New Abortion Law Wave

Foxi4 · May 28, 2019

FAST6191 said:
I would still use suffering as the notion of choice to base the ethical ponderings on but we can try for the life thing for the hypothetical. What reasoning do we have to adopt either the combination or implantation points as something so special as to count as a serious moral failing to destroy things having gone past that stage (and possibly mourn them like some might mourn a miscarriage)?
I would additionally be curious if it turns out to be the better path to find out how we got to such a failing in the system of laws -- for many things we can point to lobbyists for rival fields, moral panics, overreactions to events, failings in society at large (the pervasive isms of the time)... and I haven't the first clue how that might have arisen here. Similarly if abortions and such have been an option since ancient times (though well into recorded history) with things like silphium then when did the shift in morality happen?

Looking at the historical record just the mere act of coitus out of wedlock was already a moral failing in and out of itself. Women in the past weren't looking to abort pregnancies for economic reasons, they did it so that they would not be cast out by society, or to prevent scandals, which is essentially the same thing. I think the act of abortion itself became more shameful once we had a better understanding of how the reproductive system works, or how unique and special our genome really is. To take it back a bit, according to the Torah, a fertilised egg is "merely fluid" until 40 days from conception have passed, at which point there are some more obvious signs of pregnancy present, besides a missed period. In other words, a pregnancy "wasn't viable until it was", so to speak, and that's a document that's thousands of years old. Nowadays we know that every person's DNA is completely unique - as such, any loss of this one-of-a-kind material is more tragic to us. It's not "mere water", it's what makes "us" into what we are. Losing "mere water" is something you can rationalise, losing a unique human life is different, especially if done intentionally. People face moral quandries regarding frozen embryos, let alone abortion - we identify with out genetic imprint, with good reason, seeing that each and every one of those combinations of genes is effectively one-of-a-kind. It's also worth noting the kind of language people used to use - women were "with child" rather than just "pregnant" - they had it all figured out without clever wordplay once the symptoms were obvious.

Deleted-401606 · May 28, 2019

Foxi4 said:
Defending access to drugs and being a Liberal doesn't necessarily correlate. I'm about as far from a Liberal as you can get and I think the government shouldn't dictate what you can and can't buy or ingest, at all. I expect a modicum of personal responsibility from grown adults, they can spend their money however they want. If soneone wants to buy bricks of dope and be stoned 24/7, more power to them.

That sounds like a libertarian stance as far as drugs go.I used to feel the same way as you about drugs until I realized how stupid the average person really is."Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin.People don't have the intelligence to realize what is truly bad for them,I think the USA could easily get rid of drugs in the country but they chose to allow them for nefarious reasons.

FAST6191 · May 28, 2019

Might have to look into this historical economic reasons thing. Given there were tax breaks for having kids though then economic considerations were surely a thing to ponder. I would also wonder if it was some variation on what we see in developing countries today with no social safety nets -- my five kids are a financial drain (first result of a search says $233,610 to raise a kid to 18, multiplied by 5 is over a million, or maybe a million if I can have some hand me downs going on, but enough money to note in this or a load more free time if not working) but someone's five kids in a third world shithole are probably the reason they are not going to starve when they can no longer do the whole subsistence farming thing because of age or injury.

Also are economic reasons and being run out of town not the same thing? Albeit with a harsher penalty (if you can't rock up in the next village or one three away and start over you are probably going to starve).

As far as unique and special I would return to the just because you are unique does not make you special concept. Similarly does that mean those that don't have kids, or have fewer kids, are somehow depriving the world of something? Is it worse if the people involved are clearly capable and theoretically suited to the deed? Going further do those that do not seek to maximise returns (or simple go with baseline biological urges, which do fairly well but most like most biological urges can lead down bad paths) on their DNA in mate selection are doing bad?

Looking at https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322634.php then I am also curious what I am supposed to do for friends that might have those. One that might make it to the showing stage and picking names stage before failure probably warranting a different response to a few weeks in.

On when we had a better understanding. Going to have to put together a timeline for this one, and much like the Romans (noted fans of silphium) with their tax breaks wanted people to fill their empire's new lands and such then I would also ponder if the religious also knew nobody converts so you have to breed new ones and went in for the rationalisation of a premade view. Still the malleus maleficarum goes on about abortion quite a lot and in the late 1400s I think the rediscovery of Galen and such was still the hot news. The UK's big boy first laws on abortion coming in the 1800s, lasting maybe 150 years before vanishing again, and they seemingly go with the quickening (first feelings, some 16-20 weeks) as the point at which they draw a line. http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/history-of-abortion-law-in-the-uk/ seems like a fairly neutral lister at least of the historical things of note here.
Anyway seems research time is in order. https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Embryology_History looks like a good start here for me.

supersonicwaffle · May 28, 2019

Garro said:
The data in the picture is from 2004, which is kind of dated, also, your source is heavily biased so I'm taking that data with a grain of salt (not that the info was edited, but only info that coincides with the website narrative is posted). I'm too tired to look for more sources but I do not intend to change your posture, and since apparently you're agreeing to abortion under 3 grounds that's okay by me.

I do think childs should not be used as punishment for women because they were irresponsible during sex, and neither is good for anybody (neither the mother or the child) to bring a child to a family that is not prepared to have him. Nonetheless, abortion is a subject that concerns women and families, its not up to me to decide what the right thing to do.

The source supports the right to abortions, if anything the numbers to support your argument won't be getting better.

This is the most recent stuff I found: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5957082/

In most countries, the most frequently cited reasons for having an abortion were socioeconomic concerns or limiting childbearing. With some exceptions, little variation existed in the reasons given by women’s sociodemographic characteristics. Data from three countries where multiple reasons could be reported in the survey showed that women often have more than one reason for having an abortion.

Foxi4 · May 28, 2019

Maluma said:
That sounds like a libertarian stance as far as drugs go.I used to feel the same way as you about drugs until I realized how stupid the average person really is."Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin.People don't have the intelligence to realize what is truly bad for them,I think the USA could easily get rid of drugs in the country but they chose to allow them for nefarious reasons.

Oh, that doesn't enter the calculus. 10% of the population have below average IQ's, I'm not worried about them, I'm worried about me.

FAST6191 · May 28, 2019

Maluma said:
I think the USA could easily get rid of drugs in the country but they chose to allow them for nefarious reasons.

Oh?

People, animals, birds and such all like getting off their heads, or modifying their perceptions and neural states. This means you have an inbuilt market for it all, one made from the very fabric of life. It is similarly not the sort of thing you might break the desire for by having it absent for a generation or two.

Being animals as well then many of the same chemicals work here.

Chemistry is such that you can turn useful everyday chemicals into other things. TiHKAL and PiHKAL are two books which cover this extensively. Also serves to show that we don't know everything to ban it -- the "legal highs" thing popular a few years back being a culmination of this.

Even if by some miracle that was stopped, everything was known, every combinatorial effect and digestion effect* was known for essentially all of the population** (you get things like certain people are immune to certain things -- painkillers are a fun one here, see history of laughing gas for an early one, and today certain people are noted as being immune to various other painkillers, by similar extension you also get people hyper sensitive to various chemicals) you still have the borders to contemplate. How do you propose to secure them from everything from seeds, yeasts and spores of plants and fungi to importers with obscene financial incentives to get around them (as it stands many of the cartels have money to burn here on all sorts of terrifying cool stuff, in that scenario... hard to even imagine how much)?

*there was an interesting patent case a while back. In it an unarguably new chemical was made but it was noted that upon ingestion it reverted to a known and patented chemical, thus was deemed patent infringement.

**at this point you have such an understanding of biology and medicine that it is probably tantamount to the biological equivalent of the unified theory of physics but we will assume it anyway. Would also yield some interesting things, and possibly some of the drug vaccines like we saw floated a few years back ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936703/ https://www.asam.org/resources/publ...le/2014/10/15/cocaine-vaccine-research-review ). To say nothing of people then being able to piss off abroad or something to get a nice drug producing implant.

Said chemicals do also have more than just "illicit" uses -- see some of the work done with MDMA and grief. As you presumably can't lock everybody up that is taking them with a massive layer of checks and balances on usages of substances then much like people sell their prescriptions now then what goes here?

To say elimination is possible very much overlooks the reality of things.

cots · May 28, 2019

Maluma said:
That sounds like a libertarian stance as far as drugs go.I used to feel the same way as you about drugs until I realized how stupid the average person really is."Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin.People don't have the intelligence to realize what is truly bad for them,I think the USA could easily get rid of drugs in the country but they chose to allow them for nefarious reasons.

Well, I'm not a Liberal and I'm also not for controlling what a person puts in their body. In the other thread, I was pointing out, that marijuana is not a benign substance that should be taken lightly. Addiction is devastating. It just so happens that I was attacked by a hoard of Liberals. Conservatives smoke their fare share of grass. Drugs don't discriminate - they are an equal opportunity life destroyer.

A lot of gamers are Liberals because they are still young and it's the trendy thing to do (and most of their education has come from the Left's point of view). A lot of them will grow out of it. They probably won't flip to being conservative, but they'll be way less radical and far left. More like normal Democrats. I mean, you do group the far left with the far right (Liberals are indeed very comparable to real Neo Nazi's). Of course, from the twisted Liberal point of view any Republican must be conservative and then must be a white supremacist (when all reality that's 3 different groups of people, the far reaching being the least popular and populated). They are so deluded they can't even judge reality. I don't support real racism and bigotry nor do I support the people who are abusing the terms to control other people with.

Deleted-401606 · May 28, 2019

Foxi4 said:
Oh, that doesn't enter the calculus. 10% of the population have below average IQ's, I'm not worried about them, I'm worried about me.

The average IQ is 100 in the USA.IQ has a normal distribution therefore median and average are the same.Which means 50% of people are below average IQ's.Most non white and non Asian countries are way below 100 IQ on average.Where is the source that only 10% of people are below 100 IQ?Seems like a made up fact.
http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-worlds-iq-86/

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

FAST6191 said:
Oh?

People, animals, birds and such all like getting off their heads, or modifying their perceptions and neural states. This means you have an inbuilt market for it all, one made from the very fabric of life. It is similarly not the sort of thing you might break the desire for by having it absent for a generation or two.

Being animals as well then many of the same chemicals work here.

Chemistry is such that you can turn useful everyday chemicals into other things. TiHKAL and PiHKAL are two books which cover this extensively. Also serves to show that we don't know everything to ban it -- the "legal highs" thing popular a few years back being a culmination of this.

Even if by some miracle that was stopped, everything was known, every combinatorial effect and digestion effect* was known for essentially all of the population** (you get things like certain people are immune to certain things -- painkillers are a fun one here, see history of laughing gas for an early one, and today certain people are noted as being immune to various other painkillers, by similar extension you also get people hyper sensitive to various chemicals) you still have the borders to contemplate. How do you propose to secure them from everything from seeds, yeasts and spores of plants and fungi to importers with obscene financial incentives to get around them (as it stands many of the cartels have money to burn here on all sorts of terrifying cool stuff, in that scenario... hard to even imagine how much)?

*there was an interesting patent case a while back. In it an unarguably new chemical was made but it was noted that upon ingestion it reverted to a known and patented chemical, thus was deemed patent infringement.

**at this point you have such an understanding of biology and medicine that it is probably tantamount to the biological equivalent of the unified theory of physics but we will assume it anyway. Would also yield some interesting things, and possibly some of the drug vaccines like we saw floated a few years back ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936703/ https://www.asam.org/resources/publ...le/2014/10/15/cocaine-vaccine-research-review ). To say nothing of people then being able to piss off abroad or something to get a nice drug producing implant.

Said chemicals do also have more than just "illicit" uses -- see some of the work done with MDMA and grief. As you presumably can't lock everybody up that is taking them with a massive layer of checks and balances on usages of substances then much like people sell their prescriptions now then what goes here?

To say elimination is possible very much overlooks the reality of things.

You can do as many drugs as you want,you don't need to write me an essay on why you think drugs are good for you.There is a reason drugs are highly illegal in countries like China and Singapore.Asians are not stupid people.

FAST6191 · May 28, 2019

Maluma said:
You can do as many drugs as you want,you don't need to write me an essay on why you think drugs are good for you.There is a reason drugs are highly illegal in countries like China and Singapore.Asians are not stupid people.

Point me at where I espoused the virtues of drugs in my post you quoted. I was detailing the difficulties in creating and enforcing policy against them in an effort to demonstrate how silly a statement to the effect of "the USA could easily get rid of drugs" is. Didn't even go into the more high end science either -- we can get animals to produce human insulin and human sperm these days, bacteria to generate any number of very complex molecules and the means to do it are not beyond a cartel that is willing to spunk serious money on a submarine, speaking of which maybe have a look at what said cartels did for stealth technology.
We could also go look at the more lenient places too though if you wanted -- Portugal, Switzerland and the Netherlands. All places that variously have relaxed laws here or treatment rather than prison based, but are otherwise comparable to the US population in terms of wealth, history and genetic makeup, and times after their introduction of things and the subsequent rates of use, abuse and ability to fit within society.

Foxi4 · May 28, 2019

Maluma said:
The average IQ is 100 in the USA.IQ has a normal distribution therefore median and average are the same.Which means 50% of people are below average IQ's.Most non white and non Asian countries are way below 100 IQ on average.Where is the source that only 10% of people are below 100 IQ?Seems like a made up fact.
http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-worlds-iq-86/

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

You can do as many drugs as you want,you don't need to write me an essay on why you think drugs are good for you.There is a reason drugs are highly illegal in countries like China and Singapore.Asians are not stupid people.

The IQ scale is obviously designed with 100 as the average, that's not what I meant though. The average per population, it differs from country to country - in the United States it's actually 98, which is close enough. What I meant was that 10% of people have an IQ below 83, which effectively means they're too stupid to live. It's harsh to say and I feel bad for them, but it's true - they can't work, let alone do anything productive. Even the military will not let anyone with an IQ that low through their standardised battery - these people have trouble with something as simple as following written instructions.

Deleted-401606 · May 28, 2019

FAST6191 said:
Point me at where I espoused the virtues of drugs in my post you quoted. I was detailing the difficulties in creating and enforcing policy against them in an effort to demonstrate how silly a statement to the effect of "the USA could easily get rid of drugs" is. Didn't even go into the more high end science either -- we can get animals to produce human insulin and human sperm these days, bacteria to generate any number of very complex molecules and the means to do it are not beyond a cartel that is willing to spunk serious money on a submarine, speaking of which maybe have a look at what said cartels did for stealth technology.
We could also go look at the more lenient places too though if you wanted -- Portugal, Switzerland and the Netherlands. All places that variously have relaxed laws here or treatment rather than prison based, but are otherwise comparable to the US population in terms of wealth, history and genetic makeup, and times after their introduction of things and the subsequent rates of use, abuse and ability to fit within society.

I did not know animals could produce human sperm.I simply said that the USA lets people do drugs and lets drugs get into the country.I didn't really see in your post where you talked about that point.I know that opiates destroyed China for a long time and have personally seen the effects of drug addiction in people that I used to be friends with.

FAST6191 · May 28, 2019

It lets them into the country but how do you propose it keeps them out? That is where I was heading. They can be manufactured from basic chemicals if you are good enough, and easy enough to come by chemicals if you are a bit more creative (or reckless, or have more money), if you need to produce them inside the country then the seeds/spores/whatever can be arranged to come in easily enough, even without that then one man's vital medicine is another man's drug, the borders can't be closed to it and the people seeking to get things through have basically unlimited money and top tier research (see their submarines, submersibles, drones), said unlimited money and top tier research also means such things could be vat/lab grown with what is today fairly basic (undergrad level really) techniques and a lab that could be found or assembled in fairly short order with a DNA sequence sent via email if you really cared.

cots · May 29, 2019

Maluma said:
I did not know animals could produce human sperm.I simply said that the USA lets people do drugs and lets drugs get into the country.I didn't really see in your post where you talked about that point.I know that opiates destroyed China for a long time and have personally seen the effects of drug addiction in people that I used to be friends with.

FAST6191 said:
It lets them into the country but how do you propose it keeps them out? That is where I was heading. They can be manufactured from basic chemicals if you are good enough, and easy enough to come by chemicals if you are a bit more creative (or reckless, or have more money), if you need to produce them inside the country then the seeds/spores/whatever can be arranged to come in easily enough, even without that then one man's vital medicine is another man's drug, the borders can't be closed to it and the people seeking to get things through have basically unlimited money and top tier research (see their submarines, submersibles, drones), said unlimited money and top tier research also means such things could be vat/lab grown with what is today fairly basic (undergrad level really) techniques and a lab that could be found or assembled in fairly short order with a DNA sequence sent via email if you really cared.

So legalize drugs and put meth vending machines on every street corner. After each "drugs are harmless" moron dies from ingesting a concoction of battery acid and drain-o in the given area remove the vending machine. I'm in no way against not allowing people who wish to die their freedom. There would be the initial impact of having to pay for their burial services, but there would be no repeat offenders. Also, don't involve the Government in paying for any of this. Allow private companies the freedom to do what they are asking to do now - legalize drugs. So, in a nutshell, that would be what would basically happen if we legalized all drugs anyway. I know marijuana doesn't have a chance to kill you after a single use (which meth, herion, coke, etc ... do), but you're still going to suffer from the addiction cycle. Oh, and before you scream bloody murder because I am supporting murder in this instance and not in abortion. I'm not supporting it. I support the right to live and the freedom to make your own mistakes (which, using recreational / illegal drugs, is going to end up being a mistake - whether if you're too stoned to realize this or not isn't going to change reality for the other people who can still grasp onto it).

Xzi · May 29, 2019

Maluma said:
That sounds like a libertarian stance as far as drugs go.I used to feel the same way as you about drugs until I realized how stupid the average person really is."Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin.People don't have the intelligence to realize what is truly bad for them,I think the USA could easily get rid of drugs in the country but they chose to allow them for nefarious reasons.

Not to stray too far off topic, but "the USA could easily get rid of drugs in the country" is a pretty ridiculous statement. Humans have been using drugs for thousands of years, the pharmaceutical industry is deeply entrenched in nearly every facet of American life, and many illegal drugs are made outside of the US and then imported anyway. Even going full Duterte isn't going to make people in general need/want drugs any less.

Deleted-401606 · May 29, 2019

cots said:
So legalize drugs and put meth vending machines on every street corner. After each "drugs are harmless" moron dies from ingesting a concoction of battery acid and drain-o in the given area remove the vending machine. I'm in no way against not allowing people who wish to die their freedom. There would be the initial impact of having to pay for their burial services, but there would be no repeat offenders. Also, don't involve the Government in paying for any of this. Allow private companies the freedom to do what they are asking to do now - legalize drugs. So, in a nutshell, that would be what would basically happen if we legalized all drugs anyway. I know marijuana doesn't have a chance to kill you after a single use (which meth, herion, coke, etc ... do), but you're still going to suffer from the addiction cycle. Oh, and before you scream bloody murder because I am supporting murder in this instance and not in abortion. I'm not supporting it. I support the right to live and the freedom to make your own mistakes (which, using recreational / illegal drugs, is going to end up being a mistake - whether if you're too stoned to realize this or not isn't going to change reality for the other people who can still grasp onto it).

The problem is that once those addicts die off new ones will experiment.Eventually the drug addicts start affecting quality citizens when they start stealing to fund their habit or doing robberies.Drug addicts are a useless drain on society and they don't really contribute anything.Even in pothead circles they are mostly focused on fake friendship and finding out ways to get their "friends" to pay for their weed habit.The whole hippie "share" culture always results in mooching from "friends" that purchase the product,there are usually 10 moochers for every 2 people that actually buy their own supply.If they get told no,they become the bad guy in the hippies eyes.Drugs promote degenerate behavior even with something as mild as weed.

Which brings us back to the subject of abortion,which again facilitates humans being degenerate at the expense of an innocent babies life.I just do not think that we should promote degeneracy in our society.I understand freedom,but at what expense?Or better yet,who's expense?Real accidental pregnancies get aborted,while fake "whoopsies" pregnancies are used to coax men into relationships that they no longer want to be a part of.Liberals love controlling every aspect of everyone's lives but when it comes to drugs they want a free for all.It is proven that people were much happier when things were more traditional and it wasn't a free for all for social degeneracy.Homosexuality played a large part in destroying Rome,yet people here on GBAtemp actively encourage it as if it were the best thing since sliced bread.

Why are we as a society encouraging things that have clearly been proven time after time to destroy us?

https://www.leaderu.com/common/nationsdie.html

cots · May 29, 2019

Maluma said:
The problem is that once those addicts die off new ones will experiment.Eventually the drug addicts start affecting quality citizens when they start stealing to fund their habit or doing robberies.Drug addicts are a useless drain on society and they don't really contribute anything.Even in pothead circles they are mostly focused on fake friendship and finding out ways to get their "friends" to pay for their weed habit.The whole hippie "share" culture always results in mooching from "friends" that purchase the product,there are usually 10 moochers for every 2 people that actually buy their own supply.If they get told no,they become the bad guy in the hippies eyes.Drugs promote degenerate behavior even with something as mild as weed.

Which brings us back to the subject of abortion,which again facilitates humans being degenerate at the expense of an innocent babies life.I just do not think that we should promote degeneracy in our society.I understand freedom,but at what expense?Or better yet,who's expense?Real accidental pregnancies get aborted,while fake "whoopsies" pregnancies are used to coax men into relationships that they no longer want to be a part of.Liberals love controlling every aspect of everyone's lives but when it comes to drugs they want a free for all.It is proven that people were much happier when things were more traditional and it wasn't a free for all for social degeneracy.Homosexuality played a large part in destroying Rome,yet people here on GBAtemp actively encourage it as if it were the best thing since sliced bread.

Why are we as a society encouraging things that have clearly been proven time after time to destroy us?

https://www.leaderu.com/common/nationsdie.html

Liberals want to do as they please and indulge in pleasure in excess without consequence at other peoples expense. You clearly see how their logic doesn't apply to their stance on drugs, but you also must understand that they've created a floating logic that changes per circumstance. I suppose that's what they call utter made up bullshit these days, but you just simply rename something and for some reason, even though the thing doesn't change it becomes acceptable (you know, a mentally ill person who used to called a retard is still the same person, the only thing that changed is what you call the person). Or calling someone a n**** is offensive, so we call them black, but nothing else has changed other than what word we're using. I'm not sure how that removes stigma - it's the same fucking thing no matter what you call it. So it's utter completely made up bullshit with no logical value used to justify doing whatever the hell they "feel like doing" and need to resort to drugs to keep that delusional high otherwise they'd have to actually deal with reality. Liberals are also usually not that educated, so with what happened in Rome, they probably have no idea about history. I mean, they are pushing for a system of government that has been tried, and failed each and every time it was implemented.

I agree that they are going to hurt society even further, as they are drug addicts, and like you said will do anything to get high.

JeepX87 · May 29, 2019

I'm from Alabama, also born and raised in the South, so yike!!! I'm all for women to make a decision with their pregnancy.

Anti-abortion laws are going drive the illegal abortion up, so it won't fix the moral as evangelical Christians expect women to stuck with pregnant, but after baby was born, so women and their child are on their own. Illegal abortions were common before 1970s and it was difficult to get caught or tracked.

Xzi · May 29, 2019

Maluma said:
I just do not think that we should promote degeneracy in our society.

cots said:
Liberals want to do as they please and indulge in pleasure in excess without consequence at other peoples expense.

You guys know who's president, right? I hope both of these statements were meant to be ironic.

Bonehead · May 29, 2019

If God didn't want us to abort babies, he wouldn't have made them so delicious.

Checkmate, theists.

Owenge · May 29, 2019

Agh adulthood sucks

New Abortion Law Wave

Endless Trash

Deleted-401606

Guest

Techromancer

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Techromancer

Banned!

Deleted-401606

Guest

Techromancer

Endless Trash

Deleted-401606

Guest

Techromancer

Banned!

Time to fly, 621

Deleted-401606

Guest

Banned!

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Banned!

GbaTemp browser

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum