Total posts: 398
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
So you would ban morning after pills?
Yes, unless I see a good reason otherwise.
Also anything with human DNA is human.
That is absolutely a false statement. I know of no biologist that takes that position that a cell with human DNA = a human.
doesn’t mean it’s meaningfully conscious.
Is that a necessary qualifier?
The car’s completely self-driving though. The only thing she did was to hop in the car. Would you still say it’s her responsibility?
What is the 'self-driving car' in the analogy and how does it relate to the analogy provided? Are you saying women are incapable of saying no to sex (as that is the only thing that makes sense if you are trying to keep the analogy consistent with one I provided)?
You haven’t been around many pregnant women.
I have, but I do not classify it as 'torture'. Is it painful at times? Yes, sometimes extremely painful. Is it uncomfortable at times? Yes. But to use the word torture in a question about pregnancy is almost like a loaded question.
it seems like you’re also talking about duty to have children.
Where do you get that impression from anything I said? Are you actually responding to my arguments or are you assuming that I am arguing the same way as other pro-lifers?
What punishments would there be? What people would you be helping?
Same punishment as neglect (or murder if a harsher punishment is deemed necessary) if one is found guilty, and it is protecting the unborn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Yet, seeing as Tradesecret keeps "running away", as you put it, aren't you "throwing pearls to the pigs"?
Proverbs 9:8
"Do not rebuke a mocker, or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man, and he will love you."
Proverbs 23:9
"Do not speak to a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words."
Proverbs 26:4
"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be like him."
Matthew 7:6
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
The EU's main purpose is to weaken the member nations while slowly putting more power towards Germany under the guise of the EU, bringing forth the "4th Reich". They have learned that by moving more slowly and working in conjunction with the media and public education that they can convince the masses to accept this rise to power and the eventual cultural shift and it will have the appearance of being something that the common people moved to when, in reality, it was controlled long-term propaganda by a select few elites.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
No offense, but what do you get out of coming online and making posts like this? How is it worth it to waste part of your life making, what is essentially, the same post over and over again? Are you happy in life? Are you fulfilling your goals? Living your dream?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The point of that statement and one of the founding principals of this country is that everyone is *treated* equally, meaning that we ensure everyone has an equal, or as close to an equal *opportunity* to succeed as possible...Once she has, the stabber is taking that pathway away.
I do apologize if I am misinterpreting, but am I correct in saying that it is then almost solely due to the woman's bodily autonomy that abortion is permissible?
I find it absurd to treat this in and of itself as a punishable act, which is essentially the pro life position
For me, this is where the analogy in the OP comes into play. Whether something is intended or not is not usually relevant when it comes to the obligations/responsibilities one must take on, what matters is if they made the choice that ended with the unintended consequence.
While sex is natural there are ways with dealing with those urges that have zero chance of resulting in pregnancy.
because the chances of getting pregnant are heavily in control of the male, whose body is not subject to the same consequences.
Is this not just the unfortunate reality of sexual dimorphism? My position is that 'child support' should start the moment pregnancy is determined and the father of the child needs to help with financial costs of any medical tests, procedures, visits, etc. in regards to the pregnancy. Not a perfect solution, as dimorphism tends to always have the issue where someone will find it unfair, but it is a solution.
Created:
Posted in:
Mesmer, I will grant that in my experience most people that criticize Race Realism do so by applying the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy or they criticize the proponents with ad hominems. This makes it hard to find any source that tries to criticize the idea from a more scientific view.
However, I must ask why, if you do not wish to engage with the political aspects yet, after all you said "Policy discussion happens *after* people agree that race realism is a reality", why did you post this in the political forum instead of the science one?
If you wish for discussion on the merits of the idea of race realism irrespective of the politics around it then it does not make much sense to post in the politics forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If you don’t, it doesn’t carry much weight at that stage.
But it does carry enough weight to say the mother shouldn't start doing hard drugs during their 1st trimester?
Also, in an earlier comment you said, "Someone who for example stabs a pregnant woman in the stomach should, in addition to whatever charges are filed for the harm caused to the mother, be charged for murder."
Does this apply during the first trimester or only after such a time that the fetus has "traits we tend to value in living creatures"?
If it applies in the 1st trimester, how does it follow that it counts as murder when someone other than the mother takes the life?
I do not however believe that a woman accepts that responsibility merely because she decided to have sex
Why not?
I don’t see any of these arguments applying to early term abortion.
What are your thoughts on abortion in the 2nd and 3rd trimester?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Invented. No.
So ya, I think in order to discuss rights we might need to discuss metaphysics, but I am not prepared to do so at this time.
But, again, this is a false equivalence. Refusing to participate in the genesis of a new person is not neglect of a person.
It is only a false equivalence because your definition of person, seems to me, almost begs the question.
I feel like we are talking past one another here, so unless there is something else we should agree to leave this unresolved for now. We can revisit once we've had time to consider the discussion.
Agreed, agree to disagree for now while we mull over what each other have said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
To be honest, I've never understood this notion. In the absence of rational minds there are no concepts, much less a concept such as rights. As such, human rights are contigent upon rational (human) minds.
This gets into metaphysical debates and could get us quite off topic, but it could actually be more significant to the idea of rights than I thought. Personally, I find such metaphysical questions easier to debate when focused on numbers. Do you think numbers and mathematics are discovered or invented? Do numbers exist independent of the human mind? This is not a topic I am as well versed on, but needless to say I am a mataphysical realist, and I think a necessary extension of this is that concepts (like numbers and mathematics) exist independently of human thought. As such there is no issue with rights also existing independently of rational minds.
There is no right to neglect another person
But how is it determined to be neglect? If I don't feed someone else's child I am not found guilty of neglect but a parent refusing to feed their child is. Unless there is some relation between the neglected and the person that can be found guilty then what exactly is a neglect law doing?
there is nothing in neglect laws which requires breastfeeding or infringes upon bodily autonomy.
Not directly, no, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
As stated before, if the only way for a mother to feed their starving baby is breastfeeding them and they are perfectly capable of doing so (regardless of how this hypothetical situation occurs) then it is neglect not to breastfeed their baby. If alternative options exist then it just matters that the baby is fed. Do you disagree with this? If so then why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
- When would you give it rights? At moment of conception? Heartbeat (which is pretty ambiguous)?
The moment it is a developing human, which would likely be the moment of conception.
- Which of these situations would you include in forcing pregnancy to term: Risk to mothers life? Doctors warning of fetus having a disability? Rape and/or Incest?
Risk to mother's life would be permissible. As I have stated in comments, cases of rape mean the mother has no responsibility as it was forced. Incest is a trickery question as power dynamics must be put into consideration (which could make it sexual assault). Disabilities would not impact it from the current position I am arguing, as a disabled human is just as human as you or me.
