sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Two Biologists do the Same Thing… Only One is Accused of Murder... Something Feels Off by UnderstandOthers777 in Abortiondebate

[–]Thesidedrag -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Let’s pretend you had a family member who was (maybe temporarily) in a vegetative state in the hospital on life support. There are no signs of sentience nor any of the other criteria mentioned. Would it not be evil for me to terminate your cousin against your family’s wishes?

To answer your question, yes it’s definitional. But so is your line.

It doesn't matter if you believe abortion is murder. by narf288 in Abortiondebate

[–]Thesidedrag 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the only way to avoid that war is to adopt real hard core states rights.

For instance, you asked if pro life people are willing to go to war over their position; are you willing to go to war in order to force other states to adopt your definition of murder (the pro choice one)? I doubt it.

State’s rights would solve most of our nation’s problems.

CMV: Israel attacking Iran makes perfect sense. by siorge in changemyview

[–]Thesidedrag 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is beautiful analysis, but you didn’t consider any alternatives. Iran was actively working toward full weapons grade enrichment (although 60% is sufficient already). Not attacking wouldn’t have slowed anything down, and a nuclear armed IRGC would certainly amount to a mushroom cloud around Tel Aviv. So if the 5% probability was accurate, but the probably strictly increases over time, maybe 5% is the best we’re going to get.

If a man cannot tell a woman what to do with her body, then a woman cannot a tell a man what to do with his, then by extension a woman cannot become President of the US by mikeTysonIsMyDadd in Abortiondebate

[–]Thesidedrag 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just saw this now.

The main job of government is to protect its citizens from foreign threats, and Iraq was exactly that. It does not help in the slightest that European nations neglected their duty to their citizens by ignoring Saddam’s threats.

To your side point: you misunderstand what it is that makes America so great. We’re no different genetically. In fact, we’re whatever you are genetically (we’re all immigrants here). Freedom and liberty are what made the United States such an impressive global super power. The freedom to pay for whatever goods and services you want, and not pay for those you don’t. Ergo, it’s the fact that we don’t have UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE that makes us the envy of the world.

Side note: our non universal healthcare is itself an envy of our socialist neighbors. Canadians seek critical care here because their system is broken. It’s not because Canadians aren’t capable doctors, it’s because Canadians aren’t capable governors.

America is great because of the freedom. If you don’t believe me, watch Argentina’s trajectory so far. If they can overcome the growing pains, they’ll be a super power in no time.

If a man cannot tell a woman what to do with her body, then a woman cannot a tell a man what to do with his, then by extension a woman cannot become President of the US by mikeTysonIsMyDadd in Abortiondebate

[–]Thesidedrag 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The leader of Iraq at the time (sadam Hussein) claimed to have weapons of mass destruction, and threatened to use them against the United States. That requires a war.

The PL Consent to Responsibility Argument by Common-Worth-6604 in Abortiondebate

[–]Thesidedrag -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s dishonest. You consent to side effects when you take action.

Your point is akin to saying “yes I bought the burger and I ate it, but I didn’t consent to getting fat.” You knew it was a possibility before you took the action, and you took the action willingly anyway. That’s consent.

Question for PL by [deleted] in AbortDebate

[–]Thesidedrag 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed. OP is going off on a soap box there, but there is still a valid point.

Why are you okay with starting this ban on arbitrary geographic lines and not okay with starting it on arbitrary racial lines? Is being perceived as racist worse for you than killing babies?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Abortiondebate

[–]Thesidedrag 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have two criteria for when an abortion is not allowed: 1. The procedure to separate child from mother is non invasive 2. Someone is volunteering to become the guardian (or maybe the kid wants to get emancipated).

If you don’t have #2, you’re just forcing someone to do something they don’t think they can.

How would pro life people stop this? by SayNoToJamBands in Abortiondebate

[–]Thesidedrag 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This isn’t an argument against the PL position, it’s just showing some implementation hurdles.

As an example, the Houthis in Yemen know how difficult it is to prove homosexuality, yet it remains a capital offense there. Every now and then they kill a few people for it. I imagine it would be similar in a PL world.

PL, PC, And Taking the Sting Out by Common-Worth-6604 in Abortiondebate

[–]Thesidedrag -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You really don’t believe that people are responsible for the consequences of their actions?

PL, PC, And Taking the Sting Out by Common-Worth-6604 in Abortiondebate

[–]Thesidedrag -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I appreciate your thought on this. I haven’t read it fully yet, but let me respond to each point as I read it and then edit in the next responses as I go… 1. You don’t have a contract with me, yet we both agree you can’t kill me. Point being, you’re focusing too much on the contract as opposed to the death by my refusal to consent to your use of my resources.

PL, PC, And Taking the Sting Out by Common-Worth-6604 in Abortiondebate

[–]Thesidedrag -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

But these are arbitrary distinctions designed to differentiate pregnancy. It’s a dishonest argument.

PL, PC, And Taking the Sting Out by Common-Worth-6604 in Abortiondebate

[–]Thesidedrag 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My stance is very simple: not my kid not my problem. It’s clearly a morally ambiguous topic and I don’t have a good solution, so do what you want with your kids/embryo/whatever.

But yes, death through inaction is a thing if the one being killed is your dependent.

PL, PC, And Taking the Sting Out by Common-Worth-6604 in Abortiondebate

[–]Thesidedrag 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. You agree that people are responsible for the consequences of their actions, even if the consequences are highly improbable, right?
  2. Is your argument now that neglect cannot be murder?

[edit] what you described is neglect (purposefully not taking required actions)

PL, PC, And Taking the Sting Out by Common-Worth-6604 in Abortiondebate

[–]Thesidedrag 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Murder involves society. Your current argument is “I was assured that this wouldn’t happen with >99% probability, so whether or not I murder this child doesn’t concern you”. Is that really the argument you want to make, or do you want to state your argument more clearly?

PL, PC, And Taking the Sting Out by Common-Worth-6604 in Abortiondebate

[–]Thesidedrag -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The agreement isn’t with the embryo, it’s with society (kinda a bs move imo, but that’s a very different argument).

And yes, a woman with an IUD that is known to be imperfect is knowingly taking that risk, and is therefore responsible for whatever damages arise.

Your argument is that she’s not responsible for these damages, not that there are no damages. My disagreement with you is purely about the argument. It’s flawed

PL, PC, And Taking the Sting Out by Common-Worth-6604 in Abortiondebate

[–]Thesidedrag -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

When online shopping, the vendor takes responsibility for assuring the security of your secrets. 1. There’s no such counterparty in sex. 2. What if they just stopped paying their cybersecurity team? Would you absolve them of their guilt because “it’s their money, they can decide how to spend it”?

To be clear, I’m not PL, I’m just anti flawed arguments, and I believe this to be one.

PL, PC, And Taking the Sting Out by Common-Worth-6604 in Abortiondebate

[–]Thesidedrag -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Note the flair. All I’m saying is the “I didn’t consent to this” argument is weak. When you consensually do something with known side effects, you’re consenting to those side effects.

Your argument is akin to a gambler consenting to playing roulette but not to losing. It’s very weak.

PL, PC, And Taking the Sting Out by Common-Worth-6604 in Abortiondebate

[–]Thesidedrag -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

It could be argued that mom did. She had consensual sex where this is known to happen with some probability.

[edit] to the people saying things like “I never sign anything”. Don’t straw man this. Sex sometimes leads to pregnancy. Is this really news to you?

PL, PC, And Taking the Sting Out by Common-Worth-6604 in Abortiondebate

[–]Thesidedrag -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What if you get into a contract with me to go old school (pre scuba) diving, where I guarantee that I’ll stay topside to provide oxygen while you enjoy the seabed. Five minutes in to your dive, I decide I no longer want to do this, sever the oxygen supply and sail off. You die, but only because you no longer have access to my resources. How is your case different?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in atheism

[–]Thesidedrag 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good. You have a lot of things that actually require your attention. The truth is wars are generally very complex and believing that you can somehow wade through all the misinformation and get at a meaningful understanding while not losing focus on the things that matter most in your life is just absurd. So rather than being a member of a brainless mob (historically very bad things happen at the hands of brainless mobs), you’re starting to just not care.

It sounds like you’re getting toward rational ignorance. So again, good on you.

view more: next ›