NationStates

Great Minarchistan wrote:

Jebslund wrote:Expecting abstinence from humans is like expecting a dog not to eat. The reason prison rape and molestation in the Catholic Church are things? Abstinence isn't healthy. There are those who can handle it, but many cannot, and expecting them to, especially when married, is unreasonable in the extreme.

It's not a fetus's fault if you aren't risk-averse, at all

What does fault have to do with anything?

Great Minarchistan wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:You are mistaken if you think labour is the only biproduct or complication of pregnancy:

• Ovarian cancer during pregnancy -- is that not a "black swan" event?
• High Amniotic Fluid during pregnancy -- possibly causing a defect
• Life-threatening retained placenta
• Complications related to epilepsy
• Added risks related to kidney disease
• Added risks related to cardiovascular disease
• Added risk related to thyroid disease
• Added risk related to lupus
• Added risk related to mental health issues
• Added risk related to sickle cell disease
• Blood clots
• Fifth Disease
• Diabetes
• Molar pregnancy
• Hyperemesis gravidarum
• Ectopic pregnancy
• Sceptic miscarriage

All of those are predictably covered by allowing abortion in cases of life threatening condition to the mother and/or to the child

The Free Joy State wrote:It's not murder: murder is the murder of another person with malice aforethought.

Malice (or its lack thereof) is irrelevant when constituting the definition of murder

The Free Joy State wrote:It's not malice to wish to maintain your own bodily sovereignty (unless fighting off an attacker constitute malice) and the foetus is not a person.

A human fetus is genetically homo sapiens sapiens, ergo it should be assigned personhood. While there's no "murder" when the subject is non-living, a fetus is developing itself into a living being (via a predictable and linear process), so you're simply committing potential murder at best -- feel free to judge if that's any better than actual murder!

Why?

Genivaria wrote:

Great Minarchistan wrote:All of those are predictably covered by allowing abortion in cases of life threatening condition to the mother and/or to the child


Malice (or its lack thereof) is irrelevant when constituting the definition of murder


A human fetus is genetically homo sapiens sapiens, ergo it should be assigned personhood. While there's no "murder" when the subject is non-living, a fetus is developing itself into a living being (via a predictable and linear process), so you're simply committing potential murder at best -- feel free to judge if that's any better than actual murder!

Why?

I'm more interested in why anyone thinks foetuses having personhood would impact the legality of abortion.

We already have the rights to keep other people from using our bodies without our consent -- no-one can have organs taken without consent, blood cannot be taken without consent, people cannot be made to have sex against their will (and if someone tries, the invasion alone is sufficient that maximum force can be used to prevent it -- even if the attacker promises to let their victim live).

I'm unsure why anyone thinks the foetus -- if it were given personhood -- would or should get the right to use another person's body.

Great Minarchistan wrote:

Jebslund wrote:Expecting abstinence from humans is like expecting a dog not to eat. The reason prison rape and molestation in the Catholic Church are things? Abstinence isn't healthy. There are those who can handle it, but many cannot, and expecting them to, especially when married, is unreasonable in the extreme.

It's not a fetus's fault if you aren't risk-averse, at all

And it isn't punishing the fetus for the woman to seek treatment if the risk is borne through.

Great Minarchistan wrote:A human fetus is genetically homo sapiens sapiens, ergo it should be assigned personhood. While there's no "murder" when the subject is non-living, a fetus is developing itself into a living being (via a predictable and linear process), so you're simply committing potential murder at best -- feel free to judge if that's any better than actual murder!

Following this genetics argument, we'd give appendices, cancer cells, hair and more personhood. It's the third-worst type of argument I've seen (Second to "my god says" and whatever Keshiland said) in here.
Potential murder is a silly argument, as it's not potential and it's not murder.
Whether it's developing is also a non-starter.

...
And of course, even if we gave personhood to foeti, they wouldn't be allowed to use the womans body against her will; we don't allow forced organ donation, forced blood donation or the like either, even to save lives. The whole line of argument is either absurd, wrong or irrelevant.

Great Minarchistan wrote:

Jebslund wrote:Expecting abstinence from humans is like expecting a dog not to eat. The reason prison rape and molestation in the Catholic Church are things? Abstinence isn't healthy. There are those who can handle it, but many cannot, and expecting them to, especially when married, is unreasonable in the extreme.

It's not a fetus's fault if you aren't risk-averse, at all

Implying abortion is a punishment and not the only way to remedy a situation of a fetus using a woman's body as life support against her will.

Risk aversion isn't a factor, either. Abstinence, again, isn't healthy. It increases stress, it impairs judgement, it can cause depression, and other mental issues. There are some people who can handle it, but the majority of humans cannot, no matter how adept they are at fooling themselves and others into thinking they can.

Then again, given your comments here, I'm beginning to suspect you're not here to argue in good faith.

Great Minarchistan wrote:

Jebslund wrote:Expecting abstinence from humans is like expecting a dog not to eat. The reason prison rape and molestation in the Catholic Church are things? Abstinence isn't healthy. There are those who can handle it, but many cannot, and expecting them to, especially when married, is unreasonable in the extreme.

It's not a fetus's fault if you aren't risk-averse, at all

Nothing is the fault of a fetus and nothing is a problem for a fetus either, because fetuses aren't sentient, sapient, and for the first 2 trimesters have no feeling or experience whatsoever, which is why there's nothing wrong with terminating a fetus.

Great Minarchistan wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:But personhood is highly relevant.

And foetuses don't have it.

I wonder if you call your dead relatives "a pile of decomposed organic matter" instead of a person, because that's essentially how you should treat non-living human sapiens sapiens if you think fetuses aren't persons

Yes. Dead bodies are just lumps of meat. They're useful and valuable for things, and we should put them to those uses.

The Free Joy State wrote:There is no "potential murder". That's like me walking into a supermarket, picking up a packet of toothpaste, putting it back and walking out without buying anything and being charged with potential shoplifting.

Not really, it's like you ripping a sapling in two and therefore committing potential murder of a tree

No, it's like playing conkers. People who play conkers are not killing trees, and "potential murder" isn't a thing.

The Free Joy State wrote:You can't weigh things on potential.

In this case it works rather well

No, it doesn't.

The Free Joy State wrote:For a start, pregnancy is not predictable.

Yes, and where did I refer to that? I said that the evolution of a fetus is predictable and linear

Simply untrue.

Great Minarchistan wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:But personhood is highly relevant.

And foetuses don't have it.

I wonder if you call your dead relatives "a pile of decomposed organic matter" instead of a person, because that's essentially how you should treat non-living human sapiens sapiens if you think fetuses aren't persons

The Free Joy State wrote:There is no "potential murder". That's like me walking into a supermarket, picking up a packet of toothpaste, putting it back and walking out without buying anything and being charged with potential shoplifting.

Not really, it's like you ripping a sapling in two and therefore committing potential murder of a tree

The Free Joy State wrote:You can't weigh things on potential.

In this case it works rather well

The Free Joy State wrote:For a start, pregnancy is not predictable.

Yes, and where did I refer to that? I said that the evolution of a fetus is predictable and linear -- you won't have a human fetus developing into a dog over the course of 30 months.

It is the brain of our loved ones that make them who they are. When that brain ceases to function, that person no longer exists and the body is in fact nothing more than decaying organic material.

Liriena wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
B-but the great replacement...

Does me dating guys automatically make me complicit in the great replacement, or do I have to specifically date non-white guys? I mean, either way I'm not producing a lot of white babies. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yes, it does

Honkworld wrote:

Liriena wrote:Does me dating guys automatically make me complicit in the great replacement, or do I have to specifically date non-white guys? I mean, either way I'm not producing a lot of white babies. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yes, it does

Sucks for white people. Still not a reason to dictate who people can reproduce with. Or to not reproduce at all.

Honkworld wrote:

Liriena wrote:Does me dating guys automatically make me complicit in the great replacement, or do I have to specifically date non-white guys? I mean, either way I'm not producing a lot of white babies. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yes, it does

Nobody cares about what you want.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Great Minarchistan wrote:Unlike smoking-related diseases, pregnancy's byproducts (in practical terms, having a baby) are brought in the short term and are predictable, not black swan events

You are mistaken if you think labour is the only by-product or complication of pregnancy:

• Ovarian cancer during pregnancy -- is that not a "black swan" event?
• High Amniotic Fluid during pregnancy -- possibly causing a defect
• Life-threatening retained placenta
• Complications related to epilepsy
• Added risks related to kidney disease
• Added risks related to cardiovascular disease
• Added risk related to thyroid disease
• Added risk related to lupus
• Added risk related to mental health issues
• Added risk related to sickle cell disease
• Blood clots
• Fifth Disease
• Diabetes
• Molar pregnancy
• Hyperemesis gravidarum
• Ectopic pregnancy
• Sceptic miscarriage

Retarded decisions are often done and you aren't supposed to murder a person to reverse yours, unless of course if you're so self-centered that you believe that'll maximize your personal utility

It's not murder: murder is the murder of another person with malice aforethought.

It's not malice to wish to maintain your own bodily sovereignty (unless fighting off an attacker constitutes malice) and the foetus is not a person.

It doesn't matter. She ASKED for it.

And literally, the summation of Roe v. Wade was "it's nobody's business what medical decisions a woman and her doctor make."

I wish people would mind their business now. It's like the annoying 70 year old from the local HOA snooping around measuring whether your grass is a millimeter taller than it "should" be or saying that you can't put a garden in the back of your house, or complaining that your front door isn't painted in the exact shade of the 22 allowed shades and since it's off must be repainted.

Mind your business and stop making other people's lives more difficult/less enjoyable.

Great Minarchistan wrote:

Liriena wrote:This is some bizarre logic to apply to anything related to people's private health decisions.

Applied to people currently pregnant, it's beyond useless. Like telling someone with lung cancer that they shouldn't have smoked tobacco. They're already sick and they are asking for medical help. You don't get to pick and choose whether people should get the medical help they require based on whether the way they came to need that help morally offends you.

Unlike smoking-related diseases, pregnancy's byproducts (in practical terms, having a baby) are brought in the short term and are predictable, not black swan events

Liriena wrote:Applied to people who are not currently pregnant, it's simplistic, myopic. Sometimes people miscalculate. Sometimes they change their mind. And no third party has the right to tell them that their individual autonomy is void if they make an honest mistake, or if the prevention they relied on fails.

Retarded decisions are often done and you aren't supposed to murder a person to reverse yours, unless of course if you're so self-centered that you believe that'll maximize your personal utility

It isn't murder and it isn't a person.

Great Minarchistan wrote:

Necroghastia wrote:
Good thing no one's calling for people to be murdered, except I guess the ones who think the death penalty should be a thing.

Oh well, TIL that fetuses develop into dinosaurs and that they can't be considered homo sapiens sapiens as a result

Human =/= person.

Great Minarchistan wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:You are mistaken if you think labour is the only biproduct or complication of pregnancy:

• Ovarian cancer during pregnancy -- is that not a "black swan" event?
• High Amniotic Fluid during pregnancy -- possibly causing a defect
• Life-threatening retained placenta
• Complications related to epilepsy
• Added risks related to kidney disease
• Added risks related to cardiovascular disease
• Added risk related to thyroid disease
• Added risk related to lupus
• Added risk related to mental health issues
• Added risk related to sickle cell disease
• Blood clots
• Fifth Disease
• Diabetes
• Molar pregnancy
• Hyperemesis gravidarum
• Ectopic pregnancy
• Sceptic miscarriage

All of those are predictably covered by allowing abortion in cases of life threatening condition to the mother and/or to the child

The Free Joy State wrote:It's not murder: murder is the murder of another person with malice aforethought.

Malice (or its lack thereof) is irrelevant when constituting the definition of murder

What is relevant is its legality.

If it's legal, it's not murder.

The Free Joy State wrote:It's not malice to wish to maintain your own bodily sovereignty (unless fighting off an attacker constitute malice) and the foetus is not a person.

A human fetus is genetically homo sapiens sapiens, ergo it should be assigned personhood. While there's no "murder" when the subject is non-living, a fetus is developing itself into a living being (via a predictable and linear process), so you're simply committing potential murder at best -- feel free to judge if that's any better than actual murder!

Human =/= person. These two words have different meanings, and "Being Human" is not the definition of person.

Potential is worth jack shit. The fetus could potentially be the next genocidal dictator or brutal murderer. I don't see you using that as an argument for abortion.

Great Minarchistan wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:But personhood is highly relevant.

And foetuses don't have it.

