General US Politics

[Lord Raven]

  

On 7/2/2022 at 8:57 PM, AnonymousSpeed said:

It's because we know that unborn people are people. Sorry guys. It really is that simple.

Do you believe in exceptions to receive an abortion? If so, what makes those lives worth less than a standard abortion?

That's why I don't buy the morality behind it. I agree life begins at conception, in the same way that when you water a seed and put it in soil, that is also the beginning of life. What I don't agree is that this life deserves priority over that of its host.

It is definitely not that simple and if you paid attention to any bit of conversation here, instead of acting like you're smart because you're a contrarian, then you'd understand that instead of saying "it really is that simple". If it were that simple, then you wouldn't have these "pro-life" congressman paying for multiple abortions either.

If you want the preservation of life, as well, you'll probably allow more abortions given that a lot of people who do not want these kids will either fuck up these kids' lives, take matters into their own hands and kill themselves too, or maybe the kid will be abandoned. Not everyone views this as a blessing, and the only times you hear about the people who genuinely wanted to make the best of their situation are solely advertised so you guys can keep saying "it really is that simple." In 5-10 years, I don't want my taxes to subsidize these red states who are going to be overpopulated and severely straining their social services, hence we should all suck it the fuck up about abortion regardless of your abstract moral qualms.

(and yes, they are ultimately abstract moral qualms. until you can hold a fetus in your arms, feed it, and care for it, it's abstract and i hope you are never in a position to have to make this decision. and many of these states are going for a "no exceptions" clause, which you are not on board with, so keep that in mind).

Quote

However, I have only ever seen abortion advocates say that abortion is a religious argument. I have never actually seen a pro-life person, no matter how religious, whether they were Catholic or Protestant or Muslim, say that abortions should be banned or regulated because they are against their religion.

What???? I've met *tons* of people who say this, both Christian and Muslim. Do you live in a bubble?

 

Quote

It's a pathetically transparent attempt to say "you're a bigot and your opinions are bad". I'm tired of seeing this trick, and you should feel bad for having such a thin playbook.

Your literal only argument is 

"It's because we know that unborn people are people. Sorry guys. It really is that simple."

When one tries to expand outside of this argument, you refuse to actually acknowledge those points. It's a thin playbook. You're just playing to emotions. "You believe in murder and your opinions are bad." That is your playbook. That is the right wing playbook. And yet abortions have gone on for a long time, hell around 25% of women in America get an abortion at some point in their life, but you're (presumably) a man sitting here saying it's as simple as "Unborn people are people. It really is that simple."

Come on. Give us a lot more. I brought up every single economic related argument and women's autonomy argument, and your only pushback is "they are people." They are not people. They are living, in the same way that the grass you step on outside your house, is living. We all have limits as well based on our personal moral compass (I don't like third trimester unless the woman is in danger, or the fetus is Charlie Kelly), but the literal only thing we agree on is that infanticide is wrong.

And based on that, the pro-choice argument is the only one that makes sense. Because it allows people to choose their actions, based on what's best for them and their family unit, since we have complete moral disagreements on what personhood is or isn't. This shit is emotionally charged because the right wing argument playbook is ridiculously thin and also entirely driven by emotion, ignoring the fact that 1/4 of the women around them have opted for it at some point in their lives.

 

You have yet to respond to the idea that places that began educating children on proper sex ed, safe sex, and provided contraceptives have seen their abortion rates decline. You only quoted a dude, didn't even link a source, and told me I was wrong, and I provided the CDC as evidence against you. Tryhard and I's argument both hinge on the fact that they force birth but provide no support for after the baby is born, even having the gall to say to put them into an adoption program (where kids have much worse options and are competing against other kids for adoption, mixed with the fact that most evangelicals adopt kids from outside the country, not inside of it). There are no alternatives proposed for the parents once pregnancy occurs and it removes complete agency from every single life involved in this pregnancy.

So what is the purpose of this? Hell, if it's just an opinion where personhood begins, as you claim, why are right wing states threatening extradition towards anyone who provides an abortion to one of their residents. Just to blindly enforce a doctrine on life? Blind adherence to a moral is a downfall to society, and failing to recognize what the actual outcomes of this are is why nobody actually has any good faith towards those that label themselves "pro-life." I don't know why you opt to make one or two line snarky responses to anyone who is pro-choice, over any actually detailed argument.