When it comes to women being responsible for getting pregnant, what do you mean exactly? For having sex? Accidents do accrue when it comes to protection. And the reproductive system is completely autonomic
Yes, for having sex. It goes to the analogy with the driver and vehicular manslaughter. Just because it is an accident or unintended does not mean there isn't responsibility.
- Should men be held equally responsible; as in torture them too?
Men should be responsible (hence where child care comes into play, but I think this should start while pregnant to help cover medical costs during pregnancy), but what do you mean torture? Men and women are biologically different, thus the types of responsibilities they hold would be different.
- Would you surveil?
No, and if a miscarriage happens it is assumed natural unless there is reason given to think otherwise (just as when a newborn dies of SIDS it isn't assumed to be murder). This would mean that people likely could get illegal abortions and get away with it, but there is no such thing as stopping all crime or helping all people, doesn't mean you give up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Rights are attached to birth and come from humanity.
Seems we might have a fundamental difference about rights. I believe rights are natural to all things. Human rights are natural to humans at any stage of development, animal rights are natural to animals, etc. That doesn't mean that we respect all rights equally, as humans we prioritize human rights over animal rights but that does not mean animal rights cease to exist.
If it is not clear, I don't accept responsibility allows rights to be subverted.
How do you justify neglect laws if responsibility cannot subvert rights?
Think about what you're advocating for - at the moment of conception, development is at the lowest possible level which, by your reasoning, means responsibility is at the greatest and parent rights subverted the most.
Yes, as the child is least developed and is most impacted by the choices of the parents. Just as when a child develops from birth to adulthood the legal guardian has less responsibility as they develop so to would this apply pre-birth. As the unborn at the 3rd trimester is less developed the responsibility over the child is greater, the 2nd trimester is even less developed and so the responsibility is greater still, and so on with the 1st trimester.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
By "person", I typically mean a human with the capacity for consciousness which has rights
What is it, in your view, that 'grants' rights and when does it happen?
If anything, being more developed leads to an increase in responsibility until birth and then it starts to go the other way as children become adults and (hopefully) more independent.
Why would that be the case when it is typically actions one takes during the 1st trimester that has the greatest impact on the development of a child?
I understand where you are coming from, but our limitations have limits - whether that be because the limits are unenforceable, redundant, overstepping, etc. Some things are simply beyond our control.
I agree some things are beyond our control, which is why I do not argue that those doing hard drugs before conception are responsible (as even women doing certain hard drugs before conception can still cause issues), but I disagree that it is overstepping or beyond control to make abortion illegal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Yes, I would grant the unborn rights. Someone who for example stabs a pregnant woman in the stomach should, in addition to whatever charges are filed for the harm caused to the mother, be charged for murder.
Great, some common ground. It is always pleasant to find areas of agreement.
I just do not believe the unborn’s rights supcede that of the mother’s rights due to the fact that the fetus is dependent on the mother’s body.
Alright, considering you have not disputed that a parent's rights can be limited when they are a legal guardian (neglect laws) then is it the issue of bodily autonomy itself?
If so, I am curious of your thoughts about what I brought up to SkpeticalOne.
"If a mother has a baby and they are in a situation where the only way to feed said baby is direct breastfeeding or the baby will starve then the law would say that refusing to feed their baby is neglect (assuming the mother is physically capable of breastfeeding the baby). Is this not already, on some level, a violation of bodily autonomy? Is not the unborn in a similar situation?"
Keep in mind that the younger/less developed the born child is the more responsibilities lie on the legal guardian (what counts as neglect at 1 year old isn't neglect at 5, what counts as neglect ag 5 years old doesn't count as neglect at 10, etc.), and thus the more limited the freedom of the parent. What prevents us from using this logic with the unborn as well? The responsibility of a newborn already can, in some circumstances, 'violate' bodily autonomy, so why can't the unborn do the same?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
You're answering a question with a question, buddy.
But in order to answer it I would need to know what you mean by person. I don't wish to end up in a situation where we talk past one another and waste each other's time, and as such I will assume that if you answer a question with a question that there is real meaning in doing so. I hope you do the same.
If by 'person' you mean 'human with rights' then I think one could theoretically argue that the unborn does not necessarily need to be a person to have rights as the country acknowledges, for example, animal rights. However, understanding what is meant by person and what makes one a person would make addressing any questions around personhood easier.
It seems you are trying to establish an equivalence between the rights of the born and rights of the unborn. I see this as a false equivalence.
Moreso I am trying to show the relationship between responsibility of the parent and how it can impact said parent's rights with the age and development of the child. If we can acknowledge this then a question must be raised to if such a thing can extend to the child when it is unborn, being at a more undeveloped state leading to an increase in responsibility and thus more limitation on rights. Furthermore, if we accept the breastfeeding example then the responsibility over a newborn can already limit bodily autonomy given the circumstances, and as such bodily autonomy alone would not be, imo, a sufficient reason to reject the responsibility a mother has over the unborn.
I actually don't know this to be true - I'm not sure the law requires breastfeeding in a survival situation (it would have to be something extreme for this scenario to be feasible.)
If what I have read is to be understood it is a case where it is considered neglect, as the mother had the option to feed the baby and responsibility to and chose not to. It could be the case that what I have read and watched when it comes to the topic is wrong though.
Also, I know of no mother than would choose not to feed their baby if they were able. I don't know that this hypothetical is closely connected to reality.
Whether they would choose to or not is not really relevant though, the question is if they are legally obligated to. If they are then we know that bodily autonomy is already sacrificed on some level when it comes to a parent's responsibility for their newborn.
What specifically would you like me to comment on?
Not sure if the point was clear in said post, but this part:
"If we give no rights to the unborn in the 1st trimester in order to allow abortion, then does that mean that there is no moral issue with a woman purposefully taking hard drugs (or even starting to, so addiction cannot be used as an argument) in the first trimester as it only harms a 'potential human'? If they stop once it becomes an 'actual human' then it could be argued that the state they are in at that point is their natural state and thus any medical defects or abnormalities are just natural to said child and if they die (even after birth) that no one can be held even morally responsible?"
Of course, we could replace 1st trimester with the however long you think abortion is permissible.
If the unborn do not have rights at a certain point in development then is there any reason why a sadistic woman cannot choose (not through addiction but through malice) to get pregnant and do as many hard drugs as possible up to the point the child gains rights? If this is not permissible then you must be giving the unborn some level of rights, otherwise this must be permissible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I'm not sure I agree with your argument
Do you think there is no correlation? Can one without rights ever be justly held responsible for what they do?
who would that responsibility be to?
Other people and/or society, yes.
If so, in the context of pregnancy, aren't you assuming personhood of the unborn without actually making that argument?
Can you describe personhood for me?
Ok. Let us imagine the same scenario, except my injuries were due to something you did. I still do not have a right to use your body.
That, itself, would be its own debate. How responsible am I and in what way?
I feel like responsibility isn't binary. It isn't that you are responsible or not, and we can look at children for this. The older the child the more they end up having responsibility.
A very young child that does something horribly wrong is usually seen as the fault of the parent, thus the parent can be punished while the child might be taken away and put in a new home where their new guardian will take their responsibility seriously. This is because the dynamics on how much of the responsibility falls onto the child.
Let's then take a preteen, they could end up going through the juvenile justice system if what they did is horribly wrong as they are held to a greater level of responsibility but not so much so that they go to jail or prison.
An older teen can sometimes be tried as an adult based on the level of responsibility and thus could face jail or prison.
Once one becomes an adult they will face jail or prison when doing these things.
We also see rights being granted with more age. Young children have less rights than young teens, which are given some level of rights, and young teens have less rights than adults.
We also see the inverse when it comes to actions against parent.
When the child is young enough the parent might face consequences on some level but as the child ages the amount of consequences the parent faces lessens.
Parents also, as a result, have more freedom as their child has more rights. The same thing that counts as neglect when their child is 1 year old doesn't count as such when their child is 5. What counts as neglect when their child is 5 doesn't count when the child is 10. So on and so forth.
As the child ages they have more responsibilities and more rights while the parent has less responsibilities. If a parent naturally has higher levels of responsibilities when the child is younger then it could be argued that this also can apply to pre-birth, with even greater levels of responsibilities and thus greater restrictions on freedom.
How responsible are you for the life of someone you injured in comparison to how responsible a parent is for their child? Or their unborn child?
This demonstrates someone's responsibility for our predicament does not mean we have a right to use their body.
If a mother has a baby and they are in a situation where the only way to feed said baby is direct breastfeeding or the baby will starve then the law would say that refusing to feed their baby is neglect (assuming the mother is physically capable of breastfeeding the baby). Is this not already, on some level, a violation of bodily autonomy? Is not the unborn in a similar situation?
Also, I know it wasn't addressed to you, but have you seen post #9? I would like your input on what I said to Double_R.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
It is a very long post so I apologize if I don't respond to quite everything.
For instance lets say that there is a Platform (God) out of which everything in existence arises and we can call that Platform Mono. Now lets say that out of this Platform arises a myriad of various platforms (gods), and we will call them Poly.
This is actually the Hellenistic Pagan view (Greek Paganism). From the texts the first thing was Chaos (not really a god per se) in which is the 'first thing' which the various primordial gods come from (and some primordial gods come from the very first of the primordials), and it is through these gods that everything exists.
It is, itself, an interesting idea, and it is one of the reasons why polytheism is apriori more likely than monotheism, as polytheism can become true even if there is a single 'grounding'/god but monotheism cannot become true if there are multiple.
Logically speaking, it does makes sense that we would only have to account for one single original source rather than many original sources. Why? because you should be able to trace everything that exists back to where it began at some point, and from that one point show how from that one origin all things tie together. As we know it, creation is much like an expansion that expanded from one direction into many directions of processes. So, logically speaking we should be able to hit the rewind button and reveal how it all originated. And we can do that conceptualizing Mono Theism.We can't really do this starting with the presumption that all things began with many origins, it wouldn't logically follow as we would inevitably have to account for each source and how each source could exist.
I actually disagree. Just as under monotheism the single god is a necessary existence there is no reason to think that there cannot be multiple necessary existences which ground the single reality. Think of it as when you look at a skyscraper, you can trace back its history and find multiple sources in which are responsible for creating it. So to with the universe.
Which then brings me to your objection that Theism has no unified theory of everything.
You misunderstand, the Unified Theory of Everything is a concept in physics and mathematics that there can exist one fundamental equation/theory in which all scientific understanding can ultimately boil down to. Just as you can rewrite chemistry concepts using only physics, and theoretically the same can apply with biology to chemistry, the idea is that all science can be expressed through one theory/formula.
It is not ipso facto tied to theism, I proposed a connection. If there is one single theory in which can explain how all the universe itself operates it becomes easier to say that there is a single 'grounding' for the universe (which, as pointed out, still wouldn't necessarily mean monotheism is true, just would be useful when arguing for it), but if this is not the case then it can be argued that there are many.
And as it is a concept within science, specifically physics, I thus took the argument from physicists that such a thing likely doesn't exist.
As for your arguments about energy and consciousness, how only a single god can exist before creation, etc. I need to reread it again as, to me, it isn't necessarily clear at first read what is trying to be said.
Created:
-->
@Barney
Thank you. I had half of this formulated quite some time ago (second half) but this was my first time arguing polytheism in regards to fine-tuning and was unsure if I was giving the argument justice or not. Most polytheists are not interested in debate and so it is hard to find people to help formulate these types of arguments.
Created:
For the sake of discussion we will assume the teleological argument is sound, as I desire this discussion to focus more on monotheism vs polytheism than atheism vs theism.
So, what is the Teleological Argument for those unfamiliar? It is the watch maker argument, that the universe or certain things in nature appear to be designed and such design demands explanation, that explanation being god(s).
William Lane Craig is a popular proponent of this argument, specifically from the fine-tuning of the universe. His specific argument can be found in his essay “Five Arguments for God” (link below). To copy from his essay, the argument is as follows:
"Here, then, is a simple formulation of a teleological argument based on fine-tuning:
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design"
As we will assume the soundness of the argument for sake of discussion, we now the universe was designed, but does this get us to the monotheistic god that WLC argues for? I think not. There is nothing about the argument that demands the designer be a single entity, it opens in up to the possibility of a multitude of designers working at the fine-tuning of the universe. In fact, the argument itself stems all the way back to Ancient Greece (like many theistic arguments), and thus to polytheists.
A common argument against the polytheistic interpretation is to attempt to argue Law of Parsimony (Occam's Razor), but this, I would argue, is not sufficient. There are two ways in which parsimony works, quantitatively and qualitatively. In regards to theism the qualitative parsimony is based on how many categories or sets of things exist, keeping in mind that sets can be made up of many, one, even no things. Quantitative parsimony deals with the number within a category/set. I think using quantitative parsimony in this instance is flawed, and I will use an analogy to help demonstrate this.
Within physics there is an idea called the One Electron Theory which posits that within the universe exists a single electron. This electron moves both forward and backwards in time, thus creating every instance of an electron and positron in the universe from a single particle. This theory would be favored if we use quantitative parsimony, but the theory is a rejected one. In fact, an even more extreme idea would be to posit that all particles in the universe could, likewise, be a single particle. This idea was proposed by physicist Dr. Weiping Yu in his paper "The U-Theory of Everything (- A single Particle Theory of Universe)".
