When looking for a justification for your actions, it essentially comes straight down to how successfully you can convince yourself that your justification is sound. So what I expect you to do is try to falsify the idea that personhood isn't limited to living beings with brains that have reached a certain level of development/consciousness. Admittedly, this won't mean shit to you if you don't value science as much as I do.
Okay good. That was all I meant by bringing that up. But at the bold part... that's not true. Not having sex for a long time isn't unhealthy, let alone massively unhealthy.
Welp, I can't of course. Because your claim isn't falsifiable to begin with. Personhood is more a philosophical/legal concept than a scientific one. It's far too vague for any sort of science to apply here. I mean, where is the science that led to this definition? Which scientific process led to the definition of personhood being the one you mention? Does this hypothesis help in any way to make scientific explanations of anything or predictions?
This will definitely vary a lot from person to person. And people definitely shouldn't force themselves to have any just to be healthy or anything like that. But I do think that generally, and within their own preferences and needs, people "need" sex (along with the intimacy and connection) in their lives.
Putin is a person who has mastered many types of fighting. Even if Elon said it in a somewhat figurative sense (perhaps he was serious when he said it, that's my opinion) this fight would have been deadly.
Most likely, the Kremlin will make a statement criticizing Elon for this invitation.
When Elon tweeted about Putin a few months ago, the Kremlin responded.
Welp, I can't of course. Because your claim isn't falsifiable to begin with. Personhood is more a philosophical/legal concept than a scientific one. It's far too vague for any sort of science to apply here. I mean, where is the science that led to this definition? Which scientific process led to the definition of personhood being the one you mention? Does this hypothesis help in any way to make scientific explanations of anything or predictions?
It's not falsifiable because there's no way to prove it's wrong through science. I just said try to falsify it because I know there's no way for you to prove it wrong. As for how science lead me to this position: we use the scientific method to make observations about the world, not proclamations. And through that method we've accepted broadly that personhood doesn't come from anything other than a brain. And it has to be a sufficiently developed brain. Meaning a sufficiently aged brain... meaning the fetus has to have reached a certain age before any of the attributes granted to something we would call a person can be demonstrated.
This will definitely vary a lot from person to person. And people definitely shouldn't force themselves to have any just to be healthy or anything like that. But I do think that generally, and within their own preferences and needs, people "need" sex (along with the intimacy and connection) in their lives.
It's not falsifiable because there's no way to prove it's wrong through science. I just said try to falsify it because I know there's no way for you to prove it wrong. As for how science lead me to this position: we use the scientific method to make observations about the world, not proclamations. And through that method we've accepted broadly that personhood doesn't come from anything other than a brain. And it has to be a sufficiently developed brain. Meaning a sufficiently aged brain... meaning the fetus has to have reached a certain age before any of the attributes granted to something we would call a person can be demonstrated.
You'd have to define what you mean by "need". I'm positive you and I are having a different understanding of it in this particular case.
1.- Falsifiable and incorrect are not the same thing. A hypothesis being falsifiable means that it has to be framed in such a way that it can be proven wrong (though this is the easy way to explain this, in reality it's gets more jumbled...). A hypothesis can be both falsifiable and incorrect (in fact most are). Your hypothesis isn't incorrect, it isn't falsifiable. As in, it doesn't even meet the minimum criteria to be a scientific hypothesis.
2.- What you mention about developing brains and personhood... This is super easy. Where are the studies and experiments that make the case for this? You aren't just arguing "logic" here. You are arguing there have been repeated studies on this that have been documented and repeated. And that results across these studies have been consistent. And that these results have helped explain something of the physical world (not philosophy, or law). The one presenting a hypothesis is the one with the burden of proof here.
Probably? I don't know where you are coming from here tbh.
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.
Again, that's fucking stupid comparison. How do you know a fetus is no risk to the mother, especially if you just look at the amount of deaths? Do you know anything about medical health? Pregnancy? Know any woman? Because from the looks of it, you don't as you actually compared growing a parasite that could kill you to taking care of a separate human, and you think there's no real risk just solely because of the amount of deaths.
??? Do you know anything about autism? You really have no good argument to stand on, at all. It's okay to just admit it and move on or just stop responding, stop digging a deeper hole for yourself.
How is it sound to say that when the child isn't part of your body anymore after birth? Unless they decide to kill you, your life isn't in danger anymore. Most, if not all, of your argument makes no sense, at all.
I don't know if you're trolling or not, but you are further proving your ignorance. Biden is far more of a religious person than Trump ever was. Only reason anyone believes Trump is religious is because they're brainwashed idiots.
And even though Biden isn't an atheist, atheism seems much better.
The republican party is not in favor of the Constitution, nor are they in favor of god or guns. They're only in favor of what they want, and if anything disagrees with them, they scorn it.
I'd like to see the republicans, white ones anyway, fully support allowing nonwhite people to have guns.
I don't think anyone suggested that, and in fact many pro-choice people offer great solutions to reducing abortion, but the right-wing politicians ignore those, while the voters are dumb enough to think it does the opposite.
I don't think anyone suggested that, and in fact many pro-choice people offer great solutions to reducing abortion, but the right-wing politicians ignore those, while the voters are dumb enough to think it does the opposite.
Sure, but my post didn't require anyone prior mentioning that. On the education front it's pretty clear that it is republicans who don't want it to include any meaningful form of sex education.
The political decision is about whether or not it should be that persons individual choice, and what kind of punishment should be levied against them should they make that choice. I say it is ALWAYS their choice. It doesn't get any clearer than that. At least until you start looking for niche situations to distract from the common argument. Like conjoined twins.
If you truly believed that, you wouldn't keep trying to find ways to convolute my argument. The argument from me has always been that the pregnant person decides what they do with their body, and personhood is what determines the worth of a living being. Not only is it a clear argument, it's the most commonly used argument amongst pro choice people. That's why you keep creating scenarios to try to remove the pregnant person's agency and give it to the aborted person. You made one argument about conjoined twins, and then you moved on to someone taking care of a handicapped person that's already born.
Both skip past the personhood argument by making the person already old enough to be a person. You don't care to contend with my actual argument. You want to make new arguments to get me in some kind of "gotcha" moment. And I'm not going to let you.
Well I think the personhood argument is not a terribly good one because "personhood" is just a question of definition. You define a fetus as not a person, other people define them as person. Your argument stops making sense the second someone (like many people do) defines a fetus as a person or as a potential person that is worthy of living the life it potentially has.
It is not really an argument per se, even, as there is no reason why it would matter if someone has been born yet or not in the question about his worth.
And the reason we went off to other things was consistency. If "my body my choice" is THE argument, then it applies to antivaxxers. If you then move to another argument, saying they affect other people, then that means you think 'affecting other people' supercedes bodily autonomy.
And that leads to implications that i don't think you are willing to defend, as there are countless of examples that are not seen as amoral that are more dangerous to other people than unvaccinated persons are right now.
This is kind of the exact basis for why it's legal though?
To backtrack to how this discussion started - suggesting that "my body, my choice" can be a valid basis for argumentation against both abortion and vaccines just doesn't hold up IMO - You said that abortion affects others "if you believe abortion is murder". In the case of vaccines though, there is no basis for "belief" that you are not a risk to those around you if you're unvaccinated (or lacking any sort of immunity). Belief simply is not a foundational aspect of that at all. An exception might be those that are Christian Scientist, but even they are not anti-vaccine.
There are many examples of choices that are valid even if they can negatively affect others, that was my point there, so it cannot be said that choices that might negatively affect others are seen as inherently amoral. That is why I do not think it is valid to just suddenly back off from 'my body my choice' when others are affected.
For an unvaccinated person to affect someone else severely, many variables needs to be true.
Firstly, he has to be infected. If he is not infected, there is no danger.
Secondly, he needs to infect the other person. With a proper mask and 3 vaccinations, that is unlikely, even if they stand close, as long as it is a stranger.
Thirdly, the other person needs to have heavy symptoms, which is not very likely with 3 vaccinations even for older people.
These variables, taken together, bring the chance that you actually lead to death or severe health impairments for a 3 times vaccinated person that defends themselves via a mask to the levels of the vaccine negatively impacting you.
And if that is true, i dont think there is ground to supercede bodily autonomy if it is so important when it comes to pregnancies.
To me, the real reason to force people to take the vaccine (or indirectly make them) is that there is (or was, when too many people were not vaccinated) a very real risk of emergency rooms to be overcrowded and the disease being uncontrollable, leading to severe social unheaval and mass deaths. If that can be prevented and the vaccinated people are relatively safe, the argument becomes weaker and it comes closer to unvaccinated people still being a burden on society and the healthcare system. But not as much of a burdern als smokers.
For that case, it can probably argued that unlike smokers, who have it hard to stop, taking the vaccine does not impair your wellbeing at all (physically at least) and has unlikely side effects. But if you deem that 'your body your choice' is so insanely important that it is the main argument against abortion, then i dont think that argument is enough if you want to be consistent.
Again, that's fucking stupid comparison. How do you know a fetus is no risk to the mother, especially if you just look at the amount of deaths? Do you know anything about medical health? Pregnancy? Know any woman? Because from the looks of it, you don't as you actually compared growing a parasite that could kill you to taking care of a separate human, and you think there's no real risk just solely because of the amount of deaths.
??? Do you know anything about autism? You really have no good argument to stand on, at all. It's okay to just admit it and move on or just stop responding, stop digging a deeper hole for yourself.
How is it sound to say that when the child isn't part of your body anymore after birth? Unless they decide to kill you, your life isn't in danger anymore. Most, if not all, of your argument makes no sense, at all.
Well how do you know an unvaccinated person will get covid, infect someone and that infection will have heavy symptoms? You don't.
So why is a very unlikely scenario (death while giving birth) a very strong reason in the one case but the unlikely risk of dying to a vaccine is not a proper reason not to take it in the other?
To me in the end the issue of abortions is not even about abortions. I mean, it is but legalizing abortions doesn't solve the issues that lead to people needing them. Dumbass teens (the bulk of it) and rape (the least of it). Legalizing abortions doesn't make teenagers more mature or less stupid and legalizing doesn't un-rape anyone. The way to actually tackle this is educating people on how not to have babies. Do that successfully and you mostly get rid of the need to have abortions.... That said, I am of the idea that teenagers should be discouraged from having sex in general. Teenagers are both stupid AND broke. Someone who doesn't have consistent access to the 3 dollars it takes to buy a pack of condoms shouldn't be having sex at all regardless of age.... As in, if you are literally too broke to be responsible you shouldn't be risking the lifelong financial burden of a child. Or even the far less extreme financial burden of an adoption.
It always struck me as odd when those in the pro-life camp are willing to make exceptions in the case of rape/incest. It shows that they can be pragmatic about this issue, but still somehow deem those "lives" as being less valid than any other unwanted pregnancies. I thought we were all god's children?
The "you shouldn't be having sex if you can't afford condoms" thing is unrealistic as hell. But contraception should be free in the first place. But of course those that are pro-life are also often anti-contraception too.
For that case, it can probably argued that unlike smokers, who have it hard to stop, taking the vaccine does not impair your wellbeing at all (physically at least) and has unlikely side effects. But if you deem that 'your body your choice' is so insanely important that it is the main argument against abortion, then i dont think that argument is enough if you want to be consistent.
You're probably aware that that also applies to anti-vaxxers. Many are right-wing conservatives that are pro-life.
It's hard for me to not see it as a clumsily put together retort. Unlike you, they haven't thought any of the implications through, they simply don't want to be told what to do. (Despite the government already doing this for well over a century in regards to mandatory vaccinations).
--- Double Post Merged, ---
I guess my main point there is I don't see it as a good faith argument, and it's very rarely demonstrated that way unless someone has legitimate health concerns... which in that case it doesn't even apply to them anyway...so...
In most cases, there's no good argument for anti-choicers or anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers, it just usually ends up with that side proving their selfishness or complete ignorance. In my case, anyway, and I've yet to come across any anti-choicers who genuinely are pro-life and not just when it comes to fetuses.
The main reason why I bring up anti-choicers' hypocrisy when they talk about right to not wear masks or get vaccinated is because they don't view women having a right to their bodies, even though it's their own business and affects only them, as opposed to the way a pandemic is dealt with. Otherwise trying to equate both is ridiculous, as one is a clump of cells growing inside a woman that puts only her at risk vs. a contagious disease that can spread to others and kill them or cause a long-term damage that some may never heal from.
You're probably aware that that also applies to anti-vaxxers. Many are right-wing conservatives that are pro-life.
It's hard for me to not see it as a clumsily put together retort. Unlike you, they haven't thought any of the implications through, they simply don't want to be told what to do. (Despite the government already doing this for well over a century in regards to mandatory vaccinations).
--- Double Post Merged, 49 minutes ago ---
I guess my main point there is I don't see it as a good faith argument, and it's very rarely demonstrated that way unless someone has legitimate health concerns... which in that case it doesn't even apply to them anyway...so...
It always struck me as odd when those in the pro-life camp are willing to make exceptions in the case of rape/incest. It shows that they can be pragmatic about this issue, but still somehow deem those "lives" as being less valid than any other unwanted pregnancies. I thought we were all god's children?
The "you shouldn't be having sex if you can't afford condoms" thing is unrealistic as hell. But contraception should be free in the first place. But of course those that are pro-life are also often anti-contraception too.
To me its more like THAT is the point where a concession would be made. As in, when you throw one of the most, if not the most, horrible thing that can happen to a human being. At times it does feel like a bit of the angle is "ok, lets not bring a rapist's kid to the world" though. That said, more... principled folk who are on that side of the fence tend actively and loudly oppose this..
It depends? To me it really doesn't sounds like THAT an unrealistic an expectation outside of an actual third world country. A condom costs.. around a dollar. Maybe less. But rounded to a dollar it comes to 50 cents per fuck for a couple. Throw in more responsibility with the pill... that's around 30 bucks a month. So 15 bucks per person. So an absurdly responsible couple that is engaging in coitus an extreme amount of times is spending the staggering sum of... 60 dollars per month? Really? An average couple would cut that down to a fractions.... More like 40 bucks assuming the pill and condoms and less if they do just one contraceptive. Sure, even in developed nations people can be THAT poor but... come on, you need like 10 dollars for condoms and you are covered for a while. Barring an absurdly extreme case i don't see how this isn't more of failure of education than anything.
In most cases, there's no good argument for anti-choicers or anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers, it just usually ends up with that side proving their selfishness or complete ignorance. In my case, anyway, and I've yet to come across any anti-choicers who genuinely are pro-life and not just when it comes to fetuses.
I don't think that's proving what you think it's proving... lol.
As for the transphobia, I'm not surprised. I didn't ask that question to change the subject though. I just wanted to see if you could draw the connection between telling a transwoman they're not really a woman, and telling a catholic that they're not really catholic. I'll admit, lying about someone's religious beliefs isn't as bad as transphobia because religious identity isn't an immutable characteristic... but you're still just giving us reason to not respect your opinions because you're being a piece of shit.
I just wanted to see if you could draw the connection between telling a transwoman they're not really a woman, and telling a catholic that they're not really catholic.
To me its more like THAT is the point where a concession would be made. As in, when you throw one of the most, if not the most, horrible thing that can happen to a human being. At times it does feel like a bit of the angle is "ok, lets not bring a rapist's kid to the world" though. That said, more... principled folk who are on that side of the fence tend actively and loudly oppose this..
The issue there is that the unborn didn't choose their circumstances. If someone is raped, is it not god's will as well?
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that some might have at least some sort of exception to this kind of stance, but it very clearly demonstrates a lack of consistency in logic to me.
It depends? To me it really doesn't sounds like THAT an unrealistic an expectation outside of an actual third world country. A condom costs.. around a dollar. Maybe less. But rounded to a dollar it comes to 50 cents per fuck for a couple. Throw in more responsibility with the pill... that's around 30 bucks a month. So 15 bucks per person. So an absurdly responsible couple that is engaging in coitus an extreme amount of times is spending the staggering sum of... 60 dollars per month? Really? An average couple would cut that down to a fractions.... More like 40 bucks assuming the pill and condoms and less if they do just one contraceptive. Sure, even in developed nations people can be THAT poor but... come on, you need like 10 dollars for condoms and you are covered for a while. Barring an absurdly extreme case i don't see how this isn't more of failure of education than anything.
Well yeah, but no contraception is 100%, there are still accidents. And yeah, it's a failure in education, something most of them aren't interested in in the first place.
