No, because fetuses are less than animals, and we should be more interested in taking care of sentient beings than insentient cells.
Advertisement
by Suriyanakhon » Sun Oct 24, 2021 12:53 pm
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Sun Oct 24, 2021 12:54 pm
by Sundiata » Sun Oct 24, 2021 12:59 pm
My answer doesn't change. I wouldn't kill one person to save a billion people. And furthermore, I wouldn't kill a billion people to save one.Neanderthaland wrote:Sundiata wrote:To be clear, I've only ever said that intentions matter as much as the outcome. Unfortunately, good means can also be used towards evil ends.
To be clear, you were willing to sacrifice every single person on the planet rather than kill one.
That's not "equal weight." That's a clear preference. And you are now walking it back because it doesn't suit your argument anymore.
by Suriyanakhon » Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:00 pm
Sundiata wrote:My answer doesn't change. I wouldn't kill one person to save a billion people. And furthermore, I wouldn't kill a billion people to save one.Neanderthaland wrote:To be clear, you were willing to sacrifice every single person on the planet rather than kill one.
That's not "equal weight." That's a clear preference. And you are now walking it back because it doesn't suit your argument anymore.
This isn't a question of who I prefer, in this general case the mother or child.
by Sundiata » Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:02 pm
by Godular » Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:04 pm
by Godular » Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:05 pm
by Suriyanakhon » Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:08 pm
Godular wrote:Suriyanakhon wrote:
No, because fetuses are less than animals, and we should be more interested in taking care of sentient beings than insentient cells.
I dislike this line, as it gives certain pro-lifers ammunition for their argument that the pro-choice side dehumanizes the fetus. I prefer to maintain that even if the fetus considered equivalent to a born human person, it still would not have the right to use another person's body without their consent. Any violation of a person's bodily sovereignty and self-ownership is to me a most fundamental crime, regardless of whether malicious intent is involved on the part of the person enacting that violation.
by Godular » Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:09 pm
Suriyanakhon wrote:Godular wrote:
I dislike this line, as it gives certain pro-lifers ammunition for their argument that the pro-choice side dehumanizes the fetus. I prefer to maintain that even if the fetus considered equivalent to a born human person, it still would not have the right to use another person's body without their consent. Any violation of a person's bodily sovereignty and self-ownership is to me a most fundamental crime, regardless of whether malicious intent is involved on the part of the person enacting that violation.
It's not the optics I would use for a political campaign, but it's how I (personally) feel about the issue.
by Neanderthaland » Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:10 pm
Sundiata wrote:My answer doesn't change. I wouldn't kill one person to save a billion people. And furthermore, I wouldn't kill a billion people to save one.Neanderthaland wrote:To be clear, you were willing to sacrifice every single person on the planet rather than kill one.
That's not "equal weight." That's a clear preference. And you are now walking it back because it doesn't suit your argument anymore.
This isn't a question of who I prefer, in this general case the mother or child.
by Sundiata » Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:11 pm
Suriyanakhon wrote:Sundiata wrote:My answer doesn't change. I wouldn't kill one person to save a billion people. And furthermore, I wouldn't kill a billion people to save one.
This isn't a question of who I prefer, in this general case the mother or child.
Then it is really good you are not in a position of power.
by Godular » Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:13 pm
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:21 pm
by The Kingdom of the Three Isles » Sun Oct 24, 2021 2:10 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 Page » Sun Oct 24, 2021 2:18 pm
by Michel Meilleur » Sun Oct 24, 2021 2:21 pm
by Godular » Sun Oct 24, 2021 2:28 pm
Michel Meilleur wrote:Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:"Abortion is murder." Drink of choice y'all.
"Euthanasia is murder." Drink of choice y'all.
I mean to be fair, it actually wasn't murder when its most ardent supporters were in power in Europe because they made it legal and hence it was "just" homicide, but well. Kinda like the situation we have with abortion right now, come to think of it.
by Katganistan » Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:03 pm
Betoni wrote:'The New California Republic wrote:It is, it's de facto giving the fetus the right to use the body of another against their will. That's a right that no other person has.
Given the pro-life crowd very frequently want the fetus to be considered a person, the question of it being a legal entity in this context is very pertinent, hence why we need to speak in terms like this.
It really isn't, the fetus has no capacity to act in any sense much less legal, so it cannot use anything or have any rights. Laws banning abortion don't create new rights for fetuses they limit the rights of the mother. Have you then conceded already that a fetus is capable of having rights?
Stellar Colonies wrote:Isles of Eamhna wrote:has the pro-life crowd considered the possibility of reducing the overall prevalence of abortion by mandating vasectomies for men? modern vasectomy surgery (and vasectomy reversal surgery) is a generally safe procedure with low chance of complications that almost entirely removes the possibility of a man causing an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy.