I wonder if you call your dead relatives "a pile of decomposed organic matter" instead of a person, because that's essentially how you should treat non-living human sapiens sapiens if you think fetuses aren't persons

I call them people because they were, at one point, people.

The fetus was never a person in the first place.

Honkworld wrote:

Liriena wrote:Does me dating guys automatically make me complicit in the great replacement, or do I have to specifically date non-white guys? I mean, either way I'm not producing a lot of white babies. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yes, it does

Thank you Joker meme dude very cool

Great Minarchistan wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:You are mistaken if you think labour is the only biproduct or complication of pregnancy:

• Ovarian cancer during pregnancy -- is that not a "black swan" event?
• High Amniotic Fluid during pregnancy -- possibly causing a defect
• Life-threatening retained placenta
• Complications related to epilepsy
• Added risks related to kidney disease
• Added risks related to cardiovascular disease
• Added risk related to thyroid disease
• Added risk related to lupus
• Added risk related to mental health issues
• Added risk related to sickle cell disease
• Blood clots
• Fifth Disease
• Diabetes
• Molar pregnancy
• Hyperemesis gravidarum
• Ectopic pregnancy
• Sceptic miscarriage

All of those are predictably covered by allowing abortion in cases of life threatening condition to the mother and/or to the child

The Free Joy State wrote:It's not murder: murder is the murder of another person with malice aforethought.

Malice (or its lack thereof) is irrelevant when constituting the definition of murder

The Free Joy State wrote:It's not malice to wish to maintain your own bodily sovereignty (unless fighting off an attacker constitute malice) and the foetus is not a person.

A human fetus is genetically homo sapiens sapiens, ergo it should be assigned personhood. While there's no "murder" when the subject is non-living, a fetus is developing itself into a living being (via a predictable and linear process), so you're simply committing potential murder at best -- feel free to judge if that's any better than actual murder!

Should HeLa cell cultures also be granted legal personhood and research utilizing them stopped because of the legal personhood (not because of the lack of previous consent of Henrietta Lacks or her family)?

Katganistan wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:You are mistaken if you think labour is the only by-product or complication of pregnancy:

• Ovarian cancer during pregnancy -- is that not a "black swan" event?
• High Amniotic Fluid during pregnancy -- possibly causing a defect
• Life-threatening retained placenta
• Complications related to epilepsy
• Added risks related to kidney disease
• Added risks related to cardiovascular disease
• Added risk related to thyroid disease
• Added risk related to lupus
• Added risk related to mental health issues
• Added risk related to sickle cell disease
• Blood clots
• Fifth Disease
• Diabetes
• Molar pregnancy
• Hyperemesis gravidarum
• Ectopic pregnancy
• Sceptic miscarriage

It's not murder: murder is the murder of another person with malice aforethought.

It's not malice to wish to maintain your own bodily sovereignty (unless fighting off an attacker constitutes malice) and the foetus is not a person.

It doesn't matter. She ASKED for it.

And literally, the summation of Roe v. Wade was "it's nobody's business what medical decisions a woman and her doctor make."

I wish people would mind their business now. It's like the annoying 70 year old from the local HOA snooping around measuring whether your grass is a millimeter taller than it "should" be or saying that you can't put a garden in the back of your house, or complaining that your front door isn't painted in the exact shade of the 22 allowed shades and since it's off must be repainted.

Mind your business and stop making other people's lives more difficult/less enjoyable.

You know, I believe in self-defence. And if a woman can defend herself from someone breaking into her house, then she can defend herself from someone breaking into her body, death allowed in both scenarios.

Great Minarchistan wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:But personhood is highly relevant.

And foetuses don't have it.

I wonder if you call your dead relatives "a pile of decomposed organic matter" instead of a person, because that's essentially how you should treat non-living human sapiens sapiens if you think fetuses aren't persons

I don't call them persons, because they aren't. It's "the corpse" or "corpse of X".

Great Minarchistan wrote:A human fetus is genetically homo sapiens sapiens, ergo it should be assigned personhood. While there's no "murder" when the subject is non-living, a fetus is developing itself into a living being (via a predictable and linear process), so you're simply committing potential murder at best -- feel free to judge if that's any better than actual murder!

It is better. "Potential murder" is one of the most galaxybrained terms I've ever heard.

Strahcoin wrote:I should probably mention that pregnancy is part of biology and therefore unavoidable in the creation of new human lives.

We were all fetuses once. We have, according to the "pro-choice", all "invaded" our mothers' bodies. However, our mother has no right to kill us. Why? Because this is how reproduction works.

Pregnancy is a small price to pay to create the most valuable entity in existence: a new human being. (Even if you don't consider a fetus a human being, it will be once it's brought out of the womb and into the world.) We should not downplay the wonderful, powerful ability to create more people by allowing abortion to kill them before they have a chance to prove themselves to the world.

If my mother decided to get an abortion, I wouldn't care.

In fact, given opportunities like being able to have an easier time potentially emigrating or being able to go on trips outside school holidays, I think she wouldn't have turned out bad that way.

Honestly, I think that abortion is very very morally grey in my eyes. I cannot stand the thought of something with the potential to birth life being taken away. A life's future is taken away is something that haunts me. I cannot stand that. Yet I still support abortion in my eyes because if we do outlaw the practice scared mothers will flock to back ally clinics and two lives will be lost.

So, is it morally wrong? In most sitations. But should the practice be outlawed? No, for it will only do more damage. The solution here is to provide advice, therapy, and support for these feldging mothers but if still decide to go through with the action then so be it.

As for the topic of child pregancy, typically from rape, I support it in those casses on hundred precent. I am still yet to decide for older rape victims.

The Great Swedish Empire wrote:Honestly, I think that abortion is very very morally grey in my eyes. I cannot stand the thought of something with the potential to birth life being taken away. A life's future is taken away is something that haunts me. I cannot stand that. Yet I still support abortion in my eyes because if we do outlaw the practice scared mothers will flock to back ally clinics and two lives will be lost.

So, is it morally wrong? In most sitations. But should the practice be outlawed? No, for it will only do more damage. The solution here is to provide advice, therapy, and support for these feldging mothers but if still decide to go through with the action then so be it.

As for the topic of child pregancy, typically from rape, I support it in those casses on hundred precent. I am still yet to decide for older rape victims.

Why is it that you find abortion morally repugnant when the pregnancy isn't a result of rape, but not so when it is? This has no relevance to the value of the "life" yet to be born.

Wallenburg wrote:

The Great Swedish Empire wrote:Honestly, I think that abortion is very very morally grey in my eyes. I cannot stand the thought of something with the potential to birth life being taken away. A life's future is taken away is something that haunts me. I cannot stand that. Yet I still support abortion in my eyes because if we do outlaw the practice scared mothers will flock to back ally clinics and two lives will be lost.

So, is it morally wrong? In most sitations. But should the practice be outlawed? No, for it will only do more damage. The solution here is to provide advice, therapy, and support for these feldging mothers but if still decide to go through with the action then so be it.

As for the topic of child pregancy, typically from rape, I support it in those casses on hundred precent. I am still yet to decide for older rape victims.

Why is it that you find abortion morally repugnant when the pregnancy isn't a result of rape, but not so when it is? This has no relevance to the value of the "life" yet to be born.

I said that I haven't decided yet when it comes to rape victims. Admittedly my argument above may be flawed. But I just find abortion wrong, not disgusting as others see, but needed as the consequences of outlawing it is simply too much.

The Great Swedish Empire wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Why is it that you find abortion morally repugnant when the pregnancy isn't a result of rape, but not so when it is? This has no relevance to the value of the "life" yet to be born.

I said that I haven't decided yet when it comes to rape victims. Admittedly my argument above may be flawed. But I just find abortion wrong, not disgusting as others see, but needed as the consequences of outlawing it is simply too much.

Abortion is inherently against my moral compass. Yet if I am to rely on my libertarian thinking, it should be legal.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

The Great Swedish Empire wrote:I said that I haven't decided yet when it comes to rape victims. Admittedly my argument above may be flawed. But I just find abortion wrong, not disgusting as others see, but needed as the consequences of outlawing it is simply too much.

Abortion is inherently against my moral compass. Yet if I am to rely on my libertarian thinking, it should be legal.

Considering libertarianism is an idea system based mostly off of the idea of "People shouldn't force their ideas or way of life on others" all the while trying to force their ideas and life style onto people who don't want to, yeah, no, you can be libertarian and still be against abortion legalization.