|
|
GenieLord
Honorable
Legendary Hero
|
posted June 30, 2008 02:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
What's so wrong about protected sex of teenagers? Does it damage anyone?
The same as smoking is drinking or smoking for teenagers (ideally) -- it's not that they die out of those but they rise up with a different mentality, they are a bit fragile at that young age, if you know what I mean.
But smoking and drinking are unhealthy to the body, besides of mentally, while sex is actually healthy. And I don't think that having sex changes your mentality. It's a part of life.
Quote:
As for the "damage anyone", it does if the accident happens and you abort. That's why I said you have to be prepared (for an eventual baby) if you don't want to cause any damage to anyone else.
I'm talking about protected sex right now. And when an accident happens, as I said, there's what I mentioned above - the "pills of the day after".
Quote:
Yes but what I meant was that adults have a different mentality and are more 'resistant' in that way to drugs (the younger you are, the more fragile you are, and more your mentality will be twisted and become addicted, etc).
Okay, I can agree with that.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 30, 2008 02:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But smoking and drinking are unhealthy to the body, besides of mentally, while sex is actually healthy. And I don't think that having sex changes your mentality. It's a part of life.
Wine, for example, is also healthy if you drink a little each day, not two bottles for example. Teenagers are much more fragile (non-resistant) to become addicted or whatever. It is one reason why most of these things are called 'adult-only' (including sex); but of course people always break the 'rules'. This does not mean that people should not drink wine, for example, but teenagers in general shouldn't (in general, obviously depends on the person in question). All things for their time, as it is said.
Teens these days are more curious than ever, always want to experience things that adults do, etc.. and don't even want to be treated like teens. For example, that pill you speak of did not exist some time ago. People back then weren't unhealthy at all, in fact it's only my 2 cents that people nowadays are a lot less responsible and I think we have degenerated quite a bit since then.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 30, 2008 04:51 PM |
|
|
Mytical:
Quote:
Actually the fetus does interact with somebody..it's mother.
Well, okay, you could say that. But to be a person societally, it needs to be able to interact and be interacted with by more than just the mother.
Quote:
So .. it's ok to kill somebody if they feel no pain when you kill them?
No.
Quote:
What defines being a 'person'?
There are two definitions: the biological one is anybody that has human genes, and the social one is anybody that has human genes and can interact with others and be interacted with.
GenieLord:
Quote:
Prove it.
I see this sort of thing happen at school all of the time.
Quote:
But smoking and drinking are unhealthy to the body, besides of mentally, while sex is actually healthy.
So STDs and pregnancies are healthy now?  I see what you're saying, and you may be right, that sex may be healthy, but not among teenagers! Come on! There are pregnant 8th-grade girls at my school, don't tell me that's healthy! And besides, having sex at such a young age trivializes it, and that's not something that should happen.
TheDeath:
Quote:
people nowadays are a lot less responsible and I think we have degenerated quite a bit since then
Since when? What time can you point to and say, "That was when things were right."? And while I would say that people are less responsible (the woman who spilled McDonalds coffee on herself comes to mind), it's not as bad as you say it is. I mean, we can do a lot more now that we used to be able to. We can now fix our mistakes in ways previously impossible (like the morning-after pill).
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 30, 2008 05:01 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 17:02, 30 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
Well, okay, you could say that. But to be a person societally, it needs to be able to interact and be interacted with by more than just the mother.
I disagree. It doesn't even need to be that way as long as it will be without any 'intervention' (I think you know what I mean).
Quote:
There are two definitions: the biological one is anybody that has human genes, and the social one is anybody that has human genes and can interact with others and be interacted with.
Again I quote the article I linked:Quote:
Personhood is part of the substance of being human, not a property a human develops later. Personhood isn't like hair color that you can change, it's not a property. It is part of the substance of what it is to be human. Trying to distinguish between the humanness and the personhood is looking at it in an inaccurate way. Personhood is part of the substance of being human, it doesn't develop at some other time. It strikes me as the most reasonable way to look at it is that when a being comes into being it is everything substantively that it is. There are properties that it requires. But everything else, its humanness, is there the moment it comes into being.
Quote:
So STDs and pregnancies are healthy now? I see what you're saying, and you may be right, that sex may be healthy, but not among teenagers! Come on! There are pregnant 8th-grade girls at my school, don't tell me that's healthy! And besides, having sex at such a young age trivializes it, and that's not something that should happen.
Here I agree (as weird as it sounds  ).
Quote:
Since when? What time can you point to and say, "That was when things were right."? And while I would say that people are less responsible (the woman who spilled McDonalds coffee on herself comes to mind), it's not as bad as you say it is. I mean, we can do a lot more now that we used to be able to. We can now fix our mistakes in ways previously impossible (like the morning-after pill).
Just because we can do a lot more doesn't mean that we are more responsible. If we can fix our mistakes it does not mean we are more responsible, on the contrary, that is a good candidate for being less responsible because that leads people to think easy since they have a wide open fix.
But just because we can fix it does not mean that it is better than before!
|
|
GenieLord
Honorable
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 30, 2008 06:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Prove it.
I see this sort of thing happen at school all of the time.
Quote:
But smoking and drinking are unhealthy to the body, besides of mentally, while sex is actually healthy.
So STDs and pregnancies are healthy now? I see what you're saying, and you may be right, that sex may be healthy, but not among teenagers! Come on! There are pregnant 8th-grade girls at my school, don't tell me that's healthy! And besides, having sex at such a young age trivializes it, and that's not something that should happen.
I don't know where you live, but I don't think that your school represents the teenagers from all over the world. Let me say that here the condition is not even close to what you're saying, but I have no idea what it's like on other places.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 30, 2008 06:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't know where you live, but I don't think that your school represents the teenagers from all over the world. Let me say that here the condition is not even close to what you're saying, but I have no idea what it's like on other places.
I don't think it matters that you take "protected" drugs or drugs, for teens it's still not healthy in any way you see it (hope you get the analogy)
|
|
GenieLord
Honorable
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 30, 2008 06:44 PM |
|
|
|
It's not a good analogy.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 30, 2008 06:49 PM |
|
|
|
As far as I know, all things like these have a 18+ (at LEAST, not recommended) for a reason. As part of the analogy, let it flow. If you are not ready in any way (not that you don't want them, please make the difference) then naturally it is 'wrong'.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 30, 2008 06:59 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
It doesn't even need to be that way as long as it will be without any 'intervention' (I think you know what I mean).
It only matters if it's like that now, not if it will be like that if not interfered with.
Quote:
Personhood is part of the substance of being human, not a property a human develops later.
So they say. I don't agree.
Quote:
Just because we can do a lot more doesn't mean that we are more responsible.
Perhaps, but in the end it amounts to the same thing: there are less negative conequences (whether we eliminate them or don't perform the actions as much is not quite as important).
GL:
Quote:
I don't know where you live, but I don't think that your school represents the teenagers from all over the world.
I sure hope so. But it looks that way. I've seen people from other schools around the country, and it doesn't look much different.
Quote:
Let me say that here the condition is not even close to what you're saying
You don't know how lucky you are.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 30, 2008 07:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It only matters if it's like that now, not if it will be like that if not interfered with.
It matters, because 2 year olds don't have the same 'abilities' of adults, but they still have rights.
Quote:
Quote:
Personhood is part of the substance of being human, not a property a human develops later.
So they say. I don't agree.
Ok let me put this different.
You say that these qualities of being a person are not part of the 'substance' of being human, but rather something that can come and go by whoever is in charge and decides that? If these qualities are not set in stone to apply in all scenarios, then any other model will mean that they can simply vanish as people have different definitions. Not all countries are the same, thus by following your logic, the definition of being a person relies on whatever social contract decides that, for the given country.
If on the other hand, we set them in stone and apply them to everything that is human, or at least everything that lives (and will be independent one day) or that has to be stopped means that it lives. If we apply this to this human 'substance' (that can't be denied by different social contracts) then personhood is not really that subjective and can't disappear or appear out of the blue.
It is why your model is flawed.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 30, 2008 08:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
2 year olds don't have the same 'abilities' of adults, but they still have rights
Two-year-olds have the ability to interact and be interacted with. That makes them part of society.
Quote:
You say that these qualities of being a person are not part of the 'substance' of being human, but rather something that can come and go by whoever is in charge and decides that?
Sort of, except that society is in charge, and it can't change morals over a short period of time.
Quote:
If these qualities are not set in stone to apply in all scenarios, then any other model will mean that they can simply vanish as people have different definitions.
But no one individual's definition matters. The only definition that matters is that of society as a whole. And since the people of a given country say that abortion should be legal, so it is.
Quote:
the definition of being a person relies on whatever social contract decides that, for the given country
I think that you may be exaggerating the differences between individual countries. Many countries share cultures. This statement would be more accurate if you replaced the word "country" with "culture". But otherwise, this is correct, for the current time.
Quote:
It is why your model is flawed.
I don't see why it being subjective makes it flawed.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 30, 2008 09:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But no one individual's definition matters. The only definition that matters is that of society as a whole. And since the people of a given country say that abortion should be legal, so it is.
Basically if the majority decides to kill someone or legalize crime, that should be made legal?
Quote:
Quote:
It is why your model is flawed.
I don't see why it being subjective makes it flawed.
Because it is not set in 'stone' and the definitions vary. I don't know about you, but losing your personhood because society says is not a liberal type of system -- in fact, it's more like "others decide for you". The problem, of course, is that these things are qualified as being "changeable" that means they appear when others want, and go when others want. It's strange, but I put personal freedom above all else.
It is why I think that personhood needs to be part of the 'humanness' factor, not just what others decide to be the starting point or the ending point. If someone's personhood and values depend on what others say, then I wouldn't want to be in that system -- it sounds too much like a totalitarian system in this respect.
If we relate it to the humanness factor, it will be easy because no society will ever deny that 'humanity' quality -- in fact, the only way to do so is if aliens take over the society and the government
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 30, 2008 09:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Basically if the majority decides to kill someone or legalize crime, that should be made legal?
You're looking at this the wrong way. You're looking at society as if it were some kind of government, which of course it isn't. You're not going to have society all of a sudden saying, "Hey, we're going to kill you," when you haven't broken the non-aggression principle (unless the morals have become twisted in a way that some actions are mandated). Society can't move quickly. It takes half a generation to change something minor, and several generations to change anything really significant.
Also, you keep ignoring me when I keep saying that we can rationally decide what kind of social and moral arrangement would be best for society. That is, we can say that abortion should be permitted because it benefits society, whereas murder shouldn't, because it harms individuals who are part of society.
Also, I think you need to re-read this part of what I wrote in the Moral Philosophy thread, especially the bolded parts:Quote:
Morals can be both absolute and relative. Initially, society (which is comprised of many individuals) agrees among itself that none of them would like to be murdered or stolen from, so they say, "OK, murder is harmful. But that is too nuanced, and someone might say, 'Who gives a **** about what society thinks? I'm a nonconformist!' Therefore, we must teach our children that murder is not merely harmful but 'wrong'." (Of course, this didn't happen all at once, and they didn't sit and conspire about it.) So it became ingrained into the vast majority of societies that murder is wrong. Thus arose what I will call the First Round of Morals, or the non-aggression principle: thou shalt not harm thy fellow man. But the First Round was also largely innate.
Then people realized that this is working quite well, so it might be good to expand it. "Hey, I wish people helped me when I need help. But what benefit would they get from it? I know, let's teach our children that it's 'good' to help others." So they did, and there became an emotional benefit to helping others. Thus came the Second Round of Morals, or the mutual aid principle: help thy fellow man. This too was largely innate. The First and Second Round of Morals could be combined as the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
So far, there is no real reason for morals not to be absolute (as in applying to the vast majority of societies). But then came the Twisting of the Morals. Partly this came from religion. Tribal shamans came to power, and said, "The gods will strike you down if you disobey my commmandments!" And so as religions developed, different morals were added and some morals were changed. For example, "thou shalt not harm thy fellow man" sometimes became "thou shalt not harm thy fellow man, unless he followeth a different God, in which case strike him down." Some morals, though, got reinforced. Instead of "thou shalt not harm thy fellow man because then he shall harm thee", it became "thou shalt not harm thy fellow man or Zeus will throw a lightning bolt on thy head." Later came nationalism, which sometimes said, "Thou shalt not harm thy fellow Russian/Serb/German/Israeli, but shalt strike down or run off all of the foreign barbarians that live on thy lands." Since in different cultures all of this developed differently, morals often became somewhat different.
That is, it is the original purpose of morals to help society, and this was objective, but then they were twisted, and became relative. But we can rationally and objectively decide what morals should be like (operating under the ideas of the non-aggression and mutual aid principles).
Quote:
losing your personhood because society says is not a liberal type of system -- in fact, it's more like "others decide for you"
All of this has been gradually decided by tribal societies a long time ago before all of us were born, and morals have changed as time passed. Others aren't going to decide for you because nobody sits together and conspires to change the morals, and to change them quickly.
Quote:
It's strange, but I put personal freedom above all else.
And yet you support criminalizing abortion.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 30, 2008 10:08 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 22:09, 30 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
Also, you keep ignoring me when I keep saying that we can rationally decide what kind of social and moral arrangement would be best for society. That is, we can say that abortion should be permitted because it benefits society, whereas murder shouldn't, because it harms individuals who are part of society.
So are you telling me that if (supposing) murder would benefit society, then it should be legal?? 
Let's suppose that you can take some people to benefit society, if you make some experiments on them. Don't tell me this should be legal too. If you will bring up the non-aggression principle, then apply it to the fetus too. Frankly, I don't care what benefits society, murder is plain wrong. Why? Because you wouldn't want it to happen to you. It's not because it benefits society, even if you or the target is insignificant. Read that term, insignificant closely.
By that logic, mothers can kill a 2 year old just the same as a fetus, if he/she gets in their way -- since it 'benefits' society (you say abortion benefits society, therefore murdering 2 year olds can also, in some circumstances, benefit society in the same way, if the same reason is used as for abortion!!). Everything the mother violates in the 2 year old's case she also does in the fetus' case, unless of course we are using subjective models. You see, the difference is minor, which is why I am talking about discrimination.
Don't tell me that 2 year olds help society, they don't, at the moment. And neither do fetuses, again, at the moment. The analogy is really simple.
Quote:
All of this has been gradually decided by tribal societies a long time ago before all of us were born, and morals have changed as time passed. Others aren't going to decide for you because nobody sits together and conspires to change the morals, and to change them quickly.
Look here, even now others have decided what's personhood and what's not -- for example, I don't agree with the fact that it is such a subjective line, but some societies are not that way, therefore I conclude, I have not taken part at all in this 'definition' of personhood -- therefore I conclude, others have.
Quote:
Quote:
It's strange, but I put personal freedom above all else.
And yet you support criminalizing abortion.
A criminal violates the personal freedom of someone so I think it is quite the opposite man.
Or are you saying that I imply the fact that criminals should not be caged, etc.. but let their personal freedom around? It's no way like that.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 30, 2008 10:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So are you telling me that if (supposing) murder would benefit society, then it should be legal??
By definition, murder can't benefit society. What is society? It is a group of individuals. Individuals presumably want to stay alive, and murder infringes on that right, so murder is harmful for society.
Quote:
Don't tell me this should be legal too. If you will bring up the non-aggression principle, then apply it to the fetus too.
The non-aggression principle applies only to those who are part of society. The fetus isn't.
Quote:
Frankly, I don't care what benefits society, murder is plain wrong. Why? Because you wouldn't want it to happen to you.
That's exactly my point. And society is made up of a bunch of "you"s. None of them want to get murdered. And so society has decided that murder is wrong.
Quote:
By that logic, mothers can kill a 2 year old just the same as a fetus, if he/she gets in their way -- since it 'benefits' society (you say abortion benefits society, therefore murdering 2 year olds can also, in some circumstances, benefit society in the same way, if the same reason is used as for abortion!!)
No, she can't, because at that point it would be killing an individual who is definitely part of society (you don't have to benefit society to be part of it). Whatever minor benefits that killing the two-year-old would have for the rest of society, it would be a net harm for society since the non-aggression principle was violated, and an individual who is part of society was killed.
Quote:
Everything the mother violates in the 2 year old's case she also does in the fetus' case, unless of course we are using subjective models.
No, it isn't, because the fetus is definitely not part of society.
Quote:
Look here, even now others have decided what's personhood and what's not -- for example, I don't agree with the fact that it is such a subjective line, but some societies are not that way, therefore I conclude, I have not taken part at all in this 'definition' of personhood -- therefore I conclude, others have.
Okay, "others" in the sense of "not you", but not "others" in the sense of some sort of shadowy conspiracy, which is what you're making it sound like. And they are changing laws, not morals. If they actually changed society's morals, there would be far less objection to abortion.
Quote:
A criminal violates the personal freedom of someone so I think it is quite the opposite man.
You want the government to violate women's personal freedom.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 01, 2008 01:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
By definition, murder can't benefit society. What is society? It is a group of individuals. Individuals presumably want to stay alive, and murder infringes on that right, so murder is harmful for society.
Unless of course the respective individual is considered 'gay', 'black' or 'witch' or whatever else the majority decides, right?
Quote:
The non-aggression principle applies only to those who are part of society. The fetus isn't.
Reason nr.1 why your society model is flawed -- and don't tell me again to point out at least one flaw in it, I've already told you.
Quote:
That's exactly my point. And society is made up of a bunch of "you"s. None of them want to get murdered. And so society has decided that murder is wrong.
See above.
Quote:
Okay, "others" in the sense of "not you", but not "others" in the sense of some sort of shadowy conspiracy, which is what you're making it sound like. And they are changing laws, not morals. If they actually changed society's morals, there would be far less objection to abortion.
I meant "others" as in the "majority".
Quote:
You want the government to violate women's personal freedom.
I also want the government to violate criminal's personal freedom
But of course there's no point in arguing over this if you'll keep with your "Fetus is not in society, period" arguments, no matter what biological/reasonable or religious arguments I use
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2008 03:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Unless of course the respective individual is considered 'gay', 'black' or 'witch' or whatever else the majority decides, right?
Gay, black, or witch, they're still definitely part of society.
Quote:
Reason nr.1 why your society model is flawed -- and don't tell me again to point out at least one flaw in it, I've already told you.
Why should society care about those not part of it?
Quote:
I meant "others" as in the "majority".
Ah, but this is not necessarily so. Look at same-sex marriage, for example. A lot of people think that it's "morally wrong", but, when asked about why, exactly, it's "morally wrong", they can seldom come up with a better explanation than "Sanctity of marriage" or, far more often, "Gay people are disgusting." So the majority may not actually reasonably think that there is any actual problem with homosexuality, but they still think that it's "morally wrong" - an attitude that is a stayover from much older days.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 01, 2008 04:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Gay, black, or witch, they're still definitely part of society.
You seem to have a problem understanding the fact that society is subjective. You say you know that, but you don't seem to grasp the idea behind it.
When black people were considered 'inferior', they were not socially equal to whites. With gays it's similar, with witches it's similar. The fact is, you claim that they are a part of society. What society? Your model? Back then, they weren't part of it (in the general sense of "full rights"). And back then, it was still called society!
Do you think that society = your model of it? Black people were once discriminated, your model doesn't discriminate them, but nevertheless so-called 'society' did BACK THEN. It was a different model, simple as that, and doesn't mean yours will always remain either.
Now forward into the future. We see fetuses not being considered part of the society by those like you. Tell me something. Why is this different than the society with black people not being considered part of it? How about the future? Well if we were to live in the black = slave era, then we would 'obviously' consider black people slaves, simple as that. But in the future? We would be 'obviously' thinking they are part of society like anyone else. Draw the analogy with the fetus. Just because it is not in your model of it (analogously with the slave model), doesn't mean that it CANNOT be (different society model).
Quote:
Why should society care about those not part of it?
Travel back in time, when black were slaves, and then use the same argument for them (instead of fetuses). You'll see that you'll not be wrong.
You see, you seem to think that what your model says it's not part of society, it is the one true and it will always be. Face it. Black people were once not considered part of the society (with "full rights" I presume). Now fetuses are not considered part of the society.
When you say they are definitely (black people) part of the society, it's only because you use your current model of it to examine something that happened back then. Obviously, NOW they are part of it. But what about fetuses? Why are they not 'obviously' part of the society? I mean, if you use your current model of society to explain it, then it's pointless, much like using it when the black people were slaves.
The only reason you see it that way is because you only look through this (your) society model. That's why you see black people not slaves -- because even though it happened, it's not in your model. That doesn't mean that it's the only true one.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2008 04:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Back then, they weren't part of it (in the general sense of "full rights"). And back then, it was still called society!
Well, back then people didn't realize that it would be beneficial to let black people into society rather than to keep them enslaved, and they just didn't consider them people, which was a mistake. But there's a crucial difference between fetuses and black people: black people can definitely be part of society (and are now). However, there is no way a fetus can be part of society. At all.
Quote:
Why is this different than the society with black people not being considered part of it?
Because the difference is far greater and more significant.
Quote:
Travel back in time, when black were slaves, and then use the same argument for them (instead of fetuses). You'll see that you'll not be wrong.
But it really makes no sense to exclude black people, whereas it does make sense to not count fetuses as part of society.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 01, 2008 04:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, back then people didn't realize that it would be beneficial to let black people into society rather than to keep them enslaved, and they just didn't consider them people, which was a mistake. But there's a crucial difference between fetuses and black people: black people can definitely be part of society (and are now).
It wasn't a mistake because you see, it was "good" for the society -- a thing which I always despise because that way even slavery or crime can be considered 'good' for the society, as a whole.
Quote:
However, there is no way a fetus can be part of society. At all.
Just like a 2 year old? Or perhaps those that are in coma and don't 'communicate' or 'interact' socially (even though you know they will awake; I'm talking about 'simple' comas, not the death ones).
Quote:
But it really makes no sense to exclude black people, whereas it does make sense to not count fetuses as part of society.
I don't know how you think but, for me, it makes perfect sense to make the analogy between a 2 year old and a fetus -- or let's say a 2 year old that has some kind of disease and is in a hospital and can't move/interact/etc.. until 9 months when he is cured
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