Number one, vasectomies are still difficult to reverse and surgery like that probably shouldn't be viewed as a normal birth control method.
Number two (for anyone who unfortunately focuses first on women's rights and views men's rights as subordinate to them), it sets a terrible precedent for bodily autonomy and would only encourage advocation of similar control being forced on female bodies like aforementioned abortion restrictions, unless a double standard is held between male and female bodily autonomy (which in itself is bad for what I hope is obvious reasons).
Number three (building on number two) it would be a heavy blow against efforts to get rid of infant circumcision, and that cannot be allowed. Male bodily autonomy has already trampled upon enough by normalizing baby cutting, making that worse in a self-defeating gotcha is not a good idea.
Terrible idea all around.
Neuer California wrote:Sundiata wrote:In those cases my answer remains unchanged; a zygote is still an innocent human being and to intend and execute its death is immoral whatever the consequence.
Even in cases where there is no way the zygote will ever develop into a baby? Ectopic pregnancies routinely end with the zygote/fetus dead or aborted because there's no way they'll become viable and having them continue to "develop" greatly endangers the mother for no benefit to her or the zygote.
by Neutraligon » Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:13 pm
by Katganistan » Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:16 pm
Sundiata wrote:The New California Republic wrote:It isn't a quirk of language at all: that thing you are ignoring, "bodily sovereignty", implies ownership over one's own body as a form of possession, of property.
Any sense of ownership that one has over the human body is illusory, the human body cannot be owned by one human being or the other. It's not a possession; it's not property.
by Elwher » Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:27 pm
Godular wrote:Elwher wrote:
If a hospital does that to a patient who can't pay, they are in a mess of legal trouble.
Are you just spitballing?
A woman who does not consent to a pregnancy is not the same as a fucking hospital refusing service. The hospital contains staff who have undergone significant amounts of training, licensing, and a wide variety of professional qualifications that specifically focus on aiding others in need. To equate such a thing with a single untrained and unwilling individual is not even remotely reasonable nor realistic.
No. The woman is more akin to some person that for 'reasons' is being tasked with giving of their own body in order to sustain the existence of another individual. If they do not consent to this, forcing them to do it anyway is one of the most fundamental violations of self-determination possible. Some people might take issue if they refuse to provide this assistance, saying that they should feel honored to assist in saving the life of another. But the person's reasons for the refusal are for that person and that person alone, and it is wrong to judge their refusal when one does not know the facts.
by Godular » Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:11 pm
Elwher wrote:Godular wrote:
Are you just spitballing?
A woman who does not consent to a pregnancy is not the same as a fucking hospital refusing service. The hospital contains staff who have undergone significant amounts of training, licensing, and a wide variety of professional qualifications that specifically focus on aiding others in need. To equate such a thing with a single untrained and unwilling individual is not even remotely reasonable nor realistic.
No. The woman is more akin to some person that for 'reasons' is being tasked with giving of their own body in order to sustain the existence of another individual. If they do not consent to this, forcing them to do it anyway is one of the most fundamental violations of self-determination possible. Some people might take issue if they refuse to provide this assistance, saying that they should feel honored to assist in saving the life of another. But the person's reasons for the refusal are for that person and that person alone, and it is wrong to judge their refusal when one does not know the facts.
Actually, I was reacting to the idea that a woman's body is being considered property, either hers or anyone's. If it is nothing but a property dispute, then the analogy is reasonable. I think it is much more than that.
by New haven america » Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:12 pm
by Stellar Colonies » Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm
Katganistan wrote:...Stellar Colonies wrote:Number one, vasectomies are still difficult to reverse and surgery like that probably shouldn't be viewed as a normal birth control method.
Number two (for anyone who unfortunately focuses first on women's rights and views men's rights as subordinate to them), it sets a terrible precedent for bodily autonomy and would only encourage advocation of similar control being forced on female bodies like aforementioned abortion restrictions, unless a double standard is held between male and female bodily autonomy (which in itself is bad for what I hope is obvious reasons).
Number three (building on number two) it would be a heavy blow against efforts to get rid of infant circumcision, and that cannot be allowed. Male bodily autonomy has already trampled upon enough by normalizing baby cutting, making that worse in a self-defeating gotcha is not a good idea.
Terrible idea all around.
Except the double standard about controlling women's bodies already exists, and apparently, no one is interested in eliminating it in the least invasive way, which is to stop forcing women to have kids they don't want.
Which is plenty draconian.
So why can't we force men not to impregnate women willy-nilly?
...
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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bombadil, Ineva, Infected Mushroom, Kostane, Plan Neonie, Rusrunia, Senatus Populi, Senkaku, Statesburg
Advertisement