Texas v abortion

[gorfias]

You don't get to tell me that that you're worried about other people not believing in the sanctity of life and then in the next breath tell me that my grandmother, who lost her husband and son-in-law last year for unrelated reasons, should be sacrificed for fucking economic reasons during a pandemic that's already resulted in people dying from treatable illnesses due to hospitals having full ICUs and having a death count in the millions.

Shit man, if permanently fucking your finances is a valid reason to let people die, you should be majorly in favor of abortion.

Economies mean life and death. Food insecurity is a real problem caused by financial shortages. Medical care exists only to the extent we can fund it. Economy goes under and people start dying from poor nutrition, substance abuse, suicide, housing and medical needs, etc. being unmet. That matters too. The lives of people that will die in such an economy matter. Sometimes, there is no perfect solution to a thing. Only trade-offs and unintended consequences.
I have read a legal critique of Roe though that argued 9 men hallucinated it into law to make the consequences of sex less impactful to them. Phone call by George Carlin:
George on Phone, "Hello?"
Girl, "Hi, you met me 6 to 8 weeks ago at a party and you said I was a good sport." Well, you got me pregnant and I'm going to kill myself.
George, "Say! You are a good sport!"
He was kidding but seriously, do you doubt there are men telling girls they've knocked up to get abortions?

You take the transgression so seriously that you're willing to execute a person who didn't commit it, just to show how serious you are.

Rate of false conviction of criminal defendants who are sentenced to death

The rate of erroneous conviction of innocent criminal defendants is often described as not merely unknown but unknowable. We use survival analysis to model this effect, and estimate that if all death-sentenced defendants remained under sentence of death indefinitely at least 4.1% would be...

www.pnas.org

The National Academy of Sciences estimates that 4.1% of death row inmates are likely to be innocent of the crimes for which they will be executed. Oh, well, can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, right? I mean, their lives can't be used as an excuse to control others.

While I doubt the stat, I am now against the death penalty as I don't trust government with that kind of power. It is an old argument I've heard and dismissed in the past but cannot any longer with the kind of over-reach I see governments doing these days.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

He was kidding but seriously, do you doubt there are men telling girls they've knocked up to get abortions?

So the solution is to never let any women get abortions?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Economies mean life and death. Food insecurity is a real problem caused by financial shortages. Medical care exists only to the extent we can fund it. Economy goes under and people start dying from poor nutrition, substance abuse, suicide, housing and medical needs, etc. being unmet. That matters too. The lives of people that will die in such an economy matter. Sometimes, there is no perfect solution to a thing. Only trade-offs and unintended consequences.

So when do we euthanize the elderly, o respecter of life? And how is this an argument against the possibility of abortion

At what point do we let corporations just fucking kill people to make money?

 

[gorfias]

So the solution is to never let any women get abortions?

Were it up to me alone, politically, and it isn't, I'd support abortion up to "quickening" which I think happens in the 2nd trimester.

So when do we euthanize the elderly, o respecter of life? And how is this an argument against the possibility of abortion

Well, I don't support this sort of thing: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/
ITMT: We have limited funds. Would you tell a million kids, sorry, no nutritious food for you. Each of you at even cents a day will cost millions combined and we need to help Grandma live another 2 years.
I would not do it. She lived her life. Those kids deserve their turn too.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Well, I don't support this sort of thing: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/
ITMT: We have limited funds. Would you tell a million kids, sorry, no nutritious food for you. Each of you at even cents a day will cost millions combined and we need to help Grandma live another 2 years.
I would not do it. She lived her life. Those kids deserve their turn too.

We destroyed a billion pounds of potatoes last year, our economic situation is nowhere near that desperate. Besides, the party seeking to ban abortion is also the party what wants more meat packers to die of covid and is also the party that thinks free school lunches are immoral, so...

But hey, glad you think my grandma should hurry up and die so that you can increase the odds I get an severe respiratory infection. Really feeling the life respecting right now.

 

[tstorm823]

Eeehhhh, don't be counting yourself as the one and only correct voice in a sea of naysayers.

I mean, I wasn't speculating there. GX has said on their own that theoretically when technology enables removal of the fetus without it dying, current abortion procedures are going to be banned. That wasn't a "you know I'm right and you're wrong", it was a "you've already said this yourself".

This is some weird-arse shit to pretend that science is religion.

It's not at all. It's a history lesson. One of the most common positions on abortion prior the 20th century was that it was fine before quickening, the first sign of of movement felt by the mother. That was thought of as the point where personhood started. This has been true in a variety of cultures, with or without religion being the determining factor. While there were certainly some who condemned all abortions during that time frame, it was medical science in the 20th century that made people look and go "well that's really just bullcrap, isn't it?" It was newly acquired knowledge of what actually happens in pregnancy that drove the movement to ban abortions. And now people come up with all sorts of equally bogus rationalizations for why we should keep the old system based on guesses about the movement of souls.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Listen guys, abortion will be illegal when we can fully provide for every child to be born and have them raised with dignity, when we have so many resources that we can just afford to give people everything they need to survive.

