Total posts: 1,720
Posted in:
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
As I said a few posts up, you should only be able to do what you want with your own body as long as you aren’t posing a significant risk to others, or causing them harm or death.
Assuming the unborn were autonomous persons (which is not the case), you are overlooking the fact that comandeering the body of another is harmful (like rape) AND that pregancy itself can be harmful and forever changes a woman's body and life. So, by your own reasoning, the unborn doesn't get 'to do what it wants'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Your example just proved my point.Bodily autonomy can be used to justify murder and rape, AND it can be used as a protection from it.
No, my example shows rape and murder can't be argued against without the protections of self-ownership and bodily autonomy. Ownership of my body does not include ownership of your body. You completely misunderstand rights and how they work.
If I’m about to shoot a child and you swat my arm without my consent to touch me, you have violated my bodily autonomy [...]
Your bodily autonomy provides you no protection when you seek to harm another autonomous person. I would be justified in whatever course of action necessary to stop your intended attack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
let's simply codify MEDICAL PRIVACY
I think we probably should codify what medical privacy and all rights stand upon: self-ownership. Judging from this thread, self ownership is misunderstood and under attack. If it falls, so many other rights we take for granted will go with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Besides a distorted notion of self ownership, you also have a very loose definition for humanity. Under your definitions, we could be outraged at a cancer survivor.
She is the one who caused the fetus to exist, and also ironically the one who advocates for its murder.
If you cause an accident and I am harmed, can I commandeer your body to sustain myself? No. In no other scenario would this be used as justification for negating self-ownership and its just as inappropriate here.
Love the rhetoric. Do you make exceptions for this so called 'murder'? For instance, rape, incest, fetal inviability, maternal endangerment?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
A right to bodily autonomy would be pointless is it were codified that a woman has unconditional ownership of her fetus.
Sounds like a good reason not to codify fetal slavery. I'm pretty sure people who argue a fetus is part of the woman's body (of which I'm not one) have no interest in such extreme 'solutions'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Bodily autonomy is defined as self-governance and self-determination over one’s own body.By definition then, such a principle could be used to justify murder and rape as I can do what I want with my body according to the bodily autonomy principle.
Without depending on bodily integrity, why would rape or murder be wrong? I mean, if you have no right to control your body, what's wrong with me using it any way I want?
Rights are meant to be a shield protecting our most intimate property. The unborn reside within that jurisdiction. A separate autonomous individual does not. Rape and murder of others are not protected by bodily autonomy....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's the only way to legally define a fetus as your body
There is no legal status the unborn might have which disallows abortion. Whether it is part of a woman's body or a person, the fact is the unborn uses the body of another. There is no personal right to commandeer the body of an unwilling individual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
If people can do what they want with their own bodies then rape and murder are justified.
That is a spectacularly absurd misunderstanding of bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy is a shield against rape/murder not a justification for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
The liberty of a mother does not trump a beings right to life.
My right to life does not trump your bodily autonomy. I under can not commandeer your body ...and neither can the unborn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You’re implying that democracy was just as important as a football game lol
Something which Americans tune out in the 'political offseason' (by your own admission) having an audience comparable to that of a weekly sporting event should be significant even by your standards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
@Greyparrot
Correct, but if you want to codify a constitutional right to bodily autonomy, you also need a constitutional right to the ownership of your fetus.
Codifying the ownership of the fetus is pointless. Assuming personhood, the fetus still wouldn't have a right to use the body of another without consent. Personhood doesn't negate self-ownership of another person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Yesterday they said they will fund employee abortions which will "end children's lives"
I think you have a conveniently loose definition of "children" there, and you're overlooking the fact that no one, regardless of age, has the right to use the body of another without consent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
It is not clear what you mean by "America has become the old world the founders fled". America today is a far cry from Old England.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I talked about welfare and public institutions and services, not charity itself.
Charity, welfare, tax-supported assistance programs...it makes the comparison no better. There is quite a difference between the reasonable expectation and degree of control over oneself and that of public services.
Unless they're unborn, then it's free pickings to you.
Actually, I find your standard for abortion (what is it, 3 months?) reasonable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Well, that's perfectly dramatic and unclear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
As long as you also stand by that psychopathic mindset for the rich helping the poor, elderly and/or disabled, I can see consistency in your core framework.
It seems you are having difficulty addressing my arguments. There is quite a difference between being required to allow one's body to be used for the benefit of others and charity.
A premature born baby is needy, drains resources of others to sustain and you would say it is cool if we terminate it if the hospital and parents say bye to him/her.
What are you talking about? Infanticide is, and should remain, illegal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Do you support murder being legalised?
No. What does this have to do with my statement that abortion can be justified without dehumanizing a fetus?
It is absolutely relevant except that because it's legal we can call it slaughter instead of murder.
I dont call abortion slaughter or murder. In my view, either assessment comes from a place of emotionality and that is not the basis of my position on abortion. You are making assumptions on my behalf.
I, nor anyone, should be obligated to allow my body to be used to keep someone else alive. The decision to sustain the life of another must come from the individual - not pastors, politicians, or governments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The dehumanisation of a fetus that we do to justify slaughtering human beings in the womb is no different
I have no need to dehumanize a fetus to justify abortion. I consider the personhood argument against abortion to be irrelevant in fact.
Would you support a mother murdering her infant as it's too inconvenient for her?
This question is irrelevant in a different way. Murdering someone in cold blood is not analogous to disallowing use of one's organs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I'm not a fan of the 'if you don't like it, you can move to another state' mentality. This seems the opposite of what America is meant to represent... Especially when objection is to the removal of rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
most atheists that i see on the internet lack critical thinking. they are presented with objective evidence for God [...]
Wait...there's objective evidence for god?!
Created:
Posted in:
The Semantics of the words only become an issue for those trying to say that the NT was not really saying what it was saying and was badly researched.
Well, we're going to disagree here, because the semantics is an issue for either camp. They both ultimately rely on the same authority: interpretation.
My point here was simply to point out that the so called gotcha moment against the NT author is not valid. I am not saying anything more or less.
That doesn't seem to be true. If you weren't saying anything beside the 'gotcha' is invalid, you wouldn't be presenting argumentation for a virgin birth. Don't get me wrong, I much prefer an individual back up their views, and, let's be honest, you have been working to that end.
What makes it valid? It is an argument from silence. Hardly valid in anyone's book
An argument from silence is not always a fallacy as you seem to suggest. If it were prophesied the Messiah would be born of a virgin and Jesus thought himself to be the Messiah, there is a reasonable expectation he would have mentioned his birth fulfilled that prophesy. Unexpectedly for the Messiah, Jesus was never recorded making such an assertion.
Matthew who was one of Jesus' inner 12 did raise it. Matthew and Luke raised it. Mary raised it. And Joseph her husband knew it to be true.
Assuming these were real people, we have no way of knowing if Matthew, Luke, Mary or Joseph thought Jesus was born of a virgin. We have gospel accounts from anonymous people claiming this, but we don't know what these people believed.
Matthew used it as a fulfillment of prophecy in relation to the messiah. Do you think that Jesus raising it again would have helped? I doubt it. People were skeptical in the time it was happened,
I'm not sure I understand how Matthew's assertion would be treated with less skepticism than one from Jesus.
-Jesus: I was born of a virgin!
-Skeptic: I don't believe you.
-Matthew: Jesus was born of a virgin!
-Skeptic: Makes sense.
God's spirit - which is Holy - would have sanctified the conception.Yes, I know for non-believers it all sounds like magic
Yes, it does. Sorry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
My view is that those who argue the word is not virgin trying to use it as a "gotcha moment" need to go back and find another one.
Ultimately, this comes down to 'if the words are translated in a certain way, Jesus' birth was miraculous'. The obvious counter stands true as well though: if the words are translated in a certain way, the purported virgin birth conflicts with OT prophecy (if we assume the passage in question is a prophecy about the Messiah - that's another debate).
This type of semantic argument just makes me wonder why the "word of god" would be so unclear, but, hey, that's just me. :-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Interesting that Jesus doesn't once mention his "miraculous conception" . And neither do any of Jesus' inner circle of 12 disciples.
