Total posts: 1,740
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Why not? A woman at six months of pregnancy has had at least five months to get an abortion and chose not to. Now the fetus is so developed it could live outside of her. How is killing it acceptable in that circumstance? And besides, unless you’re an ancap we restrict what people are allowed to do with their bodies all the time. What makes this case any different
I have an issue with one person being forced to provide their organs, tissue, blood for the benefit of another. If I somehow cause another person to need a kidney (and mine is compatible) no one would dare suggest I be forced to hand mine over (not even after 6 months), but this is exactly what some expect pregnant women to do. We should be consistent. Either bodily autonomy applies equally to everyone or it doesn't exist. I refuse to accept the latter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Okay that’s what I was trying to get at. You do support *some* restriction on abortion even if it would only prevent a tiny percentage of abortion. At what point do you think the cut off should be for elective abortion?
I have answered this. "I do hold that people are the unquestioned sovereign of their own body (I like that phrase), and ultimately that is justification enough for an abortion anytime during pregancy."
The law is meant to protect people. While personhood is defined by birth, the law has nothing other than pregnant people to consider.
Also is the safety of the mother the only thing that matters to you? Do you truly, in your heart of hearts, not assign any moral weight whatsoever to a fully viable fetus?
Personally, I assign moral significance at the capacity for consciousness (6 months of pregnancy or so). However, this is not sufficient weight to override a woman's ownership of her body. Imo, no person (born or not) has sufficient moral weight to override another person's ownership of their body.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
It is the question because it's the question I asked.
If that is the question you intended to ask in the OP, it wasnt communicated very well.
If you have no moral issue with someone choosing to kill rather than deliver alive a fetus of 39 weeks because the mother is the unquestioned sovereign of her own body you shouldn't have a problem saying that.
In my opinion, abortions later in the pregancy are morally acceptable in the case of maternal endangerment, fetal death/incompatibility with life, or in cases where unreasonable restrictions/dishonest actors (pregnancy centers hiding the fact they don't provide abortions) prevent abortion earlier in the pregnancy. I do hold that people are the unquestioned sovereign of their own body (I like that phrase), and ultimately that is justification enough for an abortion anytime during pregancy.
Is a late abortion wise? No. That is one of the reasons why they are rare because the later the abortion the higher the risk. Discontinuing a pregancy is something that should be (and typically is) done very early. Late abortions are generally done as a matter of necessity.
I don't even understand how an "abortion" at an absurdly late stage like 39 weeks would differ from another form of induced deliver, other than deliberately killing the fetus.
Ok. I'm not a doctor. I trust your google-fu works just as well as mine. ;-)
For example, in a partial birth abortion [...]
Partial birth abortions are banned - as they should be. Abortions should occur before birth (even a partial one).
You good with that for a 39 year old healthy fetus, for elective reasons?
I'm not good with that for a healthy mother. If the mother is healthy, I (in my non-expert opinion) think the safest route is to go through with the birth. I am open to changing my opinion on this if and when better information comes along though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
But if someone did do it just as a whim, you’re good with that?
That wasn't the question. The question was whether abortions late in the pregancy should be allowed. Given that people can die or suffer if abortion isn't allowed late in the pregnancy it should be legal.
I am very resistent to the framing of abortions late in the pregnancy being for frivolous people not really committed to pregnancy or a child. That is simply not the case. The question of whimsical 'up to the moment of birth abortions' is dismissive of real people with real grief. It pretends there is a problem while threatening to create a problem for people who already have too many.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Most people don’t want to ban abortion entirely but also don’t think it should be legal up to the moment of birth. What do you think the limit should be and why?
Roe provides a good standard. As for abortion 'up to the moment of birth' - it should be legal. Abortions late in the pregnancy are rare and done, not for convenience or whim, because of extraordinary circumstances.
Created:
-->
@Novice
Unequal treatment. Self ownership should mean the same for all people.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Either way, it’s unethical to take the life of someone who has done nothing to harm you.
Again, your point is low on context:
1) it is not unethical to prevent someone from using your body
2) pregnancy can certainly be harmful.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
More like a selective opinion. Your position is abortion till the second the baby comes out of the mom’s stomach. All because of the inconvenience it brings to a woman. It logically does not make sense to kill a human being because they are inconvenient.
Yep, that's the simplistic framing of an often tragic scenario I was referring to. Termination of pregnancy so close to term isn't done on a whim or inconvenience. You lack information or integrity.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
You clearly didn’t read about my position then.
