Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

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

17810121316

Posts

  • ComradebotComradebot Lord of Dinosaurs Hunts Vegas, TXRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    EDIT: Nevermind, that wasn't the case. Clearly, I just missed your post (admittingly, 12 hours ago I was leaving for a class).

    Comradebot on
  • ComradebotComradebot Lord of Dinosaurs Hunts Vegas, TXRegistered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Comradebot wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Comradebot wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Abortion is okay because we shouldn't really be having women carry to term what is essentially a parasite. Accidents happen even with the best of safeties. Unless you're okay with reforming social safety nets as a whole anyways. Plus there's the whole economics of the situation, this becomes greater than "this is life, we should protect it" to "I can't even afford to feed myself so the baby may be functionally retarded because of improper nutrition."

    Your cells could potentially become "life" itself too.

    And I argue it's potentially small-minded and selfish because someone wanted to get their freak on without taking proper precautions, and their solution is simply to kill what's growing inside them. Yes, complications CAN arise, but modern medicine has already cut the odds of maternal death in the good ol' USA and is significantly lower in many other developed countries to incredibly low levels. You literally have a greater chance of dying in a car accident than from giving birth. Maybe the child grows up to be a welfare abuser, maybe it grows up to be a doctor. But if you kill it before it's born, you'll never know.

    Point is, abortion for the sake of "Well, what if 1 in 10000...." is crappy, and I find "well, it hasn't been born yet" an incredibly callous mindset. And again, selfish. Knowingly denying a life because there's a 1:10000 chance of losing yours at worst is irrational. You might as well not drive your father to the hospital if he's having a heart attack because you might die on the freeway.

    Here's a thought: maybe instead of condoning abortions for everyone who wants them, regardless of their reasoning, we reinforce the usage of birth control and make the morning after pill readily available in the event a condom breaks or afterwards the young lady realizes "holy crap, I took antibiotics yesterday!".

    A serious and/or immediate threat to the life of the potential child and it's mother? Yay for abortions. There's no reason to think either will face anything worse than a normal pregnancy? Nay.

    You've said a lot, and a lot of different issues come up so rather than go point by point in a post, I'd like to discuss the specific parts one by one until they are resolved. With this in mind, the bolded part of your post above (reproduced below for clarity)

    "And I argue it's potentially small-minded and selfish because someone wanted to get their freak on without taking proper precautions, and their solution is simply to kill what's growing inside them."

    There are two initial points which stand out to me from first principles: your use of the word "selfish" and "small-minded".

    I don't understand how either applies. "Selfish" denotes that the agent in question is ignoring the interests of others in what we consider a socially unacceptable fashion. Whose interests are being ignored in the case of abortion? Likewise, "small-minded" usually refers to an inability to accept a fact or principle due to ideology, (willful) ignorance or mental defect*. What does the actor refuse to understand in this case?

    * Alternatively, you might mean prone to judgement, petty or otherwise mean. But I don't see how that applies any better.

    ...

    Seriously?

    Selfish, because they are putting their own interests ahead of that of another human being. A person who would deny life to another primarily so they can avoid an inconvenience in their's is selfish. It's just too big of a "what if" for me to claim it's for the greater good if their only rational is they don't want to be pregnant or have a baby simply for the sake of not being pregnant and having a baby.

    It's small-minded because a theoretical person in this theoretical situation isn't looking at the big picture. Even if you do not believe the embryo is truly a human being yet with the potential to be a functioning, productive members of society then it doesn't change the fact that the embryo has the potential to becoming a true human being which has the potential to become a functioning, productive member of society. You're, at best, trading one life for another.

    And on a personal note, please don't quote definitions to me: it's incredibly condescending.

    I did not mean to condescend - I was highlight specifically the nature of my confusion. Unfortunately communication is not an exact science and often over the internet it pays to be specific.

    Once again, there are two, immediate issues I see:

    I don't accept that the mere fact of "putting one's interests ahead of those of another human being" is a priori a selfish thing. Or, alternatively, if we do define selfish merely as "acting in one's own self interest over those of another" then selfishness qua selfishness is not something to be condemned. As such without significantly more argumentative support the charge is uninformative or incorrect (as is so often the basis of my objection to no end of arguments on no end of topics).

    The second issue is that you've a bullet to bite - either the "theoretical/potential person" argument is a bad one, or the first argument becomes exceptionally week (assuming that we stipulate it is a good one arguendo). As I observed on the previous page if the person is only theoretical or potential then by definition we are not talking about a person. If you wish to maintain both then you've a lot of metaphysical heavy lifting to do, and strange metaphysics at that.

    I guess it comes down to the quantity of the selfishness. Simply putting your whims and desires ahead of others is one thing, however elevating the priority of those whims and desires to the point that obtaining them is an active (in this case fatal) detriment to others isn't wholly comparable. Let's make a little fun example for no other reason than I just watched the awesome Alec Baldwin speech from Glengarry Glen Ross and have money on the mind.

