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.
Posts
And saying 'oh, they should just give the kid up for adoption' doesn't quite take into account the long, painful, arduous process that pregnancy and giving birth entails. There are premanent physical changes to a womans body that happen even after the child is born, and the nine months leading up to that is a trial of nausia, urine, pain, swelling, and discomfort, topped off with one of the most excrutiatingly traumatic of natual body processes. I see absolutely nothing selfish about a woman deciding she doesn't want to put her body through that. Why should she, for a potential life she doesn't know, doesn't like, didn't ask for, and actively tried to prevent? It is, in my opinion, selfish of anyone not currently posessing that womans uterus to try and decide what she can or can not do with it.
Yup, I'm a hardcore GOPer because I disagree that we should let everyone abort whatever. Ya got me.
/sarcasm (for the record I'm a Libertarian, and if you're going to turn this into a political accusation argument... well, I'm gonna hope you're a better person than to sink to that level).
And I didn't say at any point that poor people were using abortion as a means of birth control. Ever. If I said that, please show me where so I can get my brain examined, because I clearly have something serious I need to get a doctor to check out.
Also, if you were to read just a few posts up, you'd see I support more readily available contraceptives and sexual education, and I know you read it because it was the same post where I first mentioned ECPs. I think the whole "abstinence only!" argument is fucktarded, because I know for a fact that it doesn't stop people from gettin' it on, and a lifetime of condoms or even birth control pills are far less expensive than a child.
...
Goddamnit, you're trolling me now aren't you?
I'm not, really. If you think everyone welcomes offspring with open arms and happiness you're wrong. It can be wrought with fear, panic, depression, and a whole host of health issues. It's really not something we should ever be discussing limiting or taking away because bodily autonomy is a thing itself. The tape worm thing was trolling though.
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.
SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
Women don't really use abortion as birth control, and the potential person argument is crap. That gets into biblical masturbation as a sin territory. I mean you're right on in the "we should reinforce the usage of birth control" part, but I don't understand the "condoning abortion" part.
Nobody likes abortion, no more than you like getting any medical procedure. We have plenty of evidence that good sex ed and free contraception significantly reduces abortion, so that's all we have to do.
Well, horrifying really, but strange that Comradebot is referring to the US Maternal deathrate as if it were something reassuring or to be proud of.
SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
Sure, but on the other end of the scale only a pretty purely utilitarian mindset differentiates between a fully developed baby that has or has not been born.
Which means if you're not a utilitarian there is some stage between conception and full development to draw the line. And while there might be better moral arguments for one place over another, dismissing the pro-life movement merely on the basis that they draw the line at all seems quite specious.
Edit:
In reference to babies that will be adopted immediately? No one. If you're pregnant in a first world country and want to give the baby up, there will be couples waiting in line around the block for the opportunity to take over care immediately, and probably pay your medical bills to boot.
--LeVar Burton
This is pretty much exactly how I feel on the matter. Abortion should be available to those who want or need it. In an ideal world, needing or wanting one would be reduced by available contraception and sex education minimizing unwanted pregnancies as much as is realistically possible.
Given how vocally opposed most anti-choicers are to sex education and contraception, that's going to be an uphill battle, but I do hope it comes to pass within my lifetime, at least within North America.
You meant me I suppose?
Yes, so far as I know, at this point in time, it is always certain. There is no such thing as a baby orphan in the first world, except for the period of time waiting for the paperwork to clear.
Without extenuating circumstances of some sort I suspect you would have to go back many decades to find a single case.
--LeVar Burton
I still stand by my earlier jest on the topic. You could take all the precautions in the world and still end up with parasitic tapeworm you should I guess be on the line for something you don't want. Nurture and love it.
My problem is not with the very idea of drawing a line, it's with the particular line being drawn. Lines drawn on the basis of potential, especially those that place a heavy emphasis on 'normal' development, strike me as difficult to defend. Everything has the potential to become anything, at least on some views of identity over time, and references to normal development tend to hinge on the act/omission distinction--if the baby is far enough along, it will develop all on its own so long as you don't interfere--which is famously philosophically disputed (why does aborting count as something you actively do, whereas not aborting count as something which you passively allow to happen?)
As such, I prefer to think of moral worth in terms of the possession of conscious mental qualities. It's true that these also come in (somewhat) continuous degrees, it's true, and so any lines must be to some degree arbitrary. But that wasn't the complaint.
:?:
Edit: oh, okay.
Sure, but see above on where to draw the line of personhood.
--LeVar Burton
The atheist group we were talking about, like one page ago. I'm sure I could pick out more if I went looking, but even if I couldn't that doesn't say anything about the personal convictions of any number of people who would otherwise be voting liberal because of all their other policies.
And of course women can be 'anti-women', internalised sexism is a hell of a thing.
