Bodily Autonomy: Abortions & Vaccines

[zurew]

1 minute ago, puporing said:

Are these people ready to adopt the said child? Most likely not. It's just control and attack on women's liberty.

Yeah there are a lot of weak points to their side. I somewhat understand why they so heavily arguing in favor of life, but i can't keep up with that kind of morality in a world where we live in nowadays.

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Loba said:

What we need are better services for mothers and children, better sex education, free contraceptives and day-after pills.

These points are good and i agree with these, but i still would let women the option to have an abortion. Its a very big emotional burden for them in my opinion, and also if they don't want to have a kid, then they will be most likely very terrible parents for the child. I wouldn't have wanted to grow up in a family where they didn't want me in the first place.

You could say that they must give birth to their child and then others can adopt their children, but still it would be a really big emotional burden on the mother. Also who knows if the child will get good parents if the child get adopted?

Even if there is an institute we can't be sure if the parents will be good parents. There are a lot of weird and psychopatic adults that can look normal from the outside. If we would be living in a perfect world where we could be 100% sure that the child will get perfect parents and will get materially and emotionally speaking everything a child needs, where there are no crazy people, everyone has material abundance, and every women can gives birth to children with almost 100% possibility that the children nor the mother will die also nor the children nor the mother will suffer any health consequences , then i would change my stance on abortion. But this world seems very far away.

So basically my argument comes down to potential suffering your argument comes down to not to kill a potential life.

 

For most women making the choice to have an abortion comes after thinking about it a lot, because abortion in an of itself is a really big emotional choice for most of them. Also because this is a moral issue, we have to define where we draw the line what we consider human. I suspect you don't consider a sperm a human, so where do you draw the line? All the other justifications will comes from where you draw your line.

 

There are cases where pro-life stance can have really horrible consequences. For instance:

•  Someone rapes a women, and that poor women have to give birth to that child.
• Or a young girl(12-16 years of age or even younger) gets pregnant and she must give birth to the children even though it can have high conseqences on her health.
• Or what happens is this in the vast majority of the cases: that a woman gets pregnant by a guy who don't want the children and leaves her and she have to give birth to a child, where we know that that children will grow up knowing his father didn't want him/her , that children will grow up in a family where she/he has no real father figure in his/her life and even if he/she gets adopted she will know that, they are not her/his real parents.

Edited May 5, 2022 by zurew

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Doesn't it account for murder though?

Murder is a relative concept invented by man.

What counts as murder is whatever we say.

[thisintegrated]

Life has no inherent value.  Value is made.  Death is only a tragedy when value is lost, so killing "life" isn't inherently a tragedy.  No one cries over the death of sperm, even if it has "potential".  A fetus is no different to sperm.  The line is entirely arbitrary.  If you say "x old fetus has brain activity" ..so what?  That has no effect on its "value".  Value is gained through living and forming emotions/memories/desires.  None of that? Then there's nothing lost through death.

 

2 hours ago, Loba said:

If anyone here understood how reincarnation works, how souls work - that they exist - you'd think twice about pro-abortion.
What we need are better services for mothers and children, better sex education, free contraceptives and day-after pills.

It is your body, but the baby is also a living human being, and such decisions need to be well thought out.

Most people would rather get aborted in that situation tbh.

[Bobby_2021]

The argument for potentiality is flexible and makes sense. And I have thought through it. 

Everything in this universe has some amount of  potential. Even dinosaurs and Bananas have the potential to be human. Does it have sufficient potential is the question. I define potential as: Is something becomes human, if not interfered with, then it has potential. The interference process is merely manipulation by adding or subtracting potential. In this context subtracting potential too much amounts to murder.

"Then is masturbation considered murder? Because you are killing the sperms? "

No. Because the sperm alone has no potential to become human. The sperm has to added more potential by having sex, and impregnating the egg for it to be considered to have potential. The act of sex is adding potential. The sperm does not have enough potential on it's own. So jacking off doesn't add up to murder, since it didn't have enough potential in the first place.

Sperm has minuscule potential but so as Stars and planets and trees and virtually every form of carbon. But not sufficient potential. 

Crucial Distinction. If is has sufficient potential, then it must grow up to become a human, with no external interference or manipulation. If it does, then it is that act of interference that has potential, not the sperm itself.

The act of sex (unprotected obviously) +sperm+ few other factors = Sufficient potential

Sperm alone  has no potential for actualizing into a human,

12 hours ago, zurew said:

accounts to murder but not necessarily human murder, thats the point. Most people don't give a damn about killing life around them. For instance you can kill insects thats a life form and no one gives a damn about it, or i could name a million different kind of life-forms that you can kill without any laws protecting them.

s too little potential to become human, therefore you can jack off without having it be a murder.

@Leo Gura I remember you bringing up this point in one video ( I can't remember which one) justifying why abortion cannot be considered murder on the basis of potentiality argument. If it is, then jerking off must also be considered murder. What do you think about this?

11 hours ago, zurew said:

accounts to murder but not necessarily human murder

Really? Are you going to argue that it is not a human? If it is a murder, then it is a human murder. You are not murdering a chicken here. Anyways that was the point of my initial post. Women must be allowed to murder potential babies. I am pro abortion. Just getting the Truth.

You can do whatever you want. Do not bend the Truth.

11 hours ago, zurew said:

If you want to defend the "potentiality" argument you are going to have a really hard time doing it. Why don't we call having a blowjob or handjob or having sex with a condom on as murder? Because sperm has the potentiality to become a human, so why not consider it murder? So you can't really escape the 'line argument'.

It is not merely a life. It is human life and it is a human heart. We do not have laws that punish murdering chicken. But we do have laws against murder of humans, and murder is a crime that correlates with low consciousness, especially if it could have been avoided with choice.

12 hours ago, zurew said:

So lets get deeper into it. Anything that has a heart accounts as murder? Should we have laws that protects every living creature that has a heart? See its going to be really complicated to defend the 'potentiality' points.

It is not complicated, you are just trying to make it complicated and confusing by blurring the lines. But the lines are clear on this one.

Yes,  Killing anything that has a heart accounts for murder. if it is a human heart, it is a human murder. Go ahead and have laws if you may wish. That's what the conservatives are going to do anyway.

 

 

 

 

[Bobby_2021]

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Murder is a relative concept invented by man.

What counts as murder is whatever we say.

Isn't interpreting everything as relative falling into the same trap as pragmatism?

"Nothing matter because everything is relative."

So yeah do whatever you want. Nothing really matters and it if does it is always relative to something else. And that thing doesn't matter too. Nothing matters, just like the pragmatists.

This is just intentionally blurring the lines only when you find it convenient.

[Bobby_2021]

11 hours ago, puporing said:

Whether or not someone's pro-life is their personal choice and it should not be forced on others who aren't in agreement.

People who want to have a say in someone else's life better be ready to take responsibility for that say or it's just hypocrisy and control.

Apply the glorious liberty to vaccines issue as well.

11 hours ago, puporing said:

People who want to have a say in someone else's life better be ready to take responsibility for that say or it's just hypocrisy and control.

exactly this. People should wear masks and vaccinate if they have to protect themselves instead of infringing in the liberty of the unvaccinated.

There is a reason why I decided to talk about the vaccine and abortions simultaneously, is to hammer this point home.

I am also pro abortions by the way. I am just saying that amount to killing people based on how we classify murder.

11 hours ago, Loba said:

If anyone here understood how reincarnation works, how souls work - that they exist - you'd think twice about pro-abortion.
What we need are better services for mothers and children, better sex education, free contraceptives and day-after pills.

It is your body, but the baby is also a living human being, and such decisions need to be well thought out.

Abortions increase the collective karmic trauma in society but yall not ready for that conversation.

[Bobby_2021]

13 hours ago, zurew said:

Most people don't give a damn about killing life around them. For instance you can kill insects thats a life form and no one gives a damn about it, or i could name a million different kind of life-forms that you can kill without any laws protecting them.

 

13 hours ago, zurew said:

Regarding to the 'my body my choice' one, some consequences are:

• Spreading the virus faster, so killing some people

People don't care about killing the life around them, So why should it matter in the case of vaccines?

 

9 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

A fetus is no different to sperm.

Then why do you need two words to describe it. It is because it is different. By that logic there is no difference between Hitler and  a baby.

Don't use high level abstractions to justify things according to your convenience.

[zurew]

30 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

People don't care about killing the life around them, So why should it matter in the case of vaccines?

Because we are talking about an already born human getting killed. Thats completely different when you want to compare it with a life which is not human yet. ANd people do care about killing human lifes but not about killing lifes.

You are failing to distinguish between points that im making here. 

 

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Really? Are you going to argue that it is not a human? If it is a murder, then it is a human murder. You are not murdering a chicken here. Anyways that was the point of my initial post. Women must be allowed to murder potential babies. I am pro abortion. Just getting the Truth.

You can do whatever you want. Do not bend the Truth.

Yeah really. In my book not every life is  considered a human life. You still didn't bit the bullet on where do you draw the human line.

Considering this picture under, at what stage you start to consider this being as a human?

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

s too little potential to become human, therefore you can jack off without having it be a murder.

Seems very arbitrary what you consider enough potential and little potential.

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

It is not merely a life. It is human life and it is a human heart. We do not have laws that punish murdering chicken. But we do have laws against murder of humans, and murder is a crime that correlates with low consciousness, especially if it could have been avoided with choice.

You need to bit the bullet on where do you draw the human line.

 

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

It is not complicated, you are just trying to make it complicated and confusing by blurring the lines. But the lines are clear on this one.

Yes,  Killing anything that has a heart accounts for murder. if it is a human heart, it is a human murder. Go ahead and have laws if you may wish. That's what the conservatives are going to do anyway.

If you want to go further with this arugment, then abortion can still be justified in stages, where the fetus hasn't developed hearth yet.
 

Edited May 6, 2022 by zurew

[Consept]

I think the key thing with vaccine and the pandemic is that its a community issue and can affect many people, so thats the intention if there are mandates, which seem to only come into play when a person is in a community. For example if you work in a hospital you may have to take one or lose your job but this is specifically because you have to be around other people who may have underlying health conditions. If you live in the woods or just have a job that doesnt have much interaction with others then no ones going to force you. This is very different to abortion which only affects the mother and unborn child. People also say things like 'why arent we mandated to eat healthy or exercise?', again this doesnt affect others. The government generally give you suggestions (not the best) on how to be healthier but they cant really mandate things that only affect you. 

So there has to be a hard distinction between these two things. Regarding whether abortion should be allowed as is said above you have to draw the line on where life starts, i think its a difficult thing to do, what i will say just to throw something in there, is that its very possible that parents who dont want kids but are forced to could actually cause the kid more suffering but not giving the kid the love and attention they need. This was talked about in the book Freakonomics where they gave an example of the abortion being made legal in a particular city and the crime rate dropping 15-20 years later. So you could make the argument that unwanted kids actually suffer more and cause more suffering. 

 

[Bobby_2021]

3 hours ago, zurew said:

Seems very arbitrary what you consider enough potential and little potential.

Potential is not arbitrary. It is clearly measured. I don't get where the confusion is.

If the embryo is not manipulated with, and it becomes a full grown adult then it has sufficient potential.

Else it has little potential, as in the case of an isolated sperm.

I say little potential because everything in the universe has some potential. Potential is never zero for any substance. It is only a matter of adding potential to actualise it into a human.

3 hours ago, zurew said:

You need to bit the bullet on where do you draw the human line

At the time of heartbeat. There is no denying that it is a human life if it is a human heart and it is also beating. 

But that isn't a licence to kill it before that, because it has potential to be a baby. 

4 hours ago, zurew said:

not every life is  considered a human life. 

Come on?..you are not having plant life inside the womb.

[zurew]

 

14 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

At the time of heartbeat. There is no denying that it is a human life if it is a human heart and it is also beating. 

But that isn't a licence to kill it before that, because it has potential to be a baby. 

This is the main point of this whole debate.

You conceded here, that you don't consider that life a human before it has a hearth, so now on i don't have to defend my point, because even in your world if a women has an abortion before that life has a heart it is not considered a human murder.

 

14 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Come on?..you are not having plant life inside the womb.

Thats not the point here, the pont here what do we consider an actual human life. Because when we have drawn our lines as you did above with the "hearth" argument, then we can cosider what is a human murder and what is not a human murder.

 

So you need to reach out for other points why it is unethical to kill life (not human life), and why we should consider to care about all life, the same way we care about human life

Edited May 6, 2022 by zurew

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, Consept said:

People also say things like 'why arent we mandated to eat healthy or exercise?', again this doesnt affect others.

Well fat people get sick more often and are more vulnerable to heart disease and diabetes and a whole other set of diseases. 

They are burdening the healthcare system.

Covid-19 is deadlier for fat people. 

https://www.science.org/content/article/why-covid-19-more-deadly-people-obesity-even-if-theyre-young

So are they going to mandate exercises? Nah.

That won't make money for big pharma and that might make people actually healthy.

[zurew]

8 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Well fat people get sick more often and are more vulnerable to heart disease and diabetes and a whole other set of diseases. 

They are burdening the healthcare system.

Covid-19 is deadlier for fat people. 

https://www.science.org/content/article/why-covid-19-more-deadly-people-obesity-even-if-theyre-young

So are they going to mandate exercises? Nah.

That won't make money for big pharma and that might make people actually healthy.

You are reaching very very far here, and not making a distinction between direct and undirect causality. If you really want to defend this kind of morality, then again if i wanted to use this i could defend any immoral points, so be careful what positions you want to take here with this kind of moral system.

Edited May 6, 2022 by zurew

[Bobby_2021]

4 minutes ago, zurew said:

You conceded here, that you don't consider that life a human before it has a hearth, so now on i don't have to defend my point, because even in your world if a women has an abortion before that life has a heart it is not considered a human murder

I didn't say it isn't a human before it has heartbeat.

If it has a heartbeat, it is a human. There is no denying that. That's exactly my point. 

All of those are distinct points in time.

Also why are you ignoring the potential? There is potential for the embryo.

So killing potential amounts to murder as well. I don't see how you can construct an argument around this. I don't require construction of lines for this, that's why potentiality argument is used.

[zurew]

1 minute ago, Bobby_2021 said:

I didn't say it isn't a human before it has heartbeat.

If it has a heartbeat, it is a human. There is no denying that. That's exactly my point. 

All of those are distinct points in time.

Also why are you ignoring the potential? There is potential for the embryo.

So killing potential amounts to murder as well. I don't see how you can construct an argument around this. I don't require construction of lines for this, that's why potentiality argument is used.

Then you are still not biting the bullet, where do you draw your line.

You cannot argue that it is a human murder, when you don't even know what you consider as a human. I know very well, why you are trying to escape doing this, because you know, when you take a stance on this one, it will be impossible to get around abortion or you need to defend a morality, where you basically value all possible lifes the same way.

So getting back to the original point, looking at this picture below, do you consider the "fertilized egg" as a human life?

[Bobby_2021]

5 minutes ago, zurew said:

i wanted to use this i could defend any immoral points

Bro if you give the government the power to freeze bank accounts of people for protesting over bodily Autonomy, immorality has already happened and you have sat there laughing at them. 

Realise the precedent you are setting here.

Tommorow they will enforce another shitty policy and you won't be able to cry #MyBodyMyChoice.

Oh wait that is already happening.

Just that you are on the other side this time. And your arguments on whether it is infectious or not won't fly here.

You think this wasn't gonna happen? You shouldn't give the government power over it's own citizens. Individual must have the freedom to simply not take anything unwanted into their own bodies. Plain and simple.

[zurew]

47 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

You think this wasn't gonna happen? You shouldn't give the government power over it's own citizens. Individual must have the freedom to simply not take anything unwanted into their own bodies. Plain and simple.

This is what we are arguing, that there are cases where this is not that "plain and simple". I could test your idea and stance with hypotheticals and you will probably switch your stance on this, or you will look very immoral.

Do you agree with my point from the past, that if we want to use "social harm" as an axiom, then we could clearly say, that not taking the vaccine has greater societal harm than taking the vaccine? If you don't agree with this point, then please elaborate on this one, because i haven't heard any compelling argument without reaching very far.

So the hypothetical:

If we had a virus where the chance of dying would be 100% and it would be infectious, and the way you could spread this virus would be by getting near any people, or by touching anything that an infected person touched before. Then in this case, if we had a vaccine (that could stop the spreading with 100% chance and the dying from the virus with a 90% chance, so if you got the vaccine it wouldn't be 100% that you would survive but you would totally stop the spreading) for that, would you still take the stance to advocate for the "my body my choice" or in this case you would say that okay it is a necessity to vaccinate people because if we don't do it then humanity won't survive.

If you say yes, i wouldn't advocate for "my body my choice", then you can see that we can find an instance where even yourself would agree with me, that there are cases where government stepping in not necessarily bad. The only question is where do we draw our lines here as well, in what cases do we consider "my body my choice" a greater lose than gain.

If you say no, then you are basically saying, that you don't really care about societal harm, you value much more the individual autonomy. (If you take this kind of morality, obviously most people won't agree with you, and will consider you very immoral  based on their morality)

Edited May 6, 2022 by zurew

[Consept]

34 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

So are they going to mandate exercises? Nah.

That won't make money for big pharma and that might make people actually healthy

I'd be happy for them to mandate exercise I just don't see how it could work in practise. Like if someone really doesn't want to work out how would you get them to do it? Would they lose their job if they don't work out, how would that help anyone? Would you track the amount of hours per week? The amount of money it would cost just to enforce, you could put that into the health sustem. It just seems a lot of work and restrictions vs a vaccine which is literally 5 mins of your time, much more easy to mandate. 

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Then you are still not biting the bullet, where do you draw your line.

Bro, you know very well that strict lines/seperation/boundaries do not exist in this non dual reality. There is no point pestering me to provide something that do not exist.

That's why we circumvent this problem using potentiality argument.

This is how real world works.

There are no exact line of boundaries between countries. What usually happens is a buffer zone. A zone that dosen't belong to either of the countries. The actual boundary between the two countries us supposed to lie somewhere in the buffer zone.

The equivalent of the buffer zone in the case of the baby is the potential. Once the object surpasses a certain potential, which is clearly defined, the actual line that seperates human from non human lies in that potential.

That's why Killing the potential amounts to Killing the human baby. Because somewhere in the potential range the actual line of seperation lies.  You cannot pin point that particular line.

That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The line still exists within the potential range. 

Now the conversation must be centred on potential, not on the specific line. 

Now you are going to again ask me if killing sperm is murder, which I explained clearly that sperm doesn't have enough potential. It has a minimal potential, just like your flat-screen led television has also has potential to be a baby. Everything has potential. Potential can be measured in Reality and is tangible which is not the case with a strict lines.

Taking the whole conversation to the lines is pointless.