Really? Most people do care; they have good instincts. It's just that the policies aren't in place for the world to be as good as it can be.
Advertisement
by Sundiata » Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:19 am
by The New California Republic » Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:23 am
by Sundiata » Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:27 am
The New California Republic wrote:Sundiata wrote:Really? Most people do care; they have good instincts. It's just that the policies aren't in place for the world to be as good as it can be.
Sorry, most people don't give a shit about ensuring that the process from fertilisation to birth has a 100% rate of success, or anywhere near close to that.
by The New California Republic » Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:29 am
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:30 am
by Alcala-Cordel » Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:48 am
Totalitarian Missouri wrote:The New California Republic wrote:There are only extremely narrow circumstances in which someone's bodily sovereignty can be overridden, usually in cases of serious crime or someone not being compos mentis to the extent of being a danger to themselves or other people, and even in those situations there are extremely tight safeguards regarding how and when it can be used. What you are proposing goes far beyond that.
Well Certainly i want more than that. I personally don't believe most people know whats best for themselves. If they did you wouldnt have Sadists, masochists, Druggies, Political Parties, the whole 9 yards and etc., feel? That's just my Opinion, just as you have your own.
by Thepeopl » Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:52 pm
by Katganistan » Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:00 pm
Spirit of Hope wrote:Elwher wrote:
A similar reason was used to justify slavery in the past - An African is not a person and therefore has no right to freedom (see the Dred Scot decision for a version of this). Unless we agree on a definition of personhood, this argument just shifts the question.
We have a definition of a living person, it uses brain activity. Failing to meet this is called being brain dead and makes someone legally dead. Fetuses don't have the required brain activity until they hit about 20 weeks of development.
The New California Republic wrote:Elwher wrote:
Not totally without precedent - At the present time, a tenant can demand that a landlord share his property with them without compensation and a person can demand treatment at a hospital under the same circumstances and refusal of either is illegal; so demanding that a person share their body is just another step on the way.
A monstrous step at that...
by The Kingdom of the Three Isles » Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:07 pm
Those who say they are based aren’t based. Those who say they are humble ain’t humble. Those who say they are chads ain’t chads.Ordo Theutonicorum wrote: they have a cross-pattee on their flag??
by The Kingdom of the Three Isles » Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:07 pm
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Do I need to pull out my Malthus to show why 100% successful birthrate per insemination is a gigantically shittastic idea?
Those who say they are based aren’t based. Those who say they are humble ain’t humble. Those who say they are chads ain’t chads.Ordo Theutonicorum wrote: they have a cross-pattee on their flag??
by Katganistan » Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:08 pm
Godular wrote:Neutraligon wrote:I mean this is the person that would kill all of humanity instead of hitting a button to kill the one. This is the person that would sterilize a woman because she happens to have an ectopic pregnancy.
If anyone ever exemplified the phrase 'The road to Hell is paved with good intentions' more, I would color myself every conceivable color of shocked.
by Genivaria » Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:15 pm
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Do I need to pull out my Malthus to show why 100% successful birthrate per insemination is a gigantically shittastic idea?
by The New California Republic » Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:02 pm
by The Caleshan Valkyrie » Mon Oct 18, 2021 7:56 pm
Totalitarian Missouri wrote:The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:
Good for you. You’re wrong.
No, I am simply applying consistent logic and turning established positions supported by the purportedly pro-life parties in our political arena against them. You however, base your position on little else, O purge purveying ‘killin chillun be wrong’ person.
I’m sure in your headcanon that makes sense. But in reality it does not. In either case, it is the height of foolishness to claim that a purported fallacy employed by another entitles you to make a fallacy for your own purposes.
This entire Conversation is an appeal to Emotion and if you cant see that, your Blind.
by Elwher » Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:16 am
Katganistan wrote:Spirit of Hope wrote:
We have a definition of a living person, it uses brain activity. Failing to meet this is called being brain dead and makes someone legally dead. Fetuses don't have the required brain activity until they hit about 20 weeks of development.
People need to be born and alive.
Fetuses are not born.
That literally is what the laws state. You cannot be a person until born.
Under that definition, African slaves were born, and alive, and thus should have been classified as people under the current definition of personhood.
by Spirit of Hope » Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:18 am
Elwher wrote:Katganistan wrote:People need to be born and alive.
Fetuses are not born.
That literally is what the laws state. You cannot be a person until born.
Under that definition, African slaves were born, and alive, and thus should have been classified as people under the current definition of personhood.
But under the laws and definitions in place at that time, no they were not. Laws can and do change, so do definitions.
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
by Elwher » Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:23 am
by The Alma Mater » Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:32 am
Elwher wrote:Spirit of Hope wrote:
I don't think anyone is arguing that laws don't change, because obviously they do. I'm not sure what your point here is.
Many people in earlier times argued that, under the laws and definitions of that time, Africans were not people and therefore did not have any rights.
Many people today argue that, under the laws and definitions of this time, fetuses are not people and therefore do not have any rights.
There is a similarity to the arguments, that was the point I was originally making.
by Spirit of Hope » Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:47 am
Elwher wrote:Spirit of Hope wrote:
I don't think anyone is arguing that laws don't change, because obviously they do. I'm not sure what your point here is.
Many people in earlier times argued that, under the laws and definitions of that time, Africans were not people and therefore did not have any rights.
Many people today argue that, under the laws and definitions of this time, fetuses are not people and therefore do not have any rights.
There is a similarity to the arguments, that was the point I was originally making.
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
by Page » Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:54 am
Elwher wrote:Spirit of Hope wrote:
I don't think anyone is arguing that laws don't change, because obviously they do. I'm not sure what your point here is.
Many people in earlier times argued that, under the laws and definitions of that time, Africans were not people and therefore did not have any rights.
Many people today argue that, under the laws and definitions of this time, fetuses are not people and therefore do not have any rights.
There is a similarity to the arguments, that was the point I was originally making.
by Godular » Tue Oct 19, 2021 1:39 pm
Elwher wrote:Spirit of Hope wrote:
I don't think anyone is arguing that laws don't change, because obviously they do. I'm not sure what your point here is.
Many people in earlier times argued that, under the laws and definitions of that time, Africans were not people and therefore did not have any rights.
Many people today argue that, under the laws and definitions of this time, fetuses are not people and therefore do not have any rights.
There is a similarity to the arguments, that was the point I was originally making.
by Genivaria » Tue Oct 19, 2021 1:41 pm
Godular wrote:Elwher wrote:
Many people in earlier times argued that, under the laws and definitions of that time, Africans were not people and therefore did not have any rights.
Many people today argue that, under the laws and definitions of this time, fetuses are not people and therefore do not have any rights.
There is a similarity to the arguments, that was the point I was originally making.
This is rather specifically why I avoid using personhood or the lack thereof as a factor in my argument. I prefer to focus on the fact that even if the fetus WERE considered a person, it still wouldn't have the right to use another person's body without their consent.
by Salus Maior » Tue Oct 19, 2021 1:59 pm
Godular wrote:
This is rather specifically why I avoid using personhood or the lack thereof as a factor in my argument. I prefer to focus on the fact that even if the fetus WERE considered a person,it still wouldn't have the right to use another person's body without their consent.
by Stellar Colonies » Tue Oct 19, 2021 2:12 pm
Page wrote:Elwher wrote:
Many people in earlier times argued that, under the laws and definitions of that time, Africans were not people and therefore did not have any rights.
Many people today argue that, under the laws and definitions of this time, fetuses are not people and therefore do not have any rights.
There is a similarity to the arguments, that was the point I was originally making.
Hell, under the law today, you can get locked in a cage for eating a mushroom to expand your consciousness but you're 100% allowed to mutilate the genitals of an unconsenting baby boy while he is wide awake and in tremendous pain.
Legality has no place in debates over ethics, however much we rationalize and glorify the modern state, we are still under the capricious rule of warlords, just with lots of extra steps these days.
Floofybit wrote:Your desired society should be one where you are submissive and controlled
Primitive Communism wrote:What bodily autonomy do men need?
Techocracy101010 wrote:If she goes on a rampage those saggy wonders are as deadly as nunchucks
Parmistan wrote:It's not ALWAYS acceptable when we do it, but it's MORE acceptable when we do it.
Theodorable wrote:Jihad will win.
Distruzio wrote:All marriage outside the Church is gay marriage.
Khardsland wrote:Terrorism in its original definition is a good thing.
I try to be objective, but I do have some biases.
North Californian.
Stellar Colonies is a loose galactic confederacy.
The Confederacy & the WA.
Add 1200 years.
by Neutraligon » Tue Oct 19, 2021 2:41 pm
Salus Maior wrote:Godular wrote:
This is rather specifically why I avoid using personhood or the lack thereof as a factor in my argument. I prefer to focus on the fact that even if the fetus WERE considered a person,it still wouldn't have the right to use another person's body without their consent.
But does that earn them the death penalty? When they didn't and don't have a choice in the matter?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aggicificicerous, Ancientania, Czechostan, Europa Undivided, Floofybit, Google [Bot], Jerzylvania, Kannap, Khardsland, Olmanar, Omphalos, Sarolandia, Tungstan, Turenia, Union of British and Irish Republics, Volvo Cars, X3-U, Zurkerx
Advertisement