Support NeoGAF

[mcarlie]

i think it's more like "the governor and legislature, who produced and signed this bill, are demonstrably pro-death penalty while simultaneously calling themselves pro-life"

Even if that's true there is no contradiction between being pro-life in the context of abortion and being for the death penalty. You obviously want the death penalty for people who have committed crimes because you think that will curb crime or something. If you were for arbitrarily killing people innocent people and pro-life then I would see a point there.

I am not for the death penalty by the way.

 

[Casimir]

Have you seen the episode of TNG where they are trying to determine whether or not Data is a life form and therefore has his own rights? The argument that Picard puts forward is not that Data definitely is a life form but rather that there is no way to know with certainty that he isn't and therefore he should be treated like he is. For this reason I consider myself to be generally pro-life. I don't claim that the unborn is alive and should have its own rights, but I haven't seen a convincing argument showing with certainty that it isn't.

TNG also doesn't deal with the fact that after the child is born, the mother might not, and society definitely does not, have the capacity or interest to raise the child into a healthy and functioning member of society. Didn't think of that did you? Of course not, because you falsely equivocate 90s TV shows superficially discussing the question of when AI becomes real intelligence with the right of a woman to make personal medical choices. You do this because you don't really have good reasoning as to why your personal discomfort, over something that doesn't involve you in any fashion, is good enough reason to deny necessary medical procedures to other individuals who actually do have a right and interest in making that choice.

 

[DrROBschiz]

We seriously need to follow Colorados lead and focus on prevention of unwanted pregnancies and stop trying to legislate fringe/extreme cases where a 20+ week abortion is even being considered

This should be left in the hands of family and medical professionals

 

[Kazerei]

Have you seen the episode of TNG where they are trying to determine whether or not Data is a life form and therefore has his own rights? The argument that Picard puts forward is not that Data definitely is a life form but rather that there is no way to know with certainty that he isn't and therefore he should be treated like he is. For this reason I consider myself to be generally pro-life. I don't claim that the unborn is alive and should have its own rights, but I haven't seen a convincing argument showing with certainty that it isn't.

I'll basically just say that the mother's rights trumps a fetuses rights (not that they really have any). Easy as that. Imagine if someone was required to be surgically attached to you live. Or if someone required an organ transplant to live, and you were the only match. Should you be forced to donate? No, because your rights to your body should not be violated.

The question of "is it alive" is not really relevant to me. Personhood legally begins at birth.

 

[boiled goose]

true////

it's misogynistic

oh

The don't like it and rationalize it later.

Yup. There is no rational basis for antiabortion laws.

Body autonomy and basic biology demonstrate this.

It ultimately comes down to trying to punish Women who have sex.

 

[aeolist]

Even if that's true there is no contradiction between being pro-life in the context of abortion and being for the death penalty. You obviously want the death penalty for people who have committed crimes because you think that will curb crime or something. If you were for arbitrarily killing people innocent people and pro-life then I would see a point there.

I am not for the death penalty by the way.

tell that to people like this who do not qualify their pro-life statements. if you say that you believe life is sacred and even fetuses without a brain deserve legal protection and then go on to execute fully developed human adults then i am going to call you a hypocrite.

these people also do not care about the medical complications, which are sometimes fatal, that the woman involved may suffer: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hidden-dangers-of-going-under/

 

[mcarlie]

TNG also doesn't deal with the fact that after the child is born, the mother might not, and society definitely does not, have the capacity or interest to raise the child into a healthy and functioning member of society.

That wouldn't justify destroying a life if it is one.

Didn't think of that did you? Of course not, because you falsely equivocate 90s TV shows superficially discussing the question of when AI becomes real intelligence with the right of a woman to make personal medical choices.

I provided an analogy. There is an argument in the show that is analogous to mine. Analogies are meant to elucidate things by providing an example with similar structure or by comparing particular aspects of two separate things.

You do this because you don't really have good reasoning as to why your personal discomfort, over something that doesn't involve you in any fashion, is good enough reason to deny necessary medical procedures to other individuals who actually do have a right and interest in making that choice.

The good reasoning would be that it's a potential life.

tell that to people like this who do not qualify their pro-life statements.

Why? What do they have to do with me? This just seems like guilt by association.

if you say that you believe life is sacred and even fetuses without a brain deserve legal protection and then go on to execute fully developed human adults then i am going to call you a hypocrite.

Again you left out the part where they are criminals and the idea is that it would curb crime. I don't know if that's true and even if it was I would still be against the death penalty but you're clearly trying to misrepresent their view.

these people also do not care about the medical complications, which are sometimes fatal, that the woman involved may suffer: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hidden-dangers-of-going-under/

The vast majority of people who are pro-life would say that there's an exception when the life of the mother is in danger.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Women deserve to have the liberty to choose. Conservatives are using the government to control women.

It's why they also hate enabling access to contraceptives so much. Personal responsibility to them is making sure that you don't have sex at all. Women so free now. The old world is gone.

 

[aeolist]

The good reasoning would be that it's a potential life.

my balls are full of potential life, do you think it's a crime for me to ejaculate into a condom?

Why? What do they have to do with me? This just seems like guilt by association.

i'm not talking about you? i'm saying that these particular people are hypocrites who deserve mockery.

Again you left out the part where they are criminals and the idea is that it would curb crime. I don't know if that's true and even if it was I would still be against the death penalty but you're clearly trying to misrepresent their view.

if life is sacred and holy to your religion (which specifically forbids killing) and you use that as an excuse to interject yourself into the private and personal medical decisions of your citizens then you open yourself to criticism when you inject lethal doses of barbiturates into the bloodstream of anyone.

The vast majority of people who are pro-life would say that there's an exception when the life of the mother is in danger.

medical complications are not nice and predictable. this law could end up killing women who did not know that they were allergic to particular sedatives, or someone who had an undiagnosed heart problem, or any number of random women for reasons we don't understand. general anesthesia is a medical procedure that affects the body in unpredictable ways and sometimes causes long-term health effects. it's not something that should be done lightly and this law is mandating it without any scientifically acceptable reason.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Have you seen the episode of TNG where they are trying to determine whether or not Data is a life form and therefore has his own rights? The argument that Picard puts forward is not that Data definitely is a life form but rather that there is no way to know with certainty that he isn't and therefore he should be treated like he is. For this reason I consider myself to be generally pro-life. I don't claim that the unborn is alive and should have its own rights, but I haven't seen a convincing argument showing with certainty that it isn't.

Data was cognitive and functional and not living off the body of another.

What a ridiculous analogy.

 

[mcarlie]

my balls are full of potential life, do you think it's a crime for me to ejaculate into a condom?

There is no intrinsic potential future life for sperm. A fetus will eventually be born without intervention.

i'm not talking about you? i'm saying that these particular people are hypocrites who deserve mockery.

Fine.

if life is sacred and holy to your religion (which specifically forbids killing) and you use that as an excuse to interject yourself into the private and personal medical decisions of your citizens then you open yourself to criticism when you inject lethal doses of barbiturates into the bloodstream of anyone.

If this is potentially lethal to the mother then they should not do it.

 

[mcarlie]

Data was cognitive and functional and not living off the body of another.

What a ridiculous analogy.

a·nal·o·gy
əˈnaləjē/Submit
noun
a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
"an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"
a correspondence or partial similarity.
"the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"
a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects.
"works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"

Finding dissimilar aspects in an analogy is not a good counter argument considering that an analogy is not the same as equating two things. The analogous aspect in this case is the uncertainty about whether or not Data was alive, not about the fact that he can walk and talk.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

The law, which experts say is the first of its kind in the nation, is based on the scientifically disputed notion that a fetus can feel pain during the procedure.

Isn't 'pain' a mental factor associated with experiencing damaging stimulus? That is, just because something responds to a stimulus does not indicate for fact they are experiencing pain. I don't think a developing fetus has the mental capacities to experience pain at the age prescribed.

 

[shortsFortallPeople]

a·nal·o·gy
əˈnaləjē/Submit
noun
a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
"an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"
a correspondence or partial similarity.
"the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"
a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects.
"works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"

Finding dissimilar aspects in an analogy is not a good counter argument considering that an analogy is not the same as equating two things.

i think no one would want to abort fetuses if they spoke, shared their insights, and could display affection.

or if they had an evil twin brother. and were good at poker

So yeah, that comparison doesn't really hold much water here.

 

[aeolist]

Isn't 'pain' a mental factor associated with experiencing damaging stimulus? That is, just because something responds to a stimulus does not indicate for fact they are experiencing pain. I don't think a developing fetus has the mental capacities to experience pain at the age prescribed.

according to the definitions used by pro-lifers, plants feel pain

 

[adj_noun]

my balls are full of potential life, do you think it's a crime for me to ejaculate into a condom?

Every sperm is sacred.

 

[mcarlie]

i think no one would want to abort fetuses if they spoke, shared their insights, and could display affection.

or if they had an evil twin brother. and were good at poker

So yeah, that comparison doesn't really hold much water here.

As I said:

Finding dissimilar aspects in an analogy is not a good counter argument considering that an analogy is not the same as equating two things. The analogous aspect in this case is the uncertainty about whether or not Data was alive, not about the fact that he can walk and talk.

 

[shortsFortallPeople]

As I said:

Finding dissimilar aspects in an analogy is not a good counter argument considering that an analogy is not the same as equating two things. The analogous aspect in this case is the uncertainty about whether or not Data was alive, not about the fact that he can walk and talk.

if what you're working with to represent your pro-life viewpoints is a fictional robot with superhuman strength and unimaginable intelligence, well, don't expect people to take your views too seriously

not that you aren't entitled to them, of course.

 

[excelsiorlef]

a·nal·o·gy
əˈnaləjē/Submit
noun
a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
"an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"
a correspondence or partial similarity.
"the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"
a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects.
"works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"

Finding dissimilar aspects in an analogy is not a good counter argument considering that an analogy is not the same as equating two things.

It's not just a dissimilar aspect it's a fundamental difference that invalidates your analogy.

A fully cognitive and independent android cannot be compared to a fetus.

 

[mcarlie]

I'll basically just say that the mother's rights trumps a fetuses rights (not that they really have any). Easy as that. Imagine if someone was required to be surgically attached to you live. Or if someone required an organ transplant to live, and you were the only match. Should you be forced to donate? No, because your rights to your body should not be violated.

The question of "is it alive" is not really relevant to me. Personhood legally begins at birth.

It would be incredibly unethical of me not to donate if I was the cause of the whole thing.

It's not just a dissimilar aspect it's a fundamental difference that invalidates your analogy.

A fully cognitive and independent android cannot be compared to a fetus.

It's entirely possible for an analogy to be faulty but providing unrelated aspects does not invalidate the analogy.

 

[excelsiorlef]

It would be incredibly unethical of me not to donate if I was the cause of the whole thing.

In your morality. But you are not legally compelled to.

 

[Mass One]

As I said:

Finding dissimilar aspects in an analogy is not a good counter argument considering that an analogy is not the same as equating two things. The analogous aspect in this case is the uncertainty about whether or not Data was alive, not about the fact that he can walk and talk.

It's still not a good analogy. It's similar in only one aspect (the considering it life part). If Data was a clump of cells never talked, never loved, never had a personally, I don't think Piccard would have said that about Data.

I'm assuming the only reason your using that analogy is because of what piccard said. But it doesn't work because there's the whole previous TNG episdoes where Data is basically already a person and a crew member.

 

[Casimir]

That wouldn't justify destroying a life if it is one.

I provided an analogy. There is an argument in the show that is analogous to mine. Analogies are meant to elucidate things by providing an example with similar structure or by comparing particular aspects of two separate things.


The good reasoning would be that it's a potential life.

It's not life. It's a growth in a woman's body that she has to decide if she wants to remain in her body. If she decides to get rid of it, when it comes out, it never had more potential than than medical waste. If the woman is especially generous, she can donate it and give it the potential to help research. At no point are you, or your own personal choice, relevant to this decision.


And I provided a counter argument to point out the flaws with your comparison, because it fundamentally ignores the reality of what is being compared.

Edit: Beaten.

 

[mcarlie]

In your morality. But you are not legally compelled to.

There is no such thing as "my" morality. If I caused a person to enter that state I would be both legally and morally culpable.

It's still not a good analogy. It's similar in only one aspect (the considering it life part). If Data was a clump of cells never talked, never loved, never had a personally, I don't think Piccard would have said that about Data.

I'm assuming the only reason your using that analogy is because of what piccard said. But it doesn't work because there's the whole previous TNG episdoes where Data is basically already a person and a crew member.

The argument is the only thing that matters. I am uncertain about whether or not a fetus can be considered a life form with rights. It's because of uncertainty that I am pro-life.

 

[shortsFortallPeople]

i think we can all agree with mcarlie that if every fetus was like Data that we should let every fetus live.

He's got us on that one.

 

[excelsiorlef]

There is not such thing as "my" morality. If I caused a person to enter that state I would be both legally and morally culpable.

Only if the action was a crime (getting pregnant is not a crime) and you'd only go to jail you still wouldn't be required to undergo any medical procedure nor donate any part of your body.

 

[aeolist]

There is not such thing as "my" morality.

this explains a lot

 

[Mass One]

There is not such thing as "my" morality. If I caused a person to enter that state I would be both legally and morally culpable.



The argument is the only thing that matters. I am uncertain about whether or not a fetus can be considered a life form with rights. It's because of uncertainty that I am pro-life.

Well then your arrangement is on faulty grounds.

I'm sure if when women became pregnant the fetus was instantly a full grown baby they wouldn't abort it. But the reality thats not how it works. The Data analogy doesn't work. I don't think it was a well thought analogy. I do understand that it makes for a good soundbite. But basing a real-life thing on it is ludicrous. The similarity is just not close enough to the point where it isn't there.

 

[mcarlie]

this explains a lot

I guess only a moral relativist can be pro-choice then?

Well then your arrangement is on faulty grounds.

I'm sure if when women became pregnant the fetus was instantly a full grown baby they wouldn't abort it. But the reality thats not how it works. The Data analogy doesn't work. I don't think it was a well thought analogy. I do understand that it makes for a good soundbite. But basing a real-life thing on it is ludicrous. The similarity is just not close enough to the point where it isn't there.

How about we completely forget the analogy and just say that I'm pro-life because there is a lack of certainty about when life begins. The argument stands with or without the analogy. If you're not sure that something is alive and has rights then you should treat it as if it was.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Bringing in TNG and Data (the character) among an abortion law debate wins the dumbest thing I'll see today.

 

[Casimir]

i think we can all agree with mcarlie that if every fetus was like Data that we should let every fetus live.

He's got us on that one.

Counter point: Data is not Worf.

 

[mcarlie]

I'm perfectly aware of the fact that TNG is a cheesy show from the 90s. It seems like a cop-out to focus on that and not the underlying argument. The argument stands without the analogy.

 

[Pyramid head]

This is absolutely fucking true, along with the ridiculous 'tampon tax' garbage. If it were us males who bled and gave birth, abortions would have always been an unquestioned, routine non-event and tampons would never have been taxed to begin with.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

I'm perfectly aware of the fact that TNG is a cheesy show from the 90s. It seems like a cop-out to focus on that and not the underlying argument. The argument stands without the analogy.

No, the argument is still stupid. The Data thing is a debate about sentience, and if non-organic sentient machines can be called people. It had nothing to do with reacting to pain. A fetus of the discussed age doesn't have the mental faculties to feel pain. If you believe it does then you must also be against cutting down trees or damaging plants. Because many also respond to external stimulus.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I'm perfectly aware of the fact that TNG is a cheesy show from the 90s. It seems like a cop-out to focus on that and not the underlying argument. The argument stands without the analogy.

No it doesn't.

There's no legal requirement anywhere else to donate your body to sustain an actual human being let alone a non cognitive fetus.

 

[aeolist]

I guess only a moral relativist can be pro-choice then?

there's a difference between moral relativism and simply recognizing that everyone has their own code of ethics that they believe is correct.

 

[Mass One]

I guess only a moral relativist can be pro-choice then?



How about we completely forget the analogy and just say that I'm pro-life because there is a lack of certainty about when life begins. The argument stands with or without the analogy. If you're not sure that something is alive and has rights then you should treat it as if it was.

That's better.
Now your argument is how strict your definition of life. And that's a argument I don't care about because I don't care about anyone's definition but said woman. Her definition is the only one that matters. She determines what she carries has the value to carried.

 

[partyphone]

I guess only a moral relativist can be pro-choice then?

morality is always relative since it is so highly subjective. anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant or full of shit.

How about we completely forget the analogy and just say that I'm pro-life because there is a lack of certainty about when life begins. The argument stands with or without the analogy. If you're not sure that something is alive and has rights then you should treat it as if it was.

fetuses are alive. the sperm and eggs that produce them are alive. the cancer we cut out of bodies is alive. not sure why we should take a personal medical decision away from a woman just because something inside of her is alive.

 

[mcarlie]

there's a difference between moral relativism and simply recognizing that everyone has their own code of ethics that they believe is correct.

If you're saying that people have their own code of ethics but those ethics might be wrong compared to an objective outside standard then sure, but I don't see how that's relevant. It would be wrong to kill innocent people for no reason even if everyone on earth disagreed with that.

That's better.
Now your argument is how strict your definition of life. And that's a argument I don't care about because I don't care about anyone's definition but said woman. Her definition is the only one that matters. She determines what she carries has the value to carried.

Are you saying that the definition of life is relative?

 

[Truelize]

People can say life or "personhood" begins at birth if you like.

But a baby that is a live birth at 20 weeks will react to touch and sound.
If you did something simple like you pulled on a baby's finger it would pull it back and gather it's fingers into a fist again.

If at 20 weeks the baby can respond to those types of touches, I think it's reasonable that a baby would feel some pain or discomfort while it is getting "terminated" inside their mothers womb. These babies do not come out in one piece when they are aborted.

People need to do what is best for them. If abortion is the choice that needs to be made then that choice is available for that female.

But if all this report is saying is that the mother should be under anestitic so that the baby can be numbed to pain throughout the process I think that sounds reasonably humane.

 

[Mass One]

If you're saying that people have their own code of ethics but those ethics might be wrong compared to an objective outside standard then sure, but I don't see how that's relevant. It would be wrong to kill innocent people for no reason even if everyone on earth disagreed with that.



Are you saying that the definition of life is relative?

Yep.
Like this guy said we already have a relative stance on it.

morality is always relative since it is so highly subjective. anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant or full of shit.

fetuses are alive. the sperm and eggs that produce them are alive. the cancer we cut out of bodies is alive. not sure why we should take a personal medical decision away from a woman just because something inside of her is alive.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

I hate when republicans call themselves Pro-Life. They're only Anti-Abortion and there's a difference. If they really were Pro-Life they'd also try and do something about healthcare, debt-free education and gun violence which kills more people in the USA than in any other industralized nation on Earth.

Republicans care about you while in the womb. Once outside they don't give a fuck about you. Especially if you're killed by a gun because "there's nothing we could've done to prevent that".

People can say life or "personhood" begins at birth if you like.

But a baby that is a live birth at 20 weeks will react to touch and sound.
If you did something simple like you pulled on a baby's finger it would pull it back and gather it's fingers into a fist again.

If at 20 weeks the baby can respond to those types of touches, I think it's reasonable that a baby would feel some pain or discomfort while it is getting "terminated" inside their mothers womb. These babies do not come out in one piece when they are aborted.

People need to do what is best for them. If abortion is the choice that needs to be made then that choice is available for that female.

But if all this report is saying is that the mother should be under anestitic so that the baby can be numbed to pain throughout the process I think that sounds reasonably humane.

Also: this.

 

[Mass One]

People can say life or "personhood" begins at birth if you like.

But a baby that is a live birth at 20 weeks will react to touch and sound.

I did some light googling. The CDC said that most abortion (82%) occur before the 13th week.

 

[mcarlie]

Yep.
Like this guy said we already have a relative stance on it.

Do you believe that it wouldn't be unethical to kill innocent people without reason if you thought that was ethical? Do you truly believe that morality does not actually exist and is merely a human construct? Why would I take any kind of ethical claims that you make seriously then?

I find that people resort to moral relativism only when it suits them.

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

But if all this report is saying is that the mother should be under anestitic so that the baby can be numbed to pain throughout the process I think that sounds reasonably humane.

General anesthetic is not something you just go around giving to people like candy. There's significant risks associated with it, and the dangers of being put under anesthetic far, far exceed any of the risks of the actual abortion.

It's a horrifically bad idea that only serves to risk the health of the woman involved and make the procedure more expensive. The actual goal of the legislation is to discourage those abortions by making them riskier and costlier.

 

[FyreWulff]

I guess only a moral relativist can be pro-choice then?



How about we completely forget the analogy and just say that I'm pro-life because there is a lack of certainty about when life begins. The argument stands with or without the analogy. If you're not sure that something is alive and has rights then you should treat it as if it was.

When the life begins is irrelevant as nature aborts over 70% of life on it's own even without human induced abortion.

What matters is people remember that women can get injured, handicapped, or die from pregnancy. You cannot be pro life and force women to go through with a pregnancy because you cannot guarantee it's not a death sentence and that you're removing someone's autonomy.

People can be sad or frustrated about an abortion, but with the same vigor that people say "i don't like what you say but i defend your right to say it", people in the same breath should defend and keep the right for a woman to determine what happens with her body.

 

[Zoe]

I did some light googling. The CDC said that most abortion (82%) occur before the 13th week.

This law isn't targeting those (yet)--only 20 weeks and over.

 

[Mass One]

This law isn't targeting those (yet)--only 20 weeks and over.

ok. I only came in here once the guy used Star Trek to justify his stance on Pro-choice.

 

[FyreWulff]

But if all this report is saying is that the mother should be under anestitic so that the baby can be numbed to pain throughout the process I think that sounds reasonably humane.

Anesthesia is very dangerous, which is why most doctors and dentists avoid using it without very good reason, and why it's so expensive when you do have it.

 

[Truelize]

I did some light googling. The CDC said that most abortion (82%) occur before the 13th week.

Not sure what this means.
I thought we were taking about 20 weeks and later.

General anesthetic is not something you just go around giving to people like candy. There's significant risks associated with it, and the dangers of being put under anesthetic far, far exceed any of the risks of the actual abortion.

It's a horrifically bad idea that only serves to risk the health of the woman involved and make the procedure more expensive. The actual goal of the legislation is to discourage those abortions by making them riskier and costlier.

Yes I understand the dangers of anesthetics. And I would expect the medical community to do right by the patient and not put them in increased danger while doing a procedure.

But where in this original article does it state it's "general anesthetic"?
I didn't see that part of its in there.
Because unless it's a general anesthetic the health risk stats don't apply in the same way.