    Scenario A: Selfish guy wants to get ahead in his business, and his co-worker tells him of an awesome idea, so Selfish guy steals the idea and takes it to his boss to get a big bonus himself. The other guy is pissed, but at least he still has his job.
    Scenario B: Selfish guy is competing for a job with a group of co-workers, so he fabricates some evidence that gets his competitors wrongfully terminated so he can reap the benefits of the new job.

    Okay, it's nowhere near a perfect analogy, I'll concede. But the basic principal is the same. There's a fine line (at least in my mind) between trying to get a leg up and actively doing serious harm to people and/or the environment around you to achieve that leg up. I'm a believer in the "greater good", and fuck anyone who puts themselves that far ahead of it. And in my mind, poorly justified abortions are an active detriment to that "greater good". Yes, it's all potential and theoretical and all that nonsense, but it seems invariable that the world has been robbed unwittingly at some point because a certain person or persons were never born. Or we may have had the next Hitler aborted, who the fuck knows, right?

    So to me, they connect. A person who is getting an abortion for an arbitrary reason, not because they or the child face a greater health risk than other pregnancies or because the child is a seed of rape/incest, is putting themselves ahead of the betterment of our crappy civilization. Again, we can't know. What's done is done, unless we can prove Multiverse theory (along with the intertwined Many Worlds Theory) and then find a way to view those alternate possibilities. Unfortunately, we'd need more than even a TARDIS for that.

    Summary, a selfish person could unwittingly be fucking us all over if their kid they aborted may have been someone of importance, or even someone who did a little good in their lives. He may have been a good father, or an accomplished musician or writer, or she could've been a cop or who the fuck knows. But the absolute moment that embryo is terminated, so does any and all other possibilities for what might've been. And yeah, I understand that the odds are probably stacked against any unwanted child, but that doesn't mean they're destined to be a bunch of sociopaths and purse-snatchers. Look at Tim Tebow: his parents considered aborting him (for potential health reasons though, not economic). Other this his massive hard-on for Jesus, I'd say he's turned out pretty well (and done more good in his twenty something years than many people ever will in their lifetimes).


    Maybe the same could be said about contraception, that it's denying life, yadda yadda yadda... but I guess it's just where I happen to personally draw my line. You're not killing anything, so I suppose that's it. Once that spark of life is ignited and its potential for being more than it is now grows, what gives a person the right to decide that it's better off dying then and there? But that's where my argument falters: we can't see the future, so it's impossible to know what true harm we are or aren't doing.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    @Comradebot
    That's fairly insane. The world cannot have been robbed of something which never existed. Not to mention how insultingly simplistic you're making the choice to have an abortion.

    AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
  • thatassemblyguythatassemblyguy Registered User regular
    So, the big [Arizona] news this week is that the Supreme court is hearing the lawsuit about SB1070.

    Here's a brief that the Governor filed earlier (spoilered for big..ish):
    Spoiler:

  • ComradebotComradebot Lord of Dinosaurs Hunts Vegas, TXRegistered User regular
    @Comradebot
    That's fairly insane. The world cannot have been robbed of something which never existed. Not to mention how insultingly simplistic you're making the choice to have an abortion.

    And I find your viewpoint lacking in vision.


    And there's nothing simplistic about having an abortion, and I regret giving you that impression. When a person chooses to have an abortion, then the person their child would've grown up to be, everything they would've touched and effected, is essentially nullified of their future influence. Maybe it is insane, I won't deny it, but it's up to that person making the decision of life or death whether or not the child can truly have a future or do some good in this world or if they're doomed to a lifetime of misery and harming everything around them. Ultimately, at the end of the day, I'm still pro-choice. Just doesn't mean I agree with the ratio of those who chose one way or the other.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Comradebot wrote: »
    -Comradebot
    That's fairly insane. The world cannot have been robbed of something which never existed. Not to mention how insultingly simplistic you're making the choice to have an abortion.

    And I find your viewpoint lacking in vision.


    And there's nothing simplistic about having an abortion, and I regret giving you that impression. When a person chooses to have an abortion, then the person their child would've grown up to be, everything they would've touched and effected, is essentially nullified of their future influence. Maybe it is insane, I won't deny it, but it's up to that person making the decision of life or death whether or not the child can truly have a future or do some good in this world or if they're doomed to a lifetime of misery and harming everything around them. Ultimately, at the end of the day, I'm still pro-choice. Just doesn't mean I agree with the ratio of those who chose one way or the other.

    I just, I don't even understand this argument. Particularly this bolded part.

    Personally, I don't know if I could ever go through an abortion. I also don't have a uterus so I'd never be making that call. You are making the argument that all the pastors in the world spew out to shame women into not having abortions.

    No woman should have to sit and think about "the greater good of the world" when making this decision, that's just stupid and its insulting and yes, it's insane. A woman should be making this decision based on what's best for her and her potential child, not some crazy vision of a future whatever.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    @AManFromEarth
    Very few people treat abortion the way you're assigning, so few I'd wager that going after this point is, for lack of a better word, pointless.

    Well, in fairness, the Church of Scientology - allegedly - uses abortion as it's go-to means of birth control. They can't have babies crawling all over their various slums, and they think any kind of drug use (and this - again, allegedly - includes Spermicide, condoms, morning after pills, birth control pills, etc) will bring about the apocalypse, but their members still fuck each others' brains out because that's what people do.

    A few testimonies have come out involving van loads of girls being driven to clinics for abortions. Pretty disgusting stuff.

    New foreign policy strategy:

    Obama and Merkel to call Putin a "coward noob" and "lucky bullshit noob only won lane because Ukraine went afk and Crimea fed" in all chat, demand 1v1 at Baron Pit.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I forgot that Scientology is now the majority of anything in the world, thus rendering my caveat of "very few people" incorrect.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    If we're going to judge things by potential, jerking off into a sock is genocide. Many many many fertilized eggs end out non viable for one reason or another and are aborted naturally. It's hardly murder and it's not a baby. Why is it somehow when it becomes a decision to not carry a not-human to term instead of a natural result of our biology that they become humans with dreams and ambitions and oh my god you filthy baby murdering whore close your legs!

    In the end, it's not my decision, it sure isn't your decision, and by extension of these two things it's no business of the government being proded by religious groups.

  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    Comradebot wrote: »
    And I argue it's potentially small-minded and selfish because someone wanted to get their freak on without taking proper precautions, and their solution is simply to kill what's growing inside them.

    You realize birth control can fail, right? You understand that is a thing that is possible?

  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Comradebot wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Comradebot wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Comradebot wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Abortion is okay because we shouldn't really be having women carry to term what is essentially a parasite. Accidents happen even with the best of safeties. Unless you're okay with reforming social safety nets as a whole anyways. Plus there's the whole economics of the situation, this becomes greater than "this is life, we should protect it" to "I can't even afford to feed myself so the baby may be functionally retarded because of improper nutrition."

    Your cells could potentially become "life" itself too.

    And I argue it's potentially small-minded and selfish because someone wanted to get their freak on without taking proper precautions, and their solution is simply to kill what's growing inside them. Yes, complications CAN arise, but modern medicine has already cut the odds of maternal death in the good ol' USA and is significantly lower in many other developed countries to incredibly low levels. You literally have a greater chance of dying in a car accident than from giving birth. Maybe the child grows up to be a welfare abuser, maybe it grows up to be a doctor. But if you kill it before it's born, you'll never know.

    Point is, abortion for the sake of "Well, what if 1 in 10000...." is crappy, and I find "well, it hasn't been born yet" an incredibly callous mindset. And again, selfish. Knowingly denying a life because there's a 1:10000 chance of losing yours at worst is irrational. You might as well not drive your father to the hospital if he's having a heart attack because you might die on the freeway.

    Here's a thought: maybe instead of condoning abortions for everyone who wants them, regardless of their reasoning, we reinforce the usage of birth control and make the morning after pill readily available in the event a condom breaks or afterwards the young lady realizes "holy crap, I took antibiotics yesterday!".

    A serious and/or immediate threat to the life of the potential child and it's mother? Yay for abortions. There's no reason to think either will face anything worse than a normal pregnancy? Nay.

    You've said a lot, and a lot of different issues come up so rather than go point by point in a post, I'd like to discuss the specific parts one by one until they are resolved. With this in mind, the bolded part of your post above (reproduced below for clarity)

    "And I argue it's potentially small-minded and selfish because someone wanted to get their freak on without taking proper precautions, and their solution is simply to kill what's growing inside them."

    There are two initial points which stand out to me from first principles: your use of the word "selfish" and "small-minded".

    I don't understand how either applies. "Selfish" denotes that the agent in question is ignoring the interests of others in what we consider a socially unacceptable fashion. Whose interests are being ignored in the case of abortion? Likewise, "small-minded" usually refers to an inability to accept a fact or principle due to ideology, (willful) ignorance or mental defect*. What does the actor refuse to understand in this case?

    * Alternatively, you might mean prone to judgement, petty or otherwise mean. But I don't see how that applies any better.

    ...

    Seriously?

    Selfish, because they are putting their own interests ahead of that of another human being. A person who would deny life to another primarily so they can avoid an inconvenience in their's is selfish. It's just too big of a "what if" for me to claim it's for the greater good if their only rational is they don't want to be pregnant or have a baby simply for the sake of not being pregnant and having a baby.

    It's small-minded because a theoretical person in this theoretical situation isn't looking at the big picture. Even if you do not believe the embryo is truly a human being yet with the potential to be a functioning, productive members of society then it doesn't change the fact that the embryo has the potential to becoming a true human being which has the potential to become a functioning, productive member of society. You're, at best, trading one life for another.

    And on a personal note, please don't quote definitions to me: it's incredibly condescending.

    I did not mean to condescend - I was highlight specifically the nature of my confusion. Unfortunately communication is not an exact science and often over the internet it pays to be specific.

    Once again, there are two, immediate issues I see:

    I don't accept that the mere fact of "putting one's interests ahead of those of another human being" is a priori a selfish thing. Or, alternatively, if we do define selfish merely as "acting in one's own self interest over those of another" then selfishness qua selfishness is not something to be condemned. As such without significantly more argumentative support the charge is uninformative or incorrect (as is so often the basis of my objection to no end of arguments on no end of topics).

    The second issue is that you've a bullet to bite - either the "theoretical/potential person" argument is a bad one, or the first argument becomes exceptionally week (assuming that we stipulate it is a good one arguendo). As I observed on the previous page if the person is only theoretical or potential then by definition we are not talking about a person. If you wish to maintain both then you've a lot of metaphysical heavy lifting to do, and strange metaphysics at that.

    I guess it comes down to the quantity of the selfishness. Simply putting your whims and desires ahead of others is one thing, however elevating the priority of those whims and desires to the point that obtaining them is an active (in this case fatal) detriment to others isn't wholly comparable. Let's make a little fun example for no other reason than I just watched the awesome Alec Baldwin speech from Glengarry Glen Ross and have money on the mind.

    Scenario A: Selfish guy wants to get ahead in his business, and his co-worker tells him of an awesome idea, so Selfish guy steals the idea and takes it to his boss to get a big bonus himself. The other guy is pissed, but at least he still has his job.
    Scenario B: Selfish guy is competing for a job with a group of co-workers, so he fabricates some evidence that gets his competitors wrongfully terminated so he can reap the benefits of the new job.

    Okay, it's nowhere near a perfect analogy, I'll concede. But the basic principal is the same. There's a fine line (at least in my mind) between trying to get a leg up and actively doing serious harm to people and/or the environment around you to achieve that leg up. I'm a believer in the "greater good", and fuck anyone who puts themselves that far ahead of it. And in my mind, poorly justified abortions are an active detriment to that "greater good". Yes, it's all potential and theoretical and all that nonsense, but it seems invariable that the world has been robbed unwittingly at some point because a certain person or persons were never born. Or we may have had the next Hitler aborted, who the fuck knows, right?

    So to me, they connect. A person who is getting an abortion for an arbitrary reason, not because they or the child face a greater health risk than other pregnancies or because the child is a seed of rape/incest, is putting themselves ahead of the betterment of our crappy civilization. Again, we can't know. What's done is done, unless we can prove Multiverse theory (along with the intertwined Many Worlds Theory) and then find a way to view those alternate possibilities. Unfortunately, we'd need more than even a TARDIS for that.

    Summary, a selfish person could unwittingly be fucking us all over if their kid they aborted may have been someone of importance, or even someone who did a little good in their lives. He may have been a good father, or an accomplished musician or writer, or she could've been a cop or who the fuck knows. But the absolute moment that embryo is terminated, so does any and all other possibilities for what might've been. And yeah, I understand that the odds are probably stacked against any unwanted child, but that doesn't mean they're destined to be a bunch of sociopaths and purse-snatchers. Look at Tim Tebow: his parents considered aborting him (for potential health reasons though, not economic). Other this his massive hard-on for Jesus, I'd say he's turned out pretty well (and done more good in his twenty something years than many people ever will in their lifetimes).


    Maybe the same could be said about contraception, that it's denying life, yadda yadda yadda... but I guess it's just where I happen to personally draw my line. You're not killing anything, so I suppose that's it. Once that spark of life is ignited and its potential for being more than it is now grows, what gives a person the right to decide that it's better off dying then and there? But that's where my argument falters: we can't see the future, so it's impossible to know what true harm we are or aren't doing.

    I don't think any of this addresses the tensions I highlighted.

    The original question regarding selfishness was "Whose interests are being disregarded in the case of abortion?" your analogies and argument assumes that there is a party, other than the woman, with interests that are being ignored in the case of abortion. I assumed that the party in question was the unborn foetus (hence the problem of potential is not actual, and the weird metaphysics). However, you've specified that the injured party is society itself via the "greater good". This isn't a good solution - once we define what we consider to be goods it is an empirical matter to determine the likelihood that the foetus will significantly contribute to those goods and weigh this against the bands (some qualitative e.g. The wishes of the mother, some quantitative e.g. Environmental and economic impact) and from then it seems far from favoring the pro-life position or even simply being a push. However if we assume arguendo that we should be concerned that the foetus may potentially be a great musician, writer or father, shouldn't we be equally concerned that they might be a bad person or be involved in a drunk driving accident killing a great father, doctor or writer? Particularly given that unwanted children are more likely to develop antisocial behaviours.

    However, I would contend that your line "Or we may have had the next Hitler aborted, who the fuck knows, right?" gives the game away as far as this line of reasoning goes. It makes it clear that you are not arguing in favour of the greater good because not preventing someone who would do immeasurable harm to the world from doing so is in fact working against the greater good. With this line, you admit, implicitly that it isn't a concern a principled concern for the greater good at all, but something rather different.

