"abortion" depends on one's understanding of "life" (a point i saw starting to get introduced on pages 1-2). What "life" is is an entirely idiosyncratic concept.
Life beginning at conception makes sense--at least more "objective" sense than pretty much any other universal cutoff. Pre-conception notions of life beginning in sperm etc is absurd as egg or sperm are only half the equation, so really that argument is just silly. Life beginning post physical birthing is obsolete these days given the scheduling of c-section or other birth manipulating means. The child's "life" can be said then to begin on Wednesday or thursday, whichever is more convenient for the mother; but how could one argue that a totally "alive" baby physically birthed Thursday wasn't alive wednesday when such a date was just as likely or accessible? The situation then turns into a Sorites paradox and we have to find "that single moment" where the transformation occurred from non-human to human--this single moment is most easily understood as conception-- of course, distinctions could possibly be made on entirely individualistic bases, e.g. when a mother "feels" the baby or "knows" that it's alive or something (I've never experienced pregnancy so I wouldn't be able to speak to these things), but, while this seems favorable, it requires throwing out our overly generalized quest for universally applicable measures.
Of course, this is just the distinction for "life" (what only half of the abortion-debate is talking about). The next step comes in moving beyond the idiosyncratic notion of "life" and having a discussion about priorities and relevance. Sure, killing a pre-birthed child is probably "murder" (another entirely idiosyncratic and individually defined notion), but you can't just turn your brain off when "murder" is being talked about--we rationalize murder in many facets of society (Violence is the foundation of society, Girardian critique etc), so weighing and debating the options on both sides here isn't any different from justifying any other kind of "violence." It seems childish to think that "well, it's alive, so suddenly the needs and concerns of the developed and actually functional human aren't important." That's idiotic, but you don't need to hide behind some notion of "but it's not really life" to make such a case.
So really, abortion, imo, should definitely be on the table as an option, especially when child rearing is dangerous or destructive towards the mother.
But that's just my ageist anti-child opinion. Counter to typical American values, I prefer to value achievement and past investments more than limitless potential etc.
codywilson posted:sorry, not reading whole thread (well, maybe when i have time, but i just wanted to post)
"abortion" depends on one's understanding of "life" (a point i saw starting to get introduced on pages 1-2). What "life" is is an entirely idiosyncratic concept.
Life beginning at conception makes sense--at least more "objective" sense than pretty much any other universal cutoff. Pre-conception notions of life beginning in sperm etc is absurd as egg or sperm are only half the equation, so really that argument is just silly. Life beginning post physical birthing is obsolete these days given the scheduling of c-section or other birth manipulating means. The child's "life" can be said then to begin on Wednesday or thursday, whichever is more convenient for the mother; but how could one argue that a totally "alive" baby physically birthed Thursday wasn't alive wednesday when such a date was just as likely or accessible? The situation then turns into a Sorites paradox and we have to find "that single moment" where the transformation occurred from non-human to human--this single moment is most easily understood as conception-- of course, distinctions could possibly be made on entirely individualistic bases, e.g. when a mother "feels" the baby or "knows" that it's alive or something (I've never experienced pregnancy so I wouldn't be able to speak to these things), but, while this seems favorable, it requires throwing out our overly generalized quest for universally applicable measures.
Of course, this is just the distinction for "life" (what only half of the abortion-debate is talking about). The next step comes in moving beyond the idiosyncratic notion of "life" and having a discussion about priorities and relevance. Sure, killing a pre-birthed child is probably "murder" (another entirely idiosyncratic and individually defined notion), but you can't just turn your brain off when "murder" is being talked about--we rationalize murder in many facets of society (Violence is the foundation of society, Girardian critique etc), so weighing and debating the options on both sides here isn't any different from justifying any other kind of "violence." It seems childish to think that "well, it's alive, so suddenly the needs and concerns of the developed and actually functional human aren't important." That's idiotic, but you don't need to hide behind some notion of "but it's not really life" to make such a case.
So really, abortion, imo, should definitely be on the table as an option, especially when child rearing is dangerous or destructive towards the mother.
But that's just my ageist anti-child opinion. Counter to typical American values, I prefer to value achievement and past investments more than limitless potential etc.
can you rephrase that in the form of an emergency flare in your colon
elemennop posted:roseweird
1) looking at upvotes/downvotes is a pointless vanity when you're on an island of madmen
2) you keep on trying to bribe people here with weed, when all of us do speed
glu kru sez: weed rules, didnt read thread
tpaine posted:*squirts hard-working honest Christian possible-communist in the face with vintage 1993 Super Soaker and laughs at them for daring to go to church, burning a copy of the comminist manifesto which could have gone to them, converting them into the next lenin and thereby ruining all of history with his angsty atheist chucklecuntedness*
Rude. Check your privilege.
roseweird posted:because the alternative is saying "heh fuck you all, maybe when you've gone to college like me you'll give up fairy tales"
what makes religiosity in the united states qualitatively or quantitatively different to the conditions of religiosity in environments where successful proletarian revolutions aligned to explicitly atheist political movements have taken place
blinkandwheeze posted:roseweird posted:because the alternative is saying "heh fuck you all, maybe when you've gone to college like me you'll give up fairy tales"
what makes religiosity in the united states qualitatively or quantitatively different to the conditions of religiosity in environments where successful proletarian revolutions aligned to explicitly atheist political movements have taken place
I'm not very well read on past revolutions, but I think a difference would be in the "consciousness" of the religious rulers. There seems to be a certain inoculation against such a historical movement, constantly perpetuated by the right-wing media and prominent religious leaders. Where Russian or Chinese people possibly didn't understand the true magnitude of what it meant to align to explicitly atheist political movements, the American Christian masses are regularly on the defensive, over-hyping anything that could possibly be misconstrued to be anti-Christian. They imagine up and live out all these fantasies about War on Christmas etc. It's possible that the religious Russian proles underplayed the seriousness of the atheism inherent in the politics as a means of temporarily reorganizing priorities. But I don't think that kind of thing would be possible in an American situation.
I'm not defending roseweird's argument, I'm just trying to provide an answer to the question of what is different in a modern American context v. past scenarios.
ps i also don't like talking about abortion because i'm a guy and will never have to deal with the issue personally. i mean, i think we tend to give male politicians a hard time for debating/regulating the women's issue, but here we (mostly males) are in a thread talking about it and stuff. (not that the thread stayed on topic for very long)
babyfinland posted:peepaw posted:babyfinland posted:about 13 years ago i got into an email argument with that guy in the semi-official melvins listserv and he got so mad he ragequit a mailing list
did you ever post on bunglefever
nah my internet nerdery only goes so far but i did upload a bunch of soundboard shows to their ftp from ed2k plus i sent in a few corrected tabs to cv.org, but i don't think they're around any more
Edited by blinkandwheeze ()