Phatose on 8/6/2009 at 01:12
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Its not that simple but that doesn't make the "no abortion" crew, right. I'm primarily disagreeing with people like Displacer who are just ignorant on all aspects of the subject. Of course there shouldn't just be carte blanche to abort whenever for whatever, but similarly there shouldn't be the opposite.
Oh, absolutely. I'm not claiming they're right, I don't think they're right and I've been trying real hard to make that clear. I've been arguing against the claim that the rights of the mother to her body are carte blanche to abort whenever - that's really all I'm against here.
Quote Posted by Starrfall
As for post-viability, you don't actually get to say society has made a judgment call after viability just because states
can ban abortion except for the health exception. Just because they can doesn't mean they
do. Taken to a more local level you might have something, but that cuts both ways.
It does allow that society can do so, correct? And realistically, at least some of the states have enacted such laws, so society does, does it not?
But I do believe you're misunderstanding me. I'm invoking the general principle in law, that society can make judgment calls on issues of acceptable personal risk.
For example, lets consider homicide in self defense. Now the claim has been made that the sole arbiter of the acceptable level of health risk is the one at risk, and that society at large has no business dictating what the acceptable level of risk is.
Does that hold true in the self defense case? IE, is a homicide self defense as long as the killer believed they were threatened enough to merit it, by whatever standards they choose to apply?
I think we'll find it does not. Society sets standards on what they deem the level of risk acceptable is. It's fairly stringent, actually - society will apply a fairly large number of tests to determine if the risk you actually were in merited lethal force. EG, you do not get to make the judgment call based on your own standards of acceptable risk - you have to make it by the socially imposed standards.
EDIT: Just to be perfectly clear to everyone and save myself another round of 'they're not the same!', the example of self defense is not meant to be a parallel or simile to abortion in case of risks of the mother - it is meant to serve only to illustrate the point that an at risk party is not the sole arbiter of the acceptable response to that risk.
Kolya on 8/6/2009 at 06:41
Quote Posted by Phatose
Wow, look, a personal attack! Very helpful to the issue indeed! Certainly that's going to help those pregnant women even more!
You're amazing amount of concern for those women shines right through, I mean, silly me, suggesting maybe there is a way we can let them get those fetuses that are so much trouble out of their body without killing anything. What was I thinking?
It might be because you fail as a human being before you even get out of bed. That was a personal attack.
The pro-robot argument though was about your failure to recognize the importance of the most basic relationship in humankind and the role it plays in this. Because for you abortion or getting a child is just a logical/moral/technological problem.
I want you to tell me about your mother, Phatose.
SubJeff on 8/6/2009 at 08:39
I agree with Koyla in that the robot suggestion was just ridiculous on so many levels.
Anyway, back OT. What exactly is your stance Phatose? I think Starr and I are on the same page - abortion for whatever until viability and then only for specific reasons.
My reasoning behind this; before viability a. women are not baby factories or tools for recreation, carrying a child to term is a privilege for both the mother and the child and b. pregnancy presents a risk to the mother-to-be, a risk I think you cannot and should not "force" on a person.
After viability the foetus has the capacity to survive outside the mother. Delivery will reduce the medical risk to the mother just as much as termination, and I don't believe in destroying a viable life without good cause. Up until delivery the mother should still be the most important person in the mother-foetus relationship though.
Muzman on 8/6/2009 at 08:47
Whenever I see that Freud picture I always picture the caption thus:
"My face is up here Sigmund"
"...Huh? Did you say something mother?"
SubJeff on 8/6/2009 at 08:49
"This nicotine will do for now but just you wait my candycane, just you wait"
Thirith on 8/6/2009 at 09:02
That robot thing was really supposed to make a point? :eek: What next: a discussion on drug abuse and smoking bans in which the death stick salesman in Attack of the Clones is used as an argument?
Vivian on 8/6/2009 at 09:10
Hey, I have a goddamn right to eat* death sticks if I choose to, you commie fucks.
*or whatever you do with deathsticks. Put them in your nose?
Thirith on 8/6/2009 at 09:12
Quote Posted by Vivian
...whatever you do with deathsticks. Put them in your nose?
If I remember correctly, they're basically the Star Wars universe's version of cigarettes. Yet another instance of George Lucas Being, Like, Really Clever(tm).
Phatose on 8/6/2009 at 13:30
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
I agree with Koyla in that the robot suggestion was just ridiculous on so many levels.
Anyway, back OT. What exactly is your stance Phatose? I think Starr and I are on the same page - abortion for whatever until viability and then only for specific reasons.
Quote:
By my way of reckoning, brainwave patterns distinctively human start appearing in a fetus about the middle of the second trimester. When you get right down to it, our brains, our thinking, is the only reason why killing a human is murder and killing an ape is at most a violation of protected species laws. So, right about then I say "OK, well, it's doing the only thing that separates us from apes, so it's one of us now." - at which point the rules become the same as they would for a baby. Taking that life is only acceptable if there are huge mitigating factors - like say, a real threat to the life of the mother.
Basically, we draw the line at the same point, for different reasons.
Quote:
The pro-robot argument though was about your failure to recognize the importance of the most basic relationship in humankind and the role it plays in this. Because for you abortion or getting a child is just a logical/moral/technological problem.
Oh noes, am I not in touch with my feminine side? Am I not respectful of the deep mother-child bond between the mother and the child she wants to fucking abort?
But you know, what, the robot argument was far-fetched, and I shouldn't have made it. Instead, I should've jut said
"Where the fuck is the personal responsibility?"
