Do we really need another two minutes' hate thread for conservatives?
Do we really need another two minutes' hate thread for conservatives?
Are they pro-life or are they pro-policing-women's-bodies?
They don't give a fuck about babies. If they did, they would care deeply about infant mortality rates, and y'know, actual babies. They don't. They care about not letting "bad" women get away with being "bad".
Do we really need another two minutes' hate thread for conservatives?
Do we really need another two minutes' hate thread for conservatives?
Minutes? If only. Weeks, usually, with not a single actual reasoned conservative opinion to be found (yes, I'm entirely aware that a large portion of those posting on the internet consider that to be an oxymoron).
Is there any actual interest in a discussion on some of these issues (which appear to be "I hate this idea; I hate conservatives; therefore conservatives must hold this idea!" in terms of actual accuracy), or is it just yet another outrage thread?
Do we really need another two minutes' hate thread for conservatives?
Why people are okay with the government telling them they have to cover certain parts of their bodies when it doesn’t hurt anyone else but get in an uproar when told to cover other parts of their body where if they don’t it can kill someone else is beyond me. But I guess unless you’re pure libertarian and believe the government shouldn’t be able to tell what you can and can’t wear on any part of your body then we all to some extent have cognitive dissonance on this topic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do we really need another two minutes' hate thread for conservatives?
Yes.
However, in the interests of both sides, there is a huge Venn diagram overlap of inconsistent and hypocritical logic by people on the left as well. For example, many of the people most vocally concerned about climate change and into local supply and demand of various sorts, and those that idealize and self-congratulate re: international travel by airplane as a way to both recreate and broaden one's horizons.
“Animal lover + meat eater” is the same cognitive dissonance. It’s everywhere.
Do we really need another two minutes' hate thread for conservatives?
Yes.
However, in the interests of both sides, there is a huge Venn diagram overlap of inconsistent and hypocritical logic by people on the left as well. For example, many of the people most vocally concerned about climate change and into local supply and demand of various sorts, and those that idealize and self-congratulate re: international travel by airplane as a way to both recreate and broaden one's horizons.
We all have our blind spots, and let's be real, I don't think we typically reach conclusions based on objective, well-reasoned analysis even though many of us think we do the best we can striving to do that. I think that describes people on all sides of the political arena.
IMO progressives' seemingly robust embrace of 'science' and intellectualism and all of that seems to crumble immediately when any of it contradicts religion which let's face it, is inevitable. My honest take is that a "party of science" would be composed of non-religious people.
We all have our blind spots, and let's be real, I don't think we typically reach conclusions based on objective, well-reasoned analysis even though many of us think we do the best we can striving to do that. I think that describes people on all sides of the political arena.
IMO progressives' seemingly robust embrace of 'science' and intellectualism and all of that seems to crumble immediately when any of it contradicts religion which let's face it, is inevitable. My honest take is that a "party of science" would be composed of non-religious people.
I don't necessarily agree. I was a scientist and worked with many religious scientists over the years. Not a ton of open Christians, but a lot of Jews and Muslims who were very spiritual and had no conflict between their faith and science. It is not at all inevitable that science contradicts religion, it's just certain religious groups who think that their religion contradicts science.
We all have our blind spots, and let's be real, I don't think we typically reach conclusions based on objective, well-reasoned analysis even though many of us think we do the best we can striving to do that. I think that describes people on all sides of the political arena.
IMO progressives' seemingly robust embrace of 'science' and intellectualism and all of that seems to crumble immediately when any of it contradicts religion which let's face it, is inevitable. My honest take is that a "party of science" would be composed of non-religious people.
I don't necessarily agree. I was a scientist and worked with many religious scientists over the years. Not a ton of open Christians, but a lot of Jews and Muslims who were very spiritual and had no conflict between their faith and science. It is not at all inevitable that science contradicts religion, it's just certain religious groups who think that their religion contradicts science.
Sure, people can say they are "spiritual" or something like that without adhering to many (or any?) hard rules and without worshipping anything at all, but I haven't met two people who have the same definition of what "being spiritual" even means. Is it some sort of "universal connectedness" or something? I guess that's really beside the point, because is it really even a "religion" or just some sort of vague feeling? Who the hell knows?
Most definitions of "religion" that I've seen include elements of rules, systems, faith, worship, supernatural, adherence, etc. That is the stuff I'm talking about - people and institutions who cling to mythology like it's some objective truth of the universe. I mean it's just ridiculous on its face.
There seems to be a general pattern in our American politics that I find both infuriating and fascinating. It’s this strange dichotomy where a person can be rabidly anchored on a side of one position by using a certain logic, and then be rapidly on one side of a different position by using the exact opposite logic. For example:
- Pro life (anti-abortion), because every (potential) life is sacred, but anti-mask-in-a-global pandemic because apparently every (existing) life is not that sacred.
What’s up with that? Why the lack of consistency?
Are they pro-life or are they pro-policing-women's-bodies?
They don't give a fuck about babies. If they did, they would care deeply about infant mortality rates, and y'know, actual babies. They don't. They care about not letting "bad" women get away with being "bad".
Are they pro-life or are they pro-policing-women's-bodies?
They don't give a fuck about babies. If they did, they would care deeply about infant mortality rates, and y'know, actual babies. They don't. They care about not letting "bad" women get away with being "bad".
So when Genetic Engineering comes online and women have a third option of "customizing" their child in the womb, are you going to accept that women should have the power to make their children smarter, choose their sexuality and any number of other things? What if women choose to eliminate the disabled, is that acceptable?
Also, I never shared my own stance, I only explained how people can hold an anti-abortion position without actually being particularly pro-baby. I was simply pointing out how it's not necessarily hypocritical if the motivation isn't really to protect life.
Do we really need another two minutes' hate thread for conservatives?this was my reaction as well.
Are they pro-life or are they pro-policing-women's-bodies?
They don't give a fuck about babies. If they did, they would care deeply about infant mortality rates, and y'know, actual babies. They don't. They care about not letting "bad" women get away with being "bad".
So when Genetic Engineering comes online and women have a third option of "customizing" their child in the womb, are you going to accept that women should have the power to make their children smarter, choose their sexuality and any number of other things? What if women choose to eliminate the disabled, is that acceptable?
Yeah, I'm not taking that bait.
Also, I never shared my own stance, I only explained how people can hold an anti-abortion position without actually being particularly pro-baby. I was simply pointing out how it's not necessarily hypocritical if the motivation isn't really to protect life.
There seems to be a general pattern in our American politics that I find both infuriating and fascinating. It’s this strange dichotomy where a person can be rabidly anchored on a side of one position by using a certain logic, and then be rapidly on one side of a different position by using the exact opposite logic. For example:
- Pro life (anti-abortion), because every (potential) life is sacred, but anti-mask-in-a-global pandemic because apparently every (existing) life is not that sacred.
What’s up with that? Why the lack of consistency?
Abortion is an human act. Pandemics are a force of nature.
Pro life (anti-abortion), because every (potential) life is sacred, but anti-mask-in-a-global pandemic because apparently every (existing) life is not that sacred.
Turns out simplistic labels don't capture the totality of the other side's position, who'd have guessed!? :D
"Opposed to generally available legalized abortion" but flat-out refusal to entertain discussion on universal background checks and waiting periods for prospective gun buyers...
Opposed to generally available legalized abortion, but favor the death penalty.
Well, I don’t think pro life actually has anything to do with saving wee babies, rather it has everything to do with cruelty and control...
From a European point of view: in the US, you guys seem to think abortion the most important political issue of this age. A lot of time, money and resources are spent on the abortion debate.
You know what we did decades ago? We started making sure women don't get unwanted pregnancies anymore. So we've solved the teen mother issue as well as the abortion issue. That's a goal pro-choice and pro-life groups could both support. Although some religious groups do emphasize abstinence before marriage, I don't think anyone is opposed to proper sex education for teenagers. So if some teenagers within those religious groups do choose to engage in pre-marital sex, they know how to prevent pregnancy.
Well, I don’t think pro life actually has anything to do with saving wee babies, rather it has everything to do with cruelty and control...
How many anti-abortion activists do you actually know and have had an in person conversation with on the matter?
Well, I don’t think pro life actually has anything to do with saving wee babies, rather it has everything to do with cruelty and control...
How many anti-abortion activists do you actually know and have had an in person conversation with on the matter?
+1000
And therein lies the problem and why it's almost always pointless having discussions on this topic on this forum. Pro-choicers almost always just "know" that pro-lifers are all about cruelty or controlling women or ensuring women are all about just producing babies.
I guarantee you that I know more and have spoken to more pro-life people on the topic than many pro-choicers on this forum, and I know of no one whose goal is to just make women produce babies or the like. The staunchest pro-lifers I know are women of child-bearing age. A few probably are guided more by the "consequences for actions" which some could look at as a punishment mindset, but even that's not the majority. Most just don't want the unborn's lives to be ended. Note, I'm not talking about politicians, just average, every day pro-lifers. If I judged pro-choicers off of a few jerks I've encountered, I would loathe and look down on all pro-choicers. With this mindset, having a rational discussion about this topic is rarely, if ever, productive.
Pro-environment, but run bitcoin miners...yeah, i have wondered about that one.
From a European point of view: in the US, you guys seem to think abortion the most important political issue of this age. A lot of time, money and resources are spent on the abortion debate.
You know what we did decades ago? We started making sure women don't get unwanted pregnancies anymore. So we've solved the teen mother issue as well as the abortion issue. That's a goal pro-choice and pro-life groups could both support. Although some religious groups do emphasize abstinence before marriage, I don't think anyone is opposed to proper sex education for teenagers. So if some teenagers within those religious groups do choose to engage in pre-marital sex, they know how to prevent pregnancy.
Some countries in Europe are also still making abortion a political issue. In Norway a very small Christian party that the conservatives need to form a majority government have a lot of influence. Plus several more eastern European countries where women last year or so went to protest on the streets after more strict abortion laws.
But indeed it is weird that this is still an issue while preventive methods have been developed ages ago.
I am agreeing with you.
An interesting way to frame it. Lefties might invert these. (Except the latter has to be "pandemic-related risks")
Lefties often attribute the circumstances around people to explain abortions(which looks more like a force of nature) and pandemic risks characterized by mostly human acts(not wearing masks, socializing indoors, not quarantining, etc)
---------------------------------------------
Turns out simplistic labels don't capture the totality of the other side's position, who'd have guessed!? :D
Seriously.
About half of this absolute nonsense thread so far consists of taking a shortcut label ("pro-life") applied to a position with a range of positions held under it, then asserting based on the shortcut label for a particular position that, why, of course they should hold all these other positions that could also share the same label - even though they're entirely different positions. And then claiming victory for pointing out the supposed "inconsistencies."
It's a lot harder to take a more accurate description ("Opposed to generally available legalized abortion" would be a decent one, "Opposed to the senseless murder of tens of millions of people globally a year" would be a somewhat more pointed one, though accurate if you consider a fetus a person) and twist it that way, but, I suppose, that's a harder one to casually beat up on than "pro-life," because it's actually an accurate statement of position.
To rephrase a few of the early posts with more accurate descriptions:Quote"Opposed to generally available legalized abortion" but flat-out refusal to entertain discussion on universal background checks and waiting periods for prospective gun buyers...QuoteOpposed to generally available legalized abortion, but favor the death penalty.
See how absurd those sound? It's the same level of nonsense as "Why are 'pro-choice' people so upset if I choose not to wear a mask?"
And in response to both of those, in the face of the ~700,000 medical abortions performed annually in the US (which, fortunately, has been dropping - it was well over 1M/yr for about 30 years), the ~35,000 firearms deaths (20x fewer, half of which are suicides) are somewhat lower priority, and the less than 20/yr lately killed via the death penalty is far below an awful lot of other causes of death.
As for "not caring about children after they're born," I certainly don't see that among the anti-abortion activists I know. They're heavily involved in the foster system and adoption, actively support the various pregnancy support centers out here, and, as far as is reasonable (mostly depending on age and pre-existing conditions) prefer birth centers for normal births as opposed to hospitals. So... at least in the circles I'm actually familiar with (vs mostly having read about in the media), most of the assertions being made here are simply wrong.
=====
Though if we're going to continue with the inconsistencies, it's really hard to get much worse than the wealthy (usually coastal) liberals I've known who claim to care deeply about the climate and climate change, while buying luxury cars for their 2 hour commute from their couple million dollar 5000+ sq ft homes with a pool out back, etc. But they offset some of their electrical use with their solar, so it's fine, and, by the way, they're not going to be in next week, flying over to Europe for a few days for some reason or another. The cost of their house could have put in a few megawatts of solar somewhere, but it's not really actually important. Just a way to feel superior in their luxury car to someone driving a (ewwwww) pickup truck.
"The climate is an absolute looming emergency, we have to do everything we can to mitigate the change, and I voted for Biden so what more could I do?" is just a lazy cop-put.
two of the most prolific and productive researchers in my department (one an md, other phd) are of the Jewish faith, enough to observe the holidays, etc. And there are a number of other people in my department who actively go to church, temple as well as do research. So I have had a different experience. And for those who ridicule those who attend church or follow a faith, multiple studies have found that participating in a faith increases social support and overall welll being, helps people cope with cancer and other serious health crises, may even extend life. So one might "scientifically" ask, maybe those devout people know what they are doing more than atheists? In contrast, watching religious tv from home (let alone things like fox news) has no positive impact. So the type of participation matters. As far as religious vs spiritual debate that is a whole other conversation. You can be religious without being really spiritual, religious and spiritual, or spiritual without being religious.We all have our blind spots, and let's be real, I don't think we typically reach conclusions based on objective, well-reasoned analysis even though many of us think we do the best we can striving to do that. I think that describes people on all sides of the political arena.
IMO progressives' seemingly robust embrace of 'science' and intellectualism and all of that seems to crumble immediately when any of it contradicts religion which let's face it, is inevitable. My honest take is that a "party of science" would be composed of non-religious people.
I don't necessarily agree. I was a scientist and worked with many religious scientists over the years. Not a ton of open Christians, but a lot of Jews and Muslims who were very spiritual and had no conflict between their faith and science. It is not at all inevitable that science contradicts religion, it's just certain religious groups who think that their religion contradicts science.
Sure, people can say they are "spiritual" or something like that without adhering to many (or any?) hard rules and without worshipping anything at all, but I haven't met two people who have the same definition of what "being spiritual" even means. Is it some sort of "universal connectedness" or something? I guess that's really beside the point, because is it really even a "religion" or just some sort of vague feeling? Who the hell knows?
Most definitions of "religion" that I've seen include elements of rules, systems, faith, worship, supernatural, adherence, etc. That is the stuff I'm talking about - people and institutions who cling to mythology like it's some objective truth of the universe. I mean it's just ridiculous on its face.
Uh, I did specify Jews and Muslims, and they have tons of rules.
You can absolutely be religious and still be a rigorous scientist. Science isn't in any way incompatible with having faith in things that can't be understood, and many religious sects don't require literal interpretation of scripture, which means everything is up to interpretation.
As I said, I've spent decades among very religious scientists. The only religious people who conflict with science are those who belong to specific groups that have an agenda of going against current scientific knowledge. I also know multiple retired scientists who are now ministers. In fact, most of the minister's I'm friends with are former scientists and engineers.
two of the most prolific and productive researchers in my department (one an md, other phd) are of the Jewish faith, enough to observe the holidays, etc. And there are a number of other people in my department who actively go to church, temple as well as do research. So I have had a different experience. And for those who ridicule those who attend church or follow a faith, multiple studies have found that participating in a faith increases social support and overall welll being, helps people cope with cancer and other serious health crises, may even extend life. So one might "scientifically" ask, maybe those devout people know what they are doing more than atheists? In contrast, watching religious tv from home (let alone things like fox news) has no positive impact. So the type of participation matters. As far as religious vs spiritual debate that is a whole other conversation. You can be religious without being really spiritual, religious and spiritual, or spiritual without being religious.We all have our blind spots, and let's be real, I don't think we typically reach conclusions based on objective, well-reasoned analysis even though many of us think we do the best we can striving to do that. I think that describes people on all sides of the political arena.
IMO progressives' seemingly robust embrace of 'science' and intellectualism and all of that seems to crumble immediately when any of it contradicts religion which let's face it, is inevitable. My honest take is that a "party of science" would be composed of non-religious people.
I don't necessarily agree. I was a scientist and worked with many religious scientists over the years. Not a ton of open Christians, but a lot of Jews and Muslims who were very spiritual and had no conflict between their faith and science. It is not at all inevitable that science contradicts religion, it's just certain religious groups who think that their religion contradicts science.
Sure, people can say they are "spiritual" or something like that without adhering to many (or any?) hard rules and without worshipping anything at all, but I haven't met two people who have the same definition of what "being spiritual" even means. Is it some sort of "universal connectedness" or something? I guess that's really beside the point, because is it really even a "religion" or just some sort of vague feeling? Who the hell knows?
Most definitions of "religion" that I've seen include elements of rules, systems, faith, worship, supernatural, adherence, etc. That is the stuff I'm talking about - people and institutions who cling to mythology like it's some objective truth of the universe. I mean it's just ridiculous on its face.
Uh, I did specify Jews and Muslims, and they have tons of rules.
You can absolutely be religious and still be a rigorous scientist. Science isn't in any way incompatible with having faith in things that can't be understood, and many religious sects don't require literal interpretation of scripture, which means everything is up to interpretation.
As I said, I've spent decades among very religious scientists. The only religious people who conflict with science are those who belong to specific groups that have an agenda of going against current scientific knowledge. I also know multiple retired scientists who are now ministers. In fact, most of the minister's I'm friends with are former scientists and engineers.
Well, I don’t think pro life actually has anything to do with saving wee babies, rather it has everything to do with cruelty and control...
How many anti-abortion activists do you actually know and have had an in person conversation with on the matter?
+1000
And therein lies the problem and why it's almost always pointless having discussions on this topic on this forum. Pro-choicers almost always just "know" that pro-lifers are all about cruelty or controlling women or ensuring women are all about just producing babies.
I guarantee you that I know more and have spoken to more pro-life people on the topic than many pro-choicers on this forum, and I know of no one whose goal is to just make women produce babies or the like. The staunchest pro-lifers I know are women of child-bearing age. A few probably are guided more by the "consequences for actions" which some could look at as a punishment mindset, but even that's not the majority. Most just don't want the unborn's lives to be ended. Note, I'm not talking about politicians, just average, every day pro-lifers. If I judged pro-choicers off of a few jerks I've encountered, I would loathe and look down on all pro-choicers. With this mindset, having a rational discussion about this topic is rarely, if ever, productive.
My experience comes from being associated with a religious group that was pro-life and very, very much about controlling women's bodies. Then I had a roommate who was the head of the largest pro-life organization in the country. Their agenda was very much based on the same religious sentiment about punishing women. Then I had friends working on a major anti-abortion conservative political campaign, and they DEFINITELY were all about controlling women's bodies.
I don't doubt that on the individual level, there are very conscientious, genuinely "pro-life" folks who deeply care about babies, but as a political interest, that's not what I've witnessed.
Well, I don’t think pro life actually has anything to do with saving wee babies, rather it has everything to do with cruelty and control...
How many anti-abortion activists do you actually know and have had an in person conversation with on the matter?
+1000
And therein lies the problem and why it's almost always pointless having discussions on this topic on this forum. Pro-choicers almost always just "know" that pro-lifers are all about cruelty or controlling women or ensuring women are all about just producing babies.
I guarantee you that I know more and have spoken to more pro-life people on the topic than many pro-choicers on this forum, and I know of no one whose goal is to just make women produce babies or the like. The staunchest pro-lifers I know are women of child-bearing age. A few probably are guided more by the "consequences for actions" which some could look at as a punishment mindset, but even that's not the majority. Most just don't want the unborn's lives to be ended. Note, I'm not talking about politicians, just average, every day pro-lifers. If I judged pro-choicers off of a few jerks I've encountered, I would loathe and look down on all pro-choicers. With this mindset, having a rational discussion about this topic is rarely, if ever, productive.
My experience comes from being associated with a religious group that was pro-life and very, very much about controlling women's bodies. Then I had a roommate who was the head of the largest pro-life organization in the country. Their agenda was very much based on the same religious sentiment about punishing women. Then I had friends working on a major anti-abortion conservative political campaign, and they DEFINITELY were all about controlling women's bodies.
I don't doubt that on the individual level, there are very conscientious, genuinely "pro-life" folks who deeply care about babies, but as a political interest, that's not what I've witnessed.
@Malcat It's unfortunate that you have seen mostly the negative side of the pro-life movement. My experience has been like Wolfpack Mustachian in that the vast majority of the pro life people I know (or have known) are genuinely pro-life because they love babies. Like Wolfpack said, the most ardent ones are typically women. There isn't really a lot of middle ground for many of us to compromise on, but I still think it's helpful for both sides to remember there are people on the "other side" who are there with good intentions and well reasoned arguments.
I am agreeing with you.
An interesting way to frame it. Lefties might invert these. (Except the latter has to be "pandemic-related risks")
Lefties often attribute the circumstances around people to explain abortions(which looks more like a force of nature) and pandemic risks characterized by mostly human acts(not wearing masks, socializing indoors, not quarantining, etc)
---------------------------------------------
Bacteria and Viruses are everywhere and on everything. Hospitals have to be careful because of "super bugs" that have evolved from surviving a dangerous environment (to them.)
So natural processes are still in effect and running. We have not "conquered" nature. We merely maintain and adapt while nature adapts to us.
The way things started masks were supposed to be a "mitigating" measure. Much like how a poncho keeps you from getting wet, a life vest prevents you from downing or a heavy coat prevents hypothermia.
Then it suddenly became that not wearing a mask became the equivalent of violence. Just the act of breathing in the same room is harmful to people now. How is that supposed to work. Natural processes required to live are life threatening?
My experience has been like Wolfpack Mustachian in that the vast majority of the pro life people I know (or have known) are genuinely pro-life because they love babies.
Like Wolfpack said, the most ardent ones are typically women.Arrogance is not exclusive to a gender.
There isn't really a lot of middle ground for many of us to compromise onSure there is. Roe v. Wade is an excellent compromise. But again, arrogance and compromise don't mix well.
, but I still think it's helpful for both sides to remember there are people on the "other side" who are there with good intentions and well reasoned arguments.Amen.
two of the most prolific and productive researchers in my department (one an md, other phd) are of the Jewish faith, enough to observe the holidays, etc. And there are a number of other people in my department who actively go to church, temple as well as do research. So I have had a different experience. And for those who ridicule those who attend church or follow a faith, multiple studies have found that participating in a faith increases social support and overall welll being, helps people cope with cancer and other serious health crises, may even extend life. So one might "scientifically" ask, maybe those devout people know what they are doing more than atheists? In contrast, watching religious tv from home (let alone things like fox news) has no positive impact. So the type of participation matters. As far as religious vs spiritual debate that is a whole other conversation. You can be religious without being really spiritual, religious and spiritual, or spiritual without being religious.We all have our blind spots, and let's be real, I don't think we typically reach conclusions based on objective, well-reasoned analysis even though many of us think we do the best we can striving to do that. I think that describes people on all sides of the political arena.
IMO progressives' seemingly robust embrace of 'science' and intellectualism and all of that seems to crumble immediately when any of it contradicts religion which let's face it, is inevitable. My honest take is that a "party of science" would be composed of non-religious people.
I don't necessarily agree. I was a scientist and worked with many religious scientists over the years. Not a ton of open Christians, but a lot of Jews and Muslims who were very spiritual and had no conflict between their faith and science. It is not at all inevitable that science contradicts religion, it's just certain religious groups who think that their religion contradicts science.
Sure, people can say they are "spiritual" or something like that without adhering to many (or any?) hard rules and without worshipping anything at all, but I haven't met two people who have the same definition of what "being spiritual" even means. Is it some sort of "universal connectedness" or something? I guess that's really beside the point, because is it really even a "religion" or just some sort of vague feeling? Who the hell knows?
Most definitions of "religion" that I've seen include elements of rules, systems, faith, worship, supernatural, adherence, etc. That is the stuff I'm talking about - people and institutions who cling to mythology like it's some objective truth of the universe. I mean it's just ridiculous on its face.
Uh, I did specify Jews and Muslims, and they have tons of rules.
You can absolutely be religious and still be a rigorous scientist. Science isn't in any way incompatible with having faith in things that can't be understood, and many religious sects don't require literal interpretation of scripture, which means everything is up to interpretation.
As I said, I've spent decades among very religious scientists. The only religious people who conflict with science are those who belong to specific groups that have an agenda of going against current scientific knowledge. I also know multiple retired scientists who are now ministers. In fact, most of the minister's I'm friends with are former scientists and engineers.
Exactly.
I've had plenty of exposure to a religious group that was fervently against current understandings of science, and I've been exposed to multiple religious groups that aren't.
There's just so much press around the anti-science religious factions, that the very pro-science religious groups just don't really get any press because they're not causing any conflict. A lot of scientists are just happily going along their merry way pondering questions of life and faith while pursuing questions of science.
For people who see religion as just a contemplation of the unknown, it basically is the same thing as science, just with different methods and different areas of focus. For those who see religion as a dictate of inarguable facts that should never be questioned? Yeah, that's completely incompatible with science.
two of the most prolific and productive researchers in my department (one an md, other phd) are of the Jewish faith, enough to observe the holidays, etc. And there are a number of other people in my department who actively go to church, temple as well as do research. So I have had a different experience. And for those who ridicule those who attend church or follow a faith, multiple studies have found that participating in a faith increases social support and overall welll being, helps people cope with cancer and other serious health crises, may even extend life. So one might "scientifically" ask, maybe those devout people know what they are doing more than atheists? In contrast, watching religious tv from home (let alone things like fox news) has no positive impact. So the type of participation matters. As far as religious vs spiritual debate that is a whole other conversation. You can be religious without being really spiritual, religious and spiritual, or spiritual without being religious.We all have our blind spots, and let's be real, I don't think we typically reach conclusions based on objective, well-reasoned analysis even though many of us think we do the best we can striving to do that. I think that describes people on all sides of the political arena.
IMO progressives' seemingly robust embrace of 'science' and intellectualism and all of that seems to crumble immediately when any of it contradicts religion which let's face it, is inevitable. My honest take is that a "party of science" would be composed of non-religious people.
I don't necessarily agree. I was a scientist and worked with many religious scientists over the years. Not a ton of open Christians, but a lot of Jews and Muslims who were very spiritual and had no conflict between their faith and science. It is not at all inevitable that science contradicts religion, it's just certain religious groups who think that their religion contradicts science.
Sure, people can say they are "spiritual" or something like that without adhering to many (or any?) hard rules and without worshipping anything at all, but I haven't met two people who have the same definition of what "being spiritual" even means. Is it some sort of "universal connectedness" or something? I guess that's really beside the point, because is it really even a "religion" or just some sort of vague feeling? Who the hell knows?
Most definitions of "religion" that I've seen include elements of rules, systems, faith, worship, supernatural, adherence, etc. That is the stuff I'm talking about - people and institutions who cling to mythology like it's some objective truth of the universe. I mean it's just ridiculous on its face.
Uh, I did specify Jews and Muslims, and they have tons of rules.
You can absolutely be religious and still be a rigorous scientist. Science isn't in any way incompatible with having faith in things that can't be understood, and many religious sects don't require literal interpretation of scripture, which means everything is up to interpretation.
As I said, I've spent decades among very religious scientists. The only religious people who conflict with science are those who belong to specific groups that have an agenda of going against current scientific knowledge. I also know multiple retired scientists who are now ministers. In fact, most of the minister's I'm friends with are former scientists and engineers.
Exactly.
I've had plenty of exposure to a religious group that was fervently against current understandings of science, and I've been exposed to multiple religious groups that aren't.
There's just so much press around the anti-science religious factions, that the very pro-science religious groups just don't really get any press because they're not causing any conflict. A lot of scientists are just happily going along their merry way pondering questions of life and faith while pursuing questions of science.
For people who see religion as just a contemplation of the unknown, it basically is the same thing as science, just with different methods and different areas of focus. For those who see religion as a dictate of inarguable facts that should never be questioned? Yeah, that's completely incompatible with science.
I see your point in the part I italicized. Pondering big questions is something most of us do. And I've met plenty of folks who identify as religious (mostly Catholics) who I think are in that group. They like the tradition, the ritual, the community, of the Catholic Church, but when the rubber meets the road, they are very 'soft' on actually believing specific things.
But really that just gets back into "what the hell is 'religion' anyway? If there's no worship, no belief in a deity, no adherence to specific rules/beliefs, if it's just mostly pondering big questions, well isn't that just philosophy...or thinking?
And my two posts were clearly targeted toward people not in this category. See "base my life decisions on my belief in an invisible sky deity who seeks to micro-manage my every action by asking me to adhere to ancient, vague, and inconsistent rules and who focuses all of their attention on one region of one planet amongst the 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets that exist." (my first post)
"That is the stuff I'm talking about - people and institutions who cling to mythology like it's some objective truth of the universe. I mean it's just ridiculous on its face." (my second post)
Those are religious literalists/orthodox/hard-liners/Kool Aid drinkers, however you wish to categorize them. They are not necessarily wise, thoughtful, truth-seeking philosopher poets.
And your last line " For those who see religion as a dictate of inarguable facts that should never be questioned? Yeah, that's completely incompatible with science" leads me to think we pretty much agree when it comes to these folks.
My experience has been like Wolfpack Mustachian in that the vast majority of the pro life people I know (or have known) are genuinely pro-life because they love babies.
"Loving babies" is not a necessary or sufficient condition for the arrogance to impose one's own moral standards on everyone else. That affliction is caused by arrogance caused by ideology.
You (figurative "you") have every right to decide life starts at conception and every right to act based on that belief. I will be just as upset if someone from a fictitious "anti life" camp tried to impose a different standard on "you" for your own life/body.
You have ZERO right to impose that belief on someone else. If you demand you do then you are acting like the fictitious "anti life" gang mentioned above.
I think I understand what you are saying and it makes total sense if you don't view the "fetus" as a human being worthy of protecting.
two of the most prolific and productive researchers in my department (one an md, other phd) are of the Jewish faith, enough to observe the holidays, etc. And there are a number of other people in my department who actively go to church, temple as well as do research. So I have had a different experience. And for those who ridicule those who attend church or follow a faith, multiple studies have found that participating in a faith increases social support and overall welll being, helps people cope with cancer and other serious health crises, may even extend life. So one might "scientifically" ask, maybe those devout people know what they are doing more than atheists? In contrast, watching religious tv from home (let alone things like fox news) has no positive impact. So the type of participation matters. As far as religious vs spiritual debate that is a whole other conversation. You can be religious without being really spiritual, religious and spiritual, or spiritual without being religious.We all have our blind spots, and let's be real, I don't think we typically reach conclusions based on objective, well-reasoned analysis even though many of us think we do the best we can striving to do that. I think that describes people on all sides of the political arena.
IMO progressives' seemingly robust embrace of 'science' and intellectualism and all of that seems to crumble immediately when any of it contradicts religion which let's face it, is inevitable. My honest take is that a "party of science" would be composed of non-religious people.
I don't necessarily agree. I was a scientist and worked with many religious scientists over the years. Not a ton of open Christians, but a lot of Jews and Muslims who were very spiritual and had no conflict between their faith and science. It is not at all inevitable that science contradicts religion, it's just certain religious groups who think that their religion contradicts science.
Sure, people can say they are "spiritual" or something like that without adhering to many (or any?) hard rules and without worshipping anything at all, but I haven't met two people who have the same definition of what "being spiritual" even means. Is it some sort of "universal connectedness" or something? I guess that's really beside the point, because is it really even a "religion" or just some sort of vague feeling? Who the hell knows?
Most definitions of "religion" that I've seen include elements of rules, systems, faith, worship, supernatural, adherence, etc. That is the stuff I'm talking about - people and institutions who cling to mythology like it's some objective truth of the universe. I mean it's just ridiculous on its face.
Uh, I did specify Jews and Muslims, and they have tons of rules.
You can absolutely be religious and still be a rigorous scientist. Science isn't in any way incompatible with having faith in things that can't be understood, and many religious sects don't require literal interpretation of scripture, which means everything is up to interpretation.
As I said, I've spent decades among very religious scientists. The only religious people who conflict with science are those who belong to specific groups that have an agenda of going against current scientific knowledge. I also know multiple retired scientists who are now ministers. In fact, most of the minister's I'm friends with are former scientists and engineers.
Exactly.
I've had plenty of exposure to a religious group that was fervently against current understandings of science, and I've been exposed to multiple religious groups that aren't.
There's just so much press around the anti-science religious factions, that the very pro-science religious groups just don't really get any press because they're not causing any conflict. A lot of scientists are just happily going along their merry way pondering questions of life and faith while pursuing questions of science.
For people who see religion as just a contemplation of the unknown, it basically is the same thing as science, just with different methods and different areas of focus. For those who see religion as a dictate of inarguable facts that should never be questioned? Yeah, that's completely incompatible with science.
I see your point in the part I italicized. Pondering big questions is something most of us do. And I've met plenty of folks who identify as religious (mostly Catholics) who I think are in that group. They like the tradition, the ritual, the community, of the Catholic Church, but when the rubber meets the road, they are very 'soft' on actually believing specific things.
But really that just gets back into "what the hell is 'religion' anyway? If there's no worship, no belief in a deity, no adherence to specific rules/beliefs, if it's just mostly pondering big questions, well isn't that just philosophy...or thinking?
And my two posts were clearly targeted toward people not in this category. See "base my life decisions on my belief in an invisible sky deity who seeks to micro-manage my every action by asking me to adhere to ancient, vague, and inconsistent rules and who focuses all of their attention on one region of one planet amongst the 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets that exist." (my first post)
"That is the stuff I'm talking about - people and institutions who cling to mythology like it's some objective truth of the universe. I mean it's just ridiculous on its face." (my second post)
Those are religious literalists/orthodox/hard-liners/Kool Aid drinkers, however you wish to categorize them. They are not necessarily wise, thoughtful, truth-seeking philosopher poets.
And your last line " For those who see religion as a dictate of inarguable facts that should never be questioned? Yeah, that's completely incompatible with science" leads me to think we pretty much agree when it comes to these folks.
You seem to be splitting religious people into two groups, those who are less devout and more vaguely philosophical about spirituality and those who are devout and dogmatic about rules and scripture.
That's simply not the case AT ALL.
Many deeply devout religious people aren't fundamentalist or literalist in their beliefs. I've spoken to many rabbis, imams, indigenous elders, Jesuits, and most recently, a pile of very interesting United Church ministers, and none of them have been vague or purely philosophical in their beliefs, but most have been deep, independent thinkers who question more than they dictate. Now, that's not because religious leaders in general are like that, just the ones that I choose to spend time talking to.
Some groups utilize religion to dictate what people should believe in, other groups use religion as a mechanism for exploring larger questions of life.
I *get* what group you are talking about, I just don't think you get what group I'm talking about.
I think I understand what you are saying and it makes total sense if you don't view the "fetus" as a human being worthy of protecting.
With respect, I don't think you understand my point.
It may surprise you to know that I personally view "fetus" as a human being worthy of protecting. What I said makes sense independent of that belief.
The rest of your argument are strawmen that doesn't deserve place in any good faith discussion. An 18 year old is universally considered a "person" - a view that is cultural and also codified into law everywhere at this point and place relevant for this discussion.
At a different time and place the law/culture could be very different. The southern slave owners did not consider all 18-year olds as person's - but property. In feudal times, non-titled nobility was similarly not considered a "person" by the noble (somehow Christianity was fine with it for more than a thousand years).
1.) People who are absolutely convinced that climate change is 100% human caused (maybe it is?) and must be addressed - but then have babies - thereby creating more of the very creatures causing the problem they see.
1.) People who are absolutely convinced that climate change is 100% human caused (maybe it is?) and must be addressed - but then have babies - thereby creating more of the very creatures causing the problem they see.
The rest of your argument are strawmen that doesn't deserve place in any good faith discussion. An 18 year old is universally considered a "person" - a view that is cultural and also codified into law everywhere at this point and place relevant for this discussion.
At a different time and place the law/culture could be very different. The southern slave owners did not consider all 18-year olds as person's - but property. In feudal times, non-titled nobility was similarly not considered a "person" by the noble (somehow Christianity was fine with it for more than a thousand years).
Not strawmen. Whether it's a fetus or a baby is central to my personal beliefs. The southern slave owners didn't consider blacks people but property. I believe (as I assume you do) that they were wrong (regardless of the culture and law at the time). Because black people are people, slavery in the early USA was wrong. Because I believe unborn babies are people, I'm opposed to abortion. I feel morally bound to do what I can to prevent mistreatment of either. I'm also opposed to overriding bodily autonomy but I don't believe that trumps the right of a human being to live.
1.) People who are absolutely convinced that climate change is 100% human caused (maybe it is?) and must be addressed - but then have babies - thereby creating more of the very creatures causing the problem they see.
Ya, and some of those same people don't even consider killing themselves in the name of reducing carbon emissions. Bunch of hypocrites if you ask me...
two of the most prolific and productive researchers in my department (one an md, other phd) are of the Jewish faith, enough to observe the holidays, etc. And there are a number of other people in my department who actively go to church, temple as well as do research. So I have had a different experience. And for those who ridicule those who attend church or follow a faith, multiple studies have found that participating in a faith increases social support and overall welll being, helps people cope with cancer and other serious health crises, may even extend life. So one might "scientifically" ask, maybe those devout people know what they are doing more than atheists? In contrast, watching religious tv from home (let alone things like fox news) has no positive impact. So the type of participation matters. As far as religious vs spiritual debate that is a whole other conversation. You can be religious without being really spiritual, religious and spiritual, or spiritual without being religious.We all have our blind spots, and let's be real, I don't think we typically reach conclusions based on objective, well-reasoned analysis even though many of us think we do the best we can striving to do that. I think that describes people on all sides of the political arena.
IMO progressives' seemingly robust embrace of 'science' and intellectualism and all of that seems to crumble immediately when any of it contradicts religion which let's face it, is inevitable. My honest take is that a "party of science" would be composed of non-religious people.
I don't necessarily agree. I was a scientist and worked with many religious scientists over the years. Not a ton of open Christians, but a lot of Jews and Muslims who were very spiritual and had no conflict between their faith and science. It is not at all inevitable that science contradicts religion, it's just certain religious groups who think that their religion contradicts science.
Sure, people can say they are "spiritual" or something like that without adhering to many (or any?) hard rules and without worshipping anything at all, but I haven't met two people who have the same definition of what "being spiritual" even means. Is it some sort of "universal connectedness" or something? I guess that's really beside the point, because is it really even a "religion" or just some sort of vague feeling? Who the hell knows?
Most definitions of "religion" that I've seen include elements of rules, systems, faith, worship, supernatural, adherence, etc. That is the stuff I'm talking about - people and institutions who cling to mythology like it's some objective truth of the universe. I mean it's just ridiculous on its face.
Uh, I did specify Jews and Muslims, and they have tons of rules.
You can absolutely be religious and still be a rigorous scientist. Science isn't in any way incompatible with having faith in things that can't be understood, and many religious sects don't require literal interpretation of scripture, which means everything is up to interpretation.
As I said, I've spent decades among very religious scientists. The only religious people who conflict with science are those who belong to specific groups that have an agenda of going against current scientific knowledge. I also know multiple retired scientists who are now ministers. In fact, most of the minister's I'm friends with are former scientists and engineers.
Exactly.
I've had plenty of exposure to a religious group that was fervently against current understandings of science, and I've been exposed to multiple religious groups that aren't.
There's just so much press around the anti-science religious factions, that the very pro-science religious groups just don't really get any press because they're not causing any conflict. A lot of scientists are just happily going along their merry way pondering questions of life and faith while pursuing questions of science.
For people who see religion as just a contemplation of the unknown, it basically is the same thing as science, just with different methods and different areas of focus. For those who see religion as a dictate of inarguable facts that should never be questioned? Yeah, that's completely incompatible with science.
I see your point in the part I italicized. Pondering big questions is something most of us do. And I've met plenty of folks who identify as religious (mostly Catholics) who I think are in that group. They like the tradition, the ritual, the community, of the Catholic Church, but when the rubber meets the road, they are very 'soft' on actually believing specific things.
But really that just gets back into "what the hell is 'religion' anyway? If there's no worship, no belief in a deity, no adherence to specific rules/beliefs, if it's just mostly pondering big questions, well isn't that just philosophy...or thinking?
And my two posts were clearly targeted toward people not in this category. See "base my life decisions on my belief in an invisible sky deity who seeks to micro-manage my every action by asking me to adhere to ancient, vague, and inconsistent rules and who focuses all of their attention on one region of one planet amongst the 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets that exist." (my first post)
"That is the stuff I'm talking about - people and institutions who cling to mythology like it's some objective truth of the universe. I mean it's just ridiculous on its face." (my second post)
Those are religious literalists/orthodox/hard-liners/Kool Aid drinkers, however you wish to categorize them. They are not necessarily wise, thoughtful, truth-seeking philosopher poets.
And your last line " For those who see religion as a dictate of inarguable facts that should never be questioned? Yeah, that's completely incompatible with science" leads me to think we pretty much agree when it comes to these folks.
You seem to be splitting religious people into two groups, those who are less devout and more vaguely philosophical about spirituality and those who are devout and dogmatic about rules and scripture.
That's simply not the case AT ALL.
Many deeply devout religious people aren't fundamentalist or literalist in their beliefs. I've spoken to many rabbis, imams, indigenous elders, Jesuits, and most recently, a pile of very interesting United Church ministers, and none of them have been vague or purely philosophical in their beliefs, but most have been deep, independent thinkers who question more than they dictate. Now, that's not because religious leaders in general are like that, just the ones that I choose to spend time talking to.
Some groups utilize religion to dictate what people should believe in, other groups use religion as a mechanism for exploring larger questions of life.
I *get* what group you are talking about, I just don't think you get what group I'm talking about.
Yeah, you're right, I don't think I understand what group(s) you're talking about. So you're talking about people who are 'deeply devout' but also not literalists but also not purely philosophical? So they believe in...something? But they don't believe in the ridiculous stuff? By not being "merely philosophical," that implies they incorporate some element of worship/mythology/'faith without proof"/etc. into their lives. But words like "devout" and "belief" also imply prioritizing faith/feelings over evidence or objective analysis. Ok then.
My point remains, as it has from my very first post, that believing in ridiculous stuff like snakes speaking Hebrew, or demon pigs, or women turning to salt, or zombies (and yes this refers to the Jesus story) is non-scientific. Full stop. I mean, this is not exactly a provocative statement. It's frustrating that people even have to make this point.
Well, I don’t think pro life actually has anything to do with saving wee babies, rather it has everything to do with cruelty and control...
How many anti-abortion activists do you actually know and have had an in person conversation with on the matter?
+1000
And therein lies the problem and why it's almost always pointless having discussions on this topic on this forum. Pro-choicers almost always just "know" that pro-lifers are all about cruelty or controlling women or ensuring women are all about just producing babies.
I guarantee you that I know more and have spoken to more pro-life people on the topic than many pro-choicers on this forum, and I know of no one whose goal is to just make women produce babies or the like. The staunchest pro-lifers I know are women of child-bearing age. A few probably are guided more by the "consequences for actions" which some could look at as a punishment mindset, but even that's not the majority. Most just don't want the unborn's lives to be ended. Note, I'm not talking about politicians, just average, every day pro-lifers. If I judged pro-choicers off of a few jerks I've encountered, I would loathe and look down on all pro-choicers. With this mindset, having a rational discussion about this topic is rarely, if ever, productive.
My experience comes from being associated with a religious group that was pro-life and very, very much about controlling women's bodies. Then I had a roommate who was the head of the largest pro-life organization in the country. Their agenda was very much based on the same religious sentiment about punishing women. Then I had friends working on a major anti-abortion conservative political campaign, and they DEFINITELY were all about controlling women's bodies.
I don't doubt that on the individual level, there are very conscientious, genuinely "pro-life" folks who deeply care about babies, but as a political interest, that's not what I've witnessed.
I might regret wading into this conversation, but I will anyway. I am a Christian. I am also a scientist by both education and profession, and I don't see these two things as being in conflict. I believe that God created the universe and the natural laws, and that these natural laws govern the vast majority of what happens in the universe, but that God occasionally intervenes. If you drop a ball, it will fall to the ground unless something intervenes. If someone dies, they will stay dead unless someone (God) intervenes.two of the most prolific and productive researchers in my department (one an md, other phd) are of the Jewish faith, enough to observe the holidays, etc. And there are a number of other people in my department who actively go to church, temple as well as do research. So I have had a different experience. And for those who ridicule those who attend church or follow a faith, multiple studies have found that participating in a faith increases social support and overall welll being, helps people cope with cancer and other serious health crises, may even extend life. So one might "scientifically" ask, maybe those devout people know what they are doing more than atheists? In contrast, watching religious tv from home (let alone things like fox news) has no positive impact. So the type of participation matters. As far as religious vs spiritual debate that is a whole other conversation. You can be religious without being really spiritual, religious and spiritual, or spiritual without being religious.We all have our blind spots, and let's be real, I don't think we typically reach conclusions based on objective, well-reasoned analysis even though many of us think we do the best we can striving to do that. I think that describes people on all sides of the political arena.
IMO progressives' seemingly robust embrace of 'science' and intellectualism and all of that seems to crumble immediately when any of it contradicts religion which let's face it, is inevitable. My honest take is that a "party of science" would be composed of non-religious people.
I don't necessarily agree. I was a scientist and worked with many religious scientists over the years. Not a ton of open Christians, but a lot of Jews and Muslims who were very spiritual and had no conflict between their faith and science. It is not at all inevitable that science contradicts religion, it's just certain religious groups who think that their religion contradicts science.
Sure, people can say they are "spiritual" or something like that without adhering to many (or any?) hard rules and without worshipping anything at all, but I haven't met two people who have the same definition of what "being spiritual" even means. Is it some sort of "universal connectedness" or something? I guess that's really beside the point, because is it really even a "religion" or just some sort of vague feeling? Who the hell knows?
Most definitions of "religion" that I've seen include elements of rules, systems, faith, worship, supernatural, adherence, etc. That is the stuff I'm talking about - people and institutions who cling to mythology like it's some objective truth of the universe. I mean it's just ridiculous on its face.
Uh, I did specify Jews and Muslims, and they have tons of rules.
You can absolutely be religious and still be a rigorous scientist. Science isn't in any way incompatible with having faith in things that can't be understood, and many religious sects don't require literal interpretation of scripture, which means everything is up to interpretation.
As I said, I've spent decades among very religious scientists. The only religious people who conflict with science are those who belong to specific groups that have an agenda of going against current scientific knowledge. I also know multiple retired scientists who are now ministers. In fact, most of the minister's I'm friends with are former scientists and engineers.
Exactly.
I've had plenty of exposure to a religious group that was fervently against current understandings of science, and I've been exposed to multiple religious groups that aren't.
There's just so much press around the anti-science religious factions, that the very pro-science religious groups just don't really get any press because they're not causing any conflict. A lot of scientists are just happily going along their merry way pondering questions of life and faith while pursuing questions of science.
For people who see religion as just a contemplation of the unknown, it basically is the same thing as science, just with different methods and different areas of focus. For those who see religion as a dictate of inarguable facts that should never be questioned? Yeah, that's completely incompatible with science.
I see your point in the part I italicized. Pondering big questions is something most of us do. And I've met plenty of folks who identify as religious (mostly Catholics) who I think are in that group. They like the tradition, the ritual, the community, of the Catholic Church, but when the rubber meets the road, they are very 'soft' on actually believing specific things.
But really that just gets back into "what the hell is 'religion' anyway? If there's no worship, no belief in a deity, no adherence to specific rules/beliefs, if it's just mostly pondering big questions, well isn't that just philosophy...or thinking?
And my two posts were clearly targeted toward people not in this category. See "base my life decisions on my belief in an invisible sky deity who seeks to micro-manage my every action by asking me to adhere to ancient, vague, and inconsistent rules and who focuses all of their attention on one region of one planet amongst the 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets that exist." (my first post)
"That is the stuff I'm talking about - people and institutions who cling to mythology like it's some objective truth of the universe. I mean it's just ridiculous on its face." (my second post)
Those are religious literalists/orthodox/hard-liners/Kool Aid drinkers, however you wish to categorize them. They are not necessarily wise, thoughtful, truth-seeking philosopher poets.
And your last line " For those who see religion as a dictate of inarguable facts that should never be questioned? Yeah, that's completely incompatible with science" leads me to think we pretty much agree when it comes to these folks.
You seem to be splitting religious people into two groups, those who are less devout and more vaguely philosophical about spirituality and those who are devout and dogmatic about rules and scripture.
That's simply not the case AT ALL.
Many deeply devout religious people aren't fundamentalist or literalist in their beliefs. I've spoken to many rabbis, imams, indigenous elders, Jesuits, and most recently, a pile of very interesting United Church ministers, and none of them have been vague or purely philosophical in their beliefs, but most have been deep, independent thinkers who question more than they dictate. Now, that's not because religious leaders in general are like that, just the ones that I choose to spend time talking to.
Some groups utilize religion to dictate what people should believe in, other groups use religion as a mechanism for exploring larger questions of life.
I *get* what group you are talking about, I just don't think you get what group I'm talking about.
Yeah, you're right, I don't think I understand what group(s) you're talking about. So you're talking about people who are 'deeply devout' but also not literalists but also not purely philosophical? So they believe in...something? But they don't believe in the ridiculous stuff? By not being "merely philosophical," that implies they incorporate some element of worship/mythology/'faith without proof"/etc. into their lives. But words like "devout" and "belief" also imply prioritizing faith/feelings over evidence or objective analysis. Ok then.
My point remains, as it has from my very first post, that believing in ridiculous stuff like snakes speaking Hebrew, or demon pigs, or women turning to salt, or zombies (and yes this refers to the Jesus story) is non-scientific. Full stop. I mean, this is not exactly a provocative statement. It's frustrating that people even have to make this point.
Well, I don’t think pro life actually has anything to do with saving wee babies, rather it has everything to do with cruelty and control...
How many anti-abortion activists do you actually know and have had an in person conversation with on the matter?
+1000
And therein lies the problem and why it's almost always pointless having discussions on this topic on this forum. Pro-choicers almost always just "know" that pro-lifers are all about cruelty or controlling women or ensuring women are all about just producing babies.
I guarantee you that I know more and have spoken to more pro-life people on the topic than many pro-choicers on this forum, and I know of no one whose goal is to just make women produce babies or the like. The staunchest pro-lifers I know are women of child-bearing age. A few probably are guided more by the "consequences for actions" which some could look at as a punishment mindset, but even that's not the majority. Most just don't want the unborn's lives to be ended. Note, I'm not talking about politicians, just average, every day pro-lifers. If I judged pro-choicers off of a few jerks I've encountered, I would loathe and look down on all pro-choicers. With this mindset, having a rational discussion about this topic is rarely, if ever, productive.
My experience comes from being associated with a religious group that was pro-life and very, very much about controlling women's bodies. Then I had a roommate who was the head of the largest pro-life organization in the country. Their agenda was very much based on the same religious sentiment about punishing women. Then I had friends working on a major anti-abortion conservative political campaign, and they DEFINITELY were all about controlling women's bodies.
I don't doubt that on the individual level, there are very conscientious, genuinely "pro-life" folks who deeply care about babies, but as a political interest, that's not what I've witnessed.
What do you mean specifically in the phrase "controlling women's bodies?" Are you meaning they wanted there to be as many kids as possible in they wanted women to keep having kids? Want women to have kids because they don't like women and it can be a challenging thing? Want women to have kids so they're more likely to stay at home? Just glad in general to be telling women what to do? I'm not trying to be flippant, but this phrase is used all the time in the debate, and I've almost never heard anything like this in any of my conversations with pro-life people. Again, the only thing I've heard anywhere along this line is it's a consequence for an action, so why punish someone who didn't do anything for your actions, which has some tinges of punishment but is not really the same thing imo.
Well, I don’t think pro life actually has anything to do with saving wee babies, rather it has everything to do with cruelty and control...
How many anti-abortion activists do you actually know and have had an in person conversation with on the matter?
+1000
And therein lies the problem and why it's almost always pointless having discussions on this topic on this forum. Pro-choicers almost always just "know" that pro-lifers are all about cruelty or controlling women or ensuring women are all about just producing babies.
I guarantee you that I know more and have spoken to more pro-life people on the topic than many pro-choicers on this forum, and I know of no one whose goal is to just make women produce babies or the like. The staunchest pro-lifers I know are women of child-bearing age. A few probably are guided more by the "consequences for actions" which some could look at as a punishment mindset, but even that's not the majority. Most just don't want the unborn's lives to be ended. Note, I'm not talking about politicians, just average, every day pro-lifers. If I judged pro-choicers off of a few jerks I've encountered, I would loathe and look down on all pro-choicers. With this mindset, having a rational discussion about this topic is rarely, if ever, productive.
My experience comes from being associated with a religious group that was pro-life and very, very much about controlling women's bodies. Then I had a roommate who was the head of the largest pro-life organization in the country. Their agenda was very much based on the same religious sentiment about punishing women. Then I had friends working on a major anti-abortion conservative political campaign, and they DEFINITELY were all about controlling women's bodies.
I don't doubt that on the individual level, there are very conscientious, genuinely "pro-life" folks who deeply care about babies, but as a political interest, that's not what I've witnessed.
What do you mean specifically in the phrase "controlling women's bodies?" Are you meaning they wanted there to be as many kids as possible in they wanted women to keep having kids? Want women to have kids because they don't like women and it can be a challenging thing? Want women to have kids so they're more likely to stay at home? Just glad in general to be telling women what to do? I'm not trying to be flippant, but this phrase is used all the time in the debate, and I've almost never heard anything like this in any of my conversations with pro-life people. Again, the only thing I've heard anywhere along this line is it's a consequence for an action, so why punish someone who didn't do anything for your actions, which has some tinges of punishment but is not really the same thing imo.
It is the same thing. The belief that getting pregnant when it isn't wanted is the consequence of immoral behaviour and that women should be made to suffer the consequences of their immorality. Therefore, not about babies, all about sinners getting what they deserve. Hence why what happens to the babies isn't really all that concerning, the babies aren't precious gifts from God to be loved, they're burdens sinful women should have to bear, regardless of what it means for her life and her body.
And yes, I have heard it spelled out exactly that way by religious leaders and politicians.
My theory is that a lot of anti-abortion folk are just conflicted because they never got to have sex outside marriage and they don't want others to have all that fun salacious fornication.
Otherwise, I cannot think of any proper rationale for being opposed to killing foetuses when the mum wants to kill it. Let the mum do as she likes! It's her body.
Being wildly anti-goverment spending but rabidly pro-military. Like, losing your shit if a child gets a free lunch but marvelling at the Blue Angels.
My theory is that a lot of anti-abortion folk are just conflicted because they never got to have sex outside marriage and they don't want others to have all that fun salacious fornication.
Otherwise, I cannot think of any proper rationale for being opposed to killing foetuses when the mum wants to kill it. Let the mum do as she likes! It's her body.
This is so odd.
I am about as pro-choice as they come, but even I can understand disgust and discomfort with the idea of killing fetuses. Compassion for tiny babies even if not fully developed seems more within the realm of reasonable than does your...theory.
universal background checks and waiting periods for prospective gun buyers (which would have prevented the Atlanta massacre, as that gun was purchased the same day, and possibly the Boulder massacre, as at least one report I read suggested that the murderer is known to be mentally unstable).
From a European point of view: in the US, you guys seem to think abortion the most important political issue of this age.
You know what we did decades ago? We started making sure women don't get unwanted pregnancies anymore. So we've solved the teen mother issue as well as the abortion issue.
This thread is yet another example of us vs. them polarization. It's counterproductive from a policy perspective since it forces the debate into a binary decision that fails to reflect the nuance and diversity of positions.
While the most ardent pro-lifers ague that life starts at conception (actually, I suppose the most ardent would even argue against contraception),
Finate, I want to point out that this false dichotomy (that pro choice people are pro abortion up until point of birth, ok with aborting viable babies) is a false one created by pro life group, to increase antagonism.
...By the same coin if the fetus was able to live outside the womb (24, 25 weeks?) Then abortion is not allowed.
...I still think it's helpful for both sides to remember there are people on the "other side" who are there with good intentions and well reasoned arguments.
Otherwise, I cannot think of any proper rationale for being opposed to killing foetuses when the mum wants to kill it. Let the mum do as she likes! It's her body.
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.
I also agree that 'pro-choice' is a euphemism that is unhelpful.
There is nothing wrong with killing in certain conditions and it's not to be feared.
Disgust and discomfort with the idea of killing foetuses needs to be weighed up by the digest and discomfort of forcing a mother to deliver said foetus (and care for it) despite her express wishes.
If nothing beyond "pro-life and pro-choice are terrible terms!" comes out of this thread in people's minds, I'd be happy.You are either pro- or anti- the killing of an organic 'thing' that has some sentience but less than full sentience. But people on both sides dislike getting to the real ethical nitty gritty. "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" are both absolute cop out terms, and disingenuous and ethically dishonest.
That killing is justified in some cases doesn't mean one can then argue that the killing of a fetus is also justified.Sure but, obviously, it also doesn't mean killing of a foetus is not justified. It means that killing per se is not always wrong - it's just something that has to be weighed up ethically.
Certainly. Modern life, as amplified by social media. You have to admit, it's super "engaging," right? So profitable - and remember, What's Good for Zuck is Good for Zuck!
It's hard to have a conversation when the starting assumption is that anyone who disagrees you is evilly evil for evil's sake (see the endless list of posts here arguing that the only reason one could be opposed to generally available abortion is because you hate women, want to control women, are cruel, etc).
Being wildly anti-goverment spending but rabidly pro-military. Like, losing your shit if a child gets a free lunch but marvelling at the Blue Angels.
You may disagree with it, but this is not inherently a conflict. Most people who are anti government spending want a small government. A military is one of the few things specifically enumerated in the Constituion as a federal duty. Providing handouts and running social programs are not. It’s not an inherent contradiction.
I am pro choice. I can understand both “sides”.My theory is that a lot of anti-abortion folk are just conflicted because they never got to have sex outside marriage and they don't want others to have all that fun salacious fornication.
Otherwise, I cannot think of any proper rationale for being opposed to killing foetuses when the mum wants to kill it. Let the mum do as she likes! It's her body.
This is so odd.
I am about as pro-choice as they come, but even I can understand disgust and discomfort with the idea of killing fetuses. Compassion for tiny babies even if not fully developed seems more within the realm of reasonable than does your...theory.
Disgust and discomfort with the idea of killing foetuses needs to be weighed up by the digest and discomfort of forcing a mother to deliver said foetus (and care for it) despite her express wishes.
I suppose if someone's 'compassion' is based wholly on whether a thing sounds icky or not - so the ethical dubiety of forcing a woman to care for a child for the rest of her life can be washed away because it's not explicitly icky - then yes, that makes perfect sense.
It's like when people say stem cell research should not go ahead if it involves killing foetuses/embryos/what have you. There must be an "icky" factor to killing a foetus but I guess letting someone die of cancer because the research wasn't funded has no "ick" factor therefore no compassion arises.
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.
Except the fetus is not "her body." It only has half her genetic code, half coming from the other party, it has a separate circulatory system (exchanging with the mother's body, certainly, but still distinct), separate nervous system, etc. If someone is seriously injured and unable to survive without various life support machines, we don't claim that they're part of the life support machine.
And if it is a distinct human, then that's reason enough not to kill it.
On the flip side of that argument, if it's not a human when supported by the mother's body inside, why is it a human when supported by the mother's body outside (in the case of a nursing mother), or by other people? A one year old is still unable to survive entirely on their own left out in nature, they're still dependent on someone to take care of them.
You don't hold a particularly consistent, sane, or defendable standard as to when killing is permitted.
But whatever the specifics of the flaws, I have to think that any ethical theory that leads to the conclusion "it's OK to kill your kids sometimes" obviously has something wrong with it.
Withholding life support is not the same as killing.But whatever the specifics of the flaws, I have to think that any ethical theory that leads to the conclusion "it's OK to kill your kids sometimes" obviously has something wrong with it.
Are you sure?
What if the kid in question is on life support, will remain so forever, and is almost certainly brain-dead (although I doubt science has ever managed to come up with 100% definitive test that proves it with "mathematical" certainty)?
Our current society and legal system leaves that question to the next to kin and stays out from the middle of that painful decision.
Cite: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/bioethicist-tk-n333536
...I still think it's helpful for both sides to remember there are people on the "other side" who are there with good intentions and well reasoned arguments."Abortion ought to be legal, anyone who disagrees hates women and just wants to control their bodies!" being something I'd consider "not a well reasoned argument." Personally.
Withholding life support is not the same as killing.But whatever the specifics of the flaws, I have to think that any ethical theory that leads to the conclusion "it's OK to kill your kids sometimes" obviously has something wrong with it.
Are you sure?
What if the kid in question is on life support, will remain so forever, and is almost certainly brain-dead (although I doubt science has ever managed to come up with 100% definitive test that proves it with "mathematical" certainty)?
Our current society and legal system leaves that question to the next to kin and stays out from the middle of that painful decision.
Cite: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/bioethicist-tk-n333536
Withholding life support is not the same as killing.But whatever the specifics of the flaws, I have to think that any ethical theory that leads to the conclusion "it's OK to kill your kids sometimes" obviously has something wrong with it.
Are you sure?
What if the kid in question is on life support, will remain so forever, and is almost certainly brain-dead (although I doubt science has ever managed to come up with 100% definitive test that proves it with "mathematical" certainty)?
Our current society and legal system leaves that question to the next to kin and stays out from the middle of that painful decision.
Cite: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/bioethicist-tk-n333536
But whatever the specifics of the flaws, I have to think that any ethical theory that leads to the conclusion "it's OK to kill your kids sometimes" obviously has something wrong with it.
Are you sure?
What if the kid in question is in a vegetative state, on life support, will remain so forever, and is almost certainly brain-dead (although I doubt science has ever managed to come up with 100% definitive test that proves it with "mathematical" certainty)?
Our current society and legal system leaves that question to the next to kin and stays out from the middle of that painful decision.
Cite: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/bioethicist-tk-n333536
Singer's position includes actually, actively taking direct action to kill a child who would not die but for the active action taken to kill them. That is what I was referring to by the use of the word "kill".
Perhaps you should read him. Singer does not distinguish between active and passive action in his position on the matter, because he holds that it is irrelevant.
Ockhamist holds that there is a relevant difference. So your quarrel is with that guy. Ockhamist holds that taking direct action to cause the death of someone who would otherwise live is different from removing a support which keeps them artificially alive.
Most people do.
You don't see any difference between removing a breathing tube and smothering someone who was breathing just fine? Well all I can tell you is that you are in a definite minority there.
What about non verbal children who do not react, but can completely chow down nutrients when given.Withholding life support is not the same as killing.But whatever the specifics of the flaws, I have to think that any ethical theory that leads to the conclusion "it's OK to kill your kids sometimes" obviously has something wrong with it.
Are you sure?
What if the kid in question is on life support, will remain so forever, and is almost certainly brain-dead (although I doubt science has ever managed to come up with 100% definitive test that proves it with "mathematical" certainty)?
Our current society and legal system leaves that question to the next to kin and stays out from the middle of that painful decision.
Cite: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/bioethicist-tk-n333536
Perhaps you should read him. Singer does not distinguish between active and passive action in his position on the matter, because he holds that it is irrelevant.
Ockhamist holds that there is a relevant difference. So your quarrel is with that guy. Ockhamist holds that taking direct action to cause the death of someone who would otherwise live is different from removing a support which keeps them artificially alive.
Most people do.
You don't see any difference between removing a breathing tube and smothering someone who was breathing just fine? Well all I can tell you is that you are in a definite minority there.
To the bolded part, I hold that there is a difference between different types of active/passive activities, especially where the question of intent comes into play. However, that difference not a relevant one for the discussion at hand - which is abortion.
Cutting out the fallopian tube falls under the same ("active"/"passive" - whatever way you categorize it) type of activity as removing the feeding and breathing tubes.
And yes, Singer seems to have some very interesting opinions from what you say. I need to read him.
I wasn't arguing anything about abortion. I was just pointing out that those two things are not the same. Perhaps you meant to direct your question at @Ockhamist .Withholding life support is not the same as killing.But whatever the specifics of the flaws, I have to think that any ethical theory that leads to the conclusion "it's OK to kill your kids sometimes" obviously has something wrong with it.
Are you sure?
What if the kid in question is on life support, will remain so forever, and is almost certainly brain-dead (although I doubt science has ever managed to come up with 100% definitive test that proves it with "mathematical" certainty)?
Our current society and legal system leaves that question to the next to kin and stays out from the middle of that painful decision.
Cite: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/bioethicist-tk-n333536
If that's the case, then abortion should be fine . . . as long as the fetus is alive while aborted. Afterwards it would be fine for it to die naturally without support. Is that what you're arguing?
Here is one I don't understand:
Someone who is a feminist and supports women and girls. But, they also support someone who was born a biological male competing in women's sports where they have a significant advantage against those who were born as biological females.
What do fallopian tubes have to do with anything? I'm so confused by this.
Here is one I don't understand:
Someone who is a feminist and supports women and girls. But, they also support someone who was born a biological male competing in women's sports where they have a significant advantage against those who were born as biological females.
Since most people I know are feminist and support women and girls, I think you have to look pretty hard to find people in that set who think it’s perfectly OK for competitors born as men to compete against women. Of course there are all kinds of permutations such as —when did the male to female person start receiving female hormones? If they were age 12, well—maybe.
If they were age 21 well that’s not so slam dunk a case.
One suggestion I read was to have trans categories in all sports. But I don’t see how that’s practical really.
Is it really a big deal in the great greater scheme of things to have male to female persons competing against women? I mean is it really a big deal? In my life sports are not a big deal so I don’t much care.
Here is one I don't understand:
Someone who is a feminist and supports women and girls. But, they also support someone who was born a biological male competing in women's sports where they have a significant advantage against those who were born as biological females.
Here is one I don't understand:
Someone who is a feminist and supports women and girls. But, they also support someone who was born a biological male competing in women's sports where they have a significant advantage against those who were born as biological females.
I support following the science.
In the case of pre-adolescent children, there's no significant difference between the biological sexes.
In the case of adolescents, I'm not so sure what the solution is. In many of those cases, the kids are taking puberty blockers, though, which gives the lie to that "significant advantage."
And in the case of adults who are on hormones, studies show that within a certain amount of time, the supposed "advantage" fades to basically nothing.
Frankly, I'm inclined to just support all sports being open to all genders. Lots of people will make arguments that women would never be able to compete with men in such a situation, but I'm not so sure that's the case, at least not at the elite level.
this is pretty funny!What do fallopian tubes have to do with anything? I'm so confused by this.
Huh! I mixed it up with umbilical cord.
I am supposed to know the difference, having been in the delivery room once myself (the other time I was minding a toddler who could not be in that room), but I somehow still mis-remembered.
I guess I am just getting old.
Here is one I don't understand:
Someone who is a feminist and supports women and girls. But, they also support someone who was born a biological male competing in women's sports where they have a significant advantage against those who were born as biological females.
I support following the science.
In the case of pre-adolescent children, there's no significant difference between the biological sexes.
In the case of adolescents, I'm not so sure what the solution is. In many of those cases, the kids are taking puberty blockers, though, which gives the lie to that "significant advantage."
And in the case of adults who are on hormones, studies show that within a certain amount of time, the supposed "advantage" fades to basically nothing.
Frankly, I'm inclined to just support all sports being open to all genders. Lots of people will make arguments that women would never be able to compete with men in such a situation, but I'm not so sure that's the case, at least not at the elite level.
Elite women will often not be able to beat men at median level of their sport.
Here is one I don't understand:
Someone who is a feminist and supports women and girls. But, they also support someone who was born a biological male competing in women's sports where they have a significant advantage against those who were born as biological females.
I support following the science.
In the case of pre-adolescent children, there's no significant difference between the biological sexes.
In the case of adolescents, I'm not so sure what the solution is. In many of those cases, the kids are taking puberty blockers, though, which gives the lie to that "significant advantage."
And in the case of adults who are on hormones, studies show that within a certain amount of time, the supposed "advantage" fades to basically nothing.
Frankly, I'm inclined to just support all sports being open to all genders. Lots of people will make arguments that women would never be able to compete with men in such a situation, but I'm not so sure that's the case, at least not at the elite level.
Elite women will often not be able to beat men at median level of their sport.
Here is one I don't understand:
Someone who is a feminist and supports women and girls. But, they also support someone who was born a biological male competing in women's sports where they have a significant advantage against those who were born as biological females.
I support following the science.
In the case of pre-adolescent children, there's no significant difference between the biological sexes.
In the case of adolescents, I'm not so sure what the solution is. In many of those cases, the kids are taking puberty blockers, though, which gives the lie to that "significant advantage."
And in the case of adults who are on hormones, studies show that within a certain amount of time, the supposed "advantage" fades to basically nothing.
Frankly, I'm inclined to just support all sports being open to all genders. Lots of people will make arguments that women would never be able to compete with men in such a situation, but I'm not so sure that's the case, at least not at the elite level.
Elite women will often not be able to beat men at median level of their sport.
American Ninja Warrior outcomes seems to disagree with that statement. BUT if you want to have segregated sports, and you truly believe that, then it must be sex based segregation. Plain and simple.
Frankly, I'm inclined to just support all sports being open to all genders. Lots of people will make arguments that women would never be able to compete with men in such a situation, but I'm not so sure that's the case, at least not at the elite level.
A loved one said she won't get the covid vaccine because she thinks people are dying from vaccination, but said she isn't afraid of dying from the virus as God is in control. [Isn't God in control even if you get vaccinated?]
Frankly, I'm inclined to just support all sports being open to all genders. Lots of people will make arguments that women would never be able to compete with men in such a situation, but I'm not so sure that's the case, at least not at the elite level.
I believe that most "men's" sports are actually open to all genders. You occasionally hear of a female kicker on a football team but practically never hear of them playing any other position even though they are allowed. Making all sports open to all genders would prevent women from playing on high level teams in almost all sports from high school and above. Take a look at any event you want in track & field or anything else that's time based (so there is a direct comparison). I'll be very surprised if you find a single woman in the world who would make the US Men's Olympic team based on her times. Women can absolutely compete in anything that is purely skill, intelligence or hand eye coordination. When there is a significant advantage from size, strength or speed they are outmatched.
Frankly, I'm inclined to just support all sports being open to all genders. Lots of people will make arguments that women would never be able to compete with men in such a situation, but I'm not so sure that's the case, at least not at the elite level.
I believe that most "men's" sports are actually open to all genders. You occasionally hear of a female kicker on a football team but practically never hear of them playing any other position even though they are allowed. Making all sports open to all genders would prevent women from playing on high level teams in almost all sports from high school and above. Take a look at any event you want in track & field or anything else that's time based (so there is a direct comparison). I'll be very surprised if you find a single woman in the world who would make the US Men's Olympic team based on her times. Women can absolutely compete in anything that is purely skill, intelligence or hand eye coordination. When there is a significant advantage from size, strength or speed they are outmatched.
There are a few sports where women will do better than men. Marathon swimming events for example women have consistently done better than men, and I've read that rock climbing events are highly technical and women can compete at about the same level as men.
Generally speaking, in the majority of sports (soccer, baseball, basketball, football, rugby, lacrosse, hockey, judo, boxing, MMA, cycling, rowing, sprinting, high jump, long jump, javelin, discus, shot put, every other track and field event, etc.) women are at an insurmountable physiological disadvantage. The average woman is not as strong or as fast as the average man. While elite women can certainly beat average guys at lots of stuff, elite men will almost always post better numbers than elite women. This may just be a problem with the type of sports that are popular . . . it may just be that years of male dominated sporting has slanted events towards things that men are naturally good it.
As far as trans people go - it's complicated. Gut reaction is - no. People who once were men and now identify as and want to compete as women have an unfair reaction. I'd need to see some compelling evidence that the hormone blockers they're taking prevents the years of living as biologically male from becoming unfair advantage or it would be hard to justify. (Although, then we get into the problem of . . . well some men have more testosterone than other men. This gives them an unfair advantage. Should we allow men with lower testosterone to inject this growth hormone? Some are born with lower lung capacity. Should we allow people to use EPO to make up for that? What about people born as hermaphrodites? Ugh. There's no clear and simple dividing line on a lot of this stuff.)
I think it has been shown that trans women would be at a physical advantage to cis women. How long that advantage lasts, is unclear. There are some things that would change with hormone treatment. Other things like width of hips, length of legs, etc that are not going to change with hormone treatment. That said, its a separate question whether those biological differences should bar trans women from participating. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1252764
I think it has been shown that trans women would be at a physical advantage to cis women. How long that advantage lasts, is unclear. There are some things that would change with hormone treatment. Other things like width of hips, length of legs, etc that are not going to change with hormone treatment. That said, its a separate question whether those biological differences should bar trans women from participating. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1252764
It's also important to distinguish between elite professional sports and school level sports, which is where a lot of the controversial laws on this front are coming out.
At the elite level, where it's genetically advantaged athletes against genetically advantaged athletes of the highest level, then yes, there is a clear biological advantage in *some* sports. However, I still maintain that it's weird to single out one genetic advantage over every other.
However, my point was more about the school level, where inter individual variance outweighs the degree of variance of being trans. The average trans woman isn't necessarily more athletic just because they are trans.
That's a very, very different pool of athletes.
I think it has been shown that trans women would be at a physical advantage to cis women. How long that advantage lasts, is unclear. There are some things that would change with hormone treatment. Other things like width of hips, length of legs, etc that are not going to change with hormone treatment. That said, its a separate question whether those biological differences should bar trans women from participating. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1252764
It's also important to distinguish between elite professional sports and school level sports, which is where a lot of the controversial laws on this front are coming out.
At the elite level, where it's genetically advantaged athletes against genetically advantaged athletes of the highest level, then yes, there is a clear biological advantage in *some* sports. However, I still maintain that it's weird to single out one genetic advantage over every other.
However, my point was more about the school level, where inter individual variance outweighs the degree of variance of being trans. The average trans woman isn't necessarily more athletic just because they are trans.
That's a very, very different pool of athletes.
Yes, high school is a little different pool of athletes but the difference is still there. It's not just the ultra athletic guys in the NBA that have an advantage. Most large high schools have male players who can dunk. There are only 9 women who have EVER dunked in competition. https://thesporthq.com/every-woman-who-has-dunked/ I'm a fairly athletic guy (could have played small college sports) but I'm not anywhere near professional athlete level talent. Right now, at 41, I'm more athletic and better at volleyball than a friend of mine who is currently playing D1 college volleyball at a school of about 30,000.
I think it has been shown that trans women would be at a physical advantage to cis women. How long that advantage lasts, is unclear. There are some things that would change with hormone treatment. Other things like width of hips, length of legs, etc that are not going to change with hormone treatment. That said, its a separate question whether those biological differences should bar trans women from participating. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1252764
It's also important to distinguish between elite professional sports and school level sports, which is where a lot of the controversial laws on this front are coming out.
At the elite level, where it's genetically advantaged athletes against genetically advantaged athletes of the highest level, then yes, there is a clear biological advantage in *some* sports. However, I still maintain that it's weird to single out one genetic advantage over every other.
However, my point was more about the school level, where inter individual variance outweighs the degree of variance of being trans. The average trans woman isn't necessarily more athletic just because they are trans.
That's a very, very different pool of athletes.
I think it has been shown that trans women would be at a physical advantage to cis women. How long that advantage lasts, is unclear. There are some things that would change with hormone treatment. Other things like width of hips, length of legs, etc that are not going to change with hormone treatment. That said, its a separate question whether those biological differences should bar trans women from participating. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1252764
It's also important to distinguish between elite professional sports and school level sports, which is where a lot of the controversial laws on this front are coming out.
At the elite level, where it's genetically advantaged athletes against genetically advantaged athletes of the highest level, then yes, there is a clear biological advantage in *some* sports. However, I still maintain that it's weird to single out one genetic advantage over every other.
However, my point was more about the school level, where inter individual variance outweighs the degree of variance of being trans. The average trans woman isn't necessarily more athletic just because they are trans.
That's a very, very different pool of athletes.
I think you're being disingenuous here. It's not *some* sports. In the overwhelming majority of sports being male is an advantage. That is after all, the whole reason that women's sports exist. Women typically aren't capable of competing on the same level as men. We have been singling out that genetic advantage in order to provide motivation for women to compete in sports at all.
There aren't too many studies of trans people, but from what I can dig up it seems to indicate that trans women do enjoy a significant performance advantage over natural born women even a couple years after hormone therapy: https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/current-treatment-period-may-be-too-short-to-remove-competitive-advantage-of-transgender-athletes/ (https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/current-treatment-period-may-be-too-short-to-remove-competitive-advantage-of-transgender-athletes/).
EDIT - I want to be very clear, I'm not trying to ban trans women from sports. But I'd argue that the rules should follow the science. If the science indicates that there's a performance advantage that can be removed entirely by hormone therapy then the trans woman should not be allowed to compete until that advantage is removed.
Also, I added the point about separating elite sports from public sports, specifically to acknowledge that there is more of an observable advantage at the elite level, where the population is already selected for other genetic advantages.
It's at the school level where I was saying that the inter individual genetic variables will likely outweigh the sex-at-bjrth variable.
I'm not being disingenuous or exaggerating at all, but I can see how it could have been read that way. So I'm happy to clarify.
Sure, but what is the statistical probability that the tall, athletic guy in highschool is going to turn out to be a trans woman? How often will this actually statistically happen such that it's an issue so serious that further repression of trans women is necessary, just in case they're ever too good at sports.
Also, I added the point about separating elite sports from public sports, specifically to acknowledge that there is more of an observable advantage at the elite level, where the population is already selected for other genetic advantages.
It's at the school level where I was saying that the inter individual genetic variables will likely outweigh the sex-at-bjrth variable.
I'm not being disingenuous or exaggerating at all, but I can see how it could have been read that way. So I'm happy to clarify.
Even at the school level (not elite level), there are significant sporting advantages to being born male. Swimming times, running times, cycling times, weight lifting standards . . . pretty much any measure of average performance that I can find shows HUGE (20 - 50%) advantage to people born male.
It's a very difficult situation. Do we disenfranchise trans women by preventing them from competing in women's sports, or do we disenfranchise natural born women by allowing people born with significant advantages due to the sex they were born? Either way you're going to have hurt feelings and upset people.
Also, I added the point about separating elite sports from public sports, specifically to acknowledge that there is more of an observable advantage at the elite level, where the population is already selected for other genetic advantages.
It's at the school level where I was saying that the inter individual genetic variables will likely outweigh the sex-at-bjrth variable.
I'm not being disingenuous or exaggerating at all, but I can see how it could have been read that way. So I'm happy to clarify.
Even at the school level (not elite level), there are significant sporting advantages to being born male. Swimming times, running times, cycling times, weight lifting standards . . . pretty much any measure of average performance that I can find shows HUGE (20 - 50%) advantage to people born male.
It's a very difficult situation. Do we disenfranchise trans women by preventing them from competing in women's sports, or do we disenfranchise natural born women by allowing people born with significant advantages due to the sex they were born? Either way you're going to have hurt feelings and upset people.
Yes, I know there are significant differences between make and female athletes even at the highschool level, but what is the statistical probability that the top male athletes in the highschool will also turn out to be trans girls?
Is it statistically likely that the girls in highschool who happen to be trans will also happen to be athletically superior to all of the top female athletes at that school? That just doesn't seem all that likely to me.
Connecticut women's high school track state records are now held by "women."
Also, I added the point about separating elite sports from public sports, specifically to acknowledge that there is more of an observable advantage at the elite level, where the population is already selected for other genetic advantages.
It's at the school level where I was saying that the inter individual genetic variables will likely outweigh the sex-at-bjrth variable.
I'm not being disingenuous or exaggerating at all, but I can see how it could have been read that way. So I'm happy to clarify.
Even at the school level (not elite level), there are significant sporting advantages to being born male. Swimming times, running times, cycling times, weight lifting standards . . . pretty much any measure of average performance that I can find shows HUGE (20 - 50%) advantage to people born male.
It's a very difficult situation. Do we disenfranchise trans women by preventing them from competing in women's sports, or do we disenfranchise natural born women by allowing people born with significant advantages due to the sex they were born? Either way you're going to have hurt feelings and upset people.
Yes, I know there are significant differences between make and female athletes even at the highschool level, but what is the statistical probability that the top male athletes in the highschool will also turn out to be trans girls?
Is it statistically likely that the girls in highschool who happen to be trans will also happen to be athletically superior to all of the top female athletes at that school? That just doesn't seem all that likely to me.
As syonyk has pointed out, that this has already happened is an indication of how big the physical advantage really is.
I'd just like to respectfully point out that using quotations to refer to trans women is both insulting and demeaning.
Now that would be a serious human rights issue, and based on some of what I've read about what Russia has done to athletes, I wouldn't consider it an impossibility.
I'd just like to respectfully point out that using quotations to refer to trans women is both insulting and demeaning.
The athletes involved in the records are not women in genetic coding. They are not women in bone density, range of motion, pelvic formation, muscular development, or anything else (even if they are within the normal range of women in terms of hormone balance, this occurred after the changes of puberty set the various previous things in motion). I will not agree to participate in the deception and lies involved in considering them identical to biological women (which is a phrase I genuinely wish I didn't have to use), and if this is against current interpretations of forum terms of use, I'm happy to be uninvited to participating in this particular forum.
If you'd prefer I use the term "trans woman" I'm wiling to agree to that in this forum, but I will not call them women (unadorned/without clarification).
The reality is simple. Across the board of sports involving strength, men are roughly 10% (faster, stronger, quicker) than women. In quantifiable sports (track, field, swimming, etc), a typical state champion high school man will typically an Olympic champion woman, and this data isn't really up for debate. The records are there, in black and white times.Now that would be a serious human rights issue, and based on some of what I've read about what Russia has done to athletes, I wouldn't consider it an impossibility.
I'd consider China more likely to go that route, given their willingness to stare down other countries and call them on it (which more or less works, far more often than it ought). But if a country's "women's" team consists substantially or entirely of biological men, yeah. You're going to clean up at the Olympics. I hope the Olympics committees involved have more sense than to bow to the demands of the woke.
I'd just like to respectfully point out that using quotations to refer to trans women is both insulting and demeaning.
The athletes involved in the records are not women in genetic coding. They are not women in bone density, range of motion, pelvic formation, muscular development, or anything else (even if they are within the normal range of women in terms of hormone balance, this occurred after the changes of puberty set the various previous things in motion). I will not agree to participate in the deception and lies involved in considering them identical to biological women (which is a phrase I genuinely wish I didn't have to use), and if this is against current interpretations of forum terms of use, I'm happy to be uninvited to participating in this particular forum.
If you'd prefer I use the term "trans woman" I'm wiling to agree to that in this forum, but I will not call them women (unadorned/without clarification).
The reality is simple. Across the board of sports involving strength, men are roughly 10% (faster, stronger, quicker) than women. In quantifiable sports (track, field, swimming, etc), a typical state champion high school man will typically an Olympic champion woman, and this data isn't really up for debate. The records are there, in black and white times.Now that would be a serious human rights issue, and based on some of what I've read about what Russia has done to athletes, I wouldn't consider it an impossibility.
I'd consider China more likely to go that route, given their willingness to stare down other countries and call them on it (which more or less works, far more often than it ought). But if a country's "women's" team consists substantially or entirely of biological men, yeah. You're going to clean up at the Olympics. I hope the Olympics committees involved have more sense than to bow to the demands of the woke.
I never said it couldn't happen, I just question how common this would be that it's something people need to be seriously worried about. Also, I already owned my perspective that I don't think it makes sense to single out this one genetic advantage compared to other genetic advantages.
I never said it couldn't happen, I just question how common this would be that it's something people need to be seriously worried about. Also, I already owned my perspective that I don't think it makes sense to single out this one genetic advantage compared to other genetic advantages.
Women's sports have one universal essential feature: the exclusion of men. The entire concept is built on the demonstrated relevance of focusing on a single genetic advantage. To relegate it to just being one of a variety of potential genetic advantages means there's no point in having women's sports at all.
I never said it couldn't happen, I just question how common this would be that it's something people need to be seriously worried about. Also, I already owned my perspective that I don't think it makes sense to single out this one genetic advantage compared to other genetic advantages.
Common or uncommon is not all that relevant when talking about the inherent fairness or unfairness of the situation, though. A rare injustice is still unjust and shouldn't be ignored because we are trying to be sensitive about other kinds of hardship the beneficiaries of the injustice are likely to experience elsewhere in their lives.
Women's sports have one universal essential feature: the exclusion of men. The entire concept is built on the demonstrated relevance of focusing on a single genetic advantage. To relegate it to just being one of a variety of potential genetic advantages means there's no point in having women's sports at all.
Trans women athletes are essentially asking for inclusion in a protected group without any requirement to demonstrate the advantages that led to them being excluded in the first place are sufficiently mitigated. I'm hopeful we'll eventually arrive at ways to measure if/when the sex based athletic advantages are blunted enough to be a practical enough approximation of "fair" (presumably with more restrictive standards as the level of play and compensation increase).
Also, I added the point about separating elite sports from public sports, specifically to acknowledge that there is more of an observable advantage at the elite level, where the population is already selected for other genetic advantages.
It's at the school level where I was saying that the inter individual genetic variables will likely outweigh the sex-at-bjrth variable.
I'm not being disingenuous or exaggerating at all, but I can see how it could have been read that way. So I'm happy to clarify.
Even at the school level (not elite level), there are significant sporting advantages to being born male. Swimming times, running times, cycling times, weight lifting standards . . . pretty much any measure of average performance that I can find shows HUGE (20 - 50%) advantage to people born male.
It's a very difficult situation. Do we disenfranchise trans women by preventing them from competing in women's sports, or do we disenfranchise natural born women by allowing people born with significant advantages due to the sex they were born? Either way you're going to have hurt feelings and upset people.
Yes, I know there are significant differences between make and female athletes even at the highschool level, but what is the statistical probability that the top male athletes in the highschool will also turn out to be trans girls?
Is it statistically likely that the girls in highschool who happen to be trans will also happen to be athletically superior to all of the top female athletes at that school? That just doesn't seem all that likely to me.
It is 100% possible to go from being an uncompetitive male to a record-setting female overnight, and you get to scream “bigot!” at anyone who calls bullshit. Like I said, that doesn’t sit well with me, but it’s not my fight to fight.
Also, I added the point about separating elite sports from public sports, specifically to acknowledge that there is more of an observable advantage at the elite level, where the population is already selected for other genetic advantages.
It's at the school level where I was saying that the inter individual genetic variables will likely outweigh the sex-at-bjrth variable.
I'm not being disingenuous or exaggerating at all, but I can see how it could have been read that way. So I'm happy to clarify.
Even at the school level (not elite level), there are significant sporting advantages to being born male. Swimming times, running times, cycling times, weight lifting standards . . . pretty much any measure of average performance that I can find shows HUGE (20 - 50%) advantage to people born male.
It's a very difficult situation. Do we disenfranchise trans women by preventing them from competing in women's sports, or do we disenfranchise natural born women by allowing people born with significant advantages due to the sex they were born? Either way you're going to have hurt feelings and upset people.
Yes, I know there are significant differences between make and female athletes even at the highschool level, but what is the statistical probability that the top male athletes in the highschool will also turn out to be trans girls?
Is it statistically likely that the girls in highschool who happen to be trans will also happen to be athletically superior to all of the top female athletes at that school? That just doesn't seem all that likely to me.
I think the point is, as I mentioned above, you don’t have to be a superlative male to be superior to the top women in HS sports. My PR of 2:05 or so in the 800 is 1-2s faster than the CT women’s state record and I barely made the men’s varsity. As Syonyk’s linked article pointed out, the state records in the 100 and 200 were set by trans women and would be uncompetitive in men’s events.
It is 100% possible to go from being an uncompetitive male to a record-setting female overnight, and you get to scream “bigot!” at anyone who calls bullshit. Like I said, that doesn’t sit well with me, but it’s not my fight to fight.
I never said it couldn't happen, I just question how common this would be that it's something people need to be seriously worried about. Also, I already owned my perspective that I don't think it makes sense to single out this one genetic advantage compared to other genetic advantages.
Women's sports have one universal essential feature: the exclusion of men. The entire concept is built on the demonstrated relevance of focusing on a single genetic advantage. To relegate it to just being one of a variety of potential genetic advantages means there's no point in having women's sports at all.
Ummm.... you’re kidding, right?
The entire concept of women’s sports was built on the concept that men wouldn’t let us play on their teams.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Be careful throwing Singer's positions out there. They have some side effects. Singer's ethical reasoning on abortion also leads him to conclude that, under some circumstances, infanticide can be morally permissible (on utilitarian grounds). Actually being born is one of those shades of grey that you mention.
He does recognize that no functioning modern society could accept that and he does not actually advocate for infanticide actually being made legal, but his ethical reasoning on abortion does in fact go there.
To be fair, even Singer recognizes that he's dealing in theoreticals on this; it's ivory tower stuff. For obvious reasons he doesn't talk about this much these days, especially outside the ivory tower. But those are nonetheless his views.
Singer is a remarkably consistent utilitarian, and there's a lot to be said for utilitarianism. And in a thread devoted to calling out inconsistency, he's is a pretty good example of someone deeply, deeply committed to consistency. Unfortunately his hidebound utilitarianism does not leave much room for a society placing moral values on anything other than pure utilitarian calculus. I personally would criticize him for not recognizing the utility of a society having those other types of moral values, but that's a long story.
But whatever the specifics of the flaws, I have to think that any ethical theory that leads to the conclusion "it's OK to kill your kids sometimes" obviously has something wrong with it. Though Singer does not see it as such, I think this conclusion is pretty much a reductio ad absurdum on his position.
(Anyone interested in getting past the shock value and digging in to a good but readable and brief explanation of Singer's views on this, there's an article on Aeon that you can find easily by googling "aeon peter singer".)
[edited for grammar]
Except abortion is NOT "simply removing" life support.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.
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.
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)
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.
Except abortion is NOT "simply removing" life support.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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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 (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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
"If they can't get it legally they will just get it illegally."
Abortion? Or firearms?
"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?
I don't expect you to agree with the person who said it. It's a subjective experience after all.I don't see it that way.
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.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.
"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 don't expect you to agree with the person who said it. It's a subjective experience after all.I don't see it that way.
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 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 MustachianThere 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.
"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.
"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.
"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?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
That government governs best which governs least
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
I guess the bottom line of all of this is that it is one hell of a quandary.
I've met a lot of very smart people with a lot of varying positions on the issue.
And the bottom line is that there is no bottom line. No one can figure it out.
And, so, if we collectively can't decide, why on earth do we collectively think we have the right to collectively decide (in the form of making laws by our government)?
I don't envy any woman in the position of figuring out a decision that baffles even our best legal scholars, philosophers, and ethicists. But if no one else is competent to make a clearly correct decision for her, why on earth should anyone else be allowed to make the decision for her?
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.
I believe the jackhammer subtle implication of my question was that since this is a difficult issue that society cannot collectively resolve, the decision should be left to individual women to decide for themselves.And yet, a large section of our society has decided such a decision can't be left to the women involved. Why do you think that is? Do the enumerated list I wrote above not provide the simplest possible explanations? Or are you aware of any other possibilities that are simpler?
Mockery is more effective when you have some idea what you are talking about.It was a cynical take. Mockery wasn't actively or primarily intended, and definitely not towards you.
I believe the jackhammer subtle implication of my question was that since this is a difficult issue that society cannot collectively resolve, the decision should be left to individual women to decide for themselves.And yet, a large section of our society has decided such a decision can't be left to the women involved. Why do you think that is? Do the enumerated list I wrote above not provide the simplest possible explanations? Or are you aware of any other possibilities that are simpler?
I believe the jackhammer subtle implication of my question was that since this is a difficult issue that society cannot collectively resolve, the decision should be left to individual women to decide for themselves.And yet, a large section of our society has decided such a decision can't be left to the women involved. Why do you think that is? Do the enumerated list I wrote above not provide the simplest possible explanations? Or are you aware of any other possibilities that are simpler?
Your list does a great job of assuming bad intentions for the pro-life crowd. It's not very accurate. Here is a simpler explanation:
Pro-life people believe abortion is killing an unborn human and think that killing an innocent human being is wrong.
As you can see, the basic believe is extremely simple. There are specific situations that become very difficult as we think through how to implement this belief in a manner that is loving to both the mother and child. But, at it's core, the basic premise is very simple and well intentioned.
I believe the jackhammer subtle implication of my question was that since this is a difficult issue that society cannot collectively resolve, the decision should be left to individual women to decide for themselves.And yet, a large section of our society has decided such a decision can't be left to the women involved. Why do you think that is? Do the enumerated list I wrote above not provide the simplest possible explanations? Or are you aware of any other possibilities that are simpler?
Your list does a great job of assuming bad intentions for the pro-life crowd. It's not very accurate. Here is a simpler explanation:
Pro-life people believe abortion is killing an unborn human and think that killing an innocent human being is wrong.
As you can see, the basic believe is extremely simple. There are specific situations that become very difficult as we think through how to implement this belief in a manner that is loving to both the mother and child. But, at it's core, the basic premise is very simple and well intentioned.
I believe the jackhammer subtle implication of my question was that since this is a difficult issue that society cannot collectively resolve, the decision should be left to individual women to decide for themselves.And yet, a large section of our society has decided such a decision can't be left to the women involved. Why do you think that is? Do the enumerated list I wrote above not provide the simplest possible explanations? Or are you aware of any other possibilities that are simpler?
Your list does a great job of assuming bad intentions for the pro-life crowd. It's not very accurate. Here is a simpler explanation:
Pro-life people believe abortion is killing an unborn human and think that killing an innocent human being is wrong.
As you can see, the basic believe is extremely simple. There are specific situations that become very difficult as we think through how to implement this belief in a manner that is loving to both the mother and child. But, at it's core, the basic premise is very simple and well intentioned.
I think that an abortion kills an unborn human AND that killing an unborn human is wrong. But I am pro-choice.Is that a personal definition of what constitutes 'alive' or does it come from an organization? I think being alive commences at birth and thus disagree about the status of fetuses. But I'd imagine we have different definitions. Otherwise, why not count age from conception or some other pre-birth point? Of course, then tax benefits, Social Security, and life insurance for fetuses (which I guess would just be called humans after being defined as alive?) would be a normal part of society. The fact that they're not, do you view that as inconsistent with your definition of fetuses that are 'alive' and/or just an instance of where society has not caught up? I'm also pro-choice for the italicized part of the last sentence above - i.e. even if rape, incest, and physical complications could be eliminated I'd still be pro-choice. Now, if we get to a point where all pregnancies happen in artificial uteri on top of no rape/incest/complications, that opens up more interesting talks but that's incredibly pie-in-the-sky.
While fetuses are certainly alive and do qualify for some basic human rights - their human rights don't 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 without consent.
I think that an abortion kills an unborn human AND that killing an unborn human is wrong. But I am pro-choice.Is that a personal definition of what constitutes 'alive' or does it come from an organization?
While fetuses are certainly alive and do qualify for some basic human rights - their human rights don't 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 without consent.
I think being alive commences at birth and thus disagree about the status of fetuses.
But I'd imagine we have different definitions. Otherwise, why not count age from conception or some other pre-birth point? Of course, then tax benefits, Social Security, and life insurance for fetuses (which I guess would just be called humans after being defined as alive?) would be a normal part of society. The fact that they're not, do you view that as inconsistent with your definition of fetuses that are 'alive' and/or just an instance of where society has not caught up? I'm also pro-choice for the italicized part of the last sentence above - i.e. even if rape, incest, and physical complications could be eliminated I'd still be pro-choice. Now, if we get to a point where all pregnancies happen in artificial uteri on top of no rape/incest/complications, that opens up more interesting talks but that's incredibly pie-in-the-sky.
Now, if we get to a point where all pregnancies happen in artificial uteri on top of no rape/incest/complications, that opens up more interesting talks but that's incredibly pie-in-the-sky.
Now, if we get to a point where all pregnancies happen in artificial uteri on top of no rape/incest/complications, that opens up more interesting talks but that's incredibly pie-in-the-sky.
Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosiverse uses various social results of uterine replicators (and gene cleaning and manipulation) as part of her world building.
SF often does the thought experiments, what ifs. Larry Niven looked as organ donor ethics before organ donation really got going, for example. Plus his Cloak of Anarchy is a classic thought experiment on political anarchy/libertarianism.
an unborn human (aka fetus) is not a legally recognized human. It is not a citizen nor does it have the rights of a citizen or borned person. In the same way people who are vegetarians are horrified that we are killing alive sentient beings (pigs, cows, etc) who can be scientifically shown to to be clearly aware, feel pain, communicate that pain, have emotions (while these are not necessarily true for a first, 2nd trimester fetus). In the same way an abortion video would be disturbing, it is also disturbing to see invasive surgeries, or to see animals slaughtered and hung up for food.
Killing animals to eat them is legal. So, vegetarians and vegans then, for themselves make the decision not to partake. However at this time they cannot legally coerce other people from eating meat.
While I am not a vegetarian I am trying to eat less meat. And I honestly do not get why "humans" get extra elevated rights, even to the extent that the pro life crowd are disturbed by abortions yet having pig pickings. I can only surmise the reason is not based on science and reality, but one belief that humans are "special" the only ones with souls etc. We are a country that people are free to practice a religion, or not practice a religion. Basing the right to abortion and other reproductive access such as birth control on religious reasons (and a particular subset of a religion aka evangelical or fundamentalist christianity) is entirely wrong decision for the United States and for what our constitution states.
Now, if we get to a point where all pregnancies happen in artificial uteri on top of no rape/incest/complications, that opens up more interesting talks but that's incredibly pie-in-the-sky.
Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosiverse uses various social results of uterine replicators (and gene cleaning and manipulation) as part of her world building.
SF often does the thought experiments, what ifs. Larry Niven looked as organ donor ethics before organ donation really got going, for example. Plus his Cloak of Anarchy is a classic thought experiment on political anarchy/libertarianism.
an unborn human (aka fetus) is not a legally recognized human. It is not a citizen nor does it have the rights of a citizen or borned person. In the same way people who are vegetarians are horrified that we are killing alive sentient beings (pigs, cows, etc) who can be scientifically shown to to be clearly aware, feel pain, communicate that pain, have emotions (while these are not necessarily true for a first, 2nd trimester fetus). In the same way an abortion video would be disturbing, it is also disturbing to see invasive surgeries, or to see animals slaughtered and hung up for food.
Killing animals to eat them is legal. So, vegetarians and vegans then, for themselves make the decision not to partake. However at this time they cannot legally coerce other people from eating meat.
While I am not a vegetarian I am trying to eat less meat. And I honestly do not get why "humans" get extra elevated rights, even to the extent that the pro life crowd are disturbed by abortions yet having pig pickings. I can only surmise the reason is not based on science and reality, but one belief that humans are "special" the only ones with souls etc. We are a country that people are free to practice a religion, or not practice a religion. Basing the right to abortion and other reproductive access such as birth control on religious reasons (and a particular subset of a religion aka evangelical or fundamentalist christianity) is entirely wrong decision for the United States and for what our constitution states.
To try to throw a question of why humans get elevated rights in for this discussion is ridiculous and requires absolutely no tie in to any specific religion to refute. We're talking about ending a human life here. Unless you're part of some 0.0000001% of people that want murder of humans made legal or eating of animals illegal, you're whole line of logic has absolutely no application. An unborn human is a distinctive human from a DNA standpoint. The only line of discussion that makes any case whatsoever that abortions aren't morally abhorrent is the dependency of the unborn on the mother.
A fetus is no more a human being than a sprouted acorn is an oak tree.
Whatever you may think of the sentence above, most people would agree with it unless their religion tells them otherwise, and even a lot of people whose religion tells them otherwise would agree with it.
A lot of people, I daresay the majority in this country, would agree that while abortion is not a trivial or frivolous thing, it is most certainly not "ending a human life." It is clearly ending a process leading to a human life. But the idea that life begins at conception is one hard to establish apart from certain religion's doctrines, and we are not supposed to be legislating religion in this country.
an unborn human (aka fetus) is not a legally recognized human. It is not a citizen nor does it have the rights of a citizen or borned person. In the same way people who are vegetarians are horrified that we are killing alive sentient beings (pigs, cows, etc) who can be scientifically shown to to be clearly aware, feel pain, communicate that pain, have emotions (while these are not necessarily true for a first, 2nd trimester fetus). In the same way an abortion video would be disturbing, it is also disturbing to see invasive surgeries, or to see animals slaughtered and hung up for food.
Killing animals to eat them is legal. So, vegetarians and vegans then, for themselves make the decision not to partake. However at this time they cannot legally coerce other people from eating meat.
While I am not a vegetarian I am trying to eat less meat. And I honestly do not get why "humans" get extra elevated rights, even to the extent that the pro life crowd are disturbed by abortions yet having pig pickings. I can only surmise the reason is not based on science and reality, but one belief that humans are "special" the only ones with souls etc. We are a country that people are free to practice a religion, or not practice a religion. Basing the right to abortion and other reproductive access such as birth control on religious reasons (and a particular subset of a religion aka evangelical or fundamentalist christianity) is entirely wrong decision for the United States and for what our constitution states.
To try to throw a question of why humans get elevated rights in for this discussion is ridiculous and requires absolutely no tie in to any specific religion to refute. We're talking about ending a human life here. Unless you're part of some 0.0000001% of people that want murder of humans made legal or eating of animals illegal, you're whole line of logic has absolutely no application. An unborn human is a distinctive human from a DNA standpoint. The only line of discussion that makes any case whatsoever that abortions aren't morally abhorrent is the dependency of the unborn on the mother.
This is the thing. I am a scientist. The more we learn, the more we understand that we are more similar, than disimilar to animals, and that this clear bright line between humanity, and other types of living intelligent creatures on this earth is not so bright and so clear.
an unborn human (aka fetus) is not a legally recognized human. It is not a citizen nor does it have the rights of a citizen or borned person. In the same way people who are vegetarians are horrified that we are killing alive sentient beings (pigs, cows, etc) who can be scientifically shown to to be clearly aware, feel pain, communicate that pain, have emotions (while these are not necessarily true for a first, 2nd trimester fetus). In the same way an abortion video would be disturbing, it is also disturbing to see invasive surgeries, or to see animals slaughtered and hung up for food.
Killing animals to eat them is legal. So, vegetarians and vegans then, for themselves make the decision not to partake. However at this time they cannot legally coerce other people from eating meat.
While I am not a vegetarian I am trying to eat less meat. And I honestly do not get why "humans" get extra elevated rights, even to the extent that the pro life crowd are disturbed by abortions yet having pig pickings. I can only surmise the reason is not based on science and reality, but one belief that humans are "special" the only ones with souls etc. We are a country that people are free to practice a religion, or not practice a religion. Basing the right to abortion and other reproductive access such as birth control on religious reasons (and a particular subset of a religion aka evangelical or fundamentalist christianity) is entirely wrong decision for the United States and for what our constitution states.
To try to throw a question of why humans get elevated rights in for this discussion is ridiculous and requires absolutely no tie in to any specific religion to refute. We're talking about ending a human life here. Unless you're part of some 0.0000001% of people that want murder of humans made legal or eating of animals illegal, you're whole line of logic has absolutely no application. An unborn human is a distinctive human from a DNA standpoint. The only line of discussion that makes any case whatsoever that abortions aren't morally abhorrent is the dependency of the unborn on the mother.
These kind of responses absolutely astonish me. Not that someone would object to abortion or killing humans, but that one would instantly dismiss the animals as being of lesser value. I mean, I eat animals, but there is a serious philosophical discussion to be had about relative moral value. There are plenty of animal species on the verge of extinction, and close to 8 billion people. There is a legit moral argument to be had whether the value of one individual of those species is 'worth' more than any individual human life.
an unborn human (aka fetus) is not a legally recognized human. It is not a citizen nor does it have the rights of a citizen or borned person. In the same way people who are vegetarians are horrified that we are killing alive sentient beings (pigs, cows, etc) who can be scientifically shown to to be clearly aware, feel pain, communicate that pain, have emotions (while these are not necessarily true for a first, 2nd trimester fetus). In the same way an abortion video would be disturbing, it is also disturbing to see invasive surgeries, or to see animals slaughtered and hung up for food.
Killing animals to eat them is legal. So, vegetarians and vegans then, for themselves make the decision not to partake. However at this time they cannot legally coerce other people from eating meat.
While I am not a vegetarian I am trying to eat less meat. And I honestly do not get why "humans" get extra elevated rights, even to the extent that the pro life crowd are disturbed by abortions yet having pig pickings. I can only surmise the reason is not based on science and reality, but one belief that humans are "special" the only ones with souls etc. We are a country that people are free to practice a religion, or not practice a religion. Basing the right to abortion and other reproductive access such as birth control on religious reasons (and a particular subset of a religion aka evangelical or fundamentalist christianity) is entirely wrong decision for the United States and for what our constitution states.
To try to throw a question of why humans get elevated rights in for this discussion is ridiculous and requires absolutely no tie in to any specific religion to refute. We're talking about ending a human life here. Unless you're part of some 0.0000001% of people that want murder of humans made legal or eating of animals illegal, you're whole line of logic has absolutely no application. An unborn human is a distinctive human from a DNA standpoint. The only line of discussion that makes any case whatsoever that abortions aren't morally abhorrent is the dependency of the unborn on the mother.
