Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok, well.. ill give you number 3 in this instance.

As for number 1, thats totally false, I dont start on about Religion when were talking about footy or movies or anything else. I only mention the big R when it is pertinent to the conversation, and yes, it most definately is pertinent to this conversation.

Seriously, are do you wanna bet that practically all the people that are attepting to have this gak pushed are NOT religiously motivated? You would lose your money mate.

All one person that is pushing it Matty. You slammed a whole lot of people with your rant.

rubiksnoob wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:Well if you paid attention to what you bolded, you'd have notice that he specified non-living people. (well, technically none living, but I'm assuming that he meant non-living) I'm pretty sure individuals with congenital analgesia would fall into the category of "living".

I'm sure it'll freak you out to discover that a fetus is alive.

As are people with congenital analgesia.

I'm actually aware of that. I don't know if you think I'm not, or something.

Point is, living people who can feel, are more important than none living things that cant. Seems simple to me.

The point of differentiation as regards importance is the ability to feel, not the being alive, because, as we agree, fetuses are alive.

It follows that without further qualification, anyone with congenital analgesia is less important because they can't feel.

What mattrym stated was that living people who can feel are more important than NON-LIVING people who can't. So going on that statement alone, you cannot justifiably state that according to that statement individuals afflicted with congenital analgesia are less important. Saying so would be wrong because, although they cannot feel, they are alive.

Is a fetus alive or not alive?

If a fetus is alive, then by your interpretation mattrym's post was utterly meaningless.

By mine, it has some semblance of meaning.

Given the context of the quote, where he talks about the ability to feel, i'm disclined to say that that the substantive part of the comparison is whether or not you're alive.

That wasnt a rant, it was merely a tirade surely?

Its relevant is all im saying. Its the number one reason for this bill existing. Im absolutely certain of it, ergo, how can i not mention it?

I dont wax lyrical on the subject all the time, it just crops up alot in politics because people base their political motivations around their beliefs.

WARLORD TZOO wrote:You've either misread my post, or you're conflating the concept of not being allowed to do something to your body with being forced to do something to your body. They are two separate things, and not a one of the examples you listed is the latter.

Actually, abortion fits neatly into the first catagory. The government (assuming it prohibits abortion) is not forcing an action, but rather prohibiting one. Just because I can argue that the government can't force me to stay sober doesn't make consuming heroin a civil right.

Marrow donation (or any other kind of donation) on the other hand would require me to undergo a procedure that I don't want. It is not a natural consequence that I'm asking to avoid, but a forced procedure that requires my consent.

WARLORD TZOO wrote:You're vegan, right?

Should have said HUMAN life. I firmly believe in human superiority on the food chain. And when something disputes that, I support our ability to commit lots of fast moving metal to enforce our position.

bs Matty. Its not relevant. Its an excuse for you to rant again, without any shred of evidence for, well, anything.

You know, the one thing I hate about the whole abortion deal is: Why doesn't the father have any say in it? It's his kid too...

... or is this just a secret, uber-feminist political move to screw men out of even more stuff?

I mean, sure, it's her body, but still....

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:Well if you paid attention to what you bolded, you'd have notice that he specified non-living people. (well, technically none living, but I'm assuming that he meant non-living) I'm pretty sure individuals with congenital analgesia would fall into the category of "living".

I'm sure it'll freak you out to discover that a fetus is alive.

As are people with congenital analgesia.

I'm actually aware of that. I don't know if you think I'm not, or something.

Point is, living people who can feel, are more important than none living things that cant. Seems simple to me.

The point of differentiation as regards importance is the ability to feel, not the being alive, because, as we agree, fetuses are alive.

It follows that without further qualification, anyone with congenital analgesia is less important because they can't feel.

What mattrym stated was that living people who can feel are more important than NON-LIVING people who can't. So going on that statement alone, you cannot justifiably state that according to that statement individuals afflicted with congenital analgesia are less important. Saying so would be wrong because, although they cannot feel, they are alive.

Is a fetus alive or not alive?

If a fetus is alive, then by your interpretation mattrym's post was utterly meaningless.

By mine, it has some semblance of meaning.

Given the context of the quote, where he talks about the ability to feel, i'm disclined to say that that the substantive part of the comparison is whether or not you're alive.

Well given matty's posts on the issue, it would seem that he believes that a fetus is not alive, thus his statement that living, feeling individuals are more important than non-living, non-feeling ones. In this context, your statement that individuals with congental analgesia are thus less important makes no sense because they are alive, which cleary disqualifies them from the "non-feeling, non-living" category. Matty's statement does not apply to people with congenital analgesia.

biccat wrote:

WARLORD TZOO wrote:You've either misread my post, or you're conflating the concept of not being allowed to do something to your body with being forced to do something to your body. They are two separate things, and not a one of the examples you listed is the latter.

Actually, abortion fits neatly into the first catagory.

No, it doesn't, any more than pulling the plug on your life support does. If the government prohibits abortion, it forces women to act as incubators. In doing so, it forces them to provide nutrients to a fetus.

biccat wrote:The government (assuming it prohibits abortion) is not forcing an action, but rather prohibiting one.

If the government prohibits abortion, it forces women to act as incubators. In doing so, it forces them to provide nutrients to a fetus.

biccat wrote:Just because I can argue that the government can't force me to stay sober doesn't make consuming heroin a civil right.

The only reason the government can't force you to stay sober is because it doesn't have the power to do so, not because it's legally dubious. Go back in time a few decades and look at prohibition.

biccat wrote:Marrow donation (or any other kind of donation) on the other hand would require me to undergo a procedure that I don't want. It is not a natural consequence that I'm asking to avoid, but a forced procedure that requires my consent.

If consent isn't required to force a woman to provide nutrients to a fetus, why should consent be required to force you to provide marrow to someone who will die without it? What's the difference?

biccat wrote:
Do you not accept that it is human or do you not accept that it is alive?

BTW, I think that Roe was wrongly decided (for a number of reasons) and that states should be able to decide the issue themselves. I would vote against abortion laws because:
1) They are inherently discriminatory; and
2) Taking a life is immoral, especially if the victim can't dispute the taking.

This probably makes me a religious nutter.

I don't agree with you, but I don't think you're a religous nutter. You have a point, and given that it's not based around some kind of rant about how humans shouldn't dare play God, I doubt you're the type of radical that annoys most people so much.

But yes, my point of contention with you is twofold:

1) How is an abortion law inherently discriminatory? There is nothing in a law allowing abortion that would imply discrimination against anyone for any reason as far as I can tell. Care to elaborate more on this point?

2) I don't believe that killing is immoral in and of itself. As the saying goes, if you let me control the subjective scales, I can give you a moral responsibility to do anything. The taking away of a human life is not necessarily an evil, sometimes the taking of a life can be a good thing. It all depends on the circumstances.

Just for the record, I'd never contes that the fetus is 'alive'. Of course it's alive. However, I question whether or not it is a human life. It may be made out of human cells, but so are your internal organs, and since alcohol and tobacco use are still legal, we seem to have agreed that humans have the right to screw up their own bodies. The fetus does not display any traits of independence beyond that of just any other clump of cells within a human body. FOr me, personally, the line at which this changes, and fetus changes from a mindless ball of cells into a human life is when the fetus is capable of survivng outside the womb. Yes, it may need life support, but if we took it out right now and tried to get it to live, there is a chance it could survive outside the womb, and grow up into a fully functional human being. To me, that is the line at which a new human life is created.

Slarg232 wrote:You know, the one thing I hate about the whole abortion deal is: Why doesn't the father have any say in it? It's his kid too...

... or is this just a secret, uber-feminist political move to screw men out of even more stuff?

I mean, sure, it's her body, but still....

How much say do you think men should have? What legal force should their wishes be supported with?

rubiksnoob wrote:Well given matty's posts on the issue, it would seem that he believes that a fetus is not alive, thus his statement that living, feeling individuals are more important than non-living, non-feeling ones.

Then he's so misinformed on the subject that his opinion is meaningless, so why do you care what I'm saying about it?

Further, you're wrong. There's no logical connection between "fetuses are not alive" and "feeling beings are more important than non-feeling beings".

rubiksnoob wrote:In this context, your statement that individuals with congental analgesia are thus less important makes no sense because they are alive, which cleary disqualifies them from the "non-feeling, non-living" category. Matty's statement does not apply to people with congenital analgesia.

If you don't understand what I'm saying after this, you never will, so this is the last reply you'll get from me:

The important part of the comparison is not whether you are alive or dead, it is whether or not you can feel.

mattyrm wrote:Didnt they just do a recent study and they catagorically proved that a foetus could feel nothing at all until at least 18 weeks or something?

Ill look into it when im not on my phone. Point is, living people who can feel, are more important than none living things that cant. Seems simple to me.

But im a bastard. I also think that people who have been on wellfare for more than 2 years should be forcibly sterilised, and their still living children under 16 should be liquidized and fed to their parents.

Slarg232 wrote:You know, the one thing I hate about the whole abortion deal is: Why doesn't the father have any say in it? It's his kid too...

... or is this just a secret, uber-feminist political move to screw men out of even more stuff?

I mean, sure, it's her body, but still....

Because of exactly that.

WARLORD TZOO wrote:If the government prohibits abortion, it forces women to act as incubators. In doing so, it forces them to provide nutrients to a fetus.

It appears that you support abortion on the grounds that one person cannot be forced to provide for another, is this correct?

First, the mother is not in this position involuntarily (ignoring for the moment rape cases which make up a small minority of cases). She is at least as responsible for becoming pregnant as the father.

Second, you are affording a right to the mother that is not afforded to the father. The mother can not be "an incubator" for 9 months, but the father has to pay child support for 18+ years.

Finally, it is not government action to allow someone to reap the consequences of their actions. This is not "anti-woman", because the father likewise has consequences to his actions. The difference between forced marrow donation and prohibited abortion is very real. One is a consequence that you can avoid (by avoiding related activities) and the other is not. Absent government intervention (or voluntary acts), there is no conceivable series of events that would cause me to donate bone marrow.

And to be clear, there should be exceptions for rape, despite it being abhorrant, due to the lack of consentual activity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisWWII wrote:1) How is an abortion law inherently discriminatory? There is nothing in a law allowing abortion that would imply discrimination against anyone for any reason as far as I can tell. Care to elaborate more on this point?

2) I don't believe that killing is immoral in and of itself. As the saying goes, if you let me control the subjective scales, I can give you a moral responsibility to do anything. The taking away of a human life is not necessarily an evil, sometimes the taking of a life can be a good thing. It all depends on the circumstances.

1) It gives women an out from pregnancy that is unavailable to a man.

2) There is no absolute morality without a moral authority. But "don't murder people" is a pretty widely accepted moral tenet.

biccat wrote:

WARLORD TZOO wrote:If the government prohibits abortion, it forces women to act as incubators. In doing so, it forces them to provide nutrients to a fetus.

It appears that you support abortion on the grounds that one person cannot be forced to provide for another, is this correct?

First, the mother is not in this position involuntarily (ignoring for the moment rape cases which make up a small minority of cases). She is at least as responsible for becoming pregnant as the father.

Second, you are affording a right to the mother that is not afforded to the father. The mother can not be "an incubator" for 9 months, but the father has to pay child support for 18+ years.

First, consent does not exist in perpetuity. If you are having sex, and your partner tells you to stop, and you do not, it is rape, even if they previously said yes. Why should consent to sex equate to consent to pregnancy?

Second, I do not support mandatory child support. However, two wrongs don't make a right.

biccat wrote:Finally, it is not government action to allow someone to reap the consequences of their actions. This is not "anti-woman", because the father likewise has consequences to his actions. The difference between forced marrow donation and prohibited abortion is very real. One is a consequence that you can avoid (by avoiding related activities) and the other is not. Absent government intervention (or voluntary acts), there is no conceivable series of events that would cause me to donate bone marrow.

The natural consequence of being in a car is being in a car crash. It wouldn't be government action for the government to ban treatment of car crash victims, you say?

The natural consequence of being in the sun is cancer. It wouldn't be government etc.

Would it also not be government action to ban the pill?

biccat wrote:And to be clear, there should be exceptions for rape, despite it being abhorrant, due to the lack of consentual activity.

And in giving exceptions for rape, you're either forcing women make a charge against their rapists, which is something that they might well like to avoid given that it can be extremely traumatic and has an exceptionally low conviction rate (largely because in many instances it's simply hesaid-shesaid), or you're giving the law no real force, because any woman who wants an abortion can simply say that she was raped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:2) There is no absolute morality without a moral authority. But "don't murder people" is a pretty widely accepted moral tenet.

At what point are you a person?

Having thought that second-to-last one out a bit, we don't actually need to know who raped a woman to know that she was raped.

This crap can go on forever, Im sure half of you know it as soon as you type it. If a gakky thumb sized fetus is as important as the mother, why are rats or squirrels not protected?

They can feel pain, they are sentient, they have a more obvious intellect, they are more active and more animated than a blob with no nerve endings.

We still eat animals.

Yes, we were all one genetic disorder away from abortion unless our parents were in a third world country or religious nuts.

Would you suggest that all parents who produce children with Down should be forced to carry the child to term? What about Angelman syndrome? Or some other disease or genetic defect beyond their control? What about 48, XXYY syndrome? Turner syndrome? Leukemia? Uniparental disomy? Aneuploidy? One of the thousands of unknown and unnamed genetic defects? So who's going to pay for the care of all of these children with their genetic disorders, most of whom have learning disorders at the very LEAST and often have other physiological or psychological effects causing them to be unstable?

That's not to say that the actual tests on the baby's genetics themselves don't have a chance ot cause the child to miscarry (IE, abortion).

Manchu wrote:Having thought that second-to-last one out a bit, we don't actually need to know who raped a woman to know that she was raped.

How do we know that a woman was raped?

Rats are not human and thus not protected as humans under the law (this does not mean that some humans aren't rats though...).

I'll still note under the Matty Maxim of Life that this proposed law would still be applicable. So whats your beef with it Matty?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Manchu wrote:Having thought that second-to-last one out a bit, we don't actually need to know who raped a woman to know that she was raped.

How do we know that a woman was raped?

How do you know that someone who fell from a skyscraper was committing suicide instead of having been murdered?

I don't think that parents should have a right to kill children who have genetic defects or other diseases. At what point something is a ball of sells instead of a child is another matter (I tend to agree with mattyrm on it but, sadly, technology has invalidated the faculty of common sense).

Manchu wrote:I don't think that parents should have a right to kill children who have genetic defects or other diseases. At what point something is a ball of sells instead of a child is another matter (I tend to agree with mattyrm on it but, sadly, technology has invalidated the faculty of common sense).

So you can care for the children with defects then, right? Or pay for it in the case of hte government.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:How do we know that a woman was raped?

Again with the word games. By "know," I mean accept as "more likely than not," as "a reasonable conclusion." Of course, we have to look to legal standards. If a particular law says that rape involves a certain degree of physical violence, then we look for the signs of that violence. If a law says that rape is when a woman does not actively consent, then all we need is her post-facto analysis of whether or not she wanted to have sex. As was mentioned my Shuma in another thread, the real problem here is with the definition of rape.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:I don't think that parents should have a right to kill children who have genetic defects or other diseases. At what point something is a ball of sells instead of a child is another matter (I tend to agree with mattyrm on it but, sadly, technology has invalidated the faculty of common sense).

So you can care for the children with defects then, right? Or pay for it in the case of hte government.

Kids without diseases are expensive, too. I guess we shouldn't even talk about whether a (prospective?) child has any genetic defects if the real concern is the expense.

There is a point at which a ball of cells becomes a "human being" and it is generally established that most western nations which permit the use of abortion to terminate unwanted pregnancies (for whatever reason) have set the latest stage you can abort at or around that point (with certain exceptions as mentioned such as if the mother will be in terminal danger if the pregnancy is allowed to continue). This is determined as scientifically as possible and is based off many different lines of research.

I would be inclined to agree with this view.

The extreme other side of the coin would be the old "every sperm is sacred"/"birth control is murder" argument, which I don't really understand.

Also as mentioned earlier, I don't really get people who are willing to violently (to the extent of murder/etc) the who espouse "pro life" viewpoint. This also goes for animal rights activists who kill/harm/etc people involved with animal testing.

SilverMK2 wrote:The extreme other side of the coin would be the old "every sperm is sacred"/"birth control is murder" argument, which I don't really understand.

Don't worry, there is no need to understand something that's only parody.

Manchu wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:How do we know that a woman was raped?

Again with the word games. By "know," I mean accept as "more likely than not," as "a reasonable conclusion." Of course, we have to look to legal standards. If a particular law says that rape involves a certain degree of physical violence, then we look for the signs of that violence.

So then the woman asks her partner to rough her up a little so that she doesn't have to carry to term.

Manchu wrote:If a law says that rape is when a woman does not actively consent, then all we need is her post-facto analysis of whether or not she wanted to have sex.

Making the law effectively toothless.

Manchu wrote:As was mentioned my Shuma in another thread, the real problem here is with the definition of rape.

I don't see how that's the real problem, but okay.

Melissia wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Manchu wrote:Having thought that second-to-last one out a bit, we don't actually need to know who raped a woman to know that she was raped.

How do we know that a woman was raped?

How do you know that someone who fell from a skyscraper was committing suicide instead of having been murdered?

What medical procedure is contingent on knowing whether or not Sue E. Cidey was pushed?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Making the law effectively toothless.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:I don't see how that's the real problem, but okay.

Wat.

Manchu wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Making the law effectively toothless.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:I don't see how that's the real problem, but okay.

Wat.

What I'm taking away from this is that you think that rape should be defined as requiring violence. Is this what I should be reading into it?

No, I'm pointing out that the loophole is created by the potential criminal law analysis not the potential abortion exception analysis.

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:I don't think that parents should have a right to kill children who have genetic defects or other diseases. At what point something is a ball of sells instead of a child is another matter (I tend to agree with mattyrm on it but, sadly, technology has invalidated the faculty of common sense).

So you can care for the children with defects then, right? Or pay for it in the case of hte government.

Kids without diseases are expensive, too. I guess we shouldn't even talk about whether a (prospective?) child has any genetic defects if the real concern is the expense.

The expense is part of the issue. Not the entire issue, but it's there like the rhino in the living room. Just speaking on that particular issue and no other one (nevermind the actual ethics of the situation) for this particular argument. A devil's advocate if you will.

Who pays for the child's care? When the child's guardians die, who cares for the child then? Because quite a few genetic disorders mean that they will always be children, their entire lives-- up until death by old age. Learning disabilities of various severity are by far the most common side effects of these disorders. So when the parents die, what happens to the child then? They're twenty seven with a birth defect that prevents them from aging mentally past age seven, they'll never be productive members of society, the government will not earn any of that money back as it is not an investment. Even if the child lucks out and the learning disorder isn't as severe as it could be, they'll still have problems-- people with low academic achievement, with learning disabilities and the like, are more likely to become criminals (an estimated twenty to fifty five percent, depending on the definition used for learning disorder, of criminal justice clients qualify as having some form of learning disorder-- quite an astounding amount even at the smallest number)..