Both of these ideas would definitely be favorable if we operated the Law of Parsimony quantitatively, but yet physicists reject this and still opt to posit new types of particles one at a time in their models of the universe. This is because of something many that attempt to argue for parsimony forget, syntactic simplicity.
From Stanford:
"Syntactic simplicity, or elegance, measures the number and conciseness of the theory's basic principles"
Essentially, the reason that many particles is better than one is that supposing one particle requires more hypotheses to support the idea while many particles does not. I believe, for a few reasons, that the same can apply to god in the teleological argument.
We can start with the more complex, the fine-tuning, and move on from there. To start with, I believe that it isn't a stretch to think that if there is a single god that there would be a Unified Theory of Everything, which would be representative of the principle in which said monotheistic god designed the world. The problem is that such a theory, while it had its proponents among physicists, has lost popularity.
Stephen Hawking helped popularize the idea of a unified theory of everything but eventually gave up on the notion and declared such a thing to be wishful thinking. The reason for this being Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. To quote from quantamagazine on :
"He proved that any set of axioms you could posit as a possible foundation for math will inevitably be incomplete; there will always be true facts about numbers that cannot be proved by those axioms. He also showed that no candidate set of axioms can ever prove its own consistency."
A more recent book on the subject is Dr. Lars English's "There Is No Theory of Everything" where he argues that no single set or rules can unify relativity with quantum mechanics as something can be true on a quantum level but false at the gravitational level.
Without a single Unified Theory of Everything, that means the principles behind the design of the universe are many, and we must ask why a single designer would use many principles instead of just one when there exists a Possible World that can be imagined in which a Unified Theory of Everything does exist. I believe that there being one category of beings, god(s), with multiple gods within said set better explains multiple principles behind the design of the universe than one god.
But this only addresses the aspect of the Teleological Argument around the Fine-Tuning of the universe, what about when we get to other aspects of the Teleological Argument?
With how long ago the Teleological Argument was first created it is obvious that it was not always used on the Fine-Tuning of the universe's very principles, like how WLC likes to argue, but about the world and nature itself and what can be found in it. In fact, a well know formulation today is the Watchmaker analogy, but this actually is a modern version of Cicero's argument from his work "On the Nature of the Gods",
"When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?"
These early formulations did not stem from the in depth mathematics and high level physics of the modern day, however, but of observation of the world itself. This, however, raises a question. If, like how a building demands a builder nature demands a designer, then why is it that societies the world over when observing nature do not conclude monotheism (not even those that originated the argument)?
When we look at history, if the natural world points so easily to a design by god, and more specifically a monotheistic interpretation, then we should expect to find many people from across the world and across time reaching the conclusion of monotheism, but this is not the case. In the Americas, Asia, Africa, etc. we do not see monotheism having arisen but, instead, polytheism. Even monotheistic religions like Judaism can be seen to have henotheistic (and quite possibly polytheistic) roots to them (even Genesis 1:26 uses the plural 'gods'). The historical record would indicate that people from across the world and across time, when looking at the design of the natural world, concluded that there were many gods. The question that must be asked is why.
Why is it that when people see the design of the world around them that they, seemingly independently, came to the conclusion of many designers instead of one? When we account for syntactic simplicity when coming up with a parsimonious answer I believe that we can conclude that it is because there are multiple designers.
Sources:
William Lance Craig's “Five Arguments for God” - https://media.thegospelcoalition.org/ee/articles/Craig_Atheism.pdf
Weiping Yu "The U-Theory of Everything (- A single Particle Theory of Universe)" - https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014APS..APR.Y9007Y/abstract
Stanford on Simplicity - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/
quantamagazine "How Gödel’s Proof Works" - https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-godels-incompleteness-theorems-work-20200714/
Created:
Dammit, did not see the date of the OP. Just noticed recent activity and didn't think it was a necropost.
Created:
Would you be playing with the Jester mod?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
For the record, I don't understand the exception for rape from a pro-life perspective. If someone believes abortion is murder or a violation of unborn rights, then how can an exception be allowed?
Because rights and responsibilities are inherently tied together. This does not mean that every responsibility is legislated as sometimes one can view the right as having more significance. We can look at speech for an example of this in the modern day. With freedom of speech comes a responsibility not to misuse your speech. Someone spreading disinformation (not just misinformation) is acting irresponsibly. That does not necessarily mean spreading of disinformation should be made illegal, but it does not change that there is a level of responsibility. Some countries do legislate responsible use of language (like Holocaust denial being made illegal in some countries) as in those specific cases they put some level of responsibility as of more importance than the right of free speech.
Let's also use one of your analogies as an example,
"If I'm dying and can be saved with the help of your body, I don't automatically get what I need to survive and that doesn't mean my right to life has been denied."
It is a classic analogy used to understand the right of bodily autonomy, but I feel like it misses a crucial aspect, and that is responsibility/obligation. Nothing has been done to make the party that can save your life responsible for your life, so why should they have their freedoms/rights restricted?
A pregnant woman (not in the case of rape) consented to the actions in which caused pregnancy, and thus a link of responsibility/obligation can be made from that expression of freedom/rights. She made the choice (freedom/right) to have sex and a consequence is she got pregnant, now she has an obligation/responsibility tied to the unborn child.
In the case of rape the pregnant women did not make a choice, and since responsibilities stem from rights and she did not express her rights (the choice was taken from her) a responsibility is not attached.
It is like how I am responsible for my kid as it was my actions/choices (expression of rights/freedom) that lead to be being responsible for them, but I am not responsible for your kid as no such action occurred to make me responsible.
I hope I made it clear, if not just tell me.
I did not find the forced driving analogy helpful. We can hash that out as we go though.
The analogy for forced driving is in regards to rape. While I am responsible for vehicular manslaughter in the case it was my choice that put me behind the wheel (responsibility attached to expression of rights) I am not responsible for vehicular manslaughter if I was forced to drive (no expression of rights thus no responsibility).
Also, rights are not dimorphic. If they were then 'equal rights' is something that could never be
I believe rights, ultimately, stem from what types of choices one can make. If it is the case that there are types of choices that can be made that are dimorphic, then that necessarily makes rights also dimorphic in nature. This does not mean that there are not 'equal rights', just that our understanding of what 'equal rights' means is different.
Furthermore, society already acts as if the sexual dimorphism has 'separate but equal' status. Segregated bathrooms and changing rooms, women's only sports, etc. While such segregation is rejected when made among racial lines it is accepted when it is by sex (and, by some, gender). This topic, however, can get us off track really fast and almost deserves a discussion in its own right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Your argument however is going down the path of inhuman treatment, which is a different conversation and poses no contradiction. We slaughter animals for food but still respect their rights as living beings (most of us would anyway).
