1. #7001
    Quote Originally Posted by LilSaihah View Post
    If Billy's in the hospital and needs a liver because you poisoned him, intentionally and knowingly, it's wholly reasonable for someone to say 'hey this is your responsibility, your liver is now his'.
    Enforced organ harvesting, even if from convicted criminals, is not reasonable in the slightest, and the way you confidently and wholeheartedly believe it is speaks volumes about how twisted you conservatives think.
    "My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility

    Prediction for the future

  2. #7002
    Herald of the Titans
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,903
    Quote Originally Posted by LilSaihah View Post
    That honestly seems like a pretty straightforward question to me: when your actions were the ones that put that life at risk.
    If Billy's in the hospital and needs a liver because you poisoned him, intentionally and knowingly, it's wholly reasonable for someone to say 'hey this is your responsibility, your liver is now his'.
    Similarly, the conception of a child is (hopefully) the result of an action that was voluntary & with knowledge of the potential consequences.

    I dunno about other peoples' positions but for me that's where "abortion in the circumstance of rape & life" comes from. If you were raped, that responsibility isn't yours. If somebody's going to die, that's not a reasonable outcome to expect from sex.
    What if it was in a consensual relationship yet BC failed?

    Same as the laws made by GOP in the US don't allow for cases where the mother will die because of how they are written.
    - Lars

  3. #7003
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Literally no legal system on the planet agrees with you, here.
    Other than China, maybe. But even for them, organ harvesting is illegal on paper.
    "My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility

    Prediction for the future

  4. #7004
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Literally no legal system on the planet agrees with you, here. It's a monstrous violation of basic human rights. You're advocating for atrocity. Literally Nazi type stuff.
    My point is that the "Billy needs a bit of liver" case where the second person is completely unrelated is not really fair, IMO. "Billy needs a piece of liver and Jimmy is responsible" is different.
    "Jimmy give him your liver" is certainly an extreme version, possibly excessively so, of the general principle that someone should try to fix the problems they cause.

    Also, yeah, China.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Consent to sex is not consent to carrying a child to term. The existence of abortion as an option all by itself precludes that, because continuing that pregnancy isn't an unavoidable outcome. You're trying to make an argument to deny that choice, and your argument is only a pretension that said choice doesn't exist.

    Well, it does.
    I don't like this circular logic, you can just close the loop by saying "abortion isn't an option" and then bam, consensual sex is consent to carrying a child to term.
    Don't get me wrong, I understand that consent to sex isn't consent to carrying to term, but the logic doesn't work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Good news; there's no "somebody" who's gonna "die" in an abortion.

    Now, you're free to have religious views otherwise, but you're not free to force all of society to abide by your personal religious views.
    I'm not forcing anyone to do anything! I'm posting on an internet forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Muzjhath View Post
    What if it was in a consensual relationship yet BC failed?

    Same as the laws made by GOP in the US don't allow for cases where the mother will die because of how they are written.
    I don't know about where all the specificities come down. The entire "rape & risk to life" argument fundamentally assumes that you have a crystal ball: that you can reasonably convict someone of rape before the child would come to term, when rape is notoriously hard to convict for; and that you can divine whether or not a pregnancy puts a woman's health at risk, when every pregnancy fundamentally carries with it some degree of risk.

    Very specifically in this case of 'consensual sex but the BC failed', this is a pretty good case for why 'rape' as the point where you draw the line is not going to work in practice. In this situation, the woman's incentivized to accuse their partner of rape, which would likely create drastically worse outcomes than an abortion.
    If you are particularly bold, you could use a Shiny Ditto. Do keep in mind though, this will infuriate your opponents due to Ditto's beauty. Please do not use Shiny Ditto. You have been warned.

  5. #7005
    Quote Originally Posted by LilSaihah View Post
    My point is that the "Billy needs a bit of liver" case where the second person is completely unrelated is not really fair, IMO. "Billy needs a piece of liver and Jimmy is responsible" is different.
    I'm unsure how or why it's different. Bodily autonomy is bodily autonomy. Period.

    A parent is responsible for their child, no? A parent cannot be forced, against their will, to offer an organ like a kidney to save their child's life. If the parent does not want to be a donor, the state literally cannot force the parent to become a donor. They cannot even force the parent to donate blood to save their own child, based on my understanding. They can sure ask and pressure and try, but there is no legal mechanism that removes the parents right to bodily autonomy.

