|
Post by goz on Mar 8, 2021 0:17:53 GMT
No. She always has bodily autonomy as SHE has the decision making onus. It is either her preference to abort a fetus for whatever reason, or not. Then it's your position that a woman should have unrestricted access to abortion for the entire term of her pregnancy. Yes. I can see it being used less and less as the pregnancy progresses, however if you look at the extreme examples like when either the baby or the other won't survive childbirth, then the ulitimate decision must always be the mother's.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 8, 2021 0:28:50 GMT
Then it's your position that a woman should have unrestricted access to abortion for the entire term of her pregnancy. Yes. I can see it being used less and less as the pregnancy progresses, however if you look at the extreme examples like when either the baby or the other won't survive childbirth, then the ulitimate decision must always be the mother's. But even when it's not a question of survival - when it is just a question of preference for any reason at all, it is (in your reckoning) always the mother's option to abort during her entire term. If you are going to limit her allowable reason for a late term abortion to a threat to her health, then you limit her bodily autonomy.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 8, 2021 0:37:39 GMT
Yes. I can see it being used less and less as the pregnancy progresses, however if you look at the extreme examples like when either the baby or the other won't survive childbirth, then the ulitimate decision must always be the mother's. But even when it's not a question of survival - when it is just a question of preference for any reason at all, it is (in your reckoning) always the mother's option to abort during her entire term. If you are going to limit her allowable reason for a late term abortion to a threat to her health, then you limit her bodily autonomy. .. and yet I didn't do that. That is what any reason means.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Mar 8, 2021 1:28:21 GMT
In the overwhelming majority of situations the answer is of course yes. But if there were only two people alive, a man and a woman both capable of breeding, it goes without saying that the woman would be obligated to continue the species. But that's not just true of the woman but the man as well. If the woman were a lesbian and the man were gay the situation would call for both to go against their sexual orientations for the good of the species. Situations like that may come up for certain bloodlines but as far as I know it's more commonly accepted than not with reservation that individual bloodlines die out rather than force outsiders to continue them or have those who don't want to continue their bloodline to do so against their will. I don't have many specific examples to contribute, however, only imagined situations so I'm probably on the wrong side of the Dunning Krueger effect and won't say much more. Why? If we got down to the point that there really were only two people left in the universe then I think the decision as to whether or not to let the species continue or not is solely up to those two people. And frankly, expecting them to produce children and expecting those children to then interbreed is pretty horrific. So I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to achieve... It's a bad situation but that wasn't the point. The point is that there are situations where the will of the individual is less important than the will of the collective. I could easily have said that there were more humans on a faraway space ship and they wouldn't arrive in the lifetime of the last two remaining humans on Earth, but the remaining humans had an important message so complex that they could only had the technology to encode it in a human body so they had to have a baby to let those on the ship know when they arrived. If I'd thought of that then I would have said that instead. That's all I really wanted to say but Father Jack kept disagreeing with me, forcing me to drag out the argument to other areas that many wouldn't agree with.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 8, 2021 2:02:07 GMT
But even when it's not a question of survival - when it is just a question of preference for any reason at all, it is (in your reckoning) always the mother's option to abort during her entire term. If you are going to limit her allowable reason for a late term abortion to a threat to her health, then you limit her bodily autonomy. .. and yet I didn't do that. That is what any reason means. If you're not limiting her to the extreme examples, then there's no point in bringing up the extreme examples. In your scheme of things there is never a question of weighing the rights of one body against another. The mother always prevails.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Mar 8, 2021 2:06:08 GMT
In the overwhelming majority of situations the answer is of course yes. But if there were only two people alive, a man and a woman both capable of breeding, it goes without saying that the woman would be obligated to continue the species. But that's not just true of the woman but the man as well. If the woman were a lesbian and the man were gay the situation would call for both to go against their sexual orientations for the good of the species. Situations like that may come up for certain bloodlines but as far as I know it's more commonly accepted than not with reservation that individual bloodlines die out rather than force outsiders to continue them or have those who don't want to continue their bloodline to do so against their will. I don't have many specific examples to contribute, however, only imagined situations so I'm probably on the wrong side of the Dunning Krueger effect and won't say much more. What good has the species ever come of, regardless how good the species think they are? If one wasn't here, they aren't going to know about it. I explained that already in a response to Father Jack. If we take life to new planets and moons it can be regarded as an objective good for our species that no lesser species could achieve. I'm dealing with such varied criticism I can't argue against all of them without very likely contradicting myself.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Mar 8, 2021 2:15:01 GMT
I explained that already in a response to Father Jack. If we take life to new planets and moons it can be regarded as an objective good for our species that no lesser species could achieve. I'm dealing with such varied criticism I can't argue against all of them without very likely contradicting myself. What species is lessor than us? Any one that doesn't have the brainpower and the toolmaking capabilities to harness resources to build spaceships. If you know of another species that's found another way to travel in space, perhaps through strictly biological means I'd like to hear about it.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Mar 8, 2021 2:40:56 GMT
Any one that doesn't have the brainpower and the toolmaking capabilities to harness resources to build spaceships. If you know of another species that's found another way to travel in space, perhaps through strictly biological means I'd like to hear about it. Me thinks you think far too much of yourself as a human. I'm no rocket scientist or AI researcher but I have much respect those that are. I'm not saying that humans can't learn from other animals and other species in general. I don't know why it's controversial to say that humans should strive to be more intelligent and more capable than we were before. I can't be sure that we'lll get there, but why not try to cure cancer or visit another star system? What's wrong with being smart?
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Mar 8, 2021 3:14:41 GMT
I'm no rocket scientist or AI researcher but I have much respect those that are. I'm not saying that humans can't learn from other animals and other species in general. I don't know why it's controversial to say that humans should strive to be more intelligent and more capable than we were before. I can't be sure that we'lll get there, but why not try to cure cancer or visit another star system? What's wrong with being smart? Rather than strive, why not just be? The striving has been the undoing for humans as well.
You would have to define smart?
I can't define every kind of 'smart'. I can give you basics like good memory, pattern recognition, understanding of the self, adaptability through observation to survive in your natural environment, ability to read other's emotions, and so on. But I can't give you a specific answer because there's more than one way to be smart just like there's more than one way to cut through stone. There's blades, high pressure water cutters, lasers, and probably other ways I don't know. If you're wondering why be smart, I have a very good answer. The magnetic field of the Earth often goes through flips and partial alterations where human beings would be exposed to high levels of ultraviolet radiation. There was a period around 42,000 years ago where our ancestors may have used a form of red paint to absorb the radiation. Not only do we have the future demise of Earth to worry about but other unpredictable dangers long before that. Volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts, maybe solar storms, or for that matter, on a lesser scale, the current pandemic. I'm not some sort of renaissance man who could give you a brilliant, persuasive answer so I'll have to leave it at that.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Mar 8, 2021 4:22:17 GMT
I can't define every kind of 'smart'. I can give you basics like good memory, pattern recognition, understanding of the self, adaptability through observation to survive in your natural environment, ability to read other's emotions, and so on. But I can't give you a specific answer because there's more than one way to be smart just like there's more than one way to cut through stone. There's blades, high pressure water cutters, lasers, and probably other ways I don't know. If you're wondering why be smart, I have a very good answer. The magnetic field of the Earth often goes through flips and partial alterations where human beings would be exposed to high levels of ultraviolet radiation. There was a period around 42,000 years ago where our ancestors may have used a form of red paint to absorb the radiation. Not only do we have the future demise of Earth to worry about but other unpredictable dangers long before that. Volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts, maybe solar storms, or for that matter, on a lesser scale, the current pandemic. I'm not some sort of renaissance man who could give you a brilliant, persuasive answer so I'll have to leave it at that. What I say, instead of humans praising themselves over how intellectual and smart they are by colonizing elsewhere in the solar system, how about being smart by attempting to fix what they are ruining at home base? A good start would be to not to put so much emphasis on expanding the human population, just so they can go elsewhere and repeat the same paradigm. No argument from me that we shouldn't move just because we've overpopulated the Earth. I already mentioned that we should drastically reduce the agricultural area to provide more room for plants and animals. I am considering giving up meat since we've already come up with good tasting artificial meats. I need to make clear that while humans are quite smart, we'll need to be much smarter in the future, and of course, much wiser. We need to figure out how to deal with how to keep progressing without enlarging the population as we do it. We need to take initiative to improve ourselves and society. But I would say that we need to make just one colony outside Earth just to be safe in case something happens to those on Earth.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 8, 2021 6:49:26 GMT
.. and yet I didn't do that. That is what any reason means. If you're not limiting her to the extreme examples, then there's no point in bringing up the extreme examples. In your scheme of things there is never a question of weighing the rights of one body against another. The mother always prevails. I don't remember doing that though I mentioned them. Yes. the mother always prevails. Why are you trying to twist my words in this thread? I have already said that the mother has ultimate say for all reasons, and I have stated that the most extreme examples are rare and heartbreaking for everyone( especially if the mother saves the baby by not having a late term abortion and dies herself leaving a motherless child and a widower or bereft partner and father)...so what is your ultimate goal in twisting what I say?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 8, 2021 7:44:47 GMT
Yes, this is an abortion rights thread started by a feminist. It is a question worth asking however. If we agree that a woman’s body belongs to her when discussing abortion, does that mean she should have unrestricted access to abortion for the entire term of her pregnancy? Late term abortion is not a real argument, less than 1.5% of abortions are past the 21st week, and that is not even the definition of late term abortion, yes for the purposes of the argument the timing of the abortion is not important, it's a personal choice thing, although I must say I do not think it is only the woman's choice in most circumstances as there is a father to think of and they have just as much right to the determination of their genetic material as a woman does (non consensual pregnancy aside).
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 8, 2021 8:57:12 GMT
If you're not limiting her to the extreme examples, then there's no point in bringing up the extreme examples. In your scheme of things there is never a question of weighing the rights of one body against another. The mother always prevails. I don't remember doing that though I mentioned them. Yes. the mother always prevails. Why are you trying to twist my words in this thread? I have already said that the mother has ultimate say for all reasons, and I have stated that the most extreme examples are rare and heartbreaking for everyone( especially if the mother saves the baby by not having a late term abortion and dies herself leaving a motherless child and a widower or bereft partner and father)...so what is your ultimate goal in twisting what I say? Don't accuse me of twisting your words. I did no such thing. When I started out by asking you, "Does that mean she should have unrestricted access to abortion for the entire term of her pregnancy", if your answer was an unqualified "Yes", then all you had to do to avoid confusion was to simply answer "Yes". But instead, you talked about a "sliding scale", and how the rights of the "other body" must be weighed against the woman, and about those cases where a woman's life may be in danger. Such talk strongly hints that you think that when it comes to late term abortions, unless the woman's life is in danger, the right of the other body to live supersedes the woman's right to autonomy. But if that's not what you think, then bringing all that up just muddies what could have been a straight "Yes".
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 8, 2021 9:04:15 GMT
If we agree that a woman’s body belongs to her when discussing abortion, does that mean she should have unrestricted access to abortion for the entire term of her pregnancy? Late term abortion is not a real argument, less than 1.5% of abortions are past the 21st week
When someone makes a blanket statement, I like to know if that blanket is covering only the vast majority of cases or covering ALL cases (which, with Goz, it apparently is).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2021 14:49:44 GMT
What I say, instead of humans praising themselves over how intellectual and smart they are by colonizing elsewhere in the solar system, how about being smart by attempting to fix what they are ruining at home base? A good start would be to not to put so much emphasis on expanding the human population, just so they can go elsewhere and repeat the same paradigm. No argument from me that we shouldn't move just because we've overpopulated the Earth. I already mentioned that we should drastically reduce the agricultural area to provide more room for plants and animals. I am considering giving up meat since we've already come up with good tasting artificial meats. I need to make clear that while humans are quite smart, we'll need to be much smarter in the future, and of course, much wiser. We need to figure out how to deal with how to keep progressing without enlarging the population as we do it. We need to take initiative to improve ourselves and society. But I would say that we need to make just one colony outside Earth just to be safe in case something happens to those on Earth. Humans are a disease. A cancer on this planet. They should never be allowed to destroy anywhere else in the universe. In today's news.. Two thirds of the world's rainforests and their biodiversity are now gone. They haven't just vanished. Like the polar ice caps, and temperate forests, we have destroyed them. We breed beyond the planet's carrying capacity, and destroy the very ecosystems all life depends on. We aren't intelligent. We are a cancer. Join the VHEMT.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 8, 2021 16:29:07 GMT
"Vhemt"? Is that Yiddish?
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Mar 8, 2021 17:32:48 GMT
Of all the things I thought people would disagree with, I didn't think it would be that one. I think that there are good reasons for continuing the species. After all, humans are the only form of life on Earth that has the potential to bring life to other places once the Earth can no longer support it. If the last humans were to die off we don't know if another species would evolve intelligence and civilization in time before the sun becomes too bright to support life on Earth. For that reason alone I think human beings should stick around. I'm sure that there are other reasons out there, but that's the one that pops into my head. We should be banned from taking human life to any other place in the universe. We can't even look after the planet we live on. Let's not inflict the plague of humanity on any other planets. Fuck no. If we are virus, lets act like a virus and infect the rest of the solar system.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Mar 8, 2021 19:20:29 GMT
No argument from me that we shouldn't move just because we've overpopulated the Earth. I already mentioned that we should drastically reduce the agricultural area to provide more room for plants and animals. I am considering giving up meat since we've already come up with good tasting artificial meats. I need to make clear that while humans are quite smart, we'll need to be much smarter in the future, and of course, much wiser. We need to figure out how to deal with how to keep progressing without enlarging the population as we do it. We need to take initiative to improve ourselves and society. But I would say that we need to make just one colony outside Earth just to be safe in case something happens to those on Earth. As soon as humans go into outer space, they will bring all their inherent flaws and foibles with them and make a mess of things again. History on earth has proven as such. I am a cynic when it comes to human nature, but just being practical about it.
Earth is a sanctuary and needs to remain as such, untouched by human hands. Humans are too attached to their physical form and think the mind is the brain and center of all intellect. They are wrong and in the future, they will be dead wrong as humans will rightly and deservedly die out. Most of this will be at their own behest.
If the brain isn't the source of intellect then what is? The gut? The soul which we haven't shown to exist?
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Mar 8, 2021 19:56:51 GMT
No argument from me that we shouldn't move just because we've overpopulated the Earth. I already mentioned that we should drastically reduce the agricultural area to provide more room for plants and animals. I am considering giving up meat since we've already come up with good tasting artificial meats. I need to make clear that while humans are quite smart, we'll need to be much smarter in the future, and of course, much wiser. We need to figure out how to deal with how to keep progressing without enlarging the population as we do it. We need to take initiative to improve ourselves and society. But I would say that we need to make just one colony outside Earth just to be safe in case something happens to those on Earth. Humans are a disease. A cancer on this planet. They should never be allowed to destroy anywhere else in the universe. In today's news.. Two thirds of the world's rainforests and their biodiversity are now gone. They haven't just vanished. Like the polar ice caps, and temperate forests, we have destroyed them. We breed beyond the planet's carrying capacity, and destroy the very ecosystems all life depends on. We aren't intelligent. We are a cancer. Join the VHEMT. What would you say if humans reduced their numbers and left Earth for the rest of life? You aren't giving human beings very many options. You say that we shouldn't be on Earth but don't want them to go somewhere else where there wouldn't be any existing life. Some choice that is.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Mar 8, 2021 23:08:35 GMT
If the brain isn't the source of intellect then what is? The gut? The soul which we haven't shown to exist? What is intellect? Are you referring to mind? Soul is a religious construct and won’t EVER be shown to exist? I meant mind. Just tell me what your thoughts on the mind and its source are. I'm not a mind reader and I don't know what you mean by a form other than a 'physical' form.
|
|