NationStates Jolt Archive


The main problem with one of the central pro choice arguments

Pages : [1] 2 3
Adriatica II
08-05-2006, 15:59
One of the many things that I see in the abortion debate is the following

Pro-lifer: Abortion is wrong because X, Y and Z
Pro-choicer: Ok thats fine. You believe that but dont force me to abide by your beliefs

The flaw in this argument is that
A: - It assumes the points raised by the pro-lifer are subjective (which is often not the case, but that's not what I am here discussing)
B: - It assumes that government does not have a role in choosing to enforce right and wrong

The fact is the government chooses things that it considers right and wrong and enforces them or not. The idea that if something is wrong we should still be able to choose about it is absurd. Imagine the scenerio where theft is legal because the government has no place enforcing right and wrong. The government is in that place. What it is important to do is to discuss whether or not abortion is objectively wrong or not. Not whether the government has the right to enforce it, that much is a given.
BogMarsh
08-05-2006, 16:03
SNIP
The flaw in this argument is that
A: - It assumes the points raised by the pro-lifer are subjective (which is often not the case, but that's not what I am here discussing)
B: - It assumes that government does not have a role in choosing to enforce right and wrong

The fact is the government chooses things that it considers right and wrong and enforces them or not. The idea that if something is wrong we should still be able to choose about it is absurd. SNIP.

It is obviously and manifestly wrong to preach communism.
I'm sure the Government would agree - no Government loves opposition.
Yet - would you choose to live under a Govt that outlawed such political thought?

The short of it is: assumption b is surprisingly correct! The idea behind constitutions and things like that is to ensure that the Govt is LIMITED in chosing about right and wrong
Ny Nordland
08-05-2006, 16:04
Another interesting thing is that abortion is usually portrayed as a "women's right". What about the rights of unborn human? So women can not kill people whom they dont want/like but they can kill unborn people?
Besides she can always use a morning after pill if she wasnt protected. No need to kill the baby.
Mt-Tau
08-05-2006, 16:05
Not quite. Theft, rape, murder, etc. are all steping on someones toes. Common sence dictates that these need to be outlawed to keep a happy populace. Abortion is right at that line, however, does not cross it.
Adriatica II
08-05-2006, 16:07
It is obviously and manifestly wrong to preach communism.
I'm sure the Government would agree - no Government loves opposition.

No, the counter argument is that it isnt wrong and free speech does no harm. Thats the kind of debate I'm talking about. The "is abortion wrong" debate.
Helkaer
08-05-2006, 16:07
The flaw in this argument is that
A: - It assumes the points raised by the pro-lifer are subjective
But it is the fact that the points raised by the pro lifer ARE subjective that gives rise to debate in the issue in the first place.
Yes governments should enforce what is right and what is wrong, but people are not completely agreed as to whehether aborion is right or wrong.
Skinny87
08-05-2006, 16:07
It is obviously and manifestly wrong to preach communism.
I'm sure the Government would agree - no Government loves opposition.
Yet - would you choose to live under a Govt that outlawed such political thought?

The short of it is: assumption b is surprisingly correct! The idea behind constitutions and things like that is to ensure that the Govt is LIMITED in chosing about right and wrong

"It is obviously and manifestly wrong to preach communism."

Why, exactly?
Adriatica II
08-05-2006, 16:08
Not quite. Theft, rape, murder, etc. are all steping on someones toes. Common sence dictates that these need to be outlawed to keep a happy populace. Abortion is right at that line, however, does not cross it.

That's the debate. Does it cross someones toes (IE the child). Its not "Does the government have a right to outlaw it" because they do, but in order to have that right it has to be shown to be wrong. So the discussion is "is it wrong"
Mt-Tau
08-05-2006, 16:08
Another interesting thing is that abortion is usually portrayed as a "women's right". What about the rights of unborn human? So women can not kill people whom they dont want/like but they can kill unborn people?
Besides she can always use a morning after pill if she wasnt protected. No need to kill the baby.

I see one flaw in your arguement. What if the contraceptive method failed and the woman did not know it until she missed a period? It is abit late at that point for the morning after pill. The other issue is, what if the contraceptives fail and you can not get to the doctor to get the MAP? (Less likely of the two, but still a pain)
Adriatica II
08-05-2006, 16:09
But it is the fact that the points raised by the pro lifer ARE subjective that gives rise to debate in the issue in the first place.
Yes governments should enforce what is right and what is wrong, but people are not completely agreed as to whehether aborion is right or wrong.

Its not about whether people agree whether its right or wrong. Its about whether it is. If people majoritviely agreed that theft was ok that wouldn't make it ok.
Valdania
08-05-2006, 16:13
Firstly, the points raised by the pro-lifer are subjective; it's not an assumption that they are.

Secondly, there is no assumption that the government doesn't have the right to legislate between right and wrong.
Sane Outcasts
08-05-2006, 16:13
Its not about whether people agree whether its right or wrong. Its about whether it is. If people majoritviely agreed that theft was ok that wouldn't make it ok.

That's the beauty of a democratic/republican government, majority decides right or wrong. The issue of innate rightness or wrongness doesn't matter in legislation.
Mt-Tau
08-05-2006, 16:13
That's the debate. Does it cross someones toes (IE the child). Its not "Does the government have a right to outlaw it" because they do, but in order to have that right it has to be shown to be wrong. So the discussion is "is it wrong"

Well, you will have a hard time on that. One of the anti-abortions positions is that it angers god. Well, I could go through and do some heinous acts then claim it to be in the name of god, hence, a pretty poor reason. Second is what you had described, where does life begin. I bet you can ask 10 different people and get 10 different answers. This is why I say let it be the mothers choice, she is the one who must pay for it regardless of the decision.
Helkaer
08-05-2006, 16:17
Its not about whether people agree whether its right or wrong. Its about whether it is. If people majoritviely agreed that theft was ok that wouldn't make it ok.
And whether it is or not depends on what you believe. If you are a religious person you are much more likely to believe aborion is wrong, but if you are not religious you are less likely to feel that it is. The issue of whether abortion is right or wrong is not as clear cut as whether theft is right of wrong.
Madnestan
08-05-2006, 16:25
The real question is, is that under 12 weeks old (that's the time after getting pregnant abortion can be made here in Finland) piece of meat in the woman's womb really a human? If it isn't, there can be no murder. IMO it isn't. Because if we'll say it is, then we can start saying that a load of sperm is an unborn baby, and every time I masturbate I commit a homicide. And that would be ridiculous. When that embryo developes brains and starts to sense things around it... Then it becomes immoral to kill it.

Just my opinion though.
Supermacs
08-05-2006, 16:27
Its not about whether people agree whether its right or wrong. Its about whether it is. If people majoritviely agreed that theft was ok that wouldn't make it ok.

Are you saying there is an objective moral code independant of the thoughts and opinions of people?
Ny Nordland
08-05-2006, 16:29
I see one flaw in your arguement. What if the contraceptive method failed and the woman did not know it until she missed a period? It is abit late at that point for the morning after pill. The other issue is, what if the contraceptives fail and you can not get to the doctor to get the MAP? (Less likely of the two, but still a pain)

Give birth and give the baby for adoption...
New Bretonnia
08-05-2006, 16:31
Firstly, the points raised by the pro-lifer are subjective; it's not an assumption that they are.

Secondly, there is no assumption that the government doesn't have the right to legislate between right and wrong.

Well, yes and no. Some of the pro-life arguments are quite subjective, some aren't. For example, the issue of it being a sin to have an abortion is one that only means anything if both parties in the discussion believe not only in God, but in His stand on the issue. That's one that you'll never be able to change someone's mind on, one way or the other.

On the other hand, some of the very objective facts are related to how far along the baby starts developing verious organs, responses and reactions. One could base an argument on those pieces of information alone and make a very strong argument for limiting abortion at the very least, certainly enough to argue against partial-birth abortions. (If you don't know what that is, you're probably better off.)

Then there are some arguments that aren't strictly subjective, but are treated as such, like issues of parental consent/notification and so on.

Personally, I think the issue is only viewed as being subjective as a result of pro-choice arguments trying to remove the moral/ethical sting from it. If you can at least get someone to concede that an objective point is subjective, you've de facto won the argument.
Ny Nordland
08-05-2006, 16:32
The real question is, is that under 12 weeks old (that's the time after getting pregnant abortion can be made here in Finland) piece of meat in the woman's womb really a human? If it isn't, there can be no murder. IMO it isn't. Because if we'll say it is, then we can start saying that a load of sperm is an unborn baby, and every time I masturbate I commit a homicide. And that would be ridiculous. When that embryo developes brains and starts to sense things around it... Then it becomes immoral to kill it.

Just my opinion though.

So, we should be able to kill "people" without brains? Then there would be blood running everywhere...Abortion isnt neccessary after the morning after pill was discovered.
New Bretonnia
08-05-2006, 16:33
Are you saying there is an objective moral code independant of the thoughts and opinions of people?

If it comes from a spiritual source, there is. An atheist has no objective basis for any code of behavior or morality, but someone with spiritual beliefs does.

What's important, and tends to get lost, is that a lot of people get upset when told that abortion is wrong, because they don't like the idea of a God who would impose such a rule. I always find it amazing that people will presume to pass moral judgements on God Himself...
Snow Eaters
08-05-2006, 16:36
The real question is, is that under 12 weeks old (that's the time after getting pregnant abortion can be made here in Finland) piece of meat in the woman's womb really a human? If it isn't, there can be no murder. IMO it isn't. Because if we'll say it is, then we can start saying that a load of sperm is an unborn baby, and every time I masturbate I commit a homicide. And that would be ridiculous. When that embryo developes brains and starts to sense things around it... Then it becomes immoral to kill it.

Just my opinion though.


False extrapolation. Sperm does not even contain the genetic code required to be human, it only has half.
The furthest you can carry that argument is to the moment of conception when the sperm fertilises the egg.
The Alma Mater
08-05-2006, 16:38
A: - It assumes the points raised by the pro-lifer are subjective (which is often not the case, but that's not what I am here discussing)

You should be. The whole forbid it vs choice debate centers around the question if it is a bad thing to kill an embryo or fetus. That to a large degree a subjective issue, involving subjective questions like "what is a human", "is killing a living thing always wrong" and "is my religious belief that this embryo has a soul reason for the legisature to make killing it illegal".
A somewhat more objective question in this issue is for example "does abortion actually harm the fetus/embryo" (people who think this question is rather stupid have probably never even thought the whole issue through).

B: - It assumes that government does not have a role in choosing to enforce right and wrong

Eeehmm... no it doesn't. Where did you get that idea ?
Valdania
08-05-2006, 16:39
An atheist has no objective basis for any code of behavior or morality, but someone with spiritual beliefs does.



Typical religious garbage. Religion does not have an exclusive hold on morality however much you would like to think that it does.



What's important, and tends to get lost, is that a lot of people get upset when told that abortion is wrong, because they don't like the idea of a God who would impose such a rule. I always find it amazing that people will presume to pass moral judgements on God Himself...

Hmm. Your argument is seriously flawed by your presumption that God actually exists.
Peepelonia
08-05-2006, 16:45
Its not about whether people agree whether its right or wrong. Its about whether it is. If people majoritviely agreed that theft was ok that wouldn't make it ok.


Actualy what you say is quite wrong. The reason that theft is considered wrong is because the moral majority says so, if this changes then so does the the idea of theft being wrong.
Peepelonia
08-05-2006, 16:51
Typical religious garbage. Religion does not have an exclusive hold on morality however much you would like to think that it does.

I don't belive that is what was said.


Hmm. Your argument is seriously flawed by your presumption that God actually exists.

And we all presume, you presume that one logical argument is flawed, by presumeing the non existance of God.
Bodies Without Organs
08-05-2006, 16:52
Actualy what you say is quite wrong. The reason that theft is considered wrong is because the moral majority says so, if this changes then so does the the idea of theft being wrong.

Unpacking that statement we can see that all it says is 'theft is considered wrong because it is considered wrong'.
Tsrill
08-05-2006, 16:52
If it comes from a spiritual source, there is. An atheist has no objective basis for any code of behavior or morality
I don't agree to that; there are various philosophies and ways of thinking that would lead to a moral code, without having to invoke a god.

, but someone with spiritual beliefs does.

But people with different spiritual beliefs would have a different basis for a code of behavior, which is not necessarily yield the same code. So based on this argument you cannot state there is a universal moral code. Even more, you contradict yourself because you state that an atheist can not have the same objective moral code as a spiritualist. Doesn't that make the spiritualist's moral code by definition subjective?


What's important, and tends to get lost, is that a lot of people get upset when told that abortion is wrong, because they don't like the idea of a God who would impose such a rule. I always find it amazing that people will presume to pass moral judgements on God Himself...
There's no reason not to make moral judgements on god if it's not your god.

Someone said it's not only about woman's right, but also about the child's right. But the child has no choice in the matter anyway. We have to decide whether it's going to live or to die. It's never the child's decision, whether you are pro choice or pro life.
Peepelonia
08-05-2006, 16:53
Unpacking that statement we can see that all it says is 'theft is considered wrong because it is considered wrong'.


Heh yeah exactly why do you disagree and instead think it objectivly wrong to steal?
Bodies Without Organs
08-05-2006, 16:56
Heh yeah exactly why do you disagree and instead think it objectivly wrong to steal?

I raise the point because you snuck in the phrase 'moral majority' when 'majority' was all that was called for.
Madnestan
08-05-2006, 16:56
So, we should be able to kill "people" without brains? Then there would be blood running everywhere...Abortion isnt neccessary after the morning after pill was discovered.

How many brainless people, who have no senses, who can't move, think, do ANYTHING at all, except exist as pieces of meat, have you seen in your home town exactly?
Madnestan
08-05-2006, 16:57
False extrapolation. Sperm does not even contain the genetic code required to be human, it only has half.
The furthest you can carry that argument is to the moment of conception when the sperm fertilises the egg.

And you call that a human?
Bodies Without Organs
08-05-2006, 16:58
How many brainless people, who have no senses, who can't move, think, do ANYTHING at all, except exist as pieces of meat, have you seen in your home town exactly?

The only brainless 'people' I have ever physically seen have either been mummified or skeletons.
Valdania
08-05-2006, 16:58
And we all presume, you presume that one logical argument is flawed, by presumeing the non existance of God.

learn how to communicate your thoughts in a way that actually makes sense
The Alma Mater
08-05-2006, 16:59
And we all presume, you presume that one logical argument is flawed, by presumeing the non existance of God.

And since there is no objective way to determine if there is a God, Godess, multiple gods or something else entirely, nor a way to know which denomination actually has it right (if any), if God isn't in fact something we should oppose instead of worship and so on and so on, the whole "God does not like it" argument is a subjective one.
Snow Eaters
08-05-2006, 17:00
But it is the fact that the points raised by the pro lifer ARE subjective that gives rise to debate in the issue in the first place.
Yes governments should enforce what is right and what is wrong, but people are not completely agreed as to whehether aborion is right or wrong.


Unless you're taking the stance that ALL points are subjective, that isn't true.

The OP needs to take the point further.

The Pro-Life stance can be boiled down to, Abortion is fundamentally taking the life of another human and the government needs to prevent that.

The Pro-Choice stance can be boiled down to, Abortion is a medical procedure that should be the choice of the woman that feels a need for one and no one else.

These stances are incompatible because the Pro-Choice stance has presumed that the mother's life is the only life in question while the Pro-Life stance never makes it to the point where the mother's choice is relevant.

Anecdotes of women in hardships carrying a child to term nor suppositions of the thoughts of an angry creator only cloud the issue from both sides and never help.
Madnestan
08-05-2006, 17:00
The only brainless 'people' I have ever physically seen have either been mummified or skeletons.

Exactly.
Bodies Without Organs
08-05-2006, 17:03
Exactly.

Of course, the question of whether we define an anacephalic birth as the birth of a person or not is a different matter.
Snow Eaters
08-05-2006, 17:39
And you call that a human?


Well, that's the question isn't it?

You have 2 clear lines to choose from, and whole bunch of hazy places to put the line.

You can go with conception, everything the human needs is there genetically, you just need another 18-19 years development.

You can go with birth, it's commonly accepted that everything born, although still developing and growing, is human.

Or, you can try and determine a point in the womb where development crosses some watershed mark, organ development, pain sensation, brain activity, ability to survive outside the womb, etc.

It's the foundation question of the entire debate, yet it always seems to get the minimal amount of discussion.
Myrcia
08-05-2006, 17:48
Unless you're taking the stance that ALL points are subjective, that isn't true.

The OP needs to take the point further.

The Pro-Life stance can be boiled down to, Abortion is fundamentally taking the life of another human and the government needs to prevent that.

The Pro-Choice stance can be boiled down to, Abortion is a medical procedure that should be the choice of the woman that feels a need for one and no one else.

These stances are incompatible because the Pro-Choice stance has presumed that the mother's life is the only life in question while the Pro-Life stance never makes it to the point where the mother's choice is relevant.

Anecdotes of women in hardships carrying a child to term nor suppositions of the thoughts of an angry creator only cloud the issue from both sides and never help.

Bravo, that's exactly right. People have a tendency to forget the actual debate and argue about God. God's involvement is not necessary.

I personally feel that life begins at conception. The fertilized egg has a unique set of 46 chromosomes (different from the mother's, therefore it's not really "her body" in my opinion), which will grow into a (probably) fully functional human being at some later point in time. Also, I find the idea of "life begins at birth" to be odd simply because the child in the uterus immediately before birth is exactly the same as the one right after birth. It's just a change of environment.
Vittos Ordination2
08-05-2006, 18:24
One of the many things that I see in the abortion debate is the following

Pro-lifer: Abortion is wrong because X, Y and Z
Pro-choicer: Ok thats fine. You believe that but dont force me to abide by your beliefs

The flaw in this argument is that
A: - It assumes the points raised by the pro-lifer are subjective (which is often not the case, but that's not what I am here discussing)
B: - It assumes that government does not have a role in choosing to enforce right and wrong

The fact is the government chooses things that it considers right and wrong and enforces them or not. The idea that if something is wrong we should still be able to choose about it is absurd. Imagine the scenerio where theft is legal because the government has no place enforcing right and wrong. The government is in that place. What it is important to do is to discuss whether or not abortion is objectively wrong or not. Not whether the government has the right to enforce it, that much is a given.

I agree with this. I understand many 'pro-lifers' wishes to overturn Roe v. Wade. Many consider it to be the wrongful killing of a person, and were I to feel that way I would definitely argue against it.

However, I believe that the idea that abortion is the wrongful killing of a person is a ludicrous idea, and furthermore the idea is largely inseperable from the religious belief that a person is a spiritual being above the physical body, and should not be taken into consideration by government policy.
Myrcia
08-05-2006, 18:33
I agree with this. I understand many 'pro-lifers' wishes to overturn Roe v. Wade. Many consider it to be the wrongful killing of a person, and were I to feel that way I would definitely argue against it.

However, I believe that the idea that abortion is the wrongful killing of a person is a ludicrous idea, and furthermore the idea is largely inseperable from the religious belief that a person is a spiritual being above the physical body, and should not be taken into consideration by government policy.

Therefore, I refer to my post above, which is based completely on science, not religion. The belief that the abortion debate is inseparable from religion is the ludicrous one.
Vittos Ordination2
08-05-2006, 18:36
Therefore, I refer to my post above, which is based completely on science, not religion. The belief that the abortion debate is inseparable from religion is the ludicrous one.

The abortion debate can certainly be separated from religion, but if that actually happens the 'pro-life's' side would be untenable.
Ulducc
08-05-2006, 18:43
The real question is, is that under 12 weeks old (that's the time after getting pregnant abortion can be made here in Finland) piece of meat in the woman's womb really a human? If it isn't, there can be no murder. IMO it isn't. Because if we'll say it is, then we can start saying that a load of sperm is an unborn baby, and every time I masturbate I commit a homicide. And that would be ridiculous. When that embryo developes brains and starts to sense things around it... Then it becomes immoral to kill it.

Just my opinion though.


Unfortunately, human embryos develop a brain long before 12 weeks.

Brain development begins with the formation and closure of the neural tube, the earliest nervous tissue that looks like a fat earthworm stretched out along the entire back of the embryo. The neural tube forms from the neural plate, which begins forming just sixteen days after conception. This plate lengthens and starts folding up, forming a groove at around eighteen days, which then begins fusing shut into a tube around twenty-two days post-conception. By 27 days, the tube is fully closed and has already begun its transformation into the brain and spinal cord of the embryo.

http://www.zerotothree.org/brainwonders/FAQ-body.html#begin

Hence by your own statement, having an abortion after 27 days would be immoral and Sweedens laws are not sufficent.
Dakini
08-05-2006, 18:58
Another interesting thing is that abortion is usually portrayed as a "women's right". What about the rights of unborn human? So women can not kill people whom they dont want/like but they can kill unborn people?
They're no more people than a cow is a person. Actually, a full grown cow is more sentient than an embryo is, especially at the stage most abortions occur. Calling an embryo a person only serves to make it an emotionally charged argument.

Besides she can always use a morning after pill if she wasnt protected. No need to kill the baby.
The morning after pill doesn't always work, it's not always widely available and it's not a baby.
Dakini
08-05-2006, 19:00
Its not about whether people agree whether its right or wrong. Its about whether it is. If people majoritviely agreed that theft was ok that wouldn't make it ok.
And just because you think it's not ok doesn't make it not ok.
Muravyets
08-05-2006, 19:04
One of the many things that I see in the abortion debate is the following

Pro-lifer: Abortion is wrong because X, Y and Z
Pro-choicer: Ok thats fine. You believe that but dont force me to abide by your beliefs

The flaw in this argument is that
A: - It assumes the points raised by the pro-lifer are subjective (which is often not the case, but that's not what I am here discussing)
B: - It assumes that government does not have a role in choosing to enforce right and wrong

The fact is the government chooses things that it considers right and wrong and enforces them or not. The idea that if something is wrong we should still be able to choose about it is absurd. Imagine the scenerio where theft is legal because the government has no place enforcing right and wrong. The government is in that place. What it is important to do is to discuss whether or not abortion is objectively wrong or not. Not whether the government has the right to enforce it, that much is a given.
Wow, I had just gotten over missing you, and here you are, like the missing glove that turns up after I threw out its mate. :p

Anyway:

Your argument is flawed because, while you criticize the pro-choice faction for making assumptions, you yourself are making assumptions for the anti-choice faction.

1) You assume that the anti-choice argument is not subjective, yet there are no factual proofs of any part of the anti-choice argument. In fact, referring to elective abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy (the vast majority of abortions) and to non-elective, medically necessary abortion, the anti-choice argument is based solely on moralism and religion, both entirely subjective systems of thought.

2) You assume that abortion is wrong.
(A) In the US and much of the world, the law disagrees with you.
(B) There is no ethical consensus about it either way.
(C) There is no social consensus of popular opinion, either, except that the majority of people do not wish to see it outlawed completely.
(D) There is no scientific basis on which to make such a qualitative statement about right and wrong, so this is also a subjective statement that is ultimately unprovable.
In sum, the assertion that abortion is wrong is merely your personal belief, ergo, subjective.

It is better to frame the argument thus:

Nobody knows whether abortion is right or wrong in an ethical sense, or who, if anyone is harmed by it. Therefore:

A) The anti-choice faction argues that the government should err on one side and decide to outlaw abortion on the chance that it is wrong and harmful; while

B) The pro-choice faction argues that the government should err on the other side and, because nobody can give a definitive answer, decide to stay out of the issue and let individuals decide for themselves.

Because there are no definitive, objective, provable answers to the ethical questions of abortion, the pro-choice faction's argument is the stronger of the two. This is why the majority of people do not want to see abortion outlawed, including people who oppose it.
Snow Eaters
08-05-2006, 19:05
However, I believe that the idea that abortion is the wrongful killing of a person is a ludicrous idea,

Your belief is hardly convincing.
Muravyets
08-05-2006, 19:08
Another interesting thing is that abortion is usually portrayed as a "women's right". What about the rights of unborn human? So women can not kill people whom they dont want/like but they can kill unborn people?
Besides she can always use a morning after pill if she wasnt protected. No need to kill the baby.
Do you apply this to everyone?
Snow Eaters
08-05-2006, 19:14
the 'pro-life's' side would be untenable.

You may not agree with it, but you're overstating yourself.
Snow Eaters
08-05-2006, 19:21
They're no more people than a cow is a person. Actually, a full grown cow is more sentient than an embryo is, especially at the stage most abortions occur.


So, your criteria is simply sentience?
What level of sentience?
Sentience occurs prior to birth, you must be against some abortions then.
Ny Nordland
08-05-2006, 19:22
Well, that's the question isn't it?

You have 2 clear lines to choose from, and whole bunch of hazy places to put the line.

You can go with conception, everything the human needs is there genetically, you just need another 18-19 years development.

You can go with birth, it's commonly accepted that everything born, although still developing and growing, is human.

Or, you can try and determine a point in the womb where development crosses some watershed mark, organ development, pain sensation, brain activity, ability to survive outside the womb, etc.

It's the foundation question of the entire debate, yet it always seems to get the minimal amount of discussion.

Exactly. And the thing is even if it's not a "human", It's a living thing which will become human. It's life. And abortion is especially hypocritical in Europe, when we claim we believe in the sanctitiy of life (death penalty is illegal, welfare state, etc...), we allow people to be free to terminate life as they please.
Vittos Ordination2
08-05-2006, 19:27
You may not agree with it, but you're overstating yourself.

Some questions:

When are we unjustified in ending life, not killing a person, but simply ending life?

At what point is a person created?

What quality of human life entitles it to protection?

EDIT: This completely avoids the argument that it is a woman's choice as to how her body is to be used.
Siphon101
08-05-2006, 19:30
That's the debate. Does it cross someones toes (IE the child). Its not "Does the government have a right to outlaw it" because they do, but in order to have that right it has to be shown to be wrong. So the discussion is "is it wrong"

No...they don't. The government can not that eliminate that which is protected by the constitution. The right to an abortion is protected by the constitution. Go read Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The government could no sooner outlaw abortion then they could free speech.
The Alma Mater
08-05-2006, 19:30
It's the foundation question of the entire debate, yet it always seems to get the minimal amount of discussion.

Actually, the question "when is something human" is NOT the foundation question of the entire debate. Those are:

1. When is killing something (including humans) wrong.
2. Does abortion fit the criteria set by the answer to 1.

However, those questions get even less attention; since most people are trained from youth to simply think "killing humans bad" without ever stopping to contemplate *why*.

Exactly. And the thing is even if it's not a "human", It's a living thing which will become human. It's life. And abortion is especially hypocritical in Europe, when we claim we believe in the sanctitiy of life (death penalty is illegal, welfare state, etc...), we allow people to be free to terminate life as they please.

And this post is an *excellent* example of my point.
Siphon101
08-05-2006, 19:31
Exactly. And the thing is even if it's not a "human", It's a living thing which will become human. It's life. And abortion is especially hypocritical in Europe, when we claim we believe in the sanctitiy of life (death penalty is illegal, welfare state, etc...), we allow people to be free to terminate life as they please.

Because in Europe it's illegal to kill an insect or a rodent. In fact it's even illegal to take antibiotics as they kill bacteria, since the bacteria are certainly alive.

Wrong. Europe claims to believe in the sanctity of HUMAN life. The question is, and it seems to be decided in many places, that a fetus is not human.
Seathorn
08-05-2006, 19:35
Give birth and give the baby for adoption...

Of course, you'll never have to do that, and neither will I.

Exactly. And the thing is even if it's not a "human", It's a living thing which will become human. It's life. And abortion is especially hypocritical in Europe, when we claim we believe in the sanctitiy of life (death penalty is illegal, welfare state, etc...), we allow people to be free to terminate life as they please.

There's a lot of living things that are killed every day. If you want to try not to kill anything, be a buddhist. Now That's belief in the sanctity of life taken to extremes.

Europe doesn't take it to extremes and besides, since most women who have abortions were the ones using prevention (according to a study that was posted here looong ago, if you want, I can try to fish it out), that must mean that most of these women weren't planning on having a child in the first place, while those women who do not use prevention usually do seek to get a child. But not all of course.
Muravyets
08-05-2006, 19:47
Exactly. And the thing is even if it's not a "human", It's a living thing which will become human. It's life. And abortion is especially hypocritical in Europe, when we claim we believe in the sanctitiy of life (death penalty is illegal, welfare state, etc...), we allow people to be free to terminate life as they please.
So are sperm and eggs. Do you think male masturbation should be outlawed because of the potential human life that is lost with each lost sperm cell? Do you women should wear mourning during their periods to commemorate the potential life represented by each egg expelled per month? After all, both kinds of cells are living things, and their sole purpose is to make humans.

The argument from potential is meaningless because law is remedial and reactive, and it cannot remedy or react to something that hasn't happened yet or does not exist. A thing which may become a human but has not done so yet is not human, by definition. It is what it is, not what it may become.
Snow Eaters
08-05-2006, 19:50
Some questions:

When are we unjustified in ending life, not killing a person, but simply ending life?

That's a good question.
Are you referring to human life, or just any life?
We end plant life indiscriminately.
We end animal life with only a few considerations.
We end human life in only a few circumstances, at least when we want to feel justified in doing so.

If abortion is dealing with human life, it will obviously be subject to far greater restrictions.

At what point is a person created?


Created? Are we looking at this from a creationism point of view??
An "individual" with it's own unique genetic code and a potential lifetime ahead of it is "created" at conception.
Is that a person to you?

What is a person? If you can answer that, we can more easily determine when one is "created".

What quality of human life entitles it to protection?


It's "our" species. Self Species Preservation kind of a thing entitles it to protection.
Self awareness entitles it to protection beyond what we extend to other kinds of life.

That's my thoughts at least.
Jocabia
08-05-2006, 19:59
Another interesting thing is that abortion is usually portrayed as a "women's right". What about the rights of unborn human? So women can not kill people whom they dont want/like but they can kill unborn people?
Besides she can always use a morning after pill if she wasnt protected. No need to kill the baby.

The morning after pill causes an conception not to implant. For the vast majority in the anti-abortion crowd this is murder. A conception occurs when the morning after pill works. This is also true of many birth control pills.
The Alma Mater
08-05-2006, 19:59
That's a good question.
Are you referring to human life, or just any life?
We end plant life indiscriminately.
We end animal life with only a few considerations.
We end human life in only a few circumstances, at least when we want to feel justified in doing so.

If abortion is dealing with human life, it will obviously be subject to far greater restrictions.

Simply saying "when it is human, it is wrong" is not an answer to Vittos question, it is a dodge. To actually answer it you will need to explain why the "being human" makes it unjustified - unless you truly believe that "species" is the only determining factor.
Vittos Ordination2
08-05-2006, 20:00
That's a good question.
Are you referring to human life, or just any life?
We end plant life indiscriminately.
We end animal life with only a few considerations.
We end human life in only a few circumstances, at least when we want to feel justified in doing so.

If abortion is dealing with human life, it will obviously be subject to far greater restrictions.

Life is life, human or not. Life is not something particular to human beings.

By saying that plant life is inconsequential, we admit that life itself is not valuable, that there is some quality that human's possess that makes their life more valuable. We will get to that with the third question.

Created? Are we looking at this from a creationism point of view??
An "individual" with it's own unique genetic code and a potential lifetime ahead of it is "created" at conception.
Is that a person to you?

What is a person? If you can answer that, we can more easily determine when one is "created".

What is your definition of a person, and when does this person form, come into being?

It's "our" species. Self Species Preservation kind of a thing entitles it to protection.
Self awareness entitles it to protection beyond what we extend to other kinds of life.

That's my thoughts at least.

So we outlaw abortion, we value human life for the sake of the continuation of the species? That seems an enormous stretch.

Along that line of thinking:

Do you support population control, as it has been shown to be beneficial to certain species, such as deer, wolves, etc?

Do you believe that people who are incapable of passing on their genetic structure no longer retain the right to life?
Muravyets
08-05-2006, 20:01
That's a good question.
Are you referring to human life, or just any life?
We end plant life indiscriminately.
We end animal life with only a few considerations.
We end human life in only a few circumstances, at least when we want to feel justified in doing so.

If abortion is dealing with human life, it will obviously be subject to far greater restrictions.
<snip>
If we allow that abortion deals with human life, then it becomes subject to justification, and at this point the question of conflicting rights comes into play. This is an entirely different front in the abortion debate. In my opinion, it is the stronger part of the debate because it is the part that law can really do something with, whereas endless arguments over fetal development and what makes a human being never provide answers as to what is the right thing to do. However, I don't know if this thread is ready for this can of worms to be opened yet.
Snow Eaters
08-05-2006, 20:01
Actually, the question "when is something human" is NOT the foundation question of the entire debate. Those are:

1. When is killing something (including humans) wrong.
2. Does abortion fit the criteria set by the answer to 1.

However, those questions get even less attention; since most people are trained from youth to simply think "killing humans bad" without ever stopping to contemplate *why*.


You raise an interesting point, if there's disagreement on it, then you're correct, it is more foundational than the question I raised.

I'm assuming that we have general agreement that taking a human life is bad and that taking non-human life, while possibly regrettable is a lower priority than the human freedom to choose how to live their life.

If you're saying that taking human life is acceptable in an abortion situation, or that taking any life, whether human or not can't be justfied, then we need to back up the debate.
Snow Eaters
08-05-2006, 20:04
So are sperm and eggs.

No they are not, basic Biology.
Jocabia
08-05-2006, 20:04
Exactly. And the thing is even if it's not a "human", It's a living thing which will become human. It's life. And abortion is especially hypocritical in Europe, when we claim we believe in the sanctitiy of life (death penalty is illegal, welfare state, etc...), we allow people to be free to terminate life as they please.

Will? Do you know how many conceptions result in a live birth. It's a small percentage without any artificial prevention.

Also, it should be noted that if an abortion occurs that it will not become a human life, EVER. If one argues on the its potential to become human being thwarted by an abortion then you have the same issue with birth control. Technically, you'd have the same argument when a woman or man says no to sex. If I try to have sex with a female coworker, she has prevented the potential creation of a human life. How likely does a live birth have to be before you would make it illegal? For me, I don't argue from potential so I only base it on the point where it qualifies as a human life.
Muravyets
08-05-2006, 20:06
No they are not, basic Biology.
Cells are inanimate objects?

EDIT: To clarify my point, I was underscoring the meaninglessness of the argument from potential.
Czardas
08-05-2006, 20:06
Give birth and give the baby for adoption...
How many times have you given birth that you say this?
Czardas
08-05-2006, 20:11
A: - It assumes the points raised by the pro-lifer are subjective (which is often not the case, but that's not what I am here discussing)
You should be... because they are. Morality is subjective, and abortion is a matter of morality, as are all transactions dealing with human life. Morality itself is a matter of opinion, as there is no one objective moral code that everyone can agree on. Morality is not, for instance, the laws of physics.


B: - It assumes that government does not have a role in choosing to enforce right and wrong
Which it does not. Besides, this refers to point #1: There is no objective standard a government can use to enforce morality.


The fact is the government chooses things that it considers right and wrong and enforces them or not. The idea that if something is wrong we should still be able to choose about it is absurd.
But we may not consider it wrong. See point #1.


Imagine the scenerio where theft is legal because the government has no place enforcing right and wrong. The government is in that place. What it is important to do is to discuss whether or not abortion is objectively wrong or not. Not whether the government has the right to enforce it, that much is a given.
Some people consider theft "moral"; should they be allowed to steal where no-one else is simply because they think it is right? Please.
Dreamy Creatures
08-05-2006, 20:12
I would just like to know how one can generalize in these matters. For example, a pro-life-r usually hasn't had the experience of being raped and having been in the circumstances to not be able to stop the pregnancy before it was in abortion-phase. Now, I don't say that's the only thing at stake here. Moreover, even then she can CHOOSE to keep the child and give birth. But it's all about creating the possibility to choose. Ok, maybe circumstances should be clarified. But don't just say "NEVER". Please, that's what I call inhumanly cold-hearted.
Dakini
08-05-2006, 20:13
So, your criteria is simply sentience?
What level of sentience?
Sentience occurs prior to birth, you must be against some abortions then.
My criteria is when it becomes life. The fetus doesn't meet the requirements for life until it preforms stimulus response as an organism at 20 weeks. That is sufficient time for a woman to deceide whether she wants to abort or not.

After 20 weeks, abortions should of course be allowed for medical reasons.
Snow Eaters
08-05-2006, 20:30
Simply saying "when it is human, it is wrong" is not an answer to Vittos question, it is a dodge. To actually answer it you will need to explain why the "being human" makes it unjustified - unless you truly believe that "species" is the only determining factor.

It's not a dodge at all.

We have laws against killing humans and it is generally accepted that killing a human is immoral and is only tolerated in certain situations that most societies outline.

If we're going to debate the taking of human life, then the issue is much, much larger than abortion.
Jocabia
08-05-2006, 20:33
It's not a dodge at all.

We have laws against killing humans and it is generally accepted that killing a human is immoral and is only tolerated in certain situations that most societies outline.

If we're going to debate the taking of human life, then the issue is much, much larger than abortion.

It's not a human life. We don't consider a person who is braindead to be a human life anymore either. The body is, however, still human. My hair is human, but I am permitted to cut it. It is human, therefore it's wrong does not address the issue.
The Alma Mater
08-05-2006, 20:39
I'm assuming that we have general agreement that taking a human life is bad and that taking non-human life, while possibly regrettable is a lower priority than the human freedom to choose how to live their life.

Not entirely - I do not assume a priori that killing a human is bad, though killing a human against his/her will without good reason (like e.g. protecting other humans) definately scores points on my bad scale. I consider "the fact of life" to be a neutral fact; not something that is intrinsically "good" or "bad". The only one who can judge which it is is the one living it.

Nor am I certain that the value of non-human life can never outweigh that of human life; if one had to kill every dog on this planet to assure the surival of a single human being for instance I would not start killing dogs.

Basicly, I want people to not say "killing humans is generally bad", but "killing humans is generally bad because [insert reasons here].
Once we have established those reasons, we can start discussing if they are valid for embryos.
Czardas
08-05-2006, 20:43
It's not a dodge at all.

We have laws against killing humans and it is generally accepted that killing a human is immoral and is only tolerated in certain situations that most societies outline.
And why is it so accepted as immoral when we are allowed to freely murder deer, ducks, chickens, pigs, cows, cockroaches, rats, and dozens of other species? Should not those be considered immoral as well by that standard? Why, in other words, do we enforce laws against the killing of our own species where we do not, in many cases, against others?

Also, how can any pro-lifer claim to support the war in Iraq or any other conflict, for that matter? If the taking of human life is wrong for unborn babies, it should be wrong for adults as well. That means no death penalty, no war, nothing like that.
Snow Eaters
08-05-2006, 20:56
Life is life, human or not. Life is not something particular to human beings.

By saying that plant life is inconsequential, we admit that life itself is not valuable, that there is some quality that human's possess that makes their life more valuable. We will get to that with the third question.


Yes, exactly, we say that human life is valuable, more valuable than plant life, for example.

What is your definition of a person, and when does this person form, come into being?


I asked you that.

So we outlaw abortion, we value human life for the sake of the continuation of the species? That seems an enormous stretch.


We can debate the value of non-human life vs. human life if you want, but that's not the abortion debate.

Why we value human life isn't necessary to be known for the abortion debate, although it may help at some points.

If we do value human life, then the abortion question is easy to frame as, does abortion take a human life or not?

If we don't value human life in any particular then there's no reason to prohibit abortion regardless of whether there is human life there or not.

Along that line of thinking:

Do you support population control, as it has been shown to be beneficial to certain species, such as deer, wolves, etc?


Sure, by encouraging lower birth rates. Or did you mean to imply by culling of humans?


Do you believe that people who are incapable of passing on their genetic structure no longer retain the right to life?

Of course not.
Snow Eaters
08-05-2006, 21:03
Cells are inanimate objects?

EDIT: To clarify my point, I was underscoring the meaninglessness of the argument from potential.


No one mentioned anything inanimate. There are more categories than HUMAN oe INANIMATE

It's not really an argument from potential. That's far too open to semantics abuse.

A 2 month old infant has the "potential" to grow up to be a certain person, or maybe to die next week from SIDS. The fact that "potential" exists doesn't mean that life might develop, but that life IS developing.
Mer des Ennuis
08-05-2006, 21:07
And why is it so accepted as immoral when we are allowed to freely murder deer, ducks, chickens, pigs, cows, cockroaches, rats, and dozens of other species? Should not those be considered immoral as well by that standard? Why, in other words, do we enforce laws against the killing of our own species where we do not, in many cases, against others?

Also, how can any pro-lifer claim to support the war in Iraq or any other conflict, for that matter? If the taking of human life is wrong for unborn babies, it should be wrong for adults as well. That means no death penalty, no war, nothing like that.

Uh, one of the reasons we "murder" deer is, other than food, to help thin their numbers so that they don't starve to death. It is better for the population of a deer herd that we kill some to prevent a much more painful death for the rest. For cockroaches, I think if you found your house had a family of a few thousand, you would probably want to get rid of them, if only for the fact they spread so much disease.

The death penalty is a seperate issue. The baby/fetus, which ever you want to call it, did nothing against the established moral/legal code. However, a mass murderer has gone against conventional standards for human behavior, went through a much longer process before he could be killed, and then has several more years of life.

One question I have to ask: where exactly in the constitution does it say "The people have a right to an abortion?" And just because Europe does something does not make it right.
Verdigroth
08-05-2006, 21:09
One of the many things that I see in the abortion debate is the following

Pro-lifer: Abortion is wrong because X, Y and Z
Pro-choicer: Ok thats fine. You believe that but dont force me to abide by your beliefs

The flaw in this argument is that
A: - It assumes the points raised by the pro-lifer are subjective (which is often not the case, but that's not what I am here discussing)
B: - It assumes that government does not have a role in choosing to enforce right and wrong

<snip>
When does life begin. Do you have scientific data to prove this?
HeyRelax
08-05-2006, 21:11
One of the many things that I see in the abortion debate is the following

Pro-lifer: Abortion is wrong because X, Y and Z
Pro-choicer: Ok thats fine. You believe that but dont force me to abide by your beliefs

The flaw in this argument is that
A: - It assumes the points raised by the pro-lifer are subjective (which is often not the case, but that's not what I am here discussing)
B: - It assumes that government does not have a role in choosing to enforce right and wrong

The fact is the government chooses things that it considers right and wrong and enforces them or not. The idea that if something is wrong we should still be able to choose about it is absurd. Imagine the scenerio where theft is legal because the government has no place enforcing right and wrong. The government is in that place. What it is important to do is to discuss whether or not abortion is objectively wrong or not. Not whether the government has the right to enforce it, that much is a given.

You're misrepresenting the pro-choice side.

The pro-life side believes that a child becomes a full fledged human being the moment of conception, therefore abortion is the same as murder.

The pro-choice side believes that a child gains moral value at some later point in development, and is not a full fledged human being until it's capable of thinking.

They also say 'If a woman is not financially capable of having a child or does not want the child, it's better to prevent the child from becoming human than forcing it into poverty or into the foster system.'

The pro-choice side also uses the argument 'Why should I be forced to commit months of my life to this pregnancy?' But that argument only works if you first use the first two arguments. Without the first two arguments it's a bad argument.

As for the government enforcing morality. It depends if it violates the harm principle. If a baby gains a soul at the moment of conception, however, it does.
Snow Eaters
08-05-2006, 21:12
My criteria is when it becomes life. The fetus doesn't meet the requirements for life until it preforms stimulus response as an organism at 20 weeks. That is sufficient time for a woman to deceide whether she wants to abort or not.

After 20 weeks, abortions should of course be allowed for medical reasons.


Fair enough then, although I believe you're on shaky ground for the stimulus response test. It's rather hard to accept that something went from non-life to life at 20 weeks of development.
Desperate Measures
08-05-2006, 21:14
No pro-life has been able to successfully prove that abortion is wrong without invoking God or the idea of a soul.
HeyRelax
08-05-2006, 21:16
Fair enough then, although I believe you're on shaky ground for the stimulus response test. It's rather hard to accept that something went from non-life to life at 20 weeks of development.

That, I think is the biggest issue.

If a nine month old fetus is a human being, and a just conceived undifferentiated collection of cells is not. At what point does it go from not being a human being, to being one?

I sure can't answer that question. My best estimate is the development of the frontal cortex.
An-Kenjara
08-05-2006, 21:16
The original poster of this thread seems to assume that there is objective right and wrong. Surely that, in itself, is a subjective view.

I suppose that is a whole other debate; nevertheless, the assumption is that government is there to enforce what is 'right'. Well, what is? And who says it is?

Anyway, the point is: can anybody be 'objective' about this or any other issue?

NB: Of course, the assumption that everything is subjective is itself subjective. And that assumption itself is also subjective. And so on. Ad absurdum.
Verdigroth
08-05-2006, 21:16
Just cause someone has to draw the flames. Before it exits the vaginal opening the fetus is just a parasite. If it can't breathe on its own then it has no rights not to get terminated. Furthermore after birth the parent should not have to feed it. If it wants to survive it can find its own source of nourishment. I am sure the thing can crawl to some church and be taken in as well all know that religious people are constantly helping the downtrodden.
HeyRelax
08-05-2006, 21:24
The original poster of this thread seems to assume that there is objective right and wrong. Surely that, in itself, is a subjective view.

I suppose that is a whole other debate; nevertheless, the assumption is that government is there to enforce what is 'right'. Well, what is? And who says it is?

Anyway, the point is: can anybody be 'objective' about this or any other issue?

NB: Of course, the assumption that everything is subjective is itself subjective. And that assumption itself is also subjective. And so on. Ad absurdum.

Murder isn't really an issue with many gray areas.

The question is in determining whether or not abortion is murder.
Ulducc
08-05-2006, 21:28
The original poster of this thread seems to assume that there is objective right and wrong. Surely that, in itself, is a subjective view.

I suppose that is a whole other debate; nevertheless, the assumption is that government is there to enforce what is 'right'. Well, what is? And who says it is?

Anyway, the point is: can anybody be 'objective' about this or any other issue?

NB: Of course, the assumption that everything is subjective is itself subjective. And that assumption itself is also subjective. And so on. Ad absurdum.

I think the basic claim was that the government legislates right or wrong, whether or not it exists is totally irrelevant
An-Kenjara
08-05-2006, 21:45
Murder isn't really an issue with many gray areas.

How about in a war situation? People are killed. That's sort of the point. Somebody in government justifies it, so it's 'right'. Yes, there are arguments about who is a combatant, etc., but in the end killing in war is deemed to be different from murder. Why? Because a subjective justification is advanced for it.

Terrorism? Somebody in government abhors it, so it's 'wrong'. Unless you're one of the 'terrorists' a.k.a. 'freedom fighters', in which case we're back to it being 'right'.

The question is in determining whether or not abortion is murder.

Yes. And there is no 'objective' view on this. You either believe it's murder (for reason x) or you do not (for reason y). Does anybody ever convince 'the other side' in these threads? My point is that it's a bit of a false premise to come out and say that one faction has objective truth on its side.
Jocabia
08-05-2006, 21:45
No one mentioned anything inanimate. There are more categories than HUMAN oe INANIMATE

It's not really an argument from potential. That's far too open to semantics abuse.

A 2 month old infant has the "potential" to grow up to be a certain person, or maybe to die next week from SIDS. The fact that "potential" exists doesn't mean that life might develop, but that life IS developing.

That's simply false. It is not a life until it becomes a life. Again, if someone is about to have sex and that sex would result in a life then a life is developing. It's an argument from potention. The 2-month-old is already a life. The embryo is not.
Jocabia
08-05-2006, 21:47
Fair enough then, although I believe you're on shaky ground for the stimulus response test. It's rather hard to accept that something went from non-life to life at 20 weeks of development.
Is it more hard to believe than it happened when two cells met?
An-Kenjara
08-05-2006, 21:49
I think the basic claim was that the government legislates right or wrong, whether or not it exists is totally irrelevant

If that was what was being said, fair enough.
Dakini
08-05-2006, 21:59
Fair enough then, although I believe you're on shaky ground for the stimulus response test. It's rather hard to accept that something went from non-life to life at 20 weeks of development.
How is it hard to accept? It's more reasonable to accept that something becomes a life when it meets the requirements for a life than when something just comes into existence. Is an acorn a life? Is it a tree?
Snow Eaters
08-05-2006, 22:07
It's not a human life.

I respect that's your opinion, but that is the discussion and is very much up for debate.


We don't consider a person who is braindead to be a human life anymore either. The body is, however, still human.

It was human life, but it has been damaged. I'm not sure how that is relevant.


My hair is human, but I am permitted to cut it.

No, your hair is a part of a human, it is not human life in and of itself.


It is human, therefore it's wrong does not address the issue.

You're onto one part of the argument though, it IS human, there really no biological way to deny that, the questions revolve around whether it is a "person" or qualifies yet as a "human life"
Snow Eaters
08-05-2006, 22:14
That's simply false. It is not a life until it becomes a life.

That's not a very meaningful statement.


Again, if someone is about to have sex and that sex would result in a life then a life is developing.

No, a life is definitely NOT yet developing in that situation.

The 2-month-old is already a life. The embryo is not.

The 2 month old clearly is, correct, that's why I chose it, it's the embryo that is in question. You're not providing any reasoning for your claim that the embryo is not.
Snow Eaters
08-05-2006, 22:16
Is it more hard to believe than it happened when two cells met?


No, it's not, in my opinion. When two cells merge, something has happened, there has been a significant change and there is now something there that wasn't before.
Vittos Ordination2
08-05-2006, 22:18
Yes, exactly, we say that human life is valuable, more valuable than plant life, for example.

And to determine whether abortion is morally viable or not, we determine what gives human life that added value, and then see if the fetus also possesses that attribute.

I asked you that.

I think a person is the metaphysical entity that thinks, experiences. The person is the conscious sense of self.

We can debate the value of non-human life vs. human life if you want, but that's not the abortion debate.

Why we value human life isn't necessary to be known for the abortion debate, although it may help at some points.

The added value of human life over life in general is the crux of the abortion debate. If the fetus does not possess the quality that adds that value, it does not need to be protected.

Sure, by encouraging lower birth rates. Or did you mean to imply by culling of humans?

Would abortion be a advisable method for "encouraging lower birth rates."

Of course not.

Then the right to life is not tied to the survival of the species.

I believe that we can both agree that the right to life is only tied to the survival of the individual.
Snow Eaters
08-05-2006, 22:19
How is it hard to accept? It's more reasonable to accept that something becomes a life when it meets the requirements for a life than when something just comes into existence. Is an acorn a life? Is it a tree?

At what point in the 20th week does this happen then? what is it before it meets your criteria?

Is an acorn a tree?
I'm not sure, has it been planted? Has it germinated? Are we distinquishing between a "tree" or a "sapling"?

A better wording would be when is an acorn an oak? A tree implies a certain amount of growtrh and features.
Llewdor
08-05-2006, 22:23
Congratiulations for discovering that there's no middle ground in the abortion debate.

Pro-choicers ask for tolerance. If you don't like it, don't do it, but don't impose your beliefs on me.

But the trouble is that Pro-lifers honestly believe abortion to be murder. And tolerating murder as, itself, abhorrent behaviour. The very beliefs that make them incapabale of murder are the ones that prevent them from allowing others to murder.

There is no compromise. The two sides will never agree. I don't see why people can't immediately see this.
Snow Eaters
08-05-2006, 22:25
And to determine whether abortion is morally viable or not, we determine what gives human life that added value, and then see if the fetus also possesses that attribute.



I think a person is the metaphysical entity that thinks, experiences. The person is the conscious sense of self.



The added value of human life over life in general is the crux of the abortion debate. If the fetus does not possess the quality that adds that value, it does not need to be protected.


OK, fair enough. You're circumventing the question of whether the fetus is a human life (or you're accepting it) and instead you're focusing on the metaphysical.

When do you think this metaphysical consciousness and experience begins?
At birth? Before birth? After birth?
Jocabia
08-05-2006, 22:35
I respect that's your opinion, but that is the discussion and is very much up for debate.




It was human life, but it has been damaged. I'm not sure how that is relevant.

It was a human life but in absense of a functioning brain it is no longer considered a human life. It is still human. Human =/= human life.

Meanwhile if brain function is required for life and the absense of it is how we define the end of life, why shouldn't it be how we define the beginning of it? Brain function is how we define human life currently. It should continue to be.


No, your hair is a part of a human, it is not human life in and of itself.

Agreed. Human =/= human life.


You're onto one part of the argument though, it IS human, there really no biological way to deny that, the questions revolve around whether it is a "person" or qualifies yet as a "human life"

It is human, but not a human life. That's the point. You're the one who said if it's human, then it's wrong to kill it. I'm simply pointing out that the statement YOU made is objectively not true.
The Alma Mater
08-05-2006, 22:36
OK, fair enough. You're circumventing the question of whether the fetus is a human life (or you're accepting it) and instead you're focusing on the metaphysical.

Actually he is correctly pointing out that the question of whether the fetus is human life or not is an sich irrelevant to the abortion debate.

My personal view is that one needs to demonstrate that abortion does harm to the embryo/fetus to call it wrong. As long as the embryo/fetus hasn't developed the ability to have experiences, which biologists in general equate to the activation of the neural net, killing an embryo/fetus is no different than never having the embryo/fetus be conceived in the first place from the embryos/fetus point of view.

Unless of course you believe a soul enters at conception (or before) and suffers due to the death - but that is a religious belief without objective evidence which may not be the belief of the mother. Or if you believe that adding another human to this planet is by definition a positive thing - although you should in that case also be against contraception and women who are not permanently pregnant to remain consistent.

If you can think of a more rational reason I would welcome it.
An-Kenjara
08-05-2006, 22:36
But the trouble is that Pro-lifers honestly believe abortion to be murder. And tolerating murder as, itself, abhorrent behaviour. The very beliefs that make them incapabale of murder are the ones that prevent them from allowing others to murder.

There is no compromise. The two sides will never agree. I don't see why people can't immediately see this.

Eloquently put. I suppose the question is: to what extent can the genuinely-held views of some be allowed to curtail the freedoms of others whose beliefs are equally genuinely held?
Jocabia
08-05-2006, 22:40
That's not a very meaningful statement.

No, it's a truism and shouldn't need to be said, however, you're more than willing to argue that it is. You admitted it is developing into a human life and isn't yet a life, but then you argue that is a life. I can't be developing into something it already is.

No, a life is definitely NOT yet developing in that situation.

According to you. You picked an arbitrary time when a life has not yet occurred but MAY occur if the conditions are perfect and chose to call that a developing life while not counting any other time.

The 2 month old clearly is, correct, that's why I chose it, it's the embryo that is in question. You're not providing any reasoning for your claim that the embryo is not.

Because I already provided it. You equated the two and they cannot be equated. I didn't realize I had to repeat my reasoning every post. I'll do so in the future just so you don't get confused. An embryo has not brain nor brain function, we don't consider a human life to exist without a brain or brain function at any other stage, but you want to make up a definition of human life that only applies in the early stages of pregnancy.
Vittos Ordination2
08-05-2006, 23:21
OK, fair enough. You're circumventing the question of whether the fetus is a human life (or you're accepting it) and instead you're focusing on the metaphysical.

No, I am saying that all life is life, whether it is human or not. There is some reason why we create laws to protect some life over others.

So why do we protect some life over others? If you believe it is simply because the life is human, explain what universal qualities all humans possess that give them that right. If you believe it is some other quality please provide that one.

When do you think this metaphysical consciousness and experience begins?
At birth? Before birth? After birth?

I am not a child psychologist, but I believe it occurs sometime after birth.
Vittos Ordination2
08-05-2006, 23:22
Actually he is correctly pointing out that the question of whether the fetus is human life or not is an sich irrelevant to the abortion debate.

My personal view is that one needs to demonstrate that abortion does harm to the embryo/fetus to call it wrong. As long as the embryo/fetus hasn't developed the ability to have experiences, which biologists in general equate to the activation of the neural net, killing an embryo/fetus is no different than never having the embryo/fetus be conceived in the first place from the embryos/fetus point of view.

Unless of course you believe a soul enters at conception (or before) and suffers due to the death - but that is a religious belief without objective evidence which may not be the belief of the mother. Or if you believe that adding another human to this planet is by definition a positive thing - although you should in that case also be against contraception and women who are not permanently pregnant to remain consistent.

If you can think of a more rational reason I would welcome it.

I was trying to get him to come to that conclusion rather than stating it myself, but yes, that is exactly what I believe.
Snow Eaters
08-05-2006, 23:26
It was a human life but in absense of a functioning brain it is no longer considered a human life. It is still human. Human =/= human life.

Meanwhile if brain function is required for life and the absense of it is how we define the end of life, why shouldn't it be how we define the beginning of it? Brain function is how we define human life currently. It should continue to be.


Fair enough, so you advocate for brain functionality as the defing point.

Out of curiousity, when would you expect this brain functionality exists and I assume that you woud be in favour of laws prohibitting abortions after that stage of development?
Jocabia
08-05-2006, 23:29
Fair enough, so you advocate for brain functionality as the defing point.

Out of curiousity, when would you expect this brain functionality exists and I assume that you woud be in favour of laws prohibitting abortions after that stage of development?

It occurs in the third trimester and laws already prohibit elective abortions at this stage. Generally, no doctor will perform an abortion at that stage without a compelling medical reason.
Snow Eaters
08-05-2006, 23:29
Actually he is correctly pointing out that the question of whether the fetus is human life or not is an sich irrelevant to the abortion debate.

My personal view is that one needs to demonstrate that abortion does harm to the embryo/fetus to call it wrong. As long as the embryo/fetus hasn't developed the ability to have experiences, which biologists in general equate to the activation of the neural net, killing an embryo/fetus is no different than never having the embryo/fetus be conceived in the first place from the embryos/fetus point of view.


When does this point of being able to have experiences occur?
Would you be in favour of laws that prohibit abortions after this point?


Unless of course you believe a soul enters at conception (or before) and suffers due to the death - but that is a religious belief without objective evidence which may not be the belief of the mother. Or if you believe that adding another human to this planet is by definition a positive thing - although you should in that case also be against contraception and women who are not permanently pregnant to remain consistent.

If you can think of a more rational reason I would welcome it.

I don't believe that, so no reason to attempt to rationalise it.
Mt-Tau
08-05-2006, 23:31
Give birth and give the baby for adoption...

So am I to assume you will pay for the hospital bills sence you wish them to have it?
Snow Eaters
08-05-2006, 23:32
You admitted it is developing into a human life and isn't yet a life, but then you argue that is a life. I can't be developing into something it already is.

Not quite.
I said it is a developing human life, not that it is developing "into" a human life.
Jocabia
08-05-2006, 23:35
No, it's not, in my opinion. When two cells merge, something has happened, there has been a significant change and there is now something there that wasn't before.

No more significant than the moment of implantation, the moment of ejaculation, the moment of birth, the moment the brainstem engages, the moment the brain begins to work, the moment movement becomes possible, etc.
Llewdor
08-05-2006, 23:36
Eloquently put. I suppose the question is: to what extent can the genuinely-held views of some be allowed to curtail the freedoms of others whose beliefs are equally genuinely held?

Quite a lot. We've already done this when we decided that black people are people. Those people who thought black people weren't people had their freedoms curtailed.

It's just a question of where to draw the line. What constitutes a person. But since any point we choose is necessarily arbitrary, we can't persuade each other.
Snow Eaters
08-05-2006, 23:37
No, I am saying that all life is life, whether it is human or not. There is some reason why we create laws to protect some life over others.

So why do we protect some life over others? If you believe it is simply because the life is human, explain what universal qualities all humans possess that give them that right. If you believe it is some other quality please provide that one.


Being human is enough for me, I don't believe all life is equal.
I'm not particularly interested in the why debate, unless you can tie it to the current dscussion.

I am not a child psychologist, but I believe it occurs sometime after birth.

Then, logically, you wouldn't be opposed to infanticide until that point is reached?
Llewdor
08-05-2006, 23:42
Then, logically, you wouldn't be opposed to infanticide until that point is reached?

That's a reasonable position. There's nothing magicaly that happens to a baby in the birth canal that suddenly gives it special qualities it didn't possess 20 minutes earlier.

But why is it being human sufficient for you? Is being human somehow special, regardless of the characteristics of other species? Isn't that speciesist?
Jocabia
08-05-2006, 23:43
Quite a lot. We've already done this when we decided that black people are people. Those people who thought black people weren't people had their freedoms curtailed.

No, they didn't. They are still free to hold that belief. They simply aren't free to abuse other people. That's universally true.

It's just a question of where to draw the line. What constitutes a person. But since any point we choose is necessarily arbitrary, we can't persuade each other.
Unless one can show that another person is directly injured by your actions then there is no compelling reason to curtail your freedoms. In the case it was objectively true that another person was injured. In the case of abortion, it is not.
Jocabia
08-05-2006, 23:44
Not quite.
I said it is a developing human life, not that it is developing "into" a human life.
Actually, you said a life IS developing. That means it is not yet a life.
Vittos Ordination2
08-05-2006, 23:47
Being human is enough for me, I don't believe all life is equal.
I'm not particularly interested in the why debate, unless you can tie it to the current dscussion.

I would like to know why so that I can counter the point.

Defining the quality of human life that causes us to protect it is essential to establishing when and why the right to life is applied.

Then, logically, you wouldn't be opposed to infanticide until that point is reached?

No I am not, however, I am not entirely convinced that I am correct, so I don't actually support infanticide.
Llewdor
08-05-2006, 23:48
No, they didn't. They are still free to hold that belief. They simply aren't free to abuse other people. That's universally true.

Unless one can show that another person is directly injured by your actions then there is no compelling reason to curtail your freedoms. In the case it was objectively true that another person was injured. In the case of abortion, it is not.

You misunderstand. I'm conceding that everyone thinks it's bad to hurt other people. It's the definition of people that's in question.

Those people who don't think that black people are people HAVE had their freedoms curtailed, because the group of creatures they're not allowed to harm has been expanded to include black people.

Similarly, defining the foetus as a person curtails the freedoms of those who wish to abort their pregnancies on the grounds that the foetus isn't a person.

But if I honestly believe that the foetus isn't a person, or that black people are sub-human, you can't simply declare that I'm wrong and claim that you haven't curtailed my freedoms.
Kurayaramnu
08-05-2006, 23:59
If someone already asked sorry for the repetion, but..

If a young girl is raped why should she be forced to destroy parts of her life with a kid? wouldnt abortion be fairer to the child because it wont have a good life to go to :confused:
Jocabia
09-05-2006, 00:02
You misunderstand. I'm conceding that everyone thinks it's bad to hurt other people. It's the definition of people that's in question.

Those people who don't think that black people are people HAVE had their freedoms curtailed, because the group of creatures they're not allowed to harm has been expanded to include black people.

Similarly, defining the foetus as a person curtails the freedoms of those who wish to abort their pregnancies on the grounds that the foetus isn't a person.

But if I honestly believe that the foetus isn't a person, or that black people are sub-human, you can't simply declare that I'm wrong and claim that you haven't curtailed my freedoms.

But they are human and this is objectively true by the very definition of a human being. An embryo does not fit the definition of a human being. The definition of human being was not changed to not include the requirement of pale skin. Scientific evidence says black people are sentient human beings. It wasn't bestowed on them.

You have no freedoms naturally that allow you to injure other people. Whether people of different races qualify as people is not disputed scientifically and never really has been.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Many people who argue that abortion should be legal do so on the grounds that the mother IS a person and that she has the right to the sovereignty of her body. Whether or not a fetus is a person it does not have a right to deny a woman control of her body. If a woman is required to carry a fetus her basic right to control her body is curtailed. There is not basic right to beat 'niggers'.
Snow Eaters
09-05-2006, 00:07
No more significant than the moment of implantation, the moment of ejaculation, the moment of birth, the moment the brainstem engages, the moment the brain begins to work, the moment movement becomes possible, etc.


Implantation is not a change, it's merely an attachment, necessary of course.
Ejaculation may be significant to you or I, but it is no change to life.
Birth is a traumatic event, but it marks no significant change to the life itself, but is rather a change in that life's environment.
The brainstem engaging may be a significant development point, but harder to pin down.
The brain beginning to work is also significant, but is more of lengthy process than a moment.
Possible movement also seems more than a little difficult to mark.

The coming together of the sperm and egg to create a new life is possibly the most significant and easiest point to mark in a new life. I'm not advocating that as the point where abortion becomes either wrong or illegal, but the biology of the situation is clear.
Snow Eaters
09-05-2006, 00:11
But why is it being human sufficient for you? Is being human somehow special, regardless of the characteristics of other species? Isn't that speciesist?

Because I'm human.
Yes.
Yes.
Dinaverg
09-05-2006, 00:11
Implantation is not a change, it's merely an attachment, necessary of course.
Ejaculation may be significant to you or I, but it is no change to life.
Birth is a traumatic event, but it marks no significant change to the life itself, but is rather a change in that life's environment.
The brainstem engaging may be a significant development point, but harder to pin down.
The brain beginning to work is also significant, but is more of lengthy process than a moment.
Possible movement also seems more than a little difficult to mark.

The coming together of the sperm and egg to create a new life is possibly the most significant and easiest point to mark in a new life. I'm not advocating that as the point where abortion becomes either wrong or illegal, but the biology of the situation is clear.

So, you're basically going with whatever is easy to work with?
Snow Eaters
09-05-2006, 00:14
Actually, you said a life IS developing. That means it is not yet a life.

If you read it that way, then please disregard it. I have never meant to imply that something that is not yet a life is developing at any point.
Jocabia
09-05-2006, 00:16
Implantation is not a change, it's merely an attachment, necessary of course.

Undeniably false. There is a significant change that occurs at implantation and as a result of implantation.

Ejaculation may be significant to you or I, but it is no change to life.

According to you. It is a very significant moment in the process of creating a baby.

Birth is a traumatic event, but it marks no significant change to the life itself, but is rather a change in that life's environment.

Again, undeniably false. There are significant changes in the baby and the function of its parts at the moment of birth. It's significant enough that we change the scientific term for the being at that moment. This indicates a difference scientifically.

The brainstem engaging may be a significant development point, but harder to pin down.

Only because we don't have the technology to do so. We have a rough idea of when it occurs. Almost as exact as conception, in fact. Meanwhile, why does how difficult it is to mark make any difference in the significance.

The brain beginning to work is also significant, but is more of lengthy process than a moment.

No, it occurs at a single moment. It's either operating or it's not operating.

Possible movement also seems more than a little difficult to mark.

Actually we can nail that down much more closely than conception.

The coming together of the sperm and egg to create a new life is possibly the most significant and easiest point to mark in a new life. I'm not advocating that as the point where abortion becomes either wrong or illegal, but the biology of the situation is clear.
What does the ease of marking it have to do with anything. If it's the beginning of life then whether or not we can easily mark it has nothing to do with it. How well we can mark it has nothing to do with "the biology of the situation". It is not the most significant point in the new life by far. Clearly the moment when the fetus begins to experience the world (which occurs within the womb) is far more significant than when it's genetics are combined. There are far more important developmental points where much greater effect is had. In fact, there are significant differences in the development that are decided by the mother's hormones long after that moment.
Snow Eaters
09-05-2006, 00:18
I would like to know why so that I can counter the point.

Defining the quality of human life that causes us to protect it is essential to establishing when and why the right to life is applied.


That's a belief I haven't probed enough to put forward then.
It's a belief I've held to be self-evident, I'm not saying you can't challenge it, just that I have not given it the the thought required to offer a meaningful response to you.
Vittos Ordination2
09-05-2006, 00:23
That's a belief I haven't probed enough to put forward then.
It's a belief I've held to be self-evident, I'm not saying you can't challenge it, just that I have not given it the the thought required to offer a meaningful response to you.

Fair enough. I would have just pulled something out my ass and hoped that it sounded coherent.
Llewdor
09-05-2006, 00:33
But they are human and this is objectively true by the very definition of a human being. An embryo does not fit the definition of a human being. The definition of human being was not changed to not include the requirement of pale skin. Scientific evidence says black people are sentient human beings. It wasn't bestowed on them.

You have no freedoms naturally that allow you to injure other people. Whether people of different races qualify as people is not disputed scientifically and never really has been.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Many people who argue that abortion should be legal do so on the grounds that the mother IS a person and that she has the right to the sovereignty of her body. Whether or not a fetus is a person it does not have a right to deny a woman control of her body. If a woman is required to carry a fetus her basic right to control her body is curtailed. There is not basic right to beat 'niggers'.

I didn't realise you were making a natural law argument.

Those have no rational foundation, and are thus unfalsifiable.
Chellis
09-05-2006, 00:33
I see no reason why a woman(or man for the matter) shouldn't be able to rid their bodies of an unwanted virus. That exactly what a fetus is, until it can both live outside the womb and is doing so.
Snow Eaters
09-05-2006, 00:39
So, you're basically going with whatever is easy to work with?


If we want a law to cover it, then eventually it has to be at least easy enough to legislate.
GruntsandElites
09-05-2006, 00:42
But it is the fact that the points raised by the pro lifer ARE subjective that gives rise to debate in the issue in the first place.
Yes governments should enforce what is right and what is wrong, but people are not completely agreed as to whehether aborion is right or wrong.
Don't get into a "what is subjective and what isn't" arguement. You wanna know why? I'll tell you:

1. Almost all of our knowledge is not actually cold hard fact. Everything is subjective to change.
2.Any political thoughts, ideas, everything about politics is subjective.
3.Pro-choicers arguements are subjective too. Good and evil in themselves are subjective.

I'll think of other stuff later.
Snow Eaters
09-05-2006, 00:45
Undeniably false. There is a significant change that occurs at implantation and as a result of implantation.



According to you. It is a very significant moment in the process of creating a baby.



Again, undeniably false. There are significant changes in the baby and the function of its parts at the moment of birth. It's significant enough that we change the scientific term for the being at that moment. This indicates a difference scientifically.



Only because we don't have the technology to do so. We have a rough idea of when it occurs. Almost as exact as conception, in fact. Meanwhile, why does how difficult it is to mark make any difference in the significance.



No, it occurs at a single moment. It's either operating or it's not operating.



Actually we can nail that down much more closely than conception.


What does the ease of marking it have to do with anything. If it's the beginning of life then whether or not we can easily mark it has nothing to do with it. How well we can mark it has nothing to do with "the biology of the situation". It is not the most significant point in the new life by far. Clearly the moment when the fetus begins to experience the world (which occurs within the womb) is far more significant than when it's genetics are combined. There are far more important developmental points where much greater effect is had. In fact, there are significant differences in the development that are decided by the mother's hormones long after that moment.

It's not important enough to the discussion to travel this road. Hold those views if you so wish.
Snow Eaters
09-05-2006, 00:53
Fair enough. I would have just pulled something out my ass and hoped that it sounded coherent.


My problem with your question is that I come at it from the opposite side, I hold right to life as the default position and then determine under what circumstances I feel we are justified to revoke or deny that right.

That means that for me, the only determinations I require are, Is it alive? Is it human? Is there any reason to deny the right to life?
Gusitania
09-05-2006, 00:56
Well Adriatica...since Im a Libertarian I think that people may differ right and wrong...governments role is to be small and keep us defended, and a court system...and out of my way (which includes my bedroom and doctors office)...why is this so hard for people to understand?
Vittos Ordination2
09-05-2006, 01:16
My problem with your question is that I come at it from the opposite side, I hold right to life as the default position and then determine under what circumstances I feel we are justified to revoke or deny that right.

That means that for me, the only determinations I require are, Is it alive? Is it human? Is there any reason to deny the right to life?

That is a perfectly reasonable position to take, however, one cannot justify policy by saying "I just haven't thought it through," and by simply coming from the side of providing the right by default does just that.

The most important thing you have to realize about a right is its nature as and obligation between people. Whenever one person has a right, it doesn't dictate their behavior, it dictates the behaviors of everyone around them. So when we consider rights, we do consider its value to those who possess it, but we cannot neglect to consider the cost to those that it actually passes obligation to.

When one considers the extreme cost the right to life has on the mother, one must be very detailed in determining exactly what justifies that cost.
Snow Eaters
09-05-2006, 01:31
When one considers the extreme cost the right to life has on the mother, one must be very detailed in determining exactly what justifies that cost.

Why do we need to justify it?
Justify it against what?
Bodies Without Organs
09-05-2006, 01:46
Why do we need to justify it?
Justify it against what?

Against thousands and thousands of years of tradition.
Vittos Ordination2
09-05-2006, 01:47
Why do we need to justify it?
Justify it against what?

We need to define what is the basic reason for the right to life, what makes it essential to a person, then apply it to all individuals who have that need.

The right to life in the case of abortion needs to be justified against the costs and obligations of motherhood.

When we consider the right to life of a person, generally there is not much to think about, the rightholder gains so much, while the other members of society are only obligated to not kill someone. That is why the right to life seemed self-evident to Jefferson, and that is where you stand, that the right to life is a default to all human life.

But when we consider both sides of the abortion issue, the costs of motherhood and the insight science has given us into early human life leave the right to life less than self-evident. We now have to become more precise in measuring what the benefits provided and the costs are, and while the costs to the mother are largely the same, we have to take a step back and discern just exactly why we have the right to life and what we take from it to decide the benefit.

I think when one reasonably takes that step back for perspective, one can only find that the right to life isn't meant to protect human life, it is meant to protect the human experience.
Snow Eaters
09-05-2006, 02:26
I think you're missing why I posed the justification question.

Seems to me that you're affording the mother some kinds of rights. You seem to be granting the right to non-obligation.

You're balancing the right to life against this unassailable right of choice.

So, since you're questioning under what circumstances we extend the right to life, I'm coming back and questioning when and why does a person have a right to choose to not be obligated to another life?

I'll question why and when we protect the right to life, but not if other rights won't be questioned.
Vittos Ordination2
09-05-2006, 03:23
I think you're missing why I posed the justification question.

Seems to me that you're affording the mother some kinds of rights. You seem to be granting the right to non-obligation.

You're balancing the right to life against this unassailable right of choice.

So, since you're questioning under what circumstances we extend the right to life, I'm coming back and questioning when and why does a person have a right to choose to not be obligated to another life?

I'll question why and when we protect the right to life, but not if other rights won't be questioned.

We establish the cost of the right to choose by determining the cost of a denied right to life, we establish the cost of the fetuses right to life by determining the cost of a denied right to choose. As I said, there is little controversy over just how costly a pregnancy and motherhood is to a woman, by that we can judge the cost of the right to life and the benefit of the right to choose.

Now, the whole purpose of my posts in this thread have been to get you to recognize the need to determine what the benefits the right of life provides so that we could assign a cost to the right to choose.

So determining the nature of the right to life is essential in questioning the right to choose.
Muravyets
09-05-2006, 03:41
No one mentioned anything inanimate. There are more categories than HUMAN oe INANIMATE

It's not really an argument from potential. That's far too open to semantics abuse.

A 2 month old infant has the "potential" to grow up to be a certain person, or maybe to die next week from SIDS. The fact that "potential" exists doesn't mean that life might develop, but that life IS developing.
The argument from potential is a staple of the anti-choice movement and is always used to expand the definition of "human life" from functioning to non-functioning (i.e. before organs develop) even to the point of pre-conception (for the extremist factions that also oppose contraception; they often expand the potentiality argument to include sperm and eggs).

My point is that any thing, including living human tissue, is only what it is at the moment it is looked at. The 2-month-old may become an adult, but we cannot treat it as an adult while it is 2 months old. The fetus may become a born person, but it is not a born person while it is in the womb. We cannot treat organisms as if they already are what they have the potential to become. They are what they are, not what they might be some day. That is all there is to it.

We might argue about what is the proper way to treat a conceptus or a fetus, but it only muddies the issue to pretend that they are already the same thing as a born child.
Muravyets
09-05-2006, 04:14
I think you're missing why I posed the justification question.

Seems to me that you're affording the mother some kinds of rights. You seem to be granting the right to non-obligation.

You're balancing the right to life against this unassailable right of choice.

So, since you're questioning under what circumstances we extend the right to life, I'm coming back and questioning when and why does a person have a right to choose to not be obligated to another life?

I'll question why and when we protect the right to life, but not if other rights won't be questioned.
I agree with Vittos Ordination 2 on this:
originally posted by VO2
<snip>...the need to determine what the benefits the right of life provides so that we could assign a cost to the right to choose.

So determining the nature of the right to life is essential in questioning the right to choose.
We cannot discuss a conflict of rights until both of the conflicting rights are defined in terms of their costs and benefits to the persons who hold the rights.

What are the costs and benefits to a person of being born? If a person is born, what has that person gained? Even more to the point, if a person is not born, what has that person lost?

Compare that to the costs and benefits of pregnancy. What are risks to a woman? What are the financial burdens to her, her family? If she gives birth, what does she gain or lose? If she does not give birth, what does she gain or lose?

It is my view that, when rights conflict, the person who stands to lose/suffer the most by the loss of the described right is the person whose right should take precedence. I believe that the woman stands to lose more by giving up control of her own body in pregnancy than the fetus can lose by not being born. If the woman loses control of her own body, then an actual, functioning human life is negatively affected. If the fetus is not born, then all it loses is the chance to control a life it never had control of, i.e. something it never had in the first place. In this case, the harm to the woman from the loss of her liberty is more acute than the harm to the fetus from not being born, in my opinion.
Vittos Ordination2
09-05-2006, 05:02
What are the costs and benefits to a person of being born? If a person is born, what has that person gained? Even more to the point, if a person is not born, what has that person lost?

Compare that to the costs and benefits of pregnancy. What are risks to a woman? What are the financial burdens to her, her family? If she gives birth, what does she gain or lose? If she does not give birth, what does she gain or lose?

It is my view that, when rights conflict, the person who stands to lose/suffer the most by the loss of the described right is the person whose right should take precedence. I believe that the woman stands to lose more by giving up control of her own body in pregnancy than the fetus can lose by not being born. If the woman loses control of her own body, then an actual, functioning human life is negatively affected. If the fetus is not born, then all it loses is the chance to control a life it never had control of, i.e. something it never had in the first place. In this case, the harm to the woman from the loss of her liberty is more acute than the harm to the fetus from not being born, in my opinion.

It is my opinion that the right to life doesn't even apply to the fetus, as the purpose of the right, the benefit of the right, cannot extend to the fetus's level of development.
Muravyets
09-05-2006, 05:19
It is my opinion that the right to life doesn't even apply to the fetus, as the purpose of the right, the benefit of the right, cannot extend to the fetus's level of development.
I agree with you on this. A right is something a person exercises. A person is a legal entity. A fetus is not a person, therefore it cannot have the legal rights of a person. I carry it further and say that, even if it were a person, the right to life would not extend to it. To me, the right to life is the right to control one's own life. The fetus has no life of its own. It is using the woman's life. It does not have a right to control someone else against their will, not any more than any born person does.
Peepelonia
09-05-2006, 13:15
I raise the point because you snuck in the phrase 'moral majority' when 'majority' was all that was called for.

Yeah I guess so but we are talking about morality, so I put the word moral in to make sure that you knew my stance on where morals come from and what or who decided what is moral or immoral.
Snow Eaters
09-05-2006, 13:17
We establish the cost of the right to choose by determining the cost of a denied right to life, we establish the cost of the fetuses right to life by determining the cost of a denied right to choose. As I said, there is little controversy over just how costly a pregnancy and motherhood is to a woman, by that we can judge the cost of the right to life and the benefit of the right to choose.

Now, the whole purpose of my posts in this thread have been to get you to recognize the need to determine what the benefits the right of life provides so that we could assign a cost to the right to choose.

So determining the nature of the right to life is essential in questioning the right to choose.


Your reasoning returns us to the very same familiar ground with nothing gained.
You're balancing the right to choose against the right to life.
The right to life, if it exists, will ALWAYS trump the right to choose.
The cost of a pregnancy and motherhood to a woman is irrelevant if it is compared to a right to life.
The question is still, does the fetus have the right to life?
If examining why that right is ever given helps determine whether it is valid in this instance then it is a useful exercise, but the cost doesn't enter into it.
Peepelonia
09-05-2006, 13:19
learn how to communicate your thoughts in a way that actually makes sense


Heh sorry so you cannot understand me and that is because of my lack of communication skills?

If you read the original post to which replied, and then mine, you'll find it easily understandable, but thanks for the tip old chap.
Peepelonia
09-05-2006, 13:21
And since there is no objective way to determine if there is a God, Godess, multiple gods or something else entirely, nor a way to know which denomination actually has it right (if any), if God isn't in fact something we should oppose instead of worship and so on and so on, the whole "God does not like it" argument is a subjective one.


As are most agruments I'd guess, yes I make you right.
Snow Eaters
09-05-2006, 13:27
The argument from potential is a staple of the anti-choice movement and is always used to expand the definition of "human life" from functioning to non-functioning (i.e. before organs develop) even to the point of pre-conception (for the extremist factions that also oppose contraception; they often expand the potentiality argument to include sperm and eggs).

My point is that any thing, including living human tissue, is only what it is at the moment it is looked at. The 2-month-old may become an adult, but we cannot treat it as an adult while it is 2 months old. The fetus may become a born person, but it is not a born person while it is in the womb. We cannot treat organisms as if they already are what they have the potential to become. They are what they are, not what they might be some day. That is all there is to it.

We might argue about what is the proper way to treat a conceptus or a fetus, but it only muddies the issue to pretend that they are already the same thing as a born child.

What extremists say is not something I can help.

Potential, applied correctly IS a very valid argument.
Whether you kill an adult or an infant, you are guilty of the same murder, the fact that the adult is more aware and able to experience life and is better able to enjoy the reasons we protect life is irrelevant.
If you maim a person, you can be liable for their potential earnings.

We do not treat anything as only what it is today, in a vacuum of ignorance to what it is becoming, that would be irresponsible.
Krakatao0
09-05-2006, 13:31
One of the many things that I see in the abortion debate is the following

Pro-lifer: Abortion is wrong because X, Y and Z
Pro-choicer: Ok thats fine. You believe that but dont force me to abide by your beliefs
right and wrong
You are pretty much defining 'pro choice'. Let me write a little bit longer version of your dialogue:

Pro-lifer: Abortion is wrong because X, Y and Z
Pro Choicer: Yeah, it really is immoral.
Pro Lifer: We should shoot everyone who tries to get an abortion
Pro Choicer: No, that they are doing wrong does not give you the right to attack them physically.
Peepelonia
09-05-2006, 13:32
They're no more people than a cow is a person. Actually, a full grown cow is more sentient than an embryo is, especially at the stage most abortions occur. Calling an embryo a person only serves to make it an emotionally charged argument.


The morning after pill doesn't always work, it's not always widely available and it's not a baby.

What surly the whole debate about abortion is already an emotionly charged one, and it should be. Even if you agree that an embryo is not human(so what its a goat embryo?) even if you agreee that the brain does not function until whenever science says it does, even if you agree it is not a baby(and the whole point of the debate is some people do not agree) then at the very least we are talking about denying the life of somebody. If we kill an embryo we do deny the possibility of life to that embryo so in a very real sense we DO deny life, at the very least.

When our choices come down to life and death, or for the pedants a possibility of life or no possibility, then it is right that emotions get involved, let me make my point very clear on this, it is already an emotionaly charged debate, it is right that it be so, and even if we get it resolved there will be people that disagree.
Snow Eaters
09-05-2006, 13:34
We cannot discuss a conflict of rights until both of the conflicting rights are defined in terms of their costs and benefits to the persons who hold the rights.

What are the costs and benefits to a person of being born? If a person is born, what has that person gained?

Advancement to the next stage of development.


Even more to the point, if a person is not born, what has that person lost?


Their life.


It is my view that, when rights conflict, the person who stands to lose/suffer the most by the loss of the described right is the person whose right should take precedence.

Agreed.
In your own description, one person is losing their life. Trying to phrase it as losing "a chance to control" a life is not a meaningful way to describe the situation.
We certainly don't wait until children can "control" their lives before the law protects their life.
Peepelonia
09-05-2006, 13:47
So are sperm and eggs. Do you think male masturbation should be outlawed because of the potential human life that is lost with each lost sperm cell? Do you women should wear mourning during their periods to commemorate the potential life represented by each egg expelled per month? After all, both kinds of cells are living things, and their sole purpose is to make humans.

The argument from potential is meaningless because law is remedial and reactive, and it cannot remedy or react to something that hasn't happened yet or does not exist. A thing which may become a human but has not done so yet is not human, by definition. It is what it is, not what it may become.

Sorry I can't agree with this at all. first thing, as we know and as has already been said here it takes sperm and egg to come together for the potential for human life to begin. So male masterbation, and female expulsion of eggs then becomes a moot point.

We also have laws to protect us and our livlyhoods in the event of unforseen happings. So if I can be in an accident and sue somebody for possible loss of POTENTIAL earnings. Then does that not set a precedent for me to sue my wife after a temination on the behalf of my lost child for loss of his/her POTENTIAL earnings?
Krakatao0
09-05-2006, 14:00
Sorry I can't agree with this at all. first thing, as we know and as has already been said here it takes sperm and egg to come together for the potential for human life to begin. So male masterbation, and female expulsion of eggs then becomes a moot point.

We also have laws to protect us and our livlyhoods in the event of unforseen happings. So if I can be in an accident and sue somebody for possible loss of POTENTIAL earnings. Then does that not set a precedent for me to sue my wife after a temination on the behalf of my lost child for loss of his/her POTENTIAL earnings?
No, the potential "child" must first become a person [with rights] before they can sue (or have somebody sue) anyone [for violating those rights].
Adriatica II
09-05-2006, 14:05
Are you saying there is an objective moral code independant of the thoughts and opinions of people?

Yes
Peepelonia
09-05-2006, 14:10
No, the potential "child" must first become a person [with rights] before they can sue (or have somebody sue) anyone [for violating those rights].


Granted then, but still you'll now agree that we do have laws that deal with potentials and not only as you priviously stated the here and now?
Peepelonia
09-05-2006, 14:13
Originally Posted by Supermacs
Are you saying there is an objective moral code independant of the thoughts and opinions of people?

'Yes'

Ohh really? Heheh go on then without recourse to God prove it?
Krakatao0
09-05-2006, 14:19
Granted then, but still you'll now agree that we do have laws that deal with potentials and not only as you priviously stated the here and now?
I didn't say it before, but no, the law only deals with presently existing individuals and presently committed crimes. The reason why potential futures might be discussed when measuring damages is that the court needs to get some sort of pseudoobjective measure of the value of something, and since the real value is subjective the potential future value, or even the price of another object is used as a proxy for that value.
Peepelonia
09-05-2006, 14:23
As per normal I see this debate going nowhere so in order to illiustrate a lil point on the nature of subjectivity I'd like to ask the following:


We know that when we eat an egg, as in a fried egg, or scrambled egg, or boiled egg or however one likes their egg prepered, what we are eating is the unfertelised egg of a chicken. So if it is unfertialised and thus contians no spark of life nor potential for life, why is it that veggiterians still do not eat them?
Laerod
09-05-2006, 14:24
As per normal I see this debate going nowhere so in order to illiustrate a lil point on the nature of subjectivity I'd like to ask the following:


We know that when we eat an egg, as in a fried egg, or scrambled egg, or boiled egg or however one likes their egg prepered, what we are eating is the unfertelised egg of a chicken. So if it is unfertialised and thus contians no spark of life nor potential for life, why is it that veggiterians still do not eat them?The only vegetarian I know that doesn't eat eggs is allergic to them. You're probably referring to vegans. ;)
Adriatica II
09-05-2006, 14:24
Ohh really? Heheh go on then without recourse to God prove it?

Simple, look at quarreling

Every one has heard people quarreling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kinds of things they say. They say things like this: "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?"--"That's my seat, I was there first"--"Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm"--"Why should you shove in first?"--"Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine"--"Come on, you promised." People say things like that every day, educated people, as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.

Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects[ the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behavior or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but it they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarreling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.

Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the "laws of nature" we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong "the Law of Nature," they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law--with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either or obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it.

We may put this in another way. Each man is at every moment subjected to several sets of law but there is only one of these which he is free to disobey. As a body, he is subjected to gravitation and cannot disobey it; if you leave him unsupported in mid-air, he has no more choice about falling than a stone has. As an organism, he is subjected to various biological laws which he cannot disobey anymore than an animal can. That is, he cannot disobey those laws which he shares with other things; but the law which is peculiar to his human nature, the law he does not share with animals or vegetables or inorganic things, is the one he can disobey if he chooses.

This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colour-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behavior was obvious to everyone. And I believe they were right. If they were not, then all the things we said about the war were nonsense. What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practiced? If they had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that then for the colour of their hair.
Peepelonia
09-05-2006, 14:25
I didn't say it before, but no, the law only deals with presently existing individuals and presently committed crimes. The reason why potential futures might be discussed when measuring damages is that the court needs to get some sort of pseudoobjective measure of the value of something, and since the real value is subjective the potential future value, or even the price of another object is used as a proxy for that value.

So then you would agree that in this instance the law appear to place more actual vaule on the potential for vaule/earnings/money than we do on the potential for a human life?
Peepelonia
09-05-2006, 14:33
Simple, look at quarreling


So you maintian(using somebody elses words BTW) that the simple fact that we disagree means that there is objective right and wrong? In addition to this the example given that each person in disagreement is activly engageing in rules of behaviour is also proof of objective right and wrong?

Nope this is an example instead of subjective based cultural rules. Transport your argument to a differant culure and/or a differant time, and the rules of behviour would be differant.

This does not prove to me that objective morals exsist, but instead strongly suggest that morality is culturaly based, which in turn means it is subjective.
Adriatica II
09-05-2006, 14:37
So you maintian(using somebody elses words BTW) that the simple fact that we disagree means that there is objective right and wrong? In addition to this the example given that each person in disagreement is activly engageing in rules of behaviour is also proof of objective right and wrong?

Nope this is an example instead of subjective based cultural rules. Transport your argument to a differant culure and/or a differant time, and the rules of behviour would be differant.

This does not prove to me that objective morals exsist, but instead strongly suggest that morality is culturaly based, which in turn means it is subjective.

Nope. C.S.Lewis continues by dealing with that question

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only to ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two make five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to--whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.
Valdania
09-05-2006, 15:09
Nope. C.S.Lewis continues by dealing with that question


But it still doesn't prove your original contention; that there is such a thing as objective morality.

The ascent of mankind into civilisation is broadly based on the shared benefits of co-operation. People perceive the mutual benefit of playing by a given set of rules and of not mistreating each other to an excessive extent. It is mere self-interest that drives this development, nothing so noble as moral concerns.

Your argument (well C.S.Lewis's) doesn't really makes sense as it completely ignores a realistic appreciation of society which recognises that there is no black-and-white moral dichotomy but rather a spectrum of grey area within which most people are neither bad nor good but somewhere in-between.

Morality, like religion, is subjective by definition as it is a human construction.
Peepelonia
09-05-2006, 16:00
Nope. C.S.Lewis continues by dealing with that question

Quote:
Originally Posted by C.S.Lewis
But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only to ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two make five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to--whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

Again though look at this: 'There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference.'

Objective - True for everybody over all times with no differances.

So right there C.S.Lewis is not talking about objective truth, but tries to tell us that minor differances still equal objectivity.

All of the acient civilisations that he named there with the exception of perhaps two that I'm not sure of, were slave owning civilisations. Do you consider the owning of slaves to be objectivly moraly right then?

So then he goes on to tell us that in fact the real arguments and proof are laid out in another book, and asks us to consider for proof instead the idea of a differant set of moral rules. Okay then lets do that.

Can you imagine a place where people that blew themselves and innocents up would be called martars? Or a place in which greedy men in charge would rather make money than look after the interest of their country, their global community or the world, and the people over which they rule let them do it. Damn me that happens now in our world doesn't it!?

As for selishness not being admired? Sorry that is so flabbergasting I'm gonna have to say it again, and as for selfishness not being admired, well thats just one big fat lie that is, right there in them very words just written a big fat lie.

In this day and in this time of 21st century morality, money is the king, and the people with the most money are the biggest kings. Tell me honestly who know how t make large sums of money without being selfish?
More what about us religious people, our only concern is who do we get to God.

So once again, this does not constitute proof of obvjective morality, nope once again it tells a story of subjective ever changing morality.
Vittos Ordination2
09-05-2006, 16:15
Your reasoning returns us to the very same familiar ground with nothing gained.
You're balancing the right to choose against the right to life.
The right to life, if it exists, will ALWAYS trump the right to choose.
The cost of a pregnancy and motherhood to a woman is irrelevant if it is compared to a right to life.

Does that mean that organ donation is compulsory? If someone is dying of kidney failure, do we hold a lottery to see who is going to be forced to donate one of their good ones?

Right to life is not a universal trump card.

The question is still, does the fetus have the right to life?
If examining why that right is ever given helps determine whether it is valid in this instance then it is a useful exercise, but the cost doesn't enter into it.

All I want for you to do is quit dancing around the idea, and start making statements about what purpose the right to life has.
Adriatica II
09-05-2006, 17:09
In this day and in this time of 21st century morality, money is the king, and the people with the most money are the biggest kings. Tell me honestly who know how t make large sums of money without being selfish?
More what about us religious people, our only concern is who do we get to God.

Money may be king and the people with the most money may be the biggest kings, but does that mean that greed is good? No. It just means that greed profits you

Can you imagine a place where people that blew themselves and innocents up would be called martars? Or a place in which greedy men in charge would rather make money than look after the interest of their country, their global community or the world, and the people over which they rule let them do it. Damn me that happens now in our world doesn't it!?

Yes but if you were to actually ask those people if they thought that killing people is right, they would most likly say no. So when you ask them why they are doing it, they explain that there is someone else breaking the standard to them. Would they do it if the standard was not being brokedn in other spheres.
New Bretonnia
09-05-2006, 17:18
Typical religious garbage. Religion does not have an exclusive hold on morality however much you would like to think that it does.

Alright then, what is the atheist's objective basis for morality?


Hmm. Your argument is seriously flawed by your presumption that God actually exists.
It's not an argument, it's a statement of my opinion. I am allowed to have it, annoying as that may be to you. So of course it's based on my understanding of God.:rolleyes:
New Bretonnia
09-05-2006, 17:20
I see no reason why a woman(or man for the matter) shouldn't be able to rid their bodies of an unwanted virus. That exactly what a fetus is, until it can both live outside the womb and is doing so.

So this is what passes for an intelligent argument now? Equating a developing fetus with a virus?
New Bretonnia
09-05-2006, 17:37
Does that mean that organ donation is compulsory? If someone is dying of kidney failure, do we hold a lottery to see who is going to be forced to donate one of their good ones?

Right to life is not a universal trump card.


This argument is old, worn out and invalid.

It's a lot like a few other arguments I've seen where pregnancy is cast as a injury that needs to be treated by means of an abortion.

Being pregnant is a natural and normal function of the female body. It tends to be the result of sexual intercourse (Note please, that I am not addressing rape cases in this post, so hold yuor flames.) that is an act of choice. Now, while it's true that people use birth control as a means of having sex and minimizing the risk of pregnancy, it's a well known fact that -no- form of birth control can be considered 100% reliable and thus there will always be some potential for pregnancy. Now, while that may not be the desired result, biologically, it is a success, and an example of the reproductive system operating normally.

That's where the logic flaw comes into your argument. Kidney failure is a malfunction brought on (generally) by factors outside the sufferer's control. Removing a kidney from someone else (by force) is wrong because they are neither at fault nor responsible to the sick person, and owe them nothing. (Ethically, they SHOULD donate by choice, but that's different) Pregnancy is a situation where the baby, whether wanted or not, is there as a direct result of a decision made by the parents, and therfore carries a level of responsibility owed to him or her.

For the record: If the mother's life is endangered by the pregnancy, then she has a right to decide.

I will say this again, because sometimes people don't read so well when they're all emotionally fired up. I am NOT addressing rape cases here. That's a completely separate scenario and beyond the scope of the point I'm making here.
Peepelonia
09-05-2006, 17:42
Money may be king and the people with the most money may be the biggest kings, but does that mean that greed is good? No. It just means that greed profits you



Yes but if you were to actually ask those people if they thought that killing people is right, they would most likly say no. So when you ask them why they are doing it, they explain that there is someone else breaking the standard to them. Would they do it if the standard was not being brokedn in other spheres.

No I think you misunderstand me, if we all say that greed is bad, and then we are all greedy then does that mean we still think greed is bad? Or has our moral compass done a bit of turning? I remember the 80's and the motto was very much greed is good. So please tell me where is this never changing objective moral compass?

Killing, so it is okay to kill for ones faith if somebody else has done it before you? I guess as long as we haver had religion then this has been the case. Okay hands up. I'll concede that point.
Peepelonia
09-05-2006, 17:43
So this is what passes for an intelligent argument now? Equating a developing fetus with a virus?

Don't you mean a parasite?
Jocabia
09-05-2006, 17:52
This argument is old, worn out and invalid.

It's a lot like a few other arguments I've seen where pregnancy is cast as a injury that needs to be treated by means of an abortion.

Being pregnant is a natural and normal function of the female body. It tends to be the result of sexual intercourse (Note please, that I am not addressing rape cases in this post, so hold yuor flames.) that is an act of choice. Now, while it's true that people use birth control as a means of having sex and minimizing the risk of pregnancy, it's a well known fact that -no- form of birth control can be considered 100% reliable and thus there will always be some potential for pregnancy. Now, while that may not be the desired result, biologically, it is a success, and an example of the reproductive system operating normally.

That's where the logic flaw comes into your argument. Kidney failure is a malfunction brought on (generally) by factors outside the sufferer's control.

Much like being a fetus. So far the comparison works.

Removing a kidney from someone else (by force) is wrong because they are neither at fault nor responsible to the sick person, and owe them nothing.

So this is about choice. Pregnancy is a punishment for sex. Good to know.

This is why your position on the rape argument is very important.

(Ethically, they SHOULD donate by choice, but that's different) Pregnancy is a situation where the baby, whether wanted or not, is there as a direct result of a decision made by the parents, and therfore carries a level of responsibility owed to him or her.

For the record: If the mother's life is endangered by the pregnancy, then she has a right to decide.

I will say this again, because sometimes people don't read so well when they're all emotionally fired up. I am NOT addressing rape cases here. That's a completely separate scenario and beyond the scope of the point I'm making here.

Assuming you think abortion in the case of rape is justified:
If it's murder then why is it okay to murder an innocent fetus because someone else committed a crime (rape)? If it's not murder, then how do you justify denying women the right to control their bodies?

Assuming you don't think abortion in the case of rape is justified:
Then choice has nothing to do with it, so don't argue it. If women are not permitted abortions whether or not they chose to have sex then you believe that whether they made a choice or not they are required to serve the fetus. If this is true the kidney argument stands. Because the kidney person dies because someone else did not unwillingly serve their needs.

So the rape argument is very important to the issue. I find it unsurprising that you left it out. It pretty much tears apart your argument.
Krakatao0
09-05-2006, 17:54
This argument is old, worn out and invalid.

It's a lot like a few other arguments I've seen where pregnancy is cast as a injury that needs to be treated by means of an abortion.

Being pregnant is a natural and normal function of the female body. It tends to be the result of sexual intercourse (Note please, that I am not addressing rape cases in this post, so hold yuor flames.) that is an act of choice. Now, while it's true that people use birth control as a means of having sex and minimizing the risk of pregnancy, it's a well known fact that -no- form of birth control can be considered 100% reliable and thus there will always be some potential for pregnancy. Now, while that may not be the desired result, biologically, it is a success, and an example of the reproductive system operating normally.

That's where the logic flaw comes into your argument. Kidney failure is a malfunction brought on (generally) by factors outside the sufferer's control. Removing a kidney from someone else (by force) is wrong because they are neither at fault nor responsible to the sick person, and owe them nothing. (Ethically, they SHOULD donate by choice, but that's different) Pregnancy is a situation where the baby, whether wanted or not, is there as a direct result of a decision made by the parents, and therfore carries a level of responsibility owed to him or her.

For the record: If the mother's life is endangered by the pregnancy, then she has a right to decide.

I will say this again, because sometimes people don't read so well when they're all emotionally fired up. I am NOT addressing rape cases here. That's a completely separate scenario and beyond the scope of the point I'm making here.
Well, the mother's life is always in (greater than otherwise) risk when she is pregnant. So then we agree that abortion is acceptable when it is necessary? Nice to have that settled.

Now, can you please explain the significance of repeating "I am not talking about rape..."? I mean, "pro-lifers" say that their morals trump the right of a woman to control her body. A rape is just another violation of that right. So by what logic do you need to intrude in her reproductive life, but whatever reason you used does not apply if somebody else has already intruded on her?
Krakatao0
09-05-2006, 17:57
Don't you mean a parasite?
With a body that resides inside of her body without her permission. Who cares what label is put on it?
Vittos Ordination2
09-05-2006, 17:58
This argument is old, worn out and invalid.

It's a lot like a few other arguments I've seen where pregnancy is cast as a injury that needs to be treated by means of an abortion.

Being pregnant is a natural and normal function of the female body. It tends to be the result of sexual intercourse (Note please, that I am not addressing rape cases in this post, so hold yuor flames.) that is an act of choice. Now, while it's true that people use birth control as a means of having sex and minimizing the risk of pregnancy, it's a well known fact that -no- form of birth control can be considered 100% reliable and thus there will always be some potential for pregnancy. Now, while that may not be the desired result, biologically, it is a success, and an example of the reproductive system operating normally.

That's where the logic flaw comes into your argument. Kidney failure is a malfunction brought on (generally) by factors outside the sufferer's control. Removing a kidney from someone else (by force) is wrong because they are neither at fault nor responsible to the sick person, and owe them nothing. (Ethically, they SHOULD donate by choice, but that's different) Pregnancy is a situation where the baby, whether wanted or not, is there as a direct result of a decision made by the parents, and therfore carries a level of responsibility owed to him or her.

For the record: If the mother's life is endangered by the pregnancy, then she has a right to decide.

I will say this again, because sometimes people don't read so well when they're all emotionally fired up. I am NOT addressing rape cases here. That's a completely separate scenario and beyond the scope of the point I'm making here.

First off, Snow Eaters made the claim that the right to life always trumps the right to choose. I was only pointing out that the right to life does not universally trump another's right to choose the use of their body. Because the right isn't a universal trump card, there must be a weighing of the costs and benefits of the conflicting rights.

Now, the logical flaw of my argument is due to something that you are adding to the equation. When the fetus is looked at as a non-person (my perspective), there is no indebtedness, no responsibility.

You seem to be implying that there is a right for a child to be cared for be its parent, and I won't argue against that. However, I will ask you a similar question that I asked Snow Eaters: What is the benefit this right, what is the purpose of this right?
Peepelonia
09-05-2006, 18:11
With a body that resides inside of her body without her permission. Who cares what label is put on it?


Hahahh, yeah them bloody labels who needs em huh!?!?! I mean they are only used by the whole of humanity to commincate ideas and so on, without missunderstanding. And as for them kids, bloody liberty not asking to be born and all that, hangin's too good forum I say.
New Bretonnia
09-05-2006, 18:37
That's where the logic flaw comes into your argument. Kidney failure is a malfunction brought on (generally) by factors outside the sufferer's control.
Much like being a fetus. So far the comparison works.
I'm not sure how to react to someone who can't see the difference between kidney failure and pregnancy. Grab yourself a medical textbook and a couple biology books, brush up, then jump back into the debate.


So this is about choice. Pregnancy is a punishment for sex. Good to know.

And this, to you, is an intelligent argument? I mean, if somehow I've been unclear let me know, but I'm pretty sure I never said that.


This is why your position on the rape argument is very important.

No, you WANT to make an issue about my position on rape cases, despite the fact that I haven't stated it one way or the other, because your other arguments don't hold up so you want to deflect attention from it.

The reason I am not addressing rape cases is simply because it's a much more complex issue than the scope of this thread. I bet you're pretty impressed with yourself in trying to rebuttal my position REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT MIGHT BE, which I find very telling as it relates to your objectivity.


So the rape argument is very important to the issue. I find it unsurprising that you left it out. It pretty much tears apart your argument.

How does it tear apart my argument? I dont' know if you've checked, but as complex as the issue of abortion is alone, the scenarios involving rape cases are even more complex still, and can't be adequately addressed by lumping them into just any abortion argument. There are people who are pro-life who would say that no case is justifiable to abort. Some are flexible on that point in cases of rape or incest. Still others make an exception on a case by case basis. It's a sentitive and deep question, and frankly, beyond the scope of the point I'm making. Now, if you want to persist in trying to distract attention from the main point I made by trying to draw me into this sidebar, I won't indulge you. I've spoken my peace on the matter, with respect to this particular thread.
New Bretonnia
09-05-2006, 18:42
Now, the logical flaw of my argument is due to something that you are adding to the equation. When the fetus is looked at as a non-person (my perspective), there is no indebtedness, no responsibility.
And that question is at the very core of this debate. It's not really about rights, women's bodies, religious ideals or whether or not parents should be told. The core is: IS that fetus to be accorded status as a human being? Ideally, if that question could be settled, the debate would be over.

That's why the worldviews of pro-life and pro-choice are diametrically opposed. IF that fetus is a person, then the mother's choice to end its life is overidden, since it would be no diferent thank killing a child after being born. IF the fetus is not a person, then the question is moot. That, in my opinion, is where the debate should be focused.


You seem to be implying that there is a right for a child to be cared for be its parent, and I won't argue against that. However, I will ask you a similar question that I asked Snow Eaters: What is the benefit this right, what is the purpose of this right?
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, would you mind rephrasing the question, please?:)
New Bretonnia
09-05-2006, 18:44
Don't you mean a parasite?
I call it a child. What do you call it?

Kids dont' quit being parasites until they move out. ;)
New Bretonnia
09-05-2006, 18:47
Well, the mother's life is always in (greater than otherwise) risk when she is pregnant. So then we agree that abortion is acceptable when it is necessary? Nice to have that settled. ?
So you're suggesting that abortion should ALWAYS be justifiable on the base of that risk?


Now, can you please explain the significance of repeating "I am not talking about rape..."? I mean, "pro-lifers" say that their morals trump the right of a woman to control her body. A rape is just another violation of that right. So by what logic do you need to intrude in her reproductive life, but whatever reason you used does not apply if somebody else has already intruded on her?
I answered that a couple of posts back. No need to repeat.
Jocabia
09-05-2006, 18:50
I'm not sure how to react to someone who can't see the difference between kidney failure and pregnancy. Grab yourself a medical textbook and a couple biology books, brush up, then jump back into the debate.

Okay, see a comparison would not be necessary if they were the same thing. I think it's funny that you keep being so rude to people, while you drop arguments and commit logical fallacies.

The point is that both the person suffering kidney failure and the fetus are not at fault for their conditions. In the case of rape, neither person whose body is being forced to provide for the fetus or the kidney failure victim is reasonably at fault. This makes the comparison make logical sense.

And this, to you, is an intelligent argument? I mean, if somehow I've been unclear let me know, but I'm pretty sure I never said that.

It's a logical extrapolation of saying that pregnancy should not be permitted to be ended if one is at fault for them. If you arguing that abortion is murder, do so. If you arguing that abortion tortures the woman, do so. But arguing about fault suggests that pregnancy is the punishment for being guilty of causing the conception.

No, you WANT to make an issue about my position on rape cases, despite the fact that I haven't stated it one way or the other, because your other arguments don't hold up so you want to deflect attention from it.

No, because the rape case is germaine to whether your arguments are consistent.

The reason I am not addressing rape cases is simply because it's a much more complex issue than the scope of this thread. I bet you're pretty impressed with yourself in trying to rebuttal my position REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT MIGHT BE, which I find very telling as it relates to your objectivity.

It shows that regardless of your position on rape your arguments are inconsistent with such a position. It shows the inconsistency of your argument. Rather than assuming your position I addressed both possible positions. There is no position on rape that supports the arguments made for "she chose to have sex" being the reason for abortion. I simply showed the inconsistency. You can't simply leave out certain points of problems in your argument just because they're too difficult for you to logically resolve.

How does it tear apart my argument? I dont' know if you've checked, but as complex as the issue of abortion is alone, the scenarios involving rape cases are even more complex still, and can't be adequately addressed by lumping them into just any abortion argument. There are people who are pro-life who would say that no case is justifiable to abort. Some are flexible on that point in cases of rape or incest. Still others make an exception on a case by case basis. It's a sentitive and deep question, and frankly, beyond the scope of the point I'm making. Now, if you want to persist in trying to distract attention from the main point I made by trying to draw me into this sidebar, I won't indulge you. I've spoken my peace on the matter, with respect to this particular thread.

Yes, because you would rather simplify the debate. I'm sure you're aware, but it is often necessary to show examples of how arguments are inconsistent in order to show why you cannot force them on others. The point of the rape exception or lack thereof is that they bely the fact that there is no justification for the "it was her choice to have sex" argument. Either it's murder and should be denied to all women regardless of choice or its not murder and thus you have not right intruding on a woman's body.

Rather than address my points, you insult my intelligence, or claim you shouldn't have to address them. I guess your argument isn't strong enough to actually address my reply.
Jocabia
09-05-2006, 18:56
IF that fetus is a person, then the mother's choice to end its life is overidden, since it would be no diferent thank killing a child after being born.

This statement completely dismisses the level of trauma a woman's body undergoes during pregnancy. There is a large difference between caring for a child that is outside your body and a child inside your body and it's not just location. There is a difference in the level of responsibility, the level of physical damage to the woman's body, the chance of death, the chance of permanent disfigurement or disability.

What was it you said - "I'm not sure how to react to someone who can't see the difference between [raising a child] and pregnancy. Grab yourself a medical textbook and a couple biology books, brush up, then jump back into the debate." You jumped all over me for making a comparison between two similar but not completely alike points, yet you have no issue with saying two similar but not completely alike things have "no difference". Interesting how you level of consistency in your arguments does not limit itself to the ones we've already demonstrated. Keep it up. You're make it very easy to display where your arguments come from.
Snow Eaters
09-05-2006, 19:00
Your argument (well C.S.Lewis's) doesn't really makes sense as it completely ignores a realistic appreciation of society which recognises that there is no black-and-white moral dichotomy but rather a spectrum of grey area within which most people are neither bad nor good but somewhere in-between.


You have entirely missed Lewis' point.
The grey area comes in how the objective point is carried out and under what circumstances one can excuse oneself from the objective point.
It's also quite categorically NOT a judgement on whenther most people are good or bad or in between, but deals only with the fact that we know that being selfish, to use his example, if bad. Different cultures may label different actions as selfish, but that is that grey area you're discussing.
New Bretonnia
09-05-2006, 19:07
Okay, see a comparison would not be necessary if they were the same thing. I think it's funny that you keep being so rude to people, while you drop arguments and commit logical fallacies.
Alright, I apologize for being rude.

But the logical fallacy is yours. Equating kidney disease with pregnancy is ciomparing apples to oranges, and I'm not commiting a logical fallacy simply because I refuse to concede to an invalid argument.


The point is that both the person suffering kidney failure and the fetus are not at fault for their conditions. In the case of rape, neither person whose body is being forced to provide for the fetus or the kidney failure victim is reasonably at fault. This makes the comparison make logical sense.
What about cases of pregnancy resulting from consentual sex? Are you conceding that point?


It's a logical extrapolation of saying that pregnancy should not be permitted to be ended if one is at fault for them. If you arguing that abortion is murder, do so. If you arguing that abortion tortures the woman, do so. But arguing about fault suggests that pregnancy is the punishment for being guilty of causing the conception.
No, that is not, nor has it ever been my suggestion. I said that pregnancy is the potential result of sexual intercourse. If it happens, it becomes the responsibility of the parents to deal with it. This isn't about punishment. I never said that it was simply because that wouldn't make sense. Who's doing the punishing? That's another logical fallacy.


No, because the rape case is germaine to whether your arguments are consistent.
...
Rather than address my points, you insult my intelligence, or claim you shouldn't have to address them. I guess your argument isn't strong enough to actually address my reply.
No, I refuse to address the tangent of rape cases because they are in a class of their own. I said that honestly from the beginning. I'm narrowing my frame of reference to address specific points. By suggesting that it MUST necessarily be a part of ANY abortion debate, it is you who are simplifying the situation to strengthen your argument, not I. I suspect that if I hadn't been the one to mention rape cases in my original post, we woudln't be discusing this.

Consider this:
If I state that abortion shouldn't even be available to rape victims, you, or someone else, will respond by characterizing me as a cold unfeeling religious zealot who can't possibly know what it's like to be in that position.

If I state that abortion should be available to rape victims, you, or someone else, will see that as an inconsistency in my argument and in so doing seek to invalidate it.

If I state that it must be considered on a case by case basis, I would be criticized on either the basis of inconsistency, or the criteria by which such a decision should be made would be questioned.

Regardless, the initial point that I was making will have been ignored, which was that when someone makes a decision to have sex, they should be ready to accept the responsibility for any unplanned result. Now, given that my point was specifically referring to cases where sex is by CHOICE, and that pregnancy is a natural possible result, then there is NO reason for me to go off point and talk about rape cases. I said from the very beginning that my point was not designed to cover those cases. I have other points where rape is concerned, but they are separate and apart from this one.

I therefore assert that you have a weak point and are hiding it behind an issue that I never addressed, and does not bear on my original point.
Jocabia
09-05-2006, 19:08
You have entirely missed Lewis' point.
The grey area comes in how the objective point is carried out and under what circumstances one can excuse oneself from the objective point.
It's also quite categorically NOT a judgement on whenther most people are good or bad or in between, but deals only with the fact that we know that being selfish, to use his example, if bad. Different cultures may label different actions as selfish, but that is that grey area you're discussing.

Doesn't it matter what we label as selfish in terms of it being objectiviely wrong.

For example, if you argue that violence is objectively wrong because a culture has some rules against it, but that same culture allows torture, murder of an adult in anger, turture, canabilism, etc., but does not allow the murder of children except in specific circumstances. Wouldn't it be more accurate in that scenario to say that the culture values preservation and knows that children are necessary to continuing the tribe, nation, etc.

Pretending like "selfishness is wrong" is a universal quality when each culture defines the "wrong selfishness" differently is really bastardizing the word in order to shoehorn it into the argument. If a particularly issue is universally considered wrong (objectively) then it would be the same act that is considered wrong, not some nebulous thing that we can mold to make it appear as if it applies in every situation.
Dempublicents1
09-05-2006, 19:13
And that question is at the very core of this debate. It's not really about rights, women's bodies, religious ideals or whether or not parents should be told. The core is: IS that fetus to be accorded status as a human being? Ideally, if that question could be settled, the debate would be over.

Not really. After all, no human being, as of right now, has the right to control another human being's body against their will. We call that slavery. Thus, even if the embryo/fetus were declared to be a full human citizen, the debate over what rights it might have over the mother's body would continue.

You seem to think that abortion is the "decision to kill an embryo/fetus." It is not. It is the "decision to end a pregnancy" - to terminate a medical condition of the mother. Thus, even if an embryo/early fetus were exactly the same as a born child, the argument would still exist that a human being has the rights to do as they will with their own body, and cannot be forced to bodily support another against their will.
Xazikstan
09-05-2006, 19:15
Here is why I am pro choice... It's because making laws against something won't fix the problem. Making abortion illegal won't stop abortions from happening. It will just make it a more dangerous procedure and it will end up victimizing more people. I don't think people that have abortions are violent criminals, so they don't belong behind bars.

It's best to keep abortion legal, so it can be performed by professionals and will not risk the death of the mother. Making it illegal will just victimize even more people. There has to be some middle ground.. because both sides have good points.

But this is just what I think.
New Bretonnia
09-05-2006, 19:16
This statement completely dismisses the level of trauma a woman's body undergoes during pregnancy. There is a large difference between caring for a child that is outside your body and a child inside your body and it's not just location. There is a difference in the level of responsibility, the level of physical damage to the woman's body, the chance of death, the chance of permanent disfigurement or disability.
Characterizing pregnancy as an attack isn't going to strengthen your agument, either. I've already addressed the issue of the mother's life being in danger.

I hope we don't need to belabor the point that when discussing the relative health hazards of carrying a child to term, that most people can come to some sort of agreement on where the line is drawn between the normal biological changes and the point at which the risk becomes unreasonable.


What was it you said - "I'm not sure how to react to someone who can't see the difference between [raising a child] and pregnancy. Grab yourself a medical textbook and a couple biology books, brush up, then jump back into the debate."
That's not what I said, and trying to turn my statement against me only works when you don't have to edit the text.


You jumped all over me for making a comparison between two similar but not completely alike points, yet you have no issue with saying two similar but not completely alike things have "no difference". Interesting how you level of consistency in your arguments does not limit itself to the ones we've already demonstrated. Keep it up. You're make it very easy to display where your arguments come from.
You are very eloquent, but your logic doesn't flow. Being a good orator and being a good debator are not the same thing.

When I offered the two scenarios-that either a fetus is a person or isn't, I wasn't attempting to evaluate the biological difference between the stages of life. You added that yourself. When I criticized your original argument, it was directed toward an analogy that doesn't hold. See the difference?
Dempublicents1
09-05-2006, 19:17
Regardless, the initial point that I was making will have been ignored, which was that when someone makes a decision to have sex, they should be ready to accept the responsibility for any unplanned result.

And by "accept the responsibility", you mean, "accept the responsibility in a manner I have deemed appropriate." A woman who gets an abortion has taken responsibility for the results of her actions - her pregnancy. She may not have done so in a way that all of us would agree with, but she has done so.

Now, if you mean that anyone who decides to have sex should be willing to take on responsibility for carrying an unplanned pregnancy to term and taking care of the resultant child, I actually agree. They should. Of course, I think that people should avoid promiscuity and shouldn't be racist and should drink only in moderation. I am not, however, lobbying to put any of these things into law.
Dempublicents1
09-05-2006, 19:20
Characterizing pregnancy as an attack isn't going to strengthen your agument, either.

Nowhere in that entire post was pregnancy characterized as an "attack". Where the heck did you get that?

I hope we don't need to belabor the point that when discussing the relative health hazards of carrying a child to term, that most people can come to some sort of agreement on where the line is drawn between the normal biological changes and the point at which the risk becomes unreasonable.

Some people would say that any risk that is not taken on fully voluntarily is unreasonable.
New Bretonnia
09-05-2006, 19:22
Not really. After all, no human being, as of right now, has the right to control another human being's body against their will. We call that slavery. Thus, even if the embryo/fetus were declared to be a full human citizen, the debate over what rights it might have over the mother's body would continue.
The flip side of that coin is that no human being, as of right now, has the right to end the life of another in order to avoid inconvenience. Abortion on-demand without being medically necessary to save the life of the mother does exactly that.


You seem to think that abortion is the "decision to kill an embryo/fetus." It is not. It is the "decision to end a pregnancy" - to terminate a medical condition of the mother. Thus, even if an embryo/early fetus were exactly the same as a born child, the argument would still exist that a human being has the rights to do as they will with their own body, and cannot be forced to bodily support another against their will.
So now we're arguing semantics again, are we, Dempublicents1? You can't change the fact of the killing of the fetus by simply leaving out the reference. Example:

If you strike me with your car at 55 mph, I'm dead. That fact doesn't change if you refer to it as simply "Choosing not to apply the brakes, which is a perfectly legal act." Call it whatever you want, the reality is the same.
New Bretonnia
09-05-2006, 19:25
And by "accept the responsibility", you mean, "accept the responsibility in a manner I have deemed appropriate." A woman who gets an abortion has taken responsibility for the results of her actions - her pregnancy. She may not have done so in a way that all of us would agree with, but she has done so.

Now, if you mean that anyone who decides to have sex should be willing to take on responsibility for carrying an unplanned pregnancy to term and taking care of the resultant child, I actually agree. They should. Of course, I think that people should avoid promiscuity and shouldn't be racist and should drink only in moderation. I am not, however, lobbying to put any of these things into law.
I understand what you'r esaying, and you make a very reasonable point, but remember that the core of the argument is about whether the fetus is a living person. That cuts to the heart of the issue. One of the functions of the law is to protect life, and if it is established that a fetus is a life in and of itself, then it MUST be protected by law just like you and I are.
Jocabia
09-05-2006, 19:26
Alright, I apologize for being rude.

But the logical fallacy is yours. Equating kidney disease with pregnancy is ciomparing apples to oranges, and I'm not commiting a logical fallacy simply because I refuse to concede to an invalid argument.

I showed how and why the comparison is valid. It's a clear and concise comparison that is apt. If the woman and the fetus are innocent they definitely compare to the kidney failure patient and the person we are taking the kidney from. Exact similarity is not a requirement for comparisons. You are dropping an argument.


What about cases of pregnancy resulting from consentual sex? Are you conceding that point?

No, I'm showing that when a choice was not made it can adequately be compared. I later show that choice doesn't matter because it is a logically inconsistent argument. I address to areas of the argument seperately.

No, that is not, nor has it ever been my suggestion. I said that pregnancy is the potential result of sexual intercourse. If it happens, it becomes the responsibility of the parents to deal with it. This isn't about punishment. I never said that it was simply because that wouldn't make sense. Who's doing the punishing? That's another logical fallacy.

Abortion is dealing with it. You mean to say that pregnancy is something a woman must endure as a result of consensual sexual intercourse. If a woman does not wish to deal with it and is forced to when there is an alternative, it is most certainly a punishment. The punishment is done by the government who denies her the choice of treating the condition.

You need to look up logical fallacy. Please tell me what logical fallacy I committed if you're claiming I made one. I have shown where my statement came from and why. Deal with it or drop the argument AGAIN.

No, I refuse to address the tangent of rape cases because they are in a class of their own. I said that honestly from the beginning. I'm narrowing my frame of reference to address specific points. By suggesting that it MUST necessarily be a part of ANY abortion debate, it is you who are simplifying the situation to strengthen your argument, not I. I suspect that if I hadn't been the one to mention rape cases in my original post, we woudln't be discusing this.

Abortions occur in rape. If choice is the issue as you claim then it is necessary to bring up the rape exception to show the alternative. You can't have completely different reasons for outlawing it in those two cases because it's logically inconsistent. And you can't allow the rape exception because it admits that pregnancy only involves one person.

Consider this:
If I state that abortion shouldn't even be available to rape victims, you, or someone else, will respond by characterizing me as a cold unfeeling religious zealot who can't possibly know what it's like to be in that position.

No, I won't. I will characterize you as someone who made an argument about choice that is fallacious becuase choice doesn't matter.

If I state that abortion should be available to rape victims, you, or someone else, will see that as an inconsistency in my argument and in so doing seek to invalidate it.

Your argument is inconsistent in either case. You can't simply drop points because they'll demonstrate your inconsistency. That's the point. I'm glad you admit that you won't answer the question because it tears apart your argument.

If I state that it must be considered on a case by case basis, I would be criticized on either the basis of inconsistency, or the criteria by which such a decision should be made would be questioned.

If you state a case by case basis then you still show yourself to be logically inconsistent.

Regardless, the initial point that I was making will have been ignored, which was that when someone makes a decision to have sex, they should be ready to accept the responsibility for any unplanned result. Now, given that my point was specifically referring to cases where sex is by CHOICE, and that pregnancy is a natural possible result, then there is NO reason for me to go off point and talk about rape cases. I said from the very beginning that my point was not designed to cover those cases. I have other points where rape is concerned, but they are separate and apart from this one.

It will be ignored because it is inconsistent. That's the point. You ARE making an inconsistent argument and you are leaving out points because you don't want us to demonstrate that it is inconsistent. Abortions include rape victims. Again, the issue of choice for rape victims speaks directly to whether or not choice is a valid argument.

I therefore assert that you have a weak point and are hiding it behind an issue that I never addressed, and does not bear on my original point.
I have a weak point then point out where it's weak. Apparently I have such a strong point that you want to deny me the ability to include the rape exception because you know that it will show your point as logically inconsistent. You can try to argue your point in a vacuum but the problem is that abortion does not exist in a vacuum.

Meanwhile, I find it amusing that you tell me to "consider this" and then right out the arguments I already pointed to. If it's truly about choice then abortions must be allowed in the case of rape and the right to life is not something you recognize. If rape exceptions are not allowed then it is not about choice so stop arguing that point. Either way, you are being logically inconsistent.
Snow Eaters
09-05-2006, 19:28
In this day and in this time of 21st century morality, money is the king, and the people with the most money are the biggest kings. Tell me honestly who know how t make large sums of money without being selfish?
More what about us religious people, our only concern is who do we get to God.

So once again, this does not constitute proof of obvjective morality, nope once again it tells a story of subjective ever changing morality.


People make money, and those people are often admired, but the selfishness is not admired. The individuals are often admired IN SPITE of their selfishness because of their success.

That is quite different than what you're referring to and is what Lewis is pointing out.
Vittos Ordination2
09-05-2006, 19:31
And that question is at the very core of this debate. It's not really about rights, women's bodies, religious ideals or whether or not parents should be told. The core is: IS that fetus to be accorded status as a human being? Ideally, if that question could be settled, the debate would be over.

That's why the worldviews of pro-life and pro-choice are diametrically opposed. IF that fetus is a person, then the mother's choice to end its life is overidden, since it would be no diferent thank killing a child after being born. IF the fetus is not a person, then the question is moot. That, in my opinion, is where the debate should be focused.

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, would you mind rephrasing the question, please?:)

I am saying that it doesn't matter whether it is a human being (not directly, at least), I am saying that it matters whether the right should be extended to the fetus.

So I am asking you what benefits the right to life carries, and what qualities a person has that entitles them to the right to life.
Grave_n_idle
09-05-2006, 19:32
What about cases of pregnancy resulting from consentual sex? Are you conceding that point?


Consenting to sexual intercourse, is not the same as consenting to pregnancy.... any more than getting in your car is consenting to dying in a pile-up, or eating lobster is consenting to choking to death.
Dempublicents1
09-05-2006, 19:33
The flip side of that coin is that no human being, as of right now, has the right to end the life of another in order to avoid inconvenience. Abortion on-demand without being medically necessary to save the life of the mother does exactly that.

Yes, because so very many women do it to avoid inconvenience. :rolleyes:

And, no, it really doesn't. The decision to have an abortion is the decision to end a pregnancy. The possible death of something else is a side-effect. If the fetus could be just as easily removed intact and reimplanted elsewhere, do you think many women would go, "No!! I wan't you to kill it!!!"?

I understand what you'r esaying, and you make a very reasonable point, but remember that the core of the argument is about whether the fetus is a living person. That cuts to the heart of the issue. One of the functions of the law is to protect life, and if it is established that a fetus is a life in and of itself, then it MUST be protected by law just like you and I are.

If it is protected by law "just like you and I are," then abortion would still be allowed, as neither you nor I can take over another human being's body to keep ourselves alive.

If you state a case by case basis then you still show yourself to be logically inconsistent.

I'm going to have to disagree here. Something being on a case-by-case basis does not necessarily mean it is logically inconsistent. It simply means that the possible situations are diverse enough that a single statement cannot take all of them in. I would say that, for instance, zero tolerance rules in schools are fairly devoid of logic, because a child who brings a knife to school to cut her apple can be expelled just as surely as a child who brings a switchblade, intending to threaten or attack someone. The logical thing to do would be to look at each instance of knife-bringing individually. I would think you would find that the first girl just needs to be told to cut her apple before coming to school and the second needs to be kept away from other students.
Grave_n_idle
09-05-2006, 19:35
One of the functions of the law is to protect life, and if it is established that a fetus is a life in and of itself, then it MUST be protected by law just like you and I are.

Why?

A cat doesn't receive the SAME protection you or I enjoy, and neither does the human ovum.

You are arguing special exception based on how 'human-like' the thing is, which is little more than an appeal to emotion. "Look, it's just like you and me!"
New Bretonnia
09-05-2006, 19:37
I have a weak point then point out where it's weak. Apparently I have such a strong point that you want to deny me the ability to include the rape exception because you know that it will show your point as logically inconsistent. You can try to argue your point in a vacuum but the problem is that abortion does not exist in a vacuum.

And this would be a devastating point-if you had been the one to mention rape to me before I mentioned it to you.

Here's why your attempt to sidetrack my point isn't valid. If I build a car, and make no claim that it can fly, then I've committed no inconsistency. If you come along and say that my car is a poor design because I failed to build one that can fly, then it is you who are being inconsistent, because I never set out to build a flying car, never claimed it could fly, and in fact, you haven't even established that flight is a sound criteria for evaluating a car in the first place.

You want to say my argument is torn apart by my refusing to address rape cases, fine. That's your opinion. Let those who read the posts evaluate that for themselves. If you start a new thread discussing abortion in rape cases, I'll probably jump right in. The fact is, you still haven't built a sound argument around the notion of pregnancy being like kidney disease. You've spent vast amounts of energy and space trying to attack me for a point I never claimed to make, and I've wasted a vast amount of time and energy stating that. You either get it or you don't.
Jocabia
09-05-2006, 19:38
Characterizing pregnancy as an attack isn't going to strengthen your agument, either. I've already addressed the issue of the mother's life being in danger.

A mother's life is always in danger in pregnancy. There is no pregnancy which does not commit trauma to the body. NONE.

I hope we don't need to belabor the point that when discussing the relative health hazards of carrying a child to term, that most people can come to some sort of agreement on where the line is drawn between the normal biological changes and the point at which the risk becomes unreasonable.

In an early term abortion, the health hazards are much less than a pregnancy offers. This is a fact. Pregnancy carries an inherent risk of all of things I mentioned even in a western country with all availabe care. When a women is made to carry a pregnancy to term she is forced to take on those risks. To pretend as if a late-term abortion or any medical procedure can stop those risks is simply fallacious. In terms of sheer safety and protecting the woman's general health, an early-term abortion is the safest way for a pregnancy to end.

That's not what I said, and trying to turn my statement against me only works when you don't have to edit the text.

It's a comparison. I've already explained what those are. You chastised me for making a comparison between two similar things and refused to address that comparison while pretending like two things that are not the same are identical. Again, I find it amusing that I am not allowed to make comparisons even when I show exactly how I am equating the two things but you are allowed to take to different things and claim they have no difference. Can't wait for the next post. More inconsistent goodness.

You are very eloquent, but your logic doesn't flow. Being a good orator and being a good debator are not the same thing.

Ah, ad hominems. Nice. How about you actually address how my logic doesn't flow rather than ad hominems. You claimed a comparison must be exact and then admit the exceptions in your own comparison that you claimed had "no difference".

When I offered the two scenarios-that either a fetus is a person or isn't, I wasn't attempting to evaluate the biological difference between the stages of life. You added that yourself. When I criticized your original argument, it was directed toward an analogy that doesn't hold. See the difference?
So I see you're dropping another argument and not going to address the fact that pregnancy and childrearing cannot be characterized as having "no difference". This is fun. What were you saying about being a good debator? So far I've seen ad hominems, insults, several dropped arguments, logical inconsistencies. What else can we find?
Vittos Ordination2
09-05-2006, 19:39
You seem to think that abortion is the "decision to kill an embryo/fetus." It is not. It is the "decision to end a pregnancy" - to terminate a medical condition of the mother. Thus, even if an embryo/early fetus were exactly the same as a born child, the argument would still exist that a human being has the rights to do as they will with their own body, and cannot be forced to bodily support another against their will.

Saying that it is one without the other is counterproductive in my opinion.

We should address it as the "decision to end the pregnancy be killing the fetus."

In response to the bold: Should a mother have the right to abandon her adolescent children?

Where does that freedom from obligation to support end? Should there be no welfare?
New Bretonnia
09-05-2006, 19:42
I am saying that it doesn't matter whether it is a human being (not directly, at least), I am saying that it matters whether the right should be extended to the fetus.

So I am asking you what benefits the right to life carries, and what qualities a person has that entitles them to the right to life.
That's a really excellent question. Who is qualified to answer?

At what point does a person have the right to live? Assuming you're asking that question generally, and not just limited to abortion issues, there's a lot of debate. Who's right? Does a coma patient have the right to keep on? Does someone in a vegetative state have a right to live? What about an unborn baby who has been diagnosed as being retarded? What about a convicted murderer? Sometimes the answer is easy, sometimes it isn't. Is there any human so wise and so sure that they can decide who has the right to live and who doesn't?

That, I think, is why this subject tends to follow religious lines. The pro-life people tend to go with the idea that there isn't any one human being who can make a decision like that, and so only God can make an individual decision,
New Bretonnia
09-05-2006, 19:44
Consenting to sexual intercourse, is not the same as consenting to pregnancy.... any more than getting in your car is consenting to dying in a pile-up, or eating lobster is consenting to choking to death.
As I stated earlier, getting pregnant as a result of sex is an example of biolgoical success... it's the systems doing what they're supposed to do. You car isn't intended to be destroyed in a pile-up and lobster isn't meant to kill you.
New Bretonnia
09-05-2006, 19:48
Why?

A cat doesn't receive the SAME protection you or I enjoy, and neither does the human ovum.

You are arguing special exception based on how 'human-like' the thing is, which is little more than an appeal to emotion. "Look, it's just like you and me!"
So you're saying that for a fetus to have rights, cats must have them too?
New Bretonnia
09-05-2006, 19:50
Yes, because so very many women do it to avoid inconvenience. :rolleyes:
Many do. You know that to be true.


And, no, it really doesn't. The decision to have an abortion is the decision to end a pregnancy. The possible death of something else is a side-effect. If the fetus could be just as easily removed intact and reimplanted elsewhere, do you think many women would go, "No!! I wan't you to kill it!!!"?

I addressed this in another post, won't repeat it here.


If it is protected by law "just like you and I are," then abortion would still be allowed, as neither you nor I can take over another human being's body to keep ourselves alive.
And we also don't have the right to kill someone else.
Jocabia
09-05-2006, 19:51
And this would be a devastating point-if you had been the one to mention rape to me before I mentioned it to you.

Why? Simply because you're aware of the logical inconsistency doesn't make the inconsistency not exist.

Here's why your attempt to sidetrack my point isn't valid. If I build a car, and make no claim that it can fly, then I've committed no inconsistency. If you come along and say that my car is a poor design because I failed to build one that can fly, then it is you who are being inconsistent, because I never set out to build a flying car, never claimed it could fly, and in fact, you haven't even established that flight is a sound criteria for evaluating a car in the first place.

The problem is that you are talking about abortion which does occur with raped women. You are making a claim about abortion using the reasoning of choice, it's necessary to show that reasoning is invalid by showing what happens to the issue when choice is removed. This is a standard and necessary logical tactic. You try to dismiss it because it shows that your choice argument is inconsistent.

The criteria is 'choice' and you brought it into the conversation. You said that choice is the reason that outlawing abortion is sound and that makes it the focus of the argument. What do you call the opposite of choice when talking about sex? Rape. Rape is germaine to the point because you focused us on choice. If you don't want the rape exception to be discussed, then don't make an argument focused on choice.

Your example is erroneous because the criteria with which I am showing your inconsistency is the criteria you introduced. In your example, it would be like claiming that your car is the only way to drive to the grocery store for under 20 cents in gas and I brought up hybrid cars. You can't say that hybrid cars aren't cars just because you didn't set out to build a hybrid.

You want to say my argument is torn apart by my refusing to address rape cases, fine. That's your opinion. Let those who read the posts evaluate that for themselves. If you start a new thread discussing abortion in rape cases, I'll probably jump right in. The fact is, you still haven't built a sound argument around the notion of pregnancy being like kidney disease. You've spent vast amounts of energy and space trying to attack me for a point I never claimed to make, and I've wasted a vast amount of time and energy stating that. You either get it or you don't.
Not my opinion, that's the logical conclusion by your own admission. Should I quote you?

I didn't make a sound case for saying pregnancy is like kidney disease? I didn't say that. No one said that. We said forcing someone to continue a pregnancy is like forcing someone to give up a kidney. That's vastly different. How about you recognize what we say first and then we'll go from there.
Jocabia
09-05-2006, 19:54
I'm going to have to disagree here. Something being on a case-by-case basis does not necessarily mean it is logically inconsistent. It simply means that the possible situations are diverse enough that a single statement cannot take all of them in. I would say that, for instance, zero tolerance rules in schools are fairly devoid of logic, because a child who brings a knife to school to cut her apple can be expelled just as surely as a child who brings a switchblade, intending to threaten or attack someone. The logical thing to do would be to look at each instance of knife-bringing individually. I would think you would find that the first girl just needs to be told to cut her apple before coming to school and the second needs to be kept away from other students.

No, I'm talking about the "choice" argument. You have to read what I said in context. Like this, he claims that choice is the reason women must continue a pregnancy but if he makes women who didn't have a choice continue a pregnancy under law EVER, then choice cannot be the criteria by which women are forced to continue a pregnancy and should not be argued. To argue the reason to continue a pregnancy is choice is logically inconsistent when you don't let women discontinue a pregnancy who didn't have a choice.
New Bretonnia
09-05-2006, 19:57
So I see you're dropping another argument and not going to address the fact that pregnancy and childrearing cannot be characterized as having "no difference". This is fun. What were you saying about being a good debator? So far I've seen ad hominems, insults, several dropped arguments, logical inconsistencies. What else can we find?
You're dancing all over the place, have still failed to respond directly to my original point, and you expect me to let you just lead me by the nose over all these side tracks. You think you're scoring points by dripping all those vocabulary words? What insults? I apologized for the rude remark I made, which I noticed you weren't even gracious enough to acknowledge, and now you call me inconsistent. For what? For CONSISTENTLY sticking to my original assertion, which you've been trying to shake me loose of for the last couple of pages.

No, Jacobia. It didn't work. Pregnancy isn't like kidney failure, no matter what spin you put on it. Say what you want about my arguments, you haven't, and never will, show that it is.

Nice try, though. I bet all that misdirection works for you sometimes, but not this time.
Jocabia
09-05-2006, 20:00
As I stated earlier, getting pregnant as a result of sex is an example of biolgoical success... it's the systems doing what they're supposed to do. You car isn't intended to be destroyed in a pile-up and lobster isn't meant to kill you.

This assumes intent. Natural law says that a car CAN be destroyed in a pile-up. "Meant" assigns purpose and nature does not have the sentience for purpose. If 'meant' is what's important then we should be considering why a couple who intended to not be pregnant must be allowed to stay that way. For the record, heart attacks are an example of a biological process, so are tumors, bacterial infections, etc.
Jocabia
09-05-2006, 20:07
You're dancing all over the place, have still failed to respond directly to my original point, and you expect me to let you just lead me by the nose over all these side tracks. You think you're scoring points by dripping all those vocabulary words? What insults? I apologized for the rude remark I made, which I noticed you weren't even gracious enough to acknowledge, and now you call me inconsistent. For what? For CONSISTENTLY sticking to my original assertion, which you've been trying to shake me loose of for the last couple of pages.

I responded directly to your original point that because a woman chose to have sex and pregnancy could have resulted that she must endure said pregnancy. I showed it was logically inconsistent and you admitted it was logically inconsistent and have done nothing to resolve that point.

No, Jacobia. It didn't work. Pregnancy isn't like kidney failure, no matter what spin you put on it. Say what you want about my arguments, you haven't, and never will, show that it is.

Comparison - 1 : the act or process of comparing : as a : the representing of one thing or person as similar to or like another b : an examination of two or more items to establish similarities and dissimilarities


II showed exactly what similarities I was referring to and sadly you are unable to comprehend that it is these similarities on which the comparison is based. You confuse similar with the same. No matter how many dissimilarities you present the fact is that since choice is the issue at hand presenting an issue where choice is similar is an appropriate comparison. It's sad that you are unable to do this while claiming that pregnancy and childrearing have no difference and making a comparison between our argument on making a car.

"No, New Bretonnia. It didn't work. Making a car is not like making an argument, no matter what spin you put on it. Say what you want about my arguments, you haven't, and never will, show that it is."


Nice try, though. I bet all that misdirection works for you sometimes, but not this time.
I notice you continue to drop arguments. As you said, others are reading these arguments. I'm quite sure that people can follow exactly how many and which arguments you dropped and how clearly I showed your logical inconsistencies. I'm quite satisfied with my argument as presented.

By the way, if you'll notice I'm not the one who brought up kidney failure. I was simply pointing out the logical inconsistency of your reply. So to keep claiming that I can only address your original point is to say that you should have to only address the original point made in that post, which was certainly not the comparison. In debate it's often necessary to concentrate on a certain detail if it is what the argument is hinged on, as yours is.
Snow Eaters
09-05-2006, 20:28
Does that mean that organ donation is compulsory? If someone is dying of kidney failure, do we hold a lottery to see who is going to be forced to donate one of their good ones?

Right to life is not a universal trump card.


Good point. But that is a significantly different situation and involves more than a right to choose.

I'll relent on it being universal, but the right to life is a greater right than the right to choose.


All I want for you to do is quit dancing around the idea, and start making statements about what purpose the right to life has.

I'm not dancing.
The right to life is a basic right, it isn't something that has a purpose beyond the self evident right be alive.

I've thought about it, and I'm left in pretty much the same place I began.
All life has a right to exist. If we don't agree with that, then we have a fundamental difference of opinion, and I can't resolve that for you.
On top of that, I layer the exceptions.
I can discuss the exceptions with you if you'd like, but that is different from what you are asking.
Pantygraigwen
09-05-2006, 20:29
Another interesting thing is that abortion is usually portrayed as a "women's right". What about the rights of unborn human? So women can not kill people whom they dont want/like but they can kill unborn people?
Besides she can always use a morning after pill if she wasnt protected. No need to kill the baby.

the "Unborn Human"? Where do you draw the line with that?

Am i going to get people picketing my testicles next time i masturbate?
Dempublicents1
09-05-2006, 20:38
Saying that it is one without the other is counterproductive in my opinion.

One is the purpose. The other is an effect.

We should address it as the "decision to end the pregnancy be killing the fetus."

If we had a procedure in which an embryo/fetus was removed intact and incubated elsewhere, it sould still be an abortion. At the moment, the safe ways we have to remove them prior to the end of pregnancy invovles "killing" them (in parentheses as there is certainly an argument as to when the embryo/fetus can be deemed "alive"). That doesn't mean that abortion itself is "ending the pregnancy by killing the fetus."

In response to the bold: Should a mother have the right to abandon her adolescent children?

Of course not.

Where does that freedom from obligation to support end? Should there be no welfare?

You missed an important point, my friend. I didn't argue anything about "freedom from bligation to support." I argued that one person has no rights to the body of another. If you were hooked up to my body, drawing nourishment from my systems, I would be well within my rights to disconnect you at any time, even if it meant your certain death. If I were, however, legally responsible to care for you in other ways (buy your food, etc.) as a legal guardian, then I would be legally responsible to do so.


Many do. You know that to be true.

No, I don't. I have yet to meet a single woman who has had an abortion "because of invonvenience" or any such thing. I have yet to meet a woman who had an abortion on a whim. It may happen, but I'm guessing it isn't often, or I would be able to point to an actual case of it.


I addressed this in another post, won't repeat it here.

No, you really didn't.

And we also don't have the right to kill someone else.

That all depends. In some situations, we do.
Dempublicents1
09-05-2006, 20:40
No, Jacobia. It didn't work. Pregnancy isn't like kidney failure, no matter what spin you put on it. Say what you want about my arguments, you haven't, and never will, show that it is.

IIRC, the comparison wasn't between kidney failure and pregnancy. In fact, the patient with kidney failure was not being compared to the mother. Instead, the person with kidney failure was being compared to the fetus - in a situation in which it needs the body of another through no fault of its own.

Maybe I'm crazy, but that's how I seem to remember the conversation going.
Krakatao0
09-05-2006, 20:40
So you're suggesting that abortion should ALWAYS be justifiable on the base of that risk?
No, but that existence of risk is not a relevant criterium. What you should ask is if the relevant woman is willing to put up with the risks and other problems that unavoidably come with being pregnant.

I answered that a couple of posts back. No need to repeat.
Answer deleted. Jocabia and others already made my point, and I should leave the debate (to do other things).
Adriatica II
09-05-2006, 20:46
Consenting to sexual intercourse, is not the same as consenting to pregnancy.... any more than getting in your car is consenting to dying in a pile-up, or eating lobster is consenting to choking to death.

Grave, I've demolished this arguement a thousand times before so stop repeating it. Driving a car IS consenting to the posibility of being involved in a pile up simply because if you didn't accept that possibility then you wouldn't drive the car. It is implicit. It doesnt mean you like the fact, it means you have no choice. The diffrence between a pile up and a pregnancy is that the resolution to pregnancy (IE abrotion) involves killing someone, where as the resolution to the problem of a pile up (IE getting cut out of your car by the emergency services) does not.

Its like throwing a dice. You have to accept the possibility of getting a 1-6 outcome on throwing a dice. However you don't have to throw the dice itself. It all depends on the consequences. If a consequence of throwing a 6 say is becoming pregnant and thus the only ways out of that situation are birth or abortion then you should enter the decision about throwing that dice very carefully. On the other hand if the consequence of throwing a 6 was say recieving a £1.00 parking fine, you wouldnt be so concerned. Its all about considering the consequences of taking a chance when you take it.
Dempublicents1
09-05-2006, 20:50
Grave, I've demolished this arguement a thousand times before so stop repeating it.

No, you really haven't.

Driving a car IS consenting to the posibility of being involved in a pile up simply because if you didn't accept that possibility then you wouldn't drive the car.

"Consenting to the possibility...." is not the same as consenting to the actuality. Every time I get in my car, I consent to the possibility that I may be in a wreck. That doesn't mean I consent to be in a wreck.
Adriatica II
09-05-2006, 20:55
"Consenting to the possibility...." is not the same as consenting to the actuality. Every time I get in my car, I consent to the possibility that I may be in a wreck. That doesn't mean I consent to be in a wreck.

Yes it is. You have no choice. If you consent to the posibility of throwing a die 1-6 and then it lands on 4 you cant say "I dont consent to it landing on 4". Its happened already. Consent has nothing to do with it. I'm not sure what exactly the differnce is your getting at. You may not want to be in a car crash but if it happens you can't exactly say "I dont consent this to happen" and thus be absolved of the affects of it.
Dempublicents1
09-05-2006, 21:01
Yes it is.

No, it isn't.

You have no choice.

If someone grabs me and rapes me, I had no choice in the matter. Does that mean that I consented? Lack of choice does not equate to consent. It simply means that it happened, with or without consent.

If you consent to the posibility of throwing a die 1-6 and then it lands on 4 you cant say "I dont consent to it landing on 4".

You really love your dice analogy, but it doesn't really work with life situations. If I consent to getting in the car with my fiance, and he falls asleep at the wheel and gets in a wreck, leaving me paralyzed, does that mean I made the choice to be paralyzed? That I consented to it?

Of course it doesn't. It means that it happened, with or without my consent.

You may not want to be in a car crash but if it happens you can't exactly say "I dont consent this to happen" and thus be absolved of the affects of it.

The effects don't go away just because someone never consented. If I get an STD from being raped, the fact that I didn't consent won't make the STD go away. However, the fact that I didn't consent will still remain.

By your logic, every time I get myself within reach of a person who might possibly want to rape me, I have consented to being raped.
Jocabia
09-05-2006, 21:15
Since what should be apparent isn't, I'll explain why the rape exception is a question that needs to be answered.

Example:
A: "People should get the death penalty because they committed a terrible crime. The death penalty should be used in those cases."
B: "What about the cases where the person didn't commit the crime?"
A: "I don't want to talk about those cases."
B: "But people have been found on death row to have been innocent of the crime. If the death penalty is used it will be used against people on death row which we know to occasionally include innocent people."
A: "I'm just talking about the people who did it."
B: "Yes, how convenient."

The fact that you don't want to talk about it doesn't make it not matter.

Another example:
A: "The death penalty should be legal for white people."
B: "Why white people?"
A: "Because they committed a heinous crime."
B: "But why only white people?"
A: "I didn't say ONLY white people."
B: "Okay so you would have it be legal for non-white people as well?"
A: "I didn't say that either. I don't want to talk about non-white people."
B: "But how are white people different than non-whites in terms of death penalty."
A: "I don't want to talk about it."
Etc.

No matter why you want to isolate the point, in the real world, the point is not isolated. We are talking about a real-world issue where if a law addresses it will have to be clear what it addresses and why and it will have to explain its limitations and how it affects things outside of its limitations. Because of that it's necessary to explore the topic of abortion even when it makes your argument inconsistent. You can't simply avoid it because it makes your argument nonsensical. If your argument doesn't play when you consider all normal real world scenarios then it doesn't play. It's that simple.

In terms of abortion, if consent is the main reason for making a woman carry to term then this is germaine to the argument and if it's not then that's germaine to the argument as well. The best way to tell whether or not it is the main reason is to explore the rape scenario. It tells definitely if consent is what you consider or there is something that else that is the consideration. You wish to prevent us from exploring your reasoning for fear we'll expose the flaw.
Snow Eaters
09-05-2006, 21:16
Doesn't it matter what we label as selfish in terms of it being objectiviely wrong.


No, it doesn't matter for the point being made.
Ruloah
09-05-2006, 21:16
No...they don't. The government can not that eliminate that which is protected by the constitution. The right to an abortion is protected by the constitution. Go read Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The government could no sooner outlaw abortion then they could free speech.

From the Wikipedia article on the subject: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey)

However, the plurality overturned the strict trimester formula used in Roe to weigh the woman's interest in obtaining an abortion against the State's interest in the life of the fetus. Continuing advancements in medical technology meant that at the time Casey was decided, a fetus might be considered viable at 22 or 23 weeks rather than at the 28 weeks that was more common at the time of Roe. The plurality recognized viability as the point at which the state interest in the life of the fetus outweighs the rights of the woman and abortion may be banned entirely.
Adriatica II
09-05-2006, 21:19
No, it isn't.

If someone grabs me and rapes me, I had no choice in the matter. Does that mean that I consented? Lack of choice does not equate to consent. It simply means that it happened, with or without consent.

You really love your dice analogy, but it doesn't really work with life situations. If I consent to getting in the car with my fiance, and he falls asleep at the wheel and gets in a wreck, leaving me paralyzed, does that mean I made the choice to be paralyzed? That I consented to it?

Of course it doesn't. It means that it happened, with or without my consent.

The effects don't go away just because someone never consented. If I get an STD from being raped, the fact that I didn't consent won't make the STD go away. However, the fact that I didn't consent will still remain.

By your logic, every time I get myself within reach of a person who might possibly want to rape me, I have consented to being raped.

You misunderstand me

You may not consent to a dice landing on 4 but you consented to rolling the dice

You may not consent to a car pile up happening and being involved in it, but you consented to driving today

What I am trying to explain to you is that in these situations you consent to the aspect of the event you have control over which lead to the event. That concent is implicit. Now when you make that decision to 'roll the dice' as it were, you have to consider the liklyhood of possible outcomes and the solution to those outcomes.

For example, your rape analogy. Your freind calls you at 9:30 and invites you round there house for a game of twister. However its mid November which means its dark allready and you have to walk through some woods to get to your friends house. Also recently there have been reports of rape attacks in those woods. So you make a decision based on the outcomes and the solution to those outcomes. The probability of you being raped if you walk through the woods is fairly moderate. You dont want to risk it because if you are raped and get pregnant the only solution to that situation is either birth or abortion and in either case you are changed for life. So instead you walk the slightly longer way, where there are plenty of shops, street lamps and people.

Your car pile up analogy. You go out to work today and drive on the motorway to get there. You do this because there has been no reports of traffic and it is the way you have driven there all your life. You don't drive very unsafely so you wont get involved in an acident most likely and even if one happens because of your drivng skill you will avoid it. You have been driving for 25 years and never had and acciednt so all is ok. And even if you do have an accident the emergency services are very good at their jobs and thus will get you out ok.

Two examples where you implicitly or explicitly take actions based on levels of risk. The same is true with sex. You may want to have sex with your partner but there is the possibility of becoming pregnant. The only solution to the pregnancy if it happens is abortion or birth. Now abortion is killing something so that solution should be ignored. The alternative is birth but that will change your life forever and you arn't sure if either of you is ready to raise a child. So you have to consider whether you are ready for sex on the basis of the probability of getting pregnant. You can reduce that probability with birth control but it cannot be eliminated.
Jocabia
09-05-2006, 21:26
Grave, I've demolished this arguement a thousand times before so stop repeating it. Driving a car IS consenting to the posibility of being involved in a pile up simply because if you didn't accept that possibility then you wouldn't drive the car. It is implicit. It doesnt mean you like the fact, it means you have no choice. The diffrence between a pile up and a pregnancy is that the resolution to pregnancy (IE abrotion) involves killing someone, where as the resolution to the problem of a pile up (IE getting cut out of your car by the emergency services) does not.

Its like throwing a dice. You have to accept the possibility of getting a 1-6 outcome on throwing a dice. However you don't have to throw the dice itself. It all depends on the consequences. If a consequence of throwing a 6 say is becoming pregnant and thus the only ways out of that situation are birth or abortion then you should enter the decision about throwing that dice very carefully. On the other hand if the consequence of throwing a 6 was say recieving a £1.00 parking fine, you wouldnt be so concerned. Its all about considering the consequences of taking a chance when you take it.

Actually, I've actually seen you abandon your argument against this several times before because you were getting whupped.

1 - you haven't proven that it kills anyone. Invalid argument.
2 - even if it kills someone if the car accident involved injuring someone provided the driver didn't do anything illegal in the operation of the vehicle and did everything possible to avoid the accident the driver would suffer no consequences for the accident, particularly not being forced to commit your body to that person for nine months. There is no other incident in any part of law where a person is held responsible for the life of another unless negligence was present to some degree. You've shown no negligence.

I love how you declare victory in these arguments where you get logically torn apart by a half dozen posters. I wonder when I'll see you declaring victory for this thread.
Jocabia
09-05-2006, 21:28
No, it doesn't matter for the point being made.

Yes, it does. The point is objective morality. He might as well say that everyone has a concept of morality and thus it must be objective. He makes the ideas as general as possible and then claims that everyone agrees on them in every culture all the while admitting they don't ACTUALLY agree. It's a flawed argument and it has been debunked by many enthusiasts. I'm actually a Christian and I think C.S. Lewis' argument sucks.
Dempublicents1
09-05-2006, 21:30
You misunderstand me

You may not consent to a dice landing on 4 but you consented to rolling the dice

You may not consent to a car pile up happening and being involved in it, but you consented to driving today

Um....so now you're making my point - and arguing against what you said before.

Do make up your mind.

Based on what you have just said, a woman who decides to have sex has consented to the possibility of getting pregnant, but has not consented to getting pregnant or being pregnant.

What I am trying to explain to you is that in these situations you consent to the aspect of the event you have control over which lead to the event. That concent is implicit. Now when you make that decision to 'roll the dice' as it were, you have to consider the liklyhood of possible outcomes and the solution to those outcomes.

Yup.

Two examples where you implicitly or explicitly take actions based on levels of risk. The same is true with sex. You may want to have sex with your partner but there is the possibility of becoming pregnant.

Indeed. And I agree that this should be taken into consideration before the fact.

The only solution to the pregnancy if it happens is abortion or birth. Now abortion is killing something so that solution should be ignored.

Here is where you fall apart. We "kill something" every day, and don't ignore those options. The chicken I ate last night had to be killed for me to eat it. I kill bugs that try to enter my house. I kill grass that starts to grow in my flowerbed. Should all of those options "be ignored"?

I doubt it, so we aren't talking about "killing something." In fact, it is much more obvious that I am kiling an organism in each of those cases than with the case of early-term abortion. So the problem must be something else. That problem is that you (and I, for that matter) see value in an embryo/fetus - in any pregnancy. And we think that the value inherent there outweighs the problems that might be caused. However, there are those who disagree with us. Are you prepared to objectively prove your viewpoint? I've seen you try, but I have yet to see you be successful.

Abortion is not an option for me, because I am morally opposed. As such, I have taken not only the possibility of getting pregnant, but all the issues that go along with raising a child into account before being sexually active. My fiance and I took them into account yet again when we decided to be a little less "careful", as it were. And if I found out tomorrow that I was pregnant, then, barring anything awful happening, there would be a little one here in about 9 months.

However, others do not place the value that I do on a pregnancy, and I can understand that. As such, the options for them, in the case of pregnancy, are abortion or carrying to term. Either would be terrible for them to go through (if they don't want children), so that will still factor into their decision to have, or not to have, sex.
Snow Eaters
09-05-2006, 21:39
Yes, it does.


No, it doesn't.
It's broad argument, it doesn't deal with the details.
Jocabia
09-05-2006, 22:06
No, it doesn't.
It's broad argument, it doesn't deal with the details.

But the problem is that you can't make a broad argument like that. It's flawed logic. The problem is he makes the topic seem broad enough to make it seem like everyone objectively agrees on the subject, but the problem is they don't. If there is objective morality then you should be able to show a specific instance where in every culture everywhere it would have been considered wrong. He doesn't do that because there ARE no examples of that. Instead he paints things as equal that are not. In fact the issues he examples aren't even that similar. It's really bastardizing the term selfishness.
Muravyets
09-05-2006, 22:25
Advancement to the next stage of development.


Their life.


Agreed.
In your own description, one person is losing their life. Trying to phrase it as losing "a chance to control" a life is not a meaningful way to describe the situation.
We certainly don't wait until children can "control" their lives before the law protects their life.
It would be easier to argue a debate if you would read the posts in their entirety. I said the fetus has no life to lose. It has no life of its own because, until it becomes viable, its continued existence is 100% dependent on the body functions of the woman. It is using her life for its existence. If it is not born -- whether by abortion or miscarriage -- it will not lose anything because it does not have anything to lose, including life. You cannot lose what you do not have.
Muravyets
09-05-2006, 22:34
Sorry I can't agree with this at all. first thing, as we know and as has already been said here it takes sperm and egg to come together for the potential for human life to begin. So male masterbation, and female expulsion of eggs then becomes a moot point.

We also have laws to protect us and our livlyhoods in the event of unforseen happings. So if I can be in an accident and sue somebody for possible loss of POTENTIAL earnings. Then does that not set a precedent for me to sue my wife after a temination on the behalf of my lost child for loss of his/her POTENTIAL earnings?
Don't be ridiculous. Damages for lost earnings are based on what the injured person had been earning and could have earned based on a reasonable extrapolation from their past work. If you tried to sue your wife for the lost earnings of her aborted fetus you would get exactly what that fetus was capable of earning -- nothing. And then you'd get laughed out of court.
Muravyets
09-05-2006, 22:40
I call it a child. What do you call it?

Kids dont' quit being parasites until they move out. ;)
I, for one, call it a conceptus, embryo, or fetus, depending on the stage of development it is at.

And, technically, it does act as a parasite by using the mother's body systems to support itself. It does this until its organs develop enough that if it were disconnected from the mother, its organs could function on their own.
Muravyets
09-05-2006, 22:47
As I stated earlier, getting pregnant as a result of sex is an example of biolgoical success... it's the systems doing what they're supposed to do. You car isn't intended to be destroyed in a pile-up and lobster isn't meant to kill you.
A woman is not obligated to be pregnant and give birth just because her body can do it.
Muravyets
09-05-2006, 23:01
Good point. But that is a significantly different situation and involves more than a right to choose.

I'll relent on it being universal, but the right to life is a greater right than the right to choose.
<snip>
Rights are legal constructs. Law applies to those who are in the world, not to those who might enter it (unborn fetuses) or to those who have left it (the dead). Only living, born people have rights because only living, born people are in a position to lose something and complain about it. Rights tend to be expanded to include more and more groups of people and even classes of beings, but in practice, when rights conflict, the people who exist in the world and who can demonstrate how they will be harmed by having their rights curtailed are the ones who take precedence.

Because the woman is living in the world right now -- has relationships, other obligations, needs, other legal rights, etc -- she stands to lose more by losing control of her life than the fetus can lose by never getting one of its own in the first place.
Freising
09-05-2006, 23:14
Firstly, the points raised by the pro-lifer are subjective; it's not an assumption that they are.

Secondly, there is no assumption that the government doesn't have the right to legislate between right and wrong.

What are you talknig about? Pro-lifers are objective, while pro-choice is subjective. You've got your definitions mixed up.
The Cat-Tribe
09-05-2006, 23:40
One of the many things that I see in the abortion debate is the following

Pro-lifer: Abortion is wrong because X, Y and Z
Pro-choicer: Ok thats fine. You believe that but dont force me to abide by your beliefs

The flaw in this argument is that
A: - It assumes the points raised by the pro-lifer are subjective (which is often not the case, but that's not what I am here discussing)
B: - It assumes that government does not have a role in choosing to enforce right and wrong

The fact is the government chooses things that it considers right and wrong and enforces them or not. The idea that if something is wrong we should still be able to choose about it is absurd. Imagine the scenerio where theft is legal because the government has no place enforcing right and wrong. The government is in that place. What it is important to do is to discuss whether or not abortion is objectively wrong or not. Not whether the government has the right to enforce it, that much is a given.

Ridiculous.

You ignore completely the role of rights. I have many rights that allow me to do things that are "wrong." My rights don't depend on whether or not you agree with how I use them.

I'm not going to re-argue every point in this thread, but I must observe that the anti-choice posts in this thread consist primarly of (1) veiled attempts to say: "It is wrong because I say it is" and (2) refusals to discuss the assumptions underlying their arguments.

For example, they assert that an unborn child has a right to life but refuse to discuss why one would have such a right. As VO2 has tried to point out, they fail to recognize that there is a connection between why we recognize rights and our criteria for who is entitled to such rights.

Similarly, it is not "self-evident" that one entity's right to life (assuming they have one) trumps another's right to control his/her's body. To the contrary, such an assertion is considered absurd on its face in any context other than abortion.

Ironically, Ruloah cites Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833), 505 US 833 (1992), but fails utterly to understand it. In Casey, the Court reaffirmed that a woman has a fundamental right to abortion. The Court held that this right could not be overriden by the state's interest in the unborn child prior to the point of viability. After the point of viability, the law errs on the side of protecting the fetus. States may, and have, banned post-viability abortions except where necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Most of Snow Eater's questions about "would you ban abortion after ..." are thereby moot. Almost everyone who is pro-choice supports limits on late-term abortions to extreme cases.
Ruloah
09-05-2006, 23:42
The purpose of abortion, when not dictated by grave medical necessity, seems to be to prevent the birth of an unwanted child.

Therefore, I propose that abortion be allowed up until the child moves out of the parents' house, proving that it can live on its own, without needing to be wanted.

This is already allowed in some societies at present (especially when the family has been dishonored by a female child). Why not extend it to the rest of civilization?

The preceding was partially sarcasm and partially wishful thinking...

Seriously, everything boils down to either a question of at what point is a human life worth preserving, in the face of another's desire to end that life, for whatever reason, or does being 100% responsible for keeping someone else alive give you the power to end that life at any time, for any reason at all?:(
Jocabia
09-05-2006, 23:56
The purpose of abortion, when not dictated by grave medical necessity, seems to be to prevent the birth of an unwanted child.

Actually, it's generally to prevent a continued pregnancy. The prevention of the birth is only one of the reasons, but it is always to prevent the continuation of pregnancy. In nearly every case where discontinuing pregnancy is necessary, it is done with the least amount of trauma possible to all involved. In the case of a viable baby provided it is less traumatic to the mother and the baby they will birth it. A woman can't just prevent the birth of a child because she feels like it. She can discontinue a pregnancy because she feels like it.

Therefore, I propose that abortion be allowed up until the child moves out of the parents' house, proving that it can live on its own, without needing to be wanted.

Yes, I love when this argument comes up. The only people arguing an arbitrary line are on your side. Our side suggests that parents arre already allowed to give a child up for adoption and thus end their responsibility to it. The purpose of abortion isn't to end the life of a child, but to allow the parents to end the efforts required of them. Your extrapolation doesn't hold from the initial assertion. Nice try though.

This is already allowed in some societies at present (especially when the family has been dishonored by a female child). Why not extend it to the rest of civilization?

The preceding was partially sarcasm and partially wishful thinking...

Seriously, everything boils down to either a question of at what point is a human life worth preserving, in the face of another's desire to end that life, for whatever reason, or does being 100% responsible for keeping someone else alive give you the power to end that life at any time, for any reason at all?:(
There is no desire to end that life. The desire is to end the pregnancy. Your claim relies on a false assumption. The argument appears to be becoming a bit desperate. We must be making a compelling case.
Snow Eaters
10-05-2006, 00:08
But the problem is that you can't make a broad argument like that. It's flawed logic.

No, it's just broad. And yes you can make a broad argument.

It recognises that what we consider selfish, selfish just being an example, will vary according to culture. That takes care of your need for absolutely similar and specific examples and instead takes the broad view that selfishness, however it is defined by the local culture, is objectively a negative.
Snow Eaters
10-05-2006, 00:15
It would be easier to argue a debate if you would read the posts in their entirety. I said the fetus has no life to lose. It has no life of its own because, until it becomes viable, its continued existence is 100% dependent on the body functions of the woman. It is using her life for its existence. If it is not born -- whether by abortion or miscarriage -- it will not lose anything because it does not have anything to lose, including life. You cannot lose what you do not have.

It might be easier to argue a debate if you stopped for a moment and considered what the person you're arguing with is saying.

If I agreed with you that there is no life to lose, there would be no need to have to debate in the first place.
Jocabia
10-05-2006, 00:16
No, it's just broad. And yes you can make a broad argument.

It recognises that what we consider selfish, selfish just being an example, will vary according to culture. That takes care of your need for absolutely similar and specific examples and instead takes the broad view that selfishness, however it is defined by the local culture, is objectively a negative.

But if the definition is different then it's not the same thing and thus not objectively considered negative. If I define anything broadly enough I could make that kind of an argument. I could argue that abortion is considered a legal act in every culture if I make the definition broad enough. Does that make it an objective truth? He makes a vague reference to a broad concept and calls it objective by ignoring the substantial differences is the various cultures views on the subject. He proves his own assertion simply by ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
Jocabia
10-05-2006, 00:19
What are you talknig about? Pro-lifers are objective, while pro-choice is subjective. You've got your definitions mixed up.
He's not claiming that pro-choice arguments are not subjective. That's why we don't force our views on others. If you don't agree with abortion don't have one. However, anti-choice people are making a subjective argument and claiming we should base their argument on their personal beliefs.

You're welcome to show how your views are objective, but we're likely to simply giggle and demonstrate otherwise.
Muravyets
10-05-2006, 00:25
It might be easier to argue a debate if you stopped for a moment and considered what the person you're arguing with is saying.

If I agreed with you that there is no life to lose, there would be no need to have to debate in the first place.
Yes, that's correct. There would be no argument if we agreed. There would also be no argument if all sides did not present their views and points, right? I made the point that the fetus is using the woman's bodily functions to support itself. So, tell me, what or which life is the fetus losing if it does not get born?
Snow Eaters
10-05-2006, 00:38
Rights are legal constructs. Law applies to those who are in the world, not to those who might enter it (unborn fetuses)

Unborn fetuses are in the world. Where else could they possibly be?


Only living, born people have rights because only living, born people are in a position to lose something and complain about it.

False.
You can be charged for murder if you kill the unborn, as was most recently and famously made known by the Scott Peterson double murder trial.


Because the woman is living in the world right now -- has relationships, other obligations, needs, other legal rights, etc -- she stands to lose more by losing control of her life than the fetus can lose by never getting one of its own in the first place.

If the fetus has no life, then why are you even mentioning the relationships, obligations, needs, other legal rights, etc. of "the woman"?

If the fetus has no life, you don't need any of it, the debate is over.
If not, it sounds as though you're making a qualitative judgement that says if you have enough relationships and needs, your rights are more important than the rights of others.
Snow Eaters
10-05-2006, 00:39
But if the definition is different then it's not the same thing and thus not objectively considered negative.

The definition does not change, the examples do.
Snow Eaters
10-05-2006, 00:41
So, tell me, what or which life is the fetus losing if it does not get born?

Life does not start at the birth canal.
Muravyets
10-05-2006, 01:30
Unborn fetuses are in the world. Where else could they possibly be?
*sigh* They are not persons who exist in this world. Just like the dead are not persons who exist in this world.

Is the fetus a person in this world? Can I hire a fetus to type letters for me? Does the fetus receive mail? Does the fetus learn to ride a bike or rent an apartment or take standardized school tests? Does it breathe air, drink water, eat food? Can it sue for redress? Can it be sued by someone else? Does a fetus obey the law? Can it disobey the law? Can it be punished by the law? Obviously, the answer to all these things is no because fetuses do not interact with the world. They are not in it yet. And if they enter it before they are ready to stop being fetuses, they never will interact with it.

False.
You can be charged for murder if you kill the unborn, as was most recently and famously made known by the Scott Peterson double murder trial.
You should know perfectly well that murder is never applied to an unborn fetus that is not yet viable. You should also know perfectly well that there are no elective abortions of viable fetuses. The law prohibits them, and nobody wants them anyway. If you are familiar with the Peterson case, you should further know perfectly well that Lacy Peterson was at the end of her pregnancy. Her fetus was so complete and viable that if she had gone into premature labor rather than been murdered, the baby would have been in very good condition. In fact, the fetus could easily have survived the attack, even if she didn't, if only someone had caught Peterson in the act. If fact, to indulge in a particularly gruesome image, Peterson himself could have saved the life of the baby even as he was murdering his wife.

Btw, there is great variation among countries and states whether the incidental destruction of a fetus during a crime constitutes murder or not, and even more variation as to whether a woman whose pregnancy is ended by, say a car accident, can sue for wrongful death of a fetus or just for loss of property.

If the fetus has no life, then why are you even mentioning the relationships, obligations, needs, other legal rights, etc. of "the woman"?
Because I am showing that one party loses something and the other party doesn't. You claimed that the second party loses life. I made the point that the second party doesn't have a life of its own to lose. Is my position clear now?

If the fetus has no life, you don't need any of it, the debate is over.
If not, it sounds as though you're making a qualitative judgement that says if you have enough relationships and needs, your rights are more important than the rights of others.
I was merely showing the parts of a person's life to illustrate the fact that the woman is in the world, as evidenced by her impact on it, whereas the fetus is not yet in the world and is not impacting it.
Muravyets
10-05-2006, 01:35
Life does not start at the birth canal.
Life starts with the appropriate mix of chemicals being heated to the appropriate degree in a slimey puddle next to a volcano.

Personhood -- a legal distinction of an entity who can claim rights under the law -- does start at birth.

In the abortion debate, the question of when human life begins is rendered irrelevant by the question of whose rights should hold precedence, because even if the debate decides to agree that fetuses are people, the question of rights still stands.
Snow Eaters
10-05-2006, 01:57
*sigh* They are not persons who exist in this world. Just like the dead are not persons who exist in this world.


That is the worst analogy I have ever heard in a discussion of the abortion issue. I seriously question your ability to discuss the issue rationally if you can actually hold to that claim.

Is the fetus a person in this world? Can I hire a fetus to type letters for me? Does the fetus receive mail? Does the fetus learn to ride a bike or rent an apartment or take standardized school tests? Does it breathe air, drink water, eat food? Can it sue for redress? Can it be sued by someone else? Does a fetus obey the law? Can it disobey the law? Can it be punished by the law?

How many of your requirements are needed for a person to exist in your world?

Obviously, the answer to all these things is no because fetuses do not interact with the world. They are not in it yet. And if they enter it before they are ready to stop being fetuses, they never will interact with it.


Is it possible to interact with a person in the world, yet not be in the world oneself?

You should know perfectly well that murder is never applied to an unborn fetus that is not yet viable. You should also know perfectly well that there are no elective abortions of viable fetuses. The law prohibits them, and nobody wants them anyway. If you are familiar with the Peterson case, you should further know perfectly well that Lacy Peterson was at the end of her pregnancy. Her fetus was so complete and viable that if she had gone into premature labor rather than been murdered, the baby would have been in very good condition. In fact, the fetus could easily have survived the attack, even if she didn't, if only someone had caught Peterson in the act. If fact, to indulge in a particularly gruesome image, Peterson himself could have saved the life of the baby even as he was murdering his wife.


Why is this if the fetus is not a person in the world?
Why should we care about the viability if it is not a person in the world?
Can a viable fetus rent an apartment?


Because I am showing that one party loses something and the other party doesn't. You claimed that the second party loses life. I made the point that the second party doesn't have a life of its own to lose. Is my position clear now?


Not entirely.
If one party has nothing to lose, then it doesn't matter whether the other party does or does not.
Does a viable fetus have something to lose?



I was merely showing the parts of a person's life to illustrate the fact that the woman is in the world, as evidenced by her impact on it, whereas the fetus is not yet in the world and is not impacting it.

One more time to drive home the point, is it possible to interact with a person in the world, yet not be in the world oneself?
Or does the fetus NOT interact with the mother??
Snow Eaters
10-05-2006, 02:01
Life starts with the appropriate mix of chemicals being heated to the appropriate degree in a slimey puddle next to a volcano.


That's how we get organic molecules, not life.

Personhood -- a legal distinction of an entity who can claim rights under the law -- does start at birth.


A viable fetus can apparently claim rights without birth.


In the abortion debate, the question of when human life begins is rendered irrelevant by the question of whose rights should hold precedence, because even if the debate decides to agree that fetuses are people, the question of rights still stands.

If you believe it is irrelevant, then why not concede personhood to the fetus?
Then we can debate those rights.