- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: All the talk on Roe V. Wade
Posted on 7/16/18 at 4:36 pm to CptRusty
Posted on 7/16/18 at 4:36 pm to CptRusty
quote:
because you aren’t capable and/or you’d rather make snarky remarks than delve into substance.
I answered your questions, then you replied with:
quote:
when you're ready to have an adult discussion I'll be around.
If you act like a dickhead, expect to be treated like a dickhead.
quote:
I extended the olive branch earlier in this thread, even after you had been needlessly curt and rude...
bullshite. I'd love to see you try to post that happening...
Again, act like a dickhead and I'll treat you like a dickhead.
1
Posted on 7/16/18 at 4:58 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
If you act like a dickhead, expect to be treated like a dickhead.
I agree
quote:
when is a human not a person?quote:
Prior to developing into a person...
Snarky curt responses like that are expected from angsty teenagers, not adults seeking to engage in civil discussion.
quote:
I'd love to see you try to post that happening...
After we bickered back and forth I attempted to hit the reset button on the whole thing and complied with your request:
quote:quote:When, in your opinion, does personhood get bestowed and why?
ask better questions
Which you again responded to in a curt and dismissive fashion. Further, implicit in your answer was the suggestion that the question was stupid because it wasn't germane to the the thread. This of course is absolute nonsense.
Posted on 7/16/18 at 6:40 pm to CptRusty
quote:
I agree
Good, then you know why I've been treating you like a dickhead.
quote:
Prior to developing into a person...
Is that really why you've been acting up all day?
quote:
Which you again responded to in a curt and dismissive fashion.
I like how you avoided quoting my response. I'll take care of that for you...
quote:quote:
When, in your opinion, does personhood get bestowed and why?
Between conception and birth. It isn't a simple answer and would be best served by a separate discussion.
Your question wasn't important to the point I made, but I still answered it. I let you know that it would be a separate discussion.
This was your response to that:
quote:
You clearly haven't read the rest of the thread and I have no interest in leading you by the nose through a 10 page discussion.
So basically, you've been a dickhead multiple times because you didn't get what you wanted. Like a fricking child...
Posted on 7/16/18 at 7:26 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
When you come to a forum populated by adults and proceed to behave like an emo teenager, you should expect to be scolded like one. No need to project your angst onto me.
Posted on 7/16/18 at 7:28 pm to CptRusty
Well this thread got fricking chippy while I was in court today
But a parent technically doesn't have the responsibility. While the parent can't actively kill the child, or refuse to nourish it while also not alerting anyone to that choice, I don't believe there is a single state in the union that bars a parent from fully abandoning a child to be a ward of the state.
This is significantly distinguishable from:
In this paradigm, not only is the parent not allowed to abandon the zygote/fetus, but they aren't even allowed to pull the ripcord once viability hits. I have a hard time believing that the pro-life crowd would be willing to allow a woman to get an elective c-section at 7 months because she was tired of dealing with it and someone else can now take car of the child.
In a paradigm in which a fertilized egg attains full personhood, and that personhood comes with a full positive right to life, you've functionally given the being in that nine month period more rights than any other being on the planet. Hell, a friend of mine had her rib broken by her fetus the last time she was pregnant. Not a single prosecution in sight
Jokes aside, I understand the emotional draw towards giving the grandest rights/protections to "the most vulnerable," but we're talking about substantial restrictions on the rights of full persons. At least from the libertarian perspective, I find that prospect more than a little alarming.
quote:
A new born has both a positive and negative right to life. The parents must make every reasonable effort to keep that child alive, and being negligent in this duty is cause to be charged with a crime, thus the child's right to life is positive specifically in regards to the child's legal guardians, i.e. I don't have any responsibility to feed your child, but you certainly do.
But a parent technically doesn't have the responsibility. While the parent can't actively kill the child, or refuse to nourish it while also not alerting anyone to that choice, I don't believe there is a single state in the union that bars a parent from fully abandoning a child to be a ward of the state.
This is significantly distinguishable from:
quote:
It is my position that these rights manifest immediately upon conception (fertilization). Obviously this means that I believe the mother should be legally obligated to take all necessary actions to keep herself in good health and not endanger the well being of her child
In this paradigm, not only is the parent not allowed to abandon the zygote/fetus, but they aren't even allowed to pull the ripcord once viability hits. I have a hard time believing that the pro-life crowd would be willing to allow a woman to get an elective c-section at 7 months because she was tired of dealing with it and someone else can now take car of the child.
In a paradigm in which a fertilized egg attains full personhood, and that personhood comes with a full positive right to life, you've functionally given the being in that nine month period more rights than any other being on the planet. Hell, a friend of mine had her rib broken by her fetus the last time she was pregnant. Not a single prosecution in sight
Jokes aside, I understand the emotional draw towards giving the grandest rights/protections to "the most vulnerable," but we're talking about substantial restrictions on the rights of full persons. At least from the libertarian perspective, I find that prospect more than a little alarming.
Posted on 7/16/18 at 7:42 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
But a parent technically doesn't have the responsibility.
Of course they do. As you’ve pointed out, that responsibility can be transferred, but it can’t just be dissolved. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t abandonment (like in a trash can) be a crime?
quote:
n this paradigm, not only is the parent not allowed to abandon the zygote/fetus, but they aren't even allowed to pull the ripcord once viability hits. I have a hard time believing that the pro-life crowd would be willing to allow a woman to get an elective c-section at 7 months because she was tired of dealing with it and someone else can now take car of the child.
I don’t see why my position would exclude this as an option, assuming the doctor performing the c section signs off (or whatever) that there is a high confidence the child survives
quote:
In a paradigm in which a fertilized egg attains full personhood, and that personhood comes with a full positive right to life, you've functionally given the being in that nine month period more rights than any other being on the planet.
I am failing to see how the fetus’ rights in my paradigm are materially different than an infant?
quote:
, I understand the emotional draw towards giving the grandest rights/protections to "the most vulnerable," but we're talking about substantial restrictions on the rights of full persons
Those rights are forfeit when the person chooses to have sex that could result in pregnancy, and pregnancy happens. Recall our discussion about causality and responsibility
And yes, this thread became a complete shite show today in your absence
Posted on 7/16/18 at 7:51 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
Hell, a friend of mine had her rib broken by her fetus the last time she was pregnant. Not a single prosecution in sight
And since you spent the day in court I’m guessing you’re familiar with the term “scienter”. I am guessing this would be hard to establish with a fetus
Posted on 7/16/18 at 8:04 pm to CptRusty
quote:
Those rights are forfeit when the person chooses to have sex that could result in pregnancy, and pregnancy happens. Recall our discussion about causality and responsibility
I certainly recall it; it's simply where you and I disagree substantially. Now, that doesn't mean that I don't respect your consistency on the subject, but I don't believe my cabin dweller has the affirmative duty to take care of anyone who gets tangled in his nets, and I certainly don't think a woman has an affirmative duty to care for a zygote/fetus simply because she had sex.
Now, as for the rest, no need to get quote heavy:
You're right that you can't abandon a child in a trashcan, but you can certainly abandon it at a fire station. You're not transferring anything. You're simply refusing to take care of it anymore. The fact that someone else is now choosing to take care of it is mostly unrelated to the decision being made. The fetus is taking on a higher level of positive rights in the level of imposition, and inability to shirk said imposition, in question. Now, you hand waive that due to the sex = responsibility paradigm, but if someone doesn't buy into that line of thinking, it seems to me like the entire argument fall apart.
Posted on 7/16/18 at 8:05 pm to CptRusty
quote:
And since you spent the day in court I’m guessing you’re familiar with the term “scienter”. I am guessing this would be hard to establish with a fetus
'twas a joke
Posted on 7/16/18 at 8:11 pm to Joshjrn
And when you abandon the child at the fire station, you are transferring that responsibility to the state. If a firefighter were to find the child then throw it into a trash can, they could be prosecuted.
quote:
Now, you hand waive that due to the sex = responsibility paradigm, but if someone doesn't buy into that line of thinking, it seems to me like the entire argument fall apart.
Our difference basically boils down to this, the rest is semantics. You’re right that I can’t do much other than handwave this point. You either believe people are responsible for the consequences of their actions or you don’t, and your preference in law reflects that. and yes I would extend that responsibility to fathers to the extent that it is possible.
Posted on 7/16/18 at 8:12 pm to CptRusty
Also, as a general aside, I had my first meal of the day at 5pm and I'm fricking beat, so no one should expect much more from me this evening than just dipping my toe back in the water. If anyone is expecting anything overly clever, they are destined to be disappointed
Posted on 7/16/18 at 8:16 pm to CptRusty
quote:
You either believe people are responsible for the consequences of their actions or you don’t
But that's not as clear cut as you make it out to be.
Let's say tomorrow morning on my way into the office, I'm waiting at a red light. I get bored and check my phone, respond to a text or two, and aw crap, I've been blocking traffic and then go through the intersection. Unbeknownst to me, someone three cars back had been told if they were late to work again, they were fired. They were running behind but were doing ok until I caused them to catch that light when they shouldn't have. It cost them four minutes for the cycle, got to work three minutes late, and got fired. Because they got fired, they lost their car, house, etc, etc, etc.
Which of those consequences, exactly, should society hold me responsible for?
This post was edited on 7/16/18 at 8:45 pm
Posted on 7/16/18 at 8:24 pm to Joshjrn
Now we’re back to scienter (yes I just learned this word, I’m not a lawyer so let me enjoy it)
I know that I said earlier that intent was irrelevant, and I want to point out that I was speaking specifically about taking actions that have *reasonably* foreseeable consequences. I’m not sure how to differentiate in legal terms when a person has an onus not to be negligent, but I’m sure the concept exists.
I know that I said earlier that intent was irrelevant, and I want to point out that I was speaking specifically about taking actions that have *reasonably* foreseeable consequences. I’m not sure how to differentiate in legal terms when a person has an onus not to be negligent, but I’m sure the concept exists.
Posted on 7/16/18 at 8:33 pm to CptRusty
quote:
Now we’re back to scienter (yes I just learned this word, I’m not a lawyer so let me enjoy it)
Get it with ya bad self
quote:
I know that I said earlier that intent was irrelevant, and I want to point out that I was speaking specifically about taking actions that have *reasonably* foreseeable consequences. I’m not sure how to differentiate in legal terms when a person has an onus not to be negligent, but I’m sure the concept exists.
Well, as a technical matter, one always has an onus not to be negligent. What I think you're talking about is the torts concept of duty, breach, and causation (the elements for an actionable tort). To put a finer point on it, you think I have a duty to the (hypothetical) zygote but not to the guy three cars behind me.
The only non-arbitrary distinction there I can think of is that I had a hand in creating the zygote but not the guy in the car. Which, frankly, is interesting considering the fairly standard position across most established religions that "god created you, so god can smite you, and there is nothing wrong with that". It's an odd turn that this form of creation attaches a duty not only to not destroy but to actively continue fostering.
It's fairly unique, when you think about it.
This post was edited on 7/16/18 at 8:33 pm
Posted on 7/16/18 at 8:38 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
The only non-arbitrary distinction there I can think of is that I had a hand in creating the zygote but not the guy in the car.
Bingo
ETA: also you had no way of knowing about the guys time crunch. If you did, and then purposely barred his path, then I imagine he could sue
quote:
Which, frankly, is interesting considering the fairly standard position across most established religions that "god created you, so god can smite you, and there is nothing wrong with that".
Well it may surprise you to learn I am firmly agnostic, if not outright atheist. The concept of a higher power has not factored into my position at all, but to that point, I think the proper religious response would be that man =\= God.
This post was edited on 7/16/18 at 8:43 pm
Posted on 7/16/18 at 8:44 pm to CptRusty
quote:
but to that point, I think the proper religious response would be that man =\= God.
Well sure, but that's circular as frick
quote:
Well it may surprise you to learn I am firmly agnostic, if not outright atheist.
Now this I want to play with for a second.
So you don't believe that a fertilized egg immediately has a soul or anything of the sort, yet you still think someone should be required to nourish and foster that little bundle of cells simply because, if you nourish it long enough, it will become a sentient being? That's... interesting...
Posted on 7/16/18 at 8:49 pm to CptRusty
Wise decision...
Posted on 7/16/18 at 8:54 pm to Joshjrn
I don’t consider sentience to be a prerequisite to personhood, or else people with severe brain damage wouldn’t have legal protections.
The ONLY thing I consider to be important is whether or not the thing in question is human. This stems from an extreme reluctance to give anyone in government the ability to arbitrarily determine when someone’s life is legally protected.
I understand that the law has carveouts which allow killing, but there are rigid standards which must be met, for example in the case of self defense: ability, intent, and opportunity.
So far I haven’t been presented with any standard for abortion which I consider to be sufficiently un-arbitrary.
The ONLY thing I consider to be important is whether or not the thing in question is human. This stems from an extreme reluctance to give anyone in government the ability to arbitrarily determine when someone’s life is legally protected.
I understand that the law has carveouts which allow killing, but there are rigid standards which must be met, for example in the case of self defense: ability, intent, and opportunity.
So far I haven’t been presented with any standard for abortion which I consider to be sufficiently un-arbitrary.
Posted on 7/16/18 at 8:56 pm to Pere_bear
How do you account for a zygote that fails to attach to the uteran wall? A fertilized egg is isn't guaranteed to position itself in a way that will allow it to develop. Not even talking about complications that lead to a miscarriage. Who answers for all those deaths? Why would God allow so many unnecessary humans to die? Easy. Because they aren't humans. A zygote is not a person. It is a building block for one. It is a foundation. But it's also part of the mother who carries it just like your blood and bones. And she makes choices for her body. Which that zygote is a part of. Once a fetus has developed to a point that it has a heartbeat, you have convinced me that it's a human being. But until that happens, it's essentially a parasite feeding on nutrients inside a host body.
Parasite by definition: an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
Parasite by definition: an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
This post was edited on 7/16/18 at 8:58 pm
Posted on 7/16/18 at 8:58 pm to CptRusty
quote:
So far I haven’t been presented with any standard for abortion which I consider to be sufficiently un-arbitrary.
I'm not sure if that's true, at least not if you spent any time on the thread I linked way back when:
The concept of eviction is utterly non-arbitrary. A woman may, at any point, evict the zygote/fetus from her body and therefore refuse to allow it to be parasitic on her.
ETA: And now I'm spent. I'll probably check on this thread for a while longer this evening, but I can barely keep my eyes open, so I no longer trust myself to post. I'll try again tomorrow
This post was edited on 7/16/18 at 9:01 pm
Page 14 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News