I think we should all congratulate tstorm for coming over to the side of Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism, it has been a hard road for him to admit that his moral outlook would best flourish in an economic system he has been taught to hate his whole life, and we shouldn't attack someone for discovering their love of communism.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I mean, I wasn't speculating there. GX has said on their own that theoretically when technology enables removal of the fetus without it dying, current abortion procedures are going to be banned. That wasn't a "you know I'm right and you're wrong", it was a "you've already said this yourself".

Man, you really need to work on your reading comprehension.
I said that you *could* ban abortion, not that you *should* ban abortion. I said that because, at that point, there's no functional difference to the pregnant person: either way, the fetus is gone and no longer nonconsensually inhabiting the pregnant person's body. The arguments about bodily autonomy become moot.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

But hey, glad you think my grandma should hurry up and die so that you can increase the odds I get an severe respiratory infection. Really feeling the life respecting right now.

@gorfias
I need you to realize that this isn't a funny haha internet slap fight. This isn't Pineapple On Pizza; Contagion Edition. Both of my grandfathers died last year. Of Parkinson's and a heart infection. My uncle died of blood clots after routine surgery. At this moment, my grandmother has covid. And you are here telling me that you respect life more than me, and in doing so I should be okay with my elders being dead because they are placing less of a burden on my family's finances, and that I should be okay with my grandmother dying to free up resources for The Economy.

Because you respect life.

These are real, actual people these policies effect. This isn't some empire simulator where we're debating the relative merits of Egalitarianism vs Austerity so we can maximize our Pop output and climb the tech tree. Nothing is more dehumanizing than Economics and we really have to be careful about that.

 

[Silvanus]

Because the foster system is, by a large majority, children not waiting for adoption. About 3/4 children in the foster system are expected to be reunited with their family, and are not eligible for adoption.

Listen. I live here. I listen to the radio. They have radio commercials advertising adoption. None of them are about adopting infants. Nearly every one is telling people to "adopt a teen". America does not have unwanted infants. That isn't a thing. People travel around the world to adopt other place's infants because we have too little supply here to meet demand.

I've tried now three separate times to dig up a reliable breakdown of the ages of kids awaiting adoption, to no avail. If you have the stats to back up the idea that young kids needing homes "isn't a thing" in America, I'd love to see them. It'd make the country bizarrely unique.

Also;

Listen. I live here. I listen to the radio.

Lol.

 

[gorfias]

@gorfias
I need you to realize that this isn't a funny haha internet slap fight. This isn't Pineapple On Pizza; Contagion Edition. Both of my grandfathers died last year. Of Parkinson's and a heart infection. My uncle died of blood clots after routine surgery. At this moment, my grandmother has covid. And you are here telling me that you respect life more than me, and in doing so I should be okay with my elders being dead because they are placing less of a burden on my family's finances, and that I should be okay with my grandmother dying to free up resources for The Economy.

Because you respect life.

These are real, actual people these policies effect. This isn't some empire simulator where we're debating the relative merits of Egalitarianism vs Austerity so we can maximize our Pop output and climb the tech tree. Nothing is more dehumanizing than Economics and we really have to be careful about that.

Actually, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying if, for the sake of argument, I have to choose between the life of a 2 year old and the life of an 80 year old, I'm choosing the 2 year old as this is actually very egalitarian. The 80 year old has lived a lifetime while the 2 year old has not yet and deserves that opportunity.

I am sorry for your loss. I too have lost a great deal, I write, due to the Covid response. It has a cost. Somethings are not cost free where there are no costs to consider.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I am sorry for your loss. I too have lost a great deal, I write, due to the Covid response. It has a cost. Somethings are not cost free where there are no costs to consider.

Look man, you started this line of dialogue worried that abortion would create a coarseness and irrelevance of human life.
You then said that we shouldn't risk damaging our economy to try and prevent 4.5 million deaths and counting.

Tying that argument to the value of human life makes you sound like an anime villain.

 

[gorfias]

Look man, you started this line of dialogue worried that abortion would create a coarseness and irrelevance of human life.
You then said that we shouldn't risk damaging our economy to try and prevent 4.5 million deaths and counting.

Tying that argument to the value of human life makes you sound like an anime villain.

And you appear to ignore an ocean of bloodshed you might cause... blood of kids... in order to add a year or 2 to the life of the elderly. It's about priorities. If you have to choose, which would you?
We've kinda left the OG discussion about the Texas law, which I don't necessarily support (I think I am a pro-choice moderate but think the Roe decision itself was made by men who then at the time wanted it to be easier to get laid without consequence) and run into Covid response. Might be my fault for which, just in case, I apologize.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

And you appear to ignore an ocean of bloodshed you might cause... blood of kids... in order to add a year or 2 to the life of the elderly. It's about priorities. If you have to choose, which would you?
We've kinda left the OG discussion about the Texas law, which I don't necessarily support (I think I am a pro-choice moderate but think the Roe decision itself was made by men who then at the time wanted it to be easier to get laid without consequence) and run into Covid response. Might be my fault for which, just in case, I apologize.