So would you then agree that the unborn do have rights, just not so much so that abortion becomes unjustified?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
True, but covid caused me to get a pulmonary embolism, 6 blood clots in my right lung. One consequence of this is that (according to my doctor) I am at higher risk of forming blood clots now and so even though it is a low odds I have to still take it into consideration whenever blood clots is a side effect for any medication. Seeing that it is a possible side effect of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine I have to take it into consideration as well.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
If I didn't have natural immunity then I would likely get the shot, but I wouldn't say that there are no known significant side effects. For example, the Johnson & Johnson Vaccine has already had issues related to blood clots and the CDC and FDA had a temporary recommended pause on it before and it has now been linked to an autoimmune disorder.
While it has been the main vaccine with medical issues and side effects tied to it, the fact that it has had these tied to it has caused me to wait for more information and FDA approval. Again, if I didn't have natural immunity I would likely have chosen vaccination, but it isn't that there aren't significant possible side effects.
Created:
aside from not being fully FDA approved, there's no good reason not to get it.
My reason for delaying so far has been two-fold, FDA approval, as you stated, and I have not seen many studies on natural immunity. I was hospitalized for Covid late December to early January, and thus my body has developed some level of natural immunity. A question does exist on how effective the natural immunity is. The extent of what I have seen from definitive sources is that 'it wouldn't hurt to take the vaccine anyways', but if natural immunity is enough why should I risk possible side-effects that exist from taking the vaccine.
As such I am waiting for more conclusive information on natural immunity, FDA approval, and better understanding of the risks of the vaccines. It does not help that the pharmaceutical companies are being protected right now, if someone faces horrible side-effects from getting vaccinated they cannot sue the manufacturer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
We're discussing the unborn having rights if you're going to be like this then I don't need to respond to you again thanks.
I'm sorry, but what did I say that got this reaction? I am genuinely confused, I am trying to have a calm and rational conversation. If it does not come off that way to you then I apologize.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You are not a citizen of the United States or even someone that can have a birth certificate or get a driver's license or ID or anything else until you're born
Non-citizens also have rights in the US, even if some of the protections are specific for citizens. Even non-humans have some limited rights in the US (animal rights).
for the unborn to have rights I don't because I don't think they should.
What don't you think they should?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Mugging involves a victim whose rights have been violated.
And the entirety of the abortion debate is on if the unborn should be given rights or not.
You cannot use 'unborn don't have rights' as the justification for the pro-choice position as that is absolutely circular reasoning.
You would need to justify why the unborn should not be given rights.
I'm born don't have rights you cannot violate them.
What?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Forcing an unwed teen to give birth without offering any sort of safety-net is only going to "punish" the child (that you seem to care so much about).
Last comment I will make here, if you wish to continue the discussion could we please move to the dedicated thread? Just quote my comment here over there if you wish to continue the discussion.
For me, I am of two minds on this. Personally, I have no issue with providing tax dollars towards foster home programs and adoption agencies as well as increasing education of sex ed. We currently have tax dollars that go to Planned Parenthood that then get used for abortions, why not shift where those tax dollars are going if we make abortion illegal?
But I also think that whether or not such funding goes through that it does not impact whether or not abortion should be legal. Sure, making it illegal without this shift in where tax dollars goes creates a new problem, but to them appeal to the consequence to say no to an abortion ban is fallacious reasoning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Double_R
Some other comments to move over for this discussion. My comments will be quoted and italicized while the other peoples (name above section) will have normal formatting for having quoted them. I intend to focus my discussion on this thread now and will no longer respond in the other threads, that way we can keep everything located in one place.
-->@Double_RThe most common arguments that early stage fetuses are human beings tend to center on the concept of the potential it has to develop into one"I have been pro-choice for years and held this view, but it was really shaken when my unborn son died at 28-29 weeks. The reason for his death was because my, now ex, smoked and drank heavily during the first trimester (no matter how much I tried to get her to stop).The thing is that I am sure we can agree that if killing someone is worse than drugging them (just drugging, nothing more). Even if not, they would be placed on an equal level, drugging someone is not usually seen as worse than killing.So if we justify killing an unborn in the first trimester, can we take a stance against drugging one? Because it is the development in the first trimester that has the greatest impact on the viability of the unborn. If my ex did that smoking and drinking in the 2nd or 3rd trimester my son would have had a vastly greater chance at having been born. In fact, the later in the pregnancy that one takes drugs on any kind the less it impacts the child.If we give no rights to the unborn in the 1st trimester in order to allow abortion, then does that mean that there is no moral issue with a woman purposefully taking hard drugs (or even starting to, so addiction cannot be used as an argument) in the first trimester as it only harms a 'potential human'? If they stop once it becomes an 'actual human' then it could be argued that the state they are in at that point is their natural state and thus any medical defects or abnormalities are just natural to said child and if they die (even after birth) that no one can be held even morally responsible?An unborn child in the first trimester isn't just a 'potential human'. Even if we want to keep the label of 'potential' it is a 'potential human in which anything done to will have great impact on an actual human's well being'.I am also curious how you define 'human' and at what point of development one becomes a 'human'.Also, I created a new thread to talk about abortion itself since this thread is about 'abortion and covid', so would you like to continue the conversation over there? If so then just quoting what I stated here and respond over there should work well."
(@Double_R: I know I said for you to quote it, but as this comment became a part of discussion with 3RU7AL I figured it would be better to move it over alongside the discussion with them.
-->@3RU7AL(IFF) the unborn have the rights of CITIZENS (THEN) every miscarriage and stillbirth must be investigated as MANSLAUGHTER"Disagree. When a baby dies of SIDS there is rarely that much of an investigation into manslaughter. Miscarriages and stillbirths should be treated the same. If there is good reason to suspect that the guardian/parent did something that is when you might investigate, but otherwise there is little reason to."Without violating medical privacy, how can anyone determine the difference between a miscarriage and an abortion ?"You are aware that medical privacy is 'violated' all the time when it comes to legal issues, right? If child abuse is suspected, as one example, doctors will ignore medical privacy and report it to the police There are many instances of this, how would it be any different here? If a doctor suspects that it was an abortion then it can be reported and then an investigation happens."
-->@3RU7ALI'm not sure an intentional miscarriage caused by alcohol and tobacco is going to be distinguishable from any other unintentional type of miscarriage."I'm sure that some intentional miscarriages would appear to be intentional by a doctor, but I agree that there would be those that do not.If we are talking about drug usage leading to a miscarriage then I say that you only investigate that angle if a credible witness reports it, maybe have other factors involved for determining it.Essentially, unintentional miscarriages would be treated similarly to SIDS and would be the default assumption, thus most miscarriages would never lead to an investigation.Yes, there will always be those that intentionally miscarried or were reckless and caused the death of of the unborn child that never get caught, but that is true of all crime everywhere. That doesn't mean you do nothing."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So, when you find a young woman half bleeding to death because she botched a coat-hanger abortion on herself, you send her away for life-in-prison.
