Kavanaugh hearing

[Animavore]

Christine Blasey Ford still unable to live at home due to death threats, lawyers say

And they wonder why women take so long to come forward...

[Animavore]

Do atheists believe in evil? If so, how do you define it?

42 does. He once called SJWs evil. I can't search his posts because he's blocked but I'm sure if you search his name with that word you'll find it.

[Jason]

I would say it's the woman's option to have an abortion, and that option is unfettered and unlimited up to a certain point, as it probably needs to be.

What/when is this "certain point?"

[Forty Two]

Do atheists believe in evil? If so, how do you define it?

That's another change from my forum participation. I used to think evil was a thing (like Good), but it isn't.

Trying to look deeper than 'it's evil' always produces more useful information.

It's a value judgment.

Like everything else, that value judgment falls back to its foundational premises.

[Jason]

Do atheists believe in evil? If so, how do you define it?

That's another change from my forum participation. I used to think evil was a thing (like Good), but it isn't.

Trying to look deeper than 'it's evil' always produces more useful information.

It's a value judgment.

Like everything else, that value judgment falls back to its foundational premises.

Yes... and those foundational premises are?

[Cunt]

There is also something to be said for the fact that if it is the choice of the mom and dad to have the child, then it is the responsibility of the mom and dad to support the child. I didn't ask them to have the kid, and neither did you, neither did society or the State - so, it would seem that logically, if we presume that people should pay for their own stuff, and that nobody has the right to compel other people or the state to write checks for them, the parents should be the ones primarily responsible for raising and caring for their children. The State should be there to give a hand up, or supply a safety net, not to be the parent.

That sounds fair, except that we have made promises to people (including the 'rights' which have firm support)

Those promises get difficult to deliver when a parent claims 'ownership' of the small people in their charge, and insists on infringing those rights.

There are children who are wards of the state. Those kids should have a standard of living we are proud of. I'm not. Maybe no-one is.

[Forty Two]

I would say it's the woman's option to have an abortion, and that option is unfettered and unlimited up to a certain point, as it probably needs to be.

What/when is this "certain point?"

There is no objective "certain point." Like much legislation, it's a balancing of interests and the striking of an imperfect, useful compromise.

I don't know what the certain point is that John Doe will become sufficiently capable to drive a car safely enough to be allowed on the roads. I don't know the certain degree of skill that makes him safe enough. I don't know how much training is enough for him individually. Yet, we set an age in the law that makes sense most of the time, because we can't feasibly make the determination on an individual basis. That analogy works in abortion, too. Even with current testing methods, the date of conception is not known with certainty - it's a range of probability. And, fetuses develop in a range of different paces, some faster than others, but there is a statistical pace that is used overall. So, we can't know the day or the week on an individual basis, but we can strike a balance overall.

With any age related restriction, the restriction will be overinclusive and underinclusive in some respects, because a judgment is not being made on an individual basis. Retirement age is 65 or 67 or whatever, and yet some people are spry and have significant mental acumen well into their 90s, others get dementia in their 50s. Still makes sense to have a set age that is applicable to everyone.

Like Logan's Run - they aborted people at age 30. :-)

[Jason]

Wonderful non-answer Coito. I get that there's a 'spectrum,' 'gradient,' or range, of development in play in these considerations, but where do you place the limits, or outer bounds?

[Forty Two]

There is also something to be said for the fact that if it is the choice of the mom and dad to have the child, then it is the responsibility of the mom and dad to support the child. I didn't ask them to have the kid, and neither did you, neither did society or the State - so, it would seem that logically, if we presume that people should pay for their own stuff, and that nobody has the right to compel other people or the state to write checks for them, the parents should be the ones primarily responsible for raising and caring for their children. The State should be there to give a hand up, or supply a safety net, not to be the parent.

That sounds fair, except that we have made promises to people (including the 'rights' which have firm support)

Those promises get difficult to deliver when a parent claims 'ownership' of the small people in their charge, and insists on infringing those rights.

There are children who are wards of the state. Those kids should have a standard of living we are proud of. I'm not. Maybe no-one is.

Oh, I don't disagree. Children who are wards of the State should be taken care of well. This issue is one of balance. The primary caregivers should be the parents, if one assumes that they are the ones choosing to have a child and if they want to be a parent, they're the ones that have to get up at 2am to calm the crying baby. However, the safety net is there for when things fall apart.

[Forty Two]

Wonderful non-answer Coito. I get that there's a 'spectrum,' 'gradient,' or range, of development in play in these considerations, but where do you place the limits, or outer bounds?

It wasn't a non-answer, Siva. You asked where was the certain point. I told you flat out that there is no objective "certain point." It's a pragmatic compromise that sets an acceptable point out of a set of possible points upon which many reasonable minds can differ.

Now you're asking me where do I, personally, place the limits. That is an immensely difficult question which I've wrestled with for decades. I would say about 20 or 21 weeks is about a reasonable compromise, after which abortion would generally need to require some medical necessity, like a significant threat to the mother that exceeds the normal risks of childbearing and childbirth. I would place the determination of that issue in the hands of patients and their doctors, and the doctors would be guided by medical science. Still no mathematical line; however, something like that sounds reasonable.

I actually like Canada's system, which nominally has abortion being "legal" at all stages; however, the medical profession regulates it such that abortions after 21 or 24 weeks are rarely done. As I understand it, the medical profession requires significant medical reason for later term abortions, and there isn't much in the way of healthy late term fetuses in healthy mothers being aborted there. That's my understanding - i'm happy for someone to show me that's not accurate - if women are electively aborting fetuses without medical need after 24 weeks, I'd be surprised.

So, what I'm referring to is sort of a compromise system. I would have elective abortion for any reason or no reason through X weeks - maybe 16, maybe 20, and then after that, I would require a reason born of medical necessity and to have two doctors certify like the UK does.

Something like that - doesn't have to be exactly like that - you just asked me my view of where the certain point was. That's my explaination of it. If you are demanding that I tell you that the point is X weeks, and that before that date it's fine and after that date it has to be not fine, then that's an assertion I'm not making, because I can't tell you what that exact point is, and I don't think it's really likely knowable. That, however, doesn't mean that there ought not be some general balance of interests.

[Cunt]

Oh, I don't disagree. Children who are wards of the State should be taken care of well. This issue is one of balance. The primary caregivers should be the parents, if one assumes that they are the ones choosing to have a child and if they want to be a parent, they're the ones that have to get up at 2am to calm the crying baby. However, the safety net is there for when things fall apart.

The primary caregivers should be parents?

How do you square that with terrible parents?

Before you answer, we have small, remote communities which are rumoured to have a high incidence of sexual assault, incest and child abuse. Not all the parents will be horrible, but all of them will say that they aren't.

Social services has a principle that the birth parents are best. Maybe that's true, but I met one of my 'birth parents'. I'm so happy I didn't grow up under the flavour of abuse experienced by my brothers.

[Jason]

Wonderful non-answer Coito. I get that there's a 'spectrum,' 'gradient,' or range, of development in play in these considerations, but where do you place the limits, or outer bounds?

It wasn't a non-answer, Siva. You asked where was the certain point. I told you flat out that there is no objective "certain point." It's a pragmatic compromise that sets an acceptable point out of a set of possible points upon which many reasonable minds can differ.

Now you're asking me where do I, personally, place the limits. That is an immensely difficult question which I've wrestled with for decades. I would say about 20 or 21 weeks is about a reasonable compromise, after which abortion would generally need to require some medical necessity, like a significant threat to the mother that exceeds the normal risks of childbearing and childbirth. I would place the determination of that issue in the hands of patients and their doctors, and the doctors would be guided by medical science. Still no mathematical line; however, something like that sounds reasonable.

I actually like Canada's system, which nominally has abortion being "legal" at all stages; however, the medical profession regulates it such that abortions after 21 or 24 weeks are rarely done. As I understand it, the medical profession requires significant medical reason for later term abortions, and there isn't much in the way of healthy late term fetuses in healthy mothers being aborted there. That's my understanding - i'm happy for someone to show me that's not accurate - if women are electively aborting fetuses without medical need after 24 weeks, I'd be surprised.

So, what I'm referring to is sort of a compromise system. I would have elective abortion for any reason or no reason through X weeks - maybe 16, maybe 20, and then after that, I would require a reason born of medical necessity and to have two doctors certify like the UK does.

Something like that - doesn't have to be exactly like that - you just asked me my view of where the certain point was. That's my explaination of it. If you are demanding that I tell you that the point is X weeks, and that before that date it's fine and after that date it has to be not fine, then that's an assertion I'm not making, because I can't tell you what that exact point is, and I don't think it's really likely knowable. That, however, doesn't mean that there ought not be some general balance of interests.

I was not asking for an "objective" point you twat, I was clearly asking you for where this range of development you claimed to abide by exists. Stop trying to reframe the discussion.

Anyway, thank you for finally answering the question. I see you base your opinion on the potential for harm to the 'mother' and give no consideration to the right of the fetus to life - which is what I'm really trying to get at. Does that mean nothing to you? Do you subscribe to the 'lump of flesh' conception of conception?

I think 21 weeks is disgustingly late to abort the foetus - at that stage the baby can think and feel.

[Forty Two]

Oh, I don't disagree. Children who are wards of the State should be taken care of well. This issue is one of balance. The primary caregivers should be the parents, if one assumes that they are the ones choosing to have a child and if they want to be a parent, they're the ones that have to get up at 2am to calm the crying baby. However, the safety net is there for when things fall apart.

The primary caregivers should be parents?

How do you square that with terrible parents?

The same way I square it that the primary caregiver of a pet is the person who bought the pet. There are people who abuse their pets, in which case they are shirking their responsibility.

The same question could be asked - If the primary caregiver of the State, how does one square that with terrible caregiving by the State?

Before you answer, we have small, remote communities which are rumoured to have a high incidence of sexual assault, incest and child abuse. Not all the parents will be horrible, but all of them will say that they aren't.

Social services has a principle that the birth parents are best. Maybe that's true, but I met one of my 'birth parents'. I'm so happy I didn't grow up under the flavour of abuse experienced by my brothers.

Well, we criminalize sexual assault, incest and child abuse, and prosecute it. If all the kids were cared for by the State, you'd still have sexual assault, incest and child abuse. Not all state appointed caregivers are horrible, but all of them will say they aren't.

We're still stuck with people.

[Jason]

A child is not a pet.

[Joe]

Booker said supporters of Kavanaugh were complicit in evil and complicit in the evil. Complicit means "involved in the wrongdoing or crimes of others." If supporters of Kavanaugh are complicit in evil, then Kavanaugh must be evil, no?

No, this is fallacious reasoning. Booker was talking of the confirmation of Kavanaugh as "the evil." As I mentioned before, there are reasons to oppose confirmation, and for politicians to hyperbolically call it evil, that don't require Kavanaugh to be evil.

Now, if you have evidence that Booker opposes confirmation because it would put an evil guy on the Court, your original assertion would be more credible, and you'd probably be able to find a direct quote.