The Gaming Den

Crissa wrote:

mean_liar wrote:Yes, this is why people with body dismorphia or transsexuals don't have to get counseling authorization prior to their treatments, because that would be so wrong it's awful to even contemplate.

ML, that's why we have standards of care, not random strangers peering in with interruptive laws. Them not being treated is not so awful to contemplate; there are no large numbers of regretful of being treated or happy about being not-treated dysmorphic people out there - in fact, they're very few, to the point at where in the entire industrialized world we could probably count them on one person's fingers.

That's horrible?

-Crissa

I'm genuinely unsure what you're trying to say here. Double negatives and such abound to the point where I just can't make heads or tails of it.

FrankTrollman wrote:Do you or do you not have a big moral dilemma when eating a hot dog?

Not a big moral dilemma, but a moral dilemma, yes.

FrankTrollman wrote:I seriously don't know how you think embryology and gynecology works, but it doesn't work the way you think it does.

Actually, it does.

ScienceDirect.com article

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/294/8/947

The fact remains that pain awareness apparently develops around the 27-28 week range. This is a decent indicator of self-awareness.

My argument isn't that every abortion ever is a crime against God, but that they should be minimized and that there needs to be more consideration than, "it's convenient".

Your argument is that because at one point a fetus isn't self-aware that it never is, and by the way you can just flush 'em down the toilet cause hey, who wants to feed that fucker anyway?

FrankTrollman wrote:...you fucking moron![/i]

I'm actually very intelligent. Unfortunately for you, you are just an asshole.

Altered to place sciencedirect.com link into a URL tag, to avoid stretching the screen in certain browsers. --Z

FrankTrollman wrote:

Mean Liar wrote:The linchpin of this argument is that the baby is alive and sentient, despite being dependent for physical needs on the mother.

Then your argument falls like a house of cards. First of all, it's not a "baby" until it's born. It's not even a neonate. It's a fetus. And while fetuses do get some nerve function, they are less "sentient" than pigs or chickens.

It's really just where you draw your lines. Pigs and chickens won't become people, but a fetus will.

Of course, arguing potential opens up a whole other can of worms. Is every time a woman has a period an abortion? Of course not, and I hope nobody would argue that far. It's just that you can draw your line in any number of places, and many of them for purely philisophical reasons, religion or not.

This is why most pro-lifers and pro-choicers will never see eye to eye. A typical pro-choice stand point doesn't advocate killing "babies" and a typical pro-life stand point doesn't believe they're "just a fetus".

Mean Liar, you're not getting it. Minimizing abortions as a result of a lack of necessity through education and contraception is totally fine. Minimizing abortions as a result of denying them to people is not. Any criteria you can set for an "acceptible" abortion can and will be manipulated. If it somehow cannot, you're only going to drive abortion back underground into dangerous territory. You realize that people had abortions in the U.S. before 1973, right?

However, I realize that we're at a total philosophical impasse here. To me, the senseless death of a single woman in a botched back-alley abortion is a greater tragedy than the sum total of all aborted pregnancies ever.

Cielingcat wrote:I'm genuinely unsure what you're trying to say here. Double negatives and such abound to the point where I just can't make heads or tails of it.

ML said there should be laws and gatekeepers to receiving treatment, instead of trained professionals making a private decision.

I said there are very few body dysmorphic people upset about receiving treatment they chose.

-Crissa

Pain sense? First of all, that's the 28th week, and people don't even get abortions in the 28th week unless something has gone disastrously wrong. Secondly, shrimp have pain sense. It's not even a big deal.

So basically Mean Liar, you just successfully demonstrated that fetuses exhibit levels of self awareness substantially less than food animals substantially after the window in which all non-emergency abortions actually occur. Clearly eliminating something with that level of self awareness can't weigh heavily on my conscience, because I eat meat about once a week - which involves the killing of something that is substantially more aware for substantially less convenience on my part.

