Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Il Palazzo]

Ah, fuck it. Changed my mind. Not gonna engage. You guys carry on.

[Kagus]

The issue is that you're pitting the potential (which, at the time of abortion, isn't capable of acknowledging the fact that it has or can have a life) of one life versus the rights of another to control their own life. Someone else is deciding what a woman can and cannot do with her own body, because of that other person's definitions of what is and is not life.

It's not a matter of empowering gender, it's a matter of allowing individuals to have some say in what happens to their life. Yes, the same would absolutely apply if men could/did bear children. The right to having a life doesn't mean a great deal if you're only allowed to have a life that is determined by the opinions of someone entirely removed from you. And pregnancy/birth are a considerably more personal and immediate impact on someone's life than the abstract of communal laws and norms, before anyone gets started on that.


As for adoption? I have to admit, I fail to see how it's morally preferable to give life to a child and then hand them off to an immensely fault-laden system to potentially drag out the rest of their existence hurt, ostracized, and forever wondering why they were abandoned; rather than simply stopping them from ever being a person to begin with, before they can be hurt or feel loss. But that's just my view of the subject.


And if it's viewed as being worth any consideration, a fair percentage of the very few people to actually utilize this option while it was still legally available (I believe the number was around 12 operations per year on average, for the entire country?) were women who had previously experienced extreme difficulty conceiving, and had sought help via fertility treatments. Fertility treatments which, coincidentally, have a disproportionate chance of resulting in twins.

So women who were otherwise more or less prevented from having children would get expensive and complicated medical help, finally reach a success, discover that they were pregnant with twins, and then be handed an ultimatum that they would either get more than they bargained for or have to terminate the entire affair.

So, yes, this ruling makes no sense because the moral authority of the Christian People's Party has decided that it is more ethically defensible to terminate two embryos than it is to just terminate the one while bringing the other to term, because abortion itself is still allowed (until they manage to get their hands on that as well, which they originally tried to do by saying that abortion laws are discriminatory against people with Downs).

[TD1]

Which, at the time of abortion, isn't capable of acknowledging the fact that it has or can have a life

So awareness of life is an important determining factor? Ought we to pull the cord on all comatose patients? However, I presume your intention is to highlight the lack of self-awareness as an important determining factor? I suppose I can understand that, though I think of it more as being asleep rather than being non existent. With the dawn, awareness will come. Please don't kill me in my sleep.

Someone else is deciding what a woman can and cannot do with her own body, because of that other person's definitions of what is and is not life.

Should women therefore be allowed to commit suicide - to slit their own wrists? Can she assault others with impunity? Can a woman truly do whatever she wishes with her own body? No. We draw the line at bodily harm - whether of herself or of others.

I presume that in answering this we can all agree that, in actuality, women should not be allowed to do whatever they want with their bodies. But then, of course, we come to the complication - ah, but there is no bodily harm here, for I define life differently from you! Perhaps you do. And is it therefore somehow morally reprehensible for me to refuse to stand by while something which I find profoundly more damaging than self-harm occurs? Simply because there are competing definitions?

It's not a matter of empowering gender, it's a matter of allowing individuals to have some say in what happens to their life. Yes, the same would absolutely apply if men could/did bear children. The right to having a life doesn't mean a great deal if you're only allowed to have a life that is determined by the opinions of someone entirely removed from you. And pregnancy/birth are a considerably more personal and immediate impact on someone's life than the abstract of communal laws and norms, before anyone gets started on that.

There are some widely accepted instances in which individuals should emphatically not have a say. See previous examples of self-harm and suicide, both of which I'm sure you'll agree are personal and have a huge impact on someone's life.

As for adoption? I have to admit, I fail to see how it's morally preferable to give life to a child and then hand them off to an immensely fault-laden system to potentially drag out the rest of their existence hurt, ostracized, and forever wondering why they were abandoned; rather than simply stopping them from ever being a person to begin with, before they can be hurt or feel loss. But that's just my view of the subject.

Ask an orphan in a schoolyard where he has been ostracised by all the other children whether he would prefer to not exist. See what he answers. Your kindness is the kindness of the surgical knife. Rational, perhaps, but entirely disassociated from compassion.

So women who were otherwise more or less prevented from having children would get expensive and complicated medical help, finally reach a success, discover that they were pregnant with twins, and then be handed an ultimatum that they would either get more than they bargained for or have to terminate the entire affair.

By my reasoning they would indeed have to deal with getting more than they bargained for. And I ask it again, just as it seems not to factor into most peoples' considerations - does no one care if the father gets what he 'bargained for'?

So, yes, this ruling makes no sense because the moral authority of the Christian People's Party has decided that it is more ethically defensible to terminate two embryos than it is to just terminate the one while bringing the other to term, because abortion itself is still allowed (until they manage to get their hands on that as well, which they originally tried to do by saying that abortion laws are discriminatory against people with Downs).

Yes, seems like they're handling their desire to curtail abortion in a rather self defeating manner.

[Kagus]

The father actually gets less say in matters now than previously. Before it was the woman who made the choice, and therefore the man could communicate his wishes directly with her. Now there is an "impartial" panel of officials who will determine what happens, and who does not follow any regulations stating that they should listen to what the father has to say; only that they should take how the woman describes her own condition into consideration.


I could also argue about how an unconscious adult is notably different from a non-conscious fetus, or how being able to decide over your own body is not condoning of assault (in fact it's the exact opposite, but whatever), but it's evident that you want to maintain your moral crusade and there's little chance that I'm going to be swayed from my position either.


Instead, let us meditate on the futility of Norway, scrotum-like topograhy as it has, trying to invest heavily in land-based wind farms. Because clearly that is the best and least environmentally destructive alternative when looking for renewable energy sources.

Nevermind that you only get about 20% the turbine density and need three times the service roads as an actually flat country; we shall have a big wind, by the æsir!

[TD1]

"Here's a series of reasons why you're wrong, now let's look at wind turbines instead of continuing discussion."

0_o

Okay then.

[hector13]

You're not really discussing, more going "You're wrong, here's why" "no you're wrong, here's why" "but you're still wrong because" "ah but you're also wrong because"

[SaberToothTiger]

i mean, i still think i deserve at least some praise for smoothly transitioning from abortion to baby pollution

[TD1]

You're not really discussing, more going "You're wrong, here's why" "no you're wrong, here's why" "but you're still wrong because" "ah but you're also wrong because"

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.
"the committee acts as a forum for discussion"
a conversation or debate about a specific topic.
plural noun: discussions
"discussions about environmental improvement"
synonyms:   conversation, talk, dialogue, discourse, conference, debate, exchange of views, consultation, deliberation; More
a detailed treatment of a topic in speech or writing.
"see Appendix One, for a more detailed discussion"

What we were doing definitely fulfils one or more of those criteria

[scourge728]

You're not really discussing, more going "You're wrong, here's why" "no you're wrong, here's why" "but you're still wrong because" "ah but you're also wrong because"

I'm pretty sure that's what discussions ARE, or at least ones aimed at changing someone else's opinion

[hector13]

You're not really discussing, more going "You're wrong, here's why" "no you're wrong, here's why" "but you're still wrong because" "ah but you're also wrong because"

I'm pretty sure that's what discussions ARE, or at least ones aimed at changing someone else's opinion

If don’t think either person in this instance was going to change their stance, regardless what the other said.

[George_Chickens]

You're not really discussing, more going "You're wrong, here's why" "no you're wrong, here's why" "but you're still wrong because" "ah but you're also wrong because"

I'm pretty sure that's what discussions ARE, or at least ones aimed at changing someone else's opinion

If don’t think either person in this instance was going to change their stance, regardless what the other said.

I think you're wrong. Here's why:

[hector13]

You're not really discussing, more going "You're wrong, here's why" "no you're wrong, here's why" "but you're still wrong because" "ah but you're also wrong because"

I'm pretty sure that's what discussions ARE, or at least ones aimed at changing someone else's opinion

If don’t think either person in this instance was going to change their stance, regardless what the other said.

I think you're wrong. Here's why: akshuli ur ryt ‘cause yur awsum

[scriver]

I would caution against the termination of one of the twins simply because of the uncertainty as to whether it is the evil twin or the other.

[ChairmanPoo]

I would caution against the termination of one of the twins simply because of the uncertainty as to whether it is the evil twin or the other.

Just assess which one has a goatee beforehand. Should be simple

[Doomblade187]

I would caution against the termination of one of the twins simply because of the uncertainty as to whether it is the evil twin or the other.

Just assess which one has a goatee beforehand. Should be simple

But what if the evil twin sticks the goatee on the good twin?