PA 18 Special Election Updates

[interchange]

I don’t want to turn this into an abortion debate, but if you believe that life begins at conception, then isn’t abortion inherently criminal?

I believe that only a deity could answer that question, and not only am I not a deity, I'm also an atheist. So while I'm personally conflicted about taking the (potential) life of a fetus, I feel I have insufficient authority to say that people who believe differently than me are wrong, and I find it repugnant that anyone believes they have objective authority on when life begins.

Better question, give another example of something you morally oppose but wouldn’t criminalize.

Sure. Sport hunting of non-threatened animals.

 

[BoomerD]

They haven't had to. Democrats don't embace outright bat-shit crazy.

As a life-long Democrat, I gotta disagree. The party has gone full batshit crazy with it's embrace of the ultra-left "green hair" liberals in the party.

It's gotten so bad that I'm now considered a conservative right-winger...even though I've NEVER voted for a candidate with an (R) attached to their name...and I've been voting since 1972.

 

[fskimospy]

There isn't even a person. People in philosophy and elsewhere also even argue that killing babies to a certain point is no different (though that raises some issues like neglect).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/he...s-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

Funny. Because then many are using it wrong. I'm hardly the only person who has ever argued this. With the way you want to define it, I guess the conservative line on conception isn't arbitrary either.

You realize that viability is not even a 0% or 100% thing? Never mind that there is no being there that can experience anything and hasn't experienced anything just like any other point in pregnancy. This makes it rather arbitrary.

Oh for fuck's sake, just because something is probability based doesn't make it arbitrary.

 

[fskimospy]

As a life-long Democrat, I gotta disagree. The party has gone full batshit crazy with it's embrace of the ultra-left "green hair" liberals in the party.

It's gotten so bad that I'm now considered a conservative right-winger...even though I've NEVER voted for a candidate with an (R) attached to their name...and I've been voting since 1972.

Can you provide a list of policies the party supports that you consider 'batshit crazy'?

 

[ivwshane]

Yes, and we have a thread going about masturbation being mass murder, you damn serial killer!

Scott Peterson faced charges for a double murder in the death of his wife AND unborn son. Despite the narrative of choice, our society does place shifting moral boundaries on abortion, because who get to decide at what point a person is truly a person?

Specific to this thread, I don’t see how Lamb can believe life begins at conception and be pro-choice. Take away the believe of life at conception and there is no moral paradox.

That's because you lack the mental capacity to see and think beyond yourself. Its why people can be anti gay but accept that other people aren't and accept laws that treat them equally. Its why one can be anti religion and yet not want government to pass anti religion type laws. Its why people can be against hate speech and yet support peoples right to express themselves with such hate. Its why some people refuse to take advantage of government safety nets and yet support laws that create such safety nets. Its why people can support raising taxes and yet they don't automatically contribute more in the taxes they pay.

Because they realize that their beliefs are theirs and that they operate in a world where everyone doesn't hold the same beliefs.

You don't get it and you probably never will.

 

[Maxima1]

Oh for fuck's sake, just because something is probability based doesn't make it arbitrary.

Haha. Seriously. So where's the line? What's the basis? Is the basis a "future like ours"? Then why not just argue at conception which is where it started? As the pregnancy goes along viability goes from 10% to 20% to 30% etc. It's a stupid concept. Do you know what stays constant throughout? They're just potential persons, which makes the whole thing silly. So yes, it's arbitrary.

 

[fskimospy]

Haha. Seriously. So where's the line? What's the basis? Is the basis a "future like ours"? Then why not just argue at conception which is where it started? As the pregnancy goes along viability goes from 10% to 20% to 30% etc. It's a stupid concept. Do you know what stays constant throughout? They're just potential persons, which makes the whole thing silly. So yes, it's arbitrary.

Speaking of stupid, you still do not appear to understand the definition of the word arbitrary. This is doubly strange considering I quoted and explained it to you, haha.

 

[jackstar7]

Yes, and we have a thread going about masturbation being mass murder, you damn serial killer!

Scott Peterson faced charges for a double murder in the death of his wife AND unborn son. Despite the narrative of choice, our society does place shifting moral boundaries on abortion, because who get to decide at what point a person is truly a person?

Specific to this thread, I don’t see how Lamb can believe life begins at conception and be pro-choice. Take away the believe of life at conception and there is no moral paradox.

Equating masturbation to miscarriage. That's class.

Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not possible. It means your perspective is lacking.

 

[Paratus]

So he helps perpetuate the pro-life position. You know, if it's not a person, then who cares? It's like killing a live cell, tumor, or whatever. That position makes little sense. That's falling into the "future like ours" argument.

Marquis is best known for his paper "Why Abortion Is Immoral", which appeared in The Journal of Philosophy in April, 1989. This paper has been reprinted over 80 times,[3] and is widely cited in the philosophical debate over abortion.[4] The main argument in the paper is sometimes known as the "deprivation argument", since a central premise is that abortion deprives an embryo or fetus of a "future like ours".[5]



Of course it's arbitrary, and the point of viability is a moving target. It's akin to the Republican argument that they should be given a chance.



I was quoting the comment about Manchin , but okay. I'm suggesting to you that higher voter participation would make the US more akin to other western countries where their conservatives are like our Democrats. You're overselling the guy and Manchin.

While people say they do, nobody treats a fertilized embryo as being equivalent to a born baby. Nor does Marquis make an effective argument why the future value of the fertilized embryo is worth more than the uncountable future values of other combinations of same egg or same sperm that are now ended. Nor does he effectively explain why the embryos future supersedes the already alive mothers determination of her future. The whole argument is unconvincing.

It’s completely reasonable to take the position that in general it’s best to avoid having abortion but acknowledge the reasons to have one are highly situationally dependent. That the mother, dr and family are the ones in the best position to assess the situation and not a one size fits all solution from the government.

That’s hardly a hypocritical position for Lamb to take.

 

[Maxima1]

Speaking of stupid, you still do not appear to understand the definition of the word arbitrary. This is doubly strange considering I quoted and explained it to you, haha.

Seriously? Your suggestion that any reason suffices is inane. People don't use the word in the sort of way you're implying. From an Ethics textbook.

"As we can see, one practical problem with using
viability as a moral criterion is its variability. When
Roe v. Wade took effect, the point of viability for a
premature infant was considered to be approximately
twenty-six weeks; the estimation has since been
shortened by a couple of weeks. At twenty-three
or twenty-four weeks, a “micropreemie” weighs
slightly less than a pound. Its viability is also a function
of this weight and the mother’s socioeconomic
status; if she’s poor, then the chances are that her
nutrition is poor, which has negative effects on the
fetus. The degree of prematurity at different stages
of pregnancy also varies by sex and race: girls are
approximately one week ahead of boys in development,
and blacks are approximately one week ahead
of whites.51

Why is the stage of viability singled out as the
stage at which the fetus may take on a new moral
status? Some answer that it is the potential for life
independent of the mother that forms the basis of
the new status. However, if the fetus were delivered
at this stage and left on its own, no infant would
be able to survive. Perhaps the notion of separate
existence is a better basis for viability as a moral
criterion. The idea would be that the fetus is more
clearly distinct from the mother at this point in
pregnancy. Or perhaps the notion of completeness
is what is intended. Although the fetus is not fully
formed at viability because much development takes
place after birth, the argument might be made that
the viable fetus is sufficiently complete, enabling us
to think of it as an entirely new being.
Critics of the viability criterion may point again to
the gradual nature of development and the seeming
arbitrariness of picking out one stage of completeness
as crucially different from the others."

"A pro choice strategy that extends the definition of
“person” to infants or even to young children seems
just as arbitrary as an anti abortion strategy that
extends the definition of “human being” to fetuses.
Again, we find symmetries in the two positions and
we arrive at a standoff."

 

[K1052]

As a life-long Democrat, I gotta disagree. The party has gone full batshit crazy with it's embrace of the ultra-left "green hair" liberals in the party.

It's gotten so bad that I'm now considered a conservative right-winger...even though I've NEVER voted for a candidate with an (R) attached to their name...and I've been voting since 1972.

You're on the west coast tho, IIRC. This is kind of a relative thing like how there are moderate Republicans mostly from the suburbs of major cities who aren't anything close to as hardcore as say fringy rural Rs.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Women only got the vote early in the last century.

It was deemed acceptable to cover up the sexual abuse of children by religious figures and avoid the prosecution of priests responsible until the last few decades.

The Constitution protects the rights of Citizens and human beings, but we seem to have left out underage children until recently.

A fetus is part of the mother's body until birth. Again, what are the rights of the mother? She's "a citizen."

Secular government imposes laws or taboos based on whether or not some practice or behavior is intrinsically a threat to civilization and the nation-state. It's requirements are a subset of moral beliefs across a spectrum of religions -- which most of those belief-systems hold in common.

The Constitution is not a recipe for "getting to heaven." If you are morally against abortions, don't have an abortion. If you have moral objections to homosexuality -- don't be a fudge-packer or carpet-licker.

But don't impose your moral beliefs on others and usurp the role of moral arbiter by imposing your particular religious beliefs when it comes to secular law and the Constitution.

 

[fskimospy]

Seriously? Your suggestion that any reason suffices is inane. People don't use the word in the sort of way you're implying. From an Ethics textbook.

Of course they use the word according to its definition, and you're attempting to make a straw man that any reason at all suffices. I have little desire to keep debating the definition of arbitrary to you, but if you think that setting the limit for abortion at a place where the average baby stands a good chance of survival outside of the mother is arbitrary then...well... okay. That's silliness, but you're a deeply silly person.

 

[Paratus]

I suspect quite a few seats in the deep South and Texas are pretty much locks for the Republicans, like it or not. With that said: if polling starts to suggest that someone like Ted Cruz could realistically lose his seat, all bets are off.

I’d tentatively agree right now. However after what ever scandals happen between now and November along with how congress responds may erode more GOP “safe” districts.

 

[Maxima1]

Of course they use the word according to its definition, and you're attempting to make a straw man that any reason at all suffices. I have little desire to keep debating the definition of arbitrary to you, but if you think that setting the limit for abortion at a place where the average baby stands a good chance of survival outside of the mother is arbitrary then...well... okay. That's silliness, but you're a deeply silly person.

Haha. It totally demolished your view of the word. You're silly to think the range of viability is that significant when they are still just potential persons. Again, it's based on a future like ours. So you might as well go with conception since that's the beginning of meeting HOMGARR definition of life.

Critics of the viability criterion may point again to
the gradual nature of development and the seeming
arbitrariness of picking out one stage of completeness
as crucially different from the others."

 

[fskimospy]

Haha. It totally demolished your view of the word.

Huh? Of course it didn't. My view of the word has been and continues to be correct. Why is this so weirdly emotional and personal for you? Can't you just admit you learned something?

You're silly to think the range of viability is that significant when they are still just potential persons. Again, it's based on a future like ours. So you might as well go with conception since that's the beginning of meeting HOMGARR definition of life.

Of course how viable something is is significant. It would take a truly stupid person to view something that has a 99.9% chance of survival and a .001% chance of survival as being equivalent. Remember, we're dealing with people who aren't trying to make deliberately silly arguments like you are.

Critics of the viability criterion may point again to the gradual nature of development and the seeming arbitrariness of picking out one stage of completeness

as crucially different from the others."

This is the book stating what critics may argue, not that such an argument is compelling from a public policy perspective as it is not. It's the same as picking an age limit for entering into contracts, voting, for driving, or anything else. Is an 18 year old meaningfully different than a 17 year and 364 day old? Of course not. If you're making a time related rule however the line must be drawn somewhere, and we have chosen to place it at a time when we believe that most people will be sufficiently mature to enter into a contract or whatever.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Equating masturbation to miscarriage. That's class.

Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not possible. It means your perspective is lacking.

Explain it then

 

[Starbuck1975]

That's because you lack the mental capacity to see and think beyond yourself. Its why people can be anti gay but accept that other people aren't and accept laws that treat them equally. Its why one can be anti religion and yet not want government to pass anti religion type laws. Its why people can be against hate speech and yet support peoples right to express themselves with such hate. Its why some people refuse to take advantage of government safety nets and yet support laws that create such safety nets. Its why people can support raising taxes and yet they don't automatically contribute more in the taxes they pay.

Because they realize that their beliefs are theirs and that they operate in a world where everyone doesn't hold the same beliefs.

You don't get it and you probably never will.

Thank you for the concern for my mental capacity.

You lack the intellectual honesty to recognize hypocrisy born of political expedience.

None of the examples you cited create a moral paradox.

My taxes go to things I don’t agree with, but there is nothing immoral about paying taxes.

There is nothing immoral or hypocritical about rejecting religion yet respecting the right of others to worship the God of their choice.

However

Life is not a belief. It is a binary. You are either alive or you are not. If you believe that life begins at conception, that means all of the rights we extend to living beings now apply. If you believe life begins at conception, then abortion is taking a life.

 

[Maxima1]

Huh? Of course it didn't. My view of the word has been and continues to be correct. Why is this so weirdly emotional and personal for you? Can't you just admit you learned something?

You're the one who brought it up and were offended that I was calling the viability concept arbitrary. People use it when they feel there are inconsistencies or little relevance in the given reasons. etc., which makes it seem as if they had more than one choice to go by hence arbitrary.

Of course how viable something is is significant. It would take a truly stupid person to view something that has a 99.9% chance of survival and a .001% chance of survival as being equivalent. Remember, we're dealing with people who aren't trying to make deliberately silly arguments like you are.

There is a BIG similarity to the conservative argument, since even at that point, they are just potential persons. This is why some people view it as arbitrary because the crucial difference is still not there. Luckily, late term abortion is not a significant problem, but the concept is just BS. What harm is there if it's killed at the viability period if it never existed as a person in the first place? And as many pro-choice people argue, there are situations where the baby would probably be better off not living as an unwanted kid. There are tons of foster kids who want to kill themselves and wish they never were born and a bunch of other issues.

This is the book stating what critics may argue, not that such an argument is compelling from a public policy perspective as it is not. It's the same as picking an age limit for entering into contracts, voting, for driving, or anything else. Is an 18 year old meaningfully different than a 17 year and 364 day old? Of course not. If you're making a time related rule however the line must be drawn somewhere, and we have chosen to place it at a time when we believe that most people will be sufficiently mature to enter into a contract or whatever.

Abortion up to birth is definitely compelling. There is no good argument against it unless you want to act like a conservative and argue they could have a future like ours. There are some however for newborns.

I know what the book is doing. It's remaining neutral on any of the positions. But I guess that's also why you think it's supportive of your view of usage of arbitrary since it put "seems" or "seemingly" in front of the word.

Edit: Actually, that was Marquis's essay, not the authors of the text.

Edit: I get the point on intervals of time, but disagree that the viability range is precisely parallel to driving. I would argue there is no rational reason to not allow abortion up to birth/hospital, since it's still a potential person, while one can easily argue about safety for driving.

 

[WelshBloke]

If you believe that life begins at conception, that means all of the rights we extend to living beings now apply. If you believe life begins at conception, then abortion is taking a life.

We extend very few rights to very few living things.

 

[jackstar7]

Explain it then

Do you have access to some hallucinogenic mushrooms?

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

No one has a right over another person's body, including a fetus. This is a fundamental notion all humans believe in. Its why we have people sign donor cards for example.

I could care less when life starts, that's a pointless argument.

 

[interchange]

Life is not a belief. It is a binary. You are either alive or you are not. If you believe that life begins at conception, that means all of the rights we extend to living beings now apply. If you believe life begins at conception, then abortion is taking a life.

Those of us who find it morally wrong to force the actions of others on the basis of our beliefs alone are in quite a pickle with your logic.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

So Lamb is a Republican I’m fine with that. Bring in more Lamb Republicans, I’m not tired of winning yet.

 

[Bitek]

You guys are in the wrong jerkoff thread. Go to the 2000 dead babies thread.

This one is about Jerkoff Jr.