Support NeoGAF

[Branduil]

And I have little respect for the human mind that doesn't realise why it is just so important towards its own humanity. (But I still treat it's bearer as a human).

Why is the importance of the mind an arbitrary definition for personhood?

What do you consider of an anencephalic fetus?

It's not as though a fetus suddenly develops a mind instantaneously. How is it even possible for you to know when the mind really "begins"?

Anencephalic fetuses should be allowed to develop as they will. From what I understand most of them unfortunately pass away very quickly.

 

[ZAK]

What makes someone the arbiter of a human life worth existing?

Reproductive capacity, it seems. That way you can decide if a new life is worth forging, or not.

So what's your point? You seem to be deciding that all human life is "worth existing." That's as much a judgment as any other opinion on the matter.

 

[zoku88]

It's not as though a fetus suddenly develops a mind instantaneously. How is it even possible for you to know when the mind really "begins"?

Anencephalic fetuses should be allowed to develop as they will. From what I understand most of them unfortunately pass away very quickly.

Well, if your point is that we don't know exactly when a mind begins, then you are correct. But if your point is that we can never tell if a human mind exists, then that is wrong.

I mean, you would have a hard time arguing that something consisting of like... 64 cells has a 'human mind'

 

[ZAK]

I see nothing wrong with that. If the basis of your ideals are 'abortion is wrong because killing a person is wrong... and a human fetus is still a person', than there is nothing wrong about making arguments about why a human fetus is a person. Same thing for the other viewpoints.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. I engage in it myself. In my experience, though, it's usually pretty unproductive as it's largely a matter of opinion.

It's not as though a fetus suddenly develops a mind instantaneously. How is it even possible for you to know when the mind really "begins"?

A good, tough question. I'd say we should guess conservatively based on what we do know. Simplest example: if it doesn't have a brain, then it definitely doesn't have a mind. There's a minimal cutoff point.

 

[zoku88]

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. I engage in it myself. In my experience, though, it's usually pretty unproductive as it's largely a matter of opinion.

So, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Do you want us to argue about abortion using something else?

I mean, most arguments have underlying factors that are 'just a matter of opinion.' Sure, the opinions are usually based on judgments based on the facts on-hand, but they're still opinions.

 

[Crayon Shinchan]

It's not as though a fetus suddenly develops a mind instantaneously. How is it even possible for you to know when the mind really "begins"?

Study? Fetuses have predictable developmental periods.

Plus you allow for a generous berth. Before fetuses form the appropriate physical structures for cognitive capacity (i.e. neural clusters and links), they are without personhood.

Once it gets to the point where those features start to develop, assign personhood to it.

In reality, it'll be a few months from the start of the neural development, until any sort of viable mind is there (i.e. the formation of a cerebral cortex, on which higher cognitive capacity resides).. but that's why a generous berth for the humanity of the fetus is given in the first place.

 

[Branduil]

So what's your point? You seem to be deciding that all human life is "worth existing." That's as much a judgment as any other opinion on the matter.

I suppose so. I think it's hubris to claim that you can definitely state when a human starts to "matter." And, in my experience, those who choose to separate the concepts of "human" and "person" do so because it is better for them if a certain section of humanity is considered to be less worthy of existence.

Furthermore, I notice many people also make the argument for abortion based on the idea that the child's life wouldn't be worth living anyway, which I also think is an arrogant judgment that can never be proven. No one has a time machine that can see what a person will become. Some of the greatest people in history suffered horribly throughout their lives.

So overall I think the arguments for abortion are based on denying humanity to humans for our own benefit and the arrogant idea that we always know what's best for someone. If you truly do believe that some members of humanity aren't worth protecting, there's not much we can say to each other.

 

[ZAK]

So, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Do you want us to argue about abortion using something else?

I mean, most arguments have underlying factors that are 'just a matter of opinion.' Sure, the opinions are usually based on judgments based on the facts on-hand, but they're still opinions.

