No post body was provided.
They Think It's Murder
131–140 of 170 posts
Re: They Think It's Murder
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
Today I learned that there are actually six provisions in the Code of Hammurabi for that, covering different effects to the mother and (according that system) standing of the mother! 209. If a man has struck a free woman with child, and has caused her to miscarry, he shall pay ten shekels for her miscarriage. 210. If that woman die, his daughter shall be killed. 211. If by a blow he has caused a plebian's daughter to…
This also shows how women at that time were treated as "glorified property": > If that woman die, his daughter shall be killed. You damaged my property — your property will be equally damaged. Justice! Women wouldn't be treated as equal to men for another 3,500 years or so.
Let us apreciate that we are not bound by the Code of Hammurabi, and strengthen our resolve to not move in that direction.
Re: They Think It's Murder
#133That’s a great sentiment, but their belief is not based on reason, but instead faith. You don’t reason with the faithful, you just walk away.
Re: They Think It's Murder
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Today I learned that there are actually six provisions in the Code of Hammurabi for that, covering different effects to the mother and (according that system) standing of the mother! 209. If a man has struck a free woman with child, and has caused her to miscarry, he shall pay ten shekels for her miscarriage. 210. If that woman die, his daughter shall be killed. 211. If by a blow he has caused a plebian's daughter to…
This also shows how women at that time were treated as "glorified property": > If that woman die, his daughter shall be killed. You damaged my property — your property will be equally damaged. Justice! Women wouldn't be treated as equal to men for another 3,500 years or so.
Also, does that mean that according to the Code of Hammurabi, a man without any daughter, can kill as many free women as he pleases without any consequence?
Re: They Think It's Murder
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone else said it here, but in the US you can be forced to give up much more - the ultimate sacrifice - with selective service. So this, too, is a tough rub on logic
I think it's completely unremarkable that I can tell you [random HN person] that an argument is useless because people aren't interested in changing their minds, and you attempt to counter the argument.
Friend,
> Nevertheless, all of the above is useless, because the people who want to ban abortion are not, in general, sincere about saving humans life being their primary desire. Their primary desire is to have a subclass of humans who can be controlled and punished. Arguing with them about this is approximately useless; there are a few who are willing to discuss evidence and logic, but most are only displaying their allegiance to their tribe.
All I did was accept your invitation to discuss evidence and logic - there is no value judgement on whether or not these rules are good - I personally don’t care what people do - but I do want people to be kind. The evidence is the selective service requirement - I’m not sure what else you asked for?
Selective service is a direct example, objective to the ultimate degree, of a government using biological sex (go check the transgender section [0]) to make laws about risk of health / life and death decisions.
Perhaps one should think who really is religious and incapable of logic and objectivity.
Re: They Think It's Murder
#136Let's grant for the sake of this argument and this alone that fertilization signals the beginning of all rights. You cannot be forced to donate a kidney to save someone else's life: they have no claim on your body. You cannot be forced to donate blood, for the same reason. You cannot be forced into surgery. You have the right to refuse medicine. And, in general, you have the right to ingest whatever substances you wa…
No post body was provided.
Re: They Think It's Murder
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm going to wade in on this against my better interests. To me, the debate seems to have a paradox that can't be resolved using the logic we've inherited from the Enlightenment (mostly). Namely: People have rights to their bodies. Yes, it's super-duper more complicated than just that, I know. But, to my brain, it seems to boil mostly down to that. We have to define rights, people, bodies, what 'have' means, etc. Sur…
Unfortunately the same people use the same argument against use of synthetic wombs for humans. At some point, when they're fully developed to sustain animals, we'll have to move on to human experimentation there.
> Unfortunately the same people use the same argument against use of synthetic wombs for humans.
Care to expand on this? I am not aware of any opinion on this other than general undefined revulsion. Has anyone articulated an actual argument?
Re: They Think It's Murder
#138Let's grant for the sake of this argument and this alone that fertilization signals the beginning of all rights. You cannot be forced to donate a kidney to save someone else's life: they have no claim on your body. You cannot be forced to donate blood, for the same reason. You cannot be forced into surgery. You have the right to refuse medicine. And, in general, you have the right to ingest whatever substances you wa…
> You cannot be forced to donate a kidney to save someone else's life: they have no claim on your body Hell, even a dead body is not forced to give up a kidney if its previous inhabitant did not sign an organ donor consent form. In America, women have less right to their body than a corpse.
> Hell, even a dead body is not forced to give up a kidney if its previous inhabitant did not sign an organ donor consent form.
It may be worth discussing why this is the case.
It is certainly possible to convince of a hypothetical society where the bodies of the dead are the property of someone, be they: family, inheritors by testament, society at large, the government, etc.
Why is it that a dead body is effectively it's own owner, at least when it comes to organ donation?
Re: They Think It's Murder
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where "you" means specifically males aged 18-25. Coincidentally, 1973, the year Roe v. Wade was decided, was the last year anyone was drafted into the military.
When in college taking 'Women in History' there were (for obvious reasons) all women, save me and two other men. Professor asked 'Who thinks men and women should have equal rights?' Everyone raised their hands. 'Who is willing to be drafted to protect those rights?' All 3 men, a handful of women raised their hands. The women in general didn't seem to think it was 'fair'. Professor continued- 'What about abortion righ…
>There are double standards all aground, and we clearly as a society haven't figured these things out.
We (or at least most people) cannot _ever_ figure it out, is more accurate. From an evolutionary perspective the genders evolved as a division of labor of sorts. And with that came trade offs, so in the simplistic form equality cannot exist, without equality of responsibility.
>it's a very difficult position for me- as a man, wanting equality for women but also being raised to be a 'gentleman', put women and children first.
We are on the same page. Let start of by taking away the right of women and other imbeciles (which includes most men) to vote, lol.
(sarcasm of course, I believe the whole voting/democracy as is normally practiced is a charade to placate the potentially mobbing nature of the masses)
Re: They Think It's Murder
#140Not only "They" think it's murder, we as a society tend to think it's murder too. Here's my argument: in most jurisdictions, a killing of a pregnant woman brings harsher sentence than a killing of non-pregnant woman. In some, it just doubles the crime (double homicide, double manslaughter, etc.) Judging from this, we as a society see at least some value in the life of a foetus. The issue is a complicated one. We seem…
If there is a period between the fetus cells being created and it being old enough to be covered by personhood, it seems obvious to me that harming the natural growth of the fetus should carry a punishment, at least on behalf of the mother who wanted to raise the child. That doesn't mean its murder.