Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America

tabzer said:

Abortion is killing of human life. That's legal in some forms, like in places where death penalty is allowed--so it being "not murder" is a political/statist position. Dehumanizing the life is just a necessary step in that process. Morally and conventionally it is a different story. Saying there is no reason for abortion to be illegal makes it sound recreational.

As for taxes, the "the money was never yours" argument is a popular rationalization. However, if everyone felt more accountable for how the money was used, maybe we'd be in a better condition.

As for pointing fingers over Covid, why does Cuomo not get an honorable mention?

Click to expand...

For the last time, abortion is not murder. This is not a position, this is a fact. Spamming appeal to emotion in order to mudsling anyone that dares believe in (gasp!) women's right of choice over their own fucking bodies is not going to work here, and I strongly suggest you find a proper argument. And "statist"? Really? You've bent yourself so far backwards and out of arguments you resort to the world's dumbest ancap libertarian snarl word in an attempt to imply we're in some way bad without having to actually say jack shit?
Oh, and of course the part about COVID-19 where you literally bring up pointing fingers (because apparently calling out the man that deliberately neglected to respond to it properly for months upon months is finger-pointing) is pure whataboutism, because you're incapable of seeing the vast gap between a man that tries really badly to clean up a pile of shit on the floor... and the man that intentionally shat on the floor in the first place.

KingVamp said:

The Hyde Amendment seem to not have made it. Is there another law about this?

Click to expand...

I don't think that guy knows what he is talking about, because he is unable to provide any damning evidence on this talking points. The fact of the matter is the government gets it's money from the people, and definitely spends money on terminating lives that we as a people do not collectively agree should be terminated.

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

Plasmaster09 said:

For the last time, abortion is not murder. This is not a position, this is a fact. Spamming appeal to emotion in order to mudsling anyone that dares believe in (gasp!) women's right of choice over their own fucking bodies is not going to work here, and I strongly suggest you find a proper argument. And "statist"? Really? You've bent yourself so far backwards and out of arguments you resort to the world's dumbest ancap libertarian snarl word in an attempt to imply we're in some way bad without having to actually say jack shit?
Oh, and of course the part about COVID-19 where you literally bring up pointing fingers (because apparently calling out the man that deliberately neglected to respond to it properly for months upon months is finger-pointing) is pure whataboutism, because you're incapable of seeing the vast gap between a man that tries really badly to clean up a pile of shit on the floor... and the man that intentionally shat on the floor in the first place.

Click to expand...

What would you call terminating life then? They should call it what is actually is, not a woman's right to choose, but rather a woman's right to terminate life. While I do agree there are certainly circumstances where abortion should be allowed, such as when the mother or child's life is at risk, or when the woman has been forced to conceive; the fact of the matter is that these reasons are a hugely small minority. As I stated previously, the only time in my life I have seen someone get an abortion is as a form of birth control.

tthousand said:

I don't think that guy knows what he is talking about, because he is unable to provide any damning evidence on this talking points. The fact of the matter is the government gets it's money from the people, and definitely spends money on terminating lives that we as a people do not collectively agree should be terminated.

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



What would you call terminating life then? They should call it what is actually is, not a woman's right to choose, but rather a woman's right to terminate life. While I do agree there are certainly circumstances where abortion should be allowed, such as when the mother or child's life is at risk, or when the woman has been forced to conceive; the fact of the matter is that these reasons are a hugely small minority. As I stated previously, the only time in my life I have seen someone get an abortion is as a form of birth control.

Click to expand...

"Terminating life" is a weird way to put "someone choosing to avoid irreparable damage from something they didn't intend, don't want and should not be forced to have". It is a woman's right to choose, and no false morals in the universe should prevent a woman from deciding if they do or do not wish to bear a child- and subsequently whether they will or not.
If you're going to keep playing this shitty, shitty card, I'm going to play one I once saw.
If abortion is so horrific, why not go a different path and simply prevent the """"""""child"""""""" from existing unintentionally in the first place? Vasectomies are reversible, have every man get one before the age of 18. When he's deemed emotionally and psychologically fit to be a father, it's undone, and it's promptly redone at any indication of the contrary.
Controlling people's bodies doesn't sound so nice anymore when it's men's bodies, doesn't it?

Plasmaster09 said:

"Terminating life" is a weird way to put "someone choosing to avoid irreparable damage from something they didn't intend, don't want and should not be forced to have". It is a woman's right to choose, and no false morals in the universe should prevent a woman from deciding if they do or do not wish to bear a child- and subsequently whether they will or not.
If you're going to keep playing this shitty, shitty card, I'm going to play one I once saw.
If abortion is so horrific, why not go a different path and simply prevent the """"""""child"""""""" from existing unintentionally in the first place? Vasectomies are reversible, have every man get one before the age of 18. When he's deemed emotionally and psychologically fit to be a father, it's undone, and it's promptly redone at any indication of the contrary.
Controlling people's bodies doesn't sound so nice anymore when it's men's bodies, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

I actually like that idea, in a form. Perhaps it would be good for convicted rapists, or fathers who are involved with abortions. Like if the father is willing to go through with the first abortion, then he must agree to vasectomy.

Like I said, I can agree with abortion to a certain degree. But there are those out there that would argue it is acceptable to "terminate the life" up to 7 days after the mother has already given birth. That is murder, simple and plain. The ethics need to be ironed out, because these are living organisms.

Again, like I said, when you have a baby and watch that baby grow and communicate with you while it is in the mothers womb, there is no doubt that is a living, intelligent human being.

tthousand said:

Like I said, I can agree with abortion to a certain degree. But there are those out there that would argue it is acceptable to "terminate the life" up to 7 days after the mother has already given birth.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen anyone say anything like this and I doubt there's a big push for this.

Most abortions don't seem to even get pass the first trimester.

tthousand said:

I actually like that idea, in a form. Perhaps it would be good for convicted rapists, or fathers who are involved with abortions. Like if the father is willing to go through with the first abortion, then he must agree to vasectomy.

Like I said, I can agree with abortion to a certain degree. But there are those out there that would argue it is acceptable to "terminate the life" up to 7 days after the mother has already given birth. That is murder, simple and plain. The ethics need to be ironed out, because these are living organisms.

Again, like I said, when you have a baby and watch that baby grow and communicate with you while it is in the mothers womb, there is no doubt that is a living, intelligent human being.

Click to expand...

Ironically, having the aforementioned idea be a reactive measure rather than a preventative one basically just makes it a way-too-late version of abortion itself, which would likely only end up punishing the careless and not, you know, actually preventing a woman from having damage done to her body, life or lifestyle due to having a child she didn't intend to and sometimes didn't even consent to the unintentional creation of in the first place (i.e. rape). Having it be a preventative measure like I mentioned, on the other hand, would completely erase the problem.

In terms of, well, terms, I really doubt there's anyone major that seriously advocates for post-birth abortion, which is LITERAL murder regardless of definition. The general consensus at this point is that whenever the point in time is that a fetus gains actual sentience and could be scientifically and morally considered a human being is, it's definitely before it's born (that probably shouldn't be something anyone should ever really have to explain) but also certainly not as close to conception as most pro-lifers would imply.

But yeah, um... the concept of "post-birth termination" you're claiming people argue is one that nobody in their right mind would even think to suggest, and is a strawman plain and simple. It's as absurd a position as claiming all abortion, even mere days after conception if possible, is murder. (I pray nobody on this thread takes that side for real...)

KingVamp said:

I haven't seen anyone say anything like this and I doubt there's a big push for this.

Most abortions don't seem to even get pass the first trimester.

Click to expand...

yeah a lot of the whole "abortion is murder" thing comes from people that don't quite get that the late-term abortions they love to generalize as the entire thing... are an incredibly small fraction
heck, I'm pretty sure that by the time it's late enough into the term that only a dystopian psychopath would label it as anything other than a child, it's almost as risky to try to abort it at that point as it would be to NOT
almost all abortions are first trimester, and a large chunk are done because the would-be-but-also-shouldn't-be-child is either the result of rape, would potentially harm or kill the mother in the process of being born or would basically have the mother's life crash and burn as she struggles to take care of an unintended kid
considering there's a decent amount of overlap between these categories, sometimes all three

the funny thing about the abortion debate is the extraordinary gap between the extremes of both sides in terms of... just how extreme they are

pro-choice strawman dystopia: that one obscure philip k. dick story "the pre-persons", which goes so far off its rocker (up to age twelve? REALLY?) that nobody could possibly take that level of viewpoint IRL
pro-life strawman dystopia: the handmaid's tale, which is basically just if the classic "almost all of humanity loses the ability to reproduce" dystopia was taken advantage of by a bunch of deeply sexist Religious-Right wingnuts

like in no timeline could I actually imagine something like the pre-persons happening- by the time it can fucking communicate, it's clearly a sentient human being
even if I were to assume the people in charge were all some batcrap insane flavor of extreme strawman altleft and handwaved them being brainwashed into thinking like strawmen, there is no sequence of events I could think of that would lead to a nation's leaders declaring people as nonsentient until age twelve and thus legal to murder, and the population as a whole accepting it (that and the fact that under such a law, the nation wouldn't last more than a decade or two before it disintegrated due to, well, being able to off their offspring for over a decade after birth resulting in a chronic loss of population)
but I could honestly see something reminiscent of the handmaid's tale if a national birth crisis occurred and a group of extreme right-wing christians took the reins

Plasmaster09 said:

Vasectomies are reversible

Click to expand...

They're not, really. Attempts can be made but are not reliable at making men fertile again.

Plasmaster09 said:

Oh, and of course the part about COVID-19 where you literally bring up pointing fingers (because apparently calling out the man that deliberately neglected to respond to it properly for months upon months is finger-pointing) is pure whataboutism, because you're incapable of seeing the vast gap between a man that tries really badly to clean up a pile of shit on the floor... and the man that intentionally shat on the floor in the first place.

Click to expand...

First of all, I apologize for the quality of the link. I read the full article, but couldn't find a way to link the full thing because they want a subscription and apparently my reading of the full article was the only 'freebie' I was going to get. I tried using the Wayback Machine to see if I could get around it, and it cuts off at the same point as the official site. I'm posting the Wayback link in case anybody else can get the full article or can quote it into the thread for further discussion for me.

https://web.archive.org/web/2021030...ndents/the-sound-and-the-fury-of-andrew-cuomo

From reading this, I don't think the guy's "trying really badly to clean up a pile of shit" as much as "shitting just as much". I'm not the original person who brought it up, but I kind of have a similar sentiment and want to ask the same question. So, again, why is this guy seemingly getting the all-clear instead of more people being upset about his actions?

IncredulousP said:

They're not, really. Attempts can be made but are not reliable at making men fertile again.

Click to expand...

Either way, the idea behind quoting that idea was less trying to find an actual third solution (though if it was reliable, it'd be the perfect compromise... except for what I'm about to explain) and more about showing that a situation that would seemingly serve as the perfect answer to both sides really serves to show the motivations behind one. Had tthousand reacted as adversely to the suggestion as most other heavy pro-lifers, it would've shown that it was less about saving life (since this would've prevented the problem entirely due to the life not happening in the first place) and more about controlling the bodies of women (since this would've swapped the halves and actually placed the responsibility on men).

Kurt91 said:

First of all, I apologize for the quality of the link. I read the full article, but couldn't find a way to link the full thing because they want a subscription and apparently my reading of the full article was the only 'freebie' I was going to get. I tried using the Wayback Machine to see if I could get around it, and it cuts off at the same point as the official site. I'm posting the Wayback link in case anybody else can get the full article or can quote it into the thread for further discussion for me.

https://web.archive.org/web/2021030...ndents/the-sound-and-the-fury-of-andrew-cuomo

From reading this, I don't think the guy's "trying really badly to clean up a pile of shit" as much as "shitting just as much". I'm not the original person who brought it up, but I kind of have a similar sentiment and want to ask the same question. So, again, why is this guy seemingly getting the all-clear instead of more people being upset about his actions?

Click to expand...

He isn't getting the all-clear though. Both sides are unfathomably pissed at him for his actions, and that even includes me personally.
However, there is an important distinction between Cuomo's actions and Trump's. Not only one of situation, but one of intensity.
Cuomo was handled a pile of shit covering every inch of the nation and practically centered around NY, and his response to it was abysmal and frankly despicable in some aspects.
Trump, on the other hand, was handled the possibility of a pile of shit, knowledge of how to prevent or at least minimize it, and the power to do so... and actively refused, even contributing to the shit's spread with things like politicizing basic safety measures, pinning the blame on other nations in the midst of his own major negligence, downplaying the danger of the virus repeatedly, LYING ABOUT HIS OWN TREATMENT WHEN HE INEVITABLY CAUGHT THE VIRUS FROM HIS OWN INEPTITUDE IN ORDER TO DOWNPLAY IT FURTHER... yeah.
Cuomo was given a bad situation and ways to help get out of it, and he massively fucked it up in many ways- some accidental, some not. However, he didn't deliberately worsen the conditions themselves.
Trump was given clear warning of a bad situation and ways to avoid it completely or at least diminish it, and chose to make it as worse as he plausibly could instead.
Cuomo looked at the pile of shit on the floor, walked over to the part he was supposed to clean and stabbed it with a spork instead of cleaning it up.
Trump shat on the floor in the first place.

well now it seems I'm getting a check another time and i still won't stop looking for a job either sooner or later SSI will dry up (and it's faster than anticipated) though as i said many times before SSI reform (from a working stand point) needs to happen and i hope within these 4-8 years it can be done once covid is behind us

Plasmaster09 said:

For the last time, abortion is not murder. This is not a position, this is a fact. Spamming appeal to emotion in order to mudsling anyone that dares believe in (gasp!) women's right of choice over their own fucking bodies is not going to work here, and I strongly suggest you find a proper argument. And "statist"? Really? You've bent yourself so far backwards and out of arguments you resort to the world's dumbest ancap libertarian snarl word in an attempt to imply we're in some way bad without having to actually say jack shit?
Oh, and of course the part about COVID-19 where you literally bring up pointing fingers (because apparently calling out the man that deliberately neglected to respond to it properly for months upon months is finger-pointing) is pure whataboutism, because you're incapable of seeing the vast gap between a man that tries really badly to clean up a pile of shit on the floor... and the man that intentionally shat on the floor in the first place.

Click to expand...

I delineated the difference between murder and killing in my post. The strawman you offered doesn't progress the discussion. Pregnancy is an extension of human life. Killing it is murder in respect to cultures who respect the sanctity of that life. The claim that is not murder doesn't respect such culture, and defaults on the state's definition. So yes, it is a statist position. Be outraged if you want.

With the how you paint those who are responsible for perpetuating the Covid casualties, it's hard to take your opinion as fact when make claims of the intentions of the actors. Whataboutism is just a deflection from the point that contributions have been made from every level of government, and it's ugly to argue against one corrupt party in the defense of another.

tabzer said:

I delineated the difference between murder and killing in my post. The strawman you offered doesn't progress the discussion. Pregnancy is an extension of human life. Killing it is murder in respect to cultures who respect the sanctity of that life. The claim that is not murder doesn't respect such culture, and defaults on the state's definition. So yes, it is a statist position. Be outraged if you want.

With the how you paint those who are responsible for perpetuating the Covid casualties, it's hard to take your opinion as fact when make claims of the intentions of the actors. Whataboutism is just a deflection from the point that contributions have been made from every level of government, and it's ugly to argue against one corrupt party in the defense of another.

Click to expand...

"Statist" is a snarl word used by right-wing ancaps (the kind that dress up their anarcho-capitalism as libertarianism because "everyone should get to be horrible greedy fucks if they have the power and the money to" doesn't sound very nice when stated outright) to accuse someone of basically licking the boots of the concept of a state or "the" state, and carries zero legitimate meaning. Please refrain from using it as an ad hominem attack (which is, funnily enough, the only possible use of it, as it's an accusatory term with no real definition), because all it serves to do is make your argument look like it's held together with twigs and string instead of logic and reasoning.
Also, you keep using terms like "killing" and phrasing like "respect the sanctity" as if it being killing is even clearly defined (killing requires it being defined as a fully living being, which is debatable depending on timing) and as if that debatably-life objectively HAS any sanctity (which is also extremely debatable), as well as playing the tone argument and the accusatory of intent SIMULTANEOUSLY (I'm not outraged, I'm just honestly disappointed that you couldn't bother to bring an argument to the table without fact-guised opinions and meaningless accusations), which is frankly impressive in terms of sheer fallacy count. As for strawmen... please kindly point me to mine. Considering that any form of prevention of pregnancy entirely (most likely by placing the responsibility on men, because realistically how else are you going to do it?) similar to the "undo it when they're ready" example I mentioned would likely draw cries of dystopian suppression from the religious right-wing, there's nothing to suggest the pro-life movement's motive is legitimately just the alleged sanctity of life- especially considering both its complete disregard for the potential death of the mother in the process of the birth (one of the most common reasons for abortion) and its bafflingly large overlap with the seemingly antithetical anti-vax movement. (You'd think it'd be impossible to be simultaneously pro-life and pro-plague, but here we are.)

Then there's the matter of COVID-19. Cuomo doesn't get a pass, and I've made that clear.
However, Trump gets far, far less of a pass due to his actions both having been proven as intentional and destructive negligence and the sheer scope thereof.
Trying to deflect blame away from Trump for getting us into this disaster in the first place and onto Cuomo for doing an awful job cleaning up his portion of it is whataboutism, and stating it is so is not a deflection itself. Both parties (or rather, part of one party and the vast majority of the other) may be at fault, but there is a vast gap in intensity between the faults in question. One man failed miserably and perhaps despicably at helping repair his state, the other deliberately put his entire country at risk because he'd rather have some short-term PR than, you know, NOT INDIRECTLY CAUSE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF AVOIDABLE DEATHS.

Plasmaster09 said:

"Statist" is a snarl word used by right-wing ancaps (the kind that dress up their anarcho-capitalism as libertarianism because "everyone should get to be horrible greedy fucks if they have the power and the money to" doesn't sound very nice when stated outright) to accuse someone of basically licking the boots of the concept of a state or "the" state, and carries zero legitimate meaning. Please refrain from using it as an ad hominem attack (which is, funnily enough, the only possible use of it, as it's an accusatory term with no real definition), because all it serves to do is make your argument look like it's held together with twigs and string instead of logic and reasoning.
Also, you keep using terms like "killing" and phrasing like "respect the sanctity" as if it being killing is even clearly defined (killing requires it being defined as a fully living being, which is debatable depending on timing) and as if that debatably-life objectively HAS any sanctity (which is also extremely debatable), as well as playing the tone argument and the accusatory of intent SIMULTANEOUSLY (I'm not outraged, I'm just honestly disappointed that you couldn't bother to bring an argument to the table without fact-guised opinions and meaningless accusations), which is frankly impressive in terms of sheer fallacy count. As for strawmen... please kindly point me to mine. Considering that any form of prevention of pregnancy entirely (most likely by placing the responsibility on men, because realistically how else are you going to do it?) similar to the "undo it when they're ready" example I mentioned would likely draw cries of dystopian suppression from the religious right-wing, there's nothing to suggest the pro-life movement's motive is legitimately just the alleged sanctity of life- especially considering both its complete disregard for the potential death of the mother in the process of the birth (one of the most common reasons for abortion) and its bafflingly large overlap with the seemingly antithetical anti-vax movement. (You'd think it'd be impossible to be simultaneously pro-life and pro-plague, but here we are.)

Click to expand...

Strawman and pearl clutching. Whenever you want to stop writing your own dictionary and refer to a real one, maybe you can make a logical understanding of what I said, and of the context in which it was said.

Plasmaster09 said:

Then there's the matter of COVID-19. Cuomo doesn't get a pass, and I've made that clear.

Click to expand...

After I drew attention to the point. Pointing out what Cuomo has done doesn't change what Trump has done. Unless the accusation against Trump was something that Cuomo was actually responsible for. I'm sure that's not the case. /s

tabzer said:

Strawman and pearl clutching. Whenever you want to stop writing your own dictionary and refer to a real one, maybe you can make a logical understanding of what I said, and of the context in which it was said.



After I drew attention to the point. Pointing out what Cuomo has done doesn't change what Trump has done. Unless the accusation against Trump was something that Cuomo was actually responsible for. I'm sure that's not the case. /s

Click to expand...

Logical? Most of your points were various forms of "this culture values X, so it should be taken as fact or given priority over basic bodily liberty", which isn't even a single fallacy so much as it's a Chewbacca Defense. If you believe that fetuses are children and their existence is sacred, and thus oppose abortions, then don't have a fucking abortion. Otherwise, stay a mile away from the rights other people have on their bodies. The separation of church and state is something I should not have to make clear- the beliefs of one religion or culture should have absolutely zero bearing over the basic liberties and rights of anyone outside said religion or culture. Oh, and the remainder of your points are either ad-hominem attacks (pearl-clutching? Really? You're actually going so far as to accuse me of pearl-clutching because I dare suggest that a woman should have rights over her own womb?) or snarl words, a close cousin thereof (for the last time, "statist" is a meaningless accusatory that serves no purpose other than to mudsling the opponent, and its use will be taken only as a sign of lack of a better argument).

And as for Trump and Cuomo... How is it so hard to understand that Trump is the reason the US has been so far up shit creek this past year in regards to COVID-19? Cuomo's actions were his own fault, but the magnitude of the situation he was thrust into in the first place was almost entirely due to Trump's frankly inexcusable negligence. Trying to pin the entirety of the blame on Cuomo for failing to clean up his part of the nationwide disaster Trump left in his wake is, once again, the definition of whataboutism.
Cuomo did a bad, we get it. However, this does not mean Cuomo is quite AS at fault as Trump (let alone more), it definitely doesn't mean the parties are equally at fault (that's just the balance fallacy- there exists such thing as a lesser evil, or rather in this case an innumerably greater evil in the form of Trump) and it certainly does not under any circumstances mean Trump shouldn't still be held accountable for his actions.

Cut the crap. The ad hominem attacks, the deflection, the meaningless accusations, the snarl words, the reverse tone argument (aka the Snowflake Accusation), the various other fallacies... all of it. Come back with a legitimate argument, and I assure you I'll listen. But in the meantime... cut the crap, end of story.

Plasmaster09 said:

For the last time, abortion is not murder. This is not a position, this is a fact.

Click to expand...

I think it's an opinion, FWIW. It might have some legal backing, but it's fuzzy law. In some jurisdictions (38 states in the USA), if you kill a pregnant woman you can be charged with 2 counts of murder. Cause her to miscarry, you can be charged with 1 count. Probably gets pleaded down to manslaughter, but it's still, by law, an illegal taking of a human life. The only things that make the taking of that life in a 'legal abortion' any different is the consent of the pregnant woman, and the medical license held by the practitioner performing the procedure. But the resulting death is the same.

When does an unborn child become a human being, with rights?


FWIW I support legal abortion, with limits. Like any other "right", there are reasonable limits. Yes? So when you spout absolutes like that, I think it's fair to examine the details. It's not enough to say "almost all abortions are first trimester and very few are 'late-term'" .. if those late-term abortions are being performed on viable babies that could survive outside the womb, then that would mean you're willing to excuse some murder, for the sake of keeping the 'legal window' for abortion as open as possible.

So again, when specifically does a child in the womb, become a human being? Is it not until the head is delivered? The feet? Is it not until it is heard to cry throughout the castle?

Hanafuda said:

When does an unborn child become a human being, with rights?


FWIW I support legal abortion, with limits. Like any other "right", there are reasonable limits. Yes? So when you spout absolutes like that, I think it's fair to examine the details. It's not enough to say "almost all abortions are first trimester and very few are 'late-term'" .. if those late-term abortions are being performed on viable babies that could survive outside the womb, then that would mean you're willing to excuse some murder, for the sake of keeping the 'legal window' for abortion as open as possible.

So again, when specifically does a child in the womb, become a human being? Is it not until the head is delivered? The feet? Is it not until it is heard to cry throughout the castle?

Click to expand...

The point during pregnancy at which a fetus is considered a human being is a nebulous topic nobody can seem to agree on, and we haven't quite yet figured it out scientifically. (Mostly because what sentience itself even is is just as weird and nebulous a point, and investigation into THAT mess requires delving into both politics and philosophy and neuroscience.) All we realistically know is that at the very start it's just a bundle of cells (definitively nonhuman) and that at the very end it's literally a human baby (human by definition), but where the middle lies is basically unanswerable currently.

However, you have to consider another variable here: the mother. A definitively, 100% guaranteed human being, who would only get an abortion if the would-be child in question is either unwanted (which would likely result in a pretty rough life for both mother and child), implausible for the would-be mother to care for (which would, barring a miracle, DEFINITELY result in a pretty rough life for both at best) or could potentially result in irreparable bodily damage or even death to the mother in the process (which, if the possibility of an abortion would be one early-term enough for the fetus's humanity to be ambiguous, would amount to killing a person for the possibility of a new one).

Believe me, if there was some third solution where these problems could be solved without abortion (some sort of biomechanical contraption to safely carry otherwise unsafe-to-the-mother fetuses to term combined with a reliable government-funded from-birth adoption program to take care of the children resulting from this, or the far simpler but also far more likely to cause cries of dystopia option that is restricting the ability of men to get women pregnant in the first place until they prove themselves responsible), I'd take it in a heartbeat.

I'm not pro-choice because I believe that the existence of a fetus is worthless or something abhorrently apathetic like that (I don't, to the point that I practically gagged mentally halfway through typing that), I'm pro-choice because I believe that people having rights over what and sorta-kinda-who goes in and out of their own bodies (and more importantly, the ability to prevent themselves from dying, suffering serious bodily damage or having their life basically crumble in front of them simply by exercising those rights) is more important than something with a sentient and possibly-if-you-believe-in-that-too-ensouled existence dependent on the viewer's cultural and religious beliefs.

Plasmaster09 said:

The point during pregnancy at which a fetus is considered a human being is a nebulous topic nobody can seem to agree on, and we haven't quite yet figured it out scientifically. (Mostly because what sentience itself even is is just as weird and nebulous a point, and investigation into THAT mess requires delving into both politics and philosophy and neuroscience.) All we realistically know is that at the very start it's just a bundle of cells (definitively nonhuman) and that at the very end it's literally a human baby (human by definition), but where the middle lies is basically unanswerable currently.
However, you have to consider another variable here: the mother. A definitively, 100% guaranteed human being, who would only get an abortion if the would-be child in question is either unwanted (which would likely result in a pretty rough life for both mother and child), implausible for the would-be mother to care for (which would, barring a miracle, DEFINITELY result in a pretty rough life for both at best) or could potentially result in irreparable bodily damage or even death to the mother in the process (which, if the possibility of an abortion would be one early-term enough for the fetus's humanity to be ambiguous, would amount to killing a person for the possibility of a new one).
Believe me, if there was some third solution where these problems could be solved without abortion (some sort of biomechanical contraption to safely carry otherwise unsafe-to-the-mother fetuses to term combined with a reliable government-funded from-birth adoption program to take care of the children resulting from this, or the far simpler but also far more likely to cause cries of dystopia option that is restricting the ability of men to get women pregnant in the first place until they prove themselves responsible), I'd take it in a heartbeat. I'm not pro-choice because I believe that the existence of a fetus is worthless or something abhorrently apathetic like that (I don't, to the point that I practically gagged mentally halfway through typing that), I'm pro-choice because I believe that people having rights over what and sorta-kinda-who goes in and out of their own bodies (and more importantly, the ability to prevent themselves from dying, suffering serious bodily damage or having their life basically crumble in front of them simply by exercising those rights) is more important than something with a sentient and possibly-if-you-believe-in-that-too-ensouled existence dependent on the viewer's cultural and religious beliefs.

Click to expand...

Ok well you discussed it at least. So then, do you support abortion on demand at any time prior to birth?

Hanafuda said:

Ok well you discussed it at least. So then, do you support abortion on demand at any time prior to birth?

Click to expand...

Depends on context.

If it's early enough into term that the abortion could be done safely and the sentience line hasn't been definitively fully muddled yet, then yes.

If the would-be child is the result of rape or serious carelessness and would leave the would-be mother with basically a shattered life, then also yes. (Only exception here that I can think of is some bizarre case in which the mother would end up dying whether or not the fetus is aborted, and even then that just leads into another debate as to whether a life starting with and consisting primarily of grief and suffering is better or worse than no life at all.)

If it's one of those incredibly poorly timed scenarios where it would end up happening really, really late into term (and the mother wouldn't die or suffer abnormal and irreparable damage from the birth)... yeah no.

An odd exception can be generated for any scenario by figuring out a strange enough hypothetical, but in general there is a place I draw the line- the simplest way to phrase it is that by the time the only consequence of carrying it to term is short-term pain and a pinch of sunk cost fallacy, it might as well be done. However, I also don't feel like imposing my personal drawn line upon others, nor do I feel like anyone should have the right to do so. Hence sticking to a purely pro-choice viewpoint until a true compromise may be made possible by future technologies or organizations- not just for the beliefs I hold, but out of respect for the beliefs others may hold as well.

Plasmaster09 said:

Logical? Most of your points were various forms of "this culture values X, so it should be taken as fact or given priority over basic bodily liberty"

Click to expand...

Incorrect. I took a look at absolute statements and considered the context of their validity. If you hate that "statist" is a word, or even that it is directly relevant to the foundation of said absolute statement, then that seems like a you problem. I don't envy those who have to make hard choices and I am not telling them what they can or cannot do. It is also pretty natural for people to feel guilty about things outside of their control. Calling a bundle of cells "non-human" is abjective in function, and only seems to serve the function of making abortion more acceptable.

Plasmaster09 said:

Trying to pin the entirety of the blame on Cuomo for failing to clean up his part of the nationwide disaster Trump left in his wake is, once again, the definition of whataboutism.

Click to expand...

You are delusional if you think that's what's being suggested.

But you are scapegoating Trump for Cuomo's part of the responsibility anyway. "Cuomo was wrong, but it's Trump's fault."

tabzer said:

Incorrect. I took a look at absolute statements and considered the context of their validity. If you hate that "statist" is a word, or even that it is directly relevant to the foundation of said absolute statement, then that seems like a you problem. I don't envy those who have to make hard choices and I am not telling them what they can or cannot do. It is also pretty natural for people to feel guilty about things outside of their control. Calling a bundle of cells "non-human" is abjective in function, and only seems to serve the function of making abortion more acceptable.



You are delusional if you think that's what's being suggested.

But you are scapegoating Trump for Cuomo's part of the responsibility anyway. "Cuomo was wrong, but it's Trump's fault."

Click to expand...

On second search, you're right and wrong. Statist is, in fact, a word. However, it's almost never used in a way remotely accurate to its proper meaning (its actual definition implies strong enough power residing in the state that it essentially means diet authoritarianism, while in practice it's basically just become a blanket snarl word used by ancap libertarians as a quick ad hominem to slap on anything they don't like), and you're misusing it yourself by describing being heavily pro-choice as statist. In addition, your "absolute statements" were, as I mentioned, mostly pertaining to individual cultures or religious beliefs. And as should really not have to be explained in America, the (intended-to-be) land of freedom and personal rights, individual cultures and religions can go fuck themselves when it comes to the basic rights of anyone outside their group.

And when it comes to Cuomo, that's not even what I said. I said that Cuomo's part was his fault, but that Cuomo's part also wouldn't even really exist if not for Trump's deliberate mishandling of things.
Technically speaking, Cuomo's part is BOTH of their faults.