But just because a woman is pro-life doesn't make her anti-women, and the discourse as frequently indulged in both here and elsewhere entirely excludes the possibility of such individuals. It all too often descends into fighting some constructed imaginary republican sitting in their lair, plotting how they can worst effect women this time. It's a problematic exertion of privilege which has the unintentional outcome of silencing the majority of working class christian women who are ardent supporters. Are their voices not valid in the debate? Especially given it's going to effect them the most of anyone.
No, but the complaint was a bit boring
I'm curious as to the reasoning behind action/inactio::abortion/no abortion being interchangeable.
--LeVar Burton
Honestly why should it matter? I guess our societies preponderance to heighten humans above all else.
Because presumably you think you should behave differently towards a human being that relies on you to survive, versus some other type of life.
Just as I don't have a problem with seeing wolves take down a deer, but would probably try to intervene before they ate a baby.
--LeVar Burton
Im not sure carrying and then raising a child is an inconvenience. Getting a flat tire is an inconvenience, having a child is a life altering event. That shits difficult even for people who try to have kids.
Well then, maybe dolphins need to step up their game in the space race.
People can be in favor of taking their own rights away
For example, I'm in favor of society keeping heroin an illegal substance even though it's my body and I should have access to any recreational drug of my choice.
Theyve been busy kicking our ass at deep sea exploration. And helping Aquaman fight crime.
If they were both accidents? Why should I honestly care which form of commensal or parasite is nesting in me, especially if I took precautions to have neither? Shit ain't no demodex.
Again, because presumably you view human life in a somewhat different light from other life. Which you apparently don't, but then your disagreement with pro-lifers isn't their conclusions, it's the very premise of preserving human life.
--LeVar Burton
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
I don't understand why the concern for human life starts at conception and ends at birth for these people.
Exactly. At the end of the day, the human race exists to continue the existence of the human race. Killing a fetus actively works against our ultimate purpose, or at least our ultimate purpose if you're an absolute atheist (not some crazy agnostic like me) and believe we are just a random assortment of molecules that just happened to come about.
As for the tapeworm and the fetus... it's not an accurate comparison. Yes, there's similarities, but there's also similarities between Dane Cook and Jon Stewart, but it doesn't mean they're the same. Both actively survive by essentially sucking (yeah, I'm gettin' scientific with it, I know) their nutrients from the host body. The differences: the tapeworm is in its adult stage while in the host body, while the fetus is in its larval stage. The fetus could possibly one day be born, permanently ending its womb residency, and go on to reach its adult human stage. The tapeworm is just a tapeworm, and by the time it's actively jacking food from your innards it's already reached its maximum potential of tapewormness. The tapeworm's goal is to be a parasite, the fetus's goal is to no longer be a parasite.
We should find a new analogy. Let's compare fetuses to walruses: both of em' are in need of a good clubbin'.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Well, there's the part where what constitutes "life" and what is required to "preserve" it vary dramatically. Equating a fertilized egg with a fetus with a 20 year old man with a deranged criminal is pretty silly. Ditto, equating inaction with extensive medical treatment with sacrificing dozens of other people.
So maybe it's more the case that "preserving human life" is so vague a premise as to be entirely useless. It's roughly equivalent to "don't make other people sad" as a useful philosophy.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
My girlfriend's sister has popped one out after another, and she's too lazy to get on welfare. Doesn't help she's been knocked up by:
1. Fat, unemployed guy
2. Deadbeat unemployed guy with literally nine other kids and a tendency to "vanish" the moment the words "child support" are mentioned.
3. Physically abusive unemployed guy who has been in and out of jail his entire life and is a strike away from I believe 25 years.
"Well, a fetus isn't exactly a person ... but you it's human and it's alive so you can't say it's not a person ... hey, let's compromise and say a fetus counts for 3/5 a person!"
1. Rick Santorum?
2. Agreed. And even I agree there are most certainly circumstances where an abortion is the right call, and the option does need to exist.
Readily available contraception and sex education, that's the key. If you don't get pregnant, then abortion isn't something that ever has to cross your mind.
3. And to clarify, I agree, Rick Santorum can go suck the biggest, meatiest dick we can find. Of course, he probably thinks even heterosexual oral sex is vile and disgusting. But it probably just means he has some deeply seeded homosexual tendencies he's denying.
But again, I don't think it's a perfect example. Those human cells exists outside of a human being... but they can never, ever be a human being. It's a fundamental difference, and it's the same as the fetus and the tapeworm. One can be more, the other is all it will ever be.
And as for surviving outside of another human being... I mean, a baby can't survive without the aid of another human being. They still have that dependency, and naturally relied on their mother still for sustenance. By that rational, infanticide should be kosher because the baby is now just an external parasite instead of an internal one. It's upgraded from tapeworm to tick.