No, again, I'm not saying, "don't argue this way." But I think a different form of argument could be more effective. It's also the fact that several people have begun arguments like this, but when pressed they've all boiled down to, "well, it's murder." JayDubya has claimed something along the lines of having an argument that still stands independent of that, but that's as much as he's said so far.

And yes, everything comes down to axiom, which is ultimately arbitrary. It would be better if we could use axioms we could all agree on. For instance, it seems everyone agrees that killing an innocent person (person specifically, not just human) is wrong. Personally I've never seen a good argument like this, which is why I'm so interested whenever somebody claims to have one.

 

[Crayon Shinchan]

Furthermore, I notice many people also make the argument for abortion based on the idea that the child's life wouldn't be worth living anyway, which I also think is an arrogant judgment that can never be proven. No one has a time machine that can see what a person will become. Some of the greatest people in history suffered horribly throughout their lives.

No. This is a strawman of the actual position.

The actual position is a pragmatic consideration. We value humanity. And when brought into the world, we want them to be adequately equipped. In a lot of cases, the people that give birth simply don't have the adequate resources to provide a quality of care that should be due to a child.

We don't consider the child brought into poverty a non human. He's every bit as human as you or I. We simply consider it a tragedy that he'll be another person that isn't provided the adequate resources or opportunities to achieve the potential of his humanity.

 

[chaostrophy]

The benefit is that people don't have their lives taken unjustly. And generally, societies willing to sacrifice human lives for some nebulous "benefit to society" have numerous other ethical problems as well.

One thing we probably agree on is the fact that no society on Earth is 100% ethically perfect. But out of curiosity, what currently extant country or countries do you believe have the most ethical and just laws overall?

 

[zoku88]

No, again, I'm not saying, "don't argue this way." But I think a different form of argument could be more effective. It's also the fact that several people have begun arguments like this, but when pressed they've all boiled down to, "well, it's murder." JayDubya has claimed something along the lines of having an argument that still stands independent of that, but that's as much as he's said so far.

And yes, everything comes down to axiom, which is ultimately arbitrary. It would be better if we could use axioms we could all agree on. For instance, it seems everyone agrees that killing an innocent person (person specifically, not just human) is wrong. Personally I've never seen a good argument like this, which is why I'm so interested whenever somebody claims to have one.

I'm kinda cofused by what you mean by different form of argument. I mean, you have people claiming that it is in the best interests of the mother to be allowed to abort. Is that what you mean?

 

[Branduil]

No. This is a strawman of the actual position.

The actual position is a pragmatic consideration. We value humanity. And when brought into the world, we want them to be adequately equipped. In a lot of cases, the people that give birth simply don't have the adequate resources to provide a quality of care that should be due to a child.

We don't consider the child brought into poverty a non human. He's every bit as human as you or I. We simply consider it a tragedy that he'll be another person that isn't provided the adequate resources or opportunities to achieve the potential of his humanity.

"Adequately equipped"... what does that even mean? What is the "potential of his humanity"? This is why I called it hubris, because what you're talking about means different things to different people. Why is your particular definition of potential the right one? Why is it necessary for everyone to have that? In the middle ages even the richest kings did not have the amenities we enjoy today. There is no such thing as "reaching your potential," at least not how you mean it, because nobody agrees on what that means.

 

[ZAK]

I suppose so. I think it's hubris to claim that you can definitely state when a human starts to "matter."

"Matters" and "doesn't matter" are not objective. They can only come from opinion, and as such everybody's idea on it is as valid as anybody else's.

And, in my experience, those who choose to separate the concepts of "human" and "person" do so because it is better for them if a certain section of humanity is considered to be less worthy of existence.

And I've seen you mention that a couple of times already. You could just say this is tit for tat, but it becomes hard to respect your earlier demands not to be insulted in the middle of an argument when you yourself keep asserting that your opposition is arguing from some selfish motives, when you obviously can't know such things, nor is it particularly relevant to whether or not their arguments are any good.

Furthermore, I notice many people also make the argument for abortion based on the idea that the child's life wouldn't be worth living anyway, which I also think is an arrogant judgment that can never be proven. No one has a time machine that can see what a person will become. Some of the greatest people in history suffered horribly throughout their lives.

Well great, and if you actually see someone here making such an argument, feel free to call them out on it. In the meantime, don't lump people together just because they reach the same conclusion.

So overall I think the arguments for abortion are based on denying humanity to humans for our own benefit and the arrogant idea that we always know what's best for someone. If you truly do believe that some members of humanity aren't worth protecting, there's not much we can say to each other.

Well, I call it "personhood" rather than "humanity" to avoid confusion. And yes, obviously I believe there are members of humanity not worth protecting. I'd talk about loaded terminology and whatnot here, but it would all be pointless semantics, and I'd rather not distract from more substantial debate.

--

I'm kinda cofused by what you mean by different form of argument. I mean, you have people claiming that it is in the best interests of the mother to be allowed to abort. Is that what you mean?

Well, specifically, these tend to run along the lines of, "the woman got pregnant so it's her own fault and she shouldn't be irresponsible and take the easy way out of the consequences of her actions." Simple analogy tends to make people presenting this argument resort to, "abortion is murder." I'm still waiting for somebody not to.

Note that the case of rape is not covered under that reasoning, and curiously enough quite a few people seem to make an exception for rape even though they argue from "abortion is murder," which doesn't seem like it would make an exception for that case. This could be explained by those people having one internal reasoning and another external justification, but since I'm not a mindreader I'm in no position to claim I really know what's going on there.

 

[chaostrophy]

"Adequately equipped"... what does that even mean? What is the "potential of his humanity"? This is why I called it hubris, because what you're talking about means different things to different people.

To my knowledge, none of the pro-choice posters here are advocating mandatory abortions for anyone that doesn't meet their personal standards of fitness for the job of parenthood. The point of keeping abortion legal is to allow individual mothers to decide if they are ready to bring a child into the world, of course the criteria of readiness differ from one person to the next.

 

[Crayon Shinchan]

"Adequately equipped"... what does that even mean? What is the "potential of his humanity"? This is why I called it hubris, because what you're talking about means different things to different people. Why is your particular definition of potential the right one? Why is it necessary for everyone to have that? In the middle ages even the richest kings did not have the amenities we enjoy today. There is no such thing as "reaching your potential," at least not how you mean it, because nobody agrees on what that means.

It means a child is brought into the world, with the love of their parents, with an attainable path for education, with opportunities that will allow them to support themself as an upright functioning human being, that doesn't bring at any point percieve that it needs to bring harm unto others.

Most importantly, it's brought into the world by people that want it around.

 

[JayDubya]

No. What truly matters, what has set us apart from the other species, and what will bring other species on par with us... is high functioning sentience.

Barring the discussion from the exceedingly advanced or retarded individual and setting the bar relatively low, that is the hallmark of an adult human being as a member of our species yes, but no one goes around killing infants or toddlers and getting away with it.

As an atheist especially... what does it matter if blastose dies? There is no heaven, nor hell for it. It doesn't particularly care; it simply can't.

With or without a God, there is still room for justice and ethics. We do not need God to be ethical. Well, some people apparently do, but that is a flaw. Not the believing part - the needing in order to be ethical part.

What does it matter if blastose dies?

Well, I guess not a whole lot. You can always go catch a new Squirtle or Wartortle and evolve up.

Now, if you'd asked the question correctly without Pokemon typos, it answers itself: why does it matter when an innocent, vulnerable human being is purposefully slain?

 

[zoku88]

Barring the discussion from the exceedingly advanced or retarded individual and setting the bar relatively low, that is the hallmark of an adult human being as a member of our species yes, but no one goes around killing infants or toddlers and getting away with it.

You don't think toddlers have high-functioning sentience?

The rate of learning would suggest they would..

 

[Crayon Shinchan]

I suppose so. I think it's hubris to claim that you can definitely state when a human starts to "matter." And, in my experience, those who choose to separate the concepts of "human" and "person" do so because it is better for them if a certain section of humanity is considered to be less worthy of existence.

Furthermore, I notice many people also make the argument for abortion based on the idea that the child's life wouldn't be worth living anyway, which I also think is an arrogant judgment that can never be proven. No one has a time machine that can see what a person will become. Some of the greatest people in history suffered horribly throughout their lives.

So overall I think the arguments for abortion are based on denying humanity to humans for our own benefit and the arrogant idea that we always know what's best for someone. If you truly do believe that some members of humanity aren't worth protecting, there's not much we can say to each other.

We don't disagree on the value of humanity. We simply have a definitional problem of humanity. Only the extreme pro-choicers would consider it game to abort a fetus at 5-7 months. However, we recognize that humanity is a function of our sentience, our mind, and that this is developed DURING gestation, and not simply as a function of fertilization.

Science, has allowed us to determine this, and allows us the benefit of a more finely considered view based on not just rationality, logic, but also evidence.

 

[Crayon Shinchan]

Now, if you'd asked the question correctly without Pokemon typos, it answers itself: why does it matter when an innocent, vulnerable human being is purposefully slain?

Because if we allow it, it reduces the value of our humanity as a whole. But then so does conflating the idea of our humanity with cells that bear our genetic heritage.

 

[daw840]

Does anyone here remember anything from before they were 1 year old? If we make the argument that they don't care if they exist or not, would it not be ok to terminate an infant just newly born? I mean they are still completely dependent on the parent for sustenance. They would never really know what is happening to them. No one can remember anything from the first few months of their existence outside of the womb.

 

[Crayon Shinchan]

Barring the discussion from the exceedingly advanced or retarded individual and setting the bar relatively low, that is the hallmark of an adult human being as a member of our species yes, but no one goes around killing infants or toddlers and getting away with it.

I'd say an infant has a higher functioning cognition than you, in their potential to learn, rather than to simply recite platitudes and broken talking points.

 

[Crayon Shinchan]

Does anyone here remember anything from before they were 1 year old? If we make the argument that they don't care if they exist or not, would it not be ok to terminate an infant just newly born? I mean they are still completely dependent on the parent for sustenance. They would never really know what is happening to them. No one can remember anything from the first few months of their existence outside of the womb.

Regardless of whether or not it is remembered, the infant is still very concsious, and very aware of pain, emotions, et al. It does have a different neural structure to a full grown adult, but the areas of the brain that release the hormones and chemicals for emotions and pain still exist.

Therefore, your straw man is irrelevant.

 

[zoku88]

Does anyone here remember anything from before they were 1 year old? If we make the argument that they don't care if they exist or not, would it not be ok to terminate an infant just newly born? I mean they are still completely dependent on the parent for sustenance. They would never really know what is happening to them. No one can remember anything from the first few months of their existence outside of the womb.

Are you suggesting that people with severe memory problems aren't sentient?

 

[JayDubya]

I'd say an infant has a higher functioning cognition than you, in their potential to learn, rather than to simply recite platitudes and broken talking points.

Ooh, sick burn. And what do you think you're doin

Regardless of whether or not it is remembered, the infant is still very concsious, and very aware of pain, emotions, et al. It does have a different neural structure to a full grown adult, but the areas of the brain that release the hormones and chemicals for emotions and pain still exist.

Therefore, your straw man is irrelevant.

Not irrelevant at all, since you could arguably say a cow has the level of consciousness and ability to perceive pain as the infant, and yet, it's what's for dinner.

But without going there...

Then we'll just put the infant under total anesthesia first. There. No more moral problems.

 

[Crayon Shinchan]

Ooh, sick burn. And what do you think you're doin

Usin' my noggin to give u a floggin'.

Not irrelevant at all, since you could arguably say a cow has the level of consciousness and ability to perceive pain as the infant, and yet, it's what's for dinner.

But without going there...

Then we'll just put the infant under total anesthesia first. There. No more moral problems.

No moral problems, if you have no moral problems with offing an adult person under anaesthesia.

Again, irrelevant strawman. Once the fetus has gained the status of personhood... their humanity is not revokable via temporary measure.

Anyway, I'll state in a more formal manner my argument, so that we're not wasting time trying to poke holes with fallacies.

I believe that the value of humanity, of our difference from other creatures that share our world, is our mind. It is what gives value to humanity.

I believe (with reason, logic and evidence) that the mind is something that develops during the gestational period, and not immediately following fertilization.

Ergo, I assign humanity to the fetus that has developed a mind.
In practical terms, I err on safety; I'll give berth to fetuses that have developed the necessary structures for the formation of mind.

Without humanity, a collection of cells with human genetic material is just that. It isn't anymore, it isn't any less.

As a result, I wouldn't want to impose on the humanity of another person, reducing their rights, for the sake of the collection of cells. The humanity of the person that currently exists, outweighs the potential for humanity of blastose.

 

[daw840]

As a result, I wouldn't want to impose on the humanity of another person, reducing their rights, for the sake of the collection of cells. The humanity of the person that currently exists, outweighs the potential for humanity of blastose.

Reducing whose rights? Adoption is always an option. It merely inconveniences a person for ~9 months.

 

[zoku88]

Reducing whose rights? Adoption is always an option. It merely inconveniences a person for ~9 months.

The mother's rights. Since, it's kinda more than a 'mere' inconvenience...

Abortion is also an option, and less expensive (I think?) and less time

 

[Crayon Shinchan]

Reducing whose rights? Adoption is always an option. It merely inconveniences a person for ~9 months.

Merely an inconvenience is what a person says when they fail to understand the dramatic life changing events that occur when a person brings another to life. Stubbing your toe is merely an inconvenience. Bringing to life another is a decision of greatest gravity of ones life.

Life is precious yes, and although the potential for life is great... the average human woman could concievably give birth to 20-30 children in her life time... we do not actualise every potential. Ideally, we give rise to life when we're able to recieve it.

And I agree, adoption should always be an option, especially in the cases of fetuses past the first trimester of development.
As should the choice for a woman to make a decision on whether or not she wants to or is ready to actualise the potential of the life within her.

 

[daw840]

The mother's rights. Since, it's kinda more than a 'mere' inconvenience...

Abortion is also an option, and less expensive (I think?) and less time

I don't know about the cost differences. But if you were stupid enough not to use the proper birth control methods, then 9 months of inconvenience is no one's fault but your own. Then you can put the kid up for adoption.

 

[zoku88]

I don't know about the cost differences. But if you were stupid enough not to use the proper birth control methods, then 9 months of inconvenience is no one's fault but your own. Then you can put the kid up for adoption.

But like I said before, it doesn't really matter whose 'fault' it is.

That can be settled with paying wtv it costs to get an abortion ^^

Spoiler

Assuming that it was stupidity that lead to pregnancy and not something else

EDIT: Crap, I put the quotes around the wrong word XD

 

[JayDubya]

Stupidity is not requisite for the situation to occur.

Repugnant inhuman monstrosity is what is required for the situation to resolve with innocent bloodshed.

 

[daw840]

Life is precious yes, and although the potential for life is great... the average human woman could concievably give birth to 20-30 children in her life time... we do not actualise every potential. Ideally, we give rise to life when we're able to recieve it.

And I agree, adoption should always be an option, especially in the cases of fetuses past the first trimester of development.
As should the choice for a woman to make a decision on whether or not she wants to or is ready to actualise the potential of the life within her.

Exactly. That is why today's society has birth control. I said it before, and I will say it again.

ALL pregnancies are either planned or at the very least the couples choice.

You choose not to use birth control and have sex. You chose to get pregnant. Period.

 

[Crayon Shinchan]

Repugnant inhuman monstrosity is what is required for the situation to resolve with innocent bloodshed.

I don't even know what you're referring to right now, but I'll say the same for your callousness towards people once they're out of the womb, for the sake of protecting free market purity.

Angry, emotionally loaded language does not make an argument stronger. Rereading your OP, it does seem like you conflate the idea.

 

[Crayon Shinchan]

Exactly. That is why today's society has birth control. I said it before, and I will say it again.

ALL pregnancies are either planned or at the very least the couples choice.

You choose not to use birth control and have sex. You chose to get pregnant. Period.

This is a view that arises as a justification and reinforcement for your position.

You know it in your heart to be false however. As a purely intellectual exercise, remove the humanity of pregnancy from the equation. When a person becomes pregnant, they grow a lump of clay in their womb. To some this clay is desirable (it could be used to form high grade of pottery for example), to some it is not.

Would the only reason for engaging with sex without protection be to form this lump of clay in your opinion?

 

[daw840]

Would the only reason for engaging with sex without protection be to form this lump of clay in your opinion?

Yes.

 

[JayDubya]

I believe that the value of humanity, of our difference from other creatures that share our world, is our mind. It is what gives value to humanity.

Normal adult members of our species display advanced intelligence, sure.

I believe (with reason, logic and evidence) that the mind is something that develops during the gestational period, and not immediately following fertilization.

If you're talking about brain development, sure, why not.

Ergo, I assign humanity to the fetus that has developed a mind.

This doesn't necessarily logically follow. If an individual member of Homo sapiens's current level of sapience *cough* and sentience has to be far greater than your average livestock, or even a particularly astute chimpanzee / dolphin in order to count as being worthy of rights; a late-term fetus doesn't pass muster, and neither does a toddler.

Since few people want to make 10th trimester abortion legal, I doubt that's what you believe. Obviously I would favor my own argument, that awards rights based on humanity and being in a living, physiologically viable state (i.e. living human being) but this sort of highlights why.

Without humanity, a collection of cells with human genetic material is just that. It isn't anymore, it isn't any less.

That doesn't make sense. a) We're all a collection of cells that are genetically human, as our mothers and fathers were genetically human. b) if the mother and father was genetically human, what species is the mere "collection of cells?"

As a result, I wouldn't want to impose on the humanity of another person, reducing their rights, for the sake of the collection of cells.

I believe in promoting rights too; close to being the first among these is the right to not have your mom pay some dude to impale your head with surgical scissor (I believe in laymen's terms that's called a "right to life" but whatev).

The humanity of the person that currently exists, outweighs the potential for humanity of blastose.

What does "potential humanity" mean? I don't argue from potential, so this line of argument will be useless on me anyway, but I just want to see if you can make it make sense.

 

[faceless007]

Reducing whose rights? Adoption is always an option. It merely inconveniences a person for ~9 months.

Only someone born with a dick would say this. And he'd be wrong.

 

[daw840]

Only someone born with a dick would say this. And he'd be wrong.

Then why did you have sex without some form of protection? Most, if not all, forms of birth control are 99% effective.

 

[faceless007]

Repugnant inhuman monstrosity is what is required for the situation to resolve with innocent bloodshed.

Ah, so a lump of a few cells is as much a human being as you or me, but a woman who, in the absence of any compelling argument or evidence otherwise, believes that lump is not a human being, is herself not a human being?

And people wonder why the pro-life side is often accused of being misogynistic.

 

[zoku88]

Then why did you have sex without some form of protection? Most, if not all, forms of birth control are 99% effective.

That's 1 for 100 trials tha endi faiure, which kind of a lot given how many ppl prlly have protected sex.

 

[faceless007]

Then why did you have sex without some form of protection? Most, if not all, forms of birth control are 99% effective.

99 != 100. Rare != Impossible.

 

[JayDubya]

Ah, so a lump of a few cells is as much a human being as you or me, but a woman who, in the absence of any compelling argument or evidence otherwise, believes that lump is not a human being, is herself not a human being?

Of course not. She can believe what she wants.

It's just when she crosses the line and hires a hitman that I'd call her a litany of not nice things.

And people wonder why the pro-life side is often accused of being misogynistic.

Unfairly so! I'd call people of either gender a litany of not nice things for committing aggressive homicide or hiring someone to act as their proxy in doing so.

 

[kame-sennin]

Yes.



Completely disassociate. Like I would if they shot up a liquor store.

The question wasn't posed to you, but I appreciate you being so forthright.

There are no human / anything else hybrids, so you know if something is definitively human or not.

But there were. I won't go into this any further as it leads to my beliefs on animal rights and thus, imminent thread derail. But the point is that there is a precedent for a being that is like a human, but is not a human. Gradation does exist.

 

[faceless007]

I believe in promoting rights too; close to being the first among these is the right to not have your mom pay some dude to impale your head with surgical scissor (I believe in laymen's terms that's called a "right to life" but whatev).

D&X procedures (I won't call them by the name invented by the pro-life lobby) are really a separate topic from 1st-trimester abortions. There's no hard data available, but my understanding is that they're only ever performed when the life of the mother would be in serious danger if they attempted to deliver the baby normally. So your choices in that situation are 1) Let the mom die while birthing possibly also killing the baby, and at best leaving it without a family to raise it, or 2) Kill the baby to save the mother.

Not a great position to be in, but honestly, if you keep insisting that those in favor of maintaining the right (like me) are really just whacking off at the prospect of vacuuming baby's brains out, there isn't much room for discussion.

 

[JayDubya]

Not quite the same thing as a hybrid, and I get what you're saying, but not where you're going with this.

Even still, that would be more of a let's not have medical experiments on chimpanzees kind of thing than an argument for cows, unless you want to go into how many millions of years you want to go back before we shared common ancestry with those what moo.

 

[faceless007]

Of course not. She can believe what she wants.

It's just when she crosses the line and hires a hitman that I'd call her a litany of not nice things.

Including "not human"?

 

[JayDubya]

Including "not human"?

Let's say someone believed black people were not human and that slavery was appropriate. Would that be illegal? Should that be illegal?

Now let's say that same person clubbed a black person over the head, brought them home, and tried to make them to do their chores. Would that be illegal? Should that be illegal?

 

[daw840]

99 != 100. Rare != Impossible.

I believe condoms alone are 99.9% effective. While the pill is somewhere around the same level of effectiveness, given that no other medications are being taken. I was generalizing all forms of birth control when I said 99%. Of which I believe that there are around 12. If you use 1 form that would be 1 in a 1000. If you use 2 forms that would be........alright I'm not a mathemetician so I don't know what that works out to, but it's a lot more than 1 in 1000.

 

[JayDubya]

I believe condoms alone are 99.9% effective. While the pill is somewhere around the same level of effectiveness, given that no other medications are being taken. I was generalizing all forms of birth control when I said 99%. Of which I believe that there are around 12. If you use 1 form that would be 1 in a 1000. If you use 2 forms that would be........alright I'm not a mathemetician so I don't know what that works out to, but it's a lot more than 1 in 1000.

Presuming there's no biochemical interaction (there's going to be), basic probability would be to multiply 1/1000 by 1 / 1000; 1x1 =1; 1000 x 1000 = 1000000; odds = 1 / 1,000,000.

However, even those things do happen (purple loot!). Which is why I stressed that stupidity is not the issue. Anyone can get into the situation even if they're careful (unless they're abstinent). The issue is (without the vitriol) how humane the situation is dealt with.

Like, actually humane or PETA humane? (Okay, there's some vitriol)

 

[morningbus]

Exactly. That is why today's society has birth control. I said it before, and I will say it again.

ALL pregnancies are either planned or at the very least the couples choice.

You choose not to use birth control and have sex. You chose to get pregnant. Period.

I'm sure you've probably answered this earlier, but asking is probably easier than wading through the backlog of pages: do you make an exception in the case of rape?

And about the birth control thing: if people are using multiple forms of birth control, yet still get pregnant, are they given a freebie?