|
Amethyst posted:I haven't expressed my personal view, but I'm not going to reduce the other arguments down to a cartoon sketch. Arguments like bifauxnen's about the fetus' relationship to a woman's body are reasonable. Arguments from the other side about the personhood of a fetus after a certain stage of development are similarly reasonable. With a fraught issue like this, we compromise as the debate progresses. Both of those arguments rely on an arbitrary decision to grant rights to a foetus/baby at some point. There's no objective transition from non-human to human. open24hours fucked around with this message at 11:18 on Oct 23, 2015 |
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:27 |
|
|
Birth is itself an event that grants incomplete legal personality. You have to wait until you're 18.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/22/perths-double-whammy-as-sea-levels-rise-the-city-itself-is-sinking Perth pumps out groundwater to keep up with water demand, unexpected side effect: the whole loving city is sinking. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:I've never had that happen to me! That would be super annoying, I think my head would explode. As in they don't even speak the language the name is in, who the gently caress are they to tell you how to pronounce it??? Hard to imagine but true story xD They tell me because Y is always a vowel. I have been taught that Y can be both vowel and consonant. But apparently it is not very common for Y to be consonant in English language. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/is-the-letter-y-a-vowel-or-a-consonant Gilgamesh_Novem fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Oct 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
teacup posted:Yeah I've been thinking about it. I don't know if we'll need IVF (I guess you don't know until you know...?) but keep that in mind. I guess I just don't know where to start, the prices differences are huge, I don't mind paying for what I need but I honestly don't know what's going on. Who are you with! Were you happy? My wife is with HCF, we were happy, they gave us zero trouble. Bear in mind though, we're paying an arm and a leg because my wife's approach to these things is to tick all the boxes just to be on the safe side. I think hers adds up to over 3000 a year (I can check if you'd like but it'll take a couple of days, she's working nights). Still, just one IVF cycle recoups that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Just because you couldn't be bothered looking at a situation as anything other than black and white, doesn't mean that's the end of the argument. Also, I've already put forward some of my arguments in this thread, so just go back and read them. I've been thinking a little more about it and I guess I'd rather say this though, a woman should be able to get a medical procedure to be rid of an unwanted pregnancy - wether that's an abortion, or an early inducement and then the kid is in the care of the state could be up to medical advice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
open24hours posted:Both of those arguments rely on an abritrary decision to grant rights to a foetus/baby at some point. There's no objective transition from non-human to human. You are pretending there is no philosophical basis behind those ideas. The notion of personhood isn't granted arbitrarily outside of a hypothetical made up situation for the sake of an argument. Animal Rights activists aren't acting arbitrarily. When a woman talks about the inviolable boundaries of their body as sovereign, they are doing so on the basis of their own personhood, granted through a philosophical dialectic. When an anti-abortion activist claims personhood on behalf of a foetus based on neurobiological signifiers, or even spiritual beliefs, they aren't doing so arbitrarily.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Gilgamesh_Novem posted:Hard to imagine but true story xD Weird, I've always thought Y was a consonant. As in that old tv guess the word game (can't remember the name, it was on in the US in the 80s), when you ask for a vowel, it was always one of aeiou.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Seagull posted:bad news for beet good news for chat thread
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:You are pretending there is no philosophical basis behind those ideas. The notion of personhood isn't granted arbitrarily outside of a hypothetical made up situation for the sake of an argument. Animal Rights activists aren't acting arbitrarily. When a woman talks about the inviolable boundaries of their body as sovereign, they are doing so on the basis of their own personhood, granted through a philosophical dialectic. It's more that I think the distinctions, even if couched in philosophical language, are arbitrary. I know that a lot of people think that their beliefs about the permissibility of early-term abortions and the impermissibility of late-term abortions have some basis in reality. I disagree with them. Arguing that because you can detect certain brainwaves in a foetus means that they are a human is no less arbitrary than arguing that once they reach a certain length they become human. open24hours fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Oct 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
open24hours posted:It's more that I think the distinctions, even if couched in philosophical language, are arbitrary. I know that a lot of people think that their beliefs about the permissibility of early-term abortions and the impermissibility of late-term abortions have some basis in reality. I disagree with them. If you believe that it's completely arbitrary then there is no rational basis for 99% of our entire legislature. Your position is a nihilistic black hole.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Not finding any brainwaves, going to have to abort this thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
kill all humans
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Golly! Well one thing I think we can all agree on is that abortion is really controversial and many people have an opinion on it! Well, that's all for now, see you next week when we talk about euthanasia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
A great deal of our legislation is arbitrary. Ages of majority, who qualifies for citizenship, etc. I don't see any benefit in denying it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
In conclusion, Auspol is a land of contrasts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:If you believe that it's completely arbitrary then there is no rational basis for 99% of our entire legislature. Your position is a nihilistic black hole. Yeah but it is dude.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
open24hours posted:A great deal of our legislation is arbitrary. Ages of majority, who qualifies for citizenship, etc. I don't see any benefit in denying it. This is true, but the arbitrariness of it still tries to approximate an underlying reasoning (age of majority being an excellent example), so it's not totally arbitrary and it is of value to discuss the underlying reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
teacup posted:Yeah I've been thinking about it. I don't know if we'll need IVF (I guess you don't know until you know...?) but keep that in mind. I guess I just don't know where to start, the prices differences are huge, I don't mind paying for what I need but I honestly don't know what's going on. Who are you with! Were you happy? They are unlikely to provide much regardless. I think you're getting maybe 1k and a handshake for your prescriptions out of your private insurance, 4k from medicare and the remaining 5-6k is all on you. At any rate I wouldn't bother worring because If you have to consider IVF money starts to mean nothing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
open24hours posted:Both of those arguments rely on an abritrary decision to grant rights to a foetus/baby at some point. There's no objective transition from non-human to human. Yeah, the transition from a little lump of cells to a human being with the capacity for any self-awareness is very murky. Until we get a much greater understanding of the nature of consciousness though, I think it's pretty silly to pretend like we're going to find some special optimal point of development within the span of the first 9 months of human existence that is the true and right time to forbid abortion. Especially compared to the time of delivery, which is unmistakable. If we can't even determine this, why go to such great efforts to reduce the rights of someone we know is a living and conscious and aware adult just to feel more hypothetically morally right about the treatment of a potential future person that hasn't even been born yet? (A future person, who, by the way, is far less likely to have a good life if they're born to someone who doesn't want them) Why not make the cutoff at the most clear point? Keep in mind that even if we allow abortions up to the very last minute, most pregnant women will not want to get themselves into a position where they need to use that right, anyway. No matter when you believe it's morally okay to have an abortion, it's always easier medically to go earlier rather than later.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
open24hours posted:A great deal of our legislation is arbitrary. Ages of majority, who qualifies for citizenship, etc. I don't see any benefit in denying it. No it isn't. The law is the most literal expression of an ongoing historical dialectic. It isn't a chaotic grey goop of words that mix around the place and spew out whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
Kat Delacour posted:They are unlikely to provide much regardless. I think you're getting maybe 1k and a handshake for your prescriptions out of your private insurance, 4k from medicare and the remaining 5-6k is all on you. At any rate I wouldn't bother worring because If you have to consider IVF money starts to mean nothing. 1K per cycle is nothing to scoff at. Not everyone gets a whole bunch of embryos per cycle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Starshark posted:Golly! Well one thing I think we can all agree on is that abortion is really controversial and many people have an opinion on it! Well, that's all for now, see you next week when we talk about euthanasia. stfu you dullard. The discussion we're having is beyond a simplistic "abortion is bad". You should be a lurker, rather than filling every page with white noise to scroll past.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
SynthOrange posted:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/22/perths-double-whammy-as-sea-levels-rise-the-city-itself-is-sinking I remember reading an article a year or so ago claiming that Perth's rainfall will drop by 40% in the next few decades, partly due to the Southern Annular Mode moving towards Antarctica. If my memory serves me correctly, apparently other southern cities like Adelaide and Melbourne are only going to lose like 10% this century. I wonder if there would be a way of providing municipal water or if people would basically have to migrate east.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Eh, I found a source for the 40% thing http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jul/14/southern-australia-faces-water-crisis-by-end-of-century-due-to-climate-change
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:1K per cycle is nothing to scoff at. Not everyone gets a whole bunch of embryos per cycle. Perhaps, but it's hardly worth planning around 12 months in advance of the 12 months trying before any professional will so much as whisper "infertility".
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:No it isn't. The law is the most literal expression of an ongoing historical dialectic. It isn't a chaotic grey goop of words that mix around the place and spew out whatever. How does that in any way counter the accusation that it's arbitrary?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:stfu you dullard. The discussion we're having is beyond a simplistic "abortion is bad". lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
open24hours posted:How does that in any way counter the accusation that it's arbitrary? An idea being synthesized over centuries of wrangling isn't arbitrary man. I don't know how much deeper into the semantics you want me to go here. I understand that that process could have yeilded a different result, and likely will yeild a different result going forward, but that isn't enough to defuse somebody's judgement on an issue like abortion out of hand
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
LOL! Epic poo poo my man. Go and lower yourself into some spinning helicopter blades.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:white noise to scroll past. don't sign your posts 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:don't sign your posts loving epic post. I look forward to ignoring several hundred more just like it in future, you brainless troglodyte.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
I'm so loving mad in the Auspol thread right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Starshark posted:I'm so loving mad in the Auspol thread right now. I'm also.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
It is too late to abort this thread?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
I couldn't give a rat's rear end how chill and not angry you are, you're both astoundingly dull shitheads.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
Kat Delacour posted:Perhaps, but it's hardly worth planning around 12 months in advance of the 12 months trying before any professional will so much as whisper "infertility". This is true, but some insurances may have minimum periods before the benefits are accessible, and depending on the woman's age, you certainly don't need to (and shouldn't) try for 12 months before starting fertility testing. Anyway, I'm not advocating that anyone take out IVF coverage, just raising a point for consideration that from personal experience was important.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
QUACKTASTIC posted:It is too late to abort this thread? I have demigod status in the thread this month and can close it but will only do so if the free market gives me enough incentive to do so. I can very easily avoid the thread so shitposting hard won't force my hand, we're talking cold hard cash here. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:An idea being synthesized over centuries of wrangling isn't arbitrary man. I don't know how much deeper into the semantics you want me to go here. I understand that that process could have yeilded a different result, and likely will yeild a different result going forward, but that isn't enough to defuse somebody's judgement on an issue like abortion out of hand I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Because it's been through many revisions it can't be arbitrary?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:27 |
|
|
Hey Amethyst, I get what you're trying to say but let me ask you this - and hell, anyone else who's trying to say you need to draw the line somewhere other than birth. What are you trying to actually achieve by finding the best place to draw this line? What is the benefit you are trying to reap by working through this moral dilemma? If, through weighing all your different opinions on brain waves and human consciousness and so on, you personally conclude that it's best to not ever abort after X days, having the law say it's legally okay to abort at X+30 days, or X+60 days, means that possibly some fetuses will have to endure 1-60 days of some kind of existence that you believe is significant enough that they shouldn't be allowed to experience it if they're just going to die. By legally keeping the line at an earlier point to prevent this, you are deciding that the moral good of not making an adult woman go through a pregnancy she doesn't want is less than the moral good of not letting this fetus experience 1-60 ish doomed days of the earliest possible life, as you define it. Is that correct? If it's not, what exactly ARE you trying to accomplish?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 05:03
|
|