US Politics: Cancelling Democracy

[JGP]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

I answered those questions in my original post. Right to choose is incredibly fundamental and important, but superseded by right to life. And if the question of the right to choose supersedes the child’s right to live, why and when does that end? Post-natal children cause incalculable damage on their parents, suicides, dead careers, mental and physical anguish, income depletion, etc. So why doesn’t that suffering still carry over? 

This is so boring, man. None of that matters.

Women own their own bodies. Abortions as choice in general are early on. There is a point were women choose to carry on, and nothing there is guaranteed.

None of this is your business, is the thing.   

[James Arryn]

1 minute ago, Babblebauble said:

 

Query: what is the basis for your totalist non-sanctified sanctification of life of any nature? 

I don't want to dog pile on you, I'm curious. Why do you think that a human's life is intrinsically... let's say worthy of the severity of your stance on its defense against (almost) any occurrence?

This is a good question, and I will try to remember it after I’ve crashed…too long to answer now, already looking at a short sleep coupled with flu exacerbated by raising my twins in the morning. Remind me if I forget, please.

[Jace, Extat]

Just now, James Arryn said:

This is a good question, and I will try to remember it after I’ve crashed…too long to answer now, already looking at a short sleep coupled with flu exacerbated by raising my twins in the morning. Remind me if I forget, please.

At your leisure, of course.

[James Arryn]

1 minute ago, JGP said:

This is so boring, man. None of that matters.

Women own their own bodies. Abortions as choice in general are early on. There is a point were women choose to carry on, and nothing there is guaranteed.

None of this is your business, is the thing.   

I own my body. If I use it to kill, that ownership becomes secondary. And this is everyone’s business. If it’s not mine, just as one superficial for instance, why will I be responsible for child support over something that’s none of my business if the one whose business it is decides to give birth? But moreover, the potential death of children is society’s business. 

[James Arryn]

1 minute ago, Babblebauble said:

At your leisure, of course.

Cheers.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

but I think it's also fair to say that he hasn't exactly done a great job for a number of reasons.

They're definitely not looking to make room on Mount Rushmore.  I don't like acting as Biden's defender on these threads way too much anymore than you do, but as long as y'all's complaints are silly and/or blatantly glossing over recent history -- which we discussed on here, well...

Just now, James Arryn said:

1) as we don’t know when life begins, we should err on the side of not killing humans until we do.

The bolded is circular reasoning.  You've already decided when life begins, and are imposing that decision on others.  If we should "err" on that side, how far does it go?  Morning after pill, stem cells? 

[JGP]

Just now, James Arryn said:

I own my body. If I use it to kill, that ownership becomes secondary. And this is everyone’s business. If it’s not mine, just as one superficial for instance, why will I be responsible for child support over something that’s none of my business if the one whose business it is decides to give birth? But moreover, the potential death of children is society’s business. 

The problem is how you're reducing. Equating a child with a very difficult decision an individual has over their own body.

And murder with the same  lol  Kind of a cheap backdoor, but whatever.  

Right to choose. 

[James Arryn]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

They're definitely not looking to make room on Mount Rushmore.  I don't like acting as Biden's defender on these threads way too much anymore than you do, but as long as y'all's complaints are silly and/or blatantly glossing over recent history -- which we discussed on here, well...

The bolded is circular reasoning.  You've already decided when life begins, and are imposing that decision on others.  If we should "err" on that side, how far does it go?  Morning after pill, stem cells? 

Not circular, I was merely assuming that erring on that side would indicate a belief that it either is human life or potential human life. I’m not imposing my decision on anyone, I am saying that until the scientific world CAN make that decision, I think we should limits choices that kill or might kill humans like the law does in so many other ways. 

[DMC]

Just now, James Arryn said:

I’m not imposing my decision on anyone, I am saying that until the scientific world CAN make that decision, I think we should limits choices that kill or might kill humans like the law does in so many other ways. 

Again, the bolded.  You aren't asserting it's "potential" life, you are asserting it should have the same rights as humans.  Which means you've already made the decision, legally, of when life begins and are imposing that decision on others.

[James Arryn]

3 minutes ago, JGP said:

The problem is how you're reducing. Equating a child with a very difficult decision an individual has over their own body.

And murder with the same  lol  Kind of a cheap backdoor, but whatever.  

Right to choose. 

Sorry, this makes no sense to me. Unless you are 100% certain about when life begins…and if so please inform us…how am I ‘equating a child’ with anything but a child or potential child? And just suppose in 10 years we find out human life begins at, dunno, 1 week…why would it differ from murder of a baby 1 week after birth?

Right to live. 

[James Arryn]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Again, the bolded.  You aren't asserting it's "potential" life, you are asserting it should have the same rights as humans.  Which means you've already made the decision, legally, of when life begins and are imposing that decision on others.

No, I am saying barring knowing we should err on that assumption because of the relative downsides to getting it wrong either way. But if you prefer, the law also often constrains our choices when they have the POTENTIAL to end human life.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

But if you prefer, the law also often constrains our choices when they have the POTENTIAL to end human life.

I don't know why this is relevant, you put potential in the wrong place.  If you truly haven't made up your mind on when life begins, then abortion is about ending POTENTIAL human life, not the POTENTIAL to end human life.  And when it comes to the former, again, where do you draw the line?  Morning after pill, stem cells?  What's your decision on that potential life?  And why should we all listen to your decision in the first place?

[James Arryn]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't know why this is relevant, you put potential in the wrong place.  If you truly haven't made up your mind on when life begins, then abortion is about ending POTENTIAL human life, not the POTENTIAL to end human life.  And when it comes to the former, again, where do you draw the line?  Morning after pill, stem cells?  What's your decision on that potential life?  And why should we all listen to your decision in the first place?

No, I inverted the potential to show that the law does not require certainty to constrain our choices when the possible effect is loss of human life. And I am saying I am consistent with that, until we have certainty then untold suffering is preferable to untold death. Or, to put it another way, if my mother had decided to abort me, my life would have been more affected than hers would have been either way, agreed? In that mine would have ceased completely and hers would have been affected variously. If you’re gonna say I’d never have known the difference, unknown, but equally true for a month old baby. In fact most people can’t remember anything before about 2 1/2 years old, so if that’s the measure, why not set the bar at 2 1/2?

Morning after pills are grey for me because there is no knowledge of pregnancy there. Stem cells i don’t understand enough to comment. 

[Ormond]

10 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Sorry, this makes no sense to me. Unless you are 100% certain about when life begins…and if so please inform us…how am I ‘equating a child’ with anything but a child or potential child? And just suppose in 10 years we find out human life begins at, dunno, 1 week…why would it differ from murder of a baby 1 week after birth?

Right to live. 

You are asking "science" to make a decision that it will never be able to do. There are aspects of this question that involve values which will never be matters of fact in a way that science can resolve.

I personally see little ethical problem with abortion in the first 12 weeks of fetal development, because at that point the brain function is below the level that our modern culture uses to determine the end of life in born individuals. But the fact that our culture uses a criterion of "enough brain function to sustain consciousness" as its criterion for "human life" is not a scientific decision. Science can tell you when brain function develops or ceases, but the question as to whether that should be the dividing line between "human life" and something else is not a scientific question but a value question which science itself can never settle. 

(Just to be clear, that I think abortion is more ethically problematical after 12 weeks doesn't mean I think it should be illegal. There are plenty of decisions people make in life that I think are ethically and morally wrong that I nevertheless think the government has no right to make for one.)

[DMC]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

No, I inverted the potential to show that the law does not require certainty to constrain our choices when the possible effect is loss of human life.

I don't know how many more times I can say it.  By defining it as "human life," which you have done repeatedly, you have already decided when life begins and are asserting that decision should be legally imposed on everybody else.

[JGP]

7 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Sorry, this makes no sense to me. Unless you are 100% certain about when life begins…and if so please inform us…how am I ‘equating a child’ with anything but a child or potential child? 

The narrative art of the moral quandary, the way you pose it... nah.

Body Autonomy is a human right, unless that person is for some reason unable to choose for themselves.

How we think anyone has say in this is almost offensive, frankly. You're welcome to believe what you will, James, but like you so is everyone else. For whatever reason.     

[James Arryn]

3 minutes ago, JGP said:

The narrative art of the moral quandary, the way you pose it... nah.

Body Autonomy is a human right, unless that person is for some reason unable to choose for themselves.

How we think anyone has say in this is almost offensive, frankly. You're welcome to believe what you will, James, but like you so is everyone else. For whatever reason.     

If it’s a child, who is choosing death for it?

[James Arryn]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't know how many more times I can say it.  By defining it as "human life," which you have done repeatedly, you have already decided when life begins and are asserting that decision should be legally imposed on everybody else.

I don’t know how many ways I can answer it; the risk of ending potential life can also be phrased as the potential risk to human life. If we are ending a potential human life we are potentially ending a human life. Not sure why you’re trying to go down this semantic route. 

[James Arryn]

14 minutes ago, Ormond said:

You are asking "science" to make a decision that it will never be able to do. There are aspects of this question that involve values which will never be matters of fact in a way that science can resolve.

I personally see little ethical problem with abortion in the first 12 weeks of fetal development, because at that point the brain function is below the level that our modern culture uses to determine the end of life in born individuals. But the fact that our culture uses a criterion of "enough brain function to sustain consciousness" as its criterion for "human life" is not a scientific decision. Science can tell you when brain function develops or ceases, but the question as to whether that should be the dividing line between "human life" and something else is not a scientific question but a value question which science itself can never settle. 

(Just to be clear, that I think abortion is more ethically problematical after 12 weeks doesn't mean I think it should be illegal. There are plenty of decisions people make in life that I think are ethically and morally wrong that I nevertheless think the government has no right to make for one.)

Thoughtful post requires thoughtful response, I’ll get back to you.

[JGP]

 

11 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

If it’s a child, who is choosing death for it?

It's such a manipulative way to argue. You say child, I see my kids learning to ride their bikes. It's the equation of the two that's insidious and I reject it completely. 

At the stage when someone is made aware they're pregnant, it's a pregnancy. And that's usually where the choice is made to continue, or not, with support, without. But they have that choice. Otherwise it's a big nunya.