>> ^artician:

"It's nothing to worry about, everything will be OK."
Double-plus OK!


Totally.

Also, I would've said to her "No, it's NOT OK! This machine is defective!" and demanded it be removed. I wonder if it's part of the machines that got the "Experimental Patch"

UK, not OK.

"Less opportunity of progress"? Only if we're having an argument with the deluded intention of convincing the other person of our specific viewpoint. (As I said in that other discussion, I'm super excited that we're going to Solve Abortion, right here on The Sift.) If we're not afraid to describe what we believe and why, then discourse is likely to strengthen our understanding of our own position, even if we discount entirely the possibility that we may gain new insight from the other parties involved.

Sure, the cognition\consciousness rabbit hole swirls right down into "metaphysical and epistemological" unknowns and becomes the equivalent of mental masturbation at that point, but that doesn't mean it can't be enjoyable. And you certainly stated your view on Mind with the conviction of someone who feels pretty confident about it.

So if you'd rather not, ok, but I'll leave the door open, like so:

I had intended to leave my views on cognition and consciousness (and why I describe them as illusive and scarcely-understood) out of the abortion thread, but they ended up surfacing anyway. Essentially, I think the "ability of a candidate to engage with that process" is a good test, but it's only useful for the individual engaging in it. In my view, an outside observer isn't going to be able to tell with any degree of certainty, because the human brain appears to have everything it needs to behave like a conscious being even in the absence of Mind.
Picture the protagonist in the video for Metallica's "One" as an example on the other extreme (possessing of Mind but unable to communicate it).

@VoodooV
It may (or may not) surprise you that I agree with almost everything you said.

Killing is a necessary part of our society, yes.
The hypocrisy of killing (as you said, distinguished from "murder") in our modern culture is glaring.
I also agree that lots of very unpleasant things happen in a sufficiently-free society. People will kill people. People will take advantage of people. Terrorist acts will be perpetrated. People will make terrible movies and terrible art that is offensive to my sensibilities. Nothing bad will happen only when no one is allowed to choose anything for themselves.

But we do set boundaries, laws, for the precise reason you stated: "Your rights end where mine begin and vice versa."

That's what makes us a civilization, right? We give up certain freedoms with the knowledge that others will be compelled to give up those freedoms as well, and we will all be able to pursue happiness more comfortably as a result. For instance, we agree not to kill our neighbors on a whim and take their stuff, knowing that others will be compelled to avoid doing the same to us. We agree not to drive while intoxicated (even if we're really good at it) knowing that others (many of whom aren't as good at it as we totally are) will be compelled not to do so, and we'll all be less likely to get flattened.

Many of these laws imply some intrinsic value to a human life. Murder is illegal because that seriously infringes on the rights of another human. Sure, we stratify killing - murder, negligent homicide, manslaughter, but the band across which individual (as opposed to institutional) killing is NOT murder is pretty narrow, especially if it's intentional. Self defense, mental illness...
This is where the abortion debate diverges from analogy and requires that we define when a fetus can be considered a human, because after that point, we're killing a human.

I also disagree with the "especially with their own body" argument. Sure, a fetus could not survive without the mother (up to a point), but if you cut that fetus, the mother will bear no scar. The child will bear that scar. Once we say there is a human there, that is no longer her body. Parents are held responsible for care of their children, and consequences are dictated for negligence. Because of my understanding of fetal development, I believe this responsibility extends into the womb.

I think the deferral of the question of "when" to "those far more educated" may nullify the entire argument. If you can accept that there's a point beyond which abortion should no longer be an option, but we don't know when it is, then we have to accept that it might be "before pregnancy can even be recognized".
The process of fetal development is fairly well-understood and documented, and you're obviously intelligent enough to appreciate the process. Maybe trying to pinpoint the "OK-NOT OK" boundry for yourself might change the way you think about the issue, or maybe not, but I believe it would make you better able to argue your point effectively. Arguing for killing a human in order to increase the quality of life of someone else strikes me as being a very difficult position to defend. Arguing for removing a mass of tissue with the potential for becoming a human seems much more defensible. But again, we obviously see this issue with differing perspectives.

@rbar np, take your time, I'm quite busy as well.

Did East Germany have a great economy? Like you said, it faired well in some sectors, highly subsidized sectors I might add, at the huge expense of the rest of its economy which was miserable compared to West Germany (or to what it could be if it were capitalistic). Think of all the "luxuries" enjoyed right outside the Berlin Wall that were denied to east germans. Can you see purchasing or providing those products and services as economic activity being denied, and, therefore, less cooperation?

You have to question your assumption that capitalism universally strives for competition, or that it always should, or that it's the philosophy of free markets to make everyone compete. There are forces *for* and *against* competition everywhere in capitalism, from those who benefit and lose from it, respectively. I think that's what you mean by "near perfect competition", the perfection being the balance between competing and not competing as required.

Why are labor unions formed? So workers can compete less with each other and cooperate for better employment terms. Does that favor companies? No, but who cares, it's meant to favor the workers. Why are cartels formed? So companies can compete less with each other and cooperate for better profits. Is that good for the consumers? Usually not, but it's good for the companies in the cartel. Why are consumer groups formed... you get the point. These institutions operate against competition, but that doesn't make them any less capitalistic or contrary to the incentives of free markets, assuming they're formed without the use of force, criminal or lawful. A lawful association between individuals or companies to cooperate instead of compete with each other is capitalism at work too.

When you talk about situations where there is less or no competition, you're not considering the competition that arises on the other side of the demand-supply relation!

If there is large demand and little supply, you correctly point out that there is little competition *among suppliers*, right? However, aren't you overlooking the increased competition among the *demanders*? Like I said, competition is increasing as supply and demand differ. Who is competing with whom is beside the point.

You might argue, "well, how is competition among the demand going to help??", because it sucks to be in the demand for something in low supply, that unmet demand represents an incentive for more supply. Supplying something in high demand is a coveted position. Resources from elsewhere will tend to be allocated towards that coveted position, supplying that demand, and increasing competition in what started out as a less or non-competitive environment.

So, I don't follow your "markets universally tend towards monopolies" argument. As much as companies like monopolies, they like it because it profits from the clients/consumers' desperate demand for it, but these people are not ok with fighting each other for something in low supply. THAT is the incentive towards competition, towards destabilizing any monopoly that abuses its position.

The derivatives market is a complex example, but you're blaming the "free market", when the banking system is far from a free market if there's a central bank. Banks should be allowed to make risky investments and, if these investments don't pan out, they should pay the price with loss and bankruptcy, like it happens with any business that makes bad decisions. That is one of the best incentives to make good decisions! If the whole banking system is to blame for that, then it would collapse, which would be disastrous, but it would expose the disaster that is central banking.

Would the government want society to realize that central banking is terrible? Of course not, they're the ones who profit from it the most, which is why it stepped in with a massive taxpayer-funded bailout. None of what I just described is allowed in a free market.

Just like people realized the Church and State should be separate centuries ago, it will take a while for people to realize the State and Banks should be separate as well. The evidence is unravelling right before us.

That's the thing about many republican views. They take an ideal, utopian world view....and work backwards.

"In a perfect world, there is no rape or incest and health care is perfect, thus there would be no need for abortion, therefore we should ban abortion."

That's nice and all, but it just isn't that simple. Yeah, if we lived in a perfect world where every single citizen was financially and emotionally secure and nothing ever bad happened and no one ever accidentally got pregnant, sure I would oppose abortion.

We don't live in that world, we won't ever live in that world in our lifetimes, so why would you propose a law that only applies in a perfect world?

A baby is not the equivalent of getting a pet for your kid to teach them responsibility. why would you needlessly punish the baby by forcing it to be raised by parents who are incapable of adequately raising it? You're trying to correct a mistake by forcing people to make another mistake. Some people should just never be parents, ever. Even if they were financially able to take care of a kid.

To use an analogy that even a republican should understand. An abortion is like a gun, you hope to hell you never need to use it, but you're going to be glad you're able to use it if you need it.

Samantha Bee demonstrated the republican hypocrisy perfectly. It's ok for THEM to make a choice, but it's not ok for YOU to make a choice.

Whenever you masturbate (oh wait, republicans never masturbate) Even when you're having legitimate baby-making sex. The male ejaculates millions of sperm. Each one of those sperm is a potential life. Yet only one of those sperm will make it, and the rest will die. Republicans don't seem to care about those millions of potential lives being snuffed out. And with the woman, every time a woman has her cycle, that's another potential life snuffed out.

Standard selective logic. We care about those lives, but not THOSE lives. Even when someone chooses to have the kid, Republicans seem to stop giving a shit since they propose cutting support for pregnant mothers and medical exams. Adequate education for those potential lives?..yeah fuck that. More hypocrisy we've come to expect from the right.

>> ^ReverendTed:

As much as it pains me to say it, I agree with bobknight33 here.
I believe a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body. I also believe we should be responsible for the consequences of our choices. I believe a woman has the right to decide whether to have sex. (So, yes, I do believe in exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and threat-to-life.)
Seeing how quickly a fertilized egg develops into a fetus is striking (there can be a detectable heartbeat at 5 1/2 weeks), and that's where I get my opposition to elective abortion. I cannot accept that this is merely some part of "a woman's body" to be excised and discarded when it is so clearly a developing human.
I sincerely believe that we will one day look back on our tolerance for elective abortion with the same reprehension as we currently hold for slavery, ritual sacrifice or witch trials.
I know how difficult it is to have a rational discussion about abortion, but I find it hard not to say something. I try to keep an open mind and view issues from others' positions, but I can only really see this particular argument coming down to a discussion of when "life" begins; where does it go from being "termination of pregnancy" to "termination of a human life"? At conception? Birth? Or somewhere in between? Obviously, it's murder to kill a newborn, and it seems like there's a general consensus that it would be unethical to terminate a late pregnancy, but how far back does that reasoning go? And if we don't know when human life begins, it seems rational to err on the side of caution.

People saying copyright is stupid baffle me.

I get the arguments about the current laws and that they're a touch insane... but not getting that it's not ok to take for free what someone spent a lot of time/effort/money to create is bizarre.

Why do you think it's ok to just take music, movies and tv shows without rewarding the creators?


THAT is a juvenile position to take.

"I want it, I should be able to have it for free"

And I think the rule should stand, it's just part of what makes the sift 'feel' better than other places

I really don't see how telling someone to stop raping will have any effect on anyone bent on doing it.
>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^cracanata:
It's OK I can take some criticism, but still the problem is right there. What would it be the solution? How should the military respond to this , female only army? Or just recruit only feminists and hipsters, that will defeat the purpose of having a strong army. In my opinion a strong army is made of strong individuals that most of the times are just the sort of individuals that have low respect for life otherwise will be a weak army. War isn't about feelings and fairness in my opinion.
If that makes me a lunatic that has no morals so be it. Still you'll have to remember that war is shit. And I'm not even defending war or advocating for rapists, only trying to make some sense with what the subject offers.

The solution? Simple.
Stop fucking raping people.
Not ok. At all. Ever. I don't give a shit who you are, where you are or what kind of stress you're under.
As to what the army should do? I'd start with locking the bastards up. If it happens on active duty, I'd charge them with treason.

I do agree the perpetrators should be judged for their actions.I see myself forced to include this statement as I see people jumped to wrong conclusions into judging my character, I've always regarded videosift as a better community when it comes to intelligent debates, and of course I still do. So, leaving out a statement like "I don't agree with rape" didn't meant "I support rape"
>> ^kymbos:

I don't know - a feminist and hipster army could be quite formidable. I'm glad we reached this level of intelligent debate about such a serious topic.
Meanwhile the Australian Defence Force has seen similar cultural resistance to dealing appropriately with sexual assault. We don't glorify our military quite as much as Americans, however.

Obviously the hipster/feminist argument was a bit of a stretch, a figure of speech, and needs to be taken that way.
And back to the question "What should the Army do?" How about don't mix genders, and stop self inflicted wounds.
What would the army actually gain from conscripting female soldiers anyway? The sheer fact that they don't have the physical strength to defend themselves would be a deal breaker for anyone that needs muscles for the job, isn't it?
And please refrain yourselves from calling me names or vote me down as this won't achieve anything constructive. I'am very aware that this is a sensible subject, but please keep hotheaded reactions out of it.
Thanks.

>> ^cracanata:

It's OK I can take some criticism, but still the problem is right there. What would it be the solution? How should the military respond to this , female only army? Or just recruit only feminists and hipsters, that will defeat the purpose of having a strong army. In my opinion a strong army is made of strong individuals that most of the times are just the sort of individuals that have low respect for life otherwise will be a weak army. War isn't about feelings and fairness in my opinion.
If that makes me a lunatic that has no morals so be it. Still you'll have to remember that war is shit. And I'm not even defending war or advocating for rapists, only trying to make some sense with what the subject offers.


The solution? Simple.

Stop fucking raping people.

Not ok. At all. Ever. I don't give a shit who you are, where you are or what kind of stress you're under.

As to what the army should do? I'd start with locking the bastards up. If it happens on active duty, I'd charge them with treason.

Why does everything have to turn into a lawsuit though?

According to the picture of that letter to the teacher, religion is clearly not in the curriculum so the school backed the separation of church and state. So I don't understand why this is an issue. The letter seemed to imply that the school did not approve, but the video implied that the school board was behind him. (didn't get to watch all of the video though)

Flip it around. what if a teacher taught evolution or another religion at a catholic school? The teacher would be canned so fast. So why is it ok to push religion in a public school funded by taxpayers that has students of all/no religion(s) I don't care if America was 100 percent catholic, it's still not ok. The constitution is very clear on this. It's not ok to use a majority to squash minority rights.

dissent is patriotic

@gorillaman understanding the subjective nature of value does not imply moral relativism, nor is it in any way detrimental to morality.

Morality is about choosing values, you can pick and choose all you like, it doesn't change the fact that values are subjective in the sense that they're not intrinsic to the object of value, they depend on the person/living being that assigns the value.

A baker does indeed value the bread he sells less than the money he wants in exchange for it, otherwise he would not see purpose in selling bread, he'd just hoard all his awesome bread to himself.

Differering circumstances are just one of the many things that may affect one's choice of values. You're not a fan of Lamborghinis, that can be for so many reasons. Maybe they're obvious to you, but your choice of values won't match that of a Lamborghini afficionado, or of a rich guy looking for a powerful status symbol. Who are you to consider your values any better than those of others when it comes to spending money?

I see that trade can be detrimental to a third party, but if there's no theft or destruction of someone else's actual property, treating that as a problem and trying to forcibly solve it by regulating or forbidding the trade is bound to cause more and bigger problems than the one you allegedly want to fix.

It's this lack of foresight that is so common among those who don't appreciate the evolving nature of freedom and competition.

Now you're saying you're not OK with "criminal" thoughts, but would you want to regulate thoughts? We can't directly mind control people, so can you even enforce that without infringing on freedom of expression? Do you think it's worth it to forcibly shape society's ideologies?

I proposed that ridiculous notion expecting you to repudiate it, I can at least appreciate the strong connection you make between personal and economic liberties. Too bad you apparently think we deserve neither.

>> ^lantern53:

That's pretty obnoxious.
Why don't they let a Democrat abortion doctor stick a pair of scissors in their unwanted babies skulls?
After all, we don't want them to be punished...with a BABY!


Ah the standard judgmental hypocrisy of "it's ok for me to make a choice, but it's not ok for you to."

people of "faith" are the biggest demographic of those who get abortions. Betcha they thought they would never get an abortion either....until the day comes you have to put your obsolete rules to the test in the real world.

If you guys actually practiced what you preached, and thankfully, you don't, the nation, if not the world would be even deeper in it.

This is not ok.

>> ^spoco2:

@dannym3141 : I think, as @ChaosEngine said, the extent of response to this should be to publicly out her as being a bitch, review down her store wherever possible, and boycott it.
But personal attacks are NOT OK. You don't stoop to their level, you just don't. As soon as you do that you've lost all moral high ground and devolved it all to a bloody school yard bullying match.
As I said, going to these lengths, and becoming abusive and hateful, will just make people start siding with her, start feeling pity for her and you've then lost.


Fair enough; i understand, but saying it again hasn't convinced me. I'm a fan of "a taste of your own medicine." However i agree that they don't know where to stop.

But when has anything been different? This could be in the paper or on the news, and no harder to trace the culprit. I've been able to figure out who's behind a local news story or two. Perhaps the people doing the bad stuff are immature; kids and stuff. How do you stop someone wanting to be malicious to others? Cos the internet's there now, there's no going back, it'll happen every time.

@dannym3141 : I think, as @ChaosEngine said, the extent of response to this should be to publicly out her as being a bitch, review down her store wherever possible, and boycott it.

But personal attacks are NOT OK. You don't stoop to their level, you just don't. As soon as you do that you've lost all moral high ground and devolved it all to a bloody school yard bullying match.

As I said, going to these lengths, and becoming abusive and hateful, will just make people start siding with her, start feeling pity for her and you've then lost.