 

  

1 hour ago, indigoasis said:

I think you're right, but challenging yourself with civil arguments against others from time to time is good for the brain and can help you form your own conclusions on certain matters if you really take the time to think about it, so it's not like there's nothing to gain here. It could also be a colossal waste of time, but I have the time for that.

You have great intentions @indigoasis, but people have been telling me this since before the Trump presidency, and now we lost abortion protections, with them threatening gay marriage, anal intercourse, etc, next. Mixed with a Texas pastor saying to thousands of people -- receiving cheers -- because he said that gay people should be pushed against a wall and shot. Debates don't work on the people who need to take a look at their viewpoints, and right wingers just like to dictate their viewpoints instead of argue them, then pretend that's debate. The past 7 years has indicated this, and you can see the entire history of this thread to see even more examples of it.

Edited July 4, 2022 by Lord Raven

[Seafarer]

8 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Imagine if conjoined twins got to chose like that.

i'm glad you decided to deflect instead of engaging with my point. it definitely makes you seem like you have a rational, well-founded position in this argument.

(And to answer your "point": conjoined twins are an entirely separate moral issue, given their symbiotic nature, compared to the parasitic nature of pregnancy.)

Edited July 4, 2022 by Seafarer

[Leslie73]

The whole debate hinges on the issue of when personhood begins. It's usually framed as when "life" begins, but that doesn't make much sense: a skin cell is technically a form of life, and so are sperm and egg cells. Bacteria, moss, and flies are also forms of life, but we don't value their lives very much at all. So while it's true that "life" exists at the moment of conception, that says very little of actual relevance.

The question, rather, has to do with what makes life valuable in the first place. Why is it, for example, that we value the lives of dogs more than flies, and those of humans more than dogs? There are various reasons, but the main rational one has to do with the qualities they possess: generally speaking, the more sentient, the more conscious, and the more intelligent life is, the more we value it. That's generally why, say, plant life means very little to us, but the lives of animals (and especially humans) mean more.

If you apply this to the fetus, you'll see that it's perfectly reasonable and consistent to value its life less than that of a fully-formed human. This is especially true when it's only a zygote, or fertilized egg: at this stage, it's fundamentally no different than any other cell in the body and has basically no value according to the standards we typically apply. It's only gradually that it starts to develop human features in a way that most people would agree give life value.

Now, as this happens, it obviously becomes much more of a spectrum: most people find abortions fine in the first several weeks, but most will oppose third-trimester abortions, for example. It's not clear where exactly to draw the line, and that's a matter for public debate. But clearly it doesn't make much sense to prohibit all abortions from the moment of conception, and the only argument that really justifies this is a purely religious one: that conception is when the "soul" inhabits the being. 

I, however, don't believe that this is the case, and neither do plenty of religious people (Judaism, for example, isn't opposed to abortion). So I don't see why that particular religious reasoning should be binding on everyone.

[indigoasis]

23 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

You have great intentions @indigoasis, but people have been telling me this since before the Trump presidency, and now we lost abortion protections, with them threatening gay marriage, anal intercourse, etc, next. Mixed with a Texas pastor saying to thousands of people -- receiving cheers -- because he said that gay people should be pushed against a wall and shot. Debates don't work on the people who need to take a look at their viewpoints, and right wingers just like to dictate their viewpoints instead of argue them, then pretend that's debate. The past 7 years has indicated this, and you can see the entire history of this thread to see even more examples of it.

Man, that's messed up. All I can really think to say is how unfortunate it is that things have reached this state. It'd be awesome if everyone could be just a little more open-minded to see every side, but I know that's not how it works. I think sticking with your beliefs can be a good thing if those beliefs are just and right, unless your beliefs go too far, like... that.

At the very least, I do feel as though I've learned a fair bit from this thread myself, despite all the ups and downs. And I appreciate the compliment, if that's what it was intended to be; I try to stay positive.

[Shoblongoo]

@AnonymousSpeed

You're in a hospital. There's a fire. As you flee you pass a fully-formed newborn baby crying in its crib, and a tube rack containing ten (10) in vitro fertilized eggs developing into human embryos.

You can take one and only one with you as you flee. 

The baby in the crib will burn to death if you take the tube rack.
The 'unborn children' in the tube rack will burn to death if you take the baby.
___

Tell me the obvious non-sociopathic choice. Then admit that there is a difference. 
 

Edited July 5, 2022 by Shoblongoo

[Clear World]

On 7/4/2022 at 12:00 PM, Leslie73 said:

The whole debate hinges on the issue of when personhood begins.

That isn't what the debate hinges on. Most, if not all, aren't advocating to kill fetus because they aren't people. If you think that, then you don't understand what pro-choice side is actually advocating. You miss what pro-choice is actually about, and is already trapped in the right-wing talking point.

The debate hinges on how to weigh the fetus against the livelihood of the mother + family (which includes spouse(s), already existing kids, & fetus that may be birth).

The right-wing talking point is to completely ignore the mother + family. Fetus above all else, ignore what complications and/or personal tragedies going through with the pregnancy will most likely cause. They don't want to talk about the other aspect of this debate, because they don't want to offer any solutions to those issues.

Nearly all pro-choice is about trying to prevent a terrible situation from getting worst for the family (including the potential newborn). It's two awful options, but at least with the option of abortion, the mother + family could avoid a even worst situation/fate. The ideal situation would to reduce those terrible situations so the mother/family doesn't have to make the abortion choice at all, but due to America's general lack of health care, financial safety nets + support, and poor foster care system, the mother + family has to weigh if going through the pregnancy will result in the mother + family getting themselves into a terrible hole that they and potential future offspring made never climb out of if they go through a pregnancy, such as:

• Death or severe long-lasting health issues for the mother.
• Having to go through a 9 month period to give birth to a child that the mother had no say/choice in conceiving (a.k.a, rape)
• Gaining a massive debt they can't repay due to hospital bills and/or unable to physically work. Crippling the mother + family livelihood which can include already existing kids & the newborn.
• The pregnant woman is unable to attend school/college because she's pregnant thus harshly crippling her education which can & often severely limiting/capping what jobs are open for her to make a living and raise her children.
• If the mother was a single mother with kids and dies due to the pregnancy, this leaves kids with zero parental figures and stuck in a foster care system that doesn't get the financial support & resources to maintain the already hundred of thousands of kids already in it (many of which never find a new family), with roughly 1 out of 5 of them becoming homeless, 1 of 4 getting involved in criminal activities within 2 years after leaving foster care, 50% not even able to graduate out of high-school, .
• The time & energy commitment it takes to raise a newborn is a lot, and if they already any of those issues listed above, all the mother's + families issues becomes worst.

Edited July 5, 2022 by Clear World

[Shoblongoo]

40 minutes ago, Clear World said:

The debate hinges on how to weigh the fetus against the livelihood of the mother + family (which includes spouse(s), already existing kids, & fetus that may be birth).

^^^
This.

And on this point, it would better serve The Right's anti-abortion posturing than any of their current rhetoric for them to be:

• in favor of paid maternity leave
• in favor of universal daycare and pre-k
• in favor of national health service coverage of pre-natal care, delivery, and pediatrics. 
• in favor of living wage laws that include the cost of childcare
   

Because there are few things that come across as more deliberately wicked-minded than mandating that it is a woman's duty under-the-law to carry and deliver each and every single conceived pregnancy.

In a country where you've made it so that persons of average means have neither the ability to pay for someone else to watch their kids while they work, or the ability to cease working to watch their kids. 

Edited July 5, 2022 by Shoblongoo

[Seafarer]

7 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

@AnonymousSpeed

You're in a hospital. There's a fire. As you flee you pass a fully-formed newborn baby crying in its crib, and a tube rack containing ten (10) in vitro fertilized eggs developing into human embryos.

You can take one and only one with you as you flee. 

The baby in the crib will burn to death if you take the tube rack.
The 'unborn children' in the tube rack will burn to death if you take the baby.
___

Tell me the obvious non-sociopathic choice. Then admit that there is a difference. 
 

The counterargument to that is that being forced to choose between horrific outcomes isn't a fair representation of someone's morality in a situation where there is no such duress. I'd probably kill an aggressor to save an innocent's life, given no other choice; that doesn't mean that I don't understand that killing is wrong.

Obviously, your argument resonates strongly with those of us who don't ascribe personhood to blastocysts (because that makes the "correct" solution very obvious), but I don't think that someone who does choosing to save the baby is quite the gotcha that you think; they could make the case that they're just choosing from three terrible outcomes.

[Lord Raven]

14 minutes ago, Seafarer said:

Obviously, your argument resonates strongly with those of us who don't ascribe personhood to blastocysts (because that makes the "correct" solution very obvious), but I don't think that someone who does choosing to save the baby is quite the gotcha that you think; they could make the case that they're just choosing from three terrible outcomes.

Yes, but it's not really a disingenuous thought experiment. I don't think he's trying to do a gotcha btw, this is his way of putting his finger on the pulse. What would he do in theory?

The issue is that AnonymousSpeed (and a lot of pro-life) only functions in responding in gotchas.

Edited July 5, 2022 by Lord Raven

[Shoblongoo]

14 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Yes, but it's not really a disingenuous thought experiment. I don't think he's trying to do a gotcha btw, this is his way of putting his finger on the pulse. What would he do in theory?

The issue is that AnonymousSpeed (and a lot of pro-life) only functions in responding in gotchas.

Its an abortion-flavored variant of the trolley problem. 

Which is to say its a simplified framing of the moral issue. But it serves its purpose as a test of: "lets see if you really believe that."

 

14 hours ago, Seafarer said:

Obviously, your argument resonates strongly with those of us who don't ascribe personhood to blastocysts (because that makes the "correct" solution very obvious), but I don't think that someone who does choosing to save the baby is quite the gotcha that you think; they could make the case that they're just choosing from three terrible outcomes.

If the position to be defended is [life from conception] = [baby].

And the obvious moral imperative would be to save the baby and abandon the tube rack + that it would be unconscionable to leave a born child to die in a fire to save even 10 times as many 'unborn' lives.  

Then yes--the question is absolutely the 'gotcha' I think it is.

But 'gotcha' is such an ugly word.

Lets call it admission-against-interest. 

[Armchair General]

3 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

And the obvious moral imperative would be to save the baby and abandon the tube rack + that it would be unconscionable to leave a born child to die in a fire to save even 10 times as many 'unborn' lives.  

It ultimately depends on exactly what will happen to the tube rack, afterwards. For all we know, the excess heat could have already killed one or two of them; whereas we know that the newborn was still alive and would probably survive, afterwards

[Lord Raven]

4 hours ago, Armchair General said:

It ultimately depends on exactly what will happen to the tube rack, afterwards. For all we know, the excess heat could have already killed one or two of them; whereas we know that the newborn was still alive and would probably survive, afterwards

The nice thing about thought experiments is that you can make assumptions to factor these things. So if it's 8 fetuses vs 1 child, how much of a difference does it make to the thought experiment if it's 10 vs 1?

In fact, just factoring in that level of uncertainty is all the more reason why it works. You're uncertain that even after saving those fetuses they will be viable -- just as you're uncertain of the viability of any pregnancy until birth, essentially.

[Armchair General]

2 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

So if it's 8 fetuses vs 1 child, how much of a difference does it make to the thought experiment if it's 10 vs 1?

Because my main point is that it's an case of saving one life or try to save several without having any clue what will happen to them afterwards.

 

Alternatively, the infant eventually dies from smoke inhalation and all of the tubes that you saved will immediately be written off by the bureaucracy.

Edited July 6, 2022 by Armchair General

[Clear World]

Can you two like stop talking about saving babies over saving fetus. This is just being stuck on debating on the issue of when person-hood begins, which isn't that important about abortion. If you want an actual thought experiment, it would be more like this:

Using the Trolly Problem as a base to explain the situation, it would be, you have a trolly on a track heading towards a mother + family (which includes spouse, already existing kids, & fetus) that are tied to the track. The mother+family has access to a control that would cause the trolly to only hit the fetus, killing it. The mother+family might be able to absorb most of the trolly impact and survive, but they will certainly be all harmed with decade long crippling injuries. Due to the mother being at the front, she is in the most in danger and to feel most of the effects.