    However, your preamble to your analogy involves the passage "an active (in this case fatal) detriment to others" which means that we are talking about the foetus afterall (as well?), and so we're simply back at the start - if we're dealing with a "potential human being" then we aren't dealing with a human being, and it's unclear whose interests are being trampled in this regard without a great deal of metaphysical argument. So that critique still stands as well.

    And you've still got a lot of work to do in terms of defining what we should and shouldn't define as selfish behaviour - as I note, the analogy you give smuggles in the idea of there being another party whose interests are not being addressed, and still doesn't provide a good general principle by which to distinguish selfish behaviour - the operative question being is any act in one's own self interest ahead of others' selfish? How do we distinguish between good self-interest and bad-self interest? The question of what, specifically you mean when you say selfish still needs to be addressed, vague handwaving and analogy doesn't cut it.

    All of which is to say, despite adding another thing to confuse the issue into the mix (the "greater good") you haven't answered the fundamental questions we initially began with.

    As an aside, I note that you argue in favor of the greater good, in this instance but immediately jumped onto a slippery slope/reductio ad absurdum in response to @Canteloupe's expressing their position (which I too believe is fundamentally flawed) on abortion as being in favor, in part due to the greater good with regard to population control. Needless to say, generalising the principle that we should be forced to do things with our bodies and accept radical curtailing of our autonomy for the greater good fairly quickly leads you into the same territory that you used as a bludgeon against @Canteloupe.

    EDIT: I forgot that I really wanted to point out that your exception in the case of health or rape is particularly unusual. Neither actually works.

    If we take your idea that the potential for a foetus to become a significant figure in our society, then the sky is more or less the limit - why should the mother not sacrifice her health in favor of the possibility that the child might be the next Ludwig von Luther King Jr? The mother probably isn't doing anything interesting anyway. Unless she's Aung San Suu Kyi our theoretical Leonardo DiDarwin could potentially make a much greater impact than she could.

    The question of rape has exactly the same problem - except the potential of the mother isn't relevant, as her life continues anyway!

    Rape exceptions in general are incompatible with principled objections to abortion - if it's wrong to abort a foetus/zygote, then it's still wrong even if it was conceived in rape. Every single argument you've marshaled applies equally well to the case of pregnancy resulting from rape, why is it ok in the case of rape, but not in the case of consensual sex?

    Apothe0sis on
    What I see sees me.
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    You know who else harps on and on about "the greater good"?
    Spoiler:

    Hacksaw on
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    Comradebot wrote: »
    Ultimately, at the end of the day, I'm still pro-choice.

    Pro-choice or pro-life, anyone who describes the process of pregnancy and childbirth as an "inconvenience" is a silly goose. As is anyone who thinks women are farm animals - you know, just give the kid up for adoption, if you keep it away from her for a couple of days she forgets all about it, amirite?

    Apothe0sis, rape exceptions are indeed incompatible with principled objections to abortion only when the actual, underlying principle is the life of the fetus. When the underlying principle is "well she should have kept her legs shut" or "we can't get this legislation passed without a rape exception", then it makes perfect sense.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    Comradebot wrote: »
    Ultimately, at the end of the day, I'm still pro-choice.

    Pro-choice or pro-life, anyone who describes the process of pregnancy and childbirth as an "inconvenience" is a silly goose. As is anyone who thinks women are farm animals - you know, just give the kid up for adoption, if you keep it away from her for a couple of days she forgets all about it, amirite?

    Apothe0sis, rape exceptions are indeed incompatible with principled objections to abortion only when the actual, underlying principle is the life of the fetus. When the underlying principle is "well she should have kept her legs shut" or "we can't get this legislation passed without a rape exception", then it makes perfect sense.

    It also makes perfect sense if one looks at it from the perspective of negative vs positive freedoms.

    If you engage in acts knowing the possible outcome is pregnancy, then the negative freedom of the foetus' right to life outweighs your negative freedom to self autonomy over your body, whereas if it's forced upon you, then your right to self autonomy supersedes that of the foetus, in much the same way one might argue that if you take careless actions that deprive someone of their kidney, you would be obligated to donate one to them - whereas you're not obligated to give one to a random stranger in need.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Comradebot wrote: »
    And I argue it's potentially small-minded and selfish because someone wanted to get their freak on without taking proper precautions, and their solution is simply to kill what's growing inside them.

    You realize birth control can fail, right? You understand that is a thing that is possible?

    This is ultimately what I was trying to get the robot to admit, but alas I got sidetracked on "what constitutes a human being" tangent that he was still unable to succinctly describe.

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    Leitner wrote: »
    If you engage in acts knowing the possible outcome is pregnancy, then the negative freedom of the foetus' right to life outweighs your negative freedom to self autonomy over your body, whereas if it's forced upon you, then your right to self autonomy supersedes that of the foetus, in much the same way one might argue that if you take careless actions that deprive someone of their kidney, you would be obligated to donate one to them - whereas you're not obligated to give one to a random stranger in need.

    "One might argue" anything, but I'm not aware of any developed nation where you would be forced to donate a kidney if your carelessness leads to them losing a kidney. You might be criminally punished if what you did was a crime; you might be civilly liable and forced to pay money damages to them. Outside of Thoughtexperimentvania, though, you wouldn't have to give them a kidney (even assuming that you were a compatible donor).

    Limiting the argument to "bodily autonomy" feeds right back into the "inconvenience" nonsense, also, which assumes that being pregnant is like getting up on a commercial break for more snacks and returning to find the cat curled up in your chair. Being pregnant is a lot more physically taxing and dangerous than just 'oh, something is taking up space in my uterus'. It always flabbergasts me how often people handwave this, particularly when it's the same people rhapsodizing about the Sacredness of Life.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    I really fail to see how the focus on bodily autonomy does that, but okay.

    Edit: And China, sort of.

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    China, sort of, how?

    "Bodily autonomy" is about the right to control one's own body; certainly a very important right, but it doesn't really acknowledge that pregnancy is a thing with consequences beyond 'you have a baby'. Anti-choice apologists like to pretend that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is nothing more than a minimal violation of an abstract principle. (If you fall asleep and I draw dicks on your face with washable marker, I've certainly committed battery and violated your bodily autonomy, but it's a pretty low-impact violation; you wash off the marker. That's about as serious a consequence as anti-choicers would like to pretend comes with pregnancy.)

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    I outlined a whole host of health effects (not even most of them) that pregnant women can suffer, a few pages ago, though.

    It appears most anti-abortion/pro-lifers feel pregnancy is a joyous occasion.

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    Well sure, pregnancy often *is* a joyous occasion. That doesn't mean (as you noted) that it's just nine months of wearing oversized T-shirts and then a baby pops out after a few minutes of heavy panting and straining, a lot Hollywood, and the physical toll of that gets elided when we limit the discussion to 'autonomy'.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Leitner wrote: »
    If you engage in acts knowing the possible outcome is pregnancy, then the negative freedom of the foetus' right to life outweighs your negative freedom to self autonomy over your body, whereas if it's forced upon you, then your right to self autonomy supersedes that of the foetus, in much the same way one might argue that if you take careless actions that deprive someone of their kidney, you would be obligated to donate one to them - whereas you're not obligated to give one to a random stranger in need.

    Interesting argument. How about if you engage in acts that are statistically certain to increase unwanted pregnancies? Should people enforcing abstinence only education be legally required to adopt a certain percentage of the inevitable results?

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    Absolutely. Like some women who go into labor for a day. I'm sure that's all fun and dandy. Or just the dangers of having a baby in the US's subpar maternal care in comparison to the rest of the world. Or hell even postpartum depression.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Well, if these women would just learn to accept the gift GOD gave them...

    Lh96QHG.png
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    I would never want to be in a society where I am obligated to give someone my kidney because I may have caused one of theirs to fail. Intentional or otherwise. Whilst yes, that life is unfortunate, I can see the slippery slope that develops in an eye for an eye justice system.

  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    What about the enormous cost of child birth and raising and educating said unwanted child? It's a huge strain on both the parent(s) and tax payers. I may not like abortion, but it serves more than just the person getting it if they are not ready.

    I'm in the camp that dislikes abortion, but is pro-choice. It's not my right to place my beliefs on others.

    Mild Confusion on
  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    Comradebot wrote: »
    Ultimately, at the end of the day, I'm still pro-choice.

    Pro-choice or pro-life, anyone who describes the process of pregnancy and childbirth as an "inconvenience" is a silly goose. As is anyone who thinks women are farm animals - you know, just give the kid up for adoption, if you keep it away from her for a couple of days she forgets all about it, amirite?

    Apothe0sis, rape exceptions are indeed incompatible with principled objections to abortion only when the actual, underlying principle is the life of the fetus. When the underlying principle is "well she should have kept her legs shut" or "we can't get this legislation passed without a rape exception", then it makes perfect sense.

    Except that the most famous defense of abortion by far is the violinist thought experiment, which precisely justifies abortion in cases of rape regardless of the personhood of the unborn baby. Which means this post is either an embarrassment, because you don't understand the violinist argument, or it's shamefully intellectually dishonest.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    Comradebot wrote: »
    Ultimately, at the end of the day, I'm still pro-choice.

    Pro-choice or pro-life, anyone who describes the process of pregnancy and childbirth as an "inconvenience" is a silly goose. As is anyone who thinks women are farm animals - you know, just give the kid up for adoption, if you keep it away from her for a couple of days she forgets all about it, amirite?

    Apothe0sis, rape exceptions are indeed incompatible with principled objections to abortion only when the actual, underlying principle is the life of the fetus. When the underlying principle is "well she should have kept her legs shut" or "we can't get this legislation passed without a rape exception", then it makes perfect sense.

    What can I saw mythago, when we do agree, we agree entirely. I obviously am aware that the latter stances are compatible with the rape exceptions. My intention was two-fold, the first was to give our anti-abortion interlocutors enough rope with which to hang themselves and the second and rather more facetious: "I wouldn't call those stances principled."

    As for the "inconvenience" of pregnancy, I was gathering some choice quotes about his from the thread. The sheer range and magnitude of manifestly negative effects that pregnancy can and does have on a woman's life is incalculable. In these discussions there is a focus on health and pregnancy, and even then, only such a narrow part thereof - the direct and immediate mortal consequences while hugely significant are only the tip of the iceberg. There are so many other effects on things as important as career and financial matters not to mention a whole range of things that would scarcely occur to any of us who haven't been pregnant.

    What I see sees me.
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • EuphoriacEuphoriac Registered User regular
    I sure hope we aren't heading to a future where women collectively begin to fear and resist pregnancy. That way lies depopulation, and who gets to tell everyone they MUST sacrifice their financial and career freedoms when we lose the ability to pay for our elderly's retirement?

    Because seriously; pregnancy isn't wonderfully easy of course. But fuck me if it doesn't have an awesome result (as long as the child is wanted).

    steam_sig.png
  • psyck0psyck0 Registered User regular
    I'd like to get a tally, from all the people in this threadw
    Comradebot wrote: »
    Cantelope wrote: »
    I'm not trying to create a master race here, I'm just saying if you don't want a child you shouldn't have one and the government should help facilitate. I'm also arguing that it is better for society if we do. You can call it whatever you want, even murder.


    The alternative is to force woman to have kids they don't want or can't support. As a result they are likely to feel resentment towards them and treat them poorly. They are less likely to be successful, and more likely to be a burden on society. I don't see how forcing woman to have unwanted children helps anyone at all. If there are genuine societal benefits of this then make that argument without using outliers.

    And my point is, if you're cool with murder for the "betterment of the world", then why draw the line at abortion?

    Because murder of a child or adult affects more than that person. It affects their friends and family, to start. Abortion doesn't affect anyone except the parents, and they are the ones choosing to do it.

    Big Man in training.
    steam_sig.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Euphoriac wrote: »
    I sure hope we aren't heading to a future where women collectively begin to fear and resist pregnancy. That way lies depopulation, and who gets to tell everyone they MUST sacrifice their financial and career freedoms when we lose the ability to pay for our elderly's retirement?

    Because seriously; pregnancy isn't wonderfully easy of course. But fuck me if it doesn't have an awesome result (as long as the child is wanted).

    Console yourself with the knowledge that this will never happen, then.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    Euphoriac wrote: »
    I sure hope we aren't heading to a future where women collectively begin to fear and resist pregnancy. That way lies depopulation, and who gets to tell everyone they MUST sacrifice their financial and career freedoms when we lose the ability to pay for our elderly's retirement?

    Because seriously; pregnancy isn't wonderfully easy of course. But fuck me if it doesn't have an awesome result (as long as the child is wanted).

    I do not consider children to be "awesome".

  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    Comradebot wrote: »
    Ultimately, at the end of the day, I'm still pro-choice.

    Pro-choice or pro-life, anyone who describes the process of pregnancy and childbirth as an "inconvenience" is a silly goose. As is anyone who thinks women are farm animals - you know, just give the kid up for adoption, if you keep it away from her for a couple of days she forgets all about it, amirite?

    Apothe0sis, rape exceptions are indeed incompatible with principled objections to abortion only when the actual, underlying principle is the life of the fetus. When the underlying principle is "well she should have kept her legs shut" or "we can't get this legislation passed without a rape exception", then it makes perfect sense.

    Except that the most famous defense of abortion by far is the violinist thought experiment, which precisely justifies abortion in cases of rape regardless of the personhood of the unborn baby. Which means this post is either an embarrassment, because you don't understand the violinist argument, or it's shamefully intellectually dishonest.

    That thought experiment only has 2 options: you volunteered to hook yourself up to the violinist or you were hooked up to it against your will. I dont know how you could engage in behavior that has the possibility in resulting in you getting hooked up to a random person for 9 months. And even then the thought experiment doesnt take into a lot of considerations like what is going on in the person's life prior to and after getting hooked up to the random violinist.

    Euphoriac wrote: »
    I sure hope we aren't heading to a future where women collectively begin to fear and resist pregnancy. That way lies depopulation, and who gets to tell everyone they MUST sacrifice their financial and career freedoms when we lose the ability to pay for our elderly's retirement?

    Because seriously; pregnancy isn't wonderfully easy of course. But fuck me if it doesn't have an awesome result (as long as the child is wanted).

    I think its more likely that people will have less children and will have them later in life. There are plenty of women who dont want children now but do want them in the future.

    camo_sig2.png
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    There is no shortage of people in the world. I don't really think we need to worry about "a downturn in births" any time soon.

  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    emp123 wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    Comradebot wrote: »
    Ultimately, at the end of the day, I'm still pro-choice.

    Pro-choice or pro-life, anyone who describes the process of pregnancy and childbirth as an "inconvenience" is a silly goose. As is anyone who thinks women are farm animals - you know, just give the kid up for adoption, if you keep it away from her for a couple of days she forgets all about it, amirite?

    Apothe0sis, rape exceptions are indeed incompatible with principled objections to abortion only when the actual, underlying principle is the life of the fetus. When the underlying principle is "well she should have kept her legs shut" or "we can't get this legislation passed without a rape exception", then it makes perfect sense.

    Except that the most famous defense of abortion by far is the violinist thought experiment, which precisely justifies abortion in cases of rape regardless of the personhood of the unborn baby. Which means this post is either an embarrassment, because you don't understand the violinist argument, or it's shamefully intellectually dishonest.

    That thought experiment only has 2 options: you volunteered to hook yourself up to the violinist or you were hooked up to it against your will. I dont know how you could engage in behavior that has the possibility in resulting in you getting hooked up to a random person for 9 months. And even then the thought experiment doesnt take into a lot of considerations like what is going on in the person's life prior to and after getting hooked up to the random violinist.

    ... It makes no statements one way or the other about abortion in situations other than the one it's exploring.

    And not related to my point in any case, which is that it is absoluteley possible to have principled objections to abortion and allow for rape exceptions. As evidenced by the violinist thought experiment which provides support for just that, and anyone that has spent any amount of time on the topic of abortion has no excuse for not knowing and understanding that.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    And not related to my point in any case, which is that it is absoluteley possible to have principled objections to abortion and allow for rape exceptions. As evidenced by the violinist thought experiment which provides support for just that, and anyone that has spent any amount of time on the topic of abortion has no excuse for not knowing and understanding that.

    The violinist example is laughably flawed; a fetus is not a full-grown person, and has no viability outside the womb. Hell, it doesn't even always have viability inside the womb.

  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    And not related to my point in any case, which is that it is absoluteley possible to have principled objections to abortion and allow for rape exceptions. As evidenced by the violinist thought experiment which provides support for just that, and anyone that has spent any amount of time on the topic of abortion has no excuse for not knowing and understanding that.

    The violinist example is laughably flawed; a fetus is not a full-grown person, and has no viability outside the womb. Hell, it doesn't even always have viability inside the womb.

    ... and...

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    emp123 wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    Comradebot wrote: »
    Ultimately, at the end of the day, I'm still pro-choice.

    Pro-choice or pro-life, anyone who describes the process of pregnancy and childbirth as an "inconvenience" is a silly goose. As is anyone who thinks women are farm animals - you know, just give the kid up for adoption, if you keep it away from her for a couple of days she forgets all about it, amirite?

    Apothe0sis, rape exceptions are indeed incompatible with principled objections to abortion only when the actual, underlying principle is the life of the fetus. When the underlying principle is "well she should have kept her legs shut" or "we can't get this legislation passed without a rape exception", then it makes perfect sense.

    Except that the most famous defense of abortion by far is the violinist thought experiment, which precisely justifies abortion in cases of rape regardless of the personhood of the unborn baby. Which means this post is either an embarrassment, because you don't understand the violinist argument, or it's shamefully intellectually dishonest.

    That thought experiment only has 2 options: you volunteered to hook yourself up to the violinist or you were hooked up to it against your will. I dont know how you could engage in behavior that has the possibility in resulting in you getting hooked up to a random person for 9 months. And even then the thought experiment doesnt take into a lot of considerations like what is going on in the person's life prior to and after getting hooked up to the random violinist.

    ... It makes no statements one way or the other about abortion in situations other than the one it's exploring.

    And not related to my point in any case, which is that it is absoluteley possible to have principled objections to abortion and allow for rape exceptions. As evidenced by the violinist thought experiment which provides support for just that, and anyone that has spent any amount of time on the topic of abortion has no excuse for not knowing and understanding that.

    Oh right, my bad for not opening quote trees.

    camo_sig2.png
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    And not related to my point in any case, which is that it is absoluteley possible to have principled objections to abortion and allow for rape exceptions. As evidenced by the violinist thought experiment which provides support for just that, and anyone that has spent any amount of time on the topic of abortion has no excuse for not knowing and understanding that.

    The violinist example is laughably flawed; a fetus is not a full-grown person, and has no viability outside the womb. Hell, it doesn't even always have viability inside the womb.

    ... and...

    And what?

  • Sir LandsharkSir Landshark Registered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    And not related to my point in any case, which is that it is absoluteley possible to have principled objections to abortion and allow for rape exceptions. As evidenced by the violinist thought experiment which provides support for just that, and anyone that has spent any amount of time on the topic of abortion has no excuse for not knowing and understanding that.

    The violinist example is laughably flawed; a fetus is not a full-grown person, and has no viability outside the womb. Hell, it doesn't even always have viability inside the womb.

    The whole point of the violinist example is it focuses on the rights of the fetus vs. the rights of the mother without getting bogged down in the debate over when life begins. So it's a bit amusing that you're calling it flawed on the basis of an argument it was created to circumvent.

    Please consider the environment before printing this post.
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    It's a ridiculous hypothetical, as are most of the ones encircling this whole debate.

Sign In or Register to comment.