ISFjs, your opinion on abortion, equal opportunity laws, etc

[tcaudilllg]

What rights, in your opinion, should a person have?

[discojoe]

What rights, in your opinion, should a person have?

I think it's evil, but I am very aware that it sets a bad precedent for the government to outlaw all abortions before say, the third trimester.

Before the third trimester, I think the typical rape/incest rules would apply. Beyond the third trimester, the only justification would be medical.

I don't see this as an issue of telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. I see it as an issue of protecting infants from having doctors murder them. So for example, I don't think a woman can rightfully be prohibited from jumping down some steps if she's pregnant, but I do think that doctors can be prohibited from killing the fetus for her.

[Azeroffs]

So for example, I don't think a woman can rightfully be prohibited from jumping down some steps if she's pregnant, but I do think that doctors can be prohibited from killing the fetus for her.

Wait... so you would have a woman kill her fetus by jumping down the stairs rather than by asking a doctor to do it?

[discojoe]

Wait... so you would have a woman kill her fetus by jumping down the stairs rather than by asking a doctor to do it?

I would have her not kill it at all, but if I had a choice, I would not make it easier for her by allowing a doctor to do it for her.

But this only applies if she's killing the fetus/baby (depending on the trimester) just because she doesn't want it. That's fucking evil.

[tcaudilllg]

You're not an ISFj, dude... you are totally ENTp. You know how I know? Because I real ISFj tries to understand ethics; they do not REACT to it as you do.

When someone mentions anything having to do with progressive ethics, you take a PoLR hit. It's pretty obvious.

Can a real ISFj provide insight, please?

[discojoe]

You're not an ISFj, dude... you are totally ENTp. You know how I know? Because I real ISFj tries to understand ethics; they do not REACT to it as you do.

When someone mentions anything having to do with progressive ethics, you take a PoLR hit. It's pretty obvious.

Can a real ISFj provide insight, please?

You're an idiot.

[Azeroffs]

You're not an ISFj, dude... you are totally ENTp. You know how I know? Because I real ISFj tries to understand ethics; they do not REACT to it as you do.

Trying to understand implies a thinking element. While feeling types are capable of it, ethics is typically not an area of trying to understand, but rather just knowing. Just as thinking just knows that 1+1=2.

When someone mentions anything having to do with progressive ethics, you take a PoLR hit. It's pretty obvious.

This is simply wrong. When you discuss ideas, it's thinking and not feeling. Ethics can be just as easily approached by Ti as it can by Fi.

[tcaudilllg]

It is not. You need to learn socionics, son.

[discojoe]

It is not. You need to learn socionics, son.

HAHAHAHAHA

[tcaudilllg]

ISFjs are not just reactionaries. Some of them are, but many actually take an interest in others' ethics and ask whether their own ethics are at all ethical.

[silverchris9]

I dunno. Both of the definite ISFjs I know are reactionaries. I think it's one of the vices common to ISFjs, like laziness and INFps.

[ArchonAlarion]

@Discojoe: I think the very approach you're taking is of someone who has seen through the lens of a logical element their entire life (and I'm refering to your approach in other social issues threads, as well).

Every type can have well thought out opinions in ethical matters, but I'm sure this thread will reveal (when inevitably someone objects to you, Joe) your strong use of Ti.

You present some cliche comments, such as "That's fucking evil", but in an ensuing argument, you would not hold onto these "values" if someone proved them needless or inconsistent. ISFj's usually will turn away from the discussion (unless a Te dominant backs them up), because they know that their values are too axiomatic to be changed by some Ti-er's well thought out analysis. I have only seen conscious external judgement with you, no conscious internal judgement.

[Gilly]

I think it's evil, but I am very aware that it sets a bad precedent for the government to outlaw all abortions before say, the third trimester.

Before the third trimester, I think the typical rape/incest rules would apply. Beyond the third trimester, the only justification would be medical.

I don't see this as an issue of telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. I see it as an issue of protecting infants from having doctors murder them. So for example, I don't think a woman can rightfully be prohibited from jumping down some steps if she's pregnant, but I do think that doctors can be prohibited from killing the fetus for her.

Lingering inhibitions from Christianity? I thought you were better than that

What's wrong with killing a semi-living semi-human if it's just going to be another unwanted who will probably end up on welfare draining tax dollars because it had a shitty upbringing because it's parents didn't love it and even if they did it eventually found out they tried to get an abortion but were denied and became dysfunctional anyways, and could have been one of hundreds of comparable abortions that would have been standard practice and given more doctors and nurses and abortion-tool-makers jobs?

[discojoe]

Li

Stopped reading right there.














Just kidding.

Lingering inhibitions from Christianity? I thought you were better than that

What's wrong with killing a semi-living semi-human if it's just going to be another unwanted who will probably end up on welfare draining tax dollars because it had a shitty upbringing because it's parents didn't love it and even if they did it eventually found out they tried to get an abortion but were denied and became dysfunctional anyways, and could have been one of hundreds of comparable abortions that would have been standard practice and given more doctors and nurses and abortion-tool-makers jobs?

This is horrible reasoning for killing a human child.

[Gilly]

You're not an ISFj, dude... you are totally ENTp. You know how I know? Because I real ISFj tries to understand ethics; they do not REACT to it as you do.

When someone mentions anything having to do with progressive ethics, you take a PoLR hit. It's pretty obvious.

Can a real ISFj provide insight, please?

IMO Beta ST fits much better.

[Gilly]

This is horrible reasoning for killing a human child.

It's not THE reason; there are scores of reasons for getting an abortion, and usually more than one in each scenario. The only reason to do it that matters is that a human wants to do it; their rationale has little to do with your attempt at formulating objective morality. The real "right or wrong" can only be found in the consequences of these actions, the precedents they set, and the long term impact on society, and when you put all of the pieces together, killing an unborn child is not only harmless, but usually a good idea overall.

[tcaudilllg]

If there is a god, then aborting a fetus doesn't mean a thing: God just forwards the kid's soul to the next available body, because that would be the right thing to do. God and personal ambition... can work together.

[Marie84]

ISFjs are not just reactionaries. Some of them are, but many actually take an interest in others' ethics and ask whether their own ethics are at all ethical.


You're not an ISFj, dude... you are totally ENTp. You know how I know? Because I real ISFj tries to understand ethics; they do not REACT to it as you do.

When someone mentions anything having to do with progressive ethics, you take a PoLR hit. It's pretty obvious.

Can a real ISFj provide insight, please?

This is actually quite common in Ne PoLR's

The individual generally does not try hard to understand multiple viewpoints, but concentrates on developing only his own. He is not very good at intriguing others with his ideas, even when they have significant merit.

Ne PoLR's have a tendency towards absolutist concepts, possessing a resistance towards external ideas and alternative scenarios. I've found it's best to avoid getting into arguments with them because they're very unyielding when they've made-up their mind on something

btw, not going anywhere near this threads topics with a ten-foot pole

[FDG]

Ne PoLR's have a tendency towards absolutist concepts, possessing a resistance towards external ideas and alternative scenarios. I've found it's best to avoid getting into arguments with them because they're very unyielding when they've made-up their mind on something

Mmm, well, if you make them feel dumb and show them how their veiwpoints will lead to unintended horrible consequences to their material life, they will generally reconsider and switch. It's not something I recommend, must be done only in the most dangerous cases. Generally though, that part of Ne PoLR isn't a truly big problem because they will rarely try to "push" their views on others. The most dangerous part is ime:

The individual may tend to forcefully restrict other people's activities in areas he thinks they have no natural talent in. At the same time, he or she is prone to make errors when judging whether or not a person is capable of doing something.

When an ISxj reaches a position of power/authority, they really need advisors to understand what a subordinate is good/not good at; all my ISxj friends are shockingly bad at understanding talents by means of "clues" (even those that are really smart), sometimes even if they see that the person is actually really good at what they thought as hopeless, they won't change their mind "just because".

[Marie84]

Mmm, well, if you make them feel dumb and show them how their veiwpoints will lead to unintended horrible consequences to their material life, they will generally reconsider and switch. It's not something I recommend, must be done only in the most dangerous cases.

idk if they process disagreeing with them as undermining their intelligence; it generally comes across as if they view Ne as indecisive, in which I can understand.
Seeing multiple possibilities and hidden concepts that don't directly apply to what's functional would likely seem very annoying to them
It's like they just discovered "A" and people are throwing ideas of "B, C, N, Z" at them

Generally though, that part of Ne PoLR isn't a truly big problem because they will rarely try to "push" their views on others. The most dangerous part is ime:

When an ISxj reaches a position of power/authority, they really need advisors to understand what a subordinate is good/not good at; all my ISxj friends are shockingly bad at understanding talents by means of "clues" (even those that are really smart), sometimes even if they see that the person is actually really good at what they thought as hopeless, they won't change their mind "just because".

This is something I can rather respect about them, the steadfast nature. When they say "A" they stick with it, you can always rely on them when it comes to it. They're not the kind of people who flake-out because someone questioned their views/ideas/opinions

[discojoe]

It's not THE reason; there are scores of reasons for getting an abortion, and usually more than one in each scenario. The only reason to do it that matters is that a human wants to do it; their rationale has little to do with your attempt at formulating objective morality. The real "right or wrong" can only be found in the consequences of these actions, the precedents they set, and the long term impact on society, and when you put all of the pieces together, killing an unborn child is not only harmless, but usually a good idea overall.

George, pull your head out of your ass. What you're saying is ridiculous and almost fails to warrant a response.

You don't need a philosophical explanation for everything, and not killing babies is one of those things.

[Gilly]

George, pull your head out of your ass. What you're saying is ridiculous and almost fails to warrant a response.

You don't need a philosophical explanation for everything, and not killing babies is one of those things.

1. They're not babies. They're fetuses. Call them what they are, or else you're deluding yourself. Maybe we need to change our conception of what fetuses really are because the word seems detached and scientific and not fully appreciative of what it is that is at stake here, but don't call them babies just to try to balance things out.

2. It's not ridiculous, and if you tried to respond instead of dismissing me, I think you would come to see that my stance is not only legitimate, but practically tautological.

3. Don't dismiss my undermining or failure to regard your implicit worldview by relegating my considerations to the realm of philosophy. That's just disingenuous.

[Bardia]

What rights, in your opinion, should a person have?

I don't think a person should have the right to kill a child for any old reason. You can argue that it is a fetus and not a person but it would be if you didn't kill it. I understand that in cases of rape or when the mother's life is at stake that a person might really want an abortion and that make sense to me. Getting knocked up again because you didnt feel like using birth control is not a good excuse.

[silverchris9]

Is it immoral to prefer a well-stated falsehood to a sloppily-worded truth? Not completely, I suppose, since a well-spokenness is in itself a good (or reflective of a good).

Whether or not abortion is moral turns on two propositions: 1) "Fetuses" or "babies" or whatever you want to call them are human lives. 2) Human lives are of infinite or near-infinite value. Since I assent to premise two (though I recognize the word "value" as a metaphor) and consider premise one a possibility, I must assume that abortion is immoral.

Re: XSIs and reactionary beliefs, I maintain that XSIs can be persuaded to hold new beliefs or new opinions or whatever via Ni. You just have to show them how something will happen as a result of some belief, or how one idea naturally arises from another due to the interaction of ideas, or make a big Ni story of historical sweep about it, etc. At least, that's my theory based on my understanding of socionics. I haven't really tried it out (at least not consciously and experimentally) irl.

[discojoe]

1. They're not babies. They're fetuses. Call them what they are, or else you're deluding yourself. Maybe we need to change our conception of what fetuses really are because the word seems detached and scientific and not fully appreciative of what it is that is at stake here, but don't call them babies just to try to balance things out.

When do the fetuses become babies? If a woman is in labor, is the fetus not a baby?

It sounds like you're just not appreciating what a baby really is, and I think if you went to an abortion clinic and saw some of the dead 4-6 month old fetuses, actually saw a dead little baby, you'd see what I mean.

2. It's not ridiculous, and if you tried to respond instead of dismissing me, I think you would come to see that my stance is not only legitimate, but practically tautological.

Your stance that it's OK to kill fetuses/babies because they'll "probably" grow up to be unproductive? Is that your stance? Because if so, I don't think I will ever see it as legitimate.

3. Don't dismiss my undermining or failure to regard your implicit worldview by relegating my considerations to the realm of philosophy. That's just disingenuous.

It's not really disingenuous, because your views--at least in my eyes--amount to little more than detached philosophical musings.

[strrrng]

It's not THE reason; there are scores of reasons for getting an abortion, and usually more than one in each scenario. The only reason to do it that matters is that a human wants to do it; their rationale has little to do with your attempt at formulating objective morality. The real "right or wrong" can only be found in the consequences of these actions, the precedents they set, and the long term impact on society, and when you put all of the pieces together, killing an unborn child is not only harmless, but usually a good idea overall.

Utilitarianism applied to fetuses? Lovely.

[crazedrat]

I think people place too much value on human life. Does it come from narcissism? The fetus is no more special than an ant or a tree or a breathing boil. It is a pile of snot. Killing it is often a very good idea. I wish more people would have abortions..

[discojoe]

I think people place too much value on human life. Does it come from narcissism? The fetus is no more special than an ant or a tree or a breathing boil. It is a pile of snot. Killing it is often a very good idea. I wish more people would have abortions..

You're a horrible person if you're serious, and I am being serious when I say that.

But then it's pretty obvious you've got issues. You probably jack off to all kinds of fucked up shit.

[crazedrat]

don't hold your morals over me. i would gladly have sucked the snot out of your mothers belly

[discojoe]

don't hold your morals over me. i would gladly have sucked the snot out of your mothers belly

You're so fucking weird.

[strrrng]

I think people place too much value on human life. Does it come from narcissism? The fetus is no more special than an ant or a tree or a breathing boil. It is a pile of snot. Killing it is often a very good idea. I wish more people would have abortions..

Would that make a baby a lump of skin, or what?

[crazedrat]

more like a cancer cell. that's how i look at people and why i don't mind abortion. one less cancerous tumor sucking the world dry, i tell myself

[strrrng]

lol. Well, one wouldn't want to preemptively underestimate the value of a fetus, I would think!

[crazedrat]

shit, piss, shit, piss, shit, shit, piss, piss, eat, eat, eat, masturbate, shit, piss, eat, masturbate, shit, masturbate, piss, masturbate, eat, eat, eat, shit, piss, masturbate, eat, eat, eat, shit, eat, shit, piss, masturbate
breath, move, smile, learn, breath, move, smile, learn
eat, shit, piss, masturbate, eat, shit, piss, masturbate
breathe, move, smile, learn, breathe, move, smile, learn
masturbate, eat, shit, piss, masturbate, eat, shit, piss
breathe, move, smile, learn, breathe, move, smile, learn
eat, shit, piss, masturbate, eat, shit, piss, masturbate
afraid of getting caught while i masturbate
afraid of getting caught while i masturbate
pissing in private, pissing in private
taking a long shit, thinking about things while i shit
taking a long shit and thinking about things while i shit
eating and thinking that im a fatass, eating and feeling like im a fatass
eating and being a fatass
taking a piss in private, aiming my piss properly
examining my penis, aiming my piss properly
picking a scab off my penis, masturbating later, aiming my piss properly and taking a shit
going to eat a chocolate orange
want to drink some fiber water
with miralax in it
taking a soft shit later
holding my piss out of anxiety
piss anxiety
piss anxiety piss anxiety piss anxiety piss anxiety shit inhibition and piss anxiety
guilt from eating anxiety over pissing and inhibition for taking a shit along with shameful masturbation
guilt from eating anxiety over pissing inhibition for taking a shit and shameful masturbatory fantasies
kill the fetus kill the fetus kill the fetus kill the fetus kill the fetus kill the fetus kill the fetus kill the fetus kill the fetus kill the fetus kill the fetus kill the fetus kill the fetus kill the fetus kill the fetus kill the fetus kill the fetus

[discojoe]

No one likes you.

[Khamelion]

Lingering inhibitions from Christianity? I thought you were better than that

What's wrong with killing a semi-living semi-human if it's just going to be another unwanted who will probably end up on welfare draining tax dollars because it had a shitty upbringing because it's parents didn't love it and even if they did it eventually found out they tried to get an abortion but were denied and became dysfunctional anyways, and could have been one of hundreds of comparable abortions that would have been standard practice and given more doctors and nurses and abortion-tool-makers jobs?

You're joking....right? You are....oh you're a funny one....

[Khamelion]

crazed is like an american krae....

[discojoe]

You're joking....right? You are....oh you're a funny one....

If he was kidding then it was well played.

[Gilly]

When do the fetuses become babies? If a woman is in labor, is the fetus not a baby?

Abortions probably shouldn't be given in labor, but for the most part, as long as that baby is inside a vagina and hooked up to an umbilical chord, it's a fetus.

It sounds like you're just not appreciating what a baby really is, and I think if you went to an abortion clinic and saw some of the dead 4-6 month old fetuses, actually saw a dead little baby, you'd see what I mean.

Would you ever go to war if you got to see it first hand? No. But it's necessary sometimes. Maybe you will win and there will be fewer abortions when we all start hearing about the horror of 3rd-trimester brain-vacuuming in the New York Times Magazine.

Your stance that it's OK to kill fetuses/babies because they'll "probably" grow up to be unproductive? Is that your stance? Because if so, I don't think I will ever see it as legitimate.

No, that is not my stance. My stance is if a mother doesn't want a child, can afford an abortion, is not going to raise the child properly or cannot afford to, and is not ready for the responsibility, then fuck, let her get an abortion. If the mother cares little enough about her CHILD, her BABY'S LIFE, to consider getting an abortion, she should not be allowed to be responsible for a human life; better to spare the kid. When making value judgments, which are OBVIOUSLY subjective (and, if we want to get into their OBJECTIVE value, we can talk about overpopulation and welfare and all of those great things, but you probably don't want to), we can only take into account the baby's potential future experience of life as a measure of its worth. If the baby is obviously going to have a shitty life, and probably will if the mother doesn't give a shit, then what's the point in letting a mostly unconscious being have rights? We let parents make these kinds of decisions for children all the time; why should we give unborn fetuses a carte-blanche right to life that they might not even get anything out of when someone right in front of us stands to gain by their non-existence? We have the power to give abortions; what are the good reasons for stopping? What dangerous precedent do we set, what laws of nature do we violate, what do we really do that's bad? That's what I want to know.

It's not really disingenuous, because your views--at least in my eyes--amount to little more than detached philosophical musings.

Of course, you've experienced abortion first hand, so your views are more significant than philosophical musings, and you're certainly not just saying what you "feel" like is the "good" thing to do. Sorry for assuming that you just want to confront a tough issue with a total lack of thinking.

[Gilly]

more like a cancer cell. that's how i look at people and why i don't mind abortion. one less cancerous tumor sucking the world dry, i tell myself

preach.