Texas v abortion
- Thread starter Trunkage
- Start date
So what about pregnancy is something that merits punishment? Because make no mistake, that's what your policies are ultimately about.
That's a font?
Likewise, imprisonment and freedom aren't mutually exclusive because you can eventually get out of prison.
No they aren't. You're suggesting that because it helps you feel better about your own position, which suggests you know it's indefensible without the support of lies.
I want you to be free, but I also want you chained to this wall for the next five months. Fortunately, these are not incompatible.
No. Assuming that's Spanish not Portugese not that it probably makes a lick of difference either way, whilst hablo poco espagnol (I'm better in French and Latin) I'm aware that in most if not all Latin-derived languages the form of the adjective changes suffix with the associated noun: so adjectives humano (masculine singular), humana (feminine singular), humanos (masculine plural), humanas (feminine plural). Please note that "espagnol" is masculine. Were it feminine, I suspect it would be "hablo poca espagnol".
Thus derechos (noun masculine plural = "rights") requires the plural masculine form of the adjective for human, which is "humanos".
What is even relevant than the fact you are wrong is that this sideshow singly fails to even make any case, in that it still does not explain what "human" represents in English, nor remotely tackles the fact that Spanish may have the same ambiguity.
And yet we do, all the time. There are loads of laws permitting this. The death penalty is an obvious one. The states where you can legally justify killing a trespasser with the nebulous subjective opinion of feeling scared (and people complain that people today get offended!). Police rights to shoot people are very broad. Do you want to kill 500,000 innocent civilians because of some lies about WMDs? Totally legal. Turning off their life support.
So I guess it's okay to push people off a boat in the middle of the ocean 1000 miles from land. After all, it's merely removing their positive effect of conveyance over water. If they can't swim to land from there and drown, that's not on the person who pushed them.
It doesn't change the fact that you're wrong in the argument. The phrase "human rights" is an evolution from what was originally "the rights of man" back when "man" meant human in that context, and the ambiguity added by "human rights" only exists in the movement to an explicitly gender neutral term. Human rights is referring to human beings, and you're incorrect to argue otherwise.
You'll note, your examples are generally where there isn't an "everyone lives" option. The person on life support is going to die, self-defense is intended as keeping yourself from dying, police are meant to have lethal force to protect others from threat of death. Ignoring the WMD's comment as wars are not relevant in the discussion of civil rights, the only one outside of that rule is the death penalty, which is equally contentious to abortion and opposed by many of the same people. You've formulated a list to demonstrate my consistency.
When my argument is that we ought to apply the same logic to abortion as we do to all other homicides, you are wasting your time to present a silly homicide we'd obviously prosecute.
As opposed to starving somebody in a hospital when we have the medical technology to keep them alive, something that is obviously okay
(I think it's okay too btw. I just don't think it becomes not okay the instant we can use a real actual person as a piece of medical equipment)
I just meant the meme. But whenever someone says something remotely like who the hell cares, I read it in a Peter Griffin voice
I don't think fonts come in irritating screech
The first state in the United States to allow women to own and control property-- a fundamental right according to those you say meant "mankind" when saying "man"-- did so in 1848. Which was after e.g. John Locke said that property was a natural right. John Locke died in 1704.
And what is a human being? You've cited the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so it's worth noting what it says:
Article 1:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
So, 1) human rights begin at birth, and 2) fetuses until a certain age, by lacking the ability to think, cannot carry out the fundamental defined capacities of a human being. The very document you are using to explain what humans are excludes fetuses when it describes rights of human beings.
This is just flat wrong. The person on life support is can be kept alive for literally decades until old age or some other form of natural causes. Castle doctrine affords people extraordinary ability to use lethal force, including when not being subjected to actual physical threat which thus highly undermines the concept of "self defence". I'll agree to exclude wars for convenience, although I think they are relevant to demonstrate that alleged respect for life is far less than many people think. You can argue some people oppose both the death penalty and abortion, but you also know perfectly well that in the USA support for the death penality correlates strongly with opposing abortion.
But it's not silly. It's identifying that the discrimination between removing positive effects and imposing negative effects that you're making is far more blurred than you think.
Yes, and the idea of "natural rights" predates the "rights of man". The english language had a single word meaning both "man" and " humanity" for centuries. That equal rights for women came about rapidly once the philosophical movement toward "human rights" began is not coincidence. The did not go "let's name it the rights of "man", cause screw women... oops now we gave them the same rights a century later" as though it were an accident.
Had to double post, site rejected the combined post.
I'm willing to concede that you won the semantic argument (not minimizing, you know I love semantics), but hopefully you're not denying that the current system of rights established by society are meant for human beings, rather than "humans, usually, but also sometimes dogs, on a scale of who can feel pain." You're trying to establish a different system of rights than what currently exists.
Fair enough, but those guys are idiots anyway, lol.
I'm willing to concede that you won the semantic argument (not minimizing, you know I love semantics), but hopefully you're not denying that the current system of rights established by society are meant for human beings, rather than "humans, usually, but also sometimes dogs, on a scale of who can feel pain." You're trying to establish a different system of rights than what currently exists.
Not really. They're pretty independent variables, aside from the huge overlap that is the Catholic population. If you want to take that out, and suggest there is a strong correlation between being non-Catholic pro-life and being for the death penalty, that probably holds up, but I obviously have some points of contention with them.
Than you think I think. It's not as though I've been here going "there are no gray areas, murder is easy to prove!" We don't even attempt to treat abortion consistent with the way we treat homicide. There's no sense nitpicking about gray areas when you're still arguing the black and white argument.
Funny how they weren't when you thought they were useful to you.
Although, of course, the current Constitutional laws of the USA are de facto taking the same stance on that whole rights begin at birth concept, so it's not as stupid as you might think.
I'm not sure how you got to the weird idea that animals have human rights - animals have animal rights, obviously. The point made was that the reasons for why we grant animals rights are the same concepts as why we grant them to humans: they have thoughts and feelings that merit respect and so we should not inflict suffering unnecessarily or wantonly.
By demographic standards, there is high correlation. The simplest way to indicate this is to use political parties as a proxy: support for the death penality and opposition to abortion are both vastly higher in the Republican Party than Democratic. There are obvious concentrations of pro-death penalty and anti-abortion sentiment in evangelical Protestants (i.e. mostly Republican voters) and the opposite for the non-religious, for instance.
The funny thing about US Catholics is that despite the stance of their Church, a slim majority of them appear to support abortion as mostly legal (albeit often more restricted than now). It would be quite interesting to see the extent to which those are the same ones (approx 50%) who are against the death penalty. I suspect there will be a correlation: Catholics in blue states are probably inclined to adopt the general trend of beliefs in those states, and those in red states the prevailing attitudes there. There may also be similar factors such as race and social class.
If a rule's not a rule then it's no use for claiming that something is wrong because doesn't fit that (not-) rule.
"All men are created equal": 1776, Thomas Jefferson. Ratified by all the 13 colonies.
New York allows women to own and control property: 1848.
You. Are. Wrong.
And if you finish the sentence, they state the inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", which quite notably does not include property. And then they wrote a Constitution with the Bill of Rights, and those enumerated rights applied to women as well.
You. Are. Contrived.