Abortion

a_skeleton_03

<Banned>
29,948
29,762
She didn't go all religious causeabortionisn't in the Bible.
wink.png


Its only a murder issue so you have to make your stance of definingabortionas murder before you do anything else and if you do that no moral person needs to hear the Bible doesn't like murder they don't like it themselves.

This is why I have never quoted nor used the Bible as my stance againstabortioncause it has no place in the discussion.

wink.png
 
2,199
1
This whole statement is dense with assumption. Stating that life beings at conception does NOT contain any implicit moral context. It makes no statement to the morality ofabortion(moral, immoral or amoral) but it does makeabortiona moral issue. Which is should, being as it involves humans, potential and otherwise.
I don't get it. How does it make it a moral issue without making a moral statement (with direct implications aboutabortion). If it doesn't make that statement, then where does the claim come from that people who get anabortionno matter how earlyare doing something immoral? That would still leave that little whiff of moral snobbery without a rational scaffolding.

Again, people make what would be grave moral decisions aboutpotentialhuman beings (which is not the same thing as merely having the state of "human," which each individual cell of my body does, despite the fact that I don't assign individual cells of my body moral weight, possibly excluding neurons) without a care in the world.

Also I think your analogy only works if the intruder is a single celled organism.
 
2,199
1
Yet somehow a zygote isn't a "life"? Whether you agree withabortionor not, that shit is unscientific as fuck.
I agree. That would be a thoroughly unscientific statement. A zygote is absolutely a life. Bacteria is also a life. The question is whether or not a zygote is a person (and no, I don't mean "person" in the sense of "human"). In other words, what are the necessary conditions for being a human being? I think at the very least you have to include identity and I don't think any scientific conception of identity is going to be at all reasonably separated from a mind or at all reasonably attached to DNA. Moreover, I don't think that the fact that DNA can eventually turn into something with identity means that the significance of that has some impact now. The reason that I compared at least zygoteabortionto wearing a condom is that in both cases you are deeply altering the course of events for potential people. I don't see that the fact that, if we chose to do nothing, there would be a morally significant being in the world means that that person, with their moral significance, exists in any sense right now.
 

Selix

Lord Nagafen Raider
2,149
4
I agree. That would be a thoroughly unscientific statement. A zygote is absolutely a life. Bacteria is also a life. The question is whether or not a zygote is a person (and no, I don't mean "person" in the sense of "human"). In other words, what are the necessary conditions for being a human being? I think at the very least you have to include identity and I don't think any scientific conception of identity is going to be at all reasonably separated from a mind or at all reasonably attached to DNA. Moreover, I don't think that the fact that DNA can eventually turn into something with identity means that the significance of that has some impact now. The reason that I compared at least zygoteabortionto wearing a condom is that in both cases you are deeply altering the course of events for potential people. I don't see that the fact that, if we chose to do nothing, there would be a morally significant being in the world means that that person, with their moral significance, exists in any sense right now.
Mikhail there are things I agree with you on and things I don't but generally I feelabortionis a waste of a topic since any real solutions regardingabortionrates (as we all should know by now) have nothing at all to do withabortion.

That minor disclaimer out of the way there is a simple way to address your argument. If one wishes to place life at the stage of a zygote then you only need to specify that it be a new and complete (*NOT fully developed) human life from the formation of two separate human DNA strings. It is even a scientifically sound statement.
 
2,199
1
Mikhail there are things I agree with you on and things I don't but generally I feelabortionis a waste of a topic since any real solutions regardingabortionrates (as we all should know by now) have nothing at all to do withabortion.

That minor disclaimer out of the way there is a simple way to address your argument. If one wishes to place life at the stage of a zygote then you only need to specify that it be a new and complete (*NOT fully developed) human life from the formation of two separate human DNA strings. It is even a scientifically sound statement.
Right but I don't care about DNA. I also don't care about "fully developed." Shit I don't really care about human that much. When we finally get around to making strong AIs I think they'll deserve equal rights too. I care about identity. Science has something to say about that and I don't think it really has to do with DNA except in an incidental way. I think biology is the least important aspect of what makes you a human being.
 

Selix

Lord Nagafen Raider
2,149
4
I don't know if I can wrap my head around moral arguments that probably won't happen for another 2 centuries or more. I don't even know if that is long enough for a sufficiently advanced AI to be developed.
 
2,199
1
I don't know if I can wrap my head around moral arguments that probably won't happen for another 2 centuries or more. I don't even know if that is long enough for a sufficiently advanced AI to be developed.
Maybe. There's some interesting stuff that's happening today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_annealing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Wave_Systems
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdIURAu1-aU

I don't think it'srightaround the corner but I don't know that 200 years is really the lower bound either.
 

Charles_sl

shitlord
228
0
I think the identity theme is interesting. I don't know what to call it, identity or potency is perhaps better, the potency to have that sense of self, to think for yourself and do what you want to do, with your own thoughts, feelings and desires. If something like that can be achieved artificially then I think that it's reasonable to protect such beings.

One issue that I have with it though is some sort of, let's say self-empowerment. We as humans have our own bodies, our own physical entities that we use to power our lives, used to fulfill everything that we want to do from mental to physical. When you are talking about AI and protecting advanced AI simply because it has its own identity, that's purely mental, that's the brain and in the case of AI it could be used to power anything. How do you protect that exactly? If I have such an AI in a machine, let's say a robot, am I doing something bad if I power it down to repair it? If I stick a futuristic SD card into the machine and transfer it's AI to the card and delete it off of the machine, did I do something wrong? The AI is still there, if I load it into a new machine it's going to be exactly the same with the same exact identity.

Like I said, it's interesting but it isn't really close to a human since humans have that intelligence built into their own personal and natural bodies. We can't simply transfer the identity of a human to a new body like we could with the identity of an AI. I think the link between the identity and the body is important, if there's no link to a body then there really wouldn't be much to protect I think.
 

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
FREEDOM.

His wallet, his choice.

Unwanted pregnancies happen. Sometimes it is a man's fault, sometimes it is a woman's, but most of the time it is the fault of both. Either of the two can make decisions and choices that lead, or don't lead, to a pregnancy. The mutuality in choices end here.

Before the child is even considered a child the woman has the option of aborting the pregnancy. The most common reason forabortionis because the woman is not ready/doesn't want to be a mother. She either doesn't want or isn't ready for the financial and emotional responsibilities of being a parent. Lucky for her, she doesn't have to. This is completely her choice and I feel it should be. It is her body after all. If she doesn't want to have anabortionfor whatever reason and still doesn't want/isn't ready to be a parent, she can either leave the child up for adoption or abandon it, legally. Responsibility gone and all is right with the world, right?Well if you are a woman, yes.

Men, on the other hand, have two options; give the mother of their child money or go to jail. Doesn't seem fair, does it? Well if you aren't a feminist then no it doesn't seem fair. Here is how it can be fair? If an unwanted pregnancy occurs and the woman actually decides to tell the guy instead of tracking him down and showing up at his doorstep however many years later demanding money, the man should be given a choice similar to that of the woman. He should be able to relinquish all of his parental and financial responsibilities before the child is born. Before the child is considered a child.

Take note that I am not talking about opting out of taking care of kids that have already been born after a divorce. Simply put, just like the woman has the choice of relinquishing her parental and financial responsibilities before and after the child is born, the man is given the option to relinquish his responsibilities before the child is born.

Now if you can hear some squawking and screeching from the house next door that's probably because a feminist is your next door neighbor and she/he just read the last few sentences of this article. According to them, a man being given the choice to opt out of any financial responsibilities to a child before it is born is selfish and irresponsible, but a woman doing the same thing withabortionis the most holy of freedoms.

Oh and don't forget women can and do relinquish their responsibilities after the child is born as well. Just put some ear muffs on or crank up the music, I know all too well how annoying feminist screeching can be.
 

Charles_sl

shitlord
228
0
That derail sucks and that argument is just as retarded as a feminist argument. The reality is that neither matter. The issue is self reliance, when you have sex you're responsible for what happens whether it be good or bad. That standard should apply equally to both men and women. The fact is that the child that was created did nothing wrong, deserves no harm, and should be taken care of by its parents rather than the taxpayers. If a man fathers a child then he's responsible for that child just as a woman who mothers a child is, if they didn't want to have a child then they should have taken the proper precautions to prevent a pregnancy from happening.

What happened to people being responsible for their own actions?
 

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
who cares, Charles. Women have the choice to abort now. That means the delegation of responsibility is solely ON woman & men have nothing to do with it. Indeed, isn't that what pro-choice are saying? HER BODY HER CHOICE? Then the consequences of her choices are her fucking responsibility. Pro-choice/feminists asked for this shit and they better get what's due. We are not going back. That means we, men, deserve the same shit (i.e. choice to get in or not)
 

Charles_sl

shitlord
228
0
who cares, Charles. Women have the choice to abort now. That means the delegation of responsibility is solely ON woman & men have nothing to do with it. Indeed, isn't that what pro-choice are saying? HER BODY HER CHOICE? Then the consequences of her choices are her fucking responsibility. Pro-choice/feminists asked for this shit and they better get what's due. We are not going back. That means we, men, deserve the same shit (i.e. choice to get in or not)
Yeah I see what you're saying, it's obviously hypocritical for women to have all of the power when it comes to the "choice." I've used that argument in defense of life before, usually pointing out the fact that if a woman loses her baby due to someone else, let's say a drunk driver, then the baby is a real person and they are fine with charging the drunk driver with the death of the baby as well; but if a woman aborts her baby, then the baby is no longer worthy of life. It's completely hypocritical and ridiculous.

I also see the point that you're making when it comes to men and why they don't have equal rights when it comes to whether or not they want a baby. Men and women should absolutely have equal rights. It isn't justabortionwhere men don't have equal rights when it comes to reproduction either, it happens when both parents want the child as well and the woman virtually always gets preferential treatment.

My point is that the current situation is plainly wrong though. That makes the feminists wrong and it makes whatever the opposite of feminism is called wrong. I'm in the neutral ground where people stop being idiots and take responsibility for their actions. That's what should be argued and fought for.

Honestly I do see room for advancement in the rights of men when it comes to reproduction, but withabortionbeing so common and so popular there's simply no way that equality can be a reality. There would never be a time where the male parent gets to decide that he wants anabortionfor example. But we shouldn't want fathers to have the right to step away from their responsibility as a parent. We don't want either parent to be able to avoid and pass of their choices and responsibilities on others.



Says who?
Perhaps that could be possible in the future but it certainly isn't possible now, so reality says so. Even now we can transfer AI on a tiny Micro SD card and use it on as many machines as we like, but we can't transplant brains and reconnect neurons in another body.

My point was that AI is just digital code, it isn't bound to any special machine and it if it was specifically written for one specific machine then it could easily be altered to work on a different machine. Whereas a human is bound to their specific bodies and their identity is not transferable.

I mean sure, if you are talking science fiction then yeah anything is possible. I'm discussing it realistically though. In reality hardware and software are easily separated for machines but are impossible to separate for humans.
 
2,199
1
Perhaps that could be possible in the future but it certainly isn't possible now, so reality says so.
I agree that reality says that it's nottechnologicallypossibleright now. Does that matter here?

Even now we can transfer AI on a tiny Micro SD card and use it on as many machines as we like, but we can't transplant brains and reconnect neurons in another body.
Who says it would have to be a brain transplant? If I attach additional hardware to my brain and processing begins to occur there instead of my biological brain and eventually only occurs there, who are you to say that that's not me anymore? There's no reason to assume that the specific hardware is the relevant part of identity.

My point was that AI is just digital code, it isn't bound to any special machine and it if it was specifically written for one specific machine then it could easily be altered to work on a different machine. Whereas a human is bound to their specific bodies and their identity is not transferable.
Well again, I don't think that's necessarily true and I don't think it really matters.

I mean sure, if you are talking science fiction then yeah anything is possible. I'm discussing it realistically though.
Right but the point is to look at what identity means, stripped down to its essentials. I don't see why the hardware is relevant to the concept in ethical terms at all.
 

TheBeagle

JunkiesNetwork Donor
8,524
29,345
Right but I don't care about DNA. I also don't care about "fully developed." Shit I don't really care about human that much. When we finally get around to making strong AIs I think they'll deserve equal rights too. I care about identity. Science has something to say about that and I don't think it really has to do with DNA except in an incidental way. I think biology is the least important aspect of what makes you a human being.
That's good. As a biologist, I agree. In my view of the universe, Earth is currently populated by many sentient species; elephants, cetaceans, primates, and some cephalapods. Taking the life of one is taking the life of a 'person', for lack of a better word. It kinda sucks because I love to eat meat and I'm pretty sure that cows and pigs are more than just skeins of meat, but what are you gonna do? Not eat meat? pffft...
 

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
Yeah I see what you're saying, it's obviously hypocritical for women to have all of the power when it comes to the "choice." I've used that argument in defense of life before, usually pointing out the fact that if a woman loses her baby due to someone else, let's say a drunk driver, then the baby is a real person and they are fine with charging the drunk driver with the death of the baby as well; but if a woman aborts her baby, then the baby is no longer worthy of life. It's completely hypocritical and ridiculous.

I also see the point that you're making when it comes to men and why they don't have equal rights when it comes to whether or not they want a baby. Men and women should absolutely have equal rights. It isn't justabortionwhere men don't have equal rights when it comes to reproduction either, it happens when both parents want the child as well and the woman virtually always gets preferential treatment.

My point is that the current situation is plainly wrong though. That makes the feminists wrong and it makes whatever the opposite of feminism is called wrong. I'm in the neutral ground where people stop being idiots and take responsibility for their actions. That's what should be argued and fought for.

Honestly I do see room for advancement in the rights of men when it comes to reproduction, but withabortionbeing so common and so popular there's simply no way that equality can be a reality. There would never be a time where the male parent gets to decide that he wants anabortionfor example. But we shouldn't want fathers to have the right to step away from their responsibility as a parent. We don't want either parent to be able to avoid and pass of their choices and responsibilities on others.
Charlesbro, we both agree that responsibility is the matter in question but unfortunately, it is my view that a limited duration between pregnancy (1-3 month) allows men and women to decide whether they can or cannot be responsible for the child that they are about to bring into this world. I think this is more responsible than out of wedlock babies that they may raise together or give up for adoption. Both needs to know what they are signing up for and what they are not. Unplanned pregnancies happen and that shit can and will ruin lives.

I think that advocating for men's right would procure an equitable union between men and women. And I think that you will fit perfectly in our cause (A lot of MRA are either conservative or libertarians who respect fatherhood more than feminists). If women did not have the ability or option to abort, you and I will meet eye to eye. That is not the case in the modern world.