4 ms·

lol got em boss Then we can persecute the sinners that have premarital sex, eat pork, curse, work on Sundays, operate machinery on Saturdays or any sort of oth

lol got em boss Then we can persecute the sinners that have premarital sex, eat pork, curse, work on Sundays, operate machinery on Saturdays or any sort of other backwards hick shit these idiots believe. Why'd we not just let the Confederacy go?

ecshafer 3mo ago
[flagged]
- none2585 3mo ago
  You cum into a paper towel again and throw it away - is that murder?
  - bit-anarchist 2mo ago
    Given what OP said, probably not: > There is no clear discrete point, other than insemination where it is not murder vs murder. Will you actually address this point?
  - none2585 2mo ago
    I agree at some point it's a "person" but it's a long way off from insemination. Generally brain waves start showing up around mid-to-late second trimester so I think one could reasonably argue somewhere in there.
- mindcandy 3mo ago
  A human is born, lives a life, ingests the wrong chemical and becomes brain-dead. Now you have a human that is alive, but the person who was that human is permanently gone. To avoid murder, are we obliged to keep the body alive as long as possible by all available means? I don’t expect you would think so. I expect you’d agree terminating the life of the human body is the preferable and not a great ethical quandary. I would agree that at conception we have a human life. But, not that we have a human person. There are no thoughts, emotions, memories, hopes, dreams. There is a very strong potential for a person. But, at conception what makes a person is not there yet. At some point in time between the human existing a single living cell and the human voting in elections and joining the military, a person develops. But, it’s not a definite transition point in time. It’s a gradient. Unfortunately, for practical reasons, the law must pick a definite point in time. The consensus seems to be “around the time that the fetus can be kept alive and continue developing independent from the mother using current technology.” A practical choice, for sure. One might argue that the official transition point should be a bit earlier. But, that’s not the core of the disagreement. The core seems to be that some living people do not appear to take into consideration the difference between being alive vs. being a person.
  - bit-anarchist 2mo ago
    Except it is. In fact, the difference between alive and personhood and the point of transition are, fundamentally, the same issue: if the point of transition is considered the embryo, then the distinction doesn't really exist. While there's legal consensus based on practicality, that doesn't mean people agree with it. Until a properly formal and objective ethical answer can be found, this disagreement will remain.
    - mindcandy 2mo ago
      I must disagree. One could argue that a human body with a mostly-functional brain that will never again be conscious is human but not a person. And, simultaneously argue that a few million human stem cells, none of which are neurons yet, is a personified human. But, that would be a clearly inconsistent stance. And, I’d argue that consensus literally means that a significant population agrees. Formally and objectively it could be argued that even shortly post-birth, barely-conscious infants lack the required characteristics of an individual person. But, obviously it would require an unacceptable degree of callousness to terminate an infant. Certainly not a practice we agree should be encoded into law in this modern era. In general, I find the pro-choice consensus to be reasonably conservative regarding the rights of an embryo vs. the rights of a fully-realized mid-life person. Strongly weighted towards the mother before 24 weeks and strongly weighted towards the embryo afterwards. But, if it comes down to the life of the fully-realized person vs. the life of the potential person, the choice goes to the mother. Or, if the potential is clearly a life of suffering and early death, the ethical choice is to reduce suffering via difficult actions. Generally, I find that the pro-life arguments are largely based on a lack of consideration. I.e. “Life begins at the instant of insemination.” with literally zero further consideration. Or, on knowingly false propaganda: “Evil baby-killers are celebrating killing babies minutes before birth.” To my knowledge, neither of those stances were in the mainstream before American politicians accepted that the Civil Rights Movement was not going away. Before that, The Church saw its role in the abortion issue as charitably offering grief counseling to women who had experienced that difficult choice. After the political situation changed, the role of The Church changed to the demonization of unfortunate women for the purpose of manufacturing single-issue voters for the benefit of specific politicians.

ecshafer 3mo ago

[flagged]

none2585 3mo ago
You cum into a paper towel again and throw it away - is that murder?
- bit-anarchist 2mo ago
  Given what OP said, probably not: > There is no clear discrete point, other than insemination where it is not murder vs murder. Will you actually address this point?
- none2585 2mo ago
  I agree at some point it's a "person" but it's a long way off from insemination. Generally brain waves start showing up around mid-to-late second trimester so I think one could reasonably argue somewhere in there.
mindcandy 3mo ago
A human is born, lives a life, ingests the wrong chemical and becomes brain-dead. Now you have a human that is alive, but the person who was that human is permanently gone. To avoid murder, are we obliged to keep the body alive as long as possible by all available means? I don’t expect you would think so. I expect you’d agree terminating the life of the human body is the preferable and not a great ethical quandary. I would agree that at conception we have a human life. But, not that we have a human person. There are no thoughts, emotions, memories, hopes, dreams. There is a very strong potential for a person. But, at conception what makes a person is not there yet. At some point in time between the human existing a single living cell and the human voting in elections and joining the military, a person develops. But, it’s not a definite transition point in time. It’s a gradient. Unfortunately, for practical reasons, the law must pick a definite point in time. The consensus seems to be “around the time that the fetus can be kept alive and continue developing independent from the mother using current technology.” A practical choice, for sure. One might argue that the official transition point should be a bit earlier. But, that’s not the core of the disagreement. The core seems to be that some living people do not appear to take into consideration the difference between being alive vs. being a person.
- bit-anarchist 2mo ago
  Except it is. In fact, the difference between alive and personhood and the point of transition are, fundamentally, the same issue: if the point of transition is considered the embryo, then the distinction doesn't really exist. While there's legal consensus based on practicality, that doesn't mean people agree with it. Until a properly formal and objective ethical answer can be found, this disagreement will remain.
  - mindcandy 2mo ago
    I must disagree. One could argue that a human body with a mostly-functional brain that will never again be conscious is human but not a person. And, simultaneously argue that a few million human stem cells, none of which are neurons yet, is a personified human. But, that would be a clearly inconsistent stance. And, I’d argue that consensus literally means that a significant population agrees. Formally and objectively it could be argued that even shortly post-birth, barely-conscious infants lack the required characteristics of an individual person. But, obviously it would require an unacceptable degree of callousness to terminate an infant. Certainly not a practice we agree should be encoded into law in this modern era. In general, I find the pro-choice consensus to be reasonably conservative regarding the rights of an embryo vs. the rights of a fully-realized mid-life person. Strongly weighted towards the mother before 24 weeks and strongly weighted towards the embryo afterwards. But, if it comes down to the life of the fully-realized person vs. the life of the potential person, the choice goes to the mother. Or, if the potential is clearly a life of suffering and early death, the ethical choice is to reduce suffering via difficult actions. Generally, I find that the pro-life arguments are largely based on a lack of consideration. I.e. “Life begins at the instant of insemination.” with literally zero further consideration. Or, on knowingly false propaganda: “Evil baby-killers are celebrating killing babies minutes before birth.” To my knowledge, neither of those stances were in the mainstream before American politicians accepted that the Civil Rights Movement was not going away. Before that, The Church saw its role in the abortion issue as charitably offering grief counseling to women who had experienced that difficult choice. After the political situation changed, the role of The Church changed to the demonization of unfortunate women for the purpose of manufacturing single-issue voters for the benefit of specific politicians.