  6. #7006
    Herald of the Titans
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,903
    Quote Originally Posted by LilSaihah View Post
    My point is that the "Billy needs a bit of liver" case where the second person is completely unrelated is not really fair, IMO. "Billy needs a piece of liver and Jimmy is responsible" is different.
    "Jimmy give him your liver" is certainly an extreme version, possibly excessively so, of the general principle that someone should try to fix the problems they cause.

    Also, yeah, China.



    I don't like this circular logic, you can just close the loop by saying "abortion isn't an option" and then bam, consensual sex is consent to carrying a child to term.
    Don't get me wrong, I understand that consent to sex isn't consent to carrying to term, but the logic doesn't work.



    I'm not forcing anyone to do anything! I'm posting on an internet forum.



    I don't know about where all the specificities come down. The entire "rape & risk to life" argument fundamentally assumes that you have a crystal ball: that you can reasonably convict someone of rape before the child would come to term, when rape is notoriously hard to convict for; and that you can divine whether or not a pregnancy puts a woman's health at risk, when every pregnancy fundamentally carries with it some degree of risk.

    Very specifically in this case of 'consensual sex but the BC failed', this is a pretty good case for why 'rape' as the point where you draw the line is not going to work in practice. In this situation, the woman's incentivized to accuse their partner of rape, which would likely create drastically worse outcomes than an abortion.
    And there you see the problem when you open this up!

    This isn't a special case. It's a bodily autonomy case and the moment it stops being that it opens so many cans.
    Late-Term if there's a risk to the life of the mother induced birth or a cesarian are vastly more common than an abortion To such a degree that you don't abort a 36 week pregnancy if the mothers life is in danger and the now baby is viable. You induce birth or do a cesarian section. As those are the safer options!

    But if it's because the fetus died for one reason or another at week 36 you still need to remove it, or the mother will die. Then it would most likely fall under one form or another of abortion, medically speaking. And carrying it for 2-4 weeks more would likely be engangering the mother.
    - Lars

  7. #7007
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    79,843
    Quote Originally Posted by LilSaihah View Post
    My point is that the "Billy needs a bit of liver" case where the second person is completely unrelated is not really fair, IMO. "Billy needs a piece of liver and Jimmy is responsible" is different.
    The question of "responsibility" is completely irrelevant, because it can only be a factor if abortion is already off the table as an option.

    If abortion's on the table, getting an abortion to end an unwanted pregnancy is literally taking responsibility for your actions.

    You're trying to end-run around the central issue. You need to establish your premises first.

    I don't like this circular logic, you can just close the loop by saying "abortion isn't an option" and then bam, consensual sex is consent to carrying a child to term.
    There's no "circular logic" there.

    And no, you can't just declare that "abortion isn't an option". That's the conclusion you're trying to reach. Presuming your conclusion as one of your premises is the fallacy "begging the question".

    I don't have to justify abortion being permitted. Legal systems generally function on the principle that if a thing is not legislated against, it is legal. You pass laws to make things illegal, rather than presuming all actions are illegal unless specifically permitted by the law. This means the burden of proof is entirely on the pro-life side, here; you have to justify the existence of a law. All the pro-choice side is obliged to do is demonstrate the weaknesses in those arguments.

    In this case, the claim was "consent to sex is consent to carry to term". If a pregnancy can be aborted, however, there's no reason for that statement to be true. If you want to argue that abortion shouldn't be an option, you need to build that up separately, trying to just slap it in there is begging the question.

    I'm not forcing anyone to do anything! I'm posting on an internet forum.
    If you're arguing for law to be X, you're arguing for society to enforce X. If X is your religious views, then you're talking about forcing people to live under your religious rules.

    Pointing out you don't have the support to achieve that doesn't change what your argument is.

    I don't know about where all the specificities come down. The entire "rape & risk to life" argument fundamentally assumes that you have a crystal ball: that you can reasonably convict someone of rape before the child would come to term, when rape is notoriously hard to convict for; and that you can divine whether or not a pregnancy puts a woman's health at risk, when every pregnancy fundamentally carries with it some degree of risk.

    Very specifically in this case of 'consensual sex but the BC failed', this is a pretty good case for why 'rape' as the point where you draw the line is not going to work in practice. In this situation, the woman's incentivized to accuse their partner of rape, which would likely create drastically worse outcomes than an abortion.
    Rape exceptions are wildly irrational, to the point that it's legitimately infuriating when pro-lifers make them.

    Your premises are as follows, I presume (feel free to correct me, these are pretty standard);

    1> A fetus is a human life.
    2> Ending a human life without just cause is "wrong".
    3> Aborting a fetus ends a human life.
    C> Thus, abortion is wrong.