Don't know what the punishment would be, but she just ended a life.
Or if she travels to another country and magically returns home without a foetus, you send her away for life-in-prison
Where did you pull this out from? The US does not prosecute people for doing things legally in other countries.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not sure an intentional miscarriage caused by alcohol and tobacco is going to be distinguishable from any other unintentional type of miscarriage.
I'm sure that some intentional miscarriages would appear to be intentional by a doctor, but I agree that there would be those that do not.
If we are talking about drug usage leading to a miscarriage then I say that you only investigate that angle if a credible witness reports it, maybe have other factors involved for determining it.
Essentially, unintentional miscarriages would be treated similarly to SIDS and would be the default assumption, thus most miscarriages would never lead to an investigation.
Yes, there will always be those that intentionally miscarried or were reckless and caused the death of of the unborn child that never get caught, but that is true of all crime everywhere. That doesn't mean you do nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) the unborn have the rights of CITIZENS (THEN) every miscarriage and stillbirth must be investigated as MANSLAUGHTERDisagree. When a baby dies of SIDS there is rarely that much of an investigation into manslaughter. Miscarriages and stillbirths should be treated the same. If there is good reason to suspect that the guardian/parent did something that is when you might investigate, but otherwise there is little reason to.Without violating medical privacy, how can anyone determine the difference between a miscarriage and an abortion ?
You are aware that medical privacy is 'violated' all the time when it comes to legal issues, right? If child abuse is suspected, as one example, doctors will ignore medical privacy and report it to the police There are many instances of this, how would it be any different here? If a doctor suspects that it was an abortion then it can be reported and then an investigation happens.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
So because we found muggings to be illegal I want kids to be raised to Spartans is that what you're implying that your moral standards okay but mine's not.
This is one of the biggest strawmen I have seen.
The point was that laws are already based, on some level, from moral standards and I have two separate examples.
One of which, the Spartan example, I went into detail on to show that even if your moral standards are different that it doesn't mean that there isn't reason to make a law that 'forces a moral standard' onto you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) the unborn have the rights of CITIZENS (THEN) every miscarriage and stillbirth must be investigated as MANSLAUGHTER
Disagree. When a baby dies of SIDS there is rarely that much of an investigation into manslaughter. Miscarriages and stillbirths should be treated the same. If there is good reason to suspect that the guardian/parent did something that is when you might investigate, but otherwise there is little reason to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The most common arguments that early stage fetuses are human beings tend to center on the concept of the potential it has to develop into one
I have been pro-choice for years and held this view, but it was really shaken when my unborn son died at 28-29 weeks. The reason for his death was because my, now ex, smoked and drank heavily during the first trimester (no matter how much I tried to get her to stop).
The thing is that I am sure we can agree that if killing someone is worse than drugging them (just drugging, nothing more). Even if not, they would be placed on an equal level, drugging someone is not usually seen as worse than killing.
So if we justify killing an unborn in the first trimester, can we take a stance against drugging one? Because it is the development in the first trimester that has the greatest impact on the viability of the unborn. If my ex did that smoking and drinking in the 2nd or 3rd trimester my son would have had a vastly greater chance at having been born. In fact, the later in the pregnancy that one takes drugs on any kind the less it impacts the child.
If we give no rights to the unborn in the 1st trimester in order to allow abortion, then does that mean that there is no moral issue with a woman purposefully taking hard drugs (or even starting to, so addiction cannot be used as an argument) in the first trimester as it only harms a 'potential human'? If they stop once it becomes an 'actual human' then it could be argued that the state they are in at that point is their natural state and thus and medical defects or abnormalities are just natural to said child and if they die (even after birth) that no one can be held even morally responsible?
An unborn child in the first trimester isn't just a 'potential human'. Even if we want to keep the label of 'potential' it is a 'potential human in which anything done to will have great impact on an actual human's well being'.
I am also curious how you define 'human' and at what point of development one becomes a 'human'.
Also, I created a new thread to talk about abortion itself since this thread is about 'abortion and covid', so would you like to continue the conversation over there? If so then just quoting what I stated here and respond over there should work well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Your moral standard is not something you get to force onto others
I do not see how this is consistent.
I am morally opposed to muggings, should we allow for people to have the right to mug others?
Laws take into account morality all the time, but when it is other laws the debate is often isn't over 'enforcing your morality onto others' but a debate about rights or responsibilities, in which moral frameworks might influence which side you fall onto.
If you ignore the topic of responsibilities and jump straight to total embracement of freedom and the view that people cannot enforce morality onto others then what is the justification for laws around neglect?
Let's say that there exists a couple that are fascinated by the Spartans and decide they wish to raise their baby the way Spartans did.
Can they argue against neglect laws by saying that the "anti-neglect" side is 'forcing their moral standards onto them'?
After all, it should be their choice, right?
Not at all, because laws take into account a certain level of moral understanding when creating laws about responsibility/obligation.
No one wants to be in an accident, that does not stop one from driving. They drive safer. It still happens.
But this is my point, even if you do not want to be in an accident, even if you take precautions, the moment an accident happens, which will always remain a possibility, you are still morally and legally responsible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Pinging SkepticalOne. Honestly, I find it so weird calling you that. On DDO your name was skepticalone and, for some reason, I always read it as SkepticAlone. The added caps throw me off sometimes.
Created:
Posted in:
This thread is being made as a place to discuss the topic of abortion. The motivation for creating it was that I did not want to spam a different thread with SkepticalOne's and my discussion on the topic.
For some background, I have been pro-choice since I got into political discussion about a decade ago, but recent events and arguments have made me start to reconsider. I have not yet taken up the pro-life position, but am wanting to, in this thread, entertain the idea in a rational discussion on the topic.
______________________________________________________________
Why be pro-life? For years I viewed the issue of abortion solely through the lens of rights, but recently I have come to realize that rights make up only half of the discussion, responsibilities are also important to discuss. To copy some of my comments from the other thread,
"Ultimately, just laws are created for two reasons. One, to protect people's rights (and prevent one person from infringing on another's rights). Two, to enforce fundamental responsibilities (responsibilities that are weighed as more important, in some instances, than the individual's rights). All just laws consider both these points and tries to find where the balance should be. The pro-life position tends to wish to protect the life of the unborn by upholding the responsibility of the mother. It is the desire to protect one's life but the responsibility aspect is considered when making this decision."
"Rights get limited by responsibilities and obligations all the time. Take a newborn baby as an example. The legal guardian of a newborn baby has moral and legal obligations which can, in some instances, limit the freedoms said guardian would enjoy if they did not have these obligations. This is why neglect of a child is a legal issue. Responsibility/obligation, in this instance, is placed before rights/freedom.The question is if such a thing should be placed on the unborn as well. So, not including cases of rape, does a woman have a responsibility over the life of their unborn child, and does that responsibility lead to a limit on the bodily autonomy. That is the debate.If you only care about maximizing freedom and rights then the answer might seem clear, no matter what the unborn is infringing on the bodily autonomy of the mother and thus is 'guilty' of violating the rights of another. However, if you prioritize only rights and freedom like this then, some would argue, we must also agree to get rid of laws around neglect (as well as some other laws). After all, these laws too put responsibility and obligations before rights and freedom, and the same ethos behind these laws can be argued to apply in cases of abortion."
Can the legal and moral responsibilities to take care of the unborn be compared, on some level, to those to take care of a newborn? The pro-choice position would conclude no while the pro-life position would be to conclude yes.
As you might have noticed, in one of the above quotes I specified 'not including cases of rape'. Why is this important? Because consent, even consent to potential consequences, is a necessary part of what gives one responsibilities. Let's take an example of someone driving a car.
If I get into my car with the express purpose of driving from A to B, nothing else, I engaged in the act of driving with a clear purpose in mind. If, during the course of events, I hit accidentally hit and kill a person I still am responsible. When I chose to drive I never did so with the idea of killing a person in mind, and the odds of it happening are small, but that does not change the fact I am responsible. Vehicular manslaughter is always a possibility whenever you chose to drive from point A to point B, and as it is a possible consequence of the action that means that when I chose to drive I also chose to take responsibility if and when this accident occurs.
However, if I do not chose to drive from point A to point B but am being forced to by another, possibly a passenger with a gun to my head, then if in the process of driving I accidentally kill someone it is not my responsibility. I would not be charged with vehicular manslaughter. This is because it was not my choice to drive, I thus did not consent to the possible consequences that may come from driving.
Consenting to an action means responsibility for consequences, even if those consequences are unintended and/or unlikely. This applies to numerous situations legally. Why should this not apply to sex, pregnancy, and the life of the unborn?
People do not just become pregnant out of nowhere, it does not happen overnight for no reason. Pregnancy is, outside of cases of rape, a consequence of a choice one makes. A man and woman decide they want to have sex, they do not do it for the purpose of having a child and they find it unlikely that such an event will happen, but does that matter? Much like in the example of the driver when two people consent to having sex they also take on the responsibilities that come with that choice, one of which is pregnancy.
If I want to avoid ever having the chance of being charged with vehicular manslaughter then I will never drive a vehicle, if I wish to avoid ever having the responsibility of parenthood I will never have sex with a woman. If I choose to drive I take on responsibilities that come with said action, if I choose to have sex I take on responsibilities that come with said action.
One objection that SkepticalOne made was that "the limitations potentially imposed on a female parent by forced birth can never be applicable to the male parent." I must ask why this is, necessarily, an issue. Sexual dimorphism is a real thing, as such there will always be differences between men and women. There are some responsibilities that one sex might have to take on that the other cannot. We do not live in a perfectly 'fair' world, sexual dimorphism as a defense against taking on responsibilities needs a better defense than the existence of sexual dimorphism.
Another objection from SkepticalOne, in regards to the analogy to a newborn and neglect (from one of the above quotes), was that "an unwilling parent can legally give the child up." True, but even during periods in which they desire to give the child up for adoption they are responsible for the well-being of the child. Until such a time that another person consents to take responsibility over the child their well-being is still your responsibility. It is not that responsibility vanished, it is that it transfers. Abortion is not a transfer of responsibility, it is the ending on one. Furthermore, adoption is not immediate either. When you call an adoption agency about giving up your child they do not just come and take the child away and relinquish you of responsibility, it takes time, sometimes a longer time than you might desire. Why then is it not seen in a similar way with pregnancy and adoption? You can arrange things while pregnant, and just like if you try to arrange things afterwards, it takes time. Since the option given for a parent to no longer be responsibility for their newborn takes time I do not see why abortion becomes a comparable option for the unborn.
______________________________________________________________
I know that there are more points I could make (and some I know I have missed), but I told SkepticalOne I would get this post made coming up on 24 hours ago and so will post it for now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Imagine you find a tiny gnome growing in your house.
False analogy, people don't just wake up pregnant.
Created:
Posted in:
A little late, I am TheMorningsStar. I was on DDO before, my original account being SNP1 but I created a new account after I became a theist to get a 'fresh start'. My primary interests are in religion and history (sadly there isn't a history forum here), but politics and philosophy interest me as well. Have not had a real debate in years, hoping to change that soon.
Created:
-->
@MonkeyKing
Multiple ex-Mormons have put the church through the BITE model and I have yet to see one conclude it isn't a cult. Even non-Mormons that focus on cults have published their thoughts on Mormonism and the BITE model and concluded it is a cult.
This is a playlist that has an ex-JW that concluded that Mormonism is a cult via the BITE model and an ex-Mormon going over the BITE model in regards to Mormonism again and showing how it is a cult.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
If you believe COVID is real and is dangerous, please explain how you would combat it without stepping into what you are criticizing as authoritarianism
Let's go back to the beginning as I was critical of things almost right from the start (and assume that I am in charge).
I believe that the role of a country is to protect the citizens rights and to protect the citizens from outside threats, and as such there are some small 'authoritarian' aspects that can be taken if it is in line with these two roles.
I was actually talking about Covid being a threat in December of 2019, having paid attention to what was happening in China. Even as far back as this time it was known that China had an outbreak of something, some people were speculating it was going to be bad, and we knew a center of outbreak was in Wuhan.
I would then call for experts to further investigate and see if we had any connections into Wuhan to use to find out any specifics on the virus if possible. I would also ban any travel to and from China, its neighboring countries, and anyone that had been in China recently. I would make no policies that limit the citizens freedoms up to this point. I would then increase support for border control in order to prevent as many people from illegally entering the country as possible.
It should not be long before we would be able to see just how bad the virus is (there were people warning others about it in January) and thus I would start looking at what essential products come from China and see if there are alternate sources for these and encourage (possibly through monetary incentive) companies to switch to manufacturing products that do not have alternate sources. I would also put restrictions on good coming from China.
I would push government funding into ways to test for the virus as well as any treatment options (while keeping an eye on China to see if they come up with anything and don't bother sharing). The moment we have an effective way to test for the virus we would be able to allow people to reenter the country if they are tested (and make it clear that if you are in charge and let people into the country that test positive that you will face a large fine and jail time, as one of the ways it did enter the US was when someone tested positive and was put on the plane to the US anyways).
The moment an effective treatment is found I would create a program that anyone could get tested for Covid and if they test positive they would be given access to the treatment as well as some level of financial aid to make up for lost work time (instead of giving everyone checks and unemployment). I would never mandate masks but would encourage their use, as mandates tend to create distrust it is best not to use these. I would also do what Trump did with Operation Warpspeed in order to get a vaccine.
Once a vaccine is available I would not mandate it but would encourage people to use it. Depending on how bad Covid has impacted the country I would also give monetary incentive (again, no checks to everyone, no unemployment to everyone).
During the process I would hold a press conference twice a week, not every day (as this makes it easier for misinformation to accidentally be said during conferences) with updates on what is known, what measures one can take to protect themselves, etc.
If there was to be any limitation on freedom it would be a '15 day stay-at-home' that actually only lasts 15 days, but that is dependent upon how effective everything else has been.
No mandates = more trust. Less misinformation from not holding a press conference every day = more trust. Keeping the economy running = more trust. Giving financial aid to those that are sick = more trust.
The goal is to build trust while allowing people to be free so that when health recommendations are made that people will be more trusting of the information, when the vaccine becomes available people are more trusting of it, etc.
The most important thing is to act early and keep the national border as closed as possible. It is also important to create punishments for those that might bring the virus into the country (and for those that would put the sick into nursing homes) to make people more proactive rather than complacent in their positions that have large impact.
While there very well could still be a debt issue from the financial aid and incentives in this plan the economy will not have suffered nearly as bad and thus the country will be able to more easily handle it.
There are likely a few things I am forgetting at the moment, but that is because I have not considered every aspect as I am not someone with the power to do this.
The problem is that the right-wing didn't want to do some of these things because they hate government spending going anywhere but their own pockets while the left-wing didn't want this initially as it was 'xenophobic'.
Taking political positions and alienating half their users is not a great way to do that.
You are aware that social media already does take political positions, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Birth is required for personhood legally
Isn't part of the debate over whether abortion should be legal this issue itself?
Assuming the personhood of the unborn (which is quite a large allowance considering) there is still no right to use the body of another without consent.
I would disagree. Rights get limited by responsibilities and obligations all the time. Take a newborn baby as an example. The legal guardian of a newborn baby has moral and legal obligations which can, in some instances, limit the freedoms said guardian would enjoy if they did not have these obligations. This is why neglect of a child is a legal issue. Responsibility/obligation, in this instance, is placed before rights/freedom.
The question is if such a thing should be placed on the unborn as well. So, not including cases of rape, does a woman have a responsibility over the life of their unborn child, and does that responsibility lead to a limit on the bodily autonomy. That is the debate.
If you only care about maximizing freedom and rights then the answer might seem clear, no matter what the unborn is infringing on the bodily autonomy of the mother and thus is 'guilty' of violating the rights of another. However, if you prioritize only rights and freedom like this then, some would argue, we must also agree to get rid of laws around neglect (as well as some other laws). After all, these laws too put responsibility and obligations before rights and freedom, and the same ethos behind these laws can be argued to apply in cases of abortion.
If you want we can create a new thread to talk about the topic more in depth. Who knows, maybe it will convince me to stay pro-choice.
Created:
-->
@MonkeyKing
Be careful throwing out the C word my friend
I mean, based on the BITE model both Mormonism and JW fall under the category of cult, so I don't know why one needs to be careful about calling these two 'denominations' what they are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
First, there are no unborn "people"
How do you define people?
Is a premature baby born at 7.5 months more of a person than a fetus that is near 9 months of development?
That is not happening, because, once again pro-lifers demonstrate life is not their focus.
As someone that has been pro-choice for a decade and has recently been almost convinced of the pro-life position (have not yet switched but am considering it), I think this is a mischaracterization. Ultimately, just laws are created for two reasons. One, to protect people's rights (and prevent one person from infringing on another's rights). Two, to enforce fundamental responsibilities (responsibilities that are weighed as more important, in some instances, than the individual's rights). All just laws consider both these points and tries to find where the balance should be. The pro-life position tends to wish to protect the life of the unborn by upholding the responsibility of the mother. It is the desire to protect one's life but the responsibility aspect is considered when making this decision.
If you then try to talk about people's lives without considering the aspect of responsibility then it becomes easy to say that pro-life=pro-birth and not life, but that is due to ignoring a fundamental aspect in which the position is taken.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
maiden mother crone
This is a neo-pagan concept, and thus I am not too familiar with it, but from what I understand the maiden mother crone is usually depicted in either tritheistic terms or modalistic terms, both of which are seen as heretical when applied to the Christian trinity.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
So your argument is essentially that you would do what you claim Democratic governors are doing
Similar to what they are doing, yes, but not the same thing. It is true that almost everything I listed has been done by Democratic governors, but spread out (not one governor doing all of it).
We know that putting covid patients into nursing homes caused a lot of death and allowed the virus to spread. We know that allowing mass migration of unvaccinated people has caused spikes. Etc.
If one governor did all of this then it could cause a lot of issues, but that is not the case, they only do some of it. Furthermore, as far as I am aware there isn't a governor anywhere that pushes for the 'least effective' vaccine.
what I find most remarkable about your post is that it clearly comes from a right wing point of view
No, an anti-authoritarian point of view. The right-wing response has been flawed as well, but the insanity by authoritarians (and more Left-leaning governors have taken authoritarian measures than right-leaning ones in response to Covid), even from other states, has caused such a level of distrust, especially when you take into account the social media censorship of criticism and how we know that social media, in very recent history, has censored stories for political gain.
You mean it will cause those who are so incredibly childish that they would not get themselves vaccinated because they're mad at the government
This is a complete strawman, or, at the very least, complete ignorance of reality. We are in a country that has become more and more polarized. People on both sides will take stances just to be contrarian to the other side. It isn't necessarily 'childish', it follows basic group psychology. In a way the country is divided into roughly two tribes (technically a few more, but they are not major players) and there is almost a tribal warfare going on. That is how polarized things have gotten. To pretend it is just people being childish shows little understanding on just how bad the situation in the country has gotten and little understanding of psychology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
It isn't a life (in the sense they don't have a living body) until it is disconnected from the umbilical cord? Even if it is fully viable just not yet born? How would you defend this in a debate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
1 Corinthians 6:9
The word that is translated as "men who have sex with men" is 'arsenokoitai'. This word first appears in Paul's writings, he coins the term. He does not, however, pull it from nowhere. He combines the words 'arsen' and 'koiten' from the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. As such to understand what, exactly, Paul means here we must understand what is meant in Leviticus or have some other source from Paul or near Paul's time that can give a clear answer. We do not have the latter, so the former is what is required in order to try to understand context, and I already commented about these verses in post #70. You really should read the link I gave you thoroughly.
Created: