Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Roger Stone says trump should “declare martial law” to

Page 14 of 18 [ 276 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

17 Sep 2020, 10:32 am

Fnord wrote:
magz wrote:
Fnord wrote:
b. A fetus is part of a woman's body until birth.
This part is arguable.
"The sky is blue" is arguable.  "Water is wet" is arguable.  Even "The Earth is round" is arguable.

Being arguable does not render a factual statement invalid.
I did not say "invalid" but "arguable". What is a definition of "body part"?
A fetus has their own DNA, not identical with the mothers', and all their separate developing human organs.
One day before natural birth, you can make a c-section and get a perfectly valid newborn - so the line between a bunch of cells and a ready human is not really clear-cut.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

17 Sep 2020, 10:43 am

Part of? I think inside would be more accurate. It's less factual, more rhetorical trickery to frame the argument a certain way.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

17 Sep 2020, 11:24 am

magz wrote:
Fnord wrote:
magz wrote:
Fnord wrote:
b. A fetus is part of a woman's body until birth.
This part is arguable.
"The sky is blue" is arguable.  "Water is wet" is arguable.  Even "The Earth is round" is arguable.  Being arguable does not render a factual statement invalid.
I did not say "invalid" but "arguable".  What is a definition of "body part"?  A fetus has their own DNA, not identical with the mothers', and all their separate developing human organs.  One day before natural birth, you can make a c-section and get a perfectly valid newborn - so the line between a bunch of cells and a ready human is not really clear-cut.
My point of saying, "Being arguable does not render a factual statement invalid" is that a point cannot be rendered invalid (or valid) by mere argument.  Check the facts instead.

Does the fact that only half of the fetal DNA is not the mothers' DNA make the fetus a wholly separate being?  Should the mother's half be held hostage by the father's half and -- by extension -- the father?  Should any man have the privilege to dictate what the mother can and cannot do with "his" half, even though the fetus is part of, and entirely dependent upon the mother for its survival?  Should a woman be enslaved to the man who got her pregnant, and -- by extension -- any other man who demands that she deliver a baby that he did not father?

It's the mother's body -- it's the mother's choice.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

17 Sep 2020, 11:29 am

Honestly, I more often encountered to-be-fathers pressing on abortion not delivery but that's another matter.

If a procedure of fetus transplant was well-established, would you find it a good alternative to abortion?


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

17 Sep 2020, 11:34 am

magz wrote:
... If a procedure of fetus transplant was well-established, would you find it a good alternative to abortion?
Abso-freaking-lutely!!

While I favor a woman's natural right to determine her reproductive status, I do not consider abortion as birth-control.



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

17 Sep 2020, 11:48 am

Fnord wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
Fnord wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
Fnord wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
emotrtkey wrote:
magz wrote:
So, do you think harsh punishments are necessary to deter people from crime?
I heard that in countries that chop your hand off if you steal, you can leave your wallet out in the open in the town square, come back 2 hours later, and it will still be there because no one wants to risk losing their hand. Do that in the US and it will be gone in seconds. I'm not saying I support it but it shows harsh punishments are an effective deterrent. If killing some murderers saves millions of innocent lives, I'd say it would make the world a better place. Ideally I'd like to see no one punished and no crimes committed but that's just not realistic.
I see your point,but like I said before,if your going to be Catholic you have to be anti-death penalty,per the Pope
It is the hypocrisy of every religion to declare "Life is Sacred" and still support the death penalty.
The pope is anti-death penalty,always has been.
The Pope is not the Church.
The Pope controls the church.
No ... the Pope is the leader of the church, but he does not control it.
Catholicism is not like protestant,where you just take the Bible literally,but it's specific literal interpretation is up to you.Catholicism has an orthodoxy of christiology going back to the churches inception with changes here and there like Vatican II,it's a top down organization from- Pope to Cardinal to Bishop to Priest to parishioner organization.

A good Catholic is supposed to believe what the church teaches and the church is a top down organization.


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

17 Sep 2020, 11:53 am

vermontsavant wrote:
A good Catholic is supposed to believe what the church teaches and the church is a top down organization.
Good followers are supposed to believe what the leadership tells them in any top-down organization -- that's the ideal case.

In the real world, however, you have middle-managers (e.g., priests) raping children and lying about it.

In the ideal world, there is no difference between the ideal world and the real world; but in the real world, there is.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

17 Sep 2020, 12:03 pm

Fnord wrote:
Does the fact that only half of the fetal DNA is not the mothers' DNA make the fetus a wholly separate being?  Should the mother's half be held hostage by the father's half and -- by extension -- the father?  Should any man have the privilege to dictate what the mother can and cannot do with "his" half, even though the fetus is part of, and entirely dependent upon the mother for its survival?  Should a woman be enslaved to the man who got her pregnant, and -- by extension -- any other man who demands that she deliver a baby that he did not father?

It's the mother's body -- it's the mother's choice.


I thought we had covered this last time. The father is all but irrelevant to this problem. There are two bodies to consider, two sets of rights to argue about - Mother and Unborn Child. Bringing the father or "All Men Everywhere" into this is just reframing the argument into some sort of feminist oppression narrative, neatly sidestepping the actual moral problem with abortion.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

17 Sep 2020, 12:12 pm

Mikah wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Does the fact that only half of the fetal DNA is not the mothers' DNA make the fetus a wholly separate being?  Should the mother's half be held hostage by the father's half and -- by extension -- the father?  Should any man have the privilege to dictate what the mother can and cannot do with "his" half, even though the fetus is part of, and entirely dependent upon the mother for its survival?  Should a woman be enslaved to the man who got her pregnant, and -- by extension -- any other man who demands that she deliver a baby that he did not father?  It's the mother's body -- it's the mother's choice.
I thought we had covered this last time. The father is all but irrelevant to this problem. There are two bodies to consider, two sets of rights to argue about - Mother and Unborn Child. Bringing the father or "All Men Everywhere" into this is just re-framing the argument into some sort of feminist oppression narrative, neatly sidestepping the actual moral problem with abortion.
So you're implying (saying?) that the father is irrelevant; and that, by extension, so are his wishes; and that, by further extension, so are the wishes of any other man.

Good.  I'm glad we got that out of the way.

As far as any "Feminist Narrative" is concerned, I don't really care what feminists as a group have to say -- I try to follow the facts, not the opinions of ignorant misandrists; which is what many of the more vocal feminists seem to be.

So, let's get back to the idea of the mother's right to determine her reproductive status being held hostage by what amounts to invasive DNA...



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

17 Sep 2020, 12:28 pm

Fnord wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
A good Catholic is supposed to believe what the church teaches and the church is a top down organization.
Good followers are supposed to believe what the leadership tells them in any top-down organization -- that's the ideal case.

In the real world, however, you have middle-managers (e.g., priests) raping children and lying about it.

In the ideal world, there is no difference between the ideal world and the real world; but in the real world, there is.
I know a lot of people don't follow the Catholic church but they are supposed to follow the Catholic church.In the protestantism it's ok and encouraged to make up your own mind about what Christianity means,but in theory a Catholic is supposed to do and think what the church says.


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

17 Sep 2020, 12:30 pm

Fnord wrote:
So you're implying (saying?) that the father is irrelevant; and that, by extension, so are his wishes; and that, by further extension, so are the wishes of any other man.

Good.  I'm glad we got that out of the way.


Lol. Nice try. Irrelevant to the core of the argument. Which is mother vs child, not man vs woman. I saw a faint glimmer of hope from you last time we spoke about this. You didn't follow the argument any further as far as I can see, but you have apparently taken a step backwards into the misleading frame of gender wars.

Fnord, May 2019 wrote:
The more I think on this topic, the more questions I have; and the more questions I have, the more I am convinced that I do not have the right to determine when a fetus stops being a mass of organic tissue and becomes a "person-with-rights".


That, at least, is an honest and consistent position, in which no holes can be poked.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

17 Sep 2020, 12:30 pm

vermontsavant wrote:
... in theory a Catholic is supposed to do and think what the church says.
The words "in theory" proves my point.  Thank you.



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

17 Sep 2020, 12:35 pm

Fnord wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
... in theory a Catholic is supposed to do and think what the church says.
The words "in theory" proves my point.  Thank you.
I don't disagree,I'm from from Kennedy Irish Massachusetts,that's why they give mass on saturday night,so they can get drunk and party all night saturday and don't have to get up for church sunday morning.They drink and womanize like the Kennedy's do,then simply go to confession and get absolved of there sins,then do the same thing the next week.


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

17 Sep 2020, 12:49 pm

Mikah wrote:
Fnord wrote:
So you're implying (saying?) that the father is irrelevant; and that, by extension, so are his wishes; and that, by further extension, so are the wishes of any other man.

Good.  I'm glad we got that out of the way.


Lol. Nice try. Irrelevant to the core of the argument. Which is mother vs child, not man vs woman. I saw a faint glimmer of hope from you last time we spoke about this. You didn't follow the argument any further as far as I can see, but you have apparently taken a step backwards into the misleading frame of gender wars.

Fnord, May 2019 wrote:
The more I think on this topic, the more questions I have; and the more questions I have, the more I am convinced that I do not have the right to determine when a fetus stops being a mass of organic tissue and becomes a "person-with-rights".


That, at least, is an honest and consistent position, in which no holes can be poked.
I've had time to think about it since then, and my opinions have changed as new data has come in.  Currently, my opinion is that there are two major issues involved: (1) Women's right to choose, and (2) the male "privilege" to dictate.

We have eliminated the male privilege (thus rendering moot our entire discussion, since we are men), which leaves only women's right to choose as a debatable topic.

Then again, that may also be rendered moot, since it has nothing to do with the stated topic of this thread.

So, at this point, our conversation on this topic is ... pointless.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

17 Sep 2020, 1:10 pm

Fnord wrote:
Currently, my opinion is that there are two major issues involved: (1) Women's right to choose, and (2) the male "privilege" to dictate.

We have eliminated the male privilege (thus rendering moot our entire discussion, since we are men), which leaves only women's right to choose as a debatable topic.


You have misunderstood, I am not eliminating men from the discussion. I am not conceding to the ridiculous idea that men can have no opinion on the matter. I am saying men are irrelevant to the moral problem of abortion which is entirely about the mother's body/rights/obligations (if any) weighed against that of the child's. Attempts to bring in men as caricature slave owners and tyrants are an argument-reframing distraction designed to turn attention away from the moral core of the issue.

Fnord wrote:
Then again, that may also be rendered moot, since it has nothing to do with the stated topic of this thread.

So, at this point, our conversation is ... pointless.


Perhaps another day then, unless OP doesn't mind.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


emotrtkey
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 12 Aug 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 445

17 Sep 2020, 7:38 pm

Fnord wrote:
emotrtkey wrote:
Fnord wrote:
emotrtkey wrote:
Fnord wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me that there are still some men who believe that they have the privilege of dictating what women can do with their own bodies.  It's as if those men perceive women as property, and not as human beings.
It never ceases to amaze me that there are some women who believe that they have the privilege of dictating whether children should be allowed to live. It's as if those women perceive their children as their property, and not as human beings.
a. A woman owns her body.

b. A fetus is part of a woman's body until birth.

: : A woman owns the fetus inside her body until birth.
Definition of slavery - "The condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner's control" (American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition).

I think slavery should be abolished.
You cannot refute the logic, so you tried to change the subject.  At least you did not try to refute logic with superstitious nonsense -- I'll give you that much credit.  Now try this one:

a. A woman owns her body.

b. A fetus is part of a woman's body until birth.

: : A woman owns the fetus inside her body until birth, because it is part of her body.

:lol:


The law disagrees. Women and abortion doctors have been charged with murder for aborting babies between 5 to 9 months old. Since babies can be born prematurely and survive on their own at 5 months (20 weeks) after conception, I don't think scientists would agree with your claim that those children are part of their mother's body.