NationStates Jolt Archive

Yeah, pretty much. I'm pro-choice too - I choose to have unprotected sex with a woman. After that, you gotta be ready to face the consequences. And all this talk about "embryos just being a clump of cells" - very rarely are abortions performed on clumps of cells, unless you'd like to categorize them as clumps of cells with arms and legs and cells that are capable of feeling pain.

you really should read up on things before you posts nonsense like this

check out at what stage of development the vast majority of abortions are done at.

check out WHY abortions after 20 weeks are done.

figure out WHY i mentioned 20 weeks.

then we can talk.

Yeah, pretty much. I'm pro-choice too - I choose to have unprotected sex with a woman. After that, you gotta be ready to face the consequences. And all this talk about "embryos just being a clump of cells" - very rarely are abortions performed on clumps of cells, unless you'd like to categorize them as clumps of cells with arms and legs and cells that are capable of feeling pain.

How can cells feel pain, or anything, before they have a neural network that functions?

Fail.

How can cells feel pain, or anything, before they have a neural network that functions?

Fail.

In the mind of the pro-lifer? Jesus-magic, obviously.

In the mind of the pro-lifer? Jesus-magic, obviously.

Jesus magic is good. I like that answer.

Of course - the Bible is pretty hazy on abortion. The sign of 'life' is the breath, according to the Genesis accounts - so you can't be 'alive' till you are born. According to the rest of the OT, 'aborting' a baby is only bad if the 'father' says so, and should be punished according to his judgement (or not, of course). According to the New Testament, foetuses can remotely detect one another over a distance of several feet. (Or John's mom had gas... that seems a little more plausible).

In Joshua's time, children of your enemies were run over with ploughs, and other OT texts talk about smashing babies heads on rocks.

Nah - Jesus-magic is an unsatisfying answer.

I believe abortion should be made illegal.

Raising a family is tough. As a kid that grew up in a single parent home with 4 handicapped siblings, I believe I have full knowledge about how tough it is to survive. My mother was forced to slave every day/night/weekend, and luckily enough she had an education in addition to a small business.

Still, though, life was tough. My three brothers ate a lot (to the tune of several thousand dollars a month) and my little sister constantly demanded that she received the things that her girlfriends received, all of whom had high/middle classed nuclear families with wealthy parents. My mother faced exhaustion from being overworked, a constant mind-numbing amount of debt (normally resting between $300,000 and $550,000 if you include her mortgages), three hernias, and a HUGE infection in her stomach that has plagued her body through-out her life. My father leaving her for a man didn't help much either.

An abortion could have helped her immensely. If I were in her position, and was faced with a collapsing marriage, more babies than she could feasibly feed judging by society's standard for single mothers, and other things, I would have ran to the nearest abortion clinic to remove any chance of another kid squeezing out.

But why do I think abortion should be made illegal, then? Aren't I a hypocrite for seeing the other side's point of view? Well, I'm going to delve into why now.

I have no religious argument. I rather detest the idea of bringing in moral arguments to the table, and find that whenever "morality" or "ethics" is brought in there's normally someone with some form of agenda whom cannot form a strong formal argument. So I'll keep clear of Bible/Quran thumping and other views that bring "personal beliefs" or some such things.

Right at this moment women are viewed as brood mares. They hump, procreate, become mothers, become grandmothers, and then die off. They may choose to become career-women, but normally a life of baby-creating is what is ingrained into the female existence. Pre-menopausal hormones prompting humping, menstrual cycles sending women on sex-finding "rampages", and several other physical promptings move women to have babies. Then there's societal, governmental, and personal reasons (ex: China's "One Child" policy or bossy Christian parents who want to be grand parents) moving women to pump out a kiddo or two. Having children is not within the sphere of influence for a vast majority of women.

I greatly dislike this. Freedom of personal choice is not allowed. If a woman wishes to do both, for example, she finds it quite difficult. Full time, or part time, jobs are both difficult to maintain if Jimmy is sick or when Julia Jr. skips school. It also difficult when a woman has to work several dozen hours a week and then needs to spend several more hours on her children/family.

Making abortion illegal would make the women of the country see their choices. It would make them CHOOSE to do what they want. It would force them to think before they have sex or marry Mr/Mrs Jones. Making such a choice would prompt them to understand themselves, their wishes to have children, and to understand the issues with having children. If a woman wants kids then she can have them. If she doesn't, then she doesn't have them through avoiding doing the things that cause children to pop out (ei: sex, forgetting the pill, not taking the pill, not insisting on a condom, etc). It's all about personal freedom and choice for the possible mother-to-be.

Having abortions allows women to have all the sex they want, all the overt abundance of western stupidity, and live a life of rancorous mayhem. Such a lifestyle is bound to create children, who will most likely find themselves in an environment which would have their mother's attention diverted from them and toward herself. Motherhood is a selfless affair, where a woman gives up her time to raise the next generation. Someone cannot go into motherhood half hearted and expect the world. Being half-assed does not allow motherhood to work.

I believe that giving away your baby to a social agency (orphanage, religious sect/organization, etc) should be allowed to go on without a hitch for practical social reasons. Aside from avoiding the suffocating, murdering, and dumping of babies in garbage cans and alleyways, the problem of throwing kids to the wolves to survive alone is enough to cause a society immense amounts of harm. Street children will become street people--a demographic that allows for drugs, sex, and other destructive goods to be bought and sold. Illegal activities are allowed to continue and are allowed to grow by letting society's less fortunate find their way to the crappiest level of existence.

So if you're a single mom or a young couple, and cannot afford to raise a child, you should be able to give your child away to people who are able to raise him/her/it. Be it to the government, a church, or an adopting family, the child should be sent to a place where he/she/it can have a chance at a happy life.

So if a woman is having a child then she only needs to suffer through the vomiting, sickness, and overall 'baggage' of lugging around a baby for 9 months. That suffering, hopefully, will re-introduce the thought that sex should be with someone you love--someone who you wish to be with for the rest of your life. It should also reinforce the idea that someone should gain enough capital or stability to actually raise a family.

With people living longer these days, or at least longer than several decades ago, the absence of birth control post-fertilization would cause a huge increase in certain demographics. The people who dislike abortion should be prepared for the influx of crack babies, a massive upsurge in below-poverty children, and poor persons. As abortion is removed the population of people who can properly use condoms (ei: had the training from a public school or had practical parents) or can control themselves (religious or otherwise), will rapidly see a decline in their population percentage. Since the rich and the fairly well off are people who normally possess some sense of self control, and normally are religious, they will not have as many children as the groups of people who do not possess the same skills/abilities.

This would cause a shift in populations. There will be more poor people and less middle/upper classes. Aside from allowing a huge amount of dependants on social programs, it would also allow a population to grow that would be ready to "do anything" to better their positions in life. Sex, slavery, drugs, bad wages (more competition from more people and less jobs = lower wages for worker pool), bad conditions (lessened services from huge demand on social programs, no money to be made off of low-cost housing by developers, etc), and several other issues that are already huge will be grown to a staggering extent.

The movement of a population's demographics would be changed, again, by a shifting of choice. Choice by women and people would shift the society. Any society in which the people within it cannot cause change will collapse. Charles Darwin pointed out, with his evolutionary theories, that a population changes as it adapts to its environment. Mankind is adapting to its developed social environment and it will change the form of its future forms/shapes of its future societies by the choices (adaption) of a population.

Then there's the more immediate harm of making abortion illegal. Karl Marx said it himself--the poor will rise up and slay the bourgeoisie; something that I don't quite want to see happen since it'd be quite the bloody revolution. So again I come back to the choice, except this time I point out the choices of society.

Making abortion illegal would cause societies to grip with the possibility of massive amounts of deaths, endless chaos, and a possible red revolution. This is something I believe is needed in the western hemisphere, since it would break at the sullying of people in the name of "big media" and arrogant stupidity of the USA. Choice, liberty, and intelligent debate is something that grows a people and makes them work at the ideas created by them.

People, in the end, would be forced to choose what they wanted and be forced to make a decision that would forever mar their lives in addition to their fellow citizens' lives. That choice would allow people to grow and to explore their own beliefs, especially their religious ones, and move societies to what I believe is a higher level of functioning and decision making.



And do you want to know what really annoys me? The fact that all these bored white Christian house wives demand that abortion be made illegal. I have never seen one of them bring a black crack baby into their womb. If they've made their choice at least they could get off of their rump to clean up another person's mess rather than just blab on and on about their biblical moral standards. Pro-actively adding an option for desperate women who do not want to have children is something they should be trying to be doing right now. Because, of course, I think anyone would give away their foetus to a caring family rather than killing it. It'd be wasteful to just kill the possibility of the child becoming a doctor or a lawyer.

Religious authorities and bible thumpers also seem to dislike gays. The homosexual demographic is a group of people who will never, ever have an abortion. So why don't these two groups work together? It seems like they'd be wonderful allies in the fight against abortion. I think they could forget about some of the clauses in their religious texts for a moment in bipartisanship to achieve a common goal. But I digress, not everyone is quite as "practical" (or insane) as I am.

So much to say, and so much I don't think is practical or true. And I can't even tell if you actually support abortion or not. You say it should be illegal then you list all the neg things that will happen if you do make it illegal

When was it legal? I've seen you use that argument before and IIRC it boiled down to semantics.

English common law, on which much of US law is based, held that abortion was legal until the quickening - until the mother could feel movement. It wasn't until relatively safe medical abortions were available that actual laws were passed banning it. From what I've read, widespread criminalization of abortion occurred in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

<SNIP>
I greatly dislike this. Freedom of personal choice is not allowed.
<SNIP>


Holy wall of text, Batman!

So you propose to fix the fact that personal choice is not allowed by removing a personal choice?

Right at this moment women are viewed as brood mares. They hump, procreate, become mothers, become grandmothers, and then die off. They may choose to become career-women, but normally a life of baby-creating is what is ingrained into the female existence. Pre-menopausal hormones prompting humping, menstrual cycles sending women on sex-finding "rampages", and several other physical promptings move women to have babies. Then there's societal, governmental, and personal reasons (ex: China's "One Child" policy or bossy Christian parents who want to be grand parents) moving women to pump out a kiddo or two. Having children is not within the sphere of influence for a vast majority of women.

I greatly dislike this. Freedom of personal choice is not allowed. If a woman wishes to do both, for example, she finds it quite difficult. Full time, or part time, jobs are both difficult to maintain if Jimmy is sick or when Julia Jr. skips school. It also difficult when a woman has to work several dozen hours a week and then needs to spend several more hours on her children/family.

Making abortion illegal would make the women of the country see their choices. It would make them CHOOSE to do what they want. It would force them to think before they have sex or marry Mr/Mrs Jones. Making such a choice would prompt them to understand themselves, their wishes to have children, and to understand the issues with having children. If a woman wants kids then she can have them. If she doesn't, then she doesn't have them through avoiding doing the things that cause children to pop out (ei: sex, forgetting the pill, not taking the pill, not insisting on a condom, etc). It's all about personal freedom and choice for the possible mother-to-be.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

I believe abortion should be made illegal.

<SNIP>


i see what you did there. nicely done.

you appall me, you really do.. abortion should be illegal. that is horrid. what about hte one who you are aborting. that is the one who should get an opinion.
Fair enough.

I asked my embryo, and he said "Please abort the pregnancy!"

So now you're going to tell me that YOU know what my embryo really wants, right? Despite the fact that its inside MY body, and you've never even met me in the first place, you are going to tell me that you know my embryo's opinion, right?

Abortions happen whether or not they are legal.

That's why the 'pro-life' argument is such a fallacy - making abortion illegal does nothing to stop abortion, it just removes legal choices.

Women will still get abortions... they'll just do it without regulation, controls and aftercare.

If legal abortion kills babies, illegal abortion kills babies AND mothers.

Pro-life? My arse.
More than that:

The countries with the LOWEST ABORTION RATES are counties with safe, legal medical abortion.

LOWEST. RATES.

The countries with the highest rates of abortion? Why, they're the ones where reproductive health care is criminalized, marginalized, and otherwise made inaccessible.

So what do you suppose a person who actually wanted to lower abortion rates would do, hmm? Would they advocate that we look at countries with the lowest abortion rates, and see what they're doing right? Or would they demand that we emulate the countries with the highest rates of abortion?

"Pro-life" laws and bans on abortion will kill and maim women and children, and do not lower abortion rates.

Don't like abortion? Fine. Whatever you do, don't vote for "pro-life" crap, because if you do you will be helping to increase the number of women who get abortions. (You'd also be helping to ensure that more women are maimed and killed due to lack of good health care, and more children are deprived of the health care they need! Bonus!)

The amount of people that support murder on these forums is, shocking. Millions of indivuals that you people care nothing about are killed every year. I consider myself lucky to be a survivor of the abortion era.

Any one of us could have been killed by abortion, and now that we've survived it, many of us support it.

The amount of people that support murder on these forums is, shocking. Millions of indivuals that you people care nothing about are killed every year. I consider myself lucky to be a survivor of the abortion era.

Any one of us could have been killed by abortion, and now that we've survived it, many of us support it.

The way I look at it abortion may or may not be killing, but it is definately not murder.

The amount of people that support murder on these forums is, shocking. Millions of indivuals that you people care nothing about are killed every year.
'Us people' don't suppot murder, because 'we' don't consider lumps of cells with no capacity for conciousness as persons.

Abortion should be banned as a form of birth control. It should not be eliminated as a form of reproductive health, ie the prevention of harm upon a mother, cases fo rape, incest, sexual assault.

The amount of people that support murder on these forums is, shocking. Millions of indivuals that you people care nothing about are killed every year. I consider myself lucky to be a survivor of the abortion era.

Any one of us could have been killed by abortion, and now that we've survived it, many of us support it.

Ah another one of "those people" huh? Well, I suppose it's time to break out the hypothetical once again, perhaps you may be the very first anti-abortion person to actually try to answer it. The situation is simple, a brief showing that nobody actually believes that fertilized human eggs are the equivalent of people.

OK here we go:

no, not even the "no abortions, no in vetro firtilization, no planned killing of an embryo EVER" people do not really, TRULY believe that an embryo is a human being. The results, as I said, would make you a monster.

Imagine, you are walking late and night and you come across a fertility clinic ablaze. You being the brave soul you are, rush in. FOrtunatly it is night time and the clinic is entirely empty, save for Bob, the Janitor. Bob is currently passed out near the door, and will likely die soon to the fire and smoke.

You think you can reach Bob, grab him, and make it to the front door, both alive. You are actually virtually positive, and believe that you would have a 80% chance of success at getting out alive the two of you. Unfortunatly that means you also have a 20% chance of dying.

You can also simply turn around and walk out, an activity that will with 100% certainty, spare your life. It will, unfortunatly, with equal 100% certainty, kill Bob the Janitor.

So you can run, and assure your survival, and bob will Perish. Or you can attempt a rescue, and risk the 20% chance that both of you will die.

But lo, what is this? You notice a cooler next to bob, with a sign that reads "one fertilized human embryo inside". Let's say, if you decided, you could grab the cooler and run. You'd make it out with 90% certainty. But if you attempt to rescue the cooler, and bob, all 3 of you will perish.

Now you have a third choice, save yourself with 100% certainty, save bob with 80% certainty, or save the cooler with 90% certainty.

Anyone on this board will give one of two answers, some will opt to attempt to save bob, and the more risk averse will chose their own life.

Nobody, ABSOLUTLY NOBODY will say "I will attempt to save the cooler". Nobody would. Either they'd risk their lives to save another living, breathing human being in Bob the janitor, or they would run, and assure their own life.

However, if you believed, if you TRULY BELIEVED that the fertilized egg sitting in that cooler was a human life, the same as you, and me, and bob, then you would be morally bound to rescue the cooler, and not bob. Anyone who actually, TRULY believed that this embryo was a life, would eitehr save themselves, or, given better odds, would save the cooler over bob. If you actually believed that the cooler contained human life you would chose to save the cooler and not bob, based purely on the odds.