This is the thing. I am a scientist. The more we learn, the more we understand that we are more similar, than disimilar to animals, and that this clear bright line between humanity, and other types of living intelligent creatures on this earth is not so bright and so clear. On so many levels. Feeling of pain. Feeling of emotions, and attachments. Altruistic behavior. Ability to lie and deceive. Tool use. Consciousness and self consciousness. It is true, so far as we know we do have language over other animals, but why that should be the differentiating factor whether one creature gets all the rights, and the others not, from an objective standpoint, doesn't make sense (unless it's simply, because we wrote the rules). I don't know anyone who has had a dog and looked into its eyes, would say the dog is souless. The videos I see of orangatans trying to fight bulldozers that are dozing the forest they live in, or a mother chimpanzee carrying its dead infant and refusing to leave it, is natural to feel how they are feeling, and also hearbreaking in exactly the same way seeing another human being experiencing a loss. And in turn whether it is a dolphin saving someone drowning or other cases, animals having compassion for us.
wolfpack depends on your religion. Buddhism believes for example all life is sacred. I do believe all of life is interconnected. And while yes I learned that God created man in his own image, does that mean that he looks like a big man sitting on a throne? Did they mean created in his image visually (which doesn't make sense if he is spirit, and invisible), or in some other aspect? I learned at the same time, from my priest and from the Bible, that God isn't male or female. And in fact is indescribable and actually unbearable to view. (for example is presented as a burning bush because his true form is unknowable). We know that God created the earth and all the other living things as well. At least to me, ALL those things are in his image, as well.
an unborn human (aka fetus) is not a legally recognized human. It is not a citizen nor does it have the rights of a citizen or borned person. In the same way people who are vegetarians are horrified that we are killing alive sentient beings (pigs, cows, etc) who can be scientifically shown to to be clearly aware, feel pain, communicate that pain, have emotions (while these are not necessarily true for a first, 2nd trimester fetus). In the same way an abortion video would be disturbing, it is also disturbing to see invasive surgeries, or to see animals slaughtered and hung up for food.
Killing animals to eat them is legal. So, vegetarians and vegans then, for themselves make the decision not to partake. However at this time they cannot legally coerce other people from eating meat.
While I am not a vegetarian I am trying to eat less meat. And I honestly do not get why "humans" get extra elevated rights, even to the extent that the pro life crowd are disturbed by abortions yet having pig pickings. I can only surmise the reason is not based on science and reality, but one belief that humans are "special" the only ones with souls etc. We are a country that people are free to practice a religion, or not practice a religion. Basing the right to abortion and other reproductive access such as birth control on religious reasons (and a particular subset of a religion aka evangelical or fundamentalist christianity) is entirely wrong decision for the United States and for what our constitution states.
To try to throw a question of why humans get elevated rights in for this discussion is ridiculous and requires absolutely no tie in to any specific religion to refute. We're talking about ending a human life here. Unless you're part of some 0.0000001% of people that want murder of humans made legal or eating of animals illegal, you're whole line of logic has absolutely no application. An unborn human is a distinctive human from a DNA standpoint. The only line of discussion that makes any case whatsoever that abortions aren't morally abhorrent is the dependency of the unborn on the mother.
Far more than 0.00000001% would like to make eating of animals illegal. Probably even fewer than that meager percentage think it is a viable thing to propose, that it is a thing that society would collectively agree should be against the law at this time. I am not alone in the opinion though that 100 years from now eating animals will be not only illegal, but unthinkable to most people. (In fact I think it'll be far fewer than 100 years.) But not today. And laws that apply to all of us should be based on things we collectively as a society agree on.
There are two separate issues with abortion: it's morality/ethicality and its legality. Those are two separate things, just as the ethics of eating animals is separate from the legality of eating animals.
Dependency on the mother is one line of discussion, both morally/ethically and legally, but it is the only one.
A fetus is no more a human being than a sprouted acorn is an oak tree.
Whatever you may think of the sentence above, most people would agree with it unless their religion tells them otherwise, and even a lot of people whose religion tells them otherwise would agree with it.
A lot of people, I daresay the majority in this country, would agree that while abortion is not a trivial or frivolous thing, it is most certainly not "ending a human life." It is clearly ending a process leading to a human life. But the idea that life begins at conception is one hard to establish apart from certain religion's doctrines, and we are not supposed to be legislating religion in this country.
an unborn human (aka fetus) is not a legally recognized human. It is not a citizen nor does it have the rights of a citizen or borned person. In the same way people who are vegetarians are horrified that we are killing alive sentient beings (pigs, cows, etc) who can be scientifically shown to to be clearly aware, feel pain, communicate that pain, have emotions (while these are not necessarily true for a first, 2nd trimester fetus). In the same way an abortion video would be disturbing, it is also disturbing to see invasive surgeries, or to see animals slaughtered and hung up for food.
Killing animals to eat them is legal. So, vegetarians and vegans then, for themselves make the decision not to partake. However at this time they cannot legally coerce other people from eating meat.
While I am not a vegetarian I am trying to eat less meat. And I honestly do not get why "humans" get extra elevated rights, even to the extent that the pro life crowd are disturbed by abortions yet having pig pickings. I can only surmise the reason is not based on science and reality, but one belief that humans are "special" the only ones with souls etc. We are a country that people are free to practice a religion, or not practice a religion. Basing the right to abortion and other reproductive access such as birth control on religious reasons (and a particular subset of a religion aka evangelical or fundamentalist christianity) is entirely wrong decision for the United States and for what our constitution states.
To try to throw a question of why humans get elevated rights in for this discussion is ridiculous and requires absolutely no tie in to any specific religion to refute. We're talking about ending a human life here. Unless you're part of some 0.0000001% of people that want murder of humans made legal or eating of animals illegal, you're whole line of logic has absolutely no application. An unborn human is a distinctive human from a DNA standpoint. The only line of discussion that makes any case whatsoever that abortions aren't morally abhorrent is the dependency of the unborn on the mother.
These kind of responses absolutely astonish me. Not that someone would object to abortion or killing humans, but that one would instantly dismiss the animals as being of lesser value. I mean, I eat animals, but there is a serious philosophical discussion to be had about relative moral value. There are plenty of animal species on the verge of extinction, and close to 8 billion people. There is a legit moral argument to be had whether the value of one individual of those species is 'worth' more than any individual human life.
an unborn human (aka fetus) is not a legally recognized human. It is not a citizen nor does it have the rights of a citizen or borned person. In the same way people who are vegetarians are horrified that we are killing alive sentient beings (pigs, cows, etc) who can be scientifically shown to to be clearly aware, feel pain, communicate that pain, have emotions (while these are not necessarily true for a first, 2nd trimester fetus). In the same way an abortion video would be disturbing, it is also disturbing to see invasive surgeries, or to see animals slaughtered and hung up for food.
Killing animals to eat them is legal. So, vegetarians and vegans then, for themselves make the decision not to partake. However at this time they cannot legally coerce other people from eating meat.
While I am not a vegetarian I am trying to eat less meat. And I honestly do not get why "humans" get extra elevated rights, even to the extent that the pro life crowd are disturbed by abortions yet having pig pickings. I can only surmise the reason is not based on science and reality, but one belief that humans are "special" the only ones with souls etc. We are a country that people are free to practice a religion, or not practice a religion. Basing the right to abortion and other reproductive access such as birth control on religious reasons (and a particular subset of a religion aka evangelical or fundamentalist christianity) is entirely wrong decision for the United States and for what our constitution states.
To try to throw a question of why humans get elevated rights in for this discussion is ridiculous and requires absolutely no tie in to any specific religion to refute. We're talking about ending a human life here. Unless you're part of some 0.0000001% of people that want murder of humans made legal or eating of animals illegal, you're whole line of logic has absolutely no application. An unborn human is a distinctive human from a DNA standpoint. The only line of discussion that makes any case whatsoever that abortions aren't morally abhorrent is the dependency of the unborn on the mother.
These kind of responses absolutely astonish me. Not that someone would object to abortion or killing humans, but that one would instantly dismiss the animals as being of lesser value. I mean, I eat animals, but there is a serious philosophical discussion to be had about relative moral value. There are plenty of animal species on the verge of extinction, and close to 8 billion people. There is a legit moral argument to be had whether the value of one individual of those species is 'worth' more than any individual human life.
Agreed. Other than some religious beliefs about 'souls' and afterlife and creation and stuff, I'm not aware of any reason why anyone wouldn't just view all living things on a spectrum, from microbes to humans, or however you want to structure it. Sure there are large gaps on the spectrum in terms of intelligence and you can argue that perhaps 'self-awareness' could be some sort of division point, but when it comes down to it, I don't know that there's objectively anything to support the philosophical idea that "humans get rights, no other living creature out of the millions of other living species don't" other than just that's the way we want things.
an unborn human (aka fetus) is not a legally recognized human. It is not a citizen nor does it have the rights of a citizen or borned person. In the same way people who are vegetarians are horrified that we are killing alive sentient beings (pigs, cows, etc) who can be scientifically shown to to be clearly aware, feel pain, communicate that pain, have emotions (while these are not necessarily true for a first, 2nd trimester fetus). In the same way an abortion video would be disturbing, it is also disturbing to see invasive surgeries, or to see animals slaughtered and hung up for food.
Killing animals to eat them is legal. So, vegetarians and vegans then, for themselves make the decision not to partake. However at this time they cannot legally coerce other people from eating meat.
While I am not a vegetarian I am trying to eat less meat. And I honestly do not get why "humans" get extra elevated rights, even to the extent that the pro life crowd are disturbed by abortions yet having pig pickings. I can only surmise the reason is not based on science and reality, but one belief that humans are "special" the only ones with souls etc. We are a country that people are free to practice a religion, or not practice a religion. Basing the right to abortion and other reproductive access such as birth control on religious reasons (and a particular subset of a religion aka evangelical or fundamentalist christianity) is entirely wrong decision for the United States and for what our constitution states.
To try to throw a question of why humans get elevated rights in for this discussion is ridiculous and requires absolutely no tie in to any specific religion to refute. We're talking about ending a human life here. Unless you're part of some 0.0000001% of people that want murder of humans made legal or eating of animals illegal, you're whole line of logic has absolutely no application. An unborn human is a distinctive human from a DNA standpoint. The only line of discussion that makes any case whatsoever that abortions aren't morally abhorrent is the dependency of the unborn on the mother.
These kind of responses absolutely astonish me. Not that someone would object to abortion or killing humans, but that one would instantly dismiss the animals as being of lesser value. I mean, I eat animals, but there is a serious philosophical discussion to be had about relative moral value. There are plenty of animal species on the verge of extinction, and close to 8 billion people. There is a legit moral argument to be had whether the value of one individual of those species is 'worth' more than any individual human life.
I find your take of astonishment to my response astonishing. I was arguing against using a periphery argument about killing of animals as somehow akin to abortion because it is such a universal concept that taking a human life is worse than taking an animal life. Do you really find astonishing the belief that a human life has more worth than an animal life? If so, you must be astonished all the time, as almost no one espouses the belief that they are equivalent, and even if they do, I don't see a groundswell of support to up the penalty for, say, deer hunting to be punishable by life in prison. My point was, it's a very commonly held belief that human life is worth more than animals, regardless of religious background, so I don't understand how this in any way applicable or a reason to give people crap that eat meat and are against abortion.
.... I was arguing against using a periphery argument(1) about killing of animals as somehow akin to abortion because it is such a universal concept that taking a human life is worse than taking an animal life(2). Do you really find astonishing the belief that a human life has more worth than an animal life? If so, you must be astonished all the time, as almost no one espouses the belief that they are equivalent(3), and even if they do, I don't see a groundswell of support to up the penalty for, say, deer hunting to be punishable by life in prison(4). My point was, it's a very commonly held belief that human life is worth more than animals, regardless of religious background, so I don't understand how this in any way applicable or a reason to give people crap that eat meat and are against abortion(5).
The abortion debate is a little heavy, something a bit lighter that falls into the "other dichotomies"
How do we square people who want to raise taxes on the rich yet bring back the SALT tax deduction. SALT tax deduction is a huge tax cut for the rich. According to the brookings institute over 90% of the SALT tax deduction benefit goes to folks in the top 2 quintiles.
.... I was arguing against using a periphery argument(1) about killing of animals as somehow akin to abortion because it is such a universal concept that taking a human life is worse than taking an animal life(2). Do you really find astonishing the belief that a human life has more worth than an animal life? If so, you must be astonished all the time, as almost no one espouses the belief that they are equivalent(3), and even if they do, I don't see a groundswell of support to up the penalty for, say, deer hunting to be punishable by life in prison(4). My point was, it's a very commonly held belief that human life is worth more than animals, regardless of religious background, so I don't understand how this in any way applicable or a reason to give people crap that eat meat and are against abortion(5).
It is a bit of digression from the immediate thread of discussion, but do you realize that this one post of yours exemplifies almost everything that is wrong with even the the most well intentioned pro-life stance?
(1) -> There are probably a billion+ people in the world who sincerely believe that killing a cow == killing your mother. Is that a "periphery" belief, in your opinion? If so, why? Because they come from one of the "false" religions??
(2) -> Ah, those pesky billion odd people I mentioned in #1 don't matter, you see! They don't count, so it is "universal" as long as the "in group" of pro-life people don't believe it.
(3) -> Again, they don't matter, so who cares?
(4) -> Does this really say/imply what you think it does? Could it be perhaps that these people just aren't arrogant enough to try and impost their beliefs on you who might love to chomp on beef? But don't worry, stupid miscreants exist everywhere and pro-life people don't have exclusive rights to it (https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/02/19/india-vigilante-cow-protection-groups-attack-minorities).
(5) -> Hmmm, I see a lot of shit that the pro-life people throw, especially at women who are going through one of the most traumatic periods in their life. Whatever $$ you may have contributed to this cause in the past have almost certainly successfully further traumatized some already suffering woman somewhere. Congratulations on your success in furthering human misery! So, are you claiming that a bit of crap thrown back is somehow not fair game?
an unborn human (aka fetus) is not a legally recognized human. It is not a citizen nor does it have the rights of a citizen or borned person. In the same way people who are vegetarians are horrified that we are killing alive sentient beings (pigs, cows, etc) who can be scientifically shown to to be clearly aware, feel pain, communicate that pain, have emotions (while these are not necessarily true for a first, 2nd trimester fetus). In the same way an abortion video would be disturbing, it is also disturbing to see invasive surgeries, or to see animals slaughtered and hung up for food.
Killing animals to eat them is legal. So, vegetarians and vegans then, for themselves make the decision not to partake. However at this time they cannot legally coerce other people from eating meat.
While I am not a vegetarian I am trying to eat less meat. And I honestly do not get why "humans" get extra elevated rights, even to the extent that the pro life crowd are disturbed by abortions yet having pig pickings. I can only surmise the reason is not based on science and reality, but one belief that humans are "special" the only ones with souls etc. We are a country that people are free to practice a religion, or not practice a religion. Basing the right to abortion and other reproductive access such as birth control on religious reasons (and a particular subset of a religion aka evangelical or fundamentalist christianity) is entirely wrong decision for the United States and for what our constitution states.
To try to throw a question of why humans get elevated rights in for this discussion is ridiculous and requires absolutely no tie in to any specific religion to refute. We're talking about ending a human life here. Unless you're part of some 0.0000001% of people that want murder of humans made legal or eating of animals illegal, you're whole line of logic has absolutely no application. An unborn human is a distinctive human from a DNA standpoint. The only line of discussion that makes any case whatsoever that abortions aren't morally abhorrent is the dependency of the unborn on the mother.
Far more than 0.00000001% would like to make eating of animals illegal. Probably even fewer than that meager percentage think it is a viable thing to propose, that it is a thing that society would collectively agree should be against the law at this time. I am not alone in the opinion though that 100 years from now eating animals will be not only illegal, but unthinkable to most people. (In fact I think it'll be far fewer than 100 years.) But not today. And laws that apply to all of us should be based on things we collectively as a society agree on.
There are two separate issues with abortion: it's morality/ethicality and its legality. Those are two separate things, just as the ethics of eating animals is separate from the legality of eating animals.
Dependency on the mother is one line of discussion, both morally/ethically and legally, but it is the only one.
A fetus is no more a human being than a sprouted acorn is an oak tree.
Whatever you may think of the sentence above, most people would agree with it unless their religion tells them otherwise, and even a lot of people whose religion tells them otherwise would agree with it.
A lot of people, I daresay the majority in this country, would agree that while abortion is not a trivial or frivolous thing, it is most certainly not "ending a human life." It is clearly ending a process leading to a human life. But the idea that life begins at conception is one hard to establish apart from certain religion's doctrines, and we are not supposed to be legislating religion in this country.
First, in my haste and typing on my phone I combined the 0.00001% for making murder legal with making eating animals illegal. My mistake. I mean only the first one not the second one.
The idea of a new human life beginning at conception is irrefutable in scientific terms. A new set of DNA - an entirely different organism from the mother is created at conception. It cannot be argued that it's not life. It cannot be argued that it's not human (as in the species).
No worries on the typo, it happens. I left out the word "not" in a significant place in the post you quoted (obvious where I think from context), so I'll see you your typo and raise you mine.
You are going even farther than the argument I cited, and are claiming that every acorn is an oak tree. I guess it could be, depending on how you define "oak tree." But it is certainly not "scientifically irrefutable" that acorns are oak trees, and most people, including most scientists, would find that definition of "oak tree" more than a little odd.
Whatever the merits of this sort of definition, it is hardly "inarguable" and "scientifically irrefutable."
Simply asserting that something cannot be argued does not make it inarguable. "Proof by vigorous assertion" is not a valid rule of logical inference.
Most, if not all, scientists would agree that the definition of "oak tree" or "living human being" is not a scientifically addressable question. Forms and particulars have not been considered a question of "science" since before the modern era.
India actually bolsters my point and refutes what you're saying, and it just takes a quick google to do it. As I mentioned above, in India, killing a cow most certainly does not equal killing your mother by the fact that they are simply not punished the same. Killing a cow can get you as little as 10 years in prison. Killing a human - life in prison. Killing a cow can at most get you life in prison. Killing a human can get you the death penalty. That's just for cows, the animals whose killing is treated the harshest. For killing a dog, it's 2 years in prison. The point is, that no, 1 billion people do not equate killing a cow to killing your mother (certainly not killing any animal with it) or the punishments would line up. A fringe group like the one you mention can push for stuff, but it's not happening on a widespread scale.My point was not that the laws make it equivalent to treat a cow's life same as a human's, but that there is a religious view that does it.
In terms of your 4th point, you can speculate all you want as to why people aren't pushing laws to make killing a deer get you life in prison. All it will be is speculating. I however am not speculating. I just gave an example of where people are not pushing for equivalency. It was simply one example. There are countless examples of where a true equivalency between animal life and human life is not being pushed by any sort of broad coalition. People apparently think it's worth the government intervening to punish a person who goes out and kills a stranger with life in prison or death as the same government only intervenes for someone doing the same thing to an animal by punishing them to a much less degree. People are not campaigning for the government to up the penalty on animal deaths, or maybe if they're that intensely anti-government intervention they would campaign to reduce the penalty for the murder of people, but that's not happening either. The fact of the matter is, you have no practical evidence on your side of me excluding a billion people or some large section of the world population in my statement that almost universally, people feel that murdering a human is worse than murdering an animal.
There seems to be a general pattern in our American politics that I find both infuriating and fascinating. It’s this strange dichotomy where a person can be rabidly anchored on a side of one position by using a certain logic, and then be rapidly on one side of a different position by using the exact opposite logic.
India still fashions itself as a secular republic, so it is no wonder that their laws should not reflect the view of one specific religion - even the majority one. It is similar to the situation in the US, where women still have legal right to do as they choose with their body despite a strong religious sentiment against that freedom being granted to women.
For the record, I'm not opposed to all of those laws, and I consider "people imposing their morality on one another" to be basically a definition of civilization. But many progressives are quite vehement about the "don't impose your morality on me" bit while being very heavy-handed with their own morality imposition (my impression is that they see their own impositions as reflections of The Morality not their morality, but, well, it always looks that way from the inside).
That's not to say there's anything morally inconsistent about being progressive and pro-choice, just that consistency would require saying, "Abortion should be legal because I don't see a problem with it/ I think it's not ideal but legal abortion beats the alternative; and if I can't change your mind, pro-lifer, I'll just have to beat you at the ballot box", not "I'm against people imposing morality on one another". Because unless you are legitimately a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian, the second just isn't true.
From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.
If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.
Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.
From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.
If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.
Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.
Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.
Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.I haven't met any such "progressive" you describe, in the wild.
Amended to add: While yes, the right to bodily autonomy certainly carries higher stakes than the right to property, pro-lifers are weighing it against the right to life (which is also of course one of the most basic human rights). You may arrive at a different conclusion as to how to weigh those rights, but that doesn't mean those who disagree are guilty of over-reach.
From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.
If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.
Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.
Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.
Practicing one’s religion is one thing. Trying to impose it on someone else is another.
You practice your religion. That in no way should affect my decisions.
From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.
If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.
Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.
Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.
Practicing one’s religion is one thing. Trying to impose it on someone else is another.
You practice your religion. That in no way should affect my decisions.
Sorry for any lack of clarity in my post - as referenced, I wasn't talking about religious liberty in the context of passing laws that are, for example, pro-life; I meant in the context of the baker who wouldn't bake the cake for a gay marriage. The argument for making that illegal is that your right to practice your religion ends where discrimination begins. The pro-life argument for making abortion illegal is that your right to bodily autonomy ends where another's right to life begins. Both treat one of the basic human rights (the right to practice one's faith, the right to bodily autonomy) as less than absolute. One may well be good policy and the other bad, but I don't think you can argue that one is an illegitimate use of the law because it abrogates a human right, while approving of the other.
an unborn human (aka fetus) is not a legally recognized human. It is not a citizen nor does it have the rights of a citizen or borned person. In the same way people who are vegetarians are horrified that we are killing alive sentient beings (pigs, cows, etc) who can be scientifically shown to to be clearly aware, feel pain, communicate that pain, have emotions (while these are not necessarily true for a first, 2nd trimester fetus). In the same way an abortion video would be disturbing, it is also disturbing to see invasive surgeries, or to see animals slaughtered and hung up for food.
Killing animals to eat them is legal. So, vegetarians and vegans then, for themselves make the decision not to partake. However at this time they cannot legally coerce other people from eating meat.
While I am not a vegetarian I am trying to eat less meat. And I honestly do not get why "humans" get extra elevated rights, even to the extent that the pro life crowd are disturbed by abortions yet having pig pickings. I can only surmise the reason is not based on science and reality, but one belief that humans are "special" the only ones with souls etc. We are a country that people are free to practice a religion, or not practice a religion. Basing the right to abortion and other reproductive access such as birth control on religious reasons (and a particular subset of a religion aka evangelical or fundamentalist christianity) is entirely wrong decision for the United States and for what our constitution states.
To try to throw a question of why humans get elevated rights in for this discussion is ridiculous and requires absolutely no tie in to any specific religion to refute. We're talking about ending a human life here. Unless you're part of some 0.0000001% of people that want murder of humans made legal or eating of animals illegal, you're whole line of logic has absolutely no application. An unborn human is a distinctive human from a DNA standpoint. The only line of discussion that makes any case whatsoever that abortions aren't morally abhorrent is the dependency of the unborn on the mother.
Far more than 0.00000001% would like to make eating of animals illegal. Probably even fewer than that meager percentage think it is a viable thing to propose, that it is a thing that society would collectively agree should be against the law at this time. I am not alone in the opinion though that 100 years from now eating animals will be not only illegal, but unthinkable to most people. (In fact I think it'll be far fewer than 100 years.) But not today. And laws that apply to all of us should be based on things we collectively as a society agree on.
There are two separate issues with abortion: it's morality/ethicality and its legality. Those are two separate things, just as the ethics of eating animals is separate from the legality of eating animals.
Dependency on the mother is one line of discussion, both morally/ethically and legally, but it is the only one.
A fetus is no more a human being than a sprouted acorn is an oak tree.
Whatever you may think of the sentence above, most people would agree with it unless their religion tells them otherwise, and even a lot of people whose religion tells them otherwise would agree with it.
A lot of people, I daresay the majority in this country, would agree that while abortion is not a trivial or frivolous thing, it is most certainly not "ending a human life." It is clearly ending a process leading to a human life. But the idea that life begins at conception is one hard to establish apart from certain religion's doctrines, and we are not supposed to be legislating religion in this country.
First, in my haste and typing on my phone I combined the 0.00001% for making murder legal with making eating animals illegal. My mistake. I mean only the first one not the second one.
The idea of a new human life beginning at conception is irrefutable in scientific terms. A new set of DNA - an entirely different organism from the mother is created at conception. It cannot be argued that it's not life. It cannot be argued that it's not human (as in the species).
No worries on the typo, it happens. I left out the word "not" in a significant place in the post you quoted (obvious where I think from context), so I'll see you your typo and raise you mine.
You are going even farther than the argument I cited, and are claiming that every acorn is an oak tree. I guess it could be, depending on how you define "oak tree." But it is certainly not "scientifically irrefutable" that acorns are oak trees, and most people, including most scientists, would find that definition of "oak tree" more than a little odd.
Whatever the merits of this sort of definition, it is hardly "inarguable" and "scientifically irrefutable."
Simply asserting that something cannot be argued does not make it inarguable. "Proof by vigorous assertion" is not a valid rule of logical inference.
Most, if not all, scientists would agree that the definition of "oak tree" or "living human being" is not a scientifically addressable question. Forms and particulars have not been considered a question of "science" since before the modern era.
I did mention that my response was "a bit of digression from the immediate thread of discussion", but I did not clarify exactly why. That was a gap more than a flaw in my logic - something I will try to fill.
I was not arguing that it is an accepted human value in the present day and age to equate the value of an animal life with that of a human life. I was rather showing another set of sincerely held moral values as a counterfactual that Americans would find unpalatable if it was pushed with the same zeal that the pro-life evangelicals (or the cow vigilante's that I linked above) do. The point/hope of my argument is to show that pushing a certain set of religious/moral standard with the force of legal mandates on a country as big and diverse as the US, or even a single state in the US, is a very bad idea. When the demand is as severe as abrogation of such a basic human right - the freedom to do what one chooses with his/her body - then it is a particularly terrible idea.
India actually bolsters my point and refutes what you're saying, and it just takes a quick google to do it. As I mentioned above, in India, killing a cow most certainly does not equal killing your mother by the fact that they are simply not punished the same. Killing a cow can get you as little as 10 years in prison. Killing a human - life in prison. Killing a cow can at most get you life in prison. Killing a human can get you the death penalty. That's just for cows, the animals whose killing is treated the harshest. For killing a dog, it's 2 years in prison. The point is, that no, 1 billion people do not equate killing a cow to killing your mother (certainly not killing any animal with it) or the punishments would line up. A fringe group like the one you mention can push for stuff, but it's not happening on a widespread scale.My point was not that the laws make it equivalent to treat a cow's life same as a human's, but that there is a religious view that does it.
India still fashions itself as a secular republic, so it is no wonder that their laws should not reflect the view of one specific religion - even the majority one. It is similar to the situation in the US, where women still have legal right to do as they choose with their body despite a strong religious sentiment against that freedom being granted to women.In terms of your 4th point, you can speculate all you want as to why people aren't pushing laws to make killing a deer get you life in prison. All it will be is speculating. I however am not speculating. I just gave an example of where people are not pushing for equivalency. It was simply one example. There are countless examples of where a true equivalency between animal life and human life is not being pushed by any sort of broad coalition. People apparently think it's worth the government intervening to punish a person who goes out and kills a stranger with life in prison or death as the same government only intervenes for someone doing the same thing to an animal by punishing them to a much less degree. People are not campaigning for the government to up the penalty on animal deaths, or maybe if they're that intensely anti-government intervention they would campaign to reduce the penalty for the murder of people, but that's not happening either. The fact of the matter is, you have no practical evidence on your side of me excluding a billion people or some large section of the world population in my statement that almost universally, people feel that murdering a human is worse than murdering an animal.
Given the clarification above, do you still think my argument was flawed?
I'll stop the back and forth on the 5th point, as that was my frustration speaking rather than logic.
An unborn human is by word definition distinct - as in it's not of the same DNA of the mother. It's alive by any scientific definition I know of. It's of the species of human by any scientific definition I know of.
an unborn human (aka fetus) is not a legally recognized human. It is not a citizen nor does it have the rights of a citizen or borned person. In the same way people who are vegetarians are horrified that we are killing alive sentient beings (pigs, cows, etc) who can be scientifically shown to to be clearly aware, feel pain, communicate that pain, have emotions (while these are not necessarily true for a first, 2nd trimester fetus). In the same way an abortion video would be disturbing, it is also disturbing to see invasive surgeries, or to see animals slaughtered and hung up for food.
Killing animals to eat them is legal. So, vegetarians and vegans then, for themselves make the decision not to partake. However at this time they cannot legally coerce other people from eating meat.
While I am not a vegetarian I am trying to eat less meat. And I honestly do not get why "humans" get extra elevated rights, even to the extent that the pro life crowd are disturbed by abortions yet having pig pickings. I can only surmise the reason is not based on science and reality, but one belief that humans are "special" the only ones with souls etc. We are a country that people are free to practice a religion, or not practice a religion. Basing the right to abortion and other reproductive access such as birth control on religious reasons (and a particular subset of a religion aka evangelical or fundamentalist christianity) is entirely wrong decision for the United States and for what our constitution states.
To try to throw a question of why humans get elevated rights in for this discussion is ridiculous and requires absolutely no tie in to any specific religion to refute. We're talking about ending a human life here. Unless you're part of some 0.0000001% of people that want murder of humans made legal or eating of animals illegal, you're whole line of logic has absolutely no application. An unborn human is a distinctive human from a DNA standpoint. The only line of discussion that makes any case whatsoever that abortions aren't morally abhorrent is the dependency of the unborn on the mother.
Far more than 0.00000001% would like to make eating of animals illegal. Probably even fewer than that meager percentage think it is a viable thing to propose, that it is a thing that society would collectively agree should be against the law at this time. I am not alone in the opinion though that 100 years from now eating animals will be not only illegal, but unthinkable to most people. (In fact I think it'll be far fewer than 100 years.) But not today. And laws that apply to all of us should be based on things we collectively as a society agree on.
There are two separate issues with abortion: it's morality/ethicality and its legality. Those are two separate things, just as the ethics of eating animals is separate from the legality of eating animals.
Dependency on the mother is one line of discussion, both morally/ethically and legally, but it is the only one.
A fetus is no more a human being than a sprouted acorn is an oak tree.
Whatever you may think of the sentence above, most people would agree with it unless their religion tells them otherwise, and even a lot of people whose religion tells them otherwise would agree with it.
A lot of people, I daresay the majority in this country, would agree that while abortion is not a trivial or frivolous thing, it is most certainly not "ending a human life." It is clearly ending a process leading to a human life. But the idea that life begins at conception is one hard to establish apart from certain religion's doctrines, and we are not supposed to be legislating religion in this country.
First, in my haste and typing on my phone I combined the 0.00001% for making murder legal with making eating animals illegal. My mistake. I mean only the first one not the second one.
The idea of a new human life beginning at conception is irrefutable in scientific terms. A new set of DNA - an entirely different organism from the mother is created at conception. It cannot be argued that it's not life. It cannot be argued that it's not human (as in the species).
No worries on the typo, it happens. I left out the word "not" in a significant place in the post you quoted (obvious where I think from context), so I'll see you your typo and raise you mine.
You are going even farther than the argument I cited, and are claiming that every acorn is an oak tree. I guess it could be, depending on how you define "oak tree." But it is certainly not "scientifically irrefutable" that acorns are oak trees, and most people, including most scientists, would find that definition of "oak tree" more than a little odd.
Whatever the merits of this sort of definition, it is hardly "inarguable" and "scientifically irrefutable."
Simply asserting that something cannot be argued does not make it inarguable. "Proof by vigorous assertion" is not a valid rule of logical inference.
Most, if not all, scientists would agree that the definition of "oak tree" or "living human being" is not a scientifically addressable question. Forms and particulars have not been considered a question of "science" since before the modern era.
I should have addressed your acorn/oak tree analogy earlier. It seems to be a flawed analogy. It's about plants not animals. This is important because you have something very specific in plants that doesn't happen with animals - that of seeds.
It seems you're talking about potential versus something actualized. Yes, unborn humans do not have the same functionality as born people (and certainly adults) and have much more on the potential side of things than the actualized side. However, back to your analogy, the flaw to me is that an acorn is pure, 100% potential, separated from the life and growth process. That's why the analogy doesn't compute. An acorn can sit on a shelf and never be put into the ground to grow - it's not actively alive. At conception, the new DNA is present, and it's actively moving on with growth. It's already in the life cycle in a way that an acorn on a shelf may possibly never be if it stays up on the shelf. That unborn human can have something go wrong with it somewhere along the process of growth. It can then stop growing and die. In which case it would no longer be human life because the life part is out of the equation.
You're claiming I'm saying it's inarguable because of circular reasoning - that it's inarguable because it's inarguable. That's not it at all. I'm saying it's inarguable because there are simply no scientific arguments to refute it, and I'm not seeing any evidence to the contrary in terms of specifically definable words - not a polling of people whose biases would come into play; just the actual words used and definitions for them. Scientists might say that the definition of a "living human being" is undefinable, but that's because it's merging with philosophy.
An unborn human is human life, and not just that, it's distinct, human life based on the definitions of the words. It's of the species of human. It's distance DNA wise, a separate, unique individual from its mother. It's life - it's living, growing, an active part of the cycle of growth. If people want to say it's not distinct, human life, they are going to have to reach outside of these very basic definitions to do so. That's why it's inarguable. I don't mean to be snarky, but if people want to mean something besides what comes out of those three words, they should use different words.
I 100% agree with you that science can only give so much input on it. However, they are completely able to give input that an unborn human is distinct, human life. They are not equipped to comment beyond that. People can say it's not of the same quality of human life, of the same worth of human life, of the same caliber or type of human life - but then, again, where do we make the distinction? Babies are totally reliant on their parents - at a different phase of the life cycle but certainly still not of the same caliber as a fully adult, self-sufficient person.
All of this can be argued, but it helps to start at a similar basic framework, and I have not seen any reasoning for why the label of distinct, human life can be taken away from an unborn human.
My original analogy was a *sprouted* acorn. I removed the sprouted part because you appeared to be saying that simply having a distinct set of human DNA was sufficient to be a full human being. If that's all you need, then the analogy works just fine. Every acorn has a distinct set of oak tree DNA.
I only removed the *sprouted* condition because it seemed like you were doing so. Much if not all of your objection above applies to the acorn being unsprouted.
So: Ok, so let's sprout it. Is it an oak tree then?
As for the rest: I don't mean to be harsh, but you are either being or unintentionally giving the impression of being (based on what I know of you so far, I assume the latter) intellectually dishonest about your use of "inarguable" and "irrefutable". If by those words you mean what you seem to be saying the second time, then I agree with you. Science does not and cannot argue that a fetus is not a living human being, nor does it nor can it refute the claim that a fetus is a living human being, because those sorts of claims are not scientifically addressable.. If you mean that the question of whether or not a fetus is a living human being is not a scientific question, and cannot be addressed by science, and that science does not and cannot establish whether it is or isn't, then we are in agreement. But if that is what you really mean, that is not what you gave the impression of meaning in the original quote.
If it is not a scientific question, that also means that science does not and cannot argue that a fetus is a living human being, nor does it nor can it refute the claim that a fetus is not a living human being.
You said:
<<The idea of a new human life beginning at conception is irrefutable in scientific terms. A new set of DNA - an entirely different organism from the mother is created at conception. It cannot be argued that it's not life. It cannot be argued that it's not human (as in the species).>>
The wording of this, as it would normally be understood, indicates that you are saying that science irrefutably demonstrates that human life begins at conception. To say that something is "irrefutable in scientific terms" would normally be taken to mean that the scientific evidence FOR the claim is conclusive. Within the context in which this statement was made, even moreso.
Likewise "it cannot be argued that it's not life" would normally be taken to mean that the claim that it is life is so abundantly established that it is scientifically absurd to think otherwise.
You do not appear to be taking the position that science is agnostic about this question in general, and you cannot possibly be so naive as to not know what your phrasing means in ordinary English.
If this is all just a matter of disagreement as to phrasing and language, which most disagreements in this world seem to be, the remedy is easy, even if not all that popular in this world with regard to controversial things. Natural language relies on context and nuance and etc. That's what makes poetry fun but it sure leads to plenty of pointless controversies. Language can be unclear, so just clarify the language and come to agreement about what is really meant and move on.
So: is the point at which human life begins a question science does or can answer?
Wolfpack your are entirely right at this time laws, etc give much much higher weight to humans, while little thought to other life. I am arguing against that status quo. Especially in the case of endangered animals.
If you are going to talk about dna, consensus research shows that Chimpanzees and humans are very very close. Humans and chimpanzees are more similar genetically, than subspecies of fruit flies.
If you are going by a genetics argument, should not chimpanzees have 96% the rights of humans? Should not all mammals which are genetically very close to humans, basically sisters and brothers of humans, have some level of rights, versus to 100%- to 0? You're argument that no one cares about animals, or that of course humans life is sacred while other life is not, is extremely centric if your own religious upbringing and by no means the only religious viewpoint on this subject. And I would argue from a scientific point of view, also not supported.
Why have I been thinking of this? I was raised Greek Orthodox, and while I am not religious (I don't attend church, feel inspired by other texts in addition to the Bible such as Taoism) I still practice Lent, which involves not eating any animal matter (meat, fish, eggs, dairy). And - it made me realize that a small sacrifice on my side, means avoiding a much greater sacrifice on some other living creature's side. If you want a Christian argument Lenten fast is done for spiritual reasons. To make you a better person. Refraining from animal products during Lent, is literally meant to bring you closer to God. Think about that. (Again, I don't think I will ever be 100% vegetarian or vegan my body seems to need some level of dairy, egg).
ALL religions and philosophies teach in one way or another, to maximize beneficence, and minimize harm. The hallmark of a good religion- philosophy I would argue is one that does that maximally (the most good, for the least harm).
https://www.genome.gov/15515096/2005-release-new-genome-comparison-finds-chimps-humans-very-similar-at-dna-level#:~:text=The%20consortium%20found%20that%20the,is%20almost%2099%20percent%20identical.&text=At%20the%20protein%20level%2C%2029,sequences%20in%20chimps%20and%20humans.
an unborn human (aka fetus) is not a legally recognized human. It is not a citizen nor does it have the rights of a citizen or borned person. In the same way people who are vegetarians are horrified that we are killing alive sentient beings (pigs, cows, etc) who can be scientifically shown to to be clearly aware, feel pain, communicate that pain, have emotions (while these are not necessarily true for a first, 2nd trimester fetus). In the same way an abortion video would be disturbing, it is also disturbing to see invasive surgeries, or to see animals slaughtered and hung up for food.
Killing animals to eat them is legal. So, vegetarians and vegans then, for themselves make the decision not to partake. However at this time they cannot legally coerce other people from eating meat.
While I am not a vegetarian I am trying to eat less meat. And I honestly do not get why "humans" get extra elevated rights, even to the extent that the pro life crowd are disturbed by abortions yet having pig pickings. I can only surmise the reason is not based on science and reality, but one belief that humans are "special" the only ones with souls etc. We are a country that people are free to practice a religion, or not practice a religion. Basing the right to abortion and other reproductive access such as birth control on religious reasons (and a particular subset of a religion aka evangelical or fundamentalist christianity) is entirely wrong decision for the United States and for what our constitution states.
To try to throw a question of why humans get elevated rights in for this discussion is ridiculous and requires absolutely no tie in to any specific religion to refute. We're talking about ending a human life here. Unless you're part of some 0.0000001% of people that want murder of humans made legal or eating of animals illegal, you're whole line of logic has absolutely no application. An unborn human is a distinctive human from a DNA standpoint. The only line of discussion that makes any case whatsoever that abortions aren't morally abhorrent is the dependency of the unborn on the mother.
Far more than 0.00000001% would like to make eating of animals illegal. Probably even fewer than that meager percentage think it is a viable thing to propose, that it is a thing that society would collectively agree should be against the law at this time. I am not alone in the opinion though that 100 years from now eating animals will be not only illegal, but unthinkable to most people. (In fact I think it'll be far fewer than 100 years.) But not today. And laws that apply to all of us should be based on things we collectively as a society agree on.
There are two separate issues with abortion: it's morality/ethicality and its legality. Those are two separate things, just as the ethics of eating animals is separate from the legality of eating animals.
Dependency on the mother is one line of discussion, both morally/ethically and legally, but it is the only one.
A fetus is no more a human being than a sprouted acorn is an oak tree.
Whatever you may think of the sentence above, most people would agree with it unless their religion tells them otherwise, and even a lot of people whose religion tells them otherwise would agree with it.
A lot of people, I daresay the majority in this country, would agree that while abortion is not a trivial or frivolous thing, it is most certainly not "ending a human life." It is clearly ending a process leading to a human life. But the idea that life begins at conception is one hard to establish apart from certain religion's doctrines, and we are not supposed to be legislating religion in this country.
First, in my haste and typing on my phone I combined the 0.00001% for making murder legal with making eating animals illegal. My mistake. I mean only the first one not the second one.
The idea of a new human life beginning at conception is irrefutable in scientific terms. A new set of DNA - an entirely different organism from the mother is created at conception. It cannot be argued that it's not life. It cannot be argued that it's not human (as in the species).
No worries on the typo, it happens. I left out the word "not" in a significant place in the post you quoted (obvious where I think from context), so I'll see you your typo and raise you mine.
You are going even farther than the argument I cited, and are claiming that every acorn is an oak tree. I guess it could be, depending on how you define "oak tree." But it is certainly not "scientifically irrefutable" that acorns are oak trees, and most people, including most scientists, would find that definition of "oak tree" more than a little odd.
Whatever the merits of this sort of definition, it is hardly "inarguable" and "scientifically irrefutable."
Simply asserting that something cannot be argued does not make it inarguable. "Proof by vigorous assertion" is not a valid rule of logical inference.
Most, if not all, scientists would agree that the definition of "oak tree" or "living human being" is not a scientifically addressable question. Forms and particulars have not been considered a question of "science" since before the modern era.
I should have addressed your acorn/oak tree analogy earlier. It seems to be a flawed analogy. It's about plants not animals. This is important because you have something very specific in plants that doesn't happen with animals - that of seeds.
It seems you're talking about potential versus something actualized. Yes, unborn humans do not have the same functionality as born people (and certainly adults) and have much more on the potential side of things than the actualized side. However, back to your analogy, the flaw to me is that an acorn is pure, 100% potential, separated from the life and growth process. That's why the analogy doesn't compute. An acorn can sit on a shelf and never be put into the ground to grow - it's not actively alive. At conception, the new DNA is present, and it's actively moving on with growth. It's already in the life cycle in a way that an acorn on a shelf may possibly never be if it stays up on the shelf. That unborn human can have something go wrong with it somewhere along the process of growth. It can then stop growing and die. In which case it would no longer be human life because the life part is out of the equation.
You're claiming I'm saying it's inarguable because of circular reasoning - that it's inarguable because it's inarguable. That's not it at all. I'm saying it's inarguable because there are simply no scientific arguments to refute it, and I'm not seeing any evidence to the contrary in terms of specifically definable words - not a polling of people whose biases would come into play; just the actual words used and definitions for them. Scientists might say that the definition of a "living human being" is undefinable, but that's because it's merging with philosophy.
An unborn human is human life, and not just that, it's distinct, human life based on the definitions of the words. It's of the species of human. It's distance DNA wise, a separate, unique individual from its mother. It's life - it's living, growing, an active part of the cycle of growth. If people want to say it's not distinct, human life, they are going to have to reach outside of these very basic definitions to do so. That's why it's inarguable. I don't mean to be snarky, but if people want to mean something besides what comes out of those three words, they should use different words.
I 100% agree with you that science can only give so much input on it. However, they are completely able to give input that an unborn human is distinct, human life. They are not equipped to comment beyond that. People can say it's not of the same quality of human life, of the same worth of human life, of the same caliber or type of human life - but then, again, where do we make the distinction? Babies are totally reliant on their parents - at a different phase of the life cycle but certainly still not of the same caliber as a fully adult, self-sufficient person.
All of this can be argued, but it helps to start at a similar basic framework, and I have not seen any reasoning for why the label of distinct, human life can be taken away from an unborn human.
My original analogy was a *sprouted* acorn. I removed the sprouted part because you appeared to be saying that simply having a distinct set of human DNA was sufficient to be a full human being. If that's all you need, then the analogy works just fine. Every acorn has a distinct set of oak tree DNA.
I only removed the *sprouted* condition because it seemed like you were doing so. Much if not all of your objection above applies to the acorn being unsprouted.
So: Ok, so let's sprout it. Is it an oak tree then?
As for the rest: I don't mean to be harsh, but you are either being or unintentionally giving the impression of being (based on what I know of you so far, I assume the latter) intellectually dishonest about your use of "inarguable" and "irrefutable". If by those words you mean what you seem to be saying the second time, then I agree with you. Science does not and cannot argue that a fetus is not a living human being, nor does it nor can it refute the claim that a fetus is a living human being, because those sorts of claims are not scientifically addressable.. If you mean that the question of whether or not a fetus is a living human being is not a scientific question, and cannot be addressed by science, and that science does not and cannot establish whether it is or isn't, then we are in agreement. But if that is what you really mean, that is not what you gave the impression of meaning in the original quote.
If it is not a scientific question, that also means that science does not and cannot argue that a fetus is a living human being, nor does it nor can it refute the claim that a fetus is not a living human being.
You said:
<<The idea of a new human life beginning at conception is irrefutable in scientific terms. A new set of DNA - an entirely different organism from the mother is created at conception. It cannot be argued that it's not life. It cannot be argued that it's not human (as in the species).>>
The wording of this, as it would normally be understood, indicates that you are saying that science irrefutably demonstrates that human life begins at conception. To say that something is "irrefutable in scientific terms" would normally be taken to mean that the scientific evidence FOR the claim is conclusive. Within the context in which this statement was made, even moreso.
Likewise "it cannot be argued that it's not life" would normally be taken to mean that the claim that it is life is so abundantly established that it is scientifically absurd to think otherwise.
You do not appear to be taking the position that science is agnostic about this question in general, and you cannot possibly be so naive as to not know what your phrasing means in ordinary English.
If this is all just a matter of disagreement as to phrasing and language, which most disagreements in this world seem to be, the remedy is easy, even if not all that popular in this world with regard to controversial things. Natural language relies on context and nuance and etc. That's what makes poetry fun but it sure leads to plenty of pointless controversies. Language can be unclear, so just clarify the language and come to agreement about what is really meant and move on.
So: is the point at which human life begins a question science does or can answer?
Sorry about missing the sprouting acorn part from before in your comments. I mean to address the issue with even a sprouted oak but forgot. The difference is in the nuance of tree having connotations of adulthood. We typically wouldn't call a sprouted acorn a tree because the word tree has connotations of maturity. I do think we could very rationally call it an oak and call it alive just like we would call an infant an infant human and alive but not an adult. So, no, I wouldn't call a sprouted acorn an oak tree, but I certainly would say it's an oak and it's alive.
Sorry about missing the sprouting acorn part from before in your comments. I mean to address the issue with even a sprouted oak but forgot. The difference is in the nuance of tree having connotations of adulthood. We typically wouldn't call a sprouted acorn a tree because the word tree has connotations of maturity. I do think we could very rationally call it an oak and call it alive just like we would call an infant an infant human and alive but not an adult. So, no, I wouldn't call a sprouted acorn an oak tree, but I certainly would say it's an oak and it's alive.You seem to be breaking the definition of "living human" into two distinct parts. The "living" and the "human".
Thanks for the explanation. I believe I see how I was unclear and chose poorly in my wording. I would say this, there is absolutely nothing inarguable philosophically - that's kind of the point :-), but there are certain things that we are on pretty solid ground scientifically. Inarguable even on a scientific standpoint is probably a poor term because science tries to continually improve and learn, so even previous thought certainties can be deemed incorrect. So, inarguable or irrefutable were poor choices to begin with.
Hopefully, this will make my point clearer. To break down human life, human would mean of the species of homo sapien. It would seem hard to argue scientifically that an unborn child is not of our species. It would seem to me that by all scientific definitions of what life is that I have seen, an unborn human meets them all. It is growing, takes in energy, self repairing, etc. So, yes, science can answer the question of at which point human life begins - with the caveat that it can only do it scientifically in scientific terms - but it can answer it, if not inarguably :-), then at least on pretty solid ground.
What it means to be really human is also a philosophical question, and that's what is debatable and has been discussed in everything from science fiction books about programmed robots to any number of other things. Science cannot speak to this. This is what I was alluding to about what rationally be debated - whether or not an unborn human is a "worthwhile" life or of "what caliber" of human life it is, and so on. That's debatable because that's philosophy.
The reason this issue is so much on my mind is because I feel that when people argue against calling an unborn human - human life or when they are adamant in arguing against pro-lifers who say that abortion is ending a human life, it's because, ultimately, they want to distance themselves from unborn humans. They want to make them an "other." Not worthy or worthwhile - and history has shown it's much easier to do that when you try to dehumanize the person first. Numerous atrocities have occurred because a certain group of people have been made out to be "other than me," and, as I see it, unborn humans have been put into that category to make things easier. If the topic of abortion is discussed rationally and thought about, I can't fathom how it can't at least be a gut-wrenching decision on whichever side you come on. Pro-life people often do a poor job of empathizing with the mother. They tend to focus on consequences of having sex and all that, but I do know that I can only imagine how terrifying it must be to be in many situations that surround abortions. On the flip side, pro-choicers, in my view, often do a poor job of realizing the seriousness of the allowance that a mother can end a human life. It's treated with a cliche her body her choice, which is an oversimplification because of the very thing we're talking about. It's her body yes, but it's her body in that it's supporting another human life, distinct from her. I think the wording and avoiding the concept of the unborn human being an actual, real, human life is done to make it easier to wash one's hands of the seriousness of the issue.
On the flip side, pro-choicers, in my view, often do a poor job of realizing the seriousness of the allowance that a mother can end a human life. It's treated with a cliche her body her choice, which is an oversimplification because of the very thing we're talking about. It's her body yes, but it's her body in that it's supporting another human life, distinct from her. I think the wording and avoiding the concept of the unborn human being an actual, real, human life is done to make it easier to wash one's hands of the seriousness of the issue.
Sorry about missing the sprouting acorn part from before in your comments. I mean to address the issue with even a sprouted oak but forgot. The difference is in the nuance of tree having connotations of adulthood. We typically wouldn't call a sprouted acorn a tree because the word tree has connotations of maturity. I do think we could very rationally call it an oak and call it alive just like we would call an infant an infant human and alive but not an adult. So, no, I wouldn't call a sprouted acorn an oak tree, but I certainly would say it's an oak and it's alive.
There is at least some irony in you making the point above in the same comment that you call an embryo a child.
Sorry about missing the sprouting acorn part from before in your comments. I mean to address the issue with even a sprouted oak but forgot. The difference is in the nuance of tree having connotations of adulthood. We typically wouldn't call a sprouted acorn a tree because the word tree has connotations of maturity. I do think we could very rationally call it an oak and call it alive just like we would call an infant an infant human and alive but not an adult. So, no, I wouldn't call a sprouted acorn an oak tree, but I certainly would say it's an oak and it's alive.You seem to be breaking the definition of "living human" into two distinct parts. The "living" and the "human".
Thanks for the explanation. I believe I see how I was unclear and chose poorly in my wording. I would say this, there is absolutely nothing inarguable philosophically - that's kind of the point :-), but there are certain things that we are on pretty solid ground scientifically. Inarguable even on a scientific standpoint is probably a poor term because science tries to continually improve and learn, so even previous thought certainties can be deemed incorrect. So, inarguable or irrefutable were poor choices to begin with.
Hopefully, this will make my point clearer. To break down human life, human would mean of the species of homo sapien. It would seem hard to argue scientifically that an unborn child is not of our species. It would seem to me that by all scientific definitions of what life is that I have seen, an unborn human meets them all. It is growing, takes in energy, self repairing, etc. So, yes, science can answer the question of at which point human life begins - with the caveat that it can only do it scientifically in scientific terms - but it can answer it, if not inarguably :-), then at least on pretty solid ground.
What it means to be really human is also a philosophical question, and that's what is debatable and has been discussed in everything from science fiction books about programmed robots to any number of other things. Science cannot speak to this. This is what I was alluding to about what rationally be debated - whether or not an unborn human is a "worthwhile" life or of "what caliber" of human life it is, and so on. That's debatable because that's philosophy.
The reason this issue is so much on my mind is because I feel that when people argue against calling an unborn human - human life or when they are adamant in arguing against pro-lifers who say that abortion is ending a human life, it's because, ultimately, they want to distance themselves from unborn humans. They want to make them an "other." Not worthy or worthwhile - and history has shown it's much easier to do that when you try to dehumanize the person first. Numerous atrocities have occurred because a certain group of people have been made out to be "other than me," and, as I see it, unborn humans have been put into that category to make things easier. If the topic of abortion is discussed rationally and thought about, I can't fathom how it can't at least be a gut-wrenching decision on whichever side you come on. Pro-life people often do a poor job of empathizing with the mother. They tend to focus on consequences of having sex and all that, but I do know that I can only imagine how terrifying it must be to be in many situations that surround abortions. On the flip side, pro-choicers, in my view, often do a poor job of realizing the seriousness of the allowance that a mother can end a human life. It's treated with a cliche her body her choice, which is an oversimplification because of the very thing we're talking about. It's her body yes, but it's her body in that it's supporting another human life, distinct from her. I think the wording and avoiding the concept of the unborn human being an actual, real, human life is done to make it easier to wash one's hands of the seriousness of the issue.
I agree, "alive" has an arguably pretty clear definition most would agree on. So a sprouted acorn would definitely meet most people's definition of "alive" and so would a fetus I think.
So you are on pretty clear and solid ground with the "living" part I think.
Considering the "human" part you address the sprouted acorn analogy by stating "tree" has a certain connotation of maturity. So I would agree that a sprouted acorn would not normally be called an "oak tree" by many people.
On the other hand "human" also has certain connotations. Your suggestion that "human" simply means anything that has a complete set of distinct human DNA I think is an attempt to simply ignore the connotations the word has. I think it is disingenuous to consider the connotations of "tree" and ignore the connotations of "human" when convenient.
I don't know of anyone who would consider a severed hand a "human" yet it contains a complete set of human DNA. So why should a single cell of distinct human DNA be considered a "human"?
If you want accuracy of terms, particularly when talking in scientific terms as you seem to be suggesting people do, I think perhaps you should use the actual scientific terms already in use. Such words as zygote (a single cell of uniquely distinct human DNA), embryo (early multi-cell stage of uniquely distinct human DNA), and fetus (embryo that has reached the 11th week of gestation).
Further, I don't know of any pro-choice person on this board that has argued an "unborn human" is less worthy of rights or less "calibre" of a human or is not a "worthwhile" life. In fact many of specifically stated there is no reason at all to give any fewer rights to an "unborn human" or to treat them any differently. They have simply argued that the "unborn human" not be given any more rights, or be considered more worthy, or considered a higher calibre human than anyone else.
On the flip side, pro-choicers, in my view, often do a poor job of realizing the seriousness of the allowance that a mother can end a human life. It's treated with a cliche her body her choice, which is an oversimplification because of the very thing we're talking about. It's her body yes, but it's her body in that it's supporting another human life, distinct from her. I think the wording and avoiding the concept of the unborn human being an actual, real, human life is done to make it easier to wash one's hands of the seriousness of the issue.
A woman opting to have an abortion is the only "pro-choice" person who matter - right? Have you ever met any such woman who does not display any care or connection in the world for the fetus in her?
I think I mentioned upthread about a colleague who had to undergo late term partial birth abortion for her dead fetus - a "boy" for who she already had the nursery ready - and that she went into depression and dropped out of her (rather lucrative and very well-paying) career for 4-5 years. Is it your position that a random "pro-life" bible-thumping weirdo would empathize more with her dead fetus and should have more of a say on what medical procedure she may or may not be able to undergo?
I am sure psychopathic women exist, even those who can overcome their biological urges and feel no connection to the fetus they may be carrying. Is it your intention to use those examples to restrict the basic human rights of all women?
No sire! I don't think you are thinking this through. The lack of human empathy among the pro-life people is the ONLY real problem we are dealing with here!
It's true that there are other scientific terms that are specific for the process, but you're the one claiming I'm breaking it into two distinct parts - living and human, and you follow that up by using an analogy that separates the two in terms of a human hand not being a human because it's separated and not alive. The joining of the two together does have applicability in that analogy. You can describe the unborn as something else in specific terms. I don't have to say my child is a human; I can say my child is a preschooler. It's more specific but doesn't render the other part innacurate. There are certain connotations of human, yes, but I think it's reasonable to use the term human because it's pretty generically applied in other situations where other humans have limitations placed on them but are still labeled as human: infants that are totally dependent on people taking care of them, people with severe mental disabilities that can't walk, talk, or likely process much of anything at all, shoot even people in vegetative states are not denied the label of human. You may say I'm ignoring the connotations of human and being disingenuous. I think pro-choicers that want to argue against the unborn being declared as human are being disingenuous when pretty much every reason you can come up with (except that unborn are physically inside of someone else) as a reason why the unborn are not human is ignored in other situations.My apologies if I've misrepresented your viewpoint. However, you were the one who was stating from a scientific viewpoint a zygote is a "living human" because it is both active in the process of life and a complete and uniquely distinct set of human DNA. So it seemed to me you were clearly outlining the dual aspect of your own argument. I was agreeing that you seemed to be on very solid ground when it comes to living.
I don't think it's nearly as simple as what you're saying. We have a conflict of two rights. On the one hand, we have the right of the mother to not go through with the pregnancy. It's no small thing to go through pregnancy, and there are most certainly risks with it. However, there is a 100% chance of death for the unborn in this conflict of rights. So I don't think it's accurate to say that no one on this board is arguing that the unborn have less rights than other humans. Certainly, it's a unique issue, and as the important analogy has been made, there are parallels to being required to give someone a kidney, that come into play here. It's still not an open and shut case as you seem to say of pro-choice people just wanting the unborn to only have no more rights than other humans.Sure, it's not a simple question to answer, I totally agree with you there. Thought experiment to consider....do you believe someone should be able to legally force you to give medical treatment up to and including endangering your own life if they ever need it? If not, then you are suggesting an "unborn human" be given greater rights than that person who needs to legally force your compliance.
The very action of a woman aborting a viable life inside of them (when it is viable) for any number of reasons beyond the health and safety of the unborn or of herself is evidence enough to me that to at least some degree, women at times are placing their rights and preferences ahead of the unborn. At other times, they may think they're placing the unborn's welfare ahead (end their life because the mother can't take adequate care of them or whatnot), but that doesn't mean that their perspective is accurate and/or that the unborn if it wasn't aborted would agree with the mother's perspective when grown.I don't recall ever hearing of a woman who has waited until the "unborn human" inside them is viable before deciding to abort it based on either of your premises. I would think women who either simply want to place their own rights and preferences ahead of the "unborn human" or who can't take adequate care of them or "whatnot", make the decision to abort long, long before the "unborn human" is viable.
I see a couple people who appear to be arguing not in good faith (see sealioning) so I will refrain from commenting.
And yes, I would definitely make the claim that someone who is pro-life can show more empathy, at least at times, for the unborn than women who abort their unborn. The very action of a woman aborting a viable life inside of them (when it is viable) for any number of reasons beyond the health and safety of the unborn or of herself is evidence enough to me that to at least some degree, women at times are placing their rights and preferences ahead of the unborn. At other times, they may think they're placing the unborn's welfare ahead (end their life because the mother can't take adequate care of them or whatnot), but that doesn't mean that their perspective is accurate and/or that the unborn if it wasn't aborted would agree with the mother's perspective when grown.
The very action of a woman aborting a viable life inside of them (when it is viable) for any number of reasons beyond the health and safety of the unborn or of herself is evidence enough to me that to at least some degree, women at times are placing their rights and preferences ahead of the unborn. At other times, they may think they're placing the unborn's welfare ahead (end their life because the mother can't take adequate care of them or whatnot), but that doesn't mean that their perspective is accurate and/or that the unborn if it wasn't aborted would agree with the mother's perspective when grown.I don't recall ever hearing of a woman who has waited until the "unborn human" inside them is viable before deciding to abort it based on either of your premises. I would think women who either simply want to place their own rights and preferences ahead of the "unborn human" or who can't take adequate care of them or "whatnot", make the decision to abort long, long before the "unborn human" is viable.
Besides perhaps some extraordinarily rare cases of psychopathy, do you have any evidence of women choosing to abort a viable "unborn human" for such reasons and not due to valid concerns regarding the health and safety of either herself or of the "unborn human"?
And yes, I would definitely make the claim that someone who is pro-life can show more empathy, at least at times, for the unborn than women who abort their unborn. The very action of a woman aborting a viable life inside of them (when it is viable) for any number of reasons beyond the health and safety of the unborn or of herself is evidence enough to me that to at least some degree, women at times are placing their rights and preferences ahead of the unborn. At other times, they may think they're placing the unborn's welfare ahead (end their life because the mother can't take adequate care of them or whatnot), but that doesn't mean that their perspective is accurate and/or that the unborn if it wasn't aborted would agree with the mother's perspective when grown.
How do you know that the bolded portion happens at all?
Let me take the case of CT, which I am most familiar with. CT does not allow abortion past fetal viability, like a VAST majority of other states, "except where necessary to preserve a woman's life or health":
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/gestational-limit-abortions/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D
Other than the above very reasonable restriction, CT otherwise has very liberal abortion laws.
2018 live births: 36155 (https://portal.ct.gov/DPH/Health-Information-Systems--Reporting/Hisrhome/Vital-Statistics-Registration-Reports (https://portal.ct.gov/DPH/Health-Information-Systems--Reporting/Hisrhome/Vital-Statistics-Registration-Reports))
2018 abortions after 21 weeks: 89 (https://lozierinstitute.org/late-term-abortion-stats/)
In how many of these 89 cases, do you think, the doctors and nurses broke the law to abort a viable fetus just because, and a woman carried a fetus in her womb for months with all the related physical discomfort and then suddenly decided to kill it one fine morning?
So if I understand correctly, you are trying to use, e.g. 89 potentially extremely unfortunate cases in CT of women who likely suffered horribly, allege that there are doctors and nurses breaking state law that does not permit optional abortions past fetal viability, and use that to argue that "to at least some degree, women at times are placing their rights and preferences ahead of the unborn".
See, I did not put a single word in your mouth. I just used your own quotes, added real world data and statistics to explain the implications of what you posted here. Are you with me so far? Or is there some other data/statistic that indicates that there is an epidemic of illegal-in-most-states abortion of viable fetuses?
FWIW - I have heard absolutely zero concern among the wokest of the woke people about the limits on abortion of a viable fetus.
It's true that there are other scientific terms that are specific for the process, but you're the one claiming I'm breaking it into two distinct parts - living and human, and you follow that up by using an analogy that separates the two in terms of a human hand not being a human because it's separated and not alive. The joining of the two together does have applicability in that analogy. You can describe the unborn as something else in specific terms. I don't have to say my child is a human; I can say my child is a preschooler. It's more specific but doesn't render the other part innacurate. There are certain connotations of human, yes, but I think it's reasonable to use the term human because it's pretty generically applied in other situations where other humans have limitations placed on them but are still labeled as human: infants that are totally dependent on people taking care of them, people with severe mental disabilities that can't walk, talk, or likely process much of anything at all, shoot even people in vegetative states are not denied the label of human. You may say I'm ignoring the connotations of human and being disingenuous. I think pro-choicers that want to argue against the unborn being declared as human are being disingenuous when pretty much every reason you can come up with (except that unborn are physically inside of someone else) as a reason why the unborn are not human is ignored in other situations.My apologies if I've misrepresented your viewpoint. However, you were the one who was stating from a scientific viewpoint a zygote is a "living human" because it is both active in the process of life and a complete and uniquely distinct set of human DNA. So it seemed to me you were clearly outlining the dual aspect of your own argument. I was agreeing that you seemed to be on very solid ground when it comes to living.
My example of a severed hand was to make it clear that a complete and distinct set of human DNA is not sufficient on its own to qualify as the "human" part of your phrase. Even if a severed hand could be kept alive, it would never be referred to as a "living human" or even as a "human" simply because it is both active in the process of life and a complete and distinct set of human DNA. Human cells are regularly grown in labs now. They are both active in the process of life and a complete and distinct set of human DNA and no one refers to those cells as "living humans". So simply being alive and a complete and distinct set of human DNA is not a very solid basis for claiming the status of "living human" and is nowhere near as beyond debate as you claim.
So to get back to the acorn analogy. Yes "tree" has connotations and one might instead choose to call a sprouted acorn a sprout or a "living oak" or "seedling" or some such other word. However, just like your example of calling your child a preschooler not rendering the term human inaccurate, calling a sprouted acorn an oak tree is not inaccurate either. It is in fact an oak tree from the moment it sprouts. What stage of "tree" it is can be called many things such as sprout, seedling, sapling, etc but none of those terms make the nomenclature "tree" inaccurate.
"Human" also has connotations and if you want to negate one argument because of connotations, you should, if you wish to discuss in good faith at any rate, negate the other argument for the same reasons.Quote from: Wolfpack MustachianI don't think it's nearly as simple as what you're saying. We have a conflict of two rights. On the one hand, we have the right of the mother to not go through with the pregnancy. It's no small thing to go through pregnancy, and there are most certainly risks with it. However, there is a 100% chance of death for the unborn in this conflict of rights. So I don't think it's accurate to say that no one on this board is arguing that the unborn have less rights than other humans. Certainly, it's a unique issue, and as the important analogy has been made, there are parallels to being required to give someone a kidney, that come into play here. It's still not an open and shut case as you seem to say of pro-choice people just wanting the unborn to only have no more rights than other humans.Sure, it's not a simple question to answer, I totally agree with you there. Thought experiment to consider....do you believe someone should be able to legally force you to give medical treatment up to and including endangering your own life if they ever need it? If not, then you are suggesting an "unborn human" be given greater rights than that person who needs to legally force your compliance.
And yes, I would definitely make the claim that someone who is pro-life can show more empathy, at least at times, for the unborn than women who abort their unborn. The very action of a woman aborting a viable life inside of them (when it is viable) for any number of reasons beyond the health and safety of the unborn or of herself is evidence enough to me that to at least some degree, women at times are placing their rights and preferences ahead of the unborn. At other times, they may think they're placing the unborn's welfare ahead (end their life because the mother can't take adequate care of them or whatnot), but that doesn't mean that their perspective is accurate and/or that the unborn if it wasn't aborted would agree with the mother's perspective when grown.
How do you know that the bolded portion happens at all?
Let me take the case of CT, which I am most familiar with. CT does not allow abortion past fetal viability, like a VAST majority of other states, "except where necessary to preserve a woman's life or health":
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/gestational-limit-abortions/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D
Other than the above very reasonable restriction, CT otherwise has very liberal abortion laws.
2018 live births: 36155 (https://portal.ct.gov/DPH/Health-Information-Systems--Reporting/Hisrhome/Vital-Statistics-Registration-Reports (https://portal.ct.gov/DPH/Health-Information-Systems--Reporting/Hisrhome/Vital-Statistics-Registration-Reports))
2018 abortions after 21 weeks: 89 (https://lozierinstitute.org/late-term-abortion-stats/)
In how many of these 89 cases, do you think, the doctors and nurses broke the law to abort a viable fetus just because, and a woman carried a fetus in her womb for months with all the related physical discomfort and then suddenly decided to kill it one fine morning?
So if I understand correctly, you are trying to use, e.g. 89 potentially extremely unfortunate cases in CT of women who likely suffered horribly, allege that there are doctors and nurses breaking state law that does not permit optional abortions past fetal viability, and use that to argue that "to at least some degree, women at times are placing their rights and preferences ahead of the unborn".
See, I did not put a single word in your mouth. I just used your own quotes, added real world data and statistics to explain the implications of what you posted here. Are you with me so far? Or is there some other data/statistic that indicates that there is an epidemic of illegal-in-most-states abortion of viable fetuses?
FWIW - I have heard absolutely zero concern among the wokest of the woke people about the limits on abortion of a viable fetus.
As I mentioned above to PKFFW, this was entirely my fault with my incorrect usage of the term viability. If you'd like to respond to my post given my clarification of what I meant above, please do so.
Before we dive into the crux of your argument (and I see you are engaging in that in a very detailed manner with others already - so the additional value I can add in that topic is likely small), can we first define and clarify the domain of the problem?
We have (A) early term abortions, and (B) late term abortions.
Can we agree that #B, late term abortions deserve almost no remediation at this point - given how illegal it is past viability, how rare it is in general, and how extremely rare it is past viability. If the remedy being sought is instituting Gestational limits on abortion in the 6 states (Alaska, CO, NJ, NJ, NM, OR) + DC where it is alleged to still not be in effect - I doubt you are going to find any objections from anyone.
But that is NOT how (B) is used. It is used like MoseyingAlong did upthread (and you chimed in support) where such an extremely rare and mostly illegal event is used to imply a logically flawed general point, with zero concern shown for the suffering that the mother had to go through in probably all such instances. This is also part of the same context where the conservatives have a general tendency of using human suffering to further political points (=trolling of Sandy Hook parents, and active shooting survivor schoolchildren by sitting GOP lawmakers).
So can we please first agree that any use of (B) for political point scoring is at best ignorant, and at worst sociopathic? Given the massive scale of big-money conservative brainwashing institutions that train "pro-life" foot-soldiers, most conservative pro-life foot soldiers would likely be trained sociopaths who have been instructed at the art of ignoring human suffering and counter it by using disingenuous talking points - but we can treat any individual raising those points with the benefit of the doubt that they are merely ignorant.
Once we agree on this basic point that seems a slam dunk to me then we can have a discussion why and how you think a stranger would have more connection/claim/empathy for the unborn < 21weeks old, not viable fetus than the mother that is carrying it.
While we are trying to limit the domain of the discussion, we should also agree that there are linguistic and other implications of limiting the discussion to A. Terms like "baby", "child" etc. should be off limits. Such sociopathic usage of misleading terminology, imagery and such, with an aim to manipulate and emotionally harm vulnerable people going through a traumatic experience is quite a bit ways beyond "insulting" in my opinion compared to how you found my rather mile invectives in comparison, like "bible thumping weirdo".
You, on the other hand, have consistently attributed the worst intentions and worst impulses to others and even made assumptions of what other people have and have not actually physically done with people who are having a discussion.
If we're going to be technical, then you should really represent my points correctly. I chimed in support for MoseyAlong being able to represent their one specific situation without it being disregarded or from my perspective openly mocked. Some people have and do use the concept of late term abortion aggressively and inaccurately, but I saw nothing to illustrate that that post represented this.
which you would have realized if you hadn't already assumed the worst in me.Do you still think I am making assuming the worst of specific "you" after the clarification above that my aggressive behavior is not always aimed at specific "you", but also for the generic "pro-life" dude who may be someday reading through.
with decorum and the desire to evaluate other's perspectives and change my own as I feel is called for.Desire to evaluate other's perspectives is a great idea. Why do you think decorum is such a nice thing, however?
There is a massive amount of detail to unpack here - which is not surprising given you have some foundational assumptions that are different from mine. It will be very time consuming to address all of the places where miscommunication exists (and I can only speak for where I see I intended something and your understanding was something else. I am pretty certain there is an equal or more amount in the other direction.). But let me try at least the more important ones I see.
The technical points take less effort. So let me start with one and then I will hopefully ramble onto more substantive points later.You, on the other hand, have consistently attributed the worst intentions and worst impulses to others and even made assumptions of what other people have and have not actually physically done with people who are having a discussion.
A few months ago, when you and I had a couple of other "discussions", if you remember, I would almost always address questions like "do you think women are chattel" etc. directly to you. In this thread, if you notice, I have done that only one - in the instance of contemplating which organizations you may have donated to.
I use the "aggressive" behavior in this specific context to preempt what I have sometimes termed "arrogance of the religious". [FYI - In any modern workplace where you need to achieve things fast and under stress- it is an extremely useful tool to counter Dunning Kruger effect. Amazon empoloyees are nicknamed "Amaholes" in Seattle. Microsoft had a particularly toxic kind of aggressive workplace, that Nadella allegedly did a great job of amending positively while not losing the innovative spirit].
You did display what appeared to be instances of this "arrogance of the religious" in the earlier discussion. You have not in this thread (at least I have not seen any). Given this, the one instance where I have speculated which organizations you may have donated to was wrong on my part. A more "generic" aggressive posture towards "generic" pro-life people would not be amiss (given majority of then display this "arrogance of the religious"), but the specific targeting of "specific you" in this thread was inappropriate.
What is the "arrogance of the religious"? Simply, it is the assumption religious people carry that they are morally superior where it can be empirically demonstrated that is not the case. I will just cite one example: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/10/19/has-trump-caused-white-evangelicals-to-change-their-tune-on-morality/. A read through this data driven article will immediately show that the majority of evangelical Christians think the word "morality" means something that gives them political advantage. Any time you see a groupthink mindset in any ideological movement (even those that don't fashion themselves as "religion"), this specific type of "arrogance" arise. This is not meant to be a specific knock against Evangelical Christianity. Harriet Beecher Stowe was born < 40 minutes drive away from where I am, and she used her Evangelical Christianity to help cause massive degree of positive social change (while the Southern Baptist churches were playing a similar role to what Evangelicals play today).
I am quite curious about the other instance where you have taken a direct allegation seriously. When you say "To that point, I haven't brought it up as a reason for the government to intervene on abortions." - I am curious. I did not think of this to be controversial when I levelled this - what you definitely took to be a negative allegation. What else is the goal you seek? When the "pro-life" groups are not busy in their homophobic activities, all I see/hear them do is to influence different state legislature to game Roe v Wade, or roadside billboards to shame women. Both of these appear to be quite questionable activities to me.
If we're going to be technical, then you should really represent my points correctly. I chimed in support for MoseyAlong being able to represent their one specific situation without it being disregarded or from my perspective openly mocked. Some people have and do use the concept of late term abortion aggressively and inaccurately, but I saw nothing to illustrate that that post represented this.
There is a spectrum on which you can interpret what MoseyAlong posted. As a nurse it's unlikely he/she would not know that abortion after viability is prohibited in most states, that late term abortion is exceedingly rare (I posted numbers for CT from 2018 upthread), that in almost all such cases the reasons are likely some complications (too many things don't make sense otherwise. Why would doctors do something illegal? Why would the woman in question let it prolong her physical discomfort)? His/her speculation, in this instance, is curiously supportive of one particular stance that happens to agree with the pro-life orthodoxy, and happens to suppress the suffering of the women involved. It is possible his/her stance was not in bad faith, but I am not sure being mocked for it is so bad when compared to the suffering of the women involved in this situation who tend to not have any voice here.
And then, when you jumped in the debate, somehow you also missed these extremely pertinent facts. These facts are quite well known and easily verifiable. They frame the entire discussion in a completely different light. And yet, a second "pro-life" poster failed to mention any of them while supporting a post that use late term abortion in a misleading and callous manner - like is so common of the entire movement.
What do you think can explain that? Other than groupthink? It is much worse than it might appear to you at first. Notice how failing to dig up these pertinent facts makes you indirectly victimize the tiny number of women having late term abortion who are likely already suffering and are already stigmatized by every other pro-life politicians. Do you think perhaps some empathy towards these victimized women is warranted more than MoseyAlong's bruised sensibilities, especially when they suffered a lot more than hurt sensibilities?
-----------
You take exception to my use of the word "sociopathic". Firstly, it was not aimed at the specific you. If you want to see who it was aimed at, see this youtube video of big money at work to create pro-life sociopaths: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7y1tnf8Yw0
Please notice how they are brainwashed using imagery and rhetoric that constantly references late-term abortions, without ever giving voice to the women suffering here.
I am not a psychiatrist. But here is a list of symptoms from mayo clinic - https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/antisocial-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20353928. How many of these symptoms do you think the participants would check? Do you think they will perhaps show "Lack of empathy for others and lack of remorse about harming others" - especially w.r.t. any stupid woman who happens to require a partial birth abortion (they actually show a video of it in thier propaganda) of a dead fetus to save her own life? Or perhaps would they display "Failure to consider the negative consequences of behavior or learn from them"?
which you would have realized if you hadn't already assumed the worst in me.
Do you still think I am making assuming the worst of specific "you" after the clarification above that my aggressive behavior is not always aimed at specific "you", but also for the generic "pro-life" dude who may be someday reading through.
Am I incorrect assuming the things I do for the big-money-created pro-lifers like the ones in the youtube video above?
with decorum and the desire to evaluate other's perspectives and change my own as I feel is called for.
Desire to evaluate other's perspectives is a great idea. Why do you think decorum is such a nice thing, however?
Bernie have been railing against the Reganomics Supply-Side political orthodoxy for decades, with significant support from professional economists. He has been doing so with decorum, and with polite mannerisms. It however took a bull-in-china-shop Trump to break the grip of that orthodoxy partially. Thank god for many things, but in this context the fact that Trump was born and brought up in NYC is a godsend, else he would be a totally useless trust fund baby. I think there is a chance that in hindsight, his character might prove to be the perfect balance incompetence and "bull in china shop" mentality, with an added dose of p**y grabbing to boot. Any more competence and he would have toppled democracy on Jan-6th.
But I digress. Why do you (and this is the generic "you" - standing in for any random Southerner, or even Midwesterner) value "decorum" so much? Decorum almost always hides people's real opinions and hinders the second goal you mention - that "desire to evaluate other's perspectives" thingy.
>> That post was one person providing one anecdotal point that was informative as to their subjective experience on a situation that happened.
Someone tells us that late term abortions are horribly brutal and hence bad. The implication was quite clear, as was the absence of other pertinent information that would have highlighted the suffering of the party who is almost surely suffering the most in this case (as, in some of these cases of complication the fetus can likely not be saved in any case, and it depends on your viewpoint if and when the fetus can be ascribed personhood - so it is not a done deal).
I don't know. It seems like a parallel situation would be where a old guy walking his disabled dog is having a heart attack on the sidewalk, and someone else (=MoseyingAlong) seems blind to the heart attack patient but shows a lot of concern for the poor, disabled dog barking. The poor dog will almost certainly be put down if/when it reaches the shelter - most are. When that person is mocked for this, another bystander (=you) rush into his defense and continue acting all hoity-toity EVEN AFTER the primary medical situation is pointed out to him.
To me at least MoseyingAlong's bruised ego at being mocked seems to be of little relevance where we have a case of likely far bigger suffering being consistently ignored even after it is pointed out to you.
>> If I was a random pro-life dude who was someday reading through and I was in any way amenable to change, your aggressive discourse, you're assumptions that you know what I'm thinking, your attempts at lecturing would all make me much less likely to want to change my opinion.
Then this generic "you" would be declaring your own bruised ego to be more important than logic and truth. Of course, any random "you" have every right to do so, that is just not how I operate, and I have a low opinion of people who operate that way.
>>Just commenting because if you're the only one doing something like that, it might be worth considering why you're so willing to use it.
I don't remember using sociopathic outside the pro-life context (I may have - just forgot). Many/most (?)/almost-all(?) pro-life people, and certainly the trained foot soldiers display lack of empathy for the women involved. I don't see similar lack of empathy for the fetus involved from any "pro-choice" people in real life - else same label could have been used if an ideological component was added to their "pro-choice" position.
>>There's not a generic pro-life dude any more than there would be a generic pro-choice dude. We're all just people, and as soon as you can get that truth deep down inside you, you might be able to have better discussions.
There exists a set of high cardinality, of trained foot soldiers adept at parroting talking points (e.g. verbiage/imagery related to late term abortions), surgically inserted anecdotes etc. etc. etc.
Want proof? Just watch the youtube video I posted where they are being trained, and count how many times the canard of late term abortions pop up in any abortion discussion.
Lol, whatever dude. If you can't see your arrogance at your continued assumptions even in the face of it being proven wrong like the donation thing, of your high brow practice of hurling insults while demeaning discourse, of your pattern of lecturing someone who is already doing what you're lecturing them about then you'll probably never see it.
Discussion is about learning and being willing to grow. You've shown very little willingness to do either. I apologize quickly when someone points out I'm wrong for something. You double down or barely acknowledge your failures.
Not talking like a pompous jerk is not worrying about bruising someone's ego, it's about talking to them like they are not a child and you want to actually talk not score talking points with cheap insults or lecture them as if they're not already doing what you're saying they should do. You've proven you're not up for that in either case. All I can say is I hope you don't throw out cheap insults, lecture people like they're children, and make assumptions about what people are doing because you just know people who think like this do that, and if you do an are proven wrong, please for Pete's sake actually apologize.
You claim you're trying to set out a record for pro-life people who might come by here and look at this later on. I am a pro-life person. My opinion has been changed because of positive discourse from posters on here. As such, I have a bit more credentials on being a pro-life person going through this very discussion :-), and I'm telling you (anecdote of 1) that the way you're acting and continue to act is certainly not going to change hearts and minds if that's what you're going for.
You've shown no willingness to actually discuss what's wrong with your posts, I'm ending that part of the discussion from my end. Respond to this if you'd like, and I'll respond to posts you make about the actual topics I've brought up as long, again, until I get tired of defending myself from points I didn't make, getting lectured on things I'm already doing, or getting insulted.
I am just making sure another POV is presented, with sometimes some added entertainment for spice, for any onlooker.
Except abortion is NOT "simply removing" life support.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.
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.
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)
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.
First, I'll say, I still feel that tree is an imprecise analogy because, again, tree itself has connotations (I'll get into connotations for human down below) of maturity. It really is akin to the phrase adult in most people's minds, which is why it's not really getting to the heart of our discussion.You never did go into the connotations for the word human.
Warning: slightly graphic description of my experience.I apologise if my comment seemed to be trying to tell you that your experience was "wrong, not actually what [you] experienced or didn't matter because it's rare". I did not mean to dismiss your feelings about or experience of the incident. As I have posted previously, I did not comment on your feeling haunted or attempt to negate that feeling at all. Working in the emergency services I know that things can affect people in different ways and an incident that seems perfectly run of the mill to one person may have a severe impact on their colleague standing right next to them. So again, my sincere apologies for not being clearer and for giving the impression I was dismissing your personal feelings and experience of the incident.
@PKFFW Ortho cases can be amazingly bloody and brutal in their own way. But they don't bother me. When I started this job, amputations did. I've gotten used to them. (Side note: Anyone with diabetes, please do what you can to control it.)
Most of my nursing experience has been at Level 1 trauma centers and honestly, I enjoy the big traumas. Bloody, messy, running for hours. Even when the outcomes are poor, we tried. They don't haunt me.
Ectopic pregnancies. D&C after incomplete miscarriage/spontaneous abortion. Sad if the patient is sad but they don't haunt me.
That one abortion haunts me. After my first post in this thread, I had a couple more bad nights. And I wouldn't say I'm sensitive, in fact quite a few people would probably say I'm rather insensitive. But watching the docs inventory the body parts to make sure they got them all and then taking the "specimen" to pathology knowing there were babies in NICU who weighed less...yeah, that haunts me.
The case sounds like a "pro-life" scare story but it's simply what was. There was nothing wrong with the fetus that anyone knew of. This was second trimester, not full-term by any stretch. This was simply the patient's form of birth control. It was not my role to explore her options with her; just to confirm what her planned procedure was. The OB/GYN docs expressed quite a bit of frustration that she kept refusing other forms of birth control when they saw her in clinic. I don't know what was going on in her life or why she was deciding as she was. She may have had very logical reasons.
You wrote "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 I disagree with. Tearing a body apart and then inventorying it was just plain brutal. It would be brutal if done to an adult, if done to any animal.
I am just making sure another POV is presented, with sometimes some added entertainment for spice, for any onlooker.
Trolling and intentionally being a jerk won't result in the impact you're looking to see here being meaningful. That's the outcome I took away from what you are saying, along with seeing the clear arguing from bad faith.
If you in any way are serious about wanting "another POV presented" you should do some deep introspection about whether doing so in such a poor manner is actually resulting in what you want to see.
Entertainment is in the eye of the beholder, not the poster. You're not entertaining, you come across as someone intent on presenting a viewpoint in such a poor/trollish way I'm almost convinced your goal is presenting a strawman so bad people are compelled to believe the opposite is true.
You say "A woman opting to have an abortion is the only "pro-choice" person who matter - right?" Clearly that is not the case, as there are people who make laws that also matter if we're talking about restricting something. If the process was restricted, then more people would come into play. Your question is contingent on the decision of it not being restricted in any way already being decided.
We may empathize with them, may even bemoan the fact that we restrict their choice from doing so - we restrict a person from chasing down and beating a person who hurt their child into a pulp as a society although we can totally empathize with their desire to do so. The whole premise of laws is that we are restricting people who are in the situation from doing something because society deems it worthwhile in restricting them.Ah-huh. I see - mothers are like someone about to commit a crime ("beating a person"), minority report style, and hence all mothers now need to be put on trial and treated as a criminal.
The very action of a woman aborting aviablelife inside of them(when it is viable)for any number of reasons beyond the health and safety of the unborn or of herself is evidence enough to me that to at least some degree, women at times are placing their rights and preferences ahead of the unborn. At other times, they may think they're placing the unborn's welfare ahead (end their life because the mother can't take adequate care of them or whatnot), but that doesn't mean that their perspective is accurate and/or that the unborn if it wasn't aborted would agree with the mother's perspective when grown.
Wolfpack M. writes:QuoteYou say "A woman opting to have an abortion is the only "pro-choice" person who matter - right?" Clearly that is not the case, as there are people who make laws that also matter if we're talking about restricting something. If the process was restricted, then more people would come into play. Your question is contingent on the decision of it not being restricted in any way already being decided.
And why is he contemplating the future where the humanity (=ability to do as they please with their body) of all mothers is in question? Well, that is cleared up in the same post:QuoteWe may empathize with them, may even bemoan the fact that we restrict their choice from doing so - we restrict a person from chasing down and beating a person who hurt their child into a pulp as a society although we can totally empathize with their desire to do so. The whole premise of laws is that we are restricting people who are in the situation from doing something because society deems it worthwhile in restricting them.Ah-huh. I see - mothers are like someone about to commit a crime ("beating a person"), minority report style, and hence all mothers now need to be put on trial and treated as a criminal.
Further patriarchal nonsense follows where a woman needs to be judged as a criminal till proven innocent:QuoteThe very action of a woman aborting aviablelife inside of them(when it is viable)for any number of reasons beyond the health and safety of the unborn or of herself is evidence enough to me that to at least some degree, women at times are placing their rights and preferences ahead of the unborn. At other times, they may think they're placing the unborn's welfare ahead (end their life because the mother can't take adequate care of them or whatnot), but that doesn't mean that their perspective is accurate and/or that the unborn if it wasn't aborted would agree with the mother's perspective when grown.
(I took the liberty to cross out the words/phrases that he later explained was used in error).
Notice how I am using his own words and explaining the implications here. He thinks his "institutional morality" gives him the right to sit in judgement of the humanity of someone like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar). In the Terri Schiavo case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case), as heart-wrenching as that was and as much you feel for the position of the parents, even the red-state courts correctly decided that their mandate is limited to deciding custody and not wade into figuring out the humanity of the husband or the parents. And to think we have people who arrogate unto themselves the supposed "right" to judge the humanity of all mothers everywhere.
-------------------
Coming back to the problems with your post. If any passerby (or you) can't make up your mind if you want to allow a government or a patriarchy or a church or whatever institution-de-jure to sit in judgement of basic human freedoms of all mothers everywhere for no crime other than carrying a child (and likely having sex while woman - of course), then the issue is with the moral compass. It is frightening and flattering to see you speculate on my ability to influence anyone on this positively or negatively - but no, I don't have a messianic complex. If you happen to have this issue - where you are not sure if you have the right to sit in judgement of a woman undergoing birth complications and is at risk of losing her life - then I, or my posts, or any logical debates on the edges won't be able to help you. Sorry! This is a far deeper issue that has to come from your gut to make any sense whatever - else you will just rationalize away all contradictory evidence.
I don't see anywhere that Wolfpack Mustachian is "putting all mothers on trial" for a crime.How else do you restrict someone's bodily autonomy without putting them in trial? If you want to put someone in jail - you need a trial. If you want to restrict someone from doing something to her body against her consent - that looks like a valid analogy to me.
I don't see anywhere that Wolfpack Mustachian is "putting all mothers on trial" for a crime. He clearly believes abortion is wrong (as I do) but I don't see him accusing all women or all mothers of that crime.I almost agree with you - but would shy away from using the word "wrong". Abortion is clearly a major failure somewhere, and something that makes me want to pray even though I have never been religious, don't believe in a personal god that Christians do, and was not brought up in a religious household. I just don't arrogate unto myself the right to try to assign blame for that failure on the parties involved, however - because the failure could be in many places and the parties involved (definitely the mother and sometimes even the dad) are usually (i.e. the norm, with some exceptions) intensely suffering.
You are saying that we as a society don't have the right to judge whether it's OK for a woman to have an abortion. It's her body, her choice, her ethics and we (society) don't have the right to say if her choice is right or wrong.
By that same logic, how can we have any laws? How can we judge a robber, rapist, terrorist, mass murderer, drunk driver, speeder, etc. Those are all individual decisions that someone makes. How can we impose our morality on that person? Logically, we can either impose our morality on others (as a society) or we can't punish ANY crime. If we say we can punish crimes, then we are back to judging the morality of an action. That's something we (as a society) have done in many instances, not just abortion. If we stop, we will have no punishments and the strong will just take what they want from the weak. This doesn't mean that society has to say abortion is wrong. It's just saying that if we have any laws, we are implying that society has the right to determine some standard of right and wrong. That applies to everything from speeding to abortion, rape, murder etc.First, change the focus from abortion to the step before.
You have said that pro-life people judge others for "having sex while woman". It's definitely true that many pro-life people believe sex outside of marriage is wrong. It's NOT true (in general) that they think it's OK for men to have sex outside of marriage and wrong for women.
It's definitely true that many pro-life people believe sex outside of marriage is wrong. It's NOT true (in general) that they think it's OK for men to have sex outside of marriage and wrong for women. For the vast majority of pro-life people, the physical consequences might be different (women are ones who get pregnant and could be more likely to get STD's) but the morality isn't any different.
It's definitely true that many pro-life people believe sex outside of marriage is wrong. It's NOT true (in general) that they think it's OK for men to have sex outside of marriage and wrong for women. For the vast majority of pro-life people, the physical consequences might be different (women are ones who get pregnant and could be more likely to get STD's) but the morality isn't any different.
I'm not sure that this is a valid point.
Sex outside of marriage by men vs women is treated very differently by all of our society.
While I've heard many verbal platitudes spoken about sex/marriage by religious folks who also back the pro-life cause, there's little data I've been able to find to support any difference regarding actions taken regarding sex between pro-life and pro-choice people. Quite a few politicians with a hard pro-life stand have secretly ordered abortions. Scott Lloyd, Elliot Broidy, Tim Murphy, and Scott DesJarlais all come to mind . . . and there are dozens if not hundreds of pro-life politicians who have had extramarital affairs. My point is not to accuse these people of anything, but to point out that extramarital affairs seem to be a strong human desire for a large portion of the population - regardless of political/religious affiliation or stance on abortion.
A large amount of objection to abortion is religious based. There seems to be little correlation between extramarital sex and religion:
(https://ifstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/wright-5.png)
(https://ifstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/wright-2.png)
Interestingly enough, agnostics seem to have the lowest rates of extramarital sex and atheists the highest:
(https://ifstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/wright-4.png) The religious are somewhere in between these two groups.
Folks can debate when life starts and the morality of abortion as much as they want, but it's not really relevant to the actual outcomes of how many women get abortions.
It's entirely rational to be anti-abortion and pro legal abortion because the stats show to a STARTLING degree that areas with the most liberal abortion laws have the lowest rate of abortion.
Prohibition has never worked, regardless of the ostensible moral positions behind it.
So truly pro-life people would do best to support practical laws, which are proven to dramatically lower the number of terminated pregnancies, because making it illegal has been shown again, and again, and again, and again to result in increased abortions.
I, for one, am staunchly anti-alcohol, but I would never ever promote prohibition. I do think that there should be stricter laws on marketing and media portrayal of alcohol, especially to minors, the same way there is with cigarettes. I too would like a world with fewer abortions, I just know, factually, that making reproductive education and healthcare *more* accessible, including abortion, is the best way to accomplish that that we know of so far.
So, rather ironically, the policies that would best suit the side that wants to protect a women's right to protect her bodily autonomy, and the side that wants to prevent as many abortions happening as possible are the SAME policies.
Most marriages start with a promise to be monogamous and many of those promises aren't kept. No religion is immune to this. I would argue that it doesn't matter to this discussion because what's right is still right. It just shows that none of us is perfect and we can all fail. In some cases, those who have set themselves up as religious leaders have more to lose and will go to greater lengths to hide their faults. That is why I'm glad my faith is in a perfect God and not in any human(s).
I don't see anywhere that Wolfpack Mustachian is "putting all mothers on trial" for a crime.How else do you restrict someone's bodily autonomy without putting them in trial? If you want to put someone in jail - you need a trial. If you want to restrict someone from doing something to her body against her consent - that looks like a valid analogy to me.
I clearly quoted where Wolfpack Mustachian talks about restrictions etc in response to my "the only pro-choice person who matters is the mother - right?" question.
Second, Abortion happens, i.e. the woman removes a part of her body.
That part - the fetus does not survive as our technology has not developed sufficiently to let it grow ex-utero.
Is that a crime? For who? The mother? Why? And please think/respond from a legal point of view here - not moral, because I suspect your answer to this from a moral point of view is something I will probably agree with 90% of the way - and is totally irrelevant for this situation.
You have said that pro-life people judge others for "having sex while woman". It's definitely true that many pro-life people believe sex outside of marriage is wrong. It's NOT true (in general) that they think it's OK for men to have sex outside of marriage and wrong for women.
You just need to go back a few posts to see Wolfpack Mustachian arguing that the fetus has "more rights" because it was put in this position of losing it's life due to an act (=sex) by the mother. He was using the logic couched in a way as to make it seem logical - the implications however, are scary.
Note that it is never the man's fault in this situation!
Most marriages start with a promise to be monogamous and many of those promises aren't kept. No religion is immune to this. I would argue that it doesn't matter to this discussion because what's right is still right. It just shows that none of us is perfect and we can all fail. In some cases, those who have set themselves up as religious leaders have more to lose and will go to greater lengths to hide their faults. That is why I'm glad my faith is in a perfect God and not in any human(s).
I think that this point does matter to the discussion . . . and that's why it was earlier mentioned in the post I responded to. The idea that religious people are more likely to do the right thing, and that irreligious people will do the wrong thing is a flawed concept that doesn't appear to be borne out in the data.
If none of us are perfect and we can all fail - regardless of religious status, then we need to stop with the idea that religious status has any real 'moralizing' impact on the lives of it's followers. There's no need for abstract mental concepts of perfection that can never be lived up to if one is capable of self-reflection, empathy, and logical thinking.
( Said as an agnostic who is vehemently against extramarital affairs - for purely non-religious moral reasons. )
I'm restricted from speeding without being put on trial. I'm only put on trial if there is a law in place that I violate.
From a legal point of view, it's not crime currently. If the law was changed, it could be a crime for the mother and/or father and doctor. The same type of standards would apply as an accomplice in a robbery or murder. The only way the law would be changed is if society as a whole decided that abortion isn't moral. That's how we typically get our laws.We already have some laws that make abortion after viability illegal - in 44 out of 50 states. I would be happy to pledge to contribute $100 if you know of any effort to extend laws similar to this based on templates from the more liberal states like CT/NY/MA/CA etc to the six missing states (which allegedly includes the red state of Alaska).
I won't try to say for sure what Wolfpack Mustachian meant. I'm just saying that I (and I believe most pro-life people) would say the mother and father are equally "at fault" for the unwanted pregnancy (except for rape of course). However, the mother is frequently the focus because it's her decision whether to have an abortion and she is typically affected more by the decision. Whether the father meant to have a pregnancy is immaterial if the mother is making the decision on her own.
Because the standard for right and wrong comes from God
At the risk of derailing the abortion derailment . . .Because the standard for right and wrong comes from God
While I disagree with many of the other points of your faith (in my view there's absolutely no need for a God to love and accept a person, true love and acceptance can only come from within), I only really take issue with this one. Two immediate objections spring to mind, the first being the most concerning to me.
If the standard for right and wrong comes from a God, then it would seem to be impossible for a person who doesn't believe in that God or follow that particular faith to live a moral life. If we take the biggest religion in the world (Christianity), only 30% of people practice that faith - leaving about 70% of the world incapable of really being moral.
Next, if the standard for right and wrong comes from a God, then how does one resolve complex issues that are not actually covered in the ancient religious tomes and teachings that define the religion? The first example that springs to mind would be intellectual property rights - the bible doesn't cover this case as they were largely invented in the last couple hundred years. IP infringement is not at all similar to stealing. In biblical terms, large portions of the Old Testament were IP infringements from ancient Sumerian writings - so I think a strong case could be made that IP infringement is tacitly supported by Christianity. It would seem impossible to get any clear answer without a level of interpretation that allows for whatever answer a person wants to find. This is all very unconvincing when pitted against the twin stars of empathy and logic as a guide for morality.
I've attended a great number of different Christian churches for a sizable chunk of my life, and certainly take no offense at your comments - they are part and parcel of the way Christians are told to think. I hope however, that I can bring to light some reasons others might find the dismissive and absolutist style of thought mildly abrasive (if not entirely absurd) though.
I'm restricted from speeding without being put on trial. I'm only put on trial if there is a law in place that I violate.
Does speeding sound similar to getting your appendix removed? Are you ever, under any condition, restricted from removing your appendix assuming it can endanger your life? How about some surgery for extreme cirrhosis that you yourself caused by some reason? Retroviral treatment for AIDS perhaps?
Besides, nobody granted you a fundamental right to drive on roads owned by the society. You choose to drive on it by accepting the responsibilities placed on you by the society. By all means please create a private arena/field/land (subject to appropriate zoning and permitting laws etc) and speed there F1 style and I am not sure enyone would mind.
If this comparison did not come from you (who, after many interactions, I do konw as someone who does not argue in bad faith) I would have suspected lack of sincerity here. Are you seriously not able to see the difference between different types of curtailment of freedoms here? To me right to life (=capital punishment) > right to bodily autonomy (=being jailed, right to medical procedure is never restricted to my knowledge) > right to property (=taxes, eminent domain, civil asset forfeiture) etc. AFAIK, the present day civil/criminal law holds such a semblance of hierarchy in a roundabout way. e.g. you may be prosecuted for a crime, not be jailed if the evidence did not meet the standards required - and yet be held liable for property forfeiture in civil/tort lawsuit.
At the risk of derailing the abortion derailment . . .Because the standard for right and wrong comes from God
While I disagree with many of the other points of your faith (in my view there's absolutely no need for a God to love and accept a person, true love and acceptance can only come from within), I only really take issue with this one. Two immediate objections spring to mind, the first being the most concerning to me.
If the standard for right and wrong comes from a God, then it would seem to be impossible for a person who doesn't believe in that God or follow that particular faith to live a moral life. If we take the biggest religion in the world (Christianity), only 30% of people practice that faith - leaving about 70% of the world incapable of really being moral.
Next, if the standard for right and wrong comes from a God, then how does one resolve complex issues that are not actually covered in the ancient religious tomes and teachings that define the religion? The first example that springs to mind would be intellectual property rights - the bible doesn't cover this case as they were largely invented in the last couple hundred years. IP infringement is not at all similar to stealing. In biblical terms, large portions of the Old Testament were IP infringements from ancient Sumerian writings - so I think a strong case could be made that IP infringement is tacitly supported by Christianity. It would seem impossible to get any clear answer without a level of interpretation that allows for whatever answer a person wants to find. This is all very unconvincing when pitted against the twin stars of empathy and logic as a guide for morality.
I've attended a great number of different Christian churches for a sizable chunk of my life, and certainly take no offense at your comments - they are part and parcel of the way Christians are told to think. I hope however, that I can bring to light some reasons others might find the dismissive and absolutist style of thought mildly abrasive (if not entirely absurd) though.
That, and different religions, different denominations, different organizations, and different religious leaders all have different takes on what "God" thinks.
The only thing someone can say about it is "my particular version of faith includes a reality where God holds this opinion", but that particular set of beliefs is a choice.
At the risk of derailing the abortion derailment . . .Because the standard for right and wrong comes from God
While I disagree with many of the other points of your faith (in my view there's absolutely no need for a God to love and accept a person, true love and acceptance can only come from within), I only really take issue with this one. Two immediate objections spring to mind, the first being the most concerning to me.
If the standard for right and wrong comes from a God, then it would seem to be impossible for a person who doesn't believe in that God or follow that particular faith to live a moral life. If we take the biggest religion in the world (Christianity), only 30% of people practice that faith - leaving about 70% of the world incapable of really being moral.
Next, if the standard for right and wrong comes from a God, then how does one resolve complex issues that are not actually covered in the ancient religious tomes and teachings that define the religion? The first example that springs to mind would be intellectual property rights - the bible doesn't cover this case as they were largely invented in the last couple hundred years. IP infringement is not at all similar to stealing. In biblical terms, large portions of the Old Testament were IP infringements from ancient Sumerian writings - so I think a strong case could be made that IP infringement is tacitly supported by Christianity. It would seem impossible to get any clear answer without a level of interpretation that allows for whatever answer a person wants to find. This is all very unconvincing when pitted against the twin stars of empathy and logic as a guide for morality.
Yes, pretty much all of our society tends to look at sex outside of marriage differently between men and women. The difference between how a "stud" and "slut" is perceived is dramatic (by Christians, Atheists, or pretty much any group). However, most Christians would view the "morality" the same regardless of gender. I personally think the difference in perception is unfortunate and unfair.What's the old saying? "The truth is in the pudding". Appearances can be deceiving, the truth is only found when you eat the pudding.
You are right that speeding and abortion are very different. My point was not the similarity of the acts (or the freedom involved), it was that the trial takes place after the illegal act. So, it's not accurate to say someone would be put on trial for abortion simply for being a woman (since in many cases they haven't had an abortion)
I believe that 0% of the world is capable of really being moral. As pointed out above, there are many instances of Christians (or any other group) doing things that most of us would consider immoral. I know I try to live the right way but I fail frequently. That's why Jesus died on the cross. He took the punishment for my sins because I can't do it myself.
First, I'd like to apologize to you (and you only) for posting some uncharitable interpretations of your story with zero actual proof it was posted in bad faith. I hope you can recognize the constant bad faith abuse of rare "late term abortions" by pro-life people with an aim to take away basic human rights from women who are already suffering, and why that would leave someone like me a little jittery and trigger happy at times.
I have some questions, however. Please clarify if you feel like it.
Abortion after viability is already prohibited in 44 of 50 states. Was it a different state than the 44 where it is prohibited (NJ, NH, Alaska, CO etc. - and a couple of others)? I happen to have delved into this topic in the context of two separate states - CT and PA. In both of these, in theory, you should not be allowed to get an abortion after the fetus is viable (typically after 24 weeks) unless there are some complications. Or is it that such laws are routinely flouted even in the states where it is prohibited?
As staunchly pro-choice as I am, I don't think abortion of a viable fetus is justified for "birth control". If such gaps exist and are widely abused, perhaps that represents a scope for a joint effort by pro-choice and pro-life people to close it and save some lives.
The data that I can dig up tells me that such late term procedures are extremely rare. In CT, in 2018, 88 late term (i.e. > 21 weeks) abortions compared to 36000+ live births. My reaction to the numbers is "88 unfortunate women who got horrible complications". Am I missing anything big in the data that you can clarify from the vantage point as a healthcare worker (which I am not).
From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.
If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.
Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.
Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.
Practicing one’s religion is one thing. Trying to impose it on someone else is another.
You practice your religion. That in no way should affect my decisions.
From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.
If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.
Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.
Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.
Practicing one’s religion is one thing. Trying to impose it on someone else is another.
You practice your religion. That in no way should affect my decisions.
Several people have espoused this point, but yours has been the most succinct.
If you would, can you please tell me what the difference is to you between someone being motivated by their religion to pass something into law restricting it, and someone being motivated by their conscious or whatnot to pass a different law restricting something? This is assuming we're not talking about imposing someone's religion in terms of dictating that they come to church on Sunday morning and worship but instead that they are guided by ethics that come from a religious standpoint to see something as immoral whereas others would be guided by their conscious/upbringing/whatever else to see something else is immoral or to disagree about morality. If you would prefer to not answer and/or others would, that's great. I'm just curious as to the line of reasoning.
From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.
If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.
Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.
Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.
Practicing one’s religion is one thing. Trying to impose it on someone else is another.
You practice your religion. That in no way should affect my decisions.
Several people have espoused this point, but yours has been the most succinct.
If you would, can you please tell me what the difference is to you between someone being motivated by their religion to pass something into law restricting it, and someone being motivated by their conscious or whatnot to pass a different law restricting something? This is assuming we're not talking about imposing someone's religion in terms of dictating that they come to church on Sunday morning and worship but instead that they are guided by ethics that come from a religious standpoint to see something as immoral whereas others would be guided by their conscious/upbringing/whatever else to see something else is immoral or to disagree about morality. If you would prefer to not answer and/or others would, that's great. I'm just curious as to the line of reasoning.
The “life begins at conception” idea is not supported by science. It is supported by a religion (recent right-leaning Christianity).
Your (general sense) belief in this should not impact my decision. Or my body.
From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.
If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.
Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.
Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.
Practicing one’s religion is one thing. Trying to impose it on someone else is another.
You practice your religion. That in no way should affect my decisions.
Several people have espoused this point, but yours has been the most succinct.
If you would, can you please tell me what the difference is to you between someone being motivated by their religion to pass something into law restricting it, and someone being motivated by their conscious or whatnot to pass a different law restricting something? This is assuming we're not talking about imposing someone's religion in terms of dictating that they come to church on Sunday morning and worship but instead that they are guided by ethics that come from a religious standpoint to see something as immoral whereas others would be guided by their conscious/upbringing/whatever else to see something else is immoral or to disagree about morality. If you would prefer to not answer and/or others would, that's great. I'm just curious as to the line of reasoning.
The “life begins at conception” idea is not supported by science. It is supported by a religion (recent right-leaning Christianity).
Your (general sense) belief in this should not impact my decision. Or my body.
From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.
If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.
Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.
Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.
Practicing one’s religion is one thing. Trying to impose it on someone else is another.
You practice your religion. That in no way should affect my decisions.
Several people have espoused this point, but yours has been the most succinct.
