Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I did, and you are too stupid to recognize it.No one is denying that the fetus is a life, any more than anyone is denying that your cat is a living thing.
In one scenario, it is legally permissible to kill it, and in another, it is not.
The difference is contextual, and part of that context is intent.
Your veterinarian may legally euthanize your cat with your permission, just as a doctor may legally terminate a pregnancy with the permission of the woman.
But your neighbor cannot legally shoot your cat in the head with a pistol, any more than an assailant can legally punch a pregnant woman in the stomach.
Hmmm...
This is a tough argument to overcome from either side...
It's pretty good. hmm
I'll cover it from both sides:
Pro-Choice
I would argue that from a certain point of view, the cat has more intrinsic value than a fetus. And I would also argue that the woman should have even more power and control over aborting the fetus than euthanizing her cat: the cat is not part of her body nor does the cat have to rely on her body to continue to grow, develop, and simply survive. So the argument could be made that a woman being able to terminate a baby should be a stronger right than euthanizing your house pet because of the circumstances.
Pro-Life
However...that's because we are the supreme hunters and dominators of all life on earth, as anthropocentrically arrogant as that sounds. The right to slay an animal, which is legally defined as property in the US, under specific conditions is actually an easier case to make, ethically. And most humans will agree - to the notion that we can, conditionally, slay animals - because of our apex-ness (this word does not exist).
The fetus is a human life with a unique human nucleotide sequence. We as the matured humans should proffer certain rights that the developing human cannot enforce. I still think that abortions should be legal in the first trimester, just like Surtur. However, I morally oppose it. And since I also think we should have a universal healthcare system and a universal basic income, no one can use the argument, "You care so much about not killing babies but you don't give a shit about the baby after it is born!" argument against me to rebut.
Originally posted by Surtur
I mean...just because you posted that gif doesn't actually change anything lol. There was no victory for you here.Did you need one as bad as Rob? I'd grant it, then. Just let me know Adam.
You're right, it doesn't change anything. I still win. It just shows you the exchange the way any neutral observer sees it. I don't need the win, any more than you are in a position to grant it to me. It's just an observable fact.
Originally posted by dadudemon
And since I also think we should have a universal healthcare system and a universal basic income, no one can use the argument, "You care so much about not killing babies but you don't give a shit about the baby after it is born!" argument against me to rebut.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You're right, it doesn't change anything. I still win. It just shows you the exchange the way any neutral observer sees it. I don't need the win, any more than you are in a position to grant it to me. It's just an observable fact.
It's clear you do need the win, you keep insisting you've won lol. I know you will tell yourself it's because you truly believe you have won, hold onto that.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
That argument is pretty retarded and just blatant sophistry anyways. You don't have to be willing to pay for somebody's cost of living to say they shouldn't be killed. Even if I'm not willing to give money to a homeless person on the street, it wouldn't be hypocritical for me to say it should be illegal to murder him.
blushing
At this point, I'm just grateful someone read and responded to my post.
To your point, a newborn baby on up until around 8 years will not be able to take care of itself. So it is actually quite important that we take care of our wee ones with healthcare and welfare. We are pretty shitty people if we cannot even ensure the right to a minimal chance at life for our children. We can expand that to our infirm and elderly, too. So that's why I think we need universal healthcare and universal basic income.
Originally posted by socool8520
Different topics. Universal basic income? such as?
UBI is not a new concept by me. Let me be clear that I am not bright enough to have thought of something like this. Of the KMC posters, probably Bardock42 knows the most. He pointed me in the direction of some lacking research 5+ years ago.
Here is a link I found:
Originally posted by dadudemon
blushingAt this point, I'm just grateful someone read and responded to my post.
To your point, a newborn baby on up until around 8 years will not be able to take care of itself. So it is actually quite important that we take care of our wee ones with healthcare and welfare. We are pretty shitty people if we cannot even ensure the right to a minimal chance at life for our children. We can expand that to our infirm and elderly, too. So that's why I think we need universal healthcare and universal basic income.
Originally posted by dadudemon
blushingAt this point, I'm just grateful someone read and responded to my post.
To your point, a newborn baby on up until around 8 years will not be able to take care of itself. So it is actually quite important that we take care of our wee ones with healthcare and welfare. We are pretty shitty people if we cannot even ensure the right to a minimal chance at life for our children. We can expand that to our infirm and elderly, too. So that's why I think we need universal healthcare and universal basic income.
That's on the parent, not on you. I didn't help make that baby so I don't have any fiscal responsibility whatsoever. If it gives you warm feels then do what you like, but it should not be mandatory. The elderly had chances to set up for their well being earlier in life. If their family wants to help them, cool, but again, not my responsibility.
The infirm, okay, I can see helping people that literally could not help themselves
Originally posted by dadudemon
[b]Pro-Choice
I would argue that from a certain point of view, the cat has more intrinsic value than a fetus.Pro-Life
However...that's because we are the supreme hunters and dominators of all life on earth, as anthropocentrically arrogant as that sounds. The right to slay an animal, which is legally defined as property in the US, under specific conditions is actually an easier case to make, ethically. And most humans will agree - to the notion that we can, conditionally, slay animals - because of our apex-ness (this word does not exist).[/B]
If the argument that the value of life depends on complexity and intelligence and not on species based division, then you'd either have to be against the killing of any animal more intelligent than a newborn human, or be fine with murdering newborn humans.
Originally posted by dadudemon
UBI is not a new concept by me. Let me be clear that I am not bright enough to have thought of something like this. Of the KMC posters, probably Bardock42 knows the most. He pointed me in the direction of some lacking research 5+ years ago.Here is a link I found:
It lost me at: A basic income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement.
You work for what you get imo. You aren't owed anything.
Originally posted by socool8520
That's on the parent, not on you. I didn't help make that baby so I don't have any fiscal responsibility whatsoever. If it gives you warm feels then do what you like, but it should not be mandatory. The elderly had chances to set up for their well being earlier in life. If their family wants to help them, cool, but again, not my responsibility.The infirm, okay, I can see helping people that literally could not help themselves
This is great!
Okay, so I would argue that children, elderly, and the infirm all fall under the same category: they cannot help themselves. We as the matured civilization much practice civility; else we are not civil.
I derive these beliefs from a few sources:
1. How I was raised.
2. My religious beliefs as a Christian (sorry, guys, Jesus was a commie hippie).
3. Economics of keeping a healthy society as highly functional as possible.
Speaking of UBI, pretty significant news broke the other day. A nearby California city, Stockton, is going to be, I believe, the first American city to try UBI next year. Will be interesting to see how it works out.
There's a difference between the moral belief that you should do something, and the belief that you should be compelled by government force to do something.
There are plenty of the people on the right who are willing to make donations to charities and other such things of their own volition, but find the government forcing them to do these things to be infringing on their rights.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Also I find this difference in point of view interesting. I personally am more anthropocentric, because it's the only position one can take without either being vegan or being okay with murdering newborn human babies.If the argument that the value of life depends on complexity and intelligence and not on species based division, then you'd either have to be against the killing of any animal more intelligent than a newborn human, or be fine with murdering newborn humans.
Right, I agree, and this is a very good point.
I do struggle with the vegan issue. Sometimes, I want to become a vegan because I do not want to harm life. Pigs are very intelligent. Similar to dogs and superior in some ways. But I love pork. A lot.
I could list about 4 different other examples but you get the point.
But at the same time, I also understand that our ancestors literally hunted and ate everything that didn't kills us. If it crawled, walked, flew, galloped, slithered, swam, or scuttled; we killed it and ate it. So at no point can any sort of egalitarian argument ever be made between humans lives and all other earthen life; we evolved to hunt and eat it all and thrived because of it. It's arrogant as hell.
But that's just one perspective. I am not committed to that argument or idea. But I do understand it and can entertain it as a viable argument.
Originally posted by dadudemon
This is great!Okay, so I would argue that children, elderly, and the infirm all fall under the same category: they cannot help themselves. We as the matured civilization much practice civility; else we are not civil.
I derive these beliefs from a few sources:
1. How I was raised.
2. My religious beliefs as a Christian (sorry, guys, Jesus was a commie hippie).
3. Economics of keeping a healthy society as highly functional as possible.
Agreed on all, even #2 and I'm not a Christian.