Which is where the flaw comes, nobody would do it. They'd either save themselves, OR attempt a rescue of bob. Some would risk death to save another human being. Nobody, NOBODY would risk death to save a cooler. But for those who believe an embryo is human life, saving Bob and saving the embryo are one and the same, and one should save the cooler, not Bob, because the egg in the cooler is more likely to survive.

Now some would admit "ok, so maybe the embryo isn't FULLY human, but it's 'human like', somewhat 'fractional' human." So fine, let's change the hypothetical a bit. Let's So instead of one embryo in that cooler, instead the sticker read 2. Or 10. Or 10,000. Or a million. Or 10 million (embryo's are small, after all). But now it holds 10 million, so it has to be rather bigger. Now the odds of you getting out alive with that cooler are 80/20. Exactly the same odds as trying to rescue Bob the Janitor.

If that cooler contained 10 million tiny frozen embryos, then, according to the belief, that cooler contains TEN MILLION HUMAN LIVES. How many people here if given the answer would risk a 80/20 split on their own life if it meant saving TEN MILLION PEOPLE. How many people would take the bet on their life if success meant saving as many people as the holocaust killed?

Would anyone refuse, really? Would anyone here not be willing to take a 1 in 5 chance of death if success meant saving 10 MILLION lives? I'd take that bet, and I suspect most would too.

Would anyone risk their lives for that cooler? Would anyone forsake the unconcious bob for that cooler? According to the belief that cooler contains 10 MILLION human lives, ten million. To chose one, or two lives, over 10 million is barbaric, so the implication of that belief is that you MUST save the cooler.

Would anyone do it? Anyone? Would anyone risk the 20% chance of excuciating death and leave a helpless man to die for a cooler of frozen embryos? If you TRULY believed that an embryo is a human life, then that cooler contains TEN MILLION human lives. The result of that belief is that Bob the Janitor dies in that fire, because who among us would chose the life of one stranger, over the life of 10 million strangers? The belief that those embryos constitute 10 million human lives would compell you to leave Bob for death and save the cooler. And nobody, NOBODY would do it. As I said, the moral implications of such a stance would make you a monster.

And since not even the most die hard anti abortion fanatics would sacrifice bob to save one, or 10, or 10,000 or 10 million little tiny frozen embryos, the implication is they are not willing to lose one person to save 10 million. So either your belief turns you into a monster, or you don't REALLY believe it.

Well, I suppose it's time to break out the hypothetical once again, perhaps you may be the very first anti-abortion person to actually try to answer it.

heh, yeah, one of these days we're bound to find somebody willing to take on the burning fertility clinic. i mean, it has to happen sometime, right?

heh, yeah, one of these days we're bound to find somebody willing to take on the burning fertility clinic. i mean, it has to happen sometime, right?

Perhaps, however my belief is that anyone who actually tries to type out "I will save the embroys" knows he will be immediatly laughed at and called (rightfully so) a liar, so they either back off and pretend not to see it, or try to come up with some half assed justification of "the embryos might not be implanted" or some other nonsense, ignoring the original premise that, implanted or not, according to their belief those embroys are already human, and therefore should not matter if they are implanted or not.

Ah another one of "those people" huh? Well, I suppose it's time to break out the hypothetical once again, perhaps you may be the very first anti-abortion person to actually try to answer it. The situation is simple, a brief showing that nobody actually believes that fertilized human eggs are the equivalent of people.

OK here we go:

That is a very good argument for abortion, thank you, i'll save that for later.
Do you know any good arguments against abortion?

Ah another one of "those people" huh? Well, I suppose it's time to break out the hypothetical once again, perhaps you may be the very first anti-abortion person to actually try to answer it. The situation is simple, a brief showing that nobody actually believes that fertilized human eggs are the equivalent of people.

OK here we go:

We'll turn the question on its head just for the sake of doing so, since in theory, if the fetus and Bob were equals, then it comes down largely to a matter of personal preference. What if the room was on fire and you had Bob the Janitor (he seems to get into a lot of trouble frequently) and Jill the pregnant women. You can save either with equal probability, but you can't save both. Whom do you save, and why?

That is a very good argument for abortion, thank you, i'll save that for later.
Do you know any good arguments against abortion?

Hard to say, I think arguments against abortion tend to be poorly thought out. There is a fairly good one however. We recognize that killing people is wrong, so we create a prohibition against killing people. Ergo those who have the quality of "personhood" are protected by this prohibition.

However, whatever the qualities of "personhood" are it must be shared by competant adults, retarded people, those with severe brain damage, and newborns, all of which we ascribe the protections of "personhood". So whatever qualifies as a person, it must be qualities that all these groups share.

Now we recognize that a newborn is a person, but if we rewind a second, to the instant before the newborn was born, was there any difference between the two? any qualities that the newborn has that the just-about-to-be-born does not (short of actually being born)? Not really. So whatever the bundle of characteristics the newborn has that qualifies it as a person, the not quite born yet also has (unless again, we define personhood by, at least in part, not being in a womb, which appears somewhat to be arbitrary).

So if we accept the characteristics of a newborn, which we grant the protections of personhood, are functionally identical to a almost born, we should be bound to accept this almost born as a person as well.

So let's rewind that almost born entity another second. Still, effectivly the same. Another second. Another. Another.

The development of a fetus in the womb is gradual and slow, and becomes virtually impossible to distinguish it from one second to the next. Thus if a just about to be born entity is a perosn, and that entity is functionally identical to what it was a second ago, and a second before that, and a second before that, we can not pinpoint at any time where it suddenly and miraculously acquires all the characteristics we assign to it as "personhood". And since we can't pinpoint exactly when it becomes a "person", any attempt to arbitrarily set a point in time means we can't be certain that point in time is not resulting in the death of persons.

We'll turn the question on its head just for the sake of doing so, since in theory, if the fetus and Bob were equals, then it comes down largely to a matter of personal preference. What if the room was on fire and you had Bob the Janitor (he seems to get into a lot of trouble frequently) and Jill the pregnant women. You can save either with equal probability, but you can't save both. Whom do you save, and why?

sure, that's a matter of personal preference, absolutly. Some may save bob, some may save jill, that depends on various factors. Which is why when you have two people, or 3, or 4, or a pregnant person, those come in to play.

I have yet to be able to conceive of a particular personal preference that would dictate that someone save one person over ten million however. I can come up with numerous reasons why I'd save "person A" over "person B". I can not conceive of any reason why someone could convincingly argue to save "person A" and not "persons one through ten million"

Sure, maybe "person who I love over 10 million strangers", or "random person over ten million hitlers" but here we have one person on one side and, if you believe the embryo is a person, ten million persons on the other. All unknown to you, all equally capable of good or evil.

This is not a matter of "save my wife over a stranger", or "save the child over the old man". We have one stranger on one hand, ten million strangers on the other. If you can think of any valid personal preference that would cause one ot save one stranger person over ten million stranger persons, let me know, but the only conclusion I can draw is..you don't really assign a true sense of personhood to those embryos, because if you did, there is no "preference", no "reason", no "justification" for saving one stranger over 10 million strangers.

English common law, on which much of US law is based, held that abortion was legal until the quickening - until the mother could feel movement.
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Common Law, regarded as very authoritative in the 18th century, said bluntly "Abortion prior to quickening can never be the subject of an indictment."
This provides a constitutional argument, not the one used in Roe v. Wade but a popular one among some commentators, from the Ninth Amendment which states that any liberties the people have, whether or not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are retained. Interpretations vary, but a plausible one is: any subject which was simply *outside the scope of government power* in the 18th century remains so. There are subjects that simply did not exist at the time, like drivers' licenses for automobiles, but where the subject had already been debated and left to individual decision by the Founders' day, it should remain so.

sure, that's a matter of personal preference, absolutly. Some may save bob, some may save jill, that depends on various factors. Which is why when you have two people, or 3, or 4, or a pregnant person, those come in to play.

I have yet to be able to conceive of a particular personal preference that would dictate that someone save one person over ten million however. I can come up with numerous reasons why I'd save "person A" over "person B". I can not conceive of any reason why someone could convincingly argue to save "person A" and not "persons one through ten million"

Sure, maybe "person who I love over 10 million strangers", or "random person over ten million hitlers" but here we have one person on one side and, if you believe the embryo is a person, ten million persons on the other. All unknown to you, all equally capable of good or evil.

This is not a matter of "save my wife over a stranger", or "save the child over the old man". We have one stranger on one hand, ten million strangers on the other. If you can think of any valid personal preference that would cause one ot save one stranger person over ten million stranger persons, let me know, but the only conclusion I can draw is..you don't really assign a true sense of personhood to those embryos, because if you did, there is no "preference", no "reason", no "justification" for saving one stranger over 10 million strangers.

Your argument makes sense, but what your saying is that you have absolutely no reason to choose Bob over Jill or visa versa? You see, in that instance, I would choose Jill, because in saving her, you are saving a second life, regardless of whether its fully developed yet. Whether the embryo is alive or not, it adds extra value to Jill's life because it will eventually be living.

Just to clarify, who exactly are you referring to when you say "10 million persons?" The fetuses?

the frozen embryos in the cooler next to the passed out Bob, the Janitor. This hypothetical is designed to confront those who hold the idea that a person is a person from the moment of conception. If that view were to be true, then a cooler of 10 million frozen embryos in fact contains 10 million persons, with all the moral weight that entails.

If you do not hold that view then the cooler, of course, merely holds 10 million frozen clumps of cells.

the frozen embryos in the cooler next to the passed out Bob, the Janitor. This hypothetical is designed to confront those who hold the idea that a person is a person from the moment of conception. If that view were to be true, then a cooler of 10 million frozen embryos in fact contains 10 million persons, with all the moral weight that entails.

If you do not hold that view then the cooler, of course, merely holds 10 million frozen clumps of cells.

Check above. I edited my post.

The state of fetuses as human beings or not is irrelevant to the extreme.

I still have had not a single anti-abortion proponent tell me why women should be legally compelled to let another being have free use of their organs, blood, and uterus against their own will.

Nobody can legally siphon your blood away, or cut up one of your kidneys to save someone. Not even if you're the only possible donor and not even if the other person has no hope whatsoever to survive without your organs/blood.

It is the same with abortion. Even if we did subscribe to the idea that fetuses are fully human beings (they're not, but humor me), then abortion should still be legal because women's bodies belong to nobody but themselves. They are the sole decision-makers as to what happens with their uteruses. So if they don't want to rent it for nine months, you can't force them to. Period.

The day when we can safely remove an embryo from a woman's womb, preserving its life for a future implantation in another (willing)woman's womb where it can safely grow, well that day we can outlaw abortion and ask all the nice pro-life people to nurture and adopt the fetuses. Until then, sorry, but nobody has a right to my body, and I really don't see why we should treat women any differently just because they've got a uterus.

Wholly legalised. Any other position is anachronistic, authoratarian tripe.

Your argument makes sense, but what your saying is that you have absolutely no reason to choose Bob over Jill or visa versa? You see, in that instance, I would choose Jill, because in saving her, you are saving a second life, regardless of whether its fully developed yet. Whether the embryo is alive or not, it adds extra value to Jill's life because it will eventually be living.

Not exactly that "I have no reason". A lot of factors come into play. Which one is closer? Which one can I most likely save? Which one is younger and likely to live out a longer life? Do I have a personal relationship with any of them?

All other things bein equal, I would probably save Jill too, for the reason you stated, but herein lies the problem. Either way you are still saving someone that is definitively a person.

If Bob = "a person" then jill = "a person + potential". You don't try to make any argument that the embryo is alive, merely that it has "potential for life" which as SOME value. Not as much as a person, but more than 0, therefore "person + embryo" is more worth saving than "person" because of the undefined but positive value that embryo holds.

The problem is, if we discuss the embryo in terms of value, and a person in term of value, then if an embryo has a value, at some point, the combined value of a LOT of embryos must outweigh a single person. So the question is, can you ever see yourself saving a cooler of embryos over a person? Not "a pregnant woman" over "a not pregnant person", but JUST a cooler over JUST a person? Would you ever be willing to let an anonymous stranger die, for a cooler of anonymous embryos?

Or are we willing to accept that while "a person + embryo" may be worth more than "a person", "a cooler of embryos" is never worth more than "a person"?

OK, What if Bob the Janitor had just told you that he and his wife were going to try to have a baby in the near future?

The development of a fetus in the womb is gradual and slow, and becomes virtually impossible to distinguish it from one second to the next. Thus if a just about to be born entity is a perosn, and that entity is functionally identical to what it was a second ago, and a second before that, and a second before that, we can not pinpoint at any time where it suddenly and miraculously acquires all the characteristics we assign to it as "personhood". And since we can't pinpoint exactly when it becomes a "person", any attempt to arbitrarily set a point in time means we can't be certain that point in time is not resulting in the death of persons.

of course, this is also just a general problem with placing distinct categories on a universe that contains inherent fuzziness. you see the same thing when it comes to speciation, for example. pretty much we just have to bite the bullet at some point, because the categories do have some sort of reality to them, even with the blurry and porous borders.

The state of fetuses as human beings or not is irrelevant to the extreme.

I still have had not a single anti-abortion proponent tell me why women should be legally compelled to let another being have free use of their organs, blood, and uterus against their own will.

If you see the embryo as a person (which I don't) you could argue that you are morally obligated to save the embryo's life because the happiness (assuming the baby will be adopted by a family that wants it and it will grow up happy) you produce by saving a person's life outweighs the sacrifices you would have to make.
But this only works if you consider an unborn child to be a person or if you think it matters it has the potential to become a person.

The problem is, if we discuss the embryo in terms of value, and a person in term of value, then if an embryo has a value, at some point, the combined value of a LOT of embryos must outweigh a single person. So the question is, can you ever see yourself saving a cooler of embryos over a person? Not "a pregnant woman" over "a not pregnant person", but JUST a cooler over JUST a person? Would you ever be willing to let an anonymous stranger die, for a cooler of anonymous embryos?

Or are we willing to accept that while "a person + embryo" may be worth more than "a person", "a cooler of embryos" is never worth more than "a person"?

There is a big difference between an embryo in a woman and an embryo in a cooler.
First of all the embryo is in the woman, because it is wanted. The embryo's are in the cooler probably not because they are wanted. Which makes a big difference to me. So instead of a person + embryo you could call Jill "person + the child she always wanted". While the cooler of embryos could be called "cooler full of cells"
You also have to consider that many embryo's die before they implant in the woman's uterus (about 50%) so an embryo in the cooler would be 50% potential for a human being.


(I only read the last page, so if you assume all those embryos are wanted and will survive implantation I'd say you should choose the cooler over Jilll if the happiness produced by implanting and carrying these specific embryos to term outweighs the happiness of saving Jill and her wanted baby. This is, I admit, almost impossible to calculate, but seeing how an embryo can easily (under normal circumstances) be replaced and a person can't, I would say that it is almost always best to choose Jill over the cooler.)

If you see the embryo as a person (which I don't) you could argue that you are morally obligated to save the embryo's life because the happiness (assuming the baby will be adopted by a family that wants it and it will grow up happy) you produce by saving a person's life outweighs the sacrifices you would have to make.
But this only works if you consider an unborn child to be a person or if you think it matters it has the potential to become a person.



There is a big difference between an embryo in a woman and an embryo in a cooler.
First of all the embryo is in the woman, because it is wanted. The embryo's are in the cooler probably not because they are wanted. Which makes a big difference to me. So instead of a person + embryo you could call Jill "person + the child she always wanted". While the cooler of embryos could be called "cooler full of cells"
You also have to consider that many embryo's die before they implant in the woman's uterus (about 50%) so an embryo in the cooler would be 50% potential for a human being.


(I only read the last page, so if you assume all those embryos are wanted and will survive implantation I'd say you should choose the cooler over Jilll if the happiness produced by implanting and carrying these specific embryos to term outweighs the happiness of saving Jill and her wanted baby. This is, I admit, almost impossible to calculate, but seeing how an embryo can easily (under normal circumstances) be replaced and a person can't, I would say that it is almost always best to choose Jill over the cooler.)

The problem is you're arguing against the point of it, or rather, arguing from a perspective it wasn't designed for.

This hypothetical is addressed as those who believe a person is a person from conception. That from fertilization on those embryos are people.

If that were true then it wouldn't matter if they were implanted. It wouldn't matter for the happiness produced by the parents. It wouldn't matter if they survive implantation afterwards.

Anyone who has to argue about implantation, or what might happen in the future, or what the parents want is admitting those embryos are not people because if they were people, talk of implantation would be irrelevant. If you believed embryos to be people, then implanted or not, it's still human life.

ANd you're exactly right with what you said, if you saw an embryo as a human life you would be morally obligated to save a cooler full of embryos over a living, breathing person, even if you had no idea whether they'd survive or not. Even if you knew absolutly nothing about the future of the embryos you'd still be morally bound to save what you perceive as 10 million human lives, at the cost of one life.

The fact that nobody would do it suggests that nobody really believes that a cooler of embryos contains 10 million human lives.

The problem is you're arguing against the point of it, or rather, arguing from a perspective it wasn't designed for.

This hypothetical is addressed as those who believe a person is a person from conception. That from fertilization on those embryos are people.

If that were true then it wouldn't matter if they were implanted. It wouldn't matter for the happiness produced by the parents. It wouldn't matter if they survive implantation afterwards.

Anyone who has to argue about implantation, or what might happen in the future, or what the parents want is admitting those embryos are not people because if they were people, talk of implantation would be irrelevant. If you believed embryos to be people, then implanted or not, it's still human life.

ANd you're exactly right with what you said, if you saw an embryo as a human life you would be morally obligated to save a cooler full of embryos over a living, breathing person, even if you had no idea whether they'd survive or not. Even if you knew absolutly nothing about the future of the embryos you'd still be morally bound to save what you perceive as 10 million human lives, at the cost of one life.

The fact that nobody would do it suggests that nobody really believes that a cooler of embryos contains 10 million human lives.

Well, that's what I get for not reading the whole argument I guess...

But if you deluded yourself to think that an unimplanted embryo is a full person and you want to save as many persons as you can (which isn't that obvious when you consider people would rather save family over strangers or because some people don't think life has an intrinsic value) you should save the cooler if it contains more than 4 embryos, because then you did the best you could to save as many persons.

I appreciate that you have tried to answer me honestly. I also have a catholic background so I can understand a lot of where you are coming from. The problem for me is that church teachings are all very well, but they were meted out to me by people who had never had to deal with the situation I was in. It is me and my conscience that have to make and live with the decision - in my view, it is irresponsible to put that burdon on anybody else; I cannot shirk it by falling back on the rhetoric of one who cannot fully understand.


I guess I try not to look to harshly at how the Catholics approach things like that because on some level they're just trying to be consistent. Many Catholics, I'm sure, would gladly support an abortion in the case of a rape or something like that, but because there's such a rigid approach to thinks, they just can't do so and remain within church policy. It's one of the reasons I'm much happier in my new Church. The Mormon church can be surprisingly pragmatic with a lot of things.


I also have a problem in that the religious view seems to be restricted to birth - if a child is birthed, all is well and good. That pregnancy with its lifelong physical, emotional and financial effects can be dismissed as minor inconvenience shows how little regard is given to the value and life of women. But as I am sure you appreciate, with your forthcoming parenthood, birth is only the start of arguably the most responsible and fridghtening role you will ever take on. To birth or not to birth is a tiny part of the question. If you choose to continue an unwanted pregnancy to term, there will at some point be a person who carries your genes, your flaws, your congenital defects and the certain knowledge that they were hated by their parents. I often hear that all a child needs is love, material goods are just icing on the cake. So if a child doesn't have love? have you ever looked at charities like the NSPCC? do you ever wonder where those children come from?


Yeah I've seen a lot of material from a variety of religious sources that, like you said, focus so strongly on the abortion issue that kids who have needs seem to be left by the wayside. On the other hand, there are a lot of Churches, as well as secular organizations that do pay a great deal of attention to kids in circumstances like what you're talking about, they're just not as widely publicized because, sadly, the public tends not to focus enough on those kinds of issues. The abortion debate does tend to be a distraction


I also have a problem with the idea that abortion is ok or not depending on whether a woman has agreed to sex - to me, even if she agreed to become pregnant, it doesn't affect the rightness or wrongness of the decision to abort. I dislike the connotation that unwanted pregnancy is a justifiable punishment for consenting to sex; I dislike the connotation that those who consent to sex are somehow immoral and yet should be forced into parenting another generation - if the wellbeing of children were the objective, surely you would prefer that those who you see as being the most moral are the ones given charge of malleable youngsters?


I don't hold to the view that pregnancy is somehow a punishment for immoral behavior. I get irritated when I hear people say it because not only is it utterly illogical, but if it were the case, then God would be inconsistent in His punishments to the point of negligence. No, pregnancy is not a punishment. Not ever.

I also don't hold to the view that people should be forced to parent. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with putting a kid up for adoption.


You mention that in some cases, a woman may make the decision in "prayer and deep personal thought". This suggests an understanding that only the woman in question knows if she has the strength and desire to carry a pregnancy to term, and that women are capable of deep personal thought. I can vouch that a lot of deep personal thought goes into this decision regardless of ones religious views.


I'm glad you saw that, because so often people accuse religions of somehow demeaning a woman's ability to think for herself. That's a dangerously fallacious accusation to make but it's disturbingly common on this forum.


I don't share your view of the "beauty of pregnancy", but I can accept that you see it that way. It made me sick and miserable and desperate and frightened and almost feral in my desire to end it and reclaim myself. Before you right off the term slavery as hyperbole, please think on it for a while. It is an accurate description of the state of having no legal autonomy, which is what you support in the case of pregnant women.


I wouldn't characterize it as taking away someone's legal autonomy, but I hope that reaching that level of mutual understanding will be a result of this way less confrontational series of messages. (Again, I regret the tone of my first post to you.)

If it's not too personal a question, are you saying that you would never want to be pregnant, or was it just that particular occasion? I'm only asking out of curiosity so that I can understand better, but if it's too personal then forgive me for being nosy.


I suppose you won't really take all this to heart, you clearly feel very strongly about this - but if you can't even explain why you feel this way, can you really be sure you should seek to control the behaviour of those who can explain their position? Can you not trust thinking, feeling, responsible women to make the right decision, or trust your god to deal with us if we're wrong?

I always take what is said to me to heart if it's within the spirit of honest communication. I may not agree, but that doesn't mean I can't understand. (Some people out there can't see the difference.)

What you said at the end there was interesting, when you ask if I can trust my God to deal with those who are wrong... I think what strikes me about it is that it doesn't hold any hostility toward religion (which I appreciate greatly.) My answer is, yes, I do trust Him in that way. That's the reason I'm adamantly opposed to violence as a solution to this problem. I also trust people to make their own judgments. I guess if there were on thing I would have you get from this is that those who are pro-life are no interested in control. I know a lot of people characterize it that way and form arguments to try and prove it, but from the point of view of a pro-life advocate, the goal is to achieve legal consistency... where it would be just as illegal to kill a child before birth as after. That's the reason why so often the issue of women's rights seems irrelevant, because nobody's rights supersede the rights of someone else to live, so the point seems moot to us, on that level.

Since Katganistan doesn't know me beyond a couple of posts on an internet forum, I'd say the question of respect is moot. She has, however, understood my position perfectly as have Bottle and TCT. Incidentally, I think Bottle was probably happy about the way I expressed myself rather than congratulating me on having an abortion, its not really something one aspires to.

Fair enough.

I believe abortion should be made illegal.
<snip>
But I digress, not everyone is quite as "practical" (or insane) as I am.

What I like about your post is that it is a nice example to the people here that the pro-life stance isn't exclusively a religious one.

English common law, on which much of US law is based, held that abortion was legal until the quickening - until the mother could feel movement. It wasn't until relatively safe medical abortions were available that actual laws were passed banning it. From what I've read, widespread criminalization of abortion occurred in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

Much of the U.S. law is based on the 10 Commandments too but I suspect you'd find that as irrelevant as I find English common law to be in this case.

Much of the U.S. law is based on the 10 Commandments too but I suspect you'd find that as irrelevant as I find English common law to be in this case.

You asked me when it was legal. I told you.

The amount of people that support murder on these forums is, shocking. Millions of indivuals that you people care nothing about are killed every year. I consider myself lucky to be a survivor of the abortion era.


I've seen a lot of people supporting abortion but very few supporting murder. I'm hoping the few that have supported murder were joking . . .

We'll turn the question on its head just for the sake of doing so, since in theory, if the fetus and Bob were equals, then it comes down largely to a matter of personal preference. What if the room was on fire and you had Bob the Janitor (he seems to get into a lot of trouble frequently) and Jill the pregnant women. You can save either with equal probability, but you can't save both. Whom do you save, and why?

Her pregnancy is irrelevant, my chivalry kicks in at this point and it's women and children first. Sorry Bob.

Her pregnancy is irrelevant, my chivalry kicks in at this point and it's women and children first. Sorry Bob.

:P thats silly. What if its pregnant Jill, and Jen the Janitor?

Abortion is hardly a wonderful thing, but banning it will do nothing but drive another industry underground to be exploited by crooks. It is simply too easy to do and too easy to dispose of the evidence. Also, there are very real cases where it is the lesser of two evils, as hard as that sometimes is to believe.

Your argument makes sense, but what your saying is that you have absolutely no reason to choose Bob over Jill or visa versa? You see, in that instance, I would choose Jill, because in saving her, you are saving a second life, regardless of whether its fully developed yet. Whether the embryo is alive or not, it adds extra value to Jill's life because it will eventually be living.

Or, you know, it won't be because she has a miscarriage, or it's stillborn.

So yeah, either it will eventually be living, or maybe not.

:P thats silly. What if its pregnant Jill, and Jen the Janitor?

Then I have to make a snap decision on the spot. In that situation I can't tell you what I would do until after I did it.

Much of the U.S. law is based on the 10 Commandments

That explains why it's illegal to worship other gods, or to covet your neighbors wife and/or goods. Wait . . .

If you see the embryo as a person (which I don't) you could argue that you are morally obligated to save the embryo's life because the happiness (assuming the baby will be adopted by a family that wants it and it will grow up happy) you produce by saving a person's life outweighs the sacrifices you would have to make.

But this only works if you consider an unborn child to be a person or if you think it matters it has the potential to become a person.

Bold mine.

A person could indeed feel morally obligated to save another one. Yet, morality is not legality.

Allow me to explain: a person comes knocking on my door. That person has a very rare disease that requires a bone marrow transplant, and I am the only possible donor. If I accept to donate, he will survive. If I do not, he will die.

That person is perfectly entitled in trying to appeal to my morals, to make me do the right thing and save his life at the cost of some serious but ultimately temporary discomfort. However, that person has no right or justification whatsoever of trying to get me to donate against my will through coercive legal means. It's that simple.

I feel much the same about abortion. I dislike abortions. A lot. But even though we might feel like trying to convince a pregnant woman to take the baby to term and put it up for adoption, if she says no, then it's a flat out no, and we cannot force her to carry it to term against her will.

It's that simple. Anti-abortionists need to stop trying to shove their morality down everyone else's throat. Every person is the last judge of what happens to their body.

If I chose to be selfish and save myself the trouble of the extensive and potentially risky procedure of donating bone marrow, it's a very sad thing. But it's my choice and the person who needed my marrow cannot take it against my will. He is not entitled to it. And my refusal does not constitute murder, either. Unwillingness to let others dispose of your body parts for their own benefit is not morally wrong. While self-sacrifice is very noble, refusal of self-sacrifice is not illegal.

Allow me to explain: a person comes knocking on my door. That person has a very rare disease that requires a bone marrow transplant, and I am the only possible donor. If I accept to donate, he will survive. If I do not, he will die.

That person is perfectly entitled in trying to appeal to my morals, to make me do the right thing and save his life at the cost of some serious but ultimately temporary discomfort. However, that person has no right or justification whatsoever of trying to get me to donate against my will through coercive legal means. It's that simple.

no justification whatsoever? really? there is no argument to be made in favor of forcing you to save people?

no justification whatsoever? really? there is no argument to be made in favor of forcing you to save people?

What I was saying is not that there is no argument in favor of; if you read my sentence carefully, I'm saying there is basis for trying to coerce me to do so legally.

If there was a legal basis for forcing someone to save someone else by giving a third party a right to your own body, the blood donation would be mandatory. Organ donations as well. Anytime someone somewhere needed one of your body parts to keep living, they could just come in and fucking dig in.

That's not how it works. Nothing legally binds me to donate blood or organs to save someone else, even if I was the only potential donor. One might certainly appeal to my compassion and ask me to, but nobody can make me. And my refusal to donate a kidney to save someone does not have any legal consequences. Only potentially moral ones, if I'm one of the more ethically inclined.

Same goes with abortion. Just because a woman has a uterus doesn't mean someone else can go around being entitled to a part of her body.

Everyone owns their own body. It's simple. It's the most basic, sacred, and universally recognized human right. Women do not have to let a third party dispose of their body, be it for a stranger, a family member, or a fetus.

Nothing legally binds me to donate blood or organs to save someone else, even if I was the only potential donor.

nothing does now. but maybe you should be legally so compelled. that would be sorta the point of the presumed argument

Everyone owns their own body. It's simple. It's the most basic, sacred, and universally recognized human right.

i believe you'll find a whole host of people do not agree that you own your body, coming from at least two distinct and opposed perspectives. and even among those that do agree with the general thrust of the idea, there is not all that much agreement on exactly what sorts of rights it entails.

Restricted to cases where used to save the life of the mother.

nothing does now. but maybe you should be legally so compelled. that would be sorta the point of the presumed argument

Are you saying you support my right to be able to take your kidney if I need it to survive, without you having a word to say about it?

If you do, then you're obviously crazy. I'm sorry, I don't know any other way to put it.


i believe you'll find a whole host of people do not agree that you own your body, coming from at least two distinct and opposed perspectives. and even among those that do agree with the general thrust of the idea, there is not all that much agreement on exactly what sorts of rights it entails.
No, I don't think I'll find many people that think their own body is not theirs. Slavery is by and large reviled as one of the worst breach of human rights, and has been so for the past... what, few hundred years?

As for the second one, ownership of your own body entails every right about it. You get to refuse medical treatment, you get the right to dispose of it as you see fit, you get the right to abuse it by eating unhealthy food, smoking, drinking, or you can even destroy your body with auto mutilation, or heck, try to commit suicide. None of that is a crime. Because the body is yours, and you can do whatever you want with it.

Are you saying you support my right to be able to take your kidney if I need it to survive, without you having a word to say about it?

If you do, then you're obviously crazy. I'm sorry, I don't know any other way to put it.

have you ever heard of a moral theory called utilitarianism?

No, I don't think I'll find many people that think their own body is not theirs. Slavery is by and large reviled as one of the worst breach of human rights, and has been so for the past... what, few hundred years?

slavery is tangential to the subject.

As for the second one, ownership of your own body entails every right about it. You get to refuse medical treatment, you get the right to dispose of it as you see fit, you get the right to abuse it by eating unhealthy food, smoking, drinking, or you can even destroy your body with auto mutilation, or heck, try to commit suicide. None of that is a crime. Because the body is yours, and you can do whatever you want with it.

do you get to put any substance in your body?

*snip*

If I chose to be selfish and save myself the trouble of the extensive and potentially risky procedure of donating bone marrow, it's a very sad thing. But it's my choice and the person who needed my marrow cannot take it against my will. He is not entitled to it. And my refusIal does not constitute murder, either. Unwillingness to let others dispose of your body parts for their own benefit is not morally wrong. While self-sacrifice is very noble, refusal of self-sacrifice is not illegal.

I'm an utilitarian, I think you are morally obligated to donate the marrow. I don't think it should be illegal to do so though, since I think overall happiness would drastically be reduced if you had to fear for your kidneys being taken by the government which is only outweighed by a small increase in happiness by the lives saved. There are also other and better ways to obtain organs.

Abortion is a nasty business, yes. But for the women who go through with it do not do so on a whim. Legalising abortion is most deffinatley the lesser of two evils.

Much of the U.S. law is based on the 10 Commandments too but I suspect you'd find that as irrelevant as I find English common law to be in this case.

Really? You have laws that forbid people working on Sundays and forcing them to attend mass? You have laws forcing people to only worship one god? You have laws punishing swearing? You have laws punishing swingers?

Wow... there's so much I never knew about the US...

Really? You have laws that forbid people working on Sundays and forcing them to attend mass? You have laws forcing people to only worship one god? You have laws punishing swearing? You have laws punishing swingers?

Wow... there's so much I never knew about the US...
By "much" of our law, he meant "our laws uphold only three out of the ten Commandments, all three of which are such common moral rules that you'd be hard-pressed to find any civilization which did not include them in some way."

Remember, kids, in Christian History Class a 30% is an A+!

Hard to say, I think arguments against abortion tend to be poorly thought out. There is a fairly good one however. We recognize that killing people is wrong, so we create a prohibition against killing people. Ergo those who have the quality of "personhood" are protected by this prohibition.

However, whatever the qualities of "personhood" are it must be shared by competant adults, retarded people, those with severe brain damage, and newborns, all of which we ascribe the protections of "personhood". So whatever qualifies as a person, it must be qualities that all these groups share.

Now we recognize that a newborn is a person, but if we rewind a second, to the instant before the newborn was born, was there any difference between the two? any qualities that the newborn has that the just-about-to-be-born does not (short of actually being born)? Not really. So whatever the bundle of characteristics the newborn has that qualifies it as a person, the not quite born yet also has (unless again, we define personhood by, at least in part, not being in a womb, which appears somewhat to be arbitrary).

So if we accept the characteristics of a newborn, which we grant the protections of personhood, are functionally identical to a almost born, we should be bound to accept this almost born as a person as well.

So let's rewind that almost born entity another second. Still, effectivly the same. Another second. Another. Another.

The development of a fetus in the womb is gradual and slow, and becomes virtually impossible to distinguish it from one second to the next. Thus if a just about to be born entity is a perosn, and that entity is functionally identical to what it was a second ago, and a second before that, and a second before that, we can not pinpoint at any time where it suddenly and miraculously acquires all the characteristics we assign to it as "personhood". And since we can't pinpoint exactly when it becomes a "person", any attempt to arbitrarily set a point in time means we can't be certain that point in time is not resulting in the death of persons.
We set arbitrary legal limits all the time. Is a child magically transformed into an adult the instant they have lived precisely 18 years since the moment of their birth? Of course not. Yet we still have specific and arbitrary ages at which various rights kick in.

If it's good enough for born humans, why shouldn't it be good enough for fetuses?

Abortion should be banned as a form of birth control. It should not be eliminated as a form of reproductive health, ie the prevention of harm upon a mother, cases fo rape, incest, sexual assault.
Abortion IS birth control. Terminating a pregnancy is one way of controlling whether or not you give birth.

If you mean that abortion shouldn't be used as a form of contraception, then don't worry...it can't be. Abortion cannot, by definition, be used as contraception, since one aborts a pregnancy. By definition, the pregnancy must already exist if it is to be aborted.

Of course, you didn't mean any of that, did you? You meant, "elective abortion should be banned." You mean that women who choose to have sex should not be free to choose whether or not their body makes a baby.

Learn your terms. There are already quite enough uninformed bozos making stupid and ignorant misstatements regarding abortion. We don't need another.

clumps of cells are not people if that where the case I would be arrested for shaving (instead of just getting a nasty Razor burn in a painful area:()

also how does one march for life? (I presume this is the opposite of a death march)

The rights of the mother are important, what about the baby's?

Just a clump of cells? When do they receive consciousness then? That little theory has been laughed out of so many threads...

Thing is, you don't know that, and you can't say it's "okay" up to a certain time, because the point they receive consciousness is very subjective at best, and I believe at conception. Of course, it would be impossible for you to believe that, because then the 49 million a year being murdered wouldn't be a choice.

Also, I'm pro choice.

We're slurred as anti-abortion, so why not call yourselves antilife, or, to be fair, pro-death.

Abortion IS birth control. Terminating a pregnancy is one way of controlling whether or not you give birth.

If you mean that abortion shouldn't be used as a form of contraception, then don't worry...it can't be. Abortion cannot, by definition, be used as contraception, since one aborts a pregnancy. By definition, the pregnancy must already exist if it is to be aborted.

Of course, you didn't mean any of that, did you? You meant, "elective abortion should be banned." You mean that women who choose to have sex should not be free to choose whether or not their body makes a baby.

Learn your terms. There are already quite enough uninformed bozos making stupid and ignorant misstatements regarding abortion. We don't need another.

No, abortion is murder after you already screwed up, or in the less than 1% of all abortion cases, was raped, ect.

Uh. How about don't get pregnant in the first place so you don't have to murder a baby? This seems rather obvious. What about the baby's right to life?

We're slurred as anti-abortion, so why not call yourselves antilife, or, to be fair, pro-death.

Because I love the faces of pro-lifers when I tell them I am anti-abortion, but pro-choice.

The rights of the mother are important, what about the baby's?

What about them? I think the "baby" should have the same rights as any born human would have. Which means that abortion should be 100% legal at any time and for any reason.


Just a clump of cells? When do they receive consciousness then? That little theory has been laughed out of so many threads...

Probably because it's physically impossible for a blastocyst to possess consciousness.


Thing is, you don't know that, and you can't say it's "okay" up to a certain time, because the point they receive consciousness is very subjective at best, and I believe at conception.

No, actually, that's not "subjective." It is a fact that a fertilized egg does not possess consciousness. We know that with as much certainty as we know that the world is round.

The fact that you choose to ignore reality doesn't make it go away. If you don't believe me, try sailing off the edge of the world.

Now, you may be trying to claim that a fertilized egg has a "soul" or something equally vague, and that's fine and all, but you're going to have to then explain to all identical twins that they actually only have one soul between the two of them.


Of course, it would be impossible for you to believe that, because then the 49 million a year being murdered wouldn't be a choice.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human person. Fertilized eggs are not human persons, nor is killing them unlawful in my country.

If you care about this topic then you might want to at least familiarize yourself with the basic terms.


We're slurred as anti-abortion,

Aren't you?

It seems to me that you should be proud to be called "anti-abortion." It sounds like you are.

I strongly and vehemently oppose racism, and I'm proud to be called "anti-racist." Why are you ashamed to be called "anti-abortion," when you obviously are?


so why not call yourselves antilife, or, to be fair, pro-death.
This has already been answered many times over in this thread alone. If you care so much about this topic, why can't you be bothered to read a few words on a page? If this subject is so serious, why not treat it with the seriousness that it deserves?

No, abortion is murder after you already screwed up, or in the less than 1% of all abortion cases, was raped, ect.

What does that have to do with what I said?

Abortion is birth control, by definition of the term, and it is not contraception, by definition of the term.

Whether or not the individual also attempted to use some other form of contraception or birth control doesn't really impact this particular element.


Uh. How about don't get pregnant in the first place so you don't have to murder a baby?

That's pretty much the goal of the pro-choice movement: to ensure that all women are able to control when and how they get pregnant, and are able to have healthy and successful pregnancies when they want them. Ideally, every baby would be wanted!


This seems rather obvious. What about the baby's right to life?
What about it?

I believe the "baby" has the same right to life as any born human person. No born human person has the right to prolong their life by taking any part of my body against my wishes. No born human person has any "right to life" which entitles them to live inside my body, use my organs to support theirs, or even take a few pints of my blood if I don't allow it.

To use the same argument Neo Art put forth a little while ago:

A born human infant does not have the right to use my body to prolong its life against my wishes. If we go back in time to an instant before that infant is born, why should it suddenly acquire that right? If it possesses that right an instant before it is born, why should it suddenly lose a "right to life" the instant it is born?

Hard to say, I think arguments against abortion tend to be poorly thought out. There is a fairly good one however. We recognize that killing people is wrong, so we create a prohibition against killing people. Ergo those who have the quality of "personhood" are protected by this prohibition.

However, whatever the qualities of "personhood" are it must be shared by competant adults, retarded people, those with severe brain damage, and newborns, all of which we ascribe the protections of "personhood". So whatever qualifies as a person, it must be qualities that all these groups share.

Now we recognize that a newborn is a person, but if we rewind a second, to the instant before the newborn was born, was there any difference between the two? any qualities that the newborn has that the just-about-to-be-born does not (short of actually being born)? Not really. So whatever the bundle of characteristics the newborn has that qualifies it as a person, the not quite born yet also has (unless again, we define personhood by, at least in part, not being in a womb, which appears somewhat to be arbitrary).

So if we accept the characteristics of a newborn, which we grant the protections of personhood, are functionally identical to a almost born, we should be bound to accept this almost born as a person as well.

So let's rewind that almost born entity another second. Still, effectivly the same. Another second. Another. Another.

The development of a fetus in the womb is gradual and slow, and becomes virtually impossible to distinguish it from one second to the next. Thus if a just about to be born entity is a perosn, and that entity is functionally identical to what it was a second ago, and a second before that, and a second before that, we can not pinpoint at any time where it suddenly and miraculously acquires all the characteristics we assign to it as "personhood". And since we can't pinpoint exactly when it becomes a "person", any attempt to arbitrarily set a point in time means we can't be certain that point in time is not resulting in the death of persons.

Or we could realize that babies and brain dead aren't persons. Killing a baby could then be equally bad as aborting a fetus against the mothers will.
We also don't give brain dead people full protection, sometimes the machines needed to keep them alive are shut down or the tube to feed them is removed. We then continue to fool ourselves that they were already dead, even though they could still breath. I think it would be better to realize that when you shut the machines down or you remove the tube you are killing a human being, but not a person. The same could be said about abortion, you kill a human being but not a person.

Or we could realize that babies and brain dead aren't persons. Killing a baby could then be equally bad as aborting a fetus against the mothers will.
We also don't give brain dead people full protection, sometimes the machines needed to keep them alive are shut down or the tube to feed them is removed. We then continue to fool ourselves that they were already dead, even though they could still breath. I think it would be better to realize that when you shut the machines down or you remove the tube you are killing a human being, but not a person. The same could be said about abortion, you kill a human being but not a person.

You're a sociopath.

You're a sociopath.
You're a panda bear.

I like this game!

no, not really. I just define 'person' in an other way than you do.
I think you're missing the crucial logic behind his accusation.

See, it's self-evident that fertilized eggs are conscious, lawful killing of non-human persons is murder, and it's a horrible smear to call somebody anti-abortion if they oppose abortion. You'd have to be crazy to disagree with any of these.

You, Isi, appear to disagree with at least one of them. Hence, you're crazy. "Sociopath" is a kind of crazy, isn't it? Well, then you're a sociopath. QED.

You're a sociopath.

no, not really. I just define 'person' in an other way than you do.

no justification whatsoever? really? there is no argument to be made in favor of forcing you to save people?
I agree with Skaladora completely, and no, there is no justification whatsoever for forcing someone to save someone else.

Unless you start from the position of inequality, meaning that unless your starting position is that some people are superior to others and therefore those others have to serve the superior ones. That is the foundation of all systems of slavery, based on many different arbitrary criteria for determining who falls into which category. But only if you have such categories can you justify picking one person and declaring, "You must serve this other person/make this sacrifice/perform this action, and you do not have any choice about it."

But if you start from the position that all people are created equal, like we do here in the US, then you cannot justify forcing one person to submit to the will of another against their will. You can't even justify it by saying you will make it up to them with some kind of fair compensation, because for that to happen, you would have to have an agreement in place with the person beforehand, and that alone would render it an agreement and not force. If you force someone to do something, and then hand them some money or whatever, you are still violating their rights, because they never agreed to do the thing, for any amount of money.

So force is never, never justified, no matter what the cost of not using that force.

have you ever heard of a moral theory called utilitarianism?
There are several versions of utilitarianism, ranging from a simple pragmatic approach to dilemmas all the way to some of the most abusive extremes of totalitarian thinking. Who cares about it? Theory is not reality, nor is it law, and reality and law and their effects on human life, are what we are discussing.


slavery is tangential to the subject.
I would suggest that slavery is only "tangential" if you consider it a viable option.

If you consider it anathema, then it is at the core of what is wrong with anti-choice arguments.



do you get to put any substance in your body?
There are legitimate arguments as to whether drug laws are just. Let us accept that controversy for now and say that the existence of unjust laws restricting one's right to control one's own body does not support an argument that humans do not have an inherent right to control their own bodies. It only suggests that those laws should be repealed or rewritten.

I'm an utilitarian, I think you are morally obligated to donate the marrow. I don't think it should be illegal to do so though, since I think overall happiness would drastically be reduced if you had to fear for your kidneys being taken by the government which is only outweighed by a small increase in happiness by the lives saved. There are also other and better ways to obtain organs.
Then you agree with Skaladora's argument, which is that moral obligation is trumped by legal obligation. If there is no legal obligation to do something, then moral obligation and your utilitarianism be damned, I don't have to do it if I don't want to, and you can't make me. It's that simple, and if it applies to my kidneys, there is no argument why it should not equally apply to my uterus.

Since you observe that it would be bad for society to violate that principle, then you obviously are in agreement.

The rights of the mother are important, what about the baby's?

Just a clump of cells? When do they receive consciousness then? That little theory has been laughed out of so many threads...
Because it's silly. It asks us to make objective rules (laws) based on a completely and absolutely unmeasurable factor -- the "consciousness" (a term so vague as to be nearly meaningless) of a being that cannot even display that it is conscious (i.e. awake, aware, responsive), let alone that it is possessed of consciousness.

You start with an unprovable personal belief and expect everyone in the world to fall into line with it and all women to submit themselves to its authority.

Like I said -- silly.

<snip>

No, abortion is murder after you already screwed up, or in the less than 1% of all abortion cases, was raped, ect.

Uh. How about don't get pregnant in the first place so you don't have to murder a baby? This seems rather obvious. What about the baby's right to life?
So let's review. According to you:

1) Pregnancy is the result of women screwing up. If they would just stay virgins, they wouldn't have this horrible punishment for a mistake forced upon them.

2) Let's just make up some arbitrary, miniscule percentage for rape to justify brushing that off as if it doesn't matter, and let's also ignore the percentages of elective abortions that are done because of contraception failure, as well as actually wanted pregnancies that are aborted due to medical emergencies, such as death of the fetus before birth, ectopic pregnancy, severe injury to the mother, or detection of previously undetected serious health condition that makes pregnancy dangerous to the mother's life/health.

3) And since pregnancy is apparently a punishment for making the mistake of having sex, then clearly no woman should be allowed to fix that mistake, since where is the punishment aspect then? I mean, if you don't force women to have babies, how will they ever learn not to be the kind of sluts you don't approve of?

4) As for your "baby's right to life," please see my, Neo Art's, Bottle's and Skaladora's remarks for why that does not matter in the real world.

There are legitimate arguments as to whether drug laws are just. Let us accept that controversy for now and say that the existence of unjust laws restricting one's right to control one's own body does not support an argument that humans do not have an inherent right to control their own bodies. It only suggests that those laws should be repealed or rewritten.
Glad you caught this one.

Pointing out that one set of unjust laws exists doesn't exactly convince me that it's a good idea for us to pass more unjust laws.

So let's review. According to you:

1) Pregnancy is the result of women screwing up. If they would just stay virgins, they wouldn't have this horrible punishment for a mistake forced upon them.

Isn't it funny how women get pregnant all by themselves, yet are not supposed to make choices about their pregnancy all by themselves?


2) Let's just make up some arbitrary, miniscule percentage for rape to justify brushing that off as if it doesn't matter, and let's also ignore the percentages of elective abortions that are done because of contraception failure, as well as actually wanted pregnancies that are aborted due to medical emergencies, such as death of the fetus before birth, ectopic pregnancy, severe injury to the mother, or detection of previously undetected serious health condition that makes pregnancy dangerous to the mother's life/health.

Do lets. If we pay attention to all the real-world circumstances surrounding abortion, we might be forced to admit that women are rational moral beings who make the best choices they can even in lousy situations. And then we might be forced to get down off our high horse and deal with reality.


3) And since pregnancy is apparently a punishment for making the mistake of having sex, then clearly no woman should be allowed to fix that mistake, since where is the punishment aspect then? I mean, if you don't force women to have babies, how will they ever learn not to be the kind of sluts you don't approve of?

No no no, it's not about punishment! It's about consequences. See, sluts who choose to fuck deserve to have the consequence of being forced to continue a pregnancy they don't want and give birth against their wishes. This is because their fetuses have a Right To Life(tm), and not because we want to punish the sluts for sluttery or anything.

Meanwhile, women who have been decently raped can kill their babies because they don't need to face any consequences, and because their fetuses don't have any Right To Life(tm).


4) As for your "baby's right to life," please see my, Neo Art's, Bottle's and Skaladora's remarks for why that does not matter in the real world.
The posters you have listed are clearly sociopaths.

There are legitimate arguments as to whether drug laws are just. Let us accept that controversy for now and say that the existence of unjust laws restricting one's right to control one's own body does not support an argument that humans do not have an inherent right to control their own bodies. It only suggests that those laws should be repealed or rewritten.

Glad you caught this one.

Pointing out that one set of unjust laws exists doesn't exactly convince me that it's a good idea for us to pass more unjust laws.

I don't know about where you live, but here in Canada it's drug possession that's illegal. You cannot be arrested and charged with a drug-related charge simply for being intoxicated. It's owning a prohibited substances or comitting crimes while under the influence that can get you in trouble.

There is no such thing as a "being stoned on heroin" crime. Only having heroin in your possession. So drug laws are not a legal precedent over what you can or cannot do with your body; only a matter of what you can or cannot own.

I don't know about where you live, but here in Canada it's drug possession that's illegal. You cannot be arrested and charged with a drug-related charge simply for being intoxicated. It's owning a prohibited substances or comitting crimes while under the influence that can get you in trouble.

There is no such thing as a "being stoned on heroin" crime. Only having heroin in your possession. So drug laws are not a legal precedent over what you can or cannot do with your body; only a matter of what you can or cannot own.
Hmm. A very interesting and important distinction. Hadn't thought about it from that angle.

In terms of abortion bans, that's kind of the angle they like to run with, though. "Pro-life" activists always call for doctors to be put in prison, but they usually get very quiet when you demand to know how much time the woman should do. Never mind that a woman who hires a hitman to murder her child doesn't get off the hook simply because she didn't pull the trigger...

So from the abortion ban perspective, it's actually not illegal to have received an abortion, since none of the mainstream "pro-life" organizations advocate putting a woman in prison if it is discovered that she had an abortion. It's about making it illegal to perform an abortion or try to procure one. In this context, that would be compared to being a drug dealer, or being busted while trying to purchase drugs.

I still think it's crap that it's illegal to possess recreational drugs, so my general point stands: the existence of one crappy law does not make for a strong argument in favor of additional crappy laws.

Hmm. A very interesting and important distinction. Hadn't thought about it from that angle.

In terms of abortion bans, that's kind of the angle they like to run with, though. "Pro-life" activists always call for doctors to be put in prison, but they usually get very quiet when you demand to know how much time the woman should do. Never mind that a woman who hires a hitman to murder her child doesn't get off the hook simply because she didn't pull the trigger...

So from the abortion ban perspective, it's actually not illegal to have received an abortion, since none of the mainstream "pro-life" organizations advocate putting a woman in prison if it is discovered that she had an abortion. It's about making it illegal to perform an abortion or try to procure one. This would be compared to being a drug dealer, or being busted while trying to purchase drugs.

I still think it's crap that it's illegal to possess recreational drugs, so my general point stands: the existence of one crappy law does not make for a strong argument in favor of additional crappy laws.
Either way, no law in existence presumes to tell a person what s/he can or cannot do with his/her body, and that's the important point.

A woman's body is hers and hers alone, and she alone choses what happens to the various organs and fluids therein. Including her uterus.

Isn't it funny how women get pregnant all by themselves, yet are not supposed to make choices about their pregnancy all by themselves?


Do lets. If we pay attention to all the real-world circumstances surrounding abortion, we might be forced to admit that women are rational moral beings who make the best choices they can even in lousy situations. And then we might be forced to get down off our high horse and deal with reality.


No no no, it's not about punishment! It's about consequences. See, sluts who choose to fuck deserve to have the consequence of being forced to continue a pregnancy they don't want and give birth against their wishes. This is because their fetuses have a Right To Life(tm), and not because we want to punish the sluts for sluttery or anything.

Meanwhile, women who have been decently raped can kill their babies because they don't need to face any consequences, and because their fetuses don't have any Right To Life(tm).
So true, so true. *spends some time thinking about the anti-choice position and is driven to take up heavy drinking to try and make the spinning stop*


The posters you have listed are clearly sociopaths.
It's a top-notch club. All the best people are members. ;)

<snip>
... so my general point stands: the existence of one crappy law does not make for a strong argument in favor of additional crappy laws.

Either way, no law in existence presumes to tell a person what s/he can or cannot do with his/her body, and that's the important point.

A woman's body is hers and hers alone, and she alone choses what happens to the various organs and fluids therein. Including her uterus.

These pretty much sum up the bottom line on both issues.

It's a top-notch club. All the best people are members. ;)

Cheers.

Either way, no law in existence presumes to tell a person what s/he can or cannot do with his/her body, and that's the important point.

The thing is, the anti-choice crowd have caught on to the fact that they aren't going to win if they actually stick with logically-consistent arguments.

See, if abortion really is murder, then every woman who's had an abortion is a murderer. That'd be one in every three American women. There's no statute of limitations on murder, so that means we should be locking up roughly one sixth of our population.

It turns out that most people don't think this is a very good idea.

So instead of being logically consistent with their "abortion is murder" arguments, the anti-choicers decide to argue that women are just too stupid to know any better, and therefore only the evil doctors who perform abortions should be put in prison. It turns out that a whole lot of people are quite comfortable with the argument that women are too stupid to know any better, so this tactic works decently well.

There are several versions of utilitarianism, ranging from a simple pragmatic approach to dilemmas all the way to some of the most abusive extremes of totalitarian thinking. Who cares about it? Theory is not reality, nor is it law, and reality and law and their effects on human life, are what we are discussing.

not in the bit of conversation you are responding to. that bit had to do with ska's claim that there was no justification at all for forcing people to help/donate blood/etc, and moreover, that it would be insane to say otherwise. i pointed out the existence of one of the most common moral theories which in fact does say that in principle there is such a justification.

I would suggest that slavery is only "tangential" if you consider it a viable option.

If you consider it anathema, then it is at the core of what is wrong with anti-choice arguments.

it is tangential to arguments about the claim that you own your body. it does not follow from the denial of the claim 'i own my body' that somebody else does.

There are legitimate arguments as to whether drug laws are just. Let us accept that controversy for now and say that the existence of unjust laws restricting one's right to control one's own body does not support an argument that humans do not have an inherent right to control their own bodies. It only suggests that those laws should be repealed or rewritten.

sure enough. however, it does tend to destroy ska's claim that:
Everyone owns their own body. It's simple. It's the most basic, sacred, and universally recognized human right.
and
As for the second one, ownership of your own body entails every right about it. You get to refuse medical treatment, you get the right to dispose of it as you see fit, you get the right to abuse it by eating unhealthy food, smoking, drinking, or you can even destroy your body with auto mutilation, or heck, try to commit suicide. None of that is a crime. Because the body is yours, and you can do whatever you want with it.

which was sorta the point

Either way, no law in existence presumes to tell a person what s/he can or cannot do with his/her body

that is just laughably false.

not in the bit of conversation you are responding to. that bit had to do with ska's claim that there was no justification at all for forcing people to help/donate blood/etc, and moreover, that it would be insane to say otherwise. i pointed out the existence of one of the most common moral theories which in fact does say that in principle there is such a justification.
You can only post this statement if you completely miss the point that I was dismissing your argument that untilitarianism offers such a justification by saying that it does not because it is not applicable.


it is tangential to arguments about the claim that you own your body. it does not follow from the denial of the claim 'i own my body' that somebody else does.
Another comment that is completely beside the point and thus inapplicable. The argument you were responding to is a legal one, not a philosophical one. The law says slavery is illegal because people own their selves and their bodies -- not in some theoretical concept of ownership/non-ownership, but in a very literal sense, treating our bodies as our property/goods.

Also, you undermine your own argument even as you make it. You have stated that there is a justification for forcing someone to let someone else use their body. You further claim that there is a justification for saying that people do not own their bodies. I say both of these assertions are false, but whatever, let's run with them for now. Do you mean for these two concepts to be connected? In other words, do you mean for the notion that a person does not own their body to suppor the assertion that other people have a right to use that body? (I have to ask because it is not at all clear whether you are actually trying to build an argument of your own or just gainsaying whatever the other person says.)

If so, then you have guaranteed slavery and have utterly destroyed your own argument that slavery is tangential.

Here's how you managed it:

1) Even if nobody legally owns a human body, if I have my freedom curtailed by someone else's use of my body, I am affected exactly the same way as if they "owned" me. So use of my body both answers the question of ownership and renders it moot at the same time. What matters is, am I controlling my own life, or having my life subjected to someone else's control? Since we both cannot have control over my body at the same time, and I have nowhere else to live but in my body, clearly the other person is controlling me, regardless of whether there is any ownership involved.

2) If I am being forced against my will to submit my body to be used by someone else, then I am, in all practical senses of the word, enslaved to that person for the duration of the use.

3) Your unrealistic notions would make everyone a slave to everyone else, but it would not make the condition not be slavery. On the contrary, it would force everyone to live under a constant state of slavery, subject to the whims and demands of others without escape or recourse.

So you have not made slavery tangential. You have made it universal.



sure enough. however, it does tend to destroy ska's claim that:

and


which was sorta the point
You mean the point you lost? Because Skaladora was able to show that the limitation you posited does not actually exist and because, as I said and you agreed, above, the existence of injustice does not suddenly turn injustice to justice. So you are saying "sure enough" to statements which invalidate your argument. Thanks for the concession.

that is just laughably false.
Why do you refuse to acknowledge and respond to the argument that unjust laws do not validate injustice?

The law recognizes a right of self-determination and freedom of choice in what one does with one's body. This is a universal human right under the laws of most nations.

Such nations may also have various laws that restrict that right, like laws against selling one's organs, for instance. But if we are going to stick to the universal human right of all people to dispose of themselves as they see fit, then those restrictive laws must be seen as unjust. If they are unjust, then how can they be used to prove the justice of their own position?

"Two wrongs don't make a right," FS. If laws exist that contradict the right of self determination, those laws must be changed. They cannot be used to justify further violations of that fundamental right.

You can only use them as justification if you start from the position that people do not have a right to self determination. But obviously Skaladora and I do not start from that position, but the opposite one, so your citing of the existence of laws that we might see as unjust (if we were to examine them in detail) is going to get you nowhere.

To start out, i will say that I am against abortion the vast majority of the time, even in cases of rape or incest. If you disagree with me I have two names that you need to look up: Mahalia Jackson-mother was raped at 12 by a white man who was never charged, had the baby anyway, she grew up to be a world-famous singer and civil rights crusader. Ethel Waters-go look her up yourself.

That said, I believe that there are cases where abortion should be made available, particularly in a case where the life of the mother was at risk. However, I do not believe that the mother should be forced to choose abortion or told that it is the only option, if she wants to go ahead and have the baby, even at the cost of her own life, that is her decision.

Also, I believe that life begins at conception, not implantation or "viability," or even at birth. A newborn infant cannot reason for itself, feed itself or protect itself, it is in the same position it was in nine months earlier, it's just bigger and cuter now. A second point that my sister has made is that from conception, the baby has its own genetic code, completely seperate from its mother and father. legally, DNA is used to determine many things, including identity, shouldn't that extend to all humans who have their own genetic code, not just the ones who have been born?

And a final question, after all that has been said in the past thirty-four years about a "woman's right to control her own body." I have a question, where are the rights of the child in this? Does the child get a say? Who speaks for them? You decide.

To start out, i will say that I am against abortion the vast majority of the time, even in cases of rape or incest. If you disagree with me I have two names that you need to look up: Mahalia Jackson-mother was raped at 12 by a white man who was never charged, had the baby anyway, she grew up to be a world-famous singer and civil rights crusader. Ethel Waters-go look her up yourself.

That said, I believe that there are cases where abortion should be made available, particularly in a case where the life of the mother was at risk. However, I do not believe that the mother should be forced to choose abortion or told that it is the only option, if she wants to go ahead and have the baby, even at the cost of her own life, that is her decision.

Also, I believe that life begins at conception, not implantation or "viability," or even at birth. A newborn infant cannot reason for itself, feed itself or protect itself, it is in the same position it was in nine months earlier, it's just bigger and cuter now. A second point that my sister has made is that from conception, the baby has its own genetic code, completely seperate from its mother and father. legally, DNA is used to determine many things, including identity, shouldn't that extend to all humans who have their own genetic code, not just the ones who have been born?

And a final question, after all that has been said in the past thirty-four years about a "woman's right to control her own body." I have a question, where are the rights of the child in this? Does the child get a say? Who speaks for them? You decide.
I have a question: Is it impossible for people to read a thread before posting in it? I mean technically, by some fault of Jolt's?

Every single one of your points has already been addressed. Why don't you read what has already been written and respond to those arguments, rather than making us type all those same words over again just for you?

To start out, i will say that I am against abortion the vast majority of the time, even in cases of rape or incest. If you disagree with me I have two names that you need to look up: Mahalia Jackson-mother was raped at 12 by a white man who was never charged, had the baby anyway, she grew up to be a world-famous singer and civil rights crusader. Ethel Waters-go look her up yourself.

My friend Dan wouldn't exist if his mother hadn't had an abortion.

If you'd like to meet him and explain to him why you think he shouldn't have been born, feel free. He's a fun guy.


That said, I believe that there are cases where abortion should be made available, particularly in a case where the life of the mother was at risk.

Why?

What if that fetus would have grown up to be a famous singer?


However, I do not believe that the mother should be forced to choose abortion or told that it is the only option, if she wants to go ahead and have the baby, even at the cost of her own life, that is her decision.

So it's the mother's choice if she wants to choose to die in childbirth, but it's not her choice if she doesn't want to?


Also, I believe that life begins at conception, not implantation or "viability," or even at birth. A newborn infant cannot reason for itself, feed itself or protect itself, it is in the same position it was in nine months earlier, it's just bigger and cuter now.

As an embryologist, I find this hilarious.

No, a born infant is not just a fertilized egg that's gotten larger. If you really care about this issue, and if you actually are serious about making the right decisions on this topic, then please educate yourself about developmental biology FIRST. If you actually believe that embryos are human persons, at least have the courtesy to learn what they are. If you care so much about their welfare, learn about their nature and their needs.

Choosing not to do so only underscores the fact that you don't actually take this topic seriously at all.


A second point that my sister has made is that from conception, the baby has its own genetic code, completely seperate from its mother and father. legally, DNA is used to determine many things, including identity, shouldn't that extend to all humans who have their own genetic code, not just the ones who have been born?

So, by your logic, identical twins are only one person. After all, at fertilization they were one fertilized egg. At implantation they were one.

Meanwhile, your mitochondria are independent human persons living inside your cells, as they have completely distinct DNA that is separate from your nuclear DNA.

I presume you are prepared to spend your life in prison for the murder of millions upon millions of these people. You shed cells which contain these individual persons every day, and have done so for your entire life.


And a final question, after all that has been said in the past thirty-four years about a "woman's right to control her own body." I have a question, where are the rights of the child in this? Does the child get a say? Who speaks for them? You decide.
I have a question:

Where are the brains of the anti-choicers? Where is their ability to read before they respond? Do they have the ability to read everything that has been said and actually process it? Why do they speak without having bothered to do so? Why do they claim to care so much about this subject, when they cannot be bothered to even read some text? Would a person who genuinely cares about this subject behave in this manner?

You decide.

that is just laughably false.

I challenge you to name a single law that tells you what you cannot do with your own body. Can you be charged for neglecting your health? Can you go to prison for cutting yourself up? Can you be sentenced to death for attempted suicide? Can someone use the law to coerce a blood or organ donation out of you? Do you have legal obligations concerning your body, its functions, or its various parts? Is piercing, tattooing, or any other kind of bodily modification a punishable offense?

No, none of those things are illegal, because you own your body and can dispose of it as you see fit.

You little moral arguments are all well and good, but they're only that; moral arguments, who may or may not have value depending on the set of ethics and code of conducts of the person you have in front of you. If someone who's adept of moral utilitarianism wants to feel obligated about giving his blood or organs to save others because it's consistent with his beliefs, then it's all fine and dandy. But you're not about to make a law out of it, because anyone who tries to tell me what I have to do with my own organs is going to find out very fast that I don't take kindly to it.

In much the same manner, one can appeal to a woman's conscience to try and convince her to bear a fetus to term. But if she says no, you are not justified in trying to legally bind her to do so, because it's her body and she owns it. The fetus isn't entitled to her uterus any more than I am entitled to your pancreas, even if I should need it to survive. You can choose to donate it to me in a gesture of goodwill or utilitarianism, but I cannot take it away from you against your will.

It's that simple, and if you don't understand that, then you don't understand the first thing about human rights.

I challenge you to name a single law that tells you what you cannot do with your own body.


The sale of live solid organs is illegal in the vast majority of countries

The sale of live solid organs is illegal in the vast majority of countries

But once again that is about sale. It does not say "you can't have your organs removed" it says "you can't sell them once they're out".

Much like, as pointed out, drug laws make it criminal to posesses or sell drugs, but it's not illegal to be under the effect of drugs.

But once again that is about sale. It does not say "you can't have your organs removed" it says "you can't sell them once they're out".

Much like, as pointed out, drug laws make it criminal to posesses or sell drugs, but it's not illegal to be under the effect of drugs.

Ah apologies in that case. I hadn't read the full 23 pages (or any at all) so that correction is well deserved

But once again that is about sale. It does not say "you can't have your organs removed" it says "you can't sell them once they're out".

Much like, as pointed out, drug laws make it criminal to posesses or sell drugs, but it's not illegal to be under the effect of drugs.

Indeed. It is a limitation of commerce rights, not body rights.

You can freely give organs. You can have a doctor cut them out, and hand them out to someone (for example, a family member) if you so choose. You cannot give something you don't own to begin with. Yet you can give organs. Kinda implies they're yours, doesn't it?

Likewise, here in Canada, you can be a sperm donor, but not be paid for donating sperm. So basically you own your chromosomes. You just can't sell them.

Where are the brains of the anti-choicers? Where is their ability to read before they respond? Do they have the ability to read everything that has been said and actually process it? Why do they speak without having bothered to do so? Why do they claim to care so much about this subject, when they cannot be bothered to even read some text? Would a person who genuinely cares about this subject behave in this manner?

You decide.

The worst part of all is that these constant one post wonders show up, post this...pure shit, I mean, really, there's no other way to call it but utter shit, which is not only pure shit, but pure shit that has been repeated ad nausium in the same fucking post that they didn't bother to read, then rather than staying and actually being engaged in the subject, log off never to be heard from again, assured in their self confidence that their brilliant expose sure "showed us"

Any and all laws, in violation of which, cause or can cause a person to be sentenced to community service, jail or prison time. Every one of these sentences carries with it implied and explicit legal and physical forces applied against what one does with one's own body.

Except that's not at all what he asked. He asked what law limits what you can do with your body, not what law has, as consequence for violating it, a limitation placed on your body.

Fundamental difference between the two. One that I'm somewhat surprised you didn't see.

Any and all laws, in violation of which, cause or can cause a person to be sentenced to community service, jail or prison time. Every one of these sentences carries with it implied and explicit legal and physical forces applied against what one does with one's own body.
No. Those deal with actions that persons may or may not legally do. Jail time does not violate your body's bounds, and neither does community service. Those deal punishment upon a person's freedoms, not his or her body.

To be infringing on someone's right to own his own body, the punishment should have to be the kind of corporal punishment that used to take place in days of old, like cutting your hand for theft, branding with red hot iron for traitors, and otherwise mark or hurt the body(like whipping and other mutilations). All of those punishment are now unused and regarded as violations of human rights.

I challenge you to name a single law that tells you what you cannot do with your own body.

Any and all laws, in violation of which, cause or can cause a person to be sentenced to community service, jail or prison time. Every one of these sentences carries with it implied and explicit legal and physical forces applied against what one does with one's own body.

The worst part of all is that these constant one post wonders show up, post this...pure shit, I mean, really, there's no other way to call it but utter shit, which is not only pure shit, but pure shit that has been repeated ad nausium in the same fucking post that they didn't bother to read, then rather than staying and actually being engaged in the subject, log off never to be heard from again, assured in their self confidence that their brilliant expose sure "showed us"
It's pretty pitiful to watch.

Some yahoo waltzes in with the same OBVIOUSLY BUNK statements that all thinking people discarded at least a generation ago. (Examples: "A fertilized egg is just exactly like a born infant, only really small!" or "Women have abortions because they're lazy sluts!")

Said yahoo then professes to care a really really lot about the cute widdle bay-bees, despite the fact that the yahoo's own statements indicate that they wouldn't know a baby if it crawled up and socked them in the jaw.

Said yahoo accuses women/pro-choicers/everybody of being evil murdering psychos who hate children. Their evidence is that women/pro-choicers/everybody insist on clinging to heartless reality instead of embracing the joy and wonder of Sperm Magic.

Yahoo retires to their cave, content in their certainty that they've struck a triumphant blow for womb-persons everywhere.

Allow me to blow your minds, Anti-choice Yahoos:

I have personally prevented more abortions than you. I have personally saved more fetuses than you. I have personally done more to reduce the number of abortions in my country than you. I know more about fertilized eggs, zygotes, embryos, fetuses, and infants than you do.

I'm not physically stronger than you. I wasn't born smarter or faster or better than you. I do not have magical powers. I'm not rich.

The only reason I have done so much more than you, Anti-Choicers, is because I give a shit. I care enough to educate myself. I care enough to listen and learn. I care enough to research what works and what doesn't. I care enough to spend my time, my effort, and my money on helping make this world just a little bit better.

If you give a shit, act like it. You can help every bit as much as I do. Hell, you could help a whole lot more. I don't spend every waking minute on this. It's not even the very top of my priority list. You could do fifty times as much as I do and still have enough time left over to travel the world, read all the great classics, and become an accomplished chef. Or whatever the fuck else you like.

It's pretty pitiful to watch.
Some yahoo waltzes in with the same OBVIOUSLY BUNK statements that all thinking people discarded at least a generation ago. (Examples: "A fertilized egg is just exactly like a born infant, only really small!" or "Women have abortions because they're lazy sluts!")

Which is especially stupid when we consider that even if fetuses were exactly like a born infant, it still wouldn't entitle them to the woman's uterus against her will.

God, how many times will I have to repeat that one till it's drilled in their head?

No. Those deal with actions that persons may or may not legally do.

A person may or may not do... with his body.

Jail time does not violate your body's bounds, and neither does community service. Those deal punishment upon a person's freedoms, not his or her body.

One and the same. No freedom of body, no freedom of person.
Getting strip searched? Violation of body. Can't eat this, can't eat that, can't smoke this or that, can't sleep more than that.... all telling what one can or can't do with one's body.

To be infringing on someone's right to own his own body

Oh, you didn't say it was about "ownership." Although even there, one wonders why if I'm the owner of my body, I can have it violated at the latex-covered hands. I can only suggest that the legal system (not to mention the military) views your body as property once you are convicted (or in some cases merely charged or suspected) of a crime or sign up for military service.

A person may or may not do... with his body.

Nevertheless, actions =/= body



One and the same. No freedom of body, no freedom of person.
Getting strip searched? Violation of body. Can't eat this, can't eat that, can't smoke this or that, can't sleep more than that.... all telling what one can or can't do with one's body.

So you have laws telling you what to eat, smoke, or how to sleep?Where do you live? Because where I live, substances may be illegal to possess, but nothing is illegal to eat. Or smoke. And you can sleep however long the hell you want without being jailed for being lazy. Heck I do it twice a week.


Oh, you didn't say it was about "ownership." Although even there, one wonders why if I'm the owner of my body, I can have it violated at the latex-covered hands. I can only suggest that the legal system (not to mention the military) views your body as property once you are convicted (or in some cases merely charged or suspected) of a crime or sign up for military service.
Bold mine, to emphasis that you haven't read a word of what I've been saying for the last two pages. What I said had everything to do with ownership.

The government can search your bags before you enter a airport. The bags aren't any less yours, nor can they take the bags away unless there's something illegal in them. Same with your body.

As far as your military and legal systems goes, I don't know where you live, but unless they get to cut you up for spare parts once you sign in or get arrested, telling you what to do once you're employed in the army or taken out of society for crimes committed is not the same thing as siphoning your blood and organs away.

If you'd been paying attention at all, you'd have figured out this has fuck all to do with freedom restrictions, but everything to do with the freaking body parts and fluids you own and nobody can take away from you.

this is what i think (2 threads on the same subject....)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13405673&postcount=107


IIRC its commonly thought that a embryo reaches the stage of development whereby it becomes sentient and self-aware in around the 19th or 20th week of pregnancy. as such, i feel that abortion before that time is fine (not the nicest, cuddliest thing in the world, but fine), but after 19 weeks you are depriving a living, sentient being of life.

Nevertheless, actions =/= body

Yeah, OK. Abortion is an action.

So you have laws telling you what to eat, smoke, or how to sleep?

Yes, if I am in prison or the military. Even if not, I certainly have laws telling me what I can and cannot ingest.

Bold mine, to emphasis that you haven't read a word of what I've been saying for the last two pages. What I said had everything to do with ownership.

In that case, ownership =/= "what you can and cannot do with."

The government can search your bags before you enter a airport. The bags aren't any less yours, nor can they take the bags away unless there's something illegal in them. Same with your body.

No, they can take away my body if I'm convicted of a crime. Then my body is effectively their property. Maybe I own it in a technical sense, sorta like how people "own" Microsoft if they buy stocks in it, but have little to no governing authority over it.

As far as your military and legal systems goes, I don't know where you live, but unless they get to cut you up for spare parts once you sign in or get arrested, telling you what to do once you're employed in the army or taken out of society for crimes committed is not the same thing as siphoning your blood and organs away.

True, but "siphoning your blood and organs away" is not required to refute "I can do what I want with my body and no laws say otherwise."

If you'd been paying attention at all, you'd have figured out this has fuck all to do with freedom restrictions, but everything to do with the freaking body parts and fluids you own and nobody can take away from you.

Save your righteous indignation, I'm not the anti-choice debater whose anger you seem to be building up for.

Even if not, I certainly have laws telling me what I can and cannot ingest.


Oh? can you find some?

Yeah, OK. Abortion is an action.

And making abortion illegal is letting a third party feel entitled to a woman's body against her will.


Yes, if I am in prison or the military. Even if not, I certainly have laws telling me what I can and cannot ingest.

Military implies a contract. A contract implies consent. If you don't agree with military's rules, then don't sign up. Prison is another thing entirely, and not too good an example to take if you're a US citizen. Your system frequently abuses human rights; that's no justification for getting another human right abused on the premise that it's already being done elsewhere.


In that case, ownership =/= "what you can and cannot do with."

Yes it does. Nothing you do to your own body is a crime.


No, they can take away my body if I'm convicted of a crime. Then my body is effectively their property. Maybe I own it in a technical sense, sorta like how people "own" Microsoft if they buy stocks in it, but have little to no governing authority over it.

They are not taking away your body, they're taking away your freedom. If you've got stocks in Microsoft, you own it, and nobody can take back or dilapidate your stocks. And if Microsoft does something that you don't agree with, what do you do? That's right. You sell your stock and gets rid of the problem.


True, but "siphoning your blood and organs away" is not required to refute "I can do what I want with my body and no laws say otherwise."

You still haven't named one. You can do whatever you like with your body. If you want to cut, hurt, modify or otherwise do anything to your own body, you're not doing anything illegal.

Automutilation and suicide have state programs dedicated to them; the state tries to prevent it because it's trying to look out after it's population. But you'll never get to jail because you hurt yourself, because it's not a crime.


Save your righteous indignation, I'm not the anti-choice debater whose anger you seem to be building up for.
It's not righteous indignation, it's my patience running thin from having to repeat myself on things I've already said in the last few pages.

Yeah, OK. Abortion is an action.
Abortion is not a proactive action, like smoking pot. It is a remedial action.

Consider: You are not high. You wish to get high. You are prevented from acquiring pot by the law. The law has stopped you from doing something that would cause a condition -- a proactive action that would make you high. The state has prevented you from getting high by preventing an action. It did not step in an make you sober, where you were not previously so. It stopped you from doing something. It did not force you to do something.

By comparison. You are not pregnant. Then you get pregnant, but you don't want to be. You are prevented from aborting the pregnancy by the law. Now you are not suffering the lack of a condition (high-ness). Instead you are suffering the existence of a condition (pregnancy). You are not be prevented from doing something. You are being forced to do something.

Do you see the difference?

<snip>

No, they can take away my body if I'm convicted of a crime. Then my body is effectively their property. Maybe I own it in a technical sense, sorta like how people "own" Microsoft if they buy stocks in it, but have little to no governing authority over it.

<snip>
How do they take away your body? Do they force your mind out of it and keep you in a computer while they go off and do funny stuff to your body? Do they force you to do labor? Do they force you to give blood or donate organs? Do they force you to get pregnant and give birth to babies?

How do they take away your body?...
Do they force you to get pregnant and give birth to babies?
In the USA...yes. :( Female inmates are even more likely to be raped than women in the general population, and many states will not permit them to obtain abortions if they are impregnated while in prison.

In the USA...yes. :( Female inmates are even more likely to be raped than women in the general population, and many states will not permit them to obtain abortions if they are impregnated while in prison.
The USA is hardly a benchmark for respect of human rights.

In the USA...yes. :( Female inmates are even more likely to be raped than women in the general population, and many states will not permit them to obtain abortions if they are impregnated while in prison.
Holy crap...

this is what i think (2 threads on the same subject....)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13405673&postcount=107


IIRC its commonly thought that a embryo reaches the stage of development whereby it becomes sentient and self-aware in around the 19th or 20th week of pregnancy. as such, i feel that abortion before that time is fine (not the nicest, cuddliest thing in the world, but fine), but after 19 weeks you are depriving a living, sentient being of life.

I thought that a child only became self-aware at about 3 yo. If you put a child any younger in front of a mirror for instance, it will think it's another child. A baby has to learn certain things in his environment are itself and certain things aren't, together with many many other things. At least that is what I was thought. Do you have some kind of source on the self-awareness from 19 weeks?

In the USA...yes. :( Female inmates are even more likely to be raped than women in the general population, and many states will not permit them to obtain abortions if they are impregnated while in prison.

Aren't prisoners normally separated by sex?

In the USA...yes. :( Female inmates are even more likely to be raped than women in the general population, and many states will not permit them to obtain abortions if they are impregnated while in prison.
I'm really getting tired of my own country's backward bullshit.

Aren't prisoners normally separated by sex?
Prison guards aren't. It is not required for women's prisons to have only female guards. Rape is a common occurrence.

Aren't prisoners normally separated by sex?

Male wardens, guards, prison workers.

I'm really getting tired of my own country's backward bullshit.

Indeed. Perhaps that'll change in the coming years, but then again I'm not exactly in my right mind right now.

I thought that a child only became self-aware at about 3 yo. If you put a child any younger in front of a mirror for instance, it will think it's another child. A baby has to learn certain things in his environment are itself and certain things aren't, together with many many other things. At least that is what I was thought. Do you have some kind of source on the self-awareness from 19 weeks?
Oh, you know, it's all those theses, movie scripts, and letters to the editor, that 19-week-olds are famous for writing, as well as their radio talk shows and emo music -- so full of self-pity.

Prison guards aren't. It is not required for women's prisons to have only female guards. Rape is a common occurrence.

wow, I wasn't aware of that. :(

Let me tell ya...if I'm knocked up right now, I'll be getting an abortion, with no second thoughts.

wow, I wasn't aware of that. :(

They only need to make sure they have female cops strip searching you etc, BEFORE you're convicted. After that, well hey...you're just a scumbag criminal.

They only need to make sure they have female cops strip searching you etc, BEFORE you're convicted. After that, well hey...you're just a scumbag criminal.

And nothing happens? It can't be to hard to prove you got raped by a guard when you have his child...

And nothing happens? It can't be to hard to prove you got raped by a guard when you have his child...
A) Only a few people care and most of them don't work in the prison system.

B) Yeah something happens. The woman is forced to carry the pregnancy and give birth, and then have the baby taken away from her, all without her consent, or even her ability to give consent, legally, since she is a prisoner without liberty.

But once again that is about sale. It does not say "you can't have your organs removed" it says "you can't sell them once they're out".

Much like, as pointed out, drug laws make it criminal to posesses or sell drugs, but it's not illegal to be under the effect of drugs.

do your organs cease to be 'your body' once they are removed? how does that work? a restriction on sale seems to be entirely a restriction on what you can do with your body, no question.

also, driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol is illegal. this illegality does not require any sort of recklessness or anything. in some states in usia it is in fact illegal to just be drunk at all in public.

and this isn't even going in to other countries. tell me about how, for example, saudi arabi doesn't have laws restricting what you can do with your body.

also, driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol is illegal. this illegality does not require any sort of recklessness or anything.

Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol is reckless.

You can only post this statement if you completely miss the point that I was dismissing your argument that untilitarianism offers such a justification by saying that it does not because it is not applicable.

on any reading of utilitarianism it is possible that we could be required to forcibly take someone's blood or organs or whatever. this is because it is purely a matter of testing either actions directly or rules against the principle of utility. and it is purely an empirical question whether forcing someone to do something (or having a rule that does so) will best pass the test.

as for theory vs law, we're talking shoulds here.

Another comment that is completely beside the point and thus inapplicable. The argument you were responding to is a legal one, not a philosophical one.

try reading it again from the start, you seem to have lost track of the conversation somewhere

The law says slavery is illegal because people own their selves and their bodies

source?
seems to me that in usia, the reason slavery is illegal is merely because it was declared to be so by constitutional amendment. maybe you mean to say that that was the theoretical justification for the change, though again i say, source?

Also, you undermine your own argument even as you make it. You have stated that there is a justification for forcing someone to let someone else use their body.

no, merely that it isn't crazy to do so, and that societies do in fact make such requirements right now.

I have to ask because it is not at all clear whether you are actually trying to build an argument of your own or just gainsaying whatever the other person says.

actually, i'm stopping the use of a bad argument from someone that presumably is more-or-less on my side.

You mean the point you lost? Because Skaladora was able to show that the limitation you posited does not actually exist and because, as I said and you agreed, above, the existence of injustice does not suddenly turn injustice to justice. So you are saying "sure enough" to statements which invalidate your argument. Thanks for the concession.

i think you misunderstand the claim ska made. the claim was not that we should do x, but rather that we do do x. hence his (?) "universally recognized" and "none of that is a crime". whether or not we should, currently we don't. thus any argument that makes use of the premise "we do" is a bad one and should not be used.

A) Only a few people care and most of them don't work in the prison system.

B) Yeah something happens. The woman is forced to carry the pregnancy and give birth, and then have the baby taken away from her, all without her consent, or even her ability to give consent, legally, since she is a prisoner without liberty.

I was more thinking of going to court or something like that, I don't know much about it but it doesn't seem to hard to prove you got raped once you're pregnant.

do your organs cease to be 'your body' once they are removed? how does that work? a restriction on sale seems to be entirely a restriction on what you can do with your body, no question.

Can you legally own a firearm? Yes. The firearm is yours, and you can do whatever you want with it... as long as you don't shoot or threaten people. The government cannot take it away from you unless you commit a crime with it.

But you can't sell it freely.

Same with your body. Use it as you see fit, and as long as you don't commit any crimes with it, nobody can take it or any part away from you. But you still can't sell it freely.

Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol is reckless.

no, it really isn't, because the law uses a blood-alcohol concentration (for example) to define 'under the influence' that empirically may or may not be enough to impair a particular person.

Can you legally own a firearm? Yes. The firearm is yours, and you can do whatever you want with it... as long as you don't shoot or threaten people. The government cannot take it away from you unless you commit a crime with it.

But you can't sell it freely.

Same with your body. Use it as you see fit, and as long as you don't commit any crimes with it, nobody can take it or any part away from you. But you still can't sell it freely.

right, there are laws restricting what you can do with both your gun and your body.

i think you misunderstand the claim ska made. the claim was not that we should do x, but rather that we do do x. hence his (?) "universally recognized" and "none of that is a crime". whether or not we should, currently we don't. thus any argument that makes use of the premise "we do" is a bad one and should not be used.
No. My point is that we both actually own our own bodies under current laws AND that it is legally the right thing to do.

If you want to argue against abortion because you feel like having need of someone else's body part justifies being entitled to it, then I hope to high hell you're a regular blood donor and have signed your organ donation card, because if not you're being hypocritical. But even if that should be the case, you'll find very people to agree with you that strangers have a right to their bodies; you can offer your earthly avatars for the greater good if you so wish, but don't presume to try and enforce it with law.

The way I see it, I own my body and that's as it should be. Women own their bodies, including their uterus, and that's as it should be. If you want to donate your body, go ahead; if a woman wants to take a pregnancy to term despite not wanting to keep the child, and instead put it up for adoption, good for her as well. But it's a personal choice you have to make, and you can't chose to impose it upon people just because you think it's right.

right, there are laws restricting what you can do with both your gun and your body.

*sigh* You're being obtuse on purpose? Name a single law that restricts what you can do with your own body.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge and respond to the argument that unjust laws do not validate injustice?

The law recognizes a right of self-determination and freedom of choice in what one does with one's body. This is a universal human right under the laws of most nations.

Such nations may also have various laws that restrict that right, like laws against selling one's organs, for instance.

reading comprehension, do you has it?

ska clained that there were no such laws in exxistence. here, look:
Either way, no law in existence presumes to tell a person what s/he can or cannot do with his/her body, and that's the important point.

you admit that such laws (probably) exist. thus you agree with me.

you admit that such laws (probably) exist. thus you agree with me.
No, I don't. There is no law that exists to tell you what you can or cannot do with your body. You are either delusional or willingly obtuse if you read my post and concluded otherwise.

You still haven't named a single law that does what you claim.

*sigh* You're being obtuse on purpose? Name a single law that restricts what you can do with your own body.

try drinking alcohol in saudi arabia
try prostituting yourself most places in the us
try selling your organs just about anywhere
try selling yourself into slavery

No, I don't.

the 'you' in question was mura.

try drinking alcohol in saudi arabia
try prostituting yourself most places in the us
try selling your organs just about anywhere
try selling yourself into slavery
We've already covered restrictions about selling and commercialization earlier. You clearly haven't been reading. Restricting sale is not restricting ownership.

And the two countries you name are violators of human rights, as recognized by Amnesty International and every other human rights watch group out there.

Are you going to tell me that because those two countries perform torture, have the death penalty, and otherwise ignore basic human rights... that because they already ignore the most basic recognition in pretty much every charter ever written, every convention ever signed, then adding another violation in the form of outlawing abortion is justified?

Basically, your argument is "Well, we already don't care about human rights and trample them, so human rights cannot be used as an argument to try to prevent further infringement, because clearly we don't give a shit". Is this what you're saying?

Basically, your argument is "Well, we already don't care about human rights and trample them, so human rights cannot be used as an argument to try to prevent further infringement, because clearly we don't give a shit". Is this what you're saying?

of course not. what i am saying is that your claims are crap, and should not be used in arguments for the permissibility of abortion. we have good arguments for that which do not rely on false claims, or claims that could easily be made false, such as the non-existence of laws restricting x.

I was more thinking of going to court or something like that, I don't know much about it but it doesn't seem to hard to prove you got raped once you're pregnant.
That falls under item (1), the one about nobody in authority caring what happens to prisoners. The US prison system is barbaric.

on any reading of utilitarianism it is possible that we could be required to forcibly take someone's blood or organs or whatever. this is because it is purely a matter of testing either actions directly or rules against the principle of utility. and it is purely an empirical question whether forcing someone to do something (or having a rule that does so) will best pass the test.

as for theory vs law, we're talking shoulds here.
No. We're not. You may be, and some anti-choice people might be, be the rest of us are talking about reality.

Also, I dispute your claims about what would be possible under any reading of utilitarianism, and I repeat my stance that it is irrelevant anyway.


try reading it again from the start, you seem to have lost track of the conversation somewhere
No, I haven't. I'm right on top of things, and you are still blowing smoke.


source?
seems to me that in usia, the reason slavery is illegal is merely because it was declared to be so by constitutional amendment. maybe you mean to say that that was the theoretical justification for the change, though again i say, source?
A) Where?

B) You're wrong.

C) That is not what I was saying at all.

D) No, I don't think I'll waste time sifting through legal sources for you because I really don't think it will do any good. You have failed so drastically to follow the points of every post you've responded to so far, what really would be the point of laying actual laws in front of you?


no, merely that it isn't crazy to do so, and that societies do in fact make such requirements right now.
A) You're lying (by mistake, probably). You actually used the word "justification" in describing how utilitarianism would let you do this.

B) To quote you, "source"? No, I'm not seriously asking you to present one, any more than I will present one, but the fact is that your assertion that such laws exist is under dispute, so you just saying it again is not going to carry your point for you.


actually, i'm stopping the use of a bad argument from someone that presumably is more-or-less on my side.
You do not appear to be succeeding at stopping much of anything. You appear only to be derailing the conversation into a circle that is revolving around you, but the argument you think is so bad still stands.


i think you misunderstand the claim ska made. the claim was not that we should do x, but rather that we do do x. hence his (?) "universally recognized" and "none of that is a crime". whether or not we should, currently we don't. thus any argument that makes use of the premise "we do" is a bad one and should not be used.
I disagree. I happen to think his claim was correct, and you are the one who is not understanding it.

reading comprehension, do you has it?

ska clained that there were no such laws in exxistence. here, look:


you admit that such laws (probably) exist. thus you agree with me.
I wouldn't agree with you if you said water was wet, just on principle. But that's neither here nor there. Exercise your comprehension on this:

1) Skaladora makes his arguments.

2) I make mine.

3) They are independent arguments, not related to each other, although they agree on many points.

4) As Neo Art already pointed out, regardless of what I may say about them, those laws actually restrict commerce, not our ownership of our bodies. Since Neo Art is an attorney and I am not, I defer to him.

5) I was reiterating a stance that has nothing to do with the specific content of any given law but is a general principle, i.e. injustice =/= justice. IF there are laws that restrict a person's right to control who gets to do what with their bodies, then those laws are UNJUST. The existence of unjust laws does NOT make it okay to make more unjust laws. THAT was the point of my remark. You have failed several times over to respond to that point, which has been made by both me and Bottle.

try drinking alcohol in saudi arabia
try prostituting yourself most places in the us
try selling your organs just about anywhere
try selling yourself into slavery
Anti-prostitution and anti-organ-sale laws can be commerce restrictions.

As far as I know you can't sell yourself into slavery because not getting paid is one of the defining features of being a slave. If you get paid for it, it's called getting a job, which is not illegal. It's also not illegal if you do it to yourself, of your own free will, under agreement with the other party.

I am not familiar with the laws of Saudi Arabia. Is it illegal to be drunk there, or just illegal to buy, sell and own alcohol?

the 'you' in question was mura.

Hehe, but you are being kind of obtuse. Skaladora was responding to your mis-characterization of the statement of his that you quoted. He has a right to defend his argument from your distortions.

try drinking alcohol in saudi arabia

Saudi Arabia is hardly the place to discuss when discussing the ideas of personal freedom. The idea behind this discussion is that abortion still falls into our concepts of personal freedom over our own bodies. Societies that have less evolved perspectives on personal freedom that would pass laws such as restrictions on drinking alchohol by adults don't value personal freedom much.

Go try getting an abortion in saudi arabia.

try prostituting yourself most places in the us
try selling your organs just about anywhere
try selling yourself into slavery

selling...selling...selling. The fact that your examples require money changing hands invalidates your perspective. Those are matters of commerce, not personal freedom. You can't sell your sex, you can't sell your organs, you can't sell yourself, true.

But you can control your sex, give it to whom you wish and refuse it from whom you wish. Same with your organs. Same with yourself. Those, again, are on restrictions on commerce, not limitations on what you can do with your body.

only limitations on accepting money for doing it.

Not at all the same thing.

1) Skaladora makes his arguments.

2) I make mine.

3) They are independent arguments, not related to each other

then stop taking my words out of context.

The existence of unjust laws does NOT make it okay to make more unjust laws. THAT was the point of my remark. You have failed several times over to respond to that point, which has been made by both me and Bottle.

why do you think i disagree with that point?

5) I was reiterating a stance that has nothing to do with the specific content of any given law but is a general principle, i.e. injustice =/= justice. IF there are laws that restrict a person's right to control who gets to do what with their bodies, then those laws are UNJUST. The existence of unjust laws does NOT make it okay to make more unjust laws. THAT was the point of my remark. You have failed several times over to respond to that point, which has been made by both me and Bottle.

Just out of interest. Do you acknowledge that there may be problems with defining a fetus as your own body. Furthermore, even if it is technically your own body, that may not give a satisfactory argument as to why the fetus must die. In the sense that you need to show more thoroughly why the right not to be pregnant is more important then the right to life of the fetus.

Just out of interest. Do you acknowledge that there may be problems with defining a fetus as your own body.

I don't know a single person who has attempted ot define a fetus as part of the woman's body. Trying to say they have either is a gross mischaracterization of the argument, or a gross misunderstanding.

then stop taking my words out of context.
Ha! Praise from the master.


why do you think i disagree with that point?
A) I said you failed to respond to the point, not that you disagreed with it. How could I possibly know whether you disagree with it since you never responded to it?

B) If by any chance you do agree with it, why do you continue to argue over the existence of body-ownership-restriction laws, since that point renders such laws irrelevant to the present discussion?

I don't know a single person who has attempted ot define a fetus as part of the woman's body. Trying to say they have either is a gross mischaracterization of the argument, or a gross misunderstanding.

But they are applying what you do to your own body and laws regarding your freedom towards you own body, to what you can do with a fetus. Or at least that's what they seem to be doing.

Saudi Arabia is hardly the place to discuss when discussing the ideas of personal freedom.

it is, however, a perfectly reasonable thing to bring up when people talk in universals about what the law does say, rather than what it should.

selling...selling...selling. The fact that your examples require money changing hands invalidates your perspective. Those are matters of commerce, not personal freedom. You can't sell your sex, you can't sell your organs, you can't sell yourself, true.

But you can control your sex, give it to whom you wish and refuse it from whom you wish. Same with your organs. Same with yourself. Those, again, are on restrictions on commerce, not limitations on what you can do with your body.

only limitations on accepting money for doing it.

Not at all the same thing.

distinction without a difference. they are limitations on what you can do with your body, namely, what you can do with it commercially. if they did not exist, you would have further things that you were allowed to do with your body than you do now.

Just out of interest. Do you acknowledge that there may be problems with defining a fetus as your own body. Furthermore, even if it is technically your own body, that may not give a satisfactory argument as to why the fetus must die. In the sense that you need to show more thoroughly why the right not to be pregnant is more important then the right to life of the fetus.
There is actually not a lot in your post that makes sense.

1) I never said anything about the fetus being part of the woman's body. I have been talking about women owning their bodies and having the right not to let others take over the use of it. In my thinking, that means the state has no right to pass a law that effectively takes over control of the woman's body by forcing her to remain pregnant against her will. But even if anti-choice arguers want to characterize the fetus as a person, the argument still stands because the fetus does not have any more rights over the woman's body than the state or any other person has.

2) If it is part of my body, how does that undermine an argument in favor of my right to dispose of it as I see fit?

3) If it is a part of my body, how can it have rights over me? Does my liver also have rights over me? Can my kidneys get an injunction to prevent me from donating one of them? Should I be held legally liable for harming my lungs if I live in a polluted area? They are all alive and are all parts of my body.

4) We are not arguing for a right not to be pregnant. We are arguing for a right to control one's own body and to control who gets to use one's body and for what purposes.

So, apparently, you missed the point of all of the last -- what? -- ten pages?

But they are applying what you do to your own body and laws regarding your freedom towards you own body, to what you can do with a fetus. Or at least that's what they seem to be doing.

No. Please take another look and try again.

it is, however, a perfectly reasonable thing to bring up when people talk in universals about what the law does say, rather than what it should.



distinction without a difference. they are limitations on what you can do with your body, namely, what you can do with it commercially. if they did not exist, you would have further things that you were allowed to do with your body than you do now.
I disagree again. I think the distinction is vital and makes a definite difference.

Also, I asked you a question about the law in Saudi Arabia. Can you answer it, and do you plan to?

1) I never said anything about the fetus being part of the woman's body. I have been talking about women owning their bodies and having the right not to let others take over the use of it. In my thinking, that means the state has no right to pass a law that effectively takes over control of the woman's body by forcing her to remain pregnant against her will.

Ok I misread what you were saying slightly, but my second argument still applies.


But even if anti-choice arguers want to characterize the fetus as a person, the argument still stands because the fetus does not have any more rights over the woman's body than the state or any other person has.


This is the main point I want to address. Again, how can you show that the right to life of a fetus is more important then your right to remain pregnant?


2) If it is part of my body, how does that undermine an argument in favor of my right to dispose of it as I see fit?


Because the fact it is part of your body is meaningless. You cannot deduce an ought from an is and such and such, however since you aren't actually arguing this I will skip this.


4) We are not arguing for a right not to be pregnant. We are arguing for a right to control one's own body and to control who gets to use one's body and for what purposes.

That doesn't change anything. Rights conflict, as I'm sure you're aware. The right to control your own body in this case (ending your pregnancy), conflicts with the rights of the fetus. What argument can you formulate that shows that your right to pregnancy is more important?

And making abortion illegal is letting a third party feel entitled to a woman's body against her will.

Indeed.

Military implies a contract. A contract implies consent.

Heh! Well, true enough in theory. The reality is that the military recruits people using any and all tricks they possibly can. It's highly unlikely that all of them have a full and informed grasp of what all might be implied in their contract.

All the same, it shows a legal situation in which one doesn't have the freedom to do with one's body whatever one wishes.

Prison is another thing entirely, and not too good an example to take if you're a US citizen. Your system frequently abuses human rights; that's no justification for getting another human right abused on the premise that it's already being done elsewhere.

No it isn't, but I'm not arguing that as a justification for anything. I'm merely using it as an example.


Yes it does. Nothing you do to your own body is a crime.

The police would seem to disagree when they tackle suiciders and drug users...


They are not taking away your body, they're taking away your freedom.

They're taking away the freedom to do with my body as I please. A freedom you seem to have mistakenly believed is universal and always legal.

You still haven't named one.

Military service. Prison life.

distinction without a difference. they are limitations on what you can do with your body, namely, what you can do with it commercially. if they did not exist, you would have further things that you were allowed to do with your body than you do now.

Actually the distinction is so important that your failure to grasp it makes your contribution to the discussion questionable at best, but I'll try to explain this.

Having sex for money is not "something I can do with my body". Having sex is what I do with my body. Your body can't do something for money. Your body does, or it does not. You have sex with your body. You accept money for doing so. You can not legally, in some places, choose to have your body participate in a sexual act and receive copensation for that participation. It is the "and receive compensation" part that is important, and what creates the distinction.

The thing that you do with your body is the having sex, and nothing stops you from having sex. The thing that you do with your body when you sell an organ is provide the organ, and nothing stops you from providing an organ. The thing that your body does when you consume drugs, is consume the drugs, and nothing stops you from consuming the drugs.

You can't get paid for sex, you can't accept money for organs, you can't sell or posess drugs. But those are not actions of "your body".

You have the right to control your body. You can modify it. You can cut it. You can tattoo it. You can put drugs in it. You can have sex with it. You can give, or refuse to give blood. You can, if you are a woman, participate, or refuse to participate in a pregnancy.

The government does not limit your biological process or what you can do with your own body. The government may in some circumstances prevent you from taking money for doing it, but it does not make illegal the act, only accepting compensation for the act.

Ha! Praise from the master.

ska said x
fs said that's ridiculous, not x
you responded to that exchange with some diatribe ascribing a position to me that i have never held up as my own. you do this all the fucking time. it would really help your arguments if you stopped.

A) I said you failed to respond to the point, not that you disagreed with it. How could I possibly know whether you disagree with it since you never responded to it?

the point had nothing to do with me or my arguments, why should i say anything about it at all?

B) If by any chance you do agree with it, why do you continue to argue over the existence of body-ownership-restriction laws, since that point renders such laws irrelevant to the present discussion?

because ska's argument is a bad argument due to the various problems i'm pointing out. we have an obligation to test our arguments to make sure they are good arguments and a duty to undermine bad ones - even if we agree with the general conclusion of them.

This is the main point I want to address. Again, how can you show that the right to life of a fetus is more important then your right to remain pregnant?

Show that the right to life of a fetus is more important than your right ot remain pregnant? I think you're getting it backwards

Now as to the question of a woman's right to not be pregnant is more important than the life of the fetus? Simple. Our society has already made that distinction. Let's say you need a kidney, and I am the only person who has a kidney to spare that is compatable with you, if I don't give it to you, you will die.

And society has already recognized I am under no obligation to give it to you. And by not giving it to you, you die. My right to choose not to allow my body to participate in your survival is greater than your right ot life

Moreover, I am somewhat amused by this idea of a "right to life". DO you really have a right to life? Can your estate sue the government when you die, for your death violated your right ot life?

We are really going to have to clarify what we mean by "right to life" because obviously nobody has a "right ot life" fullstop, we all die.

Ok I misread what you were saying slightly, but my second argument still applies.



This is the main point I want to address. Again, how can you show that the right to life of a fetus is more important then your right to remain pregnant?



Because the fact it is part of your body is meaningless. You cannot deduce an ought from an is and such and such, however since you aren't actually arguing this I will skip this.



That doesn't change anything. Rights conflict, as I'm sure your aware. The right to control your own body in this case (ending your pregnancy), conflicts with the rights of the fetus. What argument can you formulate that shows that your right to pregnancy is more important?
I am in the world now. The fetus is not. I can interact with society and the law and thus be granted rights and be bound by the rights of others. The fetus cannot. I am answerable for everything I take from another person. The fetus is answerable to no one. If I am pregnant, the fetus will drain the resources and energies of my body; it will displace and deform my internal organs; it will derange my blood pressure, possibly to dangerous extremes; it will acclerate my aging, causing me to develop arthritis, osteoporosis, and possibly alzheimer's earlier than I may have otherwise. All this is provided the fetus does not kill or cripple me outright. How will I hold the fetus responsible for any of that? The woman/fetus relationship is inherently unequal, but if you give superiority to the fetus, which cannot be held accountable for anything, then you reduce an already unequal relationship to outright tyranny.

Here's a second approach for you: You are a person, right? Yet you have no right to take my blood, kidney, or lung for your use, even if you will die without them. If your right to life does not trump my right to control who uses my body, then why should a fetus's?

By the way, just as a general aside, that second argument of mine is what we have been discussing for all these pages. I can understand if Free Soviets' nonsense distracted from it, but really, the habit on NSG of people asking others to say the same things over and over is getting tiresome.

because ska's argument is a bad argument due to the various problems i'm pointing out. we have an obligation to test our arguments to make sure they are good arguments and a duty to undermine bad ones - even if we agree with the general conclusion of them.
Except you haven't pointed out in any way why it's a bad argument. You've tried, by misrepresenting the argument and giving examples that you want to pretend apply but don't.

But you haven't actually shown in any way why it's wrong, because you haven't in any way disproven any of it, no matter how much you want to pretend you did.

Having sex for money is not "something I can do with my body". Having sex is what I do with my body. Your body can't do something for money.

it most certainly is something you do with your body. but let's hit this a different way. do you agree that having sex with dead people is something you could do with your body?

ska said x
fs said that's ridiculous, not x
you responded to that exchange with some diatribe ascribing a position to me that i have never held up as my own. you do this all the fucking time. it would really help your arguments if you stopped.
My arguments do fine as they are.


the point had nothing to do with me or my arguments, why should i say anything about it at all?
To get people to stop asking you to respond to it?

Also, you say it has nothing to do with it, but obviously I disagree because I have said outright that it renderse your arguments irrelevant.


because ska's argument is a bad argument due to the various problems i'm pointing out. we have an obligation to test our arguments to make sure they are good arguments and a duty to undermine bad ones - even if we agree with the general conclusion of them.
So you keep saying, but you have failed to show any flaws in his argument that anyone other than you can see. It seems from the debate so far that the only "flaw" in Skaladora's argument is that you don't like it, but I do not consider that fatal.

Just to be clear here, I am pro choice, but I find the topic interesting to debate.

I am in the world now. The fetus is not. I can interact with society and the law and thus be granted rights and be bound by the rights of others. The fetus cannot. I am answerable for everything I take from another person. The fetus is answerable to no one. If I am pregnant, the fetus will drain the resources and energies of my body; it will displace and deform my internal organs; it will derange my blood pressure, possibly to dangerous extremes; it will acclerate my aging, causing me to develop arthritis, osteoporosis, and possibly alzheimer's earlier than I may have otherwise. All this is provided the fetus does not kill or cripple me outright. How will I hold the fetus responsible for any of that? The woman/fetus relationship is inherently unequal, but if you give superiority to the fetus, which cannot be held accountable for anything, then you reduce an already unequal relationship to outright tyranny.


Firstly, your point about what a fetus can and can't do is irellavent. An innocent prisoner also cannot do many things that are considered fundamental rights, doesn't mean he is now less worthy of moral consideration.

Your second point about the effects of pregnancy is a good point, although slightly over exaggerated in some respects, but yes generally being pregnant is not good. However, I am not asking you to choose which entity has superiority, but the individual right. Even if the baby is causing a great deal of strain and anguish, is your right to remove this strain and anguish STILL more important the the fetus' right to life? If so, why?


Here's a second approach for you: You are a person, right? Yet you have no right to take my blood, kidney, or lung for your use, even if you will die without them. If your right to life does not trump my right to control who uses my body, then why should a fetus's?


I'm not sure if this is equivalent, because simply refusing to help me is not the same as actively killing me.


By the way, just as a general aside, that second argument of mine is what we have been discussing for all these pages. I can understand if Free Soviets' nonsense distracted from it, but really, the habit on NSG of people asking others to say the same things over and over is getting tiresome.

I understand what you have been saying, but what I am trying to do is to take this into more depth.

I am not familiar with the laws of Saudi Arabia. Is it illegal to be drunk there, or just illegal to buy, sell and own alcohol?

in addition to buying, selling, and owning, it is illegal to drink alcohol there, and you can be arrested if they smell it on you. they also can have you executed for having sex with a person of the same sex as you. of course we had similar laws in the us until rather recently. thus why any argument containing premises about universally recognized principles of law and self-ownership seems inherently stupid. it ain't universally recognized at all, and even where nominally recognized, there are infringements. if you want an argument sorta like that kind of argument, you need to make a 'should' argument, rather than an 'is' one.

I will now sum this thread up.


"BABY KILLER!!!!"

"MSYOGINIST!!!!'


repeat as necissary.


;)

I'm not sure if this is equivalent, because simply refusing to help me is not the same as actively killing me.


It's refusing to allow her body to be used to support your life, which results in your death.

how is that in any way different from an abortion? It's actively refusing to allow her body to be used as life support.

it most certainly is something you do with your body. but let's hit this a different way. do you agree that having sex with dead people is something you could do with your body?
I know of no actual law against necrophilia or being a necrophiliac. What I do know of is laws against using corpses in that manner, but here's an interesting detail -- those are misdemeanors of the same severity as vandalism and trespass -- you know, property crime. Why? Because the corpse is property and...wait for it...it's not YOUR property. So in other words laws that punish sex with corpses are not punishing you for using your own body willingly. They are punishing you for using someone else's body without getting that other person's permission (which obviously, you can't).

Now a corpse is, essentially, abandoned property, but it's still not yours and you are not allowed to use it any way you like. However, since no one suffers by your unauthorized use of the body, the transgression is considered very minor.

EDIT: If we would like to delve into something truly gross, I do not think you would be guilty of anything under the law if someone left their corpse to you in their will specifically so you could have sex with it. Certainly, no one would want to go to your house or be anywhere near you, but no one would have any basis on which to charge you with a crime.

It's refusing to allow her body to be used to support your life, which results in your death.

how is that in any way different from an abortion? It's actively refusing to allow her body to be used as life support.

Because in the example she doesn't need to do anything for me to die, she only has to not do something. It is the opposite with abortion, if you do nothing you stay pregnant.

Just to be clear here, I am pro choice, but I find the topic interesting to debate.



Firstly, your point about what a fetus can and can't do is irellavent. An innocent prisoner also cannot do many things that are considered fundamental rights, doesn't mean he is now less worthy of moral consideration.
A prisoner can suffer and that is a form of interaction with society. Show me the suffering of a fetus. A prisoner can petition for redress of wrongs. Show me how a fetus can petition a court. A prisoner can be held accountable for his/her transgressions. Show me how a fetus can be held accountable. All of these things are part of defining personhood under the law, and they apply to prisoners but do not apply to fetuses.

Your second point about the effects of pregnancy is a good point, although slightly over exaggerated in some respects, but yes generally being pregnant is not good. However, I am not asking you to choose which entity has