The Civil Discussion Thread

[Hobbes]

I thought this could be a good idea for those of us who want to listen to other's opinions on polemic subjects and to engage in a civil dialogue.

Please refrain from posting anything that disrespects or insults someone else's opinion.

I hope this doesn't blow up in my face

Anyway, I was going to post this on the other thread but that would've been off-topic:


For me, abortion is a very difficult subject to make up my mind on, but I've come to something that I think is a sort-of adequate stance. On one side, naturally, you have the woman's right to decide on her own body, plus also cases of rape of incest; for this reason, I believe abortion should be legal during the first stages of pregnancy (first trimester, maybe?) But, after that, it's also the fetus' right to live, which in my humble opinion should take precedence.

But then comes another variable. If the mother's life is at clear risk, the option to abort should be given again, because if she can save her life she should be legally able to do so. I know socioeconomic status is also to be taken into account; but, if the only reason that is stopping a mother from having her child is her inability to provide for it, I believe she shouldn't have the right to decide on its life and should instead consider abortion.


I know it's by no means the perfect solution (or maybe not even a solution), which is why I want to read other opinions on the matter.

 

[EctoBiologist]

I honestly think that option shouldn't be only considered on the mother's wellbeing but also the kid's if it's born. The first trismeter of pregnancy caused by rape or incest the mother should seriously consider if it's worth it for the kid to live since there's a chance of it getting a disease (Possibly a painful one or an incurable one) or be genetically impaired in a severe way (In cases of incest) or well the chance of not being able to function properly in society and be detrimental to it.


I do however agree once the fetus gets it's own brain there's no going back and it has the right to live like any other regular human and thus abortion is not an option anymore. all in all it's the woman's choice for the first trismester to bear the kid or live without it but she must think about the severity of the choice since once the choice is done there is no turning back and she must live with it forever, simple as that.

 

[Ray Trace]

The vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester, where the fetus is still a clump of cells, and that's where I firmly believe that the mother has the right to choose if she wants it or not, regardless of how it got there. If it's there because of an accident, and that she is financially unable to support it, then I think it's better to abort it than to make it grow up and live a miserable life because the parents cannot support it.

The concerns of the mother should, in my opinion, always take priority over something that is not consciously able to feel yet, let alone, care, if it dies because the women doesn't want it or that she is unable to take adequate care of it.

The issue gets more muddled the longer you let it be: getting an abortion for a infant that's well in its third trimester stage is still illegal in most places in the USA unless it endangers the mother's life.

Also, some people get abortions because the child will develop a mental disorder. I'm fine with that. Just as long as the fetus doesn't become too developed.

all in all it's the woman's choice for the first trismester to bear the kid or live without it but she must think about the severity of the choice since once the choice is done there is no turning back and she must live with it forever, simple as that.

The opinions of aborting a fetus are mixed, but the dominant opinion is mostly relief. Don't get too worried about that.

 

[EctoBiologist]

Hey topic creator when do we move from discussion to discussion? will it be a set date or move on it's own?

 

[Hobbes]

I guess if anyone wants to talk about a different subject they are free to do so, or if we're talking about something else they can always go back to a previous subject.


There has been a lot of talk about the Syrian refugees these past weeks. First and foremost, I applaud all countries who have decided to give asylum to them; but I think it should be perfectly fine for a country to deny it. Some countries are getting a lot of shit over their negatives to receive refugees, but they are free to do so. Mexico is considering receiving around 10,000 refugees, but I think all aid and services provided to them should come from particulars, charities, or churches; governments should first and foremost tend to their own people, I disagree with generating so many extra expenses that could be avoided. In short and to make it clearer, I'm fine with Mexico receiving refugees, but I'm not fine with them being sustained by taxpayers' money.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

On abortion, the fetus is entirely dependent on the mother, who is a conscious, fully mature citizen. I think that status alone dooms the fetus to regardless. If you restrict abortions too much, some mothers can and will find other, more dangerous means to remove the fetus. The safety of the mother must be prioritized.

Abortions should be restricted generally once fetus has some inkling of brain activity.

There has been a lot of talk about the Syrian refugees these past weeks. First and foremost, I applaud all countries who have decided to give asylum to them; but I think it should be perfectly fine for a country to deny it. Some countries are getting a lot of *bleep* over their negatives to receive refugees, but they are free to do so. Mexico is considering receiving around 10,000 refugees, but I think all aid and services provided to them should come from particulars, charities, or churches; governments should first and foremost tend to their own people, I disagree with generating so many extra expenses that could be avoided. In short and to make it clearer, I'm fine with Mexico receiving refugees, but I'm not fine with them being sustained by taxpayers' money.

I'm not very informed on the subject, but I view those refugees as a potential source of economic growth as well as governments having an ethical obligation to take care of them. Again, I'm ignorant on this, so this may be the wrong approach.

 

[Ray Trace]

http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-ln-california-lawmakers-vote-on-right-to-die-legislation-20150909-story.html

So some right to die legislation is going on in CA.

I support euthanasia, btw.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

Ugh, this discussion.

I support euthanasia as well, but it's so difficult to determine if an illness really is terminal or not.

 

[Hobbes]

So do I, but the article raises some valid points. In my opinion, patients should make sure there is no hope for recovery before taking that decision. In the end, the decision should always be entirely up to the patient (provided he's mentally sound).

 

[DragonFreak]

http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-ln-california-lawmakers-vote-on-right-to-die-legislation-20150909-story.html

So some right to die legislation is going on in CA.

I support euthanasia, btw.

I kind of have a mindset where people should just be allowed to do these legal but yet are questionably "immoral". Goes with pretty much anything that applies.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Abortion is always a sticky issue that certainly bears a lot of thought and shouldn't just be arrived at INSTANTLY BECAUSE MY SIDE BELIEVES ___. My position is that it's perfectly okay as long as you're not taking a life. Which obviously brings the question "what defines life?", and so on. I personally find the brain activity argument to be the strongest, which would make abortions after eight weeks illegal. Although you could argue that real brain activity occurs much later, it seems to me that if the choice is between "preventing death of innocent children or preventing suffering of women", erring on the side of death prevention would be preferable. It's certainly up for debate though, I don't claim to be a qualified neurologist.

So do I, but the article raises some valid points. In my opinion, patients should make sure there is no hope for recovery before taking that decision. In the end, the decision should always be entirely up to the patient (provided he's mentally sound).

As far as I'm aware, euthanasia (in its current form) is only allowed when 1. patients are confirmed to be in sound mental health and 2. patients must administer the euthanasia to themselves. That's probably a state-by-state thing, but it seemed sensible enough to me.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

Abortion is always a sticky issue that certainly bears a lot of thought and shouldn't just be arrived at INSTANTLY BECAUSE MY SIDE BELIEVES ___. My position is that it's perfectly okay as long as you're not taking a life. Which obviously brings the question "what defines life?", and so on. I personally find the brain activity argument to be the strongest, which would make abortions after eight weeks illegal. Although you could argue that real brain activity occurs much later, it seems to me that if the choice is between "preventing death of innocent children or preventing suffering of women", erring on the side of death prevention would be preferable. It's certainly up for debate though, I don't claim to be a qualified neurologist.

What do you mean by "preventing suffering of women"? I think you meant by a general standpoint (e.g. life being threatened, couples that cannot support the child, rape/incest), but I don't think your framing of the situation is quite reasonable (note the emotive adjective "innocent"). I'd prioritize the life of a mature citizen over potential life. If the woman suffers, it's likely the child will suffer as well in most situations.

 

[banjonator1]

his whole point is that he believes brain activity constitutes life, so calling it "possible life" is wrong. and "innocent" might be emotionally loaded, but it's not intrinsically false (assuming, as he said, that it is "life")

 

[Ray Trace]

I also firmly believe that brain activity is the beginning of life. A zygote is no more than a clump of cells, similar to how your skin is nothing more than that. It's still consciously nonexistent, it doesn't really care in the slightest if it lives or dies (due to lack of a brain and therefore any emotion or memories), so therefore, killing a fetus shouldn't really have a significant impact.

In fact, thinking that would make stem cell research far easier to pursue. I still don't like how there are people against that, stem cell research has a huge potential to benefit humanity as a whole.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

I say innocent because taking innocent lives is something I'm against, but you gotta specify that or otherwise people might say BUT HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT KILLING PEOPLE EVER IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT ABORTIONS.

his whole point is that he believes brain activity constitutes life, so calling it "possible life" is wrong.

Yes, thank you. I take issue with

I'd prioritize the life of a mature citizen over potential life.

because they're both lives. We shouldn't be trying to weigh whose life is more valuable.

I also firmly believe that brain activity is the beginning of life. A zygote is no more than a clump of cells, similar to how your skin is nothing more than that. It's still consciously nonexistent, it doesn't really care in the slightest if it lives or dies (due to lack of a brain and therefore any emotion or memories), so therefore, killing a fetus shouldn't really have a significant impact.

In fact, thinking that would make stem cell research far easier to pursue. I still don't like how there are people against that, stem cell research has a huge potential to benefit humanity as a whole.

I also agree with this.

 

[Toad Eightyfive]

how come every time we try to have a "serious" discussion it always defaults to abortion

 

[Stargazing]

abortion should be legal right up until birth.

this is my current stance on the topic

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

how come every time we try to have a "serious" discussion it always defaults to abortion

That's how this thread started, though.

I say innocent because taking innocent lives is something I'm against, but you gotta specify that or otherwise people might say BUT HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT KILLING PEOPLE EVER IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT ABORTIONS.

his whole point is that he believes brain activity constitutes life, so calling it "possible life" is wrong.

Yes, thank you. I take issue with

I'd prioritize the life of a mature citizen over potential life.

because they're both lives. We shouldn't be trying to weigh whose life is more valuable.

I also firmly believe that brain activity is the beginning of life. A zygote is no more than a clump of cells, similar to how your skin is nothing more than that. It's still consciously nonexistent, it doesn't really care in the slightest if it lives or dies (due to lack of a brain and therefore any emotion or memories), so therefore, killing a fetus shouldn't really have a significant impact.

In fact, thinking that would make stem cell research far easier to pursue. I still don't like how there are people against that, stem cell research has a huge potential to benefit humanity as a whole.

I also agree with this.

The first statement, if people are thinking about capital punishment, then that's off-topic anyhow.

I am weighing the value of both lives in this case. I think the mother takes precedence in this case. After all, the fetus is mostly dependent on her. Surrogation methods exist, but it's still the power of the mother. Deny her the abortion, it will just make her more desperate.

Also, of course I agree with my sister. Maybe I haven't phrased it correctly, but I view the fetus from a citizen, person kind of standpoint rather than a literal human life standpoint.

On a related note, I'm concerned with people that seek abortions if their child turns out to be, say, a girl or someone who has a mental disability. It makes me uncomfortable, actually.

 

[Ray Trace]

Well let's think of it this way: what if you're pregnant, and the doctors tell you that your child has down syndrome. Will you abort the child? I mean, both sides are technically correct in this case. I really think it's up to the individual if they want the child or not.

 

[Hobbes]

Since Mario Party mentioned it, I'll give my stance on capital punishment. I strongly support it for at least killers and kidnappers (extremely common in Mexico). Life imprisonment should be by no means the alternative, specially in a country with such a poor jail system like Mexico, because every inmate represents a quite large cost for the states and the country.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

I think capital punishment is much more costly than life imprisonment in terms of monetary and psychological damages from all camps. I admit, I'm not familiar with what's going on in Mexico, but in the United States, life imprisonment is highly flawed and I think it's even unethical, with racist and class-dividing undertones (the stats show a disproportionate amount of people that are poor and black) and excruciating death row time and literally years of legal headaches. It's also an extremely weak deterrent, and by switching to life imprisonment without parole, we'll actually save money.

Well let's think of it this way: what if you're pregnant, and the doctors tell you that your child has down syndrome. Will you abort the child? I mean, both sides are technically correct in this case. I really think it's up to the individual if they want the child or not.

I'm probably leaning toward abort because I'm taking bets with the child that the child will lead a healthy life without exhausting support that will end with me getting depressed or emotionally drained. Needless to say, it's a very tough question for me.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

I am weighing the value of both lives in this case. I think the mother takes precedence in this case.

...

On a related note, I'm concerned with people that seek abortions if their child turns out to be, say, a girl or someone who has a mental disability. It makes me uncomfortable, actually.

So the statement "mother's life > fetus" is okay, but "male fetus > female fetus" and "normal fetus > disabled fetus" are wrong?

I just don't see how you can define someone as alive and then decide that their life is more or less valuable than another life.

 

[banjonator1]

I think the firing squad should be a voluntary option for all criminals convicted of capital crimes.

How is the death penalty a weak deterrent? And how can it have racist/classist undertones?

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

I am weighing the value of both lives in this case. I think the mother takes precedence in this case.

...

On a related note, I'm concerned with people that seek abortions if their child turns out to be, say, a girl or someone who has a mental disability. It makes me uncomfortable, actually.

So the statement "mother's life > fetus" is okay, but "male fetus > female fetus" and "normal fetus > disabled fetus" are wrong?

I just don't see how you can define someone as alive and then decide that their life is more or less valuable than another life.

Yes, that's how I see it.

I am weighing the value of both lives in this case. I think the mother takes precedence in this case. After all, the fetus is mostly dependent on her. Surrogation methods exist, but it's still the power of the mother. Deny her the abortion, it will just make her more desperate.

I think the firing squad should be a voluntary option for all criminals convicted of capital crimes.

How is the death penalty a weak deterrent? And how can it have racist/classist undertones?

It is weak for several reasons:

In the United States, 10 of the 12 states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average, Federal Bureau of Investigation data shows, while half of the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above the national average. In a state-by-state analysis in the US of the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty. On a state-to-state comparison, states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/discussion-recent-deterrence-studies

There is hardly any evidence for deterrence as well, so the arguments on deterrence tend to have only speculation and no actual evidence.

The Death Penalty: No Evidence for Deterrence: In an article entitled The Death Penalty: No Evidence for Deterrence, John Donnohue and Justin Wolfers examined recent statistical studies that claimed to show a deterrent effect from the death penalty. The authors conclude that the estimates claiming that the death penalty saves numerous lives "are simply not credible." In fact, the authors state that using the same data and proper methodology could lead to the exact opposite conclusion: that is, that the death penalty actually increases the number of murders. The authors state: "We show that with the most minor tweaking of the [research] instruments, one can get estimates ranging from 429 lives saved per execution to 86 lives lost. These numbers are outside the bounds of credibility." (The Economists' Voice, April 2006).

"Nothing is known about how potential murderers actually perceive their risk of punishment." The report concluded: “The committee concludes that research to date on the effect of capital punishment on homicide is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide rates"

As for the racist and classist undertones, see below.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/DeathPenaltyFactsMay2012.pdf

Blacks have also faced racial intimidation in trials and racist comments made by police show some level of racism of the death penalty at play.

Oh, also, there are people that are sentenced to death row that are innocent.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/many-prisoners-on-death-row-are-wrongfully-convicted/
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent

 

[DragonFreak]

I'm completely fine with capital punishments against people who killed others themselves. Especially for serial killers who have murdered so many people. I believe it is more than fair for them to be put to death. Because rotting away in a prison cell just doesn't seem to do enough justice.