Pro Life: Does Shapiro's Counter Hold Up? | Forum

Topic location: Forum home » Main Forum » Politics
SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Oct 18

Moral Instinct

XiaoGui17
XiaoGui17 Oct 18
I like how he rejects "They're in the corner." That's grammatically correct.


I like how he bitches about the smug attitude of superiority and then proceeds to adopt it. 


1) Moral instinct is not always logically correct.

Okay, fair enough, but pro lifers overwhelmingly appeal to moral instinct, soooo...


2) It doesn't reveal the value of embryonic life, just the relative value compared to the kid.

3) Most pro lifers acknowledge that the born are more valuable than the unborn  (i.e. this is a strawman).


My experience with pro lifers indicates to me that many will espouse that an embryo is equivalent to a baby, not "valuable but in a lesser way." Shapiro might want to make sure this memo is fully circulated next time before he lectures others on what the Real Pro Life Position is.


4) The hypothetical isn't what's actually going on in cases of abortion. There is no other kid being saved. 


Hypothetical scenarios are meant to condense and crystallize and bring to a head moral quandaries that are murkier in reality. And I say, yes, there is.


The majority of women who have abortions are already mothers, and many cite that they will be unable to provide for the child they already have as their reason for getting an  abortion. It's not as immediate as a building on fire, but from their perspective it is essentially that scenario. 

The Forum post is edited by XiaoGui17 Oct 18
SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Oct 19
Ummm It's not grammatically correct V.   Tomlinson is referring to the a child not a place.   You'll have to follow his Tweet feed.  Ben is referring to Tweet #4.


1.  The argument for Life has been hotly debated, which is usually reduced to a semantics argument.  Conception vs. Birth.  If that argument can't be settled logically, I don't see how one can determine the morality of it.


2.  I've noticed that people that have a hard time conceiving would consider each Embryo a potential life.  Is it life in the dish, or simply potential to be life?  Again, that argument doesn't appear to be settled.  At least, not with a unanimous majority.


3.  The hypothetical gets even more convoluted, considering each Embryo is either a life or potential to be a life. 


I'd say Abortion has always been a women's health concern. Not because of what a pregnancy can do to the body (or mind for that matter) but rather because of the desperate measures women go to, to terminate it.  Being a kid of the 70's, the rhetoric on this issue was so strong that I believe That's why the ruling for abortion was passed.  Not because the argument on Embryos has been settled.  Women were dying by the thousands in self-induced abortions and those performed by back alley docs.  


XiaoGui17
XiaoGui17 Oct 19

Quote from SIN_JONES Ummm It's not grammatically correct V.   Tomlinson is referring to the a child not a place.   You'll have to follow his Tweet feed.  Ben is referring to Tweet #4.

with a unanimous majority.

Unanimous majority is redundant. Unanimity is a majority by definition.


Of course he is referring to the child. What else would he mean?


"They're in one corner of the room."

i.e. "They are in one corner of the room."

The child is in one corner of the room.

"They" is the subject and refers to the child.


I suppose Shapiro could be picking at the use of "they" as a gender-neutral, third-person singular. There is a large school of thought, pushback against Tumblr's 87 genders, that insists "they" is a plural pronoun only. But historically, "they" has been a perfectly acceptable term to refer to a single person whose gender is unknown. Tomlinson did not specify whether the kid was a boy or a girl. "They" is fine.


I didn't get the impression that Shapiro was picking at the pronoun, though. His implication was that Tomlinson confused his homonyms. There is no other homonym that makes sense. 


What does Shapiro think it should be?  "There in one corner of the room"? That's a prepositional phrase, not a sentence. "Their in one corner of the room"? That's nonsense. 


 That people agree with Shapiro is a sign that people suck at grammar, not that Shapiro is right. 

The Forum post is edited by XiaoGui17 Oct 19
fnord
fnord Oct 19
Life does begin at conception. It's not a nothing, it's a something. 


The argument that it doesn't stems from those who are horrified that they might actually be doing something wrong or morally incorrect so they refer to the embryo as 'tissue'. It's a blinder. 


At this point it becomes a value judgment. Is having a kid going to fuck up your shit and that's why you don't want to have one? 


To me, there's nothing wrong with deciding the time isn't right for you. You're the one that's going to be on the hook... so you get to decide. 


If 'life' is so sacred then why is it so goddamn easy to produce it? Any pair of idiots can bump uglies and make life. 


Also, I've always been a bit suspicious of guys with strong opinions on the subject. Most of us are well equipped enough to do our part for our whole lives. If it doesn't work out, try again. Women have the hard part, women should decide. This is definitely a place where guys should STFU about it unless they're supporting whatever women want to do with it. 


So no, Shapiro's argument doesn't hold up because 1). He's a guy and 2). He ultimately approaches everything from a religious perspective. 

XiaoGui17
XiaoGui17 Oct 19
Quote from fnord Life does begin at conception. It's not a nothing, it's a something.

Insert obligatory technical nitpick that life precedes conception: i.e. sperm are alive, eggs are alive.


But yes, of course, a zygote is alive. It's a living organism. From there, my reaction is yours, i.e. "So what?" A cockroach is alive. The religious crowd loves to emphasize "It's alive! It's alive!" like some sort of Frankenstein reenactment because that's their motte. It's setting the bar pretty low and not much really follows from that alone.


Quote from fnordIf 'life' is so sacred then why is it so goddamn easy to produce it? Any pair of idiots can bump uglies and make life.


This. /debate


Quote from fnordAlso, I've always been a bit suspicious of guys with strong opinions on the subject. Most of us are well equipped enough to do our part for our whole lives. If it doesn't work out, try again. Women have the hard part, women should decide. This is definitely a place where guys should STFU about it unless they're supporting whatever women want to do with it.

Here, I disagree. Physiologically, women get the brunt of it. But legally, a man can be seriously on the hook for an extended period of time. If a guy can't sign a woman up involuntarily for pregnancy, why should a woman be able to sign a man up involuntarily for supporting a child? IMO, she shouldn't.

SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Oct 20
  1. I had to go back and read it again. "They are in one corner of the room." vs. "There, in one corner of the Room." Is what I assume Shapiro was venting on. It does read weird the way the entire thread is written:


  2. "Here it is. You're in a fertility clinic. Why isn't important. The fire alarm goes off. You run for the exit. As you run down this hallway, you hear a child screaming from behind a door. You throw open the door and find a five-year-old child crying for help. 3/ They're in one corner of the room. In the other corner, you spot a frozen container labeled "1000 Viable Human Embryos." The smoke is rising. You start to choke. You know you can grab one or the other, but not both before you succumb to smoke inhalation and die, saving no one. 4/ "

Pretty sure the child is possessing the corner, thus 'Their' makes grammatical sense.
The Forum post is edited by SIN_JONES Oct 21
SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Oct 20
@Fnord, I think that could be debated also.  That's like saying Scientists can't apply the Scientific Method because of their gender and religious beliefs.  


He also argues that there are only two genders, not a spectrum.  


While I agree, it's a moral quandary for a society; Abortion procedure and practitioners are a privilege, not a Right.

dimitri
dimitri Oct 20
I think the entire argument resolves about confusion, or downright ignorance, on the difference between "worth" and "value".

Embryos have a certain worth attached to them. They have a certain (economic) potential. A human baby has value.

The entire pro-life side relies on that confusion. They are not necessarily wrong in their arguments, they merely assign the wrong quantity and qualities.

A bit like protecting and keeping the seeds but forgetting they need to be planted in order to reap rewards.
SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Oct 21
Given medical advancement with artificial uterus developement, and that most Prolife advocates are speaking on fetuses in the womb; I'm not so sure they could be reduced to simply seeds.
XiaoGui17
XiaoGui17 Oct 21
Quote from SIN_JONES
  1. Pretty sure the child is possessing the corner, thus 'Their' makes grammatical sense.

No, it doesn't. "Their in the corner" is gobbledygook. "Their corner" would be a subject, but he would have to finish with a sentence: their corner is doing what, exactly? E.g., "Their corner is across the room from a fridge of embryos."


You don't wanna do a grammar Nazi tussle with me. I'm a grammar Gestapo. ;)


Quote from SIN_JONESWhile I agree, it's a moral quandary for a society; Abortion procedure and practitioners are a privilege, not a Right.

What are the implications of that distinction--privilege, not a right?


I've heard, "The state shouldn't have to pay for people's abortions." Okay, fair enough. But does that have anything to do with the privilege-right distinction?


To me, tax-funded abortions isn't about individuals having a right to it, it's a function of public interest. Is it not beneficial to law-abiding taxpayers and whatnot as a whole to have less children on the dole who are likely to grow up to be criminals? Some say tax money ought not to fund abortions because some taxpayers have moral objections to the practice of abortion. That's a non-starter, for me. Some taxpayers have moral objections to war, but we're not about to cut off funding to the Dept of Defense anytime soon.


I'll also point out that tax-funded abortions are exceedingly rare and practically impossible to obtain, so "the taxpayers shouldn't fund abortions!" is quibbling over a narrow fraction of abortions at best, and mainly a hypothetical.


Is this privilege-right distinction meant to imply that the state should be able to pass whatever laws it likes restricting or prohibiting the practice? So the only law anyone can ever legitimately oppose is a law that touches some fundamental "right," and we just have to shut up and bend over for any laws that stop short of that? Yeeeeah...no.


Sometimes people use that privilege-right distinction phrase, but I'm left waiting for what they mean by that.

SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Oct 22
The Grammar thing, I'm just seeing it from Ben's point of view.  I think that's the Argument he's making. That because the child possesses the corner, 'they are' isn't proper.  Moving on...


It's not about tax funded abortion but rather if one has an inalienable right to abortion services.  If one were to self terminate, (there's plenty of things that do the job but at an increased risk) without incident, fine.   This isn't about that.  It's whether a society should frame abortion services as a Right over privledge.


Is one privledged to receive medical treatment provided they have capital to exchange?  How does that yoke with prosecuting women that self terminate?

The Forum post is edited by SIN_JONES Oct 22
DefaultNamesake
I love watching these pro-life pious fucks get all riled up over a zygote that can't live separately...

Does life begin at conception? No more then a piece of fruit growing on a branch constitutes a separate plant. And every time you trim a branch you prevent countless "precious" saplings from getting their shot! No empathy for the loquat. 


All value/worth judgements (to me) fall along those lines of logic.  

And what about the "long game" Hippocratic Oath? IMO, It does more harm to society to let the eventual fire station baby get born (and later populate the prison system) then to take these simple precautionary measures.

But I'm also a guy that will never reproduce, so this isn't my concern.

The Forum post is edited by DefaultNamesake Oct 22
XiaoGui17
XiaoGui17 Oct 22

Quote from SIN_JONES.

It's not about tax funded abortion but rather if one has an inalienable right to abortion services.  If one were to self terminate, (there's plenty of things that do the job but at an increased risk) without incident, fine.   This isn't about that.  It's whether a society should frame abortion services as a Right over privledge.


Is one privledged to receive medical treatment provided they have capital to exchange?  How does that yoke with prosecuting women that self terminate?


I'm still not clear on what "right vs privilege" is supposed to entail. Rights can't be regulated, privileges can? Rights can't be prohibited, privileges can?  Others can be compelled to respect rights but not privileges? How are rights and privileges treated differently? 


This is a distinction people without a legal background often make, but I find they often can't articulate what it means.


If a woman wants an abortion and a doctor wants to perform it and they've come to some mutually agreeable deal along those lines, why should anyone else have any say? How does the right-privilege distinction make a difference? 

Dan_Dread
Dan_Dread Oct 22
I can't help but notice after all of that, Ben doesn't actually choose an option.


Personally I think it's a non issue. A living cell is alive, obviously. An emryo is many many such cells. But is it a 'human' life?


What does that even mean? Living human cells are..human..as per the word human in human cells. Ok. Everything after this is moralizing, eg, what value do you place on that. Personally I don't think life has any inherent value just because it's alive. Life is everywhere, and human life especially so.  In fact, there is SO MUCH human life that it is becoming anathema to other life, both human and non human alike. The noble choice is to let them all burn.

Mr_Scare
Mr_Scare Oct 22
If they ban abortions, and women who really want/need to abort it, then she will likely find a way to do it herself. Putting laws on such things, and monitoring human behaviour with strict authority is laughable.


I would want to know why women would want to resort to doing it. What made her take such drastic actions? However, it is none of my business and the Earth will continue to spin regardless.


What gets me laughing more is when these fat, ugly, feminist cunts shout shit like: "women are free to abort their babies", when no man would ever want to impregnate them anyway.


I am of the belief that if you are woman, and you want an abortion, do it. You would be a shit mother anyway, and will only contribute some retard kid to continue your legacy. 

SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Oct 23
Putting virtue signaling aside.  I think what he's getting at, is there is hypocrisy in a society that attempts to put morality on a high shelf, while being immoral. Amorality isn't a consideration in this argument because it assumes that every person has some form of it, even if the details of it are conflicting universally.   


That the US even has these services, is a privledge. Taking them away isn't a Right's violation because an autonomous person would find a way, if determined enough.  Legal ramifications only apply if it is known that the person forced miscarriage.  Legal background isn't required if you apply logic. 


If that person is prosecuted for a crime, this too isn't a Right's violation, especially if the law has already conquered one's inalienable Right to abortion services.  The services themselves have term limits. 

The Forum post is edited by SIN_JONES Oct 23
SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Oct 23
Pretty sure This Case is what was referred to in an earlier post.  Roe vs Wade and "Right to Abort" vs. privilege to abortion services. 


Legal Definition of Privilege:


"Privilege

particular benefit, advantage, or Immunity enjoyed by a person or class of people that is not shared with others. A powerof exemption against or beyond the law. It is not a right but, rather, exempts one from the performance of a duty, obligation,or liability.



"The court said the requirement that a sponsor be found does not "unduly burden" the girl's right to an abortion under Supreme Court precedent"

XiaoGui17
XiaoGui17 Oct 23
"A particular benefit, advantage, or immunity enjoyed by a person or class of people that is not shared with others. A power of exemption against or beyond the law. It is not a right but, rather, exempts one from the performance of a duty, obligation, or liability."


If that is your definition of "privilege," then calling abortion is "privilege" is utter nonsense. There is no particular, set-apart class of people that have exclusive access to abortion.


"Privilege," under that definition, would be something like diplomatic immunity enjoyed by ambassadors, or an exemption from traffic laws enjoyed by police officers, or the security clearance necessary to peruse classified files. You don't need any special clearance or legal status to get an abortion.

The Forum post is edited by XiaoGui17 Oct 23
SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Oct 24
Well first, it's not my definition.  These definitions are a culmination of common use, which is what language is.  


Second, it's the very legal definition of what privilege is.   Which is why these services are out of reach for the poor.  


Third, you do need clearance if your fetus is beyond a specific stage of development and the capital to pay a doctor for those services.  The government sets the specifics, including the protocols to follow for approving an abortion. 

Pages: 1 2 3 »

Issue Reporting

Report any issues to satanhimself@circleofdescent.com. He may, or may not, get back to you in a timely manner.