Support NeoGAF

[ZAK]

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.

Well, that's a fun rhetorical device, but what position is it supposed to support and how?

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.

Has anybody actually claimed that minds must measure up to some standard?

 

[daw840]

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)

Will there be any biochemical interaction regarding condoms? I understand that there will probably be with the pill, but wouldn't that still put the odds at ~1/500,000?

I don't think anyone has sex 500,000 times in there lifetime. Well....maybe Gene Simmons

 

[faceless007]

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?

I have no idea what you think this has to do with what I asked.

You said a woman who has an abortion is "inhuman." Thus, you think that humanity can somehow be revoked or negated by one's actions. I don't get it.

 

[JayDubya]

I have no idea what you think this has to do with what I asked.

You said a woman who has an abortion is "inhuman." Thus, you think that humanity can somehow be revoked or negated by one's actions. I don't get it.

I said people can believe what they want.

You said "Including not human?"

I said, sure, believe what you won't just don't go killing innocent people over it.

What are you on about?

Edit: Moved to post below.

 

[daw840]

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?

Yes, I would consider an exception in the case of rape. I am not quite as hard-nosed in this as JD.

As for people who get pregnant while using multiple forms of birth control, no they are not given a freebie. Everything in life has a risk associated with the activity. I could take every precaution possible while walking down the street and still get robbed. I took the risk of walking down the street. 99.9% of the time nothing would happen, I just got unlucky.

 

[faceless007]

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.

What part of Rare != Impossible don't you understand? Even 99.999 != 100. Unless you know how to divide one by infinite, there's always going to be a chance. So if a couple uses several redundant methods but shit still happens, do you still think they were stupid?

 

[daw840]

What part of Rare != Impossible don't you understand? Even 99.999 != 100. Unless you know how to divide one by infinite, there's always going to be a chance. So if a couple uses several redundant methods but shit still happens, do you still think they were stupid?

Read my post directly above your post. Every activity carries with it a risk, even if it's a small risk.

edit: There is also a chance I will win the lottery. But that's not going to happen.

 

[faceless007]

I said people can believe what they want.

You said "Including not human?"

I said, sure, believe what you won't just don't go killing innocent people over it.

What are you on about?

You said:
"Repugnant inhuman monstrosity is what is required for the situation to resolve with innocent bloodshed."

I bolded "inhuman" because that was what caught my eye. Unless I'm misreading you, you are calling women who have abortions inhuman. I don't see how one can consider an hour-old lump of tissue more human than a grown woman whose only crime is to make an exceedingly difficult choice to secure her own well-being.

*I'm not saying all women have abortions because of this, but you don't seem to care why, so the comparison is apt.

 

[ZAK]

Yes, I would consider an exception in the case of rape. I am not quite as hard-nosed in this as JD.

But you've implied (if not explicitly stated) that abortion is murder. How is it that murder of an innocent becomes justified...?

 

[faceless007]

Yes, I would consider an exception in the case of rape. I am not quite as hard-nosed in this as JD.

As for people who get pregnant while using multiple forms of birth control, no they are not given a freebie. Everything in life has a risk associated with the activity. I could take every precaution possible while walking down the street and still get robbed. I took the risk of walking down the street. 99.9% of the time nothing would happen, I just got unlucky.

So do you take back this:
"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."
? Seems contradictory to me.

 

[JayDubya]

You said:
"Repugnant inhuman monstrosity is what is required for the situation to resolve with innocent bloodshed."

I bolded "inhuman" because that was what caught my eye. Unless I'm misreading you, you are calling women who have abortions inhuman. I don't see how one can consider an hour-old lump of tissue more human than a grown woman whose only crime is to make an exceedingly difficult choice to secure her own well-being.

*I'm not saying all women have abortions because of this, but you don't seem to care why, so the comparison is apt.

I think I get the mix-up now.

Anyway, they're not true antonyms. For a quick and dirty dictionary reference:

hu·man (hymn) 1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

in·hu·man (n-hymn)
adj. 1. a. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel


And yes, I would call most perpetrators of aggressive and violent violations of the rights of others to be "inhuman" and be accurate in doing so.

I do not make an exception when the victims are totally helpless and totally dependent. It would actually be counterintuitive to make that exception.

 

[morningbus]

Yes, I would consider an exception in the case of rape. I am not quite as hard-nosed in this as JD.

As for people who get pregnant while using multiple forms of birth control, no they are not given a freebie. Everything in life has a risk associated with the activity. I could take every precaution possible while walking down the street and still get robbed. I took the risk of walking down the street. 99.9% of the time nothing would happen, I just got unlucky.

I'll put on my devil's advocate hat for this one... when robbed do you ask the police to find the man and punish him to the standards of the law? Or is it your fault that it happened?

 

[zoku88]

Will there be any biochemical interaction regarding condoms? I understand that there will probably be with the pill, but wouldn't that still put the odds at ~1/500,000?

I don't think anyone has sex 500,000 times in there lifetime. Well....maybe Gene Simmons

Yea, but you d it over th entire amount of safe sex trials in a given year :-/

 

[daw840]

But you've implied (if not explicitly stated) that abortion is murder. How is it that murder of an innocent becomes justified...?

I don't really have a good answer for this other than both parties did not consent to the risk associated with the activity (sex.) It's an unfortunate situation to be sure, but the woman should not have to endure 9 months, potentially 18+ years, for some filthy scum forcing himself on her. God knows the rapist will not be helping raise the child.

 

[faceless007]

in·hu·man (n-hymn)
adj. 1. a. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel

Oh, so you were using the colloquial definition, not the technical scientific one. That's funny, given your hard-on for science in the rest of the thread.

 

[JayDubya]

Oh, so you were using the colloquial definition, not the technical scientific one. That's funny, given your hard-on for science in the rest of the thread.

You know what else is funny? The fact that there isn't a "technical scientific" definition of inhuman.

Well, that's not funny. Your response is what's funny. :lol The knowledge is just an enabler.

 

[daw840]

So do you take back this:
"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."
? Seems contradictory to me.

I was speaking specifically towards consensual sex, I thought that was implied. Sorry.

 

[ZAK]

I don't really have a good answer for this other than both parties did not consent to the risk associated with the activity (sex.) It's an unfortunate situation to be sure, but the woman should not have to endure 9 months, potentially 18+ years, for some filthy scum forcing himself on her. God knows the rapist will not be helping raise the child.

You're right, that's not a good answer, unless you're using the infamous "responsibility" argument, which you've tried already without getting very far.

So apparently your position is inconsistent. Maybe you should reevaluate your ideas?

 

[daw840]

I'll put on my devil's advocate hat for this one... when robbed do you ask the police to find the man and punish him to the standards of the law? Or is it your fault that it happened?

It's not my fault that it happened, but I assumed a risk by walking around in public. You must realize that every activity you do, everyday, has a risk of something bad happening associated with it. Does that mean that you don't do anything? That you stay inside all day long? No.

 

[daw840]

You're right, that's not a good answer, unless you're using the infamous "responsibility" argument, which you've tried already without getting very far.

So apparently your position is inconsistent. Maybe you should reevaluate your ideas?

My position is not inconsistent. You are using something that is EXTREMELY rare to attempt to discredit my beliefs. Please present a statistic on how many women are impregnated because of rape each year versus how many people are impregnated because of consensual sex.

 

[faceless007]

You know what else is funny? The fact that there isn't a "technical scientific" definition of inhuman.

You keep saying you have a scientific definition of "human." Therefore, anything that does not mean that definition is scientifically "inhuman," no? Given that you're so damn assured of what it means to be scientifically "human," I find it curious that you would cavalierly use a colloquial, emotionally loaded misapplication of the term "inhuman" and expect the difference to be obvious.

 

[morningbus]

It's not my fault that it happened, but I assumed a risk by walking around in public. You must realize that every activity you do, everyday, has a risk of something bad happening associated with it. Does that mean that you don't do anything? That you stay inside all day long? No.

Yes, but do you go to the police and try and right what has been wronged?

Your argument could be used to justify denying an abortion to the victim of rape, too. (When in public, you run the risk of someone sexually assaulting you. This is a risk you assume by being part of our society).

 

[JayDubya]

You keep saying you have a scientific definition of "human." Therefore, anything that does not mean that definition is scientifically "inhuman," no? Given that you're so damn assured of what it means to be scientifically "human," I find it curious that you would cavalierly use a colloquial, emotionally loaded misapplication of the term "inhuman" and expect the difference to be obvious.

I keep saying that there is a scientific definition for human because there's a scientific definition for human. Point in fact, the very first dictionary entry I just cited is a pretty accurate representation therein. A member of the species Homo sapiens. The remainder is useless because there are no other extant members of the genus Homo.

Inhuman, on the other hand, is a synonym for cruel and monstrous, in that sense my only sin was redundancy.

 

[faceless007]

I keep saying that there is a scientific definition for human because there's a scientific definition for human.

Inhuman, on the other hand, is a synonym for cruel and monstrous, in that sense my only sin was redundancy.

My bad for assuming you were using the word that forms the crux of your argument consistently, rather than switching which definitions you use on the fly.

 

[JayDubya]

My bad for assuming you were using the word that forms the crux of your argument consistently, rather than switching which definitions you use on the fly.

Yes, "your bad" for having an apparently poor grasp on the English language, but hey, you can learn something new every day.

 

[daw840]

Yes, but do you go to the police and try and right what has been wronged?

Your argument could be used to justify denying an abortion to the victim of rape, too. (When in public, you run the risk of someone sexually assaulting you. This is a risk you assume by being part of our society).

Absolutely I would go to the police and report that a crime has been committed and needs to be righted. Consensual sex is not a crime, therefore nothing needs to be righted. Alright, maybe this would be a better example. You decide to drive a motorcycle. You hit a rock in the road and it causes an accident that injures you. No ones fault, but you have to deal with the consequences. This is the risk you took by deciding to ride a motorcycle.

 

[faceless007]

It's not my fault that it happened, but I assumed a risk by walking around in public. You must realize that every activity you do, everyday, has a risk of something bad happening associated with it. Does that mean that you don't do anything? That you stay inside all day long? No.

A woman who gets raped more often than not could have done something to prevent it. Not walked alone at night, not had a drink, etc. She's still a victim.

Of course, many on the pro-life side basically do think it's a woman's fault whenever she's raped, so I'm not surprised the discussion has gone there.

 

[faceless007]

Yes, "your bad" for having an apparently poor grasp on the English language, but hey, you can learn something new every day.

You think ad hominem attacks are going to change anyone's mind? Good luck with that.

 

[daw840]

A woman who gets raped more often than not could have done something to prevent it. Not walked alone at night, not had a drink, etc. She's still a victim.

Of course, many on the pro-life side basically do think it's a woman's fault whenever she's raped, so I'm not surprised the discussion has gone there.

I NEVER implied that a rape victim is at fault. It is the scumbag that decided to violate this woman who is at fault.

 

[JayDubya]

You think ad hominem attacks are going to change anyone's mind? Good luck with that.

Well I'm not sure yet, I need more data. You tell me how calling us all women-haters works out for you.

 

[faceless007]

I NEVER implied that a rape victim is at fault. It is the scumbag that decided to violate this woman who is at fault.

But why is that any different from your getting mugged example?

 

[faceless007]

Well I'm not sure yet, I need more data. You tell me how calling us all women-haters works out for you.

I'm not trying to change your mind.

 

[ZAK]

My position is not inconsistent. You are using something that is EXTREMELY rare to attempt to discredit my beliefs. Please present a statistic on how many women are impregnated because of rape each year versus how many people are impregnated because of consensual sex.

How is it not inconsistent? You have a position, and then you abandon it for absolutely no reason in one case. What does it matter how rare it is? You'd think, if it almost never happened, you could just live with a consistent stance on the issue, but apparently you feel strongly enough to make an exception. Obviously there's some strong influence on your reasoning, if your reasoning really applies at all. You don't think this is worth looking into?

 

[daw840]

But why is that any different from your getting mugged example?

Because you still have to live with the consequences of said action. That may have been a bad example. The better example would be the example I stated a couple of posts above.

 

[JayDubya]

I'm not trying to change your mind.

And I'm not trying to change yours.

 

[Crayon Shinchan]

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

High functioning cognition does not just apply to adults (which if you go of your implied strawman, would exclude a few members our adults, and include a few members of our developing minds).

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

The logic is that our humanity is valuable on the basis of our mind and function of our mind. There is no exception for the quality of mind, in inclusion to humanity.
But a mind does need to exist in the first place for inclusion to occur.

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.

I believe in erring on the side of humanity. My proposal gives choice to the mother to make a life changing decision for better or worse. But it also respects the needs of the humanity of the fetus. It may not be a complete member of our human species during its entire gestation period, but it certainly does come to acquire the appropriate traits that mark its inclusion among humanity.

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.

In the context in which I'm using it; potential humanity describes blastose that has yet to form adequate cognitive support structures. In otherwords, human cells, without a mind to link the function of cells into

Anyway. I'm out. Work is getting busy, and this thread is moving too fast.

 

[morningbus]

Absolutely I would go to the police and report that a crime has been committed and needs to be righted. Consensual sex is not a crime, therefore nothing needs to be righted. Alright, maybe this would be a better example. You decide to drive a motorcycle. You hit a rock in the road and it causes an accident that injures you. No ones fault, but you have to deal with the consequences. This is the risk you took by deciding to ride a motorcycle.

What if the consequences are death without medical intervention? Or permanent paralysis without medical intervention? Or even severe loss of mobility, without medical intervention?

Those are the consequences you assumed when riding a motorcycle, so, if something happens you're stuck in the wheelchair, even though we could have done something for you?

 

[faceless007]

And I'm not trying to change yours.

So the ad hom served what purpose then?

 

[JayDubya]

So the ad hom served what purpose then?

The same thing yours served. Mild catharsis for late-night debate irritation.

 

[daw840]

How is it not inconsistent? You have a position, and then you abandon it for absolutely no reason in one case. What does it matter how rare it is? You'd think, if it almost never happened, you could just live with a consistent stance on the issue, but apparently you feel strongly enough to make an exception. Obviously there's some strong influence on your reasoning, if your reasoning really applies at all. You don't think this is worth looking into?

Let me be a little clearer on my stance. Sex is a recreational activity. You do it for pleasure. There is a chance that X (pregnancy) will happen when sex is engaged in. Rape is not a consensual recreational activity. It is forced. I would hope that said person would at least have the presence of mind to get a morning-after pill, but if not then they should at least have an option once they realize they are pregnant, which should be within 30 days. If you just had sex for "fun" you shouldn't just be able to kill the being inside of you.

 

[faceless007]

The same thing yours served. Catharsis for late-night debate irritation.

Wrong, I named a common description of the pro-life side because your statement actually came off as an illustration of that. Of course, it assumed you used a word differently than you actually did.

 

[JayDubya]

Wrong, I named a common description of the pro-life side because that's how your statement actually came off.

Oh, so a straw man.

"My bad."

 

[daw840]

What if the consequences are death without medical intervention? Or permanent paralysis without medical intervention? Or even severe loss of mobility, without medical intervention?

Those are the consequences you assumed when riding a motorcycle, so, if something happens you're stuck in the wheelchair, even though we could have done something for you?

I stated this previously but I don't really expect you to wade through a huge thread to find it.

That would be a case of self-defense in my mind. If you know this will most likely happen you should be able to defend yourself. The same as if someone breaks into your residence you have the right to defend yourself with any and all means necessary, including killing the threatening person.

 

[ZAK]

Let me be a little clearer on my stance. Sex is a recreational activity. You do it for pleasure. There is a chance that X (pregnancy) will happen when sex is engaged in. Rape is not a consensual recreational activity. It is forced. I would hope that said person would at least have the presence of mind to get a morning-after pill, but if not then they should at least have an option once they realize they are pregnant, which should be within 30 days. If you just had sex for "fun" you shouldn't just be able to kill the being inside of you.

Okay, all you did was reiterate your position. I already knew that you support abortion in the case of rape and don't otherwise. Given that I also know that you consider abortion to be murder, what I don't understand is why. Why should a rape victim have the option of killing a tiny little person?

 

[daw840]

Okay, all you did was reiterate your position. I already knew that you support abortion in the case of rape and don't otherwise. Given that I also know that you consider abortion to be murder, what I don't understand is why. Why should a rape victim have the option of killing a tiny little person?

Again, rape is not a consensual recreational activity. Consensual sex is. What more do I really need to say?

 

[ZAK]

Again, rape is not a consensual recreational activity. Consensual sex is. What more do I really need to say?

How that justifies murder?

 

[daw840]

How that justifies murder?

It's a catch-22, on one hand it doesn't justify murder. On the other, forcing a woman to endure not only the rape, but to be reminded of it for 9 months or possibly the rest of her life(if she decides to keep the baby) is also unacceptable.

 

[morningbus]

I stated this previously but I don't really expect you to wade through a huge thread to find it.

That would be a case of self-defense in my mind. If you know this will most likely happen you should be able to defend yourself. The same as if someone breaks into your residence you have the right to defend yourself with any and all means necessary, including killing the threatening person.

I don't quite understand your response, so let me rephrase:

If the risk of riding a motorcycle includes death or permanent paralysis, if you are in an accident on your motorcycle, should we just let the consequences run their course?

Or should we do what is medically possible for you and return your life to normal?

 

[daw840]

I don't quite understand your response, so let me rephrase:

If the risk of riding a motorcycle includes death or permanent paralysis, if you are in an accident on your motorcycle, should we just let the consequences run their course?

Or should we do what is medically possible for you and return your life to normal?

Adoption is always a viable option in regards to pregnancy. This is 9 months that will suck, but everything will basically go back to normal afterwards as long as you work at it. If I am in a motorcycle accident that is possibly going to kill me or leave me paralyzed, my rehabilitation will be at least 9 months if not longer.

edit: What don't you understand about my response? If a human (the baby) is going to kill you when it is born, you can defend yourself by terminating it. Self Defense.

edit 2: I am going to bed. I will read this tomorrow afternoon and respond again. I am not just stopping my posts because I am out of arguments.

 

[ZAK]

It's a catch-22, on one hand it doesn't justify murder. On the other, forcing a woman to endure not only the rape, but to be reminded of it for 9 months or possibly the rest of her life(if she decides to keep the baby) is also unacceptable.

Uuum:

Adoption is always a viable option in regards to pregnancy. This is 9 months that will suck, but everything will basically go back to normal afterwards as long as you work at it.

Does not compute?