Aufan59

On 4/24/2024 at 9:46 PM, I_M4_AU said:

I have no idea what the flat earthers feel about global warming.  They are allowed to have an opinion, do they not?

Is you opinion the only one that matters?  Is all the other opinions equivalent to the flat earthers?

Man made climate change will not be proven in our lifetime, is it critical enough for the President to declare a Climate Emergency?

 

 

 

Other opinions are fine, as long as they aren’t blatantly lying.

Which is why I associated the lies you posted with the flat earthers, as they also are blatant liars.

You may think it helps your case by posting different sides, but that isn’t the case if they are just blatantly lying.

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

No, your point contradicts itself.  The second one person has the right to kill another, the person initiating the killing has more rights.  And while "bodily autonomy" is certainly an important right, rights don't really get more important than the right not to be killed by someone else when you've done nothing to deserve it.

 

We assume the right of the innocent not to be killed.  This doesn't need to be established.  It's a basic bedrock tenet of human dignity.

 

Someone who is kidnapping you is not innocent and is an active threat to you. Considering what we know of people that kidnap others, there's a high likelihood that they will injure or kill you.  Killing them to escape this situation is not analogous to anything we're discussing.

 

It's not "extra rights."  It's a hierarchy of existing rights.  Some rights are of higher importance than others.  The right of the innocent not to be killed outranks the right basically all other rights.  It's a pluperfect of example of a first order right.

I still think that it is extra rights, as they have the right to use another person’s body.  There is no other example of this right being exercised and upheld.  It simply does not exist.

My point was not to equate kidnapping to pregnancy, or for you to explain to me that they are different, but to give a clear example of bodily autonomy being a right that is exercised even when intentional death of another is a consequence.  Bodily autonomy rights are well established and exercised in a variety of different ways.  

For me to better understand the rights that the person in the womb has:

If a woman does not kill the person in the womb, but instead has them removed and given the best available medical care, is that a violation of the person’s rights to not be killed?

If a woman is raped and gets an abortion, is that a violation of the person’s rights to not be killed?  Or in a different example:  if the woman did not know sex could result in pregnancy and gets an abortion, is that a violation of the person’s rights to not be killed?

5 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Perhaps there aren't any others, but that's the entire point - pregnancy is a completely different animal.

I think this is the underlying point.  There is no comparison.

So my point remains, if abortion before viability is not legal, then the person in the womb has extra rights.  The right to use another person’s body, at the detriment of another person’s rights.

I’m not saying that this is wrong.  But it certainly is a new right with no similar cases.  A new right that needs to be established, not just assumed to be true.  It certainly contradicts “all men are created equal”.
 

This new right also has some questionable exceptions.  You might consider them edge cases, but I consider them very arbitrary reasons to revoke a right.  A person conceived without consent may not have these extra rights?  These rights are dependent on the action of a third party?  
 

While there are no examples of this extra right being granted anywhere else, there are many examples of the right to bodily autonomy being protected.  Even examples that result in the intentional death of another person.  For example I can kill someone who is actively kidnapping me.  
 

There are countless cases protecting our bodily autonomy, but none protecting a right to another person’s bodily autonomy.
 

I’m glad to hear more arguments why extra rights should be granted to a certain group of people at the detriment of others.  But for me to be convinced, these rights need solid footing, without arbitrary means of removal, and generally adhere to the concept that all men are created equal.  

I appreciate the response, and I will respond to your points, but the question still remains, when else, aside from pregnancy, is one person entitled to use another person’s body?

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

First, the dying person on the organ transplant list is a stranger to the person who is a match. We don’t have any (legal) obligations towards strangers, especially to perform actions that go above and beyond ordinary courtesy and kindness. However, a child who is growing inside a woman’s uterus is not a stranger. It is the mother's own son or daughter. The analogy fails because it assumes that a woman has no more obligation to her own child than she does to a random stranger. Parents have obligations to their own children that they don’t have towards total strangers and the government demands and enforces these obligations.

A mother can give up all legal obligations to their child, and a person can adopt legal obligations of a stranger child.  The familial relationship is not what determines the legal obligation.  And even so, a familial relationship does not oblige use of the body, I don’t have the rights to my mom’s kidney.

As a side note, should we add unrelated surrogate mothers to the list of exceptions for abortion?

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Second, an organ transplant involves an unnatural use of body parts, whereas pregnancy involves the natural use of them. A kidney inside your own body is designed to be used for your body. It was not made to be surgically removed and placed into another person’s body. That’s an artificial or unnatural use (and the ongoing doses of immunosuppressant drugs kinda points to this being true), even as good of an end result that the transplant is. This is not the case with being pregnant. When the mother is pregnant, the child growing inside her is in exactly the place where human beings are designed to gestate: a woman's uterus. That organ is the natural and proper organ to gestate another human being. There is nothing unnatural about it. It’s designed to provide physiological support for another human body, unlike your kidney, which is designed to provide physiological support for your body.

In this case, use of another person’s body is acceptable if it is natural?  Would you accept forced donations of breast milk to feed the hungry?

As a side note, surrogate mothers again are an exception.  
 

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Third, in the organ transplant situation, the potential donor has not done anything that places the burden of a stranger’s health in their hands. They has nothing to do with the health crisis this stranger is in. It's a burden that has been imposed on them against their will. That’s not the case with a pregnancy (or at least 99% of them - see below). When a woman becomes pregnant, it is because she has voluntarily engaged in the very act known to cause pregnancy: sex. When you consent to sex, you consent to the possibility of getting pregnant. Obviously rape would be different, but that’s a different discussion altogether and only accounts for less than half a percent of all abortions (according to Planned Parenthood’s own data).

Consenting to sex is not consenting to third person being able to use your body.  Knowingly and intentionally becoming pregnant and giving birth does not obligate the mother to care for the child, as we’ve already established with adoption and safe haven laws.

But the bigger point is, why does consent of the mother matter?  Or in other words, when does a child of rape gain their rights not to be killed?

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

And finally, the organ transplant situation involves refusing to donate body parts to a stranger who has a terminal illness, while abortion is an intentional killing of a woman’s own healthy child. In other words, the former involves passively allowing someone who is terminal to die while the latter (abortion) involves the intentional and physical act of killing through chemical means or physical dismemberment of a healthy, non-terminal, human being. Put another way, though I may have right to refuse to donate my kidney to a dying patient, that doesn’t mean I have the right to shoot them in the head instead. Allowing someone to die is not morally equivalent to intentional killing.

I think this is a fair point, but to clarify there is no such thing as a non-terminal person.  Someone’s life isn’t less valuable solely because they are going to die in the future.
 

For all intents, actively killing the person in the womb is the same as removing them from them womb and letting them die on their own.  The underlying point is the same, you are denying them use of your body.

We agree point 1 and 2 are weak, I don’t care to argue them much further.  Point 3 is interesting to me, but a non-starter as consent for sex or conception seems like a very arbitrary way to decide the rights of a person.

Point 4 is most compelling to me and actually gets to the question I have, what other situation does one person have the rights to use another person’s body?  What gives a person the right to use another person’s body?

On 4/20/2024 at 12:29 AM, I_M4_AU said:

Did I deny it?

Seems like a very low bar.  What is the consensus among flat earthers about global warming?  

There are differing viewpoints about everything.  Stating or even proving that there are differing viewpoints is meaningless.  
 

On 4/22/2024 at 4:28 AM, AUDub said:

This is a question that needs an answer, Titan. 59 cuts to the heart of the matter with it. 

I’d love a response or even a discussion, as I think I’m malleable on the topic.  For example I didn’t always concede that personhood starts at conception.  But it must, or else it is defined arbitrarily.  Arbitrarily based on how long after conception the person has been alive, or worse, based on the circumstances of conception, I.e. rape or incest.  
 

Agreeing that personhood starts at conception, then we’re talking about two people.  I don’t know of any other example where one person is entitled to use another person’s body without consent.  
 

So if the child is entitled to the mother’s body, with no recourse for the mother, that means one of two things:  the child has more rights than the mother; or the mother never really had rights to her own body to begin with.

I think Titan hints at the latter argument, that the woman really didn’t have such rights to begin with.  

On 4/20/2024 at 2:48 AM, TitanTiger said:

And as I said, even outside of the womb, a mother is giving up bodily autonomy. So evidently there are cases where your bodily autonomy is not a greater right than the right for the child not to be killed through your direct action or neglect.  Bodily autonomy is not an absolute right.

I think to be fair, this is confounding bodily autonomy with legal obligation.  I am liable when I speed while driving, it is not a violation of my bodily autonomy to be able to press my foot against the gas pedal.  When I agree to become a driver I must follow the rules.

Likewise I am legally obligated to care for my child when I agree to being their legal guardian, this is not a violation of my bodily autonomy.  

Bodily autonomy is about having ownership of my body, not another person or the government.

Overall I think it is an interesting discussion.  As a small government conservative that believes in personal liberties, of course I believe in the right to bodily autonomy.  It might not be spelled out in the constitution, but it is certainly implied right.

That being said I am always open and interested in hearing the opinion of a big government liberal, who has an argument for government taking away our personal liberty.
 

8 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

An abortion isn’t analogous to that. 

 

Why not?

Name one other situation where one person is entitled to use another person’s body.

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

To posit that bodily autonomy means that one human being gets to kill another human being for it is to posit that they aren't equal either.  There are hierarchies of rights.  And the right for an innocent person not to be killed is paramount among them.  You're elevating your concept of bodily autonomy above everything.

This is a very loose definition of kill.  Have you killed every person that has died on the organ transplant list?

Refusing to let another human use your body so they can survive is not killing.  If I can’t deny the use of my kidneys, blood, bone marrow or womb to another person, they have more rights than I do.

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

59 argues from the position of the right to evict. An extremely Libertarian position on the matter. 

The stance has nothing to do with eviction.  It also applies to other situations that don’t involve eviction, for example a mother is not legally required to donate a kidney, blood or bone marrow to their child.  

The argument is that both mother and child are humans with rights.  No human is entitled to another person’s body.  There is no other example of this being true.  To posit that the baby has rights to the mother’s body is to posit they aren’t equal.

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

bull****. 

You argued about parental duties. I simply  pointed out that these parental duties begin long before the child is born.   passing through a birth canal is not what initiates them. 
 

Actually, I would say that we don’t disagree so much on when but on how.  A woman can decide very early on she has no intention of being this child’s mother. She can begin the process of having someone adopt her child upon birth right then.

But you can’t decide not to feed the baby because it is a human person that is dependent upon you and/or others to live.  It is the right not to be killed that trumps all others.

 

And as I said, even outside of the womb, a mother is giving up bodily autonomy. So evidently there are cases where your bodily autonomy is not a greater right than the right for the child not to be killed through your direct action or neglect.  Bodily autonomy is not an absolute right.  

You brought the point about parental duties in your second response to me.  Parental duties do not require one human using the body of another with no alternatives.  It is not a good comparison.

12 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Well at least that’s one thing. 
 

Unless you give a child up for adoption via Safe Haven or otherwise, you give up your bodily autonomy (as well as other kinds of autonomy) whether the child is in the womb or out of it. You do not get to avoid these responsibilities in either situation and cause the death of another human being as a result. 
 

The problem isn’t the idea  the problem is that you aren’t actually arguing with consistency that both humans have equal rights. 

 

I’m glad, but the point is that we have parental duties to children even before they are born, not just after. 
 

You really aren’t and no I’m not.  

You’re creating straw men and distractions that have nothing to do with the point.  Why introduce an argument about a third party father assaulting a pregnant woman?  Or the mother ingesting illegal drugs that harm another person?  Irrelevant. 

Anyways, let’s distill the argument:

 -we agree that personhood and rights begin at conception

- we agree that a mother can legally forfeit her obligations to the child via adoption and safe haven laws

- we disagree on when the mother can legally forfeit her obligations to the child 
 

My argument: a person is never obligated to give up their bodily autonomy for another person.  For example, you aren’t legally obligated to donate a kidney to save your child’s life.  Likewise, you aren’t legally obligated to carry your child until viability.  
 

However once the baby is viable outside of the womb, abortion is obviously a violation of their rights.

It is as if viability is a great line in the sand to draw to respect individual rights?  If only they decided that like 50 years ago.
 

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

By 2100 they should know what was BS or not.  Just like the 70’s global cooling scare was because of bad theory, so will any bad theory be exposed if we keep digging and not think the science is settled.

We don’t have to wait until 2100 to know the difference between entropy and radiative forcing.

This is not even about climate change, politics, the 1970s, etc.  This is about the study you posted, that you don’t understand, that is just “offering a different view point.”

Please just admit your only criteria is “a different viewpoint”.

32 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I have faith our kids and grandkids will be able to deal with life’s problems in the future.

So no need to lie to them with bull**** studies right?

6 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Seems to be same logic as the deficit. Screw it. We’ll create the problem and let our kids and grand kids deal with it. 

Yikes if you actually have kids and grandkids though.  

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

No, to post alternative thoughts.  You believe it is a BS study, I thought it was something that people might be interested in knowing everyone doesn’t agree with the 97%.

What is interesting is not one of us well be around in the year 2100 to see if the earth has warmed.

It’s definitely a BS study, one you don’t understand but only post because it’s alternative.

But we do agree that we both don’t care what happens in 2100.

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Having a theory that the earth is warming is fine.

Spreading fear that we only have a fixed time period to act before it’s tool late is fear mongering.

Is this your excuse for posting bull**** studies?  To counter the fear?

14 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm quite familiar.  Perhaps you're not familiar with adoption laws.  Mothers are allowed legally to give up a child they don't want or don't feel able to keep for adoption.

Parental duties start before the child is born.  It's one of the reasons a father who assaults the mother while the child is in the womb and causes a miscarriage is subject to criminal penalties, up to and including murder.  It's why if a mother causes harm to her unborn child by abusing illegal drugs, she is also liable for criminal penalties.  All these duties don't magically come into play because a head pokes out the opening of a vagina.
 

We agree on adoption!  There is no legal obligation for a mother to giver up her bodily autonomy for her child.

Also, none of these examples counter my point that the woman and child are both people with equal rights. 
 

I agree that these people should be punished as if the baby in womb was a person.

I don’t think you aren’t paying attention but my argument is that the baby is a person with equal rights!

I think you might be agreeing with me!

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

Doesn’t help?  Doesn’t help what?  The narrative of gloom and doom is right around the corner if we don’t do something?  anything?

Having a differing opinion is counter productive?

Net zero is the preferred method of stopping the increase in CO2 and it is cost prohibitive.  The Sec. of Energy admitted he has no idea how much it would lower the earths surface temps by 2100.  

 

 

 

Differing opinion is fine.

Posting “scientific studies” that conflate scientific terms to confuse people is not fine.

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm really not.  You're forcing me to use my body (that bottle ain't gonna levitate at the baby's mouth, much less mix itself), my time, my energy, and my money to keep another human being alive under threat of law.  

I don’t think you are familiar with safe haven laws.  Mothers are allowed to legally give up their new borns to the state.

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Ok, so I can just sit a can of powdered formula next to them and I'm done?  Or are you going to make me mix it with water, put it in a bottle and hold the damn thing for them too?

 

I'm not presuming.  I'm calling what you claim to be your position illogical.

My point is that no human should be forced to give up their bodily autonomy for another person.
 

You’re making a false comparison to parental duties, which don’t require giving up bodily autonomy to fulfill. 

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

That was one question, the other is; would the $50 Trillion the U.S. will spend on net zero be worth the cost if we do not know how much the results would lower the earth temps by the year 2100?

 

 

**** if I know.  I’m just here to tell you that quoting bull**** studies doesn’t help, regardless of what side you are on with this $50 trillion dollar question.

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

That's quite the linguistic gymnast routine there.  If that logic is true, why do we prosecute parents for allowing a baby to starve to death?  Isn't the infant free to live their life without the mom or dad having to be responsible for feeding them?

Look, if your position is simply that the mother's rights are more important, just say that.  At least that's an honest take even if I disagree with it.  But this other thing is nonsense.

There are many ways from preventing a baby from starving, including methods that don’t give the baby rights to another person’s body.  Maybe you have heard of baby formula?

Feel free to presume my position, but it is based on all humans having equal rights.  Which is what America was founded on and what Roe v Wade was decided on.

2 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

My bad if I misunderstood 

No problem.  The study used is confounding scientific terms to cause confusion.

”Enthalpy” is the term for energy contained in matter.  Warm water has more enthalpy than ice, for example.

All matter has enthalpy.  The CO2 in the atmosphere has enthalpy.  The oxygen and nitrogen do too.  The study is confounding enthalpy with the greenhouse effect.  
 

For those ignorant to science, like Jordan Peterson who tweeted this study, it might sound compelling.  But I will be glad to argue the science with anyone who confuses enthalpy with radiative forcing.  

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The second you give one human being the power to kill another innocent human being, you've firmly committed to a paradigm where mother and child do not have perfectly equal rights.

I agree in principle, but we must be careful with how you define “power to kill”.

In the case of abortion, the mother is not granting the use of her body to another human.  That human is free to live their life without the mother.

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Answer my question, I answered yours.

What is the source of global warming?

The greenhouse effect.  Namely CO2 and its absorption and radiation of infrared energy.