Yes, gorfias, I'm ignoring the potential bloodshed that might be caused in order to try and stop the fucking sea of blood that is already occurring. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/02/job...e-highest-risk-of-dying-from-covid-study.html

But hey, I'm sure there's no knock-on economic effects from your essential workforce dying 30% more often. And that's with attempts to limit spread. And this isn't an uncommon sentiment. So I don't buy that abortion access is what's causing people to have an irreverence for human life.

 

[Trunkage]

This is some weird-arse shit to pretend that science is religion.

There is no meaningful similarity between religion's postulated and hopelessly unproven concept of "soul", and scientific determination of an entity's capacity for feeling and cognition. Religions could handwave it away in the old days of complete ignorance. Now we know the process from conception to birth, religions are in the sticky position of having to justify when a soul that they can't hope to show exist or measure arrives, in a metaphysical puff of magic, into a bundle of cells. For which their answers consequently vary between evasion and bluster, as they have no choice otherwise.

There are plenty of equivalent and consistent rules in ethics and science. The rationale for switching off the life support of someone brain dead exists under a similar principle. It extends too to animals to a substantial extent: go ahead and stomp an ant, you're free to. Try stomping a cat, you'll face prosecution under animal cruelty laws - the difference being their measurable capacity for sentience.

If we have souls, I would say that it would not be around in a fetus yet when it's a few cells. Nor would it be in sperm/ovum.

If we had souls, they probably be in the baby before its born. It shows personality in the womb.

I don't know when a soul would be part of the unborn baby but it also might not be a switch, turn on at a particular moment. There is a time when, if you prone to believing in souls, that you think the soul fully exists. For me, about half way through the pregnancy

Similar to your animal example here, I would say, if there are souls, that cats and ants have souls. And then we decide on what souls are worthy of bigger punishment.

Me personally, I admonish my kids if the even hurt insects. And plants. If we due hurt them, we do it for a purpose (eg. Food) and respect the sacrifice.

Except mosquitoes. Those a-hole can go extinct

 

[BrawlMan]

​

 

[Seanchaidh]

"When the situation is completely different, my moral position will be correct!" -some guy who thinks his moral position is correct right now

 

[Phoenixmgs]

My point was that these aren't really comparable situations.

People like to think of abortion as 'killing' a foetus, but it's not. The abortionist doesn't kill the foetus, once you remove the foetus from the womb it simply dies on its own. There is currently no alternative environment we could provide that could support the life of a foetus outside the womb. When there is, that will be a whole other bioethical dimension to abortion, and it's dependence becomes a bit more comparable to the situation of a young child. But regardless, comparing the natural death of a pre-viable foetus to the deliberate murder of a healthy human being is disingenuous. You don't need to kill the former, it isn't capable of living.

They are comparable situations in the original context, saving a kid from a bad childhood/life. If saving kids from a bad household/situation is a reason to have an abortion, then why can't you kill a 1 year old in a bad home?

They don't though.

They need someone else's help. That is different. We all have a legal responsibility sometimes to help vulnerable people in specific, contingent situations. But those vulnerable people do not have a right to ownership or control over our bodies just because we are obligated to provide them with help.

There is an epidermal line at which rights become absolute. Sure, you might be legally obligated to call an ambulance for a person who has collapsed with kidney failure, but they don't also have the ability to force you to give up one of your kidneys, even if you could live with one and even if they would die without it. You may have an obligation to try and prevent a person killing themselves, but you don't have an obligation to let them have sex with you to make them feel better. Of all the things that exist on this planet, your body belongs to you and only to you, violating that is violating a fundamental ethical principle of the society we all live in.

And again, I should stress that this is taking the position that a 5 month old foetus is a person. That position is at best questionable and at worst complete nonsense.

A fetus doesn't have control over another body either, a woman can still do what she wants when pregnant. The fetus needs resources from you just like a 1 year old needs resources from you.

The whole debate is all too particular in semantics for me to really get into being on one side or the other like I've said numerous times. And the fact that it's so particular leads me to say (like I've said probably every post) that you shouldn't restrict others from doing so. And also there is legit moral reasons for an abortion sometimes so it shouldn't be banned because there are legit reasons to do it.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

A fetus doesn't have control over another body either, a woman can still do what she wants when pregnant.

Except get a babysitter. Drink. Smoke. Be on more than a few useful medications. Not have their body permanently modify itself. Etc.

 

[CriticalGaming]

I should be allowed to smoke while pregnant. Fucking Nazi's always trying to take away my cancer sticks!