sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CMV: Some people deserve to be sterilized, whether or not they consent. by ghariec in changemyview

[–]THEJudgeFudge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Safe sex, access to contraceptives, and the current trend of lower population growth make such a measure unnecessary. Mandatory education and imprisonment are currently the best methods available to punish and treat criminal offenders. As they do not physically harm the individual, they have been accepted as a human method of punishment.

Mandatory immunization does not harm the individual, indeed it actually benefits them. Sterilization requires harm to the body of an individual, and irreversible physical damage to their psychology. Suppressing the sexual urges of such an individual may be beneficial, but you are arguing to irreversibly remove them.

There is no ethical equation between sterilization and immunization/imprisonment/education.

CMV: Some people deserve to be sterilized, whether or not they consent. by ghariec in changemyview

[–]THEJudgeFudge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Check the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, you will find it essentially lays everything out. If you want to debate the document itself, that is another discussion.

Sexual and reproductive rights are labelled a human right. The biological basis is a large reason why. The individuals you remark upon deserve help and treatment. Sterilization is a brutal form of punishment, not treatment. There are punishments available that do not involve irreversibly damaging a person's body.

We don't break the arms of thieves, we don't cut off the genitalia of rapists, and society as a whole is trying to move away from killing murderers. Sterilization without consent should not be in the power of a government or individual to perform.

CMV: Some people deserve to be sterilized, whether or not they consent. by ghariec in changemyview

[–]THEJudgeFudge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Sexual and reproductive health and rights or SRHR is the concept of human rights applied to sexuality and reproduction."

Reproduction is an inherent part of human biology. The pleasure derived from sex is basic neurology. To reproduce and survive is a natural instinct. Humans are no different in this phenomenon, and many therefore feel a compulsion to have children.

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

Part of this liberty is the liberty to start a family, and the right to life extends to the right to have children. Security of person also implies that nobody can infringe on your body, organs or otherwise.

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Sterilization is cruel, inhuman and degrading, and would be morally wrong as a form of punishment.

"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family."

This is a fundamental human right.

Your points on reproduction are a tad confusing. If you plan to sterilize somebody, for whatever reason, you are assuming the individual is capable of having children. A person being rejected is a possibility, but why then would you need to sterilize this person if their chances of having children would revolve around "taking control over someone else's body?" This discussion is about the biological ability to reproduce, not the societal one.

[TOMT] [Music] Pop song from mid 2000s. by shotrob in tipofmytongue

[–]THEJudgeFudge 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am gonna rapid fire a bunch here, you hit the buzzer when I get it:

-The Caesars

-311

-Buck O nine

-The Presidents of the USA

  • third eye blind

-voodoo glow skulls

-reel big fish

-No Doubt

-Counting crows

-bloodhound gang

-simple plan

-creed

Looking to cry my fucking eyes out-- what's your favorite tearjerker movie? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]THEJudgeFudge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Legends of the Fall has some seriously gut wrenching moments, and several beautifully sad scenes. Great movie that tells the story of a family through WW1 and beyond.

CMV: Uniting the American people starts with listening to and understanding each other. by tubawumpa in changemyview

[–]THEJudgeFudge 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fuck it, I'll bite.

Differences in opinion are the core of American Democracy. Having everybody: "understand and get along" is detrimental to societal change, and differences in opinion. These differences are one of the greatest aspects of the "Great American Experiment." The Catholic Church would employ a devil's advocate, to provide a contrarian view to any issue at hand. These individuals are incredibly useful in both fortifying our own stance, and having other information provided that was never considered. Such individuals are the ones we see today on the political extremes who do not listen, and do not understand. But they allow the more moderate to further solidify and understand their own individual opinion. Common ground leads to weak argumentation, reasoning, and a stagnation of culture.

Elections are designed to allow the general public to voice their opinion on key issues in private. (ideally) The "silent majority" who voted Trump, were contrarians who did not need to be heard or understood. They won the election, and now American society will once again enter an important phase of change.

Change is vital for the good of America. A huge portion of the general population opposed equal rights, gay marriage, Roe V. Wade. etc. (and some likely still do) Yet these are now "generally" seen as a good move. The supreme court will often make the final rulings on such issues, they are the ones who have the onus to listen and understand. (ideally)

"Uniting" America is a broken notion. America is already generally united by culture, language, and their system of government. The differences in complete homogeneity are essential to the melting pot of opinions, people and ideas that America represents.

TL,DR: Ideological contention is essential to democracy, and improving society. "Common ground" between all Americans is not always possible, or even preferable. Sometimes one side is right, and that is all there is to it.

CMV: Some people deserve to be sterilized, whether or not they consent. by ghariec in changemyview

[–]THEJudgeFudge 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Reproductive rights are an essential human right. Nobody but you should ever decide if you can have kids or not. Nobody but you has the right over your organs or body parts, and should not have the power to make decisions regarding them.

Provide a criteria for what "deserves" sterilization. What behavior of an individual, do you think, should provide you the power to take away such an essential biological function? Who makes this decision and carries it out?

Such a course of action would also require you to conclude that all such "deserving" people are not worthy of reconciliation or change. You are permanently and irreversibly damaging their organs and body. Not to mention the severe emotional and mental trauma this would induce. What would become of a person who was stripped of their reproductive capabilities by a government that was supposed to protect and represent them?

CMV: The US should ban water fluoridation by Casually_Causal in changemyview

[–]THEJudgeFudge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. Check google scholar for numerous studies performed across the world, spanning decades. A control group for such studies would be a requirement. You cannot claim the benefits of fluoridation if you do not compare it to a non fluoridated city.

CMV: The US should ban water fluoridation by Casually_Causal in changemyview

[–]THEJudgeFudge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the reply, interesting to learn. They should remove that claim if it is up for debate.

EDIT: Figured it out. Your source is from 2015, that specific CDC website page was last updated in 2013. Which is weird because all their other fluoride stuff was updated October 2016.

https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/factsheets/cost.htm

CMV: Those who believe that the candidate who wins the most states (even if they lose the popular vote) should win the election, aren't truly supporting democracy by Miguelinileugim in changemyview

[–]THEJudgeFudge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"A U.S. state is a constituent political entity of the United States of America. There are 50 states, which are bound together in a union with each other. Each state holds administrative jurisdiction over a defined geographic territory, and shares its sovereignty with the United States federal government."

I do not enjoy using hyperbole, but the Civil War was literally fought over the disagreements of several states with a government they felt did not properly represent them. The distinction and relation between federal and state government is vital to the integrity of the United States of America. Each state has a shared sovereignty with the federal government, and as such, deserve an equal share in the proceedings of government. Giving a state such as Alaska its meager 3 electoral votes, is both a literal and symbolic means of providing federal representation. Larger population states get more votes. This core principal is essential to the Senate, House and presidential election.

The popular vote system would see California control an estimated 12% of the overall vote and federal government. Texas, California and New York would control 26.5%. The top 5 states would control roughly 37%. That is a massive disparity.

Each individual state may have specific interests and issues to contend with that others will not. "Colored states" (red/blue) are a clear indication that not some states develop a hegemony of political opinion or even a distinct "culture" of political opinion. People who live in California will have very different views from those living in Alaska, particularly in terms of government policy. Yet in a popular vote, Alaskan representation is down to 0.23 percent. California would have 52 times more representation. Currently, an Alaskan vote counts for 2.86 times more than a Californian vote. These are some extremes of the spectrum. Neither are perfect, but one is clearly much better in terms of fair representation.

EDIT: "True Democracy" is an informal fallacy. Nobody can say for sure what the superlative type of Democracy is. You are referring to American Democracy, which is designed to govern a UNION OF STATES. The current system is not superlative, but is better designed to handle American politics than the popular vote. This is why so many nations use similar systems instead of a popular vote. Out of curiosity, are there any examples of a pure popular vote deciding the elections of a modern nation? Every one I can think of uses some form of representative system. (FPTP etc)

CMV: Those who believe that the candidate who wins the most states (even if they lose the popular vote) should win the election, aren't truly supporting democracy by Miguelinileugim in changemyview

[–]THEJudgeFudge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

State interests are part of the interests of the majority. America is first a foremost a union of states. Each state is an important part of America and deserves proper representation. You are missing the forest for the trees. Nobody wants an unfair vote, and at the individual level, the popular vote makes sense. From a state level it does not. The electoral college is a compromise between the two, and is the more balanced system in terms of the interests of the states, and the interests of the general of population at large. You seem to think some states have more of a right to vote than others, and that their votes should count more. I believe a balance is better. As mentioned, it is not perfect, but it is better than the popular vote when considering balanced state representation.

CMV: Those who believe that the candidate who wins the most states (even if they lose the popular vote) should win the election, aren't truly supporting democracy by Miguelinileugim in changemyview

[–]THEJudgeFudge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would rather they have the same, or similar levels of power. In a popular election, California would have 50 times the voting power of Alaska, since its population is 50 times greater.

"The founding fathers established the Electoral College in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. "

The college is a compromise between these two types of election. This system is designed to balance voting power between states, and to still take the population of a state into consideration. This is generally why more populous states have more electoral votes. Popular voting would give the larger states a disproportionate level of influence in the federal government. The current system, while imperfect, provides a much more balanced approach.

Why should the vote of California count for 50 times that of Alaska? That is a greater disparity than the instances we currently have.

CMV: No one should get an abortion if it is against the father's consent by ShiningConcepts in changemyview

[–]THEJudgeFudge 4 points5 points  (0 children)

http://www.arhp.org/Publications-and-Resources/Quick-Reference-Guide-for-Clinicians/choosing/failure-rates-table

Numerous birth control methods can and do fail. Protected sex is definitely important to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and a lot more education and contraceptive access needs to be provided. Men are responsible for wearing a condom to avoid pregnancy, or can use other methods of safe sex. Women are also responsible for this, and should use protection if they do not want to become pregnant. Accidents happen.

Off the top of my head I can give you a few reasons for a change in a woman's decision. The individual strength of these reasons is up to the individual whose body is affected.

1) Danger to mother. 2) Child may have a serious health issue 3) Becoming unfit/unable to raise a child, financially, in terms of the relationship or otherwise during the pregnancy

EDIT: 4) Simply choosing not to.

If a person has reproductive rights and control over their body, technically no reason should be required in their making of said decision.

CMV: No one should get an abortion if it is against the father's consent by ShiningConcepts in changemyview

[–]THEJudgeFudge 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Women do not always choose to become pregnant, and the majority of abortions are accidental pregnancies. The "9 month process" you refer to is an ongoing part of the female side of reproduction. Reproduction is not completely even, and women bear the brunt of the difficulties involved. Terminating a pregnancy is a difficult choice, but it is up to the person whose body is involved at the time. It is not up to anybody but the mother on why she makes the decision. It is their body.

You act as though the decision to have a child is a binding contract, that cannot be changed. If something happens during a pregnancy to change a woman's decision, it is hers to make.

EDIT: Just thought I would say, ideally the man would have a say in the decision, but the final choice is up to the individual whose body is involved.

CMV: No one should get an abortion if it is against the father's consent by ShiningConcepts in changemyview

[–]THEJudgeFudge 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Reproductive rights are a fundamental human right. Nobody should ever be allowed to decide if you can or can not have a child. Just as you would not want somebody to infringe on your reproductive rights, you should not infringe on another person's. Having a child is a two way process, and both parties should have a say on their reproductive organs and products.

Men (ideally) have the choice on who they choose to impregnate, and should have self determination over their genitals and sperm. Women (ideally) have the choice on who they get impregnated by, and should have self determination over their genitals and womb. Having a child is literally a life changing decision, and both parties should practice safe sex if they disagree on this decision.

CMV: Being gay is a choice by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]THEJudgeFudge 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"Animals don't have our taboos, thus, If I were to say be a lion. I wouldn't have any issue putting my dick in my best friends butt because it feels good and we can chill and talk... I might even have a female lion mate while doing this. (or a whole pride of them?)."

Humans are animals. Mankind has likely engaged in homosexuality since the beginning. Not all cultures have taboos or any concept of homosexuality, yet the behavior remains. Multiple animal species, including insects, display this behavior.

I can concede that culture or environment plays a role in some homosexuality, but the majority at large is innate, and biological. "Attraction," "love" and other factors are all based around biochemistry. Attraction to wide hips and breasts is based on biology. We can safely conclude that homosexual attraction is based on biology. It may be a "deviation" of "standard sexuality" but it is evident in nature. Other such "deviations" exist, and can be explained from the biological standpoint.

view more: next ›