byzantium Posted June 27, 2022 Posted June 27, 2022 56 minutes ago, Espresso said: I love my governor sometimes!!
Hephaestus Posted June 27, 2022 Posted June 27, 2022 1 hour ago, awesomepossum said: Why should the intention motivating the procedure matter more than its outcome? Legally or morally? Because no one has the right to decide what a person has to do with their body outside of said person. It's really not that difficult to get.
awesomepossum Posted June 27, 2022 Posted June 27, 2022 (edited) On 6/27/2022 at 4:07 PM, Hephaestus said: Because no one has the right to decide what a person has to do with their body outside of said person. It's really not that difficult to get. That may be true but it's completely irrelevant when it comes to delineating between whether abortion is rightly characterized as terminating a pregnancy or terminating an embryo. Edited March 4, 2023 by awesomepossum
awesomepossum Posted June 27, 2022 Posted June 27, 2022 1 hour ago, A Bomb said: Liberals always catching the right wing bait. Embarrassing behavior. As if Roe v Wade didn’t already have restrictions. Where after the 2nd trimester you would need a doctor to approve such a thing. Acting like it was without limitations. Congratulations, you are part of the problem! Arguing into those right wing loser’s hands. Allowing them to dictate the rhetoric. This goes also to the topic of rape and incest. Liberals do NOT help the argument about this important right to choose when people want to or even are able to become a parent. A bunch of white gays (derogatory) arguing about this as if those lunatics you agree with would let you even around a child rn. Sure, groomer! Hmmm pretty sure it plays more into the right's hands when you don't know what you're talking about. I get why you're upset so I won't go in like I normally would.
awesomepossum Posted June 27, 2022 Posted June 27, 2022 1 hour ago, Espresso said: Yes, because a total ban on abortion is extremely unpopular. Most Americans believe abortion should be legal up to a point (10, 12, 14 weeks, etc.). It's something like 10% of Americans that are in favour of a total ban. Republicans have been able to pass these trigger laws and take an extreme stance on abortion because Roe prohibited their extreme legislation from actually taking effect. There will be an electoral backlash against them in states that ban abortion outright. Hopefully a more moderate consensus can emerge on this issue now that it is back in the hands of voters and America can become a bit less divided. I could be wrong but I hope not.
A Bomb Posted June 27, 2022 Posted June 27, 2022 6 minutes ago, awesomepossum said: Hmmm pretty sure it plays more into the right's hands when you don't know what you're talking about. I get why you're upset so I won't go in like I normally would. You’re a useful idiot for the right allowing them to frame the discussion that ignores the right to bodily autonomy and a right to privacy. Very simple concept. “I could go in like I usually do” I’ve never seen that deployed as a way to say. I have no argument. Yes Roe V Wade had restrictions. You going off about special cases that require a doctors approval is idiotic, and serves the right wing. Like historically your ideology has.
A Bomb Posted June 27, 2022 Posted June 27, 2022 15 minutes ago, awesomepossum said: Yes, because a total ban on abortion is extremely unpopular. Most Americans believe abortion should be legal up to a point (10, 12, 14 weeks, etc.). It's something like 10% of Americans that are in favour of a total ban. Republicans have been able to pass these trigger laws and take an extreme stance on abortion because Roe prohibited their extreme legislation from actually taking effect. There will be an electoral backlash against them in states that ban abortion outright. Hopefully a more moderate consensus can emerge on this issue now that it is back in the hands of voters and America can become a bit less divided. I could be wrong but I hope not. What is a compromise on a right? liberal braindead antics if I’ve ever seen it.
Hephaestus Posted June 27, 2022 Posted June 27, 2022 28 minutes ago, awesomepossum said: That may be true but it's completely irrelevant when it comes to delineating between whether abortion is rightly characterized as terminating a pregnancy or terminating an embryo. What you said here is a complete non sequitur. Um, you asked: 2 hours ago, awesomepossum said: Why should the intention motivating the procedure matter more than its outcome? Legally or morally? and I answered: 56 minutes ago, Hephaestus said: Because no one has the right to decide what a person has to do with their body outside of said person. It's really not that difficult to get. That sounds like a completely valid follow up to me. A person's right to their bodily autonomy is both legally and morally acceptable in my opinion because in a fair world no one should be able to dictate what people are allowed or not allowed to do with their bodies and that absolutely includes deciding what to do with a pregnancy. There's no delineation to be made because no limit should be imposed on bodily autonomy.
John Slayne Posted June 27, 2022 Posted June 27, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, awesomepossum said: Why should the intention motivating the procedure matter more than its outcome? Legally or morally? Because in this case the intention is to preserve the right to bodily autonomy, which is more important than right to life. If not then I can just as easily say that the outcome of your decision to not donate your kidney results in someone dying. Are you a murderer for not using your body to save someone's life? Also, legally and morally intention does matter a lot, that's why you have the distinction between a murder and a manslaughter. I guess it depends on what philosophical school of morality you follow, if you are a utilitarian and all you care about is increasing overall utility then you might not care about intentions as much as long as utility goes up, but that's for a completely different discussion. For most people and for all legal systems around the world, the intent matters in most cases. To give you an example, there was a singer in my country who accidentally ran over a biker because she looked back at her baby while driving. Sure, it was careless and irresponsible on her part and her action did result in a man dying. But is she just as bad as someone who, for example, plans to kill their neighbour and one day decides to walk into their home and stab them to death? They both technically killed a person so their actions achieved the same result, but I wouldn't say they are just as bad or just as dangerous to society. Edited June 27, 2022 by John Slayne
awesomepossum Posted June 27, 2022 Posted June 27, 2022 1 minute ago, John Slayne said: Because in this case the intention is to preserve the right to bodily autonomy, which is more important than right to life. If not then I can just as easily say that the outcome of your decision to not donate your kidney results in someone dying. Are you a murderer for not using your body to save someone's life? Also, legally and morally intention does matter a lot, that's why you have the distinction between a murder and a manslaughter. I guess it depends on what philosophical school of morality you follow, if you are a utilitarian and all you care about is increasing overall utility then you might not care about intentions as much as long as utility goes up, but that's for a completely different discussion. For most people and for all legal systems around the world, the intent matters in most cases. To give you an example, there was a singer in my country who accidentally ran over a biker because she looked back at her baby while driving. Sure, it was careless and irresponsible on her part and her action did result in a man dying. But is she just as bad as someone who, for example, plans to kill their neighbour and one day decides to walk into their home and stab them to death? They both technically killed a person so their actions achieved the same result, but I wouldn't say they are just as bad or just as dangerous to society. Okay but manslaughter is still illegal.
John Slayne Posted June 27, 2022 Posted June 27, 2022 1 minute ago, awesomepossum said: Okay but manslaughter is still illegal. But it's not as severely punished in most cases. Anyway I only used that example to illustrate the point that intent does change how an end result is evaluated and it matters. I wasn't saying abortion is manslaughter, it was just an example to prove my point.
awesomepossum Posted June 27, 2022 Posted June 27, 2022 (edited) 21 minutes ago, John Slayne said: But it's not as severely punished in most cases. Anyway I only used that example to illustrate the point that intent does change how an end result is evaluated and it matters. I wasn't saying abortion is manslaughter, it was just an example to prove my point. Okay but in this analogy, given your earlier points, that would be like saying manslaughter should not be considered ending a life because the intention wasn't to end a life. It's still ending a life. Obviously? Ie. if this woman accidentally hits someone with her car she didn't end a life because ending a life wasn't her intention. Her intention was to drive her car so we should just consider her actions 'driving her car' and that's it? It wasn't ending a life because she wasn't intending to end a life? That doesn't make any sense. Edit: The more I think about it the less sense it makes because hitting someone with your car is an accident. Getting an abortion is not an accident it's a choice. So your analogy really doesn't hold up. You're talking about intended consequences but I'm talking about intended actions. Unless you're trying to argue that when someone gets an abortion they were unaware the fetus' life would end? Are you saying the fetus' life ends by accident? It's not an accident. It's very 'intentional' in that sense. Edited June 27, 2022 by awesomepossum
John Slayne Posted June 27, 2022 Posted June 27, 2022 Just now, awesomepossum said: Okay but in this analogy that would be like saying manslaughter should not be considered ending a life because the intention wasn't to end a life. It's still ending a life. Obviously? Well that depends. In my example the singer was a careless and irresponsible driver, so even though she's not as bad as a murderer, she still made a mistake so she is somewhat guilty. Let's say there's a construction worker throwing bricks from scaffolding. The scaffolding is closed off from the public and there is a sign that says 'do not enter, you may be hit by a brick'. If a member of public decides to stand under the scaffolding they are doing so at their own risk, therefore if the construction worker accidentally kills them with a brick then they are not responsible as they adhered to safety measures at their workplace. Again, this isn't equating that example to abortion, it's just to show that even though certain actions may result in death, it doesn't automatically mean that the person who does the action is automatically wrong, responsible or guilty for that death. Circumstances and intent matter.
Literature Posted June 27, 2022 Posted June 27, 2022 13 hours ago, John Slayne said: That's not playing semantics, that's what it literally is according to the medical definition of an abortion. Deal with it. YOU are the one trying to change the definition to support your narrative. Because you are more interested in being right than to have an honest intellectual conversation, I have provided good and consistent arguments throughout without having to resort to strawmen and made up concepts with no justifications, unlike you. Funny how you once again ignore most of my points to focus on the definition, the one thing I am 100% correct anyway regardless of how people feel about abortions anyway and I have actually provided receipts for that, unlike you. Again, how are the fundamental goals different? Why is it okay to not use your kidney to save a life but it is not okay to not use your uterus to save a life? You still have yet to answer this. Out of all the reasons listed here, please find the ones where NOT killing the fetus would still accomplish the goal of the abortion, even if it was somehow possible to keep it alive.
Happylittlepunk Posted June 27, 2022 Posted June 27, 2022 I am still super new to politics but idk forgive me for asking a dumb question but does it say anywhere in the constitution that supreme court judges must serve permanently? Can the other branches of government make a law or bill that forces the judges to have term limits in the Supreme Court in the future? I feel like this will be the only way all this can be solved in the future. There also needs to be term limits for Congress people too why for example a senator is a allowed to senate the same state for 20 years or more.
Recommended Posts