Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sandwich on July 15, 2015, 05:17:43 am
-
(Double entendre in thread title entirely intentional...)
http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/14/planned-parenthood-busted-on-tape-trying-to-sell-aborted-baby-body-parts/
In shocking video obtained by the Center for Medical Progress and first reported by Live Action News, a top Planned Parenthood executive is seen attempting to sell body parts from aborted babies.
Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s senior director for medical services, is caught on video bragging about how she aborts babies in such a way that their body parts and organs can later be sold for profit.
“We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part,” Nucatola tells actors posing as organ traffickers. “I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”
-
Right. Can you point to a single instance of this actually happening?
EDIT: This post was made before I did any research into the matter. See below.
-
As for the video, people might want to just jump directly to 6:18, because before that it wasn't at all clear whether she was talking about something she does.
-
And then people might want to check out Planned Parenthood's response to it: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/statement-from-planned-parenthood-on-new-undercover-video
TL;DR: This is not about abortion clinics doing shady dealings behind the backs of the mothers having the abortion. This is about the recipients of fetusses that were donated to science reimbursing planned parenthood, which can be construed as a sale. Whether or not PP's view is true or not is up for debate (and for courts to decide, really).
So yeah. Context. Why didn't you provide any, Sandwich?
-
I'm extremely wary of these so-called undercover videos that EXPOSE THE BAD BAD CONSPIRACY, but when you look at them, they are absolutely unclear, without context, without good exposition, and basically demand that you provide yourself the rest of the reasoning and reach the "only logical conclusion". And if you don't, if you are somehow stubburnly skeptical and demand all the context, then you're an "idiot" and a "fool" who cannot take the hints.
No, I get all the hints. But I also get that these hints are extremely easy to manipulate. So no, give me a clear cut case that this is indeed happening in a way that is ultimately undefensible. Because I read that Planned Parenthood response, which is extremely responsible and clear cut, and I can only conclude what The_E has so far. That this is all **** stirring from the extreme wings of right wing religious fanatics that are against abortion, and will use anything against Planned Parenthood, even "Loose Change" or Alex Jones conspiratory reasonings to get there.
I'm not even against that. Sometimes, you do need to be unreasonable and paranoid to actually discover nasty truths hidden under carpets. But one thing is to think this and try to uncover this. Quite another is to build a case that proves the point beyond reasonable doubts.
And for the latter, this is a failure of massive proportions IMHO.
-
If this is only about reimbursing costs of harvesting fetal tissue for scientific research, then I see nothing wrong with it. Its not like we are talking about performing illegal or coerced abortions for profit here.
-
How dare anything positive come from abortions. That's completely against the narrative of how they're pure evil and utterly irredeemable.
-
I'm at work and can't watch the video, but my first thought is this probably has something to do with tissue donation for research, like for instance stem cell research. How far off am I?
BTW at the risk of side tracking things, can I ask, from the conservative biblical mindset, where does the biblical basis for considering life to 'begin at conception' come from? I am not completely ignorant of biblical texts and I honestly have never understood where this even came from.
-
Ok, so basically their explanation is that it's not a sale, it's a donation, and with the consent of the mother? How nice for them.
I guess I agree that if abortions are already being done over the place, at least some "usefulness" (I hesitate to use the word "good" in this situation) is coming from them.
Anyway, abortion repulses me in general, so for those of you who accept it as ok, then we'll never find common ground here. You'll see this Planned Parenthood thing as ok because you see abortion as ok, and they're (apparently?) not breaking any laws as far as we know. Me, I find abortion to be worse than murder due to it being planned by the parent, approved by doctors (do no harm?), and done against innocent and defenseless babies. You don't want a kid? Don't have unprotected sex. Raped? That's absolutely horrific. Don't make it worse by killing your baby, unwanted or not. Give it up for adoption - there's plenty of loving couples out there that can't have children of their own and who are looking to adopt.
Personally, none of my three daughters were planned. They are all wonderful accidents, but by no means mistakes.
BTW at the risk of side tracking things, can I ask, from the conservative biblical mindset, where does the biblical basis for considering life to 'begin at conception' come from? I am not completely ignorant of biblical texts and I honestly have never understood where this even came from.
Here's two opposing views, one concluding that it does indeed begin at conception (https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/when-does-life-begin/), and one that it begins at first breath (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/19/1285933/-Bible-Life-Begins-at-Breath-Not-Conception).
The issue I have with the scriptures mentioned in the "first breath" POV is that they affirm that breath is needed for life for a bunch of cases where the being in question has already been born... i.e. they say "this slain person received breath and lived again". Take this to the extreme - a water birth, where the baby has emerged from the womb, but the umbilical cord has yet to be severed and it's just chilling out there underwater. The baby has been born - it's out of the womb, but it hasn't taken its first breath yet. Alive or no?
-
Maybe, if we post enough about this decades old and fundamentally divisive social issue predicated on separate constructions of basic morality, here, on Hard Light Productions, we can solve it.
Fake edit: if only you'd play FS like it was 2007 as hard as you post like it's 2007
-
Ok, so basically their explanation is that it's not a sale, it's a donation, and with the consent of the mother? How nice for them.
I guess I agree that if abortions are already being done over the place, at least some "usefulness" (I hesitate to use the word "good" in this situation) is coming from them.
Anyway, abortion repulses me in general, so for those of you who accept it as ok, then we'll never find common ground here. You'll see this Planned Parenthood thing as ok because you see abortion as ok, and they're (apparently?) not breaking any laws as far as we know. Me, I find abortion to be worse than murder due to it being planned by the parent, approved by doctors (do no harm?), and done against innocent and defenseless babies. You don't want a kid? Don't have unprotected sex. Raped? That's absolutely horrific. Don't make it worse by killing your baby, unwanted or not. Give it up for adoption - there's plenty of loving couples out there that can't have children of their own and who are looking to adopt.
And that makes it OK to demonize abortions and the people and places that perform them? That makes it OK to use loaded rhetoric about how they "cut up the fetuses for spare parts"?
-
I think it is possible to disagree with abortion and still come to a reasonable discussion regarding what can be done with the unborn organs. I also think you're coming into this discussion not rationally but from a POV of stomach revulsion, with a disgust that goes beyond reason. I can understand that, but consider two things. The first is trivial: everyone who does not share your personal revulsion will not agree with your arguments merely because they stem from emotional baggage, not rational, reasonable thought.
Second, and less trivial, is the notion that a lot of medical action is painstakingly disgusting in itself. We are talking about a profession that deals with regurgitating stuff all day and all the hours in every single hospital. For many doctors, they have to leave their own "humanity" back outside and just try to deal with the human body as mechanically as possible, in order to save lifes. The level of inhumanity is palpable, but necessary. At some point, calculations about what can we do with this stuff that is being unused but can save other lifes over there just become completely necessary.
Now, if you had told us a story on how these things were being sold for a profit, that there would be a market here and people were off buying boats and yatches on top of aborted babies, that would disgust me. But consider: they are (allegedly, as all you and PP have shown, said) using these organs to further medical knowledge and investigation. These are practices that are going to save lifes. These are not things done because it's "fun" or "profitable" or whatever. They are done because they will save lives.
And I'm sorry, but if the unborn aborted babies are dead, and their organs can still save other lives, I'm for it.
Regarding personal stances on abortion, I can tell you that I too have three sons that were "accidents" but not mistakes and I would have never aborted them as well. One can separate the issues if one is rational enough. I dare you to do the same and think rationally instead of falling bait to such obvious emotional manipulation from certain places.
-
I can actually see why there's an ethical issue with providing a potential financial incentive to having an abortion even if you think abortions are acceptable. There's a reason you're not allowed to sell your kidneys, or that if you choose to donate the organs of a dead relative you don't get compensated.
-
I wasn't under the impression that the money was given to the mother, but rather to the hospital, and merely to cover costs. The incentive here would not be to perform abortions, but to prevent hospitals from not taking care of these organs. I'm a bit clueless about details, and the devil is always in them. I can totally see the ethical concern you're raising, Hoover.
-
I said it in 2005 and it's still correct: I would see the end of the gay marriage struggle in my lifetime, but they'd still be fighting about abortion when I was dead.
-
I wasn't under the impression that the money was given to the mother, but rather to the hospital, and merely to cover costs. The incentive here would not be to perform abortions, but to prevent hospitals from not taking care of these organs. I'm a bit clueless about details, and the devil is always in them. I can totally see the ethical concern you're raising, Hoover.
Yeah, and just as an FYI, the source on this is a hit piece by an organization that's been doing stings on Planned Parenthood for years. It was edited heavily (removing statements like 'nobody should be selling tissue, that's not the goal here'). The money here is reimbursement for tissue transport to hospitals and labs — which would be standard for any kind of tissue.
This group previously put out a hit piece alleging unsafe practices in abortion clinics, which led to a Congressional investigation. The investigation found that the clinics were safe and well run.
Do research before you repost things you see on the Internet, or you'll end up a sucker.
-
Here's two opposing views, one concluding that it does indeed begin at conception (https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/when-does-life-begin/), and one that it begins at first breath (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/19/1285933/-Bible-Life-Begins-at-Breath-Not-Conception).
The issue I have with the scriptures mentioned in the "first breath" POV is that they affirm that breath is needed for life for a bunch of cases where the being in question has already been born... i.e. they say "this slain person received breath and lived again". Take this to the extreme - a water birth, where the baby has emerged from the womb, but the umbilical cord has yet to be severed and it's just chilling out there underwater. The baby has been born - it's out of the womb, but it hasn't taken its first breath yet. Alive or no?
Well if the Bible says that it's not alive until first breath, and the bible is supposed to be the beginning of knowledge, then I would assume that would mean that the baby is not alive yet, no? There are many things the bible says that don't make any sense to me and that manner of thinking is alien to me so sorry if I come off wrong here, but even from my earnest attempts to see it from the religious point of view I have never understood where this iron clad sense of certainty came from. I mean most of the arguments for life beginning at conception in your first link are not unambiguous statements of divine revelation, the concept is teased out based on the use of personal pronouns for people after the fact. Bear with me for a sec, but this (http://venturesafrica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Ironore_22470.jpg) is iron ore. If I were to build a self aware robot out of steel smelted from that ore and I was talking to the robot about it afterwords, I might refer to that ore with a 'you'. that does not mean that the ore is a robot, that doesn't mean that at the time I would have considered it as such, or even after the fact. it's just a quirk of language. But now there is a bigger issue here, If there are in fact two biblically derived lines of thought on the subject, and one of these lines says that life begins at first breath, then how can you condemn people with such certainty? it doesn't seem like such a cut and dry issue as most pro-life people want it to be, even if you are willing to entertain biblical authority.
-
And that makes it OK to demonize abortions and the people and places that perform them? That makes it OK to use loaded rhetoric about how they "cut up the fetuses for spare parts"?
Sorry, when and where did I "demonize" anything, or use that loaded rhetoric? Or are you simply debating with me as a "representative" of sorts of what some pro-lifers do? Not sure whether you were referring to actions I'd taken, or that others you think I agree with have taken...
And I'm sorry, but if the unborn aborted babies are dead, and their organs can still save other lives, I'm for it.
As I said:
I guess I agree that if abortions are already being done over the place, at least some "usefulness" (I hesitate to use the word "good" in this situation) is coming from them.
Well if the Bible says that it's not alive until first breath, and the bible is supposed to be the beginning of knowledge, then I would assume that would mean that the baby is not alive yet, no? I mean most of the arguments for life beginning at conception in your first link are not unambiguous statements of divine revelation, the concept is teased out based on the use of personal pronouns for people after the fact.
The Bible has passages that can be understood either way if you take them far enough out of context. The ones referring to God forming, knowing, and destining us in the womb are more specifically relevant to the "When does life begin?" question than are the ones about life being breathed into post-birth now-dead people.
Bear with me for a sec, but this (http://venturesafrica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Ironore_22470.jpg) is iron ore. If I were to build a self aware robot out of steel smelted from that ore and I was talking to the robot about it afterwords, I might refer to that ore with a 'you'. that does not mean that the ore is a robot, that doesn't mean that at the time I would have considered it as such, or even after the fact. it's just a quirk of language.
That iron ore, under the natural course of events, will never become a robot. However, all throughout nature, conception leads to miniature duplicates of the two creatures that conceived it.
That ore was made into a robot through - if I dare say it - intelligent design... blueprints, if you will. The ore was the raw material that needed external shaping and manipulating to become the final product - a robot.
That external shaping and manipulating - the blueprints - are part of our genetic code (regardless of whether you believe in evolution, creation, or even both). Our bodies are processing, manufacturing, self-repairing, and self-replicating factories all in one (ok, the self-replicating part needs two factories). We are what we eat is very true if you think about it. Where does the material that composes our bodies - at any stage of life from conception (or even the makeup of the sperm and egg before that) onwards - come from? Our food. Those raw materials are broken down by our bodies and converted into whatever the body needs it to be.
So technically, you could take pictures of your food and say that's "you" if you want. But without those blueprints, that food will never become people any more than that ore will become a robot. Once those blueprints are in-place and being followed, the situation changes. Robot components are constructed and awaiting final assembly. Egg and sperm have merged genetic code and are developing into the "final" form.
So just like those robot components on the conveyor belts in the factory are inevitably going to become a robot (barring intervention), so to are the combined egg and sperm going to become a person (barring intervention). The parallel can only be taken so far though - robots can be switched on and off, whereas that egg+sperm develops and grows from the moment of conception onwards (both before and after birth).
I guess what I'm saying is that while the comparison is useful to extent, it ultimately doesn't help. Iron ore is to robots what food is to people. A conceived fetus has no real robotic parallel - the closest thing would be robot components undergoing final assembly, but there are still differences.
But now there is a bigger issue here, If there are in fact two biblically derived lines of thought on the subject, and one of these lines says that life begins at first breath, then how can you condemn people with such certainty? it doesn't seem like such a cut and dry issue as most pro-life people want it to be, even if you are willing to entertain biblical authority.
Just like the woman in the video said, there are laws, and those laws are lent to interpretation in different ways. It depends on what your interpretation is.
-
And I'm sorry, but if the unborn aborted babies are dead, and their organs can still save other lives, I'm for it.
As I said:
I guess I agree that if abortions are already being done over the place, at least some "usefulness" (I hesitate to use the word "good" in this situation) is coming from them.
While said in a very dismissive way, I'll take it. "How good for them" and hesitating to say that saving lifes is "good" aside, I think the point of the thread is done and a consensus has been reached. I hope this thread doesn't trail off to a never ending discussion on the merits of abortion. Because that is mostly tiresome and I'll leave at New Horizons speed.
-
I live in the United States so that I don't have to listen to someone tell me what I must believe in a spiritual or moral subject; I determine my beliefs myself like any capable adult does.
Why, then, is an organization like Planned Parenthood, or the very concept of not believing something even a ****ing issue? You don't have to like it or agree with it. You are allowed to be disgusted. You are allowed to be offended. It does not matter what you think on the subject, because what you think does not matter to someone else's beliefs.
So it is here. There has been no ethical or legal violation, This discussion is pointless in that light.
-
Here's the full, unedited video if anyone cares to take the time to watch:
While said in a very dismissive way, I'll take it. "How good for them" and hesitating to say that saving lifes is "good" aside, I think the point of the thread is done and a consensus has been reached. I hope this thread doesn't trail off to a never ending discussion on the merits of abortion. Because that is mostly tiresome and I'll leave at New Horizons speed.
If saving lives was the holy grail of goals like all these arguments seem to indicate it is, then why is abortion a thing?
It does not matter what you think on the subject, because what you think does not matter to someone else's beliefs.
So it is here. There has been no ethical or legal violation, This discussion is pointless in that light.
Ethics are relative. As for the possible legal violation, we'll apparently find out... reports are that Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana has instructed Louisiana’s Department of Health and Hospitals to launch an investigation.
-
Given the amount of sheer dishonesty involved in this report, I think we should just close the thread and stop publicising it any further.
-
If saving lives was the holy grail of goals like all these arguments seem to indicate it is, then why is abortion a thing?
I'm sorry Sandwich, but this is a question worded in bad faith. Most doctors are fervent defenders of lives throughout the world, and most of them are also pro-abortion. It's not an incompatible worldview, it's just not absolutist to the single fetus cell. If you cannot understand that most pro-abortion people do in fact believe in saving lives, and can only see and regard these people as monsters, then I just submit you are astonishingly wrong about your judgement of these people and can only hope you get to see that by yourself.
Take care.
-
If you want to stop abortions, give out free IUDs in every high school (this is not just rhetoric but actual effective intervention)
-
I'm sorry Sandwich, but this is a question worded in bad faith. Most doctors are fervent defenders of lives throughout the world, and most of them are also pro-abortion. It's not an incompatible worldview, it's just not absolutist to the single fetus cell. If you cannot understand that most pro-abortion people do in fact believe in saving lives, and can only see and regard these people as monsters, then I just submit you are astonishingly wrong about your judgement of these people and can only hope you get to see that by yourself.
Take care.
Reasoned, pluralist debate about abortion is about as close to impossible as any issue I've ever seen, in no small part because it touches on the unsettling and fascinating truth that all moral systems are built on axioms that can't really be reduced or logically justified. The universe doesn't distinguish between life and nonlife — there's no code in physics to recognize and tag a living thing. Arguments about the capacity to suffer founder on our inability to understand qualia.
It's up to us to draw lines — and a good way to defend your line is to claim it was delivered to you by higher truth.
That makes for a very messy issue.
-
That might as well be the philosophical status of our current predicament, but empathy has been known to produce miracles of transposing "drawn lines" and that's something no philosophy or religion can help achieve. It must be achieved by each one in their own life's experience.
-
miniature american flags for all!
-
Ethics are relative.
It never ceases to amaze how you can say this without irony, and continue to back up your opposition to abortion as a moral imperative.
-
Don't be so hard on him. He means that ethics are relative to your moral framework. His moral framework does not allow any of this stuff. For his morals, this whole discussion is just totally gone mad from the get go.
-
I hope his morals don't include falling for calculated clickbait, manipulative editing, and scummy ethical practices that drag down the whole political conversation.
-
Ethics are relative.
It never ceases to amaze how you can say this without irony, and continue to back up your opposition to abortion as a moral imperative.
From where he is from? Quite possibly.
From some of our points of view? **** no.
My point of view on it?
Its nice that the religious point of view gets heard.
Doesnt mean it should affect the secular government or people who do not share your opinion or beliefs.
Last time i checked, 5 long years ago mind you, the general concensus in my part of the world was that the child is not considered a "person" until the moment of birth. Also i think there's also the limit of abortion up to 3 months into it due to danger to the potential mother...
Also, having personal experience with the matter, its the ugliest decision we've ever had to make. But it was that or bring up a child in an even worse situation than either of us grew up in.
It was however our choice. The mind knows and understand, but the heart does not. If you can live with the consequences of your decision, good. In either case.
If not, seek help.
-
Reasoned, pluralist debate about abortion is about as close to impossible as any issue I've ever seen, in no small part because it touches on the unsettling and fascinating truth that all moral systems are built on axioms that can't really be reduced or logically justified. The universe doesn't distinguish between life and nonlife — there's no code in physics to recognize and tag a living thing. Arguments about the capacity to suffer founder on our inability to understand qualia.
Although it was hardly your point, it ought to be said that capacity to suffer need not be an issue with abortion. We are after all capable of killing people in various ways that are quite certainly painless, might as well apply those to a fetus as well just to make sure (I'm sure at least some current methods already qualify).
Not that I think that'd satisfy an anti-abortionist.
-
It's the general line of thinking "I think this is wrong so you shouldn't be allowed to do it" that gets my goat about it. Why on Earth should I care what the proverbial you or your God care about when it comes to my actions and beliefs? Obviously there will be consequences, but it's emphatically neither a right nor a privilege for anyone to determine what I think is right for me.
-
The Bible has passages that can be understood either way if you take them far enough out of context.
one of my major (if probably unobtainable) goals in life is to know the truth, taking things out of context to intentionally misrepresent them is in opposition to this goal.
The ones referring to God forming, knowing, and destining us in the womb are more specifically relevant to the "When does life begin?" question than are the ones about life being breathed into post-birth now-dead people.
I have seen some passages that might imply some predestination or foreknowledge on God's part. that would be consistent with god being everywhere and knowing everything and being timeless. I do not see how they establish the point at which us temporal beings would consider a human life to begin. To god each human life might have begun when he created the universe and are eternal by his perception, because he is outside of time and we have all always existed because eventually we did.
That iron ore, under the natural course of events, will never become a robot. However, all throughout nature, conception leads to miniature duplicates of the two creatures that conceived it.
That ore was made into a robot through - if I dare say it - intelligent design... blueprints, if you will. The ore was the raw material that needed external shaping and manipulating to become the final product - a robot.
That external shaping and manipulating - the blueprints - are part of our genetic code (regardless of whether you believe in evolution, creation, or even both). Our bodies are processing, manufacturing, self-repairing, and self-replicating factories all in one (ok, the self-replicating part needs two factories). We are what we eat is very true if you think about it. Where does the material that composes our bodies - at any stage of life from conception (or even the makeup of the sperm and egg before that) onwards - come from? Our food. Those raw materials are broken down by our bodies and converted into whatever the body needs it to be.
So technically, you could take pictures of your food and say that's "you" if you want. But without those blueprints, that food will never become people any more than that ore will become a robot. Once those blueprints are in-place and being followed, the situation changes. Robot components are constructed and awaiting final assembly. Egg and sperm have merged genetic code and are developing into the "final" form.
So just like those robot components on the conveyor belts in the factory are inevitably going to become a robot (barring intervention), so to are the combined egg and sperm going to become a person (barring intervention). The parallel can only be taken so far though - robots can be switched on and off, whereas that egg+sperm develops and grows from the moment of conception onwards (both before and after birth).
not following, but you seem to TL;DR it here
I guess what I'm saying is that while the comparison is useful to extent, it ultimately doesn't help. Iron ore is to robots what food is to people. A conceived fetus has no real robotic parallel - the closest thing would be robot components undergoing final assembly, but there are still differences.
ok, how about this. there is a particular arrangement of matter that we call a human. It comes about via a natural process which starts by an act of free will and that process can be halted after this act of free will.
likewise there is a particular arrangement of matter we call ice, which is separate from another of arrangement of matter we would call water. Ice can be made as a natural process started by an act of free will. all I have to do is leave a glass of water some place cold enough. at some point we stop calling it water and start calling it ice. The only point I am trying to make here is that there is a transition from one to the other. Likewise there is a transition between when there is not a human and when there is. defining that point is the entirety of the issue here and I do not see how or why conception couls or should be considered that point in time, just because it is the start of a long drawn out cascade of natural processes that eventually lead to a human life. when you light the fuse to a bomb you haven't set it off yet. You seem to be conflating the point in time in which a process started and the point in time when it ended.
Just like the woman in the video said, there are laws, and those laws are lent to interpretation in different ways. It depends on what your interpretation is.
The whole point of what I said was to ask how can you be so certain, and you seem to be answering me here with "you can't be so certain" and yet you are.
-
It's the general line of thinking "I think this is wrong so you shouldn't be allowed to do it" that gets my goat about it.
TBF, and I don't mean to be annoying here, but isn't that the most normal source of our own laws and morals? We believe something is wrong and so we outlaw it. You think murder is wrong and so you also think it should be outlawed. This is not something that should get your goat about it, it's normal moral reasoning. The problem here is one of amazingly different moral judgement on an action. You believe we should be allowed to do it, he doesn't, that's it.
-
It's the general line of thinking "I think this is wrong so you shouldn't be allowed to do it" that gets my goat about it. Why on Earth should I care what the proverbial you or your God care about when it comes to my actions and beliefs? Obviously there will be consequences, but it's emphatically neither a right nor a privilege for anyone to determine what I think is right for me.
What's the point of that question? Everyone thinks there are things others shouldn't be allowed to do, yourself included. Just answer your own question and there you have it.
-
Yeah, the statement 'You can do anything you please, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else' is pretty universally agreeable...up until you try to pin down the stuff after the comma.
-
It's the general line of thinking "I think this is wrong so you shouldn't be allowed to do it" that gets my goat about it. Why on Earth should I care what the proverbial you or your God care about when it comes to my actions and beliefs? Obviously there will be consequences, but it's emphatically neither a right nor a privilege for anyone to determine what I think is right for me.
What's the point of that question? Everyone thinks there are things others shouldn't be allowed to do, yourself included. Just answer your own question and there you have it.
There are indeed things that others shouldn't be allowed to do. Almost universally (you could probably dig hard enough to find one or two contrary), those things are detrimental to societal safety and well-being beyond the whims of the person doing it. Murder is obvious, as are rape, physical intimidation (assault and/or battery), blackmail, extortion, fraud, and a while host of other things. Hell, driving while intoxicated and smoking in a confined public space fit the bill.
It's when things go beyond that to "I think this is immoral because X", where X is an easy majority of religious reasons that it goes too far. Such is the case here. Quite frankly, even if PP was flat out being paid for this it would not raise a blip on my radar unless that particular fact influenced PP staff to give fraudulent council on whether a prospective mother should get an abortion or not (which, in all fairness it probably would).
When people let personal disgust rather than any sort of informed judgement influence what other people should be allowed to do is where this one goes horribly wrong.
And this is all leaving aside issues of bodily autonomy!
-
what i want to know is how the palestinians are behind this
-
There are indeed things that others shouldn't be allowed to do. Almost universally (you could probably dig hard enough to find one or two contrary), those things are detrimental to societal safety and well-being beyond the whims of the person doing it. Murder is obvious, as are rape, physical intimidation (assault and/or battery), blackmail, extortion, fraud, and a while host of other things. Hell, driving while intoxicated and smoking in a confined public space fit the bill.
It's when things go beyond that to "I think this is immoral because X", where X is an easy majority of religious reasons that it goes too far.
Well, no one thinks murder, rape, assault or extortion are wrong primarily because of their detrimental impacts to societal safety. They're deemed wrong (primarily) because of how they directly hurt/harm a person, and even you'd consider them (or most of them anyway) to be wrong because of that even if they magically had no societal effects.
A pro-lifer considers a fetus to be a person, in which case, obviously they would equate murder and abortion and would want both to be disallowed. When the disagreement clearly is about the premise, it'd be a good idea not to portray it as being about something else.
-
Well, no one thinks murder, rape, assault or extortion are wrong primarily because of their detrimental impacts to societal safety. They're deemed wrong (primarily) because of how they directly hurt/harm a person, and even you'd consider them (or most of them anyway) to be wrong because of that even if they magically had no societal effects.
If the majority of people thought that murder was wrong primarily because of how it directly harmed someone, the death penalty wouldn't be legal.
-
You're implying it has to do with our emotions but I fail to see how that contradicts what he said and meant
-
You're implying it has to do with our emotions but I fail to see how that contradicts what he said and meant
Quite the opposite; zookeeper seemed to be saying it was an emotional reaction to someone being harmed; I'm pointing out that we consider murder to be detrimental to societal safety and (in large enough numbers to keep it legal, at least) do not consider the state executing someone to be similarly detrimental. If it was about harming people, then surely executing someone harms them as well.
As for this part:
even you'd consider them (or most of them anyway) to be wrong because of that even if they magically had no societal effects.
The only way I can think of for a murder to have "no societal effects" is for nobody to know that it happened at all, in which case nobody has an opportunity to apply moral reasoning to it in the first place.
-
I think people debating abortion tend to get the issue at stake confused.
The issue isn't "is a female allowed to choose to not have a child".
The issue is "at what point does an unborn child become a human being, as this gives it unalienable rights of its own, including the right to life".
Correct?
-
If that were correct anti-abortion activists would be pushing birth control and sex ed. A lot of it is about controlling women.
-
Well, as much as they / I might think that is the case, as long as abortion (which we believe is murder) is on the table as a viable alternative, I would think that would be the lesser of two evils (free contraceptives).
At least, (this is speaking from our opinion) if you are going to do something wrong, then keep it to your own decision and consequences, and don't involve an innocent bystander. Right?
I also understand the counterpoint: this (free contraceptives) might encourage risky behavior, as there wouldn't be consequences. Well, the ones that do, do anyways, and the ones that don't, don't anyways, despite the availability of pretty cheap and / or free contraceptives.
So, that would seem to be a clear-cut choice as far as preventing abortions go (which, if it is indeed the ending of an innocent human life, we would all agree would be unacceptable, right?
-
I think a lot of the people from that particular position would argue that "lesser of two evils" isn't a valid moral argument as the result is still an evil, particularly when there is an alternate option that is definitely not evil. (An ineffective option for most participants, but still.)
-
Err. One option taken by someone who has no moral qualms with contraception, extra-marital sex, or abortion is definitely better than the other. extramarital sex and/or Murder ≠ extramarital sex and/or contraception, I'm sorry.
Argument "all sin is sin and evil"
Argument "true, however, there is another party involved at this point and that's who we're talking about"
Besides. All have sinned. Correct? Yes. All sinners. So.... in the case of the wretched sinner, if all sins are equal, no difference. Why the fuss then? Oh, that's right, the innocent unborn child... oh, wait.
TL;DR: If you're (they're/we're) going to argue 'there is no lesser evil', well, at least pick the evil that does not create and involve a second victim besides the sinner. (No I'm not saying 'sinner' in a derogatory sense; "all have sinned" means all, and all therefore are morally equivalent before God. Accepting forgiveness for crimes does not make one better than one who hasn't accepted forgiveness (yet) - it is a free gift to all who accept it. I don't see why Christians so often forget this and act like they are better than anyone else.)
-
I'm confused... what exactly is the sin here? The "risky behaviour" that sex ed and provision of safe contraception would provide?
Is it ****ing? Because ****ing isn't risky, it isn't inherently bad. Actually, it's inherently pretty great. And, although I don't have the numbers in front of me, I'd be willing to bet that standard heterosexual* sex, by properly educated consensual partners using a properly applied condom in the age of modern antibiotics is considerably less risky than, say, driving tired or with a BAC of 0.015. And yet, strangely, you don't see Christians protesting those behaviours.
Why? Because Battuta had it right. The abortion "debate", publicly wrapped up though it might be in concern for unborn children, and however much it might actually be about that for a lot of people is, at its core, about power and puritanical anti sexualism, especially for women.
Well, no one thinks murder, rape, assault or extortion are wrong primarily because of their detrimental impacts to societal safety. They're deemed wrong (primarily) because of how they directly hurt/harm a person, and even you'd consider them (or most of them anyway) to be wrong because of that even if they magically had no societal effects.
If the majority of people thought that murder was wrong primarily because of how it directly harmed someone, the death penalty wouldn't be legal.
Speak for yourself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#Global_distribution). In most of the world, certainly in almost all of the first world, it isn't legal. Just because America does it, doesn't make it moral or right, not does out really impact on the discussion here.
*Not intending this to be a slight on homosexual practices, but some of those practices can be riskier from an STI perspective than straight up P in the Vjee, and I didn't want to let the issue get hung up on that.
-
I think Ralwood is skipping over the principle underlying eye-for-an-eye morality, that if you hurt someone undeserving then hurting you in equal measure becomes morally acceptable. This doesn't particularly involve any justification in terms of 'the good of society'.
-
TL;DR: If you're (they're/we're) going to argue 'there is no lesser evil', well, at least pick the evil that does not create and involve a second victim besides the sinner. (No I'm not saying 'sinner' in a derogatory sense; "all have sinned" means all, and all therefore are morally equivalent before God. Accepting forgiveness for crimes does not make one better than one who hasn't accepted forgiveness (yet) - it is a free gift to all who accept it. I don't see why Christians so often forget this and act like they are better than anyone else.)
You're kind of missing the point here: according to that particular worldview, there's a third option that implies no evil whatsoever, thus negating the necessity of picking between any evils, i.e. if you don't have sex, then you don't need to concern yourself with requiring contraception or abortion. As I've already noted, that particular viewpoint has been proven ineffective, at least in the case of educating teenagers, but it is certainly still an option.
I'm confused... what exactly is the sin here? The "risky behaviour" that sex ed and provision of safe contraception would provide?
Is it ****ing? Because ****ing isn't risky, it isn't inherently bad. Actually, it's inherently pretty great. And, although I don't have the numbers in front of me, I'd be willing to bet that standard heterosexual* sex, by properly educated consensual partners using a properly applied condom in the age of modern antibiotics is considerably less risky than, say, driving tired or with a BAC of 0.015. And yet, strangely, you don't see Christians protesting those behaviours.
Why? Because Battuta had it right. The abortion "debate", publicly wrapped up though it might be in concern for unborn children, and however much it might actually be about that for a lot of people is, at its core, about power and puritanical anti sexualism, especially for women.
Now you're just creating something of a false equivalency here. I don't know of any reasonable individuals that advocate driving while drunk or fatigued, and certainly not any organized groups promoting such. (In fact there's a very prominent organization in the US known as M.A.D.D., Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and I'd be willing to bet a good chunk of its members are Christians.) As I noted above, that side's viewpoint isn't that one should perform an activity in a risky manner, but instead that one should not perform the activity in the first place. "Just keep it in your pants, or at the very least out of someone else's pants."
And while there are no doubt some elements of the abortion debate that carry anti-woman undertones, I think you run the real risk of creating a strawman by suggesting that it's the fundamental force behind the entire movement.
-
He's not wrong about it being anti-sex though. Scratch almost any anti-abortion debate and you'll hear someone say that it's the couple's fault for having sex. This is despite the fact that married couples have sex, unplanned pregnancies, and abortions all the time.
-
Well yeah, there's no denying that. However I think the main target is that frequently almost-assumed progression of "sex -> unplanned pregnancy -> abortion," when there are valid alternatives at each step.
-
Well yeah, there's no denying that. However I think the main target is that frequently almost-assumed progression of "sex -> unplanned pregnancy -> abortion," when there are valid alternatives at each step.
It's the main target because it's an easy target. The simple fact is that anti-abortionists, because of their abhorrence of pre-marital sex and sexual education are causing abortions not just amongst those people they can label as 'sinners' for having sex, but also amongst married couples. But they don't like to mention that side of the argument cause they can't complain at married people for having sex since they've been promising that as the reward for waiting until marriage.
-
And we know that for better or worse teaching people not to have sex doesn't work in scale.
-
Ralwood, thanks I think I got your idea now.
I think a lot of the people from that particular position would argue that "lesser of two evils" isn't a valid moral argument as the result is still an evil, particularly when there is an alternate option that is definitely not evil. (An ineffective option for most participants, but still.)
Yeah, this brings to my mind that Christopher Hitchens' quote AIDS is bad as a disease very bad, but not quite as bad as condoms are bad or not as immoral in the same way, which is the end result of a puritan perfectionist moral construct, where every "BAD THING" is as sinful as the next, and because they are all leveled in the same manner, the guidance about how better to deal with all those different things is absolutely lost. Of course that having safe sex is preferable to having unsafe sex, even if you think that sex is sinful, but since you have crossed the line into sinfulness already, what's the point of having these differences of "sinfulness" other than indulging in sin and tacitly approving it? Already you are in hell, so you might as well be a murderer at this point.
This is terrible, because it then prevents any moral guidance other than "be perfectly christian and everything will be ok". Once you "cross the line", you're in hell. The only guidance left you have is zero pragmatic in nature, what you are left to do is to confess this to a preacher. Yeah, that'll solve your problems.
And this, I argue, is the basic source of this entire thread and the wider "controversy". The mere discussion of what to do with baby aborted organs is already detestable in itself, gruesome and despicable because the whole issue is already born in sin. The fact that we have these atheist minded freaks talking about aborted baby organs as if they are talking about car parts is the disgusting aspect, the big "scandal" that they hoped to make people horrified and outraged about.
Unless of course, you end up talking to rational reasonable people, who immediately recognize the nuance and the evident pragmatic necessities of life and will actually empathize with the people involved, who are apparently merely interested in advancing medical research so they can potentially save more lives. (and aren't these people despicable? These heartless people, incapable of understanding they are speaking of baby parts! - and so it never ends)
-
This is what I was on about in my earlier posts but from a different angle. It's not just a case of all sins being equal and therefore it doesn't matter which sin you commit. But that no sin, even murder, is bad enough to make it worth making it easier to commit other sins.
Remember that the same people who believe abortion is murder are usually against better sex education on the belief that it may cause people to have more sex. That belief isn't even one founded on fact (good sex ed usually reduces the amount of pre-marital sex amongst teenagers), but it is still enough to allow people to act like they consider abortion to be repugnant and yet block steps that would lead to a reduced number of them.
-
I think there has been a major demographic shift on this forum.
-
I think there has been a major demographic shift on this forum.
Which way? I can't stand these pro-life asstards who can't appreciate that we're going to run out of room on this planet.
-
left/progressive used to be there was about a 50/50 mix, now it seems more like 3:1.
not making any value judgments on that, just noticing.
-
I always remembered GenDisc as horribly liberally (reality) biased, which i like. Conservatives trot out their crap arguments and Karajorma destroys them. After that happens a few times, they stop posting about that stuff in gendisc.
-
maybe I'm remembering from the 2000-2005 era too strongly.
Jesus that was more than a decade ago, I was on a pentium 3 in my parent's living-room... :wtf:
though now that I think about it it was liberals using the Columbia shuttle disaster as an excuse to America bash that led to Dave Barnec to leave this place in disgust. so maybe you are right.
-
Hm. Noticed this just now, from a really right wing piece. But still:
http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2015/07/16/planned-parenthoods-real-crime-making-us-notice/?singlepage=true
Naturally, we are shocked by the video, secretly recorded by the Center for Medical Progress, that depicts Nucatola so casually illustrating that the grisly business of infanticide has a sordid commercial side. The video illustrates that Planned Parenthood is harvesting organs and other body parts from the unborn children the media takes pains to call “fetal tissue.” It is not merely (merely?) discarding the inconveniently unavoidable remains of these “surgical procedures”; it is planning, with malice aforethought, how to execute the killing while maximizing the commercial value — oh, I’m sorry, the “medical research” value — of the corpse.
As the good doctor put it:
You’re just kind of cognizant of where you put your graspers, you try to intentionally go above and below the thorax so that, you know — we’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we now that — so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.
Harvesting body parts, technically, is a federal crime. So is homicide by partial birth abortion. The video suggests that Planned Parenthood may be performing this “surgical procedure,” perhaps routinely.
Two interesting things: First, it establishes the the idea that this whole scandal is purely based on the disgust of those who consider abortion a monstruous thing. As I said before, anyone who thinks this will be utterly regurgitating when reading or listening others so casually discussing the remaining organs of the unborn. Not only the author is disgusted at abortion, he even thinks it is a sign of our bad times that we even consider partial birth abortion a crime only to be punished by 2 years tops.
The other thing might be more interested for the continuation of this thread: 2 claims of illegality are here present: A "partial birth abortion" claim and "harvesting body parts". What do you make of this?
-
wait, i just realised something, does this involve what might be termed "late-term" abortions? as in beyond the first 3 months of pregnancy? arent these ridiculously unsafe for the mothers-to-be?
/me goes off to research...
okay, so, partial-birth abortion is 15-26 weeks of pregnancy.
-
wait, i just realised something, does this involve what might be termed "late-term" abortions? as in beyond the first 3 months of pregnancy? arent these ridiculously unsafe for the mothers-to-be?
/me goes off to research...
okay, so, partial-birth abortion is 15-26 weeks of pregnancy.
I wondered about that, too. Doesnt partial-birth just mean that part of the fetus is sticking out?
If this is about late term abortions, meaning roughly sixth month and later, then that may change my opinion on the entire thing. I think such abortions should be either banned, or conducted with as much care as an euthanasia. Cause the foetus could already be sentient.
-
Two interesting things: First, it establishes the the idea that this whole scandal is purely based on the disgust of those who consider abortion a monstruous thing. As I said before, anyone who thinks this will be utterly regurgitating when reading or listening others so casually discussing the remaining organs of the unborn. Not only the author is disgusted at abortion, he even thinks it is a sign of our bad times that we even consider partial birth abortion a crime only to be punished by 2 years tops.
It's incredibly obvious from Sandwich's title also, where he claims parts of babies are being sold, rather than parts of fetuses.
-
and the trick is to not react in the way he expects.
-
Which way? I can't stand these pro-life asstards who can't appreciate that we're going to run out of room on this planet.
Pretty much every reputable demographics study I've seen predicts a rapid leveling-off of global population growth over the course of the next four or five decades. Beyond that, almost every first-world country is currently or will shortly be experiencing a significant demographics crisis, with Japan as the most egregious example. For a lot of us, the real problem is that we're not having enough hot, steamy, baby-making sex.
I always remembered GenDisc as horribly liberally (reality) biased, which i like. Conservatives trot out their crap arguments and Karajorma destroys them. After that happens a few times, they stop posting about that stuff in gendisc.
This is a really ****ty way for people to challenge and reinforce/reconsider their own perceptions, isn't it? I know I've drifted much more "leftwards" on most topics over the past decade of my life (somewhat ironically, abortion is one of the few where I have not and will not do so), and I think it was largely due to getting exposure to the wide variety of viewpoints being expressed here. If I had just tuned it all out from the get-go, I think I'd be a lot worse off than I am. So much of the trouble with political discourse today seems to be that almost everyone on all sides just wants to surround themselves with opinions they already hold. The problem with locking yourself into an echo chamber is that you never hear the person outside of it telling you why you're wrong.
-
Which way? I can't stand these pro-life asstards who can't appreciate that we're going to run out of room on this planet.
Pretty much every reputable demographics study I've seen predicts a rapid leveling-off of global population growth over the course of the next four or five decades. Beyond that, almost every first-world country is currently or will shortly be experiencing a significant demographics crisis, with Japan as the most egregious example. For a lot of us, the real problem is that we're not having enough hot, steamy, baby-making sex.
Indeed, this is one argument for anti-abortion (and anti-contraception, by the way) crowd that makes sense. Also, the one I've hardly ever seen used by them. :) Go figure. Japan is a good example of how lengthening life and making it possible to have sex without babies (two things people are heavily working on) can end up screwing people (especially retirees) over. Population growth is actually negative in a quite a few countries (mostly around Central Europe) and about half of the world's population lives in countries with sub-replacement fertility rate, meaning that any population growth in those is purely courtesy of immigration. The US is a notable exception, but it's still at risk of that happening.
Whatever your views on abortion, this is not a good thing. The only reason we're not going to find ourselves living in countries with more retirees than workforce is that things will go crashing down long before that happens. While I support the woman's right to have an abortion, I also believe that this right should be exercised with a lot of moderation. If only because population growth is already low enough without yet another way of reducing it. It's a lot bigger problem in Europe than in the US, but the way things are going, the US will eventually find itself in this situation as well. Better to act now, because issues related to population dynamics have enormous inertia (on order of years or even tens of years).
-
The number of abortions isn't anywhere near enough to make a difference.
Contraception is probably a different issue but replacing the problems of ageing nations with the problems of unwanted children is an idiotic notion.
-
The number of abortions isn't anywhere near enough to make a difference.
Actually the fact is that the abortion rate in the US is high enough for it to actually make an appreciable difference. From 2010, the most recent year where I was able to find verifiable data, there were just under 4 million births in the US, compared with over 760,000 abortions: adding those together, abortions make up 16% of all of those pregnancy events. That's certainly enough to swing a birthrate across the replacement rate either way. But I think you are right in saying that it's certainly not the primary factor behind first-world demographics crises, though it certainly doesn't help them.
-
I wonder how many of those were for medical reasons, where the child wouldn't have survived anyway, or where giving birth would've killed the mother (or both, for that matter). Still, with a percentage like that, it's likely that even discounting such cases, the impact would not be insignificant. Also, since abortion is still illegal in some places (and certainly was in 2010), there are probably some abortions which were not accounted for. All in all, it's a pretty big difference. Certainly not the primary factor behind demographic problems (widespread contraception, economic concerns and rising life expectancy contribute much more), but not insignificant, either.
Certainly, unwanted children are not a solution to aging nations, wanted children are. However, abortions make it easy for the mother to change her mind halfway through. With abortion fully legal and not stigmatized as much (will happen if issue is definitely decided on and controversy is sidelined), the number could be expected to rise. And it certainly wouldn't do neither the future pensioners nor the treasury any good. While I do support the right to abortion on principle, I have an uneasy feeling about it being exercised irresponsibly.
-
Yeah, you're right Mongoose, it does make a difference after all.
But I still don't think it's a great solution to the problem of an ageing population. It would cause far more problems than it would ever solve. Hell, purely from a pragmatic point of view, how does it help anyone to have a younger population if a large part of that population is unable to support itself and must depend on aid from the state?
While I do support the right to abortion on principle, I have an uneasy feeling about it being exercised irresponsibly.
I always love this particular worry. 'Irresponsible' abortions are largely the fault bad sex ed. Which is pretty much the fault of the same people who then complain about it.
-
In many cases, the pinch in the hourglass is financial, not moral. People who use Abortion as a form of Contraception are playing roulette with their long term health, that much is certain, but I suspect a lot of abortions are simply because a lot of prospective parents in developed countries figure out that raising a kid in that environment is incredibly expensive.
It's easy post facto to say 'Well, they shouldn't have got pregnant then', which always reminds me of an old comedy sketch; a man in a hospital says 'Doctor, it hurts when I lift my arm' and the Doctor replies 'Well, don't lift your arm.'. It's an answer that is logically effective in every way and yet of no tangible help whatsoever to the person in need because it's totally divorced from reality.
And really, at the end of the day, if you could replace the concept of abortions with 100% contraceptive knowledge among people, the birth rate wouldn't rise, it would plummet, far more people choose to keep an accidental pregnancy than choose to terminate it, so the idea that they 'shouldn't have got pregnant' is actually a self-destructive one.
-
In many cases, the pinch in the hourglass is financial, not moral. People who use Abortion as a form of Contraception are playing roulette with their long term health, that much is certain, but I suspect a lot of abortions are simply because a lot of prospective parents in developed countries figure out that raising a kid in that environment is incredibly expensive.
Fertility rate correlates negatively with wealth, so I dont think it is financial. However, financial and other incentives for having kids could still help. Ultimately, I think it is cultural - people prioritize studies, career or having fun over having children.
-
It correlates with wealth on a Global basis, certainly, but when you snip out just the developed world, even the 'poorer' echelons of society in a developed culture are (for the main part) having far fewer children than their third-would counterparts, partly because of survival rates, and partly because of better comparative education. It's that education that drives people to want to spend more time on other pursuits.
-
It'd certainly make more sense to fix demographics by enabling and incentivizing people to adopt more of the already existing kids instead of making new ones, anyway. When you have too few kids in one place and too many in another, the solution ought to be obvious. :rolleyes:
-
and also having kids makes you more poor. it's not a one directional cause.
-
this reminds me of that ****ty episode of bsg where roslin makes abortion illegal
-
Having children is not easy and in modern ages, it's a huge responsibility. I do not judge anyone who sits by the sidelines without kids.
-
Having a kid for any reason whatsoever would be nothing short of financially catastrophic for me and millions of people around my general income and expense level.
-
Interesting that Sandwich doesn't adhere to the orthodox Jewish position that life begins at first breath. No value judgement there, I just find it interesting.
Yeah, you're right Mongoose, it does make a difference after all.
But I still don't think it's a great solution to the problem of an ageing population. It would cause far more problems than it would ever solve. Hell, purely from a pragmatic point of view, how does it help anyone to have a younger population if a large part of that population is unable to support itself and must depend on aid from the state?
While I do support the right to abortion on principle, I have an uneasy feeling about it being exercised irresponsibly.
I always love this particular worry. 'Irresponsible' abortions are largely the fault bad sex ed. Which is pretty much the fault of the same people who then complain about it.
If you think that exhaustion of the Earth's natural resources due to overpopulation is the key long term threat to the human race, so that the only solution is for the human population to come down, then you have to accept that we will have to face a prolonged period of dealing with an aging population. There's no way out of that.
Which is why I can't figure out if Japan is committing suicide or if they're the only developed country that isn't committing suicide. Economic problems that have nothing to do with an aging population aside, maybe they're the only country that is (inadvertently) doing what they need to do to get their resource consumption to a sustainable level in the amount of time they have to do it.
As for the main debate itself, there's no definition of liberty, much less property rights, that doesn't give a woman the right to control the use of her own body. Even if (and that's a big if) there was another life at stake. I have no obligation to donate a kidney to someone who would die without it.
-
Having a kid for any reason whatsoever would be nothing short of financially catastrophic for me and millions of people around my general income and expense level.
See, I feel like so many people who express this particular sentiment are massively selling themselves short. Yes, having a child is a massive financial commitment. Yes, your life will be completely different. But these have been issues that people have been dealing with for as long as civilization has existed (or at the very very least, since the Industrial Revolution if we're limiting things to a modern-ish perspective). I think of my own grandmother, whose father died when she was still young, and whose mother had to both raise seven children AND manage a family business. I think of the millions of single parents out there working multiple jobs just to get by. For better or worse, people are making this work every single day of the year, and they have been for a very long time. I think just about every parent out there would tell you that there's no such thing as a "perfect time" to have a child; there's always going to be something that comes up. And yet people make do the best they can.
To be frank, I feel like a lot of the people who express that opinion aren't nearly as troubled by the financial challenges involved in raising a child, but instead by the acknowledgement that being a parent involves making your own prospects and aspirations subservient to another person.
-
While agreeing 100% with Mongoose there, I still think everyone should wait until they are in their thirties to get kids. You'll be better off. And don't be a lazy ass till that happens.
-
American twentysomethings today have a much bleaker financial outlook than their counterparts last century. It's a rough time for long term planning.
-
I make ~$1200/month, of which nearly 70% goes to flat out cost of living expenses (rent, utilities, internet, groceries). The remaining paltry ~$350 goes to paying off student loans, credit for the months I don't make quite that much (thanks, part-time working!), and car maintenance. My financial buffer in a given month is maybe +/- $50. If I get sick for even one day I'm probably in the red that month!
If a kid happened now it would destroy me. I am 100% sure that this is not a situation unique to me.
-
But these have been issues that people have been dealing with for as long as civilization has existed (or at the very very least, since the Industrial Revolution if we're limiting things to a modern-ish perspective). I think of my own grandmother, whose father died when she was still young, and whose mother had to both raise seven children AND manage a family business. I think of the millions of single parents out there working multiple jobs just to get by. For better or worse, people are making this work every single day of the year, and they have been for a very long time. I think just about every parent out there would tell you that there's no such thing as a "perfect time" to have a child; there's always going to be something that comes up. And yet people make do the best they can.
I noticed you never used the word "should" in here. There's a reason for that.
-
The truth is we've financially disincentized having kids pretty heavily. I make a good deal more money than Scotty, but between home loans and my wife's student loans it's doubtful we could afford a child and have any of this stuff paid off before we're seventy-five. We discovered ex post facto we could get a house or have a child; welcome to the American Dream.
-
Interesting that Sandwich doesn't adhere to the orthodox Jewish position that life begins at first breath. No value judgement there, I just find it interesting.
why? he's not orthodox. He's actually Messianic IIRC.
-
Having a kid for any reason whatsoever would be nothing short of financially catastrophic for me and millions of people around my general income and expense level.
See, I feel like so many people who express this particular sentiment are massively selling themselves short. Yes, having a child is a massive financial commitment. Yes, your life will be completely different. But these have been issues that people have been dealing with for as long as civilization has existed (or at the very very least, since the Industrial Revolution if we're limiting things to a modern-ish perspective). I think of my own grandmother, whose father died when she was still young, and whose mother had to both raise seven children AND manage a family business. I think of the millions of single parents out there working multiple jobs just to get by. For better or worse, people are making this work every single day of the year, and they have been for a very long time. I think just about every parent out there would tell you that there's no such thing as a "perfect time" to have a child; there's always going to be something that comes up. And yet people make do the best they can.
To be frank, I feel like a lot of the people who express that opinion aren't nearly as troubled by the financial challenges involved in raising a child, but instead by the acknowledgement that being a parent involves making your own prospects and aspirations subservient to another person.
Think we also have to consider the pressures and stresses on the current generation. Have always said "if you tell people with problems 'deal with it', they will, but not in the way you probably want." A lot of people recently have had less of a great time, and been told to just survive and manage on their own. That instills a bit of a mindset of looking after yourself first. And can kinda emphasize with that.
I got through the worst of my personal problems by setting some pretty strong goals for myself. Those goals would more or less be stopped (or highly threatened) from completion if kids. Therefore no kids. I much prefer holding onto the last bits of dreams I was able to keep a grasp on.
-
Having a kid for any reason whatsoever would be nothing short of financially catastrophic for me and millions of people around my general income and expense level.
See, I feel like so many people who express this particular sentiment are massively selling themselves short. Yes, having a child is a massive financial commitment. Yes, your life will be completely different. But these have been issues that people have been dealing with for as long as civilization has existed (or at the very very least, since the Industrial Revolution if we're limiting things to a modern-ish perspective). I think of my own grandmother, whose father died when she was still young, and whose mother had to both raise seven children AND manage a family business. I think of the millions of single parents out there working multiple jobs just to get by. For better or worse, people are making this work every single day of the year, and they have been for a very long time. I think just about every parent out there would tell you that there's no such thing as a "perfect time" to have a child; there's always going to be something that comes up. And yet people make do the best they can.
To be frank, I feel like a lot of the people who express that opinion aren't nearly as troubled by the financial challenges involved in raising a child, but instead by the acknowledgement that being a parent involves making your own prospects and aspirations subservient to another person.
Ah yeah... as someone who has to deal with children who were never raised properly by their parents because they never had the time to do THAT as well on top of earning enough money or doing whatever .... let me tell you ...
... those "neglected" kids become real "bundles of joys" to their teachers and classmates, often lacking even rudimentary social skills or any kind of self discipline.
So yes, anyone can be a parent.
Being a "good" parent however.... you better believe that takes quite a fortune as a basis for everything else, everything else, being first of all, even having enough time to spend with your kid on a day to day basis.
(Instead of working several jobs at the same time without ever being able to even make the attempt to raise your kid properly.)
I.e. Raising a kid doesn't just take money, it also takes huge amounts of time to do it properly. And no, in this instance you really can't exchange one for the other, it needs a large amount of BOTH.
-
Interesting that Sandwich doesn't adhere to the orthodox Jewish position that life begins at first breath. No value judgement there, I just find it interesting.
There's a lot of Orthodox Jewish beliefs I don't adhere to... possibly because I'm not Orthodox Jewish? :p Personally, I feel like Orthodox Judaism has placed so many precautionary rules and regulations around the original (Biblical) laws and commandments* that they've tied themselves up in knots - but that's just me and my beliefs.
* Eg: "Don't boil a kid (baby goat-kid, not human-kid) in its mother's milk," (which was a pagan ritualistic idol-worship sacrifice in Canaan in Biblical times) has somehow come to mean "Don't eat dairy and meat together, or even within X hours from each other".
Having a kid for any reason whatsoever would be nothing short of financially catastrophic for me and millions of people around my general income and expense level.
See, I feel like so many people who express this particular sentiment are massively selling themselves short. Yes, having a child is a massive financial commitment. Yes, your life will be completely different. But these have been issues that people have been dealing with for as long as civilization has existed (or at the very very least, since the Industrial Revolution if we're limiting things to a modern-ish perspective). I think of my own grandmother, whose father died when she was still young, and whose mother had to both raise seven children AND manage a family business. I think of the millions of single parents out there working multiple jobs just to get by. For better or worse, people are making this work every single day of the year, and they have been for a very long time. I think just about every parent out there would tell you that there's no such thing as a "perfect time" to have a child; there's always going to be something that comes up. And yet people make do the best they can.
To be frank, I feel like a lot of the people who express that opinion aren't nearly as troubled by the financial challenges involved in raising a child, but instead by the acknowledgement that being a parent involves making your own prospects and aspirations subservient to another person.
Yes, as a father of 3 daughters (all of whom were, shall we say, surprises - not mistakes!), I agree with and can attest to this 100%.
I make ~$1200/month, of which nearly 70% goes to flat out cost of living expenses (rent, utilities, internet, groceries). The remaining paltry ~$350 goes to paying off student loans, credit for the months I don't make quite that much (thanks, part-time working!), and car maintenance. My financial buffer in a given month is maybe +/- $50. If I get sick for even one day I'm probably in the red that month!
If a kid happened now it would destroy me. I am 100% sure that this is not a situation unique to me.
That's about what I was making when I first got married. As time went on, I found myself with increased expenses, and thus ended up with the motivation to get off my butt and find a better/another source of income. Also, there's reasons the average wage goes up as you get older. :)
-
That's about what I was making when I first got married. As time went on, I found myself with increased expenses, and thus ended up with the motivation to get off my butt and find a better/another source of income. Also, there's reasons the average wage goes up as you get older. :)
You are not speaking from a position of purchasing power parity here at all. I don't know how old you are and I'm guessing you live in another country. $1200 a month is poverty in the US today, and in some areas it's so bad the only solution is 'leave the area'.
-
That very much depends on where you live and what your circumstances are. If it wasn't "leave the area" would not be any sort of solution.
-
Yeah, that's my...my point?
I guess I see what you're saying. I'm saying it's poverty everywhere and in some areas it's damnably poor, you couldn't even pay rent (or scrape together the fees to get a lease).
-
You could own a house with that in Fayetteville IL, and that's just assuming single (or combined) income.
are we talking past each other?
-
I think so.
-
You could own a house with that in Fayetteville IL, and that's just assuming single (or combined) income.
are we talking past each other?
I'm betting I could "own a house" in the sense that my mortgage payment would not be $1200 a month. However, that doesn't really tell the whole story! Typically, in order to be a stable, sustainable living situation mortgage/rent should be about ~30% of monthly income, at least here in the US. Any more than that, and the money has to come out of other, equally vital things like groceries, gas, utilities, car payments/maintenance, home repair/maintenance, clothes, health insurance, etc.
Sandwich, I'm glad that you managed to find better work to improve your income. Unfortunately, the US job market is utterly ****ed when it comes to that sort of thing at the moment, and it only gets worse the further down the ladder you have to start. To put it a bit further into perspective, I already have two jobs, and am currently looking for a third because those two don't adequately cover my expenses well enough to build up any sort of savings whatsoever.
-
Millennial income distribution is startlingly worse than the US norm and I'm not sure if that's just an artifact of youth/early career or if it's yet more evidence **** got ****ed up deeply.
-
what I was referring to was the fact that in many parts of the country there are houses for less than $60k (http://hotpads.com/search#limit=4&lat=38.48680274626385&lon=-89.81528455255682&zoom=20&previewType=none&detailsOpen=false&minLat=38.36967303693192&maxLat=38.60374238895408&minLon=-90.14487439630682&maxLon=-89.48569470880682&highPrice=60000&includeVaguePricing=false&listingTypes=sale,newHome,auction,&pricingFrequency=once&propertyTypes=house,divided,condo,townhouse,medium,large,garden,&dupeGrouping=building) At current rates you can get an $60k FHA loan with only like $2k down for about $300/month. assuming $1200/month take home pay that would leave you with $900/mo. I spend about $200/mo on utilities, and I live in about the most expensive place in the country, but lets assume that, so now you are at $700/mo = $175/week which you can assume $75 for food, $25 for gas, so you still have $75/week left over. it's certainly not the lap of luxury, but it's livable, especially if you are living with someone with a comparable income. and it leaves you with enough to pay for classes at a community collage, which can get you half way to a bachelors degree and when you are done with that you don't have student loans.
-
$1200 a month is poverty in the US today, and in some areas it's so bad the only solution is 'leave the area'.
You're repeatedly trying to tell him something that he said in the first place.
-
$1200 a month is poverty in the US today, and in some areas it's so bad the only solution is 'leave the area'.
You're repeatedly trying to tell him something that he said in the first place.
And you're pointing something out to him that has already been mentioned.
are we talking past each other?
I think so.
-
Places where you can get a house for 60k happen to be places where there are no jobs to enable you to get the house.
-
The trouble with that is that most areas with houses that cheap are starved for employment.
EDIT: ninjaed
-
I always remembered GenDisc as horribly liberally (reality) biased, which i like. Conservatives trot out their crap arguments and Karajorma destroys them. After that happens a few times, they stop posting about that stuff in gendisc.
I apologize in advance for what will be a drive-by posting, and digging up a post a few pages old that's been moved on from. I was perusing this thread jussst in case something rational and worthwhile was happening in here that I could stomach the rest of it for (surprisingly yes). But I couldn't let this go unanswered.
Don't mistake the conservative members' avoidance of the liberal circle jerk for victory in smashing us about the head with your ideals. We didn't cave in, we simply gave up listening to the ridiculous flaming and bashing. Ya know, the same sort of things that get locked, deleted, and people monkeyed/banned for saying with a conservative angle.
-
Don't mistake the conservative members' avoidance of the liberal circle jerk for victory in smashing us about the head with your ideals. We didn't cave in, we simply gave up listening to the ridiculous flaming and bashing. Ya know, the same sort of things that get locked, deleted, and people monkeyed/banned for saying with a conservative angle.
Aww, and I always thought of Hard-Light being an example of how people can come around when they realize that none of their ideals actually hold up to scrutiny, or contact with the real world.
-
Aww, and I always thought of Hard-Light being an example of how people can come around when they realize that none of their ideals actually hold up to scrutiny, or contact with the real world.
That's the most confusingly and hilariously meta post in the whole thread! I can't even begin to dissect the various layers of irony in that. :lol:
-
To have a progressive viewpoint and not constantly police it with a conservative thought reveals a very umbalanced mind. Of course, we all have our own different measures of what is "progressive" and "conservative", and they make us very different from each other, but I find this utter demonization of this one side of ours while praising the other side to be absolutely abhorrent from any good and thought out philosophical point of view.
It's good to want the world to change, but then again, it's also good to remember that most changes are, statistically inevitably for the worse, rather than for the better. For this reason we ought to be conservative in these changes. A tad of skepticism over novel ideas is not a bug, but a feature. OTOH, to simply lay on bad status quos because you disbelieve in every single solution out there without trying any of them, won't get us very far, read, anywhere at all.
TL DR: Don't be one sided. Both progressivism and conservativism are good forces to hold.
-
Yo Tura I don't think out and out taunting is going to convince anyone of anything.
-
Yo Tura I don't think out and out taunting is going to convince anyone of anything.
We're in an abortion thread. I was never going to convince anyone of anything.
As for my unbalance. I'm not talking about conservatism in the "lets make sure that our fiber internet money that we gave the telecoms actually made its way into fiber internet" sense. I'm talking about US Conservatism, where Global Warming isn't real, social conservatism doesn't alienate and harm people, and redistributing everyone's money to the people with the most money is sound economics. The kind of conservatism that's willing to screw over generations of society because they refuse to understand the nuanced difference between a fetus and a baby. The kind of conservatism that says that "regulation is bad"
If not having those voices in my head makes me unbalanced, well I've always been a bit weird.
-
being able to understand it and speak from it is a very helpful skill to have however. that is if you would like to change minds and have fewer people vote that way.
being willing to consider other points of view is also really important if you want to be actually right, that is if truth is valuable to you. you will not know if you are right if you never consider that you might be wrong.
-
Turambar, you talk as if US progressivism isn't also out of its own mind. I'm Portuguese, so I kinda (1) have the privilege of watching all of this from an outsider's perspective, and (2) get away with calling myself a lot more left-wing than 95% of americans do, but I think it's still pretty damned evident to me that american politics has been for the past decades only grown to become more and more polarized. And if you believe that this polarization is between the "reality based side" and the "deluded side", then you are believing that one half of america is "rational" while the other is "irrational". That is, indeed, a very deluded thought in itself. Both tribes are believers, and this belief is, first and foremost, metaphysical, emotional, irrational. It's a belief in a cause, whatever it might be.
-
so I kinda (1) have the privilege of watching all of this from an outsider's perspective
he admitted it! check that privilege cisscum!
-
You know defeat has come your way when you start using the language of the enemy! But that wasn't an unaware usage of the term. Then again, I'm of the sarcastic / ironic tendency.
-
Turambar, you talk as if US progressivism isn't also out of its own mind.
The looniest I see the progressives get is when they are being conservative. The ones who are driven by fear to reject genetically modified organisms, nuclear power, or vaccines.
-
You misunderstand progressivism then. You fail to realise that most of it stems from a very ancient hatred towards all things unequal and bourgeois (fraternité / egalité / etc). Progressivism appears to be rooted in a cool enlightenment ideal about how science and reason with a capital R will bring forth paradise on earth, but this has long been ideologically curtailed by both traditional fears of the market and a theory of exploitation (marxism) that has evolved into a mad berserk point of favoring the environment over mankind.
This in turn created this peculiar kind of conservativism that you refer to, from nuclear power, GMOS, vaccines, or any source of fossil power (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-liberals-war-on-science/). One could also mention a certain tendency for conservative economics that seems to prefer egalitarianism over growth. But this because to fight these things is the necessary struggle in order to destroy the patriarchal capitalism that Progressivism was meant to fight in the first place. I.e., this all stems from progressivist thought. It's a "poison" embedded at its core. To call it "conservativism" is to miss the mark.
Is it paradoxical? Of course it is. Then again, the bigger the thing is, the more likely it's filled with paradoxes of this kind. I'm pretty sure a somewhat symmetrical story can be written regarding "Conservativism" and how it is especially fond of something so "progressive" in its own sake, i.e., Capitalism. The point of the tale is richer and more complex. To simply berate the other side because "Reality has a liberal bias" and other jokes of the sort becomes silly when you get the bigger picture into scale.
e:small typo
-
The looniest I see the progressives get is when they are being conservative. The ones who are driven by fear to reject genetically modified organisms, nuclear power, or vaccines.
there are other dimensions of lunacy, have you seen anything like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7cwWegXCU
no one in that video is conservative by any typical American understanding of the word.
I feel like shoehorning the phrase "tea party of the left" into this post somehow and I'm to lazy to do it creatively.
-
I feel like shoehorning the phrase "tea party of the left" into this post somehow and I'm to lazy to do it creatively.
The difference here is that there isn't a huge monied interest trying to use these idiots to dismantle worker protections all over the US
-
I'm not sure that's true (not even the worker protection part), but it's harder to find evidence either way for that assertion, because the tea party is one large centralized group and their lefty counterpart is a large number of individually small overlapping groups.
-
It is true. Both groups are used, structured and manipulated in very different ways. The whole ideological differences necessitate this brute fact. But I'm merely pleased that you concede that there's plenty of lunacy regardless of the side you look into, for then your claims above on how conservativism is a laughable thing, etc., become passé.
-
nuanced difference between a fetus and a baby.
What do you think is a difference between a baby and fetus? I'm not saying there isn't one, because there is, but I'm curious of what significance it is to you and how you understand it.
-
one is an independent living entity and the other is not.
-
I'd hardly call a newborn "independent". The mere thought is pretty funny. "Ooooh there he goes, not even a bye bye kiss??" "Gotta go Dad, destiny is waiting for me! The game that is!"
-
well then you have a really contrived definition of independent, don't you? especially given the context of my sentence.
I don't take kindly to disingenuous equivication bull**** from conservatives anymore than I do JSWs.
-
one is an independent living entity and the other is not.
Is it not living, independent or not an entity at all?
-
You get me wrong, I'm not against abortion although I do think the US is pretty crazy extremist in this regard by allowing late abortions. As I said previously, many people who do know me would giggle at your implication of me being anywhere "right wing". I'm not, I'm pro-choice and believe that my country's legal situation is much better than the US's. My point is simply that your word was innacurate, there is no such thing as an "independent newborn", the human newborns are born too young, in comparison to other animals, to allow the huge size of their brains to come out successfully. This implies massive dependence to their mothers, they are born blind, unable to walk, obviously still breastfeed (a trait that is shared amongst all mammals, obviously), all sorts of lack of competences that are required for calling them "independent".
Possible facetiousness aside, I also do understand that by being born, a baby has the new "ability" to become adopted by another parent, an ability that every unborn is completely lacking. But if you leave this ability out of the analysis, an unborn of 8 months vs a newborn is that really different in its being?
-
Maybe I mistook your tone. What you said sounds very similar to a very common and dishonest debating tactic in a form specifically used often by pro-life conservatives in America.
Newborn babies are dependent on A mother for long term survival, they are independent of THE mother for minute by minute survival. I think you get my meaning.
There is a nuance in the later parts of a pregnancy that I will admit to, unfortunately the cultural climate in America is such that such subtleties are very difficult to explore. It is possibly THE most divisive and polarizing issue in the country.
Is it not living, independent or not an entity at all?
It's living in the same sense that your spleen is living, which is an odd but not entirely unheard of usage of the word. It is certainly not a person which I think is the bigger question.
-
The goal of a fertilized egg is to reach a place on the wall of the uterus which it then destroys, yes destroys, so the mother starts bleeding in that spot ... which eventually results in the formation of the placenta. The fertilized egg then commences to grow into a fetus which will do it's best to suck everything it needs out of the mothers bloodstream.
For all intents and purposes it's a parasite and if it wasn't for birth the mother would die a tragic death because of it.
That it becomes something else (a Baby) at the moment of birth is irrelevant while it is still a fetus in the same way that a caterpillar is not a butterfly and most certainly can not fly any more than a fetus could live without acting as a parasite towards the mother.
Reproduction is actually pretty scary when you think about it and the actual biology has little to do with the naive romantic portrayals of most religions...
... but at least humans aren't one of those charming species that forcefully have to penetrate the females adbomen, breaking skin and causing permanent damage, in order to achieve fertilisation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumatic_insemination) ... or that have an imperative impulse to literally keep screwing until they die after they reach their first mating season. (http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/10/07/why-a-little-mammal-has-so-much-sex-that-it-disintegrates/ ... although ,... possibly some human beings appear to aspire emulation of that little rodent... :P)
Gotta be glad for the little things, eh? ;-) What I find really scary however is the thought of what "pro life zealots" would preach if human fertilisation worked anything like the above ... on the other hand, in cases of women with dangerous pregnancies, rape as the cause of the pregnancy, or utter inability to raise/support children (financially, emotionally or otherwise) ... the effects are pretty similar I guess.
-
You know, whenever I hear this kind of rethoric, two very distinct reactions form inside of me. First, the sci fi lovecraftian nerd inside of me goes "yeah doh", of course this is such, we all saw Alien, which is *the* movie that distinctively "lovecrafted" pregnancy and motherhood into this horrible depiction of parasital formation inside of you, eating you from the inside and trying to break out. Everything is *as terrible* as you mention.
OTOH, my other reaction is of pure disgust. That is the kind of rethoric that a conservative will grab in order to demonize you. That is the kind of rethoric that placed Planned Parenthood at these dire straights it is in right now. Basically you are equating an infant to a xenomorph, eating women from the inside. It's a kind of, and I'll borrow leftist terminology here, a very conscious Otherizing of the unborn so you can in good consciousness toss it to the garbage bin (after extracting useful organs, etc.).
I understand how that kind of talk might be psychologically and politically useful (at least internally inside the Left), but then it does indeed fly in the face of the sheer wonder of witnessing a human birth, where you realise it's not a parasite, it's actually an adorable human being. I cannot see how you can reconcile both "visions", but then that's not my problem. I do warn you that such rethoric is incredibly counter-productive in the wider debate.
e: just for clarification, I posted this before you added half of the content of that post! It does reiterate many things I say here though.
-
You know, whenever I hear this kind of rethoric, two very distinct reactions form inside of me. First, the sci fi lovecraftian nerd inside of me goes "yeah doh", of course this is such, we all saw Alien, which is *the* movie that distinctively "lovecrafted" pregnancy and motherhood into this horrible depiction of parasital formation inside of you, eating you from the inside and trying to break out. Everything is *as terrible* as you mention.
OTOH, my other reaction is of pure disgust. That is the kind of rethoric that a conservative will grab in order to demonize you. That is the kind of rethoric that placed Planned Parenthood at these dire straights it is in right now. Basically you are equating an infant to a xenomorph, eating women from the inside. It's a kind of, and I'll borrow leftist terminology here, a very conscious Otherizing of the unborn so you can in good consciousness toss it to the garbage bin (after extracting useful organs, etc.).
I understand how that kind of talk might be psychologically and politically useful (at least internally inside the Left), but then it does indeed fly in the face of the sheer wonder of witnessing a human birth, where you realise it's not a parasite, it's actually an adorable human being. I cannot see how you can reconcile both "visions", but then that's not my problem. I do warn you that such rethoric is incredibly counter-productive in the wider debate.
e: just for clarification, I posted this before you added half of the content of that post! It does reiterate many things I say here though.
That's a quite good analysis and frankly I did not have a rhetoric goal at all, but rather blurped my sincere thoughts on the matter. So "guilty" of that I guess.
On the matter of reconciliation however ... I think reconciliation comes natural for anyone who deliberately wants to be a parent.
i.e. Personally I do not have a problem with acknowledging the biological facts while at the same time projecting my hopes and dreams on the outcome of the grissly biological details: I.e. the wonderful bundle of joy that is a child.
I also can't see how anyone who does not acknowledge that duality would be able to make informed decisions in difficult circumstances, i.e., for example, a case where a pregnancy unduely endangers the life of the mother.
Furthermore I fully understand that other people might have other views ... and they are welcome to them, as long as they keep their views to their own bodies and don't start telling other people what they are allowed to do or not to do with their bodies. That's where the fun stops.
-
It's living in the same sense that your spleen is living
You know that is not correct and I don't think I need to explain that. I will if you need me to.
It is certainly not a person which I think is the bigger question.
In a very different way your regular nonperson is not a person. It is even way more than a potential person. It is a 100% guaranteed person, unless it dies or suffers heavy damage on the way. You can't call it a person yet? It's still the same entity.
For all intents and purposes it's a parasite and if it wasn't for birth the mother would die a tragic death because of it.
For all intents and purposes it's a common way of developing a basic functional body amongs mammals. Difference with parasites is very obvious.
That it becomes something else (a Baby) at the moment of birth is irrelevant while it is still a fetus in the same way that a caterpillar is not a butterfly and most certainly can not fly any more than a fetus could live without acting as a parasite towards the mother.
It does not become anything really, that's the thing. It simply ends its prenatal developement and "its life begins", which is a purely philosophical statement.
-
It's living in the same sense that your spleen is living
You know that is not correct and I don't think I need to explain that. I will if you need me to.
Is a lump of 3-5 cells a "living person" is a sperm and an egg a "person" ... where do you draw the line and why? When does something become "living" ... and that is "living" on it's own and not just as a part that belongs to a larger organism, like indeed, a spleen.
Please do explain and make sure to point out why exactly you draw the line where you do and not at any other arbitrary stage of development.
-
It is not a person in the same way an elder is not a youngster. Since the very beginnig, ever since the genes of mother anf father merge, from which point the cell is undoubtedly neither mothers or fathers and prepares for the first split, that's where my line ends, but its obviously of nonzero width.
-
At which point does bread become toast?
-
You know that is not correct and I don't think I need to explain that. I will if you need me to.
I don't know that. explain.
In a very different way your regular nonperson is not a person. It is even way more than a potential person. It is a 100% guaranteed person
no it isn't.
You can't call it a person yet? It's still the same entity.
correct you can't call it a person yet. it is not the same entity as what it could be.
-
My big deal with being pro-choice comes from the concept of bodily autonomy. (http://inthereddest.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/abortion_bodily_autonomy.jpg)
-
At which point does bread become toast?
I did my doctoral dissertation on this, and the exact moment is actually when God commanded the stork to inseminate the yeast, unless we suppose that bread doesn't have free will.
-
It is not a person in the same way an elder is not a youngster. Since the very beginnig, ever since the genes of mother anf father merge, from which point the cell is undoubtedly neither mothers or fathers and prepares for the first split, that's where my line ends, but its obviously of nonzero width.
If you have the sperm and the egg on their own ... how wouldn't it be just as much of a "crime" to prevent them from meeting? After all, they would become the same baby that you propose above.
Sperm + Egg make fertilised cell, then cell makes more cells ... right? At none of these stages we have anything resembling a "baby" or even a "fetus" or anything even having a single nerve cell let alone nervous system or personality or any capability to feel or sense a thing. Hence: Explain how your reasoning is not arbitrary.
-
It's a slippery slope. I think my views on this matter have always been more or less in line with Carl Sagan's (http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml).
-
At which point does bread become toast?
The moment where you have found that it has been in the toaster for long enough to pop out and slather sweet butter on top of it, seeing it melt and seep into the wheat as you pour honey all over it and mixing two glorious things together to create this massively delicious creation on your plate
-
The moment where ... it has been in the toaster for long enough to pop out
exactly :cool:
-
At which point does bread become toast?
The moment where you have found that it has been in the toaster for long enough to pop out and slather sweet butter on top of it, seeing it melt and seep into the wheat as you pour honey all over it and mixing two glorious things together to create this massively delicious creation on your plate
Bread never becomes toast unless someone intends it to become toast.
-
My big deal with being pro-choice comes from the concept of bodily autonomy. (http://inthereddest.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/abortion_bodily_autonomy.jpg)
Well, pretty much no one thinks no one's bodily autonomy should never be infringed upon; pro-lifers don't demand abolishment of bodily autonomy, only for there to be X+1 exceptions to it as opposed to pro-choicers' X exceptions.
-
give me a few examples from this set called X.
-
At which point does bread become toast?
The moment where you have found that it has been in the toaster for long enough to pop out and slather sweet butter on top of it, seeing it melt and seep into the wheat as you pour honey all over it and mixing two glorious things together to create this massively delicious creation on your plate
Bread never becomes toast unless someone intends it to become toast.
It can happen, but I must admit there is not nearly the angst involved in finding out you are going to have completely unexpected toast...
-
My big deal with being pro-choice comes from the concept of bodily autonomy. (http://inthereddest.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/abortion_bodily_autonomy.jpg)
Well, pretty much no one thinks no one's bodily autonomy should never be infringed upon; pro-lifers don't demand abolishment of bodily autonomy, only for there to be X+1 exceptions to it as opposed to pro-choicers' X exceptions.
See, the major difference between pro-life and pro-choice is that pro-life is inherently about infringing on personal autonomy and liberty. Pro-choice is not inherently about supporting all abortions. That's what it comes down to in my perspective.
-
And from my perspective the fetus (as soon as it is an actual fetus and not just a cluster of cells that might someday maybe become a human) has as much right to its own bodily autonomy as its mother does with her own body.
-
My big deal with being pro-choice comes from the concept of bodily autonomy. (http://inthereddest.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/abortion_bodily_autonomy.jpg)
This is reasonably similar to the trolley problem. For a lot of people the distinction of whether you're taking a 'positive action' to end a life or simply allowing it to end through inaction is a big deal. If you pull the switch to send the trolley from an unoccupied track to one with someone on it you're guilty of murder. If you see it set to hit someone and do nothing you're perhaps guilty of manslaughter through negligence.
-
And from my perspective the fetus (as soon as it is an actual fetus and not just a cluster of cells that might someday maybe become a human) has as much right to its own bodily autonomy as its mother does with her own body.
Don't make me tell you that every living thing is a lump of cells. Before you have enough cells to specialise them, you need to build up their count. Iron -> tool logic does not apply here. Also, you may not call it a person but not calling it a human isn't correct.
If you have the sperm and the egg on their own ... how wouldn't it be just as much of a "crime" to prevent them from meeting? After all, they would become the same baby that you propose above.
Sperm and egg haven't started anything yet and it's trivial [hence all the unsafe sex that does not lead to pregnancy]. That first cell, ever since its genes are established, is a start. It can fail on its own. But its a start. And it lasts dozens of years if it succeeds.
See, the major difference between pro-life and pro-choice is that pro-life is inherently about infringing on personal autonomy and liberty. Pro-choice is not inherently about supporting all abortions. That's what it comes down to in my perspective.
I think this statement isn't true nor relevant.
The moment where ... it has been in the toaster for long enough to pop out
exactly :cool:
That is why we call toast a toast and baby a baby. When you speak of a toast you have a specifically served slice of bread in mind. It is purely semantic.
-
And from my perspective the fetus (as soon as it is an actual fetus and not just a cluster of cells that might someday maybe become a human) has as much right to its own bodily autonomy as its mother does with her own body.
Of course!
However, that bodily autonomy does not extend to its mother's uterus. An abortion doesn't do a damn thing about the fetus's bodily autonomy, and suggesting otherwise indicates ignorance of the subject or a fairly disingenuous assertion on what bodily autonomy implies.
-
give me a few examples from this set called X.
Preventing suicide or self-maiming, manual cavity searches, mandatory blood tests.
Well, pretty much no one thinks no one's bodily autonomy should never be infringed upon; pro-lifers don't demand abolishment of bodily autonomy, only for there to be X+1 exceptions to it as opposed to pro-choicers' X exceptions.
See, the major difference between pro-life and pro-choice is that pro-life is inherently about infringing on personal autonomy and liberty. Pro-choice is not inherently about supporting all abortions. That's what it comes down to in my perspective.
Well, yes, but similarly pro-guncontrol is inherently about curtailing people's rights, whereas pro-gunrights is not inherently about supporting everyone having guns. Either side of many if not most issues can, if you want to, be portrayed as being for/against something that's in principle a good/bad thing.
And since someone will probably point out that gun control is not about curtailing people's rights to own guns but about protecting other people's rights to not get shot with them, I'll note that similarly a pro-lifer will say that they're not about curtailing bodily autonomy, it's about protecting everyone's right to life.
My point is that abstract principles as arguments or justification are pretty shaky because pretty much whatever your cause is, you can always come up with nice-sounding abstract principle that the cause defends or the opposition opposes.
-
I just find it weird that the left, so enamored and preoccupied with altruism as a source for morality and ethics (as opposed to selfishness and greed) can then give rise to such reasonings as "bodily autonomy", which merely translates to me as "I don' give a damn if a small body inside of me's gonna die due to the actions I do to mah own body, I do with mah own body whatevah I want". It's a complete lack of any sense of respect, of dignity, of humillity towards other people and beings. Yes, of course that a woman's body belongs to her, everyone knows this and this is why this is such a controversial debate. But to simply wipe out the other part's right of existence entirely, IDK, it just disgusts me.
I just cannot follow the reasonings of who gives me this ridiculous body autonomy analogy nor can I swallow all this rethoric of the "parasite". It's as mental as the other conservative side, who cannot see past the sacredness of the soul of the poor, poor group of 100 cells that are about to be murdered like the Jews in the Holocaust. Jesus ****ing Christ, is it any *wonder* that all of these rethorical images and analogies are *all* stemming from that place of wretchedness and hyper mega polarized non-debate kluster****ness that is the mental institution called the "United States of America"?
-
It's not like it's an American problem, Ireland's situation with abortion is far, far worse but it doesn't get much press, and there are plenty of similar countries. At least in America you actually have those rights.
-
The rethorical polarization in Ireland is far worse? Well. I can totally see that.
-
And from my perspective the fetus (as soon as it is an actual fetus and not just a cluster of cells that might someday maybe become a human) has as much right to its own bodily autonomy as its mother does with her own body.
Of course!
However, that bodily autonomy does not extend to its mother's uterus. An abortion doesn't do a damn thing about the fetus's bodily autonomy, and suggesting otherwise indicates ignorance of the subject or a fairly disingenuous assertion on what bodily autonomy implies.
If your choice to bodily autonomy is quite possibly ending someone else's life, how is that not affecting their own rights to bodily autonomy? You're making the decision for them for their body to stop functioning.
-
As I said, it's just this neato lawyer-ish pseudo-ethical manner to say "because **** you that's why"
-
And from my perspective the fetus (as soon as it is an actual fetus and not just a cluster of cells that might someday maybe become a human) has as much right to its own bodily autonomy as its mother does with her own body.
Of course!
However, that bodily autonomy does not extend to its mother's uterus. An abortion doesn't do a damn thing about the fetus's bodily autonomy, and suggesting otherwise indicates ignorance of the subject or a fairly disingenuous assertion on what bodily autonomy implies.
If your choice to bodily autonomy is quite possibly ending someone else's life, how is that not affecting their own rights to bodily autonomy? You're making the decision for them for their body to stop functioning.
Even if you assume that a fetus has rights to bodily autonomy, then it's for the same reason it's not a violation of someone's bodily autonomy to refuse to donate a kidney to them, even if they will die without it.
You are making the decision not to support their bodily functions with your body. Even if this will inevitably result in their bodily functions ceasing, refusing to donate a kidney is not murder.
-
My big deal with being pro-choice comes from the concept of bodily autonomy. (http://inthereddest.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/abortion_bodily_autonomy.jpg)
This is reasonably similar to the trolley problem. For a lot of people the distinction of whether you're taking a 'positive action' to end a life or simply allowing it to end through inaction is a big deal. If you pull the switch to send the trolley from an unoccupied track to one with someone on it you're guilty of murder. If you see it set to hit someone and do nothing you're perhaps guilty of manslaughter through negligence.
Not everyone sees it the way you do.
-
My big deal with being pro-choice comes from the concept of bodily autonomy. (http://inthereddest.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/abortion_bodily_autonomy.jpg)
This is reasonably similar to the trolley problem. For a lot of people the distinction of whether you're taking a 'positive action' to end a life or simply allowing it to end through inaction is a big deal. If you pull the switch to send the trolley from an unoccupied track to one with someone on it you're guilty of murder. If you see it set to hit someone and do nothing you're perhaps guilty of manslaughter through negligence.
Not everyone sees it the way you do.
So if the person needing the transplant was going to cut your kidney out from you themselves and you stopped them, that would be murder since you took a positive action to protect your bodily autonomy that will inevitably end a life?
Analogies. So helpful, yet so unhelpful.
-
Again Droid, you're using an analogy that has very different traits to it and try to make it equivalent to the case at hand, when any cursury look at the various trolley examples brought up by Hoover, you would immediately recognize that small changes in the details of the dillemas end up in completely different moral decisions on part of most humans.
This means that there's more to it than the wide blanket "Body autonomy". It's more detailed than that. It's richer than that.
-
Yep. The point of the analogy is that the attitude to abortion being critiqued isn't mere hypocrisy; it's consistent with a pretty widespread moral standard.
-
Not everyone sees it the way you do.
Gee, really? Guess we should just lock the thread now, since people see things differently than you do.
-
I just find it weird that the left, so enamored and preoccupied with altruism as a source for morality and ethics (as opposed to selfishness and greed) can then give rise to such reasonings as "bodily autonomy", which merely translates to me as "I don' give a damn if a small body inside of me's gonna die due to the actions I do to mah own body, I do with mah own body whatevah I want". It's a complete lack of any sense of respect, of dignity, of humillity towards other people and beings. Yes, of course that a woman's body belongs to her, everyone knows this and this is why this is such a controversial debate. But to simply wipe out the other part's right of existence entirely, IDK, it just disgusts me.
I don't think anyone is using bodily autonomy as a black and white explanation of why abortion is okay. Anyone who was would be equally in favour of 8 month abortions and I doubt you will find anyone on this thread in favour of such.
Basically you're getting disgusted at a strawman of your own construction.
-
Oh wait, you're talking about that trolley problem with the 5 people that would die without intervention and the 1 that would with it, and not just flipping the switch so one person dies vs. doing nothing and one person dies as described in the post (which is pretty obvious that given equal outcomes not being involved is "better"). My apologies.
-
The problem is that there is no such thing as doing nothing in a pregnancy.
Except ceasing all bodily activity, in which case you and the fetus will both die, I suppose. Unless someone puts you on life support.
It's not a very helpful analogy in any case.
-
You're bringing this down to semantics. Pregnancy requires no conscious action on the part of the mother.
-
You're bringing this down to semantics. Pregnancy requires no conscious action on the part of the mother.
Bull****.
-
OK, I'd like to address the "it will become a person" argument. if it is a person because it will become a person, then that means that it will never become a person because it already is one. your argument boils down to it's a person because it's a person, but it isn't a person or you would not have made the "it will become one" argument.
-
You're bringing this down to semantics. Pregnancy requires no conscious action on the part of the mother.
Bull****.
Let's just leave it at that, then.
-
I've been reading this discussion since the beginning, and I've really only one question
Does someone you don't know aborting their child that has no connection to you affect you?
I can answer that for you, it doesn't. It doesn't affect you (unless you're directly involved in the situation such as being the father or the doctor who had the unfortunate time being the doctor in this situation). Sure, it goes against/falls in line with whatever moral platform you feel that day, but in the end, it really doesn't change anything about your day or your life.
That's my position. Who gives a flying bloody **** what the hell someone else does to their body. Want a early/mid/late term abortion? Go for it, I don't give a ****. So many problems solved with a simple action of not giving a damn what someone does to themselves
And before someone goes off again about "It's not just to themselves, it's to this living creature", the creature is inside them, attached and essentially an extension of the mother until such time as it matures enough to break free and enter into this ****ty world where everyone will have an opinion on what you should or shouldn't do to yourself
Course, I dislike kids and less of them in a world that'll slowly overpopulate itself, the better
-
Just to make something clear, this isn't just moral theorizing for me. I've had my best friend commit suicide because he couldn't deal with his father exercising that right of bodily autonomy by going from a Dennis to a Denise, so when I say that sometimes, it just isn't worth it, it just isn't worth it.
-
this thread is a disorganized cluster**** like I haven't seen in years. it's like people are just shouting opinions without any concern for things like context or if what they are saying has anything to do with the subject of the thread or something someone else has said.
-
I've been reading this discussion since the beginning, and I've really only one question
Does someone you don't know aborting their child that has no connection to you affect you?
I can answer that for you, it doesn't. It doesn't affect you (unless you're directly involved in the situation such as being the father or the doctor who had the unfortunate time being the doctor in this situation). Sure, it goes against/falls in line with whatever moral platform you feel that day, but in the end, it really doesn't change anything about your day or your life.
That's my position. Who gives a flying bloody **** what the hell someone else does to their body. Want a early/mid/late term abortion? Go for it, I don't give a ****. So many problems solved with a simple action of not giving a damn what someone does to themselves
And before someone goes off again about "It's not just to themselves, it's to this living creature", the creature is inside them, attached and essentially an extension of the mother until such time as it matures enough to break free and enter into this ****ty world where everyone will have an opinion on what you should or shouldn't do to yourself
Course, I dislike kids and less of them in a world that'll slowly overpopulate itself, the better
See a few pages back. You better wish for more kids, unless you don't feel like retiring. :) As far as the entire world goes, overpopulation is not a problem. Low (and dropping) population growth is.
Sure, one can just stick one's head in the sand and say "I don't care". The thing is, some people do. What would you say if the government was exterminating an ethnicity you don't happen to be a part of? "It doesn't affect me, I don't care" isn't exactly an answer that would endear people (especially members of that ethnicity) to you. As far as many abortion opponents think (I'm not among them, for the record), this is exactly what is happening, only that it's not an ethnicity, but age. Also remember: a lot of stuff doesn't affect us, until it suddenly does. If you don't care about things until they become a personal concern of your own, you'll end up running unprepared into a lot of things (or screwed over by things you could've fixed before).
You're bringing this down to semantics. Pregnancy requires no conscious action on the part of the mother.
Ever seen an actual, pregnant woman? It certainly requires a lot of conscious action on her part, and not only to start it. Sure, it might not seem like that at first (it's possible to lead a more or less normal life until the very end), but bearing a child is a lot of work. That's like saying living doesn't require conscious action. You won't be able to live like that for very long.
-
Sure, one can just stick one's head in the sand and say "I don't care". The thing is, some people do. What would you say if the government was exterminating an ethnicity you don't happen to be a part of? "It doesn't affect me, I don't care" isn't exactly an answer that would endear people (especially members of that ethnicity) to you. As far as many abortion opponents think (I'm not among them, for the record), this is exactly what is happening, only that it's not an ethnicity, but age. Also remember: a lot of stuff doesn't affect us, until it suddenly does. If you don't care about things until they become a personal concern of your own, you'll end up running unprepared into a lot of things (or screwed over by things you could've fixed before).
So tell me, at what point is someone getting pregnant and then deciding to terminate that pregnancy going to end up being a personal concern of my own? As I mentioned earlier, if I am not the doctor or the father, it doesn't concern me. It's not my place to be concerned with it because it isn't my business.
Your example of the Government exterminating an ethnicity is a terrible example of anything. Why? Because despite the fact I'm not part of that ethnicity, it actually does concern me... primarily because the Government is exterminating a large group of people which is considered Genocide and not okay.
The debate about abortions hardly relates. Sure, the thought process as you've mentioned might be the same, but that's just logically flawed. One, it's on an individual level and two, it only concerns *the person who is pregnant*. It shouldn't concern politicians, priests, pro-lifers, etc. There is no murdering of other people's creatures in their belly. No, it's just one person with a desire to rid themselves of the thing in their own uterus
It's not sticking one's head in the sand and you've said, it's simply realizing how bloody idiotic the entire conversation is in the first place.
Who are we to tell an individual what they can or cannot do to their own personal selves (provided no one else gets maimed in the process)? They want to kill themselves? Go for it. Do drugs? Well, you're on your own. Become a politician? God help you and have fun.
See a few pages back. You better wish for more kids, unless you don't feel like retiring. :) As far as the entire world goes, overpopulation is not a problem. Low (and dropping) population growth is.
It wouldn't really matter given I won't be able to retire for a long ass time regardless
-
Because despite the fact I'm not part of that ethnicity, it actually does concern me... primarily because the Government is exterminating a large group of people which is considered Genocide and not okay.
Yet that doesn't make any sense, because genocide (somewhere sufficiently far away) doesn't affect you either. You just said that you don't care about abortions because they don't affect you, and now you say that you care about genocide because it's "not okay". Either abortion/genocide affecting you makes a difference WRT whether it's ok or not, or it doesn't. Which one is it?
-
Yet that doesn't make any sense, because genocide (somewhere sufficiently far away) doesn't affect you either. You just said that you don't care about abortions because they don't affect you, and now you say that you care about genocide because it's "not okay". Either abortion/genocide affecting you makes a difference WRT whether it's ok or not, or it doesn't. Which one is it?
Yes, because when I say "What someone does to their body is their own business because it doesn't affect me, nor concern me and therefore I don't care" that *clearly* translates to "I don't care what happens in this world because it doesn't affect me"
Note: Concern and affect are two entirely different things. Notice how I said, "It actually does concern me" rather than "It actually does affect me"?
So yes, genocide across the world probably doesn't affect me in a noticeable way, but it does concern me
Once again, concern, affect, not one of the same. Someone aborting their child, offing themselves, doing drugs, neither concerns, or affects me, therefore go for it, do whatever. Ending an entire civilization because you felt like it, may or may not affect me, but does concern, therefore I take issue with your choice to commit genocide
Do I need to be more clear about the choice of words and the English language?
More layman's terms. You harm someone else, bad. You harm only yourself, don't care.
Note: Fetus, a creature currently incapable of realizing its own existence (until proven otherwise). Not someone else, just an extension of you.
EDIT: Hell, lets be even more clear
Genocide: Unanimously against the law
Abortion: Not unanimously against the law
-
The truth is, you are never, ever going to get to a situation where 100% of the population is comfortable with abortion and I think that is probably healthy because it balances matters out.
The argument differs because some see it as 'your' body that is with child, others see it as a childs' body that happens to be growing inside your own, it's a question of personal perspective that will probably never be solved.
Each abortion case is unique, like assisted suicide it cannot be taken under a blanket opinion, especially from people who are simply reciting something they heard somewhere else. However, from a purely medical point of view abortion can cause physical and psychological damage to the patient. The former is a medical concern, but the latter often comes from a situation that should be avoided, which is abortion because of the parents situation, rather than their desire to not have a child.
I think the thing is, you won't solve the problem with just a stick, it has to be accepted that a pregnant mother is something more than the worlds most complicated baby-pram, and that this is probably the worst situation in the world to be dealing with absolutes in.
As I said before, education will help, though expecting young people to use contraceptives because 'it's the sensible thing to do' is a short road to disappointment.
-
Yes, because when I say "What someone does to their body is their own business because it doesn't affect me, nor concern me and therefore I don't care" that *clearly* translates to "I don't care what happens in this world because it doesn't affect me"
Note: Concern and affect are two entirely different things. Notice how I said, "It actually does concern me" rather than "It actually does affect me"?
So yes, genocide across the world probably doesn't affect me in a noticeable way, but it does concern me
Once again, concern, affect, not one of the same. Someone aborting their child, offing themselves, doing drugs, neither concerns, or affects me, therefore go for it, do whatever. Ending an entire civilization because you felt like it, may or may not affect me, but does concern, therefore I take issue with your choice to commit genocide
Do I need to be more clear about the choice of words and the English language?
More layman's terms. You harm someone else, bad. You harm only yourself, don't care.
Note: Fetus, a creature currently incapable of realizing its own existence (until proven otherwise). Not someone else, just an extension of you.
Then your whole point is simply "fetus is not a person", not whether something affects or concerns you or what people do with their own bodies.
You came into the thread saying that you've read it, but then immediately try to reframe the issue as being about whether people should be able to do what they like with their own body, even though that's not the underlying issue at all; whether the fetus is "someone else" (see below) or not is the underlying issue, yet you hardly address that at all. Your argument about murder/genocide and abortion being different doesn't work unless one accepts that a fetus is not a person, so that argument is meaningless in an abortion debate where the other side does not accept that a fetus is not a person.
It's just bizarre to me how so many pro-choice people seem to completely miss the point of the pro-life side. I'm closer to pro-abortion than pro-choice myself, but even I think the pro-life crowd, aside from religious nonsense, tend to present more solid reasoning and to-the-point arguments in abortion debates.
More layman's terms. You harm someone else, bad. You harm only yourself, don't care.
And a pro-lifer says the same. The issue with abortion is not whether it's ok to harm only yourself, it's about whether abortion is something that only harms yourself. The former isn't really any more relevant than the question of whether killing other people is ok.
-
So riddle me this ...
Case A:
A man and a woman decide to have a baby, they have sex, sperm meets egg, i.e. she gets pregnant, the fetus grows and eventually the baby is born.
Case B:
A man and a woman decide not to have a baby, they use protection, they have sex, the same sperm that would have met the egg and become the baby in case A never are able to meet. No pregnancy develops, no baby is born.
Case C:
A man and a woman decide not to have a baby. They have sex and use protection, it fails. (Worse alternative: The woman is mugged and raped, conceiving a child) Their world is about to collapse because they decided NOT to have a baby for good reasons. Thankfully, they can still take the pill after or abort the pregnancy early on, leading to the same outcome as in case B. Their world does not collapse and their original intention and will is followed.
OR ... they are told by a pro life zealot that he, the "pro life zealot", does not care for their intention, wishes and planning and they HAVE to have the baby against their will, consequently making their world collapse, resulting in a high likelyhood of ruining the relationship, increasing the likelyhood of a botched upbringing with traumatic childhood experiences .... see where this is going?
No matter how you discuss it, ... "pro life" always comes down to taking choice about their own life away from people. And to be clear ... I doubt many if any people are seriously considering aborting late term pregnancies ... but rather this is specifically about the "pro life crowd" arguing that a single fertilized cell deserves more consideration than the intentions, wishes and planning of 2 fully grown people.
And yes... I realize someone is gonna say it's all about the "potential" of that cell ... but seriously, what difference is there to the potential of the sperm and the egg? They have the same potential as the fertilized egg. If you take that sperm and let it fertilize the egg and implant it in a woman the end result will be exactly the same. Hence the potential will be the same.
Decrying that the fertilized cell is a "potential human being" whose protection is worth more than the will of 2 human beings and at the same time decrying "the egg and the sperm that could reach the same potential" is not ... is purely arbitrary.
Yes I realize that you believe "that's how it is and how it *has* to be" ... but seriously... imagine a sperm and an egg in a petri dish ... you can watch it with a microscope as the sperm comes closer to the egg ... and oh look ... the moment they meet ... you better find a woman to implant that thing in the petri dish because if you are not, you are committing murder? Riiiight. So please do explain how valuing a fertilized egg more than the body, the wishes and aspirations of two fully grown parents is anything but a random brainfart. Thanks.
-
In case C, why would offering the baby up for adoption be a viable option?
-
In case C, why would offering the baby up for adoption be a viable option?
It is always an option.
The point is, it needs to be the choice of the woman affected.
How could it be any other way really? Or would you propose that, for example, a woman who was just raped should automatically be forced to endure a 9 month pregnancy with the rapist's child, on top of the initial emotional trauma and physical damage?
Would anyone really tell that woman: "Gee tough luck ... but that rapist's sperm fertilized your egg, so enjoy your pregnancy!" Seriously?
-
They do on a daily basis.
-
How could it be any other way really? Or would you propose that, for example, a woman who was just raped should automatically be forced to endure a 9 month pregnancy with the rapist's child, on top of the initial emotional trauma and physical damage?
Would anyone really tell that woman: "Gee tough luck ... but that rapist's sperm fertilized your egg, so enjoy your pregnancy!" Seriously?
Sandwich thinks so. Not putting words in his mouth. He literally said that.
Raped? That's absolutely horrific. Don't make it worse by killing your baby, unwanted or not. Give it up for adoption - there's plenty of loving couples out there that can't have children of their own and who are looking to adopt.
One of my best friends was raped in February 2014, and for quite a while, even the smell of gravel made her have a panic attack. Suggesting that - had she been impregnated - she should be forced to carry a reminder of that rape for 9 months is ****ing insane.
-
Then your whole point is simply "fetus is not a person", not whether something affects or concerns you or what people do with their own bodies.
Okay, let me say this another way
Fetus is a person, but it's not considered murder, so therefore I don't care what you do to the thing in your abdomen
Let me say that one more time. It. Is. Not. Considered. Murder. By. Law.
Oh look my point still remains the same.
And a pro-lifer says the same.
Welcome to the conundrum which is morals, something I've repeatedly said are entirely flexible and really pointless to force onto people who disagree with you.
-
Fetus is a person
in what way?
-
Okay, let me say this another way
Fetus is a person, but it's not considered murder, so therefore I don't care what you do to the thing in your abdomen
Let me say that one more time. It. Is. Not. Considered. Murder. By. Law.
But if you murder a pregnant woman in the United States, you're charged with two counts of murder. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act) Odd, isn't it?
-
Fetus is a person
in what way?
You uh... sort of missed the point I was explaining to zookeeper
I'm saying my point stands the same either way you look at it. It's not illegal nor considered murder unanimously throughout Western Civilization. Someone's choice to have a slightly different moral outlook doesn't really affect you, and if what they're doing (something entirely legal to do) concerns you, you really ought to reassess what sort of things concern you. This is a private matter, it's doesn't bloody concern you.
Much to the same, Pro-Choice side should just leave the Pro-Lifers to their own set of morals instead of trying to convince them they're wrong because that goes nowhere and ultimately leads to a **** flinging conversation that really isn't much of a debate. They're not inherently wrong, they just share a different opinion on something that is based off a moral platform which is flexible and different from person to person. Some don't consider it a human being until birth, others late term, others when it's first conceived and duplicating cells. Does it actually matter? Not really.
In the end, it isn't illegal, nor is it morally bankrupt (depending on which side of the fence you're on)
Don't we all have better things to do than drawing lines in the sand and having morality wars about who is more morally sound than the other person?
And with that, I am now done. I imagine you'll all return to arguing who is more right, progressive, pro-whatever, despite that all of this discussion depends on your moral platform, and therefore makes no one person more right or wrong than the other. Hundred years from now, I imagine anyone looking back on history thinking to themselves how petty we all were. Much like we look down on racists, homophobes and people who still think women shouldn't have rights today.
But if you murder a pregnant woman in the United States, you're charged with two counts of murder. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act) Odd, isn't it?
Yeah, it is odd and probably just setup that way to punish the murderer more so because dammit, you killed a pregnant woman and that's just no good! Or something along those lines
Abortion though, still not illegal. Well, unanimously. I keep using that word because there are places where well... it is illegal
-
It's legal therefore it's fine? that is utterly idiotic and asinine logic. you walk down the street and see me verbally berating and abusing someone, you're just going to whistle and walk along? you're not going to make some sort of judgement of me? if anything that was legal was fine then we'd never change our laws. I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around all the dimensions of utterly ridiculous your argument is. and you realize the reason this is an argument is because two sides are actively trying to change the law right?
this is entirely centered around how you define personhood.
...or that is a thinly veiled posthoc justification for trying to punish people for having sex in a way they don't like.
one or the other. one of those two.
-
Then your whole point is simply "fetus is not a person", not whether something affects or concerns you or what people do with their own bodies.
Okay, let me say this another way
Fetus is a person, but it's not considered murder, so therefore I don't care what you do to the thing in your abdomen
Let me say that one more time. It. Is. Not. Considered. Murder. By. Law.
Oh look my point still remains the same.
I have no idea whatsoever how any of that relates to anything we've been discussing, or what point you're even referring to.
And a pro-lifer says the same.
Welcome to the conundrum which is morals, something I've repeatedly said are entirely flexible and really pointless to force onto people who disagree with you.
Uh... okay? That doesn't seem to relate to anything either.
-
Abortion though, still not illegal. Well, unanimously. I keep using that word because there are places where well... it is illegal
Legal=/=right. Or illegal=/=wrong, for that matter, something I like to bring up, though in a slightly different context. Sometimes (how often depends how crappy the local law is) you have to chose between what is legal and what is right. I don't know of a country that would not have a single law on the books that wouldn't be immoral in some way. We're not discussing legal realities. We're discussing what those realities should be, their current status is rather irrelevant. The law about murdering a pregnant woman being counted as two murders is not an argument, either. It might be one of the many legal oddities and inconsistencies, though in that case, I'm willing to let it slide.
Logically, since killing a person is murder (using a simplified definition not to muck the argument up), a fetus can't be a person and killing it not considered a murder. This is a classic example of what Orwell called "doublethink". Either it's a person, so abortion is murder or it's not a person and therefore abortion is not murder. Which one it is we're trying to establish. And no, there really is no "third option" that wouldn't be doublethink.
And a pro-lifer says the same.
Welcome to the conundrum which is morals, something I've repeatedly said are entirely flexible and really pointless to force onto people who disagree with you.
You're taking it out of context. This line is not about morals. It's about identifying the point that is contested. Everybody in both groups agrees that murder is not a good thing (which is the exact opinion this line referred to). The question is whether you can call abortion murder. Shifting the discussion to whether murder is right or wrong is a common trick of the anti-abortion people, but it's not a valid way of arguing. We're talking abortion itself.
-
But if you murder a pregnant woman in the United States, you're charged with two counts of murder. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act) Odd, isn't it?
I suspect that's basically to punish the murderer for the crime of killing an obviously pregnant woman. Especially when you consider that the Bible actually says the complete opposite.
-
Shifting the discussion to whether murder is right or wrong is a common trick of the anti-abortion people, but it's not a valid way of arguing.
This is an argument over whether you are killing a person.
As such, murder is an entirely appropriate metaphor to employ and if you find it unwelcome to have the question turned about upon you, don't worry; pro-choice has been putting up with being equated to murderers and having their position described as murder for decades.
-
Reasoned, pluralist debate about abortion is about as close to impossible as any issue I've ever seen, in no small part because it touches on the unsettling and fascinating truth that all moral systems are built on axioms that can't really be reduced or logically justified. The universe doesn't distinguish between life and nonlife — there's no code in physics to recognize and tag a living thing. Arguments about the capacity to suffer founder on our inability to understand qualia.
For me, the most convincing pro-life argument is that we haven't the foggiest idea when a fetus has qualia, or in religious terms, when it has a soul. Qualia are a complete mystery to us, which makes it impossible to draw lines.
But if you murder a pregnant woman in the United States, you're charged with two counts of murder. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act) Odd, isn't it?
Yeah, it is odd and probably just setup that way to punish the murderer more so because dammit, you killed a pregnant woman and that's just no good! Or something along those lines
I suspect that's basically to punish the murderer for the crime of killing an obviously pregnant woman. Especially when you consider that the Bible actually says the complete opposite.
Why would the murder of a pregnant woman be worse than any other murder, though? (So much worse, in fact, that the crime is doubled?)
Legal=/=right. Or illegal=/=wrong, for that matter, something I like to bring up, though in a slightly different context. Sometimes (how often depends how crappy the local law is) you have to chose between what is legal and what is right. I don't know of a country that would not have a single law on the books that wouldn't be immoral in some way. We're not discussing legal realities. We're discussing what those realities should be, their current status is rather irrelevant. The law about murdering a pregnant woman being counted as two murders is not an argument, either. It might be one of the many legal oddities and inconsistencies, though in that case, I'm willing to let it slide.
Logically, since killing a person is murder (using a simplified definition not to muck the argument up), a fetus can't be a person and killing it not considered a murder. This is a classic example of what Orwell called "doublethink". Either it's a person, so abortion is murder or it's not a person and therefore abortion is not murder. Which one it is we're trying to establish. And no, there really is no "third option" that wouldn't be doublethink.
Agreed; laws are often contradictory. I also agree that this particular law is a sign of doublethink (which is what I think you're saying - correct me if I'm wrong).
-
One of my best friends was raped in February 2014, and for quite a while, even the smell of gravel made her have a panic attack. Suggesting that - had she been impregnated - she should be forced to carry a reminder of that rape for 9 months is ****ing insane.
Not to mention the financial burden and medical risks.
-
I've been reading this discussion since the beginning, and I've really only one question
Does someone you don't know aborting their child that has no connection to you affect you?
Lots of crimes dont affect me, including genocides in distant parts of the world, infanticide, racist crimes against ethnicities I am not a part of etc. So this is a very dumb and selfish standard to use. As long as these acts affect someone, they may be a valid target for criminalization. It does not have to be me at all.
Now the question is, does foetus count as "someone" or not? At what stage of development does a human count as someone? That is the central question when it comes to abortion. There are many possibilities where we could draw the line, from conception up to even some post-birth stages (after all, it was common to consider infanticide less wrong than murder of adult human in the past). And it is very subjective, too.
My own opinion goes something like this: the notion that a microscopic bunch of cells is considered a person is really absurd. At the same time, the notion that 9 month old foetus is not a person purely because it is still inside the mother instead of outside is just as absurd to me. You may as well legalize infanticide at that point (which some pro-choice extremist minority does advocate, and I can at least admire their consistency and honesty).
So, what makes a human into a person instead of a human as just an object with no rights? Id say it is our higher brain. Neither early foetuses nor some people in vegetative state have functioning higher brains, and I am inclined to see them more like objects instead of human beings. And what does it mean for drawing the legal line? Id say somewhere in second trimester would be a good idea, since thats when higher brain really begins to develop. It also coincides nicely with viability, which is another important threshold because now the woman also has the option of early delivery instead of abortion.
And when someone says that potential lives matter, I just cannot take that kind of reasoning seriously, even tough I can see where it stems from. If potential lives mattered, we would be obligated to procreate 24/7. Think of all the potential lives you are killing right now by not having sex! Nah, as a consequentialist, I believe there is no moral difference between pulling out and aborting, both mean one less human being in this world. If the first one is morally OK, then the second one must also be.
-
Shifting the discussion to whether murder is right or wrong is a common trick of the anti-abortion people, but it's not a valid way of arguing.
This is an argument over whether you are killing a person.
As such, murder is an entirely appropriate metaphor to employ and if you find it unwelcome to have the question turned about upon you, don't worry; pro-choice has been putting up with being equated to murderers and having their position described as murder for decades.
Exactly, and I find this issue with as much emotional baggage as the euthanasia problem. People are quick to throw ideas around like "Weren't doctors supposed to follow the Hippocratic Oath", and it's all too easy to let oneself be immersed with too much emotional drama flooding any reasonable discussion one might have. And a part of me tells me that we shouldn't want it any other way. To unemotionally discuss these things like we are talking about shutting down lightswitches is too nihillistic for my taste. And if you think about it, death is indeed the most radical consequence a human being is going to suffer, and it has radical emotional consequences. However, the emotional flood is indeed impairing the discussion, and instead of us having a productive debate over all these issues, we only get two groups of people emotionally disgusted at each other for focusing on two distinct vectors.
I don't see any real solution to this problem, but I am not entirely sure of Battuta's line of reasoning, stating that the problem is a metaphysical one. Most people don't ****ing care about metaphysics. What people do is the exact opposite: they care about the things they will care about and then justify them with metaphysical reasons. And inevitably, we will get extremes in this. And why wouldn't we? All of this stems from the Big Question of "What is to be Human", and thus to even nurture the thought that Religion would have nothing to whine about any of this would be incredibly naive.
-
At what stage of development does a human count as someone? That is the central question when it comes to abortion.
During a pregnant woman's first trimester, the Court held, a state cannot regulate abortion beyond requiring that the procedure be performed by a licensed doctor in medically safe conditions.
During the second trimester, the Court held, a state may regulate abortion if the regulations are reasonably related to the health of the pregnant woman.
During the third trimester of pregnancy, the state's interest in protecting the potential human life outweighs the woman's right to privacy, and the state may prohibit abortions unless abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the mother.
1973 people (Roe vs Wade). A line was drawn by the Supreme Court in 1973. Not to mention they upheld the pregnant lady's Right to Privacy
Lots of crimes dont affect me, including genocides in distant parts of the world, infanticide, racist crimes against ethnicities I am not a part of etc. So this is a very dumb and selfish standard to use. As long as these acts affect someone, they may be a valid target for criminalization. It does not have to be me at all.
If you're going to respond to something, read the rest of it beforehand. Affect and concern, two different things. Breaking laws should concern the citizens despite the fact the breaking of them doesn't necessarily affect them.
In the case of abortion, no laws are being broken, just people's moral positions etc etc said all this before
1973. This is why I wonder why this is even a debate anymore. The line was drawn, the court ruled in favour of abortion privacy, and the protection of life was upheld by ensuring a drawn line.
If we go back on that, is that "right" as you put it Dragon?
And yes, this is a discussion based on morals. Is it moral to abort a fetus? If you're answer is no, you probably think it's murder. If you think yeah, it's okay, you don't think it's murder. If you don't know, refer to the Supreme Court decision and base your position off of that
-
OK but just because the Supreme Court says something is legal doesn't mean people have to shut up and agree that it's moral.
-
Your legalism is becoming tiresome, deathfun. Arguing that the law is the law because it was written as the law, so that's why it should be the law, is not even wrong of an argument. It's confusing what is with what should be. It's such a basic mistake, but it hasn't kept you from repeating it for no end. I ignored it until now, and I'll ignore it henceforth. Please, stop it.
-
OK but just because the Supreme Court says something is legal doesn't mean people have to shut up and agree that it's moral.
Indeed correct, but they ought to respect the "Right to Privacy" bit
Your legalism is becoming tiresome, deathfun. Arguing that the law is the law because it was written as the law, so that's why it should be the law, is not even wrong of an argument. It's confusing what is with what should be. It's such a basic mistake, but it hasn't kept you from repeating it for no end. I ignored it until now, and I'll ignore it henceforth. Please, stop it.
You know why I keep bringing up that Court decision?
The Court decision is a compromise between the two sides of the argument. The only reason the debate continues now is because neither side is able to accept a compromise that took a long ass time to come to a conclusion with. They want all or nothing. How can a discussion actually be a discussion when both sides of this argument want to actively go back on the compromise that was created specifically because of this? I know the law is a grey area, it always has been. I'm not arguing that. I'm simply outlining how idiotic the conversation here is because of the fact a court case and discussion was had that CREATED A ****ING COMPROMISE SO THAT BOTH SIDES WIN
EDIT: Went nuts, exiting stage left
-
What some court says has little influence on my personal opinion of what the law *should* be. As others said, you are arguing from legalism and that is a really weak argument.
Roe vs. Wade has drawn the line on viability. It is not a bad decision for now, however Id prefer some kind of brain development threshold instead. Also, as medical science advances, foetuses will become viable earlier and earlier. Sooner or later abortion will once again be open for bans at any stage of pregnancy in the US. Dont expect Roe vs. Wade to be the end of this debate.
-
"a compromise was created 3 decades ago, thus it must never again be challenged or discussed"
-
I was going to ignore all of this as I had said, but now deathfun surprised me and gave me a repeat of his legalistic argument, but now in a font size 36 paragraph and now I am totally devastated. I mean, how on earth could I disagree with a 36 pt font sized argument.
-
i found a compelling video that has made me rethink my pro-abortion stance
-
Dont expect Roe vs. Wade to be the end of this debate.
Given it wasn't the end forty years ago, I don't expect there ever to be an end
Primarily because it's easier to disagree than it is to accept a compromise and *accept someone else's views* while not *having to change your own*
I think I already said that actually. But one thing is for certain, everyone here disagrees with me and my saying "You know, the law created is actually pretty logical. It creates a guideline, accepts both sides, and upholds people's right to privacy. But gosh darn it, that just isn't good enough for either side", so that's something you can all agree on. Why view a court case which discussed this debate and made laws which essentially created guidelines to follow. Na, may as well just keep sticking our pro-life noses in people's private lives. Who cares if that infringes on someone's right to privacy.
So a few questions then:
Is abortion wrong?
If no, your side already had its day in court, it prevailed, no need to delve further. It has since been a legal precedent for many years following that. Engaging in debate further simply creates a pointless ****storm
If yes - What do you want changed? Do you want outright abolition of abortion? If yes, then you're encroaching on other people's established rights and that typically doesn't end well (not to mention it's essentially going backwards in time).
If no, then what is it that you want? More definitive guidelines? How do you intend to make those? How do we intend to investigate that? How do you intend to actually put forth that change?
Putting up signs and standing outside abortion clinics does nothing to change anything, just pisses everyone off, makes the discussion more polarized, and nothing gets accomplished
You're all welcome to your opinions and disagreeing with the precedent that has been set, but also remember that the law isn't going to change simply because you take issue with it. I view that ruling as a nice logical compromise
But then again, emotions are irrational and logic gets thrown out the window. Forgot about that.
And yes the large font was overkill.
In conclusion, the position was a compromise. The world would benefit entirely if people actually *listened* to compromises considering *that's the entire point of making them*. To make both sides equally unhappy because they actually have to *work together* to benefit *everyone as a whole* as opposed to *just themselves* and their own self righteous thoughts of how things should actually be, because **** those who lose out on their inherent rights
-
"Encroaching on other people's established rights" is what changing laws implies, half of the time. This is not extraordinary, it's the opposite of it.
"going backwards in time" - the hell does that even mean. It's not even wrong of a sentence. It implies something to go "forward", which also already assumes the direction that is considered "forward" or "backward", but the problem here is precisely that two groups fundamentally disagree on this very direction.
"Putting up signs (...) just pisses everyone off" - well, tell that to every social movement in History.
"the law isn't going to change simply because you take issue with it" - and me thinking the laws were made by people for the people. Silly me, I guess they are rather granted by the Heavens!
"I view that ruling as a nice logical compromise" - Well congratulations, that's a remarkable feat that your brain did. Other brains disagree. Tough luck.
I don't really regard Roe vs Wade as a "compromise", but as a complete victory by one side. I'm not bothered, but to dismiss people who disagree because the law is the law is the law, and a "compromise" was "reached" is just ridiculous beyond belief. People will have their own beliefs and political views. It's our duty to respect this brute fact of life. Deal with it.
-
The reasoning behind the law was just, and that is why I'm using the law as an argument
Luis, what do you figure is a compromise then? If Roe vs Wade wasn't one, then what *is*
-
So argue the reasoning, not the fact that there is a law. Sigh.
It is indeed a compromise, it's just not one that some people accept. Just because there's a word "compromise" in there, it does not follow that everyone on either side goes on board with it.
-
I don't really regard Roe vs Wade as a "compromise",
It is indeed a compromise, it's just not one that some people accept
So you're indeed saying it's a compromise, just one that some people don't like
Which is what almost all compromises have as a result. It pleases the majority, while the minority can go ahead and disagree
So argue the reasoning, not the fact that there is a law. Sigh.
I did, in more words than required which muddled the discussion as pointed out here, "The Court decision is a compromise between the two sides of the argument."
Some folks interpreted it differently, etc, now we're here, cleared that up
-
Yes, I recanted that opinion regarding compromise. I was wrong in my assessment. My problem with your take is not whether if it's true that some people looked at both sides of the issue and considered a compromise. This is not an argument, it's not a discussion, it's just a brute historical fact. That this legal compromise was reached, everyone knows it. Also, everyone knows it too that we are not bound to think the same manner as they did. That it is in fact useful or interesting to ponder these issues by ourselves. And by "issues", it's not that there was a ruling or a compromise, but the issues inherent in that discussion.
Do you understand the difference? Banging on on how this particular decision by a particular court by a particular country happened is *not* a valid argument in any discussion that we were having whatsoever. It's merely, again, a *fact*.
I say this and for good this time, I promise: I won't repeat myself. I won't touch this legalistic viewpoint again.
-
Also, everyone knows it too that we are not bound to think the same manner as they did.
Which raises the question
Just what is everyone trying to accomplish with this discussion
-
What kind of question is that? What is any GenDisc thread "trying to accomplish"?
-
Usually discussions are trying to convince someone of something else
Otherwise, what's the point in having the discussion
Which is what I initially said three pages ago. What's the point in having this discussion
-
I try to convince people to use arguments which aren't inherently incapable of convincing whom they're intended for, so that there'd be more of rational discussion and less pointless bickering.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLGCizuUwAA_pz2.jpg)
http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/29/why-planned-parenthood-cant-donate-tissue-from-harvested-babies/
This is getting into gruesome levels. And before anyone squirms at the right wing source of this, I ask you, why on earth isn't the liberal media reporting on it as it should be? They are leaving us out in the cold here.
-
Again, does anyone know what is the time frame here? Because if we are talking about first trimester fetuses, then I do not believe they even have any capacity to suffer and therefore it does not matter how they are aborted. But if we are talking about third trimester fetuses, then those are really like little babies and dismembering them while alive would be outrageous. Second trimester is a grey area. I just cant get properly outraged without that piece of information..
-
http://www.babycentre.co.uk/pregnancy-week-by-week
Although we don't know what stage PP was talking, you have to assume it was a bit later if the organs being discussed were to have much practical use, correct?
-
incorrect.
-
It is a very relevant question indeed. Unfortunately, I don't believe PP will come with any answers here, and the liberal media seems utterly uninterested in pressing for any of it.
-
I wish there were nonpartisan media outlets. As it is, I content myself with reading forums, especially ones not directly related to politics. <steps down from soapbox>
-
bbc news mate (well, everyone says it's biased against them but that just proves it)
-
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zFm97YREBwY/Umd3fG2bCUI/AAAAAAAAOds/eiJcnyZ5TAM/s1600/bender-laughing.gif)