NationStates

Posted: **Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:19 am**

Genivaria wrote:
Sundiata wrote:Really? Most people on the planet are generally doing their best to do some good in the world. We're unfortunately just not holding accountable enough the people with the most power.

What the hell are you babbling about?

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.

Posted: **Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:23 am**

Sundiata wrote:
Genivaria wrote:What the hell are you babbling about?

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.

Posted: **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.

People instinctively care about human life. If not consciously, it's a problem of education.

Posted: **Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:29 am**

Sundiata wrote:
The New California Republic wrote: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.

People instinctively care about human life. If not consciously, it's a problem of education.

If a fertilised egg has a whoopsie and doesn't implant then I don't think most people really care, regardless of education, unless you are talking about brainwashing them into caring of course.

Posted: **Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:30 am**

Do I need to pull out my Malthus to show why 100% successful birthrate per insemination is a gigantically shittastic idea?

Posted: **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.

And you think you know any better? This is some movie villain shit.

Posted: **Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:52 pm**

Sundiata wrote:
Genivaria wrote:What the hell are you babbling about?

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.

Yes, I agree. Most people do care about being able to provide well for their offspring. They want to have the means and love and time to nurture their offspring to responsible adulthood.
Most people are also responsible enough to recognize their situation is or isn't conductive for child rearing. They actually plan and prepare pregnancy and child care. They have the financial means, they follow birthing classes.

The most responsible thing to do if unwanted/ unplanned pregnant, is abortion. Because they weren't taking folic acid, were still smoking/ drinking/ doing drugs, haven't abstained from eating raw milk cheeses/ cleaning the cat litter. Weren't wearing gloves while working in the garden etc.
If you have been prepping your whole life for parenthood, yay you. Well done.

For all other mortals, abortion is a responsible option. They show they care about not abusing children, not neglecting them.

Posted: **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.

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.

Sundiata wrote:
Katganistan wrote:Macbeth has a really great scene -- Act II, Sc 3 of Macbeth -- that mentions what he thinks of equivocators and where they end up.
That must go double for the killers of innocents and if it doesn't then maybe all parties are wrong.

And the 6 billion innocents killed from inaction?

Sundiata wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
A fetus cannot have innocence as it’s not sentient and has zero rights.

Unfortunately the legal rights of a fetus are not recognized under the law but they certainly should be. It should be enshrined into the law at all levels: life begins at conception.

Except it doesn't, except in platitudes that seek to control women.

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...

The precedent of McFall v. Shrimp actually is that no, a person cannot be compelled to share their body with anyone.

Posted: **Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:07 pm**

The New California Republic wrote:
The Kingdom Of The Three Isles wrote:Erm, what?

What are you questioning specifically? There were four sections to the post you replied to, you are going to have to be far more specific.

Nevermind…

Posted: **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?

It’s big brain time

Posted: **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.

Why do we assume good intentions?
Even the devil can quote scripture for his purpose.

Posted: **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?

Your effort would be wasted, Sundiata would just ignore any contradicting facts.

Posted: **Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:02 pm**

The Kingdom Of The Three Isles wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:What are you questioning specifically? There were four sections to the post you replied to, you are going to have to be far more specific.

Nevermind…

Alright...

Posted: **Mon Oct 18, 2021 7:56 pm**

I know, I know… my curiosity got the best of me.

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.

That it is an emotional subject for a lot of people does not make any and all arguments contained therein based solely on emotion. I don’t ‘like’ abortion, and find it to be a tragic necessity, just like I feel about self-defense laws. The avenue should remain open and be as unrestricted as possible, but that does not inherently mean that people who take advantage of such options went into whatever the situation might be with that option as plan A.

The logic is consistent, disregards how I personally feel about abortion, and I even advocate for a means of reducing abortion that is cheaper to enact and substantially more effective than your B-movie dystopian horror fantasy of a plan. You have the gall to claim my argument is an emotional appeal solely to justify saying nuh-uh in a shitty attempt at a bothsides, which never worked in kindergarten so I wonder why you thought it would be useful here.

TL,DR version: Not only is the cognitive dissonance strong with you, but you’re justifying the stereotype of the hardline conservatives’ penchant for projection.

Posted: **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.

But under the laws and definitions in place at that time, no they were not. Laws can and do change, so do definitions.

Posted: **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.

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.

Posted: **Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:23 am**

Spirit of Hope wrote:
Elwher wrote:
But under the laws and definitions in place at that time, no they were not. Laws can and do change, so do definitions.

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.

Posted: **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.

Which is fair on the surface, until one looks at WHY people held/hold those beliefs.

Of course, a consistent moral framework that values the prevention of suffering or assigning rights based on abilities tends to rather quickly lead to utilitarianism and animal rights activism

Posted: **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.

There's a similarity in the broad details, but that doesn't mean they are the same. It isn't much of a point, as that stance can be very broadly applied, e.g. under the laws and definitions of this time animals are not people and don't have similar rights. That isn't an argument for something, just an observation of fact about a specific time and legal system.

Arguments that enslaved person's weren't people were based on racist facts made up and not backed by science. Also depending on the time and location slaves were viewed as people, simply people who had been enslaved.

If you want to argue the definition of a person I'm more than happy to do that, but doing a simplistic comparison of the argument of fetus person hood to slave person hood is personally rather insulting and doesn't engage with the nuance of the argument about what is a person.

Posted: **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.

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.

Posted: **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.

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.

Posted: **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.

Yes strongly agree.

Posted: **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.

But does that earn them the death penalty? When they didn't and don't have a choice in the matter?

Posted: **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.

Legalized infant circumcision and an abortion ban are interesting to compare, since they are each a case of bodily autonomy being violated in an opposite way.

Posted: **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?

If there is no other way to stop them from using the body...yes it does.

NationStates

[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...