    Now, you say you want to allow exceptions for rape? The only premise that affects is #2; you're arguing that being the result of rape is "just cause" to abort.

    But it's still, in this structure, a human life. Can you freely kill a child who was conceived in rape when they're 5 years old? 30? Because the logic is identical to the rape exception.

    The only way it isn't is if you're going to tell me that obviously, a fetus isn't the same thing as a 5-year-old child or a 30-year-old adult human being.

    And if you tell me that, you've admitted you do not actually believe Premise #1 to be true. A fetus is not the same as any actual human life.

    And that's why this is infuriating. It's an explicit internal contradiction, which means you've either never put much thought into this and are just repeating bullshit rhetoric someone else fed you that you literally never thought critically about, or you're intentionally lying to me this whole time. In the case of the former, you shouldn't be engaging with discussion/debate unless you understand your own position, and in the case of the latter, you're engaging maliciously. And those are the two options. No third option.


  8. #7008
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Rape exceptions are wildly irrational, to the point that it's legitimately infuriating when pro-lifers make them.

    Your premises are as follows, I presume (feel free to correct me, these are pretty standard);

    1> A fetus is a human life.
    2> Ending a human life without just cause is "wrong".
    3> Aborting a fetus ends a human life.
    C> Thus, abortion is wrong.
    No, this is not correct.

    Abortion is in lieu of deprivation of resources. If we could remove a baby without killing it, we would, but we can't.

    Death by deprivation of resources is not ending a human life. It is failing to assist in the continuation of a human life.
    To use the Justin Bieber example, you're not killing Justin Bieber, but if he does not find assistance he will die. Key words: you're not killing Justin Bieber.
    The key issue is whether or not you are responsible for continuing Justin Bieber's life. You are not.

    If you're having consensual sex, knowing that a child can be the consequence of that sex, you are responsible for the children that come of it & you have an obligation to support them.
    This is not really contested either morally or legally; child negligence laws, child support, etc etc.
    The only thing we'd have to discuss at this point is whether that obligation begins at conception or at birth or at some other point.

    The distinction in the circumstance of rape is that the fetus is not, and never was, the responsibility of the woman because they did not voluntarily engage in the action that put it there.
    You do have Justin Bieber in your womb, and you can give him your liver or decide not to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    But it's still, in this structure, a human life. Can you freely kill a child who was conceived in rape when they're 5 years old? 30? Because the logic is identical to the rape exception.

    The only way it isn't is if you're going to tell me that obviously, a fetus isn't the same thing as a 5-year-old child or a 30-year-old adult human being.
    The difference between the fetus and the 5-year-old is that you've made a conscious decision to not abort & to not give the child up for adoption.

    Your 30 year old manchild can get a job and buy his own chicken tendies. You can 'abort' him as much as you like.
    If you are particularly bold, you could use a Shiny Ditto. Do keep in mind though, this will infuriate your opponents due to Ditto's beauty. Please do not use Shiny Ditto. You have been warned.

  9. #7009
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    79,843
    Quote Originally Posted by LilSaihah View Post
    No, this is not correct.

    Abortion is in lieu of deprivation of resources. If we could remove a baby without killing it, we would, but we can't.

    Death by deprivation of resources is not ending a human life. It is failing to assist in the continuation of a human life.
    To use the Justin Bieber example, you're not killing Justin Bieber, but if he does not find assistance he will die. Key words: you're not killing Justin Bieber.
    The key issue is whether or not you are responsible for continuing Justin Bieber's life. You are not.
    Cool. So denying resources to the fetus just lets it die, and neither the doctor hor the pregnant host is responsible. You've debunked your own argument.

    If you're having consensual sex, knowing that a child can be the consequence of that sex, you are responsible for the children that come of it & you have an obligation to support them.
    This is not really contested either morally or legally; child negligence laws, child support, etc etc.
    The only thing we'd have to discuss at this point is whether that obligation begins at conception or at birth or at some other point.
    It clearly begins at birth, because there is no child until birth. A fetus is owed no such obligations, and you've made no such argument to establish otherwise.

    You're predicating this on a legal standard that states you are wrong on the base facts. No one pays child support for a fetus or faces negligence charges while pregnant. Because there's no child.

    The distinction in the circumstance of rape is that the fetus is not, and never was, the responsibility of the woman because they did not voluntarily engage in the action that put it there.
    No such "responsibility" exists. It's an attack on women's rights, nothing more. This claim of yours has no basis; you're making it up based on nothing but an apparent desire to harm women for having non-procreative sex.

    The difference between the fetus and the 5-year-old is that you've made a conscious decision to not abort & to not give the child up for adoption.

    Your 30 year old manchild can get a job and buy his own chicken tendies. You can 'abort' him as much as you like.
    Well, now you're literally stating you don't think people fathered by rape are "people" and anyone can just kill them for funsies. Cool beans, but doesn't make you come off as reasonable.


  10. #7010
    Elemental Lord unfilteredJW's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    8,947
    Just seeing the phrase "conception is the consequence of sex" is such misogynistic bullshit.
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Their enemies are busy labeling people "shitheads," dodging all the tough arguments (to the extent they acknowledge contrary arguments existing), and going over all the prejudices that make them believe they're arguing with bad people.
    "Dodge tough questions" types the poster with people on ignore who he couldn't handle the tough questions of.

  11. #7011
    Old God Captain N's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Resident of Emerald City
    Posts
    10,997
    Quote Originally Posted by unfilteredJW View Post
    Just seeing the phrase "conception is the consequence of sex" is such misogynistic bullshit.
    Those are just words spoken by incels as if it's a woman's problem they can't get laid....so the desire...no need to punish them runs strong.
    “You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.”― Malcolm X

    I watch them fight and die in the name of freedom. They speak of liberty and justice, but for whom? -Ratonhnhaké:ton (Connor Kenway)

  12. #7012
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain N View Post
    Those are just words spoken by incels as if it's a woman's problem they can't get laid....so the desire...no need to punish them runs strong.
    There are many good reasons why women are more likely to stay single these days, and incels don't seem to understand the more they hate women the more they push them away.
    "My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility

    Prediction for the future

  13. #7013
    Herald of the Titans tehdang's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    2,550
    Quote Originally Posted by LilSaihah View Post
    Abortion is in lieu of deprivation of resources. If we could remove a baby without killing it, we would, but we can't.
    The fact of premature delivery and survival really represents a change in "remov[ing] a baby without killing it." That's when the second bodily autonomy, that of the baby, gets a little more force. That's not the mother's body, or some subservient organ like a liver, it's a human baby, and capable of independent survival.

    If you're having consensual sex, knowing that a child can be the consequence of that sex, you are responsible for the children that come of it & you have an obligation to support them.
    This is not really contested either morally or legally; child negligence laws, child support, etc etc.
    The only thing we'd have to discuss at this point is whether that obligation begins at conception or at birth or at some other point.
    In an extremely overgeneralized framework, there is implied responsibility. But the cases where it's failed birth control (let's pretend 7% or 10%) or a drunken encounter, I say the moral balance is a state or private org taking on the responsibility on the person's behalf after birth. Then the compassionate case on bad decision making makes possible a transfer of responsibility for the sake of the child, who in no way bears a moral burden for the poor choices of the conceiving parents. These are born out in safe surrender locations and welfare programs for parents of young children.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  14. #7014
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    79,843
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    The fact of premature delivery and survival really represents a change in "remov[ing] a baby without killing it." That's when the second bodily autonomy, that of the baby, gets a little more force. That's not the mother's body, or some subservient organ like a liver, it's a human baby, and capable of independent survival.
    And this argument is intellectually masturbatory. Viable fetuses that can be born healthy will be born healthy, rather than aborted, if the pregnancy needs to be ended. That's how medical ethics work, it's already the standard. Why is it pro-lifers constantly insist that doctors are without ethics and must have strict laws to control their actions, but only for abortion?

    In an extremely overgeneralized framework, there is implied responsibility.
    No, the entire concept of "responsibility" to unborn children derives directly from a religious view of women as reproductive tools for men. That their purpose is to be a walking womb and thus their only "responsibility" is to bear those children hale and hearty.

    It's misogyny through and through. If there's a "responsibility" to having sex and getting pregnant, that "responsibility" is entirely satisfied by getting an abortion to end that pregnancy.

    But the cases where it's failed birth control (let's pretend 7% or 10%) or a drunken encounter, I say the moral balance is a state or private org taking on the responsibility on the person's behalf after birth. Then the compassionate case on bad decision making makes possible a transfer of responsibility for the sake of the child, who in no way bears a moral burden for the poor choices of the conceiving parents. These are born out in safe surrender locations and welfare programs for parents of young children.
    You're having to tie yourself into weird rationalizations and pretzel logic because your core premises don't hold up and you won't just discard them to try and develop a rational moral viewpoint.