If you would, can you please tell me what the difference is to you between someone being motivated by their religion to pass something into law restricting it, and someone being motivated by their conscious or whatnot to pass a different law restricting something? This is assuming we're not talking about imposing someone's religion in terms of dictating that they come to church on Sunday morning and worship but instead that they are guided by ethics that come from a religious standpoint to see something as immoral whereas others would be guided by their conscious/upbringing/whatever else to see something else is immoral or to disagree about morality. If you would prefer to not answer and/or others would, that's great. I'm just curious as to the line of reasoning.
The “life begins at conception” idea is not supported by science. It is supported by a religion (recent right-leaning Christianity).
Your (general sense) belief in this should not impact my decision. Or my body.
I guess what I'm getting at is, there's a lot of things science doesn't support one way or the other. Pretty much every ethical issue science doesn't really support. It doesn't support that theft is bad or someone doesn't have the right to impose their will on someone else. That's where ethics come in, and aren't all of our ethics guided by something one way or the other? I've always had a hard time seeing the distinction between an ethical point guided by religion and an ethical point guided by, well, not religion.
First, I'll say, I still feel that tree is an imprecise analogy because, again, tree itself has connotations (I'll get into connotations for human down below) of maturity. It really is akin to the phrase adult in most people's minds, which is why it's not really getting to the heart of our discussion.You never did go into the connotations for the word human.
Before you do, I'll try to make myself more clear and I'll dispense with the severed hand analogy.
The word "human" has connotations. If I say the word "human" to you I doubt very very very much the image that comes to your mind is a single cell organism wholly dependent upon some form of life support to remain alive. I would lay any odds you care to name that if you are honest you will admit that the image that comes to mind is that of something that at least resembles a developed body and perhaps with some form of consciousness/awareness/personality (whether intact and undamaged or not....for example a "human" who is in a vegetative state). Maybe two arms, two legs, a head, body, smiling face, etc etc. That's because the word "human" has connotations.
So I will agree with you that the sprouted acorn is a flawed analogy because the word "tree" comes with connotations. I'm willing to toss that analogy out the window because "connotations".
In doing so however, I also expect you to be consistent and admit that the word human has connotations. Therefore you should, if you want to be consistent and discuss in good faith, admit that describing a single cell organism as a "living human" has connotations as well and is a deliberate attempt to describe something in way that is not accurate at all when considering the "connotations" that come with the description.
From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.
If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.
Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.
Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.
Practicing one’s religion is one thing. Trying to impose it on someone else is another.
You practice your religion. That in no way should affect my decisions.
Several people have espoused this point, but yours has been the most succinct.
If you would, can you please tell me what the difference is to you between someone being motivated by their religion to pass something into law restricting it, and someone being motivated by their conscious or whatnot to pass a different law restricting something? This is assuming we're not talking about imposing someone's religion in terms of dictating that they come to church on Sunday morning and worship but instead that they are guided by ethics that come from a religious standpoint to see something as immoral whereas others would be guided by their conscious/upbringing/whatever else to see something else is immoral or to disagree about morality. If you would prefer to not answer and/or others would, that's great. I'm just curious as to the line of reasoning.
The “life begins at conception” idea is not supported by science. It is supported by a religion (recent right-leaning Christianity).
Your (general sense) belief in this should not impact my decision. Or my body.
I guess what I'm getting at is, there's a lot of things science doesn't support one way or the other. Pretty much every ethical issue science doesn't really support. It doesn't support that theft is bad or someone doesn't have the right to impose their will on someone else. That's where ethics come in, and aren't all of our ethics guided by something one way or the other? I've always had a hard time seeing the distinction between an ethical point guided by religion and an ethical point guided by, well, not religion.
Not every issue claims to have a scientific basis, though.
Ethics are guided by something, yes. But we have separation of church and state. So no, ethical points almost exclusively guided by one person or group’s religion are not valid.
The “life begins at conception” idea is not supported by science. It is supported by a religion (recent right-leaning Christianity).One of the easiest ways to define when life begins is when the cells start dividing on their own. An unfertilized egg doesn't divide on its own and turn into a new life, no matter how much time, no matter the conditions, no matter anything at all. Same for sperm. Never will sperm alone turn into a person. However, fertilize an egg with sperm and it starts dividing, right away starting the chain reaction that is life. That is irrefutable science. No human being but Jesus Christ (or no one ever, if you don't believe in Jesus) comes from an unfertilized egg, and no fertilized egg turns into an elbow, or a liver, or a 3rd arm, or anything like that. They turn into people. That's science.
The “life begins at conception” idea is not supported by science. It is supported by a religion (recent right-leaning Christianity).One of the easiest ways to define when life begins is when the cells start dividing on their own. An unfertilized egg doesn't divide on its own and turn into a new life, no matter how much time, no matter the conditions, no matter anything at all. Same for sperm. Never will sperm alone turn into a person. However, fertilize an egg with sperm and it starts dividing, right away starting the chain reaction that is life. That is irrefutable science. No human being but Jesus Christ (or no one ever, if you don't believe in Jesus) comes from an unfertilized egg, and no fertilized egg turns into an elbow, or a liver, or a 3rd arm, or anything like that. They turn into people. That's science.
That's a good point. I would disagree with it because of a few of things. One is, an issue I wasn't able to articulate until I thought about it, is that the analogy is adding the term tree onto oak. Oak is a good tie-in to human. Tree by definition is added separately, so it truly is as if you are saying adult human or human child - it's an additional adjective. That's the biggest reason, I would say, why that analogy doesn't work, and it doesn't really rely on connotation - it relies on the fact that you're literally treating one word "oak" differently from the other word, "human" because you're adding something in one instance but not in the other.Ok, I acquiesce to that point. Oak is equivalent to human and tree is an additional adjective. So I guess an acorn is the same as an oak.
Those are not my main concern though. Overall, I would agree that yes, the word human definitely does have connotations. My first point is that we don't need to use connotations - it meets the definitions of human and life. There are connotations for a crap ton of things that may or may not apply to the conversation. I can say, I believe (because of what I've mentioned before about the words human life and because of other stuff I've thought of that differentiate this with the severed hand analogy that we can get into if you'd like) that human life in a fairly context-free situation fits unborn.I don't know whether to reply to this or not.
Second, you call out that there is the context for the word human. I don't disagree with this, but I very glad you brought up your examples, because it's a perfect illustration of the problems of connotation! You say "I would lay any odds you care to name that if you are honest you will admit that the image that comes to mind is that of something that at least resembles a developed body and perhaps with some form of consciousness/awareness/personality. Maybe two arms, two legs, a head, body, smiling face, etc etc. That's because the word "human" has connotations." Yes! You're absolutely right. The general human connotation does probably engender an average dude, 2 arms, 2 legs, a head, body, smiling, etc. But that's kind of my whole point. In any other context, connotations like that would be rightfully frowned upon; I mean, right? 2 arms, 2 legs, etc. aren't required to be a human. What about awareness or personality? Are we declaring people with severe mental disabilities as not human because a lack of some of this other "connotation" of being human? The connotation doesn't make the point. In other situations, it may not be as distasteful as labeling of someone as not a human who is disfigured or whatever; it may be simply a connotation of awareness/personality when someone is in a vegetative state. In that point, again, I doubt if push came to shove, people would say that they were not human because of it.
You've said that you feel like I need to take context into account in discussing in good faith. I feel like that is a very poor argument literally because of the very examples you gave. Yes, I am insisting on declaring the unborn human life because the connotations are crap. Best case, they are poorly thought out (thinking of a human in terms of their consciousness when most people would still call a human in a vegetative state as human); worst case it's really a very disturbing and repugnant connotation to take (2 arms, 2 legs, a certain level of consciousness/intellect). As I've mentioned before, these "connotations" and following through with the dehumanizing nature of them have lead to discrimination and loathsome behaviors.
I think it's in completely good faith to insist on calling unborn human life because it's very easy to defend calling the unborn that in a contextless environment with base definitions and yes, at least some scientific backing. So it's easy to defend it without context, and with context, well, that context is worthy of being disputed and fought against. There are a ton of things about the unborn that go aginst the connotations of humans that most people have, but those connotations range from: at best a simplistic check box because we don't need to think fully through the word human every time we use it to at worst, inappropriate biases that lead us to look down on others who are different from us, of which I would include the unborn in that category.Perhaps if you wanted to label a single celled organism "living human DNA" or something like that there could be meaning terms of reference for a discussion. If you insist a single celled organism is an "unborn human life" and accuse anyone who disagrees as simply trying to distance themselves from reality there isn't any ground for rational discussion as far as I can see.
One of the easiest ways to define when life begins is when the cells start dividing on their own. An unfertilized egg doesn't divide on its own and turn into a new life, no matter how much time, no matter the conditions, no matter anything at all. Same for sperm. Never will sperm alone turn into a person. However, fertilize an egg with sperm and it starts dividing, right away starting the chain reaction that is life. That is irrefutable science. No human being but Jesus Christ (or no one ever, if you don't believe in Jesus) comes from an unfertilized egg, and no fertilized egg turns into an elbow, or a liver, or a 3rd arm, or anything like that. They turn into people. That's science.Actually conservative estimates would suggest approximately half of fertilised eggs do not turn into people, they turn into dead clumps of cells some days or weeks later. The number is probably significantly higher. And note, that's from natural causes, not from abortions. That's science.
The “life begins at conception” idea is not supported by science. It is supported by a religion (recent right-leaning Christianity).One of the easiest ways to define when life begins is when the cells start dividing on their own. An unfertilized egg doesn't divide on its own and turn into a new life, no matter how much time, no matter the conditions, no matter anything at all. Same for sperm. Never will sperm alone turn into a person. However, fertilize an egg with sperm and it starts dividing, right away starting the chain reaction that is life. That is irrefutable science. No human being but Jesus Christ (or no one ever, if you don't believe in Jesus) comes from an unfertilized egg, and no fertilized egg turns into an elbow, or a liver, or a 3rd arm, or anything like that. They turn into people. That's science.
If we could set religion aside for just a minute I think we can all agree, no matter what your religion, that Jesus Christ is our lord and savior, and is the only human/god/ghost that came from an underutilized egg. That’s just science.
From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.
If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.
Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.
Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.
Practicing one’s religion is one thing. Trying to impose it on someone else is another.
You practice your religion. That in no way should affect my decisions.
Several people have espoused this point, but yours has been the most succinct.
If you would, can you please tell me what the difference is to you between someone being motivated by their religion to pass something into law restricting it, and someone being motivated by their conscious or whatnot to pass a different law restricting something? This is assuming we're not talking about imposing someone's religion in terms of dictating that they come to church on Sunday morning and worship but instead that they are guided by ethics that come from a religious standpoint to see something as immoral whereas others would be guided by their conscious/upbringing/whatever else to see something else is immoral or to disagree about morality. If you would prefer to not answer and/or others would, that's great. I'm just curious as to the line of reasoning.
The “life begins at conception” idea is not supported by science. It is supported by a religion (recent right-leaning Christianity).
Your (general sense) belief in this should not impact my decision. Or my body.
I guess what I'm getting at is, there's a lot of things science doesn't support one way or the other. Pretty much every ethical issue science doesn't really support. It doesn't support that theft is bad or someone doesn't have the right to impose their will on someone else. That's where ethics come in, and aren't all of our ethics guided by something one way or the other? I've always had a hard time seeing the distinction between an ethical point guided by religion and an ethical point guided by, well, not religion.
Not every issue claims to have a scientific basis, though.
Ethics are guided by something, yes. But we have separation of church and state. So no, ethical points almost exclusively guided by one person or group’s religion are not valid.
From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.
If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.
Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.
Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.
Practicing one’s religion is one thing. Trying to impose it on someone else is another.
You practice your religion. That in no way should affect my decisions.
Several people have espoused this point, but yours has been the most succinct.
If you would, can you please tell me what the difference is to you between someone being motivated by their religion to pass something into law restricting it, and someone being motivated by their conscious or whatnot to pass a different law restricting something? This is assuming we're not talking about imposing someone's religion in terms of dictating that they come to church on Sunday morning and worship but instead that they are guided by ethics that come from a religious standpoint to see something as immoral whereas others would be guided by their conscious/upbringing/whatever else to see something else is immoral or to disagree about morality. If you would prefer to not answer and/or others would, that's great. I'm just curious as to the line of reasoning.
The “life begins at conception” idea is not supported by science. It is supported by a religion (recent right-leaning Christianity).
Your (general sense) belief in this should not impact my decision. Or my body.
I guess what I'm getting at is, there's a lot of things science doesn't support one way or the other. Pretty much every ethical issue science doesn't really support. It doesn't support that theft is bad or someone doesn't have the right to impose their will on someone else. That's where ethics come in, and aren't all of our ethics guided by something one way or the other? I've always had a hard time seeing the distinction between an ethical point guided by religion and an ethical point guided by, well, not religion.
Not every issue claims to have a scientific basis, though.
Ethics are guided by something, yes. But we have separation of church and state. So no, ethical points almost exclusively guided by one person or group’s religion are not valid.
This is a weird argument to make Kris.
Ethics are guided by one's philosophy, which is often heavily influenced by religious (or irreligious) beliefs. It is confusing to tell someone they can't make ethical decisions and judgements based upon their personal understanding of moral behaviour to be. How else would one make this sort of decision?
While I often find myself viewing religion as a damaging delusion, the separation of church and state does not (and should not) prevent religious people from advocating for things that they believe to be right. That almost seems to be an attempt at thought control - no different from a religious person telling an atheist that their viewpoint shouldn't count due to lack of faith. It also seems to stand counter to the second half of Jefferson's comments regarding church and state:
"make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.
If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.
Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.
Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.
Practicing one’s religion is one thing. Trying to impose it on someone else is another.
You practice your religion. That in no way should affect my decisions.
Several people have espoused this point, but yours has been the most succinct.
If you would, can you please tell me what the difference is to you between someone being motivated by their religion to pass something into law restricting it, and someone being motivated by their conscious or whatnot to pass a different law restricting something? This is assuming we're not talking about imposing someone's religion in terms of dictating that they come to church on Sunday morning and worship but instead that they are guided by ethics that come from a religious standpoint to see something as immoral whereas others would be guided by their conscious/upbringing/whatever else to see something else is immoral or to disagree about morality. If you would prefer to not answer and/or others would, that's great. I'm just curious as to the line of reasoning.
From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.
If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.
Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.
Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.
Practicing one’s religion is one thing. Trying to impose it on someone else is another.
You practice your religion. That in no way should affect my decisions.
Several people have espoused this point, but yours has been the most succinct.
If you would, can you please tell me what the difference is to you between someone being motivated by their religion to pass something into law restricting it, and someone being motivated by their conscious or whatnot to pass a different law restricting something? This is assuming we're not talking about imposing someone's religion in terms of dictating that they come to church on Sunday morning and worship but instead that they are guided by ethics that come from a religious standpoint to see something as immoral whereas others would be guided by their conscious/upbringing/whatever else to see something else is immoral or to disagree about morality. If you would prefer to not answer and/or others would, that's great. I'm just curious as to the line of reasoning.
The “life begins at conception” idea is not supported by science. It is supported by a religion (recent right-leaning Christianity).
Your (general sense) belief in this should not impact my decision. Or my body.
I guess what I'm getting at is, there's a lot of things science doesn't support one way or the other. Pretty much every ethical issue science doesn't really support. It doesn't support that theft is bad or someone doesn't have the right to impose their will on someone else. That's where ethics come in, and aren't all of our ethics guided by something one way or the other? I've always had a hard time seeing the distinction between an ethical point guided by religion and an ethical point guided by, well, not religion.
Not every issue claims to have a scientific basis, though.
Ethics are guided by something, yes. But we have separation of church and state. So no, ethical points almost exclusively guided by one person or group’s religion are not valid.
This is a weird argument to make Kris.
Ethics are guided by one's philosophy, which is often heavily influenced by religious (or irreligious) beliefs. It is confusing to tell someone they can't make ethical decisions and judgements based upon their personal understanding of moral behaviour to be. How else would one make this sort of decision?
While I often find myself viewing religion as a damaging delusion, the separation of church and state does not (and should not) prevent religious people from advocating for things that they believe to be right. That almost seems to be an attempt at thought control - no different from a religious person telling an atheist that their viewpoint shouldn't count due to lack of faith. It also seems to stand counter to the second half of Jefferson's comments regarding church and state:
"make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Not at all. Of course people can make ethical decisions and judgments based on their personal understanding. They can argue that life begins at conception and that therefore abortion is morally wrong all day long. They can argue this in church, from the pulpit, and in their house. The can do it on the street, they can go door to door, and they can publish articles on it. I'm not in any way arguing that there be a law prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion.
But what I am arguing is that a lawmaker have the ethical and moral compass to recognize that when their belief comes from a religious perspective -- and when that religious perspective is not shared by the vast majority of people of many other religions, as well as people of no faith -- that attempting to codify that belief into a law is overreach and should not be attempted in the United States of America.
From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.
If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.
Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.
Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.
Practicing one’s religion is one thing. Trying to impose it on someone else is another.
You practice your religion. That in no way should affect my decisions.
Several people have espoused this point, but yours has been the most succinct.
If you would, can you please tell me what the difference is to you between someone being motivated by their religion to pass something into law restricting it, and someone being motivated by their conscious or whatnot to pass a different law restricting something? This is assuming we're not talking about imposing someone's religion in terms of dictating that they come to church on Sunday morning and worship but instead that they are guided by ethics that come from a religious standpoint to see something as immoral whereas others would be guided by their conscious/upbringing/whatever else to see something else is immoral or to disagree about morality. If you would prefer to not answer and/or others would, that's great. I'm just curious as to the line of reasoning.
The “life begins at conception” idea is not supported by science. It is supported by a religion (recent right-leaning Christianity).
Your (general sense) belief in this should not impact my decision. Or my body.
I guess what I'm getting at is, there's a lot of things science doesn't support one way or the other. Pretty much every ethical issue science doesn't really support. It doesn't support that theft is bad or someone doesn't have the right to impose their will on someone else. That's where ethics come in, and aren't all of our ethics guided by something one way or the other? I've always had a hard time seeing the distinction between an ethical point guided by religion and an ethical point guided by, well, not religion.
Not every issue claims to have a scientific basis, though.
Ethics are guided by something, yes. But we have separation of church and state. So no, ethical points almost exclusively guided by one person or group’s religion are not valid.
This is a weird argument to make Kris.
Ethics are guided by one's philosophy, which is often heavily influenced by religious (or irreligious) beliefs. It is confusing to tell someone they can't make ethical decisions and judgements based upon their personal understanding of moral behaviour to be. How else would one make this sort of decision?
While I often find myself viewing religion as a damaging delusion, the separation of church and state does not (and should not) prevent religious people from advocating for things that they believe to be right. That almost seems to be an attempt at thought control - no different from a religious person telling an atheist that their viewpoint shouldn't count due to lack of faith. It also seems to stand counter to the second half of Jefferson's comments regarding church and state:
"make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Not at all. Of course people can make ethical decisions and judgments based on their personal understanding. They can argue that life begins at conception and that therefore abortion is morally wrong all day long. They can argue this in church, from the pulpit, and in their house. The can do it on the street, they can go door to door, and they can publish articles on it. I'm not in any way arguing that there be a law prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion.
But what I am arguing is that a lawmaker have the ethical and moral compass to recognize that when their belief comes from a religious perspective -- and when that religious perspective is not shared by the vast majority of people of many other religions, as well as people of no faith -- that attempting to codify that belief into a law is overreach and should not be attempted in the United States of America.
Getting back to the topic of abortion - 46% of the US population identified as pro-life and 48% as pro-choice (https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx (https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx)). It's difficult for me to see this as a 'vast majority' or to see pro-choice advocacy as indication of religious overreach. Are you getting different numbers somewhere?
As previously mentioned, I think the discussion of when life starts in the abortion debate is really a red herring. The important question to answer is 'should the rights of a fetus supersede a woman's right to bodily autonomy'. I haven't heard a logical argument for a woman to be required by law to give her uterus to another human being when she doesn't want to.
From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.
If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.
Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.
Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.
Practicing one’s religion is one thing. Trying to impose it on someone else is another.
You practice your religion. That in no way should affect my decisions.
Several people have espoused this point, but yours has been the most succinct.
If you would, can you please tell me what the difference is to you between someone being motivated by their religion to pass something into law restricting it, and someone being motivated by their conscious or whatnot to pass a different law restricting something? This is assuming we're not talking about imposing someone's religion in terms of dictating that they come to church on Sunday morning and worship but instead that they are guided by ethics that come from a religious standpoint to see something as immoral whereas others would be guided by their conscious/upbringing/whatever else to see something else is immoral or to disagree about morality. If you would prefer to not answer and/or others would, that's great. I'm just curious as to the line of reasoning.
The “life begins at conception” idea is not supported by science. It is supported by a religion (recent right-leaning Christianity).
Your (general sense) belief in this should not impact my decision. Or my body.
I guess what I'm getting at is, there's a lot of things science doesn't support one way or the other. Pretty much every ethical issue science doesn't really support. It doesn't support that theft is bad or someone doesn't have the right to impose their will on someone else. That's where ethics come in, and aren't all of our ethics guided by something one way or the other? I've always had a hard time seeing the distinction between an ethical point guided by religion and an ethical point guided by, well, not religion.
Not every issue claims to have a scientific basis, though.
Ethics are guided by something, yes. But we have separation of church and state. So no, ethical points almost exclusively guided by one person or group’s religion are not valid.
This is a weird argument to make Kris.
Ethics are guided by one's philosophy, which is often heavily influenced by religious (or irreligious) beliefs. It is confusing to tell someone they can't make ethical decisions and judgements based upon their personal understanding of moral behaviour to be. How else would one make this sort of decision?
While I often find myself viewing religion as a damaging delusion, the separation of church and state does not (and should not) prevent religious people from advocating for things that they believe to be right. That almost seems to be an attempt at thought control - no different from a religious person telling an atheist that their viewpoint shouldn't count due to lack of faith. It also seems to stand counter to the second half of Jefferson's comments regarding church and state:
"make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Not at all. Of course people can make ethical decisions and judgments based on their personal understanding. They can argue that life begins at conception and that therefore abortion is morally wrong all day long. They can argue this in church, from the pulpit, and in their house. The can do it on the street, they can go door to door, and they can publish articles on it. I'm not in any way arguing that there be a law prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion.
But what I am arguing is that a lawmaker have the ethical and moral compass to recognize that when their belief comes from a religious perspective -- and when that religious perspective is not shared by the vast majority of people of many other religions, as well as people of no faith -- that attempting to codify that belief into a law is overreach and should not be attempted in the United States of America.
Getting back to the topic of abortion - 46% of the US population identified as pro-life and 48% as pro-choice (https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx (https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx)). It's difficult for me to see this as a 'vast majority' or to see pro-choice advocacy as indication of religious overreach. Are you getting different numbers somewhere?
As previously mentioned, I think the discussion of when life starts in the abortion debate is really a red herring. The important question to answer is 'should the rights of a fetus supersede a woman's right to bodily autonomy'. I haven't heard a logical argument for a woman to be required by law to give her uterus to another human being when she doesn't want to.
Wheaton College estimates that about 35% of the US population identifies as evangelical Christian. Add to that Catholics, and those two groups overlap handily with that 46%.
But that's not what I was saying. I was saying that the vast majority of people who believe in other religions or who do not identify as believers at all do not see it that way.
From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.
If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.
Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.
Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.
Practicing one’s religion is one thing. Trying to impose it on someone else is another.
You practice your religion. That in no way should affect my decisions.
Several people have espoused this point, but yours has been the most succinct.
If you would, can you please tell me what the difference is to you between someone being motivated by their religion to pass something into law restricting it, and someone being motivated by their conscious or whatnot to pass a different law restricting something? This is assuming we're not talking about imposing someone's religion in terms of dictating that they come to church on Sunday morning and worship but instead that they are guided by ethics that come from a religious standpoint to see something as immoral whereas others would be guided by their conscious/upbringing/whatever else to see something else is immoral or to disagree about morality. If you would prefer to not answer and/or others would, that's great. I'm just curious as to the line of reasoning.
The “life begins at conception” idea is not supported by science. It is supported by a religion (recent right-leaning Christianity).
Your (general sense) belief in this should not impact my decision. Or my body.
I guess what I'm getting at is, there's a lot of things science doesn't support one way or the other. Pretty much every ethical issue science doesn't really support. It doesn't support that theft is bad or someone doesn't have the right to impose their will on someone else. That's where ethics come in, and aren't all of our ethics guided by something one way or the other? I've always had a hard time seeing the distinction between an ethical point guided by religion and an ethical point guided by, well, not religion.
Not every issue claims to have a scientific basis, though.
Ethics are guided by something, yes. But we have separation of church and state. So no, ethical points almost exclusively guided by one person or group’s religion are not valid.
This is a weird argument to make Kris.
Ethics are guided by one's philosophy, which is often heavily influenced by religious (or irreligious) beliefs. It is confusing to tell someone they can't make ethical decisions and judgements based upon their personal understanding of moral behaviour to be. How else would one make this sort of decision?
While I often find myself viewing religion as a damaging delusion, the separation of church and state does not (and should not) prevent religious people from advocating for things that they believe to be right. That almost seems to be an attempt at thought control - no different from a religious person telling an atheist that their viewpoint shouldn't count due to lack of faith. It also seems to stand counter to the second half of Jefferson's comments regarding church and state:
"make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Not at all. Of course people can make ethical decisions and judgments based on their personal understanding. They can argue that life begins at conception and that therefore abortion is morally wrong all day long. They can argue this in church, from the pulpit, and in their house. The can do it on the street, they can go door to door, and they can publish articles on it. I'm not in any way arguing that there be a law prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion.
But what I am arguing is that a lawmaker have the ethical and moral compass to recognize that when their belief comes from a religious perspective -- and when that religious perspective is not shared by the vast majority of people of many other religions, as well as people of no faith -- that attempting to codify that belief into a law is overreach and should not be attempted in the United States of America.
Getting back to the topic of abortion - 46% of the US population identified as pro-life and 48% as pro-choice (https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx (https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx)). It's difficult for me to see this as a 'vast majority' or to see pro-choice advocacy as indication of religious overreach. Are you getting different numbers somewhere?
As previously mentioned, I think the discussion of when life starts in the abortion debate is really a red herring. The important question to answer is 'should the rights of a fetus supersede a woman's right to bodily autonomy'. I haven't heard a logical argument for a woman to be required by law to give her uterus to another human being when she doesn't want to.
Wheaton College estimates that about 35% of the US population identifies as evangelical Christian. Add to that Catholics, and those two groups overlap handily with that 46%.
But that's not what I was saying. I was saying that the vast majority of people who believe in other religions or who do not identify as believers at all do not see it that way.
The groups you mention are commonly pro-life supporters in the US . . . but the implication in the previous post seems to be arguing that they are overwhelmingly the only supporters. What about the 22% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Pro-Life#:~:text=The%20Oxford%20Handbook%20of%20Religion,of%20atheists%20and%20agnostics%20do. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Pro-Life#:~:text=The%20Oxford%20Handbook%20of%20Religion,of%20atheists%20and%20agnostics%20do.)) of non-religious unaffiliated Americans who are pro-life? Or the 2 in 5 Muslims who believe that abortion should be illegal (https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/muslim/views-about-abortion/ (https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/muslim/views-about-abortion/))? Or the 1 in 3 Hindus who believe abortion should be illegal (https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/ (https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/))? Regardless of which way you slice it by religion, you will find a non-insignificant percentage of people who don't support abortion.
If you combine the number of evangelical Christians with the number of Catholics (21% - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/10/7-facts-about-american-catholics/#:~:text=1%20There%20are%20roughly%2051,2007%20to%2021%25%20in%202014. (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/10/7-facts-about-american-catholics/#:~:text=1%20There%20are%20roughly%2051,2007%20to%2021%25%20in%202014.)) you end up with 56% of Americans. Which also means that a large portion (about one in five) of those religious people you've identified are OK with abortions.
Taken together, this would seem to indicate that the stance regarding abortion is not purely a Christian religious thing, and the overlap you mentioned is not as close as it would seem upon first glance. It doesn't seem fair to pigeonhole the large number of people from disparate belief systems who do not agree with abortion as has been done.
My issue was with the argument that separation of church and state should somehow prevent people from advocating for what they believe is right.
We've established:
- The population of the US is very closely split between pro-life/pro-choice
- While there's certainly some overlap, pro-life does not mean religious
So I think we should also be able to agree that pro-life advocacy in the political sphere does not therefore violate separation of church and state.
I sort of answered this in my response to Stv directly above.
And I would also suggest as an aside that the moral "life begins at conception" standpoint is not only overreach when one attempts to codify that into a law... but that it is not a "biblical view on abortion." It is a viewpoint -- and a recent one -- of a very particular branch of Christianity. Which suggests to me that its use is a political one more than an ethical one, at least by cynical political leaders.
I sort of answered this in my response to Stv directly above.
And I would also suggest as an aside that the moral "life begins at conception" standpoint is not only overreach when one attempts to codify that into a law... but that it is not a "biblical view on abortion." It is a viewpoint -- and a recent one -- of a very particular branch of Christianity. Which suggests to me that its use is a political one more than an ethical one, at least by cynical political leaders.
I'll add in your quote from above to GuitarStv that I think is what you were referring to:
"But what I am arguing is that a lawmaker have the ethical and moral compass to recognize that when their belief comes from a religious perspective -- and when that religious perspective is not shared by the vast majority of people of many other religions, as well as people of no faith -- that attempting to codify that belief into a law is overreach and should not be attempted in the United States of America."
First, I want to say, I'm not trying to imply that your other points aren't important such as the use of the issue as a political one by current cynical political leaders. For example, I actually very much agree with you on this that it's used by conservatives as a political football to entice conservative voters to vote for them when the politicians are apathetic at best on the issue. Case in point - Trump - *shudder*. Anyways, just wanted to mention I'm not snubbing the rest of what you're saying; I'm just curious about this particular line of thought.
Going back to what you said to GuitarStv, it sounds like the statement I copied would indicate that you're placing a lot of emphasis on it being about the majority? So, is that the sticking point, that it's a minority opinion in the US? By that, I am thinking of a couple of separate instances. If a majority of the U.S. supported restrictions on abortion - maybe full restrictions aren't realistic, but let's say a heartbeat bill or restrictions outside of the first trimester except for certain circumstances like rape or mother's safety. Would you be ok with it - by this, I'm meaning if you're looking at the majority for the issue, specifically itself?
Trying to look at another possibility of what you meant, I would say that while the population of atheists is growing in America, there's nowhere near a majority of atheists in America - maybe 20ish% or so, best I saw, as religiously unaffiliated with maybe 5% or so openly atheists and 5% openly agnostics give or take. Wouldn't it follow that atheist politicians are breaking that very rule if they're being motivated to pass laws that tie back into their unreligious perspectives - if you were meaning the majority matters from a philosophical framework?
Quote from: Wolfpack MustachianThose are not my main concern though. Overall, I would agree that yes, the word human definitely does have connotations. My first point is that we don't need to use connotations - it meets the definitions of human and life. There are connotations for a crap ton of things that may or may not apply to the conversation. I can say, I believe (because of what I've mentioned before about the words human life and because of other stuff I've thought of that differentiate this with the severed hand analogy that we can get into if you'd like) that human life in a fairly context-free situation fits unborn.I don't know whether to reply to this or not.
Second, you call out that there is the context for the word human. I don't disagree with this, but I very glad you brought up your examples, because it's a perfect illustration of the problems of connotation! You say "I would lay any odds you care to name that if you are honest you will admit that the image that comes to mind is that of something that at least resembles a developed body and perhaps with some form of consciousness/awareness/personality. Maybe two arms, two legs, a head, body, smiling face, etc etc. That's because the word "human" has connotations." Yes! You're absolutely right. The general human connotation does probably engender an average dude, 2 arms, 2 legs, a head, body, smiling, etc. But that's kind of my whole point. In any other context, connotations like that would be rightfully frowned upon; I mean, right? 2 arms, 2 legs, etc. aren't required to be a human. What about awareness or personality? Are we declaring people with severe mental disabilities as not human because a lack of some of this other "connotation" of being human? The connotation doesn't make the point. In other situations, it may not be as distasteful as labeling of someone as not a human who is disfigured or whatever; it may be simply a connotation of awareness/personality when someone is in a vegetative state. In that point, again, I doubt if push came to shove, people would say that they were not human because of it.
You've said that you feel like I need to take context into account in discussing in good faith. I feel like that is a very poor argument literally because of the very examples you gave. Yes, I am insisting on declaring the unborn human life because the connotations are crap. Best case, they are poorly thought out (thinking of a human in terms of their consciousness when most people would still call a human in a vegetative state as human); worst case it's really a very disturbing and repugnant connotation to take (2 arms, 2 legs, a certain level of consciousness/intellect). As I've mentioned before, these "connotations" and following through with the dehumanizing nature of them have lead to discrimination and loathsome behaviors.
You have intentionally misquoted me by deleting a pertinent part of my post and then tried to call me out and suggest I would deny a person's humanity because they were in a vegetative state, mentally challenged, or disfigured.
For someone who has railed so consistently at ctuser1 for making assumptions about what you mean it's extremely disappointing to see you resort to intentionally misquoting to try to twist my point into something it clearly was not and then blatantly insult me based on your deceit.Quote from: Wolfpack MustachianI think it's in completely good faith to insist on calling unborn human life because it's very easy to defend calling the unborn that in a contextless environment with base definitions and yes, at least some scientific backing. So it's easy to defend it without context, and with context, well, that context is worthy of being disputed and fought against. There are a ton of things about the unborn that go aginst the connotations of humans that most people have, but those connotations range from: at best a simplistic check box because we don't need to think fully through the word human every time we use it to at worst, inappropriate biases that lead us to look down on others who are different from us, of which I would include the unborn in that category.Perhaps if you wanted to label a single celled organism "living human DNA" or something like that there could be meaning terms of reference for a discussion. If you insist a single celled organism is an "unborn human life" and accuse anyone who disagrees as simply trying to distance themselves from reality there isn't any ground for rational discussion as far as I can see.
Couple that with your willingness to resort to intentionally misquoting me in the most obvious and frankly insulting way in order to tilt at a convenient and disgustingly low strawman and I will bow out of what I mistakenly thought was an honest and respectful attempt at dialogue.
Ok, so first of all, I have clearly done something I didn't intend to do.My actual post....
I would lay any odds you care to name that if you are honest you will admit that the image that comes to mind is that of something that at least resembles a developed body and perhaps with some form of consciousness/awareness/personality (whether intact and undamaged or not....for example a "human" who is in a vegetative state). Maybe two arms, two legs, a head, body, smiling face, etc etc. That's because the word "human" has connotations.How you chose to quote me...
"I would lay any odds you care to name that if you are honest you will admit that the image that comes to mind is that of something that at least resembles a developed body and perhaps with some form of consciousness/awareness/personality. Maybe two arms, two legs, a head, body, smiling face, etc etc. That's because the word "human" has connotations."Considering the bolded part is
I've read through the posts, and what I think I've done is come across in one of two ways: that I called you out as if you were thinking that defining a human in terms of 2 arms, 2 legs, etc. was correct (and thus accusing you of something you clearly don't believe in) or else I've jumped the gun when you were just trying to set up a future discussion of connotations and I implied you were simply going to leave it at those connotations (in which case I would be arguing in bad faith). Or potentially something else I am missing. All I can say is that I intended to do neither of those things, and I apologize that I came across that way.No I clearly did not mean to suggest my examples were the only such connotations for human. However, whether they are the only connotations or not, they are connotations that I would think almost every single human being on the planet would imagine when hearing the phrase "a human life". Using the phrase "an unborn human life" is clearly trying to invoke those connotations while disingenuously claiming that such a phrase avoids such connotations and is "scientifically correct". The fact such a phrase has such connotations is exactly why science has already come up with accepted "scientifically correct" terminology. Perhaps if you really do want to avoid all connotations and be scientifically correct, try using the scientific terminology. Zygote has none of the connotations you claim to be worried about and is more accurate when describing a single celled organism.
