[POLL] 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

[Lacius]

I'm not going to do that because it's not. In fact, if you consider the fetus to be a part of the woman's body for some undisclosed reason (it's not), abortion is *more* analogous to kidney removal as it is the removal of a body part that, according to you, belongs to the mother. Now, admittedly, it is a removal by request of the mother, however you will have a hard time finding a clinic that will remove your kidney because that's your fancy, and put it into medical waste. That's not a thing, I'm afraid.

If you cannot admit that pregnancy comes with unwanted changes to one's body and has a mortality risk, like kidney removal, then our conversation is over.

I should have made the decision to hold your feet to the fire on these sorts of basic issues a long time ago. It would have saved me a lot of time.

 

[Foxi4]

If you cannot admit that pregnancy comes with unwanted changes to one's body and has a mortality risk, like kidney removal, then our conversation is over.

That's like saying that if I won't admit that a cake is a pie because both are made out of flour, "the conversation is over". One has nothing to do with the other, one being true is not contingent on the other also being true. Kidney removal *and* pregnancy lead to changes in one's body and carry a mortality risk, but they are not analogous. The two scenarios you've presented do not share a sufficient degree of similarity to be considered analogous, in short, bad analogy. Abortion also carries a mortality risk and causes changes to one's body, but you're not going to touch that because it is inconvenient.

 

[notimp]

Jesus, not only has the moderator found the magical use of the word science, now he also discovered circular logic.

Now he never has to loose in an argument anymore. No matter how nonsensical their sentences become.

 

[Foxi4]

Jesus, not only has the moderator found the magical use of the word science, now he also discovered circular logic.

Now he never has to loose in an argument anymore. No matter how nonsensical their sentences become.

I'm sorry that your numbers didn't work out like you wanted them to.

 

[notimp]

I'm sorry that your numbers didn't work out like you wanted them to.

Kidney removal and pregnancy lead to changes in ones body, not pregnancy leads to changes in ones body and therefore kidney removal - is faulty logic. The to negate one in favor of the other part.

Both can be true. Im not interested in the content of the argument here, I'm interested in how you could make that logic jump.

And with it rectify, that obviously only one of those versions could be true.

Because it makes no sense. Its bravado reaching its ceiling, featuring circular logic.

 

[Foxi4]

Kidney removal and pregnancy lead to changes in ones body, not pregnancy leads to changes in ones body and therefore kidney removal - is faulty logic.

Both can be true. Im not interested in the content of the argument here, I'm interested in how you could make that logic jump.

And with it rectify, that obviously only one of those versions could be true.

Because it makes no sense. Its bravado reaching its ceiling, featuring circular logic.

I don't have a Rosetta stone so sometimes it's hard for me to decipher what you mean. I will do my best to answer your query in a more clear manner:

Pregnancy = changes to one's body
Kidney removal = changes to one's body
Pregnancy =/= Kidney removal

Does this help?

 

[notimp]

Pregnancy =/= Kidney removal

False statement.

n women with moderate to severe kidney disease (stages 3-5), the risk of complications is much greater. For some women, the risk to mother and child is high enough that they should consider avoiding pregnancy.

https://www.kidney.org/atoz/content/pregnancy

Not in most cases, but your logic, that only one statement can be true at the same time is faulty.
-

You basically said, your argument cant be true, because my argument thats different to yours, but mostly unrelated, is.

Thats a way to win every discussion, although applying faulty logic. Maybe if you say it louder, it will work.

 

[Lacius]

I don't have a Rosetta stone so sometimes it's hard for me to decipher what you mean. I will do my best to answer your query in a more clear manner:

Pregnancy = changes to one's body
Kidney removal = changes to one's body
Pregnancy =/= Kidney removal

Does this help?

I did not argue Pregnancy = Kidney removal. Learn what an analogy is, and try to figure out what the point of my analogy was. If you can tell me what the point of my analogy was, whether or not you agree with it, we can continue our conversation.

 

[Foxi4]

False statement.

https://www.kidney.org/atoz/content/pregnancy

Your memory is not very good either, in addition to being bad at math.

With that we end up with a logical framework for what would be justifiable - abortion permissable in the case of non-viable fetuses (pre-nesting, observable disability or damage of the fetus), in the case of protecting the mother's life (life being paramount, if the fetus directly endangers the host, it must necessarily be terminated or they both die) and rape (lack of consent).

I'm pretty sure that *kidney failure* endangers the mother's life. Once again, you hold the ball and trip over your laces at the final yard. Nevermind the fact that we're discussing the applicability of an analogy, not *a literal kidney*. You're a hoot, y'know that? In addition to the reasons listed above I have also agreed to a reasonable time frame which allows for abortion up until the fetus is advanced enough to start showing forms of cognitive function. This is consistent with abortion law in developed countries and is generally around the 24th week of pregnancy.

I did not argue Pregnancy = Kidney removal. Learn what an analogy is, and try to figure out what the point of my analogy was. If you can tell me what the point of my analogy was, whether or not you agree with it, we can continue our conversation.

I know you didn't mean it that way, but I don't think he does. I maintain that the analogy is poor - in the case of forced kidney removal you lose a vital organ permanently, in the case of unwanted pregnancy you face potential health consequences which you will *also* face after abortion because the fetus doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists inside a woman's body which has already undergone much of the changes, its hormonal balance has changed and, for all intents and purposes, as far as the body is concerned, a "miscarriage" has occurred. You bringing up a "bodily loss" in the case of abortion is irrelevant on the basis that the loss occurs regardless of whether the pregnancy is carried to term or not. If your objection is that in both cases the government forces a person to undergo a procedure that has consequences to their health (in the care of kidney removal *definitely*, in the case of pregnancy *maybe*) on behalf of another party, it's a flimsy argument - the government does that all the time.

Serious complications are really rare, but can happen. These include:

• the abortion doesn’t work and the pregnancy doesn’t end
• some of the pregnancy tissue is left in your uterus
• blood clots in your uterus
• very heavy bleeding
• infection
• injury to your cervix, uterus or other organs
• allergic reaction to medication

(...) In extremely rare cases, some complications can be very serious or even life-threatening. Call your doctor right away if you have:

• heavy bleeding from your vagina that soaks through more than 2 maxi pads in an hour, for 2 or more hours in a row
• severe pain or discomfort in your belly that medication doesn’t help
• a fever of 100.4 or higher

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/l...-procedures/how-safe-is-an-in-clinic-abortion

Of course these complications are fairly rare, as the source states, but they exist - surely we can agree on that.

 

[gregory-samba]

Tbh the government isn't corrupt because it''s the government, it's corrupt because rich people have more say than the poor. That is a statistical fact in the united states, your vote or your communication with your senator or house representative or local official, has a lot less power than that of a man who can higher a couple hundred to do his bidding, and lobby for him.

Incorrect. The Government has bad people that do bad things because that's built in every one of us. You can't rid the entire human race of its nature, but the more power ie - the larger or more control you give other people the less control you'll have and that makes for a miserable society. You were on to something by stating "in a perfect" would, as one will never exist. If we move over to socialism do you think the crooked power hungry politicians of today's time are just going to step aside and then 100% perfect people are going to replace all of them? Nope. You'll simply be giving the corrupt assholes of today more power to be even more corrupt. Socialism always fails because it's not designed with human nature in mind. It's designed for mindless drones.

 

[Lacius]

Your memory is not very good either, in addition to being bad at math.
I'm pretty sure that *kidney failure* endangers the mother's life. Once again, you hold the ball and trip over your laces at the final yard. Nevermind the fact that we're discussing the applicability of an analogy, not *a literal kidney*. You're a hoot, y'know that? In addition to the reasons listed above I have also agreed to a reasonable time frame which allows for abortion up until the fetus is advanced enough to start showing forms of cognitive function. This is consistent with abortion law in developed countries and is generally around the 24th week of pregnancy.
I know you didn't mean it that way, but I don't think he does. I maintain that the analogy is poor - in the case of forced kidney removal you lose a vital organ permanently, in the case of unwanted pregnancy you face potential health consequences which you will *also* face after abortion because the fetus doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists inside a woman's body which has already undergone much of the changes, its hormonal balance has changed and, for all intents and purposes, as far as the body is concerned, a "miscarriage" has occurred. You bringing up a "bodily loss" in the case of abortion is irrelevant on the basis that the loss occurs regardless of whether the pregnancy is carried to term or not.


Of course these complications are fairly rare, as the source states, but they exist - surely we can agree on that.

Forcing a kidney removal is forcing an invasive procedure. A pregnancy is also invasive. Both can lead to complications and even death. Do you understand now how it's a good analogy?

The idea that an abortion comes with the same (or worse) problems as pregnancy is a myth. The earlier the abortion, the less invasive it is. The longer the pregnancy, the more invasive it is.

 

[gregory-samba]

Forcing a kidney removal is forcing an invasive procedure. A pregnancy is also invasive. Both can lead to complications and even death. Do you understand now how it's a good analogy?

The idea that an abortion comes with the same (or worse) problems as pregnancy is a myth. The earlier the abortion, the less invasive it is. The longer the pregnancy, the more invasive it is.

Regardless of how you compare it to other things terminating a human life form is still murder. Just thought I'd remind you of that.

 

[KingVamp]

Well, that's interesting that I was quoted saying something I didn't. lol Anyway, just going to point out that the Nordic Countries seem have made a good balance with their social programs.

 

[Foxi4]

Forcing a kidney removal is forcing an invasive procedure. A pregnancy is also invasive. Both can lead to complications and even death. Do you understand now how it's a good analogy?

The idea that an abortion comes with the same (or worse) problems as pregnancy is a myth. The earlier the abortion, the less invasive it is. The longer the pregnancy, the more invasive it is.

I fully understood that as your point and consider it flimsy, see above. The analogy is inapplicable for the reasons I've already mentioned.

It is also untrue that the government "forces a woman into pregnancy", the woman is already pregnant, and has been for a while. In your analogy you are equating a malicious action (forcibly removing an organ) to inaction (not aborting the pregnancy). The justification for this refusal is "first, do no harm". Unless there is a legitimate medical reason for having the abortion (confirmed risk to life/health) or a legal reason (rape, for instance), there is no obligation to perform one because, and this is a radical notion so hold on to your seat, the woman isn't sick - she's pregnant. It's not a disease.

I believe giving the woman +/- 24 weeks for a safe and legal abortion, nearly 6 months, when the fetus is nowhere near the level of brain development necessary to be considered cognisant, is mighty generous and fair. You're 3 months off your stated goal of 9 months, which is frankly distasteful. Would induced labour be a satisfactory middle ground or have you cemented yourself into the ground and refuse to budge? Because if you're not open to new ideas, the discussion is kinda pointless, the point is to exchange ideas.

 

[FAST6191]

Regardless of how you compare it to other things terminating a human life form is still murder. Just thought I'd remind you of that.

Is it a human life form? Depending upon the age range is it not an unthinking, unfeeling ball of cells that can not suffer.

Equally as was mentioned earlier murder is an unjustified killing, usually premeditated (lack of premeditation, usually then meaning accident or negligence, tending to fall under manslaughter). Self defence, euthanasia in some places, war, executions and any number of fun philosophical puzzles (start with the loaded train going to crash and kill everybody on the track and you have a switch to move it to a line where just one person it) also go there.
If the law says it is OK (and it does, has stood the test of time and has been ruled on by the highest courts in most lands) then surely it is justified, or at least not murder. Not unlike trespass is being on someone's land uninvited but in various countries you either have public footpaths that make an exemption for that, or have rules that say as long as you are not being a nuisance then you have the right to roam (Finland I believe has that).

 

[Foxi4]

Is it a human life form? Depending upon the age range is it not an unthinking, unfeeling ball of cells that can not suffer.

Equally as was mentioned earlier murder is an unjustified killing, usually premeditated (lack of premeditation, usually then meaning accident or negligence, tending to fall under manslaughter). Self defence, euthanasia in some places, war, executions and any number of fun philosophical puzzles (start with the loaded train going to crash and kill everybody on the track and you have a switch to move it to a line where just one person it) also go there.
If the law says it is OK (and it does, has stood the test of time and has been ruled on by the highest courts in most lands) then surely it is justified, or at least not murder. Not unlike trespass is being on someone's land uninvited but in various countries you either have public footpaths that make an exemption for that, or have rules that say as long as you are not being a nuisance then you have the right to roam (Finland I believe has that).

If the law says it's okay to kill your neighbour when they're playing their music too loud, that *technically* wouldn't be murder and it would probably improve society quite a bit, but I don't think my suggestion would fly in parliament.

 

[FAST6191]

If the law says it's okay to kill your neighbour when they're playing their music too loud, that *technically* wouldn't be murder and it would probably improve society quite a bit, but I don't think my suggestion would fly in parliament.

Laws being arbitrary and not even the baseline for morals (barring aspects of military law, which few are subject to, you can cheat on your girlfriend all you like and the law can not say a thing about it*, still not a moral act). Though in your loud speakers bit it would probably fall outside baseline acceptable tenets of law making.

*assuming you don't live in some hellhole that has common law marriage and accidentally fall into that of course


Equally
"Unless there is a legitimate medical reason for having the abortion (confirmed risk to life/health) or a legal reason (rape, for instance)"

I would consider a financial drain, health drain, mental drain and social drain to be a compelling enough reason. Such things also being well within established medical criteria, or considered in the failures of various medical systems/approaches to payment (have some gallstones causing serious pain, well you can pay so we will go today, same but can't pay, sorry mate no threat to life so elective or come back in 10 months after this list is up sort of thing).

 

[player594]

Arguably, and you can have that argument in a more relevant thread. I'll be combing through this thread going forward and cleaning it up from all the COVID nonsense, weird Epstein conspiracy theories and other assorted rubbish - if it looks silly, it's probably not worth discussing. Keep that in mind next time you reply to something that raises an eyebrow.

Censorship is a Trump move.

 

[Foxi4]

"Unless there is a legitimate medical reason for having the abortion (confirmed risk to life/health) or a legal reason (rape, for instance)"

I would consider a financial drain, health drain, mental drain and social drain to be a compelling enough reason. Such things also being well within established medical criteria, or considered in the failures of various medical systems/approaches to payment (have some gallstones causing serious pain, well you can pay so we will go today, same but can't pay, sorry mate no threat to life so elective or come back in 10 months after this list is up sort of thing).

I would, by far, prefer the "brand-spanking new" baby to be adopted by a hopeful couple. Infertility rates are on the rise, 1 in 7 couples in the UK are either unable to have a child, or have huge problems trying, for a variety of health reasons. Naturally this "lowers demand" for non-newborns (the younger the child the more desirable being the unwritten rule, judging by statistics), but if I can only fix one problem at a time, it would probably be "not killing fetuses with developed brains that are capable of cognitive function". I'll even cede the "clump of cells" argument in regards to fetuses that are at earlier stages and can't experience a thing yet, saving some is better than saving none.

I cannot fathom how abortion of a viable fetus can be considered permissable without any extenuating circumstances when that same fetus has a good chance of survival in the event of premature birth (at 24 weeks it's 60%). It makes zero sense to me - if that same child, at that same stage of development, has better-than-not chances of survival outside of the womb and you instead opt to abort it, that's just not right. I won't hazard calling it "killing a baby" lest I offend someone, but it does quack like a duck.

If there's a fire and someone tells me there's a 6 in 10 chance I'll survive jumping out of the window *or* they can mercy kill me before I burn along with the building, I like my odds with the jump.

Censorship is a Trump move.

Our terms of service prohibit trolling, harassment or otherwise inflammatory content. I think calling someone the p-word that has to do with touching children in ways the law frowns upon, the word that doesn't look very good on search engines, is pretty inflammatory. You're more than welcome to post various conspiracy theories somewhere else, preferably on your own site - as a private website we have no obligation to host them. I will continue enforcing that as that's my interpretation of the rules. If it is an incorrect interpretation I am sure one of my immediate superiors will correct me on that - so far they haven't.

 

[gregory-samba]

Our terms of service prohibit trolling, harassment or otherwise inflammatory content. I think calling someone the p-word that has to do with touching children in ways the law frowns upon, the word that doesn't look very good on search engines, is pretty inflammatory. You're more than welcome to post various conspiracy theories somewhere else, preferably on your own site - as a private website we have no obligation to host them. I will continue enforcing that as that's my interpretation of the rules. If it is an incorrect interpretation I am sure one of my immediate superiors will correct me on that - so far they haven't.

I've actually seen undoctored video of Biden fondling young girls or generally trying to touch people in spots they don't like, which most are met by the kids or female adults shoving his hands away from their private spots. I'm not sure what it is you deleted that @player594 posted, but if it was about Biden touching people in no-no spots then it wasn't fake. You can easily locate the videos online. Just don't try to search or talk about them on Liberal hot spots as you won't find them and will get banned for bringing them up. The left has censored them as they shine a bad light on Biden, but I think people should be aware that the possible next President did these sorts of things and there's ample video evidence of it taking place.