• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Abortion

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
But if you don't recognize the heart of the issue there's no reasonable hope of solving it. And for most of them the heart of the issue is punishing sex they disapprove of.

I wish I knew; they exasperate me too. All I can suggest is that we try to meet them half-way -- treat their concern for the unborn as sincere and reasonable, don't accuse them of hating women, or wanting to punish sex.
The problem is it is impossible to solve a problem when you ignore the data. ...This isn't demonizing anyone, it is recognizing truth. It is putting all of the pieces to the puzzle together that provide us their motive. The movement is anti-sex.
How does making an issue of that help solve the problem? They are what they are.
They would be incapable of being negotiated with.
Explaining to them that the people they look down on look down on them too is going to make them want to change in order to earn our approval?
They don't want my approval. They want to legislate how people have sex.

We've seen it with the legislation they've past, the fake pregnancy support clinics, make up fake breast cancer threats, anti-gay movement, sex "education" programs, attempts to restrict access to contraception... it's all about putting sex in a box that only they get to open up and dole out. None of this is demonizing, out-of-context, or hyperbole.

Your plan is to work with these people, that lie to teens, pregnant women, and the general public. Not to get them upset. They aren't upset, they are obsessed with the power to rule over our sexuality. They are about to get a huge victory, bigger than Roe v Wade was for female freedom. And based on the draft text, that victory will expand, and there is absolutely nothing we can do but wait and hope Kavanaugh holds a kegger because SCOTUS can overturn any law they darn well please, and this court is showing they'll do exactly that.

Let me know how your collaboration goes with the movement that has not the slightest interest in what you think. They hold the reins to judicial power in the US. You think they'll give any of that up in a compromise?!
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,455
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
I wish I knew; they exasperate me too. All I can suggest is that we try to meet them half-way -- treat their concern for the unborn as sincere and reasonable, don't accuse them of hating women, or wanting to punish sex.
The problem is it is impossible to solve a problem when you ignore the data. ...This isn't demonizing anyone, it is recognizing truth. It is putting all of the pieces to the puzzle together that provide us their motive. The movement is anti-sex.
How does making an issue of that help solve the problem? They are what they are.
They would be incapable of being negotiated with.
Explaining to them that the people they look down on look down on them too is going to make them want to change in order to earn our approval?
They don't want my approval. They want to legislate how people have sex.
Yes, that was my point. Since they don't want your approval, how the bejesus do you figure that you telling them about the thing they're doing that you disapprove of is going to help solve the problem? You say "The problem is it is impossible to solve a problem when you ignore the data." Well, it's equally impossible to solve the problem when you make a stink about the data. So what makes you think you've produced a substantive argument for not ignoring the data? Go ahead and ignore the data -- the data is true, but it's useless to us.

Your plan is to work with these people
What? No! Working with these people is Rhea's plan, not mine. My plan is to say "Nice doggie" while backing away. My plan is to de-escalate as best we can, try not to rile them up, and try to get them so bored with the topic they stop voting single-issue on it. The only thing to be done to actually secure abortion rights in the next few years is to set up an off-shore network to mail women RU486 in unrecognizable envelopes from non-repeating return addresses.

Let me know how your collaboration goes with the movement that has not the slightest interest in what you think. They hold the reins to judicial power in the US. You think they'll give any of that up in a compromise?!
Let me know how screaming about how "they are obsessed with the power to rule over our sexuality" goes. Oh, never mind, we already know how that goes. Our side has been loudly proclaiming for decades that the pro-lifers don't care about life and only want to punish sex, and all we have to show for it is they've gone to a considerable effort to disprove the accusation, by getting rid of the rape/incest exception. Thanks a lot, guys. How the hell did you all think they were going to react to that unpleasant truth?
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I wish I knew; they exasperate me too. All I can suggest is that we try to meet them half-way -- treat their concern for the unborn as sincere and reasonable, don't accuse them of hating women, or wanting to punish sex.
The problem is it is impossible to solve a problem when you ignore the data. ...This isn't demonizing anyone, it is recognizing truth. It is putting all of the pieces to the puzzle together that provide us their motive. The movement is anti-sex.
How does making an issue of that help solve the problem? They are what they are.
They would be incapable of being negotiated with.
Explaining to them that the people they look down on look down on them too is going to make them want to change in order to earn our approval?
They don't want my approval. They want to legislate how people have sex.
Yes, that was my point. Since they don't want your approval, how the bejesus do you figure that you telling them about the thing they're doing that you disapprove of is going to help solve the problem?
Never said that it did. I voted for people that would help appoint judges that wouldn't overturn Roe v Wade or a legislative derivative of it. Instead two guys who didn't even win the popular vote won the right to undo Roe v Wade, among other things.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,264
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
No... you misunderstood? I said, I wouldn't be for any woman being forced to have abortions 'against their will' against their final decision!
Right - and since no one said this (women should be forced to have abortions) and no one is saying this and no group is advocating for it and no laws are being drafted to create the situation,

then your statement

ike the reason as you would say rightly, the manner of being forced against the will, to have an abortion (or for that matter, being psychologically persuaded to have one for some social political agenda), also...

is one or several of:

  • a deliberate false accusation to poison opinion
  • a deliberate false accusation as red herring to distract from your lack of argument
  • bearing false witness
  • Cultish delusion

  • Perhaps there is some other answer for why you would pose the question; that somehow explains that you know it is utterly untrue while still posing it multiple times. Enlighten us.


Ok, I see I have made a mistake here. Sorry about that. I meant to say, I wouldn't be for anyone being foced 'not to have an abortion' against the individuals will, when they've made up their minds. It should have reads as:

"liike the reason as you would say rightly, the manner of being forced against the will, to NOT have an abortion (or for that matter, being psychologically persuaded to have one for some social political agenda),"

Following on by the bit, (or for that matter,...). I'm saying here, I wouldn't be for any idividuals being forced to have an abortion either!

 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
No... you misunderstood? I said, I wouldn't be for any woman being forced to have abortions 'against their will' against their final decision!
Right - and since no one said this (women should be forced to have abortions) and no one is saying this and no group is advocating for it and no laws are being drafted to create the situation,

then your statement

ike the reason as you would say rightly, the manner of being forced against the will, to have an abortion (or for that matter, being psychologically persuaded to have one for some social political agenda), also...

is one or several of:

  • a deliberate false accusation to poison opinion
  • a deliberate false accusation as red herring to distract from your lack of argument
  • bearing false witness
  • Cultish delusion

  • Perhaps there is some other answer for why you would pose the question; that somehow explains that you know it is utterly untrue while still posing it multiple times. Enlighten us.


Ok, I see I have made a mistake here. Sorry about that. I meant to say, I wouldn't be for anyone being foced 'not to have an abortion' against the individuals will, when they've made up their minds. It should have reads as:

"liike the reason as you would say rightly, the manner of being forced against the will, to NOT have an abortion (or for that matter, being psychologically persuaded to have one for some social political agenda),"

Following on by the bit, (or for that matter,...). I'm saying here, I wouldn't be for any idividuals being forced to have an abortion either!
Why? For the mother's sake or just the fetus's?
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,264
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
No... you misunderstood? I said, I wouldn't be for any woman being forced to have abortions 'against their will' against their final decision!
Right - and since no one said this (women should be forced to have abortions) and no one is saying this and no group is advocating for it and no laws are being drafted to create the situation,

then your statement

ike the reason as you would say rightly, the manner of being forced against the will, to have an abortion (or for that matter, being psychologically persuaded to have one for some social political agenda), also...

is one or several of:

  • a deliberate false accusation to poison opinion
  • a deliberate false accusation as red herring to distract from your lack of argument
  • bearing false witness
  • Cultish delusion

  • Perhaps there is some other answer for why you would pose the question; that somehow explains that you know it is utterly untrue while still posing it multiple times. Enlighten us.


Ok, I see I have made a mistake here. Sorry about that. I meant to say, I wouldn't be for anyone being foced 'not to have an abortion' against the individuals will, when they've made up their minds. It should have reads as:

"liike the reason as you would say rightly, the manner of being forced against the will, to NOT have an abortion (or for that matter, being psychologically persuaded to have one for some social political agenda),"

Following on by the bit, (or for that matter,...). I'm saying here, I wouldn't be for any idividuals being forced to have an abortion either!
Why? For the mother's sake or just the fetus's?

You recognise the female as a mother, but the feus is "just a fetus".... that has a mother?

For the mother and her 'newborn child's sake, I'd say..
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,264
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
What can be done about the differences of views? Well, butting the fuck out of other people’s business might be a good starting point. Other people have their own views, and when those views relate to how they choose to use their own bodies, your dissenting view is utterly worthless and irrelevant, and your insistence in having any say whatsoever is vile and evil. Keep your opinions to yourself.

Charming. You have your opinion too at least Somewhat passionate, but fair enough, as you see it..
Yeah, my opinion is that people should be free to act on their own opinions with regards to their own bodies and their own private lives.
And who's arguing against that?


You bet your life I am fucking passionate about this; And you can shove your ‘charming’ up your hairy arse.

I would much rather that people expressed noble sentiments in crude language, than that they expressed evil sentiments in polite terms, and pretended that politeness is somehow an indication that their motives are no longer evil.

Seeking to strip people of their right to self-determination, in favour of compelling them to conform to your opinions, is the most vile thing I can easily imagine, and massively outweighs using a few profanities for emphasis as an indication of evil.

Utter tosh. Where do I actually say "strip people of their rights?" It does sound noble stating the obvious, the rights of individuals etc..


I sincerely hope that I have shocked you; Rest assured that my foul language is not even a fraction as shocking or as unpleasant as your sweetly expressed desire to control other people’s lives.

No not at all shocked. but I am hoping too, you're not going to be offended, and that you can 'take what you give' so to speak:

Your passion I meant previously (in a polite way), seems to me, you're being riled up from your pride.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,782
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
What can be done about the differences of views? Well, butting the fuck out of other people’s business might be a good starting point. Other people have their own views, and when those views relate to how they choose to use their own bodies, your dissenting view is utterly worthless and irrelevant, and your insistence in having any say whatsoever is vile and evil. Keep your opinions to yourself.

Charming. You have your opinion too at least Somewhat passionate, but fair enough, as you see it..
Yeah, my opinion is that people should be free to act on their own opinions with regards to their own bodies and their own private lives.
And who's arguing against that?


You bet your life I am fucking passionate about this; And you can shove your ‘charming’ up your hairy arse.

I would much rather that people expressed noble sentiments in crude language, than that they expressed evil sentiments in polite terms, and pretended that politeness is somehow an indication that their motives are no longer evil.

Seeking to strip people of their right to self-determination, in favour of compelling them to conform to your opinions, is the most vile thing I can easily imagine, and massively outweighs using a few profanities for emphasis as an indication of evil.

Utter tosh. Where do I actually say "strip people of their rights?" It does sound noble stating the obvious, the rights of individuals etc..


I sincerely hope that I have shocked you; Rest assured that my foul language is not even a fraction as shocking or as unpleasant as your sweetly expressed desire to control other people’s lives.

No not at all shocked. but I am hoping too, you're not going to be offended, and that you can 'take what you give' so to speak:

Your passion I meant previously (in a polite way), seems to me, you're being riled up from your pride.
Nah, I am just sick of your shit.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Well, those pro-lifers better get their butts into gear now that they'll be helping all those women that didn't want to be pregnant or have children... will be forced by the Government to endure the rest of pregnancy and have children.

I'm not expecting much follow through, of course, their moral stance is more bankrupt that Donald Trump's casinos.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,357
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Well, those pro-lifers better get their butts into gear now that they'll be helping all those women that didn't want to be pregnant or have children... will be forced by the Government to endure the rest of pregnancy and have children.

