Quick question for pro life people.

[wtfsvi]

Pro life is a little exotic to me, because it's not a view I ever encounter in real life. I'm obviously pro-choice, but I don't have the agenda of entering a flame war with this. I'm sorry if this has been discussed before, it seems like the abortion issue has been talked to death around here.

Should a pregnant woman be allowed to kill herself? (If you don't think anyone should be allowed to kill themselves, pregnant or not, you are crazy, but at least specify that when you say no then. "No. But I am crazy.")

[Sephus]

i think most people who are pro life would say "no, but i am crazy."

some people would say no one with dependents, including a pregnant mother, should be allowed to kill herself.

a few would say that only pregnant mothers should not be allowed to kill themselves.

and a few would say that everyone should be allowed to kill him or herself.

[Phil153]

I'm pro choice because I don't consider the fetus (or a lower level tard, for that matter) to be human.

That said, I don't think anyone should be allowed to kill themselves, with few exceptions.

My justification for suicide prevention is that the vast majority of suicides, if given a clear mind or eternity to think about the choice, would not choose to kill themselves. The desire for life is powerful but it can be clouded by negative emotions and mental illness. I don't think anyone would have a problem from preventing a schizophrenic from cutting themselves repeatedly because they believe there are demons inside trying to get out, and in the same sense, people who no longer wish to live are usually confused and detached from the world. The finality of suicide gives the right to intervene, in my opinion.

[KikoSanchez]

Kant, according to this, would have to say "no, but I am crazy."
But Kant was a genius, not crazy.
Ergo, you do not have to be crazy to believe in such a proposition.


Honestly though, Kant was a total institutional douchebag.

I think there is a distinction to be made though. Is it moral for a parent with dependents to kill themself? Some MAY disagree on this. But whether or not they should 'be allowed' on a legal level, I think there is no question that they have this freedom to do so and to punish people for attempting to kill themselves would be an extravagant overstep of state functionality.

[tame_deuces]

What Phil said. And very many suicides are based on simple irregularities in the brain causing depressions and this can be cured. I don't find trying to stop this forcefully much different from forcefully stopping a blind person from walking off a tall cliff.

[wtfsvi]

I had no idea so many non-religious people held the crazy position on this. I guess even more religious people will, then, so sephus is probably right.

[KikoSanchez]

I have been pro-choice in my past, but I am beginning to think differently about third trimester abortions. Largely my reason for being pro-choice I built off of Peter Singer's reasoning for vegetarianism. Beings with interests should have said interests respected. Now, a 3-week old ball of goo has no interests to avoid pain, death, et cetera. On the other hand, what is the interest-based difference between an 8-month old 'fetus' and a 8 and half month old born child? It seems there is little difference and if I am to be intellectually honest, it seems I should be against such late abortions.

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]
I had no idea so many non-religious people held the crazy position on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Best of luck defending your position.

Looking at the team sheets, my money is on the opposition.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
I had no idea so many non-religious people held the crazy position on this. I guess even more religious people will, then, so sephus is probably right.

[/ QUOTE ]



Its a catch-22, that's all.

The majority of people who kill themselves are suffering from depression. Most depressions are simply a physical malfunction of certain chemical inhibitors and receptors in the brain and their function.

So we can agree that rationally thinking people should of course be allowed to kill themselves. But its rare that wanting to kill yourself when otherwise healthy is a rational choice. Mostly it is a sign of strong depression. So there is your catch-22.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I had no idea so many non-religious people held the crazy position on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Best of luck defending your position.

Looking at the team sheets, my money is on the opposition.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure if there is much point to defending it. They think someone should be prohibited from making his own decisions about himself/his own body when they feel they have good reason to believe that he is about to make a mistake that can't be corrected later. It's a way to look at people and autonomy that I don't agree with, and I think it's a dangerous slippery slope. But I don't expect to convince anyone, so I left it at calling them crazy.

[Phil153]

Your autonomy points are perfectly reasonable, and I think few here disagree that personal autonomy is massively important.

But let me ask you this:

Do you believe we should intervene in the case of schizophrenics, or should they be free to cut themselves during a relapse "to get the demons out"? This isn't some made up scenarios, this stuff (and worse) actually happens - to people who are quite normal when not suffering from psychosis.

As for the slippery slope argument, the interesting thing is that a greater understanding of the brain has lead to greater personal freedom for almost all mentally ill. Please explain?

[wtfsvi]

I don't think it's necessarily and always wrong to prevent suicide or to prevent people people from cutting themselves, but I think the burden of proof that someone is not acting rationally is on you if you want stop someone. And it applies again every time you want to stop someone new/again. Appealing to statistics and saying most people that try to committ suicide are later thankful of someone who stopped them doesn't cut it. (I don't know to what degree it's true either.)

[Jcrew]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pro choice because I don't consider the fetus (or a lower level tard, for that matter) to be human.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe that there should be any consequences for the mother if she engages in blatant activities while pregnant and planning to give birth, that will result in permanent suffering of the child (ie drinking/drugging while pregnant that results in abnormalities )?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe we should intervene in the case of schizophrenics, or should they be free to cut themselves during a relapse "to get the demons out"? This isn't some made up scenarios, this stuff (and worse) actually happens - to people who are quite normal when not suffering from psychosis.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does, "we should intervene" mean?

I've been held against my will in situations after cutting or burning my own self, in institutional environments that definitely did more harm than good. I don't cut or burn any more, but I am still enraged at these violations (one in particular). Who says it's your job, or the government's, or anyone else's, to choose what's best for me? To evaluate my rationality and determine what choice I have over my own life and my own body?

Then again, I've had bad experiences. If I hadn't, I might be saying "intervention saved my life, I'm so glad." And some people are so clearly dangerous and insane that there's no question of letting them be. Where can we draw the line? I suppose there are worse places than "serious danger to self or others." Depressed people can seem very rational, but I know from experience that everything gets distorted.

I don't think there will be any easy answers until our understanding and treatment of these illnesses have improved.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

Should a pregnant woman be allowed to kill herself?

[/ QUOTE ]

Should a non pregnant woman be allowed to kill herself if in the process she also killed her 6 year old child?

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Should a pregnant woman be allowed to kill herself?

[/ QUOTE ]

Should a non pregnant woman be allowed to kill herself if in the process she also killed her 6 year old child?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what point you are trying to make here? If the fetus is self sustainable then the two situations are similar but still have significant difference. What if the 6 year old was still breast feeding from the mother and would starve without her (would refuse to eat or drink anything else)?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Should a pregnant woman be allowed to kill herself?

[/ QUOTE ]

Should a non pregnant woman be allowed to kill herself if in the process she also killed her 6 year old child?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what point you are trying to make here? If the fetus is self sustainable then the two situations are similar but still have significant difference. What if the 6 year old was still breast feeding from the mother and would starve without her (would refuse to eat or drink anything else)?

[/ QUOTE ]

The question was asked about prolife people who (generally) are pro life because they believe the fetus is a human life and the mother has no right to kill it. From their view why would the reasoning be any different from that of forbidding a mother from killing herself by driving into a lake with her child in the car with her?

[Mr_Moore]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's necessarily and always wrong to prevent suicide or to prevent people people from cutting themselves, but I think the burden of proof that someone is not acting rationally is on you if you want stop someone. And it applies again every time you want to stop someone new/again. Appealing to statistics and saying most people that try to committ suicide are later thankful of someone who stopped them doesn't cut it. (I don't know to what degree it's true either.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the burden of proof is on me I must stop that person from suiciding so that I can make sure that his rationality is indeed intact, so I will need to prevent the suicide, ask a couple of questions, makes sure everything is in order and then send him/her to their death.

[Max Raker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's necessarily and always wrong to prevent suicide or to prevent people people from cutting themselves, but I think the burden of proof that someone is not acting rationally is on you if you want stop someone. And it applies again every time you want to stop someone new/again. Appealing to statistics and saying most people that try to committ suicide are later thankful of someone who stopped them doesn't cut it. (I don't know to what degree it's true either.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the burden of proof is on me I must stop that person from suiciding so that I can make sure that his rationality is indeed intact, so I will need to prevent the suicide, ask a couple of questions, makes sure everything is in order and then send him/her to their death.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if it was someone who you loved?

[Jamougha]

Obviously, the only correct punishment for suicide is the death penalty. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Not really sure what people mean by 'allowed' in this sense.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, the only correct punishment for suicide is the death penalty. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Not really sure what people mean by 'allowed' in this sense.

[/ QUOTE ] One punishment that is used and is pretty bad is locking someone in an institution with strict superveilance and no access to anything they can use to kill themselves. I think this is very different from in the spur of the moment, wrestling the instrument out of the hand of someone who is about to committ suicide by the way. I don't blame anyone for doing that, on the contrary I would have to question if you had a normal set of emotions if you didn't do that. At least as long as you didn't peircive signifiacant danger to yourself in doing so.

Anyway, I mean if she should be "allowed" in a moral sense. So if you think she shouldn't be allowed, except it would be practically too difficult to punish anyone/systematically stop everyone from committing suicide, you still think it shouldn't be allowed.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
The question was asked about prolife people who (generally) are pro life because they believe the fetus is a human life and the mother has no right to kill it. From their view why would the reasoning be any different from that of forbidding a mother from killing herself by driving into a lake with her child in the car with her?

[/ QUOTE ] That was what I thought too. But I asked the question because I thought they couldn't possibly think she wasn't allowed to kill herself. That was pretty retarded of me /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[tame_deuces]

It is not really our fault you seem to suffer from the common misunderstanding that depressions aren't diseases. Suicidal thoughts (in people who seems to be physically healthy) is often a sign of depression.

We intervene in these cases in the same sense you intervene if someone has cancer. Dying from suicidal depression represents as much free will as dying from a tumor. And its a catch-22 because the while you can trust a cancer patient to take rational choices (hence accepting if he refuses treatment) you can't trust a suicidally depressed patient to take rational choices, that's how it works. If some errors have been made due to this - yes indeed there has, but the field is getting better at it.

It should also be mentioned that pregnancy can often lead to depressions, in some cases very severe ones. It has some bearing on the original question posed.

[wtfsvi]

phil:[ QUOTE ]
My justification for suicide prevention is that the vast majority of suicides, if given a clear mind or eternity to think about the choice, would not choose to kill themselves.

[/ QUOTE ] It's an easy way out. If they were given an eternity to think about it, they would have probably already taken the harder way out. No sense killing yourself when you are already out. Do you think drug addicts would take drugs if given a clear mind and an eternity to think about it? Alcoholics drink beer? Fat people eat hamburgers and candy? If no, does that mean we should take the choice away from them?

deuces:[ QUOTE ]
The majority of people who kill themselves are suffering from depression. Most depressions are simply a physical malfunction of certain chemical inhibitors and receptors in the brain and their function.

So we can agree that rationally thinking people should of course be allowed to kill themselves. But its rare that wanting to kill yourself when otherwise healthy is a rational choice. Mostly it is a sign of strong depression. So there is your catch-22.

[/ QUOTE ] Same problem here. I'm overweight and I crave sweets. It's because of certain chemical inhibitors and receptors in my brain, I don't really want to eat candy. (I do, but not by what I peircivie as your definition.) So should I be stopped?

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pro choice because I don't consider the fetus (or a lower level tard, for that matter) to be human.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed 100%


[ QUOTE ]
That said, I don't think anyone should be allowed to kill themselves, with few exceptions..

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf?? /images/graemlins/confused.gif




[ QUOTE ]

My justification for suicide prevention is that the vast majority of suicides, if given a clear mind or eternity to think about the choice, would not choose to kill themselves.
The desire for life is powerful but it can be clouded by negative emotions and mental illness.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you're right to generalize like this, but even if you were right, I see no reason why you shouldn't allow them to do as they please. If they wanna listen to you, and you want to talk them out of it, fine, but imposing your righteous views on others is autoritarian and disgusting.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone would have a problem from preventing a schizophrenic from cutting themselves repeatedly because they believe there are demons inside trying to get out,.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do. If they want to cut themselves it's their choice... What gives you the right to decide for them unless they gave you the specific command to take care of them when they can't?

[ QUOTE ]

and in the same sense, people who no longer wish to live are usually confused and detached from the world. The finality of suicide gives the right to intervene, in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "finality"? So if I want to donate my house to charity and live in the streets, you will try to stop me too? I think you ought to revise your ethical positions. They're not consistent.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't find trying to stop this forcefully much different from forcefully stopping a blind person from walking off a tall cliff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that the blind person probably wants you to stop them. If after you stop them and inform them that they're walking off a cliff, they still want to do it, you have no right to stop them.

[tame_deuces]

Actually the overweight thing is far more complex than that, but that is a digression.

It is a good question, but suicidal depressions can be more critical over a short term period and you would be less likely to find personal rational answers (with your overweight candy-addicted person you could ask 'do you want us to take forceful measures to try and stop this').

I don't want to criminalize suicide, but yes I think it is ok to forcefully ensure the person is at least going through with his suicide with a body that physically enables him to take a proper rational choice.

But of course it is a cultural thing. In some cultures suicide is seen as a very noble act. So when I say this I am acting on my beliefs, not an 'objective truth' of how things should be - I don't think that belief exists either for that matter.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't find trying to stop this forcefully much different from forcefully stopping a blind person from walking off a tall cliff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that the blind person probably wants you to stop them. If after you stop them and inform them that they're walking off a cliff, they still want to do it, you have no right to stop them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well in case of the depressed patient the 'blindness' is not being able to think rationally about ending his/her life, so I don't think that criticism applies.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Pro life is a little exotic to me, because it's not a view I ever encounter in real life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its more likely that you live in a bubble than you've never encountered a pro-life view in real life. If you've truely never encountered a pro-life view, I'm sorry but I really pity you. Its time you come and join the real world.

[ QUOTE ]
Should a pregnant woman be allowed to kill herself? (If you don't think anyone should be allowed to kill themselves, pregnant or not, you are crazy, but at least specify that when you say no then. "No. But I am crazy.")

[/ QUOTE ]

Generally speaking, I don't think anyone should be allowed to kill themselves. Also I am not crazy. If someone is trying to kill themselves, societies defualt response should be to prevent them. Most people who kill themselves are not in their right minds.

Stu

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pro life is a little exotic to me, because it's not a view I ever encounter in real life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its more likely that you live in a bubble than you've never encountered a pro-life view in real life. If you've truely never encountered a pro-life view, I'm sorry but I really pity you. Its time you come and join the real world.

[/ QUOTE ] The real world = the US of A or Iran? /images/graemlins/smile.gif I don't go to either often enough /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[tame_deuces]

Have to admit, I have never met a pro-lifer (on abortion issues) in the real world either. Seems like a very alien view to me.

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pro choice because I don't consider the fetus (or a lower level tard, for that matter) to be human.

That said, I don't think anyone should be allowed to kill themselves, with few exceptions.

My justification for suicide prevention is that the vast majority of suicides, if given a clear mind or eternity to think about the choice, would not choose to kill themselves. The desire for life is powerful but it can be clouded by negative emotions and mental illness. I don't think anyone would have a problem from preventing a schizophrenic from cutting themselves repeatedly because they believe there are demons inside trying to get out, and in the same sense, people who no longer wish to live are usually confused and detached from the world. The finality of suicide gives the right to intervene, in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Phil, This has been on my mind for a few days.

I wouldn't say nescesarily that you are the best poster on SMP, but IMHO I would put you in the top 1. As a result I was reluctant to steam in, but, after some thought, I would very much appreciate it if you would clarify what you mean here.

[txag007]

"No, but I am crazy."

Does a person's death affect other people? If you don't think the answer to that is yes, then you are the crazy one my friend.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
The real world = the US of A or Iran? I don't go to either often enough

[/ QUOTE ]

If the world you live in doesn't have a diversity of opinion, than you don't live in a real world.

Stu

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pro life is a little exotic to me, because it's not a view I ever encounter in real life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its more likely that you live in a bubble than you've never encountered a pro-life view in real life. If you've truely never encountered a pro-life view, I'm sorry but I really pity you. Its time you come and join the real world.

[/ QUOTE ] The real world = the US of A or Iran? /images/graemlins/smile.gif I don't go to either often enough /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya the fetus isn't a human being, but it's not really just a clump of cells either. People have abortions to avoid having children.

I myself am pro-life, but I've gone back and forth multiple times in the past few years, and am still completely open to the pro-choice position. It's obviously a complicated issue, but I don't see why we aren't playing it on the safe side here.

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if there is much point to defending it. They think someone should be prohibited from making his own decisions about himself/his own body when they feel they have good reason to believe that he is about to make a mistake that can't be corrected later. It's a way to look at people and autonomy that I don't agree with, and I think it's a dangerous slippery slope. But I don't expect to convince anyone, so I left it at calling them crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

In having sex, a woman is making a decision about her body. If she isn't prepared for the consequence of having a human being begin to form inside of her, then she should not be having sex. As for having a child possibly being a mistake, well, sure, but aborting the fetus carries similar risks. And, to be honest, I don't see the slippery slope involved in outlawing abortion. Could you elaborate? Children can't be born any other way. Pro-life advocates don't deny a woman's rights with regards to her own body, they simply don't deny the possibility of rights for the potential human being living inside of her either.

[One Outer]

[ QUOTE ]

Have to admit, I have never met a pro-lifer (on abortion issues) in the real world either. Seems like a very alien view to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have, but only because they are in my family. Outside of that I've only met a handful. They seem a little unbalanced to me.

[One Outer]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pro choice because I don't consider the fetus (or a lower level tard, for that matter) to be human.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting, because this cuts right to the heart of the abortion debate. The real debate is about personhood. I dont' want to hijack the thread. Maybe you could PM why you dont' feel that a fetus or a lower level retard count as people.

fwiw, I agree that they're not people either, I'm just curious of other people's reasoning.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm pro choice because I don't consider the fetus (or a lower level tard, for that matter) to be human.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe that there should be any consequences for the mother if she engages in blatant activities while pregnant and planning to give birth, that will result in permanent suffering of the child (ie drinking/drugging while pregnant that results in abnormalities )?

[/ QUOTE ]
Killer question. There's a reasonable foreseeability argument to be made here, but apart from that I don't know.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My justification for suicide prevention is that the vast majority of suicides, if given a clear mind or eternity to think about the choice, would not choose to kill themselves.
The desire for life is powerful but it can be clouded by negative emotions and mental illness.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you're right to generalize like this, but even if you were right, I see no reason why you shouldn't allow them to do as they please. If they wanna listen to you, and you want to talk them out of it, fine, but imposing your righteous views on others is autoritarian and disgusting.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because most of the time it's not "them" doing it. If someone had syphilis enter their brain which gave them a raging desire to kill themselves, would you stand by as they did it? What about if the infection was 100% curable?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone would have a problem from preventing a schizophrenic from cutting themselves repeatedly because they believe there are demons inside trying to get out,.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do. If they want to cut themselves it's their choice... What gives you the right to decide for them unless they gave you the specific command to take care of them when they can't?

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, it's not *them* doing it. Your concept of "them" is flawed. Illnesses in their brain are causing them to believe things which aren't true, and to see things which aren't there. It's the equivalent of kidnapping a normal person and convincing them that their children will die unless they commit suicide. Many parents would. Would you stand by and let a sane person kill themselves because they believe something that isn't true?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

and in the same sense, people who no longer wish to live are usually confused and detached from the world. The finality of suicide gives the right to intervene, in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "finality"? So if I want to donate my house to charity and live in the streets, you will try to stop me too? I think you ought to revise your ethical positions. They're not consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, the finality. Donating your house to charity and living in the streets doesn't involve destroying your consciousness for all of eternity.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm pro choice because I don't consider the fetus (or a lower level tard, for that matter) to be human.


[/ QUOTE ]

Phil, This has been on my mind for a few days.

I wouldn't say nescesarily that you are the best poster on SMP, but IMHO I would put you in the top 1. As a result I was reluctant to steam in, but, after some thought, I would very much appreciate it if you would clarify what you mean here.

[/ QUOTE ]
As far as I'm concerned, creatures without self awareness, social awareness or a meaningful capacity to feel, are just blobs of cells, no different to a cell culture in a petri dish.

An egg isn't a person. A sperm isn't a person. An egg + sperm isn't a person. 10 cells isn't a person. An arm isn't a person, nor is a torso or a liver. Humanness is defined by the ability, however small, to feel and think and be aware of that. Animals such as cattle and dogs that can feel and think (but not be aware) are worth more than some of the lesser tards we keep alive.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The real world = the US of A or Iran? I don't go to either often enough

[/ QUOTE ]

If the world you live in doesn't have a diversity of opinion, than you don't live in a real world.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ] I encounter communists on a regular basis. Royalists daily. Do you? If no, does that mean you don't live in the real world either?

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if there is much point to defending it. They think someone should be prohibited from making his own decisions about himself/his own body when they feel they have good reason to believe that he is about to make a mistake that can't be corrected later. It's a way to look at people and autonomy that I don't agree with, and I think it's a dangerous slippery slope. But I don't expect to convince anyone, so I left it at calling them crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

In having sex, a woman is making a decision about her body. If she isn't prepared for the consequence of having a human being begin to form inside of her, then she should not be having sex. As for having a child possibly being a mistake, well, sure, but aborting the fetus carries similar risks. And, to be honest, I don't see the slippery slope involved in outlawing abortion. Could you elaborate? Children can't be born any other way. Pro-life advocates don't deny a woman's rights with regards to her own body, they simply don't deny the possibility of rights for the potential human being living inside of her either.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not saying a slippery slope is involved in outlawing abortion. I'm saying a slippery slope is involved in outlawing suicide.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
"No, but I am crazy."

Does a person's death affect other people? If you don't think the answer to that is yes, then you are the crazy one my friend.

[/ QUOTE ] Of course it does. That's very simplistic of you. Everything affects other people. Do you think you denying people the right to autonomy whenever they do something you don't like affects other people?

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm pro choice because I don't consider the fetus (or a lower level tard, for that matter) to be human.


[/ QUOTE ]

Phil, This has been on my mind for a few days.

I wouldn't say nescesarily that you are the best poster on SMP, but IMHO I would put you in the top 1. As a result I was reluctant to steam in, but, after some thought, I would very much appreciate it if you would clarify what you mean here.

[/ QUOTE ]
As far as I'm concerned, creatures without self awareness, social awareness or a meaningful capacity to feel, are just blobs of cells, no different to a cell culture in a petri dish.

An egg isn't a person. A sperm isn't a person. An egg + sperm isn't a person. 10 cells isn't a person. An arm isn't a person, nor is a torso or a liver. Humanness is defined by the ability, however small, to feel and think and be aware of that. Animals such as cattle and dogs that can feel and think (but not be aware) are worth more than some of the lesser tards we keep alive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is a person in a coma such that they have no capacity to feel, self-awareness, etc... a person? What if this condition has a chance of recovery? How big must the chance be for someone in this condition to be a "person" by your definition? Is your definition about someone's present state of being? Capacity? Future capacity? Demonstration of past capacity and memories? What of Resucsitation, generally?



My point: The definition of life evolves as per medical science. Clearly the trend is that life is becoming MORE sustainable. If this were the only trend involved, it would be inevitable that the definition of life would move inexorably towards conception. However, counterbalancing against this is the societal cost of valuing life to extreme degrees.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
"No, but I am crazy."

Does a person's death affect other people? If you don't think the answer to that is yes, then you are the crazy one my friend.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree any time anyone beats off they should be charged with attempted murder. Use a condom premeditated murder. Scratch your nose, genociede.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The real world = the US of A or Iran? I don't go to either often enough

[/ QUOTE ]

If the world you live in doesn't have a diversity of opinion, than you don't live in a real world.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ] I encounter communists on a regular basis. Royalists daily. Do you? If no, does that mean you don't live in the real world either?

[/ QUOTE ]

No they're a small portion of society. In the U.S. some recent polls show that there are more who support "pro life" measures than those who support "pro choice" measures. My take from the polls is that at least 50% of the U.S. supports some retrictions on abortions.

The "pro choice" vs. "pro life" stances are probably too simplistic. I could link to the polls but they're easy to find with google searches if interested.

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"No, but I am crazy."

Does a person's death affect other people? If you don't think the answer to that is yes, then you are the crazy one my friend.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree any time anyone beats off they should be charged with attempted murder. Use a condom premeditated murder. Scratch your nose, genociede.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know the position might seem ridiculous to you, but sperm cells and skin cells do not have a full set of unique genetic material. Those cells are part of you, so you are not killing a separate entity. The same goes for egg cells in a woman. However, a fertilized egg has genetic material from both parents, so it's possible to consider it as a separate entity from the mother.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"No, but I am crazy."

Does a person's death affect other people? If you don't think the answer to that is yes, then you are the crazy one my friend.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree any time anyone beats off they should be charged with attempted murder. Use a condom premeditated murder. Scratch your nose, genociede.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know the position might seem ridiculous to you, but sperm cells and skin cells do not have a full set of unique genetic material. Those cells are part of you, so you are not killing a separate entity. The same goes for egg cells in a woman. However, a fertilized egg has genetic material from both parents, so it's possible to consider it as a separate entity from the mother.

[/ QUOTE ]Nope it's not ridiculous to me. Calling the destruction of a bastula murder is on par with calling beating off into a sock child abandonment. Or scrathing your nose genociede. Genetic code or not.

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"No, but I am crazy."

Does a person's death affect other people? If you don't think the answer to that is yes, then you are the crazy one my friend.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree any time anyone beats off they should be charged with attempted murder. Use a condom premeditated murder. Scratch your nose, genociede.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know the position might seem ridiculous to you, but sperm cells and skin cells do not have a full set of unique genetic material. Those cells are part of you, so you are not killing a separate entity. The same goes for egg cells in a woman. However, a fertilized egg has genetic material from both parents, so it's possible to consider it as a separate entity from the mother.

[/ QUOTE ]Nope it's not ridiculous to me. Calling the destruction of a bastula murder is on par with calling beating off into a sock child abandonment. Or scrathing your nose genociede. Genetic code or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your analogies don't work at all. Are sperm cells and skin cells "alive"? Yes in the technical sense they are alive. However, they are merely parts of a living organism, namely the human in question. The same goes for unfertilized egg cells. Then when fertilization occurs, parts from two different human beings combine to form an individual separate from both the father and the mother, so it's sensible to differentiate between this new cell and the previous ones. That's why this is not the same as skin cells or sperm cells being killed.

Now the question becomes whether or not that entity is worthy of protection from destruction. Some may phrase this as whether that entity has achieved personhood. That is the key divide between those for and against abortion.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]

Your analogies don't work at all. Are sperm cells and skin cells "alive"? Yes in the technical sense they are alive. However, they are merely parts of a living organism, namely the human in question. The same goes for unfertilized egg cells. Then when fertilization occurs, parts from two different human beings combine to form an individual separate from both the father and the mother, so it's sensible to differentiate between this new cell and the previous ones. That's why this is not the same as skin cells or sperm cells being killed.

[/ QUOTE ] It's arbitrary, it makes just as much sense to distuguish based on ammount of genetic material as not having concern for gm. Fertilization is a entirely arbitrary point that one puts special place on person hood to. It's still just cells. GM does not a person make.

[ QUOTE ]
Now the question becomes whether or not that entity is worthy of protection from destruction. Some may phrase this as whether that entity has achieved personhood. That is the key divide between those for and against abortion.

[/ QUOTE ] I wish people were that sensible. Not because of abortion but because of stem cells.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The real world = the US of A or Iran? I don't go to either often enough

[/ QUOTE ]

If the world you live in doesn't have a diversity of opinion, than you don't live in a real world.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ] I encounter communists on a regular basis. Royalists daily. Do you? If no, does that mean you don't live in the real world either?

[/ QUOTE ]

No they're a small portion of society. In the U.S. some recent polls show that there are more who support "pro life" measures than those who support "pro choice" measures. My take from the polls is that at least 50% of the U.S. supports some retrictions on abortions.

The "pro choice" vs. "pro life" stances are probably too simplistic. I could link to the polls but they're easy to find with google searches if interested.

[/ QUOTE ] lol. Royalists are a small portion of what society? You come off as exceptionally ethnocentric.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The real world = the US of A or Iran? I don't go to either often enough

[/ QUOTE ]

If the world you live in doesn't have a diversity of opinion, than you don't live in a real world.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ] I encounter communists on a regular basis. Royalists daily. Do you? If no, does that mean you don't live in the real world either?

[/ QUOTE ]

No they're a small portion of society. In the U.S. some recent polls show that there are more who support "pro life" measures than those who support "pro choice" measures. My take from the polls is that at least 50% of the U.S. supports some retrictions on abortions.

The "pro choice" vs. "pro life" stances are probably too simplistic. I could link to the polls but they're easy to find with google searches if interested.

[/ QUOTE ] lol. Royalists are a small portion of what society? You come off as exceptionally ethnocentric.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try. Let's say that there's a society that royalists are large portion of, that is only one society. If you're saying that the few examples (if any) where this exists can be extrapolated to all societies then I think you need to take a look in the mirror when you accuse someone of being ethnocentric.

I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that the number of people in the world that hold "pro life" viewpoints is much, much larger than those who consider themselves "royalists."

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice try. Let's say that there's a society that royalists are large portion of, that is only one society.

[/ QUOTE ]Do you think royalty would still exist if these societies did not exist?

[ QUOTE ]
If you're saying that the few examples (if any) where this exists can be extrapolated to all societies then I think you need to take a look in the mirror when you accuse someone of being ethnocentric.

[/ QUOTE ] Of course I'm not trying to say that. I'm trying to say that I live in the "real world" even though practically none of the people I meet are pro life. Just like you still live in the "real world" even though practically none of the people you meet are royalists or communists.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that the number of people in the world that hold "pro life" viewpoints is much, much larger than those who consider themselves "royalists."

[/ QUOTE ] I wouldn't take that bet obviously. There are so many religious people in the world, and so low population in societies that still have royalty. But I happen to live in a pretty secular society that still has royalty. Of course I have met people that were pro-life in my life, but I've never met anyone knowing they were pro-life.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
No they're a small portion of society. In the U.S. some recent polls show that there are more who support "pro life" measures than those who support "pro choice" measures. My take from the polls is that at least 50% of the U.S. supports some retrictions on abortions.

The "pro choice" vs. "pro life" stances are probably too simplistic. I could link to the polls but they're easy to find with google searches if interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Communists are common through the developed world. Pro-lifers are only common in a few developed nations (one in particular, where fundamentalists wage war for control).

We don't have to look at trends though. We're talking about a specific country.

Norway!

Yes, we're talking about Norway, and whether a person who lives in Norway is "living in the real world." Are you going to claim there are more pro-lifers than communists in Norway?

Are you so ignorant as to think everyone lives in the US, even when their location and posts state otherwise? For the record, I live in New York and I rarely meet pro-lifers. I'm sure they're common in the ethnic communities around here, but I don't mix with those communities much. Does that mean I don't "live in the real world?"

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Now the question becomes whether or not that entity is worthy of protection from destruction. Some may phrase this as whether that entity has achieved personhood. That is the key divide between those for and against abortion.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. This is a pro-life agenda question, and it's unfortunate that it has been taken seriously in the US at the level that it has. The idea of "personhood" doesn't really exist outside the religious fundamentalist worldview. It has no medical or scientific relevance, and the secular world largely dismisses the notion that some magical property of "personhood" is imbued in a fetus at some magical point in time. There are many different things that happen at many different stages in development, and the question of which of these things have some kind of ethical relevance is complex and usually dependent on the finer points of a person's individual system of morality. The attempt to short-circuit these complexities with a concept of "personhood" that is poorly defined and extremely contingent, and almost always dictated by religious figures with strong political agendas, is disingenuous.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nice try. Let's say that there's a society that royalists are large portion of, that is only one society.

[/ QUOTE ]Do you think royalty would still exist if these societies did not exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

An obvious attempt to move the goalposts. Where did I claim that royalists didn't exist?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're saying that the few examples (if any) where this exists can be extrapolated to all societies then I think you need to take a look in the mirror when you accuse someone of being ethnocentric.

[/ QUOTE ] Of course I'm not trying to say that. I'm trying to say that I live in the "real world" even though practically none of the people I meet are pro life. Just like you still live in the "real world" even though practically none of the people you meet are royalists or communists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok but that would seem to be a matter of choice on your part but maybe not. The point that was trying to be made which you seem to choose to side step is that not encoutering people who hold mainstream ideas is probably not receiving a diversity of opinion.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that the number of people in the world that hold "pro life" viewpoints is much, much larger than those who consider themselves "royalists."

[/ QUOTE ] I wouldn't take that bet obviously. There are so many religious people in the world, and population in societies that still have royalty. But I happen to live in a pretty secular society that still has royalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you're claiming I'm ethnocentric? More or less an admission that you have a prejiduce against people who hold "pro life" viewpoints and you're not open minded about it IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course I have met people that were pro-life in my life, but I've never met anyone knowing they are pro-life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh??

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
We don't have to look at trends though. We're talking about a specific country.

Norway!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not, then I would be ethnocentric.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think royalty would still exist if these societies did not exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

An obvious attempt to move the goalposts. Where did I claim that royalists didn't exist?

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
Nice try. Let's say that there's a society that royalists are large portion of, that is only one society. ... If you're saying that the few examples (if any) where this exists...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok but that would seem to be a matter of choice on your part but maybe not. The point that was trying to be made which you seem to choose to side step is that not encoutering people who hold mainstream ideas is probably not receiving a diversity of opinion.

[/ QUOTE ] It's not a matter of choice on my part. Pro-life ideas are not mainstream here. Of course, if I actively sought after people with a pro-life view, I'm sure I'd find some.

[ QUOTE ]
And you're claiming I'm ethnocentric? More or less an admission that you have a prejiduce against people who hold "pro life" viewpoints and you're not open minded about it IMO.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes. I have a prejudice against people who hold "pro life" viewpoints. I think the vast majority of them are religious. Am I wrong? (Note that I didn't say it is bad to be religious.)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course I have met people that were pro-life in my life, but I've never met anyone knowing they are pro-life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh??

[/ QUOTE ] I meant I have not met anyone that I knew was pro life. But of the 100.000s (Or millions. I have no idea how many or how I should count) of people I have encountered in my life, obviously some have been pro life.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not, then I would be ethnocentric.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you aren't paying attention. This debate started when someone claimed wtfsvi lived in a cave. While not far off, this is false. He actually lives in Norway.

[stormstarter28]

Edit:
Misread.

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]

Should a pregnant woman be allowed to kill herself? (If you don't think anyone should be allowed to kill themselves, pregnant or not, you are crazy, but at least specify that when you say no then. "No. But I am crazy.")

[/ QUOTE ]

Clarify please. Why is it inherent that anyone who thinks people should NOT be allowed to kill themselves must be "crazy?" My own opinions aside, it seems the legal and medical communities in the U.S. agree with each other, that a suicide attempt (unsuccessful, obv) is grounds for immediate loss of freedom. Granted, this is usually temporary, but a psychiatric evaluation is required, and the patient has no say in the matter. They cannot leave AMA (against medical advice) until evaluated by psychiatry. And, more to the point, if they indicate that they *still* intend to off themselves as soon as they are released, the psychiatrist has the discretion to keep them locked up. If the question arises, and said patient demands to be released, Sheriff's department maintains custody until patient is transferred to a lock-down facility.

In other words, according to your post, the legal and medical communities in the US must be crazy, correct?

[GoodCallYouWin]

No, she should not be allowed to kill herself if it causes the death of another, just like you're not allowed to kill yourself by crashing a car into a school bus.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, according to your post, the legal and medical communities in the US must be crazy, correct?

[/ QUOTE ] Yes. Absolutely /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In other words, according to your post, the legal and medical communities in the US must be crazy, correct?

[/ QUOTE ] Yes. Absolutely /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Level, apparently?

I bring up this point because your OP made it seem like those pro-lifers who frown on suicide were odd, somehow out of touch with reality. Seems to me the opposite may be true...?

[wtfsvi]

I don't really think they are out of touch with reality, but I think we (I and people that are anti-suicide and think the kind of practises you describe in your post are good) disagree on such a fundamental level that I don't imagine anything productive will come from a discussion between us. The "then you are crazy" remark was intended as a witty way of expressing that.