Bill Burr on abortion
(youtu.be)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (58)
sorted by:
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