Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[ShadowHM]

So you decide  is a human beeing today and if change your mind tomorow is not any  more, that sounds very consistent to me  . Its the way of the left, make everithing fluid, well as well were comunists.

I am not 'deciding what is a human being'.  I have the right to decide what happens to my own body.

If you think that's 'communist', then go away and do some homework on what that word means.

[mackoti]

So you decide  is a human beeing today and if change your mind tomorow is not any  more, that sounds very consistent to me  . Its the way of the left, make everithing fluid, well as well were comunists.

I am not 'deciding what is a human being'.  I have the right to decide what happens to my own body.

If you think that's 'communist', then go away and do some homework on what that word means.

By killing it you decide is not human.And when you gave birth you split  in 2 bodies?.About communists i think i know them at first hand.

[Zed-F]

Have fun living in your bubble, Mack. You don’t deserve any more of my time.

[Bacchus]

I am the one who gets to decide, not you or anyone else.

This view is not incompatible with restrictions on abortion. It can be quite reasonably argued that in case of consesnsual sex, you did excercise your right to decide. Given the consequences that decision has for another potential human being (if, as you say, you stay away from making a determination regarding fetuses), you cannot reasonably backtrack on your own decision to voluntarily risk conception without very good cause. If this sounds preposterous, this logic is exactly what's in place for fathers -- they decided to have sex, they are obligated to pay alimony to accommodate the consequences of their decision. There is no doubt that the burden on the body is more severe than on the purse, but that's a different argument than a right to decide.

[ShadowHM]

So you decide  is a human beeing today and if change your mind tomorow is not any  more, that sounds very consistent to me  . Its the way of the left, make everithing fluid, well as well were comunists.

I am not 'deciding what is a human being'.  I have the right to decide what happens to my own body.

If you think that's 'communist', then go away and do some homework on what that word means.

By killing it you decide is not human.And when you gave birth you split  in 2 bodies?.About communists i think i know them at first hand.

 
By deciding NOT to carry the fetus to term (i.e., carry it until it is born), I am continuing to exercise my right to decide what happens to my own body. 

And regarding communism and its relevance to this discussion, I can only assume that you still don't know what that word means.   (You may be conflating the effects of a government regime with the word itself.  If you want to carry that sub-topic onwards, do provide your definition and explain how it relates to my right to decide what happens to my own body.)

I am the one who gets to decide, not you or anyone else.

This view is not incompatible with restrictions on abortion. It can be quite reasonably argued that in case of consesnsual sex, you did excercise your right to decide. Given the consequences that decision has for another potential human being (if, as you say, you stay away from making a determination regarding fetuses), you cannot reasonably backtrack on your own decision to voluntarily risk conception without very good cause. If this sounds preposterous, this logic is exactly what's in place for fathers -- they decided to have sex, they are obligated to pay alimony to accommodate the consequences of their decision. There is no doubt that the burden on the body is more severe than on the purse, but that's a different argument than a right to decide.

A better argument.  Still not compelling.   You presume that my decision to engage in sexual activity must include an acceptance that I will carry any resulting fetus to term.   Why would that be so?  This is about my right to decide what happens to my body.   If you feel that strongly about abortion, then you can decide not to have one.  But you have no right to impose that belief on me.

[Bacchus]

You presume that my decision to engage in sexual activity must include an acceptance that I will carry any resulting fetus to term. Why would that be so?

No such specific presumption is required. Much like a man's decision to engage in sexual activity doesn't need to include any acceptance of paying support in case of conception; in fact his acceptance or non-acceptance is entirely irrelevant to the matter. All that is required is that conception is a reasonably foreseen potential consequence of a voluntarily chosen action. There is then a general liability for such consequences, at least for sane people. If you will the action, you will the consequences; the parent is liable for the child, because it was the parent's will that the child, and all its needs, exist.

Just for clarity, are you arguing that fathers have no duty to pay support or otherwise provide for their offspring, at least not simply by virtue of being fathers? How do you see the responsibility of men being established? Do they need to make a declaration, or sign a contract before sex to be held liable for the consequences of it?

Also, where did you see anything about my feelings on abortion, much less passionate feelings? All I said was that your specific premise didn't entail your conclusion. Doesn't mean that the conclusion is invalid, and, talking of personal views, I'm not sure that it is. Situation of an unwanted pregnancy is a tragic one, and I commiserate with the women caught in it, especially knowing that such pregnancies are frequently just the peak of a series of other injustices. But I also don't see the distinction between abortion and infanticide as being remotely clear, and I certainly can't support the latter, no matter the misery of the perpetrator.

As for what right we have to impose our beliefs about justice on each other? That's definitionally what requirements of justice are -- such requirements that we can reasonably demand of others that they follow them, and punish those who don't. Of course, you can make a case that no such requirements exist, it's all self-interest and brute force, but that's a different discussion, and I think few people here besides T-Hawk subscribe to such a view.

[T-hawk]

Abortion is weird as a political issue; unlike everything else, it's the extremists on both sides who are correct.

If you think a human life's right to exist is the first principle, then abortion is murder and the consequences follow all the way through convicting and imprisoning the woman and doctor.  If you think her-body-her-choice is the first principle, then abortion is perfectly permissible and shouldn't even be encumbered by rules like counseling or parental notification or anything such.  There's no logical ground for a compromise like "mild murder" or a process that is legal but heavy with sanctions and social stigma.

I actually don't know where my self-interest lies, but probably on the side of legal abortion.  It's unlikely the babies will mean anything positive for me.  I've read a theory that the drop in violent crime that began in the 90's can be attributed to the would-be criminals being aborted starting in the 70's.

[Bobchillingworth]

I've read a theory that the drop in violent crime that began in the 90's can be attributed to the would-be criminals being aborted starting in the 70's.

What? That sounds preposterous. Did pregnant women develop powers of precognition so they'd know to abort criminally-inclined fetuses?


A much better explanation is that violent crime declined after the U.S. finally banned leaded gasoline, as lead is well-known to cause cognitive impairment that correlates to higher rates of violence.

[suboptimal]

I've read a theory that the drop in violent crime that began in the 90's can be attributed to the would-be criminals being aborted starting in the 70's.

What?  That sounds preposterous.  Did pregnant women develop powers of precognition so they'd know to abort criminally-inclined fetuses?  


A much better explanation is that violent crime declined after the U.S. finally banned leaded gasoline, as lead is well-known to cause cognitive impairment that correlates to higher rates of violence.

If I had to guess the theory that T-Hawk cites probably stems from an argument that runs something like:

1) unwanted pregnancies happen more frequently in lower income areas
2) legalized abortions occure more frequently in lower income areas because of the above
3) violent crime tends to be higher in lower income areas
4) violent crime in lower income areas has decreased over time
5) The decrease in violent crime is due to the availability of legalized abortions

Correlation != causation

[Bacchus]

No need to guess, it's an effect popularised by Freakonomics and researched by one of.its authors. Turns out there is an entire wiki article devoted to the subject: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalize...ime_effect