New Restrictions on Abortion Have Real World Consequences

Page 9 of 21 [ 327 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 21  Next

Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 33
Posts: 1,927
Location: England

15 Jun 2021, 9:30 pm

Dvdz wrote:
How apples are similar to oranges:
1. They are both fruits.
2. They are both round in shape.

How apples are different from oranges:
1. Apples are red or green in color while oranges are orange in color.
2. Apples have a smooth skin texture while oranges have a rough skin texture.
3. Apples are crunchy while oranges are squishy.
4. They taste different.

Why don't you try listing the similarities and differences between theft and drug abuse? Maybe you'll answer your own question.


You are really going out of the way to avoid answering the question why [is/would] the principle of harm reduction [not/never be] applied in order to legalise theft? Is it that you don't have an answer? Or is it that you know you'll have to concede to one or more of the points I've been making?

We know they are different, yes, but you've been arguing for abortion on the grounds of saving lives. So why can't that apply to theft or a number of other crimes I'm sure you don't want legalised. Could it be that I was speaking sense, that I'm not an insane frothing at the mouth lunatic? That harm reduction is not really an absolute moral principle held by myself or anyone else, and is only smarmily raised to argue for the legalisation or continued legality of things the proponents already want legal and do not believe immoral, like drugs, prostitution and abortion. That the whole line of argument side steps the actual morality of the act of abortion itself as I said in my first response? Say it ain't so...

Signing off for the night, the men in white coats are here to collect me.


_________________
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man -
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began: -
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!


uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 567

15 Jun 2021, 10:49 pm

Mikah wrote:
Dvdz wrote:
How apples are similar to oranges:
1. They are both fruits.
2. They are both round in shape.

How apples are different from oranges:
1. Apples are red or green in color while oranges are orange in color.
2. Apples have a smooth skin texture while oranges have a rough skin texture.
3. Apples are crunchy while oranges are squishy.
4. They taste different.

Why don't you try listing the similarities and differences between theft and drug abuse? Maybe you'll answer your own question.


You are really going out of the way to avoid answering the question why [is/would] the principle of harm reduction [not/never be] applied in order to legalise theft? Is it that you don't have an answer? Or is it that you know you'll have to concede to one or more of the points I've been making?

We know they are different, yes, but you've been arguing for abortion on the grounds of saving lives. So why can't that apply to theft or a number of other crimes I'm sure you don't want legalised. Could it be that I was speaking sense, that I'm not an insane frothing at the mouth lunatic? That harm reduction is not really an absolute moral principle held by myself or anyone else, and is only smarmily raised to argue for the legalisation or continued legality of things the proponents already want legal and do not believe immoral, like drugs, prostitution and abortion. That the whole line of argument side steps the actual morality of the act of abortion itself as I said in my first response? Say it ain't so...

Signing off for the night, the men in white coats are here to collect me.


Just cos you choose to compare two things doesn't mean the two things are meaningfully similar. Comparing theft to abortion only serves to force a situation that happens to benefit your argument, and forces the opponent to appear to argue in favor of a negative concept of your choosing.

Make sure the men in coats make your straps extra tight :wink:

"nO You No yOu No YoU nO yOu YoU havE tO aNsWeR mY qUeStIoN fIrSt!! ! If YoU cAn'T aNsWeR mY sIlLy ImPoSsIbLe ArBiTrArIlY fRaMeD aNd NaRrOwLy FoCuSeD QuEsTiOn DeSiGnEd tO pRoVe Me RiGhT, ThaT mEaNs Im RiGhT aNd I wIn!! !"



Dvdz
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 6 Oct 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 101

16 Jun 2021, 8:07 am

Mikah wrote:
You are really going out of the way to avoid answering the question why [is/would] the principle of harm reduction [not/never be] applied in order to legalise theft? Is it that you don't have an answer? Or is it that you know you'll have to concede to one or more of the points I've been making?


I've already answered your first question way back in page 7. Perhaps you don't remember because you dismissed it and was even tempted to invoke Hitler for some reason.

Now, what exactly is legal theft?

Mikah P.H.D wrote:
I and the WHO recommend that systems of safe legal theft are extended worldwide, where burglary is regulated and professional standards applied so neither owner nor future owner of property needs to resort to unsafe methods of property transfer. This plan will minimise unfortunate cases of violence and death in the course of burglary, improving health outcomes for both property owners and future property owners.


Mikah P.H.D didn't elaborate on this system. I mean, there is no legal theft system anywhere in the world that I can think of. I can't even think of a movie with legalised theft.

You want to know why I don't answer your legalised theft question? It's because I don't know what you are talking about.

Mikah wrote:
We know they are different, yes, but you've been arguing for abortion on the grounds of saving lives. So why can't that apply to theft or a number of other crimes I'm sure you don't want legalised. Could it be that I was speaking sense, that I'm not an insane frothing at the mouth lunatic? That harm reduction is not really an absolute moral principle held by myself or anyone else, and is only smarmily raised to argue for the legalisation or continued legality of things the proponents already want legal and do not believe immoral, like drugs, prostitution and abortion. That the whole line of argument side steps the actual morality of the act of abortion itself as I said in my first response? Say it ain't so...


I have never sidestepped the morality of the act of abortion. In fact, I took your position and argued as if abortion was immoral, but argued that it was even more immoral to make it illegal if that would result in more harm.

Then you stated that harm reduction isn't real, and then I pointed to some real world examples, which you then dismissed as non-universal or non-absolute.

Now, you said that your moral principle is "the unborn are human and humans should not be killed without good reason". But you also said that you would want more restrictions on abortion even if did not actually reduce the number of abortions. Now, in this case where women (i.e humans) are being killed by unsafe abortions for no good reason, you would actually be violating your own moral principle wouldn't you?

Mikah wrote:
Let me be clearer then: on an individual level, if you do not, personally, apply it universally, then it is not a moral principle you hold, it is something else.


What exactly are you saying?



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 33
Posts: 1,927
Location: England

16 Jun 2021, 9:26 am

Dvdz wrote:
Now, what exactly is legal theft?

Dvdz wrote:
Mikah P.H.D didn't elaborate on this system. I mean, there is no legal theft system anywhere in the world that I can think of. I can't even think of a movie with legalised theft.

You want to know why I don't answer your legalised theft question? It's because I don't know what you are talking about.


Elaborating shouldn't be necessary to understand the argument, I think you are overcomplicating it and missing the forest for the trees, but if it helps: imagine that if you wanted your neighbours TV, you'd fill out a form, a "Theft Order" and after submitting it, 24 hours later you could go into your neighbour's house with an optional police escort and take his TV without consequence or repercussion. Also for reasons (The First Dibs Act), your neighbour can't just fill out his own theft form and steal the TV back or help himself to some of your stuff. He just has to tolerate it.

Dvdz wrote:
I have never sidestepped the morality of the act of abortion. In fact, I took your position and argued as if abortion was immoral, but argued that it was even more immoral to make it illegal if that would result in more harm.


That is side stepping it.

My fictitious theft example accepts theft as immoral and argues that it is more immoral not to legalise it because that results in more harm. <--- I want you to understand what is wrong with that, in the hopes that you might understand why I reject the same argument for abortion.

Dvdz wrote:
Now, you said that your moral principle is "the unborn are human and humans should not be killed without good reason". But you also said that you would want more restrictions on abortion even if did not actually reduce the number of abortions. Now, in this case where women (i.e humans) are being killed by unsafe abortions for no good reason, you would actually be violating your own moral principle wouldn't you?


We covered this extensively already. A life taken is not the same as a life prevented or a life ended. Innocent people dying on the roads is not the same as innocent people dying from capital punishment. Nor is the taking of the life of the unborn the same as mothers dying in the process of seeking to kill the unborn.

Dvdz wrote:
What exactly are you saying?


I'm not sure how many other ways I can rephrase it. If harm reduction is a moral principle, it must be applied universally, not selectively. If you will apply it to legalise abortion, you must apply it to legalise theft too, or it's not a moral principle, only an argument and other things define your thought process.


_________________
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man -
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began: -
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!


KimD
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 408

16 Jun 2021, 10:15 am

If you really insist on equating abortion to theft, then you'd have to say that only forced abortions are stealing.

As long as a fetus is in a woman's uterus, it's in her "house" and no one else's.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,491
Location: I'm right here

16 Jun 2021, 10:17 am

KimD wrote:
If you really insist on equating abortion to theft, then you'd have to say that only forced abortions are stealing.

As long as a fetus is in a woman's uterus, it's in her "house" and no one else's.


Exactly this.


_________________
politics is dumb but very important
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 33
Posts: 1,927
Location: England

16 Jun 2021, 11:31 am

KimD wrote:
If you really insist on equating abortion to theft, then you'd have to say that only forced abortions are stealing.

As long as a fetus is in a woman's uterus, it's in her "house" and no one else's.


I'm only comparing it in the abstract in order to counter the harm reduction argument. As much as I would like to have discussions around bodily autonomy and the nature of the unborn, which is the alpha and omega of this topic, people ask what they ask and argue what they want to argue and so I respond if I can.


_________________
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man -
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began: -
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!


uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 567

16 Jun 2021, 3:45 pm

Mikah wrote:
KimD wrote:
If you really insist on equating abortion to theft, then you'd have to say that only forced abortions are stealing.

As long as a fetus is in a woman's uterus, it's in her "house" and no one else's.


I'm only comparing it in the abstract in order to counter the harm reduction argument. As much as I would like to have discussions around bodily autonomy and the nature of the unborn, which is the alpha and omega of this topic, people ask what they ask and argue what they want to argue and so I respond if I can.


Ok, so you're only comparing the two things cos doing so shoehorns your narrative into a more beneficial position. Gotcha.

And you say that like you're totally not the one howling like a fire alarm that other people have to answer your questions, while deeming everyone else's to be "irrelevant". But suddenly, you're not the one driving the conversation, you're supposedly diligently answering (think you mean "ignoring" or "dodging") everyone else questions.

Yet although theft has nothing to do with abortion, save in the most abstract of ways, aside from being a convenient shield / distraction for you, that hasn't stopped you from seething with the need to compare the two, because you claim it makes a point, that you claim is relevant, because you say so.

It's a well shrouded appeal to "popularity". Compare something YOU don't like to something fairly universally unpopular, in an attempt to imply the one is like the other, to win people over. Like how marjorie taylor greene compared mask wearing with the holocaust. Like how homophobes compare homosexuality with bestiality. Like how transphobes portray transpeople as perverts and child molesters.

The point being argued here is sufficiently "abstract", one may as well compare a raven to a writing desk, given the rabbit-hole that seems to have been descended into here.

And yeah, sure, NOBODY at ALL has mentioned body autonomy or the nature of abortion. People TOTALLY didn't bring it up many times before, and you ABSOLUTELY didn't avoid getting into the discussion.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,491
Location: I'm right here

16 Jun 2021, 4:13 pm

To be fair I'm pretty certain the overall view that KimD describes (which is basically where I've been the whole time anyone here has known me) is basically irreconcilable with the position Mikah occupies and it's just an argument that goes around in circles.

There isn't any situation that makes for a fair analog with pregnancy that will be agreeable to both sides so there's no way to test the logic outside of this one argument. I'll never have to carry your headstump attached to my torso because of my at-fault car accident that caused the situation (see, any attempt is absurd...)

Both of these positions are usually obliged to water down their views to be palatable to moderates, since most people are both pro-choice and pro-life.

It wasn't intended to raise the argument that's had over and again here so that's why I didn't really get involved too much at first. It was actually intended to raise the emotional issue of where does one feel their obligation (or the state's obligation) to interfere becomes questionable and even if it's something they might morally condemn, they're willing to cringe and go, it's wrong but so is interfering and I won't demand the state impose my preference.


_________________
politics is dumb but very important
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 567

16 Jun 2021, 4:26 pm

Mikah wrote:
As much as I would like to have discussions around bodily autonomy and the nature of the unborn, which is the alpha and omega of this topic, people ask what they ask and argue what they want to argue and so I respond if I can.


"People ask what they ask" eh? Let's go and see what people have been saying previously. I'm sure there won't be any mention of body autonomy or the nature of the unborn.

FROM PG 1

Misslizard wrote:
If I’m growing it in my womb, than it is a part of me.It can’t survive without me supporting it till it reaches a certain stage.

If you read the Amnesty article you would have seen how many illegal abortions are preformed and how many women die from them.It’s been around forever.No matter how much you want it to not be, it will.

And yeah, put your beliefs into practice, adopt a child that’s unwanted.Otherwise it’s just so much hot air forcing your ethics onto others.

A human life is worth more than a zygote in my opinion.


Misslizard wrote:
There are scientific and philosophical principals that support a woman’s right to choose.

https://srh.bmj.com/content/39/1/51

A zygote can’t survive outside the womb and a late term baby can.That is why I don’t believe in late term unless there is a medical reason.
You ignore the deaths of thousands of women.You are stepping around that issue.Perhaps you think of women as disposable wombs.





page 2

Misslizard wrote:
A three year old isn’t a cluster of cells without brain function.( some parents might disagree after a long day)
I didn’t dodge the question.I answered it.
It has brain function then and can exist outside the womb.It is a viable human then.
It’s dehumanizing to women to think of us a just a womb and to rob us of our reproductive rights.We are more than an incubator.
Two cells, the sperm and ovum are not human.They are just cells.


page 3

XFilesGeek wrote:

There are absolutely no laws on the books that require one human to use their body to keep another human alive.

That is the crux of the issue.

Children don't own their parent's bodies whether pre-born or post-born. The rest is just a disgusting attempt at punishing women for their human urges.


page 4

funeralxempire wrote:
Mikah wrote:
If you want to control women sexually - you go after contraception, not abortion, so that charge might stick against the Catholic Church, but not against everyone arguing against abortion.


Ultimately removing the woman's choice in the matter of abortion harms women's ownership over their bodies and sexuality whether it's denying access or forcing it.

Obviously denying access to both contraceptives and abortion is an attempt to exert more control on women's sexuality than only limiting access to abortion but both ultimately exert some pressure. You can't be certain why exactly someone failed to use contraceptives or why they may have failed but removing the option to do anything once one is in that situation still exerts pressure on them.



page 5

funeralxempire wrote:
Mikah wrote:
Dvdz wrote:
Mikah's central argument seems to be that fetuses are humans and that everything should be done to preserve human life.


Yes, and no. I'm not a pacifist. I would phrase it: Unborn life is human life and human life should not be taken without very good reason.

Dvdz wrote:
His support for restrictive abortion laws seems to be based on his belief that more restrictive laws will reduce the number of abortions.


Yes, provided the punishment is severe enough and enforced properly.


So how severely should the girl in the original post be punished for being raped and refusing to carry the result? :chin:

At what point does she get to own her own flesh again because as long as she's forced to carry a pregnancy that she doesn't desire to carry and didn't choose to conceive she's being denied that basic right.


page 6

funeralxempire wrote:

Personally I wouldn't make any legal ruling on that matter and leave it to the discretion of those involved. I don't believe it would be right for the state to coerce a doctor into performing an abortion.




page 7

MrsPeel wrote:
Thought I might dip a toe into this argument, as I have an opinion no-one seems to have put forward.

To me it's all about the relative values we put on human lives.
Most people tend to think of human life as being priceless and beyond value, with which my heart would tend to agree.
However, in practice we as individuals and our governments make decisions all the time based around our evaluation of human life. For example, I work for a state highway department, and decisions are constantly being made over how much money will be spent to improve a section of road so as to reduce deaths, which is essentially a way of placing a value on a human life, even if no-one dares to explain it in those terms. Governments also weigh up pros and cons taking consideration of other factors such as economic considerations - for example while we know that motor vehicles kill people, we do not ban them altogether. There is recognition that while banning vehicles tonight would undoubtably save lives which might otherwise be lost in road accidents, the impact on society of such a ban would be too extreme.

When a woman decides to have an abortion, she and her medical team will have gone through a similar process of weighing up the pros and cons. I don't believe any pregant woman would take this decision lightly. She will have considered the price she and/or the future baby will pay in suffering and hardship (physical and/or mental) to go through with the pregnancy and birth. In this way, she will make an individual decision on the value of the fetus, based on her own views and circumstances.

Now in this case it seems the state wishes to make the decision for itself by banning abortion or extending limitations on when or in which circumstances that is allowed. In this case the state is placing a very high value on each fetus, perhaps higher than an individual woman might herself, and indicating that it can afford the negative impacts to society.
In my view, the state is entitled to make that decision provided that it will pay for the consequences. That is, that it will provide additional health services to cover the extra physical and mental health issues suffered by the mothers affected, allow for additional social payments for lost working time and so on, and that it will provide a home for all unwanted babies which result.

To me, Mikah's argument is overly simplistic in taking the value of the fetus as exceeding all other considerations, both financial and in terms of human suffering.

Personally, I believe that the best people to decide whether abortion is justified in any case are the relevant medical personel and the pregnant woman herself, as these are the people best able to judge the human costs involved in the individual case.

Taking lessons from the past and looking at the reasons why abortion was legalised for certain situations in the first place - across the whole of the developed world - I would tend not to trust that a state placing a wider ban on the procedure has taken all societal factors into consideration. Just as I would question a state which decided to place a blanket ban on motor vehicles for the purpose of saving lives, without any consideration of the impacts.

The only difference is that in the banning of abortion, only a minority are adversely affected by the legislation and thus the state does not endanger its wider support base, whereas in the banning of motor vehicles, it could never achieve majority support. In other words, as far as I can see, it is a self-serving decision made for political gain without due consideration of societal impacts.


Dvdz wrote:

While you might lump abortion, theft, and murder in the same category of "morally wrong", plenty of people do not. Which is why, in the context of policy making, you cannot compare abortion with theft and murder because society does not view those things as similar.

Anyway, since you have made it clear that the deterrent effect doesn't matter and you would still want laws against abortion no matter the consequences, I don't think I can say anything else besides: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.


And that's not including the times I mentioned it, or aghogday mentioning it. Quoting myself seemed moot, since you've got your fingers in your ears screaming "LALALA I CANT HEAR YOU!" when it comes to my questions, and aghogday is difficult to quote (no offense).

Tell us again how YOU WANT that convo, its EVERYONE ELSE that's derailing you - and totally not the other way around.

Mikah's entire argument seems to desperately rely on the assumption that abortion just IS immoral, and that's all there is to it, and if you disagree you're just wrong, and hopefully on day you'll see that... :roll:



Dvdz
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 6 Oct 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 101

17 Jun 2021, 12:08 am

Mikah wrote:
Elaborating shouldn't be necessary to understand the argument, I think you are overcomplicating it and missing the forest for the trees, but if it helps: imagine that if you wanted your neighbours TV, you'd fill out a form, a "Theft Order" and after submitting it, 24 hours later you could go into your neighbour's house with an optional police escort and take his TV without consequence or repercussion. Also for reasons (The First Dibs Act), your neighbour can't just fill out his own theft form and steal the TV back or help himself to some of your stuff. He just has to tolerate it.

That is side stepping it.

My fictitious theft example accepts theft as immoral and argues that it is more immoral not to legalise it because that results in more harm. <--- I want you to understand what is wrong with that, in the hopes that you might understand why I reject the same argument for abortion.


Ok, in your fictitious example:

If legalising theft would save more lives:

A. "Save more lives": Yes.

B. "Justice at all costs": No.

C: "Humans should not be killed without good reason": Depends on what is a good reason.

D: "Harm Reduction": No. Because legalising theft would actually increase harm. The consequences of legalising theft would mean the outlawing of the human impulse to defend one's property. Like you said, in your fictitious law, one must just tolerate their property being stolen. But, even if you outlaw the act of property defense, people aren't just going to ignore their basic human nature and lay down, so in the end you are going to have to punish via fines or prison the people who were defending their property, increasing harm.

Since, in your fiction, this is facilitated via forms, this would mean all the property would end up with the people who can fill up forms the most efficiently, right? So, people who can't fill up forms for whatever reason would be disadvantaged in this world order, yes? With your First Dibs Act, people can't even steal back what was stolen from them. Again, this is another instance of increased harm.

There is also the untold economic damage that would unfold when the concept of property doesn't even exist anymore if one can just fill out a form to get anything they want. How would shops even survive in this new world order?

Does this answer your question?

It's not that I'm trying to over-complicate things. It's just that the real world is really complicated.

Mikah wrote:
We covered this extensively already. A life taken is not the same as a life prevented or a life ended. Innocent people dying on the roads is not the same as innocent people dying from capital punishment. Nor is the taking of the life of the unborn the same as mothers dying in the process of seeking to kill the unborn.


Is your definition of life taken only when it is taken directly by another human? If a woman dies due to unsafe abortion because she could not get a safe abortion due to a law that the state legislated, her life wasn't taken by the state?

Mikah wrote:
I'm not sure how many other ways I can rephrase it. If harm reduction is a moral principle, it must be applied universally, not selectively. If you will apply it to legalise abortion, you must apply it to legalise theft too, or it's not a moral principle, only an argument and other things define your thought process.


To recap, harm reduction applied to theft means that it should stay illegal, while harm reduction applied to abortion means that it should be legal. I really don't understand your statement that "if you will apply it to legalise abortion, you must apply it to legalise theft too", since theft and abortion are really different.



XFilesGeek
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,937
Location: The Oort Cloud

17 Jun 2021, 3:54 am

Apparently, when one is a ZEF they have the "right" to use their mother's body to survive.

However, once they are born, there is no legal requirement for the mother (or father) to surrender their organs, blood, bone, or tissue to the child, even if the child needs the aforementioned to continue living. There may be a moral imperative, but there certainly is no legal one.

How curious....


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 33
Posts: 1,927
Location: England

17 Jun 2021, 5:05 am

You are definitely overthinking it Dvdz and you have implicitly accepted that theft should be legal if it could be proved to you that it would reduce harm. In the hope that you have not taken this position just to annoy me and score points, I'm going to try a slightly different angle:

Hypothetically, a small group starts a hugely damaging terrorist campaign against anything related to abortion: clinics, doctors, women who have had abortions, sympathetic public voices, they all get bombed or poisoned or whatever.
For the sake of argument:
- This campaign would cost many more lives than would be saved by abortion.
- The government have tried and failed to stop it, perhaps there are sympathisers inside the government.
- The only realistic way to stop the campaign is to outlaw abortion.

What does the harm reduction principle say about the moral course of action? Is it now moral to outlaw abortion?

Dvdz wrote:
Is your definition of life taken only when it is taken directly by another human?


Yes. A deliberate killing.

Dvdz wrote:
If a woman dies due to unsafe abortion because she could not get a safe abortion due to a law that the state legislated, her life wasn't taken by the state?


Much as a thief who trips, falls and dies while stealing is not a life taken by the state for failing to outlaw theft.

XFilesGeek wrote:
Apparently, when one is a ZEF they have the "right" to use their mother's body to survive.

However, once they are born, there is no legal requirement for the mother (or father) to surrender their organs, blood, bone, or tissue to the child, even if the child needs the aforementioned to continue living. There may be a moral imperative, but there certainly is no legal one.


How many times have we discussed the organ donation parallel now? Three times in as many years? If pregnant, the (temporary) donation has already been made.


_________________
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man -
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began: -
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,774

17 Jun 2021, 10:07 am



The Sanctity of Breathing

Life By HiStory In All Cultures

That Live Day By Day to Survive

Is Inherently More Valuable than

The Sanctity of Non-Breathing Life;

The Moral

Imperative

Highest

Is Breathing

For All Life At

Least 'Sane Enough'

To Continue to Breathe...

So, Will A Mother Sacrifice Her

Breathing Children Who Are Starving

For An Undeveloped Human Who Cannot

Breathe one its Own; Again, It's A Question

of Moral Relativity; i 'Wager', If You Were A Woman

With The Amount of Empathy For Others Who View Life

Differently You Express, Here at Least; If A Rapist Got You

Pregnant Against Your Will,

You'd Be

A First

One in Line

At the Abortion Clinic

To Get Rid of What You

Did Not 'Win In A Competition of Life';

That's Just Common Sense my FRiEnD;

Nature of 'the Beast', Who Competes Over Cooperates...

Of Course These Days, You Could Take The Morning After

Pill; And It Would Be Hard to Track Down The Longer Solution You Might

Have Otherwise Taken; As You Didn't Particularly Want to "Mother Your Father's Child"...

Haha, Or Try

To Tell me

Man to Man

In Person That

You Would Mother

That Child For Life;

In Person, i'd See the

Truth or Lies in Your Eyes; And That's for
Sure; It only Takes A 'Luke Warm Word Detective'
to Determine it Through Personality Soul Traits Expressed online...

Again, i Have no Problem With Your Morality; It's the Nature of 'The Beast' too...

Yes, Relatively Speaking

It it what it is...

THere is...

'Night And Day'...

And i For One Am

Able to See in 'Dark' As Well As 'LiGHT'...

Why? i Lived/Died iN SoUL FULLY In 'Both Places' for REAL.

The Root of the Issue Here Is You Are Trying to Win A

Human Argument

By Changing

It into

A 'Thing'...

Nah, Baby, it

Doesn't 'Humanly' Work that

Way in The Real World out of

Online Ivory Towers of Faceless Avatars...

Or Humans Who Become More Machine Than Human...

And Just in Case it's Necessary to Refresh Your Memory;

Which i Do Not Think it Will Be; You've Already Stated

Clearly That An Abortion After Rape is Immoral to You...

That's Actually A Pretty Weak Statement For A Dude to Make; 'Rather

Blind' Without All The Female Parts Associated With Life And Death...



_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 33
Posts: 1,927
Location: England

17 Jun 2021, 6:15 pm

aghogday wrote:
Here at Least; If A Rapist Got You

Pregnant Against Your Will,

You'd Be

A First

One in Line

At the Abortion Clinic


You never know until you are tested, and fortunately such a test is not possible for me. Even if it were possible and I acted as you imagine, hypocrisy does not undermine the moral argument itself, only the person making it.

aghogday wrote:
To Tell me

Man to Man

In Person That

You Would Mother

That Child For Life;


I can't honestly say for certain I would mother a child of rape for life in such a scenario, nor do I judge poorly any woman who doesn't want to. I completely understand giving away a child of rape. But I wouldn't kill the child for the circumstances of their conception. I am not in fact asking women to mother for life in this argument, rape or not, I ask that pregnancies not be terminated frivolously, I ask that the killing stop.

aghogday wrote:
Clearly That An Abortion After Rape is Immoral to You...


Yes, while I would tolerate legal exceptions. And this isn't crazy. You would not sanction the killing of a two year old because he/she were conceived of rape, at least I hope not. I happen to think that humans are human from conception, without interference that unborn human will have a life like any other and it should not be taken away on a whim. That's it. The sins of the father should not be visited upon a two year old, nor on the unborn.


_________________
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man -
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began: -
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!


Dvdz
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 6 Oct 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 101

18 Jun 2021, 12:49 am

Mikah wrote:
You are definitely overthinking it Dvdz and you have implicitly accepted that theft should be legal if it could be proved to you that it would reduce harm. In the hope that you have not taken this position just to annoy me and score points, I'm going to try a slightly different angle:


Yes, theft should be legal if doing so actually reduces harm... Just like drug abuse and prostitution. I'm applying harm reduction universally...

Mikah wrote:
Hypothetically, a small group starts a hugely damaging terrorist campaign against anything related to abortion: clinics, doctors, women who have had abortions, sympathetic public voices, they all get bombed or poisoned or whatever.
For the sake of argument:
- This campaign would cost many more lives than would be saved by abortion.
- The government have tried and failed to stop it, perhaps there are sympathisers inside the government.
- The only realistic way to stop the campaign is to outlaw abortion.

What does the harm reduction principle say about the moral course of action? Is it now moral to outlaw abortion?


In your hypothetical scenario yes. But your hypothetical scenario doesn't take into account that giving in to these group of terrorists means giving in to other groups of terrorists, which would cause more harm than standing firm. Which is why, in the real world, the US, along with many western countries, has made it a policy to never negotiate with terrorists. In the real world, terrorists eventually get caught.

I'm not sure what you think harm reduction is but it is basically just weighing different options and going with the one that has the least amount of harm. Different people have different definitions of harm. Even your position can be viewed within this framework, just that you think letting women who abort go unpunished is the greater harm compared to letting them continue living their lives.

As I've been saying, a lot of people, maybe even a majority of people, do this in real life. I really don't understand what problem you have with this. Is it because, to you, a moral principle must always produce the same outcome (e.g legal or not legal) not matter what it is applied to?