Other What are your politics?

[Swindle]

You're not addressing the question. You're saying that its better that the fetus be aborted than the child that invariably results from that fetus to be alive. 

Well, obviously I'm saying that. My stance is predicated based on the idea. It should be self-evident that I think being terminated before sentience is better than living a life of suffering and uncertainty while sentient, if that's the life that will await it for an unwanting and/or incapable mother/family unit.

 

[hadal]

Abortion: Yes.. A woman should have the right to choose what to do with her body. Not some crusty old white guy. 
Gay Marriage/Gay Rights: Yup
Planned Parenthood: Support support support
Religious Freedom Act: Support religion freedom, but I'm iffy on this act. It's allow for discrimination against LGBT people
Required Vaccination: Yes
Trans Rights: Yes
Death Penalty: In more extreme cases, I do support it. But overall, I believe it should be abolished. Has no place in civilized societies.
Obamacare: Good but has problems that need to be worked out
Legalize Marijuana: Yup
Minimum Wage: Make it a living wage
Higher Taxes on the Wealthy: Yeah
Lower Taxes on the Poor: Yeah
Welfare: Support it 
Trans-Pacific Partnership: Not knowledgable enough to say
Puerto Rico Bailout: ^
Building Wall: I still don't understand how people see this as anything other than a joke
Deportation: depends on the individual case
Full Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants: ^
Diminish Student Loans: free education is preferable
Common Core: basically good, but has problems that need to be worked out
Declare War on ISIS: The situation with ISIS and in the Middle East is far too nuanced to be fixed by just going to war
Increase Military Spending: No
Drone Usage: well yeah
Guantanamo Bay Facility: The facility in itself is fine. Torture is not
Troops in Syria: It's such a complicated situation, I'm not sure. Depends on what their function would be there, as well
Government Surveillance: The government isn't peeking into everyone's texts. Surveillance really applies to potential threats.
Gun Control: Yeah, comprehensive gun regulation laws are needed
Iphone Encryption: as in encrypting your iPhone to protect your information...?
Reduce Campaign Finance: Yeah
Reduce Climate Change: Well, work to prevent further global warming. The environment is important yall
Reduce GMOs: GMOs are fine
Pardon Edward Snowden: Nah


Gold Standard: Seriously?

 

[Grey]

Actually yes, I believe in both of those things. 

Then we are broadly in agreement. 


Given that there are presently flaws in sexual education and provision of contraceptive care, such that fertilization does take place under circumstances where a child would be born into poverty and then, based on the available statistical data, remain in poverty where a) they are likely to experience increased rates of physical and mental illness, b) be more likely to resort to criminality, c) more likely themselves to have unwanted pregnancies, and d) provide no economic benefit to their community would you think it more prudent to provide additional state support for these people until such time as better education and access are provided, or to permit early abortions to present a pregnant person the opportunity to better their socioeconomic status in order to better provide for a future child?


Please, pardon me if I appeared confrontational - I'm afraid your initially stated stance on contraception and education slipped my mind, and I made unfair, unreasonable assumptions. 

 

[Shireling]

My ethical argument against abortion is formulated as such: 


We are yet unsure whether we should consider fetuses persons or not. If they are in fact persons, then they are naturally entitled to the right to life. But we are yet unsure how to categorize them ethically. 


We have a similar argument to make in the case of people who are in a vegetative state. They were once persons, but now that they have lost their sentience we're not so sure. 


You don't just go around pulling the plug on people in vegetative states because they're not sentient. Its an ethical dilemma. 


Thus ultimately would should err on the side of caution. If at any point in time, there becomes a conflict of interest between a known person (say the mother) and the unsure person (the fetus), we must evaluate whether ending the fetus's life is justified by preventing a SIMILAR harm in the mother, such as impending death. 


If the life of the fetus is pitted against the life of the mother, we should abort the fetus because the rights of the sure person supersede the rights of that which we are unsure of their personhood. But if the harm the mother faces is the inconvenience of a pregnancy and nothing more, that harm is not sufficient to violate the higher-order rights of the unsure person. 


We wouldn't kill a dog because we cant afford to feed it. That would be animal cruelty. And we KNOW dogs are not persons. How, then, can you justify the killing of a fetus when you know the mother's life is not jeapordized? 

 

[Shireling]

Then we are broadly in agreement. 


Given that there are presently flaws in sexual education and provision of contraceptive care, such that fertilization does take place under circumstances where a child would be born into poverty and then, based on the available statistical data, remain in poverty where a) they are likely to experience increased rates of physical and mental illness, b) be more likely to resort to criminality, c) more likely themselves to have unwanted pregnancies, and d) provide no economic benefit to their community would you think it more prudent to provide additional state support for these people until such time as better education and access are provided, or to permit early abortions to present a pregnant person the opportunity to better their socioeconomic status in order to better provide for a future child?


Please, pardon me if I appeared confrontational - I'm afraid your initially stated stance on contraception and education slipped my mind, and I made unfair, unreasonable assumptions. 

I may point out that people are born into poverty all the time because their parents are poor. Are you insinuating that poor people shouldn't have children? 


Some of us are born into higher classes of society, some of us into lower. This is called the lottery of birth. Just because someone is born into poverty does not mean they cannot have a fulfilling life. There is an implicit insinuation here that poor people would be better off dead. I know that's not what you're implying, you're merely giving a talking point, but the implication is there. 


Socioeconomic class is irrelevant to having a fulfilling life. Kings have committed suicide and the poorest of the poor have become great people. There's nothing that makes you're life inherently better or worse because you're born into a certain class, your argument is based on comfort. 

 

[Shireling]

Well, obviously I'm saying that. My stance is predicated based on the idea. It should be self-evident that I think being terminated before sentience is better than living a life of suffering and uncertainty while sentient, if that's the life that will await it for an unwanting and/or incapable mother/family unit.

Thank you, I just wanted you to clarify. You believe that you are justified in ending a life (or I suppose you would say preventing a life from beginning) if that life is to be born into an environment that you feel is characterized by suffering and uncertainty. 


So the solution is not to help the poor and the destitute, its to kill them as children, or as you would term it, stop them from ever having existed. 


Don't you think that the ultimate decision over life or death should be charged to the life itself, instead of you? Don't you think that this entity, when it develops agency, can evaluate its own life and then decide for itself whether it wants to exist or not? Don't you think that's a bit more ethical? 

 

[Grey]

I am, in fact, saying that if you cannot afford to support both yourself and a child, it is therefore unwise to have a child. I am poor. I have no intention of having a child, because I cannot guarantee them access to adequate food, shelter, or education. To have a child, in this state, would be to guarantee them a level of neglect and suffering for which I would be wholly responsible - and you might imagine I am ethically opposed to such a thing. Further, if I was to father a child, I would then have even less money and time, which would deprive me of means of bettering my income such as education, travel to areas of greater employment opportunity, and assorted other costs.


In the event that I attain sufficient wealth to support both myself and a child, I may consider having a child with the knowledge that they are more likely to receive sufficient food, shelter, care, and access to education. 


Do you believe that the poor should disregard these factors, and simply have children? For what reason?


Furthermore, poverty is demonstrably linked to poor mental and physical health. Do you believe, therefore, that some people must suffer sickness and discomfort simply because they are in a position to suffer? Access to food assuredly makes life better. Access to healthcare assuredly makes life better. Access to education assuredly makes life better. If a person is deprived these things, and suffers, and dies, do you consider this a just and proper existence? Do you believe that they found their lives equally as fulfilling as your own?


Sucide rates are higher among the poor. Drug addiction and overdose rates are higher among the poor. I am trying to comprehend your position - do you sincerely believe that these things are to be accepted when there is a possibility of reddressing them? 


I do not believe that the poor, universally, would be better off dead - I believe that they should be lifted from poverty by the best means available, rather than left to suffer or to have their situation deteriorate. 

 

[Swindle]

My ethical argument against abortion is formulated as such: 


We are yet unsure whether we should consider fetuses persons or not. If they are in fact persons, then they are naturally entitled to the right to life. But we are yet unsure how to categorize them ethically. 


We have a similar argument to make in the case of people who are in a vegetative state. They were once persons, but now that they have lost their sentience we're not so sure. 


You don't just go around pulling the plug on people in vegetative states because they're not sentient. Its an ethical dilemma. 


Thus ultimately would should err on the side of caution. If at any point in time, there becomes a conflict of interest between a known person (say the mother) and the unsure person (the fetus), we must evaluate whether ending the fetus's life is justified by preventing a SIMILAR harm in the mother, such as impending death. 


If the life of the fetus is pitted against the life of the mother, we should abort the fetus because the rights of the sure person supersede the rights of that which we are unsure of their personhood. But if the harm the mother faces is the inconvenience of a pregnancy and nothing more, that harm is not sufficient to violate the higher-order rights of the unsure person. 


We wouldn't kill a dog because we cant afford to feed it. That would be animal cruelty. And we KNOW dogs are not persons. How, then, can you justify the killing of a fetus when you know the mother's life is not jeapordized? 

Well, no, the much sadder truth is that people just let dogs go if they can't take care of them. Also, it's well understood that dogs have higher cognitive functions and are one of very few non-humans that are in tune with our facial expressions and mannerisms. Many other animals are very much sentient as well, and it is equally cruel to kill them.


Either way, It's not comparable because a living dog already has social attachment and connections, while also being able to know what's going on. A fetus has none of those things. 


However, it is generally accepted that a fetus can't feel pain or suffer during at least the first trimester, but they almost definitely can by the third trimester. And we've already made it clear that abortions almost never happen that late into the pregnancy, so I can't say I'm sure where the problem is from a moral standpoint.

Thank you, I just wanted you to clarify. You believe that you are justified in ending a life (or I suppose you would say preventing a life from beginning) if that life is to be born into an environment that you feel is characterized by suffering and uncertainty. 


So the solution is not to help the poor and the destitute, its to kill them as children, or as you would term it, stop them from ever having existed. 


Don't you think that the ultimate decision over life or death should be charged to the life itself, instead of you? Don't you think that this entity, when it develops agency, can evaluate its own life and then decide for itself whether it wants to exist or not? Don't you think that's a bit more ethical? 

The problem to me is that even if the fetus were sentient for the entire pregnancy - which I've no doubt they aren't since I find it hard to believe that something in such early development as the first trimester could possibly have a higher functioning brain - why would it matter? A "potential life" is nothing more than that. The baby has nothing to lose because it's never gained anything. 


Also, I think you are basing your most recent post towards me on a misconception. I think social services and helping the poor are the utmost priority, but the problem is not the theoretical ideal, it's what's going on right now in reality. The social safety net is not very adequate as it stands, and that's what I'm talking in the context of. If this ideal world where everyone is supportive of eachother and the social safety net is superb then perhaps there'd be no need for abortions, but that isn't the case. 


Also, as we've stated numerous times, the points at which abortions normally take place typically are before the fetus could ever possibly be considered a child, so your idea that I'm saying they should be killed as children is a falsehood. 


Besides, our disagreement seems to be on a spiritual level that we will never be able to bridge I believe. Your opposition is based on the notion that even the first trimester fetus might be considered a human which I find completely impossible to see as true. 


Also, it would be more ethical, if the fetus were capable of making decisions, but it's not. Shouldn't you value the already-living person's welfare over something that can't even comprehend its own existence yet? 

 

[Saccharine Cyanide]

I understand that people who want to restrict abortions just want to protect unborn babies, and I know there's no good compromise, but please consider our point of view, too:


It's saying to people who can get pregnant that we don't have the right to choose what we can do with our bodies: that other people we don't even know will choose for us. It's deeply dehumanizing to have the legal right to your body taken away, or just to know that someday it might be taken away. it feels like you're not a whole person.


Yeah, so I'll just leave this here. I don't really want to debate about this because I can't distance myself emotionally from it, but I thought the more empathetic people would be interested in the personal stakes.

 

[Grey]

I understand that people who want to restrict abortions just want to protect unborn babies, and I know there's no good compromise, but please consider our point of view, too:


It's saying to people who can get pregnant that we don't have the right to choose what we can do with our bodies: that other people we don't even know will choose for us. It's deeply dehumanizing to have the legal right to your body taken away, or just to know that someday it might be taken away. it feels like you're not a whole person.


Yeah, so I'll just leave this here. I don't really want to debate about this because I can't distance myself emotionally from it, but I thought the more empathetic people would be interested in the personal stakes.

Thank you, Cyanide. I very cynically attempted a logical appeal through a shared value point, with intent to later discuss this facet of the issue. I appreciate your willingness to offer such a valuable perspective, and I apologize that my arguements thus far had so thoughtlessly discounted your humanity.

 

[Shireling]

Well, no, the much sadder truth is that people just let dogs go if they can't take care of them. Also, it's well understood that dogs have higher cognitive functions and are one of very few non-humans that are in tune with our facial expressions and mannerisms. Many other animals are very much sentient as well, and it is equally cruel to kill them.

Letting a dog go is not the same as killing it. I suppose it would be comparable to dropping a baby off on a doorstep. Also, a level of cognitive function is not equivalent to personhood. 

However, it is generally accepted that a fetus can't feel pain or suffer during at least the first trimester, but they almost definitely can by the third trimester. And we've already made it clear that abortions almost never happen that late into the pregnancy, so I can't say I'm sure where the problem is from a moral standpoint.

Because its not a problem of whether they can feel pain, its whether they are persons or not. And morally, its not acceptable to kill a person whether they are in pain or not. 

The problem to me is that even if the fetus were sentient for the entire pregnancy - which I've no doubt they aren't since I find it hard to believe that something in such early development as the first trimester could possibly have a higher functioning brain - why would it matter? A "potential life" is nothing more than that. The baby has nothing to lose because it's never gained anything. 

Again, sentience is irrelevant. Sentience is not necessarily a component of personhood. We do know, however, that barring unforeseen circumstances the fetus will invariably develop into a human being with agency, even though they don't possess agency at the time. They're not potential life. They are alive. They're potential INTELLIGENCES. And I disagree. It has gained something. It has gained its existence. 

Also, I think you are basing your most recent post towards me on a misconception. I think social services and helping the poor are the utmost priority, but the problem is not the theoretical ideal, it's what's going on right now in reality. The social safety net is not very adequate as it stands, and that's what I'm talking in the context of. If this ideal world where everyone is supportive of eachother and the social safety net is superb then perhaps there'd be no need for abortions, but that isn't the case. 

Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, it should be up to the people who are in these states of destitution to decide for themselves whether they want to be alive or not? Is it any small wonder that people who are poor still choose to live? Maybe because being poor is preferrable to being dead. Maybe the experience of life, no matter how hard, is better than having been killed or, as you suggest, having never existed. 


Also, I've taken great pains to articulate your point that you feel abortion merely terminates an existence before it begins and does not in fact terminate an existence. So nothing is being misrepresented. 

Also, as we've stated numerous times, the points at which abortions normally take place typically are before the fetus could ever possibly be considered a child, so your idea that I'm saying they should be killed as children is a falsehood. 

See above. 

Besides, our disagreement seems to be on a spiritual level that we will never be able to bridge I believe. Your opposition is based on the notion that even the first trimester fetus might be considered a human which I find completely impossible to see as true. 

I'm saying they MIGHT be persons. There's a distinction here. I'm not claiming with 100% certainty that they are indeed persons, like you are claiming with 100% certainty they are not. 

Also, it would be more ethical, if the fetus were capable of making decisions, but it's not. Shouldn't you value the already-living person's welfare over something that can't even comprehend its own existence yet? 

No, because pregnancy does not endanger their welfare except in the most extreme cases. In those extreme cases where the mother's welfare is at stake, by all means terminate the pregnancy. But in most pregnancies, its an inconvenience, not a matter of welfare. If you're referring to financial wellbeing, again the rights of the unsure person to life trump the rights of the sure person to spend their money as they please. 


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

I am, in fact, saying that if you cannot afford to support both yourself and a child, it is therefore unwise to have a child. I am poor. I have no intention of having a child, because I cannot guarantee them access to adequate food, shelter, or education. To have a child, in this state, would be to guarantee them a level of neglect and suffering for which I would be wholly responsible - and you might imagine I am ethically opposed to such a thing. Further, if I was to father a child, I would then have even less money and time, which would deprive me of means of bettering my income such as education, travel to areas of greater employment opportunity, and assorted other costs.

You're right. It is unwise for you to have a child in such a situation. But if you do have one, don't make the child pay the consequences for the trouble caused by its own conception. It did not ask to be conceived. And there are legal recourses for you to be rid of the child once it is born. Is this not a win-win? 

Do you believe that the poor should disregard these factors, and simply have children? For what reason?

They shouldn't have children willy-nilly. But unplanned pregnancies do occur, and SHOCKER people survive being born into poverty. Some even thrive. So while you shouldn't purposefully father children if you are poor, you shouldn't use being poor as an excuse to kill them either. No matter what argument you level at me, I will still attest that it is up to the individual to decide whether poverty is preferable to death. 

Furthermore, poverty is demonstrably linked to poor mental and physical health. Do you believe, therefore, that some people must suffer sickness and discomfort simply because they are in a position to suffer? Access to food assuredly makes life better. Access to healthcare assuredly makes life better. Access to education assuredly makes life better. If a person is deprived these things, and suffers, and dies, do you consider this a just and proper existence? Do you believe that they found their lives equally as fulfilling as your own?

Yeah, its linked. But that doesn't necessarily mean that all poor people experience these things. I don't believe anyone should have to suffer sickness or hunger, naturally. But I don't think the potentiality of sickness or hunger is a justification for me robbing someone of their right to life. 

Sucide rates are higher among the poor. Drug addiction and overdose rates are higher among the poor. I am trying to comprehend your position - do you sincerely believe that these things are to be accepted when there is a possibility of reddressing them? 


I do not believe that the poor, universally, would be better off dead - I believe that they should be lifted from poverty by the best means available, rather than left to suffer or to have their situation deteriorate. 

You mean people do drugs in poor communities? I'm shocked. No, I don't think these things should be accepted or condoned, naturally. But I don't see how abortion is the answer to any of those problems. Killing fetuses will not, in any way, stop the crack epidemic and if you think it will you're deluding yourself. 

 

[Shireling]

It's saying to people who can get pregnant that we don't have the right to choose what we can do with our bodies: that other people we don't even know will choose for us. It's deeply dehumanizing to have the legal right to your body taken away, or just to know that someday it might be taken away. it feels like you're not a whole person.

Need I point out that a fetus is a separate organism from the mother entirely? It merely relies on the mother for sustenence, just as a baby relies on its mother's breast or the silicon teet for sustenance. 


I'm sorry that you feel dehumanized, but that's just what they are. They're your feelings. And quite frankly, your feelings are misguided. I'm sorry that you're offended, but quite frankly I don't give a damn. Nobody is arguing you are not a person. There is literally no objective justification for your feelings. So I don't care.  

 

[Saccharine Cyanide]

Thank you, Cyanide. I very cynically attempted a logical appeal through a shared value point, with intent to later discuss this facet of the issue. I appreciate your willingness to offer such a valuable perspective, and I apologize that my arguements thus far had so thoughtlessly discounted your humanity.

Oh gosh, you don't have to apologize! It's okay to argue from a position of facts and logic. But, yeah, it's best not to forget the real, human reality that's behind any sort of issue like this.

Need I point out that a fetus is a separate organism from the mother entirely? It merely relies on the mother for sustenence, just as a baby relies on its mother's breast or the silicon teet for sustenance. 


I'm sorry that you feel dehumanized, but that's just what they are. They're your feelings. And quite frankly, your feelings are misguided. I'm sorry that you're offended, but quite frankly I don't give a damn. Nobody is arguing you are not a person. There is literally no objective justification for your feelings. So I don't care.  

For the record, I'm not offended (not sure what I'd even be offended by?). And there's no way of keeping personal feelings out of this. You feel for human fetuses, right? That's why you want them to be protected, because you feel that life has inherent value despite there being no factual evidence. Try a little empathy sometime. It feels nice.

 

[Grey]

Is this not a win-win? 

No, it isn't. Any person whom I got pregnant would have to endure nine months of pregnancy, which I am reliably informed by actual mothers is not all sunshine and roses. They would be, as the pregnancy continued, at risk of health complications because these things are not completely predictable. The birth itself also carries a risk to both mother and child, mitigated somewhat by modern medicine but not removed. Post-partum depression is also a risk, whether or not the child is adopted. There are a variety of associated expenses. 


They did not ask for any of this, either.


Assuming the child is given up for adoption, this continues to carry the risk of psychological strain on both parents and it still cannot be guaranteed that the child will not suffer; government institutions are not perfect and in Ireland particularly there is a history of child abuse in care facilities. 


The minimal harm done is guaranteed by an early termination. But we can never agree on that, clearly. 

But I don't see how abortion is the answer to any of those problems.

It is not the answer, it is a facet of a broader suite of actions which can work to solve these problems. These problems may be solved more expediently by adopting as many of these measures as soon as possible, such that many of them can be rendered obsolete as soon as possible. You seem ill-informed as to the economic and psychological factors involved here - poverty is cyclical and unwanted pregnancies are a component of that cycle.


And, as noted, people who are pregnant are entitled to their autonomy. You're so fixed on people being able to make their own decisions, how dare you tell people who can get pregnant that this is not a decision they get to make about their bodies? If someone agrees with you about fertilization being the inception of full personhood, they may choose not to abort. Someone who disagrees may choose to abort. But they should be able to make that decision.


We're just going to go in circles here, anyway. The fertilization-personhood point is where any chance at meaningful discussion on this topic ended.

 

[Grey]

I'm sorry that you feel dehumanized, but that's just what they are. They're your feelings. And quite frankly, your feelings are misguided. I'm sorry that you're offended, but quite frankly I don't give a damn. Nobody is arguing you are not a person. There is literally no objective justification for your feelings. So I don't care.  

This is disgusting. You coddled, ignorant, self-righteous child.


I am done with you.

 

[Shireling]

For the record, I'm not offended (not sure what I'd even be offended by?). And there's no way of keeping personal feelings out of this. You feel for human fetuses, right? That's why you want them to be protected, because you feel that life has inherent value despite there being no factual evidence. Try a little empathy sometime. It feels nice.

 No. Although I do care for fetuses, my opposition for abortion is based on purely ethically and logical guidelines. 


You're also seeming to imply here that you don't believe life has an inherent value, then you tell me to try a little empathy. Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds? 


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

No, it isn't. Any person whom I got pregnant would have to endure nine months of pregnancy, which I am reliably informed by actual mothers is not all sunshine and roses. They would be, as the pregnancy continued, at risk of health complications because these things are not completely predictable. The birth itself also carries a risk to both mother and child, mitigated somewhat by modern medicine but not removed. Post-partum depression is also a risk, whether or not the child is adopted. There are a variety of associated expenses. 


They did not ask for any of this, either.

While I agree that this is not something that is desirable, again this is not a harm grave enough to warrant the violation of the unsure person's right to life. 

Assuming the child is given up for adoption, this continues to carry the risk of psychological strain on both parents and it still cannot be guaranteed that the child will not suffer; government institutions are not perfect and in Ireland particularly there is a history of child abuse in care facilities. 


The minimal harm done is guaranteed by an early termination. But we can never agree on that, clearly. 

I think its obvious that killing someone is about the worst harm you can do to them. Again, you're also talking about risk factors here. There is no garuntee that a child that is given up for adoption will necessarily suffer at all. 

It is not the answer, it is a facet of a broader suite of actions which can work to solve these problems. These problems may be solved more expediently by adopting as many of these measures as soon as possible, such that many of them can be rendered obsolete as soon as possible. You seem ill-informed as to the economic and psychological factors involved here - poverty is cyclical and unwanted pregnancies are a component of that cycle.

First of all, calling me ignorant to economics and psychology is a mere ad hominem. You have no idea what I do or do not know about economics. I'm not saying unwanted pregnancies aren't an economic burden, I'm saying that I am more than happy to shift that burden on to the taxpayer if that's what it takes. Morally, the ending of a life for any reason of economics is repugnant. This is an instance in which our ethics should supersede purely material concerns because we are dealing with the rights of unsure persons. 

And, as noted, people who are pregnant are entitled to their autonomy. You're so fixed on people being able to make their own decisions, how dare you tell people who can get pregnant that this is not a decision they get to make about their bodies? If someone agrees with you about fertilization being the inception of full personhood, they may choose not to abort. Someone who disagrees may choose to abort. But they should be able to make that decision.

Pregnant people are entitled to their autonomy. Nobody said they weren't. Their autonomy doesn't include control over the fetus because the fetus is not part of her body, it is a dependent organism. Thus, again, we circle back to the unsure personhood argument. 

We're just going to go in circles here, anyway. The fertilization-personhood point is where any chance at meaningful discussion on this topic ended.

I think you checked out at square one because I said I BELIEF personhood exists at conception. But I am an intelligent enough person to know my belief is subjective and therefore, from an objective standpoint, a fetus may be a person or it may not be. So ethically, we should err on the side of caution and treat them as if they are a person. 


Ultimately, you've just gone around in circles talking about how bad it is to be poor and how that's some sort of justification for abortion when, logically, we can see there is obviously an alternative, and the presence of that alternative alone makes the idea of abortion reprehensible. To think I had a recourse that didn't involve the ending of a life that may be a person, but I didn't take it is lunacy. 

This is disgusting. You coddled, ignorant, self-righteous child.


I am done with you.

And yet, we dismissed the person who based their opposition to abortion on "but dead babies!" (Which I agree is a ridiculous position.) I don't see how I'm coddled, as I'm the only one here advocating for my position and I don't have people rushing to defend me, and I dont care. I don't see how I can be considered self-righteous. I didn't declare myself morally superior. I just said her feelings are meaningless in the context of a debate. Which is true.


I'm glad you're done with me. I believe that's liberalese for "tactical retreat."  

 

[sathanas]

Abortion: Pro-choice. The mother should be allowed to decide whether or not she wants one or if it's immoral.



Gay Marriage/Gay Rights: Pro rights and marriage- marriage is one right, but not all of them, and it's not the end-all be-all. For example, conversion therapy is only illegal in 5 states despite the fact that psychologists agree it's mentally damaging and leads to suicide and other mental health problems.



Planned Parenthood: Planned Parenthood provides a lot of useful of health services other than abortions, and iirc, abortions are not covered by taxes and need to be individually paid for by the person receiving it. If it was defunded a lot of services people cannot otherwise receive would be gone, such as getting birth control (which prevents unwanted pregnancies), sex ed,  breast exams (for cancer and such,) testing for STDs, etc.



Religious Freedom Act: Not sure what this is, so I don't have an opinion.



Required Vaccination: I'm all for it. Vaccinations are important to maintaining community health, and quite frankly claims that they cause autism are absolute bullshit. 


 
Trans Rights: Pro. People who are trans are still people, and should be able to use the bathroom they feel comfortable with. If they couldn't, people who have fully transitioned would still be stuck using the wrong bathroom, and that would cause more problems... Contrary to what some people believe, there's extremely few cases of people pretending (as in, they aren't even trans) to be another gender to get into bathrooms and peek at people. No one's suggesting that medical transitions be covered by taxes. I'm for insurance helping cover costs though- some companies do already, but as transitioning has been proven to improve mental health of trans people in most cases and you generally do need letters of recommendations from doctors and the approval of a gender therapist (basically someone who helps someone cope with dysphoria and makes sure that transitioning for them personally based on medical health would be a good idea, helps them decide if medical transition would be right for them), it's very rare that someone medically transitions and later wants to "undo" it. With the health benefits it provides people who transition and how people who are not allowed tend to have worse mental health- it's for some people definitely a necessary procedure, and insurance should help.

Edit since I saw other people wondering what rights trans people could possibly need other than the bathrooms issue: trans people are discriminated against all the time with being denied jobs, health care, adopting children, changes to their legal status (names and gender markers on birth certificates/ID) etc. I don't know if trans people specifically are covered under anti-discriminatory laws and whether those laws are federal or state-based (I'd need to do more research on this specifically) but something in terms of that has to be done.



Death Penalty: Against. It's strange to me how some people are against abortion but pro death penalty. I'm much in favor of rehabilitation over jail in general, but if someone cannot be rehabilitated, keeping them in prison rather than the death penalty is preferable. Someone not being willing or able to change one day doesn't mean it's impossible for the future. If the person wishes for death themselves rather than a life in prison it's their decision, but euthanasia is a whole different problem.



Obamacare: I don't know enough on the issue to have an opinion.


 
Legalize Marijuana: Medical marijuana definitely. I'm not sure about other forms, but it would get rid of the need for cartel/gang/etc activity based off of marijuana like the end of prohibition with alochol if I'm understanding things correctly, and then it might be able to be regulated and have standards, etc. Hemp is good for making cloth and other materials too. 



Minimum Wage: I have a friend who's parents both work all day and they're still poor, and can't afford food sometimes. Jobs should provide living wages, but at the same time, raising minimum wage would probably make prices for stuff rise and then... I'm not sure what sort of solution would be best.



Higher Taxes on the Wealthy/Lower Taxes on the Poor: These two go together for me. I don't remember the proper term for these two in conjunction, but as someone who's from a upper middle-class family (or maybe we're just rich? I don't know, my dad buys ridiculous shit sometimes even with a lot of medical bills, and we're doing fine) I'm for proportional taxes. With fees for breaking laws too- someone who's poor might be devastated by a speeding ticket, someone who's rich wouldn't be nearly as discouraged.


 
Welfare: I'm not sure if I know enough about this issue, but I think if someone's working multiple jobs and still unable to properly provide for themselves, it's not right. I also think that addicts are people too and deserve help to recover. 



Trans-Pacific Partnership: 
Puerto Rico Bailout: Don't know jack shit about either of these.



Building Wall: Are we really considering a meme? It's impractical and stupid.



Deportation: Depends, tbh. I also think I should learn more about these issues. People who commit crimes (other than the immigration itself) should definitely be deported, though.



Full Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants:


Diminish Student Loans:
Common Core: 
Declare War on ISIS: 
Increase Military Spending: I need to learn more about these.



Drone Usage: While it's a lot safer for the operator, mistakes are made and innocents have been killed. I'd have to learn more about the issue to pick a side of pro or against.



Guantanamo Bay Facility: Don't know what this is.
Troops in Syria: I don't know enough about the issue.



Government Surveillance: Privacy is something that's important for mental health, actually. Being watched constantly is not good. It's good the government wants to be proactive in stopping crime, but I don't know if surveillance of private property is the proper way to go about it. 



Gun Control: Stronger gun control/regulations. It's so incredibly easy to buy guns from legal retailers in America it's ridiculous. I could probably buy a shotgun tomorrow since I'm the age of majority and have ID, and then go shoot some people. I don't want to do that, but I could.



Iphone Encryption: What?



Reduce Campaign Finance:
Reduce Climate Change: Of course!!! If you "believe" (since most scientists agree I find, in my experience, it's mostly fundamentalists who disagree) in global warming why wouldn't you want to help fix/reduce it, and if you don't believe, you'd still be making a positive impact on nature and our limited resources!



Reduce GMOs: I don't care about gmos, although having only one type of a certain crop is a bad idea because if a disease comes it could be the potato famine all over again. My mom said once that gmos interfere with and change our dna and I think it's one of the funniest things she's said.



Pardon Edward Snowden: I don't remember enough about him tbh, other than that he leaked government info. 


Gold Standard: Not sure what this is referring to either.


Also I'm much too tired to take part in any debating and don't wish to right now, but I thought the "no one would kill a dog" argument was interesting coming from both sides- since toooons of perfectly healthy dogs are euthanized in shelters all the time as a result of not enough people wanting or being able to take care of them. 

 

[kibou]

!! Hey guys, please remember we have rules against creating a negative environment, including demeaning and insulting other users, and getting into arguments vs debates.


It's fine to discuss your views on things, but remember to keep things polite and civil.

 

[Swindle]

I see. So, basically, @Shireling, the concepts that we use to define if treatment towards someone is cruel or immoral are irrelevant in your stance, it is instead that you believe the fetus is a "person" (although I don't believe you've defined what a person is to you in this case) deserving of the same rights and treatment as someone who can actually understand that they exist, and that it would be immoral to kill them even though whether or not they are sentient would determine if they are even capable of understanding their death? 


Also, that bit about women having control over their own bodies but not the fetus because it's also a person (despite being unable to make decisions for itself) is legal gold. 


I guess that's interesting though. All the concepts that go into understanding whether or not someone can really decide for themselves are thrown out the window in your case. If you deem it a person, even if it goes against all logical thought to assume they are, it's immoral to make decisions on their behalf.


i dunno, your argument is truly the circular one. There's no way to argue against it - it's just based on your own ideas of what counts as a person and you're plainly not swayed by any explanation in favor of abortion because you believe we should institute social services to make it unnecessary...even though those aren't thoroughly available at this time.


It's also impossible to argue against "the individual should decide" without completely dismissing it because the individual CAN'T decide until it's already too late and the burden has been placed on those already living. 

 

[Shireling]

I see. So, basically, @Shireling, the concepts that we use to define if treatment towards someone is cruel or immoral are irrelevant in your stance, it is instead that you believe the fetus is a "person" (although I don't believe you've defined what a person is to you in this case) deserving of the same rights and treatment as someone who can actually understand that they exist, and that it would be immoral to kill them even though whether or not they are sentient would determine if they are even capable of understanding their death? 


Also, that bit about women having control over their own bodies but not the fetus because it's also a person (despite being unable to make decisions for itself) is legal gold. 


I guess that's interesting though. All the concepts that go into understanding whether or not someone can really decide for themselves are thrown out the window in your case. If you deem it a person, even if it goes against all logical thought to assume they are, it's immoral to make decisions on their behalf.


i dunno, your argument is truly the circular one. There's no way to argue against it - it's just based on your own ideas of what counts as a person and you're plainly not swayed by any explanation in favor of abortion because you believe we should institute social services to make it unnecessary...even though those aren't thoroughly available at this time.

Are you fucking dense? I said, and I quote: 

We are yet unsure whether we should consider fetuses persons or not. If they are in fact persons, then they are naturally entitled to the right to life. But we are yet unsure how to categorize them ethically. 

Thus ultimately would should err on the side of caution. If at any point in time, there becomes a conflict of interest between a known person (say the mother) and the unsure person (the fetus), we must evaluate whether ending the fetus's life is justified by preventing a SIMILAR harm in the mother, such as impending death. 


If the life of the fetus is pitted against the life of the mother, we should abort the fetus because the rights of the sure person supersede the rights of that which we are unsure of their personhood. But if the harm the mother faces is the inconvenience of a pregnancy and nothing more, that harm is not sufficient to violate the higher-order rights of the unsure person. 

Any characterization of this logic as "circular" is a deliberate misrepresentation. 


Personhood is the quality or state of being a human being. Personhood entitles you to certain inalienable rights, which are recognized in our courts as the rights to life, liberty, and property, among other things. Because we do not know whether fetuses are truly persons, we should treat them as such because they MAY be persons. 

 

[Swindle]

@Shireling


So you're basing it off of a baseless assumption that they might be people? Solid logic, mate. It's almost hilarious - you're basically saying that a fetus that isn't even sentient for almost half of its development and even after then has no conceptions of the outside world that it can comprehend might be a person worthy of all the same rights as anyone else. 


Also, it's no misrepresentation. Because it's a matter of belief you've basically joined this debate with the knowledge that no one will change your mind on the matter, and then claim that it is "liberalese tactical retreats" when people get tired of it. 


Also, there's no such thing as inalienable rights. The only rights that exist are the rights that people collectively negotiate and fight for to make into common law. It's why laws and rights can be abused due to interpreting them in ways beneficial to the user. 

 

[kibou]

!! Hey guys, please remember we have rules against creating a negative environment, including demeaning and insulting other users (such as calling them things like "dense", "vile," etc), and getting into arguments vs debates.


It's fine to discuss your views on things, but remember to keep things polite and civil.

 

[Saccharine Cyanide]

 No. Although I do care for fetuses, my opposition for abortion is based on purely ethically and logical guidelines. 


You're also seeming to imply here that you don't believe life has an inherent value, then you tell me to try a little empathy. Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds? 

Sorry, the empathy thing was heated and I regret saying it.


I didn't say life doesn't life doesn't have inherent value. Sorry if that's what it seems like I implied. I do value life, but I also value human rights, like the legal right to one's own body. Life is messy and unfair, and sometimes you're going to come to a situation where you have to choose.


Thinking some more about this, I hope it didn't come across that I meant my personal feelings were more important than unborn children. Many, many women feel the same way, and the way people perceive themselves and how they are perceived has very real social consequences.


And I didn't mean to base an argument on just feelings; I just wanted to show how this whole thing makes a lot of us feel. Actually, I just wanted to remind everyone that you're debating over things that will happen to real flesh-and-blood people, not hypothetical ones.

 

[Shireling]

So you're basing it off of a baseless assumption that they might be people? Solid logic, mate. It's almost hilarious - you're basically saying that a fetus that isn't even sentient for almost half of its development and even after then has no conceptions of the outside world that it can comprehend might be a person worthy of all the same rights as anyone else. 

Do you honestly think its BASELESS to assume fetuses MIGHT be people? It doesn't matter that they have 46 human chromosomes or that they will invariably develop into persons. 

Also, it's no misrepresentation. Because it's a matter of belief you've basically joined this debate with the knowledge that no one will change your mind on the matter, and then claim that it is "liberalese tactical retreats" when people get tired of it. 

I said you guys haven't provided any good case for abortion, and you haven't. You've basically just said, life is bad for poor people so if someone is going to be born poor they might as well not even be born. Which is despicable. 

Also, there's no such thing as inalienable rights. The only rights that exist are the rights that people collectively negotiate and fight for to make into common law. It's why laws and rights can be abused due to interpreting them in ways beneficial to the user. 

Whether you believe in inalienable rights or not is a different matter, its no secret that this country was founded on the idea that if you are a person it is immoral for the state or anybody else to kill you. People collectively negotiated for life to be considered a fundamental right of all persons, if you will. 


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

I didn't say life doesn't life doesn't have inherent value. Sorry if that's what it seems like I implied. I do value life, but I also value human rights, like the legal right to one's own body. Life is messy and unfair, and sometimes you're going to come to a situation where you have to choose.

I'm not saying the right to bodily autonomy is not important. It is. I'm not trying to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own body. The fetus in their womb is not part of their body. Its not like an arm or a leg. It is a separate living organism. If it is a person, and it might be, its right to life is more important. 

 

[AkuTheWolfOkami]

With fees for breaking laws too- someone who's poor might be devastated by a speeding ticket, someone who's rich wouldn't be nearly as discouraged.

I love youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu. As a Vet who was medically discharged but receives ZERO benefits (long story) , I'm in Graduate School Pursuing a PhD and speeding tickets or even simpler tickets are so damaging to the pockets. 250 dollars? I make roughly 1400 a month (between stipends and other avenues) and have bills over 1000 (i have a child), 250 is a devastating amount.


Even more so to those in true poverty (i say true, because I am technically in poverty BUT I'm a graduate student so I don't count myself). And these probation systems (like the one in my home state Georgia) have these people on virtual probation with extra fees, paying month to month, until they pay it off, so that 250 becomes 450 quick. 


I think this is ridiculous for a traffic ticket.