VA senate pushes through ultrasound/personhood bill (abortion related, slightly rapey)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
This is what I find strange, I am trying to explain my viewpoint to you because you don't understand it so why then are you trying to explain my viewpoint to me?

I'm not trying to explain your viewpoints to you, I'm pointing out the very obvious contradictions between your beliefs.

Seekster:
Murder is never morally justified no but i never said it was morally justified, just that it can be justified. The inference being that sometimes society or individuals can justify doing things that are immoral, often times they really shouldnt but that is the world we live in.

Moral absolutism does not allow for that. If murder is always wrong then it can never be justified, be it morally or otherwise. If you can justify an absolute action, morally or otherwise, then that means the action in question was never an absolute to begin with.

The only contradiction is that our society can justify immoral things (or worse convinces itself that something is not immoral) as it rots.

"Moral absolutism does not allow for that. If murder is always wrong then it can never be justified, be it morally or otherwise. If you can justify an absolute action, morally or otherwise, then that means the action in question was never an absolute to begin with."

Are we talking about what I am saying or moral absolutism? Clearly they arent the same thing if we keep having to draw distinctions between the two.

"If you can justify an absolute action, morally or otherwise, then that means the action in question was never an absolute to begin with."

So in other words if I am starving and I can justify stealing food its not immoral to steal it?

cobra_ky:

Seekster:
Since we don't know if a fertilized egg or a fetus is alive or not it only makes since to err on the side of caution. A violation of privacy can be corrected and restitution made, a violation of life cannot be corrected.

You're just repeating yourself now. How can we be any more certain that a sperm cell isn't alive? What does the word "alive" even mean?

Seekster:

Blablahb:
Indeed it is not.

You're purposely ignoring the point I was trying to make by bringing in the maximum term possible to possibly save a fetus using a huge amount of medical intervention. My criterium, like I said, was more or less independant survival being possible. This is the sole good criterium to judge if something is a separate organism or not.

Your attempt to blur the lines with senseless appeal to emotion is rather laughable, especially considering your own views.

So your test is to see if a baby can survive the birth with no medical intervention what so ever? Does that include having a doctor on hand when the baby is born?

That's not what he said at all. Of course there isn't a hard and fast boundary where a fetus becomes viable. There is a point, however, before which the odds of survival plummet rapidly, and at 24 weeks a fetus has around a 50% chance of survival. The story you linked is the first known case of an infant surviving after less than 23 weeks.

But let's stop talking about barely viable fetuses for the time being, hmmm? let's talk about why this thing supposedly has human rights:

"You're just repeating yourself now."

Of course I am, its called being consistent.

"How can we be any more certain that a sperm cell isn't alive?"

If it is then a hair cell must also be alive and that means barbers are guilty of mass murder, come now think about it.

"What does the word "alive" even mean?"

Thats actually a very good question, what do you think it means?

"The story you linked is the first known case of an infant surviving after less than 23 weeks."

Yes but the point is it CAN happen. If it can happen it would be wrong to step in and intervene unless there is a dire need to for health reasons or something of that sort.

"But let's stop talking about barely viable fetuses for the time being, hmmm? let's talk about why this thing supposedly has human rights:"

Ill actually just concede that point so we can stay on the fetuses. Like I said I don't agree with everything in the personhood argument.

Seekster:

Seanchaidh:
So either people should not consider the killing of Osama Bin Laden justified or life isn't actually sacred. If something ought to be done, it isn't immoral. Things which are immoral are only those which ought not be done.

We ought not to have killed Bin Laden and in a perfect world we wouldnt feel the urge to because in a perfect world he never would have done the things he did. This is an example of why human morality is flawed, because it has to deny something like "life is sacred" in order to justify it.

By the way I am part of society and have been corrupted too, because I don't see anything wrong with killing someone if its Bin Laden for example.

Fascinating.

Rather than see evidence against the principle, you hold to the principle and think yourself corrupted for not applying it in all cases. Would you vote for a Presidential candidate who would refuse to kill people like Osama Bin Laden? Would you consider that a good thing about a candidate?

Kendarik:

You missed a key part of the definition in your analysis:

"with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person"

So, unless the abortion doctor is intending to "abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire" then there is no crime. This already is one valid way to do the medical procedure, and is used by OBs to check on the health of fetuses when they can't get what they want from an external unit.

I don't agree with this law, but I find it silly to try and call it sexual assault.

I thought along the lines of treating someone without consent. If a doctor treats a patient without consent he has caused abuse to the patient, thus doing this procedure without consent is also considered abuse, and since it falls under the definition of sex act it could be considered sexual abuse. It could also be seen as harassment or degradation as you are trying to guilt trip the woman into changing her mind.

Yes its not a clear cut case but the precedents are there.

cobra_ky:

Kendarik:

cobra_ky:

the entire purpose of the law is to harass and humiliate women seeking an abortion.

That's an opinion, but not a fact of law.

While I personally see it as abusive, I could walk into court and argue with a straight face that the intent is to ensure the patient has sufficient information to give informed consent.

and then you'd have to explain why you voted down an amendment that required the consent of the patient prior to the procedure, and would have allowed a medical professional to determine whether a transvaginal ultrasound was actually necessary.

Because its part of the general procedure. A second consent makes no sense. Would you also ask for specific consent to use a knife to cut up the fetus? Consent to vacuum out the pieces?

Karma168:

Kendarik:

You missed a key part of the definition in your analysis:

"with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person"

So, unless the abortion doctor is intending to "abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire" then there is no crime. This already is one valid way to do the medical procedure, and is used by OBs to check on the health of fetuses when they can't get what they want from an external unit.

I don't agree with this law, but I find it silly to try and call it sexual assault.

I thought along the lines of treating someone without consent. If a doctor treats a patient without consent he has caused abuse to the patient, thus doing this procedure without consent is also considered abuse, and since it falls under the definition of sex act it could be considered sexual abuse. It could also be seen as harassment or degradation as you are trying to guilt trip the woman into changing her mind.

Well that, at best, is medical malpractice, not rape.

But as I said to KY, it makes no sense to get consent to a specific part of surgery anyway. That would simply become part of the surgery and informed consent would be given that included knowing that part would be part of the procedure.

Seanchaidh:

Seekster:

Seanchaidh:
So either people should not consider the killing of Osama Bin Laden justified or life isn't actually sacred. If something ought to be done, it isn't immoral. Things which are immoral are only those which ought not be done.

We ought not to have killed Bin Laden and in a perfect world we wouldnt feel the urge to because in a perfect world he never would have done the things he did. This is an example of why human morality is flawed, because it has to deny something like "life is sacred" in order to justify it.

By the way I am part of society and have been corrupted too, because I don't see anything wrong with killing someone if its Bin Laden for example.

Fascinating.

Rather than see evidence against the principle, you hold to the principle and think yourself corrupted for not applying it in all cases. Would you vote for a Presidential candidate who would refuse to kill people like Osama Bin Laden? Would you consider that a good thing about a candidate?

The sad thing is I wouldnt, I think Bin Laden deserved every bit of what happened to him even if I know its wrong to think that.

Seekster:
The only contradiction is that our society can justify immoral things (or worse convinces itself that something is not immoral) as it rots.

Under the belief that all life is sacred murder can never be justified. It's a moral absolute. If you don't understand what that entails then don't believe in one.

Seekster:
So in other words if I am starving and I can justify stealing food its not immoral to steal it?

Depends on the context and to which philosophy you subscribe to.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
The only contradiction is that our society can justify immoral things (or worse convinces itself that something is not immoral) as it rots.

Under the belief that all life is sacred murder can never be justified. It's a moral absolute. If you don't understand what that entails then don't believe in one.

Seekster:
So in other words if I am starving and I can justify stealing food its not immoral to steal it?

Depends on the context and to which philosophy you subscribe to.

It shouldnt be justified but people justify it anyway (or perhaps "try to justify it" would be closer to what I've been trying to say all this time).

Seekster:

It shouldnt be justified but people justify it anyway (or perhaps "try to justify it" would be closer to what I've been trying to say all this time).

Whether an action is right or wrong depends entirely on the context in which it is commited. That's why moral absolutism fails as a philosophy. Anyways, now that we cleared that up please answer my question. Do you agree that only intelligent life is sacred?

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:

It shouldnt be justified but people justify it anyway (or perhaps "try to justify it" would be closer to what I've been trying to say all this time).

Whether an action is right or wrong depends entirely on the context in which it is commited. That's why moral absolutism fails as a philosophy. Anyways, now that we cleared that up please answer my question. Do you agree that only intelligent life is sacred?

All life is sacred but not all life is equally sacred. The life an an ant for example is not equally sacred to that of a human being.

Seekster:

Olrod:

Seekster:

Look in the solar system, how many worlds other than Earth support life (possibly a handful but as far as we know right now none)? How many support intelligent life (hopefully just Earth)? Now expand both questions to the galaxy or even the universe. Even IF life is as prevalent in the Universe as the most optimistic estimates predict, its still the exception and not the rule and so life should be treated with at least some degree of reverence, not savagely violated and then tossed in the garbage.

You mean like what nature has been doing for millions upon millions of years?

Seekster:

Nobody has refuted my points (trying is nice but nobody has succeeded).

You've yet to make a single point that is valid to begin with. Trying is nice but you've not succeeded.

On this planet sure.

Valid does not equal you agree with it. There are several points people on this site make that I don't agree with but due to intellectual honesty I have to acknowledge they still have a valid point.

LOL. No.

Just because you disagree with all the refutations people have made of your points, doesn't make them invalid.

See? We can do this all day long.

Olrod:

Seekster:

Olrod:

You mean like what nature has been doing for millions upon millions of years?

You've yet to make a single point that is valid to begin with. Trying is nice but you've not succeeded.

On this planet sure.

Valid does not equal you agree with it. There are several points people on this site make that I don't agree with but due to intellectual honesty I have to acknowledge they still have a valid point.

LOL. No.

Just because you disagree with all the refutations people have made of your points, doesn't make them invalid.

See? We can do this all day long.

No thats not what makes it invalid. Just because you don't agree with my points doesnt make it invalid either.

Seekster:

All life is sacred but not all life is equally sacred. The life an an ant for example is not equally sacred to that of a human being.

I've explained it to you numerous times that moral absolutism doesn't work that way. What are you not getting here? It feels like you ignored two days worth of explaining.

Seekster:
All life is sacred but not all life is equally sacred. The life an an ant for example is not equally sacred to that of a human being.

Why?

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:

All life is sacred but not all life is equally sacred. The life an an ant for example is not equally sacred to that of a human being.

I've explained it to you numerous times that moral absolutism doesn't work that way. What are you not getting here? It feels like you ignored two days worth of explaining.

I've explained to you many times too that my argument is not moral absolutism.

Do you disagree that not everything is equally sacred?

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
All life is sacred but not all life is equally sacred. The life an an ant for example is not equally sacred to that of a human being.

Why?

That is a philosophical argument, but it is demonstrably true. Its why hunting isnt considered murder.

Seekster:

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
All life is sacred but not all life is equally sacred. The life an an ant for example is not equally sacred to that of a human being.

Why?

That is a philosophical argument, but it is demonstrably true. Its why hunting isnt considered murder.

That didn't answer my question.

I mostly agree with the statement, but I want you to explain to me WHY that is true.

Seekster:
I've explained to you many times too that my argument is not moral absolutism.

Now you're just being willingly ignorant. You made an absolute statement, how can your argument not be based on moral absolutism?

Seekster:

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
All life is sacred but not all life is equally sacred. The life an an ant for example is not equally sacred to that of a human being.

Why?

That is a philosophical argument, but it is demonstrably true. Its why hunting isnt considered murder.

Really? Then demonstrate it.

Seekster:

Seanchaidh:
Fascinating.

Rather than see evidence against the principle, you hold to the principle and think yourself corrupted for not applying it in all cases. Would you vote for a Presidential candidate who would refuse to kill people like Osama Bin Laden? Would you consider that a good thing about a candidate?

The sad thing is I wouldnt, I think Bin Laden deserved every bit of what happened to him even if I know its wrong to think that.

And I know it isn't wrong to think that. :)

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
I've explained to you many times too that my argument is not moral absolutism.

Now you're just being willingly ignorant. You made an absolute statement, how can your argument not be based on moral absolutism?

What? How was my statement an absolute?

See Spot Run:

Seekster:

See Spot Run:

Why?

That is a philosophical argument, but it is demonstrably true. Its why hunting isnt considered murder.

That didn't answer my question.

I mostly agree with the statement, but I want you to explain to me WHY that is true.

I am not sure I can answer that question in a way that accurately explains why. Can you?

Seekster:
snip

What do you mean why it's an absolute? Because it follows the basic pattern of an absolute sentence.

"All life is sacred"
"All murderers are evil"
"All children are naive"
"All X are Y"

It doesn't allow for any sort of wiggle room. It assumes that if X is Y then X will always be Y no matter the situation. It's in the wording, it's not a particularly hard concept to gasp.

Seekster:
I am not sure I can answer that question in a way that accurately explains why. Can you?

I know why I believe that not all life is of equal value, but my ability to explain it doesn't matter to the question at hand. I want you to explain to the thread why you believe that all life is not of equal value. Stop stalling, and reason it out.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
I am not sure I can answer that question in a way that accurately explains why. Can you?

I know why I believe that not all life is of equal value, but my ability to explain it doesn't matter to the question at hand. I want you to explain to the thread why you believe that all life is not of equal value. Stop stalling, and reason it out.

I can answer that question for you, it is basic psychology. To Seekster his religious beliefs say that life is sacred, however in practice we kill animals and other people on a daily basis and he knows this. He himself eats the flesh of killed animals and supports a political party that is all to willing to execute prisoners and go to war.

He has three choices at hand. Choice one is to speak out against all forms of harm, so he would have to become a vegan as well as speak out against the government for engaging in war as well as executing prisoners. This choice is rarely taken by anyone.

Choice two is to change his religious beliefs to fit with his behaviour. This is also rare, not as rare as the first choice though.

Choice three is to alter current beliefs in a way that does not effect them yet justifies his actions. This is the one that a large majority of people take.

In the case of Seekster it is choice three, so he comes to the conclusion that "All life is sacred, but some is not as sacred as others". This allows him to continue on his merry way without making any real change to beliefs or behaviour. There is no real justification for the belief other than it allows him to continue his current behaviour and beliefs.

See Spot Run:
I know why I believe that not all life is of equal value, but my ability to explain it doesn't matter to the question at hand...

To be fair to Seekster, your inability to explain it can be used as an excuse for himself: if you cannot explain it, yet adhere to it, why should we expect him to be able to what you cannot? His inability means nothing in context.

Generally speaking, life other than human life is considered a secondary priority to human life. This is a byproduct of an entirely human civilisation, and a world where we are the only life form to have evolved to a state of "self awareness". It's an evolved trait of most "intelligent" social life forms: protect the whole at the expense of all else. We consider human life to be of greater important because we are human; we understand ourselves better than we understand that rest of the world.

While we do prioritise the welfare the animals in our care, we don't place their own importance above our own. Generally, this is because we consider animal life "replaceable". If your dog dies, you get another one. If your father dies, he's irreplaceable.

Zeh Don:

See Spot Run:
I know why I believe that not all life is of equal value, but my ability to explain it doesn't matter to the question at hand...

To be fair to Seekster, your inability to explain it can be used as an excuse for himself: if you cannot explain it, yet adhere to it, why should we expect him to be able to what you cannot? His inability means nothing in context.

Uh, I'm pretty sure See Spot Run said that he can explain why he thinks that...

pyrate:

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
I am not sure I can answer that question in a way that accurately explains why. Can you?

I know why I believe that not all life is of equal value, but my ability to explain it doesn't matter to the question at hand. I want you to explain to the thread why you believe that all life is not of equal value. Stop stalling, and reason it out.

I can answer that question for you, it is basic psychology. To Seekster his religious beliefs say that life is sacred, however in practice we kill animals and other people on a daily basis and he knows this. He himself eats the flesh of killed animals and supports a political party that is all to willing to execute prisoners and go to war.

He has three choices at hand. Choice one is to speak out against all forms of harm, so he would have to become a vegan as well as speak out against the government for engaging in war as well as executing prisoners. This choice is rarely taken by anyone.

Choice two is to change his religious beliefs to fit with his behaviour. This is also rare, not as rare as the first choice though.

Choice three is to alter current beliefs in a way that does not effect them yet justifies his actions. This is the one that a large majority of people take.

In the case of Seekster it is choice three, so he comes to the conclusion that "All life is sacred, but some is not as sacred as others". This allows him to continue on his merry way without making any real change to beliefs or behaviour. There is no real justification for the belief other than it allows him to continue his current behaviour and beliefs.

image

FFS.

Yes. I know that. Thank you.

I want SEEKSTER's reasoning.

MoNKeyYy:

mdk31:
Isn't non-consensual penetration considered rape? Good to know the GOP are proponents of rape.

Strictly speaking, this would be consentual. The woman would have knowledge, or the access to the knowledge, that they would recieve a trans-vaginal ultrasound as part of their abortion and by accepting the abortion they consent to any procedure that coincides. From a legal point of view, this is par for the course.

I'm actually more okay with this than I thought I would be soley because of the alternative, which is an outright ban on abortion. In a state with a Republican supermajority this would be an incredibly easy process, but the fact that the bill they've passed so far is only biased is nice. To play devil's advocate a bit, they're only trying to help people make informed choices, even if they think "informed" is "exactly what we want you to do". That being said, I still don't like this law and think it's quite terrible that proponants of less government intervention in people's lives are so directly imposing themselves on people.

I suppose you're right. In any event, if I were a woman in that state who wanted an abortion, I'd just take an hour's drive and go to a neighboring state and get it there.

Kendarik:

cobra_ky:

Kendarik:

That's an opinion, but not a fact of law.

While I personally see it as abusive, I could walk into court and argue with a straight face that the intent is to ensure the patient has sufficient information to give informed consent.

and then you'd have to explain why you voted down an amendment that required the consent of the patient prior to the procedure, and would have allowed a medical professional to determine whether a transvaginal ultrasound was actually necessary.

Because its part of the general procedure. A second consent makes no sense. Would you also ask for specific consent to use a knife to cut up the fetus? Consent to vacuum out the pieces?

but it wasn't a part of the procedure, until this law mandated that it had to be.

cobra_ky:

Kendarik:

cobra_ky:

and then you'd have to explain why you voted down an amendment that required the consent of the patient prior to the procedure, and would have allowed a medical professional to determine whether a transvaginal ultrasound was actually necessary.

Because its part of the general procedure. A second consent makes no sense. Would you also ask for specific consent to use a knife to cut up the fetus? Consent to vacuum out the pieces?

but it wasn't a part of the procedure, until this law mandated that it had to be.

Actually they do an ultrasound before and sometimes during the procedure (although the internal technique is less common except on obese women).

In any event, once its part of the procedure by law its part of the same informed consent.

Kendarik:

cobra_ky:

Kendarik:

Because its part of the general procedure. A second consent makes no sense. Would you also ask for specific consent to use a knife to cut up the fetus? Consent to vacuum out the pieces?

but it wasn't a part of the procedure, until this law mandated that it had to be.

Actually they do an ultrasound before and sometimes during the procedure (although the internal technique is less common except on obese women).

In any event, once its part of the procedure by law its part of the same informed consent.

Alright then, I'll just introduce a bill requiring all women undergoing abortions to consent to a tracheotomy.

These are medical decisions that should be made between doctors and patients, not by legislators with no background in medicine.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
snip

What do you mean why it's an absolute? Because it follows the basic pattern of an absolute sentence.

"All life is sacred"
"All murderers are evil"
"All children are naive"
"All X are Y"

It doesn't allow for any sort of wiggle room. It assumes that if X is Y then X will always be Y no matter the situation. It's in the wording, it's not a particularly hard concept to gasp.

Yes all life is sacred but then when you try and say that all life has to be equally sacred I don't see where you are coming from. This discussion is becoming circular and I don't see it going anywhere unless there is some kind of breakthrough.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
I am not sure I can answer that question in a way that accurately explains why. Can you?

I know why I believe that not all life is of equal value, but my ability to explain it doesn't matter to the question at hand. I want you to explain to the thread why you believe that all life is not of equal value. Stop stalling, and reason it out.

Ignoring Pyrate's insultingly inane analysis (which was incorrect by the way).

I am not sure if being sentient is the right measure but its close to it. Basically life that can appreciate itself and is aware of itself and which is able to operate outside of instinct should be considered more sacred. As I said, all life is sacred, but all life is not equally sacred.

Sean asked me to demonstrate this and I will do so. Treating human beings as property was seen as morally wrong even back during the days when slavery was legal (though attempts were made to justify slavery on economic and later even ethical grounds based on ignorant theories of white supremacy). There are no such qualms about treating animals as property. For a recent and somewhat humorous example we have PETA suing Sea World on behalf of its Orcas which PETA claims have been enslaved. One of the ironies is that one of the Orcas would be guilty of murder or at least manslaughter if it were treated with the same level of sanctity as a human life and given the same rights and responsibilities (one of them is the one who drowned it's trainer a while back if you remember that story).

So you see the question of why we behave in this way is a deep philosophical one, yet we can no more deny that human life is more sacred than that of non-sentient animals than we can deny that the sun brings light in warmth, we knew this to be true long before we knew why it was true.

cobra_ky:

Kendarik:

cobra_ky:

but it wasn't a part of the procedure, until this law mandated that it had to be.

Actually they do an ultrasound before and sometimes during the procedure (although the internal technique is less common except on obese women).

In any event, once its part of the procedure by law its part of the same informed consent.

Alright then, I'll just introduce a bill requiring all women undergoing abortions to consent to a tracheotomy.

These are medical decisions that should be made between doctors and patients, not by legislators with no background in medicine.

I'll say it one more time...I don't disagree that it should be a medical decision and I don't support the law.

All I've said in this thread is that calling it rape is wrong, and insisting on a separate consent is stupid.

As for the tracheotomy, that is completed related to the surgery so it would be medical malpractice so no doctor would be able to do it and it would become an effective ban. That would create constitutional problems with the law in the US.

The use of internal ultrasound is one of two valid techniques currently in use and medically approved as part of an abortion. This makes it significantly different than your example.

Kendarik:

Well that, at best, is medical malpractice, not rape.

But as I said to KY, it makes no sense to get consent to a specific part of surgery anyway. That would simply become part of the surgery and informed consent would be given that included knowing that part would be part of the procedure.

It's not clear, I'm sure someone could make a convincing argument either way.

And people give partial consent all the time; for example a Jehovah's witness could have surgery but refuse blood transfusions. The type of surgery you undergo can also change dependent on your wishes.

The woman should still be able to refuse internal ultrasound if she doesn't want it

Kendarik:

The use of internal ultrasound is one of two valid techniques currently in use and medically approved as part of an abortion. This makes it significantly different than your example.

The part you are ignoring is that one of the two techniques only become valid when the other is no longer a viable option. Ergo it's a completely needless procedure and testament to malpractice, which in virtually any other circumstance would result in a fat lawsuit. Keep in mind this procedure is extremely invasive, I'm sure many lawyers would argue it is indeed rape/sexual assault as it fits the definition.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked