference.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Drunk Orc posted:I'm being serious though? Is there really that much of a difference between deciding to kill an unborn because it's not financially viable for an individual or simply "isn't a good time", and exterminating people based on society not wanting to/being unable to provide for them? functionally the child is dead either way, but morally there is a difference. people have varied opinions about this unknowable problem and no opinion is any more valid than another, which is why we defer then to giving people the freedom to choose what happens with their own bodies e: oh you were saying is there a difference between killing a fetus and a grown person, which is a much stupider question. yes there is a difference between killing a person who is alive and can think versus killing a not-yet person who cannot think and is only technically alive
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Drunk Orc posted:I'm being serious though? Is there really that much of a difference between deciding to kill an unborn because it's not financially viable for an individual or simply "isn't a good time", and exterminating people based on society not wanting to/being unable to provide for them? I don't know, do you value humans as individuals, or because they're human shaped? Does anything we do from the moment of conception have value, or does our value peak at that point and nothing after that matters? If so, then no, there isn't a great deal of difference.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Drunk Orc posted:I'm being serious though? Is there really that much of a difference between deciding to kill an unborn because it's not financially viable for an individual or simply "isn't a good time", and exterminating people based on society not wanting to/being unable to provide for them? Don't feel bad about abortion, because miscarriages happen all the time?  However, the Holocaust was not just a huge late term abortion, if that's what you are getting at...
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Yeah there is a huge difference between what amounts to a seahorse in amniotic fluid and a human being.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Drunk Orc posted:I'm being serious though? Is there really that much of a difference between deciding to kill an unborn because it's not financially viable for an individual or simply "isn't a good time", and exterminating people based on society not wanting to/being unable to provide for them? Yes; fetuses aren't people E: beaten like an unwanted child who wasn't aborted
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Drunk Orc posted:I'm being serious though? Is there really that much of a difference between deciding to kill an unborn because it's not financially viable for an individual or simply "isn't a good time", and exterminating people based on society not wanting to/being unable to provide for them? There is a difference, in only one of those cases is the life literally grown inside of a person, potentially without their permission.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
As a great prophet once said: "You're not a person 'til you're in my phone book"
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:functionally the child is dead either way, but morally there is a difference. people have varied opinions about this unknowable problem and no opinion is any more valid than another, which is why we defer then to giving people the freedom to choose what happens with their own bodies I was genuinely interested in what people thought of this, no need to start belittling me in the midst of a civilized discussion. You people just can't fathom that someone would have a different worldview than you, it's kind of sad really.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
We can fathom it, it's just wrong. In any civilised society the rights of the woman always trump the rights of the unborn child. It is in no way comparable to genocide.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Drunk Orc posted:I was genuinely interested in what people thought of this, no need to start belittling me in the midst of a civilized discussion. You people just can't fathom that someone would have a different worldview than you, it's kind of sad really. you deserve to be belittled if you ask "what is the difference between aborting a fetus and murdering an adult" that is legitimately a dumb question like i said you should have put more slack on this troll it's too obvious dude
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Think of it this way. A woman has two kids already and doesn't want more so she gets a tubal ligation. Is that hosed up or unfair because some person won't exist now just because they have older siblings? After all it's not their fault two children were born before then. The only difference between that and a fetus conceived in rape is that the fetus is somewhat farther along the process of turning into a person. A cluster of cells is not aware enough to even know it's alive. The only people who might argue that in good faith are those Buddhist monks who carry brooms everywhere so they don't squish an ant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Drunk Orc posted:I was genuinely interested in what people thought of this, no need to start belittling me in the midst of a civilized discussion. You people just can't fathom that someone would have a different worldview than you, it's kind of sad really. Your worldview is based on poorly thought out bunk that anyone who takes three seconds to think about will realize is horseshit. Seriously, how do you allude to abortion being akin to the Holocaust and not hate yourself for it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Drunk Orc posted:I mean that's kind of an obtuse assumption made after the fact isn't? Living is pretty cool and telling people their mom would've been fully justified in effectively murdering them is kind of screwed up, man. Let's say you wake up one day to the horrific realisation that a mad scientist has attached you surgically to another person. Furthermore, that other person's continued life is utterly dependent on their staying attached to you for the next nine months. They cannot live if you are separated before then, but your life will go on much as it was before this other human was grafted onto you should you choose to have them excised. Every moment that this person stays attached to you, however, is a risk to your health and is an enormous and exponentially increasing physical burden. Do you have the moral right to undergo surgery to remove this poor person? I believe that the right to bodily autonomy trumps the right to life of a dependent parasite. However cute, however sapient the parasite, I will not accept anything short of the host's absolute prerogative to terminate the symbiotic relationship. No human is entitled to the use of another person's body. I simply do not see how one can possibly argue for the right of a fetus to use a body to gestate anymore than one can argue for the right of one human being to use the body of another without their consent for any reason, be it labor, sustenance, sex, or any other thing whatsoever. Having sex willingly is not the same thing as consenting to pregnancy, before anybody decides that's a valid response to the above hypothetical. We're talking specifically about pregnancy resulting from rape right now, but this applies equally to pregnancies resulting from consensual sex. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Edit2 Group homes are pretty much the modern equivalent of orphanages. I wish I could say that they are decent but on average, I really can't. Licensed foster homes are better but there is a real tendency among foster parents to throw up their hands and ask for a change in placement at the first sign of trouble ("trouble" being stuff that would be called "childhood and adolescence" in a birth family). Foster kids, even if they are adopted, will often spend their entire childhoods as outsiders. I'm not saying non-existence is preferable, but all mothers have the right to decide whether to bring a child into the world or not. Giving your kid up "for adoption" is in reality giving them up to state care and is hardly a solution, because there is no guarantee anyone will provide them with unconditional love. Simply deciding not to carry a pregnancy to term is always fine and should carry no stigma. I find the critique "but what if I had been aborted?" to be asinine. If my dad had spent another day working the Aberdeen job, some other sperm would have won the genetic lottery instead of the one that ended up being half of me. Big deal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I think a better way for you to say this is that while a fetus is human that does not necessarily make it a person. Yes, that would be a better term. Smudgie Buggler posted:Let's say you wake up one day to the horrific realisation that a mad scientist has attached you surgically to another person. Furthermore, that other person's continued life is utterly dependent on their staying attached to you for the next nine months. They cannot live if you are separated before then, but your life will go on much as it was before this other human was grafted onto you should you choose to have them excised. Every moment that this person stays attached to you, however, is a risk to your health and is an enormous and exponentially increasing physical burden. I don't much like the mad scientist proposition. (I remember it was called "the Violinist" argument for some reason.) The weakness is: Smudgie Buggler posted:Having sex willingly is not the same thing as consenting to pregnancy, before anybody decides that's a valid response to the above hypothetical. We're talking specifically about pregnancy resulting from rape right now, but this applies equally to pregnancies resulting from consensual sex. It is in fact consenting to the risk of pregnancy, and that's why things like child support payments are considered reasonable obligations for unplanned pregnancies. Surely, it does make a big difference if the Mad Scientist in the scenario instead gave you a surgery machine, and you got drunk on power and started grafting birds to bathtubs and couches to squirrels, and accidentally mis-aimed and grafted yourself to another person. In that case, your bodily autonomy would not give you the right to remove yourself from the situation you (accidentally) created. There are similar concepts in criminal law. The idea is that you cannot put yourself in a risky situation, then cite self-preservation or self-defense when you're suddenly in an unintentional-but-foreseeable bit of danger.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:The idea is that you cannot put yourself in a risky situation, then cite self-preservation or self-defense when you're suddenly in an unintentional-but-foreseeable bit of danger. yes you can. worked for george zimmerman
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:It is in fact consenting to the risk of pregnancy, and that's why things like child support payments are considered reasonable obligations for unplanned pregnancies. Surely, it does make a big difference if the Mad Scientist in the scenario instead gave you a surgery machine, and you got drunk on power and started grafting birds to bathtubs and couches to squirrels, and accidentally mis-aimed and grafted yourself to another person. In that case, your bodily autonomy would not give you the right to remove yourself from the situation you (accidentally) created. I hate slippery slope argument, but lets go there: Okay, say we outlaw for choice abortions, do you think that abortions for the sake of the life of the mother are okay? IF you do, what makes you think these anti-abortion groups honestly are going to support that? But at the end of the day: It doesn't matter. if we are going to risk banning even first trimester abortions, you get laws like the ones that are popping up in the south where women can be prosecuted AND jailed for miscarriages. Delightful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:Surely, it does make a big difference if the Mad Scientist in the scenario instead gave you a surgery machine, and you got drunk on power and started grafting birds to bathtubs and couches to squirrels, and accidentally mis-aimed and grafted yourself to another person. In that case, your bodily autonomy would not give you the right to remove yourself from the situation you (accidentally) created. Yeah, this doesn't work as a rebuttal at all, because you're necessarily violating someone's bodily autonomy by grafting them to yourself. That's what changes the ballgame and your obligations towards them, not the risk you exposed yourself to. And it's irrelevant to pregnancy, because a woman does not violate the bodily autonomy of a fetus by having the sexual intercourse that caused its conception, because it didn't yet exist. quote:There are similar concepts in criminal law. The idea is that you cannot put yourself in a risky situation, then cite self-preservation or self-defense when you're suddenly in an unintentional-but-foreseeable bit of danger. Self-defence as a defence at criminal law is frequently obviated by a preceding provocation, but not mere recklessness. If it were, it'd be arguable that someone who went for a walk down a street known to have muggers on it at 3am couldn't argue self defence if they punched their mugger out. I know my common law criminal defences pretty drat well. If you want to show me some statutory counterexamples, feel free, but I don't think it changes the moral argument any.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
But Zimmerman was most likely defending himself from a violent attacker, not deciding to kill because he got knocked up and didn't want to deal with the consequences/responsibility of his actions. How is that analogy even reasonable?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
The fact that men have no say over whether women carry a pregnancy to term and get them on the hook for child support seems reasonable, since so much of sex relies on male coercion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Drunk Orc posted:But Zimmerman was most likely defending himself from a violent attacker, not deciding to kill because he got knocked up and didn't want to deal with the consequences/responsibility of his actions. How is that analogy even reasonable? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Drunk Orc posted:But Zimmerman was most likely defending himself from a violent attacker, not deciding to kill because he got knocked up and didn't want to deal with the consequences/responsibility of his actions. How is that analogy even reasonable?  Mysteriously, we live in a country that emphasis the male one night stand and bro-fives for any guy that gets laid.Yet, for some reason, that slut should've been responsible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Drunk Orc posted:But Zimmerman was most likely defending himself from a violent attacker, not deciding to kill because he got knocked up and didn't want to deal with the consequences/responsibility of his actions. How is that analogy even reasonable? It's not. That's the point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Drunk Orc posted:But Zimmerman was most likely defending himself from a violent attacker, not deciding to kill because he got knocked up and didn't want to deal with the consequences/responsibility of his actions. How is that analogy even reasonable? Well if you're going to spin it that way...
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Drunk Orc posted:But Zimmerman was most likely defending himself from a violent attacker, not deciding to kill because he got knocked up and didn't want to deal with the consequences/responsibility of his actions. How is that analogy even reasonable? So you're concerned with making sure slutty women are punished for having sex. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So you're concerned with making sure slutty women are punished for having sex. Got it. What are you even talking about?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 10:14 |
|
|
Drunk Orc posted:What are you even talking about? Can you perhaps see that there is a bit of a disconnect between a woman having sex making her responsible for any resulting pregnancy, even if it was not intended and indeed, was actively opposed, merely due to the inherent risk. While walking down a street and punching out a mugger, does not make you at all responsible for that, despite walking down the street carrying the same inherent risk, and punching people out being a conscious choice that one may elect not to pursue? It's a little... off, let's just say. Personally I would ascribe it more to not really thinking about it than overt misogyny, but I'm nice like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 19:23
|
|