The Pro-Choice side is: This is a tough decision without a clear answer. Therefore, it would be best to let the mother+family decides what is the best call in this terrible situation. As the mother is the one in the most risk, she is the one who should get the largest say & the one who gets to press the button unless there are strong case otherwise like maybe, the mother is only 10 years old, in which case, maybe her parents might be the one who makes the final call.

The Pro-Life side is: Don't let the mother+family have access to the control. Because it is moral to not kill a fetus, we cannot let others have the option to kill a fetus (ignoring the fact that the trolly still might end up killing the fetus if the trolly harms the family).

Edited July 7, 2022 by Clear World

[Seafarer]

10 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

If the position to be defended is [life from conception] = [baby].

And the obvious moral imperative would be to save the baby and abandon the tube rack + that it would be unconscionable to leave a born child to die in a fire to save even 10 times as many 'unborn' lives.  

Then yes--the question is absolutely the 'gotcha' I think it is.

But 'gotcha' is such an ugly word.

Lets call it admission-against-interest. 

I don't think valuing a baby over embryos in an extreme situation is incompatible with believing abortion in general to be murder, though. (It is incompatible with opposing abortion where the mother's life is at risk, though, imo.)

It's like asking if you would prefer to save four elderly people who have lived full lives, or a primary school child. I think it's possible to relatively value different people's lives in extreme, no-win situations while also believing that they all have the same right to life. Heck, we would probably argue to do that if something goes wrong during a birth - the baby is viable, and coming out, but someone has to pick who to save or mother and baby will both die. Who do you value more?

That's why I think that that scenario is a pro-choice pat on the back, not an argument with merit.

[Armchair General]

1 hour ago, Clear World said:

Can you two like stop talking about saving babies over saving fetus. . This is just being stuck on debating on the issue of when person-hood begins, which isn't that important about abortion

No, because there's an fine line between being an growing mass of cells and consciousness.

 

1 hour ago, Clear World said:

Using the Trolly Problem as a base to explain the situation, it would be, you have a trolly on a track heading towards a mother + family (which includes spouse, already existing kids, & fetus) that are tied to the track. The mother+family has access to a control that would cause the trolly to only hit the fetus, killing it. The mother+family might be able to absorb most of the trolly impact and survive, but they will certainly be all harmed with decade long crippling injuries. Due to the mother being at the front, she is in the most in danger and to feel most of the effects

I'm not sure if holding an zero-sum argument would actually work, in this case. Because regardless of what happens, everyone is going to be crippled and you're kind of putting an lot of pressure on the fetus becoming the scapegoat.

An better example would be putting someone else in charge of junction for an runaway passenger train where the options are: An car with an heavily pregnant woman trapped inside it, directing it towards an railway crossing where an bus has also stalled on it or trying to derail the train at the cost of your own life.

[Lord Raven]

22 hours ago, Clear World said:

Can you two like stop talking about saving babies over saving fetus. This is just being stuck on debating on the issue of when person-hood begins, which isn't that important about abortion. If you want an actual thought experiment, it would be more like this:

Using the Trolly Problem as a base to explain the situation, it would be, you have a trolly on a track heading towards a mother + family (which includes spouse, already existing kids, & fetus) that are tied to the track. The mother+family has access to a control that would cause the trolly to only hit the fetus, killing it. The mother+family might be able to absorb most of the trolly impact and survive, but they will certainly be all harmed with decade long crippling injuries. Due to the mother being at the front, she is in the most in danger and to feel most of the effects.

The Pro-Choice side is: This is a tough decision without a clear answer. Therefore, it would be best to let the mother+family decides what is the best call in this terrible situation. As the mother is the one in the most risk, she is the one who should get the largest say & the one who gets to press the button unless there are strong case otherwise like maybe, the mother is only 10 years old, in which case, maybe her parents might be the one who makes the final call.

The Pro-Life side is: Don't let the mother+family have access to the control. Because it is moral to not kill a fetus, we cannot let others have the option to kill a fetus (ignoring the fact that the trolly still might end up killing the fetus if the trolly harms the family).

Or better yet the user we are actually asking a question to... Can come back and respond to stuff that isn't low hanging fruit to begin with. The entire reason we have this discussion now is because he refused to respond in a genuine manner.

 

This whole thing is pointless since we're all pro-choice anyway. Personhood is a red herring to abortion anyway, that's the only actual point that pro-life positions have to defend it.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Lord Raven

[eclipse]

Pro-choice means that the decision should be up to the mother, her circumstances, and her doctors.  I am personally pro-life, which means that I will not get an abortion without an extremely good reason.  However, my pro-life stance is only for me.  If another woman feels that abortion is the appropriate choice for her, then it's not my place to prevent her from doing so.

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

Pro-choice means that the decision should be up to the mother, her circumstances, and her doctors.  I am personally pro-life, which means that I will not get an abortion without an extremely good reason.  However, my pro-life stance is only for me.  If another woman feels that abortion is the appropriate choice for her, then it's not my place to prevent her from doing so.

That's how I feel about hard drugs (not joking).

[Zapp Branniglenn]

President Biden signs executive order protecting abortion access nationwide. 

[Lord Raven]

18 hours ago, Jotari said:

That's how I feel about hard drugs (not joking).

I feel the same to a certain extent, but I can't actually defend things like meth, heroin or crack, if you know what I mean. I think weed and psychedelics are fine.

 

But yeah the general concept is that your own personal standards and principles may lean much more conservative than what you're willing to defend. I find this happening to me a bunch in a lot of other ways. Nothing wrong with that at all.

[Armchair General]

4 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

President Biden signs executive order protecting abortion access nationwide. 

It's an step in the right direction, but I won't be surprised if it tanks; or it passes and an lot of people will be prosecuted, regardless.

 

And we also have an Texan representative trying to ban minors from having an social media account.

Edited July 8, 2022 by Armchair General

[Sunwoo]

I mean, the thing with a lot of political and religious stances is that you can generally believe what you want (with some exceptions, of course) but you don't have the right to impose it on anyone. People who don't like abortion can just not have an abortion. It shouldn't affect them whether some person they don't know somewhere in the same country has an abortion. And outlawing abortion isn't going to stop people from getting them. It'll just mean more people trying to get them illegally and unsafely, and possibly dying or fucking themselves over for life, and more people dying just from complications of birth if there's no exceptions for abortion ever. Legalizing abortion keeps it safe, I very much doubt it'll actually make abortion rates a lot lower.

Ultimately, my personal opinion on abortion matters very little compared to my belief that it should be legal because desperate people will find a way, and this will more than likely make death rates higher and ruin people's lives.

Honestly I don't understand why more people can't just basically accept that philosophy. That you don't have to like thing for it to still be legal, just don't do thing yourself. Not sure why anyone thinks having less freedom for people would ever be positive. It's incredibly selfish (and childish) to demand that the laws of and everyone in the country you live in conform to fit your own beliefs if those beliefs involve restricting the human rights of others.

[Armchair General]

1 hour ago, Sunwoo said:

Honestly I don't understand why more people can't just basically accept that philosophy.

Because lives are actually at stake, despite the fact that they don't have an claim in whoever's getting an abortion.

 

1 hour ago, Sunwoo said:

It's incredibly selfish (and childish) to demand that the laws of and everyone in the country you live in conform to fit your own beliefs if those beliefs involve restricting the human rights of others.

Whether we like it or not, you can't really separate an lawmaker's religion from their job. Granted, an lot of people across the globe are guilty of this, some more than others. But it's also incredibly difficult to find an candidate who's completely unbiased.

[Sunwoo]

8 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

Because lives are actually at stake, despite the fact that they don't have an claim in whoever's getting an abortion.

What are you even talking about?

8 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

Whether we like it or not, you can't really separate an lawmaker's religion from their job. Granted, an lot of people across the globe are guilty of this, some more than others. But it's also incredibly difficult to find an candidate who's completely unbiased.

If they can't separate their religion from their jobs, when their jobs require them to be a leader for all the people and not just who they agree with, then they shouldn't be running for that job in the first place.

One can't claim to love America and say that America is and/or should be a Christian state. The Founders put separation of church and state in the constitution for a reason, meaning even THEY didn't believe religion should dictate politics. Anyone who claims otherwise just doesn't like the concept of a government that doesn't cater to them 100%, which means they'll just have a hard time existing in society period.