American Politics

[shionoro]

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.

But surely you would not be fine if a 14 year old is killed, right?

 

[ninjabot]

But surely you would not be fine if a 14 year old is killed, right?

Of course not. But... if said 14 year old requires another person's body to live off of, I don't think that host person is required to remain connected to them if they don't want to.

 

[shionoro]

Of course not. But... if said 14 year old requires another person's body to live off of, I don't think that host person is required to remain connected to them if they don't want to.

What if that 14 year old is physically handicapped and needs care that is dependent on human labor?

 

[ninjabot]

At what point does someone else's body belong to another person?

 

[shionoro]

At what point does someone else's body belong to another person?

My question would rather be why it matters whether the person is part of another's body or not. Clearly, there are people that are completely dependent on others to survive but still are seen as life worthy of protection.

Also: What about siamese twins that cannot be separated? If one decides to kill the other by stabbing their head, would that be ok?

 

[ninjabot]

My question would rather be why it matters whether the person is part of another's body or not. Clearly, there are people that are completely dependent on others to survive but still are seen as life worthy of protection.

Because that's the causal link when talking about abortion. Pro life people think it's a pregnant person's obligation to carry a child to term because they're responsible for it's conception in the first place.

Also: What about siamese twins that cannot be separated? If one decides to kill the other by stabbing their head, would that be ok?

...if they can't be separated then one of them stabbing the other would be suicide, so that problem solves itself lmfao.

EDIT: Remember, when I brought up the 14 year old I mentioned it being in the mother's womb as well. That's an important distinction I think is being missed, because your two scenarios have nothing to do with abortion, but rather taking care of someone who's reliant on another person which isn't quite the same.

 

[shionoro]

Because that's the causal link when talking about abortion. Pro life people think it's a pregnant person's obligation to carry a child to term because they're responsible for it's conception in the first place.

But we were talking about broader responsibilities. You think it is ok to kill someone who is dependent on your body, but it is not okay to kill someone who is dependent on your care.

I do not see a good reason why.

...if they can't be separated then one of them stabbing the other would be suicide, so that problem solves itself lmfao.

But like, if one of them is basically the one controlling the body and the other just controls her head (that happens), and the one that controls the body stabs the head and destroys the brain? Then she lives and the other one does not.
Sure, its a far fetched example, but for argument's sake, would that be ok?

 

[ninjabot]

But we were talking about broader responsibilities. You think it is ok to kill someone who is dependent on your body, but it is not okay to kill someone who is dependent on your care.

I do not see a reason why.

Whoa whoa whoa. I'm not saying any of this is okay. I'm saying it's not immoral. I don't condone killing.... anyone, really. I just can't condemn it because I'm pro choice. There's a very important distinction there.

And there is also an important distinction between someone relying on your body for sustenance while another person's simply relying on your aid. Not the least of which being the mental and physical toll on the body that comes from pregnancy. Then there's the financial and time commitment. You're actively sacrificing a large portion of your life that you're not being reimbursed for, for a being that didn't even ask to be conceived.

Taking care of someone that has disabilities however? They're not connected to you so it doesn't even HAVE to be you. Then there's reimbursement for your time and labor... and helping them isn't gonna ruin your body with stretch marks... that's not nothing.

But like, if one of them is basically the one controlling the body and the other just controls her head (that happens), and the one that controls the body stabs the head and destroys the brain? Then she lives and the other one does not.
Sure, its a far fetched example, but for argument's sake, would that be ok?

It still isn't the same, because conjoined twins are born at the same time. I am the older brother of an identical twin (exactly 60 seconds older, lol), and the way identical twins work is that we start out as one embryo and then we split. It's the same with conjoined twins, only they fail to split completely.

One doesn't subsist upon the other, they're just one single body that failed to fully become two. I'd argue neither twin gets to determine if the other gets to live or not... so again, not analogous.

 

[shionoro]

Whoa whoa whoa. I'm not saying any of this is okay. I'm saying it's not immoral. I don't condone killing.... anyone, really. I just can't condemn it because I'm pro choice. There's a very important distinction there.

And there is also an important distinction between someone relying on your body for sustenance while another person's simply relying on your aid. Not the least of which being the mental and physical toll on the body that comes from pregnancy. Then there's the financial and time commitment. You're actively sacrificing a large portion of your life that you're not being reimbursed for, for a being that didn't even ask to be conceived.

Taking care of someone that has disabilities however? They're not connected to you so it doesn't even HAVE to be you. Then there's reimbursement for your time and labor... and helping them isn't gonna ruin your body with stretch marks... that's not nothing.

I think having an extremely autistic son is more demanding than having a normal pregnancy. But you still cannot just kill him or deny him aid, right?
And the reality for many people in the US is that they have to care for these children themselves, often while working. They often get money for it, but it is still an insane burden.

And while they can give their children to foster care, that definitely does impact other people (stuffing the foster system is a general problem).
And if we are talking about the foster system already, why can a pregnant person not just get the child (maybe with a recompensation) and then give it a way?

That is hardly too much to expect, definitely less than caring for a heavily autistic child. So i dont really see why there would be a difference between being organically reliant or otherwise substantially reliant. You tried to argue via the toll it takes and that someone else can take care for your responsibility, but that just is not always true.

 

[ninjabot]

I think having an extremely autistic son is more demanding than having a normal pregnancy. But you still cannot just kill him or deny him aid, right?
And the reality for many people in the US is that they have to care for these children themselves, often while working. They often get money for it, but it is still an insane burden.

Are you aware that you're making postitive justifications for abortion every time that you bring up the difficulties of child rearing? And I'm sorry but a really, really don't see how any of your comparisons have anything to do with personhood or abortion. It SEEMS like it's an attempt at trying to make the "this child is your responsibility" argument, but you keep adding extra caveats to this hypothetical child to try to find a situation where you absolutely have to deal with this kid.

And yes, the fact that one may not be able to take care of their child is one of many reasons why abortion is potentially the best choice for a lot of these women that find themselves with unplanned pregnancies. It's not just difficult for the caretakers of these children, mind you. Children raised in situations where they can't be taken care of properly are more likely to become menaces to society and thus become a problem that the rest of the community have to deal with.

And while they can give their children to foster care, that definitely does impact other people (stuffing the foster system is a general problem).
And if we are talking about the foster system already, why can a pregnant person not just get the child (maybe with a recompensation) and then give it a way?

Yep. Over populated orphanages make it easier for children to fall through the cracks of society and get swallowed up by things like human trafficking, drug dealers, gangs, etc. As for why they can't just have the child and give it away... they certainly can. Can being the operative word. It has to be their choice. What they want to do. There's no reason for you to bring up alternatives to abortion; I know what the alternatives are. I'm fine with the alternatives if the pregnant person chooses these alternatives. It just shouldn't be anyone's decision but the pregnant person. That's it. That's all.

That is hardly too much to expect, definitely less than caring for a heavily autistic child. So i dont really see why there would be a difference between being organically reliant or otherwise substantially reliant. You tried to argue via the toll it takes and that someone else can take care for your responsibility, but that just is not always true.

The only thing you should expect from a pregnant person, is that they will decide what they're going to do with their body. That's it.

 

[shionoro]

Are you aware that you're making postitive justifications for abortion every time that you bring up the difficulties of child rearing? And I'm sorry but a really, really don't see how any of your comparisons have anything to do with personhood or abortion. It SEEMS like it's an attempt at trying to make the "this child is your responsibility" argument, but you keep adding extra caveats to this hypothetical child to try to find a situation where you absolutely have to deal with this kid.

And yes, the fact that one may not be able to take care of their child is one of many reasons why abortion is potentially the best choice for a lot of these women that find themselves with unplanned pregnancies. It's not just difficult for the caretakers of these children, mind you. Children raised in situations where they can't be taken care of properly are more likely to become menaces to society and thus become a problem that the rest of the community have to deal with.

No, I am telling you that your argumentation is not sound.

Your argument in that case was "you cannot expect bearing a child from a woman who does not want it because it is huge mental and physical stress".
But of course, many people are put into situations where they have to endure a lot of physical and mental stress and are expected to take it.

You need to decide for one clear argument (that can consist of several different parts) that works for legalizing abortion but does not work for legalizing many other undesirable things.

And so far, I don't think any of your arguments did that.

Yep. Over populated orphanages make it easier for children to fall through the cracks of society and get swallowed up by things like human trafficking, drug dealers, gangs, etc. As for why they can't just have the child and give it away... they certainly can. Can being the operative word. It has to be their choice. What they want to do. There's no reason for you to bring up alternatives to abortion; I know what the alternatives are. I'm fine with the alternatives if the pregnant person chooses these alternatives. It just shouldn't be anyone's decision but the pregnant person. That's it. That's all.

But that is not all, because we are talking about a political decision and that is different from an individual choice. And in politics, it is a decision society can make whether it bans or allows abortion and for that decision, there need to be clear arguments that are consistent.

The only thing you should expect from a pregnant person, is that they will decide what they're going to do with their body. That's it.

But then we are back to vaccinations and i ask why i should expect people to vaccinate themselves. After all, they are just making a choice for their body and the risk of side effects is too big in their estimation to take the vaccine.

If i cannot expect a woman to bear a child in a country with a very low deathrate for pregnancies, then I don't think i can tell someone to vaxx himself, even if the risk is minimal. At least not based on that argument, neither based on the argument that he impacts others, because at the end of the day, most choices impact others directly or indirectly.
Right now, there are good ways to protect against covid, if you are vacced 3 times and wear a mask, your risk with omicron is about as minimal as vaccine side effects .

 

[M3J]

But we were talking about broader responsibilities. You think it is ok to kill someone who is dependent on your body, but it is not okay to kill someone who is dependent on your care.

I do not see a good reason why.



But like, if one of them is basically the one controlling the body and the other just controls her head (that happens), and the one that controls the body stabs the head and destroys the brain? Then she lives and the other one does not.
Sure, its a far fetched example, but for argument's sake, would that be ok?

the fuck? Why are you comparing taking care of someone who can live on their own to a parasite that puts the mother at risk? Taking care of an autistic child often presents no risk to the caretakers' lives, whereas a fetus, whether in the womb or while being born, does present considerable risk. On top of that, the mother's body goes through changes as well.

Why is it so hard to understand the difference, and what the mother's body goes through? If men were the ones giving birth all of the sudden, there'd be an abortion clinic on every corner, and a considerably fewer amount of people would be anti-abortion/anti-choice.

If anti-choice asshats really did want to reduce or stop abortion, they'd be providing more resources, not taking away resources and abandoning families.

 

[shionoro]

the fuck? Why are you comparing taking care of someone who can live on their own to a parasite that puts the mother at risk? Taking care of an autistic child often presents no risk to the caretakers' lives, whereas a fetus, whether in the womb or while being born, does present considerable risk. On top of that, the mother's body goes through changes as well.

Why is it so hard to understand the difference, and what the mother's body goes through? If men were the ones giving birth all of the sudden, there'd be an abortion clinic on every corner, and a considerably fewer amount of people would be anti-abortion/anti-choice.

If anti-choice asshats really did want to reduce or stop abortion, they'd be providing more resources, not taking away resources and abandoning families.

Why would I not, what is the difference? A Fetus also usually is no real risk to you if you look at the amount of deaths at birth. And it is just 9 months. Caring for someone who is heavily autistic is something you have to do all your life.

I don't see any logical reason why one should be seen as 'parasitic' and the other does not count as a relationship in which one dies without the other.

The focus on 'part of body' is pretty absurd, there is no real good reason why that should matter. It would be just as sound to say "you own everything that comes out of your body, so you own your children". It is just some kind of premise that gets thrown out but that yields to all kinds of questionable implications.

As i said, if your body is your choice, then that counts for vaccinations. If you then just bring several other arguments in that differentiate that stance, it is pretty meaningless to begin with.

 

[Sanity Check]

Trump is the christian President.

Biden is the atheist President.

Which is better.

People can decide.

 

[shionoro]

Biden is catholic and makes a big deal out of that.
Certainly more of a believer than Trump is.

 

[Sanity Check]

Biden is catholic and makes a big deal out of that.
Certainly more of a believer than Trump is.

Hitler was a "catholic" who had written plans to obliterate catholicism.

Biden is the same.

The mainstream media is also atheist.

All of Biden's policies and executive orders are secularist / atheist.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 14, 2022, Original Post Date: Mar 14, 2022 ---

Joe Biden denied Communion at Mass because of abortion stance

Democratic front-runner Joe Biden reportedly was denied Communion by a priest at a South Carolina Catholic church over the weekend. Biden, a lifelong Catholic, stopped by Saint Anthony Catholic Chu…

nypost.com

 

[shionoro]

Hitler was a "catholic" who had written plans to obliterate catholicism.

Biden is the same.

The mainstream media is also atheist.

All of Biden's policies and executive orders are secularist / atheist.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 14, 2022, Original Post Date: Mar 14, 2022 ---

Joe Biden denied Communion at Mass because of abortion stance

Democratic front-runner Joe Biden reportedly was denied Communion by a priest at a South Carolina Catholic church over the weekend. Biden, a lifelong Catholic, stopped by Saint Anthony Catholic Chu…

nypost.com

That is not true. Unlike hitler, biden is a believing catholic. There is zero reason to doubt that.

 

[Sanity Check]

The republican party is in favor of God, guns and the constitution.

The democrat party is atheist, anti gun and constitutional abolishment.

Americans know this well, but its understandable that europeans like yourself would not.

 

[shionoro]

The republican party is in favor of God, guns and the constitution.

The democrat party is atheist, anti gun and constitutional abolishment.

Americans know this well, but its understandable that europeans like yourself would not.

But it is simply not true. By that logic i could say "the democratic party wants to love your next, thus is for healthcare, while the republicans are for anti christian values like guns that harm people"

 

[Sanity Check]

But it is simply not true. By that logic i could say "the democratic party wants to love your next, thus is for healthcare, while the republicans are for anti christian values like guns that harm people"

If russia invades your country next.

Will you continue to say "guns can only harm people" and "citizens should be disarmed"?

There is a reason for supporting citizen gun ownership.

Which nations like ukraine forget, until its too late.