Ontopic Poo-litical Thrad

Status
Not open for further replies.
King Wickie Pelt Snatcher said:
If bacteria is life on mars how is a heartbeat not life on earth?
Click to expand...
for a moment I'm going to pretend that you're asking this in earnest.

the issue isn't about "life" as you're attempting to conflate it here. there's bacteria on earth and nobody is taking on Big Antibacterial to fight for the rights of bacteria to live on your body, even if they'd die without you.

"life" in the sense of "life on Mars" is using the broadest sense of life/alive.

in the case of an embryo or fetus, it's living HUMAN cells, but we routinely remove and destroy these. we don't mourn the appendix. we don't have a funeral for tonsils. we don't have politicians campaigning on stopping the scourge of colectomies. we don't question whether that teratoma was maybe really a person, even though it had teeth or hair.

so it can't be as simple as living human cells, there must be something more. and that additional thing is personhood - at what point are those living human cells considered a person?

then, for a moment, set aside trying to draw that line in the sand and look at adult human people, lifeforms where their personhood should be unquestionable. what rights do they have, or should they have, over the bodies of other persons? can someone be legally compelled to donate blood, or organs, or tissues? can these be harvested from their corpses without express permission? the answer is no, they cannot.

if my kid required some surgery (that as far as I know doesn't exist, it's what transplants and dialysis are for) that required me to be hooked up to her so that my kidneys could filter her blood, I would choose to do it but I could not be legally compelled to do it. and one might say, ok maybe we should make it so if you're related you have to. but how close do you have to be related? what if you are estranged? what if this person is a total stranger to you? what if doing this means you will be unable to work and can't afford to clothe or feed or house yourself, and you're also expected to do these things for the stranger for 18 years? and of course, all procedures carry risk, so what if this procedure you were legally compelled to do kills you? what if it disables you?

that scenario is, I hope, absurd, but the point of it is to move past the grey area of when an embryo or fetus becomes A Person, because that's something that may never be agreed on, and to examine our thoughts on the bodily autonomy of A Person - can we violate that autonomy if we believe it is for good? who gets to decide what "good" is, and who sets the measures by which we determine it? are we comfortable with the inviolable rights of half of the population being determined by some algorithm that puts you equal to something with fewer cells than a volvox? should people be allowed to make this decision for others if they are neither a medical professional well educated in embryonic and fetal development or an ethicist well versed in embryonic and fetal development?
 
august said:
for a moment I'm going to pretend that you're asking this in earnest.

the issue isn't about "life" as you're attempting to conflate it here. there's bacteria on earth and nobody is taking on Big Antibacterial to fight for the rights of bacteria to live on your body, even if they'd die without you.

"life" in the sense of "life on Mars" is using the broadest sense of life/alive.

in the case of an embryo or fetus, it's living HUMAN cells, but we routinely remove and destroy these. we don't mourn the appendix. we don't have a funeral for tonsils. we don't have politicians campaigning on stopping the scourge of colectomies. we don't question whether that teratoma was maybe really a person, even though it had teeth or hair.

so it can't be as simple as living human cells, there must be something more. and that additional thing is personhood - at what point are those living human cells considered a person?

then, for a moment, set aside trying to draw that line in the sand and look at adult human people, lifeforms where their personhood should be unquestionable. what rights do they have, or should they have, over the bodies of other persons? can someone be legally compelled to donate blood, or organs, or tissues? can these be harvested from their corpses without express permission? the answer is no, they cannot.

if my kid required some surgery (that as far as I know doesn't exist, it's what transplants and dialysis are for) that required me to be hooked up to her so that my kidneys could filter her blood, I would choose to do it but I could not be legally compelled to do it. and one might say, ok maybe we should make it so if you're related you have to. but how close do you have to be related? what if you are estranged? what if this person is a total stranger to you? what if doing this means you will be unable to work and can't afford to clothe or feed or house yourself, and you're also expected to do these things for the stranger for 18 years? and of course, all procedures carry risk, so what if this procedure you were legally compelled to do kills you? what if it disables you?

that scenario is, I hope, absurd, but the point of it is to move past the grey area of when an embryo or fetus becomes A Person, because that's something that may never be agreed on, and to examine our thoughts on the bodily autonomy of A Person - can we violate that autonomy if we believe it is for good? who gets to decide what "good" is, and who sets the measures by which we determine it? are we comfortable with the inviolable rights of half of the population being determined by some algorithm that puts you equal to something with fewer cells than a volvox? should people be allowed to make this decision for others if they are neither a medical professional well educated in embryonic and fetal development or an ethicist well versed in embryonic and fetal development?
Click to expand...
but at some point, a fetus does become a human being. 38 week old about to be born kid has gotta have human rights. When that is? Who the hell knows. Its not implantation, but it might be a sustainability outside the womb, 26-30 weeks.

Thats completely unrelated to the discussion here though, as aint nobody aborting 38 week old fetuses. And if they are, its because theres some awful imminent medical emergency to the mother.
 
Domon said:
but at some point, a fetus does become a human being. 38 week old about to be born kid has gotta have human rights. When that is? Who the hell knows. Its not implantation, but it might be a sustainability outside the womb, 26-30 weeks.

Thats completely unrelated to the discussion here though, as aint nobody aborting 38 week old fetuses. And if they are, its because theres some awful imminent medical emergency to the mother.
Click to expand...
yes, I didn't mean to imply the line should never be reviewed or drawn, I was trying to talk outside of the grey area of that line for the sake of not having 1,000 extra words, because whereever that line is drawn still relates back to autonomy, and because, as you mention, scenarios in which abortion is being considered near a gestational age associated with viability are incredibly rare and are associated with maternal or fetal health concerns or incompatibility with life. there are very few doctors in the U.S. who even perform those procedures at that stage, it's not something someone can just pop into their local hospital or PP and order off the menu.
 
Mr. Argumentor said:
So, following the next step to dystopia, anyone else hoping that any Jewish, Muslim, or non-Christian teachers just start leading their classes in prayer?
Click to expand...
If they don't get shot, SCOTUS will just decide some bullshit like there's no long tradition of non-Christian prayer. Lots of folk seem to be underestimating just how depraved Movement Conservatism is.
 
Dory Berkowitz-Bukowski said:
Excuse my ignorance but wasn't America as a Caucasian country founded to get away from religious tyranny?
Click to expand...
So yeah..... Turns out all that was just a big fat American lie that we taught our kids.

The puritans were the original extremists and didn't flee to America for religious freedom, but rather because England wouldn't let them dictate that their religion was the only religion.

You know, the exact opposite of religious freedom.

I learned this like.... last year after thinking it was true for 40 years
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Dory Berkowitz-Bukowski and Hoff Kinkmeister
Jehannum said:
No, it was founded as a tax haven, to get away from the British empire.
Click to expand...
Domon said:
So yeah..... Turns out all that was just a big fat American lie that we taught our kids.

The puritans were the original extremists and didn't flee to America for religious freedom, but rather because England wouldn't let them dictate that their religion was the only religion.

You know, the exact opposite of religious freedom.

I learned this like.... last year after thinking it was true for 40 years
Click to expand...
These are both true.

The Boston Tea Party was a bunch of rich assholes getting drunk and mad about paying taxes. They dressed as natives to try to hide, old-school astroturfing.

It's a country founded by and for the wealthy who don't want to pay taxes that used religion as cover. Not much has changed.
 
Anyone following what the Jan 6th committee is finding?

You'll never believe it. Turns out trump is a criminal lunatic. There's the revelation that he laid hands on a secret service agent and tried to steer the beast to the capital from the back seat, and also he knew his people had guns and wanted secret service to turn off the metal detectors and let them into his rally
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Jehannum
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back