Total posts: 1,732
Posted in:
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
That just seems like a bare-assertion. Why can't something come from nothing?
All observation supports things coming from other things. Based on that fact, it is my pragmatic view that something will not come to be from nothing. Is that actually true? I don't know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
So just so we are clear, you are saying that if something were to pop into being, then this can only be the case if the potential for that something were to exist logically prior (that potential would be itself "something").Is this correct?
I'm saying nothing comes from nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
For sure it seems that way, the question is, is that necessarily so? If there is no existence at all, that would mean no restrictions. What would stop something from popping into existence?
The absence of restriction doesn't mean anything is possible. Something (which is not nothing) is required for potential.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Nothing could be defined as "a complete lack of any existence whatsoever".
Okay. If there are no building blocks, no forces, no energy, etc, then it seems "nothing" will stay that way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Define "nothing" and provide an example, please.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Your scenario does not account for the reality of sex. It is more than merely a good time - it is intimacy, emotionality, security, comfort, etc. These are things humans need and want. This is part of our nature - Avoiding sex isnt a reasonable expectation for sexual beings.
Secondly, pregnancy isn't a burden everyone can endure. Some might lack stability, resources, physical ability, maturity, committment, etc. Forcing a burden in spite of the inability to carry it is cruel and irresponsible.
This is where loose definitions cause problems. The inevitable response will be something along the lines of 'Well, it is a human being - it is not a burden that can be denied', however when an adult woman, a fertilized egg, and a tumor might all qualify under an overly broad definition of human being, this argument can't be taken seriously. A human being isn't merely determined by human DNA or the potential to be a person.
Finally (bringing us back to the OP), a person has the right to say, 'no - I do not consent to having my body used that way', and that my friend, is the end of the story.
Tl;Dr- Your definitions are too broad and your scenario is too simplistic to draw any meaningful conclusions regarding abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
The right to life doesn’t depend on spatial location.
Self-ownership is about a very specific location and what actions happen in that location. There are no rights another person might have which negate this.
As long as you insist on weaponizing rights (which is inappropriate) we are going to disagree. I've enjoyed the discussion though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
This thread took a turn lol
We're just trying to keep it interesting! ;-p
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
You are the one who used eviction as an analogy to abortion,
Fair enough. Point of clarification: is it your position that everyone should be required to provide their (metaphorical) home and resources to someone who needs it to survive? If so, there are millions of people who need your body to survive. Are you living up to your own standard or does it only apply to pregnant individuals?
I agree that we own ourselves, but that is only if our choices with our body don't significantly put others at risk, harm or kill another innocent person.
Apply those words to the person you envision in every pregnant womb, and you and I will be on the same page. Assuming there were a choice to subject another person to pregnancy, risk, harm, and/or death would necessarily be part of the outcome. This is an unavoidable consequence of pregnancy.
I don't want to go in circles, as I think you would just respond to the above question with "because the unborn child isn't autonomous".
You would be wrong. I would respond with 'there is no right to use the body of another without consent'. Personhood is a distractive tangent to the abortion discussion because self-ownership is a protection not a weapon. If the 'battleground' is within a person, they have the final say. The unborn resides within another person, not the other way around.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Relying on a heartbeat seems like an arbitrary condition to count as "autonomous".
I've said nothing about a heartbeat. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.
*edit* I see what you mean now. I've referred to more than just a beating heart. My point is that the essence of life that exists within each of us is our most important and valuable property. No one gets to claim it for themselves without permission. And if they are directly reliant on someone else's life force for survival, they are not autonomous.
I see no reason why the unborn doesn't deserve the same right to life as anybody.
I have no issue with a legitimate right to life, but that right doesn't include trampling the rights of others. Again, my right to life doesn't include your body, and it is the same for everyone - including the unborn.
If a man popped into my house right now, and would die for some reason if he left my house,
A man materializing inside your skin would be more analogous...
I think our disagreement on this matter comes down to which is valued more, the right of ownership of property, or the right to not be killed.
I think you're right. My position is that all rights are contigent on self ownership. If we don't own ourselves, then rights are meaningless. How can you posses a right but not the body it is meant protect?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
So just to clarify your position, one is not autonomous if their living existence is dependent on another person?
No. I chose my words carefully and provided an extended explanation for a reason.
Also, it is not just about disallowing occupancy as the child must first be killed inside the womb before the child comes out.
If the 'child' cant survive without someone else's organs, it can't survive. Period. If doctors weren't overly cautious and humane, you wouldn't have this pretense of an argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Why are they not autonomous persons
Because the unborn are dependent on the beating heart of the body in which they reside. If there is an unborn 'will', it is subject to the autonomy of the body they need for their existence. If I rely on your organs for my survival, I exist solely by your willingness to allow me to use them. I have no claim to your body, while you do have claim to your own organs regardless of my needs or wants.
Personhood is a legal status which is typically granted at birth or in rare cases involving malicious harm of the person they rely on for life.
Also, did you know that abortion changes a woman's body and life as well?
Pregnancy is the cause of change in a woman's body, not abortion. Abortion stops the pregnancy, but it may not stop processes already begun.
you are talking about sticking instruments in a woman who is already pregnant and killing her unborn child.
Most abortions occur early in a pregnancy and medication is all that is required. Abortions which occur later in the pregnancy (and might use instruments) are typically done out of necessity, such as to save the life of a woman who most likely wanted a child.
There's Hormonal changes, breast tissue, lactation and even changes at the cellular level because of abortion.
Without abortion, these changes will occur demonstrating these changes are due to pregnancy and not abortion.
Also, comandeering a body isn't the same during rape and you know it. With rape it is done with intent to harm,
Rape occurs any time there is non-consensual sex. Intent to harm isn't necessary. Comandeering someone else's body for personal gratification or benefit is, in itself, harmful to the victim.
Are you for the death penalty?
Abortion is about disallowing occupancy (not an execution). I am a strong proponent of eviction. If I, as a property manager, evict someone from my property, I haven't executed them. I have removed them from my property and they, being fully autonomous persons, are responsible for their own life regardless of where they live.
Created:
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: