Republicans are trying to find a new term for ‘pro-life’ to stave off more electoral losses

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, TUFKAK said:

A better argument is one of agency and consent. A human being is not entitled to the body of another human being for any reason, it’s not shocking chuds have an issue with this concept, and are only allowed access to said body as long as the other human consents to it. therefore the fetus does not have a right to continue its existence in the birthing persons body without their consent.

 

This is somewhat close to my extreme anti-natalist view that conception itself is an inherently immoral act as an individual is incapable of consenting to their own birth!

[TUFKAK]

Just now, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

This is somewhat close to my extreme anti-natalist view that conception itself is an inherently immoral act as an individual is incapable of consenting to their own birth!

I’m of similar views as well. But I don’t take it to immoral but a more moral neutral, pending the views of the new human that was created.

 

My birth giver once attempted the “I gave birth to you aren’t you grateful for that” argument, my response was “the only things about me you’re responsible for are the things I hate the most about myself. I don’t owe you for a choice I had no say in.”

[Chris-]

3 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

This is somewhat close to my extreme anti-natalist view that conception itself is an inherently immoral act as an individual is incapable of consenting to their own birth!

 

Man, there is a character/subplot in Gravity's Rainbow that you would absolutely love!

[chakoo]

35 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Then why do you work under that presumption?   Or bother to use it?  I think that’s worth questioning.

 

I do use it, because generally, I believe in that members of a rational kind shouldn’t be killing each other.  Even if for a time, we’re not capable of that thought processing.  It’s what we’re oriented towards.

 

So then why are you OK with killing the mother? Restrictions on abortion puts the mothers life at risk.

[chakoo]

I hate the term pro-life because in no part do they actual show a vested interest in anybodys life. No care for the mothers life nor of the child after birth nor later in life when they're ok with gunning them down while they jack off to their gun fetish.

 

I'll continue with my position that if you're for any restriction on abortion then go fuck yourself.

 

[Jwheel86]

Regardless of the philosophical beliefs, taking that belief, putting it into law, then into regulations, then interpreted by a hospital lawyer is where you're going to lose people.  

[TUFKAK]

3 minutes ago, chakoo said:

I hate the term pro-life because in no part do they actual show a vested interest in anybodys life. No care for the mothers life nor of the child after birth nor later in life when they're ok with gunning them down while they jack off to their gun fetish.

 

I'll continue with my position that if you're for any restriction on abortion then go fuck yourself.

 

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

15 minutes ago, TUFKAK said:

I’m of similar views as well. But I don’t take it to immoral but a more moral neutral, pending the views of the new human that was created.

 

While I could certainly appreciate this perspective, I have difficulty with adopting the viewpoint that it's morally neutral from the standpoint that the very act of existence means that a person "condemned" to life will endure -- to either a greater or lesser extent -- some degree of suffering whether physical, psychological, or emotional simply from their presence in this world.

 

Nietzsche said "To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering" which strikes me as being cold comfort to those who endure more than their fair share of it.

[TUFKAK]

1 minute ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

While I could certainly appreciate this perspective, I have difficulty with adopting the viewpoint that it's morally neutral from the perspective that the very act of existence means that a person "condemned" to life will endure -- to either a greater or lesser extent -- some degree of suffering whether physical, psychological, or emotional simply from their presence in this world.

 

Nietzsche said "To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering" which strikes me as being cold comfort to those who endure more than their fair share of it.

While I agree to some level, I also believe presuming someone else’s morality is problematic and their ethics and worldview may not share/define suffering the same way as you or I. Only the individual gets to determine their morality. I personally decided not to breed and this was one of my reasons for that choice, along with many others.

 

 

[crispy4000]

49 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Fetuses aren't rational beings, and they aren't guaranteed to be rational beings. It's all hypothetical.

Human rational thinking is the normative result.  In healthy, typical circumstances, they are developing towards reason.

 

If you want to call that a hypothetical, go ahead.  Feels kind of needless though.

 

49 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

By letting one fetus develop, you could be preventing a second fetus from developing a few months later. That's also hypothetical murder, just taken back a step further.

 

A second fetus never existed in that situation.  There is nothing to kill.  Not murder, not even hypothetically. 

[Ghost_MH]

35 minutes ago, chakoo said:

I hate the term pro-life because in no part do they actual show a vested interest in anybodys life. No care for the mothers life nor of the child after birth nor later in life when they're ok with gunning them down while they jack off to their gun fetish.

 

I'll continue with my position that if you're for any restriction on abortion then go fuck yourself.

 

After birth? They're also against care before birth. All the legislation is directed toward abortion restrictions with nothing targeting policies that would actually actually decrease mortality rates for wanted children.

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

I use that presumption because it strikes me as "rational" to acknowledge that a more evolved creature that generally operates at a higher level of sentience/sapience is inherently of greater overall significance than one that does not.

I’d say that an evolved creature typically inclined to be that in its future has a similar significance, and it flies too close to the sun to say they should be killed when the further developed one should not.  Especially when there can be much better reasons to kill an adult resulting from their own deliberate action.

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, chakoo said:

I hate the term pro-life because in no part do they actual show a vested interest in anybodys life. No care for the mothers life nor of the child after birth nor later in life when they're ok with gunning them down while they jack off to their gun fetish.

 

I'll continue with my position that if you're for any restriction on abortion then go fuck yourself.

 

 

The worst thing about being pro-life today, as someone who is, is being lumped in with that lot who thinks the status quo is acceptable for struggling families.

 

I'm pretty sure I'll still be hated for my beliefs regardless of how liberal I am on related issues.  That speaks to the true divide on it.

 

  

1 hour ago, chakoo said:

 

So then why are you OK with killing the mother? Restrictions on abortion puts the mothers life at risk.

 

I'm not okay with killing mothers.  Or mothers dying.

 

I am okay with actions taken in earnest to save the mother's life that involve the child dying as one of the consequences.  Save both when possible.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

39 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

I’d say that an evolved creature typically inclined to be that in its future has a similar significance, and it flies too close to the sun to say they should be killed when the further developed one should not.  Especially when there can be much better reasons to kill an adult resulting from their own deliberate action.

 

There are absolutely better reasons for ending the life of a human adult due to their actions taken of their own volition (not that I believe in the existence of "free will", but that's a whole other kettle of fish entirely!).  However, on balance with all things being equal, it's more than likely more intellectually and morally acceptable to end the existence of a lesser-developed creature than a greater-developed one because the more evolved creature more than likely has a "richer" existence than the less developed one.

[marioandsonic]

1 hour ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

This is somewhat close to my extreme anti-natalist view that conception itself is an inherently immoral act as an individual is incapable of consenting to their own birth!

 

I'm doing my part!

[crispy4000]

2 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

There are absolutely better reasons for ending the life of a human adult due to their actions taken of their own volition (not that I believe in the existence of "free will", but that's a whole other kettle of fish entirely!).  However, on balance with all things being equal, it's more than likely more intellectually and morally acceptable to end the existence of a lesser-developed creature than a greater-developed one because the more evolved creature more than likely has a "richer" existence than the less developed one.

Difference of perspective surely.  Defining a human being's experiential existence as "richer" as means to determine how much they deserve to live is something I find repulsive. 

 

Kids don't even develop their eyesight and ability to process what they see fully for some months after birth.  And a rational ability above most animals until after that.  They won't hold onto their earliest childhood memories as well.

 

IMO, the capacity to 'richly' experience the world leads most directly Peter Sanger's arguements.

 

Edit: I missed this earlier, but a human in utero is not less “evolved” than a developed adult.  Not the correct context for that word.

[CitizenVectron]

1 hour ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

This is somewhat close to my extreme anti-natalist view that conception itself is an inherently immoral act as an individual is incapable of consenting to their own birth!

 

I've also become somewhat of an anti-natalist myself. I don't believe at all in ending life, but I do believe that being forced into existence without consent (which of course could never be granted) is cruel and immoral. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

14 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 Defining a human being's experiential existence as "richer" as means to determine how much they deserve to live is something I find repulsive.

 

If not the relative richness of existences, then there are other innumerable factors that can be used to determine the relative value of the worth of the lives of beings that do ultimately boil down to the notion that human lives are of greater value than that of "lesser" creatures.  There is little doubt that this moral calculus has been made throughout the entirety of history and has been a defining factor of human advancement.

[Reputator]

This is a major losing issue for the GOP and they know it. They brag to their constituents that they got Roe vs Wade turned over, but then when they have to face the general electorate, they're forced to downplay it.

 

It's hilarious to me that they think they can just rebrand their policy and reverse public opinion about it. Like it won't still stink like a turd.

[Massdriver]

Abortion is the right wing's defund the police.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

8 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

Abortion is the right wing's defund the police.

The difference of course being republicans are actually banning abortion, defund was not embraced by the political class and nothing actually came from it

[crispy4000]

32 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

If not the relative richness of existences, then there are other innumerable factors that can be used to determine the relative value of the worth of the lives of beings that do ultimately boil down to the notion that human lives are of greater value than that of "lesser" creatures.  There is little doubt that this moral calculus has been made throughout the entirety of history and has been a defining factor of human advancement.

 

There are many factors people have tried to ascribe human worth in terms of use, empathy, want, burden, intellectual capacity, experiential capacity, inclination toward suffering, net happiness, etc.  In limited contexts, they can be appropriate depending on the purpose.  But writ large in baseline judgements of which humans we should be able to kill, I'm much more skeptical.

 

IMO, history doesn't present a good argument considering how much we've killed each other for "advancement" contrary to our basic collective needs.  We're still here.  It's still been a bloodbath for much of human history.  And winning a war doesn't make you justified if it happens to lead to greater prosperity.

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

7 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

There are many factors people have tried to ascribe human worth in terms of use, empathy, want, burden, intellectual capacity, experiencial capacity, inclination toward suffering, net happiness, etc.  In limited contexts, they can be appropriate depending on the purpose.  But writ large in terms of baseline judgements of which humans we should be able to kill, I'm much more skeptical.

 

IMO, history doesn't present a good argument considering how much we've killed each other for "advancement" contrary to our basic collective needs.  We're still here.  It's still been a bloodbath for much of human history.

 

 

You'll get no argument from me there and naturally the standards by which the moral calculus for ending the life of other human beings is evaluated should be significantly higher/more rigorous than those employed to justify ending the existence of lesser non-human creatures.

 

But that calculus exists whether we like it or not.

[ort]

I don't understand how there can be adults who haven't already explored and come to a personal conclusion over every single aspect of this debate.

[Ghost_MH]

43 minutes ago, ort said:

I don't understand how there can be adults who haven't already explored and come to a personal conclusion over every single aspect of this debate.

 

Often times when it goes from theoretical to an actual thing that happened to me or someone I love.

 

“The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion” – Joyce Arthur's page

JOYCEARTHUR.COM

---

When the Anti-Choice Choose By Joyce Arthur Copyright © September, 2000 Available in a French translation Available in a German translation Available in...

 

[Massdriver]

Even if somehow it was shown that abortion is morally wrong to some degree, it still doesn't necessarily follow that it should be illegal. Consequences of the law have to be weighed as well as the moral implications of taking a fundamental choice away from individual women. 

 

 

[mclumber1]

Is a person who favors a 20 week abortion cutoff pro-life or pro-choice? 

[mclumber1]

17 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

Even if somehow it was shown that abortion is morally wrong to some degree, it still doesn't necessarily follow that it should be illegal. Consequences of the law have to be weighed as well as the moral implications of taking a fundamental choice away from individual women. 

 

 

 

I agree.  Plus banning things ends up creating an unregulated black market that is unsafe, which little (legal) recourse for victims. 

[Massdriver]

5 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

Is a person who favors a 20 week abortion cutoff pro-life or pro-choice? 

This would be more of a pro choice position these days, at least in my opinion, so long as the law was made so that they couldn't ban it earlier. 

 

An interesting way to also see where people fall is to ask whether they would vote for a Roe ballot initiative in a state that has a total abortion ban except in cases where the life of the mother is at risk (like Texas). Polling shows that a lot of pro choice people actually have a more nuanced view of when it should or shouldn't be banned, but in American politics it's usually all or nothing.

[TUFKAK]

5 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

Is a person who favors a 20 week abortion cutoff pro-life or pro-choice? 

Someone who is making a choice based on political calculus, which is the best we can hope for.

 

[crispy4000]

27 minutes ago, TUFKAK said:

Someone who is making a choice based on political calculus, which is the best we can hope for.

 

That depends on if they want that number to stick.

 

35 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

Is a person who favors a 20 week abortion cutoff pro-life or pro-choice? 

 

I’d consider it pro-choice but feeling more comfortable in a middle ground of sorts.

 

I'd consider pro-life (in the pre-birth sense) to mean wanting the young life protected from being killed by choice outside of extraordinary circumstances.

[CitizenVectron]

17 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

That depends on if they want that number to stick.

 

 

I’d consider it pro-choice but feeling more comfortable in a middle ground of sorts.

 

I'd consider pro-life (in the pre-birth sense) to mean wanting the young life protected from being killed by choice outside of extraordinary circumstances.

 

Do you oppose abortion in the case of rape?

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Do you oppose abortion in the case of rape?

Personally?  Anything further than attempting to stop conception, yes.
 

I don’t consider that a pre-requisite for being pro-life in a general sense though.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Well that’s fucked up

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

For the sake of philosophical consistency, I'm not conceptually or morally opposed to capital punishment.

 

Its actual execution (pun fully intended) leaves so much to be desired as to probably/definitely render it morally unacceptable.  But if the "perfect world" existed where there was 100% certainty that the wrong person would never be put to death, then by all means please procced.

 

I fully realize that doesn't square at all with my belief in the non-existence of "free will" as I'd be condemning someone to death for an action for which they had no other choice but to commit.  However, that's a "moral failure" that I'm quite comfortable living with.