Other What are your politics?

[AkuTheWolfOkami]

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. 

Going to use your logic here.


The fetus is a separate living organism that feeds on the mother's nutrients. The fetus provides little to no benefits to the mother, in-fact as mentioned several times before, pregnancy can be extremely detrimental to the mother. The fetus, by definition, is a parasite. In general, you either kill or remove parasites. In this case, both would generally end the fetus' death.


It's a bit extreme example, but it's your logic. Now, you shall respond with a response that is going to backpedal. I'm going to laugh and say what I already said to you once before, then go back to ignoring this topic. 


You don't have to agree with abortion, but your reasoning behind your stance and how you go about defending it is the nightmares of researchers everywhere. 

 

[Shireling]

The fetus is a separate living organism that feeds on the mother's nutrients. The fetus provides little to no benefits to the mother, in-fact as mentioned several times before, pregnancy can be extremely detrimental to the mother. The fetus, by definition, is a parasite. In general, you either kill or remove parasites. In this case, both would generally end the fetus' death.

Well yeah. If it was a tapeworm and didn't have the potentiality to become what we would certaintly describe as a person, you would definitely be justified in removing it 100% of the time. This is a ludicrous argument. Are you literally comparing an unborn baby to a tapeworm? 

It's a bit extreme example, but it's your logic. Now, you shall respond with a response that is going to backpedal. I'm going to laugh and say what I already said to you once before, then go back to ignoring this topic. 

I didn't backpedal at all. I just pointed out the obvious logicaI fallacy in your line of attack. Unborn babies are not analogous to tapeworms. By this same logic, I'm justified in murdering my already-born children because I give them food, clothing, and shelter and they give me literally nothing. They do not pay me back in any meaningful way. 

You don't have to agree with abortion, but your reasoning behind your stance and how you go about defending it is the nightmares of researchers everywhere. 

What researchers? Embryonic stem cell researchers? If a practice is unethical it doesn't matter what the researchers think. And besides, better results have been obtained with adult stem cells. 

 

[The Gunrunner]

It was so nice and quiet in here yesterday. We all just sipped our teas and talked in those reserved posh voices.


Then the N.K., US, and abruptly reformed USSR dropped their nuclear arsenals on each other.


@Shireling


Forgive me for joining the masses - It's unfair at first glance to contribute to the doggy-piling. However, as has once been said - "A bad point is a bad point no matter how many people repeat it."


I'll admit to being somewhat lazy, so I apologize if you've already answered this question or addressed the point I'm about to make. In my defense, it was three pages of new posts to read.

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.

I don't know what the research on vegatative states says, but if it causes someone to lose their sentience... Then yes, I would say it's fine to pull the plug. I'd honestly argue that the basis of this argument ("You don't just go around pulling the plug on people in vegetative states because they're not sentient. Its an ethical dilemma") was reactionary, rather than based on reasoning.


But anyway, we have divergences in how we value life. Here is mine, coming from a position that sees moral values as a maddening whirlwind where everyone is perpetually right and wrong - a lovecraftian beast of eternal confusion, where we keep ourselves comfortable in our opinions through a mix of collective agreement, logic based around the most basic form of our moral algorithms, and where we compromise for practicality.


But, again, anyway...


I argued for abortion in the case of lack of sentience because that's the point where life can not have value. In fact, the personhood is morally irrelevent to me. In the scenario of a pregnancy, there are three people which hand down the value: The mother, the father, and the fetus itself. If the first two are getting an abortion, then they obviously don't value it enough to keep it. Therefore, the fetus' perceived value in itself is now the question... And, I believe, the problem; without sentience, it would be impossible for it to apply its own value. The final result is it being worthless, where I can not find a moral issue with killing it in the same way I can' see a moral issue with cutting down a tree.


This is excluding religion, where a deity sees value in the life. I'm not religious myself, but I won't judge if someone else has this view. However, due to the length required to argue either side on that point - The burden of proof, proof of existence or lack of, near death experiences, and whatever else might be said... I'd prefer to just not touch on that and let the above remain for consideration.


In closing, I'd genuinly ask you what it takes for life - any life - to have value?

 

[Novislav Đajić]

inb4 lock 


C'mon people, relax! I don't want this to be locked! 

 

[Grey]

I'll second that. I shouldn't've let my temper get the better of me.

 

[Swindle]

No temper on my end. 

 

[Shireling]

In closing, I'd genuinly ask you what it takes for life - any life - to have value?

The UN General Assembly had this to say: 


"Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life." 


This directly mirrors the sentiment of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  The High Courts of most Western nations agree that it is a right fundamental to all humans to not be deprived of your life arbitrarily. 


This means a human being cannot be killed without a reason. Furthermore, the common law in America anyways is that you are only justified in killing someone else in an act of self-defense. 


I'm not debating whether people have innate rights. Our courts seem to think they do, and generally the world is a better place if we operate on the assumption that human beings indeed have the right to not be arbitrarily killed. 


How does this apply to abortion? Well, although a fetus is not sentient, at least for much of its development, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are no longer persons. I use this example of people in a vegetative state because it parallels nicely. People in a vegetative state are believed to be braindead, but in some rare cases may actually regain their cognitive ability, or according to some research with brain scans, some of them are indeed conscious for brief periods of time at least. I'll try to hunt down that research, my philosophy professor presented it to us. 


This provides an ethical delima in the fact that we have no way of knowing if someone diagnosed in a vegetative state may regain sentience, or may still be sentient. So we're not sure if they're persons or not. If personhood hinges on sentience, then you would be warranted in killing these vegetative state patients as soon as they were diagnosed, but there's no garuntee that they won't regain sentience, nor is there any agreement that sentience is necessarily the determining factor of personhood. Therefore, vegetative state patients are unsure persons. We do not know whether we should consider them persons or not. 