  15. #7015
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    That's not the mother's body, or some subservient organ like a liver, it's a human baby, and capable of independent survival.
    If what you mean by “independent survival” (a term that no one who has spent any time around infants would use to describe a baby) you mean simply being able to survive extraction from the uterus without assistance then there’s already pretty much no crossover with abortion outside of severe medical issues being present.

    If “independent survival” is your measure for when the fetus’ life should be taken into consideration (while still leaving room for medical emergencies) then you really shouldn’t have any issues with abortion.

  16. #7016
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    27,205
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    If what you mean by “independent survival” (a term that no one who has spent any time around infants would use to describe a baby) you mean simply being able to survive extraction from the uterus without assistance then there’s already pretty much no crossover with abortion outside of severe medical issues being present.

    If “independent survival” is your measure for when the fetus’ life should be taken into consideration (while still leaving room for medical emergencies) then you really shouldn’t have any issues with abortion.
    And quite honestly, if we were going by an actual "when the child can survive on its own" measure, "children" wouldn't be "people" until about 5-7. A toddler sure as hell can't survive on its own. A very intelligent 4-year old, maybe. And it's not like this hasn't been a measure used historically either. There's a reason there are a number of "naming ceremonies" and "coming of age" events in societies around the world somewhere between 5 and 13. Since historically infant mortality rates fairly high, and you could (almost)always have another.

    Talk about late term abortion.

    But really that is to say all the Conservative "metrics" about survival are just silly. Look if you want to argue "it's a person at conception" you've got some laws that are gonna be funky to apply to it, but at least it's a fairly straight-forward hard line. "It's a person, no exceptions; rape/incest/etc.. is shitty, but still a person." At least it's internally consistent. All this talk about fetal heartbeats, brain activity, "survivability" are just silly. Either it's a person, no exceptions; or it's "something else" and now we're just haggling over price.
    Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.

    Just, be kind.

  17. #7017
    https://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...w/71502425007/

    Right to Life, three Republican lawmakers and others filed a lawsuit Wednesday asking the federal courts to intervene and overturn a state constitutional amendment that protects abortion rights in Michigan that won wide support from voters one year ago.

    The filing in Michigan’s Western District court Wednesday came a day after Ohio voters passed a similar “reproductive freedom” ballot initiative enshrining abortion rights in its state constitution.

    The U.S. Supreme Court in June 2022 ruled abortion laws must be left up to the states, overturning a half-century of federal abortion protections and spurring Michigan voters to approve Proposal 3 in the November 2022 general election, adding the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy to Michigan's constitution.

    Wednesday's lawsuit argues the language approved by voters for inclusion in Michigan’s constitution creates a “super right” to reproductive freedom that conflicts with the First and Fourteenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution and with constitutional guarantees to a “Republican form of government.”

    The lawsuit asks for a permanent injunction stopping enforcement of Proposal 3, which is now written into state constitution as the "right to reproductive freedom."

    “At no time in our nation’s history has such a super-right, immune from all legislative action, ever been created by a popular vote outside of the checks and balances of a republican form of government,” the filing said.
    This seems like such an incredibly poor, and dishonest argument.

    Seems like Republicans are just incredibly upset that their political position on this topic is wildly unpopular, which is especially highlighted with Ohio's vote yesterday.

    Asked about the new lawsuit Wednesday morning, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, D-Royal Oak, jokingly responded, "good luck."

    “You can’t just keep challenging things when you don’t get the response you want," McMorrow added.
    This seems to generally be the current conservative legal philosophy: If you challenge things you don't like enough, regardless of if you have any basis for the challenge, you might get what you want eventually.

  18. #7018
    I'm telling you I love Republicans. They don't give a Bleep. Some issue voted on democratically or unpopular. Eff it! Let's try to overturn it and force our will on the people. Their evil is unbound.
    Democrats are the best! I will never ever question a Democrat again. I LOVE the Democrats!

  19. #7019
    Quote Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
    I'm telling you I love Republicans. They don't give a Bleep. Some issue voted on democratically or unpopular. Eff it! Let's try to overturn it and force our will on the people. Their evil is unbound.
    This is what happens when your party is a tyranny of the minority. Republicans are too beholden to their religious base, meaning they have to focus on the biggest single issue those single-issue voters animate on, even if that issue is majority unpopular and even broadly unpopular with their voters outside of that loud, violent minority.

  20. #7020
    Pandaren Monk masterhorus8's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    1,797
    I'd love to hear someone that actually believes in what that filling is claiming to argue how the freedom to do something is conflicting with the first amendment.
    10

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •