Abortion

[Danoff]

It takes more than one human to agree on what is rational in the context of rights and wrongs. One human on its own can act according to its own logic but might find upon assimilation with a group that its actions are considered entirely irrational by that group.

...and they could figure out who was right. Apply logic, determine a logically sound conclusion.

 

[Omnis]

Frying a turkey isn't irrational. It's tasty.

 

[Danoff]

Frying a turkey isn't irrational. It's tasty.

Luckily there's nothing wrong with being irrational in many areas of life.

 

[LeMansAid]

It takes more than one human to agree on what is rational in the context of rights and wrongs. One human on its own can act according to its own logic but might find upon assimilation with a group that its actions are considered entirely irrational by that group. Behaviour (and the rights and wrongs thereof) are part of groupthink, they don't apply to a human living and operating on its own and without the burden of societal surveillance.

I'm sure that you would have read at least once where @Danoff has stated that rights don't matter until they're infringed. An individual cannot infringe its own rights, so while human rights still exist in that single-person space, there's no need to engage them. Put that person among a group of people and they would have to exhibit a completely new behaviour in order to infringe someone else's rights.

Rationality/rights exist equally in both scenarios, but human rights will only have the propensity to be needed in the group scenario.

 

[TenEightyOne]

...and they could figure out who was right. Apply logic, determine a logically sound conclusion.

Absolutely. It takes a group to determine rationale, particularly as logic is subjective in terms of human rights and wrongs.

Frying a turkey isn't irrational. It's tasty.

I'm sure, but it's a mad way to do it. Why not use an oven like you do for everything else?

I'm sure that you would have read at least once where @Danoff has stated that rights don't matter until they're infringed. An individual cannot infringe its own rights, so while human rights still exist in that single-person space, there's no need to engage them. Put that person among a group of people and they would have to exhibit a completely new behaviour in order to infringe someone else's rights.

Rationality/rights exist equally in both scenarios, but human rights will only have the propensity to be needed in the group scenario.

That's because no rights exist until a group subjectively decides, authorises and employs them.

 

[Omnis]

That's because no rights exist until a group subjectively decides, authorises and employs them.

Yeah, and then a bigger mob lynches the turkey roasters and we're back to deep frying.

I haven't really been following the conversation, but this sounds like you have a really horrible foundation for your worldview.

 

[Danoff]

Absolutely. It takes a group to determine rationale, particularly as logic is subjective in terms of human rights and wrongs.

Rationale and rationality are used pretty differently. Logic is never subjective, in any circumstances, unless you're using the term in a very colloquial loose sense. Logic is a discipline like math.

That's because no rights exist until a group subjectively decides, authorises and employs them.

Not that they don't exist, but no rights can be protected until a group rationally decides to enforce them.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Rationale and rationality are used pretty differently. Logic is never subjective, in any circumstances, unless you're using the term in a very colloquial loose sense. Logic is a discipline like math.

In which case it cannot be applied to subjective human action. When somebody says they are taking a logical course of action in determinate behaviour they may actually be saying "I am doing the thing that seems most right, most appealing to my sentience, the thing that my experience, knowledge and education tell me is the sensible way".

Not that they don't exist, but no rights can be protected until a group rationally decides to enforce them.

They don't exist, they are a function of any given group's agreement that there are social and/or personal freedoms that must not be broken by other parts of society. If you are on your own then your rights don't exist - they can neither be violated nor protected from violation, you simply survive.

 

[Danoff]

In which case it cannot be applied to subjective human action. When somebody says they are taking a logical course of action in determinate behaviour they may actually be saying "I am doing the thing that seems most right, most appealing to my sentience, the thing that my experience, knowledge and education tell me is the sensible way".

That's a misuse of the word logical. They mean sensible or practical. At least... it's not a technical use of the word logical.

They don't exist, they are a function of any given group's agreement that there are social and/or personal freedoms that must not be broken by other parts of society. If you are on your own then your rights don't exist - they can neither be violated nor protected from violation, you simply survive.

If you're on your own they still exist, they just don't have very much use. Nothing you can interact with if you're on your own is capable of observing your rights. So you're left with nobody having them, or nobody proceeding as though someone had them, because nobody is able to reciprocate (the tree, the earth, the bird, the lion, etc.). Perhaps if you encountered something that was capable of reciprocity your rights might be observed, but until then they're pure thought. But they're not a function of society, if they were, they wouldn't be "rights".

If you want to keep this going we should take it to the human rights thread.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Not that they don't exist, but no rights can be protected until a group rationally decides to enforce them.

Human rights are something you possess from the moment you are born to the moment you die. Not a die hard set of rules that vary within different groups

Human rights are NOT what a society may decide they want for their societies rules which is what you keep trying to define as a human right.
A Muslim community will not define the same rules as a Christian society just like a communist society will not impose the same rules as a democratic society.

You keep trying to define these rules as being human rights but they are in fact nothing but societies rules and they do differ greatly.

The population of a communist nation has just as much right to choose their way of life or the rules that bind their society as the democratic nation does to have those sames rights and choices.

As soon as you understand that human rights and societies rules and/or opinions are not one and the same then then you can accept not all the world thinks the same or follows the same rules.

It is simple but societies rules are not the end all human rights you want them to be no matter how much you keep your fingers in your ears while saying laaa laaa laa!

 

[UKMikey]

It is simple but societies rules are not the end all human rights you want them to be no matter how much you keep your fingers in your ears while saying laaa laaa laa!

at the irony.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/fro...universal-declaration-human-rights-paris-1948

This is talking about human rights which apply regardless of which society you are a part of. The communist nations chose their way of life but this had nothing to do with human rights and was rejected by the conference.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

This is talking about human rights which apply regardless of which society you are a part of. The communist nations chose their way of life but this had nothing to do with human rights and was rejected by the conference.

It is still nothing but a set of rules and guidelines that have been created and applied by leaders of the members of the U.N.

There are nations that do not have a seat at the table or input into the decisions which come out of the U.N. because the member nations do not want them there.

I have never claimed to be against such rules that dictate what is acceptable treatment concerning another human regardless of where they live but that still does not change the fact that as what is usually defined as being a right is nothing more than rules imposed by people in power that dictate how a human should be treated, it is not a right given to you because of your birth as a human.

 

[Danoff]

what is usually defined as being a right is nothing more than rules imposed by people in power that dictate how a human should be treated, it is not a right given to you because of your birth as a human.

Kinda funny to call it a right then.

Human rights are something you possess from the moment you are born to the moment you die. Not a die hard set of rules that vary within different groups

There you go, that sounds like something to call a right. Although I'd modify this and say that your rights depend on your behavior and mental capacity for reciprocal behavior.

Human rights are NOT what a society may decide they want for their societies rules which is what you keep trying to define as a human right.
A Muslim community will not define the same rules as a Christian society just like a communist society will not impose the same rules as a democratic society.

You keep trying to define these rules as being human rights but they are in fact nothing but societies rules and they do differ greatly.

I'm trying to follow you here. I was calling religious laws rights? When?

The population of a communist nation has just as much right to choose their way of life or the rules that bind their society as the democratic nation does to have those sames rights and choices.

This one is loaded with problems. A "society" doesn't have any "right" to choose the way of life of all of its individuals precisely because those individuals have rights.

As soon as you understand that human rights and societies rules and/or opinions are not one and the same then then you can accept not all the world thinks the same or follows the same rules.

So many problems with this sentence. First of all, I'm aware that not everyone follows the same rules. This fact has not escaped my attention. That's true not just from a national or religious perspective, it's state-to-state in the US. However the presence of a rule does not change the nature of rights. The rule can infringe rights, or not infringe rights. But the presence of a rule, or of conflicting rules, has no bearing on rights. That's kinda what rights mean.

It is simple but societies rules are not the end all human rights you want them to be no matter how much you keep your fingers in your ears while saying laaa laaa laa!

I'm pretty sure I'm saying that they have no bearing on what constitutes a right. Rather than telling you that rules define rights, I'm telling you that rights exist independently of said rules. Maybe you'd have gotten that if you read my posts more closely instead of accusing me of not listening to you.

 

[Famine]

As soon as you understand that human rights and societies rules and/or opinions are not one and the same then then you can accept not all the world thinks the same or follows the same rules.

Did... did you just say this to, of all people you could have said it to, @Danoff?

I take it you've never read any part of the Human Rights thread? Or, you know, his signature?

 

[Liquid]

Metro (I know, but it was the only non-paywalled site that I recognised)

Two women, one pregnant, have an argument about baby daddies.
Woman shoots the pregnant woman in the stomach.
She loses the baby.
Shootist is cleared by a grand jury.
Woman shot is indicted on manslaughter charges for the death of her unborn baby.

The logic is that the pregnant woman put her foetus at risk by starting a fight and the shootist acted in self-defence but this is epileptic trees logic. You really can't see how drawing a gun and firing at a pregnant woman in the stomach is bad?

I'll give you one guess which US state this is. The PR and reputation this state has, it would be better to cut it out of the map and paste it onto the middle east. Might as well stick it in Israel and get a three way holy war going.

 

[Dennisch]

That's some quality logic.

 

[TexRex]

Holy crap on a cracker...

 

[UKMikey]

A real wisdom-of-Solomon decision there.

I'm surprised they didn't try and indict her under the abortion law as well.

 

[Danoff]

Metro (I know, but it was the only non-paywalled site that I recognised)

Two women, one pregnant, have an argument about baby daddies.
Woman shoots the pregnant woman in the stomach.
She loses the baby.
Shootist is cleared by a grand jury.
Woman shot is indicted on manslaughter charges for the death of her unborn baby.

The logic is that the pregnant woman put her foetus at risk by starting a fight and the shootist acted in self-defence but this is epileptic trees logic. You really can't see how drawing a gun and firing at a pregnant woman in the stomach is bad?

I'll give you one guess which US state this is. The PR and reputation this state has, it would be better to cut it out of the map and paste it onto the middle east. Might as well stick it in Israel and get a three way holy war going.

That's some quality logic.

Holy crap on a cracker...

A real wisdom-of-Solomon decision there.

I'm surprised they didn't try and indict her under the abortion law as well.

The article is short on details, but are they saying that the pregnant one assaulted the other one and that she was shot in self-defense? That's what it sounds like.

 

[Liquid]

The article is short on details, but are they saying that the pregnant one assaulted the other one and that she was shot in self-defense? That's what it sounds like.

That is what is being reported. But a manslaughter charge (second-degree murder) for the pregnant woman seems zealously, uh... outdated?

 

[Danoff]

That is what is being reported. But a manslaughter charge (second-degree murder) for the pregnant woman seems zealously, uh... outdated?

Yea I can't get on board at all with the notion of charging the assaulter for the damage to the baby caused by the assaultee... although... I could possibly see an angle if the fetus had survived and was eventually delivered with some sort of deformity. Pregnant mothers do carry some liability for the health of their unborn if that unborn becomes an individual who is suffering from the past woefully negligent acts of its mother.

So this is not as far removed from legit as I had originally thought. I had originally thought that two people got into a fight, there was no assault until the pregnant one was shot, and she was being prosecuted for not protecting the baby. Instead, it seems that the pregnant woman was behaving in criminal behavior and her criminal behavior ended up harming the fetus as well as herself. If it had become a child with lasting effects from its mother's actions, I'm on board with prosecution.

 

[TexRex]

The article is short on details, but are they saying that the pregnant one assaulted the other one and that she was shot in self-defense? That's what it sounds like.

Nothing I've seen or read, including the original article*, elaborates on the events leading up to the shooting beyond calling it a fight ("dispute", "row", "argument", "altercation" also used). The official statement suggests the shooting was in self-defense, but there is no mention of physical assault prior to the trigger being pulled.

*Probably best to avoid the comments section.

 

[TexRex]

New Zealand moves to reclassify termination of pregnancy as a health matter instead of a criminal act.

Progress.

 

[UKMikey]

Liz Cheney has joined Democrats in calling upon her fellow Republican Steve King to resign following his defence of anti-abortion laws that don't make exceptions for rape and incest.

 

[DrAE86]

Guys, seriously. Talking about abortion is like talking about homosexual marriage. It is NOT YOUR BUSINESS as long as it doesn't affect you! And let's be honest: when you look around you, I am pretty sure you agree with me when I'm writing that a few more abortions would have done the world a favour. I mean Stalin, Kim Il-sung, Hitler, Bush Jr., Kim Kardashian, .....

 

[BobK]

If abortion is bad because it's the taking of an innocent life, then why should there be exceptions for rape and incest? The fetus is dead either way, so why is it okay in one case and not another?

I'm not advocating either for or against abortion, just pointing out what strikes me as a major inconsistency.

 

[Danoff]

Guys, seriously. Talking about abortion is like talking about homosexual marriage. It is NOT YOUR BUSINESS as long as it doesn't affect you!

That's not going to get any traction with any pro-lifer. Just try swapping out abortion with murder:

Guys, seriously. Talking about murder is like talking about homosexual marriage. It is NOT YOUR BUSINESS as long as it doesn't affect you!

Doesn't play well.

 

[TexRex]

Liz Cheney has joined Democrats in calling upon her fellow Republican Steve King to resign following his defence of anti-abortion laws that don't make exceptions for rape and incest.

Oh boy, what'd ol' Steve say this time? More importantly, will it actually change anything? The GOP at large simply puts some distance between themselves and King and lets him continue spewing his rhetoric because it's largely in favor of their agenda, even if it's pretty awful.

Talking about abortion is like talking about homosexual marriage.

What's talking about talking about abortion like?

 

[Liquid]

Following on from the Republic of Ireland's much-publicised repeallment of their eighth amendment and decriminalising abortion, the same decriminalisation has occurred in Northern Ireland as of midnight today.

Without going into the boring details of it for non-UK non-Ireland people, Northern Ireland has been without its own government for almost three years so the UK government has stepped in and decided that Northern Irish laws on the matter are outdated and should be the same as those in Wales, England and Scotland, abortion having been legal in those places since 1967.

The hilarious part is that the main party in Northern Ireland that opposes decriminalisation is the one who instigated, expedited and guaranteed its passage.

There is a period of five months until March 2020 for provision of services to be outlined and finalised.

 

[Touring Mars]

The hilarious part is...

Almost as hilarious as the part where the main party opposed to the current Brexit deal on the basis that it (allegedly) treats NI differently to the rest of the UK are the same party who returned to the NI assembly yesterday in protest at NI being brought into legal alignment with the rest of the UK.