And the COUP continues... EPA blocks CNN and Associated Press.

[interchange]

Made a small edit to your post to make it a bit more analogous.

Hm. I'd be okay with changing it to mild and periodic annoyance persistent over 9 months.

I also see you're appealing to the responsibility of the attacker, mixing in an appeal to emotion: "think of the child," and attempting a "consent to sex is an implicit consent to carry any resulting pregnancy to term." Let's address these one at a time:

If it were possible that when one human came into contact with another human there was a small chance (let's say equivalent to the chance of pregnancy) that one of them would spontaneously enter into a parasitic relationship with the other through no fault of their own, and that relationship would produce all of the symptoms and risks associated with pregnancy, and severing the relationship would kill the parasitic human, do you think the host human should be forced by law to allow the parasite to remain for 7 months until the relationship could be ended without killing the parasite? Or should the host's rights to a healthy life override the life of the parasitic human?

In the above case, does it matter if the parasite is a child or an adult? Would it be okay for example to kill the human a day after their 18th birthday but not the day before? If you had made your original case as "There is a 100% effective cure. That cure is murder of a adult human" do you perceive that to weaken the argument, assuming we are continuing to accept the premise that the child or human is indeed feeding off of me?

I'm not sure there is much of an emotional appeal here, if any. In the most recent post, in fact, I used the word "fetus" only. In the prior one, I did use the word human child. I don't think the argument is really any different if it were "adult human". Although, "adult human" is factually inaccurate. Yes of course we are continuing the premise that a fetus is a living human. Even the word fetus is flawed because it actually refers to a specific stage in development. "Products of conception" may be the most scientifically accurate term, but that's kind of wordy and lacking intuitive sense.

Also in the above case, do you think consenting to human contact should imply consent to submit to the parasitic relationship? What if the host followed rigorous procedures to reduce the chance of infection to 0.01% but just happened to be the 1/10000 that was unlucky? Do you think it would be good for society to have a law that basically forced women to completely abstain from sexual intercourse their entire post-pubescent/pre-menopausal lives except for the window where they are willing to get pregnant? Do you think such a law could be construed as "fair" or "just"?

If we accept the premise that fetus = human life (neither of us do), then:
- I have no problem accepting any intervention to end pregnancy that doesn't involve ending/harming a human life
- I wouldn't, for instance, ban driving because people sometimes die in car accidents. Yet when you get behind the wheel you assume some risk regardless of how well you protect yourself. If, however, there were a way to resurrect someone who died in a car accident by killing a person against their will, no that is obviously not acceptable.

Here. I'll throw you a scenario. On OT someone was posting an ode to thumbs, so this is on my mind. I have developed psoriatic arthritis, and my right thumb is affected by it. I'm in pain, I drop things, I have trouble opening doors, etc. But so far it's relatively mild. But I'm quite confident that cumulatively over my lifetime this illness is going to cause me more distress and risk than a typical pregnancy by a long way. I didn't do anything that I'm aware of other than being born to cause this illness. If I had a chance to cure it by killing a person against their will, there is no way in hell I would say that taking such a chance is justifiable.

The argument has nothing to do with causation so long as the human life that is being ended wasn't causative of the pregnancy. In that reality, how can you justify killing a human to end the condition?

 

[Moonbeam]

To my mind the notion that a fetus is a human life is undeniable. It is also undeniable that human life is sacred. Does that mean that abortion is the killing of a human life. But is it murder and is it wrong. The question is meaningless for me. I will never have to decide because I will never be pregnant and I therefore refuse to judge the question for somebody else as I would if we are talking about the murder of a child that is not dependent on its mother.

A second absolute truth is that no human should be the slave of another. Nobody should ever be forced to donate organs, for example. A woman who is raped or who has a child she doesn't want and or can't care for, can't be made to have that child against her will. This is why we have a Supreme court that made abortion legal. When absolutes, religious absolutes based on moral teachings derived from previous human legal decisions in the guise of god given absolutes, other absolutes come into the picture. It will always be secularly arrived at decisions that will be arrived at by secular courts. We make up the best compromises we can and make that what the law says. These are the laws that must be respected in a secular world, no matter the religious objection. You can't have conflicting absolutes that are absolutes no matter what you may feel.

 

[dank69]

Hm. I'd be okay with changing it to mild and periodic annoyance persistent over 9 months.

Gosh I hope if you have kids, their mother(s) never find this post of yours. Haha.

I'm not sure there is much of an emotional appeal here, if any. In the most recent post, in fact, I used the word "fetus" only. In the prior one, I did use the word human child. I don't think the argument is really any different if it were "adult human". Although, "adult human" is factually inaccurate. Yes of course we are continuing the premise that a fetus is a living human. Even the word fetus is flawed because it actually refers to a specific stage in development. "Products of conception" may be the most scientifically accurate term, but that's kind of wordy and lacking intuitive sense.

As long as it is understood then I don't really care all that much about the terminology. I just wanted to make sure the concept is understood. For simplicity's sake we could perhaps just agree on the term person? Personhood confers all of the protections we enjoy.

If we accept the premise that fetus = human life (neither of us do), then:

Hold on there hoss, if we are to discuss this rationally, a lot of these terms DO matter. For starters, fetus does equal human life. An actual pro-life proponent will muddy the waters up real quick with this stuff. What a fetus does not equal currently under the law is "person." We are stipulating for our purposes that all products of conception are immediately granted personhood.

- I have no problem accepting any intervention to end pregnancy that doesn't involve ending/harming a human life
- I wouldn't, for instance, ban driving because people sometimes die in car accidents. Yet when you get behind the wheel you assume some risk regardless of how well you protect yourself. If, however, there were a way to resurrect someone who died in a car accident by killing a person against their will, no that is obviously not acceptable.

Here. I'll throw you a scenario. On OT someone was posting an ode to thumbs, so this is on my mind. I have developed psoriatic arthritis, and my right thumb is affected by it. I'm in pain, I drop things, I have trouble opening doors, etc. But so far it's relatively mild. But I'm quite confident that cumulatively over my lifetime this illness is going to cause me more distress and risk than a typical pregnancy by a long way. I didn't do anything that I'm aware of other than being born to cause this illness. If I had a chance to cure it by killing a person against their will, there is no way in hell I would say that taking such a chance is justifiable.

The argument has nothing to do with causation so long as the human life that is being ended wasn't causative of the pregnancy. In that reality, how can you justify killing a human to end the condition?

Now, once again, you have sidestepped a key ingredient. Causation has EVERYTHING to do with it. It is okay to kill a person trying to commit a rape. It is not okay to kill an innocent person to prevent someone else from being raped. The person being killed has to be the root cause. To fix your new analogy, the person would have to be crushing your thumb for the rest of your life. I'm fine with stipulating that he isn't choosing to do so, but for whatever reason he is, and your choices are to allow him to do so for 7 months, or kill him, and the pain/suffering has to be equal to pregnancy.

 

[interchange]

As long as it is understood then I don't really care all that much about the terminology. I just wanted to make sure the concept is understood. For simplicity's sake we could perhaps just agree on the term person? Personhood confers all of the protections we enjoy.

Hold on there hoss, if we are to discuss this rationally, a lot of these terms DO matter. For starters, fetus does equal human life. An actual pro-life proponent will muddy the waters up real quick with this stuff. What a fetus does not equal currently under the law is "person." We are stipulating for our purposes that all products of conception are immediately granted personhood.

I don't have any conflict with the difference in definition here, but ok person is fine.

Now, once again, you have sidestepped a key ingredient. Causation has EVERYTHING to do with it. It is okay to kill a person trying to commit a rape. It is not okay to kill an innocent person to prevent someone else from being raped. The person being killed has to be the root cause. To fix your new analogy, the person would have to be crushing your thumb for the rest of your life. I'm fine with stipulating that he isn't choosing to do so, but for whatever reason he is, and your choices are to allow him to do so for 7 months, or kill him, and the pain/suffering has to be equal to pregnancy.

I'm going to ignore your stretching of my argument because it's inane.

The person inside the womb didn't create the pregnancy. They are more unwitting in the scenario than the woman.

One more analogy. Ok to kill your Siamese twin to remove them from you? Actually there's a surgeon who can save the twin's life in the operation. But they are booked out solid for 9 months.

 

[dank69]

I don't have any conflict with the difference in definition here, but ok person is fine.



I'm going to ignore your stretching of my argument because it's inane.

You can't just dismiss an argument by calling it inane. Please explain why it is inane. If you can't explain it, maybe it isn't inane.

The person inside the womb didn't create the pregnancy. They are more unwitting in the scenario than the woman.

Unwitting/innocent or whatever, I'll stipulate all those conditions for our thought experiments. You have to stipulate that the person being killed is the direct cause of the pain/discomfort/whatever in order for the analogy to apply. The entire argument for pro-choice is based on the premise that the person is doing direct damage to the victim's body.

One more analogy. Ok to kill your Siamese twin to remove them from you? Actually there's a surgeon who can save the twin's life in the operation. But they are booked out solid for 9 months.

Nice. I thought you had me there for a quick second but there is a difference between conjoined twins and parasitic twins. I believe it is legal to remove parasitic twins, whereas with Siamese twins, neither is a parasite.

 

[interchange]

Nice. I thought you had me there for a quick second but there is a difference between conjoined twins and parasitic twins. I believe it is legal to remove parasitic twins, whereas with Siamese twins, neither is a parasite.

The difference between a parasitic conjoined twin and a Siamese twin in your explanation? That one is a living person and the other is not. Oops. Guess I had you after all.

 

[dank69]

The difference between a parasitic conjoined twin and a Siamese twin in your explanation? That one is a living person and the other is not. Oops. Guess I had you after all.

No, as I already mentioned it has to be a parasitic relationship. One way. Siamese twins is a two way relationship. You can't say one is feeding off the other or one is violating the other's body because the reverse is also true. How would you decide who is the one whose rights are being violated?

 

[interchange]

No, as I already mentioned it has to be a parasitic relationship. One way. Siamese twins is a two way relationship. You can't say one is feeding off the other or one is violating the other's body because the reverse is also true. How would you decide who is the one whose rights are being violated?

A newborn is a one-way relationship. Is it only wrong to kill them because alternate caregivers are possible?

As to your last question, that's the whole point. There is no violation which justifies removal of the other's right to life.

 

[dank69]

A newborn is a one-way relationship. Is it only wrong to kill them because alternate caregivers are possible?

A newborn is no longer actively attacking someone's body.

As to your last question, that's the whole point. There is no violation which justifies removal of the other's right to life.

Correct, but not for the reason you think. There is no violation, because neither is attacking the other's body. They just happen to share some organs or blood or whatever.

 

[interchange]

A newborn is no longer actively attacking someone's body.

Correct, but not for the reason you think. There is no violation, because neither is attacking the other's body. They just happen to share some organs or blood or whatever.

Attacking? Whose the one appealing to emotion now?

Anyway, if you would seek to defeat analogies by all manners of nuance, you may succeed in defining an n of 1 condition between woman and fetus. Then what? If I fail to give you a hard example which clearly defines that condition as unacceptable to ending a life you would similarly fail to give me a hard example where it would be reasonable to end the life instead. If you consider that stalemate, so be it.

But then again this stem started from the guise of what is good under a Republican belief system. So all that is required is to add another condition, one where it is wrong to intentionally kill another person who is not wanting to die unless that person poses major imminent threat to you.

I wonder if you can provide any case where that concept isn't obeyed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Fetus = parasite = F for fail. Sadly my wife has probably seen this kind of thing on exams. Did you know the urethera is a seminal vesicle? Neither do we.

 

[dank69]

Attacking? Whose the one appealing to emotion now?

Anyway, if you would seek to defeat analogies by all manners of nuance, you may succeed in defining an n of 1 condition between woman and fetus. Then what? If I fail to give you a hard example which clearly defines that condition as unacceptable to ending a life you would similarly fail to give me a hard example where it would be reasonable to end the life instead. If you consider that stalemate, so be it.

But then again this stem started from the guise of what is good under a Republican belief system. So all that is required is to add another condition, one where it is wrong to intentionally kill another person who is not wanting to die unless that person poses major imminent threat to you.

I wonder if you can provide any case where that concept isn't obeyed.

There is no nuance, you just keep missing the the major requirement that the person we are killing is being killed in self defense. And yes, technically the "person" is attacking the host's body. It is taking everything it needs without regard for the host whatsoever. The host has to take in more calories and pay attention to several nutrient levels to avoid medical complications. And that's just for a normal pregnancy.

You see, you started this whole debate by assuming I don't understand the pro-life perspective but I assure you I understand it quite well. I've heard all these arguments countless times. It all boils down to the life of the "person" vs the female's right not to have a fucking person inside her body against her will. If you want to say the life of the person is more important than you should also agree that the government should have the right to implant a "person" into any woman at any time in order to save that "person's" life. After all, that "person's" life is more important than her right to refuse.

The ONLY difference between the above scenario and a real pregnancy is that the woman in most cases chose to have sex. We already discussed this point and as you didn't refute my arguments I just assumed you realized that was not going to work either. Because it won't. Besides what I already mentioned I have plenty more ammo for that particular battle.

So please, give it a rest. At least admit that maybe you misspoke when you claimed I didn't understand their viewpoint.

 

[interchange]

There is no nuance, you just keep missing the the major requirement that the person we are killing is being killed in self defense. And yes, technically the "person" is attacking the host's body. It is taking everything it needs without regard for the host whatsoever. The host has to take in more calories and pay attention to several nutrient levels to avoid medical complications. And that's just for a normal pregnancy.

You see, you started this whole debate by assuming I don't understand the pro-life perspective but I assure you I understand it quite well. I've heard all these arguments countless times. It all boils down to the life of the "person" vs the female's right not to have a fucking person inside her body against her will. If you want to say the life of the person is more important than you should also agree that the government should have the right to implant a "person" into any woman at any time in order to save that "person's" life. After all, that "person's" life is more important than her right to refuse.

The ONLY difference between the above scenario and a real pregnancy is that the woman in most cases chose to have sex. We already discussed this point and as you didn't refute my arguments I just assumed you realized that was not going to work either. Because it won't. Besides what I already mentioned I have plenty more ammo for that particular battle.

So please, give it a rest. At least admit that maybe you misspoke when you claimed I didn't understand their viewpoint.

I'll give it a rest. You are now punctuating your emotional appeal with anger directed at me. I was only continuing for funsies before, thinking you were doing the same, but I see you are actually serious. So I'll leave you be.

 

[dank69]

I'll give it a rest. You are now punctuating your emotional appeal with anger directed at me. I was only continuing for funsies before, thinking you were doing the same, but I see you are actually serious. So I'll leave you be.

What anger are you talking about? Is this your way of bailing without having to concede?

 

[interchange]

What anger are you talking about? Is this your way of bailing without having to concede?

When you swear and chide me, you demonstrate lack of capacity to respect the possibility that I have a valid viewpoint. That reads as anger to me but regardless puts an end to this discussion.

I am happy to concede whenever I believe I have something to concede. I do not believe this is the case here. So you and I both will be left with impasse. I would choose agree to disagree if you are open to that instead.

 

[dank69]

When you swear and chide me, you demonstrate lack of capacity to respect the possibility that I have a valid viewpoint. That reads as anger to me but regardless puts an end to this discussion.

I am happy to concede whenever I believe I have something to concede. I do not believe this is the case here. So you and I both will be left with impasse. I would choose agree to disagree if you are open to that instead.

I swear for impact and for fun. If you interpret that as anger that is your problem, not mine. I do it to drive away those not worthy of my opinion as well, though I don't count you among that particular set of people, yet. This cop out shit though makes we wonder if I should reconsider. I boiled it down real simple in my last post and you completely ignored the points. Either you can refute them or you cannot. Your move.

 

[interchange]

I swear for impact and for fun. If you interpret that as anger that is your problem, not mine. I do it to drive away those not worthy of my opinion as well, though I don't count you among that particular set of people, yet. This cop out shit though makes we wonder if I should reconsider. I boiled it down real simple in my last post and you completely ignored the points. Either you can refute them or you cannot. Your move.

Or choose not. Impasse it is. This will be my last post in this thread.

 

[dank69]

Or choose not. Impasse it is. This will be my last post in this thread.

I suspect if you could refute them you'd choose differently.