New Abortion Law Wave

[Foxi4]

No, you're being disingenuous again. I already spoke to my beliefs on when life truly begins for a fetus.

It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of scientific fact. Once the genetic material from the two donors, the mother and the father, has recombined into a new string and begins to multiply, it is effectively "alive". In fact, I would argue that it is human from this point onwards as it has all the genetic makeup of a human, it's simply at a very early stage of development. There is nothing to believe or disbelieve here, and it is disingenuous to pretend to use scientific or medical jargon to choose arbitrary points of development as your desired cut-off points that you feel personally comfortable with. We can discuss when ending a human life should be permissable, this pertains both abortion and euthanasia, but don't talk to me from a podium about when you "believe" life begins because it's inconsequential.

If I would want effective, I'd call out 'them are killing our babies' doesnt get more effective than that.

Arguing is a process. You win some, you loose some. In the end, you hopefully dont get rid of abortions as societies. (You see what I did there? )

Part of that even goes together with the percieved image of motherhood, and the role of a mother in society. There are more abortions in cities, there are east/west gaps.
(https://www.thelocal.de/20080605/12291)

All kinds of stuff that is there and shouldnt be. But still, getting rid of them turns out to be more harmful to societies at large.


Here is another angle.

In China, a male human being simply was worth more. So by some miracle of rural something, something (no one looked too close) they actually got to the highest (not sure if true, might be india) male/female disparity in people reaching adult age. (Kind of like 60/40.)

Now what?

You need rule of absolute power, because some people in your societies will be freaking unhappy. In india they are dealing with mass incidences of group rape - and cant do anything about it. They really cant. Also they are looking away on purpose, but they really cant.

And lets say - everything goes well, and we are all pro life, suddenly - population exposion. Chinas first problem. One child policies. Forced abortions. People going to jail... Just so you prevent civil wars.

Of course - if god is great, and has a higher plan - none of this matters. Except for saving babies. (Because the church told us so. )

God is not a gumball machine. We have free will to sort these matters out ourselves, don't blame God for the mistakes made by people. In fact, if we didn't have the capacity for evil, or the capacity to sin, being "good" would have no value at all. That's getting philosophical again though.

 

[barronwaffles]

If I would want effective, I'd call out 'them are killing our babies' doesnt get more effective than that.

Arguing is a process. You win some, you loose some. In the end, you hopefully dont get rid of abortions as societies. (You see what I did there? )

With rhetoric like that I feel it's a pretty safe assumption that you don't *win* many arguments.

 

[morvoran]

Simple concepts. I believe no one in here is for killing people with mental disabilities. As societies we've come that far at least.
(We give parents who are about to have such a child a slightly longer period to decide if they are willing to go through with everything that entails, or have an abortion. Because if they turn neglectful, or angry and harmful towards it,bad scene. Again - compromises for more difficult psychological decisions. But for that you first have to acknowledge that abortions arent the worst thing that can be.)

At one point human beings are bunch of cells. Then the are more, then they arent any longer (when they die hopefully of a natural cause). Now what some people do are dealing with the 'in between phases' in kind of a way to minimize harm.
Also - rational people invented the universal declaration of human rights, and thats the 'best' you can do - in terms of actual enacted humanity in todays scene. Better than "love thy next".


Lets go at this poetically. So - human is love. After humans died, are humans still love? People learned that no - at least not the body, because deceases (and death cults).

Now when do people become human beings with inseperable personal rights? At conception? (Which the church didn't know existed for the better parts of several centuries.) While they are still part of the female body? Something in between.

The new "law wave" (meant to trigger constitutional debates at a time where you have a majority of center right laywers on the constitutional board) is meant to trigger at "the first heart beat". Thats very poetical. But not much more.

What most people came to realize was that having a child, while by no means wanting it - kind of iduces suffering for both the 'childbarer' and the child. And the family of that child, once it grows older. So some not at all fuzzy ("all is love") decisions were made. That took into context that - if women killed themselves, or where willing to mutilate themselves severely - just to not have to go through with a pregnancy - that wasn't _it_.

Now your argument is "but now its too easy". From which point forwhat we now do what? Hold debates over when its just hard enough? Set poetic rules that define human beings as such from the moment of the first "heart beat"?

Also - and this is something you have to deal with. Humans kill each other in wars. They do so whenever there is an issue with not enough food, or place to make a living, or if some god tells them to, or when the bad guy gets a weapon they dont like. That also produces harm, thats generational.

The sentence that now follows, would make you climp up walls, so I can not utter it - but think of the concept at least.

So in other words, babies in the womb have no more rights to live than a benign cyst? That's just ridiculous because a cyst, which does feed off the host and will grow given time, will never have a conscience or learn to live on it's own. Pro choice folks think of these future humans only as parasites that must be eradicated.
I'm not here to judge people, but I will say that murder is wrong regardless how old the little child is.

If there is such a thing as reincarnation, I hope all prochoicers come back as babies that will be aborted just so they can suffer the fate of all they kill.

 

[Foxi4]

So in other words, babies in the womb have no more rights to live than a benign cyst? That's just ridiculous because a cyst, which does feed off the host and will grow given time, will never have a conscience or learn to live on it's own. Pro choice folks think of these future humans only as parasites that must be eradicated.
I'm not here to judge people, but I will say that murder is wrong regardless how old the little child is.

If there is such a thing as reincarnation, I hope all prochoicers come back as babies that will be aborted just so they can suffer the fate of all they kill.

Hey, hey, hey - you're letting anger take over. You don't want to wish that onto others. Listen to Jesse, forgive your mother, be Uh-mah-zing.

 

[notimp]

It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of scientific fact. Once the genetic material from the two donors, the mother and the father, has recombined into a new string and begins to multiply, it is effectively "alive". In fact, I would argue that it is human from this point onwards as it has all the genetic makeup of a human, it's simply at a very early stage of development. There is nothing to believe or disbelieve here, and it is disingenuous to pretend to use scientific or medical jargon to choose arbitrary points of development as your desired cut-off points that you feel personally comfortable with. We can discuss when ending a human life should be permissable, this pertains both abortion and euthanasia, but don't talk to me from a podium about when you "believe" life begins because it's inconsequential.
God is not a gumball machine. We have free will to sort these matters out ourselves, don't blame God for the mistakes made by people. In fact, if we didn't have the capacity for evil, or the capacity to sin, being "good" would have no value at all. That's getting philosophical again though.

Specifically critizised the "god has a final plan for all of us concept". "Indifferent (but caring ) god" is fine.

The thing is, in some aspects of society, you definitely end up with "birth control" als the solution. And on some aspects (lets say Chinas one child policy) even at 'forced abortions'. If you dont - you always kind of end up at having civil wars instead. Think of it - it kind of was a circle in the past..

Something along these lines: https://www.capsweb.org/blog/overpopulation-drought-and-syria’s-devastating-five-year-civil-war

Also - humans and our life stock now account for 96% of all mammals on earth. Humans alone for 36%. We are kind of successful is the point. (src: Something like: https://www.ecowatch.com/biomass-humans-animals-2571413930.html ) It isnt that there the earth isnt all birds or fish - either..

 

[Deleted User]

Except it's the opposite, the right is attempting to control women's lives and take away more of their freedoms. They're attempting to legislate morality, which is not the purpose of government. The left is protecting women's freedom of choice in this matter

The former we know is true because those are the laws being passed by certain state legislatures. The latter is a gross mischaracterization of the Democratic position, however, which in reality is that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Anyone who believes that outlawing abortion will ultimately reduce the overall need for abortion services is a fool. That's why modern first-world nations all keep it legal, and even Sharia law isn't as inflexible on this topic as Republicans in America.

Again, the larger issue for me personally is that this is an attempt to legislate morality, which government has no business attempting.

Erm, @Xzi at first glance I was just mostly agreeing with you, but I realised that wouldn't the act of outlawing thievery or manslaughter also be considered legislation of morality? I would appreciate if you cleared that up.

text

@notimp Im very curious about your opinion of the so-called 'Jordan Peterson' perspective of religion.

Morality doesn't need religion. Billions of athiests have lived/are living that are moral for morality's sake. Many of the constructs actually are scientific in nature as we can see the effects around us when we choose to murder, steal, lie, etc. Other animals (especially apes) have what we would consider to morals if they were humans. They have no religions.

@cracker just asking for clarification: morality is scientific and it's simply more beneficial to the self for one to not murder, steal or lie?

 

[Foxi4]

Specifically critizised the "god has a final plan for all of us concept". "Indifferent (but caring ) god" is fine.

The thing is, in some aspects of society, you definitely end up with "birth control" als the solution. And on some aspects (lets say Chinas one child policy) even at 'forced abortions'. If you dont - you always kind of end up at having civil wars instead. Think of it - it kind of was a circle in the past..

Something along these lines: https://www.capsweb.org/blog/overpopulation-drought-and-syria’s-devastating-five-year-civil-war

You have to consider why China had to institute the policy or why male children were more desirable than female children. The reason for that was abject poverty in the majority of the country, shortly followed by the country becoming a communist nightmare. It's doing significantly better now, but the damage is already done. In a way, you could kill two birds with one stone and tackle both abortion rates and "overpopulation" by simply tackling poverty which has a strong causal relationship with both, but that may be beyond the scope of the debate. To cut a long story short, the wealthier people are the less likely they are to choose abortion in the first place, and due to the fact that people become more career-driven, their reproductive choices seem more responsible, at least on the face of it, which leads to a decrease in population growth as well. If that's what you're aiming for, you should be primarily concerned with bolstering the economy as opposed to offering stop gap solutions.

 

[notimp]

@notimp Im very curious about your opinion of the so-called 'Jordan Peterson' perspective of religion.

Give an abstract. (Quora says, that hes pragmatic ("let both coexist" kind of))

Dont like him, especially - because hes simply a reaction of the times in my book - kind of the same reason why I dont like SJWs - much. (Inflating their value. ) But thats only how I perceive him as a character/person.

I like switching thought concepts, more than he does, I guess. But then, he is more successful with young impressionable males than I am..

 

[Foxi4]

@cracker just asking for clarification: morality is scientific and it's simply more beneficial to the self for one to not murder, steal or lie?

The general consensus is that a society that permits murder, theft and deceit is not conducive to the survival of the species, which is the basic motivation for any living being. You don't want to be murdered, so you don't want murder to be allowed in your tribe and you yourself adhere to the unspoken rule. The argument has some merit, I assume that's @cracker's view on this. It works on a base level, but I think it fails to fully address the issue.

 

[Deleted User]

Give an abstract. (Quora says, that hes pragmatic ("let both coexist" kind of))

Dont like him, especially - because hes simply a reaction of the times in my book - kind of the same reason why I dont like SJWs - much. (Inflating their value. ) But thats only how I perceive him as a character/person.

I like switching thought concepts, more than he does, I guess. But then, he is more successful with young impressionable males than I am..

I wasn't asking about your opinion of him or his symbolism.

I'm asking about what you think about his ideas of biblical psychological truths, how the bible is true in that sense, and that it provides a window into the human mind, etc.

 

[notimp]

You have to consider why China had to institute the policy or why male children were more desirable than female children. The reason for that was abject poverty in the majority of the country, shortly followed by the country becoming a communist nightmare. It's doing significantly better now, but the damage is already done. In a way, you could kill two birds with one stone and tackle both abortion rates and "overpopulation" by simply tackling poverty which has a strong causal relationship with both, but that may be beyond the scope of the debate. To cut a long story short, the wealthier people are the less likely they are to choose abortion in the first place, and due to the fact that people become more career-driven, their reproductive choices seem more responsible, at least on the face of it, which leads to a decrease in population growth as well. If that's what you're aiming for, you should be primarily concerned with bolstering the economy as opposed to offering stop gap solutions.

Here is how tackling poverty works in my understanding. "People in cities have less children." (Give them economic and job opportunities, give them 401ks, raise womens rights. Dont need to necessarily live in cities, but cities build "cascade economies" which helps.)

If we are talking about "its your duty to have that child, once you conceived it", it kind of doesnt work.

Dont think of sex.



Wear mormon clothing. But look, she showed an ankle. Theres kind of an inbalance baked into that - if every time you think of sex you also have to think about - that it would ruin your career path. I think you almost need a fall back. And it also kind of was always there. But now we are going into "how much of it was" discussions again.

The other angle - in europe we have simply accepted abortions by now. But then, we've become far less religious on average. (Classic religions, not different human characteristics.. )

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

I'm asking about what you think about his ideas of biblical psychological truths, how the bible is true in that sense, and that it provides a window into the human mind, etc.

Collective stories. Sure. I like the ones with multiple gods with human characteristics better. If you are looking for a deeper or higher purpose - yes, religion has a place. I just watched a snippet of "the concept of beauty in theoretical physics" thats also kind of religious. Its just - idk, part of us. Does it serve a collective purpose. Yes. Very probably. Even over generations? Yes. Even though I have a problem with doctrine thats hard to change. See catholic church.

Their problem over much of the past years (apart from the abuse issues :/ ) seems to be, that they are dealing with a global world, where they have more relevance in "newly evangelized" parts of the world, so they can't just get more liberal - because people would react with "but our values!" debates - so to still stay relevant in western societies, they started to turn their heads more often. The curse of success..

 

[Foxi4]

I wasn't asking about your opinion of him or his symbolism.

I'm asking about what you think about his ideas of biblical psychological truths, how the bible is true in that sense, and that it provides a window into the human mind, etc.

Not that you're asking me, but since we're on the subject of JLP, I might as well chip in. I find him very unintentionally funny - he's prime meme material. I wouldn't call him a biblical scholar nor a philosopher, he gets a lot of this kind of stuff wrong and his comments on race are very controversial to say the least, but I have to give credit where credit is due - I think he's doing a lot of good in a very specific segment of the black community, reinstating family values in a subculture of broken families he attempts to address. He doesn't have particularly great religious advice, but he shines in the "old man at a barber's" category of advice. I guess you could call him a modern sage - he's not very articulate or erudite, but he's "seen things" and is willing to invest both time and money to improve his community, which he deserves credit for. I wouldn't treat what he has to say as gospel by any means, but I'm also not his target audience. What I do like about him is that he found a way to cut through nonsense by simply restating the questions until the he peels all the sugar coating off the disingenuous answers he usually gets, the amount of people who self-destruct on his show is astonishing considering the fact that you'd expect most of them to be smart enough not to let the mask slip.

Here is how tackling poverty works in my understanding. "People in cities have less children." (Give them economic and job opportunities, give them 401ks, raise womens rights. Dont need to necessarily live in cities, but cities build "cascade economies" which helps.)

If we are talking about "its your duty to have that child, once you conceived it", it kind of doesnt work.

Dont think of sex.



Wear mormon clothing. But look, she showed an ankle. Theres kind of an inbalance baked into that - if every time you think of sex you also have to think about - that it would ruin your career path. I think you almost need a fall back. And it also kind of was always there. But now we are going into "how much of it was" discussions again.

The other angle - in europe we have simply accepted abortions by now. But then, we've become far less religious on average. (Classic religions, not different human characteristics.. )

Firstly, not all of Europe has embraced this new standard, secondly, I see very little evidence of it being a good thing and thirdly, correlation does not equal causation. A lot of other things are on the decline, not just religiosity. In the U.S. specifically there's hardly any segment of the population more religious than African Americans (dismissing the Mormons and the Amish and other orthodox groups that are relatively few in numbers) and yet they're the ones most affected by the issue of abortion, to the point that in NYC more black children were aborted than born according to recent statistics. Not a joke, by the way - in 2012 31,328 black children were aborted and only 24,758 were born, and those numbers are getting worse with each passing year. So, you have a deeply religious, in church every Sunday community that's aborting children en masse - something's not right with your calculus.

 

[kumikochan]

It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of scientific fact. Once the genetic material from the two donors, the mother and the father, has recombined into a new string and begins to multiply, it is effectively "alive". In fact, I would argue that it is human from this point onwards as it has all the genetic makeup of a human, it's simply at a very early stage of development. There is nothing to believe or disbelieve here, and it is disingenuous to pretend to use scientific or medical jargon to choose arbitrary points of development as your desired cut-off points that you feel personally comfortable with. We can discuss when ending a human life should be permissable, this pertains both abortion and euthanasia, but don't talk to me from a podium about when you "believe" life begins because it's inconsequential.
God is not a gumball machine. We have free will to sort these matters out ourselves, don't blame God for the mistakes made by people. In fact, if we didn't have the capacity for evil, or the capacity to sin, being "good" would have no value at all. That's getting philosophical again though.

In that regard algae would also be considered alive or a cloned heart and so forth wich it isn't or even regarded as being alive. That is your interpretation of being alive but there isn't a general rule of what being alive is but you're making it out so like there is wich there isn't. Your definition of life is the clarification what you need to have life but not life itself yet

 

[Foxi4]

In that regard a virus would also be considered alive or a cloned heart and so forth wich it isn't or even regarded as being alive. That is your interpretation of being alive but there isn't a general rule of what being alive is but you're making it out so like there is wich there isn't. Your definition of life is the clarification what you need to have life but not life itself yet

A virus does not multiply unless it is actively attached to a host cell, at which point it is very much alive, although it's certainly a grey area in biology as their status is unclear. As for a cloned heart, what is the likelyhood that the heart is going to grow into a full-blown human if you leave it to its own devices? Now, what about a fetus? You conveniently omit the entire context of the statement to make a point, that's arguing in bad faith. Address the point - is it alive, yes or no, is it a unique form of human DNA, yes or no, and is it a *human at a very early stage of development*, yes or no. A cloned heart is not "at a very early stage of development", it's not at any stage of development, it's a clone grown out of someone else's genetic material.

 

[kumikochan]

A virus does not multiply unless it is actively attached to a host cell, at which point it is very much alive. As for a cloned heart, what is the likelyhood that the heart is going to grow into a full-blown human if you leave it to its own devices? Now, what about a fetus? You conveniently omit the entire context of the statement to make a point, that's arguing in bad faith. Address the point - is it alive, yes or no, is it a unique form of human DNA, yes or no, and is it a *human at a very early stage of development*, yes or no. A cloned heart is not "at a very early stage of development", it's not at any stage of development, it's a clone grown out of soneone else's genetic material.

Then algae is considered life since it is multicellular wich i don't regard as being alive

 

[Foxi4]

Then algae is considered life since it is multicellular wich i don't regard as being alive

Of course it's alive. What's your point? Why should I care what you regard as being alive? What makes you the judge?

 

[kumikochan]

Of course it's alive, it's a plant. What's your point? Why should I care what you regard as being alive? What makes you the judge?

There is no general rule of what being alive is. That is your definition but it's not a general rule. An algae can be considered life for you but it doesn't for me. That what you're saying is a definition what you need to support life but it doesn't state it is life itself

 

[Xzi]

Erm, @Xzi at first glance I was just mostly agreeing with you, but I realised that wouldn't the act of outlawing thievery or manslaughter also be considered legislation of morality? I would appreciate if you cleared that up.

Those are more issues related to keeping society and the economy properly functioning than they are about subjective morality. Almost common sense, really.

It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of scientific fact. Once the genetic material from the two donors, the mother and the father, has recombined into a new string and begins to multiply, it is effectively "alive".

Not sure how to respond to this self-contradiction. The latter sentence is purely opinion. From my perspective it's almost as ridiculous as claiming masturbation is genocide.

 

[Foxi4]

There is no general rule of what being alive is. That is your definition but it's not a general rule. An algae can be considered life for you but it doesn't for me. That what you're saying is a definition what you need to support life but it doesn't state it is life itself

You must be having a laugh. There is a very clear and widely accepted consensus of what is and is not life - self-propagating organic organisms are alive, rocks are not. There are simply forms of life that we find acceptable to kill and those that we don't kill. The *meaning* of life is a mystery, the status of whether something's a form of life or not, not so much.

Not sure how to respond to this self-contradiction. The latter sentence is purely opinion. From my perspective it's almost as ridiculous as claiming masturbation is genocide.

You should grab a textbook and have a bit of a refresher on how the reproductive system works, I don't think you're fully aware of how sperm works.

 

[Xzi]

You must be having a laugh. There is a very clear and widely accepted consensus of what is and is not life - self-propagating organic organisms are alive, rocks are not. There are simply forms of life that we find acceptable to kill and those that we don't kill. The *meaning* of life is a mystery, the status of whether something's a form of life or not, not so much.

We're talking about the point at which it's considered a human life, and not life in the sense that any other cluster of cells (or sperm) is considered alive.