Author Topic: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies  (Read 62752 times)

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #150 on: March 27, 2021, 06:55:00 AM »
Yes, a nurse's opinion is worth more than that of a passive participant at a delivery.

I think the sticking point is that any argument that is aimed at achieving curtailment of a fundamental human freedom will receive a certain skeptical response.

"Personhood of the fetus" is not a universally accepted human value at this point of time and place in history. Anyone weighing that against a freedom as fundamental as one's control of his/her own body and deciding it is worth sacrificing for OTHERS who may not share that value is being a lot more biased than I am.

Now, if the context was that the pro-life people were also acting consistent with their statements and were actually trying to decrease the number of abortions (as opposed to doing politics), then you would find many supporters of that even among the godforsaken liberals, and the skepticism expressed towards pro-life-adjacent ideas would be a lot less.


ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #151 on: March 27, 2021, 08:01:05 AM »
Two contributions for the main thread:

1. The states that talk family values the most, do it less:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/divorce-rate-by-state

Almost 7 out of the top 10 states by divorce rate are red states, with supposed Christian/conservative family values.
AND, the godless, heathen, liberal northeast seem to be doing a lot more of family values while talking the least about it:
"More than half of the states with the lowest divorce rates are located in the northeastern part of the United States. Maine and D.C. are tied for the lowest rate at 4.8."

2. "I'm a NIMBY liberal, keep the riff-raff out of my backyard"
This is more of an anecdotal/personal experience that I have noticed in the local area. People who otherwise support liberal policies tend to flip when it comes to building an apartment or other *lower* cost housing in the town. I have tried arguing with some of them that higher density is actually good for their home values - but the economic arguments don't seem to make a dent, as if their response is driven by something more primal. I wonder what that may be?

Thankfully, the younger generation seems to be less entrenched in this. So hopefully this will change over time.




Morning Glory

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4865
  • Location: The Garden Path
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #152 on: March 27, 2021, 08:25:05 AM »
Except abortion is NOT "simply removing" life support.
I won't go into graphic detail but mid-late term abortion is brutal. I am still haunted by the one abortion I was a part of as a nurse.
I have also been there when artificial life support is removed from an organ donor. I am not haunted by those memories. It's very different and I don't think it's wise to sugar coat reality.
No sugar coating necessary.  A non-viable patient (for want of a better term) is removed from life support.  That is the plain, simple reality without the emotion everyone very naturally attaches to the situation.  The "brutality" is, I would argue, nothing more than a reaction to the knowledge of what is taking place (poor little baby, never had a chance, being snuffed out before its time) than to any inherent brutality of the actions involved.  Perfectly natural but totally dependent on the viewpoint of the person making the judgement and having the emotional reaction, not objective truth.

Have you been part of a knee replacement surgery? They get hammers, saws, and drills out and go to town.  Blood flowing, bones getting sawed and drilled and bits of metal screwed into place.  Nothing soft and delicate about it.  Now that's brutal! (at least imho and from my viewpoint)

One of my very macho, very manly friends fainted in the delivery room when his child - 2 months older than our firstborn - was born via C-Section.

I came close.

C-Sections are bloody and brutal. The very first gush of SO MUCH blood coming out of the body of someone you love is the most unsettling part of the experience for someone who has not dealt with medical emergencies firsthand. Zooming out, the part of the experience that has stayed with me is the fact that childbirth is such a "brutal" and NOT DELICATE process contrary to my Hollywood-informed romantic notions.

Please don't call for banning childbirth for the brutality involved!

I'm not wading into this too far, other than to point out that late term abortions are so uncommon as to be a straw-man argument. They are usually only done in the case where a fetus doesn't have much chance of survival after birth, or when the mother is seriously ill. Imagine finding out at your 20 week ultrasound that your baby doesn't have a brain, for example.  Would you carry it for another 20 weeks knowing that it would die shortly after birth?

I have had two missed miscarriages. That is when the fetus dies but doesn't come out on its own. I had to use the same medication that they use for medical abortions. Nothing that came out looked remotely like a baby. Some hardliners would ban even that.

Now a funny story: My husband got freaked out by the blood when I had a c section. I had to explain to him that it is watered down with amniotic fluid so it looks worse than it is.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #153 on: March 27, 2021, 09:19:40 AM »
Yes, a nurse's opinion is worth more than that of a passive participant at a delivery.

I think the sticking point is that any argument that is aimed at achieving curtailment of a fundamental human freedom will receive a certain skeptical response.

"Personhood of the fetus" is not a universally accepted human value at this point of time and place in history. Anyone weighing that against a freedom as fundamental as one's control of his/her own body and deciding it is worth sacrificing for OTHERS who may not share that value is being a lot more biased than I am.

Now, if the context was that the pro-life people were also acting consistent with their statements and were actually trying to decrease the number of abortions (as opposed to doing politics), then you would find many supporters of that even among the godforsaken liberals, and the skepticism expressed towards pro-life-adjacent ideas would be a lot less.

I really don't want to speak for MoseyingAlong's perspective because I truly don't know what they think. I just felt that a person who offers up their perspective, when they're much more a subject matter expert than any of the people commenting (myself included), shouldn't have their perspective be so easily dismissed. Doing so would have been roundly criticized on any number of issues that are often discussed on this forum (climate change, Covid, etc.), and it should be criticized when done in this instance as well.

In terms of the rest, some pro-life people, including politicians who are, of course, very visible, act in a manner that is extremely frustrating to me and in a way that does reflect a consistent pro-life perspective.

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20742
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #154 on: March 27, 2021, 09:43:30 AM »
Withholding life support is not the same as killing.
And that succinctly sums up why abortion is not killing.  It is simply removing the patient from the life support system it needs to survive.

Wow, abortion debate solved! :-)

Except abortion is NOT "simply removing" life support.
I won't go into graphic detail but mid-late term abortion is brutal. I am still haunted by the one abortion I was a part of as a nurse.
I have also been there when artificial life support is removed from an organ donor. I am not haunted by those memories. It's very different and I don't think it's wise to sugar coat reality.

But mid-late term abortions are rare.  At that stage there is usually a serious problem.  Most abortions are early.

No-one is forced to have an abortion.  Here doctors won't do an amniocentis for an at risk pregnancy if the woman won't have an abortion no matter how bad the genetic situation, it would be a waste of resources .  No one will force her to have the amnio, and no one will force her to have an abortion if she thought she would have an abortion with bad amnio results  and then changes her mind about aborting.  It is pro choice, she chooses. 

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #155 on: March 27, 2021, 12:40:26 PM »
I really don't want to speak for MoseyingAlong's perspective because I truly don't know what they think. I just felt that a person who offers up their perspective, when they're much more a subject matter expert than any of the people commenting (myself included), shouldn't have their perspective be so easily dismissed. Doing so would have been roundly criticized on any number of issues that are often discussed on this forum (climate change, Covid, etc.), and it should be criticized when done in this instance as well.

He/She has indicated expertise in nursing, but NOT in public policy.

The argument advanced used a rare occurrence (1.3% of abortions are done after 21 weeks - per a WashPost article I found in googling), and used that to imply a general stance towards a public policy.

So now we have a someone who has not claimed any expertise on a given topic (=public policy) commenting using what appears to be a logical flaw.

It is valid to criticize my response as flippant that does not advance the argument. But that does not mean the argument itself has much merit.

-------------------------------

There is some background why I lose patience with anyone pushing the "late term abortion" or "partial birth abortion" canard. I don't want to give too many details that can dox the people involved - but I used to work with a woman who was at a pretty high-prestige job. She was relatively new, just 2-3 years out of college, when she had severe complications in pregnancy that basically killed the baby in-utero and put her survival in question. At 25+ weeks, she had what will likely be called a "partial birth abortion" by some people.  Basically, she would have been another statistic like this case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar, if the so-called "pro-life" politicians had their way.

Not only was her survival put into question - she also went into severe depression after this episode and lost her career for a time.

Right after this happened, I once heard Ted Cruz discuss partial birth abortion in a debate for political point scoring in a way that made it obvious that he lacks the capacity of normal human compassion (the other possibility was he was colossally stupid/uninformed - which does not appear to be the case to me). I have never had too much patience for anyone lacking the basic capacity of human compassion, but since then the "late term abortion" or "partial birth abortion" has been added to the list of my trigger words.

I have no reason to suspect MoseyingAlong used that specific "canard" in bad faith. A vast majority of the people would not have encountered any of the rare and unfortunate situations that would necessitate a "partial birth abortion" for anyone they know. Logical flaw can also creep in anyone's arguments - yours truly included. So in that case, my flippant response was probably not warranted.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2021, 12:45:45 PM by ctuser1 »

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #156 on: March 27, 2021, 01:57:08 PM »
I really don't want to speak for MoseyingAlong's perspective because I truly don't know what they think. I just felt that a person who offers up their perspective, when they're much more a subject matter expert than any of the people commenting (myself included), shouldn't have their perspective be so easily dismissed. Doing so would have been roundly criticized on any number of issues that are often discussed on this forum (climate change, Covid, etc.), and it should be criticized when done in this instance as well.

He/She has indicated expertise in nursing, but NOT in public policy.

The argument advanced used a rare occurrence (1.3% of abortions are done after 21 weeks - per a WashPost article I found in googling), and used that to imply a general stance towards a public policy.

So now we have a someone who has not claimed any expertise on a given topic (=public policy) commenting using what appears to be a logical flaw.

It is valid to criticize my response as flippant that does not advance the argument. But that does not mean the argument itself has much merit.

-------------------------------

There is some background why I lose patience with anyone pushing the "late term abortion" or "partial birth abortion" canard. I don't want to give too many details that can dox the people involved - but I used to work with a woman who was at a pretty high-prestige job. She was relatively new, just 2-3 years out of college, when she had severe complications in pregnancy that basically killed the baby in-utero and put her survival in question. At 25+ weeks, she had what will likely be called a "partial birth abortion" by some people.  Basically, she would have been another statistic like this case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar, if the so-called "pro-life" politicians had their way.

Not only was her survival put into question - she also went into severe depression after this episode and lost her career for a time.

Right after this happened, I once heard Ted Cruz discuss partial birth abortion in a debate for political point scoring in a way that made it obvious that he lacks the capacity of normal human compassion (the other possibility was he was colossally stupid/uninformed - which does not appear to be the case to me). I have never had too much patience for anyone lacking the basic capacity of human compassion, but since then the "late term abortion" or "partial birth abortion" has been added to the list of my trigger words.

I have no reason to suspect MoseyingAlong used that specific "canard" in bad faith. A vast majority of the people would not have encountered any of the rare and unfortunate situations that would necessitate a "partial birth abortion" for anyone they know. Logical flaw can also creep in anyone's arguments - yours truly included. So in that case, my flippant response was probably not warranted.

Ultimately, any stories we provide are, of course, anecdotes. I wouldn't want to form public policy off of an anecdote, but I do appreciate the insight that they share.

Given the background, it's certainly understandable you would expect someone to take it there. I'm sorry your friend had to go through that.

As for Ted Cruz, yeah, he is certainly one of my least favorite politicians.....

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #157 on: March 27, 2021, 02:22:10 PM »
Ultimately, any stories we provide are, of course, anecdotes. I wouldn't want to form public policy off of an anecdote, but I do appreciate the insight that they share.

In this specific case - the anecdotes will have a MASSIVE hole. People (especially the women) who go through such experience will rarely want to talk about such a brutalizing experience. So we will have loads of one-sided accounts of the nurse explaining how "brutal" the process was, but very few like my colleague explaining how brutalized she was by this whole process.

Pardon my skepticism - but I don't see Ted Cruz as atypical as far as the so called "pro-life" creatures go. I've never heard any pro-life politician ever talking about or acknowledging the situation the mother is in. The roadside billboards I see are intended to further brutalize someone already going through a difficult experience.

They feign compassion for the unborn while displaying zero compassion for the mother. In my experience (and based on what I have heard from everyone else I know) that is not how human compassion works at all. I'd hazard a guess that a dad, when put in a hypothetical situation where the doctor can either save the mother or the child during childbirth, will likely chose the mother in 99% of cases.

I used to wonder how could so many people be so callous. After Trump, those questions have generally subsided in my mind as a given.


MudPuppy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1468
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #158 on: March 27, 2021, 02:37:24 PM »
 Things we know about abortions: they have been sought since ancient times and they were still occurring even when abortion was not legal. They are (in otherwise viable pregnancies) generally chosen when carrying the pregnancy to term would pose a threat to the mental or physical health of the gestational party. Criminalizing or decreasing access would put a greater burden on those of lesser means and small support systems who would have have more difficultly finding the money or other support factors needed to access safe procedures if they could even access the procedures at all. Until we offer timely and comprehensive sex education, increase access to and affordability of family planning means, make healthcare for gestational party and the impending child affordable and accessible, and provide for affordable housing and childcare I just can’t wring my hands about any moral or philosophical outrage surrounding the procedure.

Taran Wanderer

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1406
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #159 on: March 27, 2021, 03:21:43 PM »
Okay, back to the examples of inconsistent thinking...

People who complain about the crazy drivers on the road... and then don’t stay in the right lane or use slow-moving-vehicle turnouts to allow faster drivers to pass them.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #160 on: March 27, 2021, 04:18:10 PM »
Ultimately, any stories we provide are, of course, anecdotes. I wouldn't want to form public policy off of an anecdote, but I do appreciate the insight that they share.

In this specific case - the anecdotes will have a MASSIVE hole. People (especially the women) who go through such experience will rarely want to talk about such a brutalizing experience. So we will have loads of one-sided accounts of the nurse explaining how "brutal" the process was, but very few like my colleague explaining how brutalized she was by this whole process.

Pardon my skepticism - but I don't see Ted Cruz as atypical as far as the so called "pro-life" creatures go. I've never heard any pro-life politician ever talking about or acknowledging the situation the mother is in. The roadside billboards I see are intended to further brutalize someone already going through a difficult experience.

They feign compassion for the unborn while displaying zero compassion for the mother. In my experience (and based on what I have heard from everyone else I know) that is not how human compassion works at all. I'd hazard a guess that a dad, when put in a hypothetical situation where the doctor can either save the mother or the child during childbirth, will likely chose the mother in 99% of cases.

I used to wonder how could so many people be so callous. After Trump, those questions have generally subsided in my mind as a given.

Ultimately, my opinion of the issue is in no way influenced because Cruz or any number of politicians support or are against it. It depends on the issue itself. Their overall ethics and views on other issues may (and have) influence how I vote, but crappy people being proponents of a position I hold doesn't change my view. I know what I think, and I know how I try to live out my views in all avenues of life, not just in my desire to reduce abortions. I stand by the point that people I know IRL who are the most rabid pro-life supporters are also ones physically doing things beyond just trying to reduce abortions in a desire to help others. That's really all I know to say on that.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #161 on: March 27, 2021, 04:58:36 PM »
Wow, you guys are being extremely dismissive of MoseyingAlong. They clearly state they are a nurse and have first-hand experience with it along with likely dozens if not hundreds of other procedures to provide context to their experience. Do you have their experience? They're not just a macho husband watching a delivery. This is/was their profession, so I think a rational reader would give what they say some consideration.
Their experience is just that, their experience.  My sister is a nurse and has assisted in many abortions, both early and late term.  Never once has she described the procedure as "brutal" or mentioned being haunted by them.

So whose experience should I consider more seriously and to be more accurate?  Or should I consider both to be personal experience and not objective truth?

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #162 on: March 27, 2021, 05:27:41 PM »
Wow, you guys are being extremely dismissive of MoseyingAlong. They clearly state they are a nurse and have first-hand experience with it along with likely dozens if not hundreds of other procedures to provide context to their experience. Do you have their experience? They're not just a macho husband watching a delivery. This is/was their profession, so I think a rational reader would give what they say some consideration.
Their experience is just that, their experience.  My sister is a nurse and has assisted in many abortions, both early and late term.  Never once has she described the procedure as "brutal" or mentioned being haunted by them.

So whose experience should I consider more seriously and to be more accurate?  Or should I consider both to be personal experience and not objective truth?

You should consider both to be personal experiences and both to have validity as to insights into the reality of the situation. Subjective experiences are not inherently untrue, and they provide insights into things that stark scientific language cannot fully convey for issues where ethics and morality are in play. If you had led with the story about your sister's personal experiences and ended there, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. Instead, you defined the experience and why the person was feeling what they were feeling. You stated "The "brutality" is, I would argue, nothing more than a reaction to the knowledge of what is taking place (poor little baby, never had a chance, being snuffed out before its time) than to any inherent brutality of the actions involved." This is if nothing else rude and bad form at best, condescending at worst. There have been numerous times on this forum I've seen people call out others for trying to define other people's experiences, and they've rightfully gotten called out. If I ever see someone on this forum talk about a personal experience they've had that was traumatic, even a little, and I try to tell them why they're feeling what they're feeling, then I hope someone calls me out. There may be a time and a place for that in a deep, intimate personal relationship, but an anonymous internet forum is no place for that.

Bloop Bloop Reloaded

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 757
  • Location: Australia
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #163 on: March 27, 2021, 09:19:40 PM »
I agree it's inconsistent (if you simply look at a utilitarian/sentience argument) to allow a foetus to be killed while not allowing a small infant to be killed. In other words there's no bright line distinction between cell/ovum/zygote/foetus/baby/child (ethically, that is). Realistically there has to be some shading and if it is ethical to abort a 35 week old baby for certain reasons then it might be 80% as justified to abort a 45 week baby that is ex utero. You can't really draw bright lines. It's very much an ethical weighing. I don't actually think the "inside the body" is a great argument; it is, however, an easily drawn line and unfortunately practical ethics requires some consistency of application.

I do agree though - it is hard to be pro-killing foetuses without also accepting that there are difficult shades of grey.

I also agree that 'pro-choice' is a euphemism that is unhelpful. You are pro-killing a foetus in certain conditions. There is nothing wrong with killing in certain conditions and it's not to be feared.

I agree with Peter Singer's ethics on abortion.

I agree with you that “pro-choice “is a clever euphanism.

I actually often use “pro-abortion” as in “I am pro-abortion” because it riles up the pro-choice people of which I am one, but realisitcally, I am also “pro-abortion.” Let’s call it what it is, I am not ashamed.

If you are pro-choice then you should simply be straightforward and state that you are pro-abortion. There's nothing 'wrong' with abortion (if you believe in it) and, like you, I positively support abortion, i.e., I want anyone who wants an abortion to have all the support in the world to carry it out. It shouldn't be seen as a bad or taboo thing, or even necessarily a difficult 'choice'. For some, no doubt, it's difficult; some have no difficulty choosing, and for them the framework of some sort of 'momentous choice' is inappropriate. We shouldn't be labelling or pre-judging that it's a choice that has to have an enormity of thought required behind it.

FWIW - pro-abortion would be the incorrect term to describe MANY pro-choice people, including myself. I'd call myself pro-choice, but I'd be very happy to have the number of abortions go down.

Perhaps pro-access-to-abortion would be less inaccurate? It's a very incomplete and somewhat misleading description - but you can get closer to the position that most people I know holds if you focus on the "access"/"right" part of this description than the act itself.

Number of abortions going down is great - at least per my sensibilities. I just don't fancy fascism to achieve my goals and impose my values on others the same way the so-called "pro-life" people do.

Would be interesting to see how many people are pro-abortion in your sense and how many are pro-abortion in my sense (abortion as a general social and utilitarian good where the parent doesn't want to parent the baby).

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #164 on: March 27, 2021, 10:38:06 PM »
You should consider both to be personal experiences and both to have validity as to insights into the reality of the situation. Subjective experiences are not inherently untrue, and they provide insights into things that stark scientific language cannot fully convey for issues where ethics and morality are in play. If you had led with the story about your sister's personal experiences and ended there, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. Instead, you defined the experience and why the person was feeling what they were feeling. You stated "The "brutality" is, I would argue, nothing more than a reaction to the knowledge of what is taking place (poor little baby, never had a chance, being snuffed out before its time) than to any inherent brutality of the actions involved." This is if nothing else rude and bad form at best, condescending at worst. There have been numerous times on this forum I've seen people call out others for trying to define other people's experiences, and they've rightfully gotten called out. If I ever see someone on this forum talk about a personal experience they've had that was traumatic, even a little, and I try to tell them why they're feeling what they're feeling, then I hope someone calls me out. There may be a time and a place for that in a deep, intimate personal relationship, but an anonymous internet forum is no place for that.
I did not try to define anyone's experience.  I referred specifically to the "brutality" of the procedure being more about their feelings and not the procedure itself.  Further, I stated that "I would argue..." .  In other words, this is my viewpoint.  Also, I don't see how what I wrote was rude or bad form simply because I didn't agree with their assessment of the situation. 

I will admit however, after re-reading my post, that it could be interpreted as being condescending, and I will own that even though I did not intend it that way.

Finally, I will point out it seems you are discounting my viewpoint based on nothing more than that I should pay more consideration to the personal anecdote of someone else.  How is that any more dismissive than what you are accusing me of?

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #165 on: March 28, 2021, 05:16:35 AM »
You should consider both to be personal experiences and both to have validity as to insights into the reality of the situation. Subjective experiences are not inherently untrue, and they provide insights into things that stark scientific language cannot fully convey for issues where ethics and morality are in play. If you had led with the story about your sister's personal experiences and ended there, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. Instead, you defined the experience and why the person was feeling what they were feeling. You stated "The "brutality" is, I would argue, nothing more than a reaction to the knowledge of what is taking place (poor little baby, never had a chance, being snuffed out before its time) than to any inherent brutality of the actions involved." This is if nothing else rude and bad form at best, condescending at worst. There have been numerous times on this forum I've seen people call out others for trying to define other people's experiences, and they've rightfully gotten called out. If I ever see someone on this forum talk about a personal experience they've had that was traumatic, even a little, and I try to tell them why they're feeling what they're feeling, then I hope someone calls me out. There may be a time and a place for that in a deep, intimate personal relationship, but an anonymous internet forum is no place for that.
I did not try to define anyone's experience.  I referred specifically to the "brutality" of the procedure being more about their feelings and not the procedure itself.  Further, I stated that "I would argue..." .  In other words, this is my viewpoint.  Also, I don't see how what I wrote was rude or bad form simply because I didn't agree with their assessment of the situation. 

I will admit however, after re-reading my post, that it could be interpreted as being condescending, and I will own that even though I did not intend it that way.

Finally, I will point out it seems you are discounting my viewpoint based on nothing more than that I should pay more consideration to the personal anecdote of someone else.  How is that any more dismissive than what you are accusing me of?

I don't expect you to agree with the person who said it. It's a subjective experience after all.

However, if someone experiences something and describes it in a first-hand way, and you try to define why they felt what they felt with their experiences, that is extremely rude and dismissive. The phrase used was " I am still haunted." In fact, to be honest, I feel awkward having this discussion because it's talking around someone who experienced pain. I'll just say it again: it's extremely rude and dismissive to have someone describe feeling at the time and continuing to feel lingering pain due to something they experienced and dismiss it by saying, well, the description you gave of it as this is probably due more to this than to that. You even went beyond that and, in my opinion, very cavalierly said, well, have your experienced knee surgeries, those are really brutal too.