I simply posit that it is more just to treat unsure persons as persons, and maintain their lives so long as their living does not come into conflict with a comparable right of a sure person, such as the mother's right to life. 

I argued for abortion in the case of lack of sentience because that's the point where life can not have value.

Well, all fetuses lack sentience at some point, but in almost all cases they develop sentience. Your argument is that because it is not sentient right now, at this moment, it is not a person. So if I knock you out, you're completely unconscious, and you don't wake up for a while, I'm justified in killing you because you're not sentient AT THAT MOMENT regardless of the fact that I know that you will more than likely regain sentience.

In fact, the personhood is morally irrelevent to me.

So then you're conceded that you don't think murdering ANYONE carries a moral connotation. Carry on. 

In the scenario of a pregnancy, there are three people which hand down the value: The mother, the father, and the fetus itself.

You don't think that a court saying "human life is valuable" applies in this situation? No, only the parents are the ones that matter. So if I'm a Christian Scientist and I don't want my kids to undergo cancer treatment, I'm the only one handing down value anyways so the state can just go bugger off. 

And, I believe, the problem; without sentience, it would be impossible for it to apply its own value. The final result is it being worthless, where I can not find a moral issue with killing it in the same way I can' see a moral issue with cutting down a tree.

Then quite frankly you're disgusting. You're saying that because the fetus is not yet mature enough to say, "Don't kill me." You're justified in killing it. Does it necessarily require that something advocate for itself to make killing it morally wrong? I think we can all agree that a puppy cannot meaningfully advocate for itself, yet it would be morally reprehensible to snap the necks of puppies for no good reason. Even if your reason was, "It will live in a house that has a 12% chance of underfeeding it," that would still be wrong. And that seems to be the argument. 


Again, you're saying the ability to advocate for yourself necessarily entitles you to moral value. So when I knock you unconscious and you can't tell me not to kill you or struggle in any meaningful way, it is not immoral to kill you. That's absolute horseshit. 

 

[Swindle]

Basing your arguments on straw men isn't a good way to have a civil discussion I think. No one's saying it's okay to just kill people at random or that it's fine to knock someone out and then kill them. 


The divide is that you think the potentiality of their sentience should grant them rights even when they likely don't even know what they are, whereas most of us are of the position that if their conception will make life harder for them and the mother then their potentiality isn't worth taking the risk since merely gaining an "existence" does not make you a person with thoughts, feelings and relationships.


You're very aggressively trying to say that we're disgusting for not caring about undeveloped fetuses but I really don't see how. I'm not concerned when bacteria and other microscopic multicellular organisms die either, because they likely can't even comprehend the rights you'd be trying to give them.


Also, even if someone in a vegetative state regained their sentience, without the proper medical treatment there's no way we'd be able to fully restore them so I'd frankly rather spare them the existential dread of being able to do nothing anymore.


I think you'll just never understand that none of us equate killing already sentient things to non-sentient ones.

 

[Euonia]

I'm not even American so I did delete most of these;



Abortion: I'm pro-life and pro-choice as I can see and understand both sides of the argument. As I think it is killing a life depending on the time of abortion. For me it's about context, if it's a case you keep having unprotected sex and having abortions then that's wrong you should either have the damn baby and give it up or get a condom. But if it's someone who was raped or something like that they should be allowed to not have that child.
Gay Marriage/Gay Rights: Love is love.
Trans Rights: A person is a person, they deserve the same rights as anyone else. It's not their fault they feel like they are in the wrong body but it's out fault they feel so isolated.
Guantanamo Bay Facility: It's wrong. As you lock up the worst of the worst of the worst. Some of them are there for torture and then you decide to torture them. I'm all about karma but if you stoop to their level you're no better than they are.




This mainly seems to be talking about Abortion right now so I am going to throw my two cents in;

The UN General Assembly had this to say: 


"Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life." 


This directly mirrors the sentiment of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  The High Courts of most Western nations agree that it is a right fundamental to all humans to not be deprived of your life arbitrarily. 


This means a human being cannot be killed without a reason. Furthermore, the common law in America anyways is that you are only justified in killing someone else in an act of self-defense. 


I'm not debating whether people have innate rights. Our courts seem to think they do, and generally the world is a better place if we operate on the assumption that human beings indeed have the right to not be arbitrarily killed. 


How does this apply to abortion? Well, although a fetus is not sentient, at least for much of its development, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are no longer persons. I use this example of people in a vegetative state because it parallels nicely. People in a vegetative state are believed to be braindead, but in some rare cases may actually regain their cognitive ability, or according to some research with brain scans, some of them are indeed conscious for brief periods of time at least. I'll try to hunt down that research, my philosophy professor presented it to us. 


This provides an ethical delima in the fact that we have no way of knowing if someone diagnosed in a vegetative state may regain sentience, or may still be sentient. So we're not sure if they're persons or not. If personhood hinges on sentience, then you would be warranted in killing these vegetative state patients as soon as they were diagnosed, but there's no garuntee that they won't regain sentience, nor is there any agreement that sentience is necessarily the determining factor of personhood. Therefore, vegetative state patients are unsure persons. We do not know whether we should consider them persons or not. 


I simply posit that it is more just to treat unsure persons as persons, and maintain their lives so long as their living does not come into conflict with a comparable right of a sure person, such as the mother's right to life. 


Well, all fetuses lack sentience at some point, but in almost all cases they develop sentience. Your argument is that because it is not sentient right now, at this moment, it is not a person. So if I knock you out, you're completely unconscious, and you don't wake up for a while, I'm justified in killing you because you're not sentient AT THAT MOMENT regardless of the fact that I know that you will more than likely regain sentience.


So then you're conceded that you don't think murdering ANYONE carries a moral connotation. Carry on. 


You don't think that a court saying "human life is valuable" applies in this situation? No, only the parents are the ones that matter. So if I'm a Christian Scientist and I don't want my kids to undergo cancer treatment, I'm the only one handing down value anyways so the state can just go bugger off. 


Then quite frankly you're disgusting. You're saying that because the fetus is not yet mature enough to say, "Don't kill me." You're justified in killing it. Does it necessarily require that something advocate for itself to make killing it morally wrong? I think we can all agree that a puppy cannot meaningfully advocate for itself, yet it would be morally reprehensible to snap the necks of puppies for no good reason. Even if your reason was, "It will live in a house that has a 12% chance of underfeeding it," that would still be wrong. And that seems to be the argument. 


Again, you're saying the ability to advocate for yourself necessarily entitles you to moral value. So when I knock you unconscious and you can't tell me not to kill you or struggle in any meaningful way, it is not immoral to kill you. That's absolute horseshit. 

You have made some very good points but it's a complicated issue as it's black and white but at the same it's a lot of grey area's. (There was no need to get violent though.) It's immoral and wrong to kill someone or something and the people who do it carry the guilt for the rest of their lives but some of them have to do it. I think it's wrong to kill the baby/fetus when you were just irresponsible or don't want to be a parent you could have it and then choose adoption. But if someone was raped or they are underage I think they should be allowed to have an abortion as surely if (like when it comes to rape) you didn't choose to have sex and conceive a baby you should have the choice to not have that baby.


I am pro-choice as I respect it is people's choice and not mine it's their life not mine. But that doesn't mean I agree with abortion I just respect that they are going through a difficult time so me dictating right and wrong to them is not going to help.



Some points from both sides of the argument -


Pro Choice:


It’s just a blob of tissue, not a baby.


Pro Life:


The preborn child has a heartbeat by the end of the third week. When surgical abortions are performed in the mid to late first trimester, the baby has arms, legs, feet, hands, etc.


Pro Choice:


We don’t know when life begins.


Pro Life:


Embryology textbooks and even pro-choice advocates concede that human life begins when the egg and sperm unite.


Pro Choice:


Even though biological life begins at conception, we don’t know when personhood begins.


Pro Life:


The point at which rights of personhood should be granted is not something we “know” or “don’t know.” Its something we decide. We grant rights to people we value and deny them to people we don’t.


Pro Choice:


The preborn child doesn’t have enough size, ability to feel pain, viability, self-awareness, etc. to be granted rights of personhood.


Pro-Life:


Such qualities develop over time. A newborn is smaller, less developed, less aware, and more dependent than a young adult, but that doesn’t make him less of a person.


 

"According to a 2010 review by Britain's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, "most neurosciences believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception." The cortex does not become functional until at least the 26th week of a fetus' development, long after most abortions are performed. This finding was endorsed in 2012 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which stated that that there is "no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain." A 2005 University of California at San Francisco study said fetuses probably can't feel pain until the 29th or 30th week of gestation. Abortions that late into a pregnancy are extremely rare and are often restricted by state laws. According to Stuart W. G. Derbyshire, PhD, Senior Lecturer at the University of Birmingham (England), "...fetuses cannot be held to experience pain. Not only has the biological development not yet occurred to support pain experience, but the environment after birth, so necessary to the development of pain experience, is also yet to occur."  The "flinching" and other reactions seen in fetuses when they detect pain stimuli are mere reflexes, not an indication that the fetus is perceiving or "feeling" anything." So whether it is right or wrong they don't feel the pain until the later stages so they need to make it so you can only have an abortion in the early stages.

 

[The Gunrunner]

Well, all fetuses lack sentience at some point, but in almost all cases they develop sentience. Your argument is that because it is not sentient right now, at this moment, it is not a person. So if I knock you out, you're completely unconscious, and you don't wake up for a while, I'm justified in killing you because you're not sentient AT THAT MOMENT regardless of the fact that I know that you will more than likely regain sentience.

... What? Explain - I'm asleep, with continuing awareness of my existence. I still know I am alive and I still feel emotions. If I temporarily lose my sentience in my sleep, I genuinly wasn't aware of that. Though if that's not what you're saying, then I don't get the point.


Additionally, there is the problem that you just clubbed the fuck out of someone who was sentient at the time of the attack.

So then you're conceded that you don't think murdering ANYONE carries a moral connotation. Carry on. 

What an entirely accurate statement. When I said that "personhood is irrelevent to me," meaning the state of being an individual in the species called 'human' is irrelevent to me, I said murdering humans is okay. It's not like I made a specification for what does matter. Something that, I don't know, tends to be a characteristic in humans which would make the irrelevent personhood equally irreleven- OH WAIT 


"without sentience, it would be impossible for it to apply its own value."


Oh dam- oh- oh fuck! S-so I guess I said that sentience was what was important, making your statement a strawman in disregarding my position's justification.

You don't think that a court saying "human life is valuable" applies in this situation? No, only the parents are the ones that matter. So if I'm a Christian Scientist and I don't want my kids to undergo cancer treatment, I'm the only one handing down value anyways so the state can just go bugger off. 

Well your example isn't accurate with what I said, since the kids would apply their own value. But in the case of the court, I feel it should be noted that their statement is valid because it works under the assumption that humans apply their own personal value. They would be making the same mistake if applying this to a fetus without sentience.

Then quite frankly you're disgusting. You're saying that because the fetus is not yet mature enough to say, "Don't kill me." You're justified in killing it. Does it necessarily require that something advocate for itself to make killing it morally wrong? I think we can all agree that a puppy cannot meaningfully advocate for itself, yet it would be morally reprehensible to snap the necks of puppies for no good reason. Even if your reason was, "It will live in a house that has a 12% chance of underfeeding it," that would still be wrong. And that seems to be the argument. 

 

Again, you're saying the ability to advocate for yourself necessarily entitles you to moral value. So when I knock you unconscious and you can't tell me not to kill you or struggle in any meaningful way, it is not immoral to kill you. That's absolute horseshit. 
 

What a succulent morsel.


I find it interesting that you started the unconsciousness example with "You lose sentience," and now it's because you can't say "no." Read what I said again. If you see the same thing, see your nearest doctor because you're suffering a stroke.


I said "...without sentience, it would be impossible for it to apply its own value." I did not say "Without stating you're sentient," or "Without resistance," or "Without saying 'don't kill me.' How it proves its sentience wasn't even mentioned in the post. You could have, though at a really desperate stretch, made that little stab if you first pointed out the gap. However, you instead assumed... I don't know what, actually.


Basically this is a strawman. I patiently await an actual response to what was said.

 

[Shireling]

Basing your arguments on straw men isn't a good way to have a civil discussion I think. No one's saying it's okay to just kill people at random or that it's fine to knock someone out and then kill them. 

I didn't say that's what they were advocating. I took their reasoning and applied it to another scenario where you can see the absurdity. 

The divide is that you think the potentiality of their sentience should grant them rights even when they likely don't even know what they are,

That seems like a stupid thing to say. Of course they don't know what they are if they're not yet sentient. 

whereas most of us are of the position that if their conception will make life harder for them and the mother

Making your life harder isn't necessarily an equivalent to the threat of being killed. Wouldn't you agree? 

then their potentiality isn't worth taking the risk since merely gaining an "existence" does not make you a person with thoughts, feelings and relationships.

There is no risk. If the pregnancy will kill you, terminate it. It's that simple. And yes, existing doesn't automatically confer thoughts and feelings, but I think we can all agree that left to their natural course these entities will develop such things. 

You're very aggressively trying to say that we're disgusting for not caring about undeveloped fetuses but I really don't see how. I'm not concerned when bacteria and other microscopic multicellular organisms die either, because they likely can't even comprehend the rights you'd be trying to give them.

No, you're disgusting for seeming to suggest that moral decisions are left up to the individual and you are justified in killing anything you don't deem a person. Also, why would I give rights to bacteria? They're not human beings. Fetuses, however, are 100% genetically human and will almost always develop into what is unambiguously a human being. 

Also, even if someone in a vegetative state regained their sentience, without the proper medical treatment there's no way we'd be able to fully restore them so I'd frankly rather spare them the existential dread of being able to do nothing anymore.

Isn't whether or not to end their lives a decision up to the individual in question and not you? If they wake up and say they want to die, if they are well advised on what that means and are mentally competent, then by all means let them excercise their agency to end their own life. But YOU should not be making that decision for other people. 

I think you'll just never understand that none of us equate killing already sentient things to non-sentient ones.

So again, I knock you unconscious: you are not sentient. You cannot use your five senses in any way. I should kill you then, because like you said: you don't equate the killing of sentient things to non-sentient things that will surely gain sentience. 

 

[Shireling]

What? Explain - I'm asleep, with continuing awareness of my existence. I still know I am alive and I still feel emotions. If I temporarily lose my sentience in my sleep, I genuinly wasn't aware of that. Though if that's not what you're saying, then I don't get the point.

Sentience is the ability to use your senses. Not the ability to cognate. When you are asleep, you cognate but do not feel. 

Additionally, there is the problem that you just clubbed the fuck out of someone who was sentient at the time of the attack.

You didn't ask to get clubbed, the fetus didn't ask to be conceived. 

But in the case of the court, I feel it should be noted that their statement is valid because it works under the assumption that humans apply their own personal value.

But the courts have said that persons have the right to life unless they infringe on someone else's. ALL persons. 

When I said that "personhood is irrelevent to me," meaning the state of being an individual in the species called 'human' is irrelevent to me

But its not irrelvent to the UN Charter of Human Rights, which I think we can agree is a good thing. 

"without sentience, it would be impossible for it to apply its own value."

Doesn't mean a value hasn't already been applied to it. 

S-so I guess I said that sentience was what was important, making your statement a strawman in disregarding my position's justification.

How can you agree with my statement and then call it a strawman? Do you know what a strawman is? 


And if sentience AT THAT TIME is what truly makes a person for you, then again you should have no problem with me killing you while you're unconscious. 

I said "...without sentience, it would be impossible for it to apply its own value." I did not say "Without stating you're sentient," or "Without resistance," or "Without saying 'don't kill me.' How it proves its sentience wasn't even mentioned in the post.

This is just word soup, although perhaps I did miscontstrue your point here. There's really no point to be had here. Yes it stands to reason that only sentient things can apply value to anything, but that doesn't necessarily mean that value can't be applied from elsewhere.  


Furthermore, resistance is a form of applying value to your own life. If you resist being murdered, it means you value your life. 

Basically this is a strawman. I patiently await an actual response to what was said.

A strawman is a deliberate misinterpretation of an argument to make it weaker and then defeat it. I have not done that, I have merely extrapolated the logos of the argument and applied it to another situation where it could be plainly seen as absurd. I think the minute people on the Internet started using the word strawman was when internet forum debating really went to shit. 

 

[Axel The Englishman]

Oh boy, I'll think we're gonna need to reload here.

 

[Swindle]

Undeveloped fetuses simply aren't individuals like a developed human is. It doesn't matter if they could be in the future, because they simply aren't at the time that the majority of abortions take place. Because the fetus is such a simple organism before developing later into the second trimester I'd frankly rank it in the same vein as unicellular and multicellular microscopic organisms. 


The funny thing is that I wouldn't know or care if I died while unconscious, so technically it doesn't matter but the me that is conscious now wouldn't want that to happen. The fetus has no capacity to be conscious of its condition and would be unable to care or worry about its own death in any scenario, unlike an already-living being. 


You're using the logic of our arguments poorly because the situations simply aren't comparable. There's no logical comparison to be made between something that already thinks and feels and something that never has. You're making the comparison based on the assumption that it's simply a given that a potential life is comparable to a pre-existing one. Are you too prideful to accept that most proponents of abortion don't have that line of thinking? 


Also, I don't know what sort of life you've lived but there definitely is a risk. Just because some poor thrive doesn't mean all or even a plurality of them do. If anything, it's the opposite. It doesn't have to threaten the person's life directly to threaten their mental health and livelihood. 


Also, straw man is still pretty valid in this argument I'd think. You don't think so because you believe your comparisons are perfectly logical, but I think they're nonsense. 


I'm just flabbergasted that you genuinely value the life of potential and theoretical people over those of people who already have their own problems to deal with. I'm glad that you want an ideal world where we have a social safety net that's adequate and sexual education to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but as of the moment they simply don't exist in full right now. And most people who share your anti-abortion stance also want to cut social services and eliminate sex ed, you know that, right? 

 

[The Gunrunner]

Sentience is the ability to use your senses. Not the ability to cognate. When you are asleep, you cognate but do not feel. 

Well, looking it up it seems I was using the wrong word. I meant consciousness. Sentience tends to mean something is also conscious, but it wasn't accurate. Apologies there.


Though in case that's wrong, I'm talking about being aware of your own existence.

You didn't ask to get clubbed, the fetus didn't ask to be conceived. 

The argument was that even in agreement with what you represented, someone would still be morally wrong because they knocked a sentient person unconscious. 

But the courts have said that persons have the right to life unless they infringe on someone else's. ALL persons.

There's what they said, and then there's why they said it. The justifications of laws are what is important because it is the reason that they should be in place. Thusfar, since we've been arguing moral views, you can't just repeat the conclusion. You need to use the same argument they're using, assuming you agree with it.

But its not irrelvent to the UN Charter of Human Rights, which I think we can agree is a good thing. 

See the above.

Doesn't mean a value hasn't already been applied to it. 

Which is why I included the parents. Value comes from the individual and others, as I said.

How can you agree with my statement and then call it a strawman? Do you know what a strawman is? 

Sarcasm. I thought I was being hyperbolic enough by contradicting the parody.


You said "So then you're conceded that you don't think murdering ANYONE carries a moral connotation. Carry on." Despite the fact I said "I argued for abortion in the case of lack of sentience because that's the point where life can not have value." You ignored the condition.


This is a misrepresentation of my statement, where it was then used to make an easier refutation. It was a strawman.

And if sentience AT THAT TIME is what truly makes a person for you, then again you should have no problem with me killing you while you're unconscious.

You realized above that something was wrong when I misused sentience, and when I specified "I still know I am alive and I still feel emotions" it was apparently ignored here. Now the conclusion is made as if no mistake was caught, and that sentience was the intended word. Again, even though I specified.

This is just word soup, although perhaps I did miscontstrue your point here. There's really no point to be had here. Yes it stands to reason that only sentient things can apply value to anything, but that doesn't necessarily mean that value can't be applied from elsewhere.  

 

Furthermore, resistance is a form of applying value to your own life. If you resist being murdered, it means you value your life.

"Word salad"? If so, my point boils down to "That's not what I said, stop strawmanning me."


As for "... that doesn't necessarily mean that value can't be applied from elsewhere," I said that. I made bad specifications, but it was the same idea.


One does not need to prove to others their value - Others can do it for them. We have studied sentience and consciousness both, and theorized their definitions and characteristics. We have studied when, generally, they come to be. It's in the same vein that one does not need to prove a mental disorder to others in order for us to know it is there - It has characteristics we are aware of, and that's why we can apply it to them.


So, while it is a form of proving value, it is not the only one... Like I said.

A strawman is a deliberate misinterpretation of an argument to make it weaker and then defeat it. I have not done that, I have merely extrapolated the logos of the argument and applied it to another situation where it could be plainly seen as absurd. I think the minute people on the Internet started using the word strawman was when internet forum debating really went to shit. 

When you remove the justifications for positions and argue against a statement that was never made, you're strawmanning.

 

[Shireling]

The funny thing is that I wouldn't know or care if I died while unconscious, so technically it doesn't matter but the me that is conscious now wouldn't want that to happen.

This, quite frankly, is some hilarious double think. So you're saying that the you that is conscious now wouldn't want you to die?


Funny, the me that is conscious now doesn't want to die either. Not even in the womb.

The fetus has no capacity to be conscious of its condition and would be unable to care or worry about its own death in any scenario, unlike an already-living being.

You, also, would be unable to care or worry about your death after I killed you. Tell me more, please.

You're using the logic of our arguments poorly because the situations simply aren't comparable.

Because? You're saying it's okay to kill a fetus because it's not sentient. That justifies killing anything that isn't sentient, which includes unconscious people.

There's no logical comparison to be made between something that already thinks and feels and something that never has.

But an unconscious person doesn't think or feel. Just because it has in the past doesn't make it sentient now, and apparently the potentiality to be sentient doesn't matter either.

You're making the comparison based on the assumption that it's simply a given that a potential life is comparable to a pre-existing one.

No, I'm basing the comparison based on your own definition of sentience as what entitles something to the right to not be killed. I can't be blamed for the holes in your own argument.

Are you too prideful to accept that most proponents of abortion don't have that line of thinking?

See above. Also, that would make me ignorant, not prideful.

Also, I don't know what sort of life you've lived but there definitely is a risk.

There's a risk I will be gunned down in the street, but I don't hide inside my house like a recluse. What risks exactly? Furthermore, no one is free of risk in life.

Just because some poor thrive doesn't mean all or even a plurality of them do. If anything, it's the opposite. It doesn't have to threaten the person's life directly to threaten their mental health and livelihood.

So you're again saying that if you have a mental health disorder or you're economically disadvantaged, what's the point of living? That's really you're argument. I'm just putting it in layman's terms.

Also, straw man is still pretty valid in this argument I'd think. You don't think so because you believe your comparisons are perfectly logical, but I think they're nonsense.

Well, you basically just said here "You are committing the strawman fallacy because that is my opinion."

I'm just flabbergasted that you genuinely value the life of potential and theoretical people over those of people who already have their own problems to deal with.

No. I don't. THAT is a strawman. I value the life of a potential person over the finances and convenience of a certain person. If the certain person is in danger of dying, BY ALL MEANS PERFORM AN ABORTION. I don't know how many times I have to say that.

I'm glad that you want an ideal world where we have a social safety net that's adequate and sexual education to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but as of the moment they simply don't exist in full right now.

So the solution is abortion, eh? I'm not seeing a credible case for this.

And most people who share your anti-abortion stance also want to cut social services and eliminate sex ed, you know that, right? 

I don't care about those people. They're wrong.

 

[Inner Power]

:smile8:

This seems to be appropriate right about now.

 

[Shireling]

Though in case that's wrong, I'm talking about awareness of self.

So severely retarded individuals aren't people?

The argument was that even in agreement with what you represented, someone would still be morally wrong because they knocked a sentient person unconscious. 

But the act of killing them isn't morally wrong, because they're not sentient.

There's what they said, and then there's why they said it. The justifications of laws are what is important because it is the reason that they should be in place. Thusfar, since we've been arguing moral views, you can't just repeat the conclusion. You need to use the same argument they're using, assuming you agree with it.

Doesn't mean the law can't be applied where the makers of the law didn't intend for it to be applied.

Which is why I included the parents. Value comes from the individual and others, as I said.

So the value the parents give the fetus overrules the courts?

You said "So then you're conceded that you don't think murdering ANYONE carries a moral connotation. Carry on." Despite the fact I said "I argued for abortion in the case of lack of sentience because that's the point where life can not have value." You ignored the condition.


This is a misrepresentation of my statement, where it was then used to make an easier refutation. It was a strawman.

So lack of sentience is the point where life has no value. Then I didn't misrepresent your argument at all.

You realized above that something was wrong when I misused sentience, and when I specified "I still know I am alive and I still feel emotions." Now the conclusion is made as if no mistake was caught, and that sentience was the intended word. Again, even though I specified.

You did not signal that your intention was to use "sentience" to mean "self-awareness," which it doesn't mean. But even then, you're not self aware when you're unconscious. Point still stands.

"Word salad"? If so, my point boils down to "That's not what I said, stop strawmanning me."


As for "... that doesn't necessarily mean that value can't be applied from elsewhere," I said that. I made bad specifications, but it was the same idea.

But I didn't strawman you.

One does not need to prove to others their value - Others can do it for them. We have studied sentience and consciousness both, and theorized their definitions and characteristics. We have studied when, generally, they come to be. It's in the same vein that you don't need to prove a mental disorder to others in order for us to believe it's there - It has characteristics we are aware of, and that's why we can apply it ourselves.


So, while it is a form of proving value, it is not the only one... Like I said.

But you're saying that sentient beings are okay to kill because they cannot possibly signal their value. That's your argument. So it's relevant.

When you remove the justifications for positions and argue against a statement that was never made, you're strawmanning.

The argument was made, but it wasn't made in such a way. The argument was that it is okay to kill fetuses because they are not sentient. It is a logical extrapolation that this position says it's okay to kill anything that isn't sentient. That's not a strawman. That's simple inductive reasoning. I also shouldn't have to justify your position, that should be your job. So no, I'm not strawmanning.

 

[Swindle]

It doesn't though, because those things still have lives whether they're conscious or not. Just because the fetus is an organism doesn't mean that it has any stake or worries in life, and again, it's not even capable of comprehending those things to begin with. It has no rights. It's just a potential human in the uterus that is for all intents and purposes apart of the woman's body and her sole responsibility. 


And the you that is in the womb wouldn't be able to formulate an opinion on whether or not it wants to die because it doesn't have higher cognitive functions, so you saying that bit about the womb is jusy silly.


Also, it's no doublethink. I'm just saying that I wouldn't have the capacity to care if you killed me mid-unconsciousness, so if I'm dead I'm dead. Same goes for the fetus. The difference is that I do have a life beyond my temporary unawareness, whereas the not-baby doesn't. 


The risk of the person's (if they are already poor) standard of life dropping due to inadequate income and medical care, and all the mental and physical issues that come with that are amongst the risks involved. And sure, no one is free of risk, but the poor are statistically less capable of taking risks and are invariably more harmed by the consequences. 


I'm not saying there's no point in living, you're just presupposing my position for me which is frankly insulting. I'm just saying you shouldn't make existing lives harder just because of some uncertain concept that the fetus could possibly be considered worthy of the same rights as its benefactors. 


It's only me saying that I think it's a straw man because of my opinion if you ignore the part where I talked about how your comparisons aren't comparable in any sense. You seem incapable of understanding that, though, since your opinion is plainly holding the moral high ground. 


Lol, it's not a straw man and you just proved my case. You just repeated that you do value the non-sentient developing life over the life of the mother and her associates. Death doesn't have to be the only thing at stake for someone who can already think and feel; your quality of life dropping can be just as painful, if not worse since you have to endure it for years to come. I'm sure you'll make a statement comparing the life of the fetus to the life of the actually-sentient human again, but again, they're not comparable. 


It's one solution when the alternatives are either unavailable or insufficient to make up for the additional burden wrought upon the family (or lack thereof, for single mothers) that has to rear the child. 


They're not, you're just delusional. Sorry mate, but I live in reality and the lives of people who can comprehend and have to deal with the burdens of their existence are more valuable to me than some collection of cells that will eventually turn into a functioning human at the mother's expense. 


Also, who is to claim authority over the mother's own bodily processes anyway? And before you say it, the "uncertain" rights of the not-baby don't trump the mother's autonomy under any circumstance. 

 

[The Gunrunner]

I'm just gonna have a cigarette and play vermintide.

 

[Swindle]

I just completed my game as Japan in Europa Universalis 3 a couple days ago. Also, is vermintide worth buying?

 

[Bone2pick]

This seems to be appropriate right about now.

Easiest prediction I've ever made.  

 

[The Gunrunner]

@Swindle I got Europa as well. Keep playing Norway... not a good idea, but hey - Heritage.


I enjoy it. The melee's pretty good and the levels are more, uh... exploration-worthy than those in L4d.

 

[Grey]

Friend of mine loves it. Wouldn't run stably on my laptop, sadly, so I had to refund it - just couldn't get a sufficiently new driver for my GPU. 


Total Warhammer is pretty awesome, though.

 

[Shireling]

It doesn't though, because those things still have lives whether they're conscious or not.

So does a fetus. A fetus is a living organism, whether it is conscious or not.

Just because the fetus is an organism doesn't mean that it has any stake or worries in life

Well the same could be said of an unconscious person at the time of them being unconscious. But then they wake up and regain that capacity. Weird, fetuses gain this capacity as well if they are not terminated.

and again, it's not even capable of comprehending those things to begin with. It has no rights.

I'm assuming, and I may be wrong, because of the way you linked these sentences chronologically in your argument, that you're insinuating that because a fetus cannot comprehend itself, it has no rights. In which case, a dog cannot comprehend itself, does it have rights? The courts seem to think so. Severely mentally retarded people oftentimes cannot comprehend themselves, but they have rights too.

It's just a potential human in the uterus that is for all intents and purposes apart of the woman's body and her sole responsibility. 

Yes, but that doesn't make it a part of her body for her to do whatever she wants with it. A car sits in a garage, but that doesn't make it part of the garage. Since you all are fond of the parasite example, a parasite lives in the host but it is not a part of the host. And yes, it's her responsibility. It is in her uterus after all.

And the you that is in the womb wouldn't be able to formulate an opinion on whether or not it wants to die because it doesn't have higher cognitive functions, so you saying that bit about the womb is just silly.

Is it really though? Does that even really matter? When I was a fetus, I was still the same organism that I am now. Just because I couldn't contemplate I am alive doesn't mean anything. Why does it matter that something can't express it's desire not to die when you kill it? Babies, newborns, cannot express a desire not to die, because they are unfamiliar with the concept of life and death. And yet, if I were to want to kill you as a newborn you would naturally object to that. You don't get "higher cognitive functions" until you are of some age. To suggest that fetuses suddenly develop higher cognitive functions in the second trimester and then at that point it's wrong to kill them is deluded.

Also, it's no doublethink. I'm just saying that I wouldn't have the capacity to care if you killed me mid-unconsciousness, so if I'm dead I'm dead. Same goes for the fetus. The difference is that I do have a life beyond my temporary unawareness, whereas the not-baby doesn't. 

Actually, according to you, you don't have a life beyond your temporary awareness, because that would require us to recognize the potentiality of you regaining consciousness. If you become unconscious, and let's say you never wake up, you really don't have a life beyond that unawareness now do you? Is it possible that that "life beyond unawareness" necessitates us agreeing to the value of the potentiality of you regaining consciousness. Your past life does not count. If you die, just because you have past experiences doesn't mean you're still alive. You have to have the potentiality of future experiences. So yeah, doublethink.

The risk of the person's (if they are already poor) standard of life dropping due to inadequate income and medical care, and all the mental and physical issues that come with that are amongst the risks involved. And sure, no one is free of risk, but the poor are statistically less capable of taking risks and are invariably more harmed by the consequences. 

Let's be clear, you're saying that "standard of life" is a justification for allowing someone to abort a fetus they could have otherwise carried to term and given away? Again, this goes back to comparable rights.


Furthermore, "standard of life" is pretty subjective. What if it's two rich people who have had an illicit affair and the woman is pregnant? They both surely have the means to care for the child, but they want to abort it to save their reputations. That's a standard of life isn't it? Are you going to support that?

I'm not saying there's no point in living, you're just presupposing my position for me which is frankly insulting. I'm just saying you shouldn't make existing lives harder just because of some uncertain concept that the fetus could possibly be considered worthy of the same rights as its benefactors. 

Let's pick this a apart shall we? "You shouldn't make existing lives harder just because of some uncertain concept that the fetus could possibly be considered worthy of the same rights as it's benefactors."


So let's say you're in a room with another person and a tester behind a glass and a wall made of paper. The tester tells you that if you do not fire a handgun into the wall of paper, the individual in the room with you will have to pay a sum of money and do a certain amount of labor. The tester also tells you that there may or may not be a person behind the paper wall, there is no way of knowing.


You're saying, "Well, I know there's a person here and I don't want them to pay a fine, so I'll just shoot the wall and be damned if there actually is a person behind it."


My theory says, "Hold on. Wait a minute. We can't be sure that there's not a person there. But I know that the harm of shooting and killing someone is a much greater harm than having someone have to pay some money and do a job they don't want to do. So it is better to not shoot the paper wall, just on the chance that there is in fact a person there."


Doesn't that seem a bit more reasonable?

It's only me saying that I think it's a straw man because of my opinion if you ignore the part where I talked about how your comparisons aren't comparable in any sense. You seem incapable of understanding that, though, since your opinion is plainly holding the moral high ground.

You think my comparisons don't make any sense, when I have reliably demonstrated that they are pretty accurate depictions of your own ideas in a different context. You think they're strawmen because you don't like the implications of your own philosophy.


I'm glad that you understand that my argument holds the moral high ground here, I know that's sarcasm.

Lol, it's not a straw man and you just proved my case. You just repeated that you do value the non-sentient developing life over the life of the mother and her associates.

You're fucking dense. You. Are. Fucking. Dense. I have said, and I will say it again, THE MOTHER'S LIFE supersedes the fetus's life. The mother's LIFESTYLE does not. You seem to be unable to disassociate the two concepts.

Death doesn't have to be the only thing at stake for someone who can already think and feel; your quality of life dropping can be just as painful, if not worse since you have to endure it for years to come.

So here we have it. If I can't afford an iPhone because I have to buy food for my kids (that's hyperbole, but a good one at that. I mean of course I can't afford to keep my lifestyle the same), it's WORSE THAN DEATH. Honestly, are you listening to yourself?

I'm sure you'll make a statement comparing the life of the fetus to the life of the actually-sentient human again, but again, they're not comparable.

Says you, arbitrarily. Because you have decided, categorically, that fetuses cannot ever be classified as people until a specific point of development. I'm not ready to make such a heavy, and completely unfounded, judgement. I believe they are worth the same, but I cannot PROVE that they are the same, and so I'm saying we should treat them the same on the off chance that they are, in fact, equal. Is it really such a radical position to say, "I don't have all the facts, let's be hasty here because life and death is a serious issue."?

It's one solution when the alternatives are either unavailable or insufficient to make up for the additional burden wrought upon the family (or lack thereof, for single mothers) that has to rear the child.

Yes, because the worth of something that may in fact be a human life, and we know certainly will become one, is purely economical. It's not like we're not all utilitarians who see things in terms of money. Some of us, crazy though we may be, are concerned about fundamental issues of life and death.

They're not, you're just delusional. Sorry mate, but I live in reality and the lives of people who can comprehend and have to deal with the burdens of their existence are more valuable to me than some collection of cells that will eventually turn into a functioning human at the mother's expense. 

Ah yes, I'm delusional and disconnected from reality because I don't validate your worldview. Furthermore, every existence has burdens. Nobody's life is a fucking rose garden. But shouldn't everyone have the right to decide on their own whether they want to check out? And you act as if we didn't all come about at our mother's expenses. Literally every single one of us. There's no way around it. That's just women's lot in life, to bear children. Ask God or Evolution, whichever you prefer, why your gender has the just awful burden of ensuring the survival of the species.

Also, who is to claim authority over the mother's own bodily processes anyway? And before you say it, the "uncertain" rights of the not-baby don't trump the mother's autonomy under any circumstance. 

Why is that? You have just arbitrarily decided this without any justification. And I think you're wrong, for the reasons I have been laying out for hours. First off, they're not uncertain rights, it's an uncertain person. There's a difference.  If it is indeed a person, we KNOW it has rights. We don't KNOW it's a person, but there's reason to believe it is and we KNOW that it WILL become a definite person, barring unforeseen circumstances.


If you entertain the notion that the fetus is a person, just for argument's sake, you would naturally find abortion morally reprehensible because naturally killing anyone to facilitate another's convenience is wrong.


You have decided, categorically, fetuses are not people with no evidence and no logical basis. Or rather, a deficient logical basis. Ergo, you should admit that you're not certain whether it is a person or not, and to gamble with people's lives is considered wrong, so henceforth abortion is wrong EXCEPT in the cases I have laid out.


I will take a minute to distance myself from the vitriol to make the following statement. Abortion is a complex issue that everyone has a stake in, because we were all once fetuses, and all of us have the potential to take part in creating them. I don't think any of you who I have debated on this thread are immoral people. I don't think you have any malice intended, and I don't have any malice intended towards you. I think some of your arguments are morally reprehensible, but the pendulum swings both ways. I always have had the utmost sympathy for those who are put in the difficult position of considering an abortion, and I don't think women who have had an abortion are "baby killers" or acting maliciously in any way. They are doing what they feel is right, and I cannot pass a moral judgement on them.


I have not been swayed, and you were not swayed, but the debate is still out there and it needs to be had. We cannot hide our faces from our civic duty to stand up for the causes that we feel are right, and we cannot shirk from our responsibilities as honest people to address what we consider to be misleading or untrue. That is the purpose of debate. To refine our arguments, and seek the truth.


I thank you all for a rousing debate, but I think we must admit that this has to come to an end because no productive point has been gotten to in this thread within a reasonable amount of time. Because I provided analysis above, it is only fair that you go ahead and take your countershots, I will read them but allow the discussion to lie. If any of you would like to engage me personally, feel free to do so. But I fear that if I carry on like this I will inflame the sensibilities of some and that could result in disciplinary action taken against me, which I do not want.


Thank you all, God bless you and good day.