Let me take you through the tangled web of thoughts in my head :-). It seemed like you were trying to find common ground. Originally, I was arguing strongly against connotations as a concept as if I was wanting to distance myself from them altogether. Then, you made some points about connotations of humans, and gave some examples of 2 arms, 2 legs, consciousness/awareness, etc. I was really excited because I realized that yes, you are absolutely right - there is common ground there. I still feel that setting connotations aside, unborn is human life pretty straight forward. However, it is because of the connotations that were brought up that is why I think so strongly that unborn human life should be called human life - because those connotations (the ones mentioned) aren't the best (I'm assuming we agree on that?). My biggest problem in my argument is that in my verbiage I limited your argument to those connotations, and you very clearly stated you just wanted to start there not finish there. All I can say in my defense is that I was truly not thinking you wanted to discriminate against anyone or thought they were less than human because of all of that stuff, and I really did think it would simply be a case of you seeing how those connotations aren't good, and thus seeing why I think connotations themselves at least can be dangerous. Ultimately, I jumped the gun, and that's on me. If you want to continue, I'll be glad to listen and not jump the gun as quickly as best as I can. If not, I completely understand.
I'll end this by saying, if you don't want to continue the conversation, I completely understand, and I want to say thanks for the dialogue that's helped me realize a little more about my own motivations for the discussion. Either way, I apologize for jumping in so quickly and mischaracterizing your points whether I did it in the way(s) I think I did or in another way.
Ok, so first of all, I have clearly done something I didn't intend to do.My actual post....QuoteI would lay any odds you care to name that if you are honest you will admit that the image that comes to mind is that of something that at least resembles a developed body and perhaps with some form of consciousness/awareness/personality (whether intact and undamaged or not....for example a "human" who is in a vegetative state). Maybe two arms, two legs, a head, body, smiling face, etc etc. That's because the word "human" has connotations.How you chose to quote me...Quote"I would lay any odds you care to name that if you are honest you will admit that the image that comes to mind is that of something that at least resembles a developed body and perhaps with some form of consciousness/awareness/personality. Maybe two arms, two legs, a head, body, smiling face, etc etc. That's because the word "human" has connotations."Considering the bolded part is
1: in the middle of the comment...
2: clearly pertinent when considering point...
3: you then chose to suggest humanity could be denied if someone was mentally deficient etc
I find it hard to believe you did not intend to misquote.Quote from: Wolfpack MustachianI've read through the posts, and what I think I've done is come across in one of two ways: that I called you out as if you were thinking that defining a human in terms of 2 arms, 2 legs, etc. was correct (and thus accusing you of something you clearly don't believe in) or else I've jumped the gun when you were just trying to set up a future discussion of connotations and I implied you were simply going to leave it at those connotations (in which case I would be arguing in bad faith). Or potentially something else I am missing. All I can say is that I intended to do neither of those things, and I apologize that I came across that way.No I clearly did not mean to suggest my examples were the only such connotations for human. However, whether they are the only connotations or not, they are connotations that I would think almost every single human being on the planet would imagine when hearing the phrase "a human life". Using the phrase "an unborn human life" is clearly trying to invoke those connotations while disingenuously claiming that such a phrase avoids such connotations and is "scientifically correct". The fact such a phrase has such connotations is exactly why science has already come up with accepted "scientifically correct" terminology. Perhaps if you really do want to avoid all connotations and be scientifically correct, try using the scientific terminology. Zygote has none of the connotations you claim to be worried about and is more accurate when describing a single celled organism.
Let me take you through the tangled web of thoughts in my head :-). It seemed like you were trying to find common ground. Originally, I was arguing strongly against connotations as a concept as if I was wanting to distance myself from them altogether. Then, you made some points about connotations of humans, and gave some examples of 2 arms, 2 legs, consciousness/awareness, etc. I was really excited because I realized that yes, you are absolutely right - there is common ground there. I still feel that setting connotations aside, unborn is human life pretty straight forward. However, it is because of the connotations that were brought up that is why I think so strongly that unborn human life should be called human life - because those connotations (the ones mentioned) aren't the best (I'm assuming we agree on that?). My biggest problem in my argument is that in my verbiage I limited your argument to those connotations, and you very clearly stated you just wanted to start there not finish there. All I can say in my defense is that I was truly not thinking you wanted to discriminate against anyone or thought they were less than human because of all of that stuff, and I really did think it would simply be a case of you seeing how those connotations aren't good, and thus seeing why I think connotations themselves at least can be dangerous. Ultimately, I jumped the gun, and that's on me. If you want to continue, I'll be glad to listen and not jump the gun as quickly as best as I can. If not, I completely understand.
I'll end this by saying, if you don't want to continue the conversation, I completely understand, and I want to say thanks for the dialogue that's helped me realize a little more about my own motivations for the discussion. Either way, I apologize for jumping in so quickly and mischaracterizing your points whether I did it in the way(s) I think I did or in another way.
To utilise the phrasing you do, claim anyone who disagrees is merely trying to distance themselves from reality and while also intentionally editing my post when quoting me, makes it clear to me there's nothing left to discuss.
I sort of answered this in my response to Stv directly above.
And I would also suggest as an aside that the moral "life begins at conception" standpoint is not only overreach when one attempts to codify that into a law... but that it is not a "biblical view on abortion." It is a viewpoint -- and a recent one -- of a very particular branch of Christianity. Which suggests to me that its use is a political one more than an ethical one, at least by cynical political leaders.
I'll add in your quote from above to GuitarStv that I think is what you were referring to:
"But what I am arguing is that a lawmaker have the ethical and moral compass to recognize that when their belief comes from a religious perspective -- and when that religious perspective is not shared by the vast majority of people of many other religions, as well as people of no faith -- that attempting to codify that belief into a law is overreach and should not be attempted in the United States of America."
First, I want to say, I'm not trying to imply that your other points aren't important such as the use of the issue as a political one by current cynical political leaders. For example, I actually very much agree with you on this that it's used by conservatives as a political football to entice conservative voters to vote for them when the politicians are apathetic at best on the issue. Case in point - Trump - *shudder*. Anyways, just wanted to mention I'm not snubbing the rest of what you're saying; I'm just curious about this particular line of thought.
Going back to what you said to GuitarStv, it sounds like the statement I copied would indicate that you're placing a lot of emphasis on it being about the majority? So, is that the sticking point, that it's a minority opinion in the US? By that, I am thinking of a couple of separate instances. If a majority of the U.S. supported restrictions on abortion - maybe full restrictions aren't realistic, but let's say a heartbeat bill or restrictions outside of the first trimester except for certain circumstances like rape or mother's safety. Would you be ok with it - by this, I'm meaning if you're looking at the majority for the issue, specifically itself?
Trying to look at another possibility of what you meant, I would say that while the population of atheists is growing in America, there's nowhere near a majority of atheists in America - maybe 20ish% or so, best I saw, as religiously unaffiliated with maybe 5% or so openly atheists and 5% openly agnostics give or take. Wouldn't it follow that atheist politicians are breaking that very rule if they're being motivated to pass laws that tie back into their unreligious perspectives - if you were meaning the majority matters from a philosophical framework?
No, it’s actually not at all about it being a majority or minority stance, and I’m sorry if it came off that way. It is about the fact that being pro-life personally is one thing, but thinking you have the right to legislate it into law is quite another, and that that belief is something that has arisen largely as an evangelical stance. And that this evangelical stance has been expressly cultivated by political leaders over the past few decades.
I am not at my computer, but If I remember to do so, I will link an article here that explores the roots of this theocratic position.
But an invalid argument for the point made. It is possible for the fetus to get "grown up". That it not always works out does not change it.One of the easiest ways to define when life begins is when the cells start dividing on their own. An unfertilized egg doesn't divide on its own and turn into a new life, no matter how much time, no matter the conditions, no matter anything at all. Same for sperm. Never will sperm alone turn into a person. However, fertilize an egg with sperm and it starts dividing, right away starting the chain reaction that is life. That is irrefutable science. No human being but Jesus Christ (or no one ever, if you don't believe in Jesus) comes from an unfertilized egg, and no fertilized egg turns into an elbow, or a liver, or a 3rd arm, or anything like that. They turn into people. That's science.Actually conservative estimates would suggest approximately half of fertilised eggs do not turn into people, they turn into dead clumps of cells some days or weeks later. The number is probably significantly higher. And note, that's from natural causes, not from abortions. That's science.
My point was in reply to the statement "They turn into people. That's science."But an invalid argument for the point made. It is possible for the fetus to get "grown up". That it not always works out does not change it.One of the easiest ways to define when life begins is when the cells start dividing on their own. An unfertilized egg doesn't divide on its own and turn into a new life, no matter how much time, no matter the conditions, no matter anything at all. Same for sperm. Never will sperm alone turn into a person. However, fertilize an egg with sperm and it starts dividing, right away starting the chain reaction that is life. That is irrefutable science. No human being but Jesus Christ (or no one ever, if you don't believe in Jesus) comes from an unfertilized egg, and no fertilized egg turns into an elbow, or a liver, or a 3rd arm, or anything like that. They turn into people. That's science.Actually conservative estimates would suggest approximately half of fertilised eggs do not turn into people, they turn into dead clumps of cells some days or weeks later. The number is probably significantly higher. And note, that's from natural causes, not from abortions. That's science.
My issue was with the argument that separation of church and state should somehow prevent people from advocating for what they believe is right.This reminds me of a talk I had with my mother a few years ago shortly after my wife had a miscarriage that did not require abortion but it was talked about as a possibility. My mother has identified as a Christian and pro-life as long as I can remember. When I asked her if she was in my wife's shoes what she would've done (in light of the complications that may have required the abortion, the fetus was never going to come to term either way) she said she would not have had the abortion because of her principles. I explained this was well within her rights to do so. When I asked her if my wife should have the *option* to have an abortion when medical circumstances say it's a good idea, she agreed that my wife should have the option. When I asked her if this meant she was pro-choice, she shuddered for a second and then explained that while she might be in theory, she just hated the term "pro-choice" and would never identify that way. I thought that was interesting. A pro-choicer who identifies as pro-life simply because the label sounds better. I wonder if my wife's situation changed her way of thinking at all or if she was always this way underneath but just never expressed it.
We've established:
- The population of the US is very closely split between pro-life/pro-choice
- While there's certainly some overlap, pro-life does not mean religious
So I think we should also be able to agree that pro-life advocacy in the political sphere does not therefore violate separation of church and state.
My issue was with the argument that separation of church and state should somehow prevent people from advocating for what they believe is right.This reminds me of a talk I had with my mother a few years ago shortly after my wife had a miscarriage that did not require abortion but it was talked about as a possibility. My mother has identified as a Christian and pro-life as long as I can remember. When I asked her if she was in my wife's shoes what she would've done (in light of the complications that may have required the abortion, the fetus was never going to come to term either way) she said she would not have had the abortion because of her principles. I explained this was well within her rights to do so. When I asked her if my wife should have the *option* to have an abortion when medical circumstances say it's a good idea, she agreed that my wife should have the option. When I asked her if this meant she was pro-choice, she shuddered for a second and then explained that while she might be in theory, she just hated the term "pro-choice" and would never identify that way. I thought that was interesting. A pro-choicer who identifies as pro-life simply because the label sounds better. I wonder if my wife's situation changed her way of thinking at all or if she was always this way underneath but just never expressed it.
We've established:
- The population of the US is very closely split between pro-life/pro-choice
- While there's certainly some overlap, pro-life does not mean religious
So I think we should also be able to agree that pro-life advocacy in the political sphere does not therefore violate separation of church and state.
Since then I view the dichotomy of pro-choice vs pro-life with statistical doubts (and I say this as a statistician for a career). I don't think the black and white nature of it is particularly helpful in reality though it is simpler for thought. There are so many layers to this and then quantifying/qualifying it also has all sorts of biases with polling questions, definitions, loaded words, etc.
Most days I am thankful to not have a uterus largely due to this issue.
I'm pro-choice and I want abortion to be super-easy. I don't know why women should have to jump through hoops for it. Abortion should be easily accessible, de-stigmatised and free (paid by the government). Abortion counselling should be free. There should be free one week's leave from work (paid by the government) for any woman who wants an abortion. Taxpayers should pay for all these services.
Letting women abort babies they don't want is a net benefit to the women and to society.
I'm pro-choice and I want abortion to be super-easy. I don't know why women should have to jump through hoops for it. Abortion should be easily accessible, de-stigmatised and free (paid by the government). Abortion counselling should be free. There should be free one week's leave from work (paid by the government) for any woman who wants an abortion. Taxpayers should pay for all these services.
Letting women abort babies they don't want is a net benefit to the women and to society.
Quoted for, "Yes, there are people like this out there."
"Governments murdering their own citizens and handing out time off work for having done so" isn't exactly the sort of "progress" I'm interested in.
And were this a thing, I'd probably figure out ways, no matter how inefficient, to avoid paying taxes. Up to and including reducing my career significantly. I'm already uncomfortable with how much federal funding for abortion services there is.
Wait, embryos are citizens now!? When did that happen?
I'm pro-choice and I want abortion to be super-easy. I don't know why women should have to jump through hoops for it. Abortion should be easily accessible, de-stigmatised and free (paid by the government). Abortion counselling should be free. There should be free one week's leave from work (paid by the government) for any woman who wants an abortion. Taxpayers should pay for all these services.
Letting women abort babies they don't want is a net benefit to the women and to society.
Quoted for, "Yes, there are people like this out there."
"Governments murdering their own citizens and handing out time off work for having done so" isn't exactly the sort of "progress" I'm interested in. And were this a thing, I'd probably figure out ways, no matter how inefficient, to avoid paying taxes. Up to and including reducing my career significantly. I'm already uncomfortable with how much federal funding for abortion services there is.
I'm pro-choice and I want abortion to be super-easy. I don't know why women should have to jump through hoops for it. Abortion should be easily accessible, de-stigmatised and free (paid by the government). Abortion counselling should be free. There should be free one week's leave from work (paid by the government) for any woman who wants an abortion. Taxpayers should pay for all these services.
Letting women abort babies they don't want is a net benefit to the women and to society.
Quoted for, "Yes, there are people like this out there."
"Governments murdering their own citizens and handing out time off work for having done so" isn't exactly the sort of "progress" I'm interested in. And were this a thing, I'd probably figure out ways, no matter how inefficient, to avoid paying taxes. Up to and including reducing my career significantly. I'm already uncomfortable with how much federal funding for abortion services there is.
I'm pro-choice and I want abortion to be super-easy. I don't know why women should have to jump through hoops for it. Abortion should be easily accessible, de-stigmatised and free (paid by the government). Abortion counselling should be free. There should be free one week's leave from work (paid by the government) for any woman who wants an abortion. Taxpayers should pay for all these services.
Letting women abort babies they don't want is a net benefit to the women and to society.
Quoted for, "Yes, there are people like this out there."
"Governments murdering their own citizens and handing out time off work for having done so" isn't exactly the sort of "progress" I'm interested in. And were this a thing, I'd probably figure out ways, no matter how inefficient, to avoid paying taxes. Up to and including reducing my career significantly. I'm already uncomfortable with how much federal funding for abortion services there is.
That's nice.
Didn't mean to offend anyone, just couldn't imagine living as a woman and feeling that constant pressure that some rights over your body could be dictated by others without any real idea what the future would bring. I can't think of an equivalent in males and therefore can't fully empathize. That has to be so annoying and possibly even scary at times. That's just such a foreign concept to me.My issue was with the argument that separation of church and state should somehow prevent people from advocating for what they believe is right.This reminds me of a talk I had with my mother a few years ago shortly after my wife had a miscarriage that did not require abortion but it was talked about as a possibility. My mother has identified as a Christian and pro-life as long as I can remember. When I asked her if she was in my wife's shoes what she would've done (in light of the complications that may have required the abortion, the fetus was never going to come to term either way) she said she would not have had the abortion because of her principles. I explained this was well within her rights to do so. When I asked her if my wife should have the *option* to have an abortion when medical circumstances say it's a good idea, she agreed that my wife should have the option. When I asked her if this meant she was pro-choice, she shuddered for a second and then explained that while she might be in theory, she just hated the term "pro-choice" and would never identify that way. I thought that was interesting. A pro-choicer who identifies as pro-life simply because the label sounds better. I wonder if my wife's situation changed her way of thinking at all or if she was always this way underneath but just never expressed it.
We've established:
- The population of the US is very closely split between pro-life/pro-choice
- While there's certainly some overlap, pro-life does not mean religious
So I think we should also be able to agree that pro-life advocacy in the political sphere does not therefore violate separation of church and state.
Since then I view the dichotomy of pro-choice vs pro-life with statistical doubts (and I say this as a statistician for a career). I don't think the black and white nature of it is particularly helpful in reality though it is simpler for thought. There are so many layers to this and then quantifying/qualifying it also has all sorts of biases with polling questions, definitions, loaded words, etc.
Most days I am thankful to not have a uterus largely due to this issue.
I was going to write something snarky about at least we don't get prostate cancer, but decided to refrain. Prostate cancer is so much less a problem than breast and uterine/ovarian cancer that it is a blip on the radar.
I think your conversation with your mother was really revealing. Most "pro-choice" people I know are not out advocating that abortion be super easy. What we would like to see is access to contraceptives be super easy, so the need for abortion goes way down. Then stop the infantilizing of women by imposing so many restrictions on them and their doctors for early abortions where contraceptive failures happened (or contraception was not used, it happens even for the best of planners). Late abortions are overwhelming for medical reasons if early abortions are not delayed so they become late abortions.
Oh, and this is where I make my obligatory (for me) statement that Henry Morgentaler is one of my heroes.
I'm pro-choice and I want abortion to be super-easy. I don't know why women should have to jump through hoops for it. Abortion should be easily accessible, de-stigmatised and free (paid by the government). Abortion counselling should be free. There should be free one week's leave from work (paid by the government) for any woman who wants an abortion. Taxpayers should pay for all these services.
Letting women abort babies they don't want is a net benefit to the women and to society.
Quoted for, "Yes, there are people like this out there."
"Governments murdering their own citizens and handing out time off work for having done so" isn't exactly the sort of "progress" I'm interested in. And were this a thing, I'd probably figure out ways, no matter how inefficient, to avoid paying taxes. Up to and including reducing my career significantly. I'm already uncomfortable with how much federal funding for abortion services there is.
That's nice.
HOLY SHIT. I agree with Bloop Bloop about something! Is the world ending or moon turning blue? I'm feeling weirdly sentimental about this moment. Seems there is always common ground to be had somewhere. :highfive:
@Syonyk are you in the US?
If you're in the US, does that mean you are opposed to Medicaid funding of abortions performed in cases of rape, incest, or maternal life endangerment? Because those are the only exceptions listed in the Hyde Amendment: https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-funding-abortion-under-medicaid (https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-funding-abortion-under-medicaid)
Didn't mean to offend anyone, just couldn't imagine living as a woman and feeling that constant pressure that some rights over your body could be dictated by others without any real idea what the future would bring. I can't think of an equivalent in males and therefore can't fully empathize. That has to be so annoying and possibly even scary at times. That's just such a foreign concept to me.
I think your conversation with your mother was really revealing. Most "pro-choice" people I know are not out advocating that abortion be super easy. What we would like to see is access to contraceptives be super easy, so the need for abortion goes way down. Then stop the infantilizing of women by imposing so many restrictions on them and their doctors for early abortions where contraceptive failures happened (or contraception was not used, it happens even for the best of planners). Late abortions are overwhelming for medical reasons if early abortions are not delayed so they become late abortions.
Oh, and this is where I make my obligatory (for me) statement that Henry Morgentaler is one of my heroes.
I bolded the part above because we're still talking about a nonzero number of abortions. Anything above zero to me is pro-choice. And I agree with you of course, any low hanging fruit on education and access to contraceptives prior to conception that reduces any need for abortions later on should be encouraged, normalized (no stigma), and offered widely. Utopia would be access to abortions but none actually happened due to perfect family planning, zero rape, zero incest, zero pregnancy complications, etc. That's not reality though. To each their own on how they would handle it.
I 100% agree with Bloop Bloop. Outcomes for women and society improve the more abortion is de-stigmatized.
I hate the idea that only rape/incest/fatal heath outcomes are "worthy" of an abortion. I am happily married. I take every precaution not to get pregnant because I don't want kids. Kids would be detrimental to our current financial picture. I don't like small children. I'd resent the fuck out of having to take care of a child right now. So we do our part to not have any.
But if I got pregnant, since all birth control methods have some failure rate? I'd 100% get an abortion as soon as I knew because I don't want kids. It is unethical to bring unwanted children into the world in my book. It is unethical to require me to sacrifice my health when I don't want to. I don't want to deal with incontinence as a result of giving birth. I don't want to deal with large hormonal changes. I don't want my breasts to get sore and tender. I don't want any of it, and while I would consider making that sacrifice for a wanted child, I certainly am not doing it just to give the state another taxpayer.
But somehow my suffering would be irrelevant unless I had a proper excuse in the eyes of pro-life people. My organs don't matter unless they're in servitude to a fetus. Then suddenly they are the state's organs. How dystopic.
Perhaps we can start requiring all men with two kidneys and two lungs to start involuntarily donating them to people who need replacements? After all, the sick need those organs more than the healthy, and the state has an interest in intervening in your personal health to keep potential taxpayers alive.
Just two items of note that I don't think have come up so far:Another, far more fair term would be “anti-abortion”.
1. There is a word already for people who are "pro-life" but don't seem to give a shit about anybody once they've been brought into the world. They are called (as an insult/criticism) "pro-birth".
Just two items of note that I don't think have come up so far:Another, far more fair term would be “anti-abortion”.
1. There is a word already for people who are "pro-life" but don't seem to give a shit about anybody once they've been brought into the world. They are called (as an insult/criticism) "pro-birth".
I read about an anti-abortion group in Finland (can't find the link now). Instead of protesting at clinics and trying to get legal restrictions on abortions, they advocate for things that actually made it easier for women to raise their babies. Things like paid family leave, universal healthcare, and subsidized childcare all reduce the number of abortions performed because they decrease the burden placed on the family by another child. Oh, and the family leave and healthcare also reduce maternal and infant mortality. I'm really surprised that the evangelicals aren't calling their congresspeople right now to ask for these things /s
I read about an anti-abortion group in Finland (can't find the link now). Instead of protesting at clinics and trying to get legal restrictions on abortions, they advocate for things that actually made it easier for women to raise their babies. Things like paid family leave, universal healthcare, and subsidized childcare all reduce the number of abortions performed because they decrease the burden placed on the family by another child. Oh, and the family leave and healthcare also reduce maternal and infant mortality. I'm really surprised that the evangelicals aren't calling their congresspeople right now to ask for these things /s
I have many Catholic friends who are strong advocates for those types of social programs. I consider them "pro-life" because the moniker actually fits.
Following the seven principles of Catholic social teaching means you support social programs, unions, green initiatives. Wild ass country we have when Catholics are the “liberals”
Following the seven principles of Catholic social teaching means you support social programs, unions, green initiatives. Wild ass country we have when Catholics are the “liberals”
Curiously the US has had exactly two Catholic presidents - JFK and Biden. Both viewed as left-of -center politicians during their administrations.
Wait, embryos are citizens now!? When did that happen?
Legally, they're not. However, if you consider them morally humans in the womb, then they reasonably should deserve citizen protections, as they will be citizens after birth. We generally frown on governments supporting the killing of massive numbers of people in their countries.
I read about an anti-abortion group in Finland (can't find the link now). Instead of protesting at clinics and trying to get legal restrictions on abortions, they advocate for things that actually made it easier for women to raise their babies. Things like paid family leave, universal healthcare, and subsidized childcare all reduce the number of abortions performed because they decrease the burden placed on the family by another child. Oh, and the family leave and healthcare also reduce maternal and infant mortality. I'm really surprised that the evangelicals aren't calling their congresspeople right now to ask for these things /s
The Roman Catholic Church is against contraception,
The Roman Catholic Church is against contraception,
I am not sure, but I think last year the pope said condoms were ok. (There was definitely something on that topic, but I only remember that I was surprised, but not what about exactly.)
<SNIP>
But the hierarchy is absolutely firm on the matter, and actively works against contraceptive access and education to the extent that they can. These days, that doesn't seem like much of a threat. The idea of birth control being interfered with in America feels pretty far fetched, but while there is so much attention paid to Roe v. Wade it's easy to forget that Griswold v. Connecticut is only eight years older. And Griswold only applied to married couples; it was only one year before Roe, in Eisenstadt v. Baird in 1972, that the court ruled that unmarried people had a right to access birth control.
<SNIP>
The Roman Catholic Church is against contraception,
I am not sure, but I think last year the pope said condoms were ok. (There was definitely something on that topic, but I only remember that I was surprised, but not what about exactly.)
I am not sure if I shoudl react to that? is that trolling?The Roman Catholic Church is against contraception,
I am not sure, but I think last year the pope said condoms were ok. (There was definitely something on that topic, but I only remember that I was surprised, but not what about exactly.)
Any form of contraception is prohibited by the Catholic Church. It violates the natural law that the purpose of sex is for procreation. The pleasure obtained is a positive side effect within the bond of marriage. A hundred years ago all Christians were opposed to contraception and abortion. Once the Anglican church relaxes it's stance in the 1930s the rest soon fell to the dominant culture with only the Catholic Church still opposing it.
I understand that moral relativism is the dominant culture in America, and probably most of the world. Moral absolutism - for instance that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong - seems outdated to many. The most basic Christian doctrine is to love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Pretty hard to square loving others as yourself if you're willing to kill them.
I understand that moral relativism is the dominant culture in America, and probably most of the world. Moral absolutism - for instance that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong - seems outdated to many. The most basic Christian doctrine is to love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Pretty hard to square loving others as yourself if you're willing to kill them.
I understand that moral relativism is the dominant culture in America, and probably most of the world. Moral absolutism - for instance that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong - seems outdated to many. The most basic Christian doctrine is to love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Pretty hard to square loving others as yourself if you're willing to kill them.
A moral absolutist who believes that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong would be unable to drive an automobile. The air pollution caused by internal combustion engines alone contributes to more than 50,000 deaths each year in the US. (https://qz.com/135509/more-americans-die-from-car-pollution-than-car-accidents/ (https://qz.com/135509/more-americans-die-from-car-pollution-than-car-accidents/)). Yet I don't see many (any?) Christians who refuse to drive on moral grounds.
Well, there are the Amish. ;-)
I understand that moral relativism is the dominant culture in America, and probably most of the world. Moral absolutism - for instance that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong - seems outdated to many. The most basic Christian doctrine is to love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Pretty hard to square loving others as yourself if you're willing to kill them.
A moral absolutist who believes that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong would be unable to drive an automobile. The air pollution caused by internal combustion engines alone contributes to more than 50,000 deaths each year in the US. (https://qz.com/135509/more-americans-die-from-car-pollution-than-car-accidents/ (https://qz.com/135509/more-americans-die-from-car-pollution-than-car-accidents/)). Yet I don't see many (any?) Christians who refuse to drive on moral grounds.
Well, there are the Amish. ;-)
Dang, you beat me to it!
I think there are different branches or factions in the Catholic church so we're not all talking about the same thing. I remember not being able to pick up a prescription where I worked once because it was a Catholic hospital. Spoiler is lady business:Spoiler: show
Dang, you beat me to it!
I think there are different branches or factions in the Catholic church so we're not all talking about the same thing. I remember not being able to pick up a prescription where I worked once because it was a Catholic hospital. Spoiler is lady business:Spoiler: show
Yeah, that kind of stuff really scares me about Catholic hospitals. When we bought our house I actually had "not religiously affiliated hospital nearby" as a criteria, and was lucky even in Western Wa to be able to fulfill that. I was told at our previous local hospital that if I gave birth, they would require me to go to another doctor to have an IUD put in after giving birth since contraceptives are against the church's teachings. And while that might be a minor inconvenience, it shows that my health is not their priority over their teachings. If there was a complication that put my life at risk, but there was a chance of saving the baby, I wouldn't trust them to let my husband and I make that hard choice.
I actually carry a card in my wallet that says that in case of emergency, even life threatening emergency, I refuse care at any Catholic affiliated hospital.
I'm a dude and so the whole baby thing isn't really an issue for me, but I refuse treatment at any hospital and from any medical provider who makes their medical decisions based on anything other than medicine.
That said, my primary care doctor actually is Catholic, and she's great. Because she's, y'know, a doctor and makes her doctor decisions for doctor reasons. She's aware of my directive and my reasons for it, and is fine with it, though I suspect that if my life were at stake she'd go with the Catholic affiliated hospital if that were the only option. But she'd do that for doctor reasons.
I feel like I'm getting really off topic here, and I'm sorry, and happy to shut up about it now I've "said my piece". But I find that many many people are all about primary sources and evidence when it comes to science or medicine or social policy, and then happy to rely on third party hearsay when it comes to Catholic teaching when the primary sources of Catholic positions are very widely available for anyone who cares to look.
If anyone does want to talk about this particular dichotomy (pro-source for science, never bothers with sources for official religious teaching) I'm very happy to, but we should probably do it in another thread. Otherwise, I will gracefully retire riding this hobby horse.
I understand that moral relativism is the dominant culture in America, and probably most of the world. Moral absolutism - for instance that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong - seems outdated to many. The most basic Christian doctrine is to love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Pretty hard to square loving others as yourself if you're willing to kill them.
A moral absolutist who believes that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong would be unable to drive an automobile. The air pollution caused by internal combustion engines alone contributes to more than 50,000 deaths each year in the US. (https://qz.com/135509/more-americans-die-from-car-pollution-than-car-accidents/ (https://qz.com/135509/more-americans-die-from-car-pollution-than-car-accidents/)). Yet I don't see many (any?) Christians who refuse to drive on moral grounds.
Well, there are the Amish. ;-)
Dang, you beat me to it!
I think there are different branches or factions in the Catholic church so we're not all talking about the same thing. I remember not being able to pick up a prescription where I worked once because it was a Catholic hospital. Spoiler is lady business:Spoiler: show
Really and truly, I don't want to derail this thread, so I'm going to reply by PM where pertinent.Frankly, I was lurking and enjoying hearing about religious slants as they relate to healthcare but I understand if you don't want to contribute publicly about it. I didn't consider your talk derailing at all FWIW. If anything it made me curious to learn more about Catholic viewpoints. It's an area I could use more understanding and perspective especially about individual Catholic positions on contraception/abortion/etc.
I understand that moral relativism is the dominant culture in America, and probably most of the world. Moral absolutism - for instance that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong - seems outdated to many. The most basic Christian doctrine is to love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Pretty hard to square loving others as yourself if you're willing to kill them.
A moral absolutist who believes that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong would be unable to drive an automobile. The air pollution caused by internal combustion engines alone contributes to more than 50,000 deaths each year in the US. (https://qz.com/135509/more-americans-die-from-car-pollution-than-car-accidents/ (https://qz.com/135509/more-americans-die-from-car-pollution-than-car-accidents/)). Yet I don't see many (any?) Christians who refuse to drive on moral grounds.
Well, there are the Amish. ;-)
Dang, you beat me to it!
I think there are different branches or factions in the Catholic church so we're not all talking about the same thing. I remember not being able to pick up a prescription where I worked once because it was a Catholic hospital. Spoiler is lady business:Spoiler: show
Lady business reply:Spoiler: show
I feel like I'm getting really off topic here, and I'm sorry, and happy to shut up about it now I've "said my piece". But I find that many many people are all about primary sources and evidence when it comes to science or medicine or social policy, and then happy to rely on third party hearsay when it comes to Catholic teaching when the primary sources of Catholic positions are very widely available for anyone who cares to look.
If anyone does want to talk about this particular dichotomy (pro-source for science, never bothers with sources for official religious teaching) I'm very happy to, but we should probably do it in another thread. Otherwise, I will gracefully retire riding this hobby horse.
I understand that moral relativism is the dominant culture in America, and probably most of the world. Moral absolutism - for instance that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong - seems outdated to many. The most basic Christian doctrine is to love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Pretty hard to square loving others as yourself if you're willing to kill them.
A moral absolutist who believes that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong would be unable to drive an automobile. The air pollution caused by internal combustion engines alone contributes to more than 50,000 deaths each year in the US. (https://qz.com/135509/more-americans-die-from-car-pollution-than-car-accidents/ (https://qz.com/135509/more-americans-die-from-car-pollution-than-car-accidents/)). Yet I don't see many (any?) Christians who refuse to drive on moral grounds.
Well, there are the Amish. ;-)
Dang, you beat me to it!
I think there are different branches or factions in the Catholic church so we're not all talking about the same thing. I remember not being able to pick up a prescription where I worked once because it was a Catholic hospital. Spoiler is lady business:Spoiler: show
Lady business reply:Spoiler: show
ThanksSpoiler: show
I understand that moral relativism is the dominant culture in America, and probably most of the world. Moral absolutism - for instance that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong - seems outdated to many. The most basic Christian doctrine is to love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Pretty hard to square loving others as yourself if you're willing to kill them.
A moral absolutist who believes that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong would be unable to drive an automobile. The air pollution caused by internal combustion engines alone contributes to more than 50,000 deaths each year in the US. (https://qz.com/135509/more-americans-die-from-car-pollution-than-car-accidents/ (https://qz.com/135509/more-americans-die-from-car-pollution-than-car-accidents/)). Yet I don't see many (any?) Christians who refuse to drive on moral grounds.
Well, there are the Amish. ;-)
Dang, you beat me to it!
I think there are different branches or factions in the Catholic church so we're not all talking about the same thing. I remember not being able to pick up a prescription where I worked once because it was a Catholic hospital. Spoiler is lady business:Spoiler: show
Lady business reply:Spoiler: show
ThanksSpoiler: show
That is disgustingly abysmal health care. All my sympathy.
That's a legitimate dichotomy
That's a legitimate dichotomy
It’s... a lot, honestly. As a healthcare worker and a Catholic and a many other labels, I have complicated feelings about the church but very black and white feelings about healthcare.
I do think that solving this religion issue is yet another good reason for single payer national healthcare. No more bosses dictating what healthcare you can get, or hospital managers forcing their beliefs on others.
I do think that solving this religion issue is yet another good reason for single payer national healthcare. No more bosses dictating what healthcare you can get, or hospital managers forcing their beliefs on others.
What do you mean by "solving this religion issue"? Single payer can solve a lot of issues and you don't need to ban Christians, Jews, Muslims, or anyone else from living or working in healthcare to migrate to single payer. Think about it. If you have a car problem, do you go to Gamestop? Or if your sink has a leak, do you call up Geek Squad? Of course not.
It's the same with healthcare. You can't get a knee replacement from an ENT nor would you expect to get cancer treatment from a podiatrist. Some facilities will perform abortions, others will not. Some doctors will perform abortions, others will not. Who pays is irrelevant. If a facility is rated for abortions, then it's rated for abortions. If a doctor is qualified and willing to perform abortions, then they are qualified and rated to perform abortions. Who pays for the bill is entirely separate.
You can absolutely have a single single payer health insurance system without requiring every single hospital to perform abortions and requiring every single doctor to perform abortions.
Of course. I was referring to employers who refuse to cover certain things for their employees on religious grounds. Even birth control. Right now employers and insurance companies have too much control over what services a person can receive.