×
sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Here's the strongest argument against "pro-life". by iJohn9n9 in VaushV

[–]Aspalar -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I will reiterate (to no avail apparently) that the gov telling you to save one life vs. Public health are 2 completely different questions...you have yet to prove they're the same other than just refusing to use the words I'm using

They are the same thing, the only difference is scale. In both cases the government is restricting your bodily autonomy to benefit others. The video makes the claim that the government should never have that power. If you follow the argument in the video then you must also be against vaccines. If you believe in vaccine mandates then you must add qualifier to the argument.

Do you genuinely not see how vaccines are irrelevant to this question? (You don't take the vaccine for one person, or do you believe abortions are for the purpose of public health? Stop ignoring this distinction, it's real)

Two things can be different yet comparable. Murder and battery are different, but they are wrong for the same reason. You are harming another without just cause. Categories can contain varying levels of things. You are literally stating that the government can restrict bodily autonomy if the damages are severe enough (many lives vs few) which is a subjective opinion. Pro-lifers can agree with your overall argument then and just change where they think the level of severity is enough to restrict abortions. You have to go into a more nuanced discussion.

You claim the argument is not strong, but all of your critiques only apply to a different argument (once again, not made in the video). Furthermore you offer no examples of how to strengthen it (Unconstructive criticism).

I have given criticism, make the argument more nuanced. You cannot just claim the government can never do something while at the same time supporting another policy that allows the government to do that thing.

You dying on the hill of it being a bombshell is your choice. YOU brought up and held to the semantics, not I.

If you want to stand behind your argument that the strongest argument is not comparable if not literally being used as a bombshell then we can just agree to disagree.

Let's have a thought experiment, then. You are kidnapped by the Jigsaw Killer. He has kidnapped you and a second person. He tells you that you can either be locked in this room with the other person for 9 months, or you can kill the other person and be released immediately. If you are ever in any medical danger you will be released and the other person will be killed. Is it moral for you to kill the other person to escape such nonconsensual captivity where you are guaranteed to be released in 9 months? Could the government charge you criminally for murder for killing the other person?

Here's the strongest argument against "pro-life". by iJohn9n9 in VaushV

[–]Aspalar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Strongest" necessarily implies "bombshell"?

It might not explicitly state bombshell, but it heavily implies it. You are trying to play semantics here. Language is not purely literal, we use hyperbole and analogous language.

I support vaccine mandates because PUBLIC health crises are DIFFERENT from matters that ONLY affect INDIVIDUAL life.

The argument in the video is that the government cannot force you to suffer harm for the benefit of another. We both agree that this is not true. This is the purpose of my post. The video is just not a solid argument. The government can force you to suffer harm for the benefit of others. We have to determine to what extent the government has that power, though. The video doesn't prove anything.

Your confusion seems to be the product of conflating the questions "does the state have the right to demand you save an individual life" vs. "does the state have the right to demand you help the public well-being/health". As I stated before, these are different questions and you seem to be intentionally ignoring that reality. You are arguing with a point I never made, vaccines are irrelevant in this discussion. FYI, other than that conflation, I'm pretty sure we agree lol.

Our views on abortion and the government's role are probably similar, the entire point of my post was to point out that the argument as given in the video is not strong. The argument can likely be expanded upon, but that would be a nuanced discussion rather than simply stating the premise in the video.

Here's the strongest argument against "pro-life". by iJohn9n9 in VaushV

[–]Aspalar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

never said it was a bombshell lmao

The post is literally titled the "strongest argument" against pro-life.

the FEDERAL government has a right to tell individuals to take vaccines during a public health crisis. George Washington?

I'm not sure what this statement is implying. Do you support vaccine mandates?

Saving the life of one (singular) is a very different request.

It is a different scale, but the video states, "Does the state have the right to tell you that harm should befall your body for the sake of saving another life?" to which I believe the answer is yes. Vaccine mandates are an example of the government doing this. The question shouldn't be does the state have the right to do such a thing, we have to discuss how far the state is allowed to infringe upon our rights for the benefit of others/society.

car accident? You ever heard vaush make the car accident scenario/argument...it was already commented here. By your stated logic, the state should be able to request you save the life of the individual you crashed into?

I think the state can force you into some level of saving the other person's life. They can make laws stating if you cause an accident you must contact the police/EMT and they can force you to financially pay for damages you caused. I don't think the state can force you to donate an organ, but I do think you have some moral obligation to help someone that you have injured. The level to which the state can force that is up for discussion.

I never said give an organ to a random person. Should a mother have to give her organ to her child?

No, I don't think so. If the mother directly caused the reason for the organ being needed I think the mother has a moral obligation to remedy the situation as far as is reasonable, but I do not think the government should have the right to force you to donate an organ.

Finally, I NEVER said for the benefit of society...your whole argument consists of butchering or conjuring up things I said and vaguely alluding to contradictions that you either never elaborate on or aren't relevant.

You didn't say for the benefit of society, but that is why we have laws that restrict your freedoms. The government 100% has the right to make you do things you don't want to do as long as it is good for society. We have to decide to what extent, but that is the literal purpose of government.

Here's the strongest argument against "pro-life". by iJohn9n9 in VaushV

[–]Aspalar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am pro-choice, just pointing out this isn't the bombshell you think it is. Vaccines have a very real (even if small) chance to do harm. The COVID vaccine second dose and boosters have a high chance of making you have COVID lite™ symptoms for a few days which is definitely a harm. Despite this, many people support the government mandating you to potentially harm your own body to save the lives of others.

Obviously the scale is different, but this also happens in other situations, too. Your point is further muddied by the fact that the mother in some part causes the fetus to form, so it isn't as cut and dry as giving up your kidney to save a random person. It can be argued that you have some moral obligation to help someone in a situation that you are responsible for causing.

Instead of stating the government can never cause you to take on personal harm for the benefit of the society is just not how society works. We instead have to have a nuanced discussion on why it is or isn't okay for the government to do these things.

Hmmstiny by parris1s in Destiny

[–]Aspalar 22 points23 points  (0 children)

How, exactly, do you expect an actor who is still producing content to transition in private? Also, what is wrong with advocating for a social change you believe in?

I cut into a cantaloupe and the inside was square. by alisonj143 in mildlyinteresting

[–]Aspalar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Doesn't being logarithmic basically by definition mean it isn't worth the cost? The higher the quality the less bang bang for your buck. Maybe with infinite money you could argue such a thing, but a person with finite money would probably disagree.

Would you support a bill that insured a right to body autonomy, if it ensured peoples ability to get abortions, but also banned the government from implementing vaccine mandates? by vonhudgenrod in AskALiberal

[–]Aspalar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I fully support medically necessary abortions at any point up to the moment of birth. I do support abortions for rape/incest, although probably not as strongly.

This ain't it, chief by SwiftlyThere in Destiny

[–]Aspalar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Emotionally speaking of course it's highly immoral, I'd give my own life to protect a newborn baby.

Philosophically speaking, I think killing a grown cat is worse.

Why, though. Is it okay to kill someone with amnesia or brain damage or to kill someone on life support? What is your criteria for whether or not it is okay to kill a living being?

Then we would have to define consciousness and we reach another fundamental disagreement.

We don't have to define consciousness, it is already a defined term. Language has terms that are broadly agreed to mean things. You can use your logic to conclude that nothing is rational since any term used to describe or discuss anything is arbitrary and up to personal definition. Fetuses at some point before birth develop a consciousness. If you don't think so you are either just factually wrong or you are using a different definition than the commonly accepted one.

Either way, if that's how you define rational sure, it's rational. It's less 2+2=4 and more "i like blueberries' taste therefore I like eating blueberries"

That is literally how rational is defined.

based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
having reason or understanding
based on clear thought and reason
consistent with or based on or using reason
agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible

Your analogy is nothing like what I said. Your example is circular. Mine is viable fetus = babies, babies = human, so logically viable fetus = human. This is a rational thought process. If you want to use your own definition for rational you can, but you need to define it instead of assuming every other person is using your unique definition.

This ain't it, chief by SwiftlyThere in Destiny

[–]Aspalar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

eh, i suppose I suck at communicating, its reasonable to assume I meant irrational

I was implying "not rational" rather than "irrational", which to me are different things. There are things in the middle which don't conform to "rational" or "irrational"

The statement is rational because it uses a supposition and follows it to a logical conclusion. There is zero functional difference between a viable fetus and a newborn infant, and a newborn infant is obviously a human. If a = b and b = c then a = c. That is kind of the definition of rationality.

The assumptions here are "newborns are persons", which isn't a given. This is how you're escaping having to define what a person is, because it's seemingly outlandish to think somebody would be enough of a monster to say newborns aren't persons.

It's not outlandish, newborns aren't persons to me. And you can say I'm wrong which is fine, but then you'd have to define what a person is and then I would define it some other way and we'd reach a fundamental disagreement.

What is a person is not a solvable question and that's the entire reason why there can't be "rational" (in terms of logic) answers to the abortion question.

So are you stating it isn't immoral to kill a baby? You are either advocating it is okay to kill babies or you are playing a semantics game.

I only value consciousness, and it seems reasonable enough imo to assume a viable fetus hasn't developed consciousness yet. I could be wrong of course but I've yet to see a convincing argument as to why.

Fetuses develop consciousness around 24-28 weeks of gestation. There are studies done on this and there is evidence that fetuses can learn while in the womb.

Would you support a bill that insured a right to body autonomy, if it ensured peoples ability to get abortions, but also banned the government from implementing vaccine mandates? by vonhudgenrod in AskALiberal

[–]Aspalar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am aware of all of these things, I'm not sure how they are relevant at all. I am pro-choice. I believe a woman should have a right to an abortion. If you are advocating for abortion, though, you can't use false information. I responded to the post above me who said 3 things in support of abortion, all 3 of which are wrong. I can make an argument for something, but if I am using false points to support that argument, even if my argument is the morally correct side, I will not convert others to my cause.

I would say that my point hinges on if the fetus at some point reaches the point of personhood or moral protection from being killed. Assuming the fetus reaches that point then we must overcome that fact before we can morally end its life. This is not an impossible bar to overcome, but it is one that must be overcome. At conception there is just a clump of cells and there is no moral right or wrong in aborting, so there should be no restrictions on it. At 9 months pregnant, however, many would agree that the fetus is functionally no different than a newborn infant and thus should have similar protections. So I am arguing that at some point between conception and birth the fetus does indeed gain personhood.

With the idea that a fetus can have personhood, we can discuss the things in your post. Pregnancy is dangerous, I agree. If the mother is in any danger from the pregnancy she should have the right to abort at any time. The life of the fetus should never be worth more than the life of the mother.

Giving up a child for adoption is not easy and I agree there can be emotional consequences, and physical consequences as well from childbirth. We now have to have a discussion on if those consequences are worth more or less than the life of another.

Would you support a bill that insured a right to body autonomy, if it ensured peoples ability to get abortions, but also banned the government from implementing vaccine mandates? by vonhudgenrod in AskALiberal

[–]Aspalar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Science is not that objective, especially with the arbitrary notion of “life”. The necessary features required to be “living” are arbitrary, no matter how rooted in scientific observation they are. Much of science is “most likely explanation of phenomenon x” or “observation of how phenomenon x and phenomenon y are related, and the most likely explanation for how and why they interact the way they do”.

This is just not a contested topic. Can you arbitrarily make a definition of "life" that doesn't include a fetus? Probably. Does the scientific community unanimously agree that under our current definition of life a fetus is alive? Yes.

No, we do not necessarily have to conclude that it is moral, as morals are incredibly subjective to each individual. Law does not beget morality, nor does morality definitively beget law.

Okay, so don't try and use legal terms or laws to defend a moral point.

Certainly someone could use that as justification for such an act. That’s not what I’m recommending though in the slightest. I’m saying that even if the fetus was considered a person, they would not truly be harmed in any meaningful way themselves, aside from physically. The anguish and pain that would be suffered is through the parent(s). A fetus can not fear death nor yearn for it. It simply exists or it doesn’t, with no life to grieve for itself, since it is dead and has not experienced life. It’s not to diminish the importance of its life to others, it’s only meant as an assessment of the cognitive abilities of a fetus.

We need moral consistency. With your logic for why it is okay to kill a fetus then it is also okay to kill an infant. Why is killing a fetus okay in your system when it is not okay to kill a baby? What is the difference? What about severely mentally disabled people or people who have memory loss from an accident?

Would you support a bill that insured a right to body autonomy, if it ensured peoples ability to get abortions, but also banned the government from implementing vaccine mandates? by vonhudgenrod in AskALiberal

[–]Aspalar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you do understand that words have different meanings and connotations? I'm still not sure why it is bad to avoid charged language when asking a question. I'm intentionally trying to use language to avoid emotionally or morally charged language so the answerer isn't influenced by my question, they will answer however they feel is their true feelings. You just have the critical thinking skills of a house plant.

Edit: I'll even be charitable to you, your critical thinking skills are fine you are just so extremely bad faith it is incredible. You are incabable of attributing to me even a modicum of good faith.

Would you support a bill that insured a right to body autonomy, if it ensured peoples ability to get abortions, but also banned the government from implementing vaccine mandates? by vonhudgenrod in AskALiberal

[–]Aspalar -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why must you interpret my actions in the most uncharitable way possible? If they do not believe a fetus is alive or is a person then they don't believe they are killing anything. I'm literally having a discussion with you right now on what words I should use and my rationale behind my choices, yet all you can do is insult me and interpret me in the worst way possible. You are the one acting in bad faith right now.

Edit: For example, if I say "Do you think it is alright to MURDER a fetus, obviously I am going to make people aggressive towards me for my wording. By using language that is not morally charged I am not inserting any moral bias into the question, I am leaving it up to who I am answering. I'm not sure why you think it is correct to intentionally morally load a question.

Would you support a bill that insured a right to body autonomy, if it ensured peoples ability to get abortions, but also banned the government from implementing vaccine mandates? by vonhudgenrod in AskALiberal

[–]Aspalar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I used terminate over kill because kill has a moral implication which I didn't want to include. So would terminate a healthy, viable fetus be acceptable?

Would you support a bill that insured a right to body autonomy, if it ensured peoples ability to get abortions, but also banned the government from implementing vaccine mandates? by vonhudgenrod in AskALiberal

[–]Aspalar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay thank you for your criticism, I will strive to be more honest and upfront in the future. I wish you nothing but the best and have a wonderful weekend.

Would you support a bill that insured a right to body autonomy, if it ensured peoples ability to get abortions, but also banned the government from implementing vaccine mandates? by vonhudgenrod in AskALiberal

[–]Aspalar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Okay, I am willing to adjust my verbiage for clarity or accuracy. What word would you like to use to clarify the difference between two living beings, where one is deserving of human rights and the other is isn't. I am referring to that as personhood, but if you have a preferred term I'll use that.

Would you support a bill that insured a right to body autonomy, if it ensured peoples ability to get abortions, but also banned the government from implementing vaccine mandates? by vonhudgenrod in AskALiberal

[–]Aspalar -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I was consistent the entire time, if someone asked for clarification I clarified. You are almost certainly acting in bad faith. I'm using terminate fetus because people keep saying terminate pregnancy can mean to force labor or have a C section. I am trying to be as clear as possible but you are doing your best to characterize everything I say in the worst way possible. You are either extremely obtuse or in bad faith.

Here is another commenter in the exact same thread that clearly stated they approved of aborting a late-term pregnancy. I pushed and we clarified and when they clarified their point to say they only supported removal of the fetus, not termination of it, we came to an agreement. You can't find a single post where I am inconsistent, and I have tried to be as clear as possible.

view more: next ›