It does not because a definition is not a fact. There are reasons to see a virus as life, there are reasons against it and science decided to not see it as life. But it could just aswell have decided the opposition (or might still decide that) not based on some inherent truth but on what view yields more insights in their minds. Just like that, it makes sense to not see a fetus as life, but that is completely irrelevant for the moral point of view on whether a fetus is just as worthy of protection as a person is.
Why does the mother get to say whether the child dies or not but the father is not asked in that question?
With your logic, i ask why someone has a say about a covid deniers body. The child and in many cases the father are far more impacted with far more reliability than I am impacted if someone in my train is not vaxxed when i am vaxxed and wearing a mask.
ninjabot said it best, personhood. Morality isn't a thing here, especially not from a group of people that love to fund the weapons industry, want to make gun rights lax and do nothing about mass shootings going on, and do absolutely nothing to help families that need assistance. Why do fetuses deserve protection, but after they're born the right do absolutely nothing to help them, but even do things to take away any assistance? The right encourage abortion more than anything, but no one on that side calls them out for it. And how is it more moralistic to let the fetus be born and abandoned, mistreated, or be put in an orphanage where they're not happy? What's moralistic about letting a woman die either along with the fetus or not giving her a choice?
I explained this already..... The father should only get a say if the mother asks for it. It's not his body on the line, it's not his life on the line, it's the woman's. And it's not a child, it's a fetus. The father is in no way impacted, especially if he never even knew his wife was pregnant in the first place and got an abortion.
I also explained this many times. Covid deniers/anti-maskers/vaxxers affect multiple people that can result in death or long covid. Abortion affects no one but the mom and the fetus.
What about someone else who's not vaxxed but wearing a mask? Or someone who is vaxxed but not wearing a mask?
injabot said it best, personhood. Morality isn't a thing here, especially not from a group of people that love to fund the weapons industry, want to make gun rights lax and do nothing about mass shootings going on, and do absolutely nothing to help families that need assistance. Why do fetuses deserve protection, but after they're born the right do absolutely nothing to help them, but even do things to take away any assistance? The right encourage abortion more than anything, but no one on that side calls them out for it. And how is it more moralistic to let the fetus be born and abandoned, mistreated, or be put in an orphanage where they're not happy? What's moralistic about letting a woman die either along with the fetus or not giving her a choice?
I explained this already..... The father should only get a say if the mother asks for it. It's not his body on the line, it's not his life on the line, it's the woman's. And it's not a child, it's a fetus. The father is in no way impacted, especially if he never even knew his wife was pregnant in the first place and got an abortion.
I also explained this many times. Covid deniers/anti-maskers/vaxxers affect multiple people that can result in death or long covid. Abortion affects no one but the mom and the fetus.
What about someone else who's not vaxxed but wearing a mask? Or someone who is vaxxed but not wearing a mask?
Yes of course it is about morals. If we are not talking about morals, then why would anyone care about other people anyway? Why would I care if somebody gets sick more than if a fetus is aborted, as an inherent thing?
I could just aswell say that a fetus, an unborn child, is pure and a stranger might be a bad person.
But that is just a definition, whether something is life or not. Quite a sizeable chunk of people see a fetus as life worthy of protection. That cannot be waved away by saying that it is not legally a living person yet.
It should be. And I couldn't care less how they feel about it if the upset people in question aren't uterus-having people. I'm a cis-het man. My opinion on this doesn't count for shit. Only the people who it affects should have any real say.
And harming other people is absolutely my right, as i am allowed to move around with a flu through an old peoples' home and i am also allowed to have one night stands without a condom even if i never tested myself for any STD.
This brings us to the "positive freedoms vs. negative freedoms" debate I mentioned like a week ago. Freedom to do things vs. the freedom from things. You have the right to do those things, but your victims have the right to lives protected from those things. And you're the badguy in these situations, because you're using your negative freedom in order to violate their positive freedoms.
So no, it's not that big of a quandary. You are the bad guy if you use your freedoms to harm the people around you. Hence again, fuck anti vax folk.
We are allowed to do various things that are healthdecisions that endanger other people directly or indirectly.
But should we? What is your moral prescription for people that endanger other people's lives because it would hurt their fee-fees to conform to society's expectations of them? My prescription is that they're cunts. Then again, I'm a secular humanist, and I base my morality on promoting as much wellbeing among as many people as possible, while limiting the amount of harm caused to as many people as possible. It's super simple for me to make moral observations with this moral framework because it's based almost entirely on empathy for the people around me, making it natural.
it should be. And I couldn't care less how they feel about it if the upset people in question aren't uterus-having people. I'm a cis-het man. My opinion on this doesn't count for shit. Only the people who it affects should have any real say.
I don't think that is how politics works. At least I never heard of women being excluded from political decisions that only concern men.
And it is not like there is no huge amount of women who feel that a fetus is already human life and should thus cannot just be killed.
This brings us to the "positive freedoms vs. negative freedoms" debate I mentioned like a week ago. Freedom to do things vs. the freedom from things. You have the right to do those things, but your victims have the right to lives protected from those things. And you're the badguy in these situations, because you're using your negative freedom in order to violate their positive freedoms.
So no, it's not that big of a quandary. You are the bad guy if you use your freedoms to harm the people around you. Hence again, fuck anti vax folk.
But clearly then, it isn't so easy to say that "your body is your choice unless you impair others". Because that is not what is done. Sometimes your body is your choice, sometimes it is not and there is no general rule for that.
Another such example is drug use. Drug use clearly affects those around you because you increase your chance of becoming mentally ill. Would you say using drugs makes you a bad guy, or even using alcohol?
Because clearly, it makes you more likely to get someone killed if you are drunk, or to have longtime problematic effects on those around you.
But should we? What is your moral prescription for people that endanger other people's lives because it would hurt their fee-fees to conform to society's expectations of them? My prescription is that they're cunts. Then again, I'm a secular humanist, and I base my morality on promoting as much wellbeing among as many people as possible, while limiting the amount of harm caused to as many people as possible. It's super simple for me to make moral observations with this moral framework because it's based almost entirely on empathy for the people around me, making it natural.
But that is not what society expects. Society (as with my alcohol example) allows for lots of things that are very harmful to others on average. Even if they hurt other peoples' bod-bods in the process.
So no, it is not that simple.
I think only very few people want to live in a society that rigorously bans behavior that might be detrimental to others, because that would lead to a lot of unwanted consequences if you do it strictly enough to not be hypocritical
I don't think that is how politics works. At least I never heard of women being excluded from political decisions that only concern men.
And it is not like there is no huge amount of women who feel that a fetus is already human life and should thus cannot just be killed.
What political decisions only concern men? Also: these women shouldn't abort their children if they're against it then. That's their right. It's not their right to tell other women they can't abort their children though. I mean they can say it, it's just their say shouldn't count for shit. And like I said: personhood. Everyone here agrees that a fetus is a life. That's not the point of contention.
But clearly then, it isn't so easy to say that "your body is your choice unless you impair others". Because that is not what is done. Sometimes your body is your choice, sometimes it is not and there is no general rule for that.
There is a general rule for that. It's the biggest rule of them all lol. It's the Golden Rule. Treat people as you would have them treat you. If you don't want someone violating your bodily autonomy, don't run around doing it to others. As for figuring these things out, It's easy in situations where the aggressor is explicit about their reasoning for their actions. If you won't get the vaccine because it's been politicized and you're stanning for your team at the expense of the safety of people around you, then you're a bad person.
If you won't get the vaccine because you're untrustworthy of the science/government/both, and you think your skepticism justifies endangering the people around you, you're a bad person.
If you won't get the vaccine because you have medical reasons why you shouldn't take it, you're not a bad person. No one should have to endanger their own life for the sake of the masses.
Another such example is drug use. Drug use clearly affects those around you because you increase your chance of becoming mentally ill. Would you say using drugs makes you a bad guy, or even using alcohol?
If you keep adding degrees of separation from potential aggressor to potential victim of course it complicates things. But context uncomplicates it. Using drugs and alcohol won't make you a bad person, provided you're not putting yourself into situations where you're hindering someone else's wellbeing. You're not gonna infect me with the alcohol you drink, causing me to get drunk too. But if you can't hold your booze and you start making harmful comments about me, or you drive your car into my living room then well... you're a bad person.
Because clearly, it makes you more likely to get someone killed if you are drunk, or to have longtime problematic effects on those around you.
And harming other people is absolutely my right, as i am allowed to move around with a flu through an old peoples' home and i am also allowed to have one night stands without a condom even if i never tested myself for any STD. It is illegal to give someone aids on purpose, it is not illegal to just not care until you infected another person.
Yes of course it is about morals. If we are not talking about morals, then why would anyone care about other people anyway? Why would I care if somebody gets sick more than if a fetus is aborted, as an inherent thing?
I could just aswell say that a fetus, an unborn child, is pure and a stranger might be a bad person.
most anti-abortionists don't care about other people, they just pretend to be moralistic.
Because you want to pretend to be moralistic and for some weird reason think a clump of cells is more important than a living person. Maybe you're hiding behind "morality" to control women, even at the expense of their lives.
But you'd be wrong because a clump of cells can't think. Morals rarely come into play here.
There's nothing wrong with that. They can choose to keep the fetus if they want. What they shouldn't do is tell other women what to do, whether it's to encourage abortion or to force the other women to keep the babies that they don't want.
Being pro-choice is great. Forcing others to choose this or that isn't.
What political decisions only concern men? Also: these women shouldn't abort their children if they're against it then. That's their right. It's not their right to tell other women they can't abort their children though. I mean they can say it, it's just their say shouldn't count for shit. And like I said: personhood. Everyone here agrees that a fetus is a life. That's not the point of contention.
Draft for example. When draft was abandoned in germany, the decision was made under a female chancellor and female defense minister, obviously with involvement of female parlamentarians. Should that not have happened and women should have left the room when it was voted on?
And why would it not be the right of policymakers to forbid something? They forbid a lot of things to all of us, no matter whether they are like us or not. Old people decide school policy, young people are asked to vote about things affecting seniors. Obviously, able bodied people take decisions for handicapped people and so on and so forth.
There is a general rule for that. It's the biggest rule of them all lol. It's the Golden Rule. Treat people as you would have them treat you. If you don't want someone violating your bodily autonomy, don't run around doing it to others. As for figuring these things out, It's easy in situations where the aggressor is explicit about their reasoning for their actions. If you won't get the vaccine because it's been politicized and you're stanning for your team at the expense of the safety of people around you, then you're a bad person.
If you won't get the vaccine because you're untrustworthy of the science/government/both, and you think your skepticism justifies endangering the people around you, you're a bad person.
If you won't get the vaccine because you have medical reasons why you shouldn't take it, you're not a bad person. No one should have to endanger their own life for the sake of the masses.
But what if i want to be treated differently than other people want to be treated? What if I'd actively wish for someone to stop me if i want to abort my baby?
The golden rule is not a very effective guideline for poliy. Nor is dividing people into good and bad.
If you keep adding degrees of separation from potential aggressor to potential victim of course it complicates things. But context uncomplicates it. Using drugs and alcohol won't make you a bad person, provided you're not putting yourself into situations where you're hindering someone else's wellbeing. You're not gonna infect me with the alcohol you drink, causing me to get drunk too. But if you can't hold your booze and you start making harmful comments about me, or you drive your car into my living room then well... you're a bad person.
Oh I am pretty sure many people turned into what we'd commonly see as a bad person due to drugs. Certainly, alcohol had a bigger detrimental effect on our societies than covid had.
The chance that a woman gets beaten up by a drunk partner in her lifetime or even raped is far higher than for her to have any worrying covid infection, at least if she is vacced and wears a mask. In that case, her covid risk is very small. You cannot get vacced against a drunk violent offender.
Average is key. If you look at averages, you can pretty clearly see just how dangerous alcohol is for our society. You can also clearly see how small your actual covid risk is if you are vacced and wear a mask. Someone who is not vacced is very unlikely to give you a covid infection if you just briefly meet him and YOU follow all safety guidelines. He is certainly less likely to get you killed compared to a drunk violent offender.
The homicide rate in the US (commited by drunk people) is far higher than the deathrate of covid patients that were vacced 3 times, and obviously it is a low chance to get an infection with covid if you wear a mask and meet someone unvacced, too.
I absolutely am. If i sleep around and move from one orgy to the next and do not go to the doctor to check whether i have STD, nobody can sue me for giving them an STD.
It is my body, it is my choice what i do with it and if others are hurt, so be it. And the same really goes for other diseases as well. If i have the flu and move around old people, that is not illegal unless i actively try to get them infected.
So why would i have to get vacced if the deathrate for people who ARE vacced is really low, so me giving covid to people who are vacced is not actually very dangerous anymore?
That can hardly be justified with the argument of "it harms others". Many absolutely legal things harm others.
So both the argument "it harms others" and "my body my choice" dont work out.
You do not respect the bodily autonomy for vaxx questions and many things that are absolutely legal harm others. Both arguments fall flat.
NO! Bad rule! If there was a masochist who loved getting stabbed, then he might go around stabbing others because thats how he likes to get treated! Unfortunately, psychopaths are people and I do not want to be treated by psychopaths and murderers!! no from me, I don't want to get treated!
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
If I was a dad wanting a child then my significant other just got it killed... Damn, I'd be mad! The abortion sometimes affects the father... negatively!
External debt: USA $20+ trillion, Russia $479 billion
The united states carries significantly more debt as a percentage of GDP than russia. Which might mean russia is financially better suited to wage war over the long term.
If I wanted a child, I'd talk to the woman I was dating and hoping to start a family with and see if she wants kids. If she says no, then no dating and we move on. If she said she wanted kids, then awesome, we date! I would also hope she'd have no problem telling me she's changed her mind and doesn't want to have kids anymore, and we can see where we go from there.
The entire topic is being muddied by discussion regarding what is considered life or personhood. The legal framing has nothing to do with either, it's about privacy.
but can that be achieved, given people want to butt their heads in but either offer no solution or make things even worse and actually encourage abortion?
but can that be achieved, given people want to butt their heads in but either offer no solution or make things even worse and actually encourage abortion?
We need to have forceful registration of political affiliation on identification and deport all republicans and democrats from the country. No more fighting, there will only be one party and we will truly be the united states.
The entire topic is being muddied by discussion regarding what is considered life or personhood. The legal framing has nothing to do with either, it's about privacy.
I was very careful to never bother mentioning the law or what's legal in all of my responses. Those weren't mistakes. I was specifically talking about what's moral or immoral.
The entire topic is being muddied by discussion regarding what is considered life or personhood. The legal framing has nothing to do with either, it's about privacy.
I agree. And that is a very personal choice that everybody has to choose for himself. But if you see a fetus as life, then obviously that implies wanting to protect it even when other women abort their baby. That is when it becomes tricky.
After all, morality extends to others. If I think intimate partner violence is a crime, that does not extend only to my relationship but also to the relationship of my neighbour who hits his wife. Even if she accepts that and defends him, my moral viewpoint implies doing things like going to the police or talking to her that she should leave him.
So it is clear that if i see killing a fetus as murder, that also implies actively wanting less abortions to happen or even preventing individuals from aborting.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
______
This is an interesting article from a Chinese professor about how China should position itself in the Ukraine conflict. He thinks Putin is pretty much toast and China should only align with him if it intends to support him sostrongly that he ends up winning. But since that is not probable, he advocatesfor China stabbing him in the back in the worldwide PR battle so it becomesless probable that the West imposes sanctions on china, too.
I agree. And that is a very personal choice that everybody has to choose for himself. But if you see a fetus as life, then obviously that implies wanting to protect it even when other women abort their baby. That is when it becomes tricky.
After all, morality extends to others. If I think intimate partner violence is a crime, that does not extend only to my relationship but also to the relationship of my neighbour who hits his wife. Even if she accepts that and defends him, my moral viewpoint implies doing things like going to the police or talking to her that she should leave him.
So it is clear that if i see killing a fetus as murder, that also implies actively wanting less abortions to happen or even preventing individuals from aborting.
Your desire to extend your morality to others doesn't trump the law/privacy. That is why there are those that are pro-choice, but don't believe in abortion themselves. And those people are probably the ones that have the clearest mind in regard to the topic.
You can't talk about morality outside of the law and then make a point regarding those that would call abortion murder. Murder is a legal concept. Something either is murder or it isn't, it's not a matter of personal morals or opinion. You can think it's "wrong", but I can think of many things I consider wrong that I'd have no ground to make illegal.
(I get that this isn't your advocacy and you're just trying to make a point though)
I was very careful to never bother mentioning the law or what's legal in all of my responses. Those weren't mistakes. I was specifically talking about what's moral or immoral.
I get that, but my stance is that talking about the subject from that angle is almost completely futile depending on the person. From my experience, people who change their views regarding that debate never do it because someone convinced them in a debate about it.
The issue with taking a life vs personhood angle with it is that they can just say that the fetus wasn't allowed the opportunity to become a person.
That is true. But the law is strongly influenced by what humans deem to be moral. When a law is not perceived as just, then there should be a very convincing reason for it to still exist.
As you said, these viewpoints (on abortion) are based on universial claims about what it means to be human, to be good or to be a society (and so on). They are not usually based on technicalities that can be rendered meaningless by debate.
However, oftentimes you can use debate or talking points to show a person that even in their view on the world, something they deem wrong is acceptable. But you can also push them farther away by using talking points that render you a hypocrite.
But more important than the other person, I think it is important to have a consistent worldview yourself and try to find your own blindspots and erase them. So I did not like the "my body my choice" argument when suddenly it does not count anymore when it comes to vaccines and suddenly it is important how other people are affected. It is fine to then stick to that rule ("your choice until other people are affected"), but even then, that is not how current society works and a lot of very liberal views leftists tend to have on drugs could not really be upheld that way, either if they are honest about the consequences of alcohol.
To me, the strongest argument in favor of abortion is that a good healthcare system with abortion rights tends to lower the number of abortions, so a thing that is undesirable for anyone (nobody likes to have an abortion) diminishes in number.
The only real counterargument is if you think that the deed of abortion is so inherently evil that you cannot emotionally allow it to happen even once and that mothers should be punished, but that is a hardline stance.
I get that, but my stance is that talking about the subject from that angle is almost completely futile depending on the person. From my experience, people who change their views regarding that debate never do it because someone convinced them in a debate about it.
Sure, different arguments are necessary for different people. And my argument isn't necessarily meant for a debate opponent. It's just meant for people that keep saying that pro choice people don't value life. I've even spoken to people who had the same beliefs but didn't know what way to articulate it so the mileage is good.
The issue with taking a life vs personhood angle with it is that they can just say that the fetus wasn't allowed the opportunity to become a person.
At which point I would argue that this is the point. I've spoken to Christians who are for the most part against abortion but are okay with it in specific circumstances... and one of those circumstances is that it has to be particularly early in the pregnancy. And I asked them why and while they didn't use the personhood argument (they did but just didn't know it lol), they said that it wasn't "fully a baby yet."
Ya know what's really fucked up about it though? I don't even think personhood should matter. I don't care if the kid is 14 years old composing symphonies in a woman's womb. It's still her choice. But I can't say that.
You're familiar with that violinist argument right?
