|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
posted June 19, 2020 08:48 AM |
|
|
|
Well, only a couple of people are so well-hung as your dad, so thats not an argument.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 19, 2020 09:26 AM |
|
|
fred79 said:
Still off-topic, but you can't always avoid pregnancy with contraceptives. I'm here because a condom broke.
Did that really happen? How did your parents react? Were you unwanted?
I'm just asking to satisfy my curiosity as I've never had the chance to meet a person being so sincere on the subject. You don't have to answer if you don't want to.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
bloodsucker
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 19, 2020 09:40 AM |
|
|
@Salamandre I'm with you, on the division between personal and social choices. In my life I've choose the personal responsibility, asked about it on referendum I voted yes, twice.
@Fred79 It happened to me at least that time.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 19, 2020 09:42 AM |
|
|
Blizzardboy said:
I'll leave you to write another flimsy polemic and then not respond.
Not everyone lives in the USA, and this off-topic crap isn't so interesting as to keep me awake past my bedtime.
Anyway - the polemics are all yours. Let me just quote you:
Quote:
As far as people who are more vulnerable and therefore perceived as less valuable and less human, that includes ethnic minorities, religious minorities, sexual minorities, people with disabilities, people with diseases, people who are unattractive looking - the list goes on and on- and at the bottom of the totem pole you have unborn infants (or, even more specifically, unborn black infants), because they are the easiest human person in the world for another person to abuse and murder and for it to be acceptable due to the deficiency of justice in our world.
Quote:
Still, abortion is definitely a subcategory of genocide, especially when it concerns disenfranchised ethnic groups that are nefariously pressured into using those services, allegedly to help lift them out of poverty (it doesn't work at all: it perpetuates the cycle of misery and single families because it provides men with an illegitimate exit at the expense of another human being's life).
Quote:
I really don't see your hang up with the brain. A 3-week-old infant has no concept of even object permanence, let alone a number of other things. I can get a fully grown elephant or chimpanzee or dolphin to do all sorts of cognitive tasks far, far better. In terms of brain development there's no thick red line between a born person and an unborn person.
Quote:
Why can't we kill 3-week-olds? Or 6-month-olds? What would be your subjective standard for when a human is allowed to be regarded as a human (since actually being a human in reality isn't the standard you want to use). I'm not trying to put you on a slippery slope, I'm just curious if you see a legal qualm with putting down an infant or a mentally disabled teenager to supposedly avoid an economic hardship.
Quote:
None of this is really so different from the issue of race and implicit bias in society and in the criminal justice system. It's just people deciding who is or isn't fully human based on arbitrary, artificially constructed standards that then create endless unintended negative consequences.
I think that you make your point rather clear - that a human fetus is a human being, that it's arbitrary to decide who's fully human and that you don't see that much of a difference between a fetus, a baby, and a mentally disabled person of whatever age.
However, the why of not putting down the latter, but the former via abortion is simply because the latter are "juristic persons", but a fetus is not. If a fetus WAS a juristic person, it couldn't be aborted. It's that simple. If you give a 90-year-old a deadly injection to end their pain, it's still murder, legally, because the 90-year-old is a human. If you kill your dog, it's fine, because it's not.
As long as you keep the non-person status for fetusses, you can have any abortion law you want, but as soon as you give them "human status", you can't. Because you cannot give something the same status than a human being, legally, and then immediately start to define differences, because that would just create precedence. "We defined the exceptions for the human being fetus, so we can define them for the human being nuisance of society".
That's just the legal side of it. In practise it would mean, that everyone could report a crime: "My wife got pregnant, but implied she didn't want it, and now that she lost it I fear she did it on purpose." Which would constitute a murder case. And if you find that too far-fetched, the pro-lifers are actually considering abortion murder, that would just make more of a case.
And your social reasoning is just ridiculous. By now, as you so avidly argue against police brutality, you should know that historically speaking no law, no ban, no punishment, not even religion has prohibited cases of unwanted pregnancy. And it was always the woman left with it. In some cases, yes, the father would have to stand up for it, in others he'd just vanish, and if he was rich he had all the options anyway. In all cases, it was the woman whose life was changed irrevocably.
