The Sisters of Mercy Forum
If you agree, that being free to decide what to do with you life and what not is a financial social standpoint,Gollum's Cock wrote:And just another thing.
@Being...your argument is based upon a financial social standpoint which unfortunately depresses me.
Really just playing devil's advocate here but if, as in your example above, you grant that a foetus is a human being with human rights, the bodily autonomy argument doesn't hold water because you're choosing to end one life rather than inconvenience another. Imagine conjoined twins where separation would definitely kill one but the other would survive. Would it be right for the survivor to insist on separation for the sake of their own bodily autonomy? (Yes, I know it's not a perfect example but devil's advocate, hypothetical situation to illuminate the principle.)markfiend wrote:The pro-choice argument in a nutshell:
1) The woman's right to bodily autonomy: Even if you grant that an embryo or a foetus is a human being, due the rights and protections of an adult (which, incidentally, would be odd, because we don't say that a newborn child is due all those rights) there are no circumstances in which we privilege one adult's rights over another's bodily autonomy. (The example of live organ donation is frequently brought up; we would not force anyone to donate a kidney against their will even though such a donation would save another person's life.) Forcing someone to surrender their bodily autonomy against their will is slavery.
You're free to decide not to drink and drive......you're free to decide not to get pregnant.Being645 wrote:If you agree, that being free to decide what to do with you life and what not is a financial social standpoint,Gollum's Cock wrote:And just another thing.
@Being...your argument is based upon a financial social standpoint which unfortunately depresses me.
yeah, then you've got the obvious truth ... which is depressing.
There is a famous article by Judith Jarvis Thomson that addresses precisely this objection, and still argues in favor of the moral permissibility of abortion.stufarq wrote:Really just playing devil's advocate here but if, as in your example above, you grant that a foetus is a human being with human rights, the bodily autonomy argument doesn't hold water because you're choosing to end one life rather than inconvenience another. Imagine conjoined twins where separation would definitely kill one but the other would survive. Would it be right for the survivor to insist on separation for the sake of their own bodily autonomy? (Yes, I know it's not a perfect example but devil's advocate, hypothetical situation to illuminate the principle.)markfiend wrote:The pro-choice argument in a nutshell:
1) The woman's right to bodily autonomy: Even if you grant that an embryo or a foetus is a human being, due the rights and protections of an adult (which, incidentally, would be odd, because we don't say that a newborn child is due all those rights) there are no circumstances in which we privilege one adult's rights over another's bodily autonomy. (The example of live organ donation is frequently brought up; we would not force anyone to donate a kidney against their will even though such a donation would save another person's life.) Forcing someone to surrender their bodily autonomy against their will is slavery.
We choose "to end one life rather than inconvenience another" every time we fail to force an unwilling donor to give up a kidney.stufarq wrote:Really just playing devil's advocate here but if, as in your example above, you grant that a foetus is a human being with human rights, the bodily autonomy argument doesn't hold water because you're choosing to end one life rather than inconvenience another.
Gollum's Cock wrote:You're free to decide not to drink and drive......you're free to decide not to get pregnant.Being645 wrote:If you agree, that being free to decide what to do with you life and what not is a financial social standpoint,Gollum's Cock wrote:And just another thing.
@Being...your argument is based upon a financial social standpoint which unfortunately depresses me.
yeah, then you've got the obvious truth ... which is depressing.
... at what cost - socially, emotionally, financially, physically ... and yeah, we're all free to live a life without decade-long medication ... cool, absolutely.
... that's why they like to tell other creatures what is right or wrong for their life and body.
fair enough. i don't blame anyone else for the vices i choose to indulge in, i just reserve the right to not be told what i can and can't do with my own body/life/money. and even if alchohol wasn't dangerously addictive i would still drink it from when i wake up to when i go to sleep, which makes the fact that i am technically addicted irrelevant.Bartek wrote:i don't understand why people need to get stoned or baked or drunk to relax.
uh oh and i despise people addicted to fags, drugs and alcohole - yes, you're sick, but at your own free will. yes, even when you're daddy or mommy, or granny, or grandpa was addicted, moreover, then you're dubble guilty of your own situations.
seconded.lazarus corporation wrote:I quite like the Sisters' new songs, I think they're pretty good live these days, and whilst a new album would be good I'm quite happy to just see them play live whenever they play a venue nearby.
Let's both go to the lo----bbyy!markfiend wrote:...must ...step ...away
i'm miles away from telling anyone what he/she shoud/ought to do with his/her body and free time, esp. when no one hurt except him/her-self.eastmidswhizzkid wrote:fair enough. i don't blame anyone else for the vices i choose to indulge in, i just reserve the right to not be told what i can and can't do with my own body/life/money. and even if alchohol wasn't dangerously addictive i would still drink it from when i wake up to when i go to sleep, which makes the fact that i am technically addicted irrelevant.Bartek wrote:i don't understand why people need to get stoned or baked or drunk to relax.
uh oh and i despise people addicted to fags, drugs and alcohole - yes, you're sick, but at your own free will. yes, even when you're daddy or mommy, or granny, or grandpa was addicted, moreover, then you're dubble guilty of your own situations.
And it uses some pretty ridiculous examples to do it. markfiend's example is much more sensible and elegant and he made the entire argument in one sentence rather than 65 pages.sultan2075 wrote: There is a famous article by Judith Jarvis Thomson that addresses precisely this objection, and still argues in favor of the moral permissibility of abortion.
http://www.philoscience.unibe.ch/docume ... ortion.pdf
It's a fair point and I think it highlights the only truly reasonable position anyone can take in this debate: there is no 'correct' answer. There are strong moral arguments on both sides and whichever course you take will have undesirable and arguably immoral effects on someone. And no, that's not a copout. the world just isn't as black and white as we want it to be and sometimes we have to make an unpleasant decision and live with the consequences because making a different decision would have been just as bad.markfiend wrote: We choose "to end one life rather than inconvenience another" every time we fail to force an unwilling donor to give up a kidney.
Rad dude, rad.Hom_Corleone wrote:...and....
I really like Chase & Status.
i knew that anyway. it's all good.Bartek wrote:i'm miles away from telling anyone what he/she shoud/ought to do with his/her body and free time, esp. when no one hurt except him/her-self.eastmidswhizzkid wrote:fair enough. i don't blame anyone else for the vices i choose to indulge in, i just reserve the right to not be told what i can and can't do with my own body/life/money. and even if alchohol wasn't dangerously addictive i would still drink it from when i wake up to when i go to sleep, which makes the fact that i am technically addicted irrelevant.Bartek wrote:i don't understand why people need to get stoned or baked or drunk to relax.
uh oh and i despise people addicted to fags, drugs and alcohole - yes, you're sick, but at your own free will. yes, even when you're daddy or mommy, or granny, or grandpa was addicted, moreover, then you're dubble guilty of your own situations.
do whatever you* want and please, but in case of "side effects" you know who to blame
* by "you" i don't mean you eastmidswhizzkid; just to avoid any misconception
I know what you mean Lee, I can't stop listening to this Lady. So many catchy hooks in her tunes.....eastmidswhizzkid wrote:apologies to mark for potentially turning his thread into a "which mainstream pop-star are you most likely to glue-up a smash hits to" .
okay -not that sorry.
Big Si wrote:I know what you mean Lee, I can't stop listening to this Lady. So many catchy hooks in her tunes.....eastmidswhizzkid wrote:apologies to mark for potentially turning his thread into a "which mainstream pop-star are you most likely to glue-up a smash hits to" .
okay -not that sorry.