I'm not expecting much follow through, of course, their moral stance is more bankrupt that Donald Trump's casinos.
They will not do anything to help beyond a token available to those willing to be targeted for indoctrination.

They have had CENTURIES to demonstrate care for families resulting from accidental pregancy, and their efforts have been as insubstantial as a ghost.

It will be easy to see if the number of children in poverty rise, if the number of children in foster care rise, if the number of women in the workforce drops, if the number of children suffering abuse rises. It will be EASY to see if the “pro-life” people have any interest in the already born. But azgain, they have had 50 years to show their capacity for compassion of the born and to poor under Roe, and they have had centuries to show their capacity for compassion outside of it.

They told us who they are. I believe them.
 

prideandfall

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
2,107
Location
a drawer of inappropriate starches
Basic Beliefs
highly anti-religious agnostic

So what’s the approach then?
step 1: stop apologizing for being pro-choice.
this is both at the personal and national level, because basically every pro-choice advocate i've ever encountered is supremely sorry for being pro-choice and will instantly jump at the chance to make concessions about the terms and limits to abortion access.

step 2: change the cultural attitude of those who are pro-choice to stop being such cunts about it, ie: most pro-choice people i know shame women for getting abortions either expressly or implicitly.

step 3: use the power you have to influence the power you don't have. seriously, ya'll need to stop fucking men, until they get off their asses and make abortion legal.

step 4: stop arguing the abortion topic on their terms.
jesus fuck, stop arguing about when life starts - just look at this thread, over half of it was completely intellectually derailed by the obvious red herring or 'when is it a baby' which completely detracted from the actual discussion about abortion rights.
when life begins is irrelevant, because it's a goal post you can't shift with people who believe life begins at conception, so the only way that conversation can go is for the pro-choice person to cede ground.
the instant a sperm hits an egg, it's a person, ok? and killing it is justifiable homicide, the same way it's justifiable homicide to kill someone breaking into your house, or for a soldier to kill an enemy in a war, or a state to kill someone for a capital crime.
we as a society have dozens of reasons why it's OK to kill someone, abortion is just another one on that list.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,455
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
... stop arguing about when life starts - just look at this thread, over half of it was completely intellectually derailed by the obvious red herring or 'when is it a baby' which completely detracted from the actual discussion about abortion rights.
when life begins is irrelevant, because it's a goal post you can't shift with people who believe life begins at conception, so the only way that conversation can go is for the pro-choice person to cede ground.
the instant a sperm hits an egg, it's a person, ok? and killing it is justifiable homicide, the same way it's justifiable homicide to kill someone breaking into your house, or for a soldier to kill an enemy in a war, or a state to kill someone for a capital crime.
we as a society have dozens of reasons why it's OK to kill someone, abortion is just another one on that list.
Oh for the love of god. "The instant a sperm hits an egg, it's a person, ok?" is the pro-choice person ceding ground! You are proposing that we abandon an argument that's persuasive to 50% of the electorate and instead employ an argument that's persuasive to 5% of the electorate. The other 95% will perceive that burglars, enemy combatants and murderers tried to hurt us, and the unborn didn't. Are you bloody well trying to lose?!?
 

prideandfall

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
2,107
Location
a drawer of inappropriate starches
Basic Beliefs
highly anti-religious agnostic
Oh for the love of god. "The instant a sperm hits an egg, it's a person, ok?" is the pro-choice person ceding ground!
no, that conceding a point for the sake of argument. but zero ground is being given in terms of the ideology being espoused.
most people get trapped in a pointless round-and-round where the religious nutbag insists life begins at fertilization, the limp-wrist pro-choice advocate tries to argue against that, neither person budges whatsoever on the point, and nothing is accomplished even from a rhetorical perspective.

You are proposing that we abandon an argument that's persuasive to 50% of the electorate and instead employ an argument that's persuasive to 5% of the electorate. The other 95% will perceive that burglars, enemy combatants and murderers tried to hurt us, and the unborn didn't. Are you bloody well trying to lose?!?
what argument is it you think is persuasive here?
if you're pro-choice anyways then the question of when life begins doesn't matter (excepting that for many it seems to be an arbitrary cut off point where one is no longer pro choice), because it's not a factor in your being pro-choice otherwise.
if you're a forced-birther, the question of when life begins is irrelevant because you believe it's at conception and *nothing* will change your mind on that so arguing the issue is a complete waste of time.

the 'when does life begin' argument is meaningless for abortion rights, not one single person in the history of the human species was ever against the murder of an innocent child until someone said "oh well it's not a child yet until the 3rd trimester" and then totally changed their mind about murdering children and was OK with it.
that never happens. nobody is convinced by that. there is no persuasion being done with this line of argument, it's the appendix of intellectual discourse - it does nothing except get infected and then eventually explode.
 
Last edited:

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,812
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
... stop arguing about when life starts - just look at this thread, over half of it was completely intellectually derailed by the obvious red herring or 'when is it a baby' which completely detracted from the actual discussion about abortion rights.
when life begins is irrelevant, because it's a goal post you can't shift with people who believe life begins at conception, so the only way that conversation can go is for the pro-choice person to cede ground.
the instant a sperm hits an egg, it's a person, ok? and killing it is justifiable homicide, the same way it's justifiable homicide to kill someone breaking into your house, or for a soldier to kill an enemy in a war, or a state to kill someone for a capital crime.
we as a society have dozens of reasons why it's OK to kill someone, abortion is just another one on that list.
Oh for the love of god. "The instant a sperm hits an egg, it's a person, ok?" is the pro-choice person ceding ground! You are proposing that we abandon an argument that's persuasive to 50% of the electorate and instead employ an argument that's persuasive to 5% of the electorate. The other 95% will perceive that burglars, enemy combatants and murderers tried to hurt us, and the unborn didn't. Are you bloody well trying to lose?!?
And yet you didn't grok that calling oneself "pro-abortion" is dumb?
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,455
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Oh for the love of god. "The instant a sperm hits an egg, it's a person, ok?" is the pro-choice person ceding ground! You are proposing that we abandon an argument that's persuasive to 50% of the electorate and instead employ an argument that's persuasive to 5% of the electorate. The other 95% will perceive that burglars, enemy combatants and murderers tried to hurt us, and the unborn didn't. Are you bloody well trying to lose?!?
And yet you didn't grok that calling oneself "pro-abortion" is dumb?
How are you getting that? It's insisting on being called "pro-choice" and making a public show of rejecting the term "pro-abortion" that's dumb. It's just another piece of the old "I want abortion to be safe, legal and rare" saw. They're dumb for exactly the same reason p&f's strategy is dumb. Put yourself in the other guy's shoes. How do you think discourse like that sounds in the ears of pro-lifers? It sounds to them like an admission that the instant a sperm hits an egg, it's a person! If an embryo were really "just a clump of cells", why would we want getting rid of it to be rare? It's just handing the other side rhetorical ammunition for free, along with wiping away any cognitive dissonance they might have about ascribing personhood to unicellular organisms. "I don't need to check for flaws in my own position and take the other guy's argument seriously, because not even he believes it." is an ever-tempting reasoning trap. Don't help them fall into it.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
The term 'pro-abortion' is a red herring. To me, the fundamental aspect is whether the State has the right to intercede in the intimate life of a woman (and people in general). That requires legal access to abortion, but it is so much larger than just abortion, so pro-abortion is nothing but a red herring made to paint a broad civil rights position into a one solely about abortion.

As we saw with Justice Thomas, he wants to recriminalize gay sex and allow states to restrict access to birth control.

A woman shouldn't have to be married to get birth control. Women should be able to access birth control as a simple right. A woman shouldn't require a permission slip to see a OBGYN. A pregnancy test kit shouldn't have to be accompanied by a state official. A woman has rights to herself. That includes abortion, but goes well beyond it.
 

prideandfall

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
2,107
Location
a drawer of inappropriate starches
Basic Beliefs
highly anti-religious agnostic
How do you think discourse like that sounds in the ears of pro-lifers? It sounds to them like an admission that the instant a sperm hits an egg, it's a person!
so what exactly do you think the other side of that is?
forced birthers think that it's a human the second a sperm hits an egg, they already think that and they absolutely will not under any circumstances change their view on this, because to them it's an emotional choice predicated on a storybook - there is no argument you could ever make, no scientific fact or ethical point or biblical passage you could reference that will ever change their mind about when life starts.
so instead of debating the actual merits of bodily autonomy and medical rights, every discussion on abortion devolves into this stupid and pointless back-and-forth where we stop talking about abortion entirely and get into a theological game of "throw-a-brick-at-each-other's-face-and-see-who-passes-out-first".

how the fuck is that productive or helpful?
the delicate fee-fees of religious oppressors that you're so horribly concerned with are an immutable factor that will never change, so what difference does it make how the discourse sounds to them?
If an embryo were really "just a clump of cells", why would we want getting rid of it to be rare? It's just handing the other side rhetorical ammunition for free, along with wiping away any cognitive dissonance they might have about ascribing personhood to unicellular organisms. "I don't need to check for flaws in my own position and take the other guy's argument seriously, because not even he believes it." is an ever-tempting reasoning trap. Don't help them fall into it.
holy fuck you think religious people ever check their own position for flaws?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA seriously what is wrong with you? have you never spoken to another human being before?

arguing when life begins is ceding ground in the argument.
conceding the rhetorical point to move the conversation along to something that actually matters (ie, that abortion access is granted and you can't do fuck-all about it) is making actual progress.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,013
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
I just wanted to comment on "my body my choice"....

I think the baby is inside the woman's body but isn't part of their body. It is the baby's body.

Apparently in some abortions the baby is able to survive, at least for a while, outside of the womb. I think that makes the "my body my choice" argument even weaker.

Then there is the talk about abortion being a "right" - which I don't really follow.

On the other hand I don't really believe in "the right to life".
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,734
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I just wanted to comment on "my body my choice"....

I think the baby is inside the woman's body but isn't part of their body. It is the baby's body.

Apparently in some abortions the baby is able to survive, at least for a while, outside of the womb. I think that makes the "my body my choice" argument even weaker.

Then there is the talk about abortion being a "right" - which I don't really follow.

On the other hand I don't really believe in "the right to life".

If it were viable they would be doing a delivery, not an abortion.

In fatal fetal defect cases they sometimes induce labor--lower risk for her to deliver than to have an abortion, and in some cases it's deliver early or C-section at term. There are various things that won't interfere with survival in the womb but quickly kill once that protection is removed.

The "pro-life" crowd loves to make an issue out of hopeless cases where the doctors do the humane thing--nothing. If survival is impossible the attempt simply inflicts suffering (assuming there's a mind there that can perceive suffering) for no meaningful gain. If the lungs aren't adequate the baby slowly dies by lack of oxygen--that's why so many preemies at the edge of survival end up with serious damage.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I just wanted to comment on "my body my choice"....

I think the baby is inside the woman's body but isn't part of their body. It is the baby's body.
You still seem to agree that it is in the woman's body though.
Apparently in some abortions the baby is able to survive, at least for a while, outside of the womb. I think that makes the "my body my choice" argument even weaker.
Some abortions? Try just about none of them.
Then there is the talk about abortion being a "right" - which I don't really follow.
The whole self-autonomy thing... a woman having a right to her own existence.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,357
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
If an embryo were really "just a clump of cells", why would we want getting rid of it to be rare?
Because it is a medical procedure that costs time and money and has risks that, while much lower than childbirth are still higher than not being pregnant.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,013
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
Apparently in some abortions the baby is able to survive, at least for a while, outside of the womb. I think that makes the "my body my choice" argument even weaker.
Some abortions? Try just about none of them.
"Six states and the District of Columbia have no limit"
"no limit (Canada, some states in the United States, China, and North Korea)"
This might be outdated but it seems that some places allow abortions even when the foetus is "viable".
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,734
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
"no limit (Canada, some states in the United States, China, and North Korea)"
This might be outdated but it seems that some places allow abortions even when the foetus is "viable".
From a practical standpoint the US has always had a limit--nobody is going to do a third-trimester abortion for non-medical reasons.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,455
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
If an embryo were really "just a clump of cells", why would we want getting rid of it to be rare?
Because it is a medical procedure that costs time and money and has risks that, while much lower than childbirth are still higher than not being pregnant.
And that answer sounds perfectly reasonable in our ears. In their ears it sounds like a lame rationalization. There is no tactical benefit to using that discourse in debates.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
If an embryo were really "just a clump of cells", why would we want getting rid of it to be rare?
Because it is a medical procedure that costs time and money and has risks that, while much lower than childbirth are still higher than not being pregnant.
And that answer sounds perfectly reasonable in our ears. In their ears it sounds like a lame rationalization. There is no tactical benefit to using that discourse in debates.
Especially when they have already moved on to birth control and gay sex. I mean those that won't continue on making a formal ban nationwide. Which exposes the hollowness that is the anti-abortion movement. You still think this is about the fetus. You haven't been paying attention.

But please, continue to coddle the "pro-life" movement. I'm sure something will come from it. I mean yes, despite it being publicly supported by a plurality (or majority based on the question) abortion is now illegal (or effectively impossible) in several states in the US already, including mine. But please, remain atop that pedestal, searching for a common ground. I'm sure that woman in near hysterical tears in the bathroom, staring down the pregnancy test indicator is hopeful you'll have a breakthrough.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,107
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Morality seeks the best good and the least harm for everyone. In the question of abortion there are two interested parties, the baby and the mother. In Roe v. Wade, the Court made a reasonable decision. In the first trimester, the fetus is not yet developed enough to be considered a "person", that is, a thinking and feeling entity with an interest in its own life. In the third trimester, the baby has a stake in the outcome, because it can experience and suffer harm, and could, if delivered and cared for, survive outside the womb.

In practice, the CDC's Abortion Surveillance System FAQs indicate that nearly all abortions fall within the first trimester: "The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. "
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,812
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Morality seeks the best good and the least harm for everyone. In the question of abortion there are two interested parties, the baby and the mother. In Roe v. Wade, the Court made a reasonable decision. In the first trimester, the fetus is not yet developed enough to be considered a "person", that is, a thinking and feeling entity with an interest in its own life. In the third trimester, the baby has a stake in the outcome, because it can experience and suffer harm, and could, if delivered and cared for, survive outside the womb.

In practice, the CDC's Abortion Surveillance System FAQs indicate that nearly all abortions fall within the first trimester: "The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. "
And the numbers would be more heavily skewed to ≤ 13wk if it was not so damn difficult in some places to get it arranged within 13 weeks.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,734
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Morality seeks the best good and the least harm for everyone. In the question of abortion there are two interested parties, the baby and the mother. In Roe v. Wade, the Court made a reasonable decision. In the first trimester, the fetus is not yet developed enough to be considered a "person", that is, a thinking and feeling entity with an interest in its own life. In the third trimester, the baby has a stake in the outcome, because it can experience and suffer harm, and could, if delivered and cared for, survive outside the womb.

In practice, the CDC's Abortion Surveillance System FAQs indicate that nearly all abortions fall within the first trimester: "The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. "
Disagree--either it's a person (and abortion should only be permitted in situations that would justify deadly force in self defense) or it's not a person (and thus compelling reasons to force her to carry.) There's no middle ground to warrant the middle ground they created for the second trimester. Age cutoff, yes, restrictions within an age, no.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,107
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Morality seeks the best good and the least harm for everyone. In the question of abortion there are two interested parties, the baby and the mother. In Roe v. Wade, the Court made a reasonable decision. In the first trimester, the fetus is not yet developed enough to be considered a "person", that is, a thinking and feeling entity with an interest in its own life. In the third trimester, the baby has a stake in the outcome, because it can experience and suffer harm, and could, if delivered and cared for, survive outside the womb.

In practice, the CDC's Abortion Surveillance System FAQs indicate that nearly all abortions fall within the first trimester: "The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. "
Disagree--either it's a person (and abortion should only be permitted in situations that would justify deadly force in self defense) or it's not a person (and thus compelling reasons to force her to carry.) There's no middle ground to warrant the middle ground they created for the second trimester. Age cutoff, yes, restrictions within an age, no.

I'm not sure that I follow what you're saying. You seem to be agreeing with the age cutoff at the end of the first trimester. I agree with that as well, on the ground that the fetus cannot reasonably be called a "person" at that point. I've heard it suggested that it is a "potential" person, but then so is every sperm and every egg.

In the second trimester, even if the fetus is considered a person, it is much less of a person than the woman carrying it. Her right to satisfy her desire to cease carrying it, for whatever her personal reasons, is respected by Roe.

It is only in the third trimester that the infant's stake in the game becomes significant, but even then the mother's health takes precedence over the baby's life.

It is only after birth that it is considered a citizen with a right to life that is equal to that of the mother.

Roe seems a well-reasoned compromise solution to the moral issue.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Morality seeks the best good and the least harm for everyone. In the question of abortion there are two interested parties, the baby and the mother. In Roe v. Wade, the Court made a reasonable decision. In the first trimester, the fetus is not yet developed enough to be considered a "person", that is, a thinking and feeling entity with an interest in its own life. In the third trimester, the baby has a stake in the outcome, because it can experience and suffer harm, and could, if delivered and cared for, survive outside the womb.

In practice, the CDC's Abortion Surveillance System FAQs indicate that nearly all abortions fall within the first trimester: "The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. "
Disagree--either it's a person (and abortion should only be permitted in situations that would justify deadly force in self defense) or it's not a person (and thus compelling reasons to force her to carry.) There's no middle ground to warrant the middle ground they created for the second trimester. Age cutoff, yes, restrictions within an age, no.
Or we treat it like a fetus and, like adults, we try to come to a reasonable conclusion about the limits for abortion.

This is real life, not some mythical fantasy world where everything is binary. A fetus is developing into a functional baby human being, there are no hard deadlines. The question is at what point of development does it cross a transition line into being more baby than undeveloped fetus that can't be told from other mammalian fetuses. That is of course, when we also weigh in the self-autonomy of the woman and the State's interests to even be allowed to butt into her uterus.

So yes, it is arbitrary. Like age of consent, right to vote, drinking age, working age, when people are allowed to serve in the military. So much of our civilization and legal code is arbitrary. What matters is that it is applied equally, and preferably with compassion.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,455
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
But please, continue to coddle the "pro-life" movement. I'm sure something will come from it.
How's the whole confront-them-with-inflammatory-accusations-at-every-opportunity approach working out for you? If nothing comes of coddling them, that will be an improvement on the current trajectory.

But please, remain atop that pedestal, searching for a common ground.
Where the bejesus do you see me searching for common ground? I'm searching for an approach that will incline them to refocus their attention on stuff that actually affects their lives.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,734
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Morality seeks the best good and the least harm for everyone. In the question of abortion there are two interested parties, the baby and the mother. In Roe v. Wade, the Court made a reasonable decision. In the first trimester, the fetus is not yet developed enough to be considered a "person", that is, a thinking and feeling entity with an interest in its own life. In the third trimester, the baby has a stake in the outcome, because it can experience and suffer harm, and could, if delivered and cared for, survive outside the womb.

In practice, the CDC's Abortion Surveillance System FAQs indicate that nearly all abortions fall within the first trimester: "The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. "
Disagree--either it's a person (and abortion should only be permitted in situations that would justify deadly force in self defense) or it's not a person (and thus compelling reasons to force her to carry.) There's no middle ground to warrant the middle ground they created for the second trimester. Age cutoff, yes, restrictions within an age, no.

I'm not sure that I follow what you're saying. You seem to be agreeing with the age cutoff at the end of the first trimester. I agree with that as well, on the ground that the fetus cannot reasonably be called a "person" at that point. I've heard it suggested that it is a "potential" person, but then so is every sperm and every egg.

I'm not attempting to address where the line is.

In the second trimester, even if the fetus is considered a person, it is much less of a person than the woman carrying it. Her right to satisfy her desire to cease carrying it, for whatever her personal reasons, is respected by Roe.

Disagree-if it's a person then abortion should be limited to cases that would be considered justifiable homicide. (Note, however, that I do not think it's a person in the second trimester.)

It is only in the third trimester that the infant's stake in the game becomes significant, but even then the mother's health takes precedence over the baby's life.

As far as I'm concerned the court is playing doctor in setting the age thresholds. That's a medical call, not a legal call.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,107
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Morality seeks the best good and the least harm for everyone. In the question of abortion there are two interested parties, the baby and the mother. In Roe v. Wade, the Court made a reasonable decision. In the first trimester, the fetus is not yet developed enough to be considered a "person", that is, a thinking and feeling entity with an interest in its own life. In the third trimester, the baby has a stake in the outcome, because it can experience and suffer harm, and could, if delivered and cared for, survive outside the womb.

In practice, the CDC's Abortion Surveillance System FAQs indicate that nearly all abortions fall within the first trimester: "The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. "
Disagree--either it's a person (and abortion should only be permitted in situations that would justify deadly force in self defense) or it's not a person (and thus compelling reasons to force her to carry.) There's no middle ground to warrant the middle ground they created for the second trimester. Age cutoff, yes, restrictions within an age, no.

I'm not sure that I follow what you're saying. You seem to be agreeing with the age cutoff at the end of the first trimester. I agree with that as well, on the ground that the fetus cannot reasonably be called a "person" at that point. I've heard it suggested that it is a "potential" person, but then so is every sperm and every egg.

I'm not attempting to address where the line is.

In the second trimester, even if the fetus is considered a person, it is much less of a person than the woman carrying it. Her right to satisfy her desire to cease carrying it, for whatever her personal reasons, is respected by Roe.

Disagree-if it's a person then abortion should be limited to cases that would be considered justifiable homicide. (Note, however, that I do not think it's a person in the second trimester.)

It is only in the third trimester that the infant's stake in the game becomes significant, but even then the mother's health takes precedence over the baby's life.

As far as I'm concerned the court is playing doctor in setting the age thresholds. That's a medical call, not a legal call.
I think the "justifiable homicide" question is a matter of moral and legal justification. Abortion has essentially been considered a justifiable homicide up to a certain point in development. Whether it is in a legal court or a matter of conscience, the question is when the destruction of the fetus can be justified.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,455
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Morality seeks the best good and the least harm for everyone. In the question of abortion there are two interested parties, the baby and the mother. In Roe v. Wade, the Court made a reasonable decision. In the first trimester, the fetus is not yet developed enough to be considered a "person", that is, a thinking and feeling entity with an interest in its own life. In the third trimester, the baby has a stake in the outcome, because it can experience and suffer harm, and could, if delivered and cared for, survive outside the womb.

In practice, the CDC's Abortion Surveillance System FAQs indicate that nearly all abortions fall within the first trimester: "The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. "
Disagree--either it's a person (and abortion should only be permitted in situations that would justify deadly force in self defense) or it's not a person (and thus compelling reasons to force her to carry.) There's no middle ground to warrant the middle ground they created for the second trimester. Age cutoff, yes, restrictions within an age, no.
It sounds like you're assuming permitting the second trimester restrictions was for the sake of some sort of consideration of the fetus's increasing interests. That's not what Roe v Wade said.

From the second trimester on, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother's health gave states a compelling interest that allowed them to enact medical regulations on abortion procedures so long as they were reasonable and "narrowly tailored" to protecting mothers' health.​
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,734
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Morality seeks the best good and the least harm for everyone. In the question of abortion there are two interested parties, the baby and the mother. In Roe v. Wade, the Court made a reasonable decision. In the first trimester, the fetus is not yet developed enough to be considered a "person", that is, a thinking and feeling entity with an interest in its own life. In the third trimester, the baby has a stake in the outcome, because it can experience and suffer harm, and could, if delivered and cared for, survive outside the womb.

In practice, the CDC's Abortion Surveillance System FAQs indicate that nearly all abortions fall within the first trimester: "The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. "
Disagree--either it's a person (and abortion should only be permitted in situations that would justify deadly force in self defense) or it's not a person (and thus compelling reasons to force her to carry.) There's no middle ground to warrant the middle ground they created for the second trimester. Age cutoff, yes, restrictions within an age, no.
It sounds like you're assuming permitting the second trimester restrictions was for the sake of some sort of consideration of the fetus's increasing interests. That's not what Roe v Wade said.

From the second trimester on, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother's health gave states a compelling interest that allowed them to enact medical regulations on abortion procedures so long as they were reasonable and "narrowly tailored" to protecting mothers' health.​
I'm objecting to them creating a middle ground here. It's binary--either the fetus is a person or it isn't. Before that threshold this is simply a medical issue that should be handled by the medical board.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,107
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
I'm objecting to them creating a middle ground here. It's binary--either the fetus is a person or it isn't. Before that threshold this is simply a medical issue that should be handled by the medical board.

The problem is that conception produces a one celled organism that cannot reasonably be called a person. The cell splits and each part doubles. But it is hard to call 24 or 48 or 96 cells a person. Basically the DNA is building the structure that will eventually be inhabited by a person, but the structure isn't exactly a person either. A person is aware of itself and its environment. A person can suffer pain. But for a fetus this is usually after at least 26 weeks or later. Here's a FactCheck.org article: "Does a Fetus Feel Pain at 20 Weeks?"
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,656
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
I'm objecting to them creating a middle ground here. It's binary--either the fetus is a person or it isn't. Before that threshold this is simply a medical issue that should be handled by the medical board.

The problem is that conception produces a one celled organism that cannot reasonably be called a person. The cell splits and each part doubles. But it is hard to call 24 or 48 or 96 cells a person. Basically the DNA is building the structure that will eventually be inhabited by a person, but the structure isn't exactly a person either. A person is aware of itself and its environment. A person can suffer pain. But for a fetus this is usually after at least 26 weeks or later. Here's a FactCheck.org article: "Does a Fetus Feel Pain at 20 Weeks?"
Two of the words I avoid in this discussion are "person" and "murder".

Both are too subjective. People are too prone to using the words in vague, colloquial, ways. Ways more inclined to support their ideology or world view.

Person usually means "human being I care about". Murder usually means "killing of humans that I do not approve happening". Rather vague and subjective, so I stick to "human being" and "killing" because those are more objective terms.
Tom
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,782
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
I'm objecting to them creating a middle ground here. It's binary--either the fetus is a person or it isn't. Before that threshold this is simply a medical issue that should be handled by the medical board.

The problem is that conception produces a one celled organism that cannot reasonably be called a person. The cell splits and each part doubles. But it is hard to call 24 or 48 or 96 cells a person. Basically the DNA is building the structure that will eventually be inhabited by a person, but the structure isn't exactly a person either. A person is aware of itself and its environment. A person can suffer pain. But for a fetus this is usually after at least 26 weeks or later. Here's a FactCheck.org article: "Does a Fetus Feel Pain at 20 Weeks?"
Two of the words I avoid in this discussion are "person" and "murder".

Both are too subjective. People are too prone to using the words in vague, colloquial, ways. Ways more inclined to support their ideology or world view.

Person usually means "human being I care about". Murder usually means "killing of humans that I do not approve happening". Rather vague and subjective, so I stick to "human being" and "killing" because those are more objective terms.
Tom
“Human being” usually means “individual with self awareness and agency”, but you, very subjectively, extend the meaning to include collections of cells that have neither - and indeed that it is dubious to even assign individuality (you cannot tell how many individuals will result from a fertilised ovum, with zero, one and two all being common, and three or more not unheard of. It’s passing strange to refer to identical twins as ‘an individual’).

“Killing” might be less emotive than “murder”, but both are emotionally charged words; Technically you are “killing human life” if you have a mole removed, but to refer to this as “killing” would be ridiculously emotive.

It looks to me like you are using these words to support your ideology or world view, and that your claim to objectivity is nonsense; and I think that you are deeply hypocritical to complain that others do likewise with different words.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,812
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I'm objecting to them creating a middle ground here. It's binary--either the fetus is a person or it isn't. Before that threshold this is simply a medical issue that should be handled by the medical board.

The problem is that conception produces a one celled organism that cannot reasonably be called a person. The cell splits and each part doubles. But it is hard to call 24 or 48 or 96 cells a person. Basically the DNA is building the structure that will eventually be inhabited by a person, but the structure isn't exactly a person either. A person is aware of itself and its environment. A person can suffer pain. But for a fetus this is usually after at least 26 weeks or later. Here's a FactCheck.org article: "Does a Fetus Feel Pain at 20 Weeks?"
Two of the words I avoid in this discussion are "person" and "murder".

Both are too subjective. People are too prone to using the words in vague, colloquial, ways. Ways more inclined to support their ideology or world view.

Person usually means "human being I care about". Murder usually means "killing of humans that I do not approve happening". Rather vague and subjective, so I stick to "human being" and "killing" because those are more objective terms.
Tom
“Human being” usually means “individual with self awareness and agency”, but you, very subjectively, extend the meaning to include collections of cells that have neither - and indeed that it is dubious to even assign individuality (you cannot tell how many individuals will result from a fertilised ovum, with zero, one and two all being common, and three or more not unheard of. It’s passing strange to refer to identical twins as ‘an individual’).