Abortion is simply an option to change that. In order to teach men a lesson you force women AND prospective children into being the stick. Forcing the man to take resposibility may seem like something of an idea, but forcing two 17-year-olds AND a prospective child into this, especially when they are poor will end in desaster more often than not. which means, it's a crap idea.
What helps here is better education and schooling, not even more laws, based on crude philosophic coffeehouse reflections.
Technically, the whole discussion makes no sense to me. Say, you have a pregnant mother, 4th month or so, and say, she's decapitated in some accident, help being there immediately - although the fetus wasn't scratched, it will die as well. With all our technology available, we can't save it. However, if it's around week 24 or so, we can. Which seems to be an important difference, at least to me.
This is of course relative and may change in the future, but to me it translates into this: a fetus before week 24 (or 23) isn't sick or ill, when removed from the womb (or the womb ceases to work). It can be perfectly fine, no damage, everything in best order - but it will still die, with all the care in the world, no matter what. That means, for me, that it's something else than a human being, or better, not yet a full human being. It's something utterly and completely depending on its host, and can therefore not get "human status". Children don't have grown-up status - they ARE human beings, but cannot decide for themselves. Parents or legal guardians can do all kind of crap with them.
Fetusses before week 24 are just another sub-group, which utterly depend on the goodwill of their mom (as children do as well, just in a much more indirect way) - if that goodwill isn't there it doesn't make sense to enforce it in any way. After all, it's not that we'd be short on people - or on unwilling parents.
I do NOT think, that the decision to keep a child or not can ever be a rational one. It doesn't help to postpone sex - it's experience that one learns by, and whether you are 17 or 25 or 30 or 40 - it's gut (and heart) feeling.
Of course, education and rules add to it, guilt, shame, whatever, but in the end, when it really comes down to it, this is an INDIVIDUAL problem, not a social one.
If you want to seriously discuss this, feel free to use the appropriate thread or create a new one. And sign an NTG before that.
|
|
bloodsucker
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 19, 2020 10:03 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
If you give a 90-year-old a deadly injection to end their pain, it's still murder, legally, because the 90-year-old is a human. If you kill your dog, it's fine, because it's not.
I am with you. Euthanasia shouldn't be a crime, abandon your dog should. And I write this holding an hamburger in my Left hand...
Much more important right now. Who is feeding the dog? Do you think it's fair some inconvenience in the park may result in the loss of a dog's life? We must act now or a life might be lost.
____________
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 19, 2020 10:09 AM |
|
|
Stevie said:
fred79 said:
Still off-topic, but you can't always avoid pregnancy with contraceptives. I'm here because a condom broke.
Did that really happen? How did your parents react? Were you unwanted?
I'm just asking to satisfy my curiosity as I've never had the chance to meet a person being so sincere on the subject. You don't have to answer if you don't want to.
I wasn't planned, but my mom decided to have me anyway; much like my sister with my niece. My mom raised both me and my niece because that sister is a worthless snow. But that's another story, and even more off-topic. 
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 19, 2020 10:26 AM |
|
|
Your mom's great. Raising not one, but two unplanned kids. I can't imagine the effort and determination that went into that, turning a story about a "mistake" into an inspiring testimony of overcoming trials and pulling through for the greater good. Just, badass man. 
I hope your mom is appreciated for that.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 19, 2020 10:41 AM |
|
|
bloodsucker said:
JollyJoker said:
If you give a 90-year-old a deadly injection to end their pain, it's still murder, legally, because the 90-year-old is a human. If you kill your dog, it's fine, because it's not.
I am with you. Euthanasia shouldn't be a crime.
I didn't say anything about what the 90-year-old wants, though. Now, if you say, it doesn't matter, the Nazis didn't do anything wrong. If you say it does matter - try to ask a fetus what they want. Or a dog, for that matter. Which seems to define kind of another "difference".
|
|
bloodsucker
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 19, 2020 10:55 AM |
|
|
@Stevie
JollyJoker said:
I didn't say anything about what the 90-year-old wants, though. Now, if you say, it doesn't matter, the Nazis didn't do anything wrong. If you say it does matter - try to ask a fetus what they want. Or a dog, for that matter. Which seems to define kind of another "difference".
Yup, if I can/could sign the papers I have the right to it. It's my responsibility and it's my life.
About the dog, it's my responsibility but it's not my life. So I should be asked what I am doing. If I can't have a dog why did I got one?
But then, if I can't have a kid why did I got one? Does this makes abortion the moral cause?
The answer to the second is, as you all have guessed: Genitals!
____________
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 19, 2020 11:13 AM |
|
|
Stevie said:
Your mom's great. Raising not one, but two unplanned kids. I can't imagine the effort and determination that went into that, turning a story about a "mistake" into an inspiring testimony of overcoming trials and pulling through for the greater good. Just, badass man.
I hope your mom is appreciated for that.
Oh man, that's just a fraction of what she's done. I'll expand somewhere else.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 19, 2020 11:17 AM |
|
|
|
Since when is SECULAR law a question of moral?
|
|
bloodsucker
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 19, 2020 11:29 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Since when is SECULAR law a question of moral?
It's a filibustering. Just to divert the attention from the correct answer.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 19, 2020 12:06 PM |
|
|
Not at all. "Moral" is irrelevant.
Every (modern) society has a constitution, which is the legal guideline. All laws must be in line with that constitution. There are courts which decide that.
Since the constitution is rather broadly sketched, to determine whether a law is in line with it, often details must have to be cleared. In some parts of the world "suicide" is still a crime. Then there is "assisted suicide". Also a crime in many countries, but not so in others. And morally? You say, your decision. Religion says, a sin that will damn your soul eternally.
Which moral do you want to use?
Correct answer: none.
If you have a "good enough" reason to die, and this reason includes the fact that you can't even kill yourself without help, then punishing the assistent might not make much sense (although it may not be a matter of course either, each case needing proof that there is a serious death wish and no foul play).
Same with abortion. There is no universal moral in a secular complex society, so making laws based on moral makes no sense.
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted June 19, 2020 12:47 PM |
|
|
|
If everything was "morally justified" we wouldn't have conflicts.
|
|
bloodsucker
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 19, 2020 12:57 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Every (modern) society has a constitution, which is the legal guideline. All laws must be in line with that constitution. There are courts which decide that.
This is common ground, from here it isn't. We have Civil Law here, you have Common Law, the procedures to pass a law are different.
But I believe ethics comes in to play when proposing a law. It can be called on that, I think.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 19, 2020 01:21 PM |
|
|
Portugal hasa a constitutional court as well.
All laws have to be in line with the constitution. That doesn't mean, that the constitutional court is passing it - laws are generally passed by the parliament. However, any party may claim that a law is against the constitution, and eventually the constitutional court must rule.
There are also different books of law, civil right and criminal right. Criminal right is more or less about "crimes against society and their punishment" whereas civil right is meant to facilitate disputes between citizens.
ETHICS come into play, sure, but not decisively. For example, it's no crime to lie - even to the police. It's a crime only when under oath, and even then the crime isn't the lie, but the fact that you told the lie under oath, whereas it's clear that lying is unethical - although many will say there are exceptions to that rule.
So the question goes back. Is an abortion unethical, and if so, why?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 19, 2020 01:22 PM |
|
|
blob2 said:
If everything was "morally justified" we wouldn't have conflicts.
On the contrary, because "moral" is no absolute term or value.
|
|
bloodsucker
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 19, 2020 02:59 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
So the question goes back. Is an abortion unethical, and if so, why?
You can't trow that back to me... I was saying abortion is the ethical solution. You don't have the right to condemn a human being to an existence of misery just because you couldn't avoid creating him.
BTW. When I said "some inconvenience" I was assuming the point of view of the dog, not the bird-watcher.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 19, 2020 03:18 PM |
|
|
What are we discussing then? I'm pro choice as well. 
|
|
bloodsucker
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 19, 2020 03:40 PM |
|
|
And I'm not sure. I'm sure people adopting children for social benefits is something I'm against. Having them for it: 1. not sure how frequently it happens. I'm sure some would say is half of them and some would say it doesn't happen at all. As an outsider, I have no idea where is the true.
2. I don't see a way to legislate: YOU are so <insert word> WE ALL decided, YOU have no right to reproduce (at least in your current situation) but I'M open to suggestions.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
