Bill Burr on abortion
(youtu.be)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (58)
sorted by:
The real issue, at least to me, is when do you draw the line? For the record, up till a few years ago, I've been mostly pro choice, and a part of me still is. But the pro choice arguments don't really hold up, the more you look at it. It's always the taking of a life, and of potential life. Is there a point where that can be done more humanely than, for example, eight months in? Sure. Is there an argument that the good could outweigh the bad in that more humane option? Sure, the argument can be made, and I'm not even completely in disagreement. There is certainly...utility in abortion. But is it something we need in society? Is that utility good for society?
But the fact remains, you need a limiting principle. Why is six weeks alright, and when isn't it alright? Is eight weeks alright? Twelve? And why would one be alright, and the other not? Is it a heartbeat? Is it viability? If heartbeat, why? It's the same issues as to birth; it was about to get a heartbeat, why is it alright to kill it right before, but not after? As to viability, the issue there is that it's always changing based on medical access, and current technology. If you're drawing off any arbitrary criteria, you're failing to protect the rights of the baby.
Again, not even specifically saying it should 100% be off the table, but the discussion needs to be had, that limiting principle needs to be defined, and the rationale used to reach the conclusion needs to be crystal clear. Why is it alright to kill a six week old baby in the womb, if it's not alright to kill an X week old baby in the womb?
Unfortunately, humans are not quantized objects, so there is a point where you just have to choose arbitrarily where that line should be drawn. It's a value judgement.
This is effectively a "Ship Of Theseus". When is it a new ship? After you've replaced every bolt? After you've replaced one bolt? The difference between one bolt and another isn't relevant... but we damn sure know something had to have changed.
Life doesn't begin at conception. This is because babies aren't abeogenic. Babies are a continuation of a constant state of life. We can talk about "it's a different chromosome", but that's only for sexual reproduction. In asexual reproduction it isn't different chormosomes.
At some point we chose to recognize the fetus to be a separate life. A line has to be drawn. Some people are going to get screwed over where that line is, and they are just going to have to deal with it.
When's the right time? Fuck if I know, that's still a value judgement, that's why it should be decided by the fucking states and not the feds. I guarantee that most people are going to be against allowing abortions 12 months, and also against executing a mother with first degree murder for taking Plan B. Most countries in the west seem to compromise on 6-15 weeks, which doesn't seem unreasonable.
That is the first point you get a unique being, though. If a line to be drawn, conception is certainly the cleanest. To be clear, not even saying there is no argument to be made for abortion some point after that fact, but you're certainly aborting a unique creature at any point after that. Conception is the least arbitrary and most clear cut definition you can get.
Also, we're talking humans, so sexual versus asexual reproduction is a moot point.
I tend to agree.
Also agreed.
I'll say it's certainly one of the more reasonable time frames, yes. Whether or not it's good enough is another thing but, like you said, it's a value judgement. It will be good enough for many, some will think it's still too much, and others will say it's too restrictive.
I don’t know why any time is reasonable to murder a baby. I used to be one of those people that said it was fine at X weeks, but you’re correct, it’s entirely arbitrary.
Once I realized it, it made no sense. Let’s say you think six weeks is reasonable. But all you had to do was wait a week or two, or several, and then the baby would have met the criteria that caused you to say it’s no longer reasonable. You know the “fetus” will become a baby, which will become a child, which will become an adult, barring any catastrophic events. So why are we pretending like it’s not a human as long as it’s in the woman’s womb?
As far as utility goes, to whom? To the woman who wants to be a whore? Yes, it’s very convenient for her, but that’s never a good reason to do anything.
It's absolutely arbitrary, but it's based on how much investment is actually made into the pregnancy. This is why rape is seen as a legitimizing factor in an abortion. By definition, the pregnancy was non-consensual, and the disruption of the woman's life was an injury to her. She has no investment in it. In fact, it's highly likely that the father who raped her doesn't either. So, literally no one is invested in the child. No one wants it.
As such, it is valued less than that of a baby whom was conceived intentionally by a couple who want to bring it into the world. They might have already brought equipment and baby clothes. Selected a room in their house for it to live in. It's already invested in as a much as any child is. This is why it's near universally accepted that if a man violently punches the mother in the stomach and kills the fetus, it is considered a murder of a baby.
We can even talk about the times mothers will have funerals for miscarriages. It's not even a baby to them. It's not a fetus. It's a 6 year old little boy who never aged long enough to get there.
But to a rape victim, it's horrific violation of a woman's life. A permanent reminder that she can be overpowered and forced into the life of a mother through violence. In time, she will resent the baby and the child for being a reminder of that helplessness and brutality.
The subjective investment of partnes is actually why babies are basically built to illicit an empathy response in women. The babies (and children they become) are infinitely abounding with love and adoration for their parents. Its a survival mechanism to guarantee that the baby is cared for. It dies if it's not cute.
That, fundamentally, is the problem. You're going to have to end a life if you tolerate it at any point. You can't enforce an objective standard completely on a subjective problem.
I agree, most of them seem to beg the question, while in no way addressing the objections that are made to it. Note that I am not making those stupid arguments. I'm not denying that even a fertilized egg is human (obviously, it's not a cat) and that you therefore cannot argue that it's "her own body".
I can only imagine what it would look like to have an average of 1+ million unwanted children deposited every year, to grow up in poverty and probably fatherlessness. You'll live to see man-made horrors beyond your comprehension.
With many things, you cannot specify an exact moment when something goes from being OK to not OK, or vice versa. For example, why is it OK for a 16-year-old to drive and not someone who is 15 years and 364 days old? Surely, that one day isn't going to break or make the thing.
Any standard that is humane is going to be, to some extent, arbitrary. You can say that it's at birth, and that's not arbitrary, but it'll enable butchery. Same for conception, which will enable great cruelty and terrible social effects.
I'd say quickening or thereabouts.
But you can take viability as a guideline and then restrict it a little further, just to be on the safe side. That's still allowing nearly all abortions, but forbidding the grotesque ones.
No answer that is reasonable and humane will be 'logically' satisfactory. Why did France allow abortion until 12 weeks, until it recently moved it to 14 weeks? Not because of logic. Laws are rarely based on logic. The question is coming up with something people can live with, not playing philosopher king and pretending, no offense, that you're deducing the form of the good from first principles.
You're correct, but I also think that it's oversimplified. We did alright without abortion for ages and, I know, a lot has changed since then. Still, I think it works both ways. People would hopefully behave more sensibly (and morally) if abortion access was in the very least severely limited.
Yeah, but the stakes are higher here; much higher. We're talking right to exist here, not right to drive. Can we afford to have a 'well, it doesn't make sense and it's arbitrary, but whatever' attitude, when we're talking about the ending of a life? Licensing laws and deciding if someone gets to live are two very different things.
I'm not sure I agree that it has to be arbitrary. Most other rights aren't particularly arbitrary. You're not allowed to take other people's stuff, that's not arbitrary. You can't go around stabbing people, that's not arbitrary. As to terrible social effects, I'm not sure I agree.
But why quickening was even a concept is itself incredibly arbitrary. They thought that was the soul entering the body, or whatever, and that's when life began. But the baby was moving prior to that. Well before. They just didn't have the means to measure it at the time but, if the initial logic for why quickening was important was adapted to today's standards, you're talking very early on in the pregnancy, and not around 15-20 weeks. If abortion is on the table, I personally think it should be well before 'quickening.'
Viability changes, as mentioned.
Which is why so many laws are fucking retarded. And I don't think that's a justification for more nonsensical laws.
I mean, it's a mix. Yeah, to some extent it's the will of the people...but the people are retarded. Which is why we strive for representational systems, and not out-and-out democracy. Laws should make sense, and the best ones do. The worse laws are usually the ones that don't make logical sense. And the idea of making laws 'people can live with' sounds pretty dangerous due to, again, the people being retarded.
Had the same argument with dechakin earlier. It's difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. It certainly isn't as easy as just banning it. Even saying that half of people would act more 'responsibly', which is a stretch, it would still mean over half a million useless brats every year. That's 10 million in 20 years, when the first of them reach the age of majority.
Of course, but it is just an example. There are few things where you cannot say: why this and not +1 or -1?
Eh, unless you have a sign that says "JUSTICE FOR GEORGE FLOYD", then it's fine. Now, yes, you can't take other people's stuff. But when does something become "other people's stuff"? That is sometimes arbitrary, and in fact, laws differ on it. Here as well, you cannot kill a human person, but when does it become a human person?
I meant the traditional view of quickening. If the baby is 'moving' before that, fine, but we could say that we only consider it significantly developed enough when the movement can actually be felt. After all, not to make the comparison, but even bacteria move, and move away from noxious substances.
And precisely for that reason do we not put the limit on viability itself, but err on the side of caution.
They're going to be nonsensical no matter what you do, because the political process is dirty. It does not aim at logic, consistency, or anything.
Yeah, about that. If I ask normal people whether they think kids should be castrated, they say no. Ask legislators, and they will call you a bigot for asking the question. Only slightly exaggerating. I wouldn't say it's the people who are retarded, but the corrupt politicians.
I disagree. You could say that allowing abortion up to birth makes more sense than 14 weeks, but it's objectively worse. Same for prohibiting it from the moment of conception. In some crazy theoretical world it makes sense to give fertilized eggs the same protections as actual babies, but not in the real world - at least according to most people.
You are assuming that there is some sort of alternative that is not retarded. It's retardation all the way down. Even worse retardation than 'the people'.
Alright, then let's cut immigration a tiny bit (or all the way) to balance out. Boom, solved. But that would require sanity from the government, or people holding the government responsible, both of which are largely a pipedream.
Doesn't make it legal. The law is clear, it's just not always applied justly.
Uh, in that instance we're generally talking people who have been born, which is quite clear.
But, again, that's just because they didn't have the tools. We now know the baby is moving pre-quickening, and for the same reasons. And, again, it's still arbitrary, considering quickening can happen at different points. e.g. it would be alright to kill one baby at 20 weeks, but not alright to kill another at 13 weeks. That makes no fucking sense.
Viability is used in some legal definitions.
There it is: kill the poor.
Tonio's liberalism raising it's head