text: data2={"phrases": [{"id": "cml986k", "body": "I was trying to find pictures online of the Sears near me, but they're all of the exterior. Except this [one shot](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EVYYhEVyA2g/UChbBmyGUUI/AAAAAAAABx4/J3wInWkHqeI/s1600/smithhavenmall1990-2012-2-Sears-Entrance.jpg), amusingly based on a reddit thread. The left picture is from 1992, so ignore that, but the right one is current.\n\nIt's a dumb store, but it's leagues from the \"warehouse with cash registers on one end\" that Wal-Mart resembles."}, {"id": "cml986k", "body": "I was trying to find pictures online of the Sears near me, but they're all of the exterior. Except this [one shot](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EVYYhEVyA2g/UChbBmyGUUI/AAAAAAAABx4/J3wInWkHqeI/s1600/smithhavenmall1990-2012-2-Sears-Entrance.jpg), amusingly based on a reddit thread. The left picture is from 1992, so ignore that, but the right one is current.\n\nIt's a dumb store, but it's leagues from the \"warehouse with cash registers on one end\" that Wal-Mart resembles."}, {"id": "cmleokh", "body": "Is that a camo business blazer on the left of the recent photo?  That's at least got a real WalMart vibe to it."}, {"id": "cml5s07", "body": "Sears has been mismanaged for a long time, and it might be too late to save.  The department store model is dying, so Sears needs to focus on a core demographic and core products. Their stores are too junky to recapture the female fashion market, so they might as well give up on shoes, clothes, perfume, etc.  Likewise, they won't be able to compete in furniture, bedding or housewares without overhauling their ugly, outdated stores.  Even Wal-Mart looks classier than Sears.  They might as well give up on most electronics because there's too much online competition.\n\nBut Sears does still have a fairly decent brand image when it comes to stuff like tools and major appliances (or, rather, their major competitors don't really have a *better* image when it comes to these products).  Many stores still have decent auto repair shops and paint departments.  So, I could see Sears succeeding by shedding the department store dead weight and becoming something more Home Depot-ish.  Maybe they could expand their outdoor and sporting goods selection and offer a range of men's clothing, becoming a one-stop Dad Shop.  They could offer classes and genuine expert advice.  They could have a \"man cave\" department with attractive, IKEA-style mini room displays offering a limited selection of stuff like TVs, recliners, lighting, etc.  IKEA knows how to sell lots of items together by presenting them in a nice, easy package.  Less renovation would be needed if their main competition came from warehouse-type stores like Home Depot.  \n\nExisting Sears stores are mostly large, two-floor buildings, and the rebranded \"Dad Sears\" might not take up all of that space.  Extra space could be rented to various pop-up stores, presentations, home contractors and special displays from Sears-affiliated retailers.  \n\n"}, {"id": "cmlcjlk", "body": "One area that will never die for Sears is appliance repair.  Any time any of my appliances break Ill be calling Sears after the quality work they did on my fridge.  "}, {"id": "2o9z0b", "body": "The last few years have been rough on Sears. Today, they just announced a quarterly net loss of $548 million and the closing of 235 underperforming stores. [Photos](http://www.businessinsider.com/photos-of-deserted-sears-stores-2014-10#this-abandoned-sears-in-north-randall-ohio-closed-in-2009-its-part-of-the-now-defunct-randall-park-mall-which-opened-in-1976-and-once-housed-more-than-200-stores-before-closing-in-may-2009-1) of their stores and buildings are absolutely desolate. \n\nI don't see a turn around. Anyone want to take a shot at how they last any longer? I will respond after my lunch hour.\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cml4nbv", "body": "[deleted]"}, {"id": "cml4nbv", "body": "[deleted]"}, {"id": "cml5asp", "body": "I see them as being far from middle of the road when it comes to their in-house brands. Kenmore, Craftsman, and DieHard are regularly rated as best in their categories by places like Consumer Reports. Not marketing this quality is definitely a key factor in their decline."}, {"id": "cml5asp", "body": "I see them as being far from middle of the road when it comes to their in-house brands. Kenmore, Craftsman, and DieHard are regularly rated as best in their categories by places like Consumer Reports. Not marketing this quality is definitely a key factor in their decline."}, {"id": "cml5no8", "body": "Its true, all of the tools my dad has are craftsman. They have held up incredibly well (some are over 30-40 years old). When he has had an issue or one break he walks in with it. They give him a new one and he leaves.\n\nHell I broke one of his nice craftsmen wood handled hammers by using it as a lever. Handle snapped in a way that made it obvious it was being torqued the wrong way. They still gave him a new one no questions asked."}, {"id": "cml5asp", "body": "I see them as being far from middle of the road when it comes to their in-house brands. Kenmore, Craftsman, and DieHard are regularly rated as best in their categories by places like Consumer Reports. Not marketing this quality is definitely a key factor in their decline."}, {"id": "cml60iq", "body": "But at the same time you wouldn't call any of those things premium would you?\n\nIn fairness even Kenmore wouldn't you call those products \"mid-range\"?  They are the top of their heap in the mid range, but is kenmore really that much better than its competition that it would be aspirational or the only reasonable choice?"}, {"id": "cml60iq", "body": "But at the same time you wouldn't call any of those things premium would you?\n\nIn fairness even Kenmore wouldn't you call those products \"mid-range\"?  They are the top of their heap in the mid range, but is kenmore really that much better than its competition that it would be aspirational or the only reasonable choice?"}, {"id": "cml69oc", "body": "That's really going to depend on how it's marketed.  In price? In performance? In quality?  "}, {"id": "cml69oc", "body": "That's really going to depend on how it's marketed.  In price? In performance? In quality?  "}, {"id": "cml6uvs", "body": "In most of those. \n\nThey're firmly entrenched in the higher end of the middle price range with all their items. This means you'll pay a bit more on everything they have in store. Now, as far as performance and quality are concerned, there's quite a variation, but their price remain constant. This means you'll *always* pay a premium from poor to slightly above average quality merchandise. \n\nPeople that want to feel like they're buying \"top of the line\" (by paying more) at a \"good price\" (but still less than actual top of the line) are Sears bread and butter. Now, these people are disappearing fast, but not 12 months from now fast. "}, {"id": "cml5asp", "body": "I see them as being far from middle of the road when it comes to their in-house brands. Kenmore, Craftsman, and DieHard are regularly rated as best in their categories by places like Consumer Reports. Not marketing this quality is definitely a key factor in their decline."}, {"id": "cmlevbu", "body": "Craftsman has really taken a turn to the cheapside in recent years.  It used to be the lifetime warranty meant you could expect it to last a lifetime.  Now it means you just have to pop into Sears every 6-12 months to pick up your new replacement (at least until they go under).  \n\nI'm sure they ran the numbers and found that it's cheaper to sell someone a $3 wrench for $20 and replace it every year than it was to sell someone a $20 wrench for $40 and have it last.  Too bad too."}, {"id": "cml4nbv", "body": "[deleted]"}, {"id": "cmlfk2i", "body": "Sorry natha105, your comment has been removed: \n\n&gt; Comment Rule 1\\. \"Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments.\" [See the wiki page for more information.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1)  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, please [message the moderators by clicking this link.](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&amp;subject=Removed+Comment+Rule+1+Post+Appeal&amp;message=natha105+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2o9z0b/cmv_this_is_the_final_holiday_season_for_sears/cml4nbv\\))"}, {"id": "2o9z0b", "body": "The last few years have been rough on Sears. Today, they just announced a quarterly net loss of $548 million and the closing of 235 underperforming stores. [Photos](http://www.businessinsider.com/photos-of-deserted-sears-stores-2014-10#this-abandoned-sears-in-north-randall-ohio-closed-in-2009-its-part-of-the-now-defunct-randall-park-mall-which-opened-in-1976-and-once-housed-more-than-200-stores-before-closing-in-may-2009-1) of their stores and buildings are absolutely desolate. \n\nI don't see a turn around. Anyone want to take a shot at how they last any longer? I will respond after my lunch hour.\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cml46tm", "body": "Sears may be close to the end, but I wouldn't say that this is their last holiday season for good. Instead of completely coding down every store, the company may decide to downsize by closing it's poorest performing stores, or it may have certain stores specialize in certain things.Sears will experiment with other options before closing down for good."}, {"id": "cml46tm", "body": "Sears may be close to the end, but I wouldn't say that this is their last holiday season for good. Instead of completely coding down every store, the company may decide to downsize by closing it's poorest performing stores, or it may have certain stores specialize in certain things.Sears will experiment with other options before closing down for good."}, {"id": "cml5w7z", "body": "I think the time for that has come and gone. This year alone, their CEO had to bail them out from his own hedge fund. I don't see how he could risk $400 million when the core business can't profit. "}, {"id": "cml5w7z", "body": "I think the time for that has come and gone. This year alone, their CEO had to bail them out from his own hedge fund. I don't see how he could risk $400 million when the core business can't profit. "}, {"id": "cml80cw", "body": "If the CEO already has his own money invested in the company I don't think he will give up on the company within the next year."}, {"id": "2o9z0b", "body": "The last few years have been rough on Sears. Today, they just announced a quarterly net loss of $548 million and the closing of 235 underperforming stores. [Photos](http://www.businessinsider.com/photos-of-deserted-sears-stores-2014-10#this-abandoned-sears-in-north-randall-ohio-closed-in-2009-its-part-of-the-now-defunct-randall-park-mall-which-opened-in-1976-and-once-housed-more-than-200-stores-before-closing-in-may-2009-1) of their stores and buildings are absolutely desolate. \n\nI don't see a turn around. Anyone want to take a shot at how they last any longer? I will respond after my lunch hour.\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cml6ab2", "body": "While I think Sears is in deep trouble, I don't think they'll shut down completely in the next 12 months.   Currently, their balance sheet is about even, so they're not insolvent enough to go bankrupt yet.  And they are in a lot of long leases that can't be broken except through bankruptcy or paying huge sums.\n\nEven if the CEO were planning a wind-down of the business, it would be through gradual closures, managing sales of the valuable real estate they own to get the best prices, and perhaps spinning off or expanding areas where Sears actually does somewhat well (tools and appliances mostly)."}, {"id": "cml6ab2", "body": "While I think Sears is in deep trouble, I don't think they'll shut down completely in the next 12 months.   Currently, their balance sheet is about even, so they're not insolvent enough to go bankrupt yet.  And they are in a lot of long leases that can't be broken except through bankruptcy or paying huge sums.\n\nEven if the CEO were planning a wind-down of the business, it would be through gradual closures, managing sales of the valuable real estate they own to get the best prices, and perhaps spinning off or expanding areas where Sears actually does somewhat well (tools and appliances mostly)."}, {"id": "cml6nom", "body": "The strategy you've described is already in place, but since it's the CEO's own hedge fund that is keeping them afloat at the moment, I assume he's hoping for a quicker exit than another year. "}, {"id": "cml6nom", "body": "The strategy you've described is already in place, but since it's the CEO's own hedge fund that is keeping them afloat at the moment, I assume he's hoping for a quicker exit than another year. "}, {"id": "cml6vo3", "body": "&gt;I assume he's hoping for a quicker exit than another year.\n\nYou know what happens [when you assume.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEP1acj29-Y)\n\nBut seriously, a hedge fund may be looking to make the investment pay off over multiple years, there's no reason to think its a rush."}, {"id": "Thread_ends", "body": "Thread_ends"}, {"id": "Thread_ends", "body": "Thread_ends"}, {"id": "2o9wje", "body": "(Using a throwaway as this is a sensitive issue and, perhaps, a controversial opinion. I have every intention of following up on this post and replies made to it).\n\nAt the outset I would like to say the following:\n\n* The religious arguments against abortion hold no weight for me whatsoever. I have as little time for them as I have for religious arguments against homosexuality, for example.\n* The view I state in the title is one that I am far from secure in and I expect that there will be a good counter-argument out there, and I would like to hear it.\n* I arrived at this view, independent of anyone else, as a result of following what I believe to be the logical consequences of principles that I apply in other areas. These principles are humanist, and in other areas lead logically to conclusions such as: 'You have no right to tell others what sex they may or may not have, and with whom they may or may not have it, with the sole exception that this sex be conducted healthily between consenting adults'. \n* Such a conclusion as the one above is a principle that I am eminently comfortable with. It troubles me therefore that the same basic tenets can lead me to a view that is so contrary to normal secular humanist thinking, and contrary also to my instinctive moral reaction, on abortion. Presently, however, I can't escape the logic of it. I expect there may be a flaw in my reasoning somewhere but I've not found it myself.\n\nI struggle to get views across in prose without waffling, so I've bullet-pointed the steps my thinking takes to arrive at this point:\n\n* You have the right to do whatever you wish as long as you do not harm anyone else.\n* This logically follows from the concept of personal agency.\n* You have agency over your own body.\n* This is true for every person (human) in the world.\n* There exists no clear biological or philosophical \u2018dividing line' after which an embryo \u2018becomes human\u2019 during the course of pregnancy.\n* Therefore the only possible non-arbitrary \u2018line\u2019 that can be drawn between \u2018human' and 'not-human', is the point of fertilisation.\n* Therefore a pregnant woman is for the entirety of her pregnancy carrying a separate entity that is a human being at every stage of the process.\n* Therefore an abortion violates the right of the embryo to basic personal integrity and agency - the mother is \u2018harming another\u2019\n* The question of abortion does not therefore resemble the question of, for example, consenting sex between adults in terms of personal agency.\n\nCrucial in this is the question of at what point the embryo becomes a human being. Philosophically, one cannot be arbitrary about this, otherwise it is possible for an embryo at (for instance) 24 weeks to be considered 'human' and an embryo at 23 weeks, 6 days and 23 hours to not be considered 'human' - a clear absurdity. In my contention the only clear line, as I have said, that is not hugely arbitrary is the point of conception - the point of the completion of the genetic constitution of a human cell.\n\nThe standard 'pro-choice' argument is that 'a woman has the right to choose what she does with her own body' - and that is absolutely correct, and it would be anathema to me to ever argue anything else. However, does a woman have the right to choose what she does with someone else's body? Logically, that is what I believe the embryo must be considered as.\n\nThe argument I set out above does also possibly allow for exceptions:\n\n* In the case that the embryo is demonstrably not viable (i.e. philosophically already dead);\n* In the case that the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother (producing a moral conflict between the agency and integrity of the mother and that of the child);\n* In the case that a pregnancy results from rape (as this means the pregnancy itself is a violation of the mother's own personal agency);\n\nHowever, it does not provide for an exception where the mother's quality of life or her physical or psychological health would be damaged by carrying the pregnancy through to birth. Nor does it provide for an exception in cases where the child would be born with severely reduced quality of life, such as with severe genetic disorders. Instinctively, I find this difficult to wrap my head around, ethically. This sort of thing is part of why I struggle so much to reconcile my thoughts to themselves on this particular issue - and thus, why I've posted this here.\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cml62s5", "body": "Here is you problem:\n\n&gt;There exists no clear biological or philosophical \u2018dividing line' after which an embryo \u2018becomes human\u2019 during the course of pregnancy.\n\nDoes NOT logically result in this:\n\n&gt;Therefore the only possible non-arbitrary \u2018line\u2019 that can be drawn between \u2018human' and 'not-human', is the point of fertilisation.\n\nConsider paradox of the heap:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox#Paradox_of_the_heap\n\nOne grain of sand is not a \"heap.\" A million grains of sand are a \"heap.\"\n\nYet where is the CLEAR dividing line? We don't know.\n\nFrom this it DOES NOT follow that we must now declare one grain of sand a \"heap.\"\n\nSame goes for you argument. There could be a variety of places where we can draw the line. For example, the line is CURRENTLY  drawn at viability, that is at a point where a fetus can survive outside the mother's tomb.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey\n\nOther point may also be possible. For example the \"line\"  may be drawn once the fetus has a heart beat, or when the fetus develops certain level of measurable brain activity, etc. etc."}, {"id": "cml62s5", "body": "Here is you problem:\n\n&gt;There exists no clear biological or philosophical \u2018dividing line' after which an embryo \u2018becomes human\u2019 during the course of pregnancy.\n\nDoes NOT logically result in this:\n\n&gt;Therefore the only possible non-arbitrary \u2018line\u2019 that can be drawn between \u2018human' and 'not-human', is the point of fertilisation.\n\nConsider paradox of the heap:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox#Paradox_of_the_heap\n\nOne grain of sand is not a \"heap.\" A million grains of sand are a \"heap.\"\n\nYet where is the CLEAR dividing line? We don't know.\n\nFrom this it DOES NOT follow that we must now declare one grain of sand a \"heap.\"\n\nSame goes for you argument. There could be a variety of places where we can draw the line. For example, the line is CURRENTLY  drawn at viability, that is at a point where a fetus can survive outside the mother's tomb.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey\n\nOther point may also be possible. For example the \"line\"  may be drawn once the fetus has a heart beat, or when the fetus develops certain level of measurable brain activity, etc. etc."}, {"id": "cmldila", "body": "The problem with this is that, **without knowing where the dividing line is, someone's rights are being horrifically violated**.\n\nClearly there is a moment when it transitions from being \"not a human life\" to being \"a human life\".  So how can we establish laws that prohibit abortion after 21 weeks (as an example, but pick any point in gestation) if we don't know where that line is?\n\nIf 21 weeks is before the line, then there are women out there that are 22 weeks pregnant whose bodily autonomy is being horribly violated by government restrictions that require them to carry a pregnancy to full term and birth a child against their will.  What kind of oppressive, tyrannical government has such disregard for women's rights to their own body that they would pass such a law?\n\nBut if the 21 weeks is *after* the line, then things are even more horrific!  Now the government is not just taking away a person's rights temporarily, they are failing to protect a person's rights *at all* and just permitting the willy-nilly killing of one human by another?  What kind of barbarians would not even pass the most basic of laws to protect the most innocent of humans from those blood thirst humans who desire to kill them?\n\nSo without being able to determine a \"line\", don't we need to take our best information and determine where that line is using science and logic that is available to us?  Right now, we're not doing that.  There is nothing \"magical\" about the 20-25 week threshold that is currently legislated in most states.\n\nTo me, the only logical points to draw that \"line\" are either conception or birth.  The physiological transformation at those two points is so drastically different and more significant than any other point in gestation that those are the only two logical \"lines\".  \n\nAny other line we really have no scientific verification for - it is just a \"feels good\" point.  On top of that, \"21 weeks\" isn't very definitive.  Development in 2 different pregnancies could be different at 21 weeks, and it is really the stage of development - not the length of the pregnancy - that is relevant."}, {"id": "cmldila", "body": "The problem with this is that, **without knowing where the dividing line is, someone's rights are being horrifically violated**.\n\nClearly there is a moment when it transitions from being \"not a human life\" to being \"a human life\".  So how can we establish laws that prohibit abortion after 21 weeks (as an example, but pick any point in gestation) if we don't know where that line is?\n\nIf 21 weeks is before the line, then there are women out there that are 22 weeks pregnant whose bodily autonomy is being horribly violated by government restrictions that require them to carry a pregnancy to full term and birth a child against their will.  What kind of oppressive, tyrannical government has such disregard for women's rights to their own body that they would pass such a law?\n\nBut if the 21 weeks is *after* the line, then things are even more horrific!  Now the government is not just taking away a person's rights temporarily, they are failing to protect a person's rights *at all* and just permitting the willy-nilly killing of one human by another?  What kind of barbarians would not even pass the most basic of laws to protect the most innocent of humans from those blood thirst humans who desire to kill them?\n\nSo without being able to determine a \"line\", don't we need to take our best information and determine where that line is using science and logic that is available to us?  Right now, we're not doing that.  There is nothing \"magical\" about the 20-25 week threshold that is currently legislated in most states.\n\nTo me, the only logical points to draw that \"line\" are either conception or birth.  The physiological transformation at those two points is so drastically different and more significant than any other point in gestation that those are the only two logical \"lines\".  \n\nAny other line we really have no scientific verification for - it is just a \"feels good\" point.  On top of that, \"21 weeks\" isn't very definitive.  Development in 2 different pregnancies could be different at 21 weeks, and it is really the stage of development - not the length of the pregnancy - that is relevant."}, {"id": "cmli9ip", "body": "Being a father of a six month old child, I have some sympathy for the opinion that a baby isn't a person until around two months of age. Until this point they have no real personality to speak of, they don't smile, they can hardly recognise faces let alone shapes, they have very little motor control and the only thing that keeps them alive is a natural ability to seduce adults into catering for their every need. \n\nNot that I'm advocating 4th trimester abortions, I just think that the high rates of infant mortality seen through history and the developing world would scar society if they classed newborns as people rather than something that develops into a person. Chickens have a richer experience of the world than a week old baby, they are essentially foetuses that we carry about like pouchless marsupials. So with this in mind I think viability is a better argument than stage of development."}, {"id": "cmldila", "body": "The problem with this is that, **without knowing where the dividing line is, someone's rights are being horrifically violated**.\n\nClearly there is a moment when it transitions from being \"not a human life\" to being \"a human life\".  So how can we establish laws that prohibit abortion after 21 weeks (as an example, but pick any point in gestation) if we don't know where that line is?\n\nIf 21 weeks is before the line, then there are women out there that are 22 weeks pregnant whose bodily autonomy is being horribly violated by government restrictions that require them to carry a pregnancy to full term and birth a child against their will.  What kind of oppressive, tyrannical government has such disregard for women's rights to their own body that they would pass such a law?\n\nBut if the 21 weeks is *after* the line, then things are even more horrific!  Now the government is not just taking away a person's rights temporarily, they are failing to protect a person's rights *at all* and just permitting the willy-nilly killing of one human by another?  What kind of barbarians would not even pass the most basic of laws to protect the most innocent of humans from those blood thirst humans who desire to kill them?\n\nSo without being able to determine a \"line\", don't we need to take our best information and determine where that line is using science and logic that is available to us?  Right now, we're not doing that.  There is nothing \"magical\" about the 20-25 week threshold that is currently legislated in most states.\n\nTo me, the only logical points to draw that \"line\" are either conception or birth.  The physiological transformation at those two points is so drastically different and more significant than any other point in gestation that those are the only two logical \"lines\".  \n\nAny other line we really have no scientific verification for - it is just a \"feels good\" point.  On top of that, \"21 weeks\" isn't very definitive.  Development in 2 different pregnancies could be different at 21 weeks, and it is really the stage of development - not the length of the pregnancy - that is relevant."}, {"id": "cmm3lhx", "body": "&gt; The problem with this is that, without knowing where the dividing line is, someone's rights are being horrifically violated.\n\nBy \"someone,\" do you mean the fetus, or are you also considering the rights of the woman? It seems like all too often people look at this from the POV of the fetus (which scientifically doesn't even have its own POV yet), instead of the POV of the woman who would be trapped inside her own pregnant body against her will. \n\nAbortion is a medical procedure that exists safely. If the state wants to deny women access to a safe medical procedure, they need a better reason than \"somewhere along the line we *believe* a fetus becomes a 'person,' and by 'person' we have no actual clear definition, nor do we clearly know when that happens, but we \"believe\" it happens and our emotions are strong on this, so we're denying you access to a safe and valid medical procedure.\" "}, {"id": "cmm3lhx", "body": "&gt; The problem with this is that, without knowing where the dividing line is, someone's rights are being horrifically violated.\n\nBy \"someone,\" do you mean the fetus, or are you also considering the rights of the woman? It seems like all too often people look at this from the POV of the fetus (which scientifically doesn't even have its own POV yet), instead of the POV of the woman who would be trapped inside her own pregnant body against her will. \n\nAbortion is a medical procedure that exists safely. If the state wants to deny women access to a safe medical procedure, they need a better reason than \"somewhere along the line we *believe* a fetus becomes a 'person,' and by 'person' we have no actual clear definition, nor do we clearly know when that happens, but we \"believe\" it happens and our emotions are strong on this, so we're denying you access to a safe and valid medical procedure.\" "}, {"id": "cmm49h4", "body": "&gt; &gt; The problem with this is that, without knowing where the dividing line is, someone's rights are being horrifically violated.\n&gt; \n&gt; \n&gt; By \"someone,\" do you mean the fetus, or are you also considering the rights of the woman? \n\nRead the rest of my post.  We don't know whose rights are being horrifically violated.  But if we don't draw the line at the exact correct spot, someone's is - either the baby or the woman.\n\n"}, {"id": "cml62s5", "body": "Here is you problem:\n\n&gt;There exists no clear biological or philosophical \u2018dividing line' after which an embryo \u2018becomes human\u2019 during the course of pregnancy.\n\nDoes NOT logically result in this:\n\n&gt;Therefore the only possible non-arbitrary \u2018line\u2019 that can be drawn between \u2018human' and 'not-human', is the point of fertilisation.\n\nConsider paradox of the heap:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox#Paradox_of_the_heap\n\nOne grain of sand is not a \"heap.\" A million grains of sand are a \"heap.\"\n\nYet where is the CLEAR dividing line? We don't know.\n\nFrom this it DOES NOT follow that we must now declare one grain of sand a \"heap.\"\n\nSame goes for you argument. There could be a variety of places where we can draw the line. For example, the line is CURRENTLY  drawn at viability, that is at a point where a fetus can survive outside the mother's tomb.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey\n\nOther point may also be possible. For example the \"line\"  may be drawn once the fetus has a heart beat, or when the fetus develops certain level of measurable brain activity, etc. etc."}, {"id": "cmn7zmi", "body": "Qualifier: I'm an Atheist, not a Christian Pro-Lifer\n\nI think that viability is even too late for the line to be drawn. Even before the point of viability, the fetus exhibits signs of \"life\" and can respond to stimuli. I would be able to morally support abortion if it were much, MUCH earlier in the pregnancy.\n\nI'd also be in favor of the government providing more incentives for unplanned mothers to complete the pregnancy, whether it be financial or otherwise. "}, {"id": "2o9wje", "body": "(Using a throwaway as this is a sensitive issue and, perhaps, a controversial opinion. I have every intention of following up on this post and replies made to it).\n\nAt the outset I would like to say the following:\n\n* The religious arguments against abortion hold no weight for me whatsoever. I have as little time for them as I have for religious arguments against homosexuality, for example.\n* The view I state in the title is one that I am far from secure in and I expect that there will be a good counter-argument out there, and I would like to hear it.\n* I arrived at this view, independent of anyone else, as a result of following what I believe to be the logical consequences of principles that I apply in other areas. These principles are humanist, and in other areas lead logically to conclusions such as: 'You have no right to tell others what sex they may or may not have, and with whom they may or may not have it, with the sole exception that this sex be conducted healthily between consenting adults'. \n* Such a conclusion as the one above is a principle that I am eminently comfortable with. It troubles me therefore that the same basic tenets can lead me to a view that is so contrary to normal secular humanist thinking, and contrary also to my instinctive moral reaction, on abortion. Presently, however, I can't escape the logic of it. I expect there may be a flaw in my reasoning somewhere but I've not found it myself.\n\nI struggle to get views across in prose without waffling, so I've bullet-pointed the steps my thinking takes to arrive at this point:\n\n* You have the right to do whatever you wish as long as you do not harm anyone else.\n* This logically follows from the concept of personal agency.\n* You have agency over your own body.\n* This is true for every person (human) in the world.\n* There exists no clear biological or philosophical \u2018dividing line' after which an embryo \u2018becomes human\u2019 during the course of pregnancy.\n* Therefore the only possible non-arbitrary \u2018line\u2019 that can be drawn between \u2018human' and 'not-human', is the point of fertilisation.\n* Therefore a pregnant woman is for the entirety of her pregnancy carrying a separate entity that is a human being at every stage of the process.\n* Therefore an abortion violates the right of the embryo to basic personal integrity and agency - the mother is \u2018harming another\u2019\n* The question of abortion does not therefore resemble the question of, for example, consenting sex between adults in terms of personal agency.\n\nCrucial in this is the question of at what point the embryo becomes a human being. Philosophically, one cannot be arbitrary about this, otherwise it is possible for an embryo at (for instance) 24 weeks to be considered 'human' and an embryo at 23 weeks, 6 days and 23 hours to not be considered 'human' - a clear absurdity. In my contention the only clear line, as I have said, that is not hugely arbitrary is the point of conception - the point of the completion of the genetic constitution of a human cell.\n\nThe standard 'pro-choice' argument is that 'a woman has the right to choose what she does with her own body' - and that is absolutely correct, and it would be anathema to me to ever argue anything else. However, does a woman have the right to choose what she does with someone else's body? Logically, that is what I believe the embryo must be considered as.\n\nThe argument I set out above does also possibly allow for exceptions:\n\n* In the case that the embryo is demonstrably not viable (i.e. philosophically already dead);\n* In the case that the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother (producing a moral conflict between the agency and integrity of the mother and that of the child);\n* In the case that a pregnancy results from rape (as this means the pregnancy itself is a violation of the mother's own personal agency);\n\nHowever, it does not provide for an exception where the mother's quality of life or her physical or psychological health would be damaged by carrying the pregnancy through to birth. Nor does it provide for an exception in cases where the child would be born with severely reduced quality of life, such as with severe genetic disorders. Instinctively, I find this difficult to wrap my head around, ethically. This sort of thing is part of why I struggle so much to reconcile my thoughts to themselves on this particular issue - and thus, why I've posted this here.\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cml6btq", "body": "&gt;the only clear line, as I have said, that is not hugely arbitrary is the point of conception - the point of the completion of the genetic constitution of a human cell.\n\nJust because conception happens does not mean that a pregnancy will occur. The egg must still travel down the tubes and then implant into the walls of the uterus. Infact As many as 75% of all conceptions miscarry. If you were to say that each time conception happens a human life is created, then 75% of humans are killed before they can even develop past the state of being an embryo.\n\nhttp://miscarriage.about.com/od/riskfactors/a/miscarriage-statistics.htm\n\nThe 24 week limit is based on the point of \"fetal viability\" IE the point where the fetus would be able to survive outside of the mother (including with the aid of medical science). The number of weeks this is has actually gone down from what it originally was (28) due to advances in medical science.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability\n\nThe idea I have seen behind using this measurement is of the logic process that. Up until that point the baby is not alive because it is only able to live in a parasitic state, and humans are not parasites only able to live off of a host. If the mother was to die then the baby will die. However after that point if the mother dies it is \"possible\" that the baby will live. Because the baby can't live without the mother it is considered to still be part of the mother instead of a separate entity. Once the baby IS able to live without the mother it is then a full person in its own right, and entitled to protection of the mother ejecting it causing it harm in the form of possibly retarded development.\n\nUsing this reasoning and the fact that according to the article there is currently a 0% chance of a baby being born prior to week 21. Would you accept 21 weeks as a cutoff?\n\nYou will still have the 21 weeks 6 days 23 hours/22 weeks cutoff but even then the difference in survival only goes from 0% to 0-10%. But you do need a clear cutoff somewhere and that is where the chance changes from 0 to not 0."}, {"id": "cml6btq", "body": "&gt;the only clear line, as I have said, that is not hugely arbitrary is the point of conception - the point of the completion of the genetic constitution of a human cell.\n\nJust because conception happens does not mean that a pregnancy will occur. The egg must still travel down the tubes and then implant into the walls of the uterus. Infact As many as 75% of all conceptions miscarry. If you were to say that each time conception happens a human life is created, then 75% of humans are killed before they can even develop past the state of being an embryo.\n\nhttp://miscarriage.about.com/od/riskfactors/a/miscarriage-statistics.htm\n\nThe 24 week limit is based on the point of \"fetal viability\" IE the point where the fetus would be able to survive outside of the mother (including with the aid of medical science). The number of weeks this is has actually gone down from what it originally was (28) due to advances in medical science.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability\n\nThe idea I have seen behind using this measurement is of the logic process that. Up until that point the baby is not alive because it is only able to live in a parasitic state, and humans are not parasites only able to live off of a host. If the mother was to die then the baby will die. However after that point if the mother dies it is \"possible\" that the baby will live. Because the baby can't live without the mother it is considered to still be part of the mother instead of a separate entity. Once the baby IS able to live without the mother it is then a full person in its own right, and entitled to protection of the mother ejecting it causing it harm in the form of possibly retarded development.\n\nUsing this reasoning and the fact that according to the article there is currently a 0% chance of a baby being born prior to week 21. Would you accept 21 weeks as a cutoff?\n\nYou will still have the 21 weeks 6 days 23 hours/22 weeks cutoff but even then the difference in survival only goes from 0% to 0-10%. But you do need a clear cutoff somewhere and that is where the chance changes from 0 to not 0."}, {"id": "cml7g7y", "body": "[deleted]"}, {"id": "cml7g7y", "body": "[deleted]"}, {"id": "cml7xy8", "body": "&gt;bad taste to use the word \"parasite\"\n\nThen explain to me how this definition does not apply to a fetus.\nan organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.\n\nBad taste or not it is accurate.\n\n&gt;you are ignoring the fact that without intervention, the chances dramatically increase that a child would be born into this world.\n  \nNo, I am saying if you want to intervene to stop that before the child able to survive on its own then that's fine.\n\n&gt;If you really think that a child is a non-existent parasite at 21\n  \nI'll assume you mean weeks. ;)  \nYes. Because Plan B is Levonorgestrel and is not in any way an abortifacient, even by the definition OP uses. It will not stop a pregnancy once conception has occurred.\n\"It works by preventing the release of an egg from the ovary or preventing fertilization of the egg by sperm\"\nIn some cases it \"may also work by changing the lining of the uterus (womb) to prevent development of a pregnancy.\" But in this case there was a 75% chance of that happening anyway.\n\nSources:\nhttp://miscarriage.about.com/od/riskfactors/a/miscarriage-statistics.htm\nhttp://ec.princeton.edu/pills/plan-b.html\nhttp://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a610021.html\n\n&gt;Do you think someone who kicks her in the stomach is guilty of only battery?\n  \nMaybe.He could possibly be guilty of Domestic abuse as well depending on the relationship. Also usually it is pretty easy to charge someone with assault as well as battery due to assault being essentially a threat of battery.\n\nWhat would you want him charged with?"}, {"id": "cml7xy8", "body": "&gt;bad taste to use the word \"parasite\"\n\nThen explain to me how this definition does not apply to a fetus.\nan organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.\n\nBad taste or not it is accurate.\n\n&gt;you are ignoring the fact that without intervention, the chances dramatically increase that a child would be born into this world.\n  \nNo, I am saying if you want to intervene to stop that before the child able to survive on its own then that's fine.\n\n&gt;If you really think that a child is a non-existent parasite at 21\n  \nI'll assume you mean weeks. ;)  \nYes. Because Plan B is Levonorgestrel and is not in any way an abortifacient, even by the definition OP uses. It will not stop a pregnancy once conception has occurred.\n\"It works by preventing the release of an egg from the ovary or preventing fertilization of the egg by sperm\"\nIn some cases it \"may also work by changing the lining of the uterus (womb) to prevent development of a pregnancy.\" But in this case there was a 75% chance of that happening anyway.\n\nSources:\nhttp://miscarriage.about.com/od/riskfactors/a/miscarriage-statistics.htm\nhttp://ec.princeton.edu/pills/plan-b.html\nhttp://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a610021.html\n\n&gt;Do you think someone who kicks her in the stomach is guilty of only battery?\n  \nMaybe.He could possibly be guilty of Domestic abuse as well depending on the relationship. Also usually it is pretty easy to charge someone with assault as well as battery due to assault being essentially a threat of battery.\n\nWhat would you want him charged with?"}, {"id": "cml83gd", "body": "[deleted]"}, {"id": "cml83gd", "body": "[deleted]"}, {"id": "cml8rx3", "body": "I did forget to mention with the plan B drugging that you could also charge the person with \"Involuntary treatment\" and possibly battery on yourself (as that is what someone giving you drugs against your will is considered under the law). I would consider it the same as slipping someone any other medication/drugs.\n\nI said maybe because of the other charges I listed.\n\nAssault and Domestic Abuse. They have nothing to do with the child but I would have no problem with them also being added to the list of charges.\n\nAt what point can a mother claim that you killed their child? If she had sex 3 days before and believed she was pregnant could she claim I killed her child?\n\nIf she was pregnant how can she prove that my kick caused her miscarriage, I already linked a source for how 75% of conception leads to a miscarriage (this obviously goes down after certain stages are complete such as a the fetus implanting in the uterus etc).\n\nIf you argue that as soon as conception happens it is a full fetus, then a kick/punch 4 days after you had sex could be a murder. Or really any time, because you could just claim you were pregnant but the punch caused a miscarriage. This would make any time a women suffered any trauma to the midsection (car crash, roller coaster bar, bumping into her coming around a corner) a potential murder case. "}, {"id": "cml8rx3", "body": "I did forget to mention with the plan B drugging that you could also charge the person with \"Involuntary treatment\" and possibly battery on yourself (as that is what someone giving you drugs against your will is considered under the law). I would consider it the same as slipping someone any other medication/drugs.\n\nI said maybe because of the other charges I listed.\n\nAssault and Domestic Abuse. They have nothing to do with the child but I would have no problem with them also being added to the list of charges.\n\nAt what point can a mother claim that you killed their child? If she had sex 3 days before and believed she was pregnant could she claim I killed her child?\n\nIf she was pregnant how can she prove that my kick caused her miscarriage, I already linked a source for how 75% of conception leads to a miscarriage (this obviously goes down after certain stages are complete such as a the fetus implanting in the uterus etc).\n\nIf you argue that as soon as conception happens it is a full fetus, then a kick/punch 4 days after you had sex could be a murder. Or really any time, because you could just claim you were pregnant but the punch caused a miscarriage. This would make any time a women suffered any trauma to the midsection (car crash, roller coaster bar, bumping into her coming around a corner) a potential murder case. "}, {"id": "cml8x8b", "body": "Really not that complex, a positive pregnancy test.  Any time after that."}, {"id": "cml6btq", "body": "&gt;the only clear line, as I have said, that is not hugely arbitrary is the point of conception - the point of the completion of the genetic constitution of a human cell.\n\nJust because conception happens does not mean that a pregnancy will occur. The egg must still travel down the tubes and then implant into the walls of the uterus. Infact As many as 75% of all conceptions miscarry. If you were to say that each time conception happens a human life is created, then 75% of humans are killed before they can even develop past the state of being an embryo.\n\nhttp://miscarriage.about.com/od/riskfactors/a/miscarriage-statistics.htm\n\nThe 24 week limit is based on the point of \"fetal viability\" IE the point where the fetus would be able to survive outside of the mother (including with the aid of medical science). The number of weeks this is has actually gone down from what it originally was (28) due to advances in medical science.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability\n\nThe idea I have seen behind using this measurement is of the logic process that. Up until that point the baby is not alive because it is only able to live in a parasitic state, and humans are not parasites only able to live off of a host. If the mother was to die then the baby will die. However after that point if the mother dies it is \"possible\" that the baby will live. Because the baby can't live without the mother it is considered to still be part of the mother instead of a separate entity. Once the baby IS able to live without the mother it is then a full person in its own right, and entitled to protection of the mother ejecting it causing it harm in the form of possibly retarded development.\n\nUsing this reasoning and the fact that according to the article there is currently a 0% chance of a baby being born prior to week 21. Would you accept 21 weeks as a cutoff?\n\nYou will still have the 21 weeks 6 days 23 hours/22 weeks cutoff but even then the difference in survival only goes from 0% to 0-10%. But you do need a clear cutoff somewhere and that is where the chance changes from 0 to not 0."}, {"id": "cmn4ccf", "body": "I think your point about fetal viability is interesting, but I am not swayed by your point about miscarriages. Just because 75% of babies die before they begin development does not excuse us killing some of the other 25% on purpose. Just because someone is dependant upon another for survival does not mean that their life is worthless. If I were wounded in the desert, and you drove by with a car, i would be dependant upon you for survival.(just a thought expiriment dont get too literal with it.) ill be back gtg"}, {"id": "2o9wje", "body": "(Using a throwaway as this is a sensitive issue and, perhaps, a controversial opinion. I have every intention of following up on this post and replies made to it).\n\nAt the outset I would like to say the following:\n\n* The religious arguments against abortion hold no weight for me whatsoever. I have as little time for them as I have for religious arguments against homosexuality, for example.\n* The view I state in the title is one that I am far from secure in and I expect that there will be a good counter-argument out there, and I would like to hear it.\n* I arrived at this view, independent of anyone else, as a result of following what I believe to be the logical consequences of principles that I apply in other areas. These principles are humanist, and in other areas lead logically to conclusions such as: 'You have no right to tell others what sex they may or may not have, and with whom they may or may not have it, with the sole exception that this sex be conducted healthily between consenting adults'. \n* Such a conclusion as the one above is a principle that I am eminently comfortable with. It troubles me therefore that the same basic tenets can lead me to a view that is so contrary to normal secular humanist thinking, and contrary also to my instinctive moral reaction, on abortion. Presently, however, I can't escape the logic of it. I expect there may be a flaw in my reasoning somewhere but I've not found it myself.\n\nI struggle to get views across in prose without waffling, so I've bullet-pointed the steps my thinking takes to arrive at this point:\n\n* You have the right to do whatever you wish as long as you do not harm anyone else.\n* This logically follows from the concept of personal agency.\n* You have agency over your own body.\n* This is true for every person (human) in the world.\n* There exists no clear biological or philosophical \u2018dividing line' after which an embryo \u2018becomes human\u2019 during the course of pregnancy.\n* Therefore the only possible non-arbitrary \u2018line\u2019 that can be drawn between \u2018human' and 'not-human', is the point of fertilisation.\n* Therefore a pregnant woman is for the entirety of her pregnancy carrying a separate entity that is a human being at every stage of the process.\n* Therefore an abortion violates the right of the embryo to basic personal integrity and agency - the mother is \u2018harming another\u2019\n* The question of abortion does not therefore resemble the question of, for example, consenting sex between adults in terms of personal agency.\n\nCrucial in this is the question of at what point the embryo becomes a human being. Philosophically, one cannot be arbitrary about this, otherwise it is possible for an embryo at (for instance) 24 weeks to be considered 'human' and an embryo at 23 weeks, 6 days and 23 hours to not be considered 'human' - a clear absurdity. In my contention the only clear line, as I have said, that is not hugely arbitrary is the point of conception - the point of the completion of the genetic constitution of a human cell.\n\nThe standard 'pro-choice' argument is that 'a woman has the right to choose what she does with her own body' - and that is absolutely correct, and it would be anathema to me to ever argue anything else. However, does a woman have the right to choose what she does with someone else's body? Logically, that is what I believe the embryo must be considered as.\n\nThe argument I set out above does also possibly allow for exceptions:\n\n* In the case that the embryo is demonstrably not viable (i.e. philosophically already dead);\n* In the case that the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother (producing a moral conflict between the agency and integrity of the mother and that of the child);\n* In the case that a pregnancy results from rape (as this means the pregnancy itself is a violation of the mother's own personal agency);\n\nHowever, it does not provide for an exception where the mother's quality of life or her physical or psychological health would be damaged by carrying the pregnancy through to birth. Nor does it provide for an exception in cases where the child would be born with severely reduced quality of life, such as with severe genetic disorders. Instinctively, I find this difficult to wrap my head around, ethically. This sort of thing is part of why I struggle so much to reconcile my thoughts to themselves on this particular issue - and thus, why I've posted this here.\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cml6s2s", "body": "&gt;You have the right to do whatever you wish as long as you do not harm anyone else.\n\nSo the fetus doesn't have a right to hijack the woman's body against the woman's will and connect to her blood stream to use her resources to develop it (the fetus) into a fully viable human body that can survive on its own outside the womb.\n\nThe fetus doesn't have a right to force a woman to go through all this against her will:\n\n**Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:**\n\n&gt;exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)\n\n&gt;altered appetite and senses of taste and smell\n\n&gt;nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)\n\n&gt;heartburn and indigestion\n\n&gt;constipation\n\n&gt;weight gain\n\n&gt;dizziness and light-headedness\n\n&gt;bloating, swelling, fluid retention\n\n&gt;hemmorhoids\n\n&gt;abdominal cramps\n\n&gt;yeast infections\n\n&gt;congested, bloody nose\n\n&gt;acne and mild skin disorders\n\n&gt;skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)\n\n&gt;mild to severe backache and strain\n\n&gt;increased headaches\n\n&gt;difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping\n\n&gt;increased urination and incontinence\n\n&gt;bleeding gums\n\n&gt;pica\n\n&gt;breast pain and discharge\n\n&gt;swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain\n\n&gt;difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy\n\n&gt;inability to take regular medications\n\n&gt;shortness of breath\n\n&gt;higher blood pressure\n\n&gt;hair loss or increased facial/body hair\n\n&gt;tendency to anemia\n\n&gt;curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities\n\n&gt;infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease\n\n&gt;(pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)\n\n&gt;extreme pain on delivery\n\n&gt;hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression\n\n&gt;continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)\n\n**Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:**\n\n&gt;stretch marks (worse in younger women)\n\n&gt;loose skin\n\n&gt;permanent weight gain or redistribution\n\n&gt;abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness\n\n&gt;pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life -- aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)\n\n&gt;changes to breasts\n\n&gt;increased foot size\n\n&gt;varicose veins\n\n&gt;scarring from episiotomy or c-section\n\n&gt;other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)\n\n&gt;increased proclivity for hemmorhoids\n\n&gt;loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)\n\n&gt;higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's\n\n&gt;newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with \"unrelated\" gestational surrogates)\n\n**Occasional complications and side effects:**\n\n&gt;complications of episiotomy\n\n&gt;spousal/partner abuse\n\n&gt;hyperemesis gravidarum\n\n&gt;temporary and permanent injury to back\n\n&gt;severe scarring requiring later surgery \n\n&gt;(especially after additional pregnancies)\n\n&gt;dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)\n\n&gt;pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)\n\n&gt;eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)\n\n&gt;gestational diabetes\n\n&gt;placenta previa\n\n&gt;anemia (which can be life-threatening)\n\n&gt;thrombocytopenic purpura\n\n&gt;severe cramping\n\n&gt;embolism (blood clots)\n\n&gt;medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)\n\n&gt;diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles\n\n&gt;mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)\n\n&gt;serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)\n\n&gt;hormonal imbalance\n\n&gt;ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)\n\n&gt;broken bones (ribcage, \"tail bone\")\n\n&gt;hemorrhage and\n\n&gt;numerous other complications of delivery\n\n&gt;refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease\n\n&gt;aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)\n\n&gt;severe post-partum depression and psychosis\n\n&gt;research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including \"egg harvesting\" from infertile women and donors\n\n&gt;research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy\n\n&gt;research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease\n\n**Less common (but serious) complications:**\n\n&gt;peripartum cardiomyopathy\n\n&gt;cardiopulmonary arrest\n\n&gt;magnesium toxicity\n\n&gt;severe hypoxemia/acidosis\n\n&gt;massive embolism\n\n&gt;increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction\n\n&gt;molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)\n\n&gt;malignant arrhythmi\n\n\n&gt;circulatory collapse\n\n&gt;placental abruption\n\n&gt;obstetric fistula\n\n**More permanent side effects:**\n\n&gt;future infertility\n\n&gt;permanent disability\n\n&gt;death.\n\n[link](http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm)\n\nAdditionally this is in a country with no paid or even unpaid maternity leave, no universal health care (pregnancy and childbirth costs upwards of $10k even with insurance), and no free child care. The fetus doesn't have a right to force a woman to take time off work, lose income, pay for regular pre-natal doctor's appointments and pay upwards of $10,000 to give birth to the fetus... all against her will. \n"}, {"id": "cml6s2s", "body": "&gt;You have the right to do whatever you wish as long as you do not harm anyone else.\n\nSo the fetus doesn't have a right to hijack the woman's body against the woman's will and connect to her blood stream to use her resources to develop it (the fetus) into a fully viable human body that can survive on its own outside the womb.\n\nThe fetus doesn't have a right to force a woman to go through all this against her will:\n\n**Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:**\n\n&gt;exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)\n\n&gt;altered appetite and senses of taste and smell\n\n&gt;nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)\n\n&gt;heartburn and indigestion\n\n&gt;constipation\n\n&gt;weight gain\n\n&gt;dizziness and light-headedness\n\n&gt;bloating, swelling, fluid retention\n\n&gt;hemmorhoids\n\n&gt;abdominal cramps\n\n&gt;yeast infections\n\n&gt;congested, bloody nose\n\n&gt;acne and mild skin disorders\n\n&gt;skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)\n\n&gt;mild to severe backache and strain\n\n&gt;increased headaches\n\n&gt;difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping\n\n&gt;increased urination and incontinence\n\n&gt;bleeding gums\n\n&gt;pica\n\n&gt;breast pain and discharge\n\n&gt;swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain\n\n&gt;difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy\n\n&gt;inability to take regular medications\n\n&gt;shortness of breath\n\n&gt;higher blood pressure\n\n&gt;hair loss or increased facial/body hair\n\n&gt;tendency to anemia\n\n&gt;curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities\n\n&gt;infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease\n\n&gt;(pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)\n\n&gt;extreme pain on delivery\n\n&gt;hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression\n\n&gt;continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)\n\n**Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:**\n\n&gt;stretch marks (worse in younger women)\n\n&gt;loose skin\n\n&gt;permanent weight gain or redistribution\n\n&gt;abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness\n\n&gt;pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life -- aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)\n\n&gt;changes to breasts\n\n&gt;increased foot size\n\n&gt;varicose veins\n\n&gt;scarring from episiotomy or c-section\n\n&gt;other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)\n\n&gt;increased proclivity for hemmorhoids\n\n&gt;loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)\n\n&gt;higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's\n\n&gt;newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with \"unrelated\" gestational surrogates)\n\n**Occasional complications and side effects:**\n\n&gt;complications of episiotomy\n\n&gt;spousal/partner abuse\n\n&gt;hyperemesis gravidarum\n\n&gt;temporary and permanent injury to back\n\n&gt;severe scarring requiring later surgery \n\n&gt;(especially after additional pregnancies)\n\n&gt;dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)\n\n&gt;pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)\n\n&gt;eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)\n\n&gt;gestational diabetes\n\n&gt;placenta previa\n\n&gt;anemia (which can be life-threatening)\n\n&gt;thrombocytopenic purpura\n\n&gt;severe cramping\n\n&gt;embolism (blood clots)\n\n&gt;medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)\n\n&gt;diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles\n\n&gt;mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)\n\n&gt;serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)\n\n&gt;hormonal imbalance\n\n&gt;ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)\n\n&gt;broken bones (ribcage, \"tail bone\")\n\n&gt;hemorrhage and\n\n&gt;numerous other complications of delivery\n\n&gt;refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease\n\n&gt;aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)\n\n&gt;severe post-partum depression and psychosis\n\n&gt;research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including \"egg harvesting\" from infertile women and donors\n\n&gt;research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy\n\n&gt;research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease\n\n**Less common (but serious) complications:**\n\n&gt;peripartum cardiomyopathy\n\n&gt;cardiopulmonary arrest\n\n&gt;magnesium toxicity\n\n&gt;severe hypoxemia/acidosis\n\n&gt;massive embolism\n\n&gt;increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction\n\n&gt;molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)\n\n&gt;malignant arrhythmi\n\n\n&gt;circulatory collapse\n\n&gt;placental abruption\n\n&gt;obstetric fistula\n\n**More permanent side effects:**\n\n&gt;future infertility\n\n&gt;permanent disability\n\n&gt;death.\n\n[link](http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm)\n\nAdditionally this is in a country with no paid or even unpaid maternity leave, no universal health care (pregnancy and childbirth costs upwards of $10k even with insurance), and no free child care. The fetus doesn't have a right to force a woman to take time off work, lose income, pay for regular pre-natal doctor's appointments and pay upwards of $10,000 to give birth to the fetus... all against her will. \n"}, {"id": "cml874r", "body": "So either the fetus violates the mother's rights, or she violates the fetus's rights. Who wins and why?"}, {"id": "cml874r", "body": "So either the fetus violates the mother's rights, or she violates the fetus's rights. Who wins and why?"}, {"id": "cml8cbq", "body": "&gt; So either the fetus violates the mother's rights, or she violates the fetus's rights.\n\nExactly. This *is* a zero-sum game wherein choosing one side is inherently *at the expense* of the other side. Some people choose fetuses at the expense of women; others choose women at the expense of fetuses.\n\n&gt;Who wins and why?\n\nThe living breathing human being, because it's the only one that is currently legally a person with rights, the only one that is biological a person with a consciousness that knows it exists, and scientifically the one that will suffer extreme emotional trauma if forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will, whereas the fetus won't suffer emotional trauma when it is aborted or even know that it is being aborted because it doesn't even know that it exists yet. There's no fucking question in my mind that women should be favored over fetuses and it blows my mind that anyone would consider giving a fetus rights at the expense of the women carrying the fetuses inside of them. "}, {"id": "cml8cbq", "body": "&gt; So either the fetus violates the mother's rights, or she violates the fetus's rights.\n\nExactly. This *is* a zero-sum game wherein choosing one side is inherently *at the expense* of the other side. Some people choose fetuses at the expense of women; others choose women at the expense of fetuses.\n\n&gt;Who wins and why?\n\nThe living breathing human being, because it's the only one that is currently legally a person with rights, the only one that is biological a person with a consciousness that knows it exists, and scientifically the one that will suffer extreme emotional trauma if forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will, whereas the fetus won't suffer emotional trauma when it is aborted or even know that it is being aborted because it doesn't even know that it exists yet. There's no fucking question in my mind that women should be favored over fetuses and it blows my mind that anyone would consider giving a fetus rights at the expense of the women carrying the fetuses inside of them. "}, {"id": "cml8zbg", "body": "The counterargument to that point is that life is a more important right than any other, as it is required to enjoy all other human rights. The argument that you have to know you're alive to be legally considered human is disturbing; infanticide is fully legal under that definition of human life. Arguing from consequence is awful when dealing with murder, too. Otherwise you can snipe an orphan that nobody will miss and it's all good because he doesn't know."}, {"id": "cml8zbg", "body": "The counterargument to that point is that life is a more important right than any other, as it is required to enjoy all other human rights. The argument that you have to know you're alive to be legally considered human is disturbing; infanticide is fully legal under that definition of human life. Arguing from consequence is awful when dealing with murder, too. Otherwise you can snipe an orphan that nobody will miss and it's all good because he doesn't know."}, {"id": "cml92wh", "body": "&gt; The counterargument to that point is that life is a more important right than any other,\n\nOnce someone is already born, yes. The right to not be killed is the most important right there is. But the right to control your own body is second right after that. And since the fetus isn't born yet and therefor cannot have its life taken away from it yet since it hasn't *developed* its own life yet, then the woman's secondary most important right in the world - the right to control your body - takes precedent. "}, {"id": "cml92wh", "body": "&gt; The counterargument to that point is that life is a more important right than any other,\n\nOnce someone is already born, yes. The right to not be killed is the most important right there is. But the right to control your own body is second right after that. And since the fetus isn't born yet and therefor cannot have its life taken away from it yet since it hasn't *developed* its own life yet, then the woman's secondary most important right in the world - the right to control your body - takes precedent. "}, {"id": "cml9dcy", "body": "You defined life as post-birth. That seems arbitrary--there is little difference between a 9-month fetus and a newborn baby. Why is birth significant enough to warrant the granting of human life?"}, {"id": "cml9dcy", "body": "You defined life as post-birth. That seems arbitrary--there is little difference between a 9-month fetus and a newborn baby. Why is birth significant enough to warrant the granting of human life?"}, {"id": "cml9jjg", "body": "&gt; there is little difference between a 9-month fetus and a newborn baby. \n\n9-month fetuses aren't really part of the abortion discussion though. 9-month pregnant women don't request abortions. Late term abortions are illegal in the U.S. unless the woman has a sudden pregnancy complication that puts her life at risk. A woman requesting a 9-month abortion wouldn't find a doctor willing to do it; the doctor would induce labor instead. \n\nPost birth is my line and it is the least arbitrary line there could possibly be in this debate. It's the point when the baby comes out of the womb and exists as its own entity. Until that time, when it exists *inside another human being,* that human being retains full control over her body at all times, and if she does not want her body to be used to develop a fetus into a baby then she doesn't have to."}, {"id": "cml9jjg", "body": "&gt; there is little difference between a 9-month fetus and a newborn baby. \n\n9-month fetuses aren't really part of the abortion discussion though. 9-month pregnant women don't request abortions. Late term abortions are illegal in the U.S. unless the woman has a sudden pregnancy complication that puts her life at risk. A woman requesting a 9-month abortion wouldn't find a doctor willing to do it; the doctor would induce labor instead. \n\nPost birth is my line and it is the least arbitrary line there could possibly be in this debate. It's the point when the baby comes out of the womb and exists as its own entity. Until that time, when it exists *inside another human being,* that human being retains full control over her body at all times, and if she does not want her body to be used to develop a fetus into a baby then she doesn't have to."}, {"id": "cml9xf1", "body": "This is the reason late-term abortions are controversial, and why they're illegal in most US states and basically all of Europe. A third-trimester fetus can experience sensation, feel pain, hear, etc. Why does her location influence personhood more than these qualities? I've already established that taking life away isn't OK just because she doesn't understand death. Is she not human because her mother may not want her and she's on biological life support? I know the incidence is uncommon, but with cases involving death, every one counts."}, {"id": "cml9xf1", "body": "This is the reason late-term abortions are controversial, and why they're illegal in most US states and basically all of Europe. A third-trimester fetus can experience sensation, feel pain, hear, etc. Why does her location influence personhood more than these qualities? I've already established that taking life away isn't OK just because she doesn't understand death. Is she not human because her mother may not want her and she's on biological life support? I know the incidence is uncommon, but with cases involving death, every one counts."}, {"id": "cmla1wv", "body": "&gt; Why does her location influence personhood more than these qualities?\n\nThe fetus's location is the location of its *creation* and creation is a *process* and it isn't fully created yet. It cannot survive outside of that single specific location - a woman's womb - yet. When it can, then it has fully developed into its own human being. Until then, it's still just a potential life. We don't owe it to [who?] to bring all potential life to life. That isn't humanity's responsibility. We don't have to always have sex without protection, we don't have to carry every pregnancy to term; we don't have to bring every potential life to life. \n\n&gt;A third-trimester fetus can experience sensation, feel pain, hear, etc\n\nYes, right, because it's a life. It is a life that won't be aborted. Abortions for full term fetuses are illegal and the labor would be induced instead so that the fetus would be born into a baby with full protection under the law. Basically full-term fetuses have nothing to do with the abortion debate."}, {"id": "cmla1wv", "body": "&gt; Why does her location influence personhood more than these qualities?\n\nThe fetus's location is the location of its *creation* and creation is a *process* and it isn't fully created yet. It cannot survive outside of that single specific location - a woman's womb - yet. When it can, then it has fully developed into its own human being. Until then, it's still just a potential life. We don't owe it to [who?] to bring all potential life to life. That isn't humanity's responsibility. We don't have to always have sex without protection, we don't have to carry every pregnancy to term; we don't have to bring every potential life to life. \n\n&gt;A third-trimester fetus can experience sensation, feel pain, hear, etc\n\nYes, right, because it's a life. It is a life that won't be aborted. Abortions for full term fetuses are illegal and the labor would be induced instead so that the fetus would be born into a baby with full protection under the law. Basically full-term fetuses have nothing to do with the abortion debate."}, {"id": "cmlacd4", "body": "&gt;Basically full-term fetuses have nothing to do with the abortion debate.\n\nThat's not true at all. In fact, that's one of the most controversial issues in the abortion debate.\n\nA fetus CAN survive outside a woman's womb after viability; that's what viability means. \n\nTo clarify, I'm not talking about full-term fetuses--I'm talking about third-trimester post-viability fetuses. They could be anywhere after 20 or so weeks, which is why that tends to be approximately the date limit in most European countries or American states."}, {"id": "cmla1wv", "body": "&gt; Why does her location influence personhood more than these qualities?\n\nThe fetus's location is the location of its *creation* and creation is a *process* and it isn't fully created yet. It cannot survive outside of that single specific location - a woman's womb - yet. When it can, then it has fully developed into its own human being. Until then, it's still just a potential life. We don't owe it to [who?] to bring all potential life to life. That isn't humanity's responsibility. We don't have to always have sex without protection, we don't have to carry every pregnancy to term; we don't have to bring every potential life to life. \n\n&gt;A third-trimester fetus can experience sensation, feel pain, hear, etc\n\nYes, right, because it's a life. It is a life that won't be aborted. Abortions for full term fetuses are illegal and the labor would be induced instead so that the fetus would be born into a baby with full protection under the law. Basically full-term fetuses have nothing to do with the abortion debate."}, {"id": "cmm03pz", "body": "&gt; It cannot survive outside of that single specific location yet.\n\nWith this same logic, newborns in incubators are still \"potential life\" and not \"life\". Do they hold rights? Why or why not?"}, {"id": "cml8zbg", "body": "The counterargument to that point is that life is a more important right than any other, as it is required to enjoy all other human rights. The argument that you have to know you're alive to be legally considered human is disturbing; infanticide is fully legal under that definition of human life. Arguing from consequence is awful when dealing with murder, too. Otherwise you can snipe an orphan that nobody will miss and it's all good because he doesn't know."}, {"id": "cmleu8n", "body": "If you pass on a genetic disorder to your kid and they need your bone marrow to live. You aren't legally required to give it to them. \n\nThis isn't considered murder and neither should abortion be.\n"}, {"id": "cmleu8n", "body": "If you pass on a genetic disorder to your kid and they need your bone marrow to live. You aren't legally required to give it to them. \n\nThis isn't considered murder and neither should abortion be.\n"}, {"id": "cmlgpzg", "body": "Of course that's not murder. Murder has to be active. If you watch someone drown without helping them, that's not murder. If you strangle a baby, that's murder. The question is why the in utero baby is different than one who has already been born.\n\nAnalogies aren't arguments, especially ones as forced as this."}, {"id": "cmlgpzg", "body": "Of course that's not murder. Murder has to be active. If you watch someone drown without helping them, that's not murder. If you strangle a baby, that's murder. The question is why the in utero baby is different than one who has already been born.\n\nAnalogies aren't arguments, especially ones as forced as this."}, {"id": "cmlh63a", "body": "The fetus requires the woman's body to live. If the woman doesn't want that then she should be able to stop it. I don't know exactly what goes on to abort but actively ending it's life does not matter as there is not another option to prevent the fetus from using her body's resources. That is self defense at that point, not murder. If another person is forcing you to give them your bone marrow and the only way to stop it is to actively kill them, it would considered self defense, not murder."}, {"id": "cmlh63a", "body": "The fetus requires the woman's body to live. If the woman doesn't want that then she should be able to stop it. I don't know exactly what goes on to abort but actively ending it's life does not matter as there is not another option to prevent the fetus from using her body's resources. That is self defense at that point, not murder. If another person is forcing you to give them your bone marrow and the only way to stop it is to actively kill them, it would considered self defense, not murder."}, {"id": "cmlhnzq", "body": "So what makes the mother's rights supersede the infant's at this point? We've established that either the mother has to lose her bodily autonomy or the fetus has to lose her life. Does the mother get self-defense privileges because she's able to kill the fetus without the fetus fighting back? What qualities allow you to \"murder\" (if you consider a fetus a living human) if your life is not in danger?\n\nAs per your analogy: If a patient wakes up and realizes his transplanted kidney was stolen from you, you're not allowed to kill him and take it back."}, {"id": "cmlhnzq", "body": "So what makes the mother's rights supersede the infant's at this point? We've established that either the mother has to lose her bodily autonomy or the fetus has to lose her life. Does the mother get self-defense privileges because she's able to kill the fetus without the fetus fighting back? What qualities allow you to \"murder\" (if you consider a fetus a living human) if your life is not in danger?\n\nAs per your analogy: If a patient wakes up and realizes his transplanted kidney was stolen from you, you're not allowed to kill him and take it back."}, {"id": "cmlm5rg", "body": "I already said why, bodily autonomy trumps someone else's life rights in any comparable situation. If you personally took away my bodily by forcing me to give bone marrow and my only choice to stop it is to kill you, that is self defense and isn't wrong. It's active killing but it isn't murder. If the mother doesn't want the fetus to use her bodily resources then her only choice to stop it at this point is to to abort the fetus. Her bodily autonomy trumps the fetuses life rights for the same reason as in my example.\n\n&gt;If a patient wakes up and realizes his transplanted kidney was stolen from you, you're not allowed to kill him and take it back.\n\nActually I didn't say that at all. I said if you give them your kidney, you can't take it back. I never said they could steal it. Of course I think there should consequences for stealing, however I only think actively killing them is ok if you have no other choice. \n\nAnyway You aren't gonna change your view with this so I'm out of the conversation, bye."}, {"id": "cmlm5rg", "body": "I already said why, bodily autonomy trumps someone else's life rights in any comparable situation. If you personally took away my bodily by forcing me to give bone marrow and my only choice to stop it is to kill you, that is self defense and isn't wrong. It's active killing but it isn't murder. If the mother doesn't want the fetus to use her bodily resources then her only choice to stop it at this point is to to abort the fetus. Her bodily autonomy trumps the fetuses life rights for the same reason as in my example.\n\n&gt;If a patient wakes up and realizes his transplanted kidney was stolen from you, you're not allowed to kill him and take it back.\n\nActually I didn't say that at all. I said if you give them your kidney, you can't take it back. I never said they could steal it. Of course I think there should consequences for stealing, however I only think actively killing them is ok if you have no other choice. \n\nAnyway You aren't gonna change your view with this so I'm out of the conversation, bye."}, {"id": "cmlnyqu", "body": "Your analogy is bad and you should feel bad.\n\nFirst off, nowhere in current law does it say that bodily autonomy can EVER trump right to life. You are allowed to kill only when your life is in danger. The problem with your analogy is that there is no situation in which an organ can be taken from you without your consent and you won't believe your life is in danger. If this is an elective abortion, your doctor has definitely told you that you can survive the pregnancy.\n\nAnother problem with analogies is that they cut both ways and that you admitted that in my case, you would not allow abortions. If this abortion is elective, then there is \"another choice\" to killing the fetus, therefore it's not OK to do so. Of course, my example disregards the mental state of the fetus, the fact that the mother and child are both simultaneously using the organs, and a whole bunch of other factors that you *can't approximate for in analogies.* Argument by analogy is more or less invalid here. \n\nCan we try this argument again without using analogies?"}, {"id": "cmlhnzq", "body": "So what makes the mother's rights supersede the infant's at this point? We've established that either the mother has to lose her bodily autonomy or the fetus has to lose her life. Does the mother get self-defense privileges because she's able to kill the fetus without the fetus fighting back? What qualities allow you to \"murder\" (if you consider a fetus a living human) if your life is not in danger?\n\nAs per your analogy: If a patient wakes up and realizes his transplanted kidney was stolen from you, you're not allowed to kill him and take it back."}, {"id": "cmm3uu7", "body": "&gt; So what makes the mother's rights supersede the ~~infant's~~ at this point?\n\nFetus. The difference between an infant and a fetus is important here. An infant exists outside the body of another human being. A fetus is a person *in development* who is *not* fully developed yet and cannot survive outside the location in which it was created and is still in development: i.e. a woman's womb. It has not yet been developed fully into \"a person.\" It is not yet its own entity. It is part of the woman's womb within which it resides. "}, {"id": "cmm3uu7", "body": "&gt; So what makes the mother's rights supersede the ~~infant's~~ at this point?\n\nFetus. The difference between an infant and a fetus is important here. An infant exists outside the body of another human being. A fetus is a person *in development* who is *not* fully developed yet and cannot survive outside the location in which it was created and is still in development: i.e. a woman's womb. It has not yet been developed fully into \"a person.\" It is not yet its own entity. It is part of the woman's womb within which it resides. "}, {"id": "cmm4lmk", "body": "I have to correct myself on this mistake so often. Thank you for catching me when I don't catch myself.\n\nI still think your definition is a bit off. If what you're saying were true there would be no such thing as a third-trimester fetus. Fetus status lasts until birth, not viability."}, {"id": "cml8cbq", "body": "&gt; So either the fetus violates the mother's rights, or she violates the fetus's rights.\n\nExactly. This *is* a zero-sum game wherein choosing one side is inherently *at the expense* of the other side. Some people choose fetuses at the expense of women; others choose women at the expense of fetuses.\n\n&gt;Who wins and why?\n\nThe living breathing human being, because it's the only one that is currently legally a person with rights, the only one that is biological a person with a consciousness that knows it exists, and scientifically the one that will suffer extreme emotional trauma if forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will, whereas the fetus won't suffer emotional trauma when it is aborted or even know that it is being aborted because it doesn't even know that it exists yet. There's no fucking question in my mind that women should be favored over fetuses and it blows my mind that anyone would consider giving a fetus rights at the expense of the women carrying the fetuses inside of them. "}, {"id": "cmm7ar0", "body": "There is not such thing as being biologically a person. Both a fetus and a mother are biologically human beings."}, {"id": "cmm7ar0", "body": "There is not such thing as being biologically a person. Both a fetus and a mother are biologically human beings."}, {"id": "cmm7e3h", "body": "Finish the sentence please. \n\n&gt;biological a person with a consciousness that knows it exists\n\n"}, {"id": "cmm7e3h", "body": "Finish the sentence please. \n\n&gt;biological a person with a consciousness that knows it exists\n\n"}, {"id": "cmm7ng5", "body": "Okay but that still doesn't make sense.\n\nHaving consciousness is no way what makes us a human being, or worthy of life. An infant doesn't know it exists, yet. A person in a coma isn't conscious. A sleeping person isn't conscious. We don't kill any of those people. A fetus doesn't have the *temporary* capacity for consciousness similar to a person in a coma. However, a fetus will most likely continue growing and developing as a human being unless it is deliberately killed through abortion.\n\nA fetus wouldn't suffer emotional trauma just like a sleeping person wouldn't suffer emotional trauma if they were quickly killed in their sleep. "}, {"id": "cmm7ng5", "body": "Okay but that still doesn't make sense.\n\nHaving consciousness is no way what makes us a human being, or worthy of life. An infant doesn't know it exists, yet. A person in a coma isn't conscious. A sleeping person isn't conscious. We don't kill any of those people. A fetus doesn't have the *temporary* capacity for consciousness similar to a person in a coma. However, a fetus will most likely continue growing and developing as a human being unless it is deliberately killed through abortion.\n\nA fetus wouldn't suffer emotional trauma just like a sleeping person wouldn't suffer emotional trauma if they were quickly killed in their sleep. "}, {"id": "cmm7thz", "body": "Because all the factors work together. It isn't *just* that a fetus doesn't have a consciousness that makes it okay to abort it; rather, it's a variety of factors including the fact that the fetus doesn't have a consciousness yet. Abortion is its own unique situation. The *combination of factors* that justify abortion legality is exclusive to abortion, despite the fact that some of those factors apply in other situations as well and even result in different outcomes in other situations. "}, {"id": "cml6s2s", "body": "&gt;You have the right to do whatever you wish as long as you do not harm anyone else.\n\nSo the fetus doesn't have a right to hijack the woman's body against the woman's will and connect to her blood stream to use her resources to develop it (the fetus) into a fully viable human body that can survive on its own outside the womb.\n\nThe fetus doesn't have a right to force a woman to go through all this against her will:\n\n**Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:**\n\n&gt;exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)\n\n&gt;altered appetite and senses of taste and smell\n\n&gt;nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)\n\n&gt;heartburn and indigestion\n\n&gt;constipation\n\n&gt;weight gain\n\n&gt;dizziness and light-headedness\n\n&gt;bloating, swelling, fluid retention\n\n&gt;hemmorhoids\n\n&gt;abdominal cramps\n\n&gt;yeast infections\n\n&gt;congested, bloody nose\n\n&gt;acne and mild skin disorders\n\n&gt;skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)\n\n&gt;mild to severe backache and strain\n\n&gt;increased headaches\n\n&gt;difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping\n\n&gt;increased urination and incontinence\n\n&gt;bleeding gums\n\n&gt;pica\n\n&gt;breast pain and discharge\n\n&gt;swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain\n\n&gt;difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy\n\n&gt;inability to take regular medications\n\n&gt;shortness of breath\n\n&gt;higher blood pressure\n\n&gt;hair loss or increased facial/body hair\n\n&gt;tendency to anemia\n\n&gt;curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities\n\n&gt;infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease\n\n&gt;(pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)\n\n&gt;extreme pain on delivery\n\n&gt;hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression\n\n&gt;continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)\n\n**Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:**\n\n&gt;stretch marks (worse in younger women)\n\n&gt;loose skin\n\n&gt;permanent weight gain or redistribution\n\n&gt;abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness\n\n&gt;pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life -- aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)\n\n&gt;changes to breasts\n\n&gt;increased foot size\n\n&gt;varicose veins\n\n&gt;scarring from episiotomy or c-section\n\n&gt;other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)\n\n&gt;increased proclivity for hemmorhoids\n\n&gt;loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)\n\n&gt;higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's\n\n&gt;newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with \"unrelated\" gestational surrogates)\n\n**Occasional complications and side effects:**\n\n&gt;complications of episiotomy\n\n&gt;spousal/partner abuse\n\n&gt;hyperemesis gravidarum\n\n&gt;temporary and permanent injury to back\n\n&gt;severe scarring requiring later surgery \n\n&gt;(especially after additional pregnancies)\n\n&gt;dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)\n\n&gt;pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)\n\n&gt;eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)\n\n&gt;gestational diabetes\n\n&gt;placenta previa\n\n&gt;anemia (which can be life-threatening)\n\n&gt;thrombocytopenic purpura\n\n&gt;severe cramping\n\n&gt;embolism (blood clots)\n\n&gt;medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)\n\n&gt;diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles\n\n&gt;mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)\n\n&gt;serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)\n\n&gt;hormonal imbalance\n\n&gt;ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)\n\n&gt;broken bones (ribcage, \"tail bone\")\n\n&gt;hemorrhage and\n\n&gt;numerous other complications of delivery\n\n&gt;refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease\n\n&gt;aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)\n\n&gt;severe post-partum depression and psychosis\n\n&gt;research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including \"egg harvesting\" from infertile women and donors\n\n&gt;research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy\n\n&gt;research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease\n\n**Less common (but serious) complications:**\n\n&gt;peripartum cardiomyopathy\n\n&gt;cardiopulmonary arrest\n\n&gt;magnesium toxicity\n\n&gt;severe hypoxemia/acidosis\n\n&gt;massive embolism\n\n&gt;increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction\n\n&gt;molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)\n\n&gt;malignant arrhythmi\n\n\n&gt;circulatory collapse\n\n&gt;placental abruption\n\n&gt;obstetric fistula\n\n**More permanent side effects:**\n\n&gt;future infertility\n\n&gt;permanent disability\n\n&gt;death.\n\n[link](http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm)\n\nAdditionally this is in a country with no paid or even unpaid maternity leave, no universal health care (pregnancy and childbirth costs upwards of $10k even with insurance), and no free child care. The fetus doesn't have a right to force a woman to take time off work, lose income, pay for regular pre-natal doctor's appointments and pay upwards of $10,000 to give birth to the fetus... all against her will. \n"}, {"id": "cmlevt9", "body": "What if the woman's behaviour is what caused the fetus to exist in the first place? Seems to me portraying the fetus as an evil parasite is hugely disingenuous. It didn't ask to be created."}, {"id": "cmlevt9", "body": "What if the woman's behaviour is what caused the fetus to exist in the first place? Seems to me portraying the fetus as an evil parasite is hugely disingenuous. It didn't ask to be created."}, {"id": "cmlf2sm", "body": "&gt; What if the woman's behaviour is what caused the fetus to exist in the first place? \n\nWhat, like she was *trying* to get pregnant? In that case she probably isn't requesting an abortion... unless something happened after she became pregnant that changed her mind, which is probably something very serious and I would trust the woman in that situation to make the best decision for herself.\n\nOtherwise, what if the woman specifically tried to prevent impregnation by using birth control? In that case she specifically didn't ask to get pregnant and tried everything she could do to prevent it. But birth control fails sometimes. "}, {"id": "cmlf2sm", "body": "&gt; What if the woman's behaviour is what caused the fetus to exist in the first place? \n\nWhat, like she was *trying* to get pregnant? In that case she probably isn't requesting an abortion... unless something happened after she became pregnant that changed her mind, which is probably something very serious and I would trust the woman in that situation to make the best decision for herself.\n\nOtherwise, what if the woman specifically tried to prevent impregnation by using birth control? In that case she specifically didn't ask to get pregnant and tried everything she could do to prevent it. But birth control fails sometimes. "}, {"id": "cmm0c2j", "body": "A teenager has unprotected, consensual sex with her loving boyfriend. She gets pregnant. Does she have a right to have an abortion? She certainly wan't requesting the pregnancy, but she didn't take the necessary measurements to prevent it. Would you trust her to make the best decision for herself?\n\nIf you nitpick situations to sustain your argument, so can I. Not all unwanted pregnancies are product of external circumstances."}, {"id": "cmm0c2j", "body": "A teenager has unprotected, consensual sex with her loving boyfriend. She gets pregnant. Does she have a right to have an abortion? She certainly wan't requesting the pregnancy, but she didn't take the necessary measurements to prevent it. Would you trust her to make the best decision for herself?\n\nIf you nitpick situations to sustain your argument, so can I. Not all unwanted pregnancies are product of external circumstances."}, {"id": "cmm36d5", "body": "&gt; Would you trust her to make the best decision for herself?\n\nLol, would you trust her to *raise a baby?!* Or, even if she gave it up for adoption, do you trust her to do what is best for the fetus's health during pregnancy, if you don't even trust her to make the decision? Is she provided with free pre-natal care? Does her high school district have adequate programs to help pregnant students still get their degree? If she keeps it, will she be able to find a job and support herself and her child? You don't even trust her to make a medical decision herself but you want to force her into being a teen mom? \n\nBut to answer your question, yes, I absolutely 100% trust her to make the best decision for herself. I hope she finds resources to help educate her decision if she has ignorance of some things surrounding the situation."}, {"id": "cml6s2s", "body": "&gt;You have the right to do whatever you wish as long as you do not harm anyone else.\n\nSo the fetus doesn't have a right to hijack the woman's body against the woman's will and connect to her blood stream to use her resources to develop it (the fetus) into a fully viable human body that can survive on its own outside the womb.\n\nThe fetus doesn't have a right to force a woman to go through all this against her will:\n\n**Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:**\n\n&gt;exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)\n\n&gt;altered appetite and senses of taste and smell\n\n&gt;nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)\n\n&gt;heartburn and indigestion\n\n&gt;constipation\n\n&gt;weight gain\n\n&gt;dizziness and light-headedness\n\n&gt;bloating, swelling, fluid retention\n\n&gt;hemmorhoids\n\n&gt;abdominal cramps\n\n&gt;yeast infections\n\n&gt;congested, bloody nose\n\n&gt;acne and mild skin disorders\n\n&gt;skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)\n\n&gt;mild to severe backache and strain\n\n&gt;increased headaches\n\n&gt;difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping\n\n&gt;increased urination and incontinence\n\n&gt;bleeding gums\n\n&gt;pica\n\n&gt;breast pain and discharge\n\n&gt;swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain\n\n&gt;difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy\n\n&gt;inability to take regular medications\n\n&gt;shortness of breath\n\n&gt;higher blood pressure\n\n&gt;hair loss or increased facial/body hair\n\n&gt;tendency to anemia\n\n&gt;curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities\n\n&gt;infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease\n\n&gt;(pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)\n\n&gt;extreme pain on delivery\n\n&gt;hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression\n\n&gt;continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)\n\n**Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:**\n\n&gt;stretch marks (worse in younger women)\n\n&gt;loose skin\n\n&gt;permanent weight gain or redistribution\n\n&gt;abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness\n\n&gt;pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life -- aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)\n\n&gt;changes to breasts\n\n&gt;increased foot size\n\n&gt;varicose veins\n\n&gt;scarring from episiotomy or c-section\n\n&gt;other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)\n\n&gt;increased proclivity for hemmorhoids\n\n&gt;loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)\n\n&gt;higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's\n\n&gt;newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with \"unrelated\" gestational surrogates)\n\n**Occasional complications and side effects:**\n\n&gt;complications of episiotomy\n\n&gt;spousal/partner abuse\n\n&gt;hyperemesis gravidarum\n\n&gt;temporary and permanent injury to back\n\n&gt;severe scarring requiring later surgery \n\n&gt;(especially after additional pregnancies)\n\n&gt;dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)\n\n&gt;pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)\n\n&gt;eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)\n\n&gt;gestational diabetes\n\n&gt;placenta previa\n\n&gt;anemia (which can be life-threatening)\n\n&gt;thrombocytopenic purpura\n\n&gt;severe cramping\n\n&gt;embolism (blood clots)\n\n&gt;medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)\n\n&gt;diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles\n\n&gt;mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)\n\n&gt;serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)\n\n&gt;hormonal imbalance\n\n&gt;ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)\n\n&gt;broken bones (ribcage, \"tail bone\")\n\n&gt;hemorrhage and\n\n&gt;numerous other complications of delivery\n\n&gt;refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease\n\n&gt;aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)\n\n&gt;severe post-partum depression and psychosis\n\n&gt;research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including \"egg harvesting\" from infertile women and donors\n\n&gt;research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy\n\n&gt;research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease\n\n**Less common (but serious) complications:**\n\n&gt;peripartum cardiomyopathy\n\n&gt;cardiopulmonary arrest\n\n&gt;magnesium toxicity\n\n&gt;severe hypoxemia/acidosis\n\n&gt;massive embolism\n\n&gt;increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction\n\n&gt;molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)\n\n&gt;malignant arrhythmi\n\n\n&gt;circulatory collapse\n\n&gt;placental abruption\n\n&gt;obstetric fistula\n\n**More permanent side effects:**\n\n&gt;future infertility\n\n&gt;permanent disability\n\n&gt;death.\n\n[link](http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm)\n\nAdditionally this is in a country with no paid or even unpaid maternity leave, no universal health care (pregnancy and childbirth costs upwards of $10k even with insurance), and no free child care. The fetus doesn't have a right to force a woman to take time off work, lose income, pay for regular pre-natal doctor's appointments and pay upwards of $10,000 to give birth to the fetus... all against her will. \n"}, {"id": "cmngqvq", "body": "Does a 3-year-old child have the right to force others to provide for them?\n\nEDIT: I should clarify, my point with this statement is that the entire debate hinges on at what stage we decide to grant a developing human rights. I am not making a case on what stage that is, but rather that this issue is the only relevant issue, and that everything you wrote is pointless because it still boils down to the same issue that nearly every other abortion discussion does."}, {"id": "2o9wje", "body": "(Using a throwaway as this is a sensitive issue and, perhaps, a controversial opinion. I have every intention of following up on this post and replies made to it).\n\nAt the outset I would like to say the following:\n\n* The religious arguments against abortion hold no weight for me whatsoever. I have as little time for them as I have for religious arguments against homosexuality, for example.\n* The view I state in the title is one that I am far from secure in and I expect that there will be a good counter-argument out there, and I would like to hear it.\n* I arrived at this view, independent of anyone else, as a result of following what I believe to be the logical consequences of principles that I apply in other areas. These principles are humanist, and in other areas lead logically to conclusions such as: 'You have no right to tell others what sex they may or may not have, and with whom they may or may not have it, with the sole exception that this sex be conducted healthily between consenting adults'. \n* Such a conclusion as the one above is a principle that I am eminently comfortable with. It troubles me therefore that the same basic tenets can lead me to a view that is so contrary to normal secular humanist thinking, and contrary also to my instinctive moral reaction, on abortion. Presently, however, I can't escape the logic of it. I expect there may be a flaw in my reasoning somewhere but I've not found it myself.\n\nI struggle to get views across in prose without waffling, so I've bullet-pointed the steps my thinking takes to arrive at this point:\n\n* You have the right to do whatever you wish as long as you do not harm anyone else.\n* This logically follows from the concept of personal agency.\n* You have agency over your own body.\n* This is true for every person (human) in the world.\n* There exists no clear biological or philosophical \u2018dividing line' after which an embryo \u2018becomes human\u2019 during the course of pregnancy.\n* Therefore the only possible non-arbitrary \u2018line\u2019 that can be drawn between \u2018human' and 'not-human', is the point of fertilisation.\n* Therefore a pregnant woman is for the entirety of her pregnancy carrying a separate entity that is a human being at every stage of the process.\n* Therefore an abortion violates the right of the embryo to basic personal integrity and agency - the mother is \u2018harming another\u2019\n* The question of abortion does not therefore resemble the question of, for example, consenting sex between adults in terms of personal agency.\n\nCrucial in this is the question of at what point the embryo becomes a human being. Philosophically, one cannot be arbitrary about this, otherwise it is possible for an embryo at (for instance) 24 weeks to be considered 'human' and an embryo at 23 weeks, 6 days and 23 hours to not be considered 'human' - a clear absurdity. In my contention the only clear line, as I have said, that is not hugely arbitrary is the point of conception - the point of the completion of the genetic constitution of a human cell.\n\nThe standard 'pro-choice' argument is that 'a woman has the right to choose what she does with her own body' - and that is absolutely correct, and it would be anathema to me to ever argue anything else. However, does a woman have the right to choose what she does with someone else's body? Logically, that is what I believe the embryo must be considered as.\n\nThe argument I set out above does also possibly allow for exceptions:\n\n* In the case that the embryo is demonstrably not viable (i.e. philosophically already dead);\n* In the case that the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother (producing a moral conflict between the agency and integrity of the mother and that of the child);\n* In the case that a pregnancy results from rape (as this means the pregnancy itself is a violation of the mother's own personal agency);\n\nHowever, it does not provide for an exception where the mother's quality of life or her physical or psychological health would be damaged by carrying the pregnancy through to birth. Nor does it provide for an exception in cases where the child would be born with severely reduced quality of life, such as with severe genetic disorders. Instinctively, I find this difficult to wrap my head around, ethically. This sort of thing is part of why I struggle so much to reconcile my thoughts to themselves on this particular issue - and thus, why I've posted this here.\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cml90nt", "body": "&gt; There exists no clear biological or philosophical \u2018dividing line' after which an embryo \u2018becomes human\u2019 during the course of pregnancy.\n\nWhen the baby has fully exited the mother, it now has personal agency. It's not that hard. \n\n&gt; Therefore the only possible non-arbitrary \u2018line\u2019 that can be drawn between \u2018human' and 'not-human', is the point of fertilisation.\n\nThis is false. Even after fertilization, you do not know it is human. Google \"molar pregnancy\", and you will find that the cells that eventually turn into a human don't exist at conception.\n\n&gt; Therefore a pregnant woman is for the entirety of her pregnancy carrying a separate entity that is a human being at every stage of the process.\n\nYou can call the entity \"human\", but you cannot call it \"separate\". When a human does not function independently, it is in no way separate. \n\n&gt; Therefore an abortion violates the right of the embryo to basic personal integrity and agency - the mother is \u2018harming another\u2019\n\nAgency requires biological independence. \n\n&gt; Philosophically, one cannot be arbitrary about this, otherwise it is possible for an embryo at (for instance) 24 weeks to be considered 'human' and an embryo at 23 weeks, 6 days and 23 hours to not be considered 'human' - a clear absurdity.\n\nThat is the age at which they are viable outside of the womb. It's not arbitrary because you expect a living thing to have the ability to *live* on it's own (not having to borrow biological function from another being). \n\n&gt; In the case that a pregnancy results from rape (as this means the pregnancy itself is a violation of the mother's own personal agency);\n\nNo no, stop right there. If a pregnancy results from rape, then abortion is still killing a life. What makes rape different than an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy? Both are violations of personal agency."}, {"id": "cml90nt", "body": "&gt; There exists no clear biological or philosophical \u2018dividing line' after which an embryo \u2018becomes human\u2019 during the course of pregnancy.\n\nWhen the baby has fully exited the mother, it now has personal agency. It's not that hard. \n\n&gt; Therefore the only possible non-arbitrary \u2018line\u2019 that can be drawn between \u2018human' and 'not-human', is the point of fertilisation.\n\nThis is false. Even after fertilization, you do not know it is human. Google \"molar pregnancy\", and you will find that the cells that eventually turn into a human don't exist at conception.\n\n&gt; Therefore a pregnant woman is for the entirety of her pregnancy carrying a separate entity that is a human being at every stage of the process.\n\nYou can call the entity \"human\", but you cannot call it \"separate\". When a human does not function independently, it is in no way separate. \n\n&gt; Therefore an abortion violates the right of the embryo to basic personal integrity and agency - the mother is \u2018harming another\u2019\n\nAgency requires biological independence. \n\n&gt; Philosophically, one cannot be arbitrary about this, otherwise it is possible for an embryo at (for instance) 24 weeks to be considered 'human' and an embryo at 23 weeks, 6 days and 23 hours to not be considered 'human' - a clear absurdity.\n\nThat is the age at which they are viable outside of the womb. It's not arbitrary because you expect a living thing to have the ability to *live* on it's own (not having to borrow biological function from another being). \n\n&gt; In the case that a pregnancy results from rape (as this means the pregnancy itself is a violation of the mother's own personal agency);\n\nNo no, stop right there. If a pregnancy results from rape, then abortion is still killing a life. What makes rape different than an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy? Both are violations of personal agency."}, {"id": "cmm0kgs", "body": "This argument\n\n&gt; When the baby has fully exited the mother, it now has personal agency. It's not that hard.\n\nContradicts this one\n\n&gt; When a human does not function independently, it is in no way separate.\n\nA newborn doesn't have agency since, although there is a biological independence, it can't feed itself, or clean itself, or for that matter it isn't even sentient yet. Its limbs are undeveloped, its motor skills are non-existent, and the only reason it can survive its first year of life is due to external intervention it doesn't comprehend. How does it have more agency than a foetus then?"}, {"id": "cmm0kgs", "body": "This argument\n\n&gt; When the baby has fully exited the mother, it now has personal agency. It's not that hard.\n\nContradicts this one\n\n&gt; When a human does not function independently, it is in no way separate.\n\nA newborn doesn't have agency since, although there is a biological independence, it can't feed itself, or clean itself, or for that matter it isn't even sentient yet. Its limbs are undeveloped, its motor skills are non-existent, and the only reason it can survive its first year of life is due to external intervention it doesn't comprehend. How does it have more agency than a foetus then?"}, {"id": "cmm3jcx", "body": "I'm not sure where you are seeing a contradiction. I'm talking about biological independence; not having to share bodily function with another being. Feeding and caring for a baby is not biological dependence. \n\nThough the baby will still need assistance, it does not need to be physically attached to a specific person and rely on the functioning of another body. In simpler terms, you can consider a baby to have personal agency when it can live separately from the biological mother. "}, {"id": "cmm3jcx", "body": "I'm not sure where you are seeing a contradiction. I'm talking about biological independence; not having to share bodily function with another being. Feeding and caring for a baby is not biological dependence. \n\nThough the baby will still need assistance, it does not need to be physically attached to a specific person and rely on the functioning of another body. In simpler terms, you can consider a baby to have personal agency when it can live separately from the biological mother. "}, {"id": "cmnvisz", "body": "No, you said \"personal agency\", which is in no way identical to \"biological independence\" (viability).\n\n"}, {"id": "cmnvisz", "body": "No, you said \"personal agency\", which is in no way identical to \"biological independence\" (viability).\n\n"}, {"id": "cmoz8oo", "body": "In this case, I treat them as one in the same. When a fetus is in the mother, it is not making choices or interacting with the rest of humanity; the only thing it does is consume resources. When a baby is born, it now makes choices and interacts with society. "}, {"id": "cmoz8oo", "body": "In this case, I treat them as one in the same. When a fetus is in the mother, it is not making choices or interacting with the rest of humanity; the only thing it does is consume resources. When a baby is born, it now makes choices and interacts with society. "}, {"id": "cmoze8f", "body": "That's silly, babies don't have the cognitive development to \"make choices\" or \"interact with society\" in any *meaningful* sense of the term."}, {"id": "cmoze8f", "body": "That's silly, babies don't have the cognitive development to \"make choices\" or \"interact with society\" in any *meaningful* sense of the term."}, {"id": "cmozrk5", "body": "A baby that doesn't like something will cry until that something is resolved. If that is not a choice and interaction with society, I'm not sure what is. Crying is a crude form of communication that allows them to interact with other humans. \n\n"}, {"id": "cmozrk5", "body": "A baby that doesn't like something will cry until that something is resolved. If that is not a choice and interaction with society, I'm not sure what is. Crying is a crude form of communication that allows them to interact with other humans. \n\n"}, {"id": "cmozvw8", "body": "That's not a meaningful interaction with society, that's an instinctual response.  A commonsense defintion of communication would necessitate the communicator understanding they are communicating information to other sentient entities.  A baby crying falls well short of that standard.\n\nIn fact, babies very likely don't even have a sense of self, but just a bunch of experiences and instinctual reactions to those experiences."}, {"id": "cmozvw8", "body": "That's not a meaningful interaction with society, that's an instinctual response.  A commonsense defintion of communication would necessitate the communicator understanding they are communicating information to other sentient entities.  A baby crying falls well short of that standard.\n\nIn fact, babies very likely don't even have a sense of self, but just a bunch of experiences and instinctual reactions to those experiences."}, {"id": "cmp06v8", "body": "&gt; That's not a meaningful interaction with society, that's an instinctual response.\n\nWhat exactly constitutes meaningful interaction? I've given a being that can directly affect the actions of others; that seems meaningful. \n\n&gt; A commonsense defintion of communication would necessitate the communicator understanding they are communicating information to other sentient entities.\n\nMy hungry newborn crying for food will stop crying as I approach. If hungry crying were simply an instinctual response, they would continue crying until that hunger is sated. My newborn understands I have received the message, and has stopped crying in anticipation of being fed. If the baby is not fed promptly, the crying will resume regardless of my presence. \n\n&gt; In fact, babies very likely don't even have a sense of self, but just a bunch of experiences and instinctual reactions to those experiences.\n\nThe same could be argued for all of humanity. After all, aren't we just a bunch of chemical interactions being affected by our environment?"}, {"id": "cmp06v8", "body": "&gt; That's not a meaningful interaction with society, that's an instinctual response.\n\nWhat exactly constitutes meaningful interaction? I've given a being that can directly affect the actions of others; that seems meaningful. \n\n&gt; A commonsense defintion of communication would necessitate the communicator understanding they are communicating information to other sentient entities.\n\nMy hungry newborn crying for food will stop crying as I approach. If hungry crying were simply an instinctual response, they would continue crying until that hunger is sated. My newborn understands I have received the message, and has stopped crying in anticipation of being fed. If the baby is not fed promptly, the crying will resume regardless of my presence. \n\n&gt; In fact, babies very likely don't even have a sense of self, but just a bunch of experiences and instinctual reactions to those experiences.\n\nThe same could be argued for all of humanity. After all, aren't we just a bunch of chemical interactions being affected by our environment?"}, {"id": "cmp1imt", "body": "&gt;The same could be argued for all of humanity. After all, aren't we just a bunch of chemical interactions being affected by our environment?\n\nYeah, but we have higher-order semantics and semiotics and consciousness.  Babies probably don't have much of that."}, {"id": "cmm0kgs", "body": "This argument\n\n&gt; When the baby has fully exited the mother, it now has personal agency. It's not that hard.\n\nContradicts this one\n\n&gt; When a human does not function independently, it is in no way separate.\n\nA newborn doesn't have agency since, although there is a biological independence, it can't feed itself, or clean itself, or for that matter it isn't even sentient yet. Its limbs are undeveloped, its motor skills are non-existent, and the only reason it can survive its first year of life is due to external intervention it doesn't comprehend. How does it have more agency than a foetus then?"}, {"id": "cmm3yzk", "body": "A fetus is still in the development process and is still being created. Other human beings like infants or those suffering with a medical condition need help, but they are still separate entities that exist as a body on their own. Fetuses do not exist as bodies on their own. They're still being developed and created by existing in their location of creation, a woman's womb, and if removed from that location before the development process is complete, the development will stop and the fetus will die. "}, {"id": "2o9wje", "body": "(Using a throwaway as this is a sensitive issue and, perhaps, a controversial opinion. I have every intention of following up on this post and replies made to it).\n\nAt the outset I would like to say the following:\n\n* The religious arguments against abortion hold no weight for me whatsoever. I have as little time for them as I have for religious arguments against homosexuality, for example.\n* The view I state in the title is one that I am far from secure in and I expect that there will be a good counter-argument out there, and I would like to hear it.\n* I arrived at this view, independent of anyone else, as a result of following what I believe to be the logical consequences of principles that I apply in other areas. These principles are humanist, and in other areas lead logically to conclusions such as: 'You have no right to tell others what sex they may or may not have, and with whom they may or may not have it, with the sole exception that this sex be conducted healthily between consenting adults'. \n* Such a conclusion as the one above is a principle that I am eminently comfortable with. It troubles me therefore that the same basic tenets can lead me to a view that is so contrary to normal secular humanist thinking, and contrary also to my instinctive moral reaction, on abortion. Presently, however, I can't escape the logic of it. I expect there may be a flaw in my reasoning somewhere but I've not found it myself.\n\nI struggle to get views across in prose without waffling, so I've bullet-pointed the steps my thinking takes to arrive at this point:\n\n* You have the right to do whatever you wish as long as you do not harm anyone else.\n* This logically follows from the concept of personal agency.\n* You have agency over your own body.\n* This is true for every person (human) in the world.\n* There exists no clear biological or philosophical \u2018dividing line' after which an embryo \u2018becomes human\u2019 during the course of pregnancy.\n* Therefore the only possible non-arbitrary \u2018line\u2019 that can be drawn between \u2018human' and 'not-human', is the point of fertilisation.\n* Therefore a pregnant woman is for the entirety of her pregnancy carrying a separate entity that is a human being at every stage of the process.\n* Therefore an abortion violates the right of the embryo to basic personal integrity and agency - the mother is \u2018harming another\u2019\n* The question of abortion does not therefore resemble the question of, for example, consenting sex between adults in terms of personal agency.\n\nCrucial in this is the question of at what point the embryo becomes a human being. Philosophically, one cannot be arbitrary about this, otherwise it is possible for an embryo at (for instance) 24 weeks to be considered 'human' and an embryo at 23 weeks, 6 days and 23 hours to not be considered 'human' - a clear absurdity. In my contention the only clear line, as I have said, that is not hugely arbitrary is the point of conception - the point of the completion of the genetic constitution of a human cell.\n\nThe standard 'pro-choice' argument is that 'a woman has the right to choose what she does with her own body' - and that is absolutely correct, and it would be anathema to me to ever argue anything else. However, does a woman have the right to choose what she does with someone else's body? Logically, that is what I believe the embryo must be considered as.\n\nThe argument I set out above does also possibly allow for exceptions:\n\n* In the case that the embryo is demonstrably not viable (i.e. philosophically already dead);\n* In the case that the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother (producing a moral conflict between the agency and integrity of the mother and that of the child);\n* In the case that a pregnancy results from rape (as this means the pregnancy itself is a violation of the mother's own personal agency);\n\nHowever, it does not provide for an exception where the mother's quality of life or her physical or psychological health would be damaged by carrying the pregnancy through to birth. Nor does it provide for an exception in cases where the child would be born with severely reduced quality of life, such as with severe genetic disorders. Instinctively, I find this difficult to wrap my head around, ethically. This sort of thing is part of why I struggle so much to reconcile my thoughts to themselves on this particular issue - and thus, why I've posted this here.\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cml6mrj", "body": "On a side note I will throw out an analog that I had used before on this.\n\nI want to make some bread (A baby!). I take flour, yeast, sugar (the egg) and water (the sperm). I combine the flour yeast and sugar together in a bowl. I then add the water. Do I have bread? I then put the dough (embryo) I made into a pan and let it rise (travel through Fallopian tubes to womb). When it is done rising, do I have bread? \n\nUp until this point I don't think anyone will say that you have bread. You have ingredients, when they are combined you have dough (which has the potential to be bread but isn't bread yet)even after the dough sits and matures for a while you still have dough.\n\nI put the dough into the oven and begin to bake it (gestation in the womb). When it is done baking and I take it out I will have bread (baby!). At what point in the oven did the dough turn into bread?"}, {"id": "cml6mrj", "body": "On a side note I will throw out an analog that I had used before on this.\n\nI want to make some bread (A baby!). I take flour, yeast, sugar (the egg) and water (the sperm). I combine the flour yeast and sugar together in a bowl. I then add the water. Do I have bread? I then put the dough (embryo) I made into a pan and let it rise (travel through Fallopian tubes to womb). When it is done rising, do I have bread? \n\nUp until this point I don't think anyone will say that you have bread. You have ingredients, when they are combined you have dough (which has the potential to be bread but isn't bread yet)even after the dough sits and matures for a while you still have dough.\n\nI put the dough into the oven and begin to bake it (gestation in the womb). When it is done baking and I take it out I will have bread (baby!). At what point in the oven did the dough turn into bread?"}, {"id": "cmllgaq", "body": "This analogy fails because a fetus is, biologically speaking, both living and human. It sounds like a good analogy, but what is in the womb of a pregnant womb is very much alive and very much human (because it is made up of human DNA). Therefore, it is simply a human at an early stage of life much like a baby comes before toddler, toddler before child, child before preteen, etc. "}, {"id": "cmllgaq", "body": "This analogy fails because a fetus is, biologically speaking, both living and human. It sounds like a good analogy, but what is in the womb of a pregnant womb is very much alive and very much human (because it is made up of human DNA). Therefore, it is simply a human at an early stage of life much like a baby comes before toddler, toddler before child, child before preteen, etc. "}, {"id": "cmlxshx", "body": "&gt;very much alive and very much human (because it is made up of human DNA)\n  \nA tumor is also made up of living human DNA. Is a tumor a person in its own right? \n\nMany people disagree with you that from conception on a fetus is a full fledged human being. Same as they would disagree with you that Zygot or  a blastocyst is a full human.\n\nTo me it is not a human until it has the ability to live once removed from the mother.\n\n"}, {"id": "cmlxshx", "body": "&gt;very much alive and very much human (because it is made up of human DNA)\n  \nA tumor is also made up of living human DNA. Is a tumor a person in its own right? \n\nMany people disagree with you that from conception on a fetus is a full fledged human being. Same as they would disagree with you that Zygot or  a blastocyst is a full human.\n\nTo me it is not a human until it has the ability to live once removed from the mother.\n\n"}, {"id": "cmlycol", "body": "&gt;it is not a human until it has the ability to live once removed from the mother\n\nSo the point at which a fetus becomes a human is subject to change? This seems arbitrary. Medical advances are steadily changing the age of viability. How is it that a fetus at the same stage of development is considered a human at 28 weeks several years ago, but today you would consider it a human at 21 weeks? A fetus at 26 weeks in this day and age it surely the same as it was several years ago. Perhaps someday it will change again to 20 weeks, or even younger. I can see the logic behind the age of viability as a point to consider it a human, but it seems arbitrary because it isn't based on the development of the fetus itself, but rather on current medical advances. Humanity isn't based on the state of medicine's ability to keep a person alive. It should be based on a certain criteria derived from the organism itself. A heartbeat, a certain amount of brain activity, etc. These milestones are much less arbitrary in my mind. But to me, it is a human at any stage of development because from the very beginning it is a steadily growing, developing human. From conception to the time a person is 80. Every single person began developing into the person they are today at the time of conception. There is no time in the womb that the fetus transforms into a different organism, it is always the same organism which is constantly growing and developing further. So in my mind any point besides conception seems arbitrary because it is the same organism at 24 weeks as it was at 23, and the same 23 as it was 22, so on and so forth all the way back to conception. Conception is *the* point we can point to and say \"this is when I began to exist\"."}, {"id": "cmlycol", "body": "&gt;it is not a human until it has the ability to live once removed from the mother\n\nSo the point at which a fetus becomes a human is subject to change? This seems arbitrary. Medical advances are steadily changing the age of viability. How is it that a fetus at the same stage of development is considered a human at 28 weeks several years ago, but today you would consider it a human at 21 weeks? A fetus at 26 weeks in this day and age it surely the same as it was several years ago. Perhaps someday it will change again to 20 weeks, or even younger. I can see the logic behind the age of viability as a point to consider it a human, but it seems arbitrary because it isn't based on the development of the fetus itself, but rather on current medical advances. Humanity isn't based on the state of medicine's ability to keep a person alive. It should be based on a certain criteria derived from the organism itself. A heartbeat, a certain amount of brain activity, etc. These milestones are much less arbitrary in my mind. But to me, it is a human at any stage of development because from the very beginning it is a steadily growing, developing human. From conception to the time a person is 80. Every single person began developing into the person they are today at the time of conception. There is no time in the womb that the fetus transforms into a different organism, it is always the same organism which is constantly growing and developing further. So in my mind any point besides conception seems arbitrary because it is the same organism at 24 weeks as it was at 23, and the same 23 as it was 22, so on and so forth all the way back to conception. Conception is *the* point we can point to and say \"this is when I began to exist\"."}, {"id": "cmlzbjd", "body": "&gt;at 28 weeks several years ago, but today you would consider it a human at 21 weeks?\n\nThat is correct. 28 weeks was the initial point but due to advances in medical science it has gone down to 21 weeks I believe. \n\n&gt;There is no time in the womb that the fetus transforms into a different organism\n\nThe fetus transforms between many organisms in the womb. From a zygot to a blastocyst to a fetus. These are distinctly different organisms than a human due to the nature of their cellular structure. \n\nA zygot is a single cell. I think you would have a hard time showing most people a single cell and saying that it is a human being in its entirety. For example here is a picture of a zygot do you really think this is a human?\n\nhttp://www.biolreprod.org/content/65/1/253/F1.large.jpg\n\nInfact show people any of the pictures from The initial stages of human embryogenesis.:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_embryogenesis\n\nAnd ask them which one looks like a full human being.\n\nI think Birth is the point you can point to and say \"this is when I began to exist\", that is why I celebrate my birth day and not my conception date.\n\nYou say you reject the basic premises of my analogy (with the bread). But if you don't mind indulging me, as a though exercise.... When would you say it is definitely bread and not dough? (In no way relating to the baby questions just as its own philosophical question, when does dough become bread?)\n\n"}, {"id": "cmlzbjd", "body": "&gt;at 28 weeks several years ago, but today you would consider it a human at 21 weeks?\n\nThat is correct. 28 weeks was the initial point but due to advances in medical science it has gone down to 21 weeks I believe. \n\n&gt;There is no time in the womb that the fetus transforms into a different organism\n\nThe fetus transforms between many organisms in the womb. From a zygot to a blastocyst to a fetus. These are distinctly different organisms than a human due to the nature of their cellular structure. \n\nA zygot is a single cell. I think you would have a hard time showing most people a single cell and saying that it is a human being in its entirety. For example here is a picture of a zygot do you really think this is a human?\n\nhttp://www.biolreprod.org/content/65/1/253/F1.large.jpg\n\nInfact show people any of the pictures from The initial stages of human embryogenesis.:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_embryogenesis\n\nAnd ask them which one looks like a full human being.\n\nI think Birth is the point you can point to and say \"this is when I began to exist\", that is why I celebrate my birth day and not my conception date.\n\nYou say you reject the basic premises of my analogy (with the bread). But if you don't mind indulging me, as a though exercise.... When would you say it is definitely bread and not dough? (In no way relating to the baby questions just as its own philosophical question, when does dough become bread?)\n\n"}, {"id": "cmm02gw", "body": "&gt; I think Birth is the point you can point to and say \"this is when I began to exist\"\n\nI existed before my birth though. It wasn't that I didn't exist prior to birth, I just existed inside my mothers womb. I was capable of feeling pain, I could hear things, what my mother consumed while she was pregnant affected me. I existed prior to birth. I have existed since I was conceived.\n\nI cannot tell you at which point dough becomes bread. I guess when it stops being doughy and starts to have a soft, bread-like consistency. "}, {"id": "cmm02gw", "body": "&gt; I think Birth is the point you can point to and say \"this is when I began to exist\"\n\nI existed before my birth though. It wasn't that I didn't exist prior to birth, I just existed inside my mothers womb. I was capable of feeling pain, I could hear things, what my mother consumed while she was pregnant affected me. I existed prior to birth. I have existed since I was conceived.\n\nI cannot tell you at which point dough becomes bread. I guess when it stops being doughy and starts to have a soft, bread-like consistency. "}, {"id": "cmm2lm5", "body": "&gt;I was capable of feeling pain\n\nAfter 20 weeks, yes. But not before that.\nhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/health/complex-science-at-issue-in-politics-of-fetal-pain.html?pagewanted=all&amp;_r=0\n\n&gt;I could hear things\n  \nNot before 16 weeks\nhttp://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/your-baby/week-16/ear.aspx\n\n&gt;I guess when it stops being doughy and starts to have a soft, bread-like consistency.\n  \nInteresting, I actually would have gone for the crust forming not the inside changing but I like that as a point as well."}, {"id": "cmm2lm5", "body": "&gt;I was capable of feeling pain\n\nAfter 20 weeks, yes. But not before that.\nhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/health/complex-science-at-issue-in-politics-of-fetal-pain.html?pagewanted=all&amp;_r=0\n\n&gt;I could hear things\n  \nNot before 16 weeks\nhttp://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/your-baby/week-16/ear.aspx\n\n&gt;I guess when it stops being doughy and starts to have a soft, bread-like consistency.\n  \nInteresting, I actually would have gone for the crust forming not the inside changing but I like that as a point as well."}, {"id": "cmm3n6f", "body": "It doesn't matter at how many weeks those things occurred. The point is, they occurred *before* birth, meaning the point at which I began to exist was *before* I was born.\n\nTo answer your question about the zygote, no. It doesn't look like a human. But it doesn't matter to me what it looks like. Looking like a human is not a qualification for *being* a human. A baby doesn't look the same as a grown adult, but they are both humans."}, {"id": "cmm3n6f", "body": "It doesn't matter at how many weeks those things occurred. The point is, they occurred *before* birth, meaning the point at which I began to exist was *before* I was born.\n\nTo answer your question about the zygote, no. It doesn't look like a human. But it doesn't matter to me what it looks like. Looking like a human is not a qualification for *being* a human. A baby doesn't look the same as a grown adult, but they are both humans."}, {"id": "cmm3ylj", "body": "&gt;A baby doesn't look the same as a grown adult, but they are both humans.\n\nYes it does, it is just smaller. \n\n&gt;But it doesn't matter to me what it looks like. Looking like a human is not a qualification for being a human.\n\nSo you would say the zygot in that picture is a human then?"}, {"id": "cmm3ylj", "body": "&gt;A baby doesn't look the same as a grown adult, but they are both humans.\n\nYes it does, it is just smaller. \n\n&gt;But it doesn't matter to me what it looks like. Looking like a human is not a qualification for being a human.\n\nSo you would say the zygot in that picture is a human then?"}, {"id": "cmm4ccx", "body": "&gt; So you would say the zygote in that picture is a human then?\n\nIf it is indeed a human zygote (a human at the earliest stage of development). I am not a biologist. For all I know that could be a picture of an elephant cell. But a human is a human, from the time of conception. They don't transform from non-human to human at some arbitrary point during pregnancy. A human is created when a baby is conceived."}, {"id": "cmm02gw", "body": "&gt; I think Birth is the point you can point to and say \"this is when I began to exist\"\n\nI existed before my birth though. It wasn't that I didn't exist prior to birth, I just existed inside my mothers womb. I was capable of feeling pain, I could hear things, what my mother consumed while she was pregnant affected me. I existed prior to birth. I have existed since I was conceived.\n\nI cannot tell you at which point dough becomes bread. I guess when it stops being doughy and starts to have a soft, bread-like consistency. "}, {"id": "cmm2w8g", "body": "Also you never answered my question from before:\n\n&gt;A zygot is a single cell. I think you would have a hard time showing most people a single cell and saying that it is a human being in its entirety. For example here is a picture of a zygot do you really think this is a full fledged human being the same as you and me?\nhttp://www.biolreprod.org/content/65/1/253/F1.large.jpg"}, {"id": "cmlycol", "body": "&gt;it is not a human until it has the ability to live once removed from the mother\n\nSo the point at which a fetus becomes a human is subject to change? This seems arbitrary. Medical advances are steadily changing the age of viability. How is it that a fetus at the same stage of development is considered a human at 28 weeks several years ago, but today you would consider it a human at 21 weeks? A fetus at 26 weeks in this day and age it surely the same as it was several years ago. Perhaps someday it will change again to 20 weeks, or even younger. I can see the logic behind the age of viability as a point to consider it a human, but it seems arbitrary because it isn't based on the development of the fetus itself, but rather on current medical advances. Humanity isn't based on the state of medicine's ability to keep a person alive. It should be based on a certain criteria derived from the organism itself. A heartbeat, a certain amount of brain activity, etc. These milestones are much less arbitrary in my mind. But to me, it is a human at any stage of development because from the very beginning it is a steadily growing, developing human. From conception to the time a person is 80. Every single person began developing into the person they are today at the time of conception. There is no time in the womb that the fetus transforms into a different organism, it is always the same organism which is constantly growing and developing further. So in my mind any point besides conception seems arbitrary because it is the same organism at 24 weeks as it was at 23, and the same 23 as it was 22, so on and so forth all the way back to conception. Conception is *the* point we can point to and say \"this is when I began to exist\"."}, {"id": "cmmemek", "body": "&gt; So the point at which a fetus becomes a human is subject to change? This seems arbitrary.\n\nWell I mean it isn't firmly defined anywhere. The only real firm non-arbitrary points in the whole process are 1) the start of pregnancy which is not when an egg is fertilized by sperm but rather when a fertilized egg attaches successfully to the uterine lining (which is difficult and where a lot of fertilized eggs end up failing and \"dying\"), and 2) when the child is born - the registered birth time that then goes on the newly generate birth certificate recognizing a new human being.\n\nYou can complain that the point when a fetus being a human is arbitrary, but it's a pretty irrelevant complaint to the abortion legality debate, because yes, it *is* arbitrary; it's a personal opinion only and isn't defined anywhere by anything. Not science, not religion, not law. There is no point during pregnancy in which a fetus firmly becomes a person. "}, {"id": "cmmemek", "body": "&gt; So the point at which a fetus becomes a human is subject to change? This seems arbitrary.\n\nWell I mean it isn't firmly defined anywhere. The only real firm non-arbitrary points in the whole process are 1) the start of pregnancy which is not when an egg is fertilized by sperm but rather when a fertilized egg attaches successfully to the uterine lining (which is difficult and where a lot of fertilized eggs end up failing and \"dying\"), and 2) when the child is born - the registered birth time that then goes on the newly generate birth certificate recognizing a new human being.\n\nYou can complain that the point when a fetus being a human is arbitrary, but it's a pretty irrelevant complaint to the abortion legality debate, because yes, it *is* arbitrary; it's a personal opinion only and isn't defined anywhere by anything. Not science, not religion, not law. There is no point during pregnancy in which a fetus firmly becomes a person. "}, {"id": "cmmfhed", "body": "That's exactly my problem with it though. If there's no firm answer then we can never be confident that we aren't taking away the life of another human being. Peoples lives aren't exactly something we should be gambling with."