Texas Abortion Laws

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
zmic
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby zmic » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:27 pm UTC

Angua wrote:It's useful to emphasise the negative effects to show the multitude of reasons why someone might not want to stay pregnant.

Which is relevant to the pro-abortion debate because not allowing abortions forces women to go through these things.


What always gets ignored in this kind of reasoning is that in most cases a pregnancy is the result of consensual sex between adults. That is, nobody forced the woman to become pregnant. That was the moment when she was free to choose what happens to her body. Now that she is pregnant, she can hardly claim that she got nothing to do with it or that her present condition was forced upon her by circumstances beyond her will.
Last edited by zmic on Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:30 pm UTC, edited 4 times in total.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby DSenette » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:27 pm UTC

Telchar wrote:
Angua wrote:
Telchar wrote:


If there was a point to it, there would be. Anyone care to guess how many people who are actually tortured develop PTSD and depression?

You were the one who asked for women who developed PTSD post childbirth.

Sure, it might not be as bad as torture which is intentionally done for the sake of torture, but 1/3 people getting PTSD sounds like it can be a pretty torturous experience to me.


Except that's not what your study says. You're misrepresenting it in the extreme.

Of women that get post partum deppression, the study found that 3.4% of those experienced full PTSD. The other's experienced "Post trauma or partial post trauma" both of which are nebulous terms which have little diagnostic meaning. I assume they mean those showing any of the 10 symptoms on the DSM-IV TR are "post trauma" and those showing more but not the required 6 listing under "partial post-trauma". I didn't bother to read the actual study as your misrepresentation seems too egregious so I don't know exactly what their definitions are.

The contention was that childbirth and the prelude to it are torture. I'm not asserting that childbirth is difficult, or painful, or amazing, or awesome, or anything else OTHER THAN that it doesn't rise to the level of torture and equating it in that way is disingenuous and inflammatory.

it doesn't ALWAYS...but it...like...totally can

childbirth doesn't ALWAYS result in the death of a mother..but it like....totally can.

the assertion (unless I didn't read it correctly) wasn't "childbirth is always torturous" the assertion was that it COULD be torturous and that some people have experienced THE SAME effects from childbirth as torture.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:29 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Your very trusting then. You can't have a society that passes laws against murder, and not expect confusion about the morality of this particular procedure. This lives at the heart of a place where people are unsure of the ground.
I'm very trusting when it comes to trusting people with decisions regarding their own bodies.
morriswalters wrote:Have you ever given a moments thought about the emotions of those who oppose abortion. They find you and the ideas that you value equally frightening. All of them aren't evil haters, and however wrong I believe they might be, your fear comes when you demonize them as theirs comes when they demonize you.
Okay, but what do you want me to say? We should stop and think about the feelings of people who think the earth is flat, or that the moon is made out of cheese?

I'm all for not demonizing people, but when you let moral derangement control the dialogue, you end up in a place where even pointing out that opposing abortion is a morally deranged position is parsed as insulting and demonizing.

I mean, I'm all for couching my language for the sake of others, but there's only so many different ways I can tell someone they're completely in the wrong. And anti-abortionists are completely in the wrong.
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:We have plenty of limitations on freedom that are designed to keep you from killing people...
...fair, but most of them don't require you to put your life in jeopardy.
zmic wrote:What always gets ignored in this kind of reasoning is that in most cases a pregnancy is the result of consensual sex between adults. That is, nobody forced the woman to become pregnant. There was the moment when she was free to chose what happens to her body. Now that she is pregnant, she can hardly claim that she got nothing to do with it.
The reason it gets ignored is because it's completely irrelevant.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby Роберт » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:30 pm UTC

Look. Many women have extremely sucky horrible pregnancies and childbirths even when they have a support network and WANT the kid. Pretending otherwise is idiotic.

That doesn't mean that forced pregnancy (in the case of a viable fetus) is therefore the immoral option. The depends on how your moral system and how you weight the life of a human fetus vs the bodily autonomy issues. Different things will bring you to different conclusions. Acting like everyone you oppose must be being grossly irrational is also not helpful - even if a lot of them are.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:32 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:Look. Many women have extremely sucky horrible pregnancies and childbirths even when they have a support network and WANT the kid. Pretending otherwise is idiotic.

That doesn't mean that forced pregnancy (in the case of a viable fetus) is therefore the immoral option. The depends on how your moral system and how you weight the life of a human fetus vs the bodily autonomy issues.
Yeah, no, forced pregnancy is always the immoral option.

EDIT: Unless your moral system really sucks.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby Xeio » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:33 pm UTC

zmic wrote:What always gets ignored in this kind of reasoning is that in most cases a pregnancy is the result of consensual sex between adults. That is, nobody forced the woman to become pregnant. That was the moment when she was free to choose what happens to her body. Now that she is pregnant, she can hardly claim that she got nothing to do with it or that her present condition was forced upon her by circumstances beyond her will.
You seem to have forgotten that non-consentual sex is a thing that happens. Seriously, like, to somewhere around 1 in 4 women. That's a lot of relevant events you just forgot about.

Also, what Hippo said, it's not relevant.

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby Telchar » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:34 pm UTC

The assertion was that the practical effects of childbirth are torture. I don't know how you parse that other than childbirth and what comes necessarily before it are equal to torturing the mother.

It's certainly traumatic for many people and is dangerous for many. It has can have long-lasting psychological repercussions that are detrimental to the health of the mother and possibly her children.

That doesn't make it torture.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:36 pm UTC

Telchar wrote:The assertion was that the practical effects of childbirth are torture. I don't know how you parse that other than childbirth and what comes necessarily before it are equal to torturing the mother.

It's certainly traumatic for many people and is dangerous for many. It has can have long-lasting psychological repercussions that are detrimental to the health of the mother and possibly her children.

That doesn't make it torture.
I think a better word would be 'torturous', as 'torture' usually implies the presence of a torturer?

I think most reasonable people would certainly agree that childbirth is usually pretty torturous, and can potentially lead to emotional / psychological harm.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby DSenette » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:37 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:
zmic wrote:What always gets ignored in this kind of reasoning is that in most cases a pregnancy is the result of consensual sex between adults. That is, nobody forced the woman to become pregnant. That was the moment when she was free to choose what happens to her body. Now that she is pregnant, she can hardly claim that she got nothing to do with it or that her present condition was forced upon her by circumstances beyond her will.
You seem to have forgotten that non-consentual sex is a thing that happens. Seriously, like, to somewhere around 1 in 4 women. That's a lot of relevant events you just forgot about.

Also, what Hippo said, it's not relevant.

even with consensual sex, pregnancy isn't always consensual. broken condoms, lies about contraception, failed birth control. just, you know...getting caught up and forgetting to put a condom on.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
zmic
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby zmic » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:40 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:even with consensual sex, pregnancy isn't always consensual. broken condoms, lies about contraception, failed birth control. just, you know...getting caught up and forgetting to put a condom on.


a bit of bad luck does not a murder justify.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:42 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:even with consensual sex, pregnancy isn't always consensual. broken condoms, lies about contraception, failed birth control. just, you know...getting caught up and forgetting to put a condom on.
Man, even if it was 100% consensual -- even if they signed a goddamn contract -- 'I, of sound mind and body, WILLFULLY SURRENDER MY BODY to the unborn child which we will now conceive, for a period of 8 to 10 months'...

It still comes down to a decision that should lie between a woman and her doctor.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby DSenette » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:44 pm UTC

zmic wrote:
DSenette wrote:even with consensual sex, pregnancy isn't always consensual. broken condoms, lies about contraception, failed birth control. just, you know...getting caught up and forgetting to put a condom on.


a bit of bad luck does not a murder justify.

right.....just so you know...your idea of consent means that the next time you get in a wreck, you should have known better than to have gotten in the car in the first place because wrecks are a possible outcome of driving a motor vehicle.

The Great Hippo wrote:
DSenette wrote:even with consensual sex, pregnancy isn't always consensual. broken condoms, lies about contraception, failed birth control. just, you know...getting caught up and forgetting to put a condom on.
Man, even if it was 100% consensual -- even if they signed a goddamn contract -- 'I, of sound mind and body, WILLFULLY SURRENDER MY BODY to the unborn child which we will now conceive, for a period of 8 to 10 months'...

It still comes down to a decision that should lie between a woman and her doctor.
i'm fairly certain we've been in an abortion debate at the same time here before...to that end I think you should be aware we're in the same camp on this.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby DSenette » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:45 pm UTC

zmic wrote:
DSenette wrote:even with consensual sex, pregnancy isn't always consensual. broken condoms, lies about contraception, failed birth control. just, you know...getting caught up and forgetting to put a condom on.


a bit of bad luck does not a murder justify.

also, as we're feeling quippy.... disposal of a collection of cells does not a murder make
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:46 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:also, as we're feeling quippy.... disposal of a collection of cells does not a murder make
Actually, technically, it kind of does. I mean, I am just a collection of cells, so if you were to dispose of me...

User avatar
zmic
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby zmic » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:47 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:
zmic wrote:
DSenette wrote:even with consensual sex, pregnancy isn't always consensual. broken condoms, lies about contraception, failed birth control. just, you know...getting caught up and forgetting to put a condom on.


a bit of bad luck does not a murder justify.

right.....just so you know...your idea of consent means that the next time you get in a wreck, you should have known better than to have gotten in the car in the first place because wrecks are a possible outcome of driving a motor vehicle.


That is exactly what it means. If you don't want a car crash, don't get into a car.

thanks for that.

User avatar
K-R
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby K-R » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:48 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
DSenette wrote:also, as we're feeling quippy.... disposal of a collection of cells does not a murder make
Actually, technically, it kind of does. I mean, I am just a collection of cells, so if you were to dispose of me...
All people are collections of cells. Not all collections of cells are people.

All murders are disposals of collections of cells. Not all disposals of collections of cells are murders.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:49 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:We have plenty of limitations on freedom that are designed to keep you from killing people...
...fair, but most of them don't require you to put your life in jeopardy.

I don't know about that. For example, while we allow you to kill someone in a case of self-defense, many jurisdictions (England, for example) don't allow you to kill an innocent person in order to save your own life. That doesn't strike me as a case of England being "terrible at morality." Nor do I think it would make any sense to say that English lawmakers got to this conclusion by deciding that some groups of people are "worth more" than others.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:53 pm UTC

zmic wrote:What always gets ignored in this kind of reasoning is that in most cases a pregnancy is the result of consensual sex between adults. That is, nobody forced the woman to become pregnant. That was the moment when she was free to choose what happens to her body. Now that she is pregnant, she can hardly claim that she got nothing to do with it or that her present condition was forced upon her by circumstances beyond her will.


She consented to have sex (maybe). That does not imply that she consented to be, or wanted to be, pregnant. Pregnancy is a potential consequence of sex, but it is not a voluntary one--if I drive a car, there is a risk I could get in a crash and be injured. That does not imply that I chose to get in a car crash.

Fortunately, we have developed a method by which people who have involuntarily gotten themselves pregnant may alleviate that problem.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby DSenette » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:54 pm UTC

K-R wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
DSenette wrote:also, as we're feeling quippy.... disposal of a collection of cells does not a murder make
Actually, technically, it kind of does. I mean, I am just a collection of cells, so if you were to dispose of me...
All people are collections of cells. Not all collections of cells are people.

All murders are disposals of collections of cells. Not all disposals of collections of cells are murders.

this

LaserGuy wrote:
zmic wrote:What always gets ignored in this kind of reasoning is that in most cases a pregnancy is the result of consensual sex between adults. That is, nobody forced the woman to become pregnant. That was the moment when she was free to choose what happens to her body. Now that she is pregnant, she can hardly claim that she got nothing to do with it or that her present condition was forced upon her by circumstances beyond her will.


She consented to have sex (maybe). That does not imply that she consented to be, or wanted to be, pregnant. Pregnancy is a potential consequence of sex, but it is not a voluntary one--if I drive a car, there is a risk I could get in a crash and be injured. That does not imply that I chose to get in a car crash.

Fortunately, we have developed a method by which people who have involuntarily gotten themselves pregnant may alleviate that problem.
and this (still)
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:55 pm UTC

zmic wrote:That is exactly what it means. If you don't want a car crash, don't get into a car.

thanks for that.
And if you don't want to die, never be born!

Hey wait, isn't that what abortions are for?
K-R wrote:All people are collections of cells. Not all collections of cells are people.

All murders are disposals of collections of cells. Not all disposals of collections of cells are murders.
You can murder things that aren't people, can't you?

It's just that we only care about murder when the collection of cells have a particularly interesting arrangement.
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:I don't know about that. For example, while we allow you to kill someone in a case of self-defense, many jurisdictions (England, for example) don't allow you to kill an innocent person in order to save your own life. That doesn't strike me as a case of England being "terrible at morality." Nor do I think it would make any sense to say that English lawmakers believe that people-whose-lives-are-in-danger are "worth less" than innocent people, as if there were not substantial overlap between those sets.
I was thinking more along the lines of contributing to a culture of death -- not so much as killing people yourself. I mean, obviously, it's illegal in the States to kill someone and harvest them for their organs, even if you had to do it to survive.

EDIT: Oh, nevermind. I just looked up the definition of murder. Apparently it only applies to humans.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:57 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby Xeio » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:56 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:Fortunately, we have developed a method by which people who have involuntarily gotten themselves pregnant may alleviate that problem.
The jaws of life!

Oh wait, sorry, I thought we were still on car crash analogies.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby DSenette » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:57 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Hey wait, isn't that what abortions are for?
K-R wrote:All people are collections of cells. Not all collections of cells are people.

All murders are disposals of collections of cells. Not all disposals of collections of cells are murders.
You can murder things that aren't people, can't you?
I don't actually think you can.

this is a semantics issue but murder is a legal term. it's the unlawful killing of a person

you can extend the idea to animals and other things...but using the word murder suggests illegal, or at the very least intentional and "bad" killing
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:59 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:I don't actually think you can.

this is a semantics issue but murder is a legal term. it's the unlawful killing of a person

you can extend the idea to animals and other things...but using the word murder suggests illegal, or at the very least intentional and "bad" killing
Yeah, I beg pardon; sometimes I forget the nuances of particular words. For some reason I was thinking 'murder' can apply to anything that's alive.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby Belial » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:59 pm UTC

zmic wrote:That is exactly what it means. If you don't want a car crash, don't get into a car.

thanks for that.


So you favor eliminating emergency services for highway injuries, then? Because that's the point. When someone gets in a car wreck we don't say "oh well, your problem", we send them a fucking ambulance and try to save their life.

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Pro-lifers don't accept your framing whereby you add up the "worth" of different people and save the ones who are worth more.

Obviously their position is inconsistent according to your consequentialist framing. But they aren't consequentialists.


Can you name another moral system that allows you to make that choice in favor of the fetus, but allows you to make the "do I shoot the guy attacking me" choice in favor of yourself?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby DSenette » Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:02 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
DSenette wrote:I don't actually think you can.

this is a semantics issue but murder is a legal term. it's the unlawful killing of a person

you can extend the idea to animals and other things...but using the word murder suggests illegal, or at the very least intentional and "bad" killing
Yeah, I beg pardon; sometimes I forget the nuances of particular words. For some reason I was thinking 'murder' can apply to anything that's alive.

killing can apply to anything that's alive.

and because...i'm not the word police, you can use murder to mean whatever you want.

but in the context of my reply specifically....murder means unlawfully killing a person.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby eran_rathan » Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:06 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
DSenette wrote:I don't actually think you can.

this is a semantics issue but murder is a legal term. it's the unlawful killing of a person

you can extend the idea to animals and other things...but using the word murder suggests illegal, or at the very least intentional and "bad" killing
Yeah, I beg pardon; sometimes I forget the nuances of particular words. For some reason I was thinking 'murder' can apply to anything that's alive.

killing can apply to anything that's alive.

and because...i'm not the word police, you can use murder to mean whatever you want.

but in the context of my reply specifically....murder means unlawfully killing a person.


If you want to get technical, murder means unlawfully killing a person with malice (since there is stuff like manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc).
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:07 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I was thinking more along the lines of contributing to a culture of death -- not so much as killing people yourself.

I'm not sure I see the relevance. People who oppose abortion, or capital punishment, or euthanasia seem to do so primarily because of the deaths immediately involved in those actions. You have to care about killing people before you can be worried about a culture of killing people.

Belial, I'm not sure I see what you mean by "another." Plenty of ethicists distinguish self-defense from killing an innocent person; Aquinas and Kant I think would both concur on this. (Though Kant, interestingly, believes that a society which tolerates poverty to the point of driving people to infanticide loses its right to punish people for infanticide.)
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby morriswalters » Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:08 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:but when you let moral derangement control the dialogue
Put this statement in context and see it for what it is. Why is your moral position better than theirs? That's rhetorical, I don't really care. I was just thinking that you could step back for a moment and walk in their shoes and understand the people whom you disagree with, as different than when seeing them as morally deranged persons. The idea is not that they are right, I don't pretend to have some pat answer to that. But I spend more time now trying to understand. And the issue is not clear, it's muddy as hell. I choose to err on the side of the mother, simply because given my uncertainty I value her more than the child, especially when considering that she wants to abort it in the first place. I'd rather she want it. Because then she may be willing to take the time to do it right.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby Belial » Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:10 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Belial, I'm not sure I see what you mean by "another." Plenty of ethicists distinguish self-defense from killing an innocent person; Aquinas and Kant I think would both concur on this. (Though Kant, interestingly, believes that a society which tolerates poverty to the point of driving people to infanticide loses its right to punish people for infanticide.)


And a right to defense from an attacker is morally distinct from the right to defense from entity placing both one's life and body at risk without your consent....how?

Because I can't really see a credible distinction unless you determine that the person being attacked is worth less.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
zmic
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby zmic » Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:12 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
zmic wrote:That is exactly what it means. If you don't want a car crash, don't get into a car.

thanks for that.


So you favor eliminating emergency services for highway injuries, then? Because that's the point. When someone gets in a car wreck we don't say "oh well, your problem", we send them a fucking ambulance and try to save their life.


The one is an unfortunate event that one tries to solve by saving a life.
The other is an unfortunate event that one tries to solve by destroying a life.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby Роберт » Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:14 pm UTC

Belial wrote:we send them a fucking ambulance and try to save their [sex] life.

FTFY. That type of ambulance is for if your sex life is in critical condition.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:16 pm UTC

Belial wrote:And a right to defense from an attacker is morally distinct from the right to defense from entity placing both one's life and body at risk without your consent....how?

By holding that the attacker partially waives her right to safety by her willful act in attacking her victim.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:16 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:I'm not sure I see the relevance. People who oppose abortion, or capital punishment, or euthanasia seem to do so primarily because of the deaths immediately involved in those actions. You have to care about killing people before you can be worried about a culture of killing people.
What I mean is: Most reasonable people I know who oppose death holistically (against the death penalty, against the killing of animals, etc) and take action to express that opposition (picketing against the death penalty, refusing to eat meat) do not demand those around them also oppose death (come with them to the picket lines, refrain from eating meat).

I have a hard time imagining someone who opposes abortion because of a holistic opposition to death stepping between a woman and a doctor and demanding the woman carry the pregnancy to term regardless of the consequences. Or, at least -- I have a hard time imagining this person not being extraordinarily unreasonable (and just, generally obnoxious).

zmic wrote:The one is an unfortunate event that one tries to solve by saving a life.
The other is an unfortunate event that one tries to solve by destroying a life.
I thought you'd already qualified pregnancy / childbirth as always being a blessing. Why is it now an 'unfortunate event' that needs to be 'solved'?
morriswalters wrote:And the issue is not clear, it's muddy as hell. I choose to err on the side of the mother, simply because given my uncertainty I value her more than the child, especially when considering that she wants to abort it in the first place. I'd rather she want it. Because then she may be willing to take the time to do it right.
It is clear. You just gave the clear answer. It's really no more confusing than this: 'Man, I'm just going to trust the mother to work with a doctor and make the right decision here, because what the fuck do I know'.

Here's the answer anti-abortionists are giving: 'Man, fuck the mother, fuck the doctor, I know what's right'.

I mean, my position can be summed up as nothing more complex than 'Let's trust the most informed people to make these decisions'. How is that in any way hard?

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby Belial » Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:19 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
Belial wrote:And a right to defense from an attacker is morally distinct from the right to defense from entity placing both one's life and body at risk without your consent....how?

By holding that the attacker partially waives her right to safety by her willful act in attacking her victim.


So if the attacker is (sleepwalking/hallucinating/asleep at the wheel of an F150 barreling toward me) these moral systems would hold that, as they are not willfully attacking me, I can't take action to save my life if such action would end theirs?

And as a bonus question, do you think these particular nonconsequentialists (Aka the prolifers actually voting for these laws) hold to that? Or, to put that another way, do you think that in addition to potentially existing, that this moral system is actually relevant to the poltical outlook on this issue?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
bouer
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 9:26 pm UTC

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby bouer » Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:21 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I mean, my position can be summed up as nothing more complex than 'Let's trust the most informed people to make these decisions'. How is that in any way hard?

For those who believe in the Christian god (1/3 of all people) the mother and doctor are not the most informed people. Sounds a little ridiculous to those of us who don't believe that, but someone could take your exact logic and come to completely different conclusions with a single different axiom.

User avatar
clockworkmonk
I'm on a horse!
Posts: 649
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:53 am UTC
Location: Austin

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby clockworkmonk » Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:27 pm UTC

418 I'm a teapot

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby Belial » Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:31 pm UTC



I just don't even understand what he's thinking, launching an attack like that. He has to know she's wildly popular nationwide right now. Taking shots at her personal life is just going to make him look like a raving dick.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby Роберт » Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:39 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Here's the answer anti-abortionists are giving: 'Man, fuck the mother, fuck the doctor, I know what's right'.

I mean, my position can be summed up as nothing more complex than 'Let's trust the most informed people to make these decisions'. How is that in any way hard?

There are a lot of morally wrong things that some people think (and or thought) were perfectly fine. See: the treatment of black as sub-human. There were lots of educated people who supported it. "I'm gonna trust the slave owner, the biologist, and the psychologist, and in this case, they all agree that it's fine to beat the slave, so I guess it must be totes okay?"

Again, IF you believe that black people are fully human and deserve fully human rights as a person, you might want to disagree and maybe even point out that there's some educated people on your side.

Same for the fetus. IF you believe that a fetus is fully human and deserves full rights as a person, you're going to say "screw that doctor, I know a lot of doctors who feel abortion is wrong".

You disagree with their moral system, yes, but can you phrase your disagreement in a logical argument instead of "I'm right, they're wrong and totally screwing people over"? Because that's an argument I've seen against pro-choice a lot, too. It doesn't say much.

EDIT: and same for the PETA activists - they believe that animals should have rights as a person, so they act that way.
Last edited by Роберт on Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:43 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby morriswalters » Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:42 pm UTC

Belial wrote:And a right to defense from an attacker is morally distinct from the right to defense from entity placing both one's life and body at risk without your consent....how?
I'm just asking mind you. Are you comparing a fetus to a attacker?

@Hippo
I gave you nothing. Certainly no answer. My position is one of convenience. That neither makes it moral or right.

The Great Hippo wrote:Here's the answer anti-abortionists are giving: 'Man, fuck the mother, fuck the doctor, I know what's right, here'.
I wish it were that simple and that those voices would speak in exactly that way. But they don't in most cases.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Texas Abortion Laws

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:56 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:There are a lot of morally wrong things that some people think (and or thought) were perfectly fine. See: the treatment of black as sub-human. There were lots of educated people who supported it. "I'm gonna trust the slave owner, the biologist, and the psychologist, and in this case, they all agree that it's fine to beat the slave, so I guess it must be totes okay?"
Unless you're trying to draw a parallel between unborn fetuses and slaves, I fail to see your point. If you are drawing such a parallel, then unborn fetuses are -- unlike slaves -- in a position where we can't actually ask for their perspective, and therefore must rely on others to speak on their behalf.

I'm willing to trust mothers and doctors with this job; not a politician, and not my pastor.
Роберт wrote:Again, IF you believe that black people are fully human and deserve fully human rights as a person, you might want to disagree and maybe even point out that there's some educated people on your side.

Same for the fetus. IF you believe that a fetus is fully human and deserves full rights as a person, you're going to say "screw that doctor, I know a lot of doctors who feel abortion is wrong".
Why? Does the existence of educated people 'on my side' make me more right? Is 'rightness' a democracy?
Роберт wrote:You disagree with their moral system, yes, but can you phrase your disagreement in a logical argument instead of "I'm right, they're wrong and totally screwing people over"? Because that's an argument I've seen against pro-choice a lot, too. It doesn't say much.
If someone's worldview is so deranged that they think forcing a woman to carry a child to term against her will is a-okay, it becomes really hard to have a constructive dialogue. Those sort of perspectives are not the sort of perspectives that make for fruitful discussions.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dauric, ObsessoMom and 11 guests