The problem of SJWs

Page 34 of 108 [ 1723 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 ... 108 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

22 Nov 2016, 9:42 am

The_Walrus wrote:

SocOfAutism wrote:

let's remember that everyone is on the same side here-everyone is trying to protect quality and quantity of life.

This isn't remotely true. There are two sides here, and neither is especially concerned with quality or quantity of life. One is arguing that foetuses have the right to life, one is arguing that they don't or that it is trumped by the right to bodily autonomy.

Perhaps you could argue that "everyone is trying to do the right thing", but frankly that's a truism.

I'm arguing about quality of life, specifically for women with regard to respect to their right to bodily autonomy.

And secondarily for preventing lives that will be of poor quality from being brought into the world.

adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

22 Nov 2016, 9:48 am

The_Walrus wrote:

By way of a reminder, I'm the one arguing that we should base abortion laws on sentience, not the statistical viability of live birth.

There are several ways to nullify personhood. Dead humans, humans in persistent vegetative states, and human yet to develop sentience all lack personhood.

What degree of sentience would you deem the bare minimum requirement for preservation?

Quote:

Getting mistaken for a terrorist and shot is a consequence of going outside. When one chooses to engage in going outside, once accepts the possibility of getting mistaken for a terrorist and shot. Therefore, someone who gets mistaken for a terrorist and shot has it coming, unless of course they were forced to go outside.

False equivalence. The shooter is a third-party with agency. A more fitting analogy would be that when one chooses to engage in going outside, one accepts the possibility of getting rained upon.

Quote:

Anyway, I've already said that I don't think embryos have the right to life, so this is a massive red herring.

Rights are determined by laws, so ultimately it's up to the lawmakers to decide.

Legally, sure. Morally? Nah. I'm talking about natural moral rights, not legal rights. Please try to avoid conflating the two.

Abortion is fundamentally at odds with the Primary Precepts and Secondary Precepts of Natural Law (assuming from context that's what you mean) except in order to preserve the life of the mother (e.g. in case of ectopic pregnancy).

Quote:

This seems to be dealing with the legal realities of a hypothetical situation as things presently stand, rather than the moral question originally posed. I'm not sure there's any point in using legal arguments to deal with science-fiction hypotheticals. Presumably the law would be updated to reflect this new situation. I would guess that the interests of the organisations running the artificial wombs would be prioritised ahead of the "rights" of blastocysts.

The original question was on the nature of human rights, of which the ultimate authority is the law. I'm applying existing legislation to a not-so-hypothetical scenario - we're already capable of sustaining embryos artificially, but the 14-day cap on EUFIs is posing something of a barrier to research.

SocOfAutism wrote:

I'm having trouble keeping up, but are you guys seriously debating which is worse, abortion or killing cats?

No, we're not.

The_Walrus wrote:

That's not true either. My position is that law surrounding fetal rights is based on arbitrary data or milestones and that my preference would be to err on the side of preservation on behalf of all involved parties.

adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

22 Nov 2016, 9:49 am

androbot01 wrote:

And secondarily for preventing lives that will be of poor quality from being brought into the world.

How do you determine what constitutes a life of poor quality?

The_Walrus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

22 Nov 2016, 10:08 am

adifferentname wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

What degree of sentience would you deem the bare minimum requirement for preservation?

The ability to experience subjectivity and have an ongoing sense of self. Somewhere between the cognitive abilities of a fish and a pig.

Quote:

A more fitting analogy would be that when one chooses to engage in going outside, one accepts the possibility of getting rained upon.

Fine. Are people who get rained on when there's an unexpected storm responsible for the water for the next nine months?

Quote:

Abortion is fundamentally at odds with the Primary Precepts and Secondary Precepts of Natural Law (assuming from context that's what you mean)

Alas, it isn't. Tommy boy doesn't have a monopoly on the notion of natural rights.

adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

22 Nov 2016, 10:24 am

The_Walrus wrote:

The ability to experience subjectivity and have an ongoing sense of self. Somewhere between the cognitive abilities of a fish and a pig.

As I've mentioned, that would justify infanticide.

Quote:

Fine. Are people who get rained on when there's an unexpected storm responsible for the water for the next nine months?

No, they're responsible for getting wet, even if they took an umbrella.

Quote:

Alas, it isn't. Tommy boy doesn't have a monopoly on the notion of natural rights.

What interpretation of natural law are you applying then?

friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,539

22 Nov 2016, 11:39 am

Quote:

subjectivity

Quote:

ongoing sense of self

Quote:

the cognitive abilities

It was highly-ironic, to come to an autism site, and use these as excuses to terminate a life, like the saying about the three fingers, which point back, at you.

Where are all these genetically-perfect people, with no apprehensions in life, who could never deserve to be aborted. Do they exist, anywhere?

More toward the topic, it is also ironic, when sjw's are told that pacifism is a superior response to militarism. That comes across as controlled opposition, to me. That hero of Tienanmen, who stood in front of a tank, used to be called a zipperhead, by your own praetorians, like John Wayne.

androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

22 Nov 2016, 2:33 pm

adifferentname wrote:

androbot01 wrote:

And secondarily for preventing lives that will be of poor quality from being brought into the world.

How do you determine what constitutes a life of poor quality?

Lots of ways (which I won't bother to list again.)

What I don't get is why you are so scared to make a call on this. The fetus doesn't even know what's going on. There are lots of possibilities in life. Isn't it better to ere on the side of respecting someone who we know has the right to bodily autonomy over something that might have that right one day. I'll get my pompoms out again and say that this is what The Walrus is trying to say when he says that being human isn't enough. Humans exist in lots of states, dead, in a vegetative state, thriving, a foetus. This doesn't give you a right to life.

friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,539

22 Nov 2016, 2:53 pm

I won't post it, but have you seen the pics and moving video of the aftermath?

Also, assuming that you are somewhat of a eugenicist, how do you justify your own right to life, if ever someone is able to outperform you?

YippySkippy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,986

22 Nov 2016, 3:14 pm

I think all men should be required to freeze their sperm and have a vasectomy on their 18th birthday. Then everyone can enjoy sex without risk of accidental pregnancies. As a woman, this seems a completely fair and satisfactory solution to me.

adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

22 Nov 2016, 3:26 pm

androbot01 wrote:

adifferentname wrote:

androbot01 wrote:

And secondarily for preventing lives that will be of poor quality from being brought into the world.

How do you determine what constitutes a life of poor quality?

Lots of ways (which I won't bother to list again.)

What I don't get is why you are so scared to make a call on this.

"I don't understand the reason for your position, so I'm going to mischaracterise it as fear."

Quote:

The fetus doesn't even know what's going on.

How is that a justification for taking a life?

"It's okay, your honour. I slipped something into her drink. She died peacefully without any idea what was happening."

Quote:

There are lots of possibilities in life. Isn't it better to ere on the side of respecting someone who we know has the right to bodily autonomy over something that might have that right one day.

As long as this is being framed in terms of "rights" you're tying morality to legislation and that which informs it. I've already stated my position on that score.

Quote:

I'll get my pompoms out again and say that this is what The Walrus is trying to say when he says that being human isn't enough. Humans exist in lots of states, dead, in a vegetative state, thriving, a foetus. This doesn't give you a right to life.

Walrus certainly doesn't need your assistance in making himself understood.

One last time. Rights are granted by law, not by your subjective morality. There are no rights save those granted by the state within whose borders you are currently confined.

YippySkippy wrote:

Are you saying that women's morality is skewed because of their womanhood? Sounds rather misogynistic to me.

I'll settle for a male equivalent to the pill. We should see a few male contraceptive solutions available in the next year or two.

androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

22 Nov 2016, 4:43 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:

I won't post it, but have you seen the pics and moving video of the aftermath?

Of course. Who hasn't?

friedmacguffins wrote:

Also, assuming that you are somewhat of a eugenicist, how do you justify your own right to life, if ever someone is able to outperform you?

I don't at all. I'm totally flawed. I am almost finished a course after which I hope to gain employment so I can get off disability. So that would be something.

adifferentname wrote:

One last time. Rights are granted by law, not by your subjective morality. There are no rights save those granted by the state within whose borders you are currently confined.

Oh that's just silly. How do you think the laws were made in the first place? By people. People who discussed things. Of course, morality exists outside of law. Law is an attempt to create a moral society.

adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

22 Nov 2016, 5:58 pm

androbot01 wrote:

adifferentname wrote:

One last time. Rights are granted by law, not by your subjective morality. There are no rights save those granted by the state within whose borders you are currently confined.

And the laws assert that fetal rights apply as early as the second trimester in the US. They're at odds with your position. As for "silly", what part of my statement do you disagree with factually?

androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

22 Nov 2016, 6:28 pm

adifferentname wrote:

androbot01 wrote:

adifferentname wrote:

One last time. Rights are granted by law, not by your subjective morality. There are no rights save those granted by the state within whose borders you are currently confined.

And the laws assert that fetal rights apply as early as the second trimester in the US. They're at odds with your position. As for "silly", what part of my statement do you disagree with factually?

androbot01 wrote:

How do you think the laws were made in the first place? By people. People who discussed things. Of course, morality exists outside of law. Law is an attempt to create a moral society.

Iamaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Mar 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,221
Location: Irrelevant

22 Nov 2016, 7:10 pm

_________________
"In the kingdom of hope, there is no winter."

YippySkippy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,986

22 Nov 2016, 7:50 pm

Quote:

Are you saying that women's morality is skewed because of their womanhood? Sounds rather misogynistic to me.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that if men have ideas about what women should do with regards to reproduction and their bodies, there's no reason why women shouldn't come up with some ideas for men.

Quote:

I'll settle for a male equivalent to the pill. We should see a few male contraceptive solutions available in the next year or two.

I doubt it. Last I heard, the trials were stopped because men experienced side effects similar to some of those women on the pill experience. That was deemed unacceptable for men.

adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

23 Nov 2016, 3:14 am

androbot01 wrote:

adifferentname wrote:

androbot01 wrote:

adifferentname wrote:

One last time. Rights are granted by law, not by your subjective morality. There are no rights save those granted by the state within whose borders you are currently confined.

And the laws assert that fetal rights apply as early as the second trimester in the US. They're at odds with your position. As for "silly", what part of my statement do you disagree with factually?

androbot01 wrote:

How do you think the laws were made in the first place? By people. People who discussed things. Of course, morality exists outside of law. Law is an attempt to create a moral society.

That's your statement. Which part of my statement do you disagree with factually?

Page 34 of 108 [ 1723 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 ... 108 Next

Jump to:

The problem of SJWs Post Reply New Topic

The problem of SJWs