There is a significant difference between what I did and what you did. You have a view on an issue that you have never experienced. We all have views and opinions. I have no issue with criticizing your opinion on something or if you do the same for me. If we didn't want to do that, we probably wouldn't be here. I will talk to you all day long about, let's say, war and whether or not we should be or should have been in national conflict with another nation due to this issue to that issue. I can criticize your opinions and have you criticize mine without any hard feelings (at least on my end). If instead of a debate about it, you said, you were a soldier and felt this way about war, I would never ever even consider telling you, well, you use the term "brutal" to describe war, "In my opinion" I think brutal is used to describe war because of this or that. I'll argue statistics, ideas, political theories, etc. all day long. I'll never take someone's words for something they've lived through and try to define it or the reasons behind a feeling about it to them.

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7402
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #166 on: March 28, 2021, 08:48:23 AM »
However, if someone experiences something and describes it in a first-hand way, and you try to define why they felt what they felt with their experiences, that is extremely rude and dismissive. The phrase used was " I am still haunted." In fact, to be honest, I feel awkward having this discussion because it's talking around someone who experienced pain. I'll just say it again: it's extremely rude and dismissive to have someone describe feeling at the time and continuing to feel lingering pain due to something they experienced and dismiss it by saying, well, the description you gave of it as this is probably due more to this than to that. You even went beyond that and, in my opinion, very cavalierly said, well, have your experienced knee surgeries, those are really brutal too.

There is a significant difference between what I did and what you did. You have a view on an issue that you have never experienced. We all have views and opinions. I have no issue with criticizing your opinion on something or if you do the same for me. If we didn't want to do that, we probably wouldn't be here. I will talk to you all day long about, let's say, war and whether or not we should be or should have been in national conflict with another nation due to this issue to that issue. I can criticize your opinions and have you criticize mine without any hard feelings (at least on my end). If instead of a debate about it, you said, you were a soldier and felt this way about war, I would never ever even consider telling you, well, you use the term "brutal" to describe war, "In my opinion" I think brutal is used to describe war because of this or that. I'll argue statistics, ideas, political theories, etc. all day long. I'll never take someone's words for something they've lived through and try to define it or the reasons behind a feeling about it to them.

Hmm, but I thought whataboutism is officially accepted as part of political dialog as a valid response since around 2016??

/s

Wrenchturner

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1341
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Canada
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #167 on: March 28, 2021, 11:44:21 AM »
"If they can't get it legally they will just get it illegally."

Abortion?  Or firearms?

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #168 on: March 28, 2021, 01:04:21 PM »
"If they can't get it legally they will just get it illegally."

Abortion?  Or firearms?

.... Or nukes? Or ICBMs? Or full auto machine guns?


Why conveniently leave your train of thought incomplete?

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #169 on: March 28, 2021, 01:24:44 PM »
"If they can't get it legally they will just get it illegally."

Abortion?  Or firearms?

.... Or nukes? Or ICBMs? Or full auto machine guns?


Why conveniently leave your train of thought incomplete?

Aww, c'mon. The point is well made, especially for this thread talking about inconsistencies. Many of the arguments most often used by people against abortions are made by people against gun control and vice versa and yet many people (myself included) fall on opposite sides of the arguments, want government intervention on abortions but not guns or government intervention on guns but not abortions. Sure, there are differences, and you can make arguments for one but against the other and try to avoid logical inconsistencies. There are many similarities nonetheless.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #170 on: March 28, 2021, 02:09:21 PM »
I don't expect you to agree with the person who said it. It's a subjective experience after all.

However, if someone experiences something and describes it in a first-hand way, and you try to define why they felt what they felt with their experiences, that is extremely rude and dismissive. The phrase used was " I am still haunted." In fact, to be honest, I feel awkward having this discussion because it's talking around someone who experienced pain. I'll just say it again: it's extremely rude and dismissive to have someone describe feeling at the time and continuing to feel lingering pain due to something they experienced and dismiss it by saying, well, the description you gave of it as this is probably due more to this than to that. You even went beyond that and, in my opinion, very cavalierly said, well, have your experienced knee surgeries, those are really brutal too.
I don't see it that way.

I was speaking specifically to what I believe is actually the brutality of the situation.  The poster claimed the procedure is brutal and that they were haunted by it.  I did NOT comment on their feeling of being haunted at all.  I commented on why I believe the procedure was described as brutal.  It is not the actual procedure itself, which, in my and many other people's opinion, is not brutal.  I was not telling them they feel a certain way or trying to define how they should feel.  I was not commenting on their feelings at all.
Quote from: Wolfpack Mustachian
There is a significant difference between what I did and what you did. You have a view on an issue that you have never experienced. We all have views and opinions. I have no issue with criticizing your opinion on something or if you do the same for me. If we didn't want to do that, we probably wouldn't be here. I will talk to you all day long about, let's say, war and whether or not we should be or should have been in national conflict with another nation due to this issue to that issue. I can criticize your opinions and have you criticize mine without any hard feelings (at least on my end). If instead of a debate about it, you said, you were a soldier and felt this way about war, I would never ever even consider telling you, well, you use the term "brutal" to describe war, "In my opinion" I think brutal is used to describe war because of this or that. I'll argue statistics, ideas, political theories, etc. all day long. I'll never take someone's words for something they've lived through and try to define it or the reasons behind a feeling about it to them.
I don't think you'd find much disagreement with anyone that war is "brutal".  The actual mechanism of war is fundamentally messy, disgusting, horrific, violent, and plain brutal.

The procedure of a late-term abortion could be considered brutal by an individual.  On the other hand another person may find nothing brutal about it all.  I don't think it is rude to disagree with that assessment about the procedure and tell the person why you disagree, especially when you do not comment on their feeling of being haunted.

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #171 on: March 28, 2021, 02:36:54 PM »
"If they can't get it legally they will just get it illegally."

Abortion?  Or firearms?

.... Or nukes? Or ICBMs? Or full auto machine guns?


Why conveniently leave your train of thought incomplete?

Aww, c'mon. The point is well made, especially for this thread talking about inconsistencies. Many of the arguments most often used by people against abortions are made by people against gun control and vice versa and yet many people (myself included) fall on opposite sides of the arguments, want government intervention on abortions but not guns or government intervention on guns but not abortions. Sure, there are differences, and you can make arguments for one but against the other and try to avoid logical inconsistencies. There are many similarities nonetheless.

I personally prefer government intervention on neither.

The "healthcare aspect of abortion requires special treatment because it is healthcare, but otherwise free market should reign supreme for everything else.

Free market, if/when it is allowed to operate, can easily solve all gun problems. Guns seem plenty dangerous (just ask some of the Sandy Hook parents who live no more than 15 miles from me), so as long as the victims can seek appropriate tort via the court system from all the parties involved in the supply chain, with judgements non-dischargeable and immediately able to pierce corporate vail based on ownership as of the date of the incident - and the gun problem will be solved almost immediately via the free market.


Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #172 on: March 28, 2021, 03:59:51 PM »
I don't expect you to agree with the person who said it. It's a subjective experience after all.

However, if someone experiences something and describes it in a first-hand way, and you try to define why they felt what they felt with their experiences, that is extremely rude and dismissive. The phrase used was " I am still haunted." In fact, to be honest, I feel awkward having this discussion because it's talking around someone who experienced pain. I'll just say it again: it's extremely rude and dismissive to have someone describe feeling at the time and continuing to feel lingering pain due to something they experienced and dismiss it by saying, well, the description you gave of it as this is probably due more to this than to that. You even went beyond that and, in my opinion, very cavalierly said, well, have your experienced knee surgeries, those are really brutal too.
I don't see it that way.

