-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious Political and economic discussion thread
- Thread starter Diophantine
- Start date
Uhh, yea it is, and there's nothing wrong with doing that. You can also choose to not have unprotected sex, but even then, there's always still a looming risk with contraceptives (i.e. condoms can break despite the 96% success rate, and there have been, albiet incredibly minimal, a few cases of pregnancy even with an IUD, etc.) not to say they aren't reliable. Needless to say, you didn't bust anything.
If that isn't the issue, what is?
Well true it's obviously much easier said than done but there are around 3% of peeps who were virgin on their wedding day so those guys certainly exist. Just saying :P
How lewd ><
Come protest my house, I've killed people by refusing to donate blood.
Asek
Banned deucer.
is anyone here familiar iwth skowroneks 'political time' model? i was sceptical of it wen i first herrd of it and thought i might have been looking at data points and putting a model onto it without much future validity but looking at obama & trump they fit the models of a politics of preemeption and apolitics of disjunction president respectively wuote well. if the dems can put a storng candidate up in 2020 (i.e - not hllaru) i think there might be some srious spac for a progressive president to reshape american political orthodoxy in a similat way to how regan did. wondering if any domestic amercans know what im talking about and think that its a possibility, who would be a good candidate to fulfill this etc
Let's dissect your argument, though know that I am in no way in stalwart support of either side as I am not a woman so obviously I will never experience childbirth or an abortion.
What do you define as life? What do you define as pain? Does the pains of a pregnancy trump the pain a fetus may undergo? Does the life of a fetus overrule the life of the individual carrying it? What about if the individual cannot support a child, as is the case for many lower class individuals? Is it more humane to bring up the child in a subpar life where they may go without basic necessities, or more aptly creature comforts such as modern medicine or education? Why? Does the existence of life always trump non-life?
I will start by answering these questions I've proposed in my own words, to potentially provide my views.
I would define life as beginning when an individual can exist on their own, through no help of their host. This would qualify fetus' after ~20 weeks, according to this study done by several MDs at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Until that stage the fetus must rely entirely on the mother, making the fetus a part of the mother by extension. A fetus is not life itself, rather it is the potential for life, the seed. There is absolutely no guarantee that simply because you have passed conception that you'll have a baby delivered to your doorstep depending on your shipping and handling, it simply means it MIGHT work out. This maybe is a big flag in my opinion. While there is no exact cutoff date for when life conceptually begins, science does give us some pretty decent estimations, using creation of organs and the brain as a basis. 20 weeks is also fairly generous, as if pulled out too early there is no guarantee that the fetus would survive, or doing so would mean living in whatever the modern equivalent of an iron lung is now (i dont know medical practices that well). I believe the consensus is more the third trimester is where the fetus can live a comfortable percentage of the time.
What do you define as pain? Pain is one of those psychological processes that simply cannot be quantified in any way, similar to happiness, or anger. It's important to think about what is pain, as that is the premise the precautionary principle rests on. Pain is, put simply, a reaction in the brain's cortex, that sends alarm bells ringing when you experience a "sensation." This is abstract for a reason. Pain, and our entire concept of what is painful, what is not, is entirely subjective and built upon the experiences we have throughout childhood, which can explain why certain practices are considered morally OK for children to undergo, because a child cannot "feel pain" in the same sense as an adult because they have no empirical basis for what is painful until they experience it. Just some examples are ear piercing, or circumcision. Those examples are just two of medical professionals or other professionals providing procedures that we know 100% cause pain, yet are permissible for children. If you're interested in reading more about the studies on pre-natal emotions and fetus neurobiology then I suggest checking out this controversial lecture from a psychology professor at University of Birmingham. The short point of the matter is, not only is it questionable if those who have not actually experienced a "painful" procedure can feel pain or at least conceptualize an identical idea of pain that compares to a more mature perspective, it is likely that fetus' before a certain point simply do not have the neurobiological factors that can create pain as we know it to begin with. This article describes in more detail what neurobiological factors must be present for pain to be felt, and the consensus is that the part of the cortex that controls the higher states of pain simply does not appear until around the ~23-25 week mark.
You bring up the precautionary principle but I would argue that the concept is flawed to begin with. We know that pregnancy can cause pain to the host, may result in killing the host, and functions more as a parasite than as any other concept until at least the third trimester. Considering the idea that humans are equal to one another and disregarding any utilitarian concept, as well as knowing there is no guarantee that a fetus will grow to be a human, we can come to the conclusion that this scenario of "mother versus child" is more accurate to "human versus potential human." To take the precautionary principle and apply it strictly to the fetus entirely ignores the mother's struggles, and paints a picture that the fetus is anthropomorphized, which is simply not the case. The fetus is more equivalent to a cocoon, an in between state of human and not human, and represents the potentiality of life more so than a coherent tangible definition of life. In this case I would argue that the principle is now a question between a citizen of society and a potential citizen of society, and in the event that one cannot be sure you must protect the choices of the individual who already exists.
What in your mind is the difference between an abortion and contraceptives? They both achieve the same thing don't they, albeit at roughly different intervals. A sperm and egg cell represent the potentiality of life just as conveniently as a fetus prior to the third trimester does. Is there a certain cutoff date for when that potentiality becomes reality? Why?
So to reiterate these questions for you: What defines "life"? Are people guaranteed a right to life? Why? Is it more humane to not permit existence than to force existence on something? Why? What is pain? Is some pain worth less than others? What defines that boundary? What is the equivalent of a life? Does potentiality of life come before an already existing entity? Why? Why not?
I would very much like to hear your answers to the questions I propose. Hopefully they can get you to clarify a few things on how your perception of the world works, and force you to substantiate your ideas a little more, or at least begin to question them. If you have any questions or proposals for me I would be more than happy to provide answers as best I can.
You brought up some really good points here, that was a great read! This is not me so much debunking as much as I am trying to outline discrepancy. Even if a fetus (or any life outside of a fetus) has to rely on something to keep it alive, to me that doesn't disprove whether it's factually a life or not. It can outline and rationalize when it may be the most humane to kill that life, but I don't believe that itself defines life. When you're defining life, it can't just apply to a fetus, it has to apply to all life as a whole in order to be consistent in the law. For instance, let's say you were in a coma, you can't feel any pain, but you have to rely on machines to keep you quote unquote alive in hopes of some brain activity returning. With your definition you explained, if you were in that coma, can I stab you and not get charged for murder? In my sincere opinion I would hope not lol. Think of it this way as well, let's say your parents had you by accident, it's not even the end of the first trimester. Given you've lived for how long you've lived and what you've been able to do in your life up to this point, do you believe your parents have the right to kill you and rip that opportunity away from you, because you were "not sentient and can't feel pain?" I don't think your parents can really assume what you want at that time, so they shouldn't justify their decision based on that. I also whole-heartedly understand that the kid can get into the unfortunate circumstances of being born into a lower class family, often without the proper means to support them. If the parents choose they can't take on the kid, let's say, there are foster and adoption agencies for that reason that have families that can love and properly support the kid. Granted, I don't think the system is perfect, far from it, there is a shitty minority of people that abuse it for money, as with any programs, but it's much better than nothing at all. There is still a majority that have their hearts in the right place and adopt/foster for the right reasons. Anyone that abuses the privileges you get from those programs should feel the fullest extent of the law and have to face the consequences of their actions. Not to mention new policy can be implemented to better protect from those situations. Now, let's say the parents do keep the kid in their care. I'm a full believer that the child can put some serious elbow grease (through school, work ethic in jobs and studying) in and get themselves out of that type of living situation. They have the right to dictate how they want to live their life regardless, that all comes down to liberty. You're in control of your decision making, but it does matter. However, I do acknowledge that a kid needs to learn they have that ability and access to equal opportunity to that in order to be able to accomplish getting out of poverty, which is much much much easier said than done, and it comes down to chance more times than not. You do need meaning in your life in order to discover you have purpose. Good role models, such as family members and teachers especially, have that innate ability to bring that into spotlight. It all comes down to humanitarianism, but I think you knew very well there are morons in this world that need to be accounted for as well. Not to mention, there are programs that are meant to benefit those along the way. Scholarships, government aid, transportation, welfare (especially in the scope of access to food, oftentimes shelter, and extra funds to get you by), and government vouchers to better schools (used from $4k out of the $5k allotted to you as a child from the government education budget every year). Not that these are perfect, I don't think they ever can be, but once again, much much better than being left alone with nothing at all. Equality of opportunity is something that the United States has accomplished over the timeline of years and fixed mistakes along the way, equality of outcome is unfortunately near impossible (and not beneficial), even if you do it's unbelievably dangerous and doesn't allow for those that put in the extra grind to get ahead as they may deserve (that's why I've argued against Socialism previously). You work, I eat, slavery as defined by Lincoln, is completely unfair, those who grew the harvest should have the rights to it, so to speak.
All of that being said, I think it's unfair to compare a fetus to an actual parasite. It may correlate with parasites by definition, but that doesn't mean you swat at it because it's using up your life energy. I think the distinction that needs to be made is that you created that life, that "described parasite." If you were to apply that to ticks, lets say, you didn't create them obviously, but you might have unwillingly harbored them. Fetus's are different, people mess up, but my overwhelming point is the fetus shouldn't be to blame, and it shouldn't be terminated out of uncomfort.
Last edited:
Not to mention women who had abortions have a drastic increase in their suicide rates along with depression so it's a huge lie to say abortion is pro-women when it's very much very damaging to a women's physical and mental health even if it saves the convenience of her not needing to endure the pregnancy and consequences after labour.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abortion-leads-to-increased-risk-of-suicide-death-depression-study
Now the mainstream media via disney and planned parenthood is pushing this propaganda on children saying abortion is no big deal when I BET a lot of them are aware that women who did had an abortion are significantly more vulnerable to suicide.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-had-second-thoughts/?utm_term=.679c93335fab
Jeez just what kind of world are we living in, and leftists ask why conservatives, centralist, libertarians and classic liberals to a certain degree find the mainstream media highly questionable and UN-trustworthy. Children are NOT OLD ENOUGH to be exposed to such controversy and life changing decisions. Forcing political correctness on children is literally child abuse to the pinnacle degree.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abortion-leads-to-increased-risk-of-suicide-death-depression-study
Now the mainstream media via disney and planned parenthood is pushing this propaganda on children saying abortion is no big deal when I BET a lot of them are aware that women who did had an abortion are significantly more vulnerable to suicide.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-had-second-thoughts/?utm_term=.679c93335fab
Jeez just what kind of world are we living in, and leftists ask why conservatives, centralist, libertarians and classic liberals to a certain degree find the mainstream media highly questionable and UN-trustworthy. Children are NOT OLD ENOUGH to be exposed to such controversy and life changing decisions. Forcing political correctness on children is literally child abuse to the pinnacle degree.
Last edited:
Firstly, forgive me if I don’t trust the impartiality of a review by the ‘Society for the Protection of Unborn Children’.
Many studies have been conducted with the aim of assessing whether there’s a link between abortion and mental health issues, since it’s such a controversial and important topic. This report by the APA not only concludes that there is no significant connection between the two, but it also outlines some of the methodological problems that pervade studies and reports which claim to find the opposite:
http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/mental-health.pdf
With regard to your second link... doesn’t the mainstream media agree with you in this case? It seems like you’re trying to suggest that the twitter account of one Planned Parenthood is some kind of journalistic entity, when it’s absolutely not. It was an ill-conceived take on a meme that was criticised by people across the political spectrum, including the writer for the Washington Post whose article you linked, and then deleted after the backlash.
Clearly you find it highly questionable because you can't read, formed a fear mongering half-thought about Disney, and ran to the nearest computer to spread your fake news. Nothing about that article says that Disney was ever interested in abortion. If I make a comment asking YOU to support abortion, then delete it before you can even respond, can I then tell everyone that Ashaebi supports abortion? But if you ever see an episode of Paw Patrol about aborting puppies, make sure I'm the first person you enlighten.
Ahh yes abortion saves the women of the "convenience"? of not needing to endure the simple consequences of pregnancy and after labour such as being responsible for another human being for 18 years typically longer or complications during birth that would cause the death of both the mother and and the child.
"Indeed the filthy placentals are being parastised by their own offspring, truly inferior creatures" -Alien monotreme overlords
Asek
Banned deucer.
Care to elaborate? Think youre onto something big here
I’m not against abortion if the mothers life is in danger but abortions due to needing to safeguard the mothers life + rape and incest cases are a mere 1% of total abortions. The overwhelming 99% are consented + both the baby and the mothers health is safe.Ahh yes abortion saves the women of the "convenience"? of not needing to endure the simple consequences of pregnancy and after labour such as being responsible for another human being for 18 years typically longer or complications during birth that would cause the death of both the mother and and the child.
"Indeed the filthy placentals are being parastised by their own offspring, truly inferior creatures" -Alien monotreme overlords
So 1% of cases which pro lifers do acknowledge women should have an abortion if the mothers life is at risk and (maybe) rape but even that is controversial amongst pro lifers.
As for the remaining 99% you were pregnant by accident from an activity you consented to. What do you do now? Take responsibility for your actions by enduring until labor and either raise the child or give it to adoption or evade responsibility by terminating your pregnancy? There’s actually a lot of discussion via the previous posts (including mine) whether an unborn fetus is a life so I’m not writing more but hey, make your decision. I hope it’s the ethical one regardless which you pick. Trust your judgement
Btw I’m also scratching my head why feminists aren’t more pro gun. Guns can protect them for being rape victims so they can prevent themselves pregnant via rape. So why aren’t feminists more pro gun?
Even if a feminist don’t like guns one must propose at least a mean to self defense like a taser or pepper spray or any of the non lethal weapons on the market. One of these costs probs less than a few hundred bucks which is about the cost of an abortion treatment in planned parenthood. Also saves time and the trauma of rape.
Prevention > treatment any day of the year peeps.
Even if a feminist don’t like guns one must propose at least a mean to self defense like a taser or pepper spray or any of the non lethal weapons on the market. One of these costs probs less than a few hundred bucks which is about the cost of an abortion treatment in planned parenthood. Also saves time and the trauma of rape.
Prevention > treatment any day of the year peeps.
Last edited:
According to recent research in my country, the major part of all rapes are non-violent and done by somebody who the victim already knows. In most cases it is someone who feels that there is a connection while there isn't one. Although almost all victims in the research explicitly said they did not want sex, only 30 % actually resisted. This has to do with a natural reaction in your body: you rather want to get raped than get killed. All these rapes are not preventable by your method. And I sincerely doubt that having a gun (or a taser or whatever) prevents you from getting raped by a stranger, but that is an other discussion.
Even if it is quote unquote nonviolent, wouldn't you want a gun so you have the advantage and can threaten the rapist back? Regardless of whether it's violent or not, rape is not good and I think you should still defend yourself so it doesn't happen.
If you're meeting someone you already know there is no reason for you to have your gun nearby you, so if they suddenly want to have sex with you and force you to participate (which, even if no physical violence is involved, is still rape) then you have no advantage of having a gun somewhere in your house, unless you propose that women should carry a gun at all times? Moreover, using a gun can potentially harmful to yourself, so I guess a lot of people just do not want to take the risk of using it in such a situation. And if it is somebody you know, for example a family member, a lot people will not suddenly point a gun at them, even if they just were forced to have sex against their will.
Finally, afaik there is not much evidence that trying to defend yourself actually prevents the rape from happening.
I was referring to conceal and carry, which flips that scenario you just outlined on its head.
Are you kidding? There's a ton of evidence that supports that guns can protect you, that's the point of having them alongside defending yourself from tyranny. This article talks about quite a few, it's a really good read. As high as 3 million lives each year have been saved by guns in self-defense.
Third wave Feminists complaining about rape is like me complaining about me potentially being a victim of a mugger.
The biggest difference is this - I don’t walk in dark alleyways and I never go home late, or at least alone/third way feminists on the other hand hold up signs that say ‘stop raping women’ and expecting there is going to be a change.
I rest my case
