Florida governor DeSantis says recreational pot and abortion are too radical

[Clizby Wampuscat]

So you acknowledge that this is not true in all cases. I am not sure exactly what "almost" means in this context, but it certainly does not mean all.

Yes, some women are impregnated against their will. I don't know of anyone that denies that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So you are not for any legal restrictions on abortion. Is this accurate?

That is not entirely accurate, but only because I believe that no law can forsee all circumstances. If that were possible, then I would have little problem with a law that forbade abortion after fetal viability unless a medical professional deemed it a threat to the mother's life. But as I said earlier, that is by far the fewest number of abortions performed anyway.

The terminally ill person still has a right to life. No one should be able to take their life without consent.

Of course, but they will not (nor will you) be able to avoid dying. But what about with their consent? What is your position on Medical Assistance in Dying, when a person requests it?

(It's amusing that suicide was a criminal offence in some places, notably England and Wales until 1961. I often wondered what the punishment was for successfully killing yourself.)

You can have a right even though you don't want to or cannot act on it. I choose not to own a gun, that does not mean I don't have the right to own one? A person in a coma has a right to free speech even though they cannot act upon it.

You choose not to own a gun, so you don't. That is a kind of action, a choice you make yourself.

The example of someone in a coma seems very odd to me. Not quite a fallacy, but something else.
The statement doesn't fit into a fallacy category exactly, but it might be considered a form of flawed reasoning. It seems to be mixing concepts of rights and capacities in a way that doesn't quite align logically.

However, if we were to scrutinize it, we might interpret it as a form of "false analogy" or "category error." This is because the concept of freedom of speech typically applies to individuals who have the capacity to express themselves verbally or in writing, whereas a person in a coma lacks that capacity. So, drawing an analogy between the two situations is not logically sound.

It could also be seen as an example of "equivocation," where the meaning of "freedom of speech" is stretched to include a scenario where the usual conditions for exercising that right are not present.

Ultimately, it's not a clear-cut fallacy, but rather a flawed argument that conflates different concepts in a misleading way.

No, the mother in almost all cases chose the actions that got her pregnant, that is where she had the right to exercise her liberty. The unborn human life did not choose to be created. We either limit the mothers liberty for nine months or the child's liberty forever. If you have sex you have a responsibility for those actions which one is pregnancy. I assume you agree that if you buy a gun and leave it loaded on the table you are somewhat responsible for a child that picks it up and fires it.

So, are you suggesting that if you have made an error, all further rights pertaining to that error are no longer yours?

My mother was a teen when she got pregnant with me in 1947, and she was still a teen girl when my father got another girl pregnant with my brother -- who is far short of 9 months younger than me! -- also in 1947. As it happened, both me and that brother (who I only spoke to for the first time just 3 weeks ago!) wound up not being cared for by anyone related to us. I was never adopted, and just fostered in 40 foster homes and a couple of orphanages until I was 18 and dumped on the streets. My brother, lucky for him, was adopted as a very young child.

Now, she couldn't get a legal abortion back then, of course -- and I eagerly await your inevitable question "would you prefer that she could?" -- but that sort of thing can happen to a girl today. Isn't it possible she is charmed off her feet by a man, makes the "mistake" of getting pregnant by him, only to discover he's a violent, abusive sort? See, the man my mother married was exactly that, and he nearly killed me twice, which is why I wound up in Children's Aid care.

For myself, I do not punish people for making errors. I've made enough of my own to know better.

The Declaration of Independence is not law. We do not have unalienable rights by a creator.

Rights conflict all the time. That is what the courts are for. But why is it right to give all the rights to the mother and not the unborn? I view the unborn as human life until viable, then as a child. You say both have liberty, but just assert the mother's liberty is the one that matters. Why?

And you are asserting that the fetus's is the only one that matters, and would deny it to the mother. Why?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The unborn human life did not choose to be created.

And while in the womb, doesn't know that it has been created, either. Neither you, I nor anyone else can remember anything at all before we were about 2-3 years old.

We either limit the mothers liberty for nine months or the child's liberty forever.

I can't help but note you will insist on calling a fetus a "child." You know I disagree, and I have explained why. But of course how we decide to name things is quite often used to add suasion to our arguments.

But I wonder if you've fully thought out whether the only effect on a pregnant girl forced to carry to term is merely "limiting her liberty for nine months," and nothing more -- no lasting emotional or psychological effects, and so forth.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I have a question for all those who are concerned about whether or not a fetus in the womb has the chance to become a living human being outside the womb, and here it is:

"How would you feel if you had never been born? Would you regret your missed opportunity?"

 

[Pogo]

I have a question for all those who are concerned about whether or not a fetus in the womb has the chance to become a living human being outside the womb, and here it is:

"How would you feel if you had never been born? Would you regret your missed opportunity?"

Less than I regret being born.

 

[fantome profane]

I have a question for all those who are concerned about whether or not a fetus in the womb has the chance to become a living human being outside the womb, and here it is:

"How would you feel if you had never been born? Would you regret your missed opportunity?"

About as much as I shall regret my death, after I have died.

(I realize I am not who you are asking, but ....)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Less than I regret being born.

That saddens me, I have to tell you. No matter how bad my growing up was (and it was often terrible) I look forward to every second I have left to me.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

That is not entirely accurate, but only because I believe that no law can forsee all circumstances. If that were possible, then I would have little problem with a law that forbade abortion after fetal viability unless a medical professional deemed it a threat to the mother's life. But as I said earlier, that is by far the fewest number of abortions performed anyway.

So you do not want any laws passed that restrict abortion in any way?

Of course, but they will not (nor will you) be able to avoid dying. But what about with their consent? What is your position on Medical Assistance in Dying, when a person requests it?

If they are mentally competent then I am ok with it legally.

(It's amusing that suicide was a criminal offence in some places, notably England and Wales until 1961. I often wondered what the punishment was for successfully killing yourself.)

Yeah, I guess it was just to make a statement that it was a bad thing to do.

You choose not to own a gun, so you don't. That is a kind of action, a choice you make yourself.

The example of someone in a coma seems very odd to me. Not quite a fallacy, but something else.
The statement doesn't fit into a fallacy category exactly, but it might be considered a form of flawed reasoning. It seems to be mixing concepts of rights and capacities in a way that doesn't quite align logically.

However, if we were to scrutinize it, we might interpret it as a form of "false analogy" or "category error." This is because the concept of freedom of speech typically applies to individuals who have the capacity to express themselves verbally or in writing, whereas a person in a coma lacks that capacity. So, drawing an analogy between the two situations is not logically sound.

It could also be seen as an example of "equivocation," where the meaning of "freedom of speech" is stretched to include a scenario where the usual conditions for exercising that right are not present.

Ultimately, it's not a clear-cut fallacy, but rather a flawed argument that conflates different concepts in a misleading way.

I disagree. No one's rights are taken away just because they cannot use them at the moment. So as soon as you go into a coma you don't have any rights anymore? That makes no sense to me.

So, are you suggesting that if you have made an error, all further rights pertaining to that error are no longer yours?

No.

My mother was a teen when she got pregnant with me in 1947, and she was still a teen girl when my father got another girl pregnant with my brother -- who is far short of 9 months younger than me! -- also in 1947. As it happened, both me and that brother (who I only spoke to for the first time just 3 weeks ago!) wound up not being cared for by anyone related to us. I was never adopted, and just fostered in 40 foster homes and a couple of orphanages until I was 18 and dumped on the streets. My brother, lucky for him, was adopted as a very young child.

Now, she couldn't get a legal abortion back then, of course -- and I eagerly await your inevitable question "would you prefer that she could?" -- but that sort of thing can happen to a girl today. Isn't it possible she is charmed off her feet by a man, makes the "mistake" of getting pregnant by him, only to discover he's a violent, abusive sort? See, the man my mother married was exactly that, and he nearly killed me twice, which is why I wound up in Children's Aid care.

For myself, I do not punish people for making errors. I've made enough of my own to know better.

No one is being punished for getting pregnant. But many mistakes we make have consequences, that is just how life works. I had a friends a long time ago that got into debt trouble with credit cards. He made bad decisions and racked up a lot of debt. Should he have just had his debt cancelled? or even though he made mistakes he should still have been responsible for his actions. Why do mothers get a pass for their actions when no one else does? It seems like special pleading to me.

And you are asserting that the fetus's is the only one that matters, and would deny it to the mother. Why?

I am not asserting that. I am saying we need to weigh the two clashing liberties and make a decision. I already explained why I think the mother should have the child if she has an unwanted pregnancy. It maximizes the liberty of both.

 

[fantome profane]

Why do mothers get a pass for their actions when no one else does? It seems like special pleading to me.

No one gets a pass in life, but they should be allowed to deal with their mistakes in the manner they choose. Just like everyone else.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

And while in the womb, doesn't know that it has been created, either. Neither you, I nor anyone else can remember anything at all before we were about 2-3 years old.

How does this pertain to this discussion? I know you are not saying this but what you said can be construed as being ok with aborting a 2 year old. I think that argument is flawed.

I can't help but note you will insist on calling a fetus a "child." You know I disagree, and I have explained why. But of course how we decide to name things is quite often used to add suasion to our arguments.

I don't consider a non viable unborn fetus as a child but I do consider it human life. I do consider the viable unborn as babies or children.

But I wonder if you've fully thought out whether the only effect on a pregnant girl forced to carry to term is merely "limiting her liberty for nine months," and nothing more -- no lasting emotional or psychological effects, and so forth.

I agree there are more consequences. I don't think they trump the unborn human life's right to life.

I have a wife, two daughters, a sister, mother, sister in law, female friends etc. I saw my wife carry 3 children I understand how hard it is and what it does do a woman. I care for them so I am not trying to hurt them or control them etc. Which is what many pro-choice people (not you) have accused me of. It is a terrible argument just meant to disparage and not engage in the conversation. I simply believe the mother is responsible for her choices and the unborn deserve a right to live. Somehow this is controversial.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No one gets a pass in life, but they should be allowed to deal with their mistakes in the manner they choose. Just like everyone else.

You don't believe this as a blanket statement. You have made a special case for women who are pregnant. What if someone made a mistake getting married and wanted to deal with it in the manner they choose by killing their spouse? When you make mistakes there are right and wrong ways to deal with them.

 

[fantome profane]

You don't believe this as a blanket statement. You have made a special case for women who are pregnant. What if someone made a mistake getting married and wanted to deal with it in the manner they choose by killing their spouse? When you make mistakes there are right and wrong ways to deal with them.

Because women who are pregnant are a special case. There is no comparison. A spouse is not anything like a fetus that a woman is carrying. There is no comparison or analogy that you can make that adequately describe this unique situation.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Because women who are pregnant are a special case. There is no comparison. A spouse is not anything like a fetus that a woman is carrying. There is no comparison or analogy that you can make that adequately describe this unique situation.

I disagree. Getting pregnant by a choice is not a special case just because you say so. Every action has consequences and there are right and wrong, moral and immoral, ethical and unethical ways of dealing with those mistakes.

 

[fantome profane]

I disagree. Getting pregnant by a choice is not a special case just because you say so. Every action has consequences and there are right and wrong, moral and immoral, ethical and unethical ways of dealing with those mistakes.

Do you really honestly believe that the relationship between a woman and the embryo she carries is like the relationship of one spouses?

If you tell me you honestly believe that, well, I will not be able to believe you are being honest.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Do you really honestly believe that the relationship between a woman and the embryo she carries is like the relationship of one spouses?

If you tell me you honestly believe that, well, I will not be able to believe you are being honest.

Why should I answer if you are predetermined to only accept one answer?

What is your stance on abortion? Do you believe there should be any restrictions? If so, what are they?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How does this pertain to this discussion? I know you are not saying this but what you said can be construed as being ok with aborting a 2 year old. I think that argument is flawed.

Since you know I'm not saying this, I think you would have been better not to have "construed" something that you should know is repugnant to me. Why would you do that, if not to impugn me and thus bolster your argument?

I don't consider a non viable unborn fetus as a child but I do consider it human life. I do consider the viable unborn as babies or children.

Good for you, but is your consideration "correct" and other people's consideration "incorrect" on that point? How would you demonstrate it?

And I notice you said "viable unborn," (something I am also concerned about). Does that mean you feel differently about the non-viable unborn?" It's an important consideration -- one I've addressed several times in this dialogue.

I agree there are more consequences. I don't think they trump the unborn human life's right to life.

But getting strangled in its own umbilical cord might trump its right to life. Your desires and good wishes can't trump the happenstance that rules so much of human life.

I have a wife, two daughters, a sister, mother, sister in law, female friends etc. I saw my wife carry 3 children I understand how hard it is and what it does do a woman. I care for them so I am not trying to hurt them or control them etc. Which is what many pro-choice people (not you) have accused me of. It is a terrible argument just meant to disparage and not engage in the conversation. I simply believe the mother is responsible for her choices and the unborn deserve a right to live. Somehow this is controversial.

I do not disparage anything that you say here. I only tell you that other people may well feel very differently. And what you are doing is saying that their feelings don't matter as much as yours do -- and that you (or the state, if you'd prefer to put it like that) get to decide which feelings are the most important. And then to direct how some people will be permitted (by "popular vote") to live their lives.

I can't go there.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Since you know I'm not saying this, I think you would have been better not to have "construed" something that you should know is repugnant to me. Why would you do that, if not to impugn me and thus bolster your argument?

I was referring to your argument, showing why I think it is flawed and not saying what you want it to say. I was trying to make sure you did not think I was impugning you. Sorry if that is what I did. I like this discussion and I am trying to keep emption or insults out of it.

Good for you, but is your consideration "correct" and other people's consideration "incorrect" on that point? How would you demonstrate it?

This is why we have debate and discussion. We elect people that we think will work for our values and ideas. I can only try to convince people of my side.

And I notice you said "viable unborn," (something I am also concerned about). Does that mean you feel differently about the non-viable unborn?" It's an important consideration -- one I've addressed several times in this dialogue.

Yes, I think I have said that. I consider a viable unborn a human life not a child but still worth protecting since it is human life. Once viable I consider it a person.

But getting strangled in its own umbilical cord might trump its right to life. Your desires and good wishes can't trump the happenstance that rules so much of human life.

I agree.

I do not disparage anything that you say here. I only tell you that other people may well feel very differently. And what you are doing is saying that their feelings don't matter as much as yours do -- and that you (or the state, if you'd prefer to put it like that) get to decide which feelings are the most important. And then to direct how some people will be permitted (by "popular vote") to live their lives.

I can't go there.

Why? Any other subject this seems not to apply to, why only this topic? I assume you think your feelings are more important than mine when it comes to puberty blockers for kids.

It is not about my feelings, just like it is not about my feelings when I believe taxes are too high or the US deficit needs to be reduced etc. I have made an argument not based on my feelings.

 

[fantome profane]

What is your stance on abortion? Do you believe there should be any restrictions?

Not imposed by government. I believe it is a private issue between the patient and their doctor and the government should not be involved at all.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Not imposed by government. I believe it is a private issue between the patient and their doctor and the government should not be involved at all.

So what I am hearing you say is that you do not support any restrictions on abortion enforceable by the government.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do mothers get a pass for their actions when no one else does? It seems like special pleading to me.

The special pleading is on your part.

When a woman is pregnant, you would deny her her right to bodily autonomy, but if, a few years later, the father is the only match for a lifesaving organ or tissue donation, his bodily autonomy supersedes the child's right to life.

Your position has misogynistic hypocrisy baked in.

There's no other situation where we force people to give up bodily autonomy. In every situation except anti-choicers trying to prevent abortion, trying to deny someone their right to bodily autonomy would be a serious crime.