Valid point.
And they must have been far too dumb to work out for themselves that the woman said to be Jesus' Mother was all human with inherited sin making her offspring also riddled in sin and all very human.
Yah...but magic solves any problemairtight?! ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
What is the resolution here - 'Alma' can mean "virgin". If so, this is true. Does that mean it is always correct to translate it this way? No. Does this mean Jesus was born of a virgin? No.
I'm not sure what the argument is.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Thank you. That's very kind.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Interesting thread - I'm game!
Created:
-->
@Athias
What is a "significant risk"? How can it be determined?
Someone who would be at a higher than average risk of misusing or allowing a firearm to be misused. Ideally, this would be in the context of insurance acturaies.
Why a delay of purchase?
For one, to allow hot-headed individuals to cool down or be caught.
How does a change in the age requirements qualify firearm possession?
To increase the likelihood of mature gun ownership.
How does a training permit, and storage requirements weed out impulsive, immature, careless gun owners who are a danger to themselves or others? More to point, how does the aforementioned prevent mass shootings?
An individual educated on proper handling and legality of gun ownership is more likely to understand and avoid careless and legally dubious decisions regarding firearms. Eg. It is better to lose a $100 lawnmower than to face the legal and finiancial consequences of injuring/killing in a non-life threatening scenario.
Storage requirements prevents unauthorized users (perhaps minor or criminals) access to firearms. It is responsible common sense gun ownership. Mass shootings isn't the only issue on the table - gun injury is the leading cause of death in children and adolescents.
Which rights are those?
Firearms are relevant to the right to self defense and the right to life... if not others. Ie. Your right to defend yourself should not unnecessarily put the lives of others at risk. There is no right to infringe upon the rights of others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
No one "right-winger" here has made such a claim. Furthermore, I don't see how the former disqualifies the latter.
Both are commonly implied, if not explicitly stated, conservative views and they are dissonant. Equating presentation of certain subjects as teachers 'grooming' children and thinking these 'groomers' would go against their nature to selflessly and courageously take on a gunman is quite the head scratcher.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
also, asking why we still have suffering is like asking why darkness exists. that's just the way it is. can we have just light? i dont think that is possible in our reality. same way, suffering may need to exist in this reality too.
I've never been particularly strong advocate for the problem of suffering, but I recognize the argument as valid. I mean, if an all powerful, knowing, and benevolent creator is responsible for existence, then suffering is difficult to explain. Darkness...not so much. Darkness, on its own, is benign. Suffering is literally harm.
Created:
-->
@Athias
How do we determine unfitness?
Great question! To be clear, in my mind unfittness does not only apply to a person that presents a clear threat. I personally would like to see actuaries take a crack at this. They would determine what factors add up to significant risk.
Absent this, requiring a delay period for purchase, increasing the age necessary to purchase some or all types of firearms, requiring training/permit (getting rid of Constitutional Carry), and storage requirements all would have the tendency to weed out impulsive, immature, careless gunowners who are a danger to themselves or others.
This is just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are other possible measures. I'm open to mixing and matching to find the balance preserving a reasonable right to self defense and other rights which can be negatively affected by firearms.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Except adults aren't children, and you "take the [stick] away" from the offending party--not everyone who has a stick.
I'm not sure what would lead anyone to equate this stick analogy to across the board gun bans. We should all agree someone who establishes they can't handle being a gun owner, shouldn't be a gun owner. That's the gist of the analogy.
If anyone wants to discuss how we determine unfitness, I'll be over here waiting for an honest discussion.
Created:
1. Ghost guns: essentially the argument is there may be a way to skirt guns laws, so guns laws are pointless? This is a silly argument. There are many laws that are imperfect and, yet, effective. Perfection is not a reasonable standard.
2. Defensive gun use is huge: Maybe, maybe not. The CDC, which was sourced, recognizes defensive use estimates are dependent on questions asked, timeframes, study design, population studied, etc. Long story short: the CDC recognizes more research is necessary to get a better understanding of the real numbers. That being said, I am more than happy to stipulate firearms can be beneficial in some scenarios. If they weren’t, this discussion would be unnecessary. By the same token, firearms are undeniably harmful. Must we accept this harm as unavoidable? We haven’t done that with motor vehicles. Perhaps this is one of the reasons children are more likely to die from firearms Injuries than car accidents now.
3. Border controls gun control? : I’m not sure what the argument is here. Are refugees/immigrants gun-toting criminals?
4. Armed populace: Gun control doesn’t prevent an armed populace…
5. Useless police: Gun control doesn’t prevent gun ownership and self defense if and when police are useless.
6. Gun control won’t work: We have evidence it does. In general, states with softer gun laws have higher gun crimes. Assault weapons bans have reduced gun deaths. Other countries with high gun ownership have dramatically reduced rate of gun violence, mass shootings, and school shooting. Gun control won't work only if we don't do it. We can argue over which policy might be more effective, but we shouldn't be arguing there is no solution.
Created:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Yes, take away the stick. In fact, take away all sticks! Damn sticks, being used wrong! Hey kids, none of you get to have sticks! No one else does either!
Do you have a real argument or is absurdly representing the opposition the entirety of your position? I only ask to see how much effort I should expend in response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I don't know how one would create a policy that would achieve any of that
Okay. The first 5 are demonstrable outcomes of democratic policies. Legalized abortion and comprehensive sex ed achieve the first 4, with assualt weapons ban responsible for the 5th. The last 3 on my list could be accepted solely as a benefit of not endorsing another party's policies, but the Democratic party has sought to pass national voting right laws and regulation of business (through innumerable policies) has historically made the lives of citizens safer.
As with all things, if a fence sitter isn't concerned with the overarching motivations of these policies, they aren't likely to be swayed by these outcomes or the potential for them.
Created:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
If a kid hits another child with a stick, we don't blame the stick...but we do take it away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Democratic policies:
Improve maternal mortality rates;
Improve maternal mortality rates;
Reduce teen pregnancies;
Decrease abortion rates;
Reduce STI rates;
Decrease deaths from gun violence;
Increase voter turnout/prevent voter supression;
Maintain a separation of state and religion (religious freedom is possible only if government is free from religion)
Provide crucial protections of individuals/environment through regulation of business/industry
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
there is no "contradiction" because the law you provided in your example does not mention any religion and or any specifically religious practice
I did not suggest there was a contradiction, only that rights are necessarily limited. The absence of explicit restrictions does not make a right unlimited.
Unless you are arguing for absolute rights, we are not in disagreement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Regardless, I provided a necessary restriction of a right which goes to my point - rights cannot be absolute. Even self ownership upon which other rights are built is not absolute. I see no reason why gun ownership would be any different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.what "limitations" are you referring to ?
Laws against murder would necessarily restrict the free exercise of human sacrifice. Every right has some sort of limitations so that everyone may enjoy the protection of rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Your point seemed to be that rights can't be restricted. Is that not what you meant?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
But gun ownership is a right not a privilege and driving is a privilege and not a right.
Free speech is a right not a privilege, but there are limitations on it necessarily. Absolute rights run contrary to the purpose of rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
This is why I find the atheist position so well cowardly. It is permitted to attack my views - which incidentally I am ok with - since it will help me understand my own views better. Yet, it never provides an alternative - except - there is no god. And that is it.
It seems to me you don't understand atheism. It is not a moral philosophy, an epistemological foundation, a worldview, an alternative to a theistic worldview...it is not even the view that 'there is no god'. Atheism at its core is non-belief in deities. That's it. This is what all atheists have in common.
Also, fwiw, an alternative isnt required to challenge a worldview. If someone truly believed the great teapot in the sky (GTS) guided their every move and was involved in every facet of their life, it would be a non-sequitor for them to claim only someone with an alternative could legitimately challenge their views. Someone sans GTS can have sufficient perspective to point out flaws.
Created:
-->
@CoolApe
If you're going to go that far then why not include as a subsidy 'paying no federal income tax' and restrict lobbying too?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't find atheists so much into exploring ideas as they are in destroying ideas. And ridiculing people along the way. If they had something better to offer it might assist.
From what I can see, it doesn't look like you're interested in exploring the views and ideas of atheists. It looks like you find their criticism true in some way and want to retaliate (by destroying their views) while you are quite literally ridiculing (atheists are cowards).
If you sincerely want to know someone's views - you would just ask rather than pretend you are a victim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
If other people's views have no bearing on the truth of your beliefs, why must they be part of an open discussion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
If atheists had an alternative and you could legitimately criticize it, would that make your beliefs true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Baptist Press - the newspaper of the Southern Baptist Convention. There *may* be a bias from this source.
While we have some ideas which policies work and which do not (parental involvement law reduces abortion, increased contraception use mostly does not), for most types of abortion restrictions it remains unclear what influence the laws are having.[...]Does this mean that we in the pro-life movement are wasting our time in seeking more state-level restrictions? Not at all. Even if it could be demonstrated that such laws are not currently affecting the rate of abortion (the likelihood of which we find highly doubtful), they continue to serve an important moral purpose – both now and in the future.
Ultimately, the only thing they are certain of is the power legislation has to push their religious moral views.
Federalist, Author - Lyman Stone, missionary, Research fellow at the Institute for Family Studies (IFS). IFS has ties to the Bradley Foundation which is known to have a highly politicized agenda. There *may* be a bias.
People living in states that restricted abortion would experience enormous declines in abortions.
Statements like this are misleading. Yes, legislation restricting/banning abortion reduce *legal* abortions. Another problem I had with this source is that it did not account for abortion rates in neighboring states/nations. A reduction of abortions in a restrictive place can be easily explained by increased rates in a less restrictive neighbor, and this does happen. When Texas' bounty law recently went into effect, neighboring states reported increased patients.
I will give him credit for endorsing "giving financial support to parents would indeed reduce abortions". This is not a point usually mentioned anywhere in an anti-abortion article.
New York Times - a fairly well balanced presentation of the facts.
In September, after Texas enacted the most restrictive abortion ban in the nation, the number of legal abortions performed there dropped 50 percent from the same month in 2020[...]Rough estimates based on previous research on abortion restrictions in Texas suggest that about half of the women who are unable to get abortions at clinics there end up getting one another way, usually by traveling to another state[...]The burden of these restrictions don’t fall equally on all women,” Professor Fischer said. “Economically disadvantaged women are going to have less means to travel. While some women will find a way, it won’t be the case that they all find a way.”
The sad part is that those who cannot afford to make a trip to New Mexico are left with undesirable choices: do it illegally or let an unwanted pregnancy become an unwanted child. This is not an acceptable alternative to legal, safe abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
What I meant is that while rights are moral concepts, in a free society it is not the place of some to impose their moral standards on others any more than is required for the society to reasonably function. In other words we cannot regulate or criminalize everything we find to be immoral. Some examples of things I find immoral that should not be illegal includes, but is not limited to, being filthy rich and not philanthropic; disowning someone for being LGBT; disregarding the physical and emotional needs of elderly family members; showing favoritism to one child over another; being a disrespectful little bitch; etc.
Well spoken.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
The only thing abortion restrictions tend to do is make abortions more unsafe." - SkepticalOneEven if you disagree with Pro Life, I don't understand your statement,Logically if it's against the law to carelessly abort, then there are going to be less abortions,
It has been shown abortions occur at roughly the same rate whether they are legal or illegal:
Abortions occur as frequently in the two most-restrictive categories of countries (banned outright or allowed only to save the woman’s life) as in the least-restrictive category (allowed without restriction as to reason)—37 and 34 per 1,000 women, respectively.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You support murder of fetuses old enough to be premature born babies being dubbed slaughter on a technicality, I support it coming under the murder law it should apply to.
If an adult takes possession of an unwilling person we recognize it as a violation, but a fetus has no such restrictions? I mean, there's really only two choices: self ownership (and people using their bodies in way we might not approve of personally) or no reasonable expectation of rights. Pick your poison.
Created: