Print

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

[Folly]

I believe that as unborn fetuses are actively growing, developing, and have human genetics, they are living humans and have the same inherent rights as fully developed humans. Following that, I believe that abortion is nothing more than industrialized murder and should be treated as such.

As I see it, it's an issue of what something is vs what it has the potential to be. If we start assigning rights based on what something has the potential to be, then every time you masturbate you're a mass murderer. You can't sell a pile of bricks and lumber claiming that just as good as a house. We have to treat things as what they are, not what they might become. And scientific analysis shows that prior to a certain stage of development, fetuses lack the level of brain activity requisite to being classified as living humans, and therefore their termination is not considered murder. It's simply a disposal of biological waste which might have eventually become something more.

[Reelya]

And that fits with the legal definition of "brain death" as being the point at which they can legally terminate a normal human as well. Things like a heartbeat etc are not the legal definition of a living human, nor are "genetics". A piece of human skin growing on a petri dish has human DNA.

Since brain activity is the legal definition of a living human, fetuses only qualify after passing the bar of having enough brain to be somewhat self-aware. But that's only one of the criteria for a human who must be provided with life support when thery'd otherwise perish.

But we can all support birth control, can't we? Less abortions needed then.

[Folly]

Spoiler: Don't wear leather shorts, kids (click to show/hide)

I feel like Hitler had some pretty good ideas.

No, not the religious and racial bias, and not the use of lethal military force to accomplish his goals. But the underlying premise of purifying the human genome. Obviously there is a lot of potential for harm in this territory, but just think of the good that could be done. Future generations of humanity could be stronger, smarter, healthier, live longer. We could eradicate diseases and everyone would be happier and more productive. All it would take is an assembly of scholars determining which traits are universally detrimental to humanity, and then petitioning lawmakers to impose tax penalties deterring the reproduction of individuals possessing those traits.

And before you respond, think of all the hospitals full of terminally sick kids who will never get to grow up, just because their genetically defective parents had no incentive to control themselves.

[Loud Whispers]

Hitler didn't make those ideas, he adopted them
Moreover there is screening for genetic diseases and there is eugenics

Also what is non lethal military force, and what is wrong with using it to accomplish one's goals?

[Reelya]

Non lethal military force is when you get the enemy to concede without a fight because they want to avoid the lethal kind. Gunboat diplomacy for example, or nuclear weapons stand-offs. Also, any time you have an army as a deterrent. It could be lethal, but that's only if it's deterrent mission fails and you resort to the lethal kind of force.

One of the big problems with traditional eugenics is that they didn't actually know much about how much those traits are inheretible. e.g. they have some gene-based metric for intelligence they worked out by regression analysis, but it can only predict a spread of about 1-2 IQ points. e.g. normally intelligent people have all the same normal genes for intelligence, because they're valuable genes for literally everyone, so they're widespread in the population.

Basically any gene that's super-great for everyone to have is almost always already possessed by everyone. The ones that you may/may not have aren't strongly correlated with survival. Or, they have good and bad effects. e.g. some "genius" genes might mess up other things making those people have aspergers or synethesia. And those "super genes" that cause those things might make 1/3rd of people with the gene a genius and 2/3rds of people with the gene a madman. Basically, in some geniuses they seem to have "unusual" brain wiring, caused by rare genes, but they don't "wire" each brain the same. That's why an Einstein's kids are almost never another Einstein, or even close.

[Folly]

Also what is non lethal military force, and what is wrong with using it to accomplish one's goals?

I'm picturing guys in riot gear with those big plastic shields and batons, lining up in a human wall and throwing tear-gas-grenades at people.
Now I'm picturing this non-lethal military force being used to deter people from breeding. ROFL.

[TempAcc]

Do LARPers count as a non lethal military force?

[Loud Whispers]

Non lethal military force is when you get the enemy to concede without a fight because they want to avoid the lethal kind.
Gunboat diplomacy for example, or nuclear weapons stand-offs.
Also, any time you have an army as a deterrent. It could be lethal, but that's only if it's deterrent mission fails and you resort to the lethal kind of force.

Lethality is a quality of death-dealing capability, not a confirmation of death having been dealt. Thus battleships and nuclear weapons are the highest lethal arms mankind currently has available in its arsenal. If I employ my army, armed with howitzers and rifles, to chase away some geese - the lack of any death does not make the artillery and rifles any less lethal

I'm picturing guys in riot gear with those big plastic shields and batons, lining up in a human wall and throwing tear-gas-grenades at people.
Now I'm picturing this non-lethal military force being used to deter people from breeding. ROFL.

Hydrocannon demands you cease multiplying
CEASE

[Antioch]

The Vietnam war was a just war, as evidenced by the Cambodian genocide that was a direct result of losing the war.

[Starver]

I think I have most problems (@Ardent Debater) with the "industrialised murder" part of your argument. Your opinions regarding the rest are understandable, even if I'm not with you on the whole swing of things that you take, but abortions are a bespoke action.  At least they are where the mothers-in-potentia are not forced into them against their own will, and where they are forced, that society is already several steps towards the true industrialisation process that ends up with being lined up at the edge of the pit or sent into the 'shower block'.

To equate an individual act probably associated with a big yes/no internal conflict (before anyone else adds their own polarised version of external pressure) with any kind of "out of the door, one cross each, line on the left"-type production(/destruction)-line process is an emotional misrepresentation that you really should be able to do without.

IMO.

[ChairmanPoo]

I suspect hypnotism is a load of male bovine manure and every time I see a show on TV I am firmly convinced the players are faking it.

[Sheb]

I suspect hypnotism is a load of male bovine manure and every time I see a show on TV I am firmly convinced the players are faking it.

Depends what you refers to by hypnosis, but at least the medical kind is fairly established now.

[Draignean]

On Abortion

It's an interesting problem. At what point does a fertilized egg, the most basic state of a creature that can one day turn into a human, attain the intrinsic value that we associate with human life? Do we base meaning upon potential, or do we base it upon actuality?

If we find meaning in potential, then we encounter a conundrum: at what point is potential established? When we have brain activity? When we have a hearbeat? When we have a mass of cells the size of a peanut? A flea? A pair of cells? A single fertilized egg? Should each egg in the female be treated as an irreplaceable entity?

The latter is an interesting point to consider, largely because it's true, and presents a argument to the point of absurdity with regards to the idea that humanity is based on potential. Women don't get more eggs, which means that each one represents a unique person. If the woman does not become impregnated during her cycle, that egg is wasted. That person is wasted so that it never comes to be. A living, breathing human, capability of expression, laughter, and life, is sacrificed every monthish that a woman of reproductive age chooses to not become pregnant. Because of the conscious action of one human, another will never experience a sunset, or friendship, or a loved one's touch.

Now, clearly, it would be utterly ridiculous if we were to actually be terribly upset about that. That sounds really callous after I just spent a paragraph building it up, but it's the truth. We persecute murderers for the murder they committed, not the potentially cataclysmic actions they may have instigated by exterminating the gene-line of random Joe. Eggs aren't people. Sperm aren't people. Fertilized eggs aren't people. The point at which we decide that a bundle of cells is a human life with inherent value is arbitrary- whether that be conception, first, second, third trimester or crowning.

A further point to consider is how bizarrely this looks, objectively, from the purpose of preserving human life. We worry, debate, and dither constantly over whether or not the process of abortion constitutes murder and when does it cross the line. However, the average cost of a vaginal birth is a bit less than 10k, and the yearly cost of a child is a bit more than 10k after that, with steepening penalties. Google tells me that the total cost is somewhere around 230k.  An abortion, depending on the time implemented, costs between 0.5k and 3.5k. Now, GiveWell is a well known charity feeder which takes in money and distributes it to charities that work well. The charities they use  (link) have a cost-per-life saved of about 5-50k. Big range, so we're going to take the high end of 50k per life. So, if we assume that abortion sets at lives 0, we can still score 4 lives for the money we save raising the child to end up with a net life total of +4, as opposed to a standard +1 or +2.

Now, this isn't a justification for why you should never have children. Subjectively, if this was my baby, I'd probably fuck someone up if they tried to tell me that my infant wasn't cost effective. However, when your argument boils down to 'You're committing murder', you're really letting a lot more people die than you're saving. Personal opinion, it's a lot better to take care of the people who are already in this world and dying than to force an mother to take care of a child she doesn't want and potentially tank her quality of life in the process.


Ooh... Eugenics is a fun topic too. I'll put my two cents in there later.

[McTraveller]

...likely to be American, and be conservative, so not be in favor of unliimited free medical treatment at need.

I think most Americans would be all for unlimited free medical care.  Trouble is, basically 100% of people are opposed to providing unlimited medical care with no compensation.

This post not sponsored by the Verizon School of Defining Unlimited and Free.

[helmacon]

When people defend the hijab as an expression of culture, it is the same as people defending the confederate flag as a cultural symbol and I disagree with both.

the two honestly aren't even close to comparable. keep in mind too that hijab is not interchangeable with burqa or niqab^†, which i think are what people generally think of those poor oppressed muslim women. similarly, there's a fundamental difference between a nation enforcing antiquated religious laws in order to oppress a populace, and someone consciously choosing to engage in their religion. there is zero practical difference between a hijab and a dastar, habit, kippah, or any other piece of religious clothing. arguing against one but not any other is plain and simple hypocrisy. more than anything else, it shows a complete and total lack of understanding of what islam is, complete with misogynistic undertones, when people single out hijabis. what this does, effectively, is push blame off of the corrupt governments that follow fundamentalist interpretations of religious laws

Spoiler: † (click to show/hide)

burqa:


niqab:


hijab:

Spoiler: for the sake of argument, have some non-muslim headscarves, all conveniently lifted from wikipedia (click to show/hide)

-snip-

To your first point, I wasn't singling out the hijab but rather I chose the most mild example I could think of assuming my opposition to the wearing of the burqa or niqab ect. would be implied. That's my bad. I apologize for the ambiguity.

similarly, there's a fundamental difference between a nation enforcing antiquated religious laws in order to oppress a populace, and someone consciously choosing to engage in their religion.

There do exist places in which antiquated religious laws are enforced to the oppression of the population. We can agree on that. Some of those laws involve the required covering of female citizens in public. We can also agree on that.

Regardless of how large a role these particular laws play in the general oppression of different groups of people, the hijab and related garments have become a symbol for people both inside and outside the system of that oppression.


Compare this now with the confederate flag, which was never actualy the official flag of the confederacy or the confederate battle flag as some people claim. There is a large population for which the flag is a powerful cultural symbol and is held in reverence. The majority of this population holds no animosity or racist sentiment in association with it. Nonetheless, there is another population that very much does so. For this population it is a symbol of oppression and and racism and the antiquated jim crow laws.

In my opinion, regardless of the intentions or goodwill of the initial group, the feelings and experience of this second group takes precedence, and the flag should not be flown.

The same applies to the religious coverings. Regardless of personal affiliation, intent, personal importance or reverence for traditions, it has become a symbol of oppression and suffering for people. Thus, it should not be worn.


As for the argument that other people sometimes wore scarves or hats, well... thats not really related to the discussion at all.


I'm pretty sure hypnotism is real. They used to hire a guy to do school functions in my home town, so i've seen it first hand. Groups of about 10 high school students at a time. High School students, who would love nothing more that to mess up the guys performance and be "That kid" but none of them ever did.