|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:15 pm
WatersMoon110 divineseraph WatersMoon110 divineseraph WatersMoon110 divineseraph But who would you be to determine those morals to be absolute? Could you explain what you mean? I'm not sure exactly what you are asking me. Thanks! Well, who are you to say that such moral values should be legeslated? You mean the laws the way they are? Yes. Should they be changed to exlude bothersome elderly from protection, would you fight that law? I don't see that as a law that anyone would attempt to pass (since older people have the right to vote, after all). I don't think I would need to fight it, because I don't think it's a law that could pass. Most Congress People are older, after all. And I didn't think they could pass a law excluding unborn humans from protection. Most Congress People were feti at one point, after all. Again, mind if I steal your signature move? Anyway, you avoid the question, once again. Would you fight the law? Yes or no.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:40 am
divineseraph And I didn't think they could pass a law excluding unborn humans from protection. Most Congress People were feti at one point, after all. Again, mind if I steal your signature move? Anyway, you avoid the question, once again. Would you fight the law? Yes or no. Signature move? You mean the moving kitty? I'm confused. I don't fight laws that I don't see as having a chance of passing. Though I disagree with this law, I don't see the point in fighting it, since (like I said) older people can vote, and Congress is made up of many older people. These people would vote against the law, and so I feel it would never get to the stage that I would ever need to fight it. So I guess the answer is no, I wouldn't fight it, because I wouldn't have to, in this universe. It would never pass any Congress (State or Federal), and even if it did, enough older people can vote that it would be voted down. I would vote against it (though I don't think it could ever get to that stage), if it made it to voting. But I don't see any point in fighting a law that wouldn't pass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:08 pm
I'm pretty sure it's safe to assume that in this scenario, such a thing has a good chance of passing. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's reasonable to assume that in this scenario, it has a good chance of passing, considering what it's being compared to and what question is being asked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 6:53 pm
WatersMoon110 divineseraph And I didn't think they could pass a law excluding unborn humans from protection. Most Congress People were feti at one point, after all. Again, mind if I steal your signature move? Anyway, you avoid the question, once again. Would you fight the law? Yes or no. Signature move? You mean the moving kitty? I'm confused. I don't fight laws that I don't see as having a chance of passing. Though I disagree with this law, I don't see the point in fighting it, since (like I said) older people can vote, and Congress is made up of many older people. These people would vote against the law, and so I feel it would never get to the stage that I would ever need to fight it. So I guess the answer is no, I wouldn't fight it, because I wouldn't have to, in this universe. It would never pass any Congress (State or Federal), and even if it did, enough older people can vote that it would be voted down. I would vote against it (though I don't think it could ever get to that stage), if it made it to voting. But I don't see any point in fighting a law that wouldn't pass. This is not the point. You are hopping around this question like a rabbit. In this scenario, the law is passed. It IS now legal to kill intrusive or bothersome elders. In this hypothetical reality, it IS the law. what do you do? No more cop-outs, no more "Well, it probably won't happen"'s. And again, many did not think that it could not POSSIBLY be made law for human feti to be slaughtered en masse, especially considering, again, that all congresspeople were once feti. By that same logic, they would need to turn down this vote too, and thus nobody should ever worry about abortion and abortion should never exist by law. Oh, and by signature move, I meant your grin. I seem to be hitting a nerve here, with this analogy. Why else would you dodge the question so many times?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 7:16 pm
Just a general reminder to everyone who happens in here or is in here or whatever, we want to keep things civil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 7:51 pm
I don't think she's dodging the question, divine; The way you are phrasing it is very confusing. Until just now, I didn't get it either.
He's saying that, assuming a universe where this law is already in place and the elderly are no longer considered people, would you fight to overturn such laws?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:07 pm
I.Am I don't think she's dodging the question, divine; The way you are phrasing it is very confusing. Until just now, I didn't get it either. He's saying that, assuming a universe where this law is already in place and the elderly are no longer considered people, would you fight to overturn such laws? Oh. I really had no clue what he was trying to get at. Thank you (and Divine and Lyme) for explaining it in a way that I can understand! I see what the question is now. In such a universe (where a law has been passed making it legal to kill older people), I would fight against such a law. Since I feel that bodily integrity and the lack of an immediate alternative is the only reason that abortion should be elective, I would of course, oppose a law that made it legal to kill older people. Since older people are not living inside anyone, and there are immediate ways to get someone else to care for them (like calling a hospital and getting them admitted), I don't feel such a law should exist. I think that all stages of humanity (and some non-human animals, like great apes and dolphins) should have equal rights. Boy, I was so confused for a while there. I'm glad we got what the question actually was cleared up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:10 pm
divineseraph This is not the point. You are hopping around this question like a rabbit. In this scenario, the law is passed. It IS now legal to kill intrusive or bothersome elders. In this hypothetical reality, it IS the law. what do you do? No more cop-outs, no more "Well, it probably won't happen"'s. And again, many did not think that it could not POSSIBLY be made law for human feti to be slaughtered en masse, especially considering, again, that all congresspeople were once feti. By that same logic, they would need to turn down this vote too, and thus nobody should ever worry about abortion and abortion should never exist by law. Oh, and by signature move, I meant your grin. I seem to be hitting a nerve here, with this analogy. Why else would you dodge the question so many times? I'm sorry, but I was very confused what you were asking. I thought you meant a possible law, and not a law that had already been passed. I'm truly sorry that my mistake seems to have upset you, because I really didn't intend to "dance around" the answer you were looking for, I just didn't understand what exactly the question you were asking was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 4:58 pm
WatersMoon110 I.Am I don't think she's dodging the question, divine; The way you are phrasing it is very confusing. Until just now, I didn't get it either. He's saying that, assuming a universe where this law is already in place and the elderly are no longer considered people, would you fight to overturn such laws? Oh. I really had no clue what he was trying to get at. Thank you (and Divine and Lyme) for explaining it in a way that I can understand! I see what the question is now. In such a universe (where a law has been passed making it legal to kill older people), I would fight against such a law. Since I feel that bodily integrity and the lack of an immediate alternative is the only reason that abortion should be elective, I would of course, oppose a law that made it legal to kill older people. Since older people are not living inside anyone, and there are immediate ways to get someone else to care for them (like calling a hospital and getting them admitted), I don't feel such a law should exist. I think that all stages of humanity (and some non-human animals, like great apes and dolphins) should have equal rights. Boy, I was so confused for a while there. I'm glad we got what the question actually was cleared up. The point of this was to show that you too are capable of putting the right to a life ahead of the right to end one, thus making you "anti-choice" in this one respect. Not that I expected much less from you, but I am thinking this would have a much larger impact against a more militant choicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:34 pm
divineseraph The point of this was to show that you too are capable of putting the right to a life ahead of the right to end one, thus making you "anti-choice" in this one respect. Not that I expected much less from you, but I am thinking this would have a much larger impact against a more militant choicer. That's kind of an arrogant way to put it. Every Pro-Choice person knows that they aren't actually "Pro-All-Choices," because there are lots of choices at present that almost every human on the planet knows should be illegal. Full-on murder, for instance, or rape. And it is fine to argue that Pro-Choice is a bad name for supporters of abortion because of it, and I would agree with that, but, as was stated in another thread, nit-picking about the meanings of words is a waste of time that draws attention away from the actual argument, and weakens your own stance because it looks like you're arguing semantics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:21 am
divineseraph The point of this was to show that you too are capable of putting the right to a life ahead of the right to end one, thus making you "anti-choice" in this one respect. Not that I expected much less from you, but I am thinking this would have a much larger impact against a more militant choicer. I still find the term "anti-choice" rather offensive. Anyway - I don't think that anyone has the "right to end [a life]". I simply feel that the right to bodily integrity and the lack of an immediate alternative that doesn't result in death mean that abortion should be legal and elective up until medical viability. I could have said that to begin with, and we wouldn't have had to go through this confusing bit about killing older people (confusing for me, at least), which both of us are against. If you do take this argument to more "militant choicer " I would suggest starting with the alternative universe bit, because that was what got me to understand what you were getting at.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:52 am
I.Am divineseraph The point of this was to show that you too are capable of putting the right to a life ahead of the right to end one, thus making you "anti-choice" in this one respect. Not that I expected much less from you, but I am thinking this would have a much larger impact against a more militant choicer. That's kind of an arrogant way to put it. Every Pro-Choice person knows that they aren't actually "Pro-All-Choices," because there are lots of choices at present that almost every human on the planet knows should be illegal. Full-on murder, for instance, or rape. And it is fine to argue that Pro-Choice is a bad name for supporters of abortion because of it, and I would agree with that, but, as was stated in another thread, nit-picking about the meanings of words is a waste of time that draws attention away from the actual argument, and weakens your own stance because it looks like you're arguing semantics. There was no mention of definitions- This was a comparison of several of they key values of the pro-choice stance. The right to end the life of another IF the other poses a burdon to oneself, primarily. Tossed in were bits of the hardship both lives would have should the life continue, as well as the state of the lfie in question - as in, lower mental status, weakened physical state, dependancy, the likes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:25 pm
But Waters, you're assuming that such a thing could only happen in an alternate universe. You may feel it could never happen, but that's not the case. History has shown us that people who were once considered people can be stripped of personhood, for sillier reasons than being old and in the way. It's not implausible that such a thing could happen. Whether or not it could happen in our lifetime is a different matter. Just as surely as you believe that could never pass, people believed at one point that abortion could never be legal the way it is today. There are places in the world now where elderly people are encouraged to submit to euthanasia, so that they stop inconveniencing their family; what's to say that 200, 300 years from now, or maybe even sooner, that won't be taken a step further? Times change, situations change, social norms change. Even people who are seen as heroes can raise public support for terrible things, and a lot of it. Let's not forget Margaret Sanger and her "segregation or sterilization," suggestion. It's no secret that a lot of her points in favor of abortion rested on certain people not being fit to reproduce, and we see that argument coming up even today in abortion debates. Yet it was marketed as appealing; people accepted it. If it wasn't for WWII, those things might have actually happened, but the war sort of cured people of their love for eugenics. I wouldn't be surprised if some social change took place in our lifetime and made it possible. I don't expect it to happen, but it wouldn't surprise me.
So really, he doesn't need to explain anything about alternate universes, because worse things have happened in our universe. Worse things are happening now in other parts of the world, and as unlikely as it is that anything would carry over here in the near future, there is no guarantee that we will always be the way we are today. He can make it clear that in the scenario the measure is almost entirely sure to pass or has passed, but that's all he really needs to do.
I do agree with you that it wouldn't be likely to pass anytime soon. I also feel that it's a different situation, but then there is no situation quite like pregnancy, as Beware always says. But I don't think an alternate universe would be necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:08 pm
Yeah, it's actually a very popular post-apocolyptic story; A future where overpopulation makes mandatory euthanasia of people over a certain age, usually 50 or 60 but sometimes 35, the law. Frequently includes abortion too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:14 am
lymelady But Waters, you're assuming that such a thing could only happen in an alternate universe. You may feel it could never happen, but that's not the case. History has shown us that people who were once considered people can be stripped of personhood, for sillier reasons than being old and in the way. It's not implausible that such a thing could happen. Whether or not it could happen in our lifetime is a different matter. Just as surely as you believe that could never pass, people believed at one point that abortion could never be legal the way it is today. There are places in the world now where elderly people are encouraged to submit to euthanasia, so that they stop inconveniencing their family; what's to say that 200, 300 years from now, or maybe even sooner, that won't be taken a step further? Times change, situations change, social norms change. Even people who are seen as heroes can raise public support for terrible things, and a lot of it. Let's not forget Margaret Sanger and her "segregation or sterilization," suggestion. It's no secret that a lot of her points in favor of abortion rested on certain people not being fit to reproduce, and we see that argument coming up even today in abortion debates. Yet it was marketed as appealing; people accepted it. If it wasn't for WWII, those things might have actually happened, but the war sort of cured people of their love for eugenics. I wouldn't be surprised if some social change took place in our lifetime and made it possible. I don't expect it to happen, but it wouldn't surprise me. So really, he doesn't need to explain anything about alternate universes, because worse things have happened in our universe. Worse things are happening now in other parts of the world, and as unlikely as it is that anything would carry over here in the near future, there is no guarantee that we will always be the way we are today. He can make it clear that in the scenario the measure is almost entirely sure to pass or has passed, but that's all he really needs to do. I do agree with you that it wouldn't be likely to pass anytime soon. I also feel that it's a different situation, but then there is no situation quite like pregnancy, as Beware always says. But I don't think an alternate universe would be necessary. But in 200 or 300 years, I won't be alive to fight any law. I didn't say it couldn't pass, ever. I said it couldn't pass in our society. I just don't feel that this is a law I would ever have to fight, unless it were an alternate me in an alternate universe. I also agree that nothing is quite like pregnancy. It's a pretty singular situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