“Killing” might be less emotive than “murder”, but both are emotionally charged words; Technically you are “killing human life” if you have a mole removed, but to refer to this as “killing” would be ridiculously emotive.

It looks to me like you are using these words to support your ideology or world view, and that your claim to objectivity is nonsense; and I think that you are deeply hypocritical to complain that others do likewise with different words.
And I think neither killing nor murder applies. Stopping doing something that is keeping something alive is not killing it, it is letting it die. There is a substantive difference between a death resulting from a revocation of "mercy" in unplugging a 'vegetable', and injecting someone with a cocktail that will kill them.

And even then not all killings are unethical.

Abortions are not necessarily "killings" for this reason, though, and we can dispense with the connotations that brings. They DO necessarily lead to a death, but the death is not generally the goal.

The removal is the goal, and the death is secondary to that.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,455
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
“Killing” might be less emotive than “murder”, but both are emotionally charged words; Technically you are “killing human life” if you have a mole removed, but to refer to this as “killing” would be ridiculously emotive.
And I think neither killing nor murder applies. Stopping doing something that is keeping something alive is not killing it, it is letting it die. There is a substantive difference between a death resulting from a revocation of "mercy" in unplugging a 'vegetable', and injecting someone with a cocktail that will kill them.

And even then not all killings are unethical.

Abortions are not necessarily "killings" for this reason, though, and we can dispense with the connotations that brings. They DO necessarily lead to a death, but the death is not generally the goal.

The removal is the goal, and the death is secondary to that.
This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,812
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
“Killing” might be less emotive than “murder”, but both are emotionally charged words; Technically you are “killing human life” if you have a mole removed, but to refer to this as “killing” would be ridiculously emotive.
And I think neither killing nor murder applies. Stopping doing something that is keeping something alive is not killing it, it is letting it die. There is a substantive difference between a death resulting from a revocation of "mercy" in unplugging a 'vegetable', and injecting someone with a cocktail that will kill them.

And even then not all killings are unethical.

Abortions are not necessarily "killings" for this reason, though, and we can dispense with the connotations that brings. They DO necessarily lead to a death, but the death is not generally the goal.

The removal is the goal, and the death is secondary to that.
This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.
As I remind, even then not all killings are unethical.

Killings asked for, for instance by the one being killed.

In some respects this is what delineates whether some thing may be killed or even ought: when the thing is dying and asks you to, and when the thing has been removed from it's environment such that it will die, and lay in a falling problem absent a mind, or which cannot be removed from where it is safely in any other way than to effect it's death in the self defense of the host.

Or, in the case of obligate parasites which have no niche and cause inordinate damage through disease, controlling them and managing them.

But letting something die is generally much less fraught insofar as once something is let to die under its own power, it can and often should be killed, especially if it can think. you don't need to ask consent if something that can feel pain and that is going to die in the order of minutes in a painful way is to be killed.

The assumption, crass as it is, is that we ought always fail faster if we are to fail. I don't really see pregnancy as any different.

Failure here should not be something that is judged against.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,107
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.

A woman at our church decided to use that slower routine, where you stop eating for a few days and then stop drinking. According to her grandchildren she died peacefully surrounded by family, and did so on her own terms.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,656
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Two of the words I avoid in this discussion are "person" and "murder".

But you use feticide and infanticide.

Why?
Because those words are much more objective and precise. They're both subsets of homicide.

As opposed, for instance, to the word "murder". There are legal meanings for the word. But they are highly subjective. And the usual meaning, colloquially, is "killings that I disapprove of". I considered the invasion of Iraq a mass murder. The law and most Americans did not.
Tom
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,734
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.

A woman at our church decided to use that slower routine, where you stop eating for a few days and then stop drinking. According to her grandchildren she died peacefully surrounded by family, and did so on her own terms.
But you still suffer, just not as much. The countries that have legalized it don't seem to have a problem despite occasional misrepresentations by religious people.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,812
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.

A woman at our church decided to use that slower routine, where you stop eating for a few days and then stop drinking. According to her grandchildren she died peacefully surrounded by family, and did so on her own terms.
But you still suffer, just not as much. The countries that have legalized it don't seem to have a problem despite occasional misrepresentations by religious people.
Which is again why things like "killing" hinge on consent.

There are consensual killings, killings done in the course of self defense, and nonconsensual killings.

There are no consensual homicides, though "accidental killings" of humans are accidental homicides.

Killings in the course of self defense are 'justifiable' homicide though I dislike that term. I don't think it's really justified.

Killings done not accidentally and not as the only available recourse in self defense, and without consent are "murders".
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.

A woman at our church decided to use that slower routine, where you stop eating for a few days and then stop drinking. According to her grandchildren she died peacefully surrounded by family, and did so on her own terms.
I am just befuddled about how ignorant this statement is. Just don't eat or drink, easy peasy death.
 

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
1,107
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.

A woman at our church decided to use that slower routine, where you stop eating for a few days and then stop drinking. According to her grandchildren she died peacefully surrounded by family, and did so on her own terms.
I am just befuddled about how ignorant this statement is. Just don't eat or drink, easy peasy death.
I wasn't there. But her grandson was. I have no clue as to how easy or difficult it was for her. But it was what she wanted, and what she was willing to do to exit gracefully.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.

A woman at our church decided to use that slower routine, where you stop eating for a few days and then stop drinking. According to her grandchildren she died peacefully surrounded by family, and did so on her own terms.
I am just befuddled about how ignorant this statement is. Just don't eat or drink, easy peasy death.
I wasn't there. But her grandson was. I have no clue as to how easy or difficult it was for her. But it was what she wanted, and what she was willing to do to exit gracefully.
Death in America is rarely ever simple, and sure the heck isn't humane. Choosing not to eat and drink isn't a path to simple passage.
 
Top Bottom