Which brings us back to the "potential" argument. A fetus is not a person or worthy of our give-a-damn by any standard you could possibly apply to it save the fact that if the woman continues to give it a substantial portion of her nutritional intake continuously for some amount of time and it doesn't miscarry by any of a number of means then it will become a person worthy of talking to. And even that argument is rather specious, because the same could be said about every one of the millions upon millions of sperm that I shed continuously whether I masturbate or not.

The potential to have consciousness worth preserving does not entail actually having consciousness. And while I am perfectly willing to have arguments about the morality of 30th week abortions, no one even does those things! Seriously, almost all abortions take place in the 2nd trimester, which means that the big bad boogey man you are railing about - in addition to being not that big of a deal also does not exist.

-Username17

I'd agree that it's an irreconcilable impasse. I think I'd roughly rate a death from a botched abortion as similarly tragic as a fatal one-car accident (including your child) resulting from the driver's alcohol consumption.


...


To move past the impasse and not dwell on what's obviously a third-rail topic, here's some things I've recently learned:

Frank is an asshole. LOL, just kidding, we all knew that.


John Wyclif, 14th century theologian, philosopher, and communist:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wyclif-political/#3.1

"The natural dominium described in Genesis 1:26 is characterized by lack of selfishness, ownership, or any distinction between 'mine' and 'thine'. The true sense of Augustine's "All things belong to the just" is most fully apparent in the prelapsarian natural disposition to share in the use of creation while acting as faithful steward to its perfect lord. The Fall was brought about by the first sin, which Wyclif characterizes as a privation of God's right in man's soul. We are left with wills prone to value the physical, material world above spiritual concerns, and the unavoidable result is private property ownership. We no longer understand a given created good as a gift on loan from God, but can only see it in terms of our own self-interest, and the unfortunate result is civil dominium, an enslavement to material goods."

SUMMARY: God's a commie and you should be one too.

BONUS ROUND: His followers are called LOLlers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lollards


...


Marsilius of Padua, 14th century republican and anti-monarchist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensor_pacis
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/marsiglio1.html

"# The whole body of citizens or its majority alone is the human "legislator."
# Decretals and decrees of the bishop of Rome, or of any other bishops or body of bishops, have no power to coerce anyone by secular penalties or punishments, except by the authorization of the human "legislator."
# The "legislator" alone or the one who rules by its authority has the power to dispense with human laws.
# The elective principality or other office derives its authority from the election of the body having the right to elect, and not from the confirmation or approval of any other power. "

FrankTrollman wrote:...Clearly eliminating something with that level of self awareness can't weigh heavily on my conscience, because I eat meat about once a week...

Which brings us back to the "potential" argument. A fetus is not a person or worthy of our give-a-damn by any standard you could possibly apply to it ... And even that argument is rather specious, because the same could be said about every one of the millions upon millions of sperm that I shed continuously whether I masturbate or not.

I'm throwing away your assertion that a fetus and sperm are the same thing, since they're not. You might as well equate an idea about making money with being the richest man on earth. If there's merit in that argument you're not making it here.

The argument about potential arises from a few things, most heavy of which is the belief that all things have spiritual worth. I don't think you ascribe to that since it's doctrinal rather than provable and you're an hardcore empiricist, and I honestly don't know how you'd bridge that gap. There's room for an analogy involving contractual relationships and stewardship, but they still rely on some outside arbiter that doesn't empirically exist.

Also, I am aware that third trimester abortions are exceedingly rare. Not non-existent, as I believe that one recently-murdered doctor performed them, but they are rare.

Third trimester abortions are not done for no reason either. No one just sits around twiddling their thumbs during the really painful parts of pregnancy just biding their time until they can have the most traumatic abortion possible. Dr. Tiller was a genuine hero who intervened in the really nasty cases where lives and/or reproductive health were at stake. You'll note that in the US a "late term" abortion is the 28th week. Heck, "late term" includes the 23rd week. There are only two clinics left that do even that.

But if you're going to argue the "spiritual worth" of a fetus you might as well just paint yourself blue and shout ooga-booga. Because non-falsifiable mysticism can't be argued against and has no possibility of persuading a rational person. Spiritually endowed potential is a form of woo that I find seriously insulting. At least singing about totem animals can be beautiful (if inane), this thing you're doing is just wasting my time.

-Username17

Crissa wrote:

Cielingcat wrote:I'm genuinely unsure what you're trying to say here. Double negatives and such abound to the point where I just can't make heads or tails of it.

ML said there should be laws and gatekeepers to receiving treatment, instead of trained professionals making a private decision.

I said there are very few body dysmorphic people upset about receiving treatment they chose.

-Crissa

Oh, in that case I agree with you.

FrankTrollman wrote:But if you're going to argue the "spiritual worth" of a fetus you might as well just paint yourself blue and shout ooga-booga. Because non-falsifiable mysticism can't be argued against and has no possibility of persuading a rational person. Spiritually endowed potential is a form of woo that I find seriously insulting. At least singing about totem animals can be beautiful (if inane), this thing you're doing is just wasting my time.

Glad to know that you've resolved the critiques of positivism and empiricism. Be sure to let philosophy know when you're done in this thread, they could use the help.

Trying to deduce value empirically is about the most autistic method I can imagine off the top of my head. Save it for physics and mathematics and keep it the fuck out of arguments about worth and utility.

Frank wrote:You know why no one ever writes any books or sings any songs while they are a fucking fetus? Because they are a fucking fetus you fucking moron!

They don't do this when they're five days old, either. What exactly was the point of saying this?

Thank you Cynic and Robby. I guess what changed for me when I got pregnant was this attitude:

Frank wrote:It's a blob of cells, it has no feelings.

I didn't want to have a baby - my dad was an abuser and abused kids are more likely to be abusive to their kids, my mom put her kids first in her life and was a wonderful example that I didn't feel I could live up to (I felt I was too selfish).

So I kept putting off the kid question, to the point where my in-laws had resigned themselves to never becoming grandparents.

And then I found out I was pregnant... When faced with the actual decision on whether or not to get an abortion, I couldn't do it.

I couldn't bring myself to think about the fetus as a nothing that I could just dispose of. That "blob of cells" rocked out to my really loud music and wiggled when I sang, he partied when I ate chocolate and chili peppers, and he attacked the flashlight whenever we shined it on him (through my tummy). Being born didn't change any of that (well, we don't need my tummy to shine a flashlight at him).

Intellectually, I feel that a woman should have the right to choose whether or not she has an abortion, but emotionally, it's very difficult for me to approve of - especially third trimester abortions (after viability).

Mean Liar, would you please Tiny URL (or something to make it shorter) that huge URL in your post up there (second post on the page)? It's really screwing up the thread.

Maj wrote:it's very difficult for me to approve of - especially third trimester abortions (after viability).

Nobody is asking you to accept third trimester abortions. That is a red herring that you would do better to avoid bringing up, for it sounds strangely like a strawman to ears less well measured in their response.

Heath Robinson wrote:Nobody is asking you to accept third trimester abortions. That is a red herring that you would do better to avoid bringing up, for it sounds strangely like a strawman to ears less well measured in their response.

Nobody, to my knowledge, is asking me to accept anything because - while I personally can't bring myself to get an abortion - I've never told anyone else that they shouldn't be able to get one.

Maybe someone might try to convince me that fetuses (fetii?) are, in fact, nothing but feelingless blobs of cells, and to that end, they can shove that idea right back up the ass they pulled it out of because I don't give damn. I cannot think of my baby that way, and so long as my personal feelings don't infringe on the rights of others, I don't see why it's a problem that I do think that way.

I am not always right, and have no right to tell other people what to think. Other people have a right to think what they want, but none to force me to agree with them.

Sounds like a very educated view on many things, including abortion among others.

"I may not agree with your opinion, but will fight for your right to have it." ~ Thomas Paine (or Jefferson?)

Maj: Hard questions.

There is a 50/50 chance your or a baby will die if it was not aborted. You do not know which, but one will. Would you have the abortion or wait it out to find out?

Addition: The longer you wait, the greater the chance both of you will die.

Both: The child will not survive if not carried full(est) term.


This was a though exercise given to me by a women back in the 90's. Being a man I didn't feel fully equipped to answer save for...well I will let you answer 1st so my answer does not in ANY way even the slightest influence your own.

Maj wrote:Nobody, to my knowledge, is asking me to accept anything because - while I personally can't bring myself to get an abortion - I've never told anyone else that they shouldn't be able to get one.

Maybe someone might try to convince me that fetuses (fetii?) are, in fact, nothing but feelingless blobs of cells, and to that end, they can shove that idea right back up the ass they pulled it out of because I don't give damn. I cannot think of my baby that way, and so long as my personal feelings don't infringe on the rights of others, I don't see why it's a problem that I do think that way.

Why bring up third trimester abortions at all? Your mention muddies the waters of the debate. I commented that third trimester abortions are a red herring not solely as a warning aimed at you, but also at people who may read your post in exclusion to the rest of the conversation and presume from reflection that those arguing in support of Abortion support third trimester abortion. I am compelled to do so by a doctrine of information hygiene, for the mention is misleading.


Mean_Liar: Morning after pill, yay or nay?

Mean Liar, non-religious, non-spiritual, humanistic virtues make people better people. They make people happier and they improve the quality of life for the people around them.



-Username17

I support abortions at any time for any reason for the same reason I support people being able to refuse other people from using their kidneys without permission and also support people being able to amputate themselves whenever they feel like it.

If you can't survive without stealing someone's kidney/uterus/whatever, well, sucks to be you!

I learned some very amusing facts today.

One: There is Bible-anime. Wait not one but two specific bible anime shows.

Well, three if you count Osama Tezuka's version.

But seriously that is fucking hilarious.

Heath Robinson wrote:Mean_Liar: Morning after pill, yay or nay?

Total yea.

FrankTrollman wrote:Mean Liar, non-religious, non-spiritual, humanistic virtues make people better people. They make people happier and they improve the quality of life for the people around them.

You're not the standard bearer of humanistic virtue: you're arguing for an entirely empirical value system. Those are not the same things, and you know it.

Heath Robinson wrote:Why bring up third trimester abortions at all?

Emotionally, the subject of abortion is particularly difficult for me when the fetus is capable of surviving on its own - that just happens to be in the third trimester. I don't see why I should have only given my opinion on abortion up to approximately 24 weeks, especially when in the course of a conversation involving people who get to say their opinion is no abortions ever, and people who get to say their opinion is abort anytime.

I apologize for offending you.

It is, Maj.

But I'm not sure what is gained by violating personal independence and privacy by including bureaucrats and judges and the public to judge this for someone who we otherwise decide is able to choose for themselves?

Admittedly, there's lots of things where we say 'that's not safe, don't do it'. But so few of them only impact your own life.

-Crissa

Needless to say, Christian groups were not impressed - even though there are HEAPS of sex scenes (and assorted weirdness - it nearly puts Japan to shame!) in the original Bible.

Read Revelations som--hell, that takes too long.

Just read Judges 19. I suggest reading the New International Version to fully absorb the sublime horror.

Or if you're not in the mood to have your soul crushed, Brick Testament to the rescue! http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges ... 19_01.html

Koumei wrote:Cynic: aaaaaages ago, some people (possibly linked to a shadowy anonymous forum, possibly even HACKERS on STEROIDS!) made a hentai doujin for one of those Bible animu.

Needless to say, Christian groups were not impressed - even though there are HEAPS of sex scenes (and assorted weirdness - it nearly puts Japan to shame!) in the original Bible.

the funny thing is that according to wiki, they still run on the 700 club channel. :-D