}, {"id": "cmmfhed", "body": "That's exactly my problem with it though. If there's no firm answer then we can never be confident that we aren't taking away the life of another human being. Peoples lives aren't exactly something we should be gambling with."}, {"id": "cmmfij6", "body": "&gt; we can never be confident that we aren't taking away the life of another human being. Peoples lives aren't exactly something we should be gambling with.\n\nBut we can *always* be confident we're taking away women's bodily autonomy when we force them to be incubators against their will. "}, {"id": "2o9wje", "body": "(Using a throwaway as this is a sensitive issue and, perhaps, a controversial opinion. I have every intention of following up on this post and replies made to it).\n\nAt the outset I would like to say the following:\n\n* The religious arguments against abortion hold no weight for me whatsoever. I have as little time for them as I have for religious arguments against homosexuality, for example.\n* The view I state in the title is one that I am far from secure in and I expect that there will be a good counter-argument out there, and I would like to hear it.\n* I arrived at this view, independent of anyone else, as a result of following what I believe to be the logical consequences of principles that I apply in other areas. These principles are humanist, and in other areas lead logically to conclusions such as: 'You have no right to tell others what sex they may or may not have, and with whom they may or may not have it, with the sole exception that this sex be conducted healthily between consenting adults'. \n* Such a conclusion as the one above is a principle that I am eminently comfortable with. It troubles me therefore that the same basic tenets can lead me to a view that is so contrary to normal secular humanist thinking, and contrary also to my instinctive moral reaction, on abortion. Presently, however, I can't escape the logic of it. I expect there may be a flaw in my reasoning somewhere but I've not found it myself.\n\nI struggle to get views across in prose without waffling, so I've bullet-pointed the steps my thinking takes to arrive at this point:\n\n* You have the right to do whatever you wish as long as you do not harm anyone else.\n* This logically follows from the concept of personal agency.\n* You have agency over your own body.\n* This is true for every person (human) in the world.\n* There exists no clear biological or philosophical \u2018dividing line' after which an embryo \u2018becomes human\u2019 during the course of pregnancy.\n* Therefore the only possible non-arbitrary \u2018line\u2019 that can be drawn between \u2018human' and 'not-human', is the point of fertilisation.\n* Therefore a pregnant woman is for the entirety of her pregnancy carrying a separate entity that is a human being at every stage of the process.\n* Therefore an abortion violates the right of the embryo to basic personal integrity and agency - the mother is \u2018harming another\u2019\n* The question of abortion does not therefore resemble the question of, for example, consenting sex between adults in terms of personal agency.\n\nCrucial in this is the question of at what point the embryo becomes a human being. Philosophically, one cannot be arbitrary about this, otherwise it is possible for an embryo at (for instance) 24 weeks to be considered 'human' and an embryo at 23 weeks, 6 days and 23 hours to not be considered 'human' - a clear absurdity. In my contention the only clear line, as I have said, that is not hugely arbitrary is the point of conception - the point of the completion of the genetic constitution of a human cell.\n\nThe standard 'pro-choice' argument is that 'a woman has the right to choose what she does with her own body' - and that is absolutely correct, and it would be anathema to me to ever argue anything else. However, does a woman have the right to choose what she does with someone else's body? Logically, that is what I believe the embryo must be considered as.\n\nThe argument I set out above does also possibly allow for exceptions:\n\n* In the case that the embryo is demonstrably not viable (i.e. philosophically already dead);\n* In the case that the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother (producing a moral conflict between the agency and integrity of the mother and that of the child);\n* In the case that a pregnancy results from rape (as this means the pregnancy itself is a violation of the mother's own personal agency);\n\nHowever, it does not provide for an exception where the mother's quality of life or her physical or psychological health would be damaged by carrying the pregnancy through to birth. Nor does it provide for an exception in cases where the child would be born with severely reduced quality of life, such as with severe genetic disorders. Instinctively, I find this difficult to wrap my head around, ethically. This sort of thing is part of why I struggle so much to reconcile my thoughts to themselves on this particular issue - and thus, why I've posted this here.\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cml38f8", "body": "Your main concern seems to be philosophically the point at which a human being is defined as sentient, or a person in their own right. You defined it from the embryonic stage, which I think is perhaps a bit premature.Defining human consciousness is tricky, of course, but I'm not sure a single cell constitutes an autonomous entity. Those things are related to the higher functions of a brain, so personally I would draw the line at a point where the nervous system is either starting to form or has been formed: when the embryo can react to pain. Typically these things aren't seen until the second trimester, somewhere as early as week 24 or as late as week 30, and most abortions are hopefully carried out in the first trimester, though some come much later and those are often the most controversial.\n\nHere's a closing point though, little bit of a digression but I feel the need to say it; I don't think anyone is advocating the death of more babies here. A lot of the controversy comes from people trying to spin this into some murderous thing where wanting the rights for an abortion is wanting to systematically kill babies. I don't think either side wants that; but one side is very rigid about letting any child be born into the world regardless of the context involved. The other side is timidly trying to suggest that situations are diverse for people, and sometimes the most sensible option is to abort. I think we take this too far sometimes though. We've gotten all the way up to the abortion fight and yet it's still taboo to talk about sex, menstruation, and birth control? It's hypocritical in my eyes that so many religious people are morally opposed to contraceptives and abortions. If you cannot prevent the child, and cannot support the child, and then you're stuck with the child... there's no option. It's very limiting, and very inconsiderate to individual needs."}, {"id": "cml38f8", "body": "Your main concern seems to be philosophically the point at which a human being is defined as sentient, or a person in their own right. You defined it from the embryonic stage, which I think is perhaps a bit premature.Defining human consciousness is tricky, of course, but I'm not sure a single cell constitutes an autonomous entity. Those things are related to the higher functions of a brain, so personally I would draw the line at a point where the nervous system is either starting to form or has been formed: when the embryo can react to pain. Typically these things aren't seen until the second trimester, somewhere as early as week 24 or as late as week 30, and most abortions are hopefully carried out in the first trimester, though some come much later and those are often the most controversial.\n\nHere's a closing point though, little bit of a digression but I feel the need to say it; I don't think anyone is advocating the death of more babies here. A lot of the controversy comes from people trying to spin this into some murderous thing where wanting the rights for an abortion is wanting to systematically kill babies. I don't think either side wants that; but one side is very rigid about letting any child be born into the world regardless of the context involved. The other side is timidly trying to suggest that situations are diverse for people, and sometimes the most sensible option is to abort. I think we take this too far sometimes though. We've gotten all the way up to the abortion fight and yet it's still taboo to talk about sex, menstruation, and birth control? It's hypocritical in my eyes that so many religious people are morally opposed to contraceptives and abortions. If you cannot prevent the child, and cannot support the child, and then you're stuck with the child... there's no option. It's very limiting, and very inconsiderate to individual needs."}, {"id": "cmm0m8f", "body": "Just a little insight: contraceptives are not anti-biblical and such concern is mainly Catholic. Most churches are okay with the use of contraceptives with your spouse."}, {"id": "2o9wje", "body": "(Using a throwaway as this is a sensitive issue and, perhaps, a controversial opinion. I have every intention of following up on this post and replies made to it).\n\nAt the outset I would like to say the following:\n\n* The religious arguments against abortion hold no weight for me whatsoever. I have as little time for them as I have for religious arguments against homosexuality, for example.\n* The view I state in the title is one that I am far from secure in and I expect that there will be a good counter-argument out there, and I would like to hear it.\n* I arrived at this view, independent of anyone else, as a result of following what I believe to be the logical consequences of principles that I apply in other areas. These principles are humanist, and in other areas lead logically to conclusions such as: 'You have no right to tell others what sex they may or may not have, and with whom they may or may not have it, with the sole exception that this sex be conducted healthily between consenting adults'. \n* Such a conclusion as the one above is a principle that I am eminently comfortable with. It troubles me therefore that the same basic tenets can lead me to a view that is so contrary to normal secular humanist thinking, and contrary also to my instinctive moral reaction, on abortion. Presently, however, I can't escape the logic of it. I expect there may be a flaw in my reasoning somewhere but I've not found it myself.\n\nI struggle to get views across in prose without waffling, so I've bullet-pointed the steps my thinking takes to arrive at this point:\n\n* You have the right to do whatever you wish as long as you do not harm anyone else.\n* This logically follows from the concept of personal agency.\n* You have agency over your own body.\n* This is true for every person (human) in the world.\n* There exists no clear biological or philosophical \u2018dividing line' after which an embryo \u2018becomes human\u2019 during the course of pregnancy.\n* Therefore the only possible non-arbitrary \u2018line\u2019 that can be drawn between \u2018human' and 'not-human', is the point of fertilisation.\n* Therefore a pregnant woman is for the entirety of her pregnancy carrying a separate entity that is a human being at every stage of the process.\n* Therefore an abortion violates the right of the embryo to basic personal integrity and agency - the mother is \u2018harming another\u2019\n* The question of abortion does not therefore resemble the question of, for example, consenting sex between adults in terms of personal agency.\n\nCrucial in this is the question of at what point the embryo becomes a human being. Philosophically, one cannot be arbitrary about this, otherwise it is possible for an embryo at (for instance) 24 weeks to be considered 'human' and an embryo at 23 weeks, 6 days and 23 hours to not be considered 'human' - a clear absurdity. In my contention the only clear line, as I have said, that is not hugely arbitrary is the point of conception - the point of the completion of the genetic constitution of a human cell.\n\nThe standard 'pro-choice' argument is that 'a woman has the right to choose what she does with her own body' - and that is absolutely correct, and it would be anathema to me to ever argue anything else. However, does a woman have the right to choose what she does with someone else's body? Logically, that is what I believe the embryo must be considered as.\n\nThe argument I set out above does also possibly allow for exceptions:\n\n* In the case that the embryo is demonstrably not viable (i.e. philosophically already dead);\n* In the case that the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother (producing a moral conflict between the agency and integrity of the mother and that of the child);\n* In the case that a pregnancy results from rape (as this means the pregnancy itself is a violation of the mother's own personal agency);\n\nHowever, it does not provide for an exception where the mother's quality of life or her physical or psychological health would be damaged by carrying the pregnancy through to birth. Nor does it provide for an exception in cases where the child would be born with severely reduced quality of life, such as with severe genetic disorders. Instinctively, I find this difficult to wrap my head around, ethically. This sort of thing is part of why I struggle so much to reconcile my thoughts to themselves on this particular issue - and thus, why I've posted this here.\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cml6edq", "body": "&gt; In the case that the embryo is demonstrably not viable (i.e. philosophically already dead);\n\nSo does this mean you draw the line at viability? Because that's the current law which means that you agree that abortion is perfectly philosophically allowable up until viability (which is around 23 - 24 weeks) and that the line is not, in fact, fertilization.\n\n&gt; In the case that a pregnancy results from rape (as this means the pregnancy itself is a violation of the mother's own personal agency);\n\nIf your argument is that the mother has no right to decide what should be done with \"someone else's body\" then under what logic does it make sense that an abortion of pregnancy from rape is allowable? How the being in question came to be there should have absolutely no bearing on whether or not it should have rights and is protected. So how do you justify this difference? \n\nIf your logic is purely on the rights of the fetus, then it is inconsistent to allow abortion in the case of rape. So I'd like to hear your thoughts as that will decide where the conversation goes."}, {"id": "cml6edq", "body": "&gt; In the case that the embryo is demonstrably not viable (i.e. philosophically already dead);\n\nSo does this mean you draw the line at viability? Because that's the current law which means that you agree that abortion is perfectly philosophically allowable up until viability (which is around 23 - 24 weeks) and that the line is not, in fact, fertilization.\n\n&gt; In the case that a pregnancy results from rape (as this means the pregnancy itself is a violation of the mother's own personal agency);\n\nIf your argument is that the mother has no right to decide what should be done with \"someone else's body\" then under what logic does it make sense that an abortion of pregnancy from rape is allowable? How the being in question came to be there should have absolutely no bearing on whether or not it should have rights and is protected. So how do you justify this difference? \n\nIf your logic is purely on the rights of the fetus, then it is inconsistent to allow abortion in the case of rape. So I'd like to hear your thoughts as that will decide where the conversation goes."}, {"id": "cmm6ido", "body": "It's not the current law everywhere. Post-viability abortions are still legal in New Jersey and Canada."}, {"id": "cmm6ido", "body": "It's not the current law everywhere. Post-viability abortions are still legal in New Jersey and Canada."}, {"id": "cmm71n0", "body": "I was referring to Roe vs Wade which established that it's unconstitutional to prevent pre-viability abortions"}, {"id": "cmm71n0", "body": "I was referring to Roe vs Wade which established that it's unconstitutional to prevent pre-viability abortions"}, {"id": "cmm765c", "body": "Yes, but that doesn't prevent post-viability abortions in the states where it's legal, which may be an issue if you consider post-viability fetuses to be living humans."}, {"id": "cmm765c", "body": "Yes, but that doesn't prevent post-viability abortions in the states where it's legal, which may be an issue if you consider post-viability fetuses to be living humans."}, {"id": "cmm7cvn", "body": "Sure, but OP said that they were against abortion period. If they are only against post viability abortion, then I'll discuss that with them. "}, {"id": "2o9wje", "body": "(Using a throwaway as this is a sensitive issue and, perhaps, a controversial opinion. I have every intention of following up on this post and replies made to it).\n\nAt the outset I would like to say the following:\n\n* The religious arguments against abortion hold no weight for me whatsoever. I have as little time for them as I have for religious arguments against homosexuality, for example.\n* The view I state in the title is one that I am far from secure in and I expect that there will be a good counter-argument out there, and I would like to hear it.\n* I arrived at this view, independent of anyone else, as a result of following what I believe to be the logical consequences of principles that I apply in other areas. These principles are humanist, and in other areas lead logically to conclusions such as: 'You have no right to tell others what sex they may or may not have, and with whom they may or may not have it, with the sole exception that this sex be conducted healthily between consenting adults'. \n* Such a conclusion as the one above is a principle that I am eminently comfortable with. It troubles me therefore that the same basic tenets can lead me to a view that is so contrary to normal secular humanist thinking, and contrary also to my instinctive moral reaction, on abortion. Presently, however, I can't escape the logic of it. I expect there may be a flaw in my reasoning somewhere but I've not found it myself.\n\nI struggle to get views across in prose without waffling, so I've bullet-pointed the steps my thinking takes to arrive at this point:\n\n* You have the right to do whatever you wish as long as you do not harm anyone else.\n* This logically follows from the concept of personal agency.\n* You have agency over your own body.\n* This is true for every person (human) in the world.\n* There exists no clear biological or philosophical \u2018dividing line' after which an embryo \u2018becomes human\u2019 during the course of pregnancy.\n* Therefore the only possible non-arbitrary \u2018line\u2019 that can be drawn between \u2018human' and 'not-human', is the point of fertilisation.\n* Therefore a pregnant woman is for the entirety of her pregnancy carrying a separate entity that is a human being at every stage of the process.\n* Therefore an abortion violates the right of the embryo to basic personal integrity and agency - the mother is \u2018harming another\u2019\n* The question of abortion does not therefore resemble the question of, for example, consenting sex between adults in terms of personal agency.\n\nCrucial in this is the question of at what point the embryo becomes a human being. Philosophically, one cannot be arbitrary about this, otherwise it is possible for an embryo at (for instance) 24 weeks to be considered 'human' and an embryo at 23 weeks, 6 days and 23 hours to not be considered 'human' - a clear absurdity. In my contention the only clear line, as I have said, that is not hugely arbitrary is the point of conception - the point of the completion of the genetic constitution of a human cell.\n\nThe standard 'pro-choice' argument is that 'a woman has the right to choose what she does with her own body' - and that is absolutely correct, and it would be anathema to me to ever argue anything else. However, does a woman have the right to choose what she does with someone else's body? Logically, that is what I believe the embryo must be considered as.\n\nThe argument I set out above does also possibly allow for exceptions:\n\n* In the case that the embryo is demonstrably not viable (i.e. philosophically already dead);\n* In the case that the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother (producing a moral conflict between the agency and integrity of the mother and that of the child);\n* In the case that a pregnancy results from rape (as this means the pregnancy itself is a violation of the mother's own personal agency);\n\nHowever, it does not provide for an exception where the mother's quality of life or her physical or psychological health would be damaged by carrying the pregnancy through to birth. Nor does it provide for an exception in cases where the child would be born with severely reduced quality of life, such as with severe genetic disorders. Instinctively, I find this difficult to wrap my head around, ethically. This sort of thing is part of why I struggle so much to reconcile my thoughts to themselves on this particular issue - and thus, why I've posted this here.\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cmlda2m", "body": "Others have addressed the \"viability\" concern, but here's another consideration.  \n\nIf you consider abortion to be a form of homicide, are you willing to follow that to its logical conclusion? In other words, let's say a teenage single mother chooses to get a first trimester abortion. She makes an appointment, collects money, and goes to a clinic. Those actions constitute \"premeditation.\" If abortion is unlawful homicide as you suggest, then this young woman has now committed First Degree Murder. Should she go to jail for it?\n\nDo you think a 19 year old woman should be sent to prison 25 years to life for going through with this procedure? Do you think she should be executed in jurisdictions that allow execution? "}, {"id": "2o9wje", "body": "(Using a throwaway as this is a sensitive issue and, perhaps, a controversial opinion. I have every intention of following up on this post and replies made to it).\n\nAt the outset I would like to say the following:\n\n* The religious arguments against abortion hold no weight for me whatsoever. I have as little time for them as I have for religious arguments against homosexuality, for example.\n* The view I state in the title is one that I am far from secure in and I expect that there will be a good counter-argument out there, and I would like to hear it.\n* I arrived at this view, independent of anyone else, as a result of following what I believe to be the logical consequences of principles that I apply in other areas. These principles are humanist, and in other areas lead logically to conclusions such as: 'You have no right to tell others what sex they may or may not have, and with whom they may or may not have it, with the sole exception that this sex be conducted healthily between consenting adults'. \n* Such a conclusion as the one above is a principle that I am eminently comfortable with. It troubles me therefore that the same basic tenets can lead me to a view that is so contrary to normal secular humanist thinking, and contrary also to my instinctive moral reaction, on abortion. Presently, however, I can't escape the logic of it. I expect there may be a flaw in my reasoning somewhere but I've not found it myself.\n\nI struggle to get views across in prose without waffling, so I've bullet-pointed the steps my thinking takes to arrive at this point:\n\n* You have the right to do whatever you wish as long as you do not harm anyone else.\n* This logically follows from the concept of personal agency.\n* You have agency over your own body.\n* This is true for every person (human) in the world.\n* There exists no clear biological or philosophical \u2018dividing line' after which an embryo \u2018becomes human\u2019 during the course of pregnancy.\n* Therefore the only possible non-arbitrary \u2018line\u2019 that can be drawn between \u2018human' and 'not-human', is the point of fertilisation.\n* Therefore a pregnant woman is for the entirety of her pregnancy carrying a separate entity that is a human being at every stage of the process.\n* Therefore an abortion violates the right of the embryo to basic personal integrity and agency - the mother is \u2018harming another\u2019\n* The question of abortion does not therefore resemble the question of, for example, consenting sex between adults in terms of personal agency.\n\nCrucial in this is the question of at what point the embryo becomes a human being. Philosophically, one cannot be arbitrary about this, otherwise it is possible for an embryo at (for instance) 24 weeks to be considered 'human' and an embryo at 23 weeks, 6 days and 23 hours to not be considered 'human' - a clear absurdity. In my contention the only clear line, as I have said, that is not hugely arbitrary is the point of conception - the point of the completion of the genetic constitution of a human cell.\n\nThe standard 'pro-choice' argument is that 'a woman has the right to choose what she does with her own body' - and that is absolutely correct, and it would be anathema to me to ever argue anything else. However, does a woman have the right to choose what she does with someone else's body? Logically, that is what I believe the embryo must be considered as.\n\nThe argument I set out above does also possibly allow for exceptions:\n\n* In the case that the embryo is demonstrably not viable (i.e. philosophically already dead);\n* In the case that the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother (producing a moral conflict between the agency and integrity of the mother and that of the child);\n* In the case that a pregnancy results from rape (as this means the pregnancy itself is a violation of the mother's own personal agency);\n\nHowever, it does not provide for an exception where the mother's quality of life or her physical or psychological health would be damaged by carrying the pregnancy through to birth. Nor does it provide for an exception in cases where the child would be born with severely reduced quality of life, such as with severe genetic disorders. Instinctively, I find this difficult to wrap my head around, ethically. This sort of thing is part of why I struggle so much to reconcile my thoughts to themselves on this particular issue - and thus, why I've posted this here.\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cmldm68", "body": "&gt; \u2022There exists no clear biological or philosophical \u2018dividing line' after which an embryo \u2018becomes human\u2019 during the course of pregnancy.\n&gt; \u2022Therefore the only possible non-arbitrary \u2018line\u2019 that can be drawn between \u2018human' and 'not-human', is the point of fertilisation.\n\nCan you clarify why you consider fertilization as the *only* non-arbitrary line?  Wouldn't birth be just as \"non-arbitrary\"?"}, {"id": "2o9wje", "body": "(Using a throwaway as this is a sensitive issue and, perhaps, a controversial opinion. I have every intention of following up on this post and replies made to it).\n\nAt the outset I would like to say the following:\n\n* The religious arguments against abortion hold no weight for me whatsoever. I have as little time for them as I have for religious arguments against homosexuality, for example.\n* The view I state in the title is one that I am far from secure in and I expect that there will be a good counter-argument out there, and I would like to hear it.\n* I arrived at this view, independent of anyone else, as a result of following what I believe to be the logical consequences of principles that I apply in other areas. These principles are humanist, and in other areas lead logically to conclusions such as: 'You have no right to tell others what sex they may or may not have, and with whom they may or may not have it, with the sole exception that this sex be conducted healthily between consenting adults'. \n* Such a conclusion as the one above is a principle that I am eminently comfortable with. It troubles me therefore that the same basic tenets can lead me to a view that is so contrary to normal secular humanist thinking, and contrary also to my instinctive moral reaction, on abortion. Presently, however, I can't escape the logic of it. I expect there may be a flaw in my reasoning somewhere but I've not found it myself.\n\nI struggle to get views across in prose without waffling, so I've bullet-pointed the steps my thinking takes to arrive at this point:\n\n* You have the right to do whatever you wish as long as you do not harm anyone else.\n* This logically follows from the concept of personal agency.\n* You have agency over your own body.\n* This is true for every person (human) in the world.\n* There exists no clear biological or philosophical \u2018dividing line' after which an embryo \u2018becomes human\u2019 during the course of pregnancy.\n* Therefore the only possible non-arbitrary \u2018line\u2019 that can be drawn between \u2018human' and 'not-human', is the point of fertilisation.\n* Therefore a pregnant woman is for the entirety of her pregnancy carrying a separate entity that is a human being at every stage of the process.\n* Therefore an abortion violates the right of the embryo to basic personal integrity and agency - the mother is \u2018harming another\u2019\n* The question of abortion does not therefore resemble the question of, for example, consenting sex between adults in terms of personal agency.\n\nCrucial in this is the question of at what point the embryo becomes a human being. Philosophically, one cannot be arbitrary about this, otherwise it is possible for an embryo at (for instance) 24 weeks to be considered 'human' and an embryo at 23 weeks, 6 days and 23 hours to not be considered 'human' - a clear absurdity. In my contention the only clear line, as I have said, that is not hugely arbitrary is the point of conception - the point of the completion of the genetic constitution of a human cell.\n\nThe standard 'pro-choice' argument is that 'a woman has the right to choose what she does with her own body' - and that is absolutely correct, and it would be anathema to me to ever argue anything else. However, does a woman have the right to choose what she does with someone else's body? Logically, that is what I believe the embryo must be considered as.\n\nThe argument I set out above does also possibly allow for exceptions:\n\n* In the case that the embryo is demonstrably not viable (i.e. philosophically already dead);\n* In the case that the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother (producing a moral conflict between the agency and integrity of the mother and that of the child);\n* In the case that a pregnancy results from rape (as this means the pregnancy itself is a violation of the mother's own personal agency);\n\nHowever, it does not provide for an exception where the mother's quality of life or her physical or psychological health would be damaged by carrying the pregnancy through to birth. Nor does it provide for an exception in cases where the child would be born with severely reduced quality of life, such as with severe genetic disorders. Instinctively, I find this difficult to wrap my head around, ethically. This sort of thing is part of why I struggle so much to reconcile my thoughts to themselves on this particular issue - and thus, why I've posted this here.\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cmlezqq", "body": "If you pass on a genetic disorder to your kid and they need your bone marrow to live. You aren't legally required to give it to them. \n\nThat isn't considered murder. It's your bodily autonomy vs their life. You can't be forced to donate your organs or blood or other bodily resources to anyone. \n\nYou can continuously give your child or anyone your bone marrow, but you can take away that continuation at any time. You can't take what you already donated back as it is no longer apart of you but you can stop letting that person use stuff that is still apart of your body even if that means that person will die. "}, {"id": "cmlezqq", "body": "If you pass on a genetic disorder to your kid and they need your bone marrow to live. You aren't legally required to give it to them. \n\nThat isn't considered murder. It's your bodily autonomy vs their life. You can't be forced to donate your organs or blood or other bodily resources to anyone. \n\nYou can continuously give your child or anyone your bone marrow, but you can take away that continuation at any time. You can't take what you already donated back as it is no longer apart of you but you can stop letting that person use stuff that is still apart of your body even if that means that person will die. "}, {"id": "cmm750h", "body": "I know I already commented on this, but this analogy is so forced and awful and so *common* that I feel I have to take it down.\n\nFirst of all, you're basically saying that since we will allow the right to bodily autonomy to supersede the right to life in a single contrived case, it must follow that it's true in all cases. That's absurd logic. I have the right not to give the homeless food or shelter because I have a right to personal property. It must follow, then, that I can stab him to death, because either way he will die and it will be my fault. The reason the bone marrow kid dies is disease. The reason a fetus dies is because you crushed his head.\n\nSecondly, you're ignoring some of the most basic differences between your scenario and abortion. There's the fact that you are necessarily *also* invading the bodily autonomy of the fetus (if we consider it human). There's the fact that the fetus may be able to survive without you killing her. \"Sharing organs\" isn't the only element to pregnancy.\n\nStop using analogies and argue with the situation we've got."}, {"id": "2o9wje", "body": "(Using a throwaway as this is a sensitive issue and, perhaps, a controversial opinion. I have every intention of following up on this post and replies made to it).\n\nAt the outset I would like to say the following:\n\n* The religious arguments against abortion hold no weight for me whatsoever. I have as little time for them as I have for religious arguments against homosexuality, for example.\n* The view I state in the title is one that I am far from secure in and I expect that there will be a good counter-argument out there, and I would like to hear it.\n* I arrived at this view, independent of anyone else, as a result of following what I believe to be the logical consequences of principles that I apply in other areas. These principles are humanist, and in other areas lead logically to conclusions such as: 'You have no right to tell others what sex they may or may not have, and with whom they may or may not have it, with the sole exception that this sex be conducted healthily between consenting adults'. \n* Such a conclusion as the one above is a principle that I am eminently comfortable with. It troubles me therefore that the same basic tenets can lead me to a view that is so contrary to normal secular humanist thinking, and contrary also to my instinctive moral reaction, on abortion. Presently, however, I can't escape the logic of it. I expect there may be a flaw in my reasoning somewhere but I've not found it myself.\n\nI struggle to get views across in prose without waffling, so I've bullet-pointed the steps my thinking takes to arrive at this point:\n\n* You have the right to do whatever you wish as long as you do not harm anyone else.\n* This logically follows from the concept of personal agency.\n* You have agency over your own body.\n* This is true for every person (human) in the world.\n* There exists no clear biological or philosophical \u2018dividing line' after which an embryo \u2018becomes human\u2019 during the course of pregnancy.\n* Therefore the only possible non-arbitrary \u2018line\u2019 that can be drawn between \u2018human' and 'not-human', is the point of fertilisation.\n* Therefore a pregnant woman is for the entirety of her pregnancy carrying a separate entity that is a human being at every stage of the process.\n* Therefore an abortion violates the right of the embryo to basic personal integrity and agency - the mother is \u2018harming another\u2019\n* The question of abortion does not therefore resemble the question of, for example, consenting sex between adults in terms of personal agency.\n\nCrucial in this is the question of at what point the embryo becomes a human being. Philosophically, one cannot be arbitrary about this, otherwise it is possible for an embryo at (for instance) 24 weeks to be considered 'human' and an embryo at 23 weeks, 6 days and 23 hours to not be considered 'human' - a clear absurdity. In my contention the only clear line, as I have said, that is not hugely arbitrary is the point of conception - the point of the completion of the genetic constitution of a human cell.\n\nThe standard 'pro-choice' argument is that 'a woman has the right to choose what she does with her own body' - and that is absolutely correct, and it would be anathema to me to ever argue anything else. However, does a woman have the right to choose what she does with someone else's body? Logically, that is what I believe the embryo must be considered as.\n\nThe argument I set out above does also possibly allow for exceptions:\n\n* In the case that the embryo is demonstrably not viable (i.e. philosophically already dead);\n* In the case that the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother (producing a moral conflict between the agency and integrity of the mother and that of the child);\n* In the case that a pregnancy results from rape (as this means the pregnancy itself is a violation of the mother's own personal agency);\n\nHowever, it does not provide for an exception where the mother's quality of life or her physical or psychological health would be damaged by carrying the pregnancy through to birth. Nor does it provide for an exception in cases where the child would be born with severely reduced quality of life, such as with severe genetic disorders. Instinctively, I find this difficult to wrap my head around, ethically. This sort of thing is part of why I struggle so much to reconcile my thoughts to themselves on this particular issue - and thus, why I've posted this here.\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cmlif3m", "body": "If it's homicide, what should the punishment be?  "}, {"id": "2o9wje", "body": "(Using a throwaway as this is a sensitive issue and, perhaps, a controversial opinion. I have every intention of following up on this post and replies made to it).\n\nAt the outset I would like to say the following:\n\n* The religious arguments against abortion hold no weight for me whatsoever. I have as little time for them as I have for religious arguments against homosexuality, for example.\n* The view I state in the title is one that I am far from secure in and I expect that there will be a good counter-argument out there, and I would like to hear it.\n* I arrived at this view, independent of anyone else, as a result of following what I believe to be the logical consequences of principles that I apply in other areas. These principles are humanist, and in other areas lead logically to conclusions such as: 'You have no right to tell others what sex they may or may not have, and with whom they may or may not have it, with the sole exception that this sex be conducted healthily between consenting adults'. \n* Such a conclusion as the one above is a principle that I am eminently comfortable with. It troubles me therefore that the same basic tenets can lead me to a view that is so contrary to normal secular humanist thinking, and contrary also to my instinctive moral reaction, on abortion. Presently, however, I can't escape the logic of it. I expect there may be a flaw in my reasoning somewhere but I've not found it myself.\n\nI struggle to get views across in prose without waffling, so I've bullet-pointed the steps my thinking takes to arrive at this point:\n\n* You have the right to do whatever you wish as long as you do not harm anyone else.\n* This logically follows from the concept of personal agency.\n* You have agency over your own body.\n* This is true for every person (human) in the world.\n* There exists no clear biological or philosophical \u2018dividing line' after which an embryo \u2018becomes human\u2019 during the course of pregnancy.\n* Therefore the only possible non-arbitrary \u2018line\u2019 that can be drawn between \u2018human' and 'not-human', is the point of fertilisation.\n* Therefore a pregnant woman is for the entirety of her pregnancy carrying a separate entity that is a human being at every stage of the process.\n* Therefore an abortion violates the right of the embryo to basic personal integrity and agency - the mother is \u2018harming another\u2019\n* The question of abortion does not therefore resemble the question of, for example, consenting sex between adults in terms of personal agency.\n\nCrucial in this is the question of at what point the embryo becomes a human being. Philosophically, one cannot be arbitrary about this, otherwise it is possible for an embryo at (for instance) 24 weeks to be considered 'human' and an embryo at 23 weeks, 6 days and 23 hours to not be considered 'human' - a clear absurdity. In my contention the only clear line, as I have said, that is not hugely arbitrary is the point of conception - the point of the completion of the genetic constitution of a human cell.\n\nThe standard 'pro-choice' argument is that 'a woman has the right to choose what she does with her own body' - and that is absolutely correct, and it would be anathema to me to ever argue anything else. However, does a woman have the right to choose what she does with someone else's body? Logically, that is what I believe the embryo must be considered as.\n\nThe argument I set out above does also possibly allow for exceptions:\n\n* In the case that the embryo is demonstrably not viable (i.e. philosophically already dead);\n* In the case that the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother (producing a moral conflict between the agency and integrity of the mother and that of the child);\n* In the case that a pregnancy results from rape (as this means the pregnancy itself is a violation of the mother's own personal agency);\n\nHowever, it does not provide for an exception where the mother's quality of life or her physical or psychological health would be damaged by carrying the pregnancy through to birth. Nor does it provide for an exception in cases where the child would be born with severely reduced quality of life, such as with severe genetic disorders. Instinctively, I find this difficult to wrap my head around, ethically. This sort of thing is part of why I struggle so much to reconcile my thoughts to themselves on this particular issue - and thus, why I've posted this here.\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cmmvdw7", "body": "If a pregnant woman is hit by a drunk driver, resulting in a miscarriage and injury to the woman (but not death), is the charge laid at the driver dependent of the length of the pregnancy? I.e. is it manslaughter after viability, but only bodily harm (or something else) for before viability?"}, {"id": "Thread_ends", "body": "Thread_ends"}, {"id": "Thread_ends", "body": "Thread_ends"}, {"id": "2o9tol", "body": "I know, I know.  The nerd black face dead horse of a show.\n\nBut I was talking about it with a friend of mine yesterday and it occurred to me.\n\nSheldon Cooper is very clearly autistic.  He's got his very specific routine that can *not* be deviated from without problems.  He's extremely particular about things that are his (like his chair) and he gets very, very upset if someone so much as sits in it, even if he isn't using it.  He's obsessed with order (like the cereal boxes).  He isn't particularly fond of spending time with others.  He doesn't get social cues.  The list goes on.\n\nAnd now here's the thing-\n\nThe audience doesn't laugh at \"Sheldon's wacky hijinx\" like they do with the other characters.  They're laughing at completely normal behavior for an autistic person.\n\nI'm not offended or anything, but there's just something in me that says \"laughing at autistic people is wrong\".\n\nThere are times when you laugh at him for being into video games or you laugh at him for flirting with men... which *also* seems fucked up?  But laughing at him for having autism seems to me like it should cross a line, but for some reason doesn't."}, {"id": "cml3h1n", "body": "Laughing at him, or laughing with him?  And what about Raj's social anxiety disorder?  Everyone has labels, things that make them different, does that mean all jokes are wrong?  \n\nOr are you misunderstanding the humor?  After all, Big Bang Theory has probably improved people's understanding and acceptance of autistic people by showing that Sheldon's autistic humanity is valid, and part of being human is laughing at mistakes.\n\nShould we police every joke to see if it offended a 'type' (Jokes about Penny's dating insult sluts!) Or should we realize that the humor is not cruel, but actually supportive because once we can joke about something then it becomes 'ok', and we want to think of Sheldon as 'ok' and not as different just because his behavior is atypical.\n\nSo I guess I'm not convinced that the humor in BBT is degrading, but can be seen as uplifting.  When a show brings on a 'stranger' (say, Fez in 70s show) many jokes are created from the cultural dissonance, but that does not imply that 'strangers' like Fez or Sheldon are inferior simply because jokes are made.  The actual joke matters.  Leonard is not saying 'Sheldon you are so stupid and worthless hahaha' he is saying 'It's funny how you are so smart in some ways and not in others, as all humans are, hahaha'\n\nSo it's important in comedy not to get overwrought about political correctness because usually comedy is used to educate and normalize, not shun, and I haven't gotten the sense from BBT than people like Sheldon should be considered inferior.  If anything the show is about coexisting with him, not belittling him."}, {"id": "cml3h1n", "body": "Laughing at him, or laughing with him?  And what about Raj's social anxiety disorder?  Everyone has labels, things that make them different, does that mean all jokes are wrong?  \n\nOr are you misunderstanding the humor?  After all, Big Bang Theory has probably improved people's understanding and acceptance of autistic people by showing that Sheldon's autistic humanity is valid, and part of being human is laughing at mistakes.\n\nShould we police every joke to see if it offended a 'type' (Jokes about Penny's dating insult sluts!) Or should we realize that the humor is not cruel, but actually supportive because once we can joke about something then it becomes 'ok', and we want to think of Sheldon as 'ok' and not as different just because his behavior is atypical.\n\nSo I guess I'm not convinced that the humor in BBT is degrading, but can be seen as uplifting.  When a show brings on a 'stranger' (say, Fez in 70s show) many jokes are created from the cultural dissonance, but that does not imply that 'strangers' like Fez or Sheldon are inferior simply because jokes are made.  The actual joke matters.  Leonard is not saying 'Sheldon you are so stupid and worthless hahaha' he is saying 'It's funny how you are so smart in some ways and not in others, as all humans are, hahaha'\n\nSo it's important in comedy not to get overwrought about political correctness because usually comedy is used to educate and normalize, not shun, and I haven't gotten the sense from BBT than people like Sheldon should be considered inferior.  If anything the show is about coexisting with him, not belittling him."}, {"id": "cml4hgr", "body": "&gt; Laughing at him, or laughing with him?\n\nCan you really laugh with a person who doesn't actually make any jokes?\n\nI mean, [take Jimmy from South Park.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k08m0S_Gv0c) He's a disabled character that we laugh at in a different way.\n\nThe first clip was that he just explained a joke, the second was that they had to vamoose and he was holding them up by saying so, the third was kicking Cartman when he's down, and the fourth was an actual joke with a set up and a punch line.  I just searched 'South Park Jimmy' in youtube and that was the first video.\n\n[But with Sheldon...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eD8RhPDU5Y)\n\nPenny mocks Sheldon's autistic behavior and he gets very upset to the crescendo of the laugh track, Howard doesn't like Sheldon/Sheldon screaming in terror on a Vespa, in the third clip the security guard says \"Hey, my sister's got a kid who's special.\" and Leonard agrees and calls Sheldon \"extra special\", it goes on but that's as far as I got.\n\nWe are very clearly laughing \"at Sheldon\" and not the situations he's in or jokes that he makes.\n\nIt's like watching desperate housewives.  We watch it to feel better than someone who's better than us, so they made the 295 IQ having, successful scientist autism for us to point to and say \"What a goon!\"\n\n&gt; Should we police every joke to see if it offended a 'type' (Jokes about Penny's dating insult sluts!)\n\nExcept Penny is \"us\".  She's the normie in the group of geniuses, and they all envy her, bow to her, and she's our anchor to the show.\n\nIn 100% seriousness, for the first 3 or 4 seasons that I saw, what is she besides dumb and pretty?\n\nWe laugh at her because \"Who would go on a date with a serial killer?!  That's crazy!\" not \"Haha!  She has syphilis because she sleeps with guys all the time due to her nymphomania.\"\n\nI feel like a very low bar to set for what is and isn't okay is \"have a character that we laugh at/with for more reasons than their mental disability\".\n\nI mean what's the difference between laughing at Sheldon freaking out about his chair and handing a kid with downs a rubik's cube and cracking up?"}, {"id": "cml4hgr", "body": "&gt; Laughing at him, or laughing with him?\n\nCan you really laugh with a person who doesn't actually make any jokes?\n\nI mean, [take Jimmy from South Park.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k08m0S_Gv0c) He's a disabled character that we laugh at in a different way.\n\nThe first clip was that he just explained a joke, the second was that they had to vamoose and he was holding them up by saying so, the third was kicking Cartman when he's down, and the fourth was an actual joke with a set up and a punch line.  I just searched 'South Park Jimmy' in youtube and that was the first video.\n\n[But with Sheldon...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eD8RhPDU5Y)\n\nPenny mocks Sheldon's autistic behavior and he gets very upset to the crescendo of the laugh track, Howard doesn't like Sheldon/Sheldon screaming in terror on a Vespa, in the third clip the security guard says \"Hey, my sister's got a kid who's special.\" and Leonard agrees and calls Sheldon \"extra special\", it goes on but that's as far as I got.\n\nWe are very clearly laughing \"at Sheldon\" and not the situations he's in or jokes that he makes.\n\nIt's like watching desperate housewives.  We watch it to feel better than someone who's better than us, so they made the 295 IQ having, successful scientist autism for us to point to and say \"What a goon!\"\n\n&gt; Should we police every joke to see if it offended a 'type' (Jokes about Penny's dating insult sluts!)\n\nExcept Penny is \"us\".  She's the normie in the group of geniuses, and they all envy her, bow to her, and she's our anchor to the show.\n\nIn 100% seriousness, for the first 3 or 4 seasons that I saw, what is she besides dumb and pretty?\n\nWe laugh at her because \"Who would go on a date with a serial killer?!  That's crazy!\" not \"Haha!  She has syphilis because she sleeps with guys all the time due to her nymphomania.\"\n\nI feel like a very low bar to set for what is and isn't okay is \"have a character that we laugh at/with for more reasons than their mental disability\".\n\nI mean what's the difference between laughing at Sheldon freaking out about his chair and handing a kid with downs a rubik's cube and cracking up?"}, {"id": "cml8284", "body": "&gt;Penny mocks Sheldon's autistic behavior and he gets very upset to the crescendo of the laugh track, Howard doesn't like Sheldon/Sheldon screaming in terror on a Vespa, in the third clip the security guard says \"Hey, my sister's got a kid who's special.\" and Leonard agrees and calls Sheldon \"extra special\", it goes on but that's as far as I got.\n\nThe second scene actually has Sheldon using social cues for humor, when he uses a sideways glance to insinuate that the other guy has to take him home.  And gets a laugh for it - this is in fact the opposite of autistic behavior.  The Vespa scene is just a \"Sheldon is a wimp\" joke.  It's not autism, just him being wimpy.\n\nIn the ball pit scene, it ends with Sheldon making a \"you can't catch me\" joke and some physical comedy, then a second \"bazinga\" joke in a sly voice that gets a laugh.  That last one especially is a moment of laughing with him.\n\nThe next scene, he makes a couple of hulk jokes that are very clearly making jokes."}, {"id": "2o9tol", "body": "I know, I know.  The nerd black face dead horse of a show.\n\nBut I was talking about it with a friend of mine yesterday and it occurred to me.\n\nSheldon Cooper is very clearly autistic.  He's got his very specific routine that can *not* be deviated from without problems.  He's extremely particular about things that are his (like his chair) and he gets very, very upset if someone so much as sits in it, even if he isn't using it.  He's obsessed with order (like the cereal boxes).  He isn't particularly fond of spending time with others.  He doesn't get social cues.  The list goes on.\n\nAnd now here's the thing-\n\nThe audience doesn't laugh at \"Sheldon's wacky hijinx\" like they do with the other characters.  They're laughing at completely normal behavior for an autistic person.\n\nI'm not offended or anything, but there's just something in me that says \"laughing at autistic people is wrong\".\n\nThere are times when you laugh at him for being into video games or you laugh at him for flirting with men... which *also* seems fucked up?  But laughing at him for having autism seems to me like it should cross a line, but for some reason doesn't."}, {"id": "cml8bpb", "body": "Dude, if that's autistic, I'm autistic. And I'm not. I've met plenty of antisocial and pedantic nerds. I'm one of them. None of us are autistic."}, {"id": "cml8bpb", "body": "Dude, if that's autistic, I'm autistic. And I'm not. I've met plenty of antisocial and pedantic nerds. I'm one of them. None of us are autistic."}, {"id": "cmlkdzu", "body": "Asperger's?\n\nWhatever he has, it goes beyond being a nerd. He has behaviour issues that I'm sure would be diagnosed by a psychologist somewhere."}, {"id": "cmlkdzu", "body": "Asperger's?\n\nWhatever he has, it goes beyond being a nerd. He has behaviour issues that I'm sure would be diagnosed by a psychologist somewhere."}, {"id": "cmlkw5s", "body": "I'm not a regular watcher. What specifically does Sheldon do that clearly signifies a mental condition?"}, {"id": "2o9tol", "body": "I know, I know.  The nerd black face dead horse of a show.\n\nBut I was talking about it with a friend of mine yesterday and it occurred to me.\n\nSheldon Cooper is very clearly autistic.  He's got his very specific routine that can *not* be deviated from without problems.  He's extremely particular about things that are his (like his chair) and he gets very, very upset if someone so much as sits in it, even if he isn't using it.  He's obsessed with order (like the cereal boxes).  He isn't particularly fond of spending time with others.  He doesn't get social cues.  The list goes on.\n\nAnd now here's the thing-\n\nThe audience doesn't laugh at \"Sheldon's wacky hijinx\" like they do with the other characters.  They're laughing at completely normal behavior for an autistic person.\n\nI'm not offended or anything, but there's just something in me that says \"laughing at autistic people is wrong\".\n\nThere are times when you laugh at him for being into video games or you laugh at him for flirting with men... which *also* seems fucked up?  But laughing at him for having autism seems to me like it should cross a line, but for some reason doesn't."}, {"id": "cml2v3e", "body": "The only issue with your view is that within the canon of the show Sheldon does not have autism: \"His mom had him tested.\"\n\nYou could make the argument that that statement is used in response to a claim that he is crazy and not autistic, but the only way to test someone for insanity is through psychological evaluation. That means that a trained psychological professional met with him and did not believe that Sheldon exhibited significant signs of autism, else that would have been brought up to Sheldon/his mom.\n\nThis does not make laughing at Sheldon's behavior acceptable, he still acts in a manner consistent with autism in the real world and so using that behavior as a source of humor is still wrong."}, {"id": "cml2v3e", "body": "The only issue with your view is that within the canon of the show Sheldon does not have autism: \"His mom had him tested.\"\n\nYou could make the argument that that statement is used in response to a claim that he is crazy and not autistic, but the only way to test someone for insanity is through psychological evaluation. That means that a trained psychological professional met with him and did not believe that Sheldon exhibited significant signs of autism, else that would have been brought up to Sheldon/his mom.\n\nThis does not make laughing at Sheldon's behavior acceptable, he still acts in a manner consistent with autism in the real world and so using that behavior as a source of humor is still wrong."}, {"id": "cml3rax", "body": "But you just made a self defeating argument.  \n\nSaying 'He's not crazy, I had him tested' doesn't really mean anything beyond that.  It could mean she only tested him for psychopathy, she just threw him at the therapist and said \"What's wrong with him?!\", or that the therapist confirmed that he had autism and she didn't feel the need to explain that he was, because the rest of the characters *know*.\n\nI mean... it's the old \"strip out the laugh track\" bit except put his actions in the context of 'his friends know he has autism' and suddenly breaking into Penny's house and organizing her underwear goes from *our* horror and reactions of \"I'd call the cops\" to *her* reaction of frustration and forgiveness.\n\nI get that it's a trope to not call the cops for wacky behavior, but if it walks like a soft kitty, talks like a warm kitty, it's probably a 40 year old autistic man who doesn't understand when people try to teach him what sarcasm is."}, {"id": "cml3rax", "body": "But you just made a self defeating argument.  \n\nSaying 'He's not crazy, I had him tested' doesn't really mean anything beyond that.  It could mean she only tested him for psychopathy, she just threw him at the therapist and said \"What's wrong with him?!\", or that the therapist confirmed that he had autism and she didn't feel the need to explain that he was, because the rest of the characters *know*.\n\nI mean... it's the old \"strip out the laugh track\" bit except put his actions in the context of 'his friends know he has autism' and suddenly breaking into Penny's house and organizing her underwear goes from *our* horror and reactions of \"I'd call the cops\" to *her* reaction of frustration and forgiveness.\n\nI get that it's a trope to not call the cops for wacky behavior, but if it walks like a soft kitty, talks like a warm kitty, it's probably a 40 year old autistic man who doesn't understand when people try to teach him what sarcasm is."}, {"id": "cmlhwrv", "body": "What part of my argument is self defeating? It seems consistent to me.\n\n1) Big Bang Theory does not occur in the real world and therefore Sheldon acting in a manner like that of autism in the real world does not equate to him having autism in the show.\n\n2) It has been stated by characters on the show that Sheldon was tested.\n\n2a) The type of test in not specified but given the context in which the statements are made, I feel it is not a great leap to assume that the testing was to determine why Sheldon acts the way he does.\n\n3) Sheldon would have been tested by a psychological professional.\n\n4)  If Sheldon was autistic, the tester would have noticed\n\n4a) I assume that the person that tested Sheldon was aware of the signs of autism\n\n4b) I also assume that if Sheldon were autistic, he would have been told.\n\n5) If Sheldon were autistic it would have been stated instead of the repeated phrase \"I'm not crazy, my mommy had me tested\"\n\nIf you have an issue with some part of my argument or my assumptions point it out.\n\nYou might think I am wrong, in which case I'll be happy to continue this argument until one of us has convinced the other, but I don't see where my argument contradicts itself."}, {"id": "cmlhwrv", "body": "What part of my argument is self defeating? It seems consistent to me.\n\n1) Big Bang Theory does not occur in the real world and therefore Sheldon acting in a manner like that of autism in the real world does not equate to him having autism in the show.\n\n2) It has been stated by characters on the show that Sheldon was tested.\n\n2a) The type of test in not specified but given the context in which the statements are made, I feel it is not a great leap to assume that the testing was to determine why Sheldon acts the way he does.\n\n3) Sheldon would have been tested by a psychological professional.\n\n4)  If Sheldon was autistic, the tester would have noticed\n\n4a) I assume that the person that tested Sheldon was aware of the signs of autism\n\n4b) I also assume that if Sheldon were autistic, he would have been told.\n\n5) If Sheldon were autistic it would have been stated instead of the repeated phrase \"I'm not crazy, my mommy had me tested\"\n\nIf you have an issue with some part of my argument or my assumptions point it out.\n\nYou might think I am wrong, in which case I'll be happy to continue this argument until one of us has convinced the other, but I don't see where my argument contradicts itself."}, {"id": "cmlinxa", "body": "&gt; 2) It has been stated by characters on the show that Sheldon was tested\n\nYou said yourself that it was in relation to him being crazy.\n\n&gt; 2a) The type of test in not specified but given the context in which the statements are made, I feel it is not a great leap to assume that the testing was to determine why Sheldon acts the way he does.\n\nHe was actually kind of dangerous when he was a child.  Didn't he make weapons and broke his father's legs by fucking with the stairs?\n\n&gt; 3) Sheldon would have been tested by a psychological professional.\n\nI'll allow it.  But I can argue it by his mother being a bible thumper.  Getting tested could mean she took him to her pastor.\n\n&gt; 4) If Sheldon was autistic, the tester would have noticed\n\nOkay.  Here's where we kind of get murky but I'm still going to allow it.  I mean, if I took you to a drug test, you wouldn't expect your cholesterol levels on the form you got back.  But again.  Totally acceptable premise.\n\n&gt;  4b) I also assume that if Sheldon were autistic, he would have been told.\n\nI don't know what that would impact at all.\n\n&gt; 5) If Sheldon were autistic it would have been stated instead of the repeated phrase \"I'm not crazy, my mommy had me tested\"\n\nWell that's kind of ambiguous \"proof\".  I mean I'm going on the premise that he's autistic and *they know*.  So stuff like when he's in the ballpit making carbon atoms and the guard says \"I have a sister who's special\" and Leonard says \"Yeah he's special\" is more proof that he is than your test line proves that he isn't.\n\n&gt; You might think I am wrong, in which case I'll be happy to continue this argument until one of us has convinced the other, but I don't see where my argument contradicts itself.\n\nYour argument doesn't address autism, it just addresses that he isn't crazy.  I mean this comes up on Reddit pretty often and people tend to accept that while he might not [be in his own little world,](http://i.imgur.com/YRK9mYn.jpg) he falls on the spectrum."}, {"id": "cmlinxa", "body": "&gt; 2) It has been stated by characters on the show that Sheldon was tested\n\nYou said yourself that it was in relation to him being crazy.\n\n&gt; 2a) The type of test in not specified but given the context in which the statements are made, I feel it is not a great leap to assume that the testing was to determine why Sheldon acts the way he does.\n\nHe was actually kind of dangerous when he was a child.  Didn't he make weapons and broke his father's legs by fucking with the stairs?\n\n&gt; 3) Sheldon would have been tested by a psychological professional.\n\nI'll allow it.  But I can argue it by his mother being a bible thumper.  Getting tested could mean she took him to her pastor.\n\n&gt; 4) If Sheldon was autistic, the tester would have noticed\n\nOkay.  Here's where we kind of get murky but I'm still going to allow it.  I mean, if I took you to a drug test, you wouldn't expect your cholesterol levels on the form you got back.  But again.  Totally acceptable premise.\n\n&gt;  4b) I also assume that if Sheldon were autistic, he would have been told.\n\nI don't know what that would impact at all.\n\n&gt; 5) If Sheldon were autistic it would have been stated instead of the repeated phrase \"I'm not crazy, my mommy had me tested\"\n\nWell that's kind of ambiguous \"proof\".  I mean I'm going on the premise that he's autistic and *they know*.  So stuff like when he's in the ballpit making carbon atoms and the guard says \"I have a sister who's special\" and Leonard says \"Yeah he's special\" is more proof that he is than your test line proves that he isn't.\n\n&gt; You might think I am wrong, in which case I'll be happy to continue this argument until one of us has convinced the other, but I don't see where my argument contradicts itself.\n\nYour argument doesn't address autism, it just addresses that he isn't crazy.  I mean this comes up on Reddit pretty often and people tend to accept that while he might not [be in his own little world,](http://i.imgur.com/YRK9mYn.jpg) he falls on the spectrum."}, {"id": "cmljqn6", "body": "According to the writers, he doesn't have Asperger's \n\nand the producer says he isn't on the spectrum\n\nhttp://www.inquisitr.com/1449287/jim-parsons-says-sheldon-cooper-doesnt-have-aspergers-likes-the-way-its-handled/"}, {"id": "cml2v3e", "body": "The only issue with your view is that within the canon of the show Sheldon does not have autism: \"His mom had him tested.\"\n\nYou could make the argument that that statement is used in response to a claim that he is crazy and not autistic, but the only way to test someone for insanity is through psychological evaluation. That means that a trained psychological professional met with him and did not believe that Sheldon exhibited significant signs of autism, else that would have been brought up to Sheldon/his mom.\n\nThis does not make laughing at Sheldon's behavior acceptable, he still acts in a manner consistent with autism in the real world and so using that behavior as a source of humor is still wrong."}, {"id": "cml31zt", "body": "&gt;This does not make laughing at Sheldon's behavior acceptable, he still acts in a manner consistent with autism in the real world and so using that behavior as a source of humor is still wrong.\n\n What's so bad about laughing at autistic people for being weirdos? "}, {"id": "cml31zt", "body": "&gt;This does not make laughing at Sheldon's behavior acceptable, he still acts in a manner consistent with autism in the real world and so using that behavior as a source of humor is still wrong.\n\n What's so bad about laughing at autistic people for being weirdos? "}, {"id": "cml7gqh", "body": "&gt; What's so bad about laughing at people with downs syndrome for being weirdos?"}, {"id": "cml7gqh", "body": "&gt; What's so bad about laughing at people with downs syndrome for being weirdos?"}, {"id": "cml9tcu", "body": "I don't understand, are you implying that it wouldn't be okay to joke about disabilities?\n\nAnd no, not in a \"laugh right into the disabled person's face\" joke, I mean, are you implying that disabilities cannot be funny? "}, {"id": "cml9tcu", "body": "I don't understand, are you implying that it wouldn't be okay to joke about disabilities?\n\nAnd no, not in a \"laugh right into the disabled person's face\" joke, I mean, are you implying that disabilities cannot be funny? "}, {"id": "cmlbwla", "body": "I think that laughing at people with developmental difficulties is in poor taste, but that's a subjective opinion."}, {"id": "cml7gqh", "body": "&gt; What's so bad about laughing at people with downs syndrome for being weirdos?"}, {"id": "cml7jba", "body": "You quote that in an attempt to make some point, maybe make me reflect on what I've said, but it's yet another question I would ask. "}, {"id": "cml7jba", "body": "You quote that in an attempt to make some point, maybe make me reflect on what I've said, but it's yet another question I would ask. "}, {"id": "cml7qg9", "body": "I was considering it a consistancy check. \n\nIf you stand by both, I disagree with you on an ethical level but I applaud your consistancy. "}, {"id": "2o9tol", "body": "I know, I know.  The nerd black face dead horse of a show.\n\nBut I was talking about it with a friend of mine yesterday and it occurred to me.\n\nSheldon Cooper is very clearly autistic.  He's got his very specific routine that can *not* be deviated from without problems.  He's extremely particular about things that are his (like his chair) and he gets very, very upset if someone so much as sits in it, even if he isn't using it.  He's obsessed with order (like the cereal boxes).  He isn't particularly fond of spending time with others.  He doesn't get social cues.  The list goes on.\n\nAnd now here's the thing-\n\nThe audience doesn't laugh at \"Sheldon's wacky hijinx\" like they do with the other characters.  They're laughing at completely normal behavior for an autistic person.\n\nI'm not offended or anything, but there's just something in me that says \"laughing at autistic people is wrong\".\n\nThere are times when you laugh at him for being into video games or you laugh at him for flirting with men... which *also* seems fucked up?  But laughing at him for having autism seems to me like it should cross a line, but for some reason doesn't."}, {"id": "cml3xm6", "body": "Both me and my flatmate are autistic, we both love the show. "}, {"id": "cml3xm6", "body": "Both me and my flatmate are autistic, we both love the show. "}, {"id": "cml4kr5", "body": "[Does this gif make racist jokes okay?](http://i.imgur.com/0u6P6B2.gif)"}, {"id": "cml4kr5", "body": "[Does this gif make racist jokes okay?](http://i.imgur.com/0u6P6B2.gif)"}, {"id": "cmlhnvn", "body": "racists jokes *are* okay"}, {"id": "cmlhnvn", "body": "racists jokes *are* okay"}, {"id": "cmliof9", "body": "But not on TV."}, {"id": "cmliof9", "body": "But not on TV."}, {"id": "cmljjkt", "body": "why do you think that?"}, {"id": "cmljjkt", "body": "why do you think that?"}, {"id": "cmlkoy4", "body": "Because you can't even put racist jokes on TV unless the person is making fun of their own race and you're on late night cable TV."}, {"id": "cmlkoy4", "body": "Because you can't even put racist jokes on TV unless the person is making fun of their own race and you're on late night cable TV."}, {"id": "cmlo5r7", "body": "I don't know what kind of tv you watch but a joke can be funny and racial without being racist\n\nAnd that vine was god damn funny"}, {"id": "cmlo5r7", "body": "I don't know what kind of tv you watch but a joke can be funny and racial without being racist\n\nAnd that vine was god damn funny"}, {"id": "cmlodmi", "body": "I'm not saying anything is or isn't funny.  And yeah the vine was funny.\n\nI'm saying that TBBT is *bad* because they flat out make fun of a mentally disabled guy."}, {"id": "cmlodmi", "body": "I'm not saying anything is or isn't funny.  And yeah the vine was funny.\n\nI'm saying that TBBT is *bad* because they flat out make fun of a mentally disabled guy."}, {"id": "cmloq59", "body": "It never stated whether he has autism or any other condition, and with the varying degrees to which autism can effect someone it isn't accurate to strictly call it a disability\n\nEven if he has autism, if the jokes are not cruel in nature or denigrating him then what's the problem?\n\n\nRemember that those people are his friends, friends say (contextually) awful things to each other and he gives as good and most times better than he gets"}, {"id": "cmlkoy4", "body": "Because you can't even put racist jokes on TV unless the person is making fun of their own race and you're on late night cable TV."}, {"id": "cmlkrzt", "body": "no, i'm asking you why you think racist jokes aren't okay on tv. "}, {"id": "2o9tol", "body": "I know, I know.  The nerd black face dead horse of a show.\n\nBut I was talking about it with a friend of mine yesterday and it occurred to me.\n\nSheldon Cooper is very clearly autistic.  He's got his very specific routine that can *not* be deviated from without problems.  He's extremely particular about things that are his (like his chair) and he gets very, very upset if someone so much as sits in it, even if he isn't using it.  He's obsessed with order (like the cereal boxes).  He isn't particularly fond of spending time with others.  He doesn't get social cues.  The list goes on.\n\nAnd now here's the thing-\n\nThe audience doesn't laugh at \"Sheldon's wacky hijinx\" like they do with the other characters.  They're laughing at completely normal behavior for an autistic person.\n\nI'm not offended or anything, but there's just something in me that says \"laughing at autistic people is wrong\".\n\nThere are times when you laugh at him for being into video games or you laugh at him for flirting with men... which *also* seems fucked up?  But laughing at him for having autism seems to me like it should cross a line, but for some reason doesn't."}, {"id": "cml4sok", "body": "People are giving answers that revolve around \"Sheldon isn't autistic\", \"I'm autistic and think it's funny\", and other ways to justify it. But I think the only reason needed is this: just because you don't like a certain humor, just because you think jokes and premises are \"fucked up\", doesn't make it not funny. \n\nLouis CK says horrible, otherwise indefensible things in every day life about people who \"shouldn't\" be made fun of. He talks about fucking babies, for christ sake. That's fucked up. And yet, he fills theaters and has people roaring in laughter. Why are people laughing and enjoying something so seriously fucking *wrong*? \n\nIt's because it isn't real life. It isn't every day life. It is a medium of comedy, and sincerely, in comedy, there is literally not a thing you can name that \"shouldn't\" be made fun of. Everything is fair game. Because it isn't real life. It doesn't matter if it's fucked up, because people think it's funny. If people are laughing \"HAHA HOLY SHIT WHAT A FUCKING AUTIST!!!!\", well, I for one think that they probably missed the point a bit, but even if the premise and joke *is* just \"hey, look at this aspergery moron\", people are allowed to find that funny.\n"}, {"id": "cml4sok", "body": "People are giving answers that revolve around \"Sheldon isn't autistic\", \"I'm autistic and think it's funny\", and other ways to justify it. But I think the only reason needed is this: just because you don't like a certain humor, just because you think jokes and premises are \"fucked up\", doesn't make it not funny. \n\nLouis CK says horrible, otherwise indefensible things in every day life about people who \"shouldn't\" be made fun of. He talks about fucking babies, for christ sake. That's fucked up. And yet, he fills theaters and has people roaring in laughter. Why are people laughing and enjoying something so seriously fucking *wrong*? \n\nIt's because it isn't real life. It isn't every day life. It is a medium of comedy, and sincerely, in comedy, there is literally not a thing you can name that \"shouldn't\" be made fun of. Everything is fair game. Because it isn't real life. It doesn't matter if it's fucked up, because people think it's funny. If people are laughing \"HAHA HOLY SHIT WHAT A FUCKING AUTIST!!!!\", well, I for one think that they probably missed the point a bit, but even if the premise and joke *is* just \"hey, look at this aspergery moron\", people are allowed to find that funny.\n"}, {"id": "cml4z64", "body": "&gt; just because you don't like a certain humor, just because you think jokes and premises are \"fucked up\", doesn't make it not funny.\n\nOh I agree whole heartedly.  I'd be such a hypocrite to say \"You shouldn't laugh at this!\"\n\nMy view is that \"it's a bad show\".  "}, {"id": "cml4z64", "body": "&gt; just because you don't like a certain humor, just because you think jokes and premises are \"fucked up\", doesn't make it not funny.\n\nOh I agree whole heartedly.  I'd be such a hypocrite to say \"You shouldn't laugh at this!\"\n\nMy view is that \"it's a bad show\".  "}, {"id": "cml59zw", "body": "Yeah, and that's where I just don't agree. You're saying \"They are using Sheldon's autism as humor, therefore it's a bad show.\" Which isn't valid.\n\nI'm not a fan of the show, but that's because I just don't find it interesting in premise or execution. I don't think it's funny because I think the jokes just aren't good jokes. The execution of a joke should be what mattes, not the premise, or subject. Every subject can be made into a killer joke. I just don't think the show is able to make good jokes, regardless of subject."}, {"id": "cml59zw", "body": "Yeah, and that's where I just don't agree. You're saying \"They are using Sheldon's autism as humor, therefore it's a bad show.\" Which isn't valid.\n\nI'm not a fan of the show, but that's because I just don't find it interesting in premise or execution. I don't think it's funny because I think the jokes just aren't good jokes. The execution of a joke should be what mattes, not the premise, or subject. Every subject can be made into a killer joke. I just don't think the show is able to make good jokes, regardless of subject."}, {"id": "cml5ed4", "body": "It's just that when I think \"this is good TV\" I don't think \"people laughing at mentally challenged people\".\n\n...actually a lot of the reasons why reality TV is bad Tv..."}, {"id": "cml5ed4", "body": "It's just that when I think \"this is good TV\" I don't think \"people laughing at mentally challenged people\".\n\n...actually a lot of the reasons why reality TV is bad Tv..."}, {"id": "cml5hq7", "body": "And that's fine, it's not my cup of tea either.\n\nBut your post said \"This show is bad because they are making fun of autism\" which just sounds like preference of humor. I don't like Big Bang either, but I'd lie if I didn't die laughing at other comedians who make fun of handicapped/ \"retarded\" people. You made a claim that THIS is why something isn't funny, but it's objectively true that huge amounts of people respond positively to jokes of that manner."}, {"id": "cml5hq7", "body": "And that's fine, it's not my cup of tea either.\n\nBut your post said \"This show is bad because they are making fun of autism\" which just sounds like preference of humor. I don't like Big Bang either, but I'd lie if I didn't die laughing at other comedians who make fun of handicapped/ \"retarded\" people. You made a claim that THIS is why something isn't funny, but it's objectively true that huge amounts of people respond positively to jokes of that manner."}, {"id": "cml5khk", "body": "I never said it's not funny.\n\nAnd yes, people laugh at all kinds of things... \n\nAnd they're not making fun of \"autism\" they're making fun of \"that autistic person right there\" which is different.\n\nBut mental handicaps used to be taboo, didn't they?"}, {"id": "cml5khk", "body": "I never said it's not funny.\n\nAnd yes, people laugh at all kinds of things... \n\nAnd they're not making fun of \"autism\" they're making fun of \"that autistic person right there\" which is different.\n\nBut mental handicaps used to be taboo, didn't they?"}, {"id": "cml5xey", "body": "I don't really understand what your view is then.\n\nYour title says that Big Bang isn't a good show because they are making fun of Sheldon's autism. \n\n\"It is bad because they are making fun of his autism\" isn't very defensible. I can be a comedian and get on stage and start making fun of Rosemary Kennedy for being a lobotomized person and walk around and mime her as a \"grey, dumb, idiot\" and get the audience roaring in laughter.\n\nMaking jokes about a specific person's disabilities is equal to making fun of that disability in general. And I'm saying that that isn't a reason to say a show is bad because they do that..."}, {"id": "cml5xey", "body": "I don't really understand what your view is then.\n\nYour title says that Big Bang isn't a good show because they are making fun of Sheldon's autism. \n\n\"It is bad because they are making fun of his autism\" isn't very defensible. I can be a comedian and get on stage and start making fun of Rosemary Kennedy for being a lobotomized person and walk around and mime her as a \"grey, dumb, idiot\" and get the audience roaring in laughter.\n\nMaking jokes about a specific person's disabilities is equal to making fun of that disability in general. And I'm saying that that isn't a reason to say a show is bad because they do that..."}, {"id": "cml6kgw", "body": "It's a bad show.  It's bad TV that doesn't deserve the awards it got."}, {"id": "cml6kgw", "body": "It's a bad show.  It's bad TV that doesn't deserve the awards it got."}, {"id": "cml9r2f", "body": "...but that's different than what you made when posting this to CMV. \n\n\"It's a bad show\" is different than \"It's a bad show due to to ______.\"\n\nDid you post this here to circlejerk over why it's bad, or were you interested in having your views changed on the specific reason you posted that it's bad?"}, {"id": "2o9tol", "body": "I know, I know.  The nerd black face dead horse of a show.\n\nBut I was talking about it with a friend of mine yesterday and it occurred to me.\n\nSheldon Cooper is very clearly autistic.  He's got his very specific routine that can *not* be deviated from without problems.  He's extremely particular about things that are his (like his chair) and he gets very, very upset if someone so much as sits in it, even if he isn't using it.  He's obsessed with order (like the cereal boxes).  He isn't particularly fond of spending time with others.  He doesn't get social cues.  The list goes on.\n\nAnd now here's the thing-\n\nThe audience doesn't laugh at \"Sheldon's wacky hijinx\" like they do with the other characters.  They're laughing at completely normal behavior for an autistic person.\n\nI'm not offended or anything, but there's just something in me that says \"laughing at autistic people is wrong\".\n\nThere are times when you laugh at him for being into video games or you laugh at him for flirting with men... which *also* seems fucked up?  But laughing at him for having autism seems to me like it should cross a line, but for some reason doesn't."}, {"id": "cml4xrr", "body": "Community makes fun of Abed's autism, and is a great show. Big Bang Theory is bad because it's bad."}, {"id": "cml4xrr", "body": "Community makes fun of Abed's autism, and is a great show. Big Bang Theory is bad because it's bad."}, {"id": "cml55tr", "body": "Community doesn't make Abed's character an autistic punchline.\n\nAbed makes jokes, has insight, and knew who the boss *really* was.\n\n"}, {"id": "2o9tol", "body": "I know, I know.  The nerd black face dead horse of a show.\n\nBut I was talking about it with a friend of mine yesterday and it occurred to me.\n\nSheldon Cooper is very clearly autistic.  He's got his very specific routine that can *not* be deviated from without problems.  He's extremely particular about things that are his (like his chair) and he gets very, very upset if someone so much as sits in it, even if he isn't using it.  He's obsessed with order (like the cereal boxes).  He isn't particularly fond of spending time with others.  He doesn't get social cues.  The list goes on.\n\nAnd now here's the thing-\n\nThe audience doesn't laugh at \"Sheldon's wacky hijinx\" like they do with the other characters.  They're laughing at completely normal behavior for an autistic person.\n\nI'm not offended or anything, but there's just something in me that says \"laughing at autistic people is wrong\".\n\nThere are times when you laugh at him for being into video games or you laugh at him for flirting with men... which *also* seems fucked up?  But laughing at him for having autism seems to me like it should cross a line, but for some reason doesn't."}, {"id": "cml3eim", "body": "Sheldon doesn't have autism. The level of knowledge that Sheldon has would put him at the level of some savants. However, there is not a single savant that does not have crippling levels of autism. Sheldon is far to high functioning and capable in his field to be a savant. The only counter argument to this claim would be Daniel Tammet, however he is most certainly a fraud in terms of his autism and synesthesia."}, {"id": "cml3eim", "body": "Sheldon doesn't have autism. The level of knowledge that Sheldon has would put him at the level of some savants. However, there is not a single savant that does not have crippling levels of autism. Sheldon is far to high functioning and capable in his field to be a savant. The only counter argument to this claim would be Daniel Tammet, however he is most certainly a fraud in terms of his autism and synesthesia."}, {"id": "cml3imm", "body": "Savantism is a form of autism though.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome"}, {"id": "cml3imm", "body": "Savantism is a form of autism though.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome"}, {"id": "cml429k", "body": "Hence the reason I said he is not a savant. I said if he was autistic he would be a savant, but then I said all savants have crippling levels of autism that destroy their ability to do basic functions. Therefore since we know of no savants that can function at the level of Sheldon, he must not be a savant, thus not autistic"}, {"id": "cml429k", "body": "Hence the reason I said he is not a savant. I said if he was autistic he would be a savant, but then I said all savants have crippling levels of autism that destroy their ability to do basic functions. Therefore since we know of no savants that can function at the level of Sheldon, he must not be a savant, thus not autistic"}, {"id": "cml4n1a", "body": "Except that's circular reasoning.\n\nAll you're explaining is that he isn't a savant, not that he isn't autistic."}, {"id": "cml4n1a", "body": "Except that's circular reasoning.\n\nAll you're explaining is that he isn't a savant, not that he isn't autistic."}, {"id": "cml6dad", "body": "It's not circular reasoning. \n\nPremise one: Sheldon has a large amount of knowledge and capability in the field, vastly surpassing his peers.\n\nPremise Two: Savants have large capability in their fields and are seemingly experts.\n\nPremise Three: All Savants are autistic to an extreme degree that many basic functions are impossible.\n\nPremise Four: Sheldon is high functioning.\n\nPremist Five: All autisitc individuals that are adept in their field are savants.\n\nConclusion: Sheldon is extremely adept in his field LIKE a savant, but lacks key characteristics, thus is not a savant, and thus is not autistic.\n\nThe premises do not rely on the conclusion at all, thus it is not circular, if you want to argue one of the premises we can do that, but the conclusion is solid."}, {"id": "cml6dad", "body": "It's not circular reasoning. \n\nPremise one: Sheldon has a large amount of knowledge and capability in the field, vastly surpassing his peers.\n\nPremise Two: Savants have large capability in their fields and are seemingly experts.\n\nPremise Three: All Savants are autistic to an extreme degree that many basic functions are impossible.\n\nPremise Four: Sheldon is high functioning.\n\nPremist Five: All autisitc individuals that are adept in their field are savants.\n\nConclusion: Sheldon is extremely adept in his field LIKE a savant, but lacks key characteristics, thus is not a savant, and thus is not autistic.\n\nThe premises do not rely on the conclusion at all, thus it is not circular, if you want to argue one of the premises we can do that, but the conclusion is solid."}, {"id": "cml6m6y", "body": "Oh okay.  So your third premise is the faulty one.\n\nJust because all savants have autism doesn't mean that all smart autistic people are savants.\n\nSort of a \"all elephants are gray, so all gray animals must be elephants\" fallacy.\n\n\n"}, {"id": "cml6m6y", "body": "Oh okay.  So your third premise is the faulty one.\n\nJust because all savants have autism doesn't mean that all smart autistic people are savants.\n\nSort of a \"all elephants are gray, so all gray animals must be elephants\" fallacy.\n\n\n"}, {"id": "cml7f0m", "body": "It is not a fallacy of sampling because there are no savants that are high functioning. The definition of a savant is that they have prestigious abilities but have crippling deficiencies. Like I said before the only counter example to this Daniel Tammet, but he's a fraud. "}, {"id": "cml7f0m", "body": "It is not a fallacy of sampling because there are no savants that are high functioning. The definition of a savant is that they have prestigious abilities but have crippling deficiencies. Like I said before the only counter example to this Daniel Tammet, but he's a fraud. "}, {"id": "cml7gaz", "body": "So what are the chances that he's autistic but *not* a savant?"}, {"id": "cml7gaz", "body": "So what are the chances that he's autistic but *not* a savant?"}, {"id": "cml9isq", "body": "None, because he has high IQ. Further he demonstrates an understanding of social customs even though he does not follow them. He is not autistic. "}, {"id": "2o9tol", "body": "I know, I know.  The nerd black face dead horse of a show.\n\nBut I was talking about it with a friend of mine yesterday and it occurred to me.\n\nSheldon Cooper is very clearly autistic.  He's got his very specific routine that can *not* be deviated from without problems.  He's extremely particular about things that are his (like his chair) and he gets very, very upset if someone so much as sits in it, even if he isn't using it.  He's obsessed with order (like the cereal boxes).  He isn't particularly fond of spending time with others.  He doesn't get social cues.  The list goes on.\n\nAnd now here's the thing-\n\nThe audience doesn't laugh at \"Sheldon's wacky hijinx\" like they do with the other characters.  They're laughing at completely normal behavior for an autistic person.\n\nI'm not offended or anything, but there's just something in me that says \"laughing at autistic people is wrong\".\n\nThere are times when you laugh at him for being into video games or you laugh at him for flirting with men... which *also* seems fucked up?  But laughing at him for having autism seems to me like it should cross a line, but for some reason doesn't."}, {"id": "cml2ls5", "body": "[deleted]"}, {"id": "cml2ls5", "body": "[deleted]"}, {"id": "cml2veu", "body": "Sorry, your post has been removed.\n\n&gt; Rule 1. Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view."}, {"id": "2o9tol", "body": "I know, I know.  The nerd black face dead horse of a show.\n\nBut I was talking about it with a friend of mine yesterday and it occurred to me.\n\nSheldon Cooper is very clearly autistic.  He's got his very specific routine that can *not* be deviated from without problems.  He's extremely particular about things that are his (like his chair) and he gets very, very upset if someone so much as sits in it, even if he isn't using it.  He's obsessed with order (like the cereal boxes).  He isn't particularly fond of spending time with others.  He doesn't get social cues.  The list goes on.\n\nAnd now here's the thing-\n\nThe audience doesn't laugh at \"Sheldon's wacky hijinx\" like they do with the other characters.  They're laughing at completely normal behavior for an autistic person.\n\nI'm not offended or anything, but there's just something in me that says \"laughing at autistic people is wrong\".\n\nThere are times when you laugh at him for being into video games or you laugh at him for flirting with men... which *also* seems fucked up?  But laughing at him for having autism seems to me like it should cross a line, but for some reason doesn't."}, {"id": "cml56fr", "body": "The show evolves, and does so into a less... whatever the bigot word for the eternally socially awkward is, version of the show over time.\n\nThat being said, the early show is guilty of a \"at rather than with\" style of comedy. They're no better than making jokes at the expense of any specific group who's mannerisms can be flanderized to an insulting extreme. \n\nHowever, I feel that it is not a sense of autism (or more specifically asperger-y tendencies), but the fact that they portray Sheldon as someone who over thinks everything and is so very rarely right it seems paradoxical that he maintains a genius level IQ. Granted, he has the wisdom and charisma of an Orc with brain damage, but I know people like that whom are CLEARLY not on the spectrum.\n\nSheldon has a massive intellect, and I expect someone with \"one good stat\" syndrome to express solution generation based on the \"when you have only a hammer, all problems are nails\" style of thought. This is what made Death Note such a good show, as especially when trying to get a specific name from a young woman, Light can almost not think of a way to get her name that doesn't involve killing her or harming her. His limitation almost causes his downfall. \n\nHowever, sometimes you can really use one good stat to solve a list of problems usually solved otherwise. Smart enough to recognize patterns in attack, allowing easier dodges rather than being faster, applying tools like levers and such rather than strength, etc. Sheldon should be right just a bit more often than he gets credit for, if only by using his 30 intelligence where a 5 strength would have sufficed."}, {"id": "2o9tol", "body": "I know, I know.  The nerd black face dead horse of a show.\n\nBut I was talking about it with a friend of mine yesterday and it occurred to me.\n\nSheldon Cooper is very clearly autistic.  He's got his very specific routine that can *not* be deviated from without problems.  He's extremely particular about things that are his (like his chair) and he gets very, very upset if someone so much as sits in it, even if he isn't using it.  He's obsessed with order (like the cereal boxes).  He isn't particularly fond of spending time with others.  He doesn't get social cues.  The list goes on.\n\nAnd now here's the thing-\n\nThe audience doesn't laugh at \"Sheldon's wacky hijinx\" like they do with the other characters.  They're laughing at completely normal behavior for an autistic person.\n\nI'm not offended or anything, but there's just something in me that says \"laughing at autistic people is wrong\".\n\nThere are times when you laugh at him for being into video games or you laugh at him for flirting with men... which *also* seems fucked up?  But laughing at him for having autism seems to me like it should cross a line, but for some reason doesn't."}, {"id": "cml5lya", "body": "Sheldon is a fictional character.  It's not cool to laugh at real people's autism if that will hurt the feelings of the person you are laughing at.  Nobody is hurt by laughing at Sheldon.  We react differently than we do to real people.  We support characters who are bad people, we laugh at the misfortunes of others, and all sorts of other things we hopefully wouldn't do to a real person.  That's OK though, because it's fiction.  Nobody is hurt by it."}, {"id": "cml5lya", "body": "Sheldon is a fictional character.  It's not cool to laugh at real people's autism if that will hurt the feelings of the person you are laughing at.  Nobody is hurt by laughing at Sheldon.  We react differently than we do to real people.  We support characters who are bad people, we laugh at the misfortunes of others, and all sorts of other things we hopefully wouldn't do to a real person.  That's OK though, because it's fiction.  Nobody is hurt by it."}, {"id": "cml5toc", "body": "There are a myriad of examples I could give that invalidates \"It's okay to laugh at X, because the subject isn't a real person\"."}, {"id": "cml5toc", "body": "There are a myriad of examples I could give that invalidates \"It's okay to laugh at X, because the subject isn't a real person\"."}, {"id": "cml60ca", "body": "Then maybe you should give some...\n\nI think you would agree that people laugh at things on TV that they wouldn't laugh at in real life, unless you've never watched TV before (or you're a huge dick in real life)."}, {"id": "cml60ca", "body": "Then maybe you should give some...\n\nI think you would agree that people laugh at things on TV that they wouldn't laugh at in real life, unless you've never watched TV before (or you're a huge dick in real life)."}, {"id": "cml6jjp", "body": "Well Reddit seems to get pissed off about race:\n\n\"How do you starve a black man?  Put his wallet in his work boots!\"\n\nIt's okay though, because that black man was fictional.\n\n[There's also this one.](http://i.imgur.com/JbhLE.png)\n\nAnd jokes about raping the little girl in my basement since there isn't *really* a little girl in my basement.\n\nOr calling your girlfriend a stupid cunt.  Get it?\n\nAre you saying anything in the ballpark of 'if a guy sat on a stool reading a list of dead baby jokes, that'd make good TV\"?\n\n&gt; TV that they wouldn't laugh at in real life, unless you've never watched TV before (or you're a huge dick in real life).\n\nCan you give some examples?"}, {"id": "cml6jjp", "body": "Well Reddit seems to get pissed off about race:\n\n\"How do you starve a black man?  Put his wallet in his work boots!\"\n\nIt's okay though, because that black man was fictional.\n\n[There's also this one.](http://i.imgur.com/JbhLE.png)\n\nAnd jokes about raping the little girl in my basement since there isn't *really* a little girl in my basement.\n\nOr calling your girlfriend a stupid cunt.  Get it?\n\nAre you saying anything in the ballpark of 'if a guy sat on a stool reading a list of dead baby jokes, that'd make good TV\"?\n\n&gt; TV that they wouldn't laugh at in real life, unless you've never watched TV before (or you're a huge dick in real life).\n\nCan you give some examples?"}, {"id": "cml860w", "body": "For the record, I'm fine with all of those jokes.\n\n&gt; Are you saying anything in the ballpark of 'if a guy sat on a stool reading a list of dead baby jokes, that'd make good TV\"?\n\nNo, but that's true with anyone sitting on a stool reading jokes.  It doesn't matter what kind of jokes they are, people sitting on stools reading jokes just doesn't make for good television.\n\n\n&gt; Can you give some examples?\n\nHave you ever watched *America's Funniest Home Videos*?  I doubt most people would actually laugh if their friend got hit in the nuts or fell on his face off a trampoline, etc, and that's actually happening to real people on TV.\n\nIn general when \"bad guys\" get their comeuppance, we laugh, even when in real life it would be a horrible experience for a person who committed at most a minor transgression."}, {"id": "2o9tol", "body": "I know, I know.  The nerd black face dead horse of a show.\n\nBut I was talking about it with a friend of mine yesterday and it occurred to me.\n\nSheldon Cooper is very clearly autistic.  He's got his very specific routine that can *not* be deviated from without problems.  He's extremely particular about things that are his (like his chair) and he gets very, very upset if someone so much as sits in it, even if he isn't using it.  He's obsessed with order (like the cereal boxes).  He isn't particularly fond of spending time with others.  He doesn't get social cues.  The list goes on.\n\nAnd now here's the thing-\n\nThe audience doesn't laugh at \"Sheldon's wacky hijinx\" like they do with the other characters.  They're laughing at completely normal behavior for an autistic person.\n\nI'm not offended or anything, but there's just something in me that says \"laughing at autistic people is wrong\".\n\nThere are times when you laugh at him for being into video games or you laugh at him for flirting with men... which *also* seems fucked up?  But laughing at him for having autism seems to me like it should cross a line, but for some reason doesn't."}, {"id": "cml90o2", "body": "Is that actually why it's bad though? Isn't that part of it still funny? He does socially awkward things that many people without autism do. That's what makes it funny.\n\nI'd argue the show is bad because they try too hard to sound smart and make jokes about it that it's not funny at all."}, {"id": "2o9tol", "body": "I know, I know.  The nerd black face dead horse of a show.\n\nBut I was talking about it with a friend of mine yesterday and it occurred to me.\n\nSheldon Cooper is very clearly autistic.  He's got his very specific routine that can *not* be deviated from without problems.  He's extremely particular about things that are his (like his chair) and he gets very, very upset if someone so much as sits in it, even if he isn't using it.  He's obsessed with order (like the cereal boxes).  He isn't particularly fond of spending time with others.  He doesn't get social cues.  The list goes on.\n\nAnd now here's the thing-\n\nThe audience doesn't laugh at \"Sheldon's wacky hijinx\" like they do with the other characters.  They're laughing at completely normal behavior for an autistic person.\n\nI'm not offended or anything, but there's just something in me that says \"laughing at autistic people is wrong\".\n\nThere are times when you laugh at him for being into video games or you laugh at him for flirting with men... which *also* seems fucked up?  But laughing at him for having autism seems to me like it should cross a line, but for some reason doesn't."}, {"id": "cml9c83", "body": "&gt; The audience doesn't laugh at \"Sheldon's wacky hijinx\" like they do with the other characters. They're laughing at completely normal behavior for an autistic person.\n\nAre you saying that it's bad to laugh at personality traits? What if someone is otherwise normal but socially awkward; is it suddenly okay? I have a two month old, and I laugh at the things she does or is unable to do; am I a bad person? The things I laugh at are out of her control and a result of her current neurological state.\n\n&gt; I'm not offended or anything, but there's just something in me that says \"laughing at autistic people is wrong\".\n\nWe aren't laughing at autism, we are laughing at behavior. It's not funny that someone has autism, but the things they do can still be funny. If he did not have autism, laughing at any of these personality traits wouldn't be so offensive. Why should \"autism\" be a special condition that makes things not funny?"}, {"id": "cml9c83", "body": "&gt; The audience doesn't laugh at \"Sheldon's wacky hijinx\" like they do with the other characters. They're laughing at completely normal behavior for an autistic person.\n\nAre you saying that it's bad to laugh at personality traits? What if someone is otherwise normal but socially awkward; is it suddenly okay? I have a two month old, and I laugh at the things she does or is unable to do; am I a bad person? The things I laugh at are out of her control and a result of her current neurological state.\n\n&gt; I'm not offended or anything, but there's just something in me that says \"laughing at autistic people is wrong\".\n\nWe aren't laughing at autism, we are laughing at behavior. It's not funny that someone has autism, but the things they do can still be funny. If he did not have autism, laughing at any of these personality traits wouldn't be so offensive. Why should \"autism\" be a special condition that makes things not funny?"}, {"id": "cml9ekj", "body": "&gt; I have a two month old\n\nIs she mentally challenged?\n\nThat's kind of my line here.  Like... fine laugh at retarded people if that's your thing... but that doesn't make good TV."}, {"id": "cml9ekj", "body": "&gt; I have a two month old\n\nIs she mentally challenged?\n\nThat's kind of my line here.  Like... fine laugh at retarded people if that's your thing... but that doesn't make good TV."}, {"id": "cmlaqe2", "body": "&gt; Is she mentally challenged?\n\nYes, her brain is only developed as much as a 2 month old. The funny things she does are a result of her limited brain development. Why is laughing at a 3 year old okay, but laughing at an adult with the equivalent of a 3 year old's brain not okay? I'm not laughing at their predicament, I'm laughing at a funny event that just happened. \n\n&gt; That's kind of my line here. Like... fine laugh at retarded people if that's your thing... but that doesn't make good TV.\n\nIf you didn't know someone was autistic and saw a funny behavior, are you a bad person for laughing at it? I don't believe we should treat people differently (within reason) based on a disability or developmental challenge. As someone with an autistic nephew, I know that the last thing he wants is to be treated differently. It's a choice between laughing, or whispers of \"he's autistic, you shouldn't be laughing at him\". One is treating you like a person, the other is singling you out.\n\nThe only time I would consider it bad to laugh is if it hurt the feelings of the person. Black comedians make jokes about their race, and I feel fine laughing about it. Deaf comedians make jokes about how they speak, and I feel fine laughing about it."}, {"id": "2o9tol", "body": "I know, I know.  The nerd black face dead horse of a show.\n\nBut I was talking about it with a friend of mine yesterday and it occurred to me.\n\nSheldon Cooper is very clearly autistic.  He's got his very specific routine that can *not* be deviated from without problems.  He's extremely particular about things that are his (like his chair) and he gets very, very upset if someone so much as sits in it, even if he isn't using it.  He's obsessed with order (like the cereal boxes).  He isn't particularly fond of spending time with others.  He doesn't get social cues.  The list goes on.\n\nAnd now here's the thing-\n\nThe audience doesn't laugh at \"Sheldon's wacky hijinx\" like they do with the other characters.  They're laughing at completely normal behavior for an autistic person.\n\nI'm not offended or anything, but there's just something in me that says \"laughing at autistic people is wrong\".\n\nThere are times when you laugh at him for being into video games or you laugh at him for flirting with men... which *also* seems fucked up?  But laughing at him for having autism seems to me like it should cross a line, but for some reason doesn't."}, {"id": "cmlffkl", "body": "Sheldon is portrayed as having autistic behavior bet he is also portrayed as a functioning member of society; someone who is highly successful in his career (and in general very knowledgeable), who has friends and even a girlfriend. Showing someone like that being well integrated in society is actually a good example, even more because they don't specifically mention his autism. They are showing that even with unusual quirks, no matter the cause, people can still have an interesting fulfilling life.\n\nOne way to cope with delicate subject is to use laughter and this is exactly what is done in the big bang theory. They are laughing about Sheldon the same way they are laughing about the other guys being nerds. They can laugh about Sheldon's autism because it is a reality that people are more comfortable with than before. They are not isolating autistic behavior, they are including it as a part of the show. We are not laughing at Sheldon like he is a punching bag, we are laughing at Sheldon because he does funny things, just like the other characters."}, {"id": "2o9tol", "body": "I know, I know.  The nerd black face dead horse of a show.\n\nBut I was talking about it with a friend of mine yesterday and it occurred to me.\n\nSheldon Cooper is very clearly autistic.  He's got his very specific routine that can *not* be deviated from without problems.  He's extremely particular about things that are his (like his chair) and he gets very, very upset if someone so much as sits in it, even if he isn't using it.  He's obsessed with order (like the cereal boxes).  He isn't particularly fond of spending time with others.  He doesn't get social cues.  The list goes on.\n\nAnd now here's the thing-\n\nThe audience doesn't laugh at \"Sheldon's wacky hijinx\" like they do with the other characters.  They're laughing at completely normal behavior for an autistic person.\n\nI'm not offended or anything, but there's just something in me that says \"laughing at autistic people is wrong\".\n\nThere are times when you laugh at him for being into video games or you laugh at him for flirting with men... which *also* seems fucked up?  But laughing at him for having autism seems to me like it should cross a line, but for some reason doesn't."}, {"id": "cmlk7bc", "body": "[deleted]"}, {"id": "cmlk7bc", "body": "[deleted]"}, {"id": "cmlkr7r", "body": "Can you comb through this thread and talk to the people who are outright denying that he even falls on the spectrum?\n\nAnd it just rubs me the wrong way laughing at someone with a disability for having that disability.  "}, {"id": "2o9tol", "body": "I know, I know.  The nerd black face dead horse of a show.\n\nBut I was talking about it with a friend of mine yesterday and it occurred to me.\n\nSheldon Cooper is very clearly autistic.  He's got his very specific routine that can *not* be deviated from without problems.  He's extremely particular about things that are his (like his chair) and he gets very, very upset if someone so much as sits in it, even if he isn't using it.  He's obsessed with order (like the cereal boxes).  He isn't particularly fond of spending time with others.  He doesn't get social cues.  The list goes on.\n\nAnd now here's the thing-\n\nThe audience doesn't laugh at \"Sheldon's wacky hijinx\" like they do with the other characters.  They're laughing at completely normal behavior for an autistic person.\n\nI'm not offended or anything, but there's just something in me that says \"laughing at autistic people is wrong\".\n\nThere are times when you laugh at him for being into video games or you laugh at him for flirting with men... which *also* seems fucked up?  But laughing at him for having autism seems to me like it should cross a line, but for some reason doesn't."}, {"id": "cmogtzm", "body": "I feel that sheldon is not strictly autistic, but rather an exaggeration of several character traits. Yes he may very well be autistic, but from what I have seen of the show, it seems more that he simply is just a caricature of several nerdy things. Your mentioning of his \"specific routine\" and \"obsession with order\" could all be signs that he is just very nerdy and not used to the life he is currently living. He could also have spent too much time on the internet and have self-diagnosed himself with \"OCD\" (not real OCD, I understand that is much different from the internet's perception of it), but i digress. "}, {"id": "Thread_ends", "body": "Thread_ends"}, {"id": "Thread_ends", "body": "Thread_ends"}, {"id": "2o9sf2", "body": "Obviously we've all heard of the controversial killings of Mike Brown, Eric Garner, John Crawford III, Tamir Rice, and Darrien Hunt.  Those were all ultimately unarmed black preteens, teens and men.  Granted, one had a faux sword and one had a faux gun, although in Crawford and Rice's cases there's also discrepancies between video evidence and police testimony.\n\nEven taking race out of it, Cracked has recently done at least FIVE columns with relevant links inside about the police:\n1) http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-weird-decisions-that-have-made-modern-cops-terrifying/\n2) http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-recent-trends-that-make-it-hard-to-trust-police/\n3) http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-reasons-police-are-starting-to-look-like-supervillains/\n4) http://www.cracked.com/article_21123_5-terrifying-ways-police-can-legally-screw-you-over.html\n5) http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-recent-trends-that-make-it-hard-to-trust-police-part-2/\n\nJohn Oliver did a great piece on the increasing militarization of the police as well- http://youtu.be/KUdHIatS36A\n\nThis can't be swept under the rug of \"well if those damned minorities would stop listening to rap music and steady mobbin', they wouldn't get killed.\"  It's now a case of the US slowly beginning to look like the world of Judge Dredd, which is not a world anyone wants to live in.\n\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cml1ng0", "body": "This was literally [posted by someone else an hour ago](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2o9h6l/cmv_the_eric_garner_case_shows_a_major_problem_in/)."}, {"id": "cml1ng0", "body": "This was literally [posted by someone else an hour ago](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2o9h6l/cmv_the_eric_garner_case_shows_a_major_problem_in/)."}, {"id": "cml1qbi", "body": "You literally didn't change my view.  Also I clicked on the link and it's about Eric Garner."}, {"id": "cml1qbi", "body": "You literally didn't change my view.  Also I clicked on the link and it's about Eric Garner."}, {"id": "cml1vwv", "body": "Mhmmm, there's a lot of people in there talking about the non-indictment and how overhauling the grand jury system may or may not be effective. I wasn't trying to directly change your view, but refer you to an already populated thread that might do. "}, {"id": "2o9sf2", "body": "Obviously we've all heard of the controversial killings of Mike Brown, Eric Garner, John Crawford III, Tamir Rice, and Darrien Hunt.  Those were all ultimately unarmed black preteens, teens and men.  Granted, one had a faux sword and one had a faux gun, although in Crawford and Rice's cases there's also discrepancies between video evidence and police testimony.\n\nEven taking race out of it, Cracked has recently done at least FIVE columns with relevant links inside about the police:\n1) http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-weird-decisions-that-have-made-modern-cops-terrifying/\n2) http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-recent-trends-that-make-it-hard-to-trust-police/\n3) http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-reasons-police-are-starting-to-look-like-supervillains/\n4) http://www.cracked.com/article_21123_5-terrifying-ways-police-can-legally-screw-you-over.html\n5) http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-recent-trends-that-make-it-hard-to-trust-police-part-2/\n\nJohn Oliver did a great piece on the increasing militarization of the police as well- http://youtu.be/KUdHIatS36A\n\nThis can't be swept under the rug of \"well if those damned minorities would stop listening to rap music and steady mobbin', they wouldn't get killed.\"  It's now a case of the US slowly beginning to look like the world of Judge Dredd, which is not a world anyone wants to live in.\n\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cmldt0t", "body": "Unarmed doesn't mean not a threat. It's important to note that there is a huge grey area where it is theoretically defensible to shoot because it is considered likely at the time that someone else would end up dead instead. I'm not saying that any of the people mentioned were actually threats. I'm saying that it is impossible to know if they were threats or not threats in the moment and it turned out badly.\n\nThe *perception* that these individuals are a threat result in the police treating them as a threat, which results in people who identify with the victims of other such unfortunate instances to consider the police threats. Because they then treat the police as a threat they react in a way that causes the police to ping on them as a threat.\n\nPerception creates reality. A confrontational suspect, who is being confrontational because that is how he deals with threats, is a much more likely to end up injured or dead than someone who trusts the police and as a result doesn't need or want to confront the police. This isn't a crisis of everyone being killed, violent crime rates are lower than they have ever been and it's very unlikely for anyone to be killed by police. It's nowhere even close to the world of Judge Dredd.\n\nThis is nothing more or less than a crisis of trust. Changing the Criminal Justice system wouldn't address the root causes. In this case it's that the police are scared are reacting badly because the people are generally scared that the police are oppressing them and constitute the biggest threat to them.\n\nWhat would changing the grand jury system actually do? There wasn't sufficient evidence in these cases to defeat the firmly established argument of self-defense.\n\nWhat would changing the rules on self defense do? Probably nothing to these cases of police-involved shootings and many more prosecutions in unrelated cases.\n\nThe problem isn't structural so changing the structure is irrelevant. This is about what people believe about the motives of others. We need to change that, or we'll break things and fail to address the basics."}, {"id": "cmldt0t", "body": "Unarmed doesn't mean not a threat. It's important to note that there is a huge grey area where it is theoretically defensible to shoot because it is considered likely at the time that someone else would end up dead instead. I'm not saying that any of the people mentioned were actually threats. I'm saying that it is impossible to know if they were threats or not threats in the moment and it turned out badly.\n\nThe *perception* that these individuals are a threat result in the police treating them as a threat, which results in people who identify with the victims of other such unfortunate instances to consider the police threats. Because they then treat the police as a threat they react in a way that causes the police to ping on them as a threat.\n\nPerception creates reality. A confrontational suspect, who is being confrontational because that is how he deals with threats, is a much more likely to end up injured or dead than someone who trusts the police and as a result doesn't need or want to confront the police. This isn't a crisis of everyone being killed, violent crime rates are lower than they have ever been and it's very unlikely for anyone to be killed by police. It's nowhere even close to the world of Judge Dredd.\n\nThis is nothing more or less than a crisis of trust. Changing the Criminal Justice system wouldn't address the root causes. In this case it's that the police are scared are reacting badly because the people are generally scared that the police are oppressing them and constitute the biggest threat to them.\n\nWhat would changing the grand jury system actually do? There wasn't sufficient evidence in these cases to defeat the firmly established argument of self-defense.\n\nWhat would changing the rules on self defense do? Probably nothing to these cases of police-involved shootings and many more prosecutions in unrelated cases.\n\nThe problem isn't structural so changing the structure is irrelevant. This is about what people believe about the motives of others. We need to change that, or we'll break things and fail to address the basics."}, {"id": "cmlk9vw", "body": "Well at least two of those people were caught on camera deliberately not being threats.  I believe Garner never swung, kicked, or charged the officers that choked him out, and Crawford was the young man shot from behind while on a cell phone in Wal-Mart.  Which sells guns, so even if he were carrying one, there would be no need to assume he didn't just pick one up from sporting goods.\n\nI know that crime rates are going down, that's why our high prison population (another facet of this overall justice system failure) is so baffling.  The Judge Dredd analogy was more in that, from what I remember of the story, the \"Judges\" or future cops are a combined police officer-judge-jury-executioner.  Or perhaps a better analogy would be that a lot of cops think they're the Punisher, and a lot of minor-league criminals, if criminal at all, are heavily armed Russian mobsters.\n\nI think having a drive for more educated and/or minority officers would help.  Having officers take classes in social work and civil rights would help.  Telling the officers that being one isn't in the top ten most dangerous jobs would help.  Is it dangerous?  Yes.  Do more truck drivers and lumberjacks die every year?  Also yes.  This does not give truck drivers the right to run over Volkswagon Beetles or stressed out lumberjacks to treat annoying coworkers as rotting pine trees."}, {"id": "cmlk9vw", "body": "Well at least two of those people were caught on camera deliberately not being threats.  I believe Garner never swung, kicked, or charged the officers that choked him out, and Crawford was the young man shot from behind while on a cell phone in Wal-Mart.  Which sells guns, so even if he were carrying one, there would be no need to assume he didn't just pick one up from sporting goods.\n\nI know that crime rates are going down, that's why our high prison population (another facet of this overall justice system failure) is so baffling.  The Judge Dredd analogy was more in that, from what I remember of the story, the \"Judges\" or future cops are a combined police officer-judge-jury-executioner.  Or perhaps a better analogy would be that a lot of cops think they're the Punisher, and a lot of minor-league criminals, if criminal at all, are heavily armed Russian mobsters.\n\nI think having a drive for more educated and/or minority officers would help.  Having officers take classes in social work and civil rights would help.  Telling the officers that being one isn't in the top ten most dangerous jobs would help.  Is it dangerous?  Yes.  Do more truck drivers and lumberjacks die every year?  Also yes.  This does not give truck drivers the right to run over Volkswagon Beetles or stressed out lumberjacks to treat annoying coworkers as rotting pine trees."}, {"id": "cmllz9b", "body": "How many times are refs in sports overruled by reviews? This is the life and death variant of that. It's not that the rules themselves need changing it's getting better people on the ground with better tools to make the right call in the moment.\n\nI do think that many police departments are woefully unprepared for especially sensitive situations like this. But I think that even if you do work with the police that won't settle situations like this. We need trust, the ability to speak, and the ability to listen. We need to figure out a good way to get those who are most at risk on both sides to sit down and actually talk it out. I can lecture about civil rights all I want, it's not going to convince an officer not to draw in a situation that's careening wildly out of control. Getting the officer to sit down with the people he's policing and comfortable to the point where they can read the difference between agitation and threatening."}, {"id": "2o9sf2", "body": "Obviously we've all heard of the controversial killings of Mike Brown, Eric Garner, John Crawford III, Tamir Rice, and Darrien Hunt.  Those were all ultimately unarmed black preteens, teens and men.  Granted, one had a faux sword and one had a faux gun, although in Crawford and Rice's cases there's also discrepancies between video evidence and police testimony.\n\nEven taking race out of it, Cracked has recently done at least FIVE columns with relevant links inside about the police:\n1) http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-weird-decisions-that-have-made-modern-cops-terrifying/\n2) http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-recent-trends-that-make-it-hard-to-trust-police/\n3) http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-reasons-police-are-starting-to-look-like-supervillains/\n4) http://www.cracked.com/article_21123_5-terrifying-ways-police-can-legally-screw-you-over.html\n5) http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-recent-trends-that-make-it-hard-to-trust-police-part-2/\n\nJohn Oliver did a great piece on the increasing militarization of the police as well- http://youtu.be/KUdHIatS36A\n\nThis can't be swept under the rug of \"well if those damned minorities would stop listening to rap music and steady mobbin', they wouldn't get killed.\"  It's now a case of the US slowly beginning to look like the world of Judge Dredd, which is not a world anyone wants to live in.\n\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cml5cd3", "body": "While it may seem like police are killing off every minority that looks at them the wrong way, you have to remember that tragedies are what makes news. Nobody talks about normal cops doing their jobs because that's not interesting or news worthy. This phenomenon is called [Mean world syndrome](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_world_syndrome). You also have to take into account the scale of the world. There are over 765,000 officers in the U.S., so obviously there are going to be cases of corruption and unjust killing. \n\nCracked regularly makes lists out of anything you can think of. Linking their recent lists about cops doesn't really mean anything. Similarly, John Oliver's show is satire, and pretty uninformed at times. For example, IIRC, he made the point that global warming should be taken more seriously by media because the majority of scientists agree that humans are causing it, which is not how science works at all."}, {"id": "cml5cd3", "body": "While it may seem like police are killing off every minority that looks at them the wrong way, you have to remember that tragedies are what makes news. Nobody talks about normal cops doing their jobs because that's not interesting or news worthy. This phenomenon is called [Mean world syndrome](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_world_syndrome). You also have to take into account the scale of the world. There are over 765,000 officers in the U.S., so obviously there are going to be cases of corruption and unjust killing. \n\nCracked regularly makes lists out of anything you can think of. Linking their recent lists about cops doesn't really mean anything. Similarly, John Oliver's show is satire, and pretty uninformed at times. For example, IIRC, he made the point that global warming should be taken more seriously by media because the majority of scientists agree that humans are causing it, which is not how science works at all."}, {"id": "cml6le0", "body": "Yeah, I've heard of Mean World Syndrome (which sounds like a nu metal cover of Mad World) but the way I figure it, this stuff isn't being wholesale made up.  \n\nI understand that there may be a relatively low level of corruption or incompetence, but when a job is as important and powerful as police officer, a little goes a long way.  Unions don't really seem to be taking the lead in cleaning out their own houses.\n\nCracked does make a lot of lists, but they always back their lists up with links to actual articles and studies.  I linked the Cracked articles because linking all the links in them would stretch out my CMV even farther.\n\nJohn Oliver's show is satire, but that doesn't make it untrue.  A lot of the best humor has kernals of truth in it.  Again, as far as I know he hasn't made up any statistics or facts on his show.  And I think the global warming thing was just frustrating in that whenever there was a debate, it was protrayed as one for humans causing global warming, one against, when in reality it's 99% of scientists who believe in it.\n\nAnyway, thank you for your response and for not trolling/being racist."}, {"id": "2o9sf2", "body": "Obviously we've all heard of the controversial killings of Mike Brown, Eric Garner, John Crawford III, Tamir Rice, and Darrien Hunt.  Those were all ultimately unarmed black preteens, teens and men.  Granted, one had a faux sword and one had a faux gun, although in Crawford and Rice's cases there's also discrepancies between video evidence and police testimony.\n\nEven taking race out of it, Cracked has recently done at least FIVE columns with relevant links inside about the police:\n1) http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-weird-decisions-that-have-made-modern-cops-terrifying/\n2) http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-recent-trends-that-make-it-hard-to-trust-police/\n3) http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-reasons-police-are-starting-to-look-like-supervillains/\n4) http://www.cracked.com/article_21123_5-terrifying-ways-police-can-legally-screw-you-over.html\n5) http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-recent-trends-that-make-it-hard-to-trust-police-part-2/\n\nJohn Oliver did a great piece on the increasing militarization of the police as well- http://youtu.be/KUdHIatS36A\n\nThis can't be swept under the rug of \"well if those damned minorities would stop listening to rap music and steady mobbin', they wouldn't get killed.\"  It's now a case of the US slowly beginning to look like the world of Judge Dredd, which is not a world anyone wants to live in.\n\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cmlbw9v", "body": "America is (research has actually proved this) the most diverse country on the planet. We have a massive population compared to any other rich country (japan is almost 1/3 our population). We also have a federal system of government which delegates most policing authority to local governments. So basically saying \"America\" has a policing problem isn't helpful at all because \"America' doesn't have a police force; 2,000 separate municipalities and counties have them---each with their own diverse and complicated local issues which straddle race, socioeconomic status, history, politics etc. Does Ferguson or St. Louis need work? Yes. Does Hartford Connecticut or Cambridge Mass. need work? No. Are both of these place basically complete opposites? Yes. So why are we grouping them together? No reason at all except to make this all a \"national\" issue rather than the massively complex local issue it really is."}, {"id": "cmlbw9v", "body": "America is (research has actually proved this) the most diverse country on the planet. We have a massive population compared to any other rich country (japan is almost 1/3 our population). We also have a federal system of government which delegates most policing authority to local governments. So basically saying \"America\" has a policing problem isn't helpful at all because \"America' doesn't have a police force; 2,000 separate municipalities and counties have them---each with their own diverse and complicated local issues which straddle race, socioeconomic status, history, politics etc. Does Ferguson or St. Louis need work? Yes. Does Hartford Connecticut or Cambridge Mass. need work? No. Are both of these place basically complete opposites? Yes. So why are we grouping them together? No reason at all except to make this all a \"national\" issue rather than the massively complex local issue it really is."}, {"id": "cmlk22q", "body": "I do agree that more political and social work get done on a micro level than a national level.  That's something more people, including me, need to realize.\n\nI suppose one could either think of \"America\" as a shorthand for many of the localities within, or else think that the national government needs to devise a way to step in and rework the local government."}, {"id": "2o9sf2", "body": "Obviously we've all heard of the controversial killings of Mike Brown, Eric Garner, John Crawford III, Tamir Rice, and Darrien Hunt.  Those were all ultimately unarmed black preteens, teens and men.  Granted, one had a faux sword and one had a faux gun, although in Crawford and Rice's cases there's also discrepancies between video evidence and police testimony.\n\nEven taking race out of it, Cracked has recently done at least FIVE columns with relevant links inside about the police:\n1) http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-weird-decisions-that-have-made-modern-cops-terrifying/\n2) http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-recent-trends-that-make-it-hard-to-trust-police/\n3) http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-reasons-police-are-starting-to-look-like-supervillains/\n4) http://www.cracked.com/article_21123_5-terrifying-ways-police-can-legally-screw-you-over.html\n5) http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-recent-trends-that-make-it-hard-to-trust-police-part-2/\n\nJohn Oliver did a great piece on the increasing militarization of the police as well- http://youtu.be/KUdHIatS36A\n\nThis can't be swept under the rug of \"well if those damned minorities would stop listening to rap music and steady mobbin', they wouldn't get killed.\"  It's now a case of the US slowly beginning to look like the world of Judge Dredd, which is not a world anyone wants to live in.\n\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cml624c", "body": "You'll probably not find major rebuttals on this site (where most of the comments in subs which aren't explicitly set up to be racist are saying the cops acted grossly inappropriately), but visit any major conservative forum and you'll find the usual \"black culture\" and \"thug\" stuff being thrown out. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if a five-year-old boy's death for pointing at people were justified by our culture, provided that he were black.\n\nGood luck finding somebody who isn't just a modern-day Klansman (disturbingly common) to argue for the unjustified shooting of children for at *worst* being just a little silly in a way that all of us have. The closest you'll get from a mon-racist perspective is calebspittman's appeal toward the relative lack of prevalence of these incidences per capita, but uncommon instances belie a wider attitude and discrimination which doesn't necessarily constitute shootings."}, {"id": "cml624c", "body": "You'll probably not find major rebuttals on this site (where most of the comments in subs which aren't explicitly set up to be racist are saying the cops acted grossly inappropriately), but visit any major conservative forum and you'll find the usual \"black culture\" and \"thug\" stuff being thrown out. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if a five-year-old boy's death for pointing at people were justified by our culture, provided that he were black.\n\nGood luck finding somebody who isn't just a modern-day Klansman (disturbingly common) to argue for the unjustified shooting of children for at *worst* being just a little silly in a way that all of us have. The closest you'll get from a mon-racist perspective is calebspittman's appeal toward the relative lack of prevalence of these incidences per capita, but uncommon instances belie a wider attitude and discrimination which doesn't necessarily constitute shootings."}, {"id": "cml69pc", "body": "Yeah, I'm curious as to what somewhat logical arguments could be made to change my view.  Obviously if someone starts off with \"yada yada thugs\" I'm just gonna tune them right out."}, {"id": "cml69pc", "body": "Yeah, I'm curious as to what somewhat logical arguments could be made to change my view.  Obviously if someone starts off with \"yada yada thugs\" I'm just gonna tune them right out."}, {"id": "cmla1r0", "body": "Why would you tune them out? That's not productive in any way in the realm of a constructive discussion."}, {"id": "cmla1r0", "body": "Why would you tune them out? That's not productive in any way in the realm of a constructive discussion."}, {"id": "cmljza1", "body": "Because I can't think of any truly intelligent, insightful racists.  Thus blaming all of the problems on \"pants-sagging thugs\" means that they have nothing to add except who is the favorite to win the next NASCAR race."}, {"id": "cmljza1", "body": "Because I can't think of any truly intelligent, insightful racists.  Thus blaming all of the problems on \"pants-sagging thugs\" means that they have nothing to add except who is the favorite to win the next NASCAR race."}, {"id": "cmrcrki", "body": "sounds like you may be the racist, friend"}, {"id": "cmrcrki", "body": "sounds like you may be the racist, friend"}, {"id": "cmrr86o", "body": "Yes, white people have it so hard.  Won't someone think of the white people?\n\n(fun fact:  I'm white!)"}, {"id": "Thread_ends", "body": "Thread_ends"}, {"id": "Thread_ends", "body": "Thread_ends"}, {"id": "2o9r2m", "body": "I've seen many marriages have problems because one of the spouses works too much, or is a \"workaholic.\" While I understand that it's frustrating that a spouse or SO is gone for a long time, it seems completely unfair to get mad directly at the person because he/she works the amount that they do\n\n1. The amount of work one does is normally controlled by a boss; having to stay overtime or work an extra shift is often times out of the control of the employee\n\n2. They work hard to support themselves AND their family. It's not easy to support yourself, let alone a SO/Spouse and/or children. The more someone works, the more money they make (normally).\n\n3. There is no good alternative. The employee could request to work less, but that could result in less money and conflicts with employer. They could look for another job, but that's unrealistic; jobs are hard to come by, and leaving a job could leave a person unemployed for a prolonged time.\n\nI understand that an SO/spouse working a lot can be upsetting, but saying you're mad or upset at someone for being a workaholic seems unfair. CMV!\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cml1j0s", "body": "I think that your conclusion is correct based on the 3 axioms you have laid out, but I would like to challenge your axioms.\n\n1. While there is a minimum amount of work and a minimum standard to which most of us are held, people who are typical 'workaholics' are the type who generally do WAY more than the minimum. I'm a teacher and a workaholic. My colleagues leave most days at around 3:45 (the end of the day is 3:15, so they are already doing more than the minimum) but I stay until 4:30 most days. My bosses themselves are gone by this hour and have no idea when I pack up to leave so it would be pretty hard to say that they are the reason I'm stuck at work.\n\n2. 'The more someone works the more they make' is only true if they are a) a waged employee or b) looking for some sort of promotion or bonus. In fact the whole reason salaried pay exists is so that the bosses from part 1 can demand their minimum work requirements and not pay you extra on the occasions that work progresses slower than usual or unexpected issues come up. And again, it only makes sense to work extra hard to get a promotion if you have some reasonable expectation of getting one. I am on steps and ladders - the only way to get a pay raise is to work more YEARS, not more hours. So if my reasons for working late are so my bosses will notice me and promote me I am SOL.\n\n3. For 'workaholics' the alternative is, quite simply: work less. The marginal difference that an extra hour of work makes at the end of a 10 hour day is so minimal that when I look back at the days I worked super late to get super far ahead I laugh at myself to keep from crying because 2 days later the difference is hardly noticeable.\n\nI think spouses should be understanding when things come up UNEXPECTEDLY, or when someone is putting in extra time in order to get caught up or get ahead. But when there is no discernable benefit, its hard for a partner to look at the costs of your time together and say 'yeah, sure, it's great that you're working so hard even though it means I never see you and even though it's not making much difference in the grand scheme of things.'"}, {"id": "cml1j0s", "body": "I think that your conclusion is correct based on the 3 axioms you have laid out, but I would like to challenge your axioms.\n\n1. While there is a minimum amount of work and a minimum standard to which most of us are held, people who are typical 'workaholics' are the type who generally do WAY more than the minimum. I'm a teacher and a workaholic. My colleagues leave most days at around 3:45 (the end of the day is 3:15, so they are already doing more than the minimum) but I stay until 4:30 most days. My bosses themselves are gone by this hour and have no idea when I pack up to leave so it would be pretty hard to say that they are the reason I'm stuck at work.\n\n2. 'The more someone works the more they make' is only true if they are a) a waged employee or b) looking for some sort of promotion or bonus. In fact the whole reason salaried pay exists is so that the bosses from part 1 can demand their minimum work requirements and not pay you extra on the occasions that work progresses slower than usual or unexpected issues come up. And again, it only makes sense to work extra hard to get a promotion if you have some reasonable expectation of getting one. I am on steps and ladders - the only way to get a pay raise is to work more YEARS, not more hours. So if my reasons for working late are so my bosses will notice me and promote me I am SOL.\n\n3. For 'workaholics' the alternative is, quite simply: work less. The marginal difference that an extra hour of work makes at the end of a 10 hour day is so minimal that when I look back at the days I worked super late to get super far ahead I laugh at myself to keep from crying because 2 days later the difference is hardly noticeable.\n\nI think spouses should be understanding when things come up UNEXPECTEDLY, or when someone is putting in extra time in order to get caught up or get ahead. But when there is no discernable benefit, its hard for a partner to look at the costs of your time together and say 'yeah, sure, it's great that you're working so hard even though it means I never see you and even though it's not making much difference in the grand scheme of things.'"}, {"id": "cml61ri", "body": "Not trying to offend or anything im sure you work very hard, but working an extra hour hardly makes you a workaholic. I think the OP is mostly talking about people who work like an extra 20+hours a week and barely make it home for family time..."}, {"id": "cml61ri", "body": "Not trying to offend or anything im sure you work very hard, but working an extra hour hardly makes you a workaholic. I think the OP is mostly talking about people who work like an extra 20+hours a week and barely make it home for family time..."}, {"id": "cml68vm", "body": "Someone working an extra 20 hours a week will never make it home for family time. 20 hours would be 4 extra hours a day. My kids go to bed at 8, which is 3 hours after I get off. \n\nThat said, and extra hour a day would cut my family time in half, so it is a reasonable complaint that 20% more time on the job = 50% less time with family. "}, {"id": "cml61ri", "body": "Not trying to offend or anything im sure you work very hard, but working an extra hour hardly makes you a workaholic. I think the OP is mostly talking about people who work like an extra 20+hours a week and barely make it home for family time..."}, {"id": "cmlclp9", "body": "I get that. I was not trying suggest that working an extra hour makes me a workaholic. I am a workaholic because I also bring 3-4 hours of work home with me a night. My point was about the diminishing returns of doing the extra work compared to the cost to the other person in a relationship."}, {"id": "2o9r2m", "body": "I've seen many marriages have problems because one of the spouses works too much, or is a \"workaholic.\" While I understand that it's frustrating that a spouse or SO is gone for a long time, it seems completely unfair to get mad directly at the person because he/she works the amount that they do\n\n1. The amount of work one does is normally controlled by a boss; having to stay overtime or work an extra shift is often times out of the control of the employee\n\n2. They work hard to support themselves AND their family. It's not easy to support yourself, let alone a SO/Spouse and/or children. The more someone works, the more money they make (normally).\n\n3. There is no good alternative. The employee could request to work less, but that could result in less money and conflicts with employer. They could look for another job, but that's unrealistic; jobs are hard to come by, and leaving a job could leave a person unemployed for a prolonged time.\n\nI understand that an SO/spouse working a lot can be upsetting, but saying you're mad or upset at someone for being a workaholic seems unfair. CMV!\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cml1ygj", "body": "1. Of the workaholics I can think of, they nearly all work extra by choice.  They use overtime, they choose the hardest cases, and they're perfectionists to their own detriment.  The one exception just couldn't say \"no\", but once he got a more reasonable boss, the problem went away.\n\n2. There's a balance to be struck.  My uncle, for example, had always been a workaholic.  Sure, this helped his kids go to private schools and attend the best summer camps, but he also missed their piano recitals and sacrificed a lot of leisure time with them.  He could have worked less hours, put them in public schools, and had more fun with them on the weekends.\n\n3. You're asking that the boss pot them up to the extra hours.  From what I've seen, this is not always the case.  My husband wouldn't have suffered at all of he didn't work extra hours in his last job.  He took on an extra project that involved odd hours because he wanted to.  Not that I minded, since it was a fascinating project, I'm just making the point that you can choose to work a lot, and it isn't always forced on you.\n"}, {"id": "cml1ygj", "body": "1. Of the workaholics I can think of, they nearly all work extra by choice.  They use overtime, they choose the hardest cases, and they're perfectionists to their own detriment.  The one exception just couldn't say \"no\", but once he got a more reasonable boss, the problem went away.\n\n2. There's a balance to be struck.  My uncle, for example, had always been a workaholic.  Sure, this helped his kids go to private schools and attend the best summer camps, but he also missed their piano recitals and sacrificed a lot of leisure time with them.  He could have worked less hours, put them in public schools, and had more fun with them on the weekends.\n\n3. You're asking that the boss pot them up to the extra hours.  From what I've seen, this is not always the case.  My husband wouldn't have suffered at all of he didn't work extra hours in his last job.  He took on an extra project that involved odd hours because he wanted to.  Not that I minded, since it was a fascinating project, I'm just making the point that you can choose to work a lot, and it isn't always forced on you.\n"}, {"id": "cml7uek", "body": "There's a difference between something you're forced to do (finish this or you're fired) and something you have to do\n\nWhether or not it would be possible for, for example, your husband to stretch the project over more days and be home earlier, it was probably important for him to do it at the rate that he did, and would have cause problems if he slowed down  "}, {"id": "cml7uek", "body": "There's a difference between something you're forced to do (finish this or you're fired) and something you have to do\n\nWhether or not it would be possible for, for example, your husband to stretch the project over more days and be home earlier, it was probably important for him to do it at the rate that he did, and would have cause problems if he slowed down  "}, {"id": "cml82j0", "body": "He couldn't have stretched out the project.  It involved checking an instrument and performing procedures at precise times.  He took on the responsibility knowing that he couldn't back out, because he was one of only two people who knew how to use said instrument.  He could have chosen from the beginning not to take on the responsibility though, and wouldn't have been thought less of or penalized in any way.  "}, {"id": "cml7uek", "body": "There's a difference between something you're forced to do (finish this or you're fired) and something you have to do\n\nWhether or not it would be possible for, for example, your husband to stretch the project over more days and be home earlier, it was probably important for him to do it at the rate that he did, and would have cause problems if he slowed down  "}, {"id": "cmmxw1h", "body": "I take issue with your definition of workaholic. A workaholic is not someone with a crappy job and demanding boss. It is not someone who wants to work less but cannot through circumstance. A workaholic is someone who chooses to work crazy hours because they want to or can't stop themselves. It is often time highly paid individuals and often executives. They work crazy hard and climb the ladder and could have lots of less demanding options if they bothered to find them. But they don't want them, they like bein busy and needed at work. \n\nSo when a SO complains they're not saying \"how dare you provide for me\" they're saying \"we are provided for already and can get by with less. I want to spend time with you, not earn more cash we won't spend\". Sometimes time is more valuable than money. Workaholics don't want to spend their time at home with family. It's very different from being overworked by circumstance. "}, {"id": "2o9r2m", "body": "I've seen many marriages have problems because one of the spouses works too much, or is a \"workaholic.\" While I understand that it's frustrating that a spouse or SO is gone for a long time, it seems completely unfair to get mad directly at the person because he/she works the amount that they do\n\n1. The amount of work one does is normally controlled by a boss; having to stay overtime or work an extra shift is often times out of the control of the employee\n\n2. They work hard to support themselves AND their family. It's not easy to support yourself, let alone a SO/Spouse and/or children. The more someone works, the more money they make (normally).\n\n3. There is no good alternative. The employee could request to work less, but that could result in less money and conflicts with employer. They could look for another job, but that's unrealistic; jobs are hard to come by, and leaving a job could leave a person unemployed for a prolonged time.\n\nI understand that an SO/spouse working a lot can be upsetting, but saying you're mad or upset at someone for being a workaholic seems unfair. CMV!\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cml5num", "body": "If someone worked 24 hours a day, and spent literally zero time with their spouse or family, those people would have a right to complain, right?\n\nWhat if they worked 23 hours a day?  Or 22?  There's got to be a line somewhere."}, {"id": "2o9r2m", "body": "I've seen many marriages have problems because one of the spouses works too much, or is a \"workaholic.\" While I understand that it's frustrating that a spouse or SO is gone for a long time, it seems completely unfair to get mad directly at the person because he/she works the amount that they do\n\n1. The amount of work one does is normally controlled by a boss; having to stay overtime or work an extra shift is often times out of the control of the employee\n\n2. They work hard to support themselves AND their family. It's not easy to support yourself, let alone a SO/Spouse and/or children. The more someone works, the more money they make (normally).\n\n3. There is no good alternative. The employee could request to work less, but that could result in less money and conflicts with employer. They could look for another job, but that's unrealistic; jobs are hard to come by, and leaving a job could leave a person unemployed for a prolonged time.\n\nI understand that an SO/spouse working a lot can be upsetting, but saying you're mad or upset at someone for being a workaholic seems unfair. CMV!\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cml7ojt", "body": "On point two - you are saying they work hard to support themselves and their family. What if they aren't even the one who makes the most money in the relationship? does the spouse have a right to complain then? \n\nSay spouse A is working 40 hours a week making 100k, and spouse B is working 60 hours a week making 50k. Can Spouse A complain then? \n\nIf you have two working parents, what if the person who is *choosing* to work extra hours is causing the other spouse to take at hit at work? IE: spouse 1 refuses to leave at 5 to pick up the kids from daycare, so spouse 2 ALWAYS has to leave on time, even when they have deadlines at work. \n\nI would also disagree 100% with the idea that the more someone works (hours) the more money they make. Overall wage is usually much more dependent on what type of job and career you have. \n\nFinally, a marriage is a relationship. Of course its going to fail if one person refuses to put anything into it. As it is I see my coworkers far far far more than I see my husband or kids. I'd rather make less money and have a happy family than make more money and have my personal life be in shambles, and I expect my husband to give me that same respect. And he SHOULD complain if I started picking up more hours, as I'm salary. My paycheck will not change if I start working more. And I already pick up hours when deadlines require them but there is no need to actively hunt for more. "}, {"id": "2o9r2m", "body": "I've seen many marriages have problems because one of the spouses works too much, or is a \"workaholic.\" While I understand that it's frustrating that a spouse or SO is gone for a long time, it seems completely unfair to get mad directly at the person because he/she works the amount that they do\n\n1. The amount of work one does is normally controlled by a boss; having to stay overtime or work an extra shift is often times out of the control of the employee\n\n2. They work hard to support themselves AND their family. It's not easy to support yourself, let alone a SO/Spouse and/or children. The more someone works, the more money they make (normally).\n\n3. There is no good alternative. The employee could request to work less, but that could result in less money and conflicts with employer. They could look for another job, but that's unrealistic; jobs are hard to come by, and leaving a job could leave a person unemployed for a prolonged time.\n\nI understand that an SO/spouse working a lot can be upsetting, but saying you're mad or upset at someone for being a workaholic seems unfair. CMV!\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cml38nf", "body": "Are you saying that spending more time with a spouse is an opportunity cost? From that, the spouse of a workaholic can get a pretty good estimate of the monetary value the workaholic places on the relationship. One could also argue that criticizing someone for being a workaholic is a negotiation tactic to help determine the value of the relationship, and that the \"unfair\" part is the workaholic could be misleading the spouse by not being explicit about the true value she or he places on the relationship. "}, {"id": "cml38nf", "body": "Are you saying that spending more time with a spouse is an opportunity cost? From that, the spouse of a workaholic can get a pretty good estimate of the monetary value the workaholic places on the relationship. One could also argue that criticizing someone for being a workaholic is a negotiation tactic to help determine the value of the relationship, and that the \"unfair\" part is the workaholic could be misleading the spouse by not being explicit about the true value she or he places on the relationship. "}, {"id": "cml4u3a", "body": "&gt; Are you saying that spending more time with a spouse is an opportunity cost?\n\nTo an economist, everything is an opportunity cost. :)\n"}, {"id": "cml38nf", "body": "Are you saying that spending more time with a spouse is an opportunity cost? From that, the spouse of a workaholic can get a pretty good estimate of the monetary value the workaholic places on the relationship. One could also argue that criticizing someone for being a workaholic is a negotiation tactic to help determine the value of the relationship, and that the \"unfair\" part is the workaholic could be misleading the spouse by not being explicit about the true value she or he places on the relationship. "}, {"id": "cml7oqj", "body": "The reason time with a spouse isn't necessarily an opportunity cost is that there are times when it's impossible to work, maybe 9 PM to 5 AM, so the workaholic isn't always exchanging one for another. An opportunity cost is something always lost when doing something, which would be the case is the person could work 24 hours a day\n\nPlus, it goes back to the fact that some people have to work longer in order to keep their job or be successful. It isn't a voluntary trade"}, {"id": "cml7oqj", "body": "The reason time with a spouse isn't necessarily an opportunity cost is that there are times when it's impossible to work, maybe 9 PM to 5 AM, so the workaholic isn't always exchanging one for another. An opportunity cost is something always lost when doing something, which would be the case is the person could work 24 hours a day\n\nPlus, it goes back to the fact that some people have to work longer in order to keep their job or be successful. It isn't a voluntary trade"}, {"id": "cmlb60s", "body": "So are you saying that you *can't* think of situations where it's reasonable to calculate opportunity costs? I didn't say it was universal. I said it could be done. "}, {"id": "2o9r2m", "body": "I've seen many marriages have problems because one of the spouses works too much, or is a \"workaholic.\" While I understand that it's frustrating that a spouse or SO is gone for a long time, it seems completely unfair to get mad directly at the person because he/she works the amount that they do\n\n1. The amount of work one does is normally controlled by a boss; having to stay overtime or work an extra shift is often times out of the control of the employee\n\n2. They work hard to support themselves AND their family. It's not easy to support yourself, let alone a SO/Spouse and/or children. The more someone works, the more money they make (normally).\n\n3. There is no good alternative. The employee could request to work less, but that could result in less money and conflicts with employer. They could look for another job, but that's unrealistic; jobs are hard to come by, and leaving a job could leave a person unemployed for a prolonged time.\n\nI understand that an SO/spouse working a lot can be upsetting, but saying you're mad or upset at someone for being a workaholic seems unfair. CMV!\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cml6ec6", "body": "Every relationship comes with its own set of expectations, and it's absolutely *normal* that these expectations vary from one couple to the next. Some people are okay with an \"open\" relationship and some would consider that to be cheating - neither one is objectively \"true\" or \"right\" but each party comes into a relationship with certain expectations, and problems *will* arise if the relationship starts to substantially deviate from those expectations.\n\nIt's the same thing with work hours: it's not objectively bad to be a workaholic, but it's also not objectively \"wrong\" of someone to feel that it's a significant deviation from the relationship as it was originally established. It's not wrong to want to earn as much money as you can, but it's also not wrong to feel that at some point the extra money isn't worth it, and that you would rather spend more time with your spouse. \n\nBoth are valid trade-offs, and the balance between the two is something which is up to the couple to determine.\n\nSo yes: if you go into a relationship expecting it to remain monogamous, it's \"unfair\" if one of the partners decides to change it after two years (and vice versa). And if you go into a relationship with the expectation that you get to spend time with your spouse in the evenings, it's \"unfair\" if all of a sudden s/he is gone for months on end. \n\nIf they are to be fair, the exact nature and parameters of any relationship must be determined by *all parties involved* - and it's \"unfair\" for one party to make unilateral decisions when those decisions affect everybody in the relationship."}, {"id": "2o9r2m", "body": "I've seen many marriages have problems because one of the spouses works too much, or is a \"workaholic.\" While I understand that it's frustrating that a spouse or SO is gone for a long time, it seems completely unfair to get mad directly at the person because he/she works the amount that they do\n\n1. The amount of work one does is normally controlled by a boss; having to stay overtime or work an extra shift is often times out of the control of the employee\n\n2. They work hard to support themselves AND their family. It's not easy to support yourself, let alone a SO/Spouse and/or children. The more someone works, the more money they make (normally).\n\n3. There is no good alternative. The employee could request to work less, but that could result in less money and conflicts with employer. They could look for another job, but that's unrealistic; jobs are hard to come by, and leaving a job could leave a person unemployed for a prolonged time.\n\nI understand that an SO/spouse working a lot can be upsetting, but saying you're mad or upset at someone for being a workaholic seems unfair. CMV!\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cml8d8c", "body": "I want to preface by noting that this critique only applies to those not working in certain demanding industries (medicine, police, EMT work) since those careers come with expectations that hours are variable. \n\n1. For the average salaried worker, amount of work =/= hours worked. There are always ways to increase efficiency and improve your working style. I've seen managers with a 10-5 pound out a demanding job, but they allocate 30min every morning and evening to deal with emails and urgent requests at work. It really boils down to your personal time management skills and how focused your remain at your job. Some companies have a toxic office culture that encourages \"presence\" at the job more so than ability, meaning management wants to see you at the desk, regardless if there is any productivity achieved. See 3.\n\n2. False, most workaholics work for the sense of self satisfaction. Don't bullshit around this, there are numerous comparable jobs, but they may not command the same level of respect, status, etc. Ultimately, you will be rewarded based upon ability, not staying 2 hours later than everyone else. In fact, this could have a negative impact on your career mobility as your will always be seen as \"the analyst\" or \"the sales guy\", instead of moving upwards towards a more balanced role.\n\n3. There is an alternative. Find a new job. During job interviews, clarify what you're looking for in a position. Believe it or not, so many companies now encourage telework/flexible work schedules because their employees are more productive with their time, plus its seen as an employee benefit to attract better talent.  And don't leave a current job until you have a new one lined up for god's sake. This should be obvious. \n\nIn the end, time is precious, and time=money in more ways than I ever realized before working FT. Most people already spend more than 50% of their waking hours at work, and once they reach retirement age, their biggest regret is usually working too much. Don't lose focus of what's important in life, just like your job, relationships require work and commitment. If you're not willing to put in the time, things will pass by and those opportunities will be lost. "}, {"id": "2o9r2m", "body": "I've seen many marriages have problems because one of the spouses works too much, or is a \"workaholic.\" While I understand that it's frustrating that a spouse or SO is gone for a long time, it seems completely unfair to get mad directly at the person because he/she works the amount that they do\n\n1. The amount of work one does is normally controlled by a boss; having to stay overtime or work an extra shift is often times out of the control of the employee\n\n2. They work hard to support themselves AND their family. It's not easy to support yourself, let alone a SO/Spouse and/or children. The more someone works, the more money they make (normally).\n\n3. There is no good alternative. The employee could request to work less, but that could result in less money and conflicts with employer. They could look for another job, but that's unrealistic; jobs are hard to come by, and leaving a job could leave a person unemployed for a prolonged time.\n\nI understand that an SO/spouse working a lot can be upsetting, but saying you're mad or upset at someone for being a workaholic seems unfair. CMV!\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cmlgbo7", "body": "I agree unless there are children involved and both parents work. In that case if one is a workaholic, they are foisting a good portion of childcare onto their partner in addition to that partner already working a full work week. Kids have Dr appts, activities, etc... The workaholic forces the other person to take on those responsibilities and possibly sacrifice their own job performance. "}, {"id": "2o9r2m", "body": "I've seen many marriages have problems because one of the spouses works too much, or is a \"workaholic.\" While I understand that it's frustrating that a spouse or SO is gone for a long time, it seems completely unfair to get mad directly at the person because he/she works the amount that they do\n\n1. The amount of work one does is normally controlled by a boss; having to stay overtime or work an extra shift is often times out of the control of the employee\n\n2. They work hard to support themselves AND their family. It's not easy to support yourself, let alone a SO/Spouse and/or children. The more someone works, the more money they make (normally).\n\n3. There is no good alternative. The employee could request to work less, but that could result in less money and conflicts with employer. They could look for another job, but that's unrealistic; jobs are hard to come by, and leaving a job could leave a person unemployed for a prolonged time.\n\nI understand that an SO/spouse working a lot can be upsetting, but saying you're mad or upset at someone for being a workaholic seems unfair. CMV!\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cml2jnq", "body": "&gt;They work hard to support themselves AND their family. It's not easy to support yourself, let alone a SO/Spouse and/or children.\n\nClarification question: does this CMV only apply to single-income couples in which one spouse doesn't work AND in which the couple has children? Because if both spouses work and it's a dual-income household, and/or if the dual-income couple doesn't have any children, then #2 doesn't apply. "}, {"id": "cml2jnq", "body": "&gt;They work hard to support themselves AND their family. It's not easy to support yourself, let alone a SO/Spouse and/or children.\n\nClarification question: does this CMV only apply to single-income couples in which one spouse doesn't work AND in which the couple has children? Because if both spouses work and it's a dual-income household, and/or if the dual-income couple doesn't have any children, then #2 doesn't apply. "}, {"id": "cml7pp6", "body": "This will apply to any couples where the salary of the \"workaholic\" is necessary to support the family, whether or not the other one works "}, {"id": "cml7pp6", "body": "This will apply to any couples where the salary of the \"workaholic\" is necessary to support the family, whether or not the other one works "}, {"id": "cmlaly6", "body": "Does it apply when the \"breadwinner\" and family would be doing just fine with less money? Money has diminished returns. If you have excess over the big items (Food, Shelter, Education), there is a point where extra money isn't gaining anything, but extra time would be. "}, {"id": "2o9r2m", "body": "I've seen many marriages have problems because one of the spouses works too much, or is a \"workaholic.\" While I understand that it's frustrating that a spouse or SO is gone for a long time, it seems completely unfair to get mad directly at the person because he/she works the amount that they do\n\n1. The amount of work one does is normally controlled by a boss; having to stay overtime or work an extra shift is often times out of the control of the employee\n\n2. They work hard to support themselves AND their family. It's not easy to support yourself, let alone a SO/Spouse and/or children. The more someone works, the more money they make (normally).\n\n3. There is no good alternative. The employee could request to work less, but that could result in less money and conflicts with employer. They could look for another job, but that's unrealistic; jobs are hard to come by, and leaving a job could leave a person unemployed for a prolonged time.\n\nI understand that an SO/spouse working a lot can be upsetting, but saying you're mad or upset at someone for being a workaholic seems unfair. CMV!\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cmldvtn", "body": "Successful relationships happen when a couple A) shares the same values or B) comes to a mutually satisfying compromise when their values differ.  If one person values his or her career highly, and the other feels that family relationships are more important, it is their responsibility as a couple to both put forward their perspectives and to arrive at an arrangement *together* that they can agree on.\n\nMy husband and I have this very issue.  I put in my M-F 40 hours and when I come home from work, I want to be with my family.  He often works late into the night and on weekends.  That is partially because of the nature of his work and partially because of his personality.  (I wouldn't call him a workaholic but when he has a project he's working on, he gets very ambitious and focused.)  The way we compromise is by scheduling time together ahead of time.  It he were totally unwilling to commit to spending that time with me, or if I were unwilling to support him working odd hours, we would have an ongoing issue.  This way, we both feel supported."}, {"id": "2o9r2m", "body": "I've seen many marriages have problems because one of the spouses works too much, or is a \"workaholic.\" While I understand that it's frustrating that a spouse or SO is gone for a long time, it seems completely unfair to get mad directly at the person because he/she works the amount that they do\n\n1. The amount of work one does is normally controlled by a boss; having to stay overtime or work an extra shift is often times out of the control of the employee\n\n2. They work hard to support themselves AND their family. It's not easy to support yourself, let alone a SO/Spouse and/or children. The more someone works, the more money they make (normally).\n\n3. There is no good alternative. The employee could request to work less, but that could result in less money and conflicts with employer. They could look for another job, but that's unrealistic; jobs are hard to come by, and leaving a job could leave a person unemployed for a prolonged time.\n\nI understand that an SO/spouse working a lot can be upsetting, but saying you're mad or upset at someone for being a workaholic seems unfair. CMV!\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cmlh4ke", "body": "&gt;I've seen many marriages have problems because one of the spouses works too much, or is a \"workaholic.\" While I understand that it's frustrating that a spouse or SO is gone for a long time, it seems completely unfair to get mad directly at the person because he/she works the amount that they do\n\n&gt;1. The amount of work one does is normally controlled by a boss; having to stay overtime or work an extra shift is often times out of the control of the employee\n\nBut where you work and the career chosen *is* under your control.  \n\n&gt;2. They work hard to support themselves AND their family. It's not easy to support yourself, let alone a SO/Spouse and/or children. The more someone works, the more money they make (normally).\n\nBut do you work to live... or live to work? \n\nWhat's the point of having a family if you spend every spare moment at the office?   Why not stay single?\n\n&gt;3. There is no good alternative. The employee could request to work less, but that could result in less money and conflicts with employer. They could look for another job, but that's unrealistic; jobs are hard to come by, and leaving a job could leave a person unemployed for a prolonged time.\n\nThat sounds like an excuse.  Not every job requires you to work 70 or 80 hours a week.  If you have a family or want one,  you don't take a job where you're never home. \n\n&gt;I understand that an SO/spouse working a lot can be upsetting, but saying you're mad or upset at someone for being a workaholic seems unfair. CMV!\n\nWhat you're not acknowledging is that a person has more than a responsibly to make money.   When you have a family, to them you're more than a paycheck.   You're a spouse and a father.   That means you have responsibilities to those people.   To show your partner emotional support,  friendship,  affection, and intimacy.   To be there for your kid,  teaching him how to play baseball or helping him with homework.    \n\nWhen your spouse married you,  they didn't marry a paycheck -  they married a person.   When you said those marriage vows, you made a promise to be a good spouse.  *Not* a good income -- a good spouse.  By marrying them under false pretenses you are breaking that promise.   That is unfair. \n\nAlso consider what that behavior says to your spouse and kids:  your action tells them that money is far more important than them.  That may be hurtful.  \n\nNobody is forcing you to have a partner or children.   If you want to work 80 hours a week, that's fine.  But don't drag others into your life just to vanish."}, {"id": "2o9r2m", "body": "I've seen many marriages have problems because one of the spouses works too much, or is a \"workaholic.\" While I understand that it's frustrating that a spouse or SO is gone for a long time, it seems completely unfair to get mad directly at the person because he/she works the amount that they do\n\n1. The amount of work one does is normally controlled by a boss; having to stay overtime or work an extra shift is often times out of the control of the employee\n\n2. They work hard to support themselves AND their family. It's not easy to support yourself, let alone a SO/Spouse and/or children. The more someone works, the more money they make (normally).\n\n3. There is no good alternative. The employee could request to work less, but that could result in less money and conflicts with employer. They could look for another job, but that's unrealistic; jobs are hard to come by, and leaving a job could leave a person unemployed for a prolonged time.\n\nI understand that an SO/spouse working a lot can be upsetting, but saying you're mad or upset at someone for being a workaholic seems unfair. CMV!\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cmlr8pt", "body": "You've clearly never met a workaholic. \n\nThere are some people that genuinely become consumed by their work. THEY choose to work more than they need to or to take on additional responsibilities. Even when they're not working, they are likely preoccupied with thoughts of their work. \n\nIt is not fair for people in relationships with these people to be neglected by their partner. A relationship requires attention and effort from both parties in order to thrive, especially for multiple years. Without the attention of a partner, it is easy to become distant with each other. This is also besides the fact that it is hurtful to the neglected partner to feel as though the workaholic values their work more than the relationship. It leads to a toxic unfulfillment in the relationship, which causes it to die eventually if not addressed. \n\nComplaining brings attention to the problem so that it can be fixed before the damage is too late. "}, {"id": "2o9r2m", "body": "I've seen many marriages have problems because one of the spouses works too much, or is a \"workaholic.\" While I understand that it's frustrating that a spouse or SO is gone for a long time, it seems completely unfair to get mad directly at the person because he/she works the amount that they do\n\n1. The amount of work one does is normally controlled by a boss; having to stay overtime or work an extra shift is often times out of the control of the employee\n\n2. They work hard to support themselves AND their family. It's not easy to support yourself, let alone a SO/Spouse and/or children. The more someone works, the more money they make (normally).\n\n3. There is no good alternative. The employee could request to work less, but that could result in less money and conflicts with employer. They could look for another job, but that's unrealistic; jobs are hard to come by, and leaving a job could leave a person unemployed for a prolonged time.\n\nI understand that an SO/spouse working a lot can be upsetting, but saying you're mad or upset at someone for being a workaholic seems unfair. CMV!\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cmlz4o5", "body": "What kind of people are we talking about here?  People who want a hard working, successful partner *and* nice things?  People who's partner just started working long hours?  They could have the right to complain, they could not."}, {"id": "Thread_ends", "body": "Thread_ends"}, {"id": "Thread_ends", "body": "Thread_ends"}, {"id": "2o9pen", "body": "Imagine you go to see the doctor and once at his office he conducts tests and stuff to see what kind of disease you have. Following this, the doctor then goes to doctor court where he has taken an oath to do his best to argue that you have a certain disease (regardless of whether he actually believes you have that disease). Another doctor is there who has taken an oath to do his best to argue that you do not have that disease (also regardless of his own beliefs on whether or not you have the disease). Each doctor presents their case in an adversarial fashion to a group of 12 of your peers (who, in our hypothetical, probably have biases against certain types of diseases and demographics) taken off of the street and selected by the doctors presumably in ways to take advantage of their biases to further their own case, and their presentation must conform to certain rules that do not admit of certain types of evidence being permitted and being thrown out. Then when all is said and done, those twelve ordinary people go and deliberate and then make a decision about whether you are sick or healthy. Their decision determines if, when, and what kind of treatment you will get.\n\nThe previous example is absurd and no one would have any confidence in our healthcare system if it were like that, because it wouldn't be very good at finding the truth of whether or not a person is sick. \n\nThe legal system is a bit different in that there are things that we value more than getting at the truth, such as keeping innocent people out of jail, to the extent that we are willing to let criminals go free to keep people out of jail, but I do not think that these values are fulfilled by our legal system. In many ways, our legal system works against them. For example, we have relatively uneducated (at least concerning the level of deductive reasoning and legal knowledge that is probably necessary to evaluate criminal cases) and highly biased people making decisions about the guilt or innocence of a person. This can very easily lead to more convictions for innocent people, and I wouldn't be surprised if in fact it does lead to more convictions for minorities, even if we were to have roughly identical cases.\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cml1wr4", "body": "Juries decide facts. Judges decide law. OP, do you think you are capable of determining if a fact is true or not? Awesome, you're qualified to be a juror. People think that juries are shown all the evidence and hear these slick speeches by sharp dressed lawyers and then are sent into a room with nothing to go on. That's not how it works. The Court gives juries specific instructions on what to discuss and what those discussions are to be limited to. They are given worksheets, essentially. Like, \"If you decide, beyond a reasonable doubt, that FACT A is true, then you must decide that the prosecution has proven the first element of Charge 1. Defendant admitted that FACT B is true, meaning you must decide that the second element of Charge 1 has been proven, etc.   \n  \nThey don't get to come up with charges and sentences out of their collective asses. "}, {"id": "cml1wr4", "body": "Juries decide facts. Judges decide law. OP, do you think you are capable of determining if a fact is true or not? Awesome, you're qualified to be a juror. People think that juries are shown all the evidence and hear these slick speeches by sharp dressed lawyers and then are sent into a room with nothing to go on. That's not how it works. The Court gives juries specific instructions on what to discuss and what those discussions are to be limited to. They are given worksheets, essentially. Like, \"If you decide, beyond a reasonable doubt, that FACT A is true, then you must decide that the prosecution has proven the first element of Charge 1. Defendant admitted that FACT B is true, meaning you must decide that the second element of Charge 1 has been proven, etc.   \n  \nThey don't get to come up with charges and sentences out of their collective asses. "}, {"id": "cml2a38", "body": "I am capable of determining whether or not certain facts are true. However, I do not think that entails that I am fit to determine the guilt or innocence of a person as I lack forensic training and being capable of evaluating evidence, considering important possible alternatives, etc. Similar to how I do not believe I am fit to determine whether or not someone is sick or healthy, even if given an \"If X, then Y\" worksheet. \n\nFurthermore, if it really is as simple as essentially giving a jury a worksheet, then that makes it seem like juries are all the more unnecessary."}, {"id": "cml2a38", "body": "I am capable of determining whether or not certain facts are true. However, I do not think that entails that I am fit to determine the guilt or innocence of a person as I lack forensic training and being capable of evaluating evidence, considering important possible alternatives, etc. Similar to how I do not believe I am fit to determine whether or not someone is sick or healthy, even if given an \"If X, then Y\" worksheet. \n\nFurthermore, if it really is as simple as essentially giving a jury a worksheet, then that makes it seem like juries are all the more unnecessary."}, {"id": "cml5sub", "body": "You evaluate evidence like anything else. That's why attorneys rely on expert witnesses to explain evidence and why the jury is allowed to hear the other side pick apart the testimony on cross examination.  \n  \nThe jury decides if facts are proven or not. Once they make that the decision, the law is clear. An example might be: Was that person in the hat on this video shooting a gun the defendant sitting there? If the jury decides that is true, the law says the person is guilty of shooting someone. It's not like juries are expected to know the difference between murder and manslaughter without instructions.  \n  \nJuries are charged with a duty. A great many of them will tell you that they were not happy with the end result of the conclusions they made, but they are duty-bound to follow their instructions."}, {"id": "cml5sub", "body": "You evaluate evidence like anything else. That's why attorneys rely on expert witnesses to explain evidence and why the jury is allowed to hear the other side pick apart the testimony on cross examination.  \n  \nThe jury decides if facts are proven or not. Once they make that the decision, the law is clear. An example might be: Was that person in the hat on this video shooting a gun the defendant sitting there? If the jury decides that is true, the law says the person is guilty of shooting someone. It's not like juries are expected to know the difference between murder and manslaughter without instructions.  \n  \nJuries are charged with a duty. A great many of them will tell you that they were not happy with the end result of the conclusions they made, but they are duty-bound to follow their instructions."}, {"id": "cmm5xdp", "body": "There are a lot of things people don't understand about evidence like the high chance of false confessions, the prosecutor's fallacy, unreliability of eyewitness evidence etc. Even if the defence brings an expert witness to explain these things, jurors might not believe them.\n\nAlso, jurors instructions can be what a case hangs on, such as in Ferguson (the grand jury was given incorrect instruction)."}, {"id": "cml5sub", "body": "You evaluate evidence like anything else. That's why attorneys rely on expert witnesses to explain evidence and why the jury is allowed to hear the other side pick apart the testimony on cross examination.  \n  \nThe jury decides if facts are proven or not. Once they make that the decision, the law is clear. An example might be: Was that person in the hat on this video shooting a gun the defendant sitting there? If the jury decides that is true, the law says the person is guilty of shooting someone. It's not like juries are expected to know the difference between murder and manslaughter without instructions.  \n  \nJuries are charged with a duty. A great many of them will tell you that they were not happy with the end result of the conclusions they made, but they are duty-bound to follow their instructions."}, {"id": "cml69fd", "body": "Surely in many cases it can be quite simple like that, but in many other cases, it is not so simple and lacks such obvious evidence. I would trust any jury of competent people to make a decision like the one described. I would not trust them to determine the facts of a vague case unless they had training in forensics."}, {"id": "cml69fd", "body": "Surely in many cases it can be quite simple like that, but in many other cases, it is not so simple and lacks such obvious evidence. I would trust any jury of competent people to make a decision like the one described. I would not trust them to determine the facts of a vague case unless they had training in forensics."}, {"id": "cml6lv6", "body": "Training in forensics? The criminal standard for conviction is reasonable doubt. If the forensic evidence concludes that there is blood at the scene and it belongs to the defendant, that's all it proves. That his or her blood is there. If the jury isn't convinced by the expert testimony that the science behind the test is solid, they are free to disregard it or give it less weight. Vague cases are rarely tried, for this reason. Prosecutors try not to waste tax dollars pursuing losing cases. Those vague cases never reach a jury. Less than 2% of all cases are even tried overall."}, {"id": "2o9pen", "body": "Imagine you go to see the doctor and once at his office he conducts tests and stuff to see what kind of disease you have. Following this, the doctor then goes to doctor court where he has taken an oath to do his best to argue that you have a certain disease (regardless of whether he actually believes you have that disease). Another doctor is there who has taken an oath to do his best to argue that you do not have that disease (also regardless of his own beliefs on whether or not you have the disease). Each doctor presents their case in an adversarial fashion to a group of 12 of your peers (who, in our hypothetical, probably have biases against certain types of diseases and demographics) taken off of the street and selected by the doctors presumably in ways to take advantage of their biases to further their own case, and their presentation must conform to certain rules that do not admit of certain types of evidence being permitted and being thrown out. Then when all is said and done, those twelve ordinary people go and deliberate and then make a decision about whether you are sick or healthy. Their decision determines if, when, and what kind of treatment you will get.\n\nThe previous example is absurd and no one would have any confidence in our healthcare system if it were like that, because it wouldn't be very good at finding the truth of whether or not a person is sick. \n\nThe legal system is a bit different in that there are things that we value more than getting at the truth, such as keeping innocent people out of jail, to the extent that we are willing to let criminals go free to keep people out of jail, but I do not think that these values are fulfilled by our legal system. In many ways, our legal system works against them. For example, we have relatively uneducated (at least concerning the level of deductive reasoning and legal knowledge that is probably necessary to evaluate criminal cases) and highly biased people making decisions about the guilt or innocence of a person. This can very easily lead to more convictions for innocent people, and I wouldn't be surprised if in fact it does lead to more convictions for minorities, even if we were to have roughly identical cases.\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cml15ss", "body": "A jury trial is usually the defendants choice.  They also have the option in most cases of having a judge decide the outcome.  People who go with the jury do so for 2 reasons.  \n\nFirst, a guilty verdict has to be unanimous, so if you can convince just 1 person out of 12 that there is reasonable doubt, you walk. Seems like better odds than all-or-nothing with the judge.\n\nSecondly, a jury's very non-expert nature may lead them to be more sympathetic to a person who is technically guilty, but got there through perfectly understandable and sympathetic means (ie... an unjust law, or extenuating circumstances; see jury nullification)."}, {"id": "cml15ss", "body": "A jury trial is usually the defendants choice.  They also have the option in most cases of having a judge decide the outcome.  People who go with the jury do so for 2 reasons.  \n\nFirst, a guilty verdict has to be unanimous, so if you can convince just 1 person out of 12 that there is reasonable doubt, you walk. Seems like better odds than all-or-nothing with the judge.\n\nSecondly, a jury's very non-expert nature may lead them to be more sympathetic to a person who is technically guilty, but got there through perfectly understandable and sympathetic means (ie... an unjust law, or extenuating circumstances; see jury nullification)."}, {"id": "cml1v79", "body": "&gt;First, a guilty verdict has to be unanimous, so if you can convince just 1 person out of 12 that there is reasonable doubt, you walk. Seems like better odds than all-or-nothing with the judge.\n\nThis is a good point that I had not considered. However, I do not think that this fact alone outweighs the epistemic concerns it brings up (of letting guilty people walk free), or fully alleviates the concerns of a biased jury.\n\n&gt;Secondly, a jury's very non-expert nature may lead them to be more sympathetic to a person who is technically guilty, but got there through perfectly understandable and sympathetic means (ie... an unjust law, or extenuating circumstances; see jury nullification).\n\nCouldn't this non-expert nature also bias a jury against certain people, and make them more likely to convict despite a person being innocent or a law being unjust?"}, {"id": "cml1v79", "body": "&gt;First, a guilty verdict has to be unanimous, so if you can convince just 1 person out of 12 that there is reasonable doubt, you walk. Seems like better odds than all-or-nothing with the judge.\n\nThis is a good point that I had not considered. However, I do not think that this fact alone outweighs the epistemic concerns it brings up (of letting guilty people walk free), or fully alleviates the concerns of a biased jury.\n\n&gt;Secondly, a jury's very non-expert nature may lead them to be more sympathetic to a person who is technically guilty, but got there through perfectly understandable and sympathetic means (ie... an unjust law, or extenuating circumstances; see jury nullification).\n\nCouldn't this non-expert nature also bias a jury against certain people, and make them more likely to convict despite a person being innocent or a law being unjust?"}, {"id": "cml3e3u", "body": "&gt;Couldn't this non-expert nature also bias a jury against certain people, and make them more likely to convict despite a person being innocent or a law being unjust?\n\nA judge can overrule at any moment if a guilty verdict is reached. Plus the defendant can appeal to a certain extent. "}, {"id": "cml3e3u", "body": "&gt;Couldn't this non-expert nature also bias a jury against certain people, and make them more likely to convict despite a person being innocent or a law being unjust?\n\nA judge can overrule at any moment if a guilty verdict is reached. Plus the defendant can appeal to a certain extent. "}, {"id": "cml5qg3", "body": "I'm almost but not fully convinced. I would like to know how often this happens in regards to guilty verdicts and under what conditions. Some demographic information would be nice as well. Do judges overturn convictions at similar rates for different genders and ethnicities, etc?"}, {"id": "cml5qg3", "body": "I'm almost but not fully convinced. I would like to know how often this happens in regards to guilty verdicts and under what conditions. Some demographic information would be nice as well. Do judges overturn convictions at similar rates for different genders and ethnicities, etc?"}, {"id": "cml798n", "body": "&gt; I would like to know how often this happens in regards to guilty verdicts and under what conditions.\n\nIf you're looking for stats on that in the case of Jury nullification, you're up shit creek. Juries are woefully uninformed of their ability to do this, so it happens very rarely. I'm sure there are cases like that, but I doubt they'd be numerous enough to count as a proper sample in statistics. Doing some snooping around though, [I found a single case of a judge overturning a guilty verdict for a repeat felon on grounds of insufficient evidence.](http://www.wbtv.com/story/13263924/judge-considers-over-turning-guilty-verdicts) So clearly it does happen, and for the better. \n\n"}, {"id": "cml798n", "body": "&gt; I would like to know how often this happens in regards to guilty verdicts and under what conditions.\n\nIf you're looking for stats on that in the case of Jury nullification, you're up shit creek. Juries are woefully uninformed of their ability to do this, so it happens very rarely. I'm sure there are cases like that, but I doubt they'd be numerous enough to count as a proper sample in statistics. Doing some snooping around though, [I found a single case of a judge overturning a guilty verdict for a repeat felon on grounds of insufficient evidence.](http://www.wbtv.com/story/13263924/judge-considers-over-turning-guilty-verdicts) So clearly it does happen, and for the better. \n\n"}, {"id": "cmlf9nt", "body": "It's not so much because juries are uninformed about jury nullification. Hell, I imagine more and more people summoned for jury duty google about jury duty in general and will come across discussions about it. The reason its almost impossible to track is because the jury doesn't announce that they've done it. They return a verdict and are not questioned. Sometimes the judge will allow the parties to poll the jurors but rarely. So we just don't know. And it works both ways. People like jury nullification when they see it used to not convict a kid with a low level drug offense but ignore the fact that jury nullification could also lead to a wrongful conviction just as easily if the jury doesn't like the defendant for some reason. (White juries in the Jim Crow South were great at using it to convict black men of all sorts of crimes they didn't commit as well as keep other whites out of prison for crimes against blacks)"}, {"id": "cml798n", "body": "&gt; I would like to know how often this happens in regards to guilty verdicts and under what conditions.\n\nIf you're looking for stats on that in the case of Jury nullification, you're up shit creek. Juries are woefully uninformed of their ability to do this, so it happens very rarely. I'm sure there are cases like that, but I doubt they'd be numerous enough to count as a proper sample in statistics. Doing some snooping around though, [I found a single case of a judge overturning a guilty verdict for a repeat felon on grounds of insufficient evidence.](http://www.wbtv.com/story/13263924/judge-considers-over-turning-guilty-verdicts) So clearly it does happen, and for the better. \n\n"}, {"id": "cmlh5ph", "body": "\u2206 \n\nWhile I still maintain large portions of my argument, you have forced certain points to be inconclusive. Thanks for participating."}, {"id": "cmlh5ph", "body": "\u2206 \n\nWhile I still maintain large portions of my argument, you have forced certain points to be inconclusive. Thanks for participating."}, {"id": "cmlh7lk", "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/AtheistGuy1. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/AtheistGuy1)]\n\n^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]"}, {"id": "2o9pen", "body": "Imagine you go to see the doctor and once at his office he conducts tests and stuff to see what kind of disease you have. Following this, the doctor then goes to doctor court where he has taken an oath to do his best to argue that you have a certain disease (regardless of whether he actually believes you have that disease). Another doctor is there who has taken an oath to do his best to argue that you do not have that disease (also regardless of his own beliefs on whether or not you have the disease). Each doctor presents their case in an adversarial fashion to a group of 12 of your peers (who, in our hypothetical, probably have biases against certain types of diseases and demographics) taken off of the street and selected by the doctors presumably in ways to take advantage of their biases to further their own case, and their presentation must conform to certain rules that do not admit of certain types of evidence being permitted and being thrown out. Then when all is said and done, those twelve ordinary people go and deliberate and then make a decision about whether you are sick or healthy. Their decision determines if, when, and what kind of treatment you will get.\n\nThe previous example is absurd and no one would have any confidence in our healthcare system if it were like that, because it wouldn't be very good at finding the truth of whether or not a person is sick. \n\nThe legal system is a bit different in that there are things that we value more than getting at the truth, such as keeping innocent people out of jail, to the extent that we are willing to let criminals go free to keep people out of jail, but I do not think that these values are fulfilled by our legal system. In many ways, our legal system works against them. For example, we have relatively uneducated (at least concerning the level of deductive reasoning and legal knowledge that is probably necessary to evaluate criminal cases) and highly biased people making decisions about the guilt or innocence of a person. This can very easily lead to more convictions for innocent people, and I wouldn't be surprised if in fact it does lead to more convictions for minorities, even if we were to have roughly identical cases.\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cml3d7r", "body": "The visit to the doctor is voluntary.  Most people want a diagnosis so they can get the right treatment.   They have the right not to agree with the diagnosis and go to any other doctor for another opinion.  Or not go to any doctor.   Their health is theirs to control.   \n\nThe accused criminal doesn't go to a lawyer to ask what crimes he might be guilty of.  He's charged with a crime because law enforcement has evidence that leads them to believe he broke the law.   If/when he goes to trial, he can opt to not have a jury.   Sometimes it's easier to enter a plea bargain and not risk the penalties of a guilty plea.  For example in my state for minor first time offenses a plea bargain will get you a pbj:  parole before judgment.  It means no fine or jail time,  provided you stay out of trouble for your \"parole\".\n\nThe legal system isn't perfect.   But every current system has problems.   The biggest weakness of the us system is when charges are made against people the prosecutor and judge may have to work with later:  police officers,  lawyers, legistlators.  This is at the heart if the outrage at things like the Ferguson shooting:  the district attorney may be biased in favor of police because he depends on police every day to prosecute all of his cases"}, {"id": "cml3d7r", "body": "The visit to the doctor is voluntary.  Most people want a diagnosis so they can get the right treatment.   They have the right not to agree with the diagnosis and go to any other doctor for another opinion.  Or not go to any doctor.   Their health is theirs to control.   \n\nThe accused criminal doesn't go to a lawyer to ask what crimes he might be guilty of.  He's charged with a crime because law enforcement has evidence that leads them to believe he broke the law.   If/when he goes to trial, he can opt to not have a jury.   Sometimes it's easier to enter a plea bargain and not risk the penalties of a guilty plea.  For example in my state for minor first time offenses a plea bargain will get you a pbj:  parole before judgment.  It means no fine or jail time,  provided you stay out of trouble for your \"parole\".\n\nThe legal system isn't perfect.   But every current system has problems.   The biggest weakness of the us system is when charges are made against people the prosecutor and judge may have to work with later:  police officers,  lawyers, legistlators.  This is at the heart if the outrage at things like the Ferguson shooting:  the district attorney may be biased in favor of police because he depends on police every day to prosecute all of his cases"}, {"id": "cml5l2c", "body": "&gt;The visit to the doctor is voluntary. Most people want a diagnosis so they can get the right treatment. They have the right not to agree with the diagnosis and go to any other doctor for another opinion. Or not go to any doctor. Their health is theirs to control.\n\nI would not feel any better about this kind of health system in regards to the health of children for whom it is not usually voluntary to go to the doctor. The point is that it's a bad way of determining the truth of the matter. \n\n&gt;Sometimes it's easier to enter a plea bargain and not risk the penalties of a guilty plea.\n\nThis is another concern as it incentivizes guilty pleas, even if the accused is innocent."}, {"id": "2o9pen", "body": "Imagine you go to see the doctor and once at his office he conducts tests and stuff to see what kind of disease you have. Following this, the doctor then goes to doctor court where he has taken an oath to do his best to argue that you have a certain disease (regardless of whether he actually believes you have that disease). Another doctor is there who has taken an oath to do his best to argue that you do not have that disease (also regardless of his own beliefs on whether or not you have the disease). Each doctor presents their case in an adversarial fashion to a group of 12 of your peers (who, in our hypothetical, probably have biases against certain types of diseases and demographics) taken off of the street and selected by the doctors presumably in ways to take advantage of their biases to further their own case, and their presentation must conform to certain rules that do not admit of certain types of evidence being permitted and being thrown out. Then when all is said and done, those twelve ordinary people go and deliberate and then make a decision about whether you are sick or healthy. Their decision determines if, when, and what kind of treatment you will get.\n\nThe previous example is absurd and no one would have any confidence in our healthcare system if it were like that, because it wouldn't be very good at finding the truth of whether or not a person is sick. \n\nThe legal system is a bit different in that there are things that we value more than getting at the truth, such as keeping innocent people out of jail, to the extent that we are willing to let criminals go free to keep people out of jail, but I do not think that these values are fulfilled by our legal system. In many ways, our legal system works against them. For example, we have relatively uneducated (at least concerning the level of deductive reasoning and legal knowledge that is probably necessary to evaluate criminal cases) and highly biased people making decisions about the guilt or innocence of a person. This can very easily lead to more convictions for innocent people, and I wouldn't be surprised if in fact it does lead to more convictions for minorities, even if we were to have roughly identical cases.\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cml4nwu", "body": "Very interesting argument.  However, I think the comparison to healthcare isn't perfect.  When the question is whether or not you have a disease, doctors are expert in making that determination.  There may be room for disagreement in some cases, in which case questions of treatment may very well need to be argued in court-like fashion.  However, we typically trust a professional doctor to comport with the norms and judgment of other professionals, who would probably come to similar conclusions.\n\nWith the legal system, there is often large room for disagreement regarding liability or guilt.  The law is not black and white.  For example, the standard for negligence in tort is the \"reasonable person standard,\" i.e., did you behave as a \"reasonable person\" would in similar circumstances?  That's not really \"diagnosable\" in the same way heart disease or cancer is.  Also, the standards for different levels of homicide are sometimes indiscernible -- reasonable people (even reasonable professionals) are going to disagree about whether a killing was \"premeditated\" vs. \"not premeditated, but with the intent to kill\" vs. \"not premeditated, but with the intent to cause serious bodily harm\" vs. \"intentional, but with reasonable provocation.\"  Again, not easily diagnosable.  \n\nSometimes, the best way to get answers to these difficult questions is by letting a neutral judge hear two sides arguing zealously for opposite results - that's a very good way for the judge to hear a thorough discussion of all the issues.  In jury cases, the judge decides issues of law, and the jury decides issues of fact.  So after both sides argue what standards should apply, the judge will instruct the jury on the what law they should apply their understanding of the facts to.  It's a good balance between lawyers, judges (who are sometimes appointed democratically), the legislature (which writes many of the applicable laws), and our peers."}, {"id": "cml4nwu", "body": "Very interesting argument.  However, I think the comparison to healthcare isn't perfect.  When the question is whether or not you have a disease, doctors are expert in making that determination.  There may be room for disagreement in some cases, in which case questions of treatment may very well need to be argued in court-like fashion.  However, we typically trust a professional doctor to comport with the norms and judgment of other professionals, who would probably come to similar conclusions.\n\nWith the legal system, there is often large room for disagreement regarding liability or guilt.  The law is not black and white.  For example, the standard for negligence in tort is the \"reasonable person standard,\" i.e., did you behave as a \"reasonable person\" would in similar circumstances?  That's not really \"diagnosable\" in the same way heart disease or cancer is.  Also, the standards for different levels of homicide are sometimes indiscernible -- reasonable people (even reasonable professionals) are going to disagree about whether a killing was \"premeditated\" vs. \"not premeditated, but with the intent to kill\" vs. \"not premeditated, but with the intent to cause serious bodily harm\" vs. \"intentional, but with reasonable provocation.\"  Again, not easily diagnosable.  \n\nSometimes, the best way to get answers to these difficult questions is by letting a neutral judge hear two sides arguing zealously for opposite results - that's a very good way for the judge to hear a thorough discussion of all the issues.  In jury cases, the judge decides issues of law, and the jury decides issues of fact.  So after both sides argue what standards should apply, the judge will instruct the jury on the what law they should apply their understanding of the facts to.  It's a good balance between lawyers, judges (who are sometimes appointed democratically), the legislature (which writes many of the applicable laws), and our peers."}, {"id": "cml5isu", "body": "There are often vague facts in medical cases as well. For example, how much pain a person is in. This is something for which there can end up being large amounts of disagreement. Is the patient faking, have a lower pain tolerance, etc.?\n\nFurthermore, even cases that use the reasonable person standard have precedents for what qualifies as reasonable. In that way, it may be about as diagnosable as pain is. Furthermore, given that there is disagreement about these sorts of things even among preofessionals, that makes me all the less inclined to think that we should put the decision in the hands of a non-professional jury of peers, in the same way I would not put medical decisions with lots of contention in the hands of a jury of peers."}, {"id": "cml5isu", "body": "There are often vague facts in medical cases as well. For example, how much pain a person is in. This is something for which there can end up being large amounts of disagreement. Is the patient faking, have a lower pain tolerance, etc.?\n\nFurthermore, even cases that use the reasonable person standard have precedents for what qualifies as reasonable. In that way, it may be about as diagnosable as pain is. Furthermore, given that there is disagreement about these sorts of things even among preofessionals, that makes me all the less inclined to think that we should put the decision in the hands of a non-professional jury of peers, in the same way I would not put medical decisions with lots of contention in the hands of a jury of peers."}, {"id": "cml8h9c", "body": "The precedents using the reasonable person standard serve to obfuscate more than elucidate more often than not.  There is no magic legal definition of \"reasonable\" - it's all circular, e.g., a person behaves reasonably when he or she behaves as a ordinary prudent person would, see [Vaughan v Menlove](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughan_v_Menlove).  The precedents give us facts to which we can apply the standard, but it's up to people to decide whether the facts are distinguishable.\n\nThe majority of law is like this.  Trademark: Is there a reasonable likelihood of confusion?  Copyright re useful articles: Would visual inspection engender in the ordinary observer\u2019s mind a separate non-utilitarian concept that can displace the utilitarian aspect?  Patent law re doctrine of equivalents:  Does the potentially infringing device perform substantially the same function in the same way to obtain a similar result?  Antitrust: Is there a significant potential for anticompetitive effects?  Criminal law: subtle differences between willful, premeditated, intentional, deliberate, knowing, express vs. implied malice.  It's all *extremely* fact-intensive.\n\nI get what you're saying, that this is all the more reason to let professionals handle things and leave ordinary people out of it.  Well, for civil cases, most of the time the judges/lawyers *do* handle it.  If it ever gets to a jury, at least three professionals literally couldn't agree on what the outcome should be, so a jury gets to apply the facts to the law that's argued for.  For criminal cases, lawyers aren't professional fact settlers - they are professionals at arguing for a specific standard and then presenting the facts necessary to apply that standard.  Judges and lawyers are not trained to know the \"right answer\" to when someone behaved with \"malice\" -- they're trained to know how to explain whether malice is required, what it means, what facts are relevant to making a determination, what weight to afford certain types of facts, etc."}, {"id": "2o9pen", "body": "Imagine you go to see the doctor and once at his office he conducts tests and stuff to see what kind of disease you have. Following this, the doctor then goes to doctor court where he has taken an oath to do his best to argue that you have a certain disease (regardless of whether he actually believes you have that disease). Another doctor is there who has taken an oath to do his best to argue that you do not have that disease (also regardless of his own beliefs on whether or not you have the disease). Each doctor presents their case in an adversarial fashion to a group of 12 of your peers (who, in our hypothetical, probably have biases against certain types of diseases and demographics) taken off of the street and selected by the doctors presumably in ways to take advantage of their biases to further their own case, and their presentation must conform to certain rules that do not admit of certain types of evidence being permitted and being thrown out. Then when all is said and done, those twelve ordinary people go and deliberate and then make a decision about whether you are sick or healthy. Their decision determines if, when, and what kind of treatment you will get.\n\nThe previous example is absurd and no one would have any confidence in our healthcare system if it were like that, because it wouldn't be very good at finding the truth of whether or not a person is sick. \n\nThe legal system is a bit different in that there are things that we value more than getting at the truth, such as keeping innocent people out of jail, to the extent that we are willing to let criminals go free to keep people out of jail, but I do not think that these values are fulfilled by our legal system. In many ways, our legal system works against them. For example, we have relatively uneducated (at least concerning the level of deductive reasoning and legal knowledge that is probably necessary to evaluate criminal cases) and highly biased people making decisions about the guilt or innocence of a person. This can very easily lead to more convictions for innocent people, and I wouldn't be surprised if in fact it does lead to more convictions for minorities, even if we were to have roughly identical cases.\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cml7anw", "body": "The doctor example you gave is NOT absurd.\n\nI absolutely believe that this process would likely result in better diagnosis. \n\nThe reason we don't do it, is that it would be too expensive."}, {"id": "2o9pen", "body": "Imagine you go to see the doctor and once at his office he conducts tests and stuff to see what kind of disease you have. Following this, the doctor then goes to doctor court where he has taken an oath to do his best to argue that you have a certain disease (regardless of whether he actually believes you have that disease). Another doctor is there who has taken an oath to do his best to argue that you do not have that disease (also regardless of his own beliefs on whether or not you have the disease). Each doctor presents their case in an adversarial fashion to a group of 12 of your peers (who, in our hypothetical, probably have biases against certain types of diseases and demographics) taken off of the street and selected by the doctors presumably in ways to take advantage of their biases to further their own case, and their presentation must conform to certain rules that do not admit of certain types of evidence being permitted and being thrown out. Then when all is said and done, those twelve ordinary people go and deliberate and then make a decision about whether you are sick or healthy. Their decision determines if, when, and what kind of treatment you will get.\n\nThe previous example is absurd and no one would have any confidence in our healthcare system if it were like that, because it wouldn't be very good at finding the truth of whether or not a person is sick. \n\nThe legal system is a bit different in that there are things that we value more than getting at the truth, such as keeping innocent people out of jail, to the extent that we are willing to let criminals go free to keep people out of jail, but I do not think that these values are fulfilled by our legal system. In many ways, our legal system works against them. For example, we have relatively uneducated (at least concerning the level of deductive reasoning and legal knowledge that is probably necessary to evaluate criminal cases) and highly biased people making decisions about the guilt or innocence of a person. This can very easily lead to more convictions for innocent people, and I wouldn't be surprised if in fact it does lead to more convictions for minorities, even if we were to have roughly identical cases.\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cmlbo0v", "body": "Who is going to do a better job of determining is a witness is lying, 12 oncologists, or 12 random people?  The answer is the second, because the oncologists are all biased in the same way, whereas the 12 random people have 12 random perspectives.  That's the key thing juries do, evaluate the veracity of testimony.  "}, {"id": "2o9pen", "body": "Imagine you go to see the doctor and once at his office he conducts tests and stuff to see what kind of disease you have. Following this, the doctor then goes to doctor court where he has taken an oath to do his best to argue that you have a certain disease (regardless of whether he actually believes you have that disease). Another doctor is there who has taken an oath to do his best to argue that you do not have that disease (also regardless of his own beliefs on whether or not you have the disease). Each doctor presents their case in an adversarial fashion to a group of 12 of your peers (who, in our hypothetical, probably have biases against certain types of diseases and demographics) taken off of the street and selected by the doctors presumably in ways to take advantage of their biases to further their own case, and their presentation must conform to certain rules that do not admit of certain types of evidence being permitted and being thrown out. Then when all is said and done, those twelve ordinary people go and deliberate and then make a decision about whether you are sick or healthy. Their decision determines if, when, and what kind of treatment you will get.\n\nThe previous example is absurd and no one would have any confidence in our healthcare system if it were like that, because it wouldn't be very good at finding the truth of whether or not a person is sick. \n\nThe legal system is a bit different in that there are things that we value more than getting at the truth, such as keeping innocent people out of jail, to the extent that we are willing to let criminals go free to keep people out of jail, but I do not think that these values are fulfilled by our legal system. In many ways, our legal system works against them. For example, we have relatively uneducated (at least concerning the level of deductive reasoning and legal knowledge that is probably necessary to evaluate criminal cases) and highly biased people making decisions about the guilt or innocence of a person. This can very easily lead to more convictions for innocent people, and I wouldn't be surprised if in fact it does lead to more convictions for minorities, even if we were to have roughly identical cases.\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cmli41c", "body": "You could ask for a bench trial, if the hang up is a jury. "}, {"id": "2o9pen", "body": "Imagine you go to see the doctor and once at his office he conducts tests and stuff to see what kind of disease you have. Following this, the doctor then goes to doctor court where he has taken an oath to do his best to argue that you have a certain disease (regardless of whether he actually believes you have that disease). Another doctor is there who has taken an oath to do his best to argue that you do not have that disease (also regardless of his own beliefs on whether or not you have the disease). Each doctor presents their case in an adversarial fashion to a group of 12 of your peers (who, in our hypothetical, probably have biases against certain types of diseases and demographics) taken off of the street and selected by the doctors presumably in ways to take advantage of their biases to further their own case, and their presentation must conform to certain rules that do not admit of certain types of evidence being permitted and being thrown out. Then when all is said and done, those twelve ordinary people go and deliberate and then make a decision about whether you are sick or healthy. Their decision determines if, when, and what kind of treatment you will get.\n\nThe previous example is absurd and no one would have any confidence in our healthcare system if it were like that, because it wouldn't be very good at finding the truth of whether or not a person is sick. \n\nThe legal system is a bit different in that there are things that we value more than getting at the truth, such as keeping innocent people out of jail, to the extent that we are willing to let criminals go free to keep people out of jail, but I do not think that these values are fulfilled by our legal system. In many ways, our legal system works against them. For example, we have relatively uneducated (at least concerning the level of deductive reasoning and legal knowledge that is probably necessary to evaluate criminal cases) and highly biased people making decisions about the guilt or innocence of a person. This can very easily lead to more convictions for innocent people, and I wouldn't be surprised if in fact it does lead to more convictions for minorities, even if we were to have roughly identical cases.\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cmlj73k", "body": "The entire scenario you gave is a more extreme form of some processes that actually occur in the medical world. Diagnosing illness and prescribing treatment can actually be difficult. Especially in the case of mental illness, it may take many doctors opinions to decide whether or not you have a mental illness. Doctors don't want to just give out prescriptions of medication because people may abuse them. As a result, they must go through extensive checks to make sure that you truly require them. Your entire trial scenario is an overtly unnecessary form of what already exists. Another example is assisted suicide. To get the medication for euthanasia you must be diagnosed with a terminal illness by multiple doctors, have informed consent, be a resident of the state, be of legal age, have made an oral request, make another request several days later, your case must be reviewed, etc.\n\nNo matter what, biased or uneducated people may be in the position of authority. There's no flawless human who can serve as a robot that automatically sentences the guilty to prison and lets the innocent go. Every case is situational and every presentation of guilt/innocence is subjective. A government that exists only when there is no chance of error will not exist at all.\n\nIn conclusion, the Punishment Imperative (The rationale for mass incarceration) is coming to an end because of fiscal pressures, falling crime rates, and evidence of it's failure. Therefore, I believe it is functioning pretty well."}, {"id": "2o9pen", "body": "Imagine you go to see the doctor and once at his office he conducts tests and stuff to see what kind of disease you have. Following this, the doctor then goes to doctor court where he has taken an oath to do his best to argue that you have a certain disease (regardless of whether he actually believes you have that disease). Another doctor is there who has taken an oath to do his best to argue that you do not have that disease (also regardless of his own beliefs on whether or not you have the disease). Each doctor presents their case in an adversarial fashion to a group of 12 of your peers (who, in our hypothetical, probably have biases against certain types of diseases and demographics) taken off of the street and selected by the doctors presumably in ways to take advantage of their biases to further their own case, and their presentation must conform to certain rules that do not admit of certain types of evidence being permitted and being thrown out. Then when all is said and done, those twelve ordinary people go and deliberate and then make a decision about whether you are sick or healthy. Their decision determines if, when, and what kind of treatment you will get.\n\nThe previous example is absurd and no one would have any confidence in our healthcare system if it were like that, because it wouldn't be very good at finding the truth of whether or not a person is sick. \n\nThe legal system is a bit different in that there are things that we value more than getting at the truth, such as keeping innocent people out of jail, to the extent that we are willing to let criminals go free to keep people out of jail, but I do not think that these values are fulfilled by our legal system. In many ways, our legal system works against them. For example, we have relatively uneducated (at least concerning the level of deductive reasoning and legal knowledge that is probably necessary to evaluate criminal cases) and highly biased people making decisions about the guilt or innocence of a person. This can very easily lead to more convictions for innocent people, and I wouldn't be surprised if in fact it does lead to more convictions for minorities, even if we were to have roughly identical cases.\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cmn7kfx", "body": "What is the greater evil? To allow a guilty person to go free, or to allow an innocent person to be sentenced as if guilty? \n\nI would prefer to make error the former, and I would hope my government would as well. "}, {"id": "Thread_ends", "body": "Thread_ends"}, {"id": "Thread_ends", "body": "Thread_ends"}, {"id": "2o9ofv", "body": "I will assume you are all familiar with the subject material.  Jim always had his sights set on Nadya, but through the shenanigans in the movie, he instead wound up boning future wife Michelle.\n\nNow I'm not saying that Michelle and Jim shouldn't have boned or gone on to get married and such.  I'm just saying that Jim shoulda held out for Nadya as planned.  She was definitely a worthwhile endeavor and they come back to their connection in later movies.  And the problem is that connection is never consummated because Jim is perpetually in the relationship with Michelle.  So Jim shoulda lost his virginity to Nadya foremost, then if he wanted pursued his relationship with Michelle IMHO.  "}, {"id": "cml0lai", "body": "your assuming michelle would have accepted second hand boyfriends"}, {"id": "cml0lai", "body": "your assuming michelle would have accepted second hand boyfriends"}, {"id": "cml6rm4", "body": "The girl went after him *because* she saw his embarrassing broadcast with Nadya, if memory serves me right. Purity was deffo not on her boyfriend priority list."}, {"id": "cml0lai", "body": "your assuming michelle would have accepted second hand boyfriends"}, {"id": "cml0o5q", "body": "Jim just needed to play his cards right, which woulda been pretty easy.  We know Michelle was DTF and we know she knew Jim liked Nadya.  She didn't even really have feelings for Jim before coitus.  It would have been easy to take care of both tasks.  "}, {"id": "cml0lai", "body": "your assuming michelle would have accepted second hand boyfriends"}, {"id": "cml2ft5", "body": "*experienced  boyfriends"}, {"id": "cml0lai", "body": "your assuming michelle would have accepted second hand boyfriends"}, {"id": "cml3k82", "body": "Michelle was originally helping Jim try to get laid by Nadya because Jim had no idea what he was doing. Since she already knew that about Jim's intentions with Nadya I think she would have accepted him after."}, {"id": "cml0lai", "body": "your assuming michelle would have accepted second hand boyfriends"}, {"id": "cml53oh", "body": "Yes we are assuming she is not retarded or unfamiliar with society."}, {"id": "2o9ofv", "body": "I will assume you are all familiar with the subject material.  Jim always had his sights set on Nadya, but through the shenanigans in the movie, he instead wound up boning future wife Michelle.\n\nNow I'm not saying that Michelle and Jim shouldn't have boned or gone on to get married and such.  I'm just saying that Jim shoulda held out for Nadya as planned.  She was definitely a worthwhile endeavor and they come back to their connection in later movies.  And the problem is that connection is never consummated because Jim is perpetually in the relationship with Michelle.  So Jim shoulda lost his virginity to Nadya foremost, then if he wanted pursued his relationship with Michelle IMHO.  "}, {"id": "cml5w9m", "body": "First off, he (probably) couldn't have lost his virginity to Nadya.  He tried to hook up with her in the first movie, shot his load early twice, and she got sent out of the country when her host family saw the video online.  At the point, he had no reason to think he would ever see her again (or that she would be interested in him), so it made sense to go to prom with Michelle.  At the point, he wasn't even trying to get laid, he just wanted to have a fun prom.  Michelle wanted to hook up with him, and Jim had realized he actually liked Michelle, so he went with it.\n\nNow in the second movie, he had a shot to hook up with Nadya again.  However, he realized that he loved Michelle and would rather make a grand romantic gesture to her and start dating her than to hook up with Nadya.  He made the grand gesture and it worked, and he and Michelle lived happily ever after.\n\nI don't see a point in this series of events where he should have hooked up Nadya."}, {"id": "cml5w9m", "body": "First off, he (probably) couldn't have lost his virginity to Nadya.  He tried to hook up with her in the first movie, shot his load early twice, and she got sent out of the country when her host family saw the video online.  At the point, he had no reason to think he would ever see her again (or that she would be interested in him), so it made sense to go to prom with Michelle.  At the point, he wasn't even trying to get laid, he just wanted to have a fun prom.  Michelle wanted to hook up with him, and Jim had realized he actually liked Michelle, so he went with it.\n\nNow in the second movie, he had a shot to hook up with Nadya again.  However, he realized that he loved Michelle and would rather make a grand romantic gesture to her and start dating her than to hook up with Nadya.  He made the grand gesture and it worked, and he and Michelle lived happily ever after.\n\nI don't see a point in this series of events where he should have hooked up Nadya."}, {"id": "cml60ij", "body": "Very airtight points.  I guess it would involve a scenario by which Jim kinda of improbably held out hope for Nadya.  While that may be ridiculous, he didn't hold out and in fact she did come back, so the (Hollywood deus ex machina) fate still swung his way.  And again I point out that he wouldn't have risked much since Michelle was mostly about the DTF and even in the second movie she was just more about hooking up.  "}, {"id": "Thread_ends", "body": "Thread_ends"}, {"id": "Thread_ends", "body": "Thread_ends"}, {"id": "2o9h6l", "body": "What happened to Eric Garner was a horrible tragedy. But I don't blame the NYPD for it. Occasionally a cop goes insane and does something like this. The NYPD commissioner seems to be on Garner's side, and many officers have said that what the police officer did was not protocol and was wrong.\n\nBut the police can't know if an officer will do something that goes completely against his training. The truth is the NYPD has been very good in racial issues and keeping crime low. Stop and frisk may seem to be contrary to that, but that was a policy that told the police to go into poor (black) neighborhoods and frisk people. This was not a decision made by the police.\n\nThe problem with the Garner case is the justices system's failure to indite Eric Garner's murderer. Pantaleo murdered Eric Garner. There isn't really any question about this. He did not follow police protocol and attacked a man with his hands in the air and killed him as he begged to breathe.\n\nPantaleo deserves to go to trial, for at least manslaughter if not first degree murder. There is no reasonable doubt or any question of what happened like there was in the Micheal Brown case. With Micheal Brown there was a lack of evidence and conflicting reports, so we can't know and therefore can't prosecute.\n\nBut in the Garner case there was no question. We know what happened.\n\nMy only conclusion from this is that the grand jury had a majority of either incredibly racist people or people who were incredibly loyal to the police for no reason.\n\nI believe that to fix this problem we need to stop using grand juries to decide whether or not to indite. They have proven themselves to be a horrible tool. Instead we should use a panel of judges, or just go to trial immediately when the evidence is this overwhelming. (EDIT: maybe not go to trial immediately. My main call is for a change in the process. I do not necessarily have the change needed.)\n\nThe reason I want my view changed is that I'd like the believe that our system isn't horribly unjust. But all evidence says that it is.\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cmkzfx1", "body": "We already don't *really* use grand juries to indict. The grand jury is a puppet of the prosecutor. It's set up in a way that allows the prosecutor to get indictments (or non-indictments) pretty much at will.\n\nImagine if you had a trial where only one side was allowed to present evidence and the threshold for guilt is \"is there any evidence at all?\" That is pretty much what a grand jury is, and the prosecutor's sole ability to present or withhold evidence from it is why it's basically the prosecutor's puppet."}, {"id": "cmkzfx1", "body": "We already don't *really* use grand juries to indict. The grand jury is a puppet of the prosecutor. It's set up in a way that allows the prosecutor to get indictments (or non-indictments) pretty much at will.\n\nImagine if you had a trial where only one side was allowed to present evidence and the threshold for guilt is \"is there any evidence at all?\" That is pretty much what a grand jury is, and the prosecutor's sole ability to present or withhold evidence from it is why it's basically the prosecutor's puppet."}, {"id": "cml2iqd", "body": "Having served on a Grand Jury for six months, you're absolutely right. It's a waste of time. I think the Grand Jury indicts in well over 95% of cases. In our case, a cop representing some city within our county comes in and reads a summary of several felony cases, leaves, we vote a blanket yes for all of them. I think we voted no on maybe 2 or 3 out of hundreds. The problem is that, even though each officer is sworn in, they can just lie anyway because no member of the Grand Jury can ever say what was spoken of and there is noone else in the room. Therefore, everything they say is off the record. (Edit: this freedom to lie seems to only apply to some states. Thanks /u/huadpe)\n\nIt exists for reasonable historical reasons, but as long as they can lie freely and the Grand Jury only hears one side of the story (usually the arresting officer assuming they're the prosecution side), it might as well just go straight to trial."}, {"id": "cml2iqd", "body": "Having served on a Grand Jury for six months, you're absolutely right. It's a waste of time. I think the Grand Jury indicts in well over 95% of cases. In our case, a cop representing some city within our county comes in and reads a summary of several felony cases, leaves, we vote a blanket yes for all of them. I think we voted no on maybe 2 or 3 out of hundreds. The problem is that, even though each officer is sworn in, they can just lie anyway because no member of the Grand Jury can ever say what was spoken of and there is noone else in the room. Therefore, everything they say is off the record. (Edit: this freedom to lie seems to only apply to some states. Thanks /u/huadpe)\n\nIt exists for reasonable historical reasons, but as long as they can lie freely and the Grand Jury only hears one side of the story (usually the arresting officer assuming they're the prosecution side), it might as well just go straight to trial."}, {"id": "cml5t7p", "body": "&gt; I think the Grand Jury indicts in well over 95% of cases. \n\n[According to 538,](http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/) it's way more than 95%; it's 99.993% indictment rate, unless the accused is a cop, which case it's somewhere around 1.2% indictment rate.\n\nBased on that fact, it's probably not a bad idea to skip the entire Indictment Process.\n\nAlternately, we need to have someone *other* than a local prosecutor to prosecute government agents, so that there's no conflict of interest in the prosecution, who need the support of police to do their job the overwhelming majority of the time."}, {"id": "cml5t7p", "body": "&gt; I think the Grand Jury indicts in well over 95% of cases. \n\n[According to 538,](http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/) it's way more than 95%; it's 99.993% indictment rate, unless the accused is a cop, which case it's somewhere around 1.2% indictment rate.\n\nBased on that fact, it's probably not a bad idea to skip the entire Indictment Process.\n\nAlternately, we need to have someone *other* than a local prosecutor to prosecute government agents, so that there's no conflict of interest in the prosecution, who need the support of police to do their job the overwhelming majority of the time."}, {"id": "cml9bpj", "body": "That's absolute insanity.\n\nLike I've seen evidence that can be up to opinion, but a drop from 99.993% to 1.2% seems impossible to be tolerated."}, {"id": "cml9bpj", "body": "That's absolute insanity.\n\nLike I've seen evidence that can be up to opinion, but a drop from 99.993% to 1.2% seems impossible to be tolerated."}, {"id": "cmlc7bu", "body": "This kind of shit will keep happening because jurors are functionally (arguable) retarded. \n\nSeriously, anyone who as any form of intelligence either gets out of jury duty or is dismissed. I actually looked forwarded to performing my civic duty the first time, but the judge told the jury it was their duty to \"enforce the law and not attempt to interpret it or include [their] personal biases.\" When I asked if he was talking about our right to jury nullification ( this was a DUI case where the guy blew a .01) merely bringing up \"the legal concept\" got me struck for cause and told that \"[I] need to grow up.\"\n\nTL;DR - Fuck me for not being an idiot."}, {"id": "cmlc7bu", "body": "This kind of shit will keep happening because jurors are functionally (arguable) retarded. \n\nSeriously, anyone who as any form of intelligence either gets out of jury duty or is dismissed. I actually looked forwarded to performing my civic duty the first time, but the judge told the jury it was their duty to \"enforce the law and not attempt to interpret it or include [their] personal biases.\" When I asked if he was talking about our right to jury nullification ( this was a DUI case where the guy blew a .01) merely bringing up \"the legal concept\" got me struck for cause and told that \"[I] need to grow up.\"\n\nTL;DR - Fuck me for not being an idiot."}, {"id": "cmlii25", "body": "If you know anything about jury nullification you should have known better than to say that to a judge. You should have went to deliberation and said \".01 is not drunk, I won't convict\" and either convinced everyone else or hung the jury. Jury nullification is a right in that juries can't be stopped form exercising it, not that it's a protected right. \n\nTo quote John Jay \"It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, *it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the court are the best judges of the law*. **But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.\"**"}, {"id": "cmlii25", "body": "If you know anything about jury nullification you should have known better than to say that to a judge. You should have went to deliberation and said \".01 is not drunk, I won't convict\" and either convinced everyone else or hung the jury. Jury nullification is a right in that juries can't be stopped form exercising it, not that it's a protected right. \n\nTo quote John Jay \"It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, *it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the court are the best judges of the law*. **But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.\"**"}, {"id": "cmlqkch", "body": "I was 18. I've learned from the mistake. Thanks for the insight. "}, {"id": "cmlqkch", "body": "I was 18. I've learned from the mistake. Thanks for the insight. "}, {"id": "cmlqxx2", "body": "Sorry if that sounded dickish, I just meant I would assume one would learn that judges don't like jury nullification at the same time that one learns what it is. "}, {"id": "cmlqxx2", "body": "Sorry if that sounded dickish, I just meant I would assume one would learn that judges don't like jury nullification at the same time that one learns what it is. "}, {"id": "cmltsba", "body": "Not at all... I agree. Part of it was confusion and part of it was being a kid- I learned about the concept in civics class - I was told it was an important function and not that it was something that I should try and hide. I was honestly concerned that the judge was asking me to waive my right to act in accordance with my beliefs... and was concerned about the ramifications if I did. Live and learn....."}, {"id": "cmlii25", "body": "If you know anything about jury nullification you should have known better than to say that to a judge. You should have went to deliberation and said \".01 is not drunk, I won't convict\" and either convinced everyone else or hung the jury. Jury nullification is a right in that juries can't be stopped form exercising it, not that it's a protected right. \n\nTo quote John Jay \"It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, *it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the court are the best judges of the law*. **But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.\"**"}, {"id": "cmmnok7", "body": "In some places I believe it can be a crime to intentionally use jury nullification. If you plan to do it you're going to have to lie and never tell anyone why you say guilty or not guilty.\n\nYou can't be held accountable for your verdict unless you say why you made that verdict."}, {"id": "cmlc7bu", "body": "This kind of shit will keep happening because jurors are functionally (arguable) retarded. \n\nSeriously, anyone who as any form of intelligence either gets out of jury duty or is dismissed. I actually looked forwarded to performing my civic duty the first time, but the judge told the jury it was their duty to \"enforce the law and not attempt to interpret it or include [their] personal biases.\" When I asked if he was talking about our right to jury nullification ( this was a DUI case where the guy blew a .01) merely bringing up \"the legal concept\" got me struck for cause and told that \"[I] need to grow up.\"\n\nTL;DR - Fuck me for not being an idiot."}, {"id": "cmlde91", "body": "&gt; Seriously, anyone who as any form of intelligence either gets out of jury duty or is dismissed.\n\nYep\n\nAnd surprisingly the jury system itself isn't talked about a lot. I think that's the appeal of the current popular podcast Serial. People see that the same case that's an aquittal for one jury can be conviction for another.\n\nI mean would you trust 12 random people in your life for any opinion?"}, {"id": "cmlde91", "body": "&gt; Seriously, anyone who as any form of intelligence either gets out of jury duty or is dismissed.\n\nYep\n\nAnd surprisingly the jury system itself isn't talked about a lot. I think that's the appeal of the current popular podcast Serial. People see that the same case that's an aquittal for one jury can be conviction for another.\n\nI mean would you trust 12 random people in your life for any opinion?"}, {"id": "cmlho81", "body": "They are very much not random.  They are specifically chosen from a random pool."}, {"id": "cmlho81", "body": "They are very much not random.  They are specifically chosen from a random pool."}, {"id": "cmlktmv", "body": "I didn't mean random in a rigorious way, to rephrase it\n\n&gt;would you trust 12 random people from the remains of the jury selection process to have accurate opinions on things like evidence, justice, their own conscious and unconscious bias or even major decisions like whether to marry someone, buy a house, or start a business\n\nIt was more for dramatic effect, but at core I meant random in that sense."}, {"id": "cmlho81", "body": "They are very much not random.  They are specifically chosen from a random pool."}, {"id": "cmlo9dp", "body": "From the defendant's perspective they sure as hell are random. "}, {"id": "cmlde91", "body": "&gt; Seriously, anyone who as any form of intelligence either gets out of jury duty or is dismissed.\n\nYep\n\nAnd surprisingly the jury system itself isn't talked about a lot. I think that's the appeal of the current popular podcast Serial. People see that the same case that's an aquittal for one jury can be conviction for another.\n\nI mean would you trust 12 random people in your life for any opinion?"}, {"id": "cmlwzf0", "body": "&gt;I mean would you trust 12 random people in your life for any opinion?\n\nWould you rather we didn't have juries?"}, {"id": "cmlc7bu", "body": "This kind of shit will keep happening because jurors are functionally (arguable) retarded. \n\nSeriously, anyone who as any form of intelligence either gets out of jury duty or is dismissed. I actually looked forwarded to performing my civic duty the first time, but the judge told the jury it was their duty to \"enforce the law and not attempt to interpret it or include [their] personal biases.\" When I asked if he was talking about our right to jury nullification ( this was a DUI case where the guy blew a .01) merely bringing up \"the legal concept\" got me struck for cause and told that \"[I] need to grow up.\"\n\nTL;DR - Fuck me for not being an idiot."}, {"id": "cmlog9l", "body": "Well that's because you brought up Jury Nullification. I'm not saying that it's right, but that is third rail topic in the judicial system."}, {"id": "cmlc7bu", "body": "This kind of shit will keep happening because jurors are functionally (arguable) retarded. \n\nSeriously, anyone who as any form of intelligence either gets out of jury duty or is dismissed. I actually looked forwarded to performing my civic duty the first time, but the judge told the jury it was their duty to \"enforce the law and not attempt to interpret it or include [their] personal biases.\" When I asked if he was talking about our right to jury nullification ( this was a DUI case where the guy blew a .01) merely bringing up \"the legal concept\" got me struck for cause and told that \"[I] need to grow up.\"\n\nTL;DR - Fuck me for not being an idiot."}, {"id": "cmmsu1h", "body": "How did you know he blew a .01? Did you stay to watch the trial?"}, {"id": "cmmsu1h", "body": "How did you know he blew a .01? Did you stay to watch the trial?"}, {"id": "cmngtgw", "body": "I did come back and watch. I probably should have included a \"I later learned...\" in the parenthesis.\n\n"}, {"id": "cmlc7bu", "body": "This kind of shit will keep happening because jurors are functionally (arguable) retarded. \n\nSeriously, anyone who as any form of intelligence either gets out of jury duty or is dismissed. I actually looked forwarded to performing my civic duty the first time, but the judge told the jury it was their duty to \"enforce the law and not attempt to interpret it or include [their] personal biases.\" When I asked if he was talking about our right to jury nullification ( this was a DUI case where the guy blew a .01) merely bringing up \"the legal concept\" got me struck for cause and told that \"[I] need to grow up.\"\n\nTL;DR - Fuck me for not being an idiot."}, {"id": "cmlpzi2", "body": "Or maybe youre the dumb one for mentioning jury nullification. Everyone who knows just a tiny bit about, know you never mention it to a judge. You idiot. "}, {"id": "cmlpzi2", "body": "Or maybe youre the dumb one for mentioning jury nullification. Everyone who knows just a tiny bit about, know you never mention it to a judge. You idiot. "}, {"id": "cmlql4j", "body": "You're right, 18 year old me was an idiot.... Unfortunately, you're still an ass hole! "}, {"id": "cmlql4j", "body": "You're right, 18 year old me was an idiot.... Unfortunately, you're still an ass hole! "}, {"id": "cmlrcho", "body": "&gt; Seriously, anyone who as any form of intelligence either gets out of jury duty or is dismissed.\n\nYeah, I'm the asshole."}, {"id": "cmlrcho", "body": "&gt; Seriously, anyone who as any form of intelligence either gets out of jury duty or is dismissed.\n\nYeah, I'm the asshole."}, {"id": "cmlsgub", "body": "&gt;Yeah, I'm the asshole.\n\nNow you're getting it"}, {"id": "cmlsgub", "body": "&gt;Yeah, I'm the asshole.\n\nNow you're getting it"}, {"id": "cmlswfh", "body": "how do you see my conv. with apexllc and decide I'm in the wrong. \n\nHe did something stupid, and then mock the intelligence of those that didn't mess up like him.\n\nor am i missing something"}, {"id": "cml9bpj", "body": "That's absolute insanity.\n\nLike I've seen evidence that can be up to opinion, but a drop from 99.993% to 1.2% seems impossible to be tolerated."}, {"id": "cmm23u5", "body": "It's an outrageously flawed comparison - the article compares federal indictment rates (federal cases virtually never go to grand jury unless conviction and victory is certain) to the indictment rate in one city in one state - and many prosecutors use grand juries as a way to ditch unwinnable cases before too much work is done on them.\n\nThe comparison tells us nothing, to be honest - especially when we know nothing about the laws in Houston."}, {"id": "cmm23u5", "body": "It's an outrageously flawed comparison - the article compares federal indictment rates (federal cases virtually never go to grand jury unless conviction and victory is certain) to the indictment rate in one city in one state - and many prosecutors use grand juries as a way to ditch unwinnable cases before too much work is done on them.\n\nThe comparison tells us nothing, to be honest - especially when we know nothing about the laws in Houston."}, {"id": "cmmjvvg", "body": "Yeah it's just that Nate Silver guy bullshitting again. Might as well dismiss it all as fluke.\n\nHe never claims they're 100% direct comparison, he's using it to discuss a larger problem."}, {"id": "cmmjvvg", "body": "Yeah it's just that Nate Silver guy bullshitting again. Might as well dismiss it all as fluke.\n\nHe never claims they're 100% direct comparison, he's using it to discuss a larger problem."}, {"id": "cmmq7og", "body": "Silver's a great analyst. This wasn't written by Silver. It's taking city politics, comparing them to federal politics, and making implications about state politics. That data that is not only dissimilar in what it's measuring (all indictments at one level versus a small subsection of indictments at the other level), it is also dissimilar in time frame (one year versus several), sample size (all prosecutions at one level, only a very specific subsection at another), and the nature of the proceeding (federal grand juries operate differently than state). It doesn't give rates for no-bills at large for Houston. It doesn't give rates for police indictment at the federal level (that data should be available). \n\nIt is like saying \"Here is the 3p% for the Bulls. Here is the 3p% for the starting small forward of the Springfield (MA) High School Wildcats. Given that data, here is our conclusion about three-point shooting in the Mountain West conference.\" It's two data points that tell us *nothing* about the third if you look past their facial similarities."}, {"id": "cmmq7og", "body": "Silver's a great analyst. This wasn't written by Silver. It's taking city politics, comparing them to federal politics, and making implications about state politics. That data that is not only dissimilar in what it's measuring (all indictments at one level versus a small subsection of indictments at the other level), it is also dissimilar in time frame (one year versus several), sample size (all prosecutions at one level, only a very specific subsection at another), and the nature of the proceeding (federal grand juries operate differently than state). It doesn't give rates for no-bills at large for Houston. It doesn't give rates for police indictment at the federal level (that data should be available). \n\nIt is like saying \"Here is the 3p% for the Bulls. Here is the 3p% for the starting small forward of the Springfield (MA) High School Wildcats. Given that data, here is our conclusion about three-point shooting in the Mountain West conference.\" It's two data points that tell us *nothing* about the third if you look past their facial similarities."}, {"id": "cmn794i", "body": "&gt;Wilson\u2019s case was heard in state court, not federal, so the numbers aren\u2019t directly comparable. Unlike in federal court, most states, including Missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment. That means many routine cases never go before a grand jury. Still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment.\n\n&gt;Cases involving police shootings, however, appear to be an exception. As my colleague Reuben Fischer-Baum has written, we don\u2019t have good data on officer-involved killings. But newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law-enforcement officials. A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that \u201cpolice have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings\u201d in Houston and other large cities in recent years. \n\nI swear to god I spend more time arguing with people about things that were covered in the article.\n"}, {"id": "cmn794i", "body": "&gt;Wilson\u2019s case was heard in state court, not federal, so the numbers aren\u2019t directly comparable. Unlike in federal court, most states, including Missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment. That means many routine cases never go before a grand jury. Still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment.\n\n&gt;Cases involving police shootings, however, appear to be an exception. As my colleague Reuben Fischer-Baum has written, we don\u2019t have good data on officer-involved killings. But newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law-enforcement officials. A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that \u201cpolice have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings\u201d in Houston and other large cities in recent years. \n\nI swear to god I spend more time arguing with people about things that were covered in the article.\n"}, {"id": "cmn8ake", "body": "They have two paragraphs where they admit the data isn't very useful, but the rest of the article is insinuating that the data *is* useful. That's pretty dishonest writing from my point of view. I read the article days ago, don't worry."}, {"id": "cmn8ake", "body": "They have two paragraphs where they admit the data isn't very useful, but the rest of the article is insinuating that the data *is* useful. That's pretty dishonest writing from my point of view. I read the article days ago, don't worry."}, {"id": "cmnqlw6", "body": "&gt;they admit the data isn't very useful\n\n&gt;so the numbers aren\u2019t directly comparable\n\nTwo different things.\n"}, {"id": "cml9bpj", "body": "That's absolute insanity.\n\nLike I've seen evidence that can be up to opinion, but a drop from 99.993% to 1.2% seems impossible to be tolerated."}, {"id": "cml9lld", "body": "If you read the article, there are some circumstances that make the populations incomparable.\n\n1. Sometimes grand juries are convened for political reasons (see: Ferguson, where the forensic evidence completely undermined the damning witness statements), and *shouldn't* result in indictment.  As such, it may be that the numbers are skewed in favor of transparency and due diligence.\n2. The entire justice system is founded on trust of the police.  As such, juries are naturally inclined to believe a police officer than an average person.\n3. Prosecutors have an (unconscious?) bias against pursuing the people who are *integral* to their ability to do their jobs.  A prosecutor's entire *career* (along with any political ambitions they may have) relies on the ability to get convictions. Their ability to get convictions relies on their ability to work with police.  Treating an ally as your enemy doesn't make them inclined to want to help you."}, {"id": "cml9lld", "body": "If you read the article, there are some circumstances that make the populations incomparable.\n\n1. Sometimes grand juries are convened for political reasons (see: Ferguson, where the forensic evidence completely undermined the damning witness statements), and *shouldn't* result in indictment.  As such, it may be that the numbers are skewed in favor of transparency and due diligence.\n2. The entire justice system is founded on trust of the police.  As such, juries are naturally inclined to believe a police officer than an average person.\n3. Prosecutors have an (unconscious?) bias against pursuing the people who are *integral* to their ability to do their jobs.  A prosecutor's entire *career* (along with any political ambitions they may have) relies on the ability to get convictions. Their ability to get convictions relies on their ability to work with police.  Treating an ally as your enemy doesn't make them inclined to want to help you."}, {"id": "cmlbi2g", "body": "First of all, 2 and 3 are very much *problems* with the justice system. A police officer and a regular joe accused of murder, with the same evidence in both cases, should have the same chance at being indicted. Your career choice should not affect your ability to get away with murder. \n\nSecond of all, whatever your views of Ferguson are, there's no question that the forensic evidence was not what prevented an indictment. Like we've pointed out, a drop from 99% to 1.2% has nothing to do with evidence. The prosecutor and judge simply did not want to indict. Does that mean that Darren Wilson was innocent? No. None of us knows enough to say that. It really means that no one will ever be able to say for sure, because he never got a fair trial. Keep in mind that if grand juries can be convened for political reasons, they can also be manipulated to not indict for political reasons. "}, {"id": "cmlbi2g", "body": "First of all, 2 and 3 are very much *problems* with the justice system. A police officer and a regular joe accused of murder, with the same evidence in both cases, should have the same chance at being indicted. Your career choice should not affect your ability to get away with murder. \n\nSecond of all, whatever your views of Ferguson are, there's no question that the forensic evidence was not what prevented an indictment. Like we've pointed out, a drop from 99% to 1.2% has nothing to do with evidence. The prosecutor and judge simply did not want to indict. Does that mean that Darren Wilson was innocent? No. None of us knows enough to say that. It really means that no one will ever be able to say for sure, because he never got a fair trial. Keep in mind that if grand juries can be convened for political reasons, they can also be manipulated to not indict for political reasons. "}, {"id": "cmlbn3r", "body": "Right, and if you have workable solutions for 2 &amp; 3, I'd be glad to hear them.  We're talking about human psychology, here."}, {"id": "cmlbn3r", "body": "Right, and if you have workable solutions for 2 &amp; 3, I'd be glad to hear them.  We're talking about human psychology, here."}, {"id": "cmlcclg", "body": "There are no easy solutions, and I'm not going to pretend to know every intricacy of what would be involved in changing the system. But there are problems with a system that is so *vulnerable* to bias. \n\nOur government is designed around checks and balances. Surely there is at least some way to give oversight to prosecutors who might refuse to indict an obviously guilty police officer due to the effect the indictment would have on their working relationship with the department. Take the choice out of their hands, and you can make it so departments won't be able to blame prosecutors solely for a police officer's indictment.\n\nIn the longterm, what needs to happen is a change in police culture that ends the sheltering of criminal activity and the refusal to admit to any officer wrongdoing. Police are currently unaccountable. That needs to change, and the argument doesn't end when you say \"but you don't have a comprehensive solution!\"\n\nFinding solutions is why we argue about these problems in the first place. But first everyone has to get on the same page with identifying that there *is* a problem. "}, {"id": "cmlcclg", "body": "There are no easy solutions, and I'm not going to pretend to know every intricacy of what would be involved in changing the system. But there are problems with a system that is so *vulnerable* to bias. \n\nOur government is designed around checks and balances. Surely there is at least some way to give oversight to prosecutors who might refuse to indict an obviously guilty police officer due to the effect the indictment would have on their working relationship with the department. Take the choice out of their hands, and you can make it so departments won't be able to blame prosecutors solely for a police officer's indictment.\n\nIn the longterm, what needs to happen is a change in police culture that ends the sheltering of criminal activity and the refusal to admit to any officer wrongdoing. Police are currently unaccountable. That needs to change, and the argument doesn't end when you say \"but you don't have a comprehensive solution!\"\n\nFinding solutions is why we argue about these problems in the first place. But first everyone has to get on the same page with identifying that there *is* a problem. "}, {"id": "cmlg0r7", "body": "I didn't ask for a comprehensive solution, I asked for a workable one.  You present the strawman about comprehensive solutions, but you haven't proposed *any* solution.\n\nYes, the problem is that police are currently unaccountable. Duh. My three points detailed why that is.  Unless you're going to make a suggestion, you're just wasting time and energy."}, {"id": "cmlg0r7", "body": "I didn't ask for a comprehensive solution, I asked for a workable one.  You present the strawman about comprehensive solutions, but you haven't proposed *any* solution.\n\nYes, the problem is that police are currently unaccountable. Duh. My three points detailed why that is.  Unless you're going to make a suggestion, you're just wasting time and energy."}, {"id": "cmlnfhr", "body": "&gt; Unless you're going to make a suggestion, you're just wasting time and energy.\n\nRaising awareness is the first step in just about any successful social movement. Bitching loudly about a problem isn't going to directly fix anything, but it might get the attention and convince someone else who can and will address it directly. A problem can't be fixed if people don't know that it exists."}, {"id": "cmlbn3r", "body": "Right, and if you have workable solutions for 2 &amp; 3, I'd be glad to hear them.  We're talking about human psychology, here."}, {"id": "cmlssye", "body": "We don't need to fix human psychology, just the system. The solution is pretty obvious: if the prosecution has a vested interest in the defendants acquittal, they should not be the prosecution. Either find a qualified party who does not share this conflict of interest or create a new committee to handle this exact situation. \n\nAwesome username by the way. \n\n"}, {"id": "cmlssye", "body": "We don't need to fix human psychology, just the system. The solution is pretty obvious: if the prosecution has a vested interest in the defendants acquittal, they should not be the prosecution. Either find a qualified party who does not share this conflict of interest or create a new committee to handle this exact situation. \n\nAwesome username by the way. \n\n"}, {"id": "cmlv0t8", "body": "&gt; if the prosecution has a vested interest in the defendants acquittal, they should not be the prosecution. Either find a qualified party who does not share this conflict of interest or create a new committee to handle this exact situation.\n\nIf you're trying to say that the prosecutor and the judge should not be the ones to try a police officer, who does? The public? We already know what a lot of the public's view is of police officers. Realistically, there's already as much checks and balances as are reasonable for integrity of the jury, judge, and prosecutor. Your suggestion of a \"new committee\" is exactly what a grand jury is. The JURY (of 12, randomly selected people with no previous connection to either side of the case) decides guilt or innocence, by either a 2/3 or 3/4 majority, depending on state. Not the judge, and not the prosecutor.\n\nYour \"solution\" is already how grand juries work. Any and all evidence is up for examination. Any defendant who appears is not allowed an attorney. Are you trying to suggest that the prosecutor didn't show all the evidence? What were they holding back after releasing almost 5,000 pages of documentation? Was Wilson not questioned hard enough on the witness stand? Did you read the testimony?\n\nMost, if not all of, the articles linked by 538 in regards to police indictment, all specify on-duty, officer-involved shootings. In other words, mostly cases where it would be classified as self-defense. And some of them are pretty clear. Most of them I'd not even heard of. I would like to see a measurement of number of civilian self-defense shootings that were a) heard by a grand jury in the first place as murder charges, and b) were or were not indicted. I suspect that that number would be close to the same as it was for police officers. \n\nSo I'll try to change your view to this: Maybe the reason police shootings have such a low indictment rate is because of a commitment to transparency. Theoretically, if every time an officer fires their gun, or ends up killing someone through other means, it comes up to a grand jury, what are the odds that they will find beyond a reasonable doubt that it was murder? Or even that it was not self-defense. If, every time a homeowner shot an intruder, it came up to a grand jury, what percent of those would result in indictments. The idea of a grand jury is that it gives power to people who don't normally work in law enforcement."}, {"id": "cmlssye", "body": "We don't need to fix human psychology, just the system. The solution is pretty obvious: if the prosecution has a vested interest in the defendants acquittal, they should not be the prosecution. Either find a qualified party who does not share this conflict of interest or create a new committee to handle this exact situation. \n\nAwesome username by the way. \n\n"}, {"id": "cmn2i4b", "body": "Human psychology isn't the problem (well....), it's the obstacle that we must overcome/account for in our fixing of the system.\n\nAnd yes, I would honestly love Internal Affairs (or really any entity that has an adversarial relationship with the police) to have their own prosecutors.  Maybe they wouldn't have enough cases against cops that there'd be more than one or two per state, region, Major Metro Area, whatever, but there should be *someone* whose job is specifically to try and purge law enforcement organizations of bad apples.  Hell, it'd probably be cheaper keeping such a special prosecutor on staff than it would be to pay out all of the tax payer dollars that Qualified Immunity requires when there are damages.\n\nAnd thank you, I am quite pleased with it.  Yours isn't too bad, either."}, {"id": "cmlbn3r", "body": "Right, and if you have workable solutions for 2 &amp; 3, I'd be glad to hear them.  We're talking about human psychology, here."}, {"id": "cmlxouz", "body": "It is not human psychology, it is the fact the police aren't held to the same standards and that justice and police form a relationship. Break that relationship and seperate them."}, {"id": "cmlxouz", "body": "It is not human psychology, it is the fact the police aren't held to the same standards and that justice and police form a relationship. Break that relationship and seperate them."}, {"id": "cmn2b9j", "body": "And why aren't they?  Human psychology."}, {"id": "cml9lld", "body": "If you read the article, there are some circumstances that make the populations incomparable.\n\n1. Sometimes grand juries are convened for political reasons (see: Ferguson, where the forensic evidence completely undermined the damning witness statements), and *shouldn't* result in indictment.  As such, it may be that the numbers are skewed in favor of transparency and due diligence.\n2. The entire justice system is founded on trust of the police.  As such, juries are naturally inclined to believe a police officer than an average person.\n3. Prosecutors have an (unconscious?) bias against pursuing the people who are *integral* to their ability to do their jobs.  A prosecutor's entire *career* (along with any political ambitions they may have) relies on the ability to get convictions. Their ability to get convictions relies on their ability to work with police.  Treating an ally as your enemy doesn't make them inclined to want to help you."}, {"id": "cmldy4e", "body": "&gt; As such, juries are naturally inclined to believe a police officer than an average person.\n\nThat actually doesn't factor in at all, a trial is about evidence, not who to trust.\n\nThis case is a **perfect** example. There's a video. There's policy. There's no question as to what happened.\n\n&gt;Prosecutors have an (unconscious?) bias against pursuing the people who are integral to their ability to do their jobs.\n\nGoing to need a source on this\n\n**Even if I accept all of your arguments, can you really explain a 98.793% difference in the conviction rate?** I don't know if you really understand how big of a difference that is. If you were to say every other case, every 10 cases, every 100 cases were influence by these it's one thing, but this is literally across hundreds of thousands of cases."}, {"id": "cmldy4e", "body": "&gt; As such, juries are naturally inclined to believe a police officer than an average person.\n\nThat actually doesn't factor in at all, a trial is about evidence, not who to trust.\n\nThis case is a **perfect** example. There's a video. There's policy. There's no question as to what happened.\n\n&gt;Prosecutors have an (unconscious?) bias against pursuing the people who are integral to their ability to do their jobs.\n\nGoing to need a source on this\n\n**Even if I accept all of your arguments, can you really explain a 98.793% difference in the conviction rate?** I don't know if you really understand how big of a difference that is. If you were to say every other case, every 10 cases, every 100 cases were influence by these it's one thing, but this is literally across hundreds of thousands of cases."}, {"id": "cmljg5y", "body": "[deleted]"}, {"id": "cmljg5y", "body": "[deleted]"}, {"id": "cmlle4s", "body": "&gt; If they answered they were less likely to believe an officer because of his job\n\nWell yeah, but that leaves the option open for neutrality\n\n&gt;If they answered they were more likely to believe an officer because of his job, they technically should have been stricken\n\nWell that's my point entirely. \n\nBut either way, my main point was this case is a perfect example where who to believe doesn't matter. There's a video.\n\nThanks for that info though, that's interesting.\n\n&gt;would they be willing to be unbiased during the trial? \n\nNow that's just downright retarded, they know a juror has bias but ask him \"just not to be biased for the trial\"?! That's like \"I don't like black people, they're criminals\" \"Interesting, can you not think that for the trial\" \"Of course.\""}, {"id": "cmldy4e", "body": "&gt; As such, juries are naturally inclined to believe a police officer than an average person.\n\nThat actually doesn't factor in at all, a trial is about evidence, not who to trust.\n\nThis case is a **perfect** example. There's a video. There's policy. There's no question as to what happened.\n\n&gt;Prosecutors have an (unconscious?) bias against pursuing the people who are integral to their ability to do their jobs.\n\nGoing to need a source on this\n\n**Even if I accept all of your arguments, can you really explain a 98.793% difference in the conviction rate?** I don't know if you really understand how big of a difference that is. If you were to say every other case, every 10 cases, every 100 cases were influence by these it's one thing, but this is literally across hundreds of thousands of cases."}, {"id": "cmlfvvm", "body": "&gt;  That actually doesn't factor in at all, a trial is about evidence, not who to trust.\n\nOf course it does, and you're naive if you think otherwise.  People in general *don't want to believe* that their cops are corrupt.  Jury selection further weeds out people who have inherent mistrust of cops, which leaves you people who have a psychological interest in disbelieving evidence brought against a police officer is valid, in denying that the evidence adds up to a scenario that could be damning the police officer, and few to none who are inclined to believe that it is more likely accurate than not.\n\n&gt; Going to need a source on this\n\nCommon sense?  Do you not have a source for that?  Do you know of some profession that can afford to alienate those who supply them with the supplies (evidence) they need to produce their product (convictions)?\n\n&gt; Even if I accept all of your arguments, can you really explain a 98.793% difference in the conviction rate? \n\nYes, I can.  In fact, *I just did.*  I never claimed that it was just, but I explicitly presented a (partial) explanation for an overwhelming difference.\n\nJust because you seem to have missed that doesn't mean I don't understand probability."}, {"id": "cmlfvvm", "body": "&gt;  That actually doesn't factor in at all, a trial is about evidence, not who to trust.\n\nOf course it does, and you're naive if you think otherwise.  People in general *don't want to believe* that their cops are corrupt.  Jury selection further weeds out people who have inherent mistrust of cops, which leaves you people who have a psychological interest in disbelieving evidence brought against a police officer is valid, in denying that the evidence adds up to a scenario that could be damning the police officer, and few to none who are inclined to believe that it is more likely accurate than not.\n\n&gt; Going to need a source on this\n\nCommon sense?  Do you not have a source for that?  Do you know of some profession that can afford to alienate those who supply them with the supplies (evidence) they need to produce their product (convictions)?\n\n&gt; Even if I accept all of your arguments, can you really explain a 98.793% difference in the conviction rate? \n\nYes, I can.  In fact, *I just did.*  I never claimed that it was just, but I explicitly presented a (partial) explanation for an overwhelming difference.\n\nJust because you seem to have missed that doesn't mean I don't understand probability."}, {"id": "cmll4d6", "body": "Okay, to just give some numbers: \n\nAccording to the 538 post in question, in 2010 out of 162,000 grand jury trials, there were 11 that did not result in indictments.\n\nFor cops in 2010, there were 81 indictments, of which 80 did not result in indictments.\n\nWhat I'm trying to say (it's not clear to me how to phrase it, I apologize), is that if it were some other issue, it'd be nearly impossible to explain away.\n\nIt's like if we were looking at the conviction rates for whites and blacks in 1920's Mississippi (a time of all white juries), and those numbers came out for indictments, and instead of systemic racism you cited \"well, whites generally have more money and thus commit less crime\". Your arguments are probably right, but the disparity is so *gapingly huge* that there's no way such weak explanations can explain why this holds across all (for all intents and purposes) cases.\n\nBut, I guess I don't have any statistics on such a thing, so it's a matter of opinion without going much much deeper into this thing."}, {"id": "cmll4d6", "body": "Okay, to just give some numbers: \n\nAccording to the 538 post in question, in 2010 out of 162,000 grand jury trials, there were 11 that did not result in indictments.\n\nFor cops in 2010, there were 81 indictments, of which 80 did not result in indictments.\n\nWhat I'm trying to say (it's not clear to me how to phrase it, I apologize), is that if it were some other issue, it'd be nearly impossible to explain away.\n\nIt's like if we were looking at the conviction rates for whites and blacks in 1920's Mississippi (a time of all white juries), and those numbers came out for indictments, and instead of systemic racism you cited \"well, whites generally have more money and thus commit less crime\". Your arguments are probably right, but the disparity is so *gapingly huge* that there's no way such weak explanations can explain why this holds across all (for all intents and purposes) cases.\n\nBut, I guess I don't have any statistics on such a thing, so it's a matter of opinion without going much much deeper into this thing."}, {"id": "cmllnnm", "body": "&gt;2010 out of 162,000 grand jury trials\n\nFederal only\n\n&gt;For cops in 2010, there were 81 indictments, of which 80 did not result in indictments.\n\nComplete misstatement of both the truth and the article. Not even close to true.\n\n"}, {"id": "cmllnnm", "body": "&gt;2010 out of 162,000 grand jury trials\n\nFederal only\n\n&gt;For cops in 2010, there were 81 indictments, of which 80 did not result in indictments.\n\nComplete misstatement of both the truth and the article. Not even close to true.\n\n"}, {"id": "cmllpma", "body": "&gt;Federal only\n\nYeah but it's a ratio, feel free to give me stats on state trials.\n\n&gt;in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment.\n\nYou're right, that was in Dallas alone. Again, the ratio completely stands."}, {"id": "cmll4d6", "body": "Okay, to just give some numbers: \n\nAccording to the 538 post in question, in 2010 out of 162,000 grand jury trials, there were 11 that did not result in indictments.\n\nFor cops in 2010, there were 81 indictments, of which 80 did not result in indictments.\n\nWhat I'm trying to say (it's not clear to me how to phrase it, I apologize), is that if it were some other issue, it'd be nearly impossible to explain away.\n\nIt's like if we were looking at the conviction rates for whites and blacks in 1920's Mississippi (a time of all white juries), and those numbers came out for indictments, and instead of systemic racism you cited \"well, whites generally have more money and thus commit less crime\". Your arguments are probably right, but the disparity is so *gapingly huge* that there's no way such weak explanations can explain why this holds across all (for all intents and purposes) cases.\n\nBut, I guess I don't have any statistics on such a thing, so it's a matter of opinion without going much much deeper into this thing."}, {"id": "cmlmqau", "body": "Wait, you're telling me that Bias in the people prosecuting, the people Deciding, and the fact that the baseline for both aren't comparable because a number in the group (but not in the other) were just for show doesn't explain that? "}, {"id": "cmlmqau", "body": "Wait, you're telling me that Bias in the people prosecuting, the people Deciding, and the fact that the baseline for both aren't comparable because a number in the group (but not in the other) were just for show doesn't explain that? "}, {"id": "cmlntmq", "body": "You're right, there's an incredibly simple explanation for all of this, and it's not due to malicious intent. "}, {"id": "cml5t7p", "body": "&gt; I think the Grand Jury indicts in well over 95% of cases. \n\n[According to 538,](http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/) it's way more than 95%; it's 99.993% indictment rate, unless the accused is a cop, which case it's somewhere around 1.2% indictment rate.\n\nBased on that fact, it's probably not a bad idea to skip the entire Indictment Process.\n\nAlternately, we need to have someone *other* than a local prosecutor to prosecute government agents, so that there's no conflict of interest in the prosecution, who need the support of police to do their job the overwhelming majority of the time."}, {"id": "cml6g5h", "body": "&gt;According to 538, it's way more than 95%; it's 99.993% indictment rate,\n\nThat's only federal cases"}, {"id": "cml6g5h", "body": "&gt;According to 538, it's way more than 95%; it's 99.993% indictment rate,\n\nThat's only federal cases"}, {"id": "cmldt0l", "body": "Is there any reason to assume that grand juries are significantly stricter at the local level? Like I get that federal court is the \"big leagues\" for prosecutors[1] and they've got the FBI/ATF/DEA/etc doing their police work, but it's still a one-sided case where the DA only needs probable cause.\n\n[1] - But even this might be muted somewhat by the fact that it's probably the junior guys doing Grand Jury stuff."}, {"id": "cmldt0l", "body": "Is there any reason to assume that grand juries are significantly stricter at the local level? Like I get that federal court is the \"big leagues\" for prosecutors[1] and they've got the FBI/ATF/DEA/etc doing their police work, but it's still a one-sided case where the DA only needs probable cause.\n\n[1] - But even this might be muted somewhat by the fact that it's probably the junior guys doing Grand Jury stuff."}, {"id": "cmm26ik", "body": "I'm a lawyer, and it is my impression that federal cases will typically not go to the grand jury unless conviction is practically certain - and when a conviction is so certain, indictment will be as well. There's a lot of differences between federal and state prosecutions - to the point I could write for two hours on it and barely scratch the surface - but that's one of the major ones. State prosecutors may use the grand jury to \"pass the buck\" on unwinnable cases and get someone else to shoot them down. "}, {"id": "cmldt0l", "body": "Is there any reason to assume that grand juries are significantly stricter at the local level? Like I get that federal court is the \"big leagues\" for prosecutors[1] and they've got the FBI/ATF/DEA/etc doing their police work, but it's still a one-sided case where the DA only needs probable cause.\n\n[1] - But even this might be muted somewhat by the fact that it's probably the junior guys doing Grand Jury stuff."}, {"id": "cmlfi8g", "body": "Not arguing it's any lower.  just pointing out he used statistics improperly  "}, {"id": "cml5t7p", "body": "&gt; I think the Grand Jury indicts in well over 95% of cases. \n\n[According to 538,](http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/) it's way more than 95%; it's 99.993% indictment rate, unless the accused is a cop, which case it's somewhere around 1.2% indictment rate.\n\nBased on that fact, it's probably not a bad idea to skip the entire Indictment Process.\n\nAlternately, we need to have someone *other* than a local prosecutor to prosecute government agents, so that there's no conflict of interest in the prosecution, who need the support of police to do their job the overwhelming majority of the time."}, {"id": "cmle340", "body": "&gt; Based on that fact, it's probably not a bad idea to skip the entire Indictment Process.\n\nThen how do charges get filed? A Grand Jury is supposed to be a speed-bump for overzealous prosecutors to make sure they have some evidence before they start jailing folks and going to trial. If a prosecutor doesn't want to file charges, he just has to NOT convene a Grand Jury.\n\nIn these two most recent cases, the Grand Jury is just being used to shift blame off the prosecutors - they could most likely have secured an indictment if they tried under the normal procedure, but by presenting their cases the way they did they made an indictment unlikely/impossible.\n\nSure, it would help in the handful of cases that get national attention where the prosecutor doesn't want to charge someone but also doesn't want the blame, but it'd give prosecutors even more power to abuse in the 99.999% of cases and potential cases that don't get this level of media coverage."}, {"id": "cmle340", "body": "&gt; Based on that fact, it's probably not a bad idea to skip the entire Indictment Process.\n\nThen how do charges get filed? A Grand Jury is supposed to be a speed-bump for overzealous prosecutors to make sure they have some evidence before they start jailing folks and going to trial. If a prosecutor doesn't want to file charges, he just has to NOT convene a Grand Jury.\n\nIn these two most recent cases, the Grand Jury is just being used to shift blame off the prosecutors - they could most likely have secured an indictment if they tried under the normal procedure, but by presenting their cases the way they did they made an indictment unlikely/impossible.\n\nSure, it would help in the handful of cases that get national attention where the prosecutor doesn't want to charge someone but also doesn't want the blame, but it'd give prosecutors even more power to abuse in the 99.999% of cases and potential cases that don't get this level of media coverage."}, {"id": "cmlfil0", "body": "How much of a speedbump is it, really, when 99.993% of Grand Juries hand down indictments?\n\nThe thing is that in many jurisdictions a Grand Jury isn't actually required for a trial (See: George Zimmerman), so an \"overzealous prosecutor\" can just proceed to trial *anyway*"}, {"id": "cmlfil0", "body": "How much of a speedbump is it, really, when 99.993% of Grand Juries hand down indictments?\n\nThe thing is that in many jurisdictions a Grand Jury isn't actually required for a trial (See: George Zimmerman), so an \"overzealous prosecutor\" can just proceed to trial *anyway*"}, {"id": "cmlgnyc", "body": "&gt;How much of a speedbump is it, really, when 99.993% of Grand Juries hand down indictments?\n\nThere's no real way to know, because there aren't really statistics on cases which the prosecutor doesn't take to the grand jury because he doesn't have enough evidence."}, {"id": "cmlgnyc", "body": "&gt;How much of a speedbump is it, really, when 99.993% of Grand Juries hand down indictments?\n\nThere's no real way to know, because there aren't really statistics on cases which the prosecutor doesn't take to the grand jury because he doesn't have enough evidence."}, {"id": "cmlhpls", "body": "Those are cases where the prosecutor *still wouldn't take the case to trial*.  The point is that grand juries right now are a rubber stamp, except for police officers."}, {"id": "cmlhpls", "body": "Those are cases where the prosecutor *still wouldn't take the case to trial*.  The point is that grand juries right now are a rubber stamp, except for police officers."}, {"id": "cmljcgm", "body": "Not necessarily - investigations continue after arrest/indictment. A prosecutor might indict with less evidence to try to force a confession or stick someone in jail while they build their case."}, {"id": "cmlfil0", "body": "How much of a speedbump is it, really, when 99.993% of Grand Juries hand down indictments?\n\nThe thing is that in many jurisdictions a Grand Jury isn't actually required for a trial (See: George Zimmerman), so an \"overzealous prosecutor\" can just proceed to trial *anyway*"}, {"id": "cmm26zz", "body": "That's federal, not state. State grand juries will no-bill much more frequently."}, {"id": "cml5t7p", "body": "&gt; I think the Grand Jury indicts in well over 95% of cases. \n\n[According to 538,](http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/) it's way more than 95%; it's 99.993% indictment rate, unless the accused is a cop, which case it's somewhere around 1.2% indictment rate.\n\nBased on that fact, it's probably not a bad idea to skip the entire Indictment Process.\n\nAlternately, we need to have someone *other* than a local prosecutor to prosecute government agents, so that there's no conflict of interest in the prosecution, who need the support of police to do their job the overwhelming majority of the time."}, {"id": "cmm21o1", "body": "No, that's purely federal, and that article then compares the federal indictment rate to the indictment rate for Houston. I usually love Silver's site, but that's just an absurd comparison. It's like comparing the Chicago Bulls' free throw shooting percentage to a Utah high school's starting center's free throw shooting percentage and then making declarations about collegiate free throws. The Houston data is meaningless without context and Houston's general indictment rate. We also don't know if there's a statute forcing all officer shootings to go to the grand jury, causing the majority to be drummed out when it's obvious they're lawful, etc. \n\nThat's literally the worst article I've ever seen from 538."}, {"id": "cml5t7p", "body": "&gt; I think the Grand Jury indicts in well over 95% of cases. \n\n[According to 538,](http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/) it's way more than 95%; it's 99.993% indictment rate, unless the accused is a cop, which case it's somewhere around 1.2% indictment rate.\n\nBased on that fact, it's probably not a bad idea to skip the entire Indictment Process.\n\nAlternately, we need to have someone *other* than a local prosecutor to prosecute government agents, so that there's no conflict of interest in the prosecution, who need the support of police to do their job the overwhelming majority of the time."}, {"id": "cmlt1f4", "body": "&gt; According to 538, it's way more than 95%; it's 99.993% indictment rate, unless the accused is a cop, which case it's somewhere around 1.2% indictment rate.\n\nWhere do you get the 1.2% figure?  I read the article you linked and I don't see it.  "}, {"id": "cml5t7p", "body": "&gt; I think the Grand Jury indicts in well over 95% of cases. \n\n[According to 538,](http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/) it's way more than 95%; it's 99.993% indictment rate, unless the accused is a cop, which case it's somewhere around 1.2% indictment rate.\n\nBased on that fact, it's probably not a bad idea to skip the entire Indictment Process.\n\nAlternately, we need to have someone *other* than a local prosecutor to prosecute government agents, so that there's no conflict of interest in the prosecution, who need the support of police to do their job the overwhelming majority of the time."}, {"id": "cmlg8i5", "body": "Your statistics are bad, and you should feel bad.\n\n1. Please cite your source and data for a 1.2% indictment rate for police officers facing a grand jury. I can't find that in either the article you linked, or any BJS resource.\n\n2. Implying that an indictment rate is 99.993% is the definition of deceptive. In FY10, 187,916 cases were referred to the US Attorney's Offices. Of those, the US Attorney's Offices declined to prosecute 30,670 (16.3%).\n\n3. Your statistic (which only covers the federal system) could also be construed to mean that the GJ is doing it's job, given that prosecutors are only bringing it cases that they know have sufficient evidence for both indictment and trial. \n\n4. By posting numbers like that without qualifying that they are ONLY representative of the federal criminal system, you imply that state courts have identical results (something that is specifically called out in the article to which you link). "}, {"id": "cmlg8i5", "body": "Your statistics are bad, and you should feel bad.\n\n1. Please cite your source and data for a 1.2% indictment rate for police officers facing a grand jury. I can't find that in either the article you linked, or any BJS resource.\n\n2. Implying that an indictment rate is 99.993% is the definition of deceptive. In FY10, 187,916 cases were referred to the US Attorney's Offices. Of those, the US Attorney's Offices declined to prosecute 30,670 (16.3%).\n\n3. Your statistic (which only covers the federal system) could also be construed to mean that the GJ is doing it's job, given that prosecutors are only bringing it cases that they know have sufficient evidence for both indictment and trial. \n\n4. By posting numbers like that without qualifying that they are ONLY representative of the federal criminal system, you imply that state courts have identical results (something that is specifically called out in the article to which you link). "}, {"id": "cmlggyl", "body": "I was also looking for the 1.2% source. Did you happen to find anything about what the indictment rate for police officers is?"}, {"id": "cmlg8i5", "body": "Your statistics are bad, and you should feel bad.\n\n1. Please cite your source and data for a 1.2% indictment rate for police officers facing a grand jury. I can't find that in either the article you linked, or any BJS resource.\n\n2. Implying that an indictment rate is 99.993% is the definition of deceptive. In FY10, 187,916 cases were referred to the US Attorney's Offices. Of those, the US Attorney's Offices declined to prosecute 30,670 (16.3%).\n\n3. Your statistic (which only covers the federal system) could also be construed to mean that the GJ is doing it's job, given that prosecutors are only bringing it cases that they know have sufficient evidence for both indictment and trial. \n\n4. By posting numbers like that without qualifying that they are ONLY representative of the federal criminal system, you imply that state courts have identical results (something that is specifically called out in the article to which you link). "}, {"id": "cmlgmt7", "body": "They're not mine, they're from the article.\n\n1. 1/81 See the article.\n2. See the article.\n3. Decent point\n4. Oh, you did read the article, nice.  You seem to have missed a few things, though."}, {"id": "cmlgmt7", "body": "They're not mine, they're from the article.\n\n1. 1/81 See the article.\n2. See the article.\n3. Decent point\n4. Oh, you did read the article, nice.  You seem to have missed a few things, though."}, {"id": "cmlgtw5", "body": "1 out of 81 is the number of police officers indicted in Dallas between 2008 and 2012, and only looks at officers who have had cases presented for a shooting.\n\nIssues with that number:\n\n1. Your sample size is the Dallas PD. \n2. No way to know if that's indicative of whether the sample is representative of law enforcement in Texas, let alone the rest of the United States.\n3. Doesn't include officers who are presented to the GJ for any allegation other than a shooting. \n\nLike I said before, your statistics are bad, and you should feel bad."}, {"id": "cmlgtw5", "body": "1 out of 81 is the number of police officers indicted in Dallas between 2008 and 2012, and only looks at officers who have had cases presented for a shooting.\n\nIssues with that number:\n\n1. Your sample size is the Dallas PD. \n2. No way to know if that's indicative of whether the sample is representative of law enforcement in Texas, let alone the rest of the United States.\n3. Doesn't include officers who are presented to the GJ for any allegation other than a shooting. \n\nLike I said before, your statistics are bad, and you should feel bad."}, {"id": "cmlkmqm", "body": "Why do you have to be an illiterate asshole?  I said they weren't my statistics, multiple times, so why should *I* feel bad?\n\nYou're not doing anything other than make me resent you for calling me out for *somebody else's stuff*"}, {"id": "cmlkmqm", "body": "Why do you have to be an illiterate asshole?  I said they weren't my statistics, multiple times, so why should *I* feel bad?\n\nYou're not doing anything other than make me resent you for calling me out for *somebody else's stuff*"}, {"id": "cmlqrde", "body": "You should feel bad if you're misrepresenting statistics."}, {"id": "cmlkmqm", "body": "Why do you have to be an illiterate asshole?  I said they weren't my statistics, multiple times, so why should *I* feel bad?\n\nYou're not doing anything other than make me resent you for calling me out for *somebody else's stuff*"}, {"id": "cmmh7i7", "body": "Because you're representing them falsely so it adds nothing to the discussion but confuse people who are reading. "}, {"id": "cmmh7i7", "body": "Because you're representing them falsely so it adds nothing to the discussion but confuse people who are reading. "}, {"id": "cmn2aoc", "body": "I'm not representing *anything* falsely.  I'm reporting the numbers *someone else* provided, because they're the only numbers I have.  I've been upvoting every single post that makes a genuine complaint about the numbers without being an asshat."}, {"id": "cml2iqd", "body": "Having served on a Grand Jury for six months, you're absolutely right. It's a waste of time. I think the Grand Jury indicts in well over 95% of cases. In our case, a cop representing some city within our county comes in and reads a summary of several felony cases, leaves, we vote a blanket yes for all of them. I think we voted no on maybe 2 or 3 out of hundreds. The problem is that, even though each officer is sworn in, they can just lie anyway because no member of the Grand Jury can ever say what was spoken of and there is noone else in the room. Therefore, everything they say is off the record. (Edit: this freedom to lie seems to only apply to some states. Thanks /u/huadpe)\n\nIt exists for reasonable historical reasons, but as long as they can lie freely and the Grand Jury only hears one side of the story (usually the arresting officer assuming they're the prosecution side), it might as well just go straight to trial."}, {"id": "cml2lp5", "body": "&gt;The problem is that, even though each officer is sworn in, they can just lie anyway because no member of the Grand Jury can ever say what was spoken of and there is noone else in the room. Therefore, everything they say is off the record.\n\nWait, there was no court reporter in the room for the cop's testimony?  And no audio recording?  What jurisdiction was this?\n\nDeliberations are confidential forever, but the testimony isn't."}, {"id": "cml2lp5", "body": "&gt;The problem is that, even though each officer is sworn in, they can just lie anyway because no member of the Grand Jury can ever say what was spoken of and there is noone else in the room. Therefore, everything they say is off the record.\n\nWait, there was no court reporter in the room for the cop's testimony?  And no audio recording?  What jurisdiction was this?\n\nDeliberations are confidential forever, but the testimony isn't."}, {"id": "cml36h0", "body": "No court reporter, no audio recording, east coast. A lot of the testimony was spoken, so no written or recorded record."}, {"id": "cml36h0", "body": "No court reporter, no audio recording, east coast. A lot of the testimony was spoken, so no written or recorded record."}, {"id": "cmlwr5g", "body": "This is certainly not the case in New Jersey. I don't know which state you are from."}, {"id": "cmlwr5g", "body": "This is certainly not the case in New Jersey. I don't know which state you are from."}, {"id": "cmm9v98", "body": "I also want to know. \n\nThe biggest reason the accused doesn't testify in a GJ proceeding is that any benefits are outweighed by the fact that the accused's testimony is now recorded and on the record, and can be used at trial for impeachment."}, {"id": "cml2iqd", "body": "Having served on a Grand Jury for six months, you're absolutely right. It's a waste of time. I think the Grand Jury indicts in well over 95% of cases. In our case, a cop representing some city within our county comes in and reads a summary of several felony cases, leaves, we vote a blanket yes for all of them. I think we voted no on maybe 2 or 3 out of hundreds. The problem is that, even though each officer is sworn in, they can just lie anyway because no member of the Grand Jury can ever say what was spoken of and there is noone else in the room. Therefore, everything they say is off the record. (Edit: this freedom to lie seems to only apply to some states. Thanks /u/huadpe)\n\nIt exists for reasonable historical reasons, but as long as they can lie freely and the Grand Jury only hears one side of the story (usually the arresting officer assuming they're the prosecution side), it might as well just go straight to trial."}, {"id": "cml6uc2", "body": "The reason grand jurys always indite is because prosecutors aren't going to present a case if they don't have enough evidence to get the grand jury to indict.  So there is a massive selection bias.  This doesn't mean a grand jury is useless, it's presence prevents many egregious forms of malicious prosecution.  For example a prosecutor often use very serious charges as technique to extract guilty pleas to lesser charges.  So if a prosecutor could charge *everyone* with murder or attempted murder, the would probably see an increase in guilty pleas.  I'm sure that some prosecutors would say that the ends justify the means and be willing to use this technique, however the grand jury prevents it."}, {"id": "cml6uc2", "body": "The reason grand jurys always indite is because prosecutors aren't going to present a case if they don't have enough evidence to get the grand jury to indict.  So there is a massive selection bias.  This doesn't mean a grand jury is useless, it's presence prevents many egregious forms of malicious prosecution.  For example a prosecutor often use very serious charges as technique to extract guilty pleas to lesser charges.  So if a prosecutor could charge *everyone* with murder or attempted murder, the would probably see an increase in guilty pleas.  I'm sure that some prosecutors would say that the ends justify the means and be willing to use this technique, however the grand jury prevents it."}, {"id": "cml7kw6", "body": "&gt; The reason grand jurys always indite is because prosecutors aren't going to present a case if they don't have enough evidence to get the grand jury to indict. So there is a massive selection bias.\n\nThat's not completely true. There is nearly *always* enough evidence to get a GJ to say \"there is at least a chance that a crime was committed\". You've probably heard the old saying that a district attorney could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. [Here](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/why-police-officers-lie-under-oath.html?pagewanted=all) is one of many articles by the NYT that touches on this. Cops are encouraged to nab the criminal (even if that means playing fast and loose with the truth) to meet expectations (i.e., quotas), the DA doesn't need to have enough for a convinction, just for an indictment because a strong majority of cases are settled before reaching trial. "}, {"id": "cml7kw6", "body": "&gt; The reason grand jurys always indite is because prosecutors aren't going to present a case if they don't have enough evidence to get the grand jury to indict. So there is a massive selection bias.\n\nThat's not completely true. There is nearly *always* enough evidence to get a GJ to say \"there is at least a chance that a crime was committed\". You've probably heard the old saying that a district attorney could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. [Here](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/why-police-officers-lie-under-oath.html?pagewanted=all) is one of many articles by the NYT that touches on this. Cops are encouraged to nab the criminal (even if that means playing fast and loose with the truth) to meet expectations (i.e., quotas), the DA doesn't need to have enough for a convinction, just for an indictment because a strong majority of cases are settled before reaching trial. "}, {"id": "cmla0b3", "body": "Change indict to convict and I think he's correct. \nThere's little incentive for a prosecutor to present a case to the Grand jury if he doesn't think he has a good enough case to convict. If they they think they have enough to prove probable cause but not beyond reasonable doubt they won't put it in front of a grand jury. These no incentive in most cases. \n\n\nUnless it's highly publicized and they want to distance themselves away from the case. "}, {"id": "cml7kw6", "body": "&gt; The reason grand jurys always indite is because prosecutors aren't going to present a case if they don't have enough evidence to get the grand jury to indict. So there is a massive selection bias.\n\nThat's not completely true. There is nearly *always* enough evidence to get a GJ to say \"there is at least a chance that a crime was committed\". You've probably heard the old saying that a district attorney could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. [Here](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/why-police-officers-lie-under-oath.html?pagewanted=all) is one of many articles by the NYT that touches on this. Cops are encouraged to nab the criminal (even if that means playing fast and loose with the truth) to meet expectations (i.e., quotas), the DA doesn't need to have enough for a convinction, just for an indictment because a strong majority of cases are settled before reaching trial. "}, {"id": "cmlx0n4", "body": "&gt;That's not completely true. There is nearly always enough evidence to get a GJ to say \"there is at least a chance that a crime was committed\". \n\nTrue, but there's not always probable cause. "}, {"id": "cml6uc2", "body": "The reason grand jurys always indite is because prosecutors aren't going to present a case if they don't have enough evidence to get the grand jury to indict.  So there is a massive selection bias.  This doesn't mean a grand jury is useless, it's presence prevents many egregious forms of malicious prosecution.  For example a prosecutor often use very serious charges as technique to extract guilty pleas to lesser charges.  So if a prosecutor could charge *everyone* with murder or attempted murder, the would probably see an increase in guilty pleas.  I'm sure that some prosecutors would say that the ends justify the means and be willing to use this technique, however the grand jury prevents it."}, {"id": "cmldqqy", "body": "Grand juries don't prevent malicious cops from getting away with homicide. Nor do they prevent prosecutors from abusing the system in order to get guilty cops off. Nor do they prevent overwhelmingly white grand juries from collaborating in getting those cops off when they kill unarmed black men and boys.\n\nGrand juries almost never indict in this situation."}, {"id": "cmldqqy", "body": "Grand juries don't prevent malicious cops from getting away with homicide. Nor do they prevent prosecutors from abusing the system in order to get guilty cops off. Nor do they prevent overwhelmingly white grand juries from collaborating in getting those cops off when they kill unarmed black men and boys.\n\nGrand juries almost never indict in this situation."}, {"id": "cmlfnol", "body": "You are 100% correct.  I did not imply they did.  In an adversarial justice system like we have in the US if the prosecution doesn't want to convict someone of something there is little chance of them getting convicted.\n\nHow would you feel if a prosecutor decided to just charge all the people in a neighborhood that looked vaguely like the person who committed a crime, or just make up extra charges that have no bias in reality because they feel like it.  These things have and still do happen in some places grand juries are the body the police a prosecutors work and make sure it meets the standard established by the law, nothing more."}, {"id": "cml6uc2", "body": "The reason grand jurys always indite is because prosecutors aren't going to present a case if they don't have enough evidence to get the grand jury to indict.  So there is a massive selection bias.  This doesn't mean a grand jury is useless, it's presence prevents many egregious forms of malicious prosecution.  For example a prosecutor often use very serious charges as technique to extract guilty pleas to lesser charges.  So if a prosecutor could charge *everyone* with murder or attempted murder, the would probably see an increase in guilty pleas.  I'm sure that some prosecutors would say that the ends justify the means and be willing to use this technique, however the grand jury prevents it."}, {"id": "cml7n14", "body": "The problem with that is that the prosecutor can almost always find enough evidence to get the grand jury to indict. The prosecutor can just straight-out lie in most cases, since there's nearly no oversight of the grand jury outside the prosecutor. You can claim that blood was found on a knife or fingerprints were found on a doorknob when they weren't, because the grand jury has no source of information outside of the prosecutor.\n\nAlso, if you're at the point where the prosecutor is actually threatening you with a charge it is already plausible enough on the face of it to indict you even without lying. \"Hey look, he likely manslaughtered, so it's likely he murdered as well\" is easily enough to get a grand jury to indict."}, {"id": "cml7n14", "body": "The problem with that is that the prosecutor can almost always find enough evidence to get the grand jury to indict. The prosecutor can just straight-out lie in most cases, since there's nearly no oversight of the grand jury outside the prosecutor. You can claim that blood was found on a knife or fingerprints were found on a doorknob when they weren't, because the grand jury has no source of information outside of the prosecutor.\n\nAlso, if you're at the point where the prosecutor is actually threatening you with a charge it is already plausible enough on the face of it to indict you even without lying. \"Hey look, he likely manslaughtered, so it's likely he murdered as well\" is easily enough to get a grand jury to indict."}, {"id": "cml8j55", "body": "&gt;The prosecutor can just straight-out lie in most cases, since there's nearly no oversight of the grand jury outside the prosecutor.\n\nI'm incredibly skeptical of this comment. I cannot imagine that there are absolutely no rules of evidence within a Grand Jury, nor that there are not harsh penalties for lawyers who straight lie to a jury in front of a judge. \n\nYou're going to have to source those claims, because they sound like straight hyperbole. "}, {"id": "cml8j55", "body": "&gt;The prosecutor can just straight-out lie in most cases, since there's nearly no oversight of the grand jury outside the prosecutor.\n\nI'm incredibly skeptical of this comment. I cannot imagine that there are absolutely no rules of evidence within a Grand Jury, nor that there are not harsh penalties for lawyers who straight lie to a jury in front of a judge. \n\nYou're going to have to source those claims, because they sound like straight hyperbole. "}, {"id": "cmlbget", "body": "The rules of evidence do not apply to grand jury proceedings. See FRE 1101, which states \"These rules \u2014 except for those on privilege \u2014 do not apply to the following: [. . . ] (2) grand-jury proceedings\". The rules also don't apply to sentencing, preliminary exams, or detention hearings. I'm specifically referring to the federal rules of evidence, because doing a 50 state survey is just not something I want to deal with, but I imagine most (if not all) have the same provision. \n\nThe person you're responding to is correct that there's little oversight of the prosecutor in the grand jury. It's a secret, closed proceeding, and if the prosecutor is lying, well, a judge is never going to find out. Most of the time, prosecutors don't lie (based upon friends of mine who are prosecutors) because it doesn't really help their case. As Sol Watchler famously said, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. There's little need to lie. \n\nThat being said, prosecutors cannot just lie to a judge. Well, I suppose one could, in the sense that it is not physically impossible, but it is against the rules of ethics for attorneys in general. Here is a [law review article](https://www.stroock.com/SiteFiles/Pub784.pdf) on the subject.  That being said, there are times where an attorney will have to lie - at least in part - to a judge based upon the question asked. See [this law review](http://law.hofstra.edu/pdf/academics/journals/lawreview/lrv_issues_v34n03_cc6.freedman.final.pdf) article.  \n\nThat might have been a bit long-winded, sorry!"}, {"id": "cmlbget", "body": "The rules of evidence do not apply to grand jury proceedings. See FRE 1101, which states \"These rules \u2014 except for those on privilege \u2014 do not apply to the following: [. . . ] (2) grand-jury proceedings\". The rules also don't apply to sentencing, preliminary exams, or detention hearings. I'm specifically referring to the federal rules of evidence, because doing a 50 state survey is just not something I want to deal with, but I imagine most (if not all) have the same provision. \n\nThe person you're responding to is correct that there's little oversight of the prosecutor in the grand jury. It's a secret, closed proceeding, and if the prosecutor is lying, well, a judge is never going to find out. Most of the time, prosecutors don't lie (based upon friends of mine who are prosecutors) because it doesn't really help their case. As Sol Watchler famously said, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. There's little need to lie. \n\nThat being said, prosecutors cannot just lie to a judge. Well, I suppose one could, in the sense that it is not physically impossible, but it is against the rules of ethics for attorneys in general. Here is a [law review article](https://www.stroock.com/SiteFiles/Pub784.pdf) on the subject.  That being said, there are times where an attorney will have to lie - at least in part - to a judge based upon the question asked. See [this law review](http://law.hofstra.edu/pdf/academics/journals/lawreview/lrv_issues_v34n03_cc6.freedman.final.pdf) article.  \n\nThat might have been a bit long-winded, sorry!"}, {"id": "cmlclzj", "body": "Huh, interesting. I appreciate the write up, though it seems very strange to me that there are absolutely no rules for evidence in a Grand Jury. Could you perhaps expand on why that might be the case?"}, {"id": "cmlclzj", "body": "Huh, interesting. I appreciate the write up, though it seems very strange to me that there are absolutely no rules for evidence in a Grand Jury. Could you perhaps expand on why that might be the case?"}, {"id": "cmldn2i", "body": "A couple reasons are the most immediate that spring to mind. Mind you, I haven't practiced any criminal law since I was in law school, so my understanding may not be the strongest.\n\n* Efficiency:  The point of the grand jury is to issue an indictment, not to serve as a mini-trial. For instance, a witness might have heard someone else say something, and want to testify about that statement they overheard. In most circumstances, that would be hearsay (something generally inadmissible in a trial). However, there is no judge (or defense attorney) present in the grand jury by design. If the rules of evidence applied, how would we determine if that statement could be presented or not? And who would object to it? \n\n* Purpose of the Grand Jury: The point of the grand jury is to see, based upon the evidence of the prosecutor, whether there is probable cause that a crime was committed. Not whether there are defenses to the crime, or whether the evidence is admissible to show that a crime occurred, but whether there is probable cause. The separate standards are another reason why the rules of evidence don't apply.\n\nThat being said, prosecutors don't generally give the grand jury evidence that was found in clear violation of a constitutional right. If there is a question of its constitutionality, it may be presented. But if it's fairly clear that there was a violation, the prosecutor should follow the rules for their office, which generally preclude such evidence. (See [the USAM](http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/11mcrm.htm#9-11.231) for what I mean.)\n\nThere are some times where the rules of evidence not applying are beneficial to defendants, as well. One of the major bonuses that a defense attorney gets is the ability to conduct a preliminary examination, which allows them to \"lock\" the witness testimony, even by asking impermissible (for trial) questions. If the witness later changes his story, the defense attorney can impeach (discredit) the witness with their prior statement. "}, {"id": "cmldn2i", "body": "A couple reasons are the most immediate that spring to mind. Mind you, I haven't practiced any criminal law since I was in law school, so my understanding may not be the strongest.\n\n* Efficiency:  The point of the grand jury is to issue an indictment, not to serve as a mini-trial. For instance, a witness might have heard someone else say something, and want to testify about that statement they overheard. In most circumstances, that would be hearsay (something generally inadmissible in a trial). However, there is no judge (or defense attorney) present in the grand jury by design. If the rules of evidence applied, how would we determine if that statement could be presented or not? And who would object to it? \n\n* Purpose of the Grand Jury: The point of the grand jury is to see, based upon the evidence of the prosecutor, whether there is probable cause that a crime was committed. Not whether there are defenses to the crime, or whether the evidence is admissible to show that a crime occurred, but whether there is probable cause. The separate standards are another reason why the rules of evidence don't apply.\n\nThat being said, prosecutors don't generally give the grand jury evidence that was found in clear violation of a constitutional right. If there is a question of its constitutionality, it may be presented. But if it's fairly clear that there was a violation, the prosecutor should follow the rules for their office, which generally preclude such evidence. (See [the USAM](http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/11mcrm.htm#9-11.231) for what I mean.)\n\nThere are some times where the rules of evidence not applying are beneficial to defendants, as well. One of the major bonuses that a defense attorney gets is the ability to conduct a preliminary examination, which allows them to \"lock\" the witness testimony, even by asking impermissible (for trial) questions. If the witness later changes his story, the defense attorney can impeach (discredit) the witness with their prior statement. "}, {"id": "cmleduo", "body": "I think what has me most baffled is this: The Grand Jury is supposed to be a time-saver, right? Yet it seems as though the prosecutor can basically get an indictment whenever he wants, and the Grand Jury is just an inconvenient in-between step. \n\nSo, what's the point? Doesn't this just waste more time and resources for those involved if there's a 99% chance the case is going to trial anyway? \n\nOne poster mentioned that the idea of an easy indictment is heavily skewed, because prosecutors won't bother bringing a case to a Grand Jury if they don't have the evidence. Is there truth to this? \n\nMight it also be fair to say that the Grand Jury has become something of a political tool that allows the prosecution to bring a case to a Grand Jury, even though he knows he doesn't have a case, just to placate a group of individuals?\n\nThanks for these great responses!"}, {"id": "cmleduo", "body": "I think what has me most baffled is this: The Grand Jury is supposed to be a time-saver, right? Yet it seems as though the prosecutor can basically get an indictment whenever he wants, and the Grand Jury is just an inconvenient in-between step. \n\nSo, what's the point? Doesn't this just waste more time and resources for those involved if there's a 99% chance the case is going to trial anyway? \n\nOne poster mentioned that the idea of an easy indictment is heavily skewed, because prosecutors won't bother bringing a case to a Grand Jury if they don't have the evidence. Is there truth to this? \n\nMight it also be fair to say that the Grand Jury has become something of a political tool that allows the prosecution to bring a case to a Grand Jury, even though he knows he doesn't have a case, just to placate a group of individuals?\n\nThanks for these great responses!"}, {"id": "cmlf5ay", "body": "&gt;So, what's the point? Doesn't this just waste more time and resources for those involved if there's a 99% chance the case is going to trial anyway?\n\nThe point of the Grand Jury is to have the populace (or a cross-section thereof) say that there is probable cause that a crime was committed. There are many cases where the prosecutor may believe that a crime was committed, but not have the evidence. That won't be put in front of a grand jury, and won't proceed forward. It's a bit of selection bias, in that those cases that go in front of the grand jury receive indictments - but doesn't count how many cases don't go in front of a grand jury. \n\nSecondly, just because there is an indictment doesn't mean the case is going to trial. There are many things that can happen between the grand jury and trial - including a plea deal (the most common) or a motion in limine (pre-trial motion) that tosses out the prosecution's best evidence. \n\n&gt;One poster mentioned that the idea of an easy indictment is heavily skewed, because prosecutors won't bother bringing a case to a Grand Jury if they don't have the evidence. Is there truth to this?\n\nTo some extent, yes. To another extent, no. Prosecutors are generally trusted by the population, along with law enforcement. (Reddit, of course, being the contrarian group it is, is an exception to the rule.) This means that it is easy to lead a grand jury, for good or ill. But in general, I believe that prosecutors present cases that only have enough evidence to proceed forward. Remember, all those prosecutors have bosses they have to justify their actions to. It's not as though they're independently autonomous. In fact, depending on how the prosecutor's office is set up, as soon as an indictment is secured, the case may go to another prosecutor. If the first prosecutor misrepresented facts, it's going to be known within the prosecutor's office, and there will be consequences. \n\n&gt;Might it also be fair to say that the Grand Jury has become something of a political tool that allows the prosecution to bring a case to a Grand Jury, even though he knows he doesn't have a case, just to placate a group of individuals?\n\nWell, sure. In fact, I (and some of my colleagues) believe that is the case with the Ferguson proceedings. Otherwise, the presenting of exculpatory evidence and copies of laws which provide for defenses to a crime would not have occurred. \n\nOne of the reasons being that prosecutors and police officers are generally allies. If you, as a prosecutor, want to have evidence of a shoplifting crime, you need the assistance of the police. And if you want that police officer to testify about the arrest, you need to be nice. Indicting one (however guilty) isn't going to do you any favors. Politically, it is a serious issue. In some ways, I'd be interested in some method of a prosecutor's internal affairs office - a subsection who indict police officers and are able to avoid (to an extent) the politics. I'm sure there's a reason it hasn't been done, but I haven't done much research into it yet. \n\nGlad I was able to help a little! "}, {"id": "cml2iqd", "body": "Having served on a Grand Jury for six months, you're absolutely right. It's a waste of time. I think the Grand Jury indicts in well over 95% of cases. In our case, a cop representing some city within our county comes in and reads a summary of several felony cases, leaves, we vote a blanket yes for all of them. I think we voted no on maybe 2 or 3 out of hundreds. The problem is that, even though each officer is sworn in, they can just lie anyway because no member of the Grand Jury can ever say what was spoken of and there is noone else in the room. Therefore, everything they say is off the record. (Edit: this freedom to lie seems to only apply to some states. Thanks /u/huadpe)\n\nIt exists for reasonable historical reasons, but as long as they can lie freely and the Grand Jury only hears one side of the story (usually the arresting officer assuming they're the prosecution side), it might as well just go straight to trial."}, {"id": "cmlgbv8", "body": "I'm Canadian so know nothing of process in the states...or here for that matter really. But you're in the room with just the accused and they are able to say whatever they want? There's no one from the defence side there or anything? That seems adsurd to me. "}, {"id": "cmlgbv8", "body": "I'm Canadian so know nothing of process in the states...or here for that matter really. But you're in the room with just the accused and they are able to say whatever they want? There's no one from the defence side there or anything? That seems adsurd to me. "}, {"id": "cmlgx5c", "body": "If you can't \"prove\" your case when there isn't a defense, then how can you prove your case when there is? It's not intended to be trial, it's just intended to check to see that there is really a case more than \"I really hate this person\". "}, {"id": "cmlgx5c", "body": "If you can't \"prove\" your case when there isn't a defense, then how can you prove your case when there is? It's not intended to be trial, it's just intended to check to see that there is really a case more than \"I really hate this person\". "}, {"id": "cmlil2n", "body": "ohhh ok that makes sense. I appreciate the explanation, thanks. "}, {"id": "cmlgbv8", "body": "I'm Canadian so know nothing of process in the states...or here for that matter really. But you're in the room with just the accused and they are able to say whatever they want? There's no one from the defence side there or anything? That seems adsurd to me. "}, {"id": "cmliyrn", "body": "Usually it is a police officer or someone else who works for the government. Never a victim, if that's what you're asking. They're only felonies, not misdemeanors or civil suits, so the plaintiff is always some form of government. Common one basically goes \"I was called to the scene of a domestic disturbance. Mrs. Green says that Mr. Green was attacking her and her son. I saw evidence of Mrs. Green and her daughter being hit. Here are some pictures we took.\" Then the officer leaves the room, we discuss it briefly if necessary (in that case probably not at all), and then everyone votes. Has to be 2/3 that say there was possibly a crime."}, {"id": "cmliyrn", "body": "Usually it is a police officer or someone else who works for the government. Never a victim, if that's what you're asking. They're only felonies, not misdemeanors or civil suits, so the plaintiff is always some form of government. Common one basically goes \"I was called to the scene of a domestic disturbance. Mrs. Green says that Mr. Green was attacking her and her son. I saw evidence of Mrs. Green and her daughter being hit. Here are some pictures we took.\" Then the officer leaves the room, we discuss it briefly if necessary (in that case probably not at all), and then everyone votes. Has to be 2/3 that say there was possibly a crime."}, {"id": "cmm1ywc", "body": "Sorry I guess I did use the wrong word there. Thanks for the explanation though. But they can decide what evidence to show you? Like they don't need to show you everything they have only what they want depending on where they want the case to go?"}, {"id": "cmm1ywc", "body": "Sorry I guess I did use the wrong word there. Thanks for the explanation though. But they can decide what evidence to show you? Like they don't need to show you everything they have only what they want depending on where they want the case to go?"}, {"id": "cmm26qd", "body": "Yes but the GJ can ask as many questions as they want. They can even bring in witnesses and ask to see physical evidence (like, say a murder weapon). And remember that this is not the trial proper, it just determines whether it goes to trial. I don't think that GJs are detrimental to the justice system, just that they're not particularly beneficial."}, {"id": "cmm26qd", "body": "Yes but the GJ can ask as many questions as they want. They can even bring in witnesses and ask to see physical evidence (like, say a murder weapon). And remember that this is not the trial proper, it just determines whether it goes to trial. I don't think that GJs are detrimental to the justice system, just that they're not particularly beneficial."}, {"id": "cmm4xm1", "body": "I can see now why you would think that. Thanks for taking the time to explain that to me. "}, {"id": "cmlgbv8", "body": "I'm Canadian so know nothing of process in the states...or here for that matter really. But you're in the room with just the accused and they are able to say whatever they want? There's no one from the defence side there or anything? That seems adsurd to me. "}, {"id": "cmm3g7l", "body": "Grand juries are conducted without notice to the accused. The prosecutor is the only show and can present whatever evidence he or she wants to pursue an indictment. It may be crazy to think about but there is a non-zero chance that an indictment was sought against you but did not get past a grand jury and you will never know. It is not adversarial in the sense that it's prosecutor v defendant, but it is, in theory, prosecutor v the public.   \n  \nThe result is an indictment, not a conviction. The prosecutor still must seek an arrest warrant from the judge, arrest the suspect, have the suspect arraigned and set bond conditions. The defendant is very much involved in that and has right to legal counsel the whole way."}, {"id": "cmm3g7l", "body": "Grand juries are conducted without notice to the accused. The prosecutor is the only show and can present whatever evidence he or she wants to pursue an indictment. It may be crazy to think about but there is a non-zero chance that an indictment was sought against you but did not get past a grand jury and you will never know. It is not adversarial in the sense that it's prosecutor v defendant, but it is, in theory, prosecutor v the public.   \n  \nThe result is an indictment, not a conviction. The prosecutor still must seek an arrest warrant from the judge, arrest the suspect, have the suspect arraigned and set bond conditions. The defendant is very much involved in that and has right to legal counsel the whole way."}, {"id": "cmm4zxb", "body": "Thanks for the response. Everyone here has been giving good info about this. I really appreciate it. "}, {"id": "cmm3g7l", "body": "Grand juries are conducted without notice to the accused. The prosecutor is the only show and can present whatever evidence he or she wants to pursue an indictment. It may be crazy to think about but there is a non-zero chance that an indictment was sought against you but did not get past a grand jury and you will never know. It is not adversarial in the sense that it's prosecutor v defendant, but it is, in theory, prosecutor v the public.   \n  \nThe result is an indictment, not a conviction. The prosecutor still must seek an arrest warrant from the judge, arrest the suspect, have the suspect arraigned and set bond conditions. The defendant is very much involved in that and has right to legal counsel the whole way."}, {"id": "cmm9wkp", "body": "&gt;Grand juries are conducted without notice to the accused.\n\nNot necessarily true. That's state dependent. "}, {"id": "cml2iqd", "body": "Having served on a Grand Jury for six months, you're absolutely right. It's a waste of time. I think the Grand Jury indicts in well over 95% of cases. In our case, a cop representing some city within our county comes in and reads a summary of several felony cases, leaves, we vote a blanket yes for all of them. I think we voted no on maybe 2 or 3 out of hundreds. The problem is that, even though each officer is sworn in, they can just lie anyway because no member of the Grand Jury can ever say what was spoken of and there is noone else in the room. Therefore, everything they say is off the record. (Edit: this freedom to lie seems to only apply to some states. Thanks /u/huadpe)\n\nIt exists for reasonable historical reasons, but as long as they can lie freely and the Grand Jury only hears one side of the story (usually the arresting officer assuming they're the prosecution side), it might as well just go straight to trial."}, {"id": "cmlwqkt", "body": "&gt; everything they say is off the record\n\nThis is false. A record is created at Grand Jury, which can later be used to impeach witnesses (cops included) if they change their story while they are at trial.\n\nFor this reason, prosecutors tell their Grand Jury witnesses only to say enough to get the indictment, so they don't get tripped up at trial.\n\n*this varies state to state, I suppose"}, {"id": "cml2iqd", "body": "Having served on a Grand Jury for six months, you're absolutely right. It's a waste of time. I think the Grand Jury indicts in well over 95% of cases. In our case, a cop representing some city within our county comes in and reads a summary of several felony cases, leaves, we vote a blanket yes for all of them. I think we voted no on maybe 2 or 3 out of hundreds. The problem is that, even though each officer is sworn in, they can just lie anyway because no member of the Grand Jury can ever say what was spoken of and there is noone else in the room. Therefore, everything they say is off the record. (Edit: this freedom to lie seems to only apply to some states. Thanks /u/huadpe)\n\nIt exists for reasonable historical reasons, but as long as they can lie freely and the Grand Jury only hears one side of the story (usually the arresting officer assuming they're the prosecution side), it might as well just go straight to trial."}, {"id": "cmlq6j4", "body": "While I can't speak to your state, in California everything is on the record.  It's just that those records are sealed and not released unless someone proves to a judge there is a good reason to see them.   \n\nI would be shocked if there was a grand jury that didn't have transcripts.\n\n"}, {"id": "cml2iqd", "body": "Having served on a Grand Jury for six months, you're absolutely right. It's a waste of time. I think the Grand Jury indicts in well over 95% of cases. In our case, a cop representing some city within our county comes in and reads a summary of several felony cases, leaves, we vote a blanket yes for all of them. I think we voted no on maybe 2 or 3 out of hundreds. The problem is that, even though each officer is sworn in, they can just lie anyway because no member of the Grand Jury can ever say what was spoken of and there is noone else in the room. Therefore, everything they say is off the record. (Edit: this freedom to lie seems to only apply to some states. Thanks /u/huadpe)\n\nIt exists for reasonable historical reasons, but as long as they can lie freely and the Grand Jury only hears one side of the story (usually the arresting officer assuming they're the prosecution side), it might as well just go straight to trial."}, {"id": "cmluqyd", "body": "Since you spent time on a grand jury, can you answer me this? Are the only options \"guilty\" or \"not guilty\"? Like if the cop in the Eric Garner case was up for murder (Which if I'm not mistaken requires premeditation) he's either guilty or not, and you can't charge him with anything else?"}, {"id": "cmluqyd", "body": "Since you spent time on a grand jury, can you answer me this? Are the only options \"guilty\" or \"not guilty\"? Like if the cop in the Eric Garner case was up for murder (Which if I'm not mistaken requires premeditation) he's either guilty or not, and you can't charge him with anything else?"}, {"id": "cmlxh69", "body": "You can also request more information...pretty much whatever you want, or you can not indict and they can come back with different charges I think."}, {"id": "cmlxh69", "body": "You can also request more information...pretty much whatever you want, or you can not indict and they can come back with different charges I think."}, {"id": "cmlxzd6", "body": "So they could come back with manslaughter charges? I'd like to think that the prosecution would at least try that."}, {"id": "cmluqyd", "body": "Since you spent time on a grand jury, can you answer me this? Are the only options \"guilty\" or \"not guilty\"? Like if the cop in the Eric Garner case was up for murder (Which if I'm not mistaken requires premeditation) he's either guilty or not, and you can't charge him with anything else?"}, {"id": "cmm3kly", "body": "There is no determination of guilt made by a grand jury whatsoever. They answer two questions: Was &lt;insert crime here&gt; committed at all? Yes or No based on preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). Question 2 is whether there is probable cause to indict a suspect of committing that crime- again is it more likely than not that this person did this crime, based on the evidence presented (there are limited rules of evidence and the prosecutor is not obligated to present all the evidence)? Yes- indict. No-No bill (No indictment, prosecutor drops the case or tries to find more evidence to try again down the line)."}, {"id": "cmm3kly", "body": "There is no determination of guilt made by a grand jury whatsoever. They answer two questions: Was &lt;insert crime here&gt; committed at all? Yes or No based on preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). Question 2 is whether there is probable cause to indict a suspect of committing that crime- again is it more likely than not that this person did this crime, based on the evidence presented (there are limited rules of evidence and the prosecutor is not obligated to present all the evidence)? Yes- indict. No-No bill (No indictment, prosecutor drops the case or tries to find more evidence to try again down the line)."}, {"id": "cmmib3u", "body": "Thanks for the explanation. Do you know what the cop was tried for in this case? I imagine if it was homicide they'd have at least indicted for manslaughter. \n\nAlternatively, NYC is totally fucked anyway, so... Maybe they are just stupid."}, {"id": "cmkzfx1", "body": "We already don't *really* use grand juries to indict. The grand jury is a puppet of the prosecutor. It's set up in a way that allows the prosecutor to get indictments (or non-indictments) pretty much at will.\n\nImagine if you had a trial where only one side was allowed to present evidence and the threshold for guilt is \"is there any evidence at all?\" That is pretty much what a grand jury is, and the prosecutor's sole ability to present or withhold evidence from it is why it's basically the prosecutor's puppet."}, {"id": "cml9u8a", "body": "You didn't say anything to challenge my point. We need a massive overhaul of our justice system because that is not justice."}, {"id": "cml9u8a", "body": "You didn't say anything to challenge my point. We need a massive overhaul of our justice system because that is not justice."}, {"id": "cmljen7", "body": "What system could prevent someone from just not doing their job? The only reason cops are getting off, is that *the person whose job is to prosecute, decided not to prosecute.*"}, {"id": "cmljen7", "body": "What system could prevent someone from just not doing their job? The only reason cops are getting off, is that *the person whose job is to prosecute, decided not to prosecute.*"}, {"id": "cmloduj", "body": "An independent prosecution team that strictly acts as watchdogs over law enforcement, maybe? Just throwing it out there. It seems that the real rub is that the same party that is supposed to prosecute cops depends on cops to do their jobs. Perhaps the answer is a separate branch of prosecutor that doesn't normally depend upon police for evidence in other cases. "}, {"id": "cmljen7", "body": "What system could prevent someone from just not doing their job? The only reason cops are getting off, is that *the person whose job is to prosecute, decided not to prosecute.*"}, {"id": "cmlrj2y", "body": "Because it happens all the fucking time. We need an impartial process for indictments involving police officers. Prosecutors and police officers are pretty much colleagues. That leaves a lot of room for injustices to occur."}, {"id": "cmljen7", "body": "What system could prevent someone from just not doing their job? The only reason cops are getting off, is that *the person whose job is to prosecute, decided not to prosecute.*"}, {"id": "cmls4ox", "body": "You could have a special prosecutor for any case involving cops.  I've heard that some states do that, either appointed by the governor, or called by a citizen review board."}, {"id": "cml9u8a", "body": "You didn't say anything to challenge my point. We need a massive overhaul of our justice system because that is not justice."}, {"id": "cmllb72", "body": "Yes I did. You want to get rid of grand juries but I'm saying that the problem is that we've essentially already gotten rid of grand juries."}, {"id": "cmllb72", "body": "Yes I did. You want to get rid of grand juries but I'm saying that the problem is that we've essentially already gotten rid of grand juries."}, {"id": "cmlllzg", "body": "I don't necessarily want to get rid of grand juries. As I stated in my post I don't necessarily have the solution, and I don't necessarily know what the problem is. But I do see that there is a problem and I believe that an overhaul is necessary. \n\nI am very ignorant when it comes to the justice system. All I can see is the end result as I don't fully understand the process. I am calling for reform of the justice system, in any form. All I know is that something needs to change. \n\nI'm fine with your post. I agree with it and find it interesting. I was just asking if you meant to say that our system is fine how it is. "}, {"id": "cmkzfx1", "body": "We already don't *really* use grand juries to indict. The grand jury is a puppet of the prosecutor. It's set up in a way that allows the prosecutor to get indictments (or non-indictments) pretty much at will.\n\nImagine if you had a trial where only one side was allowed to present evidence and the threshold for guilt is \"is there any evidence at all?\" That is pretty much what a grand jury is, and the prosecutor's sole ability to present or withhold evidence from it is why it's basically the prosecutor's puppet."}, {"id": "cml8ldf", "body": "And prosecutors that withold evidence from grand juries should stand trial for obstruction.\n\nCurrently, we have no checks or balances to make sure prosecutors actually do their jobs."}, {"id": "cml8ldf", "body": "And prosecutors that withold evidence from grand juries should stand trial for obstruction.\n\nCurrently, we have no checks or balances to make sure prosecutors actually do their jobs."}, {"id": "cmlea8h", "body": "&gt;And prosecutors that withold evidence from grand juries should stand trial for obstruction.\n\nStrictly speaking, it's a prosecutor's job to withhold evidence from grand juries - he's supposed to present the strongest possible version of his case, to demonstrate that he has probable cause to haul someone off to jail and start a trial. The prosecutor in the Darren Wilson case managed to get the no-indictment result precisely by presenting all the evidence - by flooding them with accounts instead of assembling a strong case, he made it a lot harder to indict and forced them to deal with the case in a way that should have been left for the trial."}, {"id": "cml8ldf", "body": "And prosecutors that withold evidence from grand juries should stand trial for obstruction.\n\nCurrently, we have no checks or balances to make sure prosecutors actually do their jobs."}, {"id": "cmla410", "body": "Well, their job is to prosecute. Period. I think people are completely misunderstanding the purpose of a grand jury and the job of the prosecutor.\n\nNot there isn't something wrong with the way grand juries work in relation to law enforcement where they have obvious incentives to not do their job properly. But there's a reason why you go from indictment to trial and not straight to jail. The grand jury's purpose is to only filter out the *obviously* bad cases."}, {"id": "cmla410", "body": "Well, their job is to prosecute. Period. I think people are completely misunderstanding the purpose of a grand jury and the job of the prosecutor.\n\nNot there isn't something wrong with the way grand juries work in relation to law enforcement where they have obvious incentives to not do their job properly. But there's a reason why you go from indictment to trial and not straight to jail. The grand jury's purpose is to only filter out the *obviously* bad cases."}, {"id": "cmlgcn4", "body": "&gt;Well, their job is to prosecute. Period. I think people are completely misunderstanding the purpose of a grand jury and the job of the prosecutor.\n\nAnd you're one of them. \n\nYour assertion would result in a violation of the ABA model rules of ethics for prosecutors. "}, {"id": "cmlgcn4", "body": "&gt;Well, their job is to prosecute. Period. I think people are completely misunderstanding the purpose of a grand jury and the job of the prosecutor.\n\nAnd you're one of them. \n\nYour assertion would result in a violation of the ABA model rules of ethics for prosecutors. "}, {"id": "cmlhprp", "body": "Seeing as I didn't make many assertions at all I find that incredibly unlikely."}, {"id": "cmla410", "body": "Well, their job is to prosecute. Period. I think people are completely misunderstanding the purpose of a grand jury and the job of the prosecutor.\n\nNot there isn't something wrong with the way grand juries work in relation to law enforcement where they have obvious incentives to not do their job properly. But there's a reason why you go from indictment to trial and not straight to jail. The grand jury's purpose is to only filter out the *obviously* bad cases."}, {"id": "cmlaagz", "body": "Yes.  Their* job is to *prosecute*.  And when they intentionally do a shitty job of that, there need to be consequences."}, {"id": "cmkzfx1", "body": "We already don't *really* use grand juries to indict. The grand jury is a puppet of the prosecutor. It's set up in a way that allows the prosecutor to get indictments (or non-indictments) pretty much at will.\n\nImagine if you had a trial where only one side was allowed to present evidence and the threshold for guilt is \"is there any evidence at all?\" That is pretty much what a grand jury is, and the prosecutor's sole ability to present or withhold evidence from it is why it's basically the prosecutor's puppet."}, {"id": "cmmsgl3", "body": "The purpose of the grand jury is to save the city/county/district money and prevent the prosecutor from taking everything to trial. They aren't suppose to represent the will of the people, and they aren't suppose to be an extra precautionary measure to protect people's innocence; they represent the purse of the people, and it's just a check and balance on the prosecutor's power to tap into a given district's budget.\n\nThere shouldn't be any desire of justice from the grand jury, but that probably hits too close to home for people who don't understand justice is a 3 party system: the arbiter, the plantiff, and the defendant. Those that depend on the prosecutor and grand jury are expecting a fourth party's involvement who represents some abstract damaged party (the people), and that's where the thinking goes wrong. That fourth party is more of an arm of militancy. Here in the case of Eric people are expecting part of that militant arm to attack itself. This is part of a failure to understand civics and a religious faith in the democratic/capitalist/american system. If you want an honest request for justice you have to file for it yourself. Expecting otherwise leads to these glaring failures and criminals with no victims because it's expecting too much from humans in general. You can't expect them to be perfect guardian angels from a system that's the best of all the evils. \n\nPeople always seem to forget Thomas Paine said government is but a necessary evil, or seem to think he was simply just another guy with vague criticisms about power and institution.\n\n"}, {"id": "cmmsgl3", "body": "The purpose of the grand jury is to save the city/county/district money and prevent the prosecutor from taking everything to trial. They aren't suppose to represent the will of the people, and they aren't suppose to be an extra precautionary measure to protect people's innocence; they represent the purse of the people, and it's just a check and balance on the prosecutor's power to tap into a given district's budget.\n\nThere shouldn't be any desire of justice from the grand jury, but that probably hits too close to home for people who don't understand justice is a 3 party system: the arbiter, the plantiff, and the defendant. Those that depend on the prosecutor and grand jury are expecting a fourth party's involvement who represents some abstract damaged party (the people), and that's where the thinking goes wrong. That fourth party is more of an arm of militancy. Here in the case of Eric people are expecting part of that militant arm to attack itself. This is part of a failure to understand civics and a religious faith in the democratic/capitalist/american system. If you want an honest request for justice you have to file for it yourself. Expecting otherwise leads to these glaring failures and criminals with no victims because it's expecting too much from humans in general. You can't expect them to be perfect guardian angels from a system that's the best of all the evils. \n\nPeople always seem to forget Thomas Paine said government is but a necessary evil, or seem to think he was simply just another guy with vague criticisms about power and institution.\n\n"}, {"id": "cmn3ufm", "body": "&gt;to save the city/county/district money \n\nClearly they don't, because it costs more money to impanel a grand jury than not to, and...\n\n&gt;prevent the prosecutor from taking everything to trial\n\nClearly they don't, because over 99% of cases a prosecutor puts before a grand jury go to trial.\n\n&gt;they aren't suppose to be an extra precautionary measure to protect people's innocence; they represent the purse of the people, and it's just a check and balance on the prosecutor's power to tap into a given district's budget.\n\nAt least in the Constitution, grand juries are clearly supposed to be an extra precautionary measure to protect people's innocence. That's why they're listed in the Fifth Amendment along with all the other precautionary measures to protect people's innocence."}, {"id": "cmn3ufm", "body": "&gt;to save the city/county/district money \n\nClearly they don't, because it costs more money to impanel a grand jury than not to, and...\n\n&gt;prevent the prosecutor from taking everything to trial\n\nClearly they don't, because over 99% of cases a prosecutor puts before a grand jury go to trial.\n\n&gt;they aren't suppose to be an extra precautionary measure to protect people's innocence; they represent the purse of the people, and it's just a check and balance on the prosecutor's power to tap into a given district's budget.\n\nAt least in the Constitution, grand juries are clearly supposed to be an extra precautionary measure to protect people's innocence. That's why they're listed in the Fifth Amendment along with all the other precautionary measures to protect people's innocence."}, {"id": "cmni8kq", "body": "The actuality can be different from the intent, and as for the for the money figures involved I am to a degree uncertain, however I believe county and city levels pay around a thousand a month on a grand jury, but that's likely to be a variable with location.\n\nThe fifth amendment is in relation to \"capital, or otherwise infamous crime\" and constitutional procedure. The grand jury's common implementation on the city/county level isn't directly relevant to those constitutional purposes or intent. Though they are precautionary in the case of constitutional rights, it's moot to the case at hand which is what I'm directly speaking to, and which no one is actually representing Eric. The main counter-point would be that city level implementation is used for things not just of a capital and infamous nature.\n\nI don't want to make this argument in direct opposition to you, my main point from the previous post I wanted to convey was that of 'the fourth party' (aggressive, militant, and/or intervening) nature being that the grand jury and prosecutor (collusion between the two being the grounds for claims of injustice) are not the arbiters, not the damaged party, not the defendant, and most importantly they do not directly represent a damaged party either. If they did directly represent a damaged party (or the will of the people in it's *entirety*) then this would be without any doubt a high-order act of malfeasance.\n\nI know this can sound like a strange stretch but law is a complicated topic without an understanding of it's general axioms. Most of us are only familiar with it's statutory nature and not the [foundations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_systems) those statutes are built upon which exceed constitutional or international authority despite how unusual that may sound. I'm still learning a lot myself, but the three party system is what I'm trying to direct the attention to here. Expecting public officials to represent people like Eric without exception is a disregard of Thomas Paine's general precept because this is a clear case of state interests only looking out for state interests. Also, I'm not trying to deter protest in any way shape or form; I'm just trying to help people know the game that's being played, not the score. It's clearly a cold blooded murder, and there is a technical reason why they can get away with it no matter how egregious it is unless (certain) people get personally involved to represent themselves and the deceased."}, {"id": "cmkzfx1", "body": "We already don't *really* use grand juries to indict. The grand jury is a puppet of the prosecutor. It's set up in a way that allows the prosecutor to get indictments (or non-indictments) pretty much at will.\n\nImagine if you had a trial where only one side was allowed to present evidence and the threshold for guilt is \"is there any evidence at all?\" That is pretty much what a grand jury is, and the prosecutor's sole ability to present or withhold evidence from it is why it's basically the prosecutor's puppet."}, {"id": "cmljc5d", "body": "How does this challenge OP's view?"}, {"id": "cmljc5d", "body": "How does this challenge OP's view?"}, {"id": "cmljgzz", "body": "His view is more than just the title: he's assuming throughout that grand juries are what indict, and his solutions to the problem are based on that assumption. But any real fix to the problem needs to deal with the fact that prosecutors are really in practice the ones that decide to indict, not grand juries.\n\nHe claims we need to \"stop using grand juries to decide whether or not to indict\" to fix the problem but that clearly wouldn't help as we have in practice already stopped and the problem is still there. If we started using grand juries for real that would in large part *fix* the problem, not cause it."}, {"id": "cmljgzz", "body": "His view is more than just the title: he's assuming throughout that grand juries are what indict, and his solutions to the problem are based on that assumption. But any real fix to the problem needs to deal with the fact that prosecutors are really in practice the ones that decide to indict, not grand juries.\n\nHe claims we need to \"stop using grand juries to decide whether or not to indict\" to fix the problem but that clearly wouldn't help as we have in practice already stopped and the problem is still there. If we started using grand juries for real that would in large part *fix* the problem, not cause it."}, {"id": "cmljpiy", "body": "You present the grand jury as the prosecutor's puppet, allowing the prosecutor to predetermine indictments and non-indictments. Doesn't this paint grand juries as a corruptible system at worst and a pointless system at best? I heavily got the impression that you were advocating for change."}, {"id": "cmljpiy", "body": "You present the grand jury as the prosecutor's puppet, allowing the prosecutor to predetermine indictments and non-indictments. Doesn't this paint grand juries as a corruptible system at worst and a pointless system at best? I heavily got the impression that you were advocating for change."}, {"id": "cmll13u", "body": "&gt;You present the grand jury as the prosecutor's puppet, allowing the prosecutor to predetermine indictments and non-indictments. Doesn't this paint grand juries as a corruptible system at worst and a pointless system at best? \n\nOnly if you equivocate between \"grand jury\" as \"the system we have now\" and \"the system that was intended by the people who put in place the system we have now\".\n\n&gt; I heavily got the impression that you were advocating for change.\n\nYes, but the change I'm advocating for is almost entirely opposite of the OP.\n\nHe thinks that we should get rid of grand juries; I think that if we could get grand juries to actually function as they were intended to they would fix the problem."}, {"id": "cmll13u", "body": "&gt;You present the grand jury as the prosecutor's puppet, allowing the prosecutor to predetermine indictments and non-indictments. Doesn't this paint grand juries as a corruptible system at worst and a pointless system at best? \n\nOnly if you equivocate between \"grand jury\" as \"the system we have now\" and \"the system that was intended by the people who put in place the system we have now\".\n\n&gt; I heavily got the impression that you were advocating for change.\n\nYes, but the change I'm advocating for is almost entirely opposite of the OP.\n\nHe thinks that we should get rid of grand juries; I think that if we could get grand juries to actually function as they were intended to they would fix the problem."}, {"id": "cmll8vw", "body": "&gt; Only if you equivocate between \"grand jury\" as \"the system we have now\" and \"the system that was intended by the people who put in place the system we have now\".\n\nI think I understand.\n\n&gt;He thinks that we should get rid of grand juries; I think that if we could get grand juries to actually function as they were intended to they would fix the problem.\n\nGotcha, thanks for clarifying. Although you [may want to explain this to OP as well](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2o9h6l/cmv_the_eric_garner_case_shows_a_major_problem_in/cml9u8a)."}, {"id": "2o9h6l", "body": "What happened to Eric Garner was a horrible tragedy. But I don't blame the NYPD for it. Occasionally a cop goes insane and does something like this. The NYPD commissioner seems to be on Garner's side, and many officers have said that what the police officer did was not protocol and was wrong.\n\nBut the police can't know if an officer will do something that goes completely against his training. The truth is the NYPD has been very good in racial issues and keeping crime low. Stop and frisk may seem to be contrary to that, but that was a policy that told the police to go into poor (black) neighborhoods and frisk people. This was not a decision made by the police.\n\nThe problem with the Garner case is the justices system's failure to indite Eric Garner's murderer. Pantaleo murdered Eric Garner. There isn't really any question about this. He did not follow police protocol and attacked a man with his hands in the air and killed him as he begged to breathe.\n\nPantaleo deserves to go to trial, for at least manslaughter if not first degree murder. There is no reasonable doubt or any question of what happened like there was in the Micheal Brown case. With Micheal Brown there was a lack of evidence and conflicting reports, so we can't know and therefore can't prosecute.\n\nBut in the Garner case there was no question. We know what happened.\n\nMy only conclusion from this is that the grand jury had a majority of either incredibly racist people or people who were incredibly loyal to the police for no reason.\n\nI believe that to fix this problem we need to stop using grand juries to decide whether or not to indite. They have proven themselves to be a horrible tool. Instead we should use a panel of judges, or just go to trial immediately when the evidence is this overwhelming. (EDIT: maybe not go to trial immediately. My main call is for a change in the process. I do not necessarily have the change needed.)\n\nThe reason I want my view changed is that I'd like the believe that our system isn't horribly unjust. But all evidence says that it is.\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cml15c8", "body": "The grand jury is a check against overzealous prosecutors.  It was thought by the founders that regular people would serve as a check against politically motivated or other wrongful prosecutions.  One of the prices you pay for a check against tyranny and protecting innocent people from prosecution is that guilty people sometimes go free.   Now people always *say* that it is better that one hundred guilty men go free than that one innocent man be convicted, but there is much more outrage and howling for reform when someone perceived to be guilty is not punished (e.g., Rodney King cops; Darren Wilson; OJ; this case; Zimmerman) than when an innocent man is jailed for years before being exonerated, which is much more common. "}, {"id": "cml15c8", "body": "The grand jury is a check against overzealous prosecutors.  It was thought by the founders that regular people would serve as a check against politically motivated or other wrongful prosecutions.  One of the prices you pay for a check against tyranny and protecting innocent people from prosecution is that guilty people sometimes go free.   Now people always *say* that it is better that one hundred guilty men go free than that one innocent man be convicted, but there is much more outrage and howling for reform when someone perceived to be guilty is not punished (e.g., Rodney King cops; Darren Wilson; OJ; this case; Zimmerman) than when an innocent man is jailed for years before being exonerated, which is much more common. "}, {"id": "cmlwl9t", "body": "&gt;than when an innocent man is jailed for years before being exonerated, which is much more common.\n\nThat's not even remotely true, most murders (and all crimes) never end in a conviction."}, {"id": "cmlwl9t", "body": "&gt;than when an innocent man is jailed for years before being exonerated, which is much more common.\n\nThat's not even remotely true, most murders (and all crimes) never end in a conviction."}, {"id": "cmlwr6l", "body": "&gt;That's not even remotely true, most murders (and all crimes) never end in a conviction.\n\nBut not because the grand jury refuses to indict, which is the issue we're talking about."}, {"id": "2o9h6l", "body": "What happened to Eric Garner was a horrible tragedy. But I don't blame the NYPD for it. Occasionally a cop goes insane and does something like this. The NYPD commissioner seems to be on Garner's side, and many officers have said that what the police officer did was not protocol and was wrong.\n\nBut the police can't know if an officer will do something that goes completely against his training. The truth is the NYPD has been very good in racial issues and keeping crime low. Stop and frisk may seem to be contrary to that, but that was a policy that told the police to go into poor (black) neighborhoods and frisk people. This was not a decision made by the police.\n\nThe problem with the Garner case is the justices system's failure to indite Eric Garner's murderer. Pantaleo murdered Eric Garner. There isn't really any question about this. He did not follow police protocol and attacked a man with his hands in the air and killed him as he begged to breathe.\n\nPantaleo deserves to go to trial, for at least manslaughter if not first degree murder. There is no reasonable doubt or any question of what happened like there was in the Micheal Brown case. With Micheal Brown there was a lack of evidence and conflicting reports, so we can't know and therefore can't prosecute.\n\nBut in the Garner case there was no question. We know what happened.\n\nMy only conclusion from this is that the grand jury had a majority of either incredibly racist people or people who were incredibly loyal to the police for no reason.\n\nI believe that to fix this problem we need to stop using grand juries to decide whether or not to indite. They have proven themselves to be a horrible tool. Instead we should use a panel of judges, or just go to trial immediately when the evidence is this overwhelming. (EDIT: maybe not go to trial immediately. My main call is for a change in the process. I do not necessarily have the change needed.)\n\nThe reason I want my view changed is that I'd like the believe that our system isn't horribly unjust. But all evidence says that it is.\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cmkytas", "body": "To clarify, you realize that these words are specifically in the Constitution right?\n\n&gt; No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. . . .\n\nAdditionally, do you think that the jury system itself is also flawed? If you think that the problem is that jurors can't be trusted to adequately arrive at just decisions, is there any reason this wouldn't apply to petit juries?"}, {"id": "cmkytas", "body": "To clarify, you realize that these words are specifically in the Constitution right?\n\n&gt; No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. . . .\n\nAdditionally, do you think that the jury system itself is also flawed? If you think that the problem is that jurors can't be trusted to adequately arrive at just decisions, is there any reason this wouldn't apply to petit juries?"}, {"id": "cmkz48v", "body": "The ~~6th~~5th amendment requirement for grand juries only applies to federal indictments.  While NY has a similar requirement in its state constitution, many states have replaced grand juries with preliminary hearings in some, if not all, cases.\n\nSo there is an alternative system in use where a judge makes the probable cause determination.\n\nEd: well, that was embarrassing."}, {"id": "cmkz48v", "body": "The ~~6th~~5th amendment requirement for grand juries only applies to federal indictments.  While NY has a similar requirement in its state constitution, many states have replaced grand juries with preliminary hearings in some, if not all, cases.\n\nSo there is an alternative system in use where a judge makes the probable cause determination.\n\nEd: well, that was embarrassing."}, {"id": "cml0ibc", "body": "At the same time, the decision for New York to use grand juries instead of a preliminary hearing is the sole decision of the state and not the federal government. If court proceedings changed between grand juries and preliminary hearings just because of the publicity of the case, it could lead to corruption (as in, a biased judge changing the trial method due to their own prejudice)"}, {"id": "cmkz48v", "body": "The ~~6th~~5th amendment requirement for grand juries only applies to federal indictments.  While NY has a similar requirement in its state constitution, many states have replaced grand juries with preliminary hearings in some, if not all, cases.\n\nSo there is an alternative system in use where a judge makes the probable cause determination.\n\nEd: well, that was embarrassing."}, {"id": "cmldd7x", "body": "You're actually right. The grand jury part of the 5th Amendment is one of the few that has yet to be incorporated.\n\n[Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights#Amendment_V)"}, {"id": "cmkytas", "body": "To clarify, you realize that these words are specifically in the Constitution right?\n\n&gt; No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. . . .\n\nAdditionally, do you think that the jury system itself is also flawed? If you think that the problem is that jurors can't be trusted to adequately arrive at just decisions, is there any reason this wouldn't apply to petit juries?"}, {"id": "cmkyurg", "body": "&gt; To clarify, you realize that these words are specifically in the Constitution right?\n\nConstitution can be amended, just as an aside."}, {"id": "cmkyurg", "body": "&gt; To clarify, you realize that these words are specifically in the Constitution right?\n\nConstitution can be amended, just as an aside."}, {"id": "cmkyvxd", "body": "Of course, I just wanted to make sure the OP realized that he wasn't simply attacking some easily-changeable feature of the criminal justice system."}, {"id": "cmkyvxd", "body": "Of course, I just wanted to make sure the OP realized that he wasn't simply attacking some easily-changeable feature of the criminal justice system."}, {"id": "cml015g", "body": "The NY State constitution isn't all that hard to amend really.  There have been like 11 constitutional conventions since the state was founded.  I realize you were talking about the federal constitution, but the grand jury was organized under state, not federal, law."}, {"id": "cmkyurg", "body": "&gt; To clarify, you realize that these words are specifically in the Constitution right?\n\nConstitution can be amended, just as an aside."}, {"id": "cmlsv5x", "body": "Even better: the Fifth Amendment is one of the first ten amendments (aka the Bill of Rights) to the original Constitution; ie they AMEND (or change) the Constitution.  \nOP is proposing to change a change to the Constitution - which is entirely doable (see Prohibition, 21st amendment ). We make the rules."}, {"id": "cmkytas", "body": "To clarify, you realize that these words are specifically in the Constitution right?\n\n&gt; No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. . . .\n\nAdditionally, do you think that the jury system itself is also flawed? If you think that the problem is that jurors can't be trusted to adequately arrive at just decisions, is there any reason this wouldn't apply to petit juries?"}, {"id": "cmlw0oi", "body": "The Constitution isn't a magical document that is inherently correct or unchangeable. Also, the clause you cited does not apply to states. Most criminal stuff is state level. States are free not to use grand juries."}, {"id": "cmkytas", "body": "To clarify, you realize that these words are specifically in the Constitution right?\n\n&gt; No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. . . .\n\nAdditionally, do you think that the jury system itself is also flawed? If you think that the problem is that jurors can't be trusted to adequately arrive at just decisions, is there any reason this wouldn't apply to petit juries?"}, {"id": "cmkywv0", "body": "That has not been fully incorporated to bind the states. Yes, for federal crimes, grand juries are required. But states can craft their judicial process on their own terms. Some states have no grand juries. Others have them only for certain crimes. Some have them available at the discretion of the prosecutor."}, {"id": "cmkytas", "body": "To clarify, you realize that these words are specifically in the Constitution right?\n\n&gt; No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. . . .\n\nAdditionally, do you think that the jury system itself is also flawed? If you think that the problem is that jurors can't be trusted to adequately arrive at just decisions, is there any reason this wouldn't apply to petit juries?"}, {"id": "cmkz1is", "body": "I am fine with petit juries because of how much the judge oversees their decisions. The law part is overseen by a judge so it is difficult for them to get something so utterly wrong.\n\nThe part that I question is the Grand Jury. And if a constitutional amendment must be made then I say we make an amendment. "}, {"id": "cmkz1is", "body": "I am fine with petit juries because of how much the judge oversees their decisions. The law part is overseen by a judge so it is difficult for them to get something so utterly wrong.\n\nThe part that I question is the Grand Jury. And if a constitutional amendment must be made then I say we make an amendment. "}, {"id": "cml07c4", "body": "Do you understand the process that is required to amend the Constitution? I don't see a scenario where this would realistically be able to get done in the current political climate."}, {"id": "cml07c4", "body": "Do you understand the process that is required to amend the Constitution? I don't see a scenario where this would realistically be able to get done in the current political climate."}, {"id": "cml258c", "body": "The difficulty of making the change isn't really relevant to ops question about whether or not we should make it. "}, {"id": "cml07c4", "body": "Do you understand the process that is required to amend the Constitution? I don't see a scenario where this would realistically be able to get done in the current political climate."}, {"id": "cmllqh8", "body": "It is something that needs to be done. If enough people call for it on both side then it can happen."}, {"id": "cmkz1is", "body": "I am fine with petit juries because of how much the judge oversees their decisions. The law part is overseen by a judge so it is difficult for them to get something so utterly wrong.\n\nThe part that I question is the Grand Jury. And if a constitutional amendment must be made then I say we make an amendment. "}, {"id": "cml7t8b", "body": "Is the same not true of a Grand Jury?"}, {"id": "cmkz1is", "body": "I am fine with petit juries because of how much the judge oversees their decisions. The law part is overseen by a judge so it is difficult for them to get something so utterly wrong.\n\nThe part that I question is the Grand Jury. And if a constitutional amendment must be made then I say we make an amendment. "}, {"id": "cml9jof", "body": "Hey NOT_A-DOG,\n\nI am in the same boat as you in terms of, \"how the hell did this happen?  what is going on in my country?\"\n\nI would like to mention, and others please let me know if I have this wrong, that even if petit juries are used, it remains the prosecutor's discretion on when to prosecute a crime.  So, in this case AND in Michael Brown's case, I am not sure if a grand jury's indictment even binds a prosecutor to go ahead and prosecute.\n\nFrankly, the way I have looked at this, and others please correct me if I am wrong, is:\n\n1. a prosecutor who wasn't going to prosecute anyway\n\n2. decided to get a group of people together, called a grand jury,\n\n3. make a super stupid weak case for indictment,\n\n4. and then tell the public that no probable cause existed to indict this police officer.\n\nIt's just some salt in the wound.  Prosecutor wasn't going to indict anyway, the grand jury stuff is all, as Clint Eastwood says in In The Line of Fire, window dressing (distractions).\n\nSo I think your problem is with individual prosecutors who give officers a free pass even when probable cause exists to put them on trial.  Maybe I'm wrong though, I'm certainly open to listening."}, {"id": "cml9jof", "body": "Hey NOT_A-DOG,\n\nI am in the same boat as you in terms of, \"how the hell did this happen?  what is going on in my country?\"\n\nI would like to mention, and others please let me know if I have this wrong, that even if petit juries are used, it remains the prosecutor's discretion on when to prosecute a crime.  So, in this case AND in Michael Brown's case, I am not sure if a grand jury's indictment even binds a prosecutor to go ahead and prosecute.\n\nFrankly, the way I have looked at this, and others please correct me if I am wrong, is:\n\n1. a prosecutor who wasn't going to prosecute anyway\n\n2. decided to get a group of people together, called a grand jury,\n\n3. make a super stupid weak case for indictment,\n\n4. and then tell the public that no probable cause existed to indict this police officer.\n\nIt's just some salt in the wound.  Prosecutor wasn't going to indict anyway, the grand jury stuff is all, as Clint Eastwood says in In The Line of Fire, window dressing (distractions).\n\nSo I think your problem is with individual prosecutors who give officers a free pass even when probable cause exists to put them on trial.  Maybe I'm wrong though, I'm certainly open to listening."}, {"id": "cmlxivh", "body": "Then maybe one should look at why prosecutors do this? Perhaps it's due to them needing to work closely with the police in their regular operations that they don't want to make enemies."}, {"id": "cmlxivh", "body": "Then maybe one should look at why prosecutors do this? Perhaps it's due to them needing to work closely with the police in their regular operations that they don't want to make enemies."}, {"id": "cmm0vgb", "body": "That would be a large part of how I personally view the situation.  Happy to expand if you want to discuss - I am *not* looking to have an internet argument (which says nothing about you, I'm just laying that out there upfront)."}, {"id": "2o9h6l", "body": "What happened to Eric Garner was a horrible tragedy. But I don't blame the NYPD for it. Occasionally a cop goes insane and does something like this. The NYPD commissioner seems to be on Garner's side, and many officers have said that what the police officer did was not protocol and was wrong.\n\nBut the police can't know if an officer will do something that goes completely against his training. The truth is the NYPD has been very good in racial issues and keeping crime low. Stop and frisk may seem to be contrary to that, but that was a policy that told the police to go into poor (black) neighborhoods and frisk people. This was not a decision made by the police.\n\nThe problem with the Garner case is the justices system's failure to indite Eric Garner's murderer. Pantaleo murdered Eric Garner. There isn't really any question about this. He did not follow police protocol and attacked a man with his hands in the air and killed him as he begged to breathe.\n\nPantaleo deserves to go to trial, for at least manslaughter if not first degree murder. There is no reasonable doubt or any question of what happened like there was in the Micheal Brown case. With Micheal Brown there was a lack of evidence and conflicting reports, so we can't know and therefore can't prosecute.\n\nBut in the Garner case there was no question. We know what happened.\n\nMy only conclusion from this is that the grand jury had a majority of either incredibly racist people or people who were incredibly loyal to the police for no reason.\n\nI believe that to fix this problem we need to stop using grand juries to decide whether or not to indite. They have proven themselves to be a horrible tool. Instead we should use a panel of judges, or just go to trial immediately when the evidence is this overwhelming. (EDIT: maybe not go to trial immediately. My main call is for a change in the process. I do not necessarily have the change needed.)\n\nThe reason I want my view changed is that I'd like the believe that our system isn't horribly unjust. But all evidence says that it is.\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*"}, {"id": "cml15ak", "body": "I'm going to disagree with you on one particular ground. There was no way that this killing was a murder. In New York, a murder is committed in a very specific way - if you want, here are the statutes that explain:\n\n[New York First Degree Murder statute](http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article125.htm#p125.27)\n\n[New York Second Degree Murder statute](http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article125.htm#p125.25)\n\nThere is no reasonable argument that can be made that the officer is guilty of first or second degree murder in the State of New York. \n\nThere *is* a coherent argument that can be made suggesting the officer is guilty of manslaughter. But the suggestion in the OP that there \"really isn't any question\" that a murder occurred is wholly incorrect."}, {"id": "cml15ak", "body": "I'm going to disagree with you on one particular ground. There was no way that this killing was a murder. In New York, a murder is committed in a very specific way - if you want, here are the statutes that explain:\n\n[New York First Degree Murder statute](http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article125.htm#p125.27)\n\n[New York Second Degree Murder statute](http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article125.htm#p125.25)\n\nThere is no reasonable argument that can be made that the officer is guilty of first or second degree murder in the State of New York. \n\nThere *is* a coherent argument that can be made suggesting the officer is guilty of manslaughter. But the suggestion in the OP that there \"really isn't any question\" that a murder occurred is wholly incorrect."}, {"id": "cml995z", "body": "Hi swagrabbit,\n\nI agree with you that OP's view that a murder unquestionably took place is incorrect.  But, you then went the opposite direction and went too far with:\n\n&gt;There is no reasonable argument that can be made that the officer is guilty of first or second degree murder in the State of New York.\n\nThere is plenty of evidence for a charge (but not necessarily conviction) of second degree murder.\n\nFrom the link you shared which defines second degree murder:\n\n\"A person is guilty of murder in the second degree when:\n  1.  With  intent  to  cause the death of another person, he causes the\ndeath of  such  person  or  of  a  third  person; except [list of exceptions that do not apply].\"\n\nWell, the officer killed the citizen, no?  So the only way this is not murder, is if there is a lack of intent.  Please let me know if you spot something off up to this point.\n\nIn Wisconsin and the 7th Circuit (not NY), I was taught that intent can be formed in a single moment.  It doesn't have to be some drawn out plan at all.  Things like \"heat of the moment\" do not mean a person lacks intent.\n\nWith that knowledge, [I went ahead and looked up intent for NY criminal law from the same database you linked](http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article15.htm#p15.00).  Here's some copy pasta of the text:\n\n\"1. \"Intentionally.\" A person acts intentionally with respect to a\nresult or to conduct described by a statute defining an offense when his\nconscious objective is to cause such result or to engage in such\nconduct.\"\n\nRight below Intentionally is Knowingly, which is one step of culpability lower in most jurisdictions.  Here's the copy pasta for knowingly:\n\n\"  2. \"Knowingly.\" A person acts knowingly with respect to conduct or to\na circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is\naware that his conduct is of such nature or that such circumstance\nexists.\"\n\nSo, I really doubt that the officer was *unaware* that choke holds can lead to death.  I mean, I would have to see some extreme evidence to think that the officer did not *knowingly* kill this citizen with a choke hold.  Are we on the same page?  Sure, I wouldn't claim that the officer knowingly killed the citizen **beyond a reasonable doubt.**  But we're not at that standard, yet, right?  This is just talking indictment / probable cause.\n\nThe real question I have for you, then, is how much gray area do you think there is between the officer knowing a choke hold kills and the officer intentionally killed the citizen?  I think there is plenty of gray area, meaning an indictment makes sense but a criminal conviction would be difficult.  Your thoughts?"}, {"id": "cml995z", "body": "Hi swagrabbit,\n\nI agree with you that OP's view that a murder unquestionably took place is incorrect.  But, you then went the opposite direction and went too far with:\n\n&gt;There is no reasonable argument that can be made that the officer is guilty of first or second degree murder in the State of New York.\n\nThere is plenty of evidence for a charge (but not necessarily conviction) of second degree murder.\n\nFrom the link you shared which defines second degree murder:\n\n\"A person is guilty of murder in the second degree when:\n  1.  With  intent  to  cause the death of another person, he causes the\ndeath of  such  person  or  of  a  third  person; except [list of exceptions that do not apply].\"\n\nWell, the officer killed the citizen, no?  So the only way this is not murder, is if there is a lack of intent.  Please let me know if you spot something off up to this point.\n\nIn Wisconsin and the 7th Circuit (not NY), I was taught that intent can be formed in a single moment.  It doesn't have to be some drawn out plan at all.  Things like \"heat of the moment\" do not mean a person lacks intent.\n\nWith that knowledge, [I went ahead and looked up intent for NY criminal law from the same database you linked](http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article15.htm#p15.00).  Here's some copy pasta of the text:\n\n\"1. \"Intentionally.\" A person acts intentionally with respect to a\nresult or to conduct described by a statute defining an offense when his\nconscious objective is to cause such result or to engage in such\nconduct.\"\n\nRight below Intentionally is Knowingly, which is one step of culpability lower in most jurisdictions.  Here's the copy pasta for knowingly:\n\n\"  2. \"Knowingly.\" A person acts knowingly with respect to conduct or to\na circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is\naware that his conduct is of such nature or that such circumstance\nexists.\"\n\nSo, I really doubt that the officer was *unaware* that choke holds can lead to death.  I mean, I would have to see some extreme evidence to think that the officer did not *knowingly* kill this citizen with a choke hold.  Are we on the same page?  Sure, I wouldn't claim that the officer knowingly killed the citizen **beyond a reasonable doubt.**  But we're not at that standard, yet, right?  This is just talking indictment / probable cause.\n\nThe real question I have for you, then, is how much gray area do you think there is between the officer knowing a choke hold kills and the officer intentionally killed the citizen?  I think there is plenty of gray area, meaning an indictment makes sense but a criminal conviction would be difficult.  Your thoughts?"}, {"id": "cmleyp1", "body": "&gt; Please let me know if you spot something off up to this point.\n\nYou're absolutely correct, to my understanding. \n\n&gt;In Wisconsin and the 7th Circuit (not NY), I was taught that intent can be formed in a single moment. It doesn't have to be some drawn out plan at all. Things like \"heat of the moment\" do not mean a person lacks intent.\n\nThis carries over in the jurisdiction where I was taught and the one where I am licensed to practice, so I believe it is at least fairly universal. \n\n&gt;knowingly, etc\n\nI think your analysis makes sense, but I disagree with the conclusion that the difference between *knowingly* and *intentionally* is gray, especially when we're talking murder charges. \n\nTo go to the particular circumstances of the case, the officer held the victim in a chokehold for something like ~12 seconds. I can't speak to his training in medicine, though I think it's fair to presume that he does know that a chokehold can kill. I think it's a stretch to say that he knew or should have known that a chokehold, held for ~12 seconds, released while the victim is conscious, is of such a nature to cause or be likely to cause death. \n\nI think an indictment could make sense - I mean, an indictment isn't hard to get if the prosecutor is intent on getting one - but a conviction is prohibitively unlikely for murder with these facts. The thought around this case seems to be that the officer should have treated him as something like an \"eggshell plaintiff.\" I hate to use civil terms in a criminal context, but I'm sure you understand what I mean there. I don't think that's appropriate for this situation, given the stature of the man and his clear physical resistance to the arrest.\n\nAnd to address the elephant in the room - I can see what you're saying about the relative \"closeness\" of intentionally to knowingly, but proving intent in this case is so unlikely that I consider it nigh-impossible. If he had held on 10-15 few more seconds (to the point where the victim was unconscious before he released the hold) or behaved in a way that suggests he was attempting to kill the victim, intent could be provable. But with that video? I just can't see it.\n\nThanks for the response, it was very well-thought."}, {"id": "cmleyp1", "body": "&gt; Please let me know if you spot something off up to this point.\n\nYou're absolutely correct, to my understanding. \n\n&gt;In Wisconsin and the 7th Circuit (not NY), I was taught that intent can be formed in a single moment. It doesn't have to be some drawn out plan at all. Things like \"heat of the moment\" do not mean a person lacks intent.\n\nThis carries over in the jurisdiction where I was taught and the one where I am licensed to practice, so I believe it is at least fairly universal. \n\n&gt;knowingly, etc\n\nI think your analysis makes sense, but I disagree with the conclusion that the difference between *knowingly* and *intentionally* is gray, especially when we're talking murder charges. \n\nTo go to the particular circumstances of the case, the officer held the victim in a chokehold for something like ~12 seconds. I can't speak to his training in medicine, though I think it's fair to presume that he does know that a chokehold can kill. I think it's a stretch to say that he knew or should have known that a chokehold, held for ~12 seconds, released while the victim is conscious, is of such a nature to cause or be likely to cause death. \n\nI think an indictment could make sense - I mean, an indictment isn't hard to get if the prosecutor is intent on getting one - but a conviction is prohibitively unlikely for murder with these facts. The thought around this case seems to be that the officer should have treated him as something like an \"eggshell plaintiff.\" I hate to use civil terms in a criminal context, but I'm sure you understand what I mean there. I don't think that's appropriate for this situation, given the stature of the man and his clear physical resistance to the arrest.\n\nAnd to address the elephant in the room - I can see what you're saying about the relative \"closeness\" of intentionally to knowingly, but proving intent in this case is so unlikely that I consider it nigh-impossible. If he had held on 10-15 few more seconds (to the point where the victim was unconscious before he released the hold) or behaved in a way that suggests he was attempting to kill the victim, intent could be provable. But with that video? I just can't see it.\n\nThanks for the response, it was very well-thought."}, {"id": "cmlq0th", "body": "I think we're on the same page =)"}, {"id": "cmleyp1", "body": "&gt; Please let me know if you spot something off up to this point.\n\nYou're absolutely correct, to my understanding. \n\n&gt;In Wisconsin and the 7th Circuit (not NY), I was taught that intent can be formed in a single moment. It doesn't have to be some drawn out plan at all. Things like \"heat of the moment\" do not mean a person lacks intent.\n\nThis carries over in the jurisdiction where I was taught and the one where I am licensed to practice, so I believe it is at least fairly universal. \n\n&gt;knowingly, etc\n\nI think your analysis makes sense, but I disagree with the conclusion that the difference between *knowingly* and *intentionally* is gray, especially when we're talking murder charges. \n\nTo go to the particular circumstances of the case, the officer held the victim in a chokehold for something like ~12 seconds. I can't speak to his training in medicine, though I think it's fair to presume that he does know that a chokehold can kill. I think it's a stretch to say that he knew or should have known that a chokehold, held for ~12 seconds, released while the victim is conscious, is of such a nature to cause or be likely to cause death. \n\nI think an indictment could make sense - I mean, an indictment isn't hard to get if the prosecutor is intent on getting one - but a conviction is prohibitively unlikely for murder with these facts. The thought around this case seems to be that the officer should have treated him as something like an \"eggshell plaintiff.\" I hate to use civil terms in a criminal context, but I'm sure you understand what I mean there. I don't think that's appropriate for this situation, given the stature of the man and his clear physical resistance to the arrest.\n\nAnd to address the elephant in the room - I can see what you're saying about the relative \"closeness\" of intentionally to knowingly, but proving intent in this case is so unlikely that I consider it nigh-impossible. If he had held on 10-15 few more seconds (to the point where the victim was unconscious before he released the hold) or behaved in a way that suggests he was attempting to kill the victim, intent could be provable. But with that video? I just can't see it.\n\nThanks for the response, it was very well-thought."}, {"id": "cmmnd9e", "body": " &gt; and his clear physical resistance to the arrest.\n\nPlease can you explain what his clear physical resistance was? I watched the video a few times and saw no such thing.\n"}, {"id": "cmmnd9e", "body": " &gt; and his clear physical resistance to the arrest.\n\nPlease can you explain what his clear physical resistance was? I watched the video a few times and saw no such thing.\n"}, {"id": "cmmq1no", "body": "Shrugging an officer off, screaming \"don't touch me\" while spreading his arms wide, followed by lurching backward when he was grabbed, followed by refusing to go to the ground, followed by refusing to put his arms behind his back. I mean it's not like he was trying to kill the cops, and their force was obviously outrageous and excessive, but he was resisting."}, {"id": "cmmq1no", "body": "Shrugging an officer off, screaming \"don't touch me\" while spreading his arms wide, followed by lurching backward when he was grabbed, followed by refusing to go to the ground, followed by refusing to put his arms behind his back. I mean it's not like he was trying to kill the cops, and their force was obviously outrageous and excessive, but he was resisting."}, {"id": "cmn6e8u", "body": "From your description you seem to imply he was being violent or threatening.\n\nDo you see what he did as threatening or violent?\n\nAre you saying he was committing a crime in the way he was resisting physically? I mean, his behavior seems too innocent. From a common sense standpoint.\n\nDon't you think I am making some sense here?\n\n http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resisting_arrest"}, {"id": "cmn6e8u", "body": "From your description you seem to imply he was being violent or threatening.\n\nDo you see what he did as threatening or violent?\n\nAre you saying he was committing a crime in the way he was resisting physically? I mean, his behavior seems too innocent. From a common sense standpoint.\n\nDon't you think I am making some sense here?\n\n http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resisting_arrest"}, {"id": "cmn8i1g", "body": "[NY resisting arrest statute](http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article205.htm#p205.30)\n\n&gt;A person is guilty of resisting arrest when he intentionally prevents\nor attempts to prevent a police officer or peace officer from effecting\nan authorized arrest of himself or another person.\n\nShrugging off an officer and shouting \"don't touch me\" qualifies for this, in my opinion, in addition to his lurching backwards when he was grabbed. \n\nOn being violent or threatening: he is a large man, he was shouting, and the officers may have been aware of his numerous past arrests. I think his general demeanor was threatening, certainly, and his size plus his criminal history could have made the officers view him as more of a threat. I wouldn't say he was violent - he didn't strike out at the officers.\n\nI think you're making sense, but Wikipedia's legal definitions are not useful and your understanding of 'resisting arrest' is not based, from what I can tell, on NY law. Side note on that: I know of one person who wrote a good 1/10 of the legal articles on Wikipedia on various American legal topics. I know of him because he failed out of law school. Please don't consider Wikipedia an authoritative source on things like this. There's a reason it is laughable to cite it academically. "}, {"id": "cmn8i1g", "body": "[NY resisting arrest statute](http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article205.htm#p205.30)\n\n&gt;A person is guilty of resisting arrest when he intentionally prevents\nor attempts to prevent a police officer or peace officer from effecting\nan authorized arrest of himself or another person.\n\nShrugging off an officer and shouting \"don't touch me\" qualifies for this, in my opinion, in addition to his lurching backwards when he was grabbed. \n\nOn being violent or threatening: he is a large man, he was shouting, and the officers may have been aware of his numerous past arrests. I think his general demeanor was threatening, certainly, and his size plus his criminal history could have made the officers view him as more of a threat. I wouldn't say he was violent - he didn't strike out at the officers.\n\nI think you're making sense, but Wikipedia's legal definitions are not useful and your understanding of 'resisting arrest' is not based, from what I can tell, on NY law. Side note on that: I know of one person who wrote a good 1/10 of the legal articles on Wikipedia on various American legal topics. I know of him because he failed out of law school. Please don't consider Wikipedia an authoritative source on things like this. There's a reason it is laughable to cite it academically. "}, {"id": "cmnqayc", "body": "Would you say that if he would have been arrested without any significant injury, that charging him for resisting arrest would be the way to go?\n\nShould I understand resisting arrest in terms of Saudi Arabian law, if I lived there? The Saudi Arabian laws are just rules to follow if you don't want to be fucked. They don't dictate what words mean or what is actually right or wrong. \n\nAbout wikipedia. Where should I go as a layman instead, to gain some understanding? The laws themselves? Is it even possible for me to understand a law? Why is it that there are so many laws and that you need a university degree to make any sense of them? It makes it impossible for people to consent to following them. That is laughable to me. \n\nIs there not some movement that seeks to simplify all those laws, and make them readable to you know, the people that are supposed to follow them? "}, {"id": "cmnqayc", "body": "Would you say that if he would have been arrested without any significant injury, that charging him for resisting arrest would be the way to go?\n\nShould I understand resisting arrest in terms of Saudi Arabian law, if I lived there? The Saudi Arabian laws are just rules to follow if you don't want to be fucked. They don't dictate what words mean or what is actually right or wrong. \n\nAbout wikipedia. Where should I go as a layman instead, to gain some understanding? The laws themselves? Is it even possible for me to understand a law? Why is it that there are so many laws and that you need a university degree to make any sense of them? It makes it impossible for people to consent to following them. That is laughable to me. \n\nIs there not some movement that seeks to simplify all those laws, and make them readable to you know, the people that are supposed to follow them? "}, {"id": "cmo07a1", "body": "I don't know, that would have been a judgment call. With that video, I'm sure they could have got a conviction for it. I don't see why that's important. \n\nThe entire context of this conversation is legal terminology. The highest-level comment in the chain is a clarification of a legal term. Unless you make it clear you're talking about something in a tangential way, all of my follow-ups will be within that context.\n\nThe statutes of your state. If you want to spend two hours reading through them and you are of average intelligence, they are not difficult to understand. Further, it should be pretty common-sensical. Screaming and refusing to let the police touch you while you're suspected of a crime is likely to lead to the use of force to restrain you. If you don't have that level of intellect and aren't capable of understanding what are typically very simple laws, there are procedural remedies available to account for incompetence that reduce punishment. Your suggestion that they are too complex to understand for the average person requires some substantiation, because I do not believe it.\n\nOne isn't necessary, I don't think. "}, {"id": "cmleyp1", "body": "&gt; Please let me know if you spot something off up to this point.\n\nYou're absolutely correct, to my understanding. \n\n&gt;In Wisconsin and the 7th Circuit (not NY), I was taught that intent can be formed in a single moment. It doesn't have to be some drawn out plan at all. Things like \"heat of the moment\" do not mean a person lacks intent.\n\nThis carries over in the jurisdiction where I was taught and the one where I am licensed to practice, so I believe it is at least fairly universal. \n\n&gt;knowingly, etc\n\nI think your analysis makes sense, but I disagree with the conclusion that the difference between *knowingly* and *intentionally* is gray, especially when we're talking murder charges. \n\nTo go to the particular circumstances of the case, the officer held the victim in a chokehold for something like ~12 seconds. I can't speak to his training in medicine, though I think it's fair to presume that he does know that a chokehold can kill. I think it's a stretch to say that he knew or should have known that a chokehold, held for ~12 seconds, released while the victim is conscious, is of such a nature to cause or be likely to cause death. \n\nI think an indictment could make sense - I mean, an indictment isn't hard to get if the prosecutor is intent on getting one - but a conviction is prohibitively unlikely for murder with these facts. The thought around this case seems to be that the officer should have treated him as something like an \"eggshell plaintiff.\" I hate to use civil terms in a criminal context, but I'm sure you understand what I mean there. I don't think that's appropriate for this situation, given the stature of the man and his clear physical resistance to the arrest.\n\nAnd to address the elephant in the room - I can see what you're saying about the relative \"closeness\" of intentionally to knowingly, but proving intent in this case is so unlikely that I consider it nigh-impossible. If he had held on 10-15 few more seconds (to the point where the victim was unconscious before he released the hold) or behaved in a way that suggests he was attempting to kill the victim, intent could be provable. But with that video? I just can't see it.\n\nThanks for the response, it was very well-thought."}, {"id": "cmlnmlj", "body": "A choke hold compresses and can cause trauma to the airway the airway. The airway is needed for breathing. \n\nThis wasn't just a static choke hold. This was someone being taken down from the neck with a lot of force. This was a strike as much as a choke hold. \n\nhow could the officer claim to not know that a strike the air way of another person could cause the other person breathing problems?"}, {"id": "cmlnmlj", "body": "A choke hold compresses and can cause trauma to the airway the airway. The airway is needed for breathing. \n\nThis wasn't just a static choke hold. This was someone being taken down from the neck with a lot of force. This was a strike as much as a choke hold. \n\nhow could the officer claim to not know that a strike the air way of another person could cause the other person breathing problems?"}, {"id": "cmm13zo", "body": "Also, Garner was asthmatic. There was no way for the cop to know that, unless the cop chose to believe Garner when he said \"I can't breathe.\" I'm sure cops get the \"I can't breathe\" line all the time, but honestly they should play it safe and find a different way, because this time the warning was ignored and someone died.\n\nLastly, assuming Garner was lying about not being able to breathe, there's no way Garner could get up and out run the cop if the cop let go of the chokehold early. That just wouldn't happen. He wouldn't be fast enough to get away."}, {"id": "cmlnmlj", "body": "A choke hold compresses and can cause trauma to the airway the airway. The airway is needed for breathing. \n\nThis wasn't just a static choke hold. This was someone being taken down from the neck with a lot of force. This was a strike as much as a choke hold. \n\nhow could the officer claim to not know that a strike the air way of another person could cause the other person breathing problems?"}, {"id": "cmm1c2o", "body": "I disagree on framing it as a 'strike,' but I understand what you're trying to communicate. \n\nThere's a difference between \"knowing that breathing problems could result\" and \"knowing that it is likely to cause death.\" I do not think that the officer knew or should have known that the man had breathing problems and that a chokehold or an even more violent takedown was likely to cause his death.\n\nRegardless: even if he did so knowingly, murder charges require intent or some other state of mind that no one is suggesting the officer has."}, {"id": "cml995z", "body": "Hi swagrabbit,\n\nI agree with you that OP's view that a murder unquestionably took place is incorrect.  But, you then went the opposite direction and went too far with:\n\n&gt;There is no reasonable argument that can be made that the officer is guilty of first or second degree murder in the State of New York.\n\nThere is plenty of evidence for a charge (but not necessarily conviction) of second degree murder.\n\nFrom the link you shared which defines second degree murder:\n\n\"A person is guilty of murder in the second degree when:\n  1.  With  intent  to  cause the death of another person, he causes the\ndeath of  such  person  or  of  a  third  person; except [list of exceptions that do not apply].\"\n\nWell, the officer killed the citizen, no?  So the only way this is not murder, is if there is a lack of intent.  Please let me know if you spot something off up to this point.\n\nIn Wisconsin and the 7th Circuit (not NY), I was taught that intent can be formed in a single moment.  It doesn't have to be some drawn out plan at all.  Things like \"heat of the moment\" do not mean a person lacks intent.\n\nWith that knowledge, [I went ahead and looked up intent for NY criminal law from the same database you linked](http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article15.htm#p15.00).  Here's some copy pasta of the text:\n\n\"1. \"Intentionally.\" A person acts intentionally with respect to a\nresult or to conduct described by a statute defining an offense when his\nconscious objective is to cause such result or to engage in such\nconduct.\"\n\nRight below Intentionally is Knowingly, which is one step of culpability lower in most jurisdictions.  Here's the copy pasta for knowingly:\n\n\"  2. \"Knowingly.\" A person acts knowingly with respect to conduct or to\na circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is\naware that his conduct is of such nature or that such circumstance\nexists.\"\n\nSo, I really doubt that the officer was *unaware* that choke holds can lead to death.  I mean, I would have to see some extreme evidence to think that the officer did not *knowingly* kill this citizen with a choke hold.  Are we on the same page?  Sure, I wouldn't claim that the officer knowingly killed the citizen **beyond a reasonable doubt.**  But we're not at that standard, yet, right?  This is just talking indictment / probable cause.\n\nThe real question I have for you, then, is how much gray area do you think there is between the officer knowing a choke hold kills and the officer intentionally killed the citizen?  I think there is plenty of gray area, meaning an indictment makes sense but a criminal conviction would be difficult.  Your thoughts?"}, {"id": "cmlaq0p", "body": "&gt;The real question I have for you, then, is how much gray area do you think there is between the officer knowing a choke hold kills and the officer intentionally killed the citizen? I think there is plenty of gray area, meaning an indictment makes sense but a criminal conviction would be difficult. Your thoughts?\n\nNot /u/swagrabbit but there's a lot of room there.  A chokehold of the type used is dangerous but only very rarely kills.  Garner was held in a chokehold for about 20 seconds.  Due to medical conditions, this, plus the compression of like 5 officers on top of him, was enough to cause his eventual death, though he was still alive at the time the chokehold stopped.  He was still saying \"I can't breathe\" when Pantaleo switched to just pressing down on his head.\n\nGiven that he was still alive when Pantaleo stopped using the choke hold, I have a hard time thinking even probable cause existed that Pantaleo intended to kill him via use of the choke hold."}, {"id": "cmlaq0p", "body": "&gt;The real question I have for you, then, is how much gray area do you think there is between the officer knowing a choke hold kills and the officer intentionally killed the citizen? I think there is plenty of gray area, meaning an indictment makes sense but a criminal conviction would be difficult. Your thoughts?\n\nNot /u/swagrabbit but there's a lot of room there.  A chokehold of the type used is dangerous but only very rarely kills.  Garner was held in a chokehold for about 20 seconds.  Due to medical conditions, this, plus the compression of like 5 officers on top of him, was enough to cause his eventual death, though he was still alive at the time the chokehold stopped.  He was still saying \"I can't breathe\" when Pantaleo switched to just pressing down on his head.\n\nGiven that he was still alive when Pantaleo stopped using the choke hold, I have a hard time thinking even probable cause existed that Pantaleo intended to kill him via use of the choke hold."}, {"id": "cmm1hl8", "body": "Hi, thanks for chiming in, there's a part of your response that struck me as incredibly relevant and persuasive and I wanted to let you know that.\n\nSo, when you mentioned:\n\n&gt;Given that he was still alive when Pantaleo stopped using the choke hold,\n\nI do *not* think you are being unreasonable when concluding, at the probable cause standard:\n\n&gt;I have a hard time thinking even probable cause existed that Pantaleo intended to kill him via use of the choke hold.\n\nHowever, I *also* do not think it would be unreasonable for someone to conclude, at the probable cause standard (not the beyond a reasonable doubt standard), that Pantaleo *did* intend such a thing.  I can lay that out if you'd like to see it.  I would also be happy to discuss the extreme differences between probable cause and beyond a reasonable doubt, if your familiarity is less than stellar (not a comment about you, just offering to chat on this forum, especially because your comment was spectacular **and** civil).\n\n&amp;#8710; because I did not previously think it would be reasonable for a probable cause juror to deny a murder charge for the officer in question, now I think it is possible but unlikely and remain suspicious that a prosecutor wouldn't get an indictment."}, {"id": "cmm1hl8", "body": "Hi, thanks for chiming in, there's a part of your response that struck me as incredibly relevant and persuasive and I wanted to let you know that.\n\nSo, when you mentioned:\n\n&gt;Given that he was still alive when Pantaleo stopped using the choke hold,\n\nI do *not* think you are being unreasonable when concluding, at the probable cause standard:\n\n&gt;I have a hard time thinking even probable cause existed that Pantaleo intended to kill him via use of the choke hold.\n\nHowever, I *also* do not think it would be unreasonable for someone to conclude, at the probable cause standard (not the beyond a reasonable doubt standard), that Pantaleo *did* intend such a thing.  I can lay that out if you'd like to see it.  I would also be happy to discuss the extreme differences between probable cause and beyond a reasonable doubt, if your familiarity is less than stellar (not a comment about you, just offering to chat on this forum, especially because your comment was spectacular **and** civil).\n\n&amp;#8710; because I did not previously think it would be reasonable for a probable cause juror to deny a murder charge for the officer in question, now I think it is possible but unlikely and remain suspicious that a prosecutor wouldn't get an indictment."}, {"id": "cmm218a", "body": "I'd be interested to see your reasoning for what evidence supports intent to kill Garner.  I really don't get the impression of any intent to kill, just an intent to arrest and sucking at his job.  I get the probable cause level is quite low - but I just don't see any evidence of intent to kill."}, {"id": "cmm1hl8", "body": "Hi, thanks for chiming in, there's a part of your response that struck me as incredibly relevant and persuasive and I wanted to let you know that.\n\nSo, when you mentioned:\n\n&gt;Given that he was still alive when Pantaleo stopped using the choke hold,\n\nI do *not* think you are being unreasonable when concluding, at the probable cause standard:\n\n&gt;I have a hard time thinking even probable cause existed that Pantaleo intended to kill him via use of the choke hold.\n\nHowever, I *also* do not think it would be unreasonable for someone to conclude, at the probable cause standard (not the beyond a reasonable doubt standard), that Pantaleo *did* intend such a thing.  I can lay that out if you'd like to see it.  I would also be happy to discuss the extreme differences between probable cause and beyond a reasonable doubt, if your familiarity is less than stellar (not a comment about you, just offering to chat on this forum, especially because your comment was spectacular **and** civil).\n\n&amp;#8710; because I did not previously think it would be reasonable for a probable cause juror to deny a murder charge for the officer in question, now I think it is possible but unlikely and remain suspicious that a prosecutor wouldn't get an indictment."}, {"id": "cmm378r", "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/huadpe. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/huadpe)]\n\n^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]"}, {"id": "cml15ak", "body": "I'm going to disagree with you on one particular ground. There was no way that this killing was a murder. In New York, a murder is committed in a very specific way - if you want, here are the statutes that explain:\n\n[New York First Degree Murder statute](http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article125.htm#p125.27)\n\n[New York Second Degree Murder statute](http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article125.htm#p125.25)\n\nThere is no reasonable argument that can be made that the officer is guilty of first or second degree murder in the State of New York. \n\nThere *is* a coherent argument that can be made suggesting the officer is guilty of manslaughter. But the suggestion in the OP that there \"really isn't any question\" that a murder occurred is wholly incorrect."}, {"id": "cml7dcc", "body": "IANAL, but from a cursory reading of your links, couldn't you at least make some kind of argument for second degree murder under subdivision 2?\n\n&gt; 2\\. Under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life,\nhe  recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person\n\nNot saying that I necessarily believe that this is the correct charge.  I just think that there could be a possible argument for it."}, {"id": "cml7dcc", "body": "IANAL, but from a cursory reading of your links, couldn't you at least make some kind of argument for second degree murder under subdivision 2?\n\n&gt; 2\\. Under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life,\nhe  recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person\n\nNot saying that I necessarily believe that this is the correct charge.  I just think that there could be a possible argument for it."}, {"id": "cmlf9k6", "body": "The phrase \"depraved indifference to human life\" has a very specific legal meaning. I'll use one of my law school professors' favorite example to show you what that would look like:\n\nTwo men are walking down the street. Across the street, a third man is seated wearing a hat. Our two men look at each other, and one says to the other, \"I bet you $5 you can't shoot the hat off of that man's head.\" The second guy replies, \"You're on.\" and pulls out a pistol, firing at the hat, but striking and killing the man. \n\nI don't know if this is the \"prototypical\" example of the idea, but that's the one I learned in law school to explain that state of mind. Another classic example would be a game of Russian Roulette, where one man aims the gun at another and fires, neither knowing nor caring if it is loaded. A third could be a person recklessly driving a vehicle at high speeds down a sidewalk who strikes and kills a pedestrian without braking.\n\nDepraved indifference is pretty hard to prove, usually requiring some act of senseless violence that is done with clear and apparent disregard for the value of human life. I couldn't see a prosecutor, on facts like this, pursuing a murder charge under that subsection of the statute. I understand how someone could read that statute and make that comparison here, but there's an extremeness in the actions of a depraved-indifference murderer that I don't think is present in the officer's actions here. There's also an inherent dangerousness of the actions usually described as depraved indifference that I don't think a chokehold held for that long qualifies for.\n\nThanks for the reply, though, and that's a reading of the statute that many intelligent laymen would have."}, {"id": "cmlf9k6", "body": "The phrase \"depraved indifference to human life\" has a very specific legal meaning. I'll use one of my law school professors' favorite example to show you what that would look like:\n\nTwo men are walking down the street. Across the street, a third man is seated wearing a hat. Our two men look at each other, and one says to the other, \"I bet you $5 you can't shoot the hat off of that man's head.\" The second guy replies, \"You're on.\" and pulls out a pistol, firing at the hat, but striking and killing the man. \n\nI don't know if this is the \"prototypical\" example of the idea, but that's the one I learned in law school to explain that state of mind. Another classic example would be a game of Russian Roulette, where one man aims the gun at another and fires, neither knowing nor caring if it is loaded. A third could be a person recklessly driving a vehicle at high speeds down a sidewalk who strikes and kills a pedestrian without braking.\n\nDepraved indifference is pretty hard to prove, usually requiring some act of senseless violence that is done with clear and apparent disregard for the value of human life. I couldn't see a prosecutor, on facts like this, pursuing a murder charge under that subsection of the statute. I understand how someone could read that statute and make that comparison here, but there's an extremeness in the actions of a depraved-indifference murderer that I don't think is present in the officer's actions here. There's also an inherent dangerousness of the actions usually described as depraved indifference that I don't think a chokehold held for that long qualifies for.\n\nThanks for the reply, though, and that's a reading of the statute that many intelligent laymen would have."}, {"id": "cmljn4c", "body": "This is good to know.  I appreciate the insight of someone actually knowledgeable on the topic because I certainly am not."}, {"id": "cmlf9k6", "body": "The phrase \"depraved indifference to human life\" has a very specific legal meaning. I'll use one of my law school professors' favorite example to show you what that would look like:\n\nTwo men are walking down the street. Across the street, a third man is seated wearing a hat. Our two men look at each other, and one says to the other, \"I bet you $5 you can't shoot the hat off of that man's head.\" The second guy replies, \"You're on.\" and pulls out a pistol, firing at the hat, but striking and killing the man. \n\nI don't know if this is the \"prototypical\" example of the idea, but that's the one I learned in law school to explain that state of mind. Another classic example would be a game of Russian Roulette, where one man aims the gun at another and fires, neither knowing nor caring if it is loaded. A third could be a person recklessly driving a vehicle at high speeds down a sidewalk who strikes and kills a pedestrian without braking.\n\nDepraved indifference is pretty hard to prove, usually requiring some act of senseless violence that is done with clear and apparent disregard for the value of human life. I couldn't see a prosecutor, on facts like this, pursuing a murder charge under that subsection of the statute. I understand how someone could read that statute and make that comparison here, but there's an extremeness in the actions of a depraved-indifference murderer that I don't think is present in the officer's actions here. There's also an inherent dangerousness of the actions usually described as depraved indifference that I don't think a chokehold held for that long qualifies for.\n\nThanks for the reply, though, and that's a reading of the statute that many intelligent laymen would have."}, {"id": "cmlgqhg", "body": "That's pretty much what I thought depraved indifference meant, and I am 100% in favor of that charge in this case.  That's something the pro-cop side needs to understand: the outrage is not just outrage.  It's rational.  Sure, there are people calling for 1st-degree murder, and I think that's silly until we incorporate an automatic charge enhancement for when it's a cop committing the act (eminently sensible; we do the same the other way around, do we not?  But that's a separate argument.)\n\nThis was totally callous use of force.  The cops didn't want to bother talking the guy down, and they used excessive violence and a technique that they knew or should have known, as police in a department where the practice was banned, to be deadly.  Oh yeah, and the begging to breath part.\n\nSo yes, it is absolutely depraved.  Depraved out of laziness rather than machismo, as in the Russian Roulette and William Tell examples, but depraved nonetheless."}, {"id": "cmlgqhg", "body": "That's pretty much what I thought depraved indifference meant, and I am 100% in favor of that charge in this case.  That's something the pro-cop side needs to understand: the outrage is not just outrage.  It's rational.  Sure, there are people calling for 1st-degree murder, and I think that's silly until we incorporate an automatic charge enhancement for when it's a cop committing the act (eminently sensible; we do the same the other way around, do we not?  But that's a separate argument.)\n\nThis was totally callous use of force.  The cops didn't want to bother talking the guy down, and they used excessive violence and a technique that they knew or should have known, as police in a department where the practice was banned, to be deadly.  Oh yeah, and the begging to breath part.\n\nSo yes, it is absolutely depraved.  Depraved out of laziness rather than machismo, as in the Russian Roulette and William Tell examples, but depraved nonetheless."}, {"id": "cmm1uft", "body": "I appreciate your point of view, but I think that it stems from a misunderstanding of the concept of depraved-indifference murders. I'm not an experienced educator and I don't have the tools (or even my old criminal and capital litigation books) to properly explain the difference here in a way I can be confident will properly outline the concepts here, beyond the differences I outlined above - most notably the difference in inherent dangerousness between the common examples (reckless driving at high speeds and a weapon) and a chokehold that was released while the victim was conscious. I'll give it a shot, though. I think there's an obvious difference in inherent dangerousness between those examples and the officer's chokehold. The other actions, for example, take a moment - less than a second - to inflict wounds grievous enough to kill. The other actions, as another example, will kill any person, no matter how weak or strong. A chokehold of that kind would not kill the large majority of people, I suspect.\n\nI am going to disagree with another portion of your post. The police were trying to talk him down. He was screaming and waving his arms around - with a man that large, those are very threatening gestures. When they approached him and tried to cuff him, he fought back and screamed at them not to touch him. Use of force to subdue him in that situation was reasonable, though the chokehold cop obviously used outrageous and extreme force. \n\nIt may be \"depraved\" in the dictionary sense, but, like I said above, \"depraved indifference\" requires more than that and the term has a non-dictionary meaning here."}, {"id": "cmlf9k6", "body": "The phrase \"depraved indifference to human life\" has a very specific legal meaning. I'll use one of my law school professors' favorite example to show you what that would look like:\n\nTwo men are walking down the street. Across the street, a third man is seated wearing a hat. Our two men look at each other, and one says to the other, \"I bet you $5 you can't shoot the hat off of that man's head.\" The second guy replies, \"You're on.\" and pulls out a pistol, firing at the hat, but striking and killing the man. \n\nI don't know if this is the \"prototypical\" example of the idea, but that's the one I learned in law school to explain that state of mind. Another classic example would be a game of Russian Roulette, where one man aims the gun at another and fires, neither knowing nor caring if it is loaded. A third could be a person recklessly driving a vehicle at high speeds down a sidewalk who strikes and kills a pedestrian without braking.\n\nDepraved indifference is pretty hard to prove, usually requiring some act of senseless violence that is done with clear and apparent disregard for the value of human life. I couldn't see a prosecutor, on facts like this, pursuing a murder charge under that subsection of the statute. I understand how someone could read that statute and make that comparison here, but there's an extremeness in the actions of a depraved-indifference murderer that I don't think is present in the officer's actions here. There's also an inherent dangerousness of the actions usually described as depraved indifference that I don't think a chokehold held for that long qualifies for.\n\nThanks for the reply, though, and that's a reading of the statute that many intelligent laymen would have."}, {"id": "cmlgnre", "body": "From what it can be seen the officer showed indifference to human life, I mean, a chokehold is pretty deadly, and the police officer was aware of that. I can't like starve my kids for three weeks and then say oopsies I didn't know kids die when you don't give them food."}, {"id": "cmlgnre", "body": "From what it can be seen the officer showed indifference to human life, I mean, a chokehold is pretty deadly, and the police officer was aware of that. I can't like starve my kids for three weeks and then say oopsies I didn't know kids die when you don't give them food."}, {"id": "cmlhggx", "body": "The officer had legal justification for some level of violence.  He was (for sake of argument at least) lawfully allowed to arrest Garner for selling cigarettes.  \n\nSo use of violent force per se isn't depraved indifference, because there's a legal justification for it.  Use of a chokehold is probably an unnecessarily dangerous maneuver, but that doesn't make it a depraved indifference to human life.  He choked Garner for 19 seconds, and then stopped choking him while Garner was still alive.  I don't believe the chokehold alone killed Garner, but rather the chokehold plus the 5 officers pinning him down plus underlying medical conditions.\n\nUnder the circumstances, this wasn't the kind of morally depraved behavior that constitutes murder, but just really bad judgment.\n\nA chokehold for 19 seconds creates a risk of death, but really, not a grave one.  It's highly unlikely that Pantaleo would have killed a healthy man in the same circumstances.  It certainly has a risk to human life, but probably less than a grave risk."}, {"id": "cmlhggx", "body": "The officer had legal justification for some level of violence.  He was (for sake of argument at least) lawfully allowed to arrest Garner for selling cigarettes.  \n\nSo use of violent force per se isn't depraved indifference, because there's a legal justification for it.  Use of a chokehold is probably an unnecessarily dangerous maneuver, but that doesn't make it a depraved indifference to human life.  He choked Garner for 19 seconds, and then stopped choking him while Garner was still alive.  I don't believe the chokehold alone killed Garner, but rather the chokehold plus the 5 officers pinning him down plus underlying medical conditions.\n\nUnder the circumstances, this wasn't the kind of morally depraved behavior that constitutes murder, but just really bad judgment.\n\nA chokehold for 19 seconds creates a risk of death, but really, not a grave one.  It's highly unlikely that Pantaleo would have killed a healthy man in the same circumstances.  It certainly has a risk to human life, but probably less than a grave risk."}, {"id": "cmm1vtd", "body": "This is an excellent response. I tried to communicate this idea elsewhere, but wasn't able to do so eloquently. "}, {"id": "cml7dcc", "body": "IANAL, but from a cursory reading of your links, couldn't you at least make some kind of argument for second degree murder under subdivision 2?\n\n&gt; 2\\. Under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life,\nhe  recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person\n\nNot saying that I necessarily believe that this is the correct charge.  I just think that there could be a possible argument for it."}, {"id": "cmla2rb", "body": "No.\n\n There is no argument. \n\nAll of the words in that sentence have precise legal meanings, and none of them would apply to this case. "}]}