I read a simplistic framing of a complex and often tragic scenario. Your position appears to be one low on context.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Do we really want people who strive to maintain control of their own bodies...yes, absolutely, we do want people like this in a *healthy* society.By killing babies up to the moment of birth? Wow.
What we could use less of is the pretentious 'save the babies' self righteous virtue signaling. It is telling that 'pro-life' advocates are so rarely advocating for programs and policies that would support young mothers or their children. This Pastor Barnhart accurately describes it:
"The unborn are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn."
- Methodist Pastor David Barnhart
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Whether you are a person or not, you don't get to control/use my body without consent. Personhood is completely irrelevant to the question of abortion.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Such mothers are likely to drink and do things that harm the baby. Currently unless the baby inside thmk literally dies, they cannot benprosecuted fornthebharm towards it as far as I am aware.And you don’t think that’s evil as well? Do you really want someone like that in society? I’d argue, absolutely not.
Do we really want people who strive to maintain control of their own bodies...yes, absolutely, we do want people like this in a *healthy* society.
Created:
-->
@Novice
- I have yet to find a situation where a woman is allowed to kill the person that assaulted her afterwards.
Is a woman allowed to defend herself with lethal force during an assualt? Yes, of course she is. If we assume rapists and the unborn are both people (which isn't necessarily the case) an apples to apples comparison would be *during an assault* and *during an unwanted pregnancy*.
Therefore, why would I conclude that the woman can kill a baby who lacks any form of guilt in this situation?
You're suggesting a woman can't control her own body. Is there any scenario when your father, brother, or son shouldn't be able to control their own bodies? If not, then you should ask yourself why, in your mind, women are not worthy of the same.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
@SirAnonymous
Even then, the Republican party is not deliberately seceding with the known certainty of starting a civil war.
Not yet. The writing is on the wall though. Here in Texas it is not unusual to to see t-shirts with "Succede", and conservatives have been known to suggest a civil war would favor them because they naively believe 'they have all the guns'.
If your position is that 'they haven't started a civil war so they are less extreme' ... you may be premature in your assessment.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
If a teleporter malfunctioned,And I was half transported into your body, that we share it,It doesn't feel quite fair to me, that you should be able to kill me for that.'Especially when in time, we can be separated.
Well, first there is no such thing as a transporter so this scenario is implausible. Secondly, this wouldn't be analogous. It would be more like I disallowed you the benefit of my body. Whether you think that is fair or not doesn't really matter - you have no right to use my body.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Many Pro Life think it's a life,Many Pro Choice think it's no life at all.
It doesn't matter either way. I think we can agree I have life and I am a person...does that mean I get to use your body for my purposes? Nope. Life/not life, person/not person - these are nothing but a distraction to the core issue: self ownership.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Elon Musk kicking someone off Twitter because they criticize him is a violation of the principle of free speech, it just isn’t a violation of the first amendment or the law.
It is worrying when folks appeal to this noble ideal that humans should be able to express themselves freely while oblivious to the fact that 'I don't want to prop up your BS in my space" is also a form of expression. Government 'protection' of this obliviousness would certainly have first amendment implications...and not in a good way.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
see my last post. you guys are guilty of the straw man fallacy. attacking arguments i didn't make.[...] you can't claim to be a big free speech proponent, if you only care about it when the government is involved.
"Free speech" is literally about speech with relation to government. If someone (other than the government) wants to prevent me from preaching in their yard or on their social media site, my "free speech" hasn't been affected.
do you think it's virtuous for facebook to ban trump? even if i agreed he should be censored sometimes, that doesn't mean an outright ban.
Absolutely. He used social media to incite insurrection and keep pressure on Mike Pence while the Capitol was besieged (among other numerous lesser offences). I personally think Twitter/Facebook gave Trump far too much latitude for far too long.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
"Government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech".
Government forcing individuals to broadcast the views of other would be an abridgment of their own speech, would it not?
I think it is a common mistake to think we have the right to say whatever we want wherever we want and the government should be involved in protecting this conception of 'free speech' . I think it is also a false equivalence to compare individuals disallowing certain expression in their domains with individuals using government to restrict expression. Only the latter is potentially an infringement of free speech.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Your report comes from MRC. Their about page screams bias. It makes me question the impartiality of their survey.
Learn a little more about who we are.The MRC’s commitment to neutralizing leftist bias in the news media and popular culture has had a critical impact on the way Americans view the liberal media.The MRC is able to effectively educate the public about left-wing media bias by integrating cutting-edge news monitoring capabilities with a sophisticated marketing operation.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Social media (not government) bans POTUS.
Politicians use government to ban books.
Only one of the scenarios provided runs against the 1st A.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You do realize the main reason Biden is in office is because of the censorship of the Hunter laptop, right?
Laptop schmaptop.
The main reason was abuse of the power of his office and his poor handling (and comprehension) of covid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You equate being rich to expression and taxation as retaliation for this 'speech'.Every rich person purchases lobbyists.
No, every rich person doesn't purchase lobbyists, and the ones that do can be of any political affiliation. Are Democrats 'retaliating' against rich Democrats?!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The Democrats threaten to tax the rich millions of times every campaign cycle. (and sometimes they do it)And yet, where are the retaliation lawsuits of the rich vs the government? Nonexistent largely.
You equate being rich to expression and taxation as retaliation for this 'speech'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you think your suggestion that every government seizure infringes speech stands if not disproven? That's not how the burden of proof works anywhere.
I simply want you to explain what you mean and how you figure if you're willing and able.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Pretty sure every government seizure affects a person with a form of speech.
Are you saying government siezures infringe on speech? If so, "Every" seems a gross overestimate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If the government is taking away a privilege you have as a direct response to your criticisms of them then that is by definition, retaliation, which is by definition, a violation of your free speech.
I take issue with this privilege existing, but that is a different debate. To the OP, I don't disagree this is retaliatory, and, yes, it is concerning.
Created:
Posted in:
Really curious to know what all of the free speech advocates here think about Florida using the power of big government to crack down on private companies for saying what they believe.
Honestly, I don't think Florida has actually considered the impact this decision will have. If not Disney, Orange county will be responsible for providing police, fire, and medical. The county will need to begin maintaining 175 miles of roads and 67 miles of waterways. The county will need to start providing electricity, trash removal, and sewage treatment. Several billion in bond debt will be transfered to the county. Plus, there is also the question of compensation for the infrastructure Disney has built.
I don't really think Florida has thought this through...
That being said, it doesnt seem like Florida is violating any laws... there is no right to a self-governing status for businesses. Basically, Florida has removed a privileged status from Disney. Disney can still voice their opinion though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Exactly. Deviation from typical traits does not make you no longer of a particular kind of thing.
Sounds like arguments I've seen from YECers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Without a doubt, I don't understand the 'telos model'. If being human is being moral (correct me if I am misrepresenting the concept), then were people 2000, 4000...10,000 years ago bad humans because they didn't share all of our moral precepts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
If I understand it correctly, MacIntryre is saying a 'natural ought' exists and we can draw moral conclusions from it. It's not clear to me how that works. Is he making an ought into an is to get contigent oughts?
I also am having trouble with the notion that evolution provides us with a moral telos. Morality is not required for the individual or species to survive. Neither is freedom from pain. Morality is required for cooperative groups to exist, but nothing in evolution requires groups be all members of a species. Too much tribalism is not a good thing... if it is a good thing at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Let's look at this from a different perspective. How does the fact of evolution lead us to moral conclusions? (Non-sequitor) How are you getting around the is/ought problem?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Yes. If morality came directly from evolution, wouldn't things like antibiotics (which shield individuals from natural selection) be immoral?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
If the telos of morality comes directly from evolution, it doesn't make sense that it would act in opposition to it. I think, at best, you could say evolution gave us a proto-morality, and human minds have expanded it beyond paths evolution could/would have selected for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Just because there are different ways a knife can be a good knife does not discount that there are still objective facts one can make about it based on its telos.
The ultimate purpose of a knife is ultimately based on the human mind, and philosophically, that would make the telos subjective, yes?
If the telos of a knife is subjective, how is the telos of morality any different?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
In that case, we are are the same page.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't understand something as "morality" if its not built on human well-being. That's all I'm saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't give a fig about morality. I only want to promote human wellbeing and protect the public health. In any case where morality does not support these two considerations I do not support morality and in any case where morality is in opposition to these two considerations I oppose morality.
Where does morality run contrary to human well-being or public health?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Maybe the 5th time will be the charm, but I doubt it. ;-)
This discussion lost its direction when you stubbornly refused to acknowledge schools teach facts and your beliefs aren't accepted as facts. You are simply trying to kick the can down the road looking for the 'real' goalposts in an effort to save face. It could be academia ends up accepting your beliefs as facts, but they don't right now and that is where your argument dies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It doesn't mean you should accept them either without skepticism.
You're not accepting it at all if I understand your view correctly. If so, you're not in the realm of skepticism, friend.
There was a time where unskeptical people accepted schools teaching that Jews were subhuman as established fact.
Godwin's law in action. ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Post #4 of you asserting your position is a “fact” while ignoring an argument to the contraryI didn’t consider this conversation to be a waste of time until you stopped engaging and started trolling.
This discussion lost its direction when you stubbornly refused to acknowledge schools teach facts and your beliefs aren't accepted as facts. You are simply trying to kick the can down the road looking for the 'real' goalposts in an effort to save face. It could be academia ends up accepting your beliefs as facts, but they don't right now and that is where your argument dies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
science is provisional.Thanks for exposing your hypocrisy.
Not at all. Just because science is provisional doesn't mean we should reject where all current evidence leads us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Um...okay. @sciencedenialism... Did I win?!
Seriously, science is provisional. If you think a scientific conclusion is wrong, get to work! ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
We have had serious engagement about why schools should not be banned. Your main objection seems to be a failure of public schools is that they teach facts (you dont agree with). A functionally equivalent position would be 'a failure of schools is that they teach about the big bang/heliocentrism/evolution'. Reasons why fact X shouldn’t be a fact is a completely different argument that needs to be resolved before it carries any weight for the original argument. Basically, your argument relies on the results of another argument that cannot be resolved by the two of us.
This addresses the state of our discussion fairly well. You rejecting accepted fact does not change accepted fact. Schools teach facts. If you don't like the facts, that's a 'you problem', not a school issue.
For what its worth, I'm not sure why you need me to accept your beliefs. If you are so sure about your position why are you wasting time with a random dude on the internet? Get out of this dark corner of the web and let the experts know you are their superior! ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
[SkepticalOne] I have no burden to uphold the status quo. It is the status quo because that burden has already been met. If you want to challenge it, you have your burden in front of you and your audience should be the scientific community.This is false
No. The present accepted understanding of gender has not occurred without substantiation. Ie. The burden has been met.
If there is no proof (or support) it should be treated as false even if there is no proof it is false.
If there is no proof for a position, it's truth is dubious - not false. A claim of "False" comes with its own burden. ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."-HitchensThis includes the justifications of the status quo.
The scientific status quo is not asserted without evidence. ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
If you ever want to have a serious engagement with the other side, feel free to respond to my post whenever. I don't think "my position is justified and yours isn't, and no I won't say why or justify my position because I assert that mine is the status quo and the status quo is always right!" is a serious response, particularly not from a self described skeptic
We have had serious engagement about why schools should not be banned. Your main objection seems to be a failure of public schools is that they teach facts (you dont agree with). A functionally equivalent position would be 'a failure of schools is that they teach about the big bang/heliocentrism/evolution'. Reasons why fact X shouldn’t be a fact is a completely different argument that needs to be resolved before it carries any weight for the original argument. Basically, your argument relies on the results of another argument that cannot be resolved by the two of us.
As for the attempted barb - I am a skeptic, not a cynic. ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
If you don't think conversing with me further on this subject is beneficial to you, just say so.People have deeply held beliefs. Many of those peoples deeply held beliefs are different than yours, but we all have to live together. Forcing your deeply held beliefs on peoples children is playing with fire, particularly when the consequences of those deeply held beliefs if applied to other peoples children = those children are sterilized or mutilated.
Yea, I don't think continuing this conversation would be beneficial to either of us. You want your position to be as justified as gender fluidity but it isn't, and I dont have to treat it as such.
This conversation isn't a competition, maybe 5 or 6 people are even reading it. It's not going to move the needle in either direction, there's no "winning" or "losing."
I agree, it isn't a competition and I have no problem with conversation (we gone on for quite a while here). Unfortunately for our conversation, I've reached my limit of absurdity. Equating discussions of gender fluidity to 'teaching anal sex' or 'sterilized or mutilated children' has sabotaged a sincere conversation between us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
You should be able to justify your positions on their own merits instead of simply claiming that the "experts" are on your side.
I have no burden to uphold the status quo. It is the status quo because that burden has already been met. If you want to challenge it, you have your burden in front of you and your audience should be the scientific community.
That is why saying, "Well I don't believe that. I shouldn't have it forced upon me" is such a ridiculous position.
Then try to imagine how you'd feel if the public schools had a system whereby they could be confirmed in the Catholic Church, take communion, and change their names to a Saints name without your knowledge.
Not the same at all. If the positions of the Catholic Church could be substantiated, then your scenario would be analogous.
Created: