As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Arizona] says, you're pregnant for up to two weeks before you're pregnant.

11012141516

Posts

  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    $15-20k? Fuck it I'd make it the old fashion way. Hell I'd rather take damaged goods and get the fucking stipend and hope nurture fixes things.

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • Premier kakosPremier kakos Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    It's a ridiculous hypothetical, as are most of the ones encircling this whole debate.

    So you've figured it out then? The exact moment when a fetus/child gains inalienable human rights?

    Currently that would be at birth. I would argue that its at viability.

    I agree that viability seems a reasonable place to draw a distinction. Of course, modern science continues to move that line. I'd type more but it's getting late.

    If we could remove fetuses and place them in artificial wombs or in people who want to have kids but can't, abortion would become a dead issue.

    That would be a beautiful day.

    Yes, because orphanages are completely empty because that multitudinous group of people who want to have kids but can't is sooooo large that we need to produce even more ways for these people to get children.

    What a useful and well represented response.

    What? You seem to think that if we could remove a fetus and put it in an artificial womb, that would solve all the problems with abortion. Well, even ignoring the whole invasive surgery aspect that someone brought up, what does that get us? A bunch of babies born that go where? Straight to orphanages, which are already quite full. If anything, that option is more cruel than aborting the fetus.

  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    $15-20k? Fuck it I'd make it the old fashion way. Hell I'd rather take damaged goods and get the fucking stipend and hope nurture fixes things.

    Not everyone can make it the old fashioned way. The gays, the barren/sterile, those who are just past the right age, and so on...

    I don't know if this is still current, but I remember hearing that healthy white babies were massively undersupplied in adoption, but that black babies were still getting put into care because they couldn't find people to take them. So, the adoption market might be more complicated than simply 'how many babies are there' and 'how many people want them.'

  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Yeah, maybe this makes me an out of touch Republican who hates women, but if you wait until you're in your eighth month to decide you don't want to have a kid, that seems like sketchy territory to me.

    I don't find it too hard to imagine. What if your partner runs off in the eighth month?

    MrMister on
  • Sir LandsharkSir Landshark resting shark face Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    Yeah, maybe this makes me an out of touch Republican who hates women, but if you wait until you're in your eighth month to decide you don't want to have a kid, that seems like sketchy territory to me.

    I don't find it too hard to imagine. What if your partner runs off in the eighth month?

    What if your partner runs off after birth? I don't see a logical distinction unless you consider the presence of a partner to be a crucial role in alleviating the stress, dangers and other issues with giving birth.

    Please consider the environment before printing this post.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Look, the thing about viability is that once its viable, most abortion methods are basically early delivery anyway. They're also (in the US) illegal except for medically necessary abortions, which only monsters would want to ban.

    And my thought experiment about the magic fetus removal machine is a.) completely fictitious b.) wouldn't be anymore invasive than an abortion and c.) will never happen.

    I'd just like abortion to stop being something everyone has to hear about from people who don't know what they're talking about.

    It's legal, leave it up to women and their doctors and shut up about it already. The only reason to ban it is a barely applicable interpretation of religious texts which means it shouldn't have standing in US law. Until someone can show me the science where a blastocyst has the cognitive powers of an infant, all you've got is nothing.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    MrMister wrote: »
    Yeah, maybe this makes me an out of touch Republican who hates women, but if you wait until you're in your eighth month to decide you don't want to have a kid, that seems like sketchy territory to me.

    I don't find it too hard to imagine. What if your partner runs off in the eighth month?

    What if your partner runs off after birth? I don't see a logical distinction unless you consider the presence of a partner to be a crucial role in alleviating the stress, dangers and other issues with giving birth.

    I'm not arguing that birth makes a big difference here. All I'm saying is that I can see how someone's attitude toward being a parent could rationally change very quickly, even in the 8th month--someone could lose their partner, get fired, be diagnosed with a serious chronic illness, or whatever, and suddenly think that being a parent would be a terrible idea. Whether that justifies abortion is a separate question. I'm just saying it's not necessarily a result of flighty irresponsibility.

    MrMister on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Yeah, maybe this makes me an out of touch Republican who hates women, but if you wait until you're in your eighth month to decide you don't want to have a kid, that seems like sketchy territory to me.

    I don't find it too hard to imagine. What if your partner runs off in the eighth month?

    What if your partner runs off after birth? I don't see a logical distinction unless you consider the presence of a partner to be a crucial role in alleviating the stress, dangers and other issues with giving birth.

    I'm not arguing that birth makes a big difference here. All I'm saying is that I can see how someone's attitude toward being a parent could rationally change very quickly, even in the 8th month--someone could lose their partner, get fired, be diagnosed with a serious chronic illness, or whatever, and suddenly think that being a parent would be a terrible idea. Whether that justifies abortion is a separate question. I'm just saying it's not necessarily a result of flighty irresponsibility.

    It's a fair point, and also why this should be between a woman and her doctor and maybe her partner and not a bunch of scrotums in state or national capitals.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    Decomposey wrote: »
    But this violinist crap... it's basically saying that by having sex, you are agreeing to have a baby. Which is false. It's like saying by having sex, you are agreeing to getting Syphlilis and having your brain slowly melt. It's not an agreed on action, its something shitty that happens to people sometimes for following their natural instincts. You get an STD, you treat it. Should we stop treating STDs as well, as in many cases they are just as welcome to a woman as a pregnancy would be? Except in cases of rape or incest of course, they get to be treated for their STDs because... something something something.

    A woman who got pregnant after a night of wild drunken sex with an entire college football team is in exactly the same boat as a woman who was raped by her evil father, as far a unwanted pregnancy is concerned. Neither of them chose to get pregnant. Neither of them wants the child. Both have jsut as much right to abort.

    Oh, some may say, but the first chose to engange in risky activity and thus is to blame for getting pregnant! Those people, whether they want to admit it or not, are participating in slut shaming. Bad girl do bad, bad girl be punished now. She is to BLAME. It's her FAULT. Stone the witc...er.. make her carry to term.

    ... There's a whole lot here, but I think in the end the best response I can give would be to quote a philosopher:
    MrMister wrote: »
    I am as liberal as they come, and I also think that we should think of abortions in roughly the same way as we think of haircuts: the discarding of unwanted or inconvenient biological matter. But I confess that I find this 'anti-slut-shaming' line of pro-choice argument infuriating. We very often make legal and social distinctions based on reasonably foreseeable consequences. Suppose I leave a dangerous trap on my property; in many states I am liable for people who injure themselves wandering into it. In those cases I owe them compensation for damages. And we differentiate this case from that of cripples who just happen to exist in the world. I do not, in general, owe compensation to people who just happen to have been damaged--even if, as you say above, the person is identical in either case. Does this amount to 'trap-builder-shaming?' And who cares if it does? Again: we often force people to pay for their mistakes. Doing so does not misogyny make.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Edit: double double

    MentalExercise on
    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    in the end the best response I can give would be to quote a philosopher:

    <3

  • DecomposeyDecomposey Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    When you are building the traps inside your own body cavity, I will accept the comparison.

    Decomposey on
    Before following any advice, opinions, or thoughts I may have expressed in the above post, be warned: I found Keven Costners "Waterworld" to be a very entertaining film.
  • CantelopeCantelope Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Decomposey wrote: »
    When you are building the traps inside your own body cavity, I will accept the comparison.

    I put a lighter up my cornhole so that if the aliens probe me they get a face full of fire.


    Also... There are those anti-rape condoms. People really do put traps inside their body cavities.

    Cantelope on
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    Those rape condoms are hilariously bad ideas.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    I am as liberal as they come, and I also think that we should think of abortions in roughly the same way as we think of haircuts: the discarding of unwanted or inconvenient biological matter. But I confess that I find this 'anti-slut-shaming' line of pro-choice argument infuriating. We very often make legal and social distinctions based on reasonably foreseeable consequences. Suppose I leave a dangerous trap on my property; in many states I am liable for people who injure themselves wandering into it. In those cases I owe them compensation for damages. And we differentiate this case from that of cripples who just happen to exist in the world. I do not, in general, owe compensation to people who just happen to have been damaged--even if, as you say above, the person is identical in either case. Does this amount to 'trap-builder-shaming?' And who cares if it does? Again: we often force people to pay for their mistakes. Doing so does not misogyny make.

    Actually, yes, "she should have kept her legs shut, now make her have the baby" is straightforward misogyny. I don't know why that infuriates or baffles you.

    Abortion IS a consequence. How hard is that to understand?

    Suppose you leave a dangerous trap on your property and a person wanders into it, injuring himself.* The law doesn't force you to step into your trap as a consequence. If you step in it by accident, the law doesn't forbid you from seeking medical treatment because "you should have known better".

    If a drunk driver crashes his car into a tree, we don't allow paramedics to refuse to treat the guy because he should have known better and been more careful. If you go skiing and break your leg, your doctor is not going to tell you "I'll put a cast on it, but no painkillers - breaking your leg was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of skiing." If you accidentally run over the neighbor's puppy, a judge is not going to order the neighbor to run over your dog to even things up.

    Slut-shaming is the belief that because a woman has done something wrong (sex! slutty slut slut!) or been careless (she only used TWO methods of birth control!), that she should be forced to undergo a very specific consequence - pregnancy and childbirth - as punishment. Can you explain to me why that's OK?


    *As a side note, the reason you are in trouble for this is that you're not allowed to set a device to do a thing that it's impermissible for you personally to do. Is it legal for you to sit there with a shotgun and blow away anyone who wanders onto your lawn? No. Therefore, you cannot set a deadly trap to do the same thing. If your 'trap' simply summoned the police and blared loud noises to scare away intruders, that would be perfectly legal.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    I'll start taking the pro life movement as something other than slut shaming and misogyny as soon as they start aggressively pushing for free contraception and strong sex ed classes, as all the evidence points to that being the best way to reduce abortions

  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    I'll start taking the pro life movement as something other than slut shaming and misogyny as soon as they start aggressively pushing for free contraception and strong sex ed classes, as all the evidence points to that being the best way to reduce abortions

    Yes, but even if it happens to be objectively true it doesn't mean that they'll believe it. I ran into that argument the last time I tried the 'contraception reduces abortion' thing and was never able to formulate a good reply to it. :\

  • LikeaBoshLikeaBosh Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    A big thing I've noticed with the anti-abortion people is that many of them seem to think making it illegal will actually make all abortions stop happening. That is definitely not the case, it will just lead to more women getting sketchy back alley abortions, or trying to do it themselves with dangerous results. Women are going to keep getting abortions because sometimes (for a multitude of reasons) they are not ready to have a child, or don't feel they are in a position to raise one properly, at least at that time. If they are already struggling with this difficult choice, trying to punish them further with the law is just evil.

  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    LikeaBosh wrote: »
    A big thing I've noticed with the anti-abortion people is that many of them seem to think making it illegal will actually make all abortions stop happening. That is definitely not the case, it will just lead to more women getting sketchy back alley abortions, or trying to do it themselves with dangerous results. Women are going to keep getting abortions because sometimes (for a multitude of reasons) they are not ready to have a child, or don't feel they are in a position to raise one properly, at least at that time. If they are already struggling with this difficult choice, trying to punish them further with the law is just evil.

    Their response, typically, "They deserve whatever harm happens to the both of them if they do something illegal."

    Typically anti-abortion and pro-lifers are "anti-choice-that-I-don't-agree-with." They don't honestly care what happens to the child or mother, as evidence to the lack of social care after the baby is born, or rather, lack of anything after the baby is born. It is tantamount to slut shaming because how dare you have sex, when you boil it all down.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • belligerentbelligerent Registered User regular
    Exactly. This basically the idea of one side saying I believe everyone has the right to make their own decisions and the other side saying "YOU MUST BELIEVE WHAT I BELIEVE!"

  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    mythago wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
     I am as liberal as they come, and I also think that we should think of abortions in roughly the same way as we think of haircuts: the discarding of unwanted or inconvenient biological matter. But I confess that I find this 'anti-slut-shaming' line of pro-choice argument infuriating. We very often make legal and social distinctions based on reasonably foreseeable consequences. Suppose I leave a dangerous trap on my property; in many states I am liable for people who injure themselves wandering into it. In those cases I owe them compensation for damages. And we differentiate this case from that of cripples who just happen to exist in the world. I do not, in general, owe compensation to people who just happen to have been damaged--even if, as you say above, the person is identical in either case. Does this amount to 'trap-builder-shaming?' And who cares if it does? Again: we often force people to pay for their mistakes. Doing so does not misogyny make.

    Actually, yes, "she should have kept her legs shut, now make her have the baby" is straightforward misogyny. I don't know why that infuriates or baffles you.

    Abortion IS a consequence. How hard is that to understand?

    Suppose you leave a dangerous trap on your property and a person wanders into it, injuring himself.* The law doesn't force you to step into your trap as a consequence. If you step in it by accident, the law doesn't forbid you from seeking medical treatment because "you should have known better". 
     
    If a drunk driver crashes his car into a tree, we don't allow paramedics to refuse to treat the guy because he should have known better and been more careful. If you go skiing and break your leg, your doctor is not going to tell you "I'll put a cast on it, but no painkillers - breaking your leg was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of skiing." If you accidentally run over the neighbor's puppy, a judge is not going to order the neighbor to run over your dog to even things up. 

    Slut-shaming is the belief that because a woman has done something wrong (sex! slutty slut slut!) or been careless (she only used TWO methods of birth control!), that she should be forced to undergo a very specific consequence - pregnancy and childbirth - as punishment. Can you explain to me why that's OK?


    *As a side note, the reason you are in trouble for this is that you're not allowed to set a device to do a thing that it's impermissible for you personally to do. Is it legal for you to sit there with a shotgun and blow away anyone who wanders onto your lawn? No. Therefore, you cannot set a deadly trap to do the same thing. If your 'trap' simply summoned the police and blared loud noises to scare away intruders, that would be perfectly legal.

    I have to say, I can't find anything in this post that shows any understanding of what Mr.Mister was saying there.

    Which seems to really stem from the ridiculous strawman in the bold. No one is saying that. What is being said is that you could feasibly be pro-life, and yet make an exception for rape because when pregnant through no action of your own, your right to freedom supersedes the unborn baby's right to life.

    I suppose there is more subtlety to that concept than I originally gave credit for, but in any case it has absolutely no relationship with punishing anyone.

    A simpler analogy might be that unintentional fathers are required to provide for their child or pay child support. And this too has no relationship to punishment, but is merely requiring that one deal with the reasonably foreseeable consequences of one's actions, intended or not.

    MentalExercise on
    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    Slut-shaming is the belief that because a woman has done something wrong (sex! slutty slut slut!) or been careless (she only used TWO methods of birth control!), that she should be forced to undergo a very specific consequence - pregnancy and childbirth - as punishment. Can you explain to me why that's OK?

    A view on which abortion should be prohibited is fully consistent with the idea that there is nothing wrong with sex, and that human sexuality should be celebrated. For instance, were I to think fetal life were really significant (which I don't), my response would be to promote anal, oral, manual, and other non-procreative forms of sex. It may be a coincidence of American politics that many of the people who oppose abortion also believe in abstinence, but it is certainly not a necessity that the two go together. That is why this line of argument "infuriates and baffles" me. Abortion and 'slut shaming' are, intellectually, two entirely different issues. Conflating them is a mistake.

  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    One out of five US children lives in poverty.

    One out of five.

    From the 1995 to 2010 time period, the US ranked 34th in infant mortality.

    I will believe that the religious right believes the crap they spew about the sanctity of life when they start caring what happens to children who have been born; and stop condemning children to suffering and early death.

    ...and when you are done with that; take a folding
    chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    Maybe the people who believe in abstinence only just have no game. So they try to punish everyone else.

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
  • MaratastikMaratastik Just call me Mara, please! Registered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
     I am as liberal as they come, and I also think that we should think of abortions in roughly the same way as we think of haircuts: the discarding of unwanted or inconvenient biological matter. But I confess that I find this 'anti-slut-shaming' line of pro-choice argument infuriating. We very often make legal and social distinctions based on reasonably foreseeable consequences. Suppose I leave a dangerous trap on my property; in many states I am liable for people who injure themselves wandering into it. In those cases I owe them compensation for damages. And we differentiate this case from that of cripples who just happen to exist in the world. I do not, in general, owe compensation to people who just happen to have been damaged--even if, as you say above, the person is identical in either case. Does this amount to 'trap-builder-shaming?' And who cares if it does? Again: we often force people to pay for their mistakes. Doing so does not misogyny make.

    Actually, yes, "she should have kept her legs shut, now make her have the baby" is straightforward misogyny. I don't know why that infuriates or baffles you.

    Abortion IS a consequence. How hard is that to understand?

    Suppose you leave a dangerous trap on your property and a person wanders into it, injuring himself.* The law doesn't force you to step into your trap as a consequence. If you step in it by accident, the law doesn't forbid you from seeking medical treatment because "you should have known better". 
     
    If a drunk driver crashes his car into a tree, we don't allow paramedics to refuse to treat the guy because he should have known better and been more careful. If you go skiing and break your leg, your doctor is not going to tell you "I'll put a cast on it, but no painkillers - breaking your leg was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of skiing." If you accidentally run over the neighbor's puppy, a judge is not going to order the neighbor to run over your dog to even things up. 

    Slut-shaming is the belief that because a woman has done something wrong (sex! slutty slut slut!) or been careless (she only used TWO methods of birth control!), that she should be forced to undergo a very specific consequence - pregnancy and childbirth - as punishment. Can you explain to me why that's OK?


    *As a side note, the reason you are in trouble for this is that you're not allowed to set a device to do a thing that it's impermissible for you personally to do. Is it legal for you to sit there with a shotgun and blow away anyone who wanders onto your lawn? No. Therefore, you cannot set a deadly trap to do the same thing. If your 'trap' simply summoned the police and blared loud noises to scare away intruders, that would be perfectly legal.

    I have to say, I can't find anything in this post that shows any understanding of what Mr.Mister was saying there.

    Which seems to really stem from the ridiculous strawman in the bold. No one is saying that. What is being said is that you could feasibly be pro-life, and yet make an exception for rape because when pregnant through no action of your own, your right to freedom supersedes the unborn baby's right to life.

    I suppose there is more subtlety to that concept than I originally gave credit for, but in any case it has absolutely no relationship with punishing anyone.

    A simpler analogy might be that unintentional fathers are required to provide for their child or pay child support. And this too has no relationship to punishment, but is merely requirione's hat one deal with the reasonably foreseeable consequences of one's actions, intended or not.

    First, I don't know what your personal position on the matter is, so I will try to avoid drawing any conclusions...but why does the "right to freedom" supercede "the baby's right to life"? Or more to the point, why is this acceptable only for the case of rape? If you believe an embryo/fetus to be a person that fundamentally deserves the right to life, then why does rape suddenly make abortion okay? If you believe that the mother's freedom trumps the baby's right to life, then why must it only be allowed for cases of rape? You can still have plenty of protective sex without any wish to be pregnant. So why does the baby's right to life trump the woman's right to freedom is this case?

    I don't believe that just because a cluster of cells can become a person, that you should be forced to give birth to and raise said person, just because you like to have sex. Personally, I believe an abortion in the third trimester would be over the line morally (except if the mother is going to die) if for no other reason than I think that by that point the fetus is developed enough to feel pain (so inflicting such pain would only be moral in order to save the mother's life and honestly I feel should be mitigated with anesthesia if it would not increase any risk to the mother), but this should not be an issue if you get rid of the stigma and restrictions associated with having abortions.

  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    Olorin wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
     I am as liberal as they come, and I also think that we should think of abortions in roughly the same way as we think of haircuts: the discarding of unwanted or inconvenient biological matter. But I confess that I find this 'anti-slut-shaming' line of pro-choice argument infuriating. We very often make legal and social distinctions based on reasonably foreseeable consequences. Suppose I leave a dangerous trap on my property; in many states I am liable for people who injure themselves wandering into it. In those cases I owe them compensation for damages. And we differentiate this case from that of cripples who just happen to exist in the world. I do not, in general, owe compensation to people who just happen to have been damaged--even if, as you say above, the person is identical in either case. Does this amount to 'trap-builder-shaming?' And who cares if it does? Again: we often force people to pay for their mistakes. Doing so does not misogyny make.

    Actually, yes, "she should have kept her legs shut, now make her have the baby" is straightforward misogyny. I don't know why that infuriates or baffles you.

    Abortion IS a consequence. How hard is that to understand?

    Suppose you leave a dangerous trap on your property and a person wanders into it, injuring himself.* The law doesn't force you to step into your trap as a consequence. If you step in it by accident, the law doesn't forbid you from seeking medical treatment because "you should have known better". 
     
    If a drunk driver crashes his car into a tree, we don't allow paramedics to refuse to treat the guy because he should have known better and been more careful. If you go skiing and break your leg, your doctor is not going to tell you "I'll put a cast on it, but no painkillers - breaking your leg was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of skiing." If you accidentally run over the neighbor's puppy, a judge is not going to order the neighbor to run over your dog to even things up. 

    Slut-shaming is the belief that because a woman has done something wrong (sex! slutty slut slut!) or been careless (she only used TWO methods of birth control!), that she should be forced to undergo a very specific consequence - pregnancy and childbirth - as punishment. Can you explain to me why that's OK?


    *As a side note, the reason you are in trouble for this is that you're not allowed to set a device to do a thing that it's impermissible for you personally to do. Is it legal for you to sit there with a shotgun and blow away anyone who wanders onto your lawn? No. Therefore, you cannot set a deadly trap to do the same thing. If your 'trap' simply summoned the police and blared loud noises to scare away intruders, that would be perfectly legal.

    I have to say, I can't find anything in this post that shows any understanding of what Mr.Mister was saying there.

    Which seems to really stem from the ridiculous strawman in the bold. No one is saying that. What is being said is that you could feasibly be pro-life, and yet make an exception for rape because when pregnant through no action of your own, your right to freedom supersedes the unborn baby's right to life.

    I suppose there is more subtlety to that concept than I originally gave credit for, but in any case it has absolutely no relationship with punishing anyone.

    A simpler analogy might be that unintentional fathers are required to provide for their child or pay child support. And this too has no relationship to punishment, but is merely requirione's hat one deal with the reasonably foreseeable consequences of one's actions, intended or not.

    First, I don't know what your personal position on the matter is, so I will try to avoid drawing any conclusions...but why does the "right to freedom" supercede "the baby's right to life"? Or more to the point, why is this acceptable only for the case of rape? If you believe an embryo/fetus to be a person that fundamentally deserves the right to life, then why does rape suddenly make abortion okay? If you believe that the mother's freedom trumps the baby's right to life, then why must it only be allowed for cases of rape? You can still have plenty of protective sex without any wish to be pregnant. So why does the baby's right to life trump the woman's right to freedom is this case?

    I don't believe that just because a cluster of cells can become a person, that you should be forced to give birth to and raise said person, just because you like to have sex. Personally, I believe an abortion in the third trimester would be over the line morally (except if the mother is going to die) if for no other reason than I think that by that point the fetus is developed enough to feel pain (so inflicting such pain would only be moral in order to save the mother's life and honestly I feel should be mitigated with anesthesia if it would not increase any risk to the mother), but this should not be an issue if you get rid of the stigma and restrictions associated with having abortions.

    If I am attached to the violinist against my will, I am under no obligation to stay attached, even if the violinist would die.

    If I chose to be part of the lottery of people that may become attached, i was chosen, and then attached them I am obligated to stay that way for the duration.

    Even if I never really intended to be chosen.

    The premise is that abortion is wrong. The rape exception exists because a pregnancy forced upon someone is different than one that happens as an unintentional but foreseeable consequence of sex.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    Olorin wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
     I am as liberal as they come, and I also think that we should think of abortions in roughly the same way as we think of haircuts: the discarding of unwanted or inconvenient biological matter. But I confess that I find this 'anti-slut-shaming' line of pro-choice argument infuriating. We very often make legal and social distinctions based on reasonably foreseeable consequences. Suppose I leave a dangerous trap on my property; in many states I am liable for people who injure themselves wandering into it. In those cases I owe them compensation for damages. And we differentiate this case from that of cripples who just happen to exist in the world. I do not, in general, owe compensation to people who just happen to have been damaged--even if, as you say above, the person is identical in either case. Does this amount to 'trap-builder-shaming?' And who cares if it does? Again: we often force people to pay for their mistakes. Doing so does not misogyny make.

    Actually, yes, "she should have kept her legs shut, now make her have the baby" is straightforward misogyny. I don't know why that infuriates or baffles you.

    Abortion IS a consequence. How hard is that to understand?

    Suppose you leave a dangerous trap on your property and a person wanders into it, injuring himself.* The law doesn't force you to step into your trap as a consequence. If you step in it by accident, the law doesn't forbid you from seeking medical treatment because "you should have known better". 
     
    If a drunk driver crashes his car into a tree, we don't allow paramedics to refuse to treat the guy because he should have known better and been more careful. If you go skiing and break your leg, your doctor is not going to tell you "I'll put a cast on it, but no painkillers - breaking your leg was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of skiing." If you accidentally run over the neighbor's puppy, a judge is not going to order the neighbor to run over your dog to even things up. 

    Slut-shaming is the belief that because a woman has done something wrong (sex! slutty slut slut!) or been careless (she only used TWO methods of birth control!), that she should be forced to undergo a very specific consequence - pregnancy and childbirth - as punishment. Can you explain to me why that's OK?


    *As a side note, the reason you are in trouble for this is that you're not allowed to set a device to do a thing that it's impermissible for you personally to do. Is it legal for you to sit there with a shotgun and blow away anyone who wanders onto your lawn? No. Therefore, you cannot set a deadly trap to do the same thing. If your 'trap' simply summoned the police and blared loud noises to scare away intruders, that would be perfectly legal.

    I have to say, I can't find anything in this post that shows any understanding of what Mr.Mister was saying there.

    Which seems to really stem from the ridiculous strawman in the bold. No one is saying that. What is being said is that you could feasibly be pro-life, and yet make an exception for rape because when pregnant through no action of your own, your right to freedom supersedes the unborn baby's right to life.

    I suppose there is more subtlety to that concept than I originally gave credit for, but in any case it has absolutely no relationship with punishing anyone.

    A simpler analogy might be that unintentional fathers are required to provide for their child or pay child support. And this too has no relationship to punishment, but is merely requirione's hat one deal with the reasonably foreseeable consequences of one's actions, intended or not.

    First, I don't know what your personal position on the matter is, so I will try to avoid drawing any conclusions...but why does the "right to freedom" supercede "the baby's right to life"? Or more to the point, why is this acceptable only for the case of rape? If you believe an embryo/fetus to be a person that fundamentally deserves the right to life, then why does rape suddenly make abortion okay? If you believe that the mother's freedom trumps the baby's right to life, then why must it only be allowed for cases of rape? You can still have plenty of protective sex without any wish to be pregnant. So why does the baby's right to life trump the woman's right to freedom is this case?

    I don't believe that just because a cluster of cells can become a person, that you should be forced to give birth to and raise said person, just because you like to have sex. Personally, I believe an abortion in the third trimester would be over the line morally (except if the mother is going to die) if for no other reason than I think that by that point the fetus is developed enough to feel pain (so inflicting such pain would only be moral in order to save the mother's life and honestly I feel should be mitigated with anesthesia if it would not increase any risk to the mother), but this should not be an issue if you get rid of the stigma and restrictions associated with having abortions.

    If I am attached to the violinist against my will, I am under no obligation to stay attached, even if the violinist would die.

    If I chose to be part of the lottery of people that may become attached, i was chosen, and then attached them I am obligated to stay that way for the duration.

    Even if I never really intended to be chosen.

    The premise is that abortion is wrong. The rape exception exists because a pregnancy forced upon someone is different than one that happens as an unintentional but foreseeable consequence of sex.

    OK, but what if there's a fat man you can push onto the violinist and harvest his organs to give to 5 sick people?

  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Olorin wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
     I am as liberal as they come, and I also think that we should think of abortions in roughly the same way as we think of haircuts: the discarding of unwanted or inconvenient biological matter. But I confess that I find this 'anti-slut-shaming' line of pro-choice argument infuriating. We very often make legal and social distinctions based on reasonably foreseeable consequences. Suppose I leave a dangerous trap on my property; in many states I am liable for people who injure themselves wandering into it. In those cases I owe them compensation for damages. And we differentiate this case from that of cripples who just happen to exist in the world. I do not, in general, owe compensation to people who just happen to have been damaged--even if, as you say above, the person is identical in either case. Does this amount to 'trap-builder-shaming?' And who cares if it does? Again: we often force people to pay for their mistakes. Doing so does not misogyny make.

    Actually, yes, "she should have kept her legs shut, now make her have the baby" is straightforward misogyny. I don't know why that infuriates or baffles you.

    Abortion IS a consequence. How hard is that to understand?

    Suppose you leave a dangerous trap on your property and a person wanders into it, injuring himself.* The law doesn't force you to step into your trap as a consequence. If you step in it by accident, the law doesn't forbid you from seeking medical treatment because "you should have known better". 
     
    If a drunk driver crashes his car into a tree, we don't allow paramedics to refuse to treat the guy because he should have known better and been more careful. If you go skiing and break your leg, your doctor is not going to tell you "I'll put a cast on it, but no painkillers - breaking your leg was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of skiing." If you accidentally run over the neighbor's puppy, a judge is not going to order the neighbor to run over your dog to even things up. 

    Slut-shaming is the belief that because a woman has done something wrong (sex! slutty slut slut!) or been careless (she only used TWO methods of birth control!), that she should be forced to undergo a very specific consequence - pregnancy and childbirth - as punishment. Can you explain to me why that's OK?


    *As a side note, the reason you are in trouble for this is that you're not allowed to set a device to do a thing that it's impermissible for you personally to do. Is it legal for you to sit there with a shotgun and blow away anyone who wanders onto your lawn? No. Therefore, you cannot set a deadly trap to do the same thing. If your 'trap' simply summoned the police and blared loud noises to scare away intruders, that would be perfectly legal.

    I have to say, I can't find anything in this post that shows any understanding of what Mr.Mister was saying there.

    Which seems to really stem from the ridiculous strawman in the bold. No one is saying that. What is being said is that you could feasibly be pro-life, and yet make an exception for rape because when pregnant through no action of your own, your right to freedom supersedes the unborn baby's right to life.

    I suppose there is more subtlety to that concept than I originally gave credit for, but in any case it has absolutely no relationship with punishing anyone.

    A simpler analogy might be that unintentional fathers are required to provide for their child or pay child support. And this too has no relationship to punishment, but is merely requirione's hat one deal with the reasonably foreseeable consequences of one's actions, intended or not.

    First, I don't know what your personal position on the matter is, so I will try to avoid drawing any conclusions...but why does the "right to freedom" supercede "the baby's right to life"? Or more to the point, why is this acceptable only for the case of rape? If you believe an embryo/fetus to be a person that fundamentally deserves the right to life, then why does rape suddenly make abortion okay? If you believe that the mother's freedom trumps the baby's right to life, then why must it only be allowed for cases of rape? You can still have plenty of protective sex without any wish to be pregnant. So why does the baby's right to life trump the woman's right to freedom is this case?

    I don't believe that just because a cluster of cells can become a person, that you should be forced to give birth to and raise said person, just because you like to have sex. Personally, I believe an abortion in the third trimester would be over the line morally (except if the mother is going to die) if for no other reason than I think that by that point the fetus is developed enough to feel pain (so inflicting such pain would only be moral in order to save the mother's life and honestly I feel should be mitigated with anesthesia if it would not increase any risk to the mother), but this should not be an issue if you get rid of the stigma and restrictions associated with having abortions.

    If I am attached to the violinist against my will, I am under no obligation to stay attached, even if the violinist would die.

    If I chose to be part of the lottery of people that may become attached, i was chosen, and then attached them I am obligated to stay that way for the duration.

    Even if I never really intended to be chosen.

    The premise is that abortion is wrong. The rape exception exists because a pregnancy forced upon someone is different than one that happens as an unintentional but foreseeable consequence of sex.

    Bolded is stupid because there are a plethora of things that can occur between "signing up for the lottery" and being "detached from the violinist" that could change your mind. Even if you intended to be picked, circumstances can arise that make you rethink your original position.


    EDIT: And why is it a world class violinist? Are the lives of world class violinists worth more than homeless people?

    emp123 on
  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    emp123 wrote: »
    Olorin wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
     I am as liberal as they come, and I also think that we should think of abortions in roughly the same way as we think of haircuts: the discarding of unwanted or inconvenient biological matter. But I confess that I find this 'anti-slut-shaming' line of pro-choice argument infuriating. We very often make legal and social distinctions based on reasonably foreseeable consequences. Suppose I leave a dangerous trap on my property; in many states I am liable for people who injure themselves wandering into it. In those cases I owe them compensation for damages. And we differentiate this case from that of cripples who just happen to exist in the world. I do not, in general, owe compensation to people who just happen to have been damaged--even if, as you say above, the person is identical in either case. Does this amount to 'trap-builder-shaming?' And who cares if it does? Again: we often force people to pay for their mistakes. Doing so does not misogyny make.

    Actually, yes, "she should have kept her legs shut, now make her have the baby" is straightforward misogyny. I don't know why that infuriates or baffles you.

    Abortion IS a consequence. How hard is that to understand?

    Suppose you leave a dangerous trap on your property and a person wanders into it, injuring himself.* The law doesn't force you to step into your trap as a consequence. If you step in it by accident, the law doesn't forbid you from seeking medical treatment because "you should have known better". 
     
    If a drunk driver crashes his car into a tree, we don't allow paramedics to refuse to treat the guy because he should have known better and been more careful. If you go skiing and break your leg, your doctor is not going to tell you "I'll put a cast on it, but no painkillers - breaking your leg was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of skiing." If you accidentally run over the neighbor's puppy, a judge is not going to order the neighbor to run over your dog to even things up. 

    Slut-shaming is the belief that because a woman has done something wrong (sex! slutty slut slut!) or been careless (she only used TWO methods of birth control!), that she should be forced to undergo a very specific consequence - pregnancy and childbirth - as punishment. Can you explain to me why that's OK?


    *As a side note, the reason you are in trouble for this is that you're not allowed to set a device to do a thing that it's impermissible for you personally to do. Is it legal for you to sit there with a shotgun and blow away anyone who wanders onto your lawn? No. Therefore, you cannot set a deadly trap to do the same thing. If your 'trap' simply summoned the police and blared loud noises to scare away intruders, that would be perfectly legal.

    I have to say, I can't find anything in this post that shows any understanding of what Mr.Mister was saying there.

    Which seems to really stem from the ridiculous strawman in the bold. No one is saying that. What is being said is that you could feasibly be pro-life, and yet make an exception for rape because when pregnant through no action of your own, your right to freedom supersedes the unborn baby's right to life.

    I suppose there is more subtlety to that concept than I originally gave credit for, but in any case it has absolutely no relationship with punishing anyone.

    A simpler analogy might be that unintentional fathers are required to provide for their child or pay child support. And this too has no relationship to punishment, but is merely requirione's hat one deal with the reasonably foreseeable consequences of one's actions, intended or not.

    First, I don't know what your personal position on the matter is, so I will try to avoid drawing any conclusions...but why does the "right to freedom" supercede "the baby's right to life"? Or more to the point, why is this acceptable only for the case of rape? If you believe an embryo/fetus to be a person that fundamentally deserves the right to life, then why does rape suddenly make abortion okay? If you believe that the mother's freedom trumps the baby's right to life, then why must it only be allowed for cases of rape? You can still have plenty of protective sex without any wish to be pregnant. So why does the baby's right to life trump the woman's right to freedom is this case?

    I don't believe that just because a cluster of cells can become a person, that you should be forced to give birth to and raise said person, just because you like to have sex. Personally, I believe an abortion in the third trimester would be over the line morally (except if the mother is going to die) if for no other reason than I think that by that point the fetus is developed enough to feel pain (so inflicting such pain would only be moral in order to save the mother's life and honestly I feel should be mitigated with anesthesia if it would not increase any risk to the mother), but this should not be an issue if you get rid of the stigma and restrictions associated with having abortions.

    If I am attached to the violinist against my will, I am under no obligation to stay attached, even if the violinist would die.

    If I chose to be part of the lottery of people that may become attached, i was chosen, and then attached them I am obligated to stay that way for the duration.

    Even if I never really intended to be chosen.

    The premise is that abortion is wrong. The rape exception exists because a pregnancy forced upon someone is different than one that happens as an unintentional but foreseeable consequence of sex.

    Bolded is stupid because there are a plethora of things that can occur between "signing up for the lottery" and being "detached from the violinist" that could change your mind. Even if you intended to be picked, circumstances can arise that make you rethink your original position.


    EDIT: And why is it a world class violinist? Are the lives of world class violinists worth more than homeless people?

    Well sure, but that's not Germaine to the analogy. It is only analogous to pregnancy and abortion if the decision leads to the consequence, and the second decision is made after that point.

    That is the premise.

    And it's a world class violinist because we can presumably all agree that that is a life worth saving, precisely so we don't have to argue about whether a homeless person is worth it. It's a concession to the opposing viewpoint.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • EuphoriacEuphoriac Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    What if the time from entering the lottery and being chosen and attached is merely a matter of hours? Not that much time to have anything change your mind.

    Then again, maybe the lottery takes about 5 days? Thats when emergency contraception comes in.

    Edit: Emergency contraception in the analogy being a number you can call to be near-instantly dismissed from the lottery.

    Euphoriac on
  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    Euphoriac wrote: »
    What if the time from entering the lottery and being chosen and attached is merely a matter of hours? Not that much time to have anything change your mind.

    Then again, maybe the lottery takes about 5 days? Thats when emergency contraception comes in.

    Edit: Emergency contraception in the analogy being a number you can call to be near-instantly dismissed from the lottery.

    I think that's somewhat outside the scope of the analogy, and rather than overextending it, it would be better to take a different tack when addressing emergency contraception. That being said you could probably tailor the original analogy to fit the concept of emergency contraceptives, if you clearly outlined the positions you are arguing for and against beforehand.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • MaratastikMaratastik Just call me Mara, please! Registered User regular
    Olorin wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
     I am as liberal as they come, and I also think that we should think of abortions in roughly the same way as we think of haircuts: the discarding of unwanted or inconvenient biological matter. But I confess that I find this 'anti-slut-shaming' line of pro-choice argument infuriating. We very often make legal and social distinctions based on reasonably foreseeable consequences. Suppose I leave a dangerous trap on my property; in many states I am liable for people who injure themselves wandering into it. In those cases I owe them compensation for damages. And we differentiate this case from that of cripples who just happen to exist in the world. I do not, in general, owe compensation to people who just happen to have been damaged--even if, as you say above, the person is identical in either case. Does this amount to 'trap-builder-shaming?' And who cares if it does? Again: we often force people to pay for their mistakes. Doing so does not misogyny make.

    Actually, yes, "she should have kept her legs shut, now make her have the baby" is straightforward misogyny. I don't know why that infuriates or baffles you.

    Abortion IS a consequence. How hard is that to understand?

    Suppose you leave a dangerous trap on your property and a person wanders into it, injuring himself.* The law doesn't force you to step into your trap as a consequence. If you step in it by accident, the law doesn't forbid you from seeking medical treatment because "you should have known better". 
     
    If a drunk driver crashes his car into a tree, we don't allow paramedics to refuse to treat the guy because he should have known better and been more careful. If you go skiing and break your leg, your doctor is not going to tell you "I'll put a cast on it, but no painkillers - breaking your leg was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of skiing." If you accidentally run over the neighbor's puppy, a judge is not going to order the neighbor to run over your dog to even things up. 

    Slut-shaming is the belief that because a woman has done something wrong (sex! slutty slut slut!) or been careless (she only used TWO methods of birth control!), that she should be forced to undergo a very specific consequence - pregnancy and childbirth - as punishment. Can you explain to me why that's OK?


    *As a side note, the reason you are in trouble for this is that you're not allowed to set a device to do a thing that it's impermissible for you personally to do. Is it legal for you to sit there with a shotgun and blow away anyone who wanders onto your lawn? No. Therefore, you cannot set a deadly trap to do the same thing. If your 'trap' simply summoned the police and blared loud noises to scare away intruders, that would be perfectly legal.

    I have to say, I can't find anything in this post that shows any understanding of what Mr.Mister was saying there.

    Which seems to really stem from the ridiculous strawman in the bold. No one is saying that. What is being said is that you could feasibly be pro-life, and yet make an exception for rape because when pregnant through no action of your own, your right to freedom supersedes the unborn baby's right to life.

    I suppose there is more subtlety to that concept than I originally gave credit for, but in any case it has absolutely no relationship with punishing anyone.

    A simpler analogy might be that unintentional fathers are required to provide for their child or pay child support. And this too has no relationship to punishment, but is merely requirione's hat one deal with the reasonably foreseeable consequences of one's actions, intended or not.

    First, I don't know what your personal position on the matter is, so I will try to avoid drawing any conclusions...but why does the "right to freedom" supercede "the baby's right to life"? Or more to the point, why is this acceptable only for the case of rape? If you believe an embryo/fetus to be a person that fundamentally deserves the right to life, then why does rape suddenly make abortion okay? If you believe that the mother's freedom trumps the baby's right to life, then why must it only be allowed for cases of rape? You can still have plenty of protective sex without any wish to be pregnant. So why does the baby's right to life trump the woman's right to freedom is this case?

    I don't believe that just because a cluster of cells can become a person, that you should be forced to give birth to and raise said person, just because you like to have sex. Personally, I believe an abortion in the third trimester would be over the line morally (except if the mother is going to die) if for no other reason than I think that by that point the fetus is developed enough to feel pain (so inflicting such pain would only be moral in order to save the mother's life and honestly I feel should be mitigated with anesthesia if it would not increase any risk to the mother), but this should not be an issue if you get rid of the stigma and restrictions associated with having abortions.

    If I am attached to the violinist against my will, I am under no obligation to stay attached, even if the violinist would die.

    If I chose to be part of the lottery of people that may become attached, i was chosen, and then attached them I am obligated to stay that way for the duration.

    Even if I never really intended to be chosen.

    The premise is that abortion is wrong. The rape exception exists because a pregnancy forced upon someone is different than one that happens as an unintentional but foreseeable consequence of sex.

    But why does your freedom trump the violinist's right to life? Why is a nine month sentence to lying in bed such an inconvenience as to save his life, even if you were chosen against your will? Furthermore, in the lottery example, presumably the hypothetical person does not wish to be hooked up. And why are they entering the lottery in the first place? Presumably they were paid? Otherwise why enter if you don't want to do it? If they were paid, then they were compensated in order to provide a service. If they were not paid then why did they enter if they didn't want to do it? Is it b/c they got cold feet and changed their mind? Then why not just pick another person?

    So how are you going to make them do it? A fine? A jail sentence? Death? Are you going, to perhaps, FORCE them to do it? If the latter, then how, technically, is it any different than the first scenario where there is no lottery? Both people are forced against their will to do something they do not wish to do. Even though by entering the lottery it was a foreseeable consequence. Technically there are many foreseeable consequences to LIFE that may or may not happen to you. You could get hit by a car walking down the street, you could get mugged, you could get raped. These are all foreseeable consequences that may or may not happen to you. LIFE is a lottery. Everything comes down to statistical probabilities. Getting randomly kidnapped and hooked up to the violinist is no different than the lottery, there's just a much lower statistical chance of it happening to you in the first scenario vs the second.

    So what really is the difference between the example with the lottery and the example without the lottery? Is it that in the no lottery scenario, the person was forced against their will? Presumably, in the lottery scenario, that person is also FORCED against their will. Even though they entered the lottery. B/c if they don't want to do it then you will still have to force them. And if they wanted to do it then it would not work as an example. So, is it that the lottery example is "foreseeable"? How is the no lottery example not technically "foreseeable"? There is a possibility, no matter how small, that someone could kidnap me tonight and hook me up to a violinist. Just by living my life I am part of the lottery. So should I kill myself? I mean, since we came up with this scenario, and it is something that could possibly happen, I now know that it could happen to me in the future, no matter how ridiculously small the chance is. So by continuing my existence, I must be consenting to the possibility of happening to me even though I wouldn't want it to.

    Finally, you are comparing two things that are not the same. A fully grown human being to an embryo/fetus that is not self aware, cannot think, cannot feel, is not aware of it's surroundings. Why does the second have the same rights as the first? Just because it has the potential to become a fully grown person? Why does this organism have rights that trump the mother's (who IS a fully grown person) right to not want a child and the life altering consequences of having one? You state the premise that abortion is wrong, but you do not provide any compelling evidence as to WHY it is wrong.

  • GnizmoGnizmo Registered User regular
    So everyone who is against abortion only has the one kidney right? Has donated part of their liver? Both would save someone's life today. The risks are roughly the same as pregnancy and birth while leaving you with probably fewer life long issues.

  • GnizmoGnizmo Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    double post.

    Gnizmo on
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    emp123 wrote: »
    Olorin wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
     I am as liberal as they come, and I also think that we should think of abortions in roughly the same way as we think of haircuts: the discarding of unwanted or inconvenient biological matter. But I confess that I find this 'anti-slut-shaming' line of pro-choice argument infuriating. We very often make legal and social distinctions based on reasonably foreseeable consequences. Suppose I leave a dangerous trap on my property; in many states I am liable for people who injure themselves wandering into it. In those cases I owe them compensation for damages. And we differentiate this case from that of cripples who just happen to exist in the world. I do not, in general, owe compensation to people who just happen to have been damaged--even if, as you say above, the person is identical in either case. Does this amount to 'trap-builder-shaming?' And who cares if it does? Again: we often force people to pay for their mistakes. Doing so does not misogyny make.

    Actually, yes, "she should have kept her legs shut, now make her have the baby" is straightforward misogyny. I don't know why that infuriates or baffles you.

    Abortion IS a consequence. How hard is that to understand?

    Suppose you leave a dangerous trap on your property and a person wanders into it, injuring himself.* The law doesn't force you to step into your trap as a consequence. If you step in it by accident, the law doesn't forbid you from seeking medical treatment because "you should have known better". 
     
    If a drunk driver crashes his car into a tree, we don't allow paramedics to refuse to treat the guy because he should have known better and been more careful. If you go skiing and break your leg, your doctor is not going to tell you "I'll put a cast on it, but no painkillers - breaking your leg was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of skiing." If you accidentally run over the neighbor's puppy, a judge is not going to order the neighbor to run over your dog to even things up. 

    Slut-shaming is the belief that because a woman has done something wrong (sex! slutty slut slut!) or been careless (she only used TWO methods of birth control!), that she should be forced to undergo a very specific consequence - pregnancy and childbirth - as punishment. Can you explain to me why that's OK?


    *As a side note, the reason you are in trouble for this is that you're not allowed to set a device to do a thing that it's impermissible for you personally to do. Is it legal for you to sit there with a shotgun and blow away anyone who wanders onto your lawn? No. Therefore, you cannot set a deadly trap to do the same thing. If your 'trap' simply summoned the police and blared loud noises to scare away intruders, that would be perfectly legal.

    I have to say, I can't find anything in this post that shows any understanding of what Mr.Mister was saying there.

    Which seems to really stem from the ridiculous strawman in the bold. No one is saying that. What is being said is that you could feasibly be pro-life, and yet make an exception for rape because when pregnant through no action of your own, your right to freedom supersedes the unborn baby's right to life.

    I suppose there is more subtlety to that concept than I originally gave credit for, but in any case it has absolutely no relationship with punishing anyone.

    A simpler analogy might be that unintentional fathers are required to provide for their child or pay child support. And this too has no relationship to punishment, but is merely requirione's hat one deal with the reasonably foreseeable consequences of one's actions, intended or not.

    First, I don't know what your personal position on the matter is, so I will try to avoid drawing any conclusions...but why does the "right to freedom" supercede "the baby's right to life"? Or more to the point, why is this acceptable only for the case of rape? If you believe an embryo/fetus to be a person that fundamentally deserves the right to life, then why does rape suddenly make abortion okay? If you believe that the mother's freedom trumps the baby's right to life, then why must it only be allowed for cases of rape? You can still have plenty of protective sex without any wish to be pregnant. So why does the baby's right to life trump the woman's right to freedom is this case?

    I don't believe that just because a cluster of cells can become a person, that you should be forced to give birth to and raise said person, just because you like to have sex. Personally, I believe an abortion in the third trimester would be over the line morally (except if the mother is going to die) if for no other reason than I think that by that point the fetus is developed enough to feel pain (so inflicting such pain would only be moral in order to save the mother's life and honestly I feel should be mitigated with anesthesia if it would not increase any risk to the mother), but this should not be an issue if you get rid of the stigma and restrictions associated with having abortions.

    If I am attached to the violinist against my will, I am under no obligation to stay attached, even if the violinist would die.

    If I chose to be part of the lottery of people that may become attached, i was chosen, and then attached them I am obligated to stay that way for the duration.

    Even if I never really intended to be chosen.

    The premise is that abortion is wrong. The rape exception exists because a pregnancy forced upon someone is different than one that happens as an unintentional but foreseeable consequence of sex.

    Bolded is stupid because there are a plethora of things that can occur between "signing up for the lottery" and being "detached from the violinist" that could change your mind. Even if you intended to be picked, circumstances can arise that make you rethink your original position.


    EDIT: And why is it a world class violinist? Are the lives of world class violinists worth more than homeless people?

    Well sure, but that's not Germaine to the analogy. It is only analogous to pregnancy and abortion if the decision leads to the consequence, and the second decision is made after that point.

    That is the premise.

    And it's a world class violinist because we can presumably all agree that that is a life worth saving, precisely so we don't have to argue about whether a homeless person is worth it. It's a concession to the opposing viewpoint.

    My point was mainly that the bolded doesnt flow from the previous statement. Just because A doesnt obligate B, doesnt mean theres evidence that C obligates B.


    Yeah, the violinist concession just seems unnecessary to me since the point of this hypothetical is to show people who believe in the sanctity of life that abortion is okay for victims of rape. Shouldnt this people already view the life of a homeless man as equal to that of a world class violinist, even if he isnt as accomplished? If not, doesnt that make it easier to say its okay to abort poor people?

  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    Olorin wrote: »
    Olorin wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
     I am as liberal as they come, and I also think that we should think of abortions in roughly the same way as we think of haircuts: the discarding of unwanted or inconvenient biological matter. But I confess that I find this 'anti-slut-shaming' line of pro-choice argument infuriating. We very often make legal and social distinctions based on reasonably foreseeable consequences. Suppose I leave a dangerous trap on my property; in many states I am liable for people who injure themselves wandering into it. In those cases I owe them compensation for damages. And we differentiate this case from that of cripples who just happen to exist in the world. I do not, in general, owe compensation to people who just happen to have been damaged--even if, as you say above, the person is identical in either case. Does this amount to 'trap-builder-shaming?' And who cares if it does? Again: we often force people to pay for their mistakes. Doing so does not misogyny make.

    Actually, yes, "she should have kept her legs shut, now make her have the baby" is straightforward misogyny. I don't know why that infuriates or baffles you.

    Abortion IS a consequence. How hard is that to understand?

    Suppose you leave a dangerous trap on your property and a person wanders into it, injuring himself.* The law doesn't force you to step into your trap as a consequence. If you step in it by accident, the law doesn't forbid you from seeking medical treatment because "you should have known better". 
     
    If a drunk driver crashes his car into a tree, we don't allow paramedics to refuse to treat the guy because he should have known better and been more careful. If you go skiing and break your leg, your doctor is not going to tell you "I'll put a cast on it, but no painkillers - breaking your leg was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of skiing." If you accidentally run over the neighbor's puppy, a judge is not going to order the neighbor to run over your dog to even things up. 

    Slut-shaming is the belief that because a woman has done something wrong (sex! slutty slut slut!) or been careless (she only used TWO methods of birth control!), that she should be forced to undergo a very specific consequence - pregnancy and childbirth - as punishment. Can you explain to me why that's OK?


    *As a side note, the reason you are in trouble for this is that you're not allowed to set a device to do a thing that it's impermissible for you personally to do. Is it legal for you to sit there with a shotgun and blow away anyone who wanders onto your lawn? No. Therefore, you cannot set a deadly trap to do the same thing. If your 'trap' simply summoned the police and blared loud noises to scare away intruders, that would be perfectly legal.

    I have to say, I can't find anything in this post that shows any understanding of what Mr.Mister was saying there.

    Which seems to really stem from the ridiculous strawman in the bold. No one is saying that. What is being said is that you could feasibly be pro-life, and yet make an exception for rape because when pregnant through no action of your own, your right to freedom supersedes the unborn baby's right to life.

    I suppose there is more subtlety to that concept than I originally gave credit for, but in any case it has absolutely no relationship with punishing anyone.

    A simpler analogy might be that unintentional fathers are required to provide for their child or pay child support. And this too has no relationship to punishment, but is merely requirione's hat one deal with the reasonably foreseeable consequences of one's actions, intended or not.

    First, I don't know what your personal position on the matter is, so I will try to avoid drawing any conclusions...but why does the "right to freedom" supercede "the baby's right to life"? Or more to the point, why is this acceptable only for the case of rape? If you believe an embryo/fetus to be a person that fundamentally deserves the right to life, then why does rape suddenly make abortion okay? If you believe that the mother's freedom trumps the baby's right to life, then why must it only be allowed for cases of rape? You can still have plenty of protective sex without any wish to be pregnant. So why does the baby's right to life trump the woman's right to freedom is this case?

    I don't believe that just because a cluster of cells can become a person, that you should be forced to give birth to and raise said person, just because you like to have sex. Personally, I believe an abortion in the third trimester would be over the line morally (except if the mother is going to die) if for no other reason than I think that by that point the fetus is developed enough to feel pain (so inflicting such pain would only be moral in order to save the mother's life and honestly I feel should be mitigated with anesthesia if it would not increase any risk to the mother), but this should not be an issue if you get rid of the stigma and restrictions associated with having abortions.

    If I am attached to the violinist against my will, I am under no obligation to stay attached, even if the violinist would die.

    If I chose to be part of the lottery of people that may become attached, i was chosen, and then attached them I am obligated to stay that way for the duration.

    Even if I never really intended to be chosen.

    The premise is that abortion is wrong. The rape exception exists because a pregnancy forced upon someone is different than one that happens as an unintentional but foreseeable consequence of sex.

    But why does your freedom trump the violinist's right to life? Why is a nine month sentence to lying in bed such an inconvenience as to save his life, even if you were chosen against your will? Furthermore, in the lottery example, presumably the hypothetical person does not wish to be hooked up. And why are they entering the lottery in the first place? Presumably they were paid? Otherwise why enter if you don't want to do it? If they were paid, then they were compensated in order to provide a service. If they were not paid then why did they enter if they didn't want to do it? Is it b/c they got cold feet and changed their mind? Then why not just pick another person?

    So how are you going to make them do it? A fine? A jail sentence? Death? Are you going, to perhaps, FORCE them to do it? If the latter, then how, technically, is it any different than the first scenario where there is no lottery? Both people are forced against their will to do something they do not wish to do. Even though by entering the lottery it was a foreseeable consequence. Technically there are many foreseeable consequences to LIFE that may or may not happen to you. You could get hit by a car walking down the street, you could get mugged, you could get raped. These are all foreseeable consequences that may or may not happen to you. LIFE is a lottery. Everything comes down to statistical probabilities. Getting randomly kidnapped and hooked up to the violinist is no different than the lottery, there's just a much lower statistical chance of it happening to you in the first scenario vs the second.

    So what really is the difference between the example with the lottery and the example without the lottery? Is it that in the no lottery scenario, the person was forced against their will? Presumably, in the lottery scenario, that person is also FORCED against their will. Even though they entered the lottery. B/c if they don't want to do it then you will still have to force them. And if they wanted to do it then it would not work as an example. So, is it that the lottery example is "foreseeable"? How is the no lottery example not technically "foreseeable"? There is a possibility, no matter how small, that someone could kidnap me tonight and hook me up to a violinist. Just by living my life I am part of the lottery. So should I kill myself? I mean, since we came up with this scenario, and it is something that could possibly happen, I now know that it could happen to me in the future, no matter how ridiculously small the chance is. So by continuing my existence, I must be consenting to the possibility of happening to me even though I wouldn't want it to.

    Finally, you are comparing two things that are not the same. A fully grown human being to an embryo/fetus that is not self aware, cannot think, cannot feel, is not aware of it's surroundings. Why does the second have the same rights as the first? Just because it has the potential to become a fully grown person? Why does this organism have rights that trump the mother's (who IS a fully grown person) right to not want a child and the life altering consequences of having one? You state the premise that abortion is wrong, but you do not provide any compelling evidence as to WHY it is wrong.

    I don't... it's not...

    Yes, overextending the metaphor or altering the premise of the analogy removes its usefullness. This is true of all analogies. This particular analogy is useful only for exploring one relatively narrow situation: If an unborn baby has full personhood, is there a situation in which abortion would be morally permissable anyway.

    Similarly if you overextend the concept of foreseeable far enough it can become meaningless. Congratulations. And yet it is a standard used relatively successfully by the law ever single day.
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    So everyone who is against abortion only has the one kidney right? Has donated part of their liver? Both would save someone's life today. The risks are roughly the same as pregnancy and birth while leaving you with probably fewer life long issues.

    You have just laid some of the greatly debated moral questions solely at the feet of pro-lifers. Positive vs negative rights, shared responsibility, consequences of action versus inaction, and probably at least a few more that I haven't thought of off the top of my head. They are all interesting topics to explore, but that's a bit of a lot to cover all at once.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    emp123 wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    Olorin wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
     I am as liberal as they come, and I also think that we should think of abortions in roughly the same way as we think of haircuts: the discarding of unwanted or inconvenient biological matter. But I confess that I find this 'anti-slut-shaming' line of pro-choice argument infuriating. We very often make legal and social distinctions based on reasonably foreseeable consequences. Suppose I leave a dangerous trap on my property; in many states I am liable for people who injure themselves wandering into it. In those cases I owe them compensation for damages. And we differentiate this case from that of cripples who just happen to exist in the world. I do not, in general, owe compensation to people who just happen to have been damaged--even if, as you say above, the person is identical in either case. Does this amount to 'trap-builder-shaming?' And who cares if it does? Again: we often force people to pay for their mistakes. Doing so does not misogyny make.

    Actually, yes, "she should have kept her legs shut, now make her have the baby" is straightforward misogyny. I don't know why that infuriates or baffles you.

    Abortion IS a consequence. How hard is that to understand?

    Suppose you leave a dangerous trap on your property and a person wanders into it, injuring himself.* The law doesn't force you to step into your trap as a consequence. If you step in it by accident, the law doesn't forbid you from seeking medical treatment because "you should have known better". 
     
    If a drunk driver crashes his car into a tree, we don't allow paramedics to refuse to treat the guy because he should have known better and been more careful. If you go skiing and break your leg, your doctor is not going to tell you "I'll put a cast on it, but no painkillers - breaking your leg was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of skiing." If you accidentally run over the neighbor's puppy, a judge is not going to order the neighbor to run over your dog to even things up. 

    Slut-shaming is the belief that because a woman has done something wrong (sex! slutty slut slut!) or been careless (she only used TWO methods of birth control!), that she should be forced to undergo a very specific consequence - pregnancy and childbirth - as punishment. Can you explain to me why that's OK?


    *As a side note, the reason you are in trouble for this is that you're not allowed to set a device to do a thing that it's impermissible for you personally to do. Is it legal for you to sit there with a shotgun and blow away anyone who wanders onto your lawn? No. Therefore, you cannot set a deadly trap to do the same thing. If your 'trap' simply summoned the police and blared loud noises to scare away intruders, that would be perfectly legal.

    I have to say, I can't find anything in this post that shows any understanding of what Mr.Mister was saying there.

    Which seems to really stem from the ridiculous strawman in the bold. No one is saying that. What is being said is that you could feasibly be pro-life, and yet make an exception for rape because when pregnant through no action of your own, your right to freedom supersedes the unborn baby's right to life.

    I suppose there is more subtlety to that concept than I originally gave credit for, but in any case it has absolutely no relationship with punishing anyone.

    A simpler analogy might be that unintentional fathers are required to provide for their child or pay child support. And this too has no relationship to punishment, but is merely requirione's hat one deal with the reasonably foreseeable consequences of one's actions, intended or not.

    First, I don't know what your personal position on the matter is, so I will try to avoid drawing any conclusions...but why does the "right to freedom" supercede "the baby's right to life"? Or more to the point, why is this acceptable only for the case of rape? If you believe an embryo/fetus to be a person that fundamentally deserves the right to life, then why does rape suddenly make abortion okay? If you believe that the mother's freedom trumps the baby's right to life, then why must it only be allowed for cases of rape? You can still have plenty of protective sex without any wish to be pregnant. So why does the baby's right to life trump the woman's right to freedom is this case?

    I don't believe that just because a cluster of cells can become a person, that you should be forced to give birth to and raise said person, just because you like to have sex. Personally, I believe an abortion in the third trimester would be over the line morally (except if the mother is going to die) if for no other reason than I think that by that point the fetus is developed enough to feel pain (so inflicting such pain would only be moral in order to save the mother's life and honestly I feel should be mitigated with anesthesia if it would not increase any risk to the mother), but this should not be an issue if you get rid of the stigma and restrictions associated with having abortions.

    If I am attached to the violinist against my will, I am under no obligation to stay attached, even if the violinist would die.

    If I chose to be part of the lottery of people that may become attached, i was chosen, and then attached them I am obligated to stay that way for the duration.

    Even if I never really intended to be chosen.

    The premise is that abortion is wrong. The rape exception exists because a pregnancy forced upon someone is different than one that happens as an unintentional but foreseeable consequence of sex.

    Bolded is stupid because there are a plethora of things that can occur between "signing up for the lottery" and being "detached from the violinist" that could change your mind. Even if you intended to be picked, circumstances can arise that make you rethink your original position.


    EDIT: And why is it a world class violinist? Are the lives of world class violinists worth more than homeless people?

    Well sure, but that's not Germaine to the analogy. It is only analogous to pregnancy and abortion if the decision leads to the consequence, and the second decision is made after that point.

    That is the premise.

    And it's a world class violinist because we can presumably all agree that that is a life worth saving, precisely so we don't have to argue about whether a homeless person is worth it. It's a concession to the opposing viewpoint.

    My point was mainly that the bolded doesnt flow from the previous statement. Just because A doesnt obligate B, doesnt mean theres evidence that C obligates B.


    Yeah, the violinist concession just seems unnecessary to me since the point of this hypothetical is to show people who believe in the sanctity of life that abortion is okay for victims of rape. Shouldnt this people already view the life of a homeless man as equal to that of a world class violinist, even if he isnt as accomplished? If not, doesnt that make it easier to say its okay to abort poor people?

    As to the first, they are seperate statements, one does not flow from the other. And my argument is not that either is necessarily true, only that they are not necessarily contradictory.

    As to the second, it's a moot point, so we choose someone that everyone thinks should live. That way we don't have to discuss it.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    It's a ridiculous hypothetical, as are most of the ones encircling this whole debate.

    So you've figured it out then? The exact moment when a fetus/child gains inalienable human rights?

    Currently that would be at birth. I would argue that its at viability.

    I agree that viability seems a reasonable place to draw a distinction. Of course, modern science continues to move that line. I'd type more but it's getting late.

    If we could remove fetuses and place them in artificial wombs or in people who want to have kids but can't, abortion would become a dead issue.

    That would be a beautiful day.

    Yes, because orphanages are completely empty because that multitudinous group of people who want to have kids but can't is sooooo large that we need to produce even more ways for these people to get children.

    What a useful and well represented response.

    What? You seem to think that if we could remove a fetus and put it in an artificial womb, that would solve all the problems with abortion. Well, even ignoring the whole invasive surgery aspect that someone brought up, what does that get us? A bunch of babies born that go where? Straight to orphanages, which are already quite full. If anything, that option is more cruel than aborting the fetus.

    The best part: orphanages are extremely rare in the US.

  • MaratastikMaratastik Just call me Mara, please! Registered User regular
    Olorin wrote: »
    Olorin wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
     I am as liberal as they come, and I also think that we should think of abortions in roughly the same way as we think of haircuts: the discarding of unwanted or inconvenient biological matter. But I confess that I find this 'anti-slut-shaming' line of pro-choice argument infuriating. We very often make legal and social distinctions based on reasonably foreseeable consequences. Suppose I leave a dangerous trap on my property; in many states I am liable for people who injure themselves wandering into it. In those cases I owe them compensation for damages. And we differentiate this case from that of cripples who just happen to exist in the world. I do not, in general, owe compensation to people who just happen to have been damaged--even if, as you say above, the person is identical in either case. Does this amount to 'trap-builder-shaming?' And who cares if it does? Again: we often force people to pay for their mistakes. Doing so does not misogyny make.

    Actually, yes, "she should have kept her legs shut, now make her have the baby" is straightforward misogyny. I don't know why that infuriates or baffles you.

    Abortion IS a consequence. How hard is that to understand?

    Suppose you leave a dangerous trap on your property and a person wanders into it, injuring himself.* The law doesn't force you to step into your trap as a consequence. If you step in it by accident, the law doesn't forbid you from seeking medical treatment because "you should have known better". 
     
    If a drunk driver crashes his car into a tree, we don't allow paramedics to refuse to treat the guy because he should have known better and been more careful. If you go skiing and break your leg, your doctor is not going to tell you "I'll put a cast on it, but no painkillers - breaking your leg was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of skiing." If you accidentally run over the neighbor's puppy, a judge is not going to order the neighbor to run over your dog to even things up. 

    Slut-shaming is the belief that because a woman has done something wrong (sex! slutty slut slut!) or been careless (she only used TWO methods of birth control!), that she should be forced to undergo a very specific consequence - pregnancy and childbirth - as punishment. Can you explain to me why that's OK?


    *As a side note, the reason you are in trouble for this is that you're not allowed to set a device to do a thing that it's impermissible for you personally to do. Is it legal for you to sit there with a shotgun and blow away anyone who wanders onto your lawn? No. Therefore, you cannot set a deadly trap to do the same thing. If your 'trap' simply summoned the police and blared loud noises to scare away intruders, that would be perfectly legal.

    I have to say, I can't find anything in this post that shows any understanding of what Mr.Mister was saying there.

    Which seems to really stem from the ridiculous strawman in the bold. No one is saying that. What is being said is that you could feasibly be pro-life, and yet make an exception for rape because when pregnant through no action of your own, your right to freedom supersedes the unborn baby's right to life.

    I suppose there is more subtlety to that concept than I originally gave credit for, but in any case it has absolutely no relationship with punishing anyone.

    A simpler analogy might be that unintentional fathers are required to provide for their child or pay child support. And this too has no relationship to punishment, but is merely requirione's hat one deal with the reasonably foreseeable consequences of one's actions, intended or not.

    First, I don't know what your personal position on the matter is, so I will try to avoid drawing any conclusions...but why does the "right to freedom" supercede "the baby's right to life"? Or more to the point, why is this acceptable only for the case of rape? If you believe an embryo/fetus to be a person that fundamentally deserves the right to life, then why does rape suddenly make abortion okay? If you believe that the mother's freedom trumps the baby's right to life, then why must it only be allowed for cases of rape? You can still have plenty of protective sex without any wish to be pregnant. So why does the baby's right to life trump the woman's right to freedom is this case?

    I don't believe that just because a cluster of cells can become a person, that you should be forced to give birth to and raise said person, just because you like to have sex. Personally, I believe an abortion in the third trimester would be over the line morally (except if the mother is going to die) if for no other reason than I think that by that point the fetus is developed enough to feel pain (so inflicting such pain would only be moral in order to save the mother's life and honestly I feel should be mitigated with anesthesia if it would not increase any risk to the mother), but this should not be an issue if you get rid of the stigma and restrictions associated with having abortions.

    If I am attached to the violinist against my will, I am under no obligation to stay attached, even if the violinist would die.

    If I chose to be part of the lottery of people that may become attached, i was chosen, and then attached them I am obligated to stay that way for the duration.

    Even if I never really intended to be chosen.

    The premise is that abortion is wrong. The rape exception exists because a pregnancy forced upon someone is different than one that happens as an unintentional but foreseeable consequence of sex.

    But why does your freedom trump the violinist's right to life? Why is a nine month sentence to lying in bed such an inconvenience as to save his life, even if you were chosen against your will? Furthermore, in the lottery example, presumably the hypothetical person does not wish to be hooked up. And why are they entering the lottery in the first place? Presumably they were paid? Otherwise why enter if you don't want to do it? If they were paid, then they were compensated in order to provide a service. If they were not paid then why did they enter if they didn't want to do it? Is it b/c they got cold feet and changed their mind? Then why not just pick another person?

    So how are you going to make them do it? A fine? A jail sentence? Death? Are you going, to perhaps, FORCE them to do it? If the latter, then how, technically, is it any different than the first scenario where there is no lottery? Both people are forced against their will to do something they do not wish to do. Even though by entering the lottery it was a foreseeable consequence. Technically there are many foreseeable consequences to LIFE that may or may not happen to you. You could get hit by a car walking down the street, you could get mugged, you could get raped. These are all foreseeable consequences that may or may not happen to you. LIFE is a lottery. Everything comes down to statistical probabilities. Getting randomly kidnapped and hooked up to the violinist is no different than the lottery, there's just a much lower statistical chance of it happening to you in the first scenario vs the second.

    So what really is the difference between the example with the lottery and the example without the lottery? Is it that in the no lottery scenario, the person was forced against their will? Presumably, in the lottery scenario, that person is also FORCED against their will. Even though they entered the lottery. B/c if they don't want to do it then you will still have to force them. And if they wanted to do it then it would not work as an example. So, is it that the lottery example is "foreseeable"? How is the no lottery example not technically "foreseeable"? There is a possibility, no matter how small, that someone could kidnap me tonight and hook me up to a violinist. Just by living my life I am part of the lottery. So should I kill myself? I mean, since we came up with this scenario, and it is something that could possibly happen, I now know that it could happen to me in the future, no matter how ridiculously small the chance is. So by continuing my existence, I must be consenting to the possibility of happening to me even though I wouldn't want it to.

    Finally, you are comparing two things that are not the same. A fully grown human being to an embryo/fetus that is not self aware, cannot think, cannot feel, is not aware of it's surroundings. Why does the second have the same rights as the first? Just because it has the potential to become a fully grown person? Why does this organism have rights that trump the mother's (who IS a fully grown person) right to not want a child and the life altering consequences of having one? You state the premise that abortion is wrong, but you do not provide any compelling evidence as to WHY it is wrong.

    I don't... it's not...

    Yes, overextending the metaphor or altering the premise of the analogy removes its usefullness. This is true of all analogies. This particular analogy is useful only for exploring one relatively narrow situation: If an unborn baby has full personhood, is there a situation in which abortion would be morally permissable anyway.

    Similarly if you overextend the concept of foreseeable far enough it can become meaningless. Congratulations. And yet it is a standard used relatively successfully by the law ever single day.
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    So everyone who is against abortion only has the one kidney right? Has donated part of their liver? Both would save someone's life today. The risks are roughly the same as pregnancy and birth while leaving you with probably fewer life long issues.

    You have just laid some of the greatly debated moral questions solely at the feet of pro-lifers. Positive vs negative rights, shared responsibility, consequences of action versus inaction, and probably at least a few more that I haven't thought of off the top of my head. They are all interesting topics to explore, but that's a bit of a lot to cover all at once.

    Instead of casually dismissing my post, you could address at least a couple of my questions. I did get carried away, so I will narrow it down to my main point. I don't think the lottery metaphor works at all. I was trying to narrow it down to what is the precise difference in the two different scenarios, because I don't really see the distinction. In each case you are going to have to force the person to do the same thing against their will, the only difference is how it came about. In the first, you were kidnapped, an event you couldn't possibly reasonably forsee. In the second, you win/lose the lottery, which is an event you could reasonably forsee, but don't necessarily expect.

    So, it seems to me that the conclusion you are drawing (I apologize if I misinterpreted your stance) is that:
    a) in the first scenario it is WRONG to FORCE the person to save the violinist because they couldn't reasonably forsee this happening (or in the case of abortion, the rape clause)
    b) in the second scenario it is OKAY to FORCE the person to save the violinist because they could reasonably forsee this happening (or in the case of abortion, the unintended pregnancy)

    Personally, I don't see the difference between the two scenarios. My answer would be the same to each question, as I believe the important distinction is forcing someone to do it, which as I'm trying to point out, is the same in each case. What I'm trying to understand is how you arrive at two different answers, so I can only logically conclude that you believe the important distinction is whether it was reasonably forseeable or not. Personally, I don't think that distinction is all that important.

  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    Olorin wrote: »
    Olorin wrote: »
    Olorin wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
     I am as liberal as they come, and I also think that we should think of abortions in roughly the same way as we think of haircuts: the discarding of unwanted or inconvenient biological matter. But I confess that I find this 'anti-slut-shaming' line of pro-choice argument infuriating. We very often make legal and social distinctions based on reasonably foreseeable consequences. Suppose I leave a dangerous trap on my property; in many states I am liable for people who injure themselves wandering into it. In those cases I owe them compensation for damages. And we differentiate this case from that of cripples who just happen to exist in the world. I do not, in general, owe compensation to people who just happen to have been damaged--even if, as you say above, the person is identical in either case. Does this amount to 'trap-builder-shaming?' And who cares if it does? Again: we often force people to pay for their mistakes. Doing so does not misogyny make.

    Actually, yes, "she should have kept her legs shut, now make her have the baby" is straightforward misogyny. I don't know why that infuriates or baffles you.

    Abortion IS a consequence. How hard is that to understand?

    Suppose you leave a dangerous trap on your property and a person wanders into it, injuring himself.* The law doesn't force you to step into your trap as a consequence. If you step in it by accident, the law doesn't forbid you from seeking medical treatment because "you should have known better". 
     
    If a drunk driver crashes his car into a tree, we don't allow paramedics to refuse to treat the guy because he should have known better and been more careful. If you go skiing and break your leg, your doctor is not going to tell you "I'll put a cast on it, but no painkillers - breaking your leg was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of skiing." If you accidentally run over the neighbor's puppy, a judge is not going to order the neighbor to run over your dog to even things up. 

    Slut-shaming is the belief that because a woman has done something wrong (sex! slutty slut slut!) or been careless (she only used TWO methods of birth control!), that she should be forced to undergo a very specific consequence - pregnancy and childbirth - as punishment. Can you explain to me why that's OK?


    *As a side note, the reason you are in trouble for this is that you're not allowed to set a device to do a thing that it's impermissible for you personally to do. Is it legal for you to sit there with a shotgun and blow away anyone who wanders onto your lawn? No. Therefore, you cannot set a deadly trap to do the same thing. If your 'trap' simply summoned the police and blared loud noises to scare away intruders, that would be perfectly legal.

    I have to say, I can't find anything in this post that shows any understanding of what Mr.Mister was saying there.

    Which seems to really stem from the ridiculous strawman in the bold. No one is saying that. What is being said is that you could feasibly be pro-life, and yet make an exception for rape because when pregnant through no action of your own, your right to freedom supersedes the unborn baby's right to life.

    I suppose there is more subtlety to that concept than I originally gave credit for, but in any case it has absolutely no relationship with punishing anyone.

    A simpler analogy might be that unintentional fathers are required to provide for their child or pay child support. And this too has no relationship to punishment, but is merely requirione's hat one deal with the reasonably foreseeable consequences of one's actions, intended or not.

    First, I don't know what your personal position on the matter is, so I will try to avoid drawing any conclusions...but why does the "right to freedom" supercede "the baby's right to life"? Or more to the point, why is this acceptable only for the case of rape? If you believe an embryo/fetus to be a person that fundamentally deserves the right to life, then why does rape suddenly make abortion okay? If you believe that the mother's freedom trumps the baby's right to life, then why must it only be allowed for cases of rape? You can still have plenty of protective sex without any wish to be pregnant. So why does the baby's right to life trump the woman's right to freedom is this case?

    I don't believe that just because a cluster of cells can become a person, that you should be forced to give birth to and raise said person, just because you like to have sex. Personally, I believe an abortion in the third trimester would be over the line morally (except if the mother is going to die) if for no other reason than I think that by that point the fetus is developed enough to feel pain (so inflicting such pain would only be moral in order to save the mother's life and honestly I feel should be mitigated with anesthesia if it would not increase any risk to the mother), but this should not be an issue if you get rid of the stigma and restrictions associated with having abortions.

    If I am attached to the violinist against my will, I am under no obligation to stay attached, even if the violinist would die.

    If I chose to be part of the lottery of people that may become attached, i was chosen, and then attached them I am obligated to stay that way for the duration.

    Even if I never really intended to be chosen.

    The premise is that abortion is wrong. The rape exception exists because a pregnancy forced upon someone is different than one that happens as an unintentional but foreseeable consequence of sex.

    But why does your freedom trump the violinist's right to life? Why is a nine month sentence to lying in bed such an inconvenience as to save his life, even if you were chosen against your will? Furthermore, in the lottery example, presumably the hypothetical person does not wish to be hooked up. And why are they entering the lottery in the first place? Presumably they were paid? Otherwise why enter if you don't want to do it? If they were paid, then they were compensated in order to provide a service. If they were not paid then why did they enter if they didn't want to do it? Is it b/c they got cold feet and changed their mind? Then why not just pick another person?

    So how are you going to make them do it? A fine? A jail sentence? Death? Are you going, to perhaps, FORCE them to do it? If the latter, then how, technically, is it any different than the first scenario where there is no lottery? Both people are forced against their will to do something they do not wish to do. Even though by entering the lottery it was a foreseeable consequence. Technically there are many foreseeable consequences to LIFE that may or may not happen to you. You could get hit by a car walking down the street, you could get mugged, you could get raped. These are all foreseeable consequences that may or may not happen to you. LIFE is a lottery. Everything comes down to statistical probabilities. Getting randomly kidnapped and hooked up to the violinist is no different than the lottery, there's just a much lower statistical chance of it happening to you in the first scenario vs the second.

    So what really is the difference between the example with the lottery and the example without the lottery? Is it that in the no lottery scenario, the person was forced against their will? Presumably, in the lottery scenario, that person is also FORCED against their will. Even though they entered the lottery. B/c if they don't want to do it then you will still have to force them. And if they wanted to do it then it would not work as an example. So, is it that the lottery example is "foreseeable"? How is the no lottery example not technically "foreseeable"? There is a possibility, no matter how small, that someone could kidnap me tonight and hook me up to a violinist. Just by living my life I am part of the lottery. So should I kill myself? I mean, since we came up with this scenario, and it is something that could possibly happen, I now know that it could happen to me in the future, no matter how ridiculously small the chance is. So by continuing my existence, I must be consenting to the possibility of happening to me even though I wouldn't want it to.

    Finally, you are comparing two things that are not the same. A fully grown human being to an embryo/fetus that is not self aware, cannot think, cannot feel, is not aware of it's surroundings. Why does the second have the same rights as the first? Just because it has the potential to become a fully grown person? Why does this organism have rights that trump the mother's (who IS a fully grown person) right to not want a child and the life altering consequences of having one? You state the premise that abortion is wrong, but you do not provide any compelling evidence as to WHY it is wrong.

    I don't... it's not...

    Yes, overextending the metaphor or altering the premise of the analogy removes its usefullness. This is true of all analogies. This particular analogy is useful only for exploring one relatively narrow situation: If an unborn baby has full personhood, is there a situation in which abortion would be morally permissable anyway.

    Similarly if you overextend the concept of foreseeable far enough it can become meaningless. Congratulations. And yet it is a standard used relatively successfully by the law ever single day.
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    So everyone who is against abortion only has the one kidney right? Has donated part of their liver? Both would save someone's life today. The risks are roughly the same as pregnancy and birth while leaving you with probably fewer life long issues.

    You have just laid some of the greatly debated moral questions solely at the feet of pro-lifers. Positive vs negative rights, shared responsibility, consequences of action versus inaction, and probably at least a few more that I haven't thought of off the top of my head. They are all interesting topics to explore, but that's a bit of a lot to cover all at once.

    Instead of casually dismissing my post, you could address at least a couple of my questions. I did get carried away, so I will narrow it down to my main point. I don't think the lottery metaphor works at all. I was trying to narrow it down to what is the precise difference in the two different scenarios, because I don't really see the distinction. In each case you are going to have to force the person to do the same thing against their will, the only difference is how it came about. In the first, you were kidnapped, an event you couldn't possibly reasonably forsee. In the second, you win/lose the lottery, which is an event you could reasonably forsee, but don't necessarily expect.

    So, it seems to me that the conclusion you are drawing (I apologize if I misinterpreted your stance) is that:
    a) in the first scenario it is WRONG to FORCE the person to save the violinist because they couldn't reasonably forsee this happening (or in the case of abortion, the rape clause)
    b) in the second scenario it is OKAY to FORCE the person to save the violinist because they could reasonably forsee this happening (or in the case of abortion, the unintended pregnancy)

    Personally, I don't see the difference between the two scenarios. My answer would be the same to each question, as I believe the important distinction is forcing someone to do it, which as I'm trying to point out, is the same in each case. What I'm trying to understand is how you arrive at two different answers, so I can only logically conclude that you believe the important distinction is whether it was reasonably forseeable or not. Personally, I don't think that distinction is all that important.

    You still have the premise wrong. The whole point is to make the situation analogous to pregnancy.

    The lottery really really isn't important, it's only an attempt to add clarity, and doesn't appear to be helping at the moment.

    The point is simply that you could be logically consistent in believing someone that entered into the violinist scenario of their own free will would be ethicaly obligated to see it through, while someone placed into the situation by force might not. Even though the effect on the violinist would be the same.

    And analogously there can be logical consistancy to think that someone who had sex of their own free will and got pregnant might be ethically barred from abortion, while someone that was raped might not be barred.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
Sign In or Register to comment.