Another Judge in yet another State rules abortion clinic law unconstitutional

[Cerpin Taxt]

Hee hee. Remember this?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2177330

So what? Facts are not decided by popular opinion. You couldn't mount a sound argument, so you decided to try to appeal to popular "common sense" which in this case is quite wrong, no matter how many people vote for it.

 

[Brainonska511]

As for the topic at hand, the judge was right. These laws conservative states are erecting are arbitrary and not backed by medical necessity. Other procedures, that are potentially more dangerous don't have these hoops to jump through. They're just trying to create regulatory hurdles to force abortion clinics out of business and deny women their constitutional rights by making abortion illegal in a de facto sense.

The way some of you go on, as if people go to abortion clinics for an abortion willy-nilly. Y'all need to MYOB. All the vilification that goes on in front of these clinics, towards the women that seek an abortion, and the harassment doctors and staff face, for whatever reason, is sickening and frankly, unchristian. After all, as John 8:7 states, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.

http://www.esquire.com/features/abortion-ministry-of-dr-willie-parker-0914
The women who go to that clinic, that was facing a shutdown in Mississippi - their lives are already tough. But I guess we should say, "fuck it, let's shit on them while they're down." (/sarcasm).

 

[Atreus21]

So what? Facts are not decided by popular opinion. You couldn't mount a sound argument, so you decided to try to appeal to popular "common sense" which in this case is quite wrong, no matter how many people vote for it.

haha ok.

 

[nehalem256]

Why is the baby suddenly non-killable once its born?

Because its cute.

Same reason Michael Vick ended up in jail instead of people defending him with: "His dogs. His choice"

 

[fskimospy]

Shrug. By manipulating the circumstances, you can always arrive at your intended destination. That's the point.

This level of silliness is beneath both of you. The purpose of a thought experiment is to simply and clarify an issue so you can isolate choices. It is inherently an invented scenario because if something happened all the time you wouldn't need a thought experiment to analyze it.

It is simply asking you which you value more in society today if you are forced to choose. It is explicitly designed to present as few conditions as possible so that there are no other influencing factors. That you might place a different value on things after a nuclear apocalypse is pretty much entirely irrelevant.

I concede that in general people value born children over fertilized embryos. I concede also that people value healthy adults over aged adults 5 minutes prior to death.

So this entire time you are complaining that I weighted a thought experiment to achieve a result that you agree is true. So I biased the experiment to get the true answer?

The relative value of human beings weighed against other human beings has exactly nothing to do with abortion. The choice to have a child or to kill it is not a "someone has to die" scenario, as the clinic fire experiment is.

It has everything to do with abortion. If you think that one baby is worth more than a billion embryos, it seems very strange to equate the two in terms of what destroying one means.

 

[Atreus21]

This level of silliness is beneath both of you. The purpose of a thought experiment is to simply and clarify an issue so you can isolate choices. It is inherently an invented scenario because if something happened all the time you wouldn't need a thought experiment to analyze it.

It is simply asking you which you value more in society today if you are forced to choose. It is explicitly designed to present as few conditions as possible so that there are no other influencing factors. That you might place a different value on things after a nuclear apocalypse is pretty much entirely irrelevant.



So this entire time you are complaining that I weighted a thought experiment to achieve a result that you agree is true. So I biased the experiment to get the true answer?



It has everything to do with abortion. If you think that one baby is worth more than a billion embryos, it seems very strange to equate the two in terms of what destroying one means.

Buddy, I'm fuckin' tired.

Respect, but I got work to do.

 

[fskimospy]

I already did, by giving you REAL problems that people WILL experience in this utopian, black and white targeted experiment you're producing.

Adding real-life variables basically nullifies this "value judgement" you seem to think is impregnable.

How did it nullify anything? Why would you want to add extraneous variables to a thought experiment?

 

[Retro Rob]

How did it nullify anything? Why would you want to add extraneous variables to a thought experiment?

Because, by introducing real life variables, you cannot predict the result you want.

I believe value judgments are relative to the situation. If the fire played out exactly as you say, sure I would grab the baby first, in a perfect world.

However, if my own skin would be in mortal danger, I'd likely not grab either.

See how that works?

 

[fskimospy]

Because, by introducing real life variables, you cannot predict the result you want.

I believe value judgments are relative to the situation. If the fire played out exactly as you say, sure I would grab the baby first, in a perfect world.

However, if my own skin would be in mortal danger, I'd likely not grab either.

See how that works?

But we aren't trying to assess the value you place on your own life, so why would we include that as a variable? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[Retro Rob]

But we aren't trying to assess the value you place on your own life, so why would we include that as a variable? That doesn't make any sense.

Because in REAL LIFE, your life DOES matter. You seem to think that you can just ignore other variables that play heavily into this.

You can't reasonably expect people to ignore the value of their own life when you paint a scenario in which harm can be caused to them, theoretically.

 

[fskimospy]

Because in REAL LIFE, your life DOES matter. You seem to think that you can just ignore other variables that play heavily into this.

Of course you cut out the other variables. That is literally the entire point.

You're trying to examine one very specific thing: the relative value of a baby vs. an embryo, all other things being equal.

You can't reasonably expect people to ignore the value of their own life when you paint a scenario in which harm can be caused to them, theoretically.

Of course you can. Allow me to amend the scenario: your safety is guaranteed regardless of your choice. Better now?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Of course you can. Allow me to amend the scenario: your safety is guaranteed regardless of your choice. Better now?

Then why would you only save one? Hypothetical scenarios are good up to a point, but let's not pretend it's somehow less ridiculous to find yourself in a building being on fire with one baby and millions of embryos and you can only save one successfully while simultaneously guaranteeing that no harm befalls you as compared to "oh shit, a nuke went off." They're both fairly absurd scenarios that would be incredibly unlikely to actually happen.

 

[nehalem256]

Of course you cut out the other variables. That is literally the entire point.

You're trying to examine one very specific thing: the relative value of a baby vs. an embryo, all other things being equal.



Of course you can. Allow me to amend the scenario: your safety is guaranteed regardless of your choice. Better now?

Percent of people who would save "their dog" over a person

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ould-you-save-puppy-or-child-burning-building

Seems like a fair number of people think animals are worth more than people. Are you suggesting that a pet might be more of a person than an actual person?

 

[Exophase]

I'm loathe to agree with nehalem, but why is the answer for men "Don't have sex, if you do then man up" but the answer for women is "It's not your fault, just get an abortion."

I'm pro-abortion. Not just pro-choice, pro-abortion. I think we need a lot more abortions. But the double standard infantilizes women.

I also believe that men should be allowed to opt out of a legal parental relationship at least up until the viability of the child, or the equivalent amount of time after he has been properly informed of the pregnancy or child. This would mean relinquishing all responsibilities as well as rights and privileges.

 

[fskimospy]

Then why would you only save one? Hypothetical scenarios are good up to a point, but let's not pretend it's somehow less ridiculous to find yourself in a building being on fire with one baby and millions of embryos and you can only save one successfully while simultaneously guaranteeing that no harm befalls you as compared to "oh shit, a nuke went off." They're both fairly absurd scenarios that would be incredibly unlikely to actually happen.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. Then I'll amend it again: your safety is only guaranteed for the first trip out. You will certainly die if you return.

The purpose of a thought experiment is to provide a situation where you can think through a specific topic free from other constraints. The reason why their idea that their mind might change after a nuclear war isn't irrelevant because it's unlikely, it's irrelevant because we are attempting to figure out what are preferences are in our current society.

How likely something is or is not is completely pointless. As an example, Schrodinger's cat is a great thought experiment. Your objection to that would presumably be "well why doesn't someone let the cat out!?".

The only purpose is for someone to be able to express their preference for one choice or another. Anything that adds in additional constraints or adds in additional considerations should be removed.

 

[fskimospy]

Percent of people who would save "their dog" over a person

Seems like a fair number of people think animals are worth more than people. Are you suggesting that a pet might be more of a person than an actual person?

Nope. As usual, you missed the point. I would suggest re-reading the thread once to a normal person, so for you I will suggest re-reading the thread five or six times until you feel like you've mastered it.

 

[MrPickins]

Stop trying to force your personal moral code on others.

Oh, the irony...

 

[nehalem256]

Oh, the irony...

And of course if you had read the preceding sentence you would detect the obvious sarcasm.

 

[Retro Rob]

Of course you cut out the other variables. That is literally the entire point.

You're trying to examine one very specific thing: the relative value of a baby vs. an embryo, all other things being equal.



Of course you can. Allow me to amend the scenario: your safety is guaranteed regardless of your choice. Better now?

I'm adding variables, and your eliminating them. Think about; you're doing the exact same thing I am.

You're still committing a sharpshooter fallacy.

 

[alzan]

I mean morally, not legally.

Morals are personal, you have yours and others have theirs.

 

[alzan]

I like how the legal action of self-autonomy and control is comparable in their eyes to the outright murder of another person, or even the long abolished system of slavery - both criminal behaviors involving controlling and inflicting harm on other people, yet the public isn't involved at all in a woman's choice to abort.

At least I presume so, as I have yet to see any indication of harm or adverse effects suffered by anti-choice people when an unknown woman decides to end her pregnancy. They should be thanking these women, or have social conservatives reversed their views on tax dollars going towards welfare babies and single mothers?

Dogma, it's a bitch.

Heh, religious belief can sometimes cloud the ability to think rationally.

 

[DrPizza]

I do care for my own kids.

Why dont you have some kids and speak from first hand experience.

But, you said we have the right to be presumed innocent, until proven guilty in court. Apparently, that applies to everyone except your own daughter.

 

[Oldgamer]

Heh, religious belief can sometimes cloud the ability to think rationally.

Sometimes...??? LOL

 

[alzan]

Sometimes...??? LOL

There are those relative few who are able to suspend their beliefs and think about a given circumstance rationally.

I try not to paint with a broad brush.

 

[MrPickins]

And of course if you had read the preceding sentence you would detect the obvious sarcasm.

I'm just following the nehalem school of selective quoting.

I figured you'd be honored.