I was speaking specifically to what I believe is actually the brutality of the situation.  The poster claimed the procedure is brutal and that they were haunted by it.  I did NOT comment on their feeling of being haunted at all.  I commented on why I believe the procedure was described as brutal.  It is not the actual procedure itself, which, in my and many other people's opinion, is not brutal.  I was not telling them they feel a certain way or trying to define how they should feel.  I was not commenting on their feelings at all.
Quote from: Wolfpack Mustachian
There is a significant difference between what I did and what you did. You have a view on an issue that you have never experienced. We all have views and opinions. I have no issue with criticizing your opinion on something or if you do the same for me. If we didn't want to do that, we probably wouldn't be here. I will talk to you all day long about, let's say, war and whether or not we should be or should have been in national conflict with another nation due to this issue to that issue. I can criticize your opinions and have you criticize mine without any hard feelings (at least on my end). If instead of a debate about it, you said, you were a soldier and felt this way about war, I would never ever even consider telling you, well, you use the term "brutal" to describe war, "In my opinion" I think brutal is used to describe war because of this or that. I'll argue statistics, ideas, political theories, etc. all day long. I'll never take someone's words for something they've lived through and try to define it or the reasons behind a feeling about it to them.
I don't think you'd find much disagreement with anyone that war is "brutal".  The actual mechanism of war is fundamentally messy, disgusting, horrific, violent, and plain brutal.

The procedure of a late-term abortion could be considered brutal by an individual.  On the other hand another person may find nothing brutal about it all.  I don't think it is rude to disagree with that assessment about the procedure and tell the person why you disagree, especially when you do not comment on their feeling of being haunted.

That's fine. I feel that it was pretty evident in your tone and the overall way it was presented that you were trying to tell them how to feel about their feeling of the brutality, especially with the last part of the vein of "hey, you think that's bad, have you seen this." Ultimately though, and I don't mean this as a criticism of you but as an acknowledgment of my own part in the conversation, I have spent way too much time speculating on what I felt someone else may have felt, so I will bow out at this point.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #173 on: March 28, 2021, 04:01:49 PM »
"If they can't get it legally they will just get it illegally."

Abortion?  Or firearms?

.... Or nukes? Or ICBMs? Or full auto machine guns?


Why conveniently leave your train of thought incomplete?

Aww, c'mon. The point is well made, especially for this thread talking about inconsistencies. Many of the arguments most often used by people against abortions are made by people against gun control and vice versa and yet many people (myself included) fall on opposite sides of the arguments, want government intervention on abortions but not guns or government intervention on guns but not abortions. Sure, there are differences, and you can make arguments for one but against the other and try to avoid logical inconsistencies. There are many similarities nonetheless.

I personally prefer government intervention on neither.

The "healthcare aspect of abortion requires special treatment because it is healthcare, but otherwise free market should reign supreme for everything else.

Free market, if/when it is allowed to operate, can easily solve all gun problems. Guns seem plenty dangerous (just ask some of the Sandy Hook parents who live no more than 15 miles from me), so as long as the victims can seek appropriate tort via the court system from all the parties involved in the supply chain, with judgements non-dischargeable and immediately able to pierce corporate vail based on ownership as of the date of the incident - and the gun problem will be solved almost immediately via the free market.

Fair enough, that belief is a lot more consistent than the general perspective on gun control of government banning of guns/extreme taxation to the point of making it not feasible for normal people to own guns/banning types of guns/ammo, etc. that I typically see. Kudos.

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #174 on: March 28, 2021, 04:34:22 PM »
"If they can't get it legally they will just get it illegally."

Abortion?  Or firearms?

.... Or nukes? Or ICBMs? Or full auto machine guns?


Why conveniently leave your train of thought incomplete?

Aww, c'mon. The point is well made, especially for this thread talking about inconsistencies. Many of the arguments most often used by people against abortions are made by people against gun control and vice versa and yet many people (myself included) fall on opposite sides of the arguments, want government intervention on abortions but not guns or government intervention on guns but not abortions. Sure, there are differences, and you can make arguments for one but against the other and try to avoid logical inconsistencies. There are many similarities nonetheless.

I personally prefer government intervention on neither.

The "healthcare aspect of abortion requires special treatment because it is healthcare, but otherwise free market should reign supreme for everything else.

Free market, if/when it is allowed to operate, can easily solve all gun problems. Guns seem plenty dangerous (just ask some of the Sandy Hook parents who live no more than 15 miles from me), so as long as the victims can seek appropriate tort via the court system from all the parties involved in the supply chain, with judgements non-dischargeable and immediately able to pierce corporate vail based on ownership as of the date of the incident - and the gun problem will be solved almost immediately via the free market.

Fair enough, that belief is a lot more consistent than the general perspective on gun control of government banning of guns/extreme taxation to the point of making it not feasible for normal people to own guns/banning types of guns/ammo, etc. that I typically see. Kudos.

Banning is ineffective. Who will enforce such a ban? The police?

Involve tort/insurance and you’ve suddenly got a gazillion enforcers - from your residential home insurance, to your employer to every single economic entity who would not want a giant hole dug in their corporate liability shield.

Free market tends to be very powerful, as many freeloaders crying hoarse about the cancel culture are finding out.
(Which is not to discount numerous real cases of cancel culture overreach. Most cases, however, don’t fall in this category, despite what the freeloaders would have you believe).

The so-called “left” controls 70% of GDP, and rapidly increasing, as of the 2020 election. It’s high time they learn how to step aside from the traditional culture war tropes and learned to use the free market power of the purse.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2021, 04:37:14 PM by ctuser1 »

Wrenchturner

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1341
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Canada
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #175 on: March 29, 2021, 02:00:43 PM »
"If they can't get it legally they will just get it illegally."

Abortion?  Or firearms?

.... Or nukes? Or ICBMs? Or full auto machine guns?


Why conveniently leave your train of thought incomplete?

Those are some strange comparisons to abortion....   my point is that there are often disagreements with moral hazard that lead to arguments like this.  Maybe it's what all these arguments are about--the characterization of moral hazard.  It's not a great strategy to assume your political opponents are somehow morally devoid or incompetent(not saying you're doing this here, but it is appearing in this thread).  They are probably pricing risks differently than you.

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #176 on: March 29, 2021, 02:20:26 PM »
"If they can't get it legally they will just get it illegally."

Abortion?  Or firearms?

.... Or nukes? Or ICBMs? Or full auto machine guns?


Why conveniently leave your train of thought incomplete?

Those are some strange comparisons to abortion....   my point is that there are often disagreements with moral hazard that lead to arguments like this.  Maybe it's what all these arguments are about--the characterization of moral hazard.  It's not a great strategy to assume your political opponents are somehow morally devoid or incompetent(not saying you're doing this here, but it is appearing in this thread).  They are probably pricing risks differently than you.

Risks? What risks exist for the "pro-life" proponents? How many of them are pregnant women currently suffering from complications that can take their life? Or throw them to jail for miscarriage (widely reported Georgia case a few years ago)?

In the case of guns it is a toy taken away from them. Obviously that is more important, and needs to be priced differently, than the lives of some stupid women somewhere or the Sandy Hook kids.

Your attempts at moral equivalency is heroic.

« Last Edit: March 29, 2021, 02:35:26 PM by ctuser1 »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #177 on: March 29, 2021, 02:45:30 PM »
Fundamentally, illegal abortion/illegal guns make a poor comparison.

People get illegal abortions when they're desperate to avoid having the costs and risks of a pregnancy inflicted upon them.  It's a way to avoid losing personal freedom to another.  If something goes wrong with an illegal abortion, the person getting the abortion usually dies.

People get illegal guns when they're desperate to inflict harm on others.  It's an attempt to create a power imbalance and remove the personal freedom of others.

These are very different.

Wrenchturner

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1341
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Canada
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #178 on: March 29, 2021, 02:54:10 PM »
Q.E.D.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #179 on: March 29, 2021, 03:13:01 PM »
Fundamentally, illegal abortion/illegal guns make a poor comparison.

People get illegal abortions when they're desperate to avoid having the costs and risks of a pregnancy inflicted upon them.  It's a way to avoid losing personal freedom to another.  If something goes wrong with an illegal abortion, the person getting the abortion usually dies.

People get illegal guns when they're desperate to inflict harm on others.  It's an attempt to create a power imbalance and remove the personal freedom of others.

These are very different.

As I'm sure you can imagine given our previous conversations, I very strongly disagree with your assessment about why people get guns :-), but I would say that the likely intent of wrenchturner is the same as my assessment of it. I'm not saying they are perfect analogies. What I am saying is that numerous arguments given to support one or deride the other could work in reverse. Wrenchturner's example was a perfect one - one of the quickest things that comes up with abortions is that when they were made illegal, people just got them anyways, but then those same people promote outlawing guns implying it would be effective for one but not the other. See further examples of: If you don't like an abortion/gun, don't get one. Follow up argument - well, when a gun is used, it's hurting someone else - and see abortions, etc. Generic arguments of "the government needs to stay out of my business" - used by both abortion proponents and gun proponents (who are fine with the government intervening when the gun is used to hurt someone else, just not until then). There are many, many similarities in the arguments used.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #180 on: March 29, 2021, 03:40:09 PM »
There are so many differences between the two, it is unfortunate they get conflated.

I have a gun.  I am not happy about the fact that I have a gun.  I have a gun because I find myself obliged to have one to protect my family due to the fact that someone who might do them harm is able to legally have a gun, and the fact that they have a gun poses a potential threat to my family.  So I feel I have to have a gun because this other person has a gun.  I would much rather not have a gun, but the fact that they are so readily available puts me in a position where I feel I have to.  I spend a lot of time in Canada and one of the things I enjoy about being in Canada is that I do not feel the need to have a gun when I am there.

Now reread the paragraph above replacing "have a gun" with "have had an abortion."

That is why the two are not really comparable.   

Please note I am not taking a position here pro/anti either guns (other than that it is true that I personally have but don't like having one) or abortions.

My point is only that, despite some similarities, there are some really big differences.

Again, I definitely agree they are not the same thing. There's a lot of discussions to be had on the morality/ethical side of things for both, and yes, they are definitely different situations.

I am just saying that the specific logical arguments, almost all of which hinge on whether or not the government should exert its authority and place restrictions upon citizens, are remarkably similar, and it's even more on point because those are the arguments that are used the majority of the time for both issues.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #181 on: March 29, 2021, 03:59:54 PM »
There are so many differences between the two, it is unfortunate they get conflated.

I have a gun.  I am not happy about the fact that I have a gun.  I have a gun because I find myself obliged to have one to protect my family due to the fact that someone who might do them harm is able to legally have a gun, and the fact that they have a gun poses a potential threat to my family.  So I feel I have to have a gun because this other person has a gun.  I would much rather not have a gun, but the fact that they are so readily available puts me in a position where I feel I have to.  I spend a lot of time in Canada and one of the things I enjoy about being in Canada is that I do not feel the need to have a gun when I am there.

Now reread the paragraph above replacing "have a gun" with "have had an abortion."

That is why the two are not really comparable.   

Please note I am not taking a position here pro/anti either guns (other than that it is true that I personally have but don't like having one) or abortions.

My point is only that, despite some similarities, there are some really big differences.

Again, I definitely agree they are not the same thing. There's a lot of discussions to be had on the morality/ethical side of things for both, and yes, they are definitely different situations.

I am just saying that the specific logical arguments, almost all of which hinge on whether or not the government should exert its authority and place restrictions upon citizens, are remarkably similar, and it's even more on point because those are the arguments that are used the majority of the time for both issues.

True, but unfortunately most of those arguments boil down to:

The government should have authority to enforce things I want them to enforce, but has no business enforcing things I don't want them to enforce.   That government governs best which governs least, except for the stuff I want them to govern other people about.

Which, as a theory of government authority, is pretty lame.

There are real, serious, grown up, principled arguments about about the rightful role of government, but those very seldom get made.  Everybody would rather just go for government imposing rules they like on other people, but not imposing rules they don't like on them.  And it was ever thus.

Just had to say this made me lol because it is so true.

Wrenchturner

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1341
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Canada
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #182 on: March 29, 2021, 04:07:23 PM »
The issue seems to be with absolutes.  For instance, most right wingers are okay with some amount of welfare/social spending despite the moral hazards.  And most left wingers are okay with generally meritocratic systems even though they are exclusionary. 

The real problems are where binaries exist--can you terminate a pregnancy y/n?  Can you own a firearm y/n? etc.

Here's another question for the participants---should Harvard et al limit their number of Asian students because they outperform too consistently and make up a disproportionate demographic?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #183 on: March 30, 2021, 08:31:13 AM »
That government governs best which governs least

My general appreciation for Thoreau aside, failed governments are the ones that tend to govern least.  Yemen, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, the Democratic Republic of Congo . . . these are great examples of the benefits you reap from following an extreme hands off approach in government.   If you're starting with this as a theory of government, you've already given up on hope of success.

Sid Hoffman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 928
  • Location: Southwest USA
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #184 on: March 30, 2021, 07:59:17 PM »
The morality of abortion comes down to what age you believe people earn basic human rights. If you believe that you deserve human rights as soon as you exist as a person (conception), that's one thing. Some countries say it's after about a quarter year (first trimester). The US legal system says you don't deserve any basic human rights until you're outside of your mother's body. Some genuine extremists even argue that you shouldn't be granted any human rights until some period of time post-birth.

That's all it comes down to: what age you believe people need to be in order to qualify for basic human rights.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #185 on: March 30, 2021, 08:08:12 PM »
The morality of abortion comes down to what age you believe people earn basic human rights. If you believe that you deserve human rights as soon as you exist as a person (conception), that's one thing. Some countries say it's after about a quarter year (first trimester). The US legal system says you don't deserve any basic human rights until you're outside of your mother's body. Some genuine extremists even argue that you shouldn't be granted any human rights until some period of time post-birth.

That's all it comes down to: what age you believe people need to be in order to qualify for basic human rights.

No.  This is an overly simplistic answer, and one that doesn't describe my feelings at all.

I believe that fetuses qualify for basic human rights.  I just don't believe that their human rights override the basic human right to autonomy of person of the mother.  No human being should be forced to risk their own life or to give up a part of their body for another human being.  This just doesn't happen in any other legal situation in our society.

It doesn't matter if my neighbour is going to die because he needs a new kidney and I'm a match.  Nobody kicks in my door and forces me to donate part of my body at my own risk to save the life of another.  By the same token, a mother should not be forced to donate part of her body to support the life of the fetus - even if it's a fully human being with all the rights of an adult.

waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5653
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #186 on: March 30, 2021, 08:32:04 PM »
I'm not sure about Canada, but in the US you can be drafted and forced to risk your life. It hasn't happened in my lifetime but it certainly has in the past and could in the future.

I'm not joining the abortion debate per se here, just pointing out that in fact you can in that circumstance be required to sacrifice your health/life, legally, in order to protect other people.

-W

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #187 on: March 30, 2021, 08:41:23 PM »
I'm not sure about Canada, but in the US you can be drafted and forced to risk your life. It hasn't happened in my lifetime but it certainly has in the past and could in the future.

I'm not joining the abortion debate per se here, just pointing out that in fact you can in that circumstance be required to sacrifice your health/life, legally, in order to protect other people.

-W

Those are not done without consent - just that the consent involved is the ‘consent of the governed’, i.e. the collective consent.

Bodily autonomy is also violated, without consent of the individual, in criminal law. Again, collective ‘consent of the governed’ applies.

No such collective consent exists for abortion, never has, despite what the arrogance of the religious would have you believe. If, someday, overwhelming consent forms that elevates responsibilities of motherhood above individual rights, then I guess such consent could exist or be manufactured. I know I just wouldn’t want to live in such a world - because the implications are ugly.

I do know that such collective "consent" trumping individual rights are done exceedingly rarely with generous exemptions for individual opinions (e.g. fictitious bone spurs). I also do know that Americans have decided in the past that generating such consent that costs ONLY a small minority of the population but benefits the whole society against the wishes of that minority (e.g. the cotton pickers in 18th century south who all looked a certain way) is quite un-American. So I am not sure how receptive they would/should be to NOW impose such a "collective consent" on pregnant women - an yet smaller minority than the cotton pickers above.


« Last Edit: March 30, 2021, 09:09:21 PM by ctuser1 »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #188 on: March 31, 2021, 07:29:26 AM »
I'm not sure about Canada, but in the US you can be drafted and forced to risk your life. It hasn't happened in my lifetime but it certainly has in the past and could in the future.

I'm not joining the abortion debate per se here, just pointing out that in fact you can in that circumstance be required to sacrifice your health/life, legally, in order to protect other people.

It hasn't existed in Canada since we were fighting Hitler.  Didn't the draft in the US end in '73?  That would be the same year that it became legal for a white person to marry a black person in Arkansas . . . which does seem like a long time ago.



I'm not sure about Canada, but in the US you can be drafted and forced to risk your life. It hasn't happened in my lifetime but it certainly has in the past and could in the future.

I'm not joining the abortion debate per se here, just pointing out that in fact you can in that circumstance be required to sacrifice your health/life, legally, in order to protect other people.

-W

Those are not done without consent - just that the consent involved is the ‘consent of the governed’, i.e. the collective consent.

Bodily autonomy is also violated, without consent of the individual, in criminal law. Again, collective ‘consent of the governed’ applies.

No such collective consent exists for abortion, never has, despite what the arrogance of the religious would have you believe. If, someday, overwhelming consent forms that elevates responsibilities of motherhood above individual rights, then I guess such consent could exist or be manufactured. I know I just wouldn’t want to live in such a world - because the implications are ugly.

I do know that such collective "consent" trumping individual rights are done exceedingly rarely with generous exemptions for individual opinions (e.g. fictitious bone spurs). I also do know that Americans have decided in the past that generating such consent that costs ONLY a small minority of the population but benefits the whole society against the wishes of that minority (e.g. the cotton pickers in 18th century south who all looked a certain way) is quite un-American. So I am not sure how receptive they would/should be to NOW impose such a "collective consent" on pregnant women - an yet smaller minority than the cotton pickers above.


I guess the question is . . . should a woman giving birth be legally treated like a person undergoing any other medical procedure, or more like a criminal being sentenced for a crime?  Pro-life arguments lead to the latter, pro-choice arguments to the former.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3770
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #189 on: March 31, 2021, 04:12:10 PM »
We haven’t actually drafted anyone since the Vietnam era, but yes, males (I think still only males right), still have to register for the draft upon turning 18.

Which honestly seems like not a bad deal; about a month or two after I registered (in year 2000) I got a box in the mail from Gillette with a new Mach 3 razor, which I’ve been using ever since (although less than I used to, I have a beard, but the razor is used ~weekly for a cleanup).  Cant prove it but pretty sure Gillette used the draft roles to mail out razors, which in my case created a 20+ year (and counting) customer.

Cool Friend

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #190 on: April 01, 2021, 08:59:32 AM »
We haven’t actually drafted anyone since the Vietnam era, but yes, males (I think still only males right), still have to register for the draft upon turning 18.

Which honestly seems like not a bad deal; about a month or two after I registered (in year 2000) I got a box in the mail from Gillette with a new Mach 3 razor, which I’ve been using ever since (although less than I used to, I have a beard, but the razor is used ~weekly for a cleanup).  Cant prove it but pretty sure Gillette used the draft roles to mail out razors, which in my case created a 20+ year (and counting) customer.

I surely hope the Selective Service is not selling registrant data.

This exact same thing happened to me--got a Mach 3 in the mail right after I registered for the draft. Our experiences differ in that I was so disgusted that I threw it out.

Sid Hoffman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 928
  • Location: Southwest USA
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #191 on: April 01, 2021, 01:28:56 PM »
No.  This is an overly simplistic answer, and one that doesn't describe my feelings at all.

I believe that fetuses qualify for basic human rights.  I just don't believe that their human rights override the basic human right to autonomy of person of the mother.  No human being should be forced to risk their own life or to give up a part of their body for another human being.  This just doesn't happen in any other legal situation in our society.

That's not what the law says at all. Abortions are done on demand, not for the risk of the life of the mother. Also, saying an adult's life is worth more than a child's life is again just a measure of what you value. That's fine: everyone gets to value one life over another, and you are absolutely free to say that adult's lives are worth more than kid's lives. That is indeed something you get to decide for your own view of morality.

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #192 on: April 01, 2021, 01:50:16 PM »
No.  This is an overly simplistic answer, and one that doesn't describe my feelings at all.

I believe that fetuses qualify for basic human rights.  I just don't believe that their human rights override the basic human right to autonomy of person of the mother.  No human being should be forced to risk their own life or to give up a part of their body for another human being.  This just doesn't happen in any other legal situation in our society.

That's not what the law says at all. Abortions are done on demand, not for the risk of the life of the mother. Also, saying an adult's life is worth more than a child's life is again just a measure of what you value. That's fine: everyone gets to value one life over another, and you are absolutely free to say that adult's lives are worth more than kid's lives. That is indeed something you get to decide for your own view of morality.

>>That's not what the law says at all.
I'd be curious about what law you are talking about. Roe v. Wade? If so, yes, that categorically rules that under the US Constitution, a fetus do not have the rights of citizenship.

>>Abortions are done on demand, not for the risk of the life of the mother.
Your blasé dismissal of the risks to the mothers health (and sometimes even life) from any pregnancy, even very uneventful ones, is quite surprising.

My first daughter was a very very uneventful pregnancy till the very end. DW got preeclampsia hours before delivery and that became systemic blood pressure after the delivery. There was a not-insignificant probability that could be fatal for the mother during the childbirth. The systemic blood pressure will almost surely shorten her life expectancy.

Evolution seems to treat the female body as disposable for the purposes of propagation of the genes after childbirth. A lot of the inherent issues flare up as the fetus' growth is prioritized over and above the mother's body.

----------------

My guess is you may be misunderstanding the point GuiterStv is making. Nobody valued the adult's life more than a child's life.

Think of this from the POV of the woman carrying the fetus. Should she be forced to carry the child to term or not? The question is similar to "should you be forced to donate your kidney to save your neighbor"? It is not about anyone valuing a child's life or adult's - the abstract/legal question is whether you (or the mother) have a legal obligation to save someone else's (or the fetus') life by risking your own.

tl;dr
Under USC, a fetus is not considered a "person". Even if it was, the mother should still be under no obligation to risk her life to save the fetus'.
i.e. "personhood" is a red herring.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2021, 02:15:05 PM by ctuser1 »

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #193 on: April 01, 2021, 02:04:03 PM »
Anyone know someone who says stuff like this...

"Jesus is my savior! Praise the Lord!"*

But who also rails (and rails) against raising the minimum wage, increasing taxes on the rich, providing free community college tuition, expanding Medicaid, funding universal daycare and existing programs like SNAP and WIC or basically ANY policy that would help poor people and not help rich people?

*the same Jesus who uttered such classics as:
"If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me" and,
For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” and,   
"When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."


« Last Edit: April 01, 2021, 02:08:18 PM by Nick_Miller »

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20742
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #194 on: April 01, 2021, 05:16:15 PM »
Women end up with all sorts of short and long term health issues from pregnancy and delivery.  Most are the sort of things that don't get discussed.    You know, those messy "female complaints" that don't happpen to women who never get pregnant.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #195 on: April 02, 2021, 02:18:10 AM »
No.  This is an overly simplistic answer, and one that doesn't describe my feelings at all.

I believe that fetuses qualify for basic human rights.  I just don't believe that their human rights override the basic human right to autonomy of person of the mother.  No human being should be forced to risk their own life or to give up a part of their body for another human being.  This just doesn't happen in any other legal situation in our society.

That's not what the law says at all. Abortions are done on demand, not for the risk of the life of the mother.

Pregnancy is a risk to the life of the mother.  Giving birth is 14 times more likely to result in death than getting an abortion.  Demanding a pregnancy come to term and refusing an abortion is therefore forcing the mother to risk her life.


Also, saying an adult's life is worth more than a child's life is again just a measure of what you value. That's fine: everyone gets to value one life over another, and you are absolutely free to say that adult's lives are worth more than kid's lives. That is indeed something you get to decide for your own view of morality.

I think that you're misunderstanding me.  I don't say that an adult's life is worth more than a child's life at all.  I believe they're both equally valuable (of course insurance companies would say that a younger person is worth more than an older person).  But a person (of any age) should not be allowed to force anyone else to undergo a medical procedure against their will - even if that medical procedure would save the life of the person in question.

If I have a bad kidney and will die without a donation, and you're a match to donate . . . I can't force you to save my life by giving your kidney.  That's the same sort of scenario as with a pregnant woman.  A fetus can't force a pregnant woman to undergo pregnancy - even if forcing that medical procedure would save the life of the fetus.  Nothing to do with the value of a life.  Everything to do with autonomy of person.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2021, 02:19:46 AM by GuitarStv »

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #196 on: April 02, 2021, 08:09:20 AM »
I like your argument, but I do think that the inherent connection between woman and fetus needs to be addressed for it to fully work.

Inherent connection can be easily addressed by extending the analogy on the other direction.

Let's assume I am a COVID denier who coughed on someone on purpose, and now that person is on all kinds of organ failure scenario. I am, of course, being prosecuted for that crime.

The person I infected requires organ transplant of some organs X, Y and Z.

Does our criminal and liability laws legally *require* me (a criminal who caused the situation) to donate my organs (say - one lung, for transplant) if that could save the life that I put in danger?

Let's make the medical demand way milder and borderline. Let's say I am a deranged shooter who caused fatal injury to someone, causing a lot of blood loss. Am I legally required to donate blood to the person I shot?
« Last Edit: April 02, 2021, 08:13:38 AM by ctuser1 »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #197 on: April 02, 2021, 10:38:07 AM »
No.  This is an overly simplistic answer, and one that doesn't describe my feelings at all.

I believe that fetuses qualify for basic human rights.  I just don't believe that their human rights override the basic human right to autonomy of person of the mother.  No human being should be forced to risk their own life or to give up a part of their body for another human being.  This just doesn't happen in any other legal situation in our society.

That's not what the law says at all. Abortions are done on demand, not for the risk of the life of the mother.

Pregnancy is a risk to the life of the mother.  Giving birth is 14 times more likely to result in death than getting an abortion.  Demanding a pregnancy come to term and refusing an abortion is therefore forcing the mother to risk her life.


Also, saying an adult's life is worth more than a child's life is again just a measure of what you value. That's fine: everyone gets to value one life over another, and you are absolutely free to say that adult's lives are worth more than kid's lives. That is indeed something you get to decide for your own view of morality.

I think that you're misunderstanding me.  I don't say that an adult's life is worth more than a child's life at all.  I believe they're both equally valuable (of course insurance companies would say that a younger person is worth more than an older person).  But a person (of any age) should not be allowed to force anyone else to undergo a medical procedure against their will - even if that medical procedure would save the life of the person in question.

If I have a bad kidney and will die without a donation, and you're a match to donate . . . I can't force you to save my life by giving your kidney.  That's the same sort of scenario as with a pregnant woman.  A fetus can't force a pregnant woman to undergo pregnancy - even if forcing that medical procedure would save the life of the fetus.  Nothing to do with the value of a life.  Everything to do with autonomy of person.

That's a reasonable argument, but it does have a hole in it that would require patching to work.

In the case of the kidney donation, you and I happen to be compatible, but there is no natural connection between us. Aside from that happenstance, you would never have had any dependency on me, and we'd probably never have even known about each other. You have no natural claim on this help from me. I might voluntarily choose to offer it to you, but that would be an act of charity. You have no natural dependency on me, no more natural claim on the aid of my kidney than you have to live in my house, eat my food, or have me tend to you while you are ill.  In the natural course of events, there's no reason why we would ever even meet.

In the case of a pregnancy, there is a natural connection between woman and fetus. Pregnancy is a natural process in which the fetus naturally develops in dependency on the pregnant woman. There is a natural connection between parent and offspring which extends way beyond the happenstance of a given fetus just happening to find itself housed in some random woman's uterus.  In the natural course of events, the fetus is dependent on the woman for support.

The fact that there is a natural dependency does create some sort of difference between the two situations.

The analogy to you kidney transplant example would be a fetus that could not be carried to term for some reason and a biologically compatible woman who could medically serve as a surrogate.  Even if the fetus will not survive without being implanted in the potential surrogate, I think everyone would agree that you can't force the woman to be implanted with the fetus and carry it to term.

I like your argument, but I do think that the inherent connection between woman and fetus needs to be addressed for it to fully work.

I think we can change the scenario slightly in order to address your concerns.

I'm your abusive dad who has been estranged from you for years, and you're my son.  I'll die without your kidney.  There's certainly a natural connection between us - one equal (if not stronger, since we know one another) to that of a mother and unborn child.  Should you be required to undergo kidney removal for my survival?

The answer still seems the same to me.

Once the technology exists to safely remove a fetus and keep it alive/bring it to term my answers regarding abortion will change.  When that occurs I believe that the state should be morally compelled to pay the price of performing this operation and of adopting out or raising the child rather than terminating the child's life.   At the moment though, the autonomy of the mother's person needs to take precedence over the wants/needs of the unborn child.



Let's make the medical demand way milder and borderline. Let's say I am a deranged shooter who caused near fatal injury to someone, causing a lot of blood loss. Am I legally required to donate blood to the person I shot?

Ooooh.  That's a hard argument.  Way down in the sub-cockle area of my heart there's a little voice piping up 'FUCKING RIGHT YOU SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO'.  It makes sense as a kind of reparations for the damage done.  I'm going to have to ponder this one.

Samuel

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 771
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #198 on: April 02, 2021, 11:05:02 AM »
Let's make the medical demand way milder and borderline. Let's say I am a deranged shooter who caused fatal injury to someone, causing a lot of blood loss. Am I legally required to donate blood to the person I shot?

Fatal injury? Not sure donating blood is going to help very much...

Sorry, I'm feeling extra pedantic in this morning.

rosaz

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 191
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #199 on: April 02, 2021, 11:44:46 AM »
The abortion analogy that strikes me as closest is something like: While driving, my brakes fail, and as a result I hit a pedestrian. They will die if I don't donate a kidney; am I required to do so? (Assuming my health is such the donation carries the usual low but non-zero risk.) Morally required? Should I be required to legally?

(To make the analogy more apt, there should be a second car - the man - who experienced a similar brakes/etc. failure, and it was the combined failure that resulted in the accident. But the other driver is not a compatible donor; he can provide - or be compelled to provide - financial help for my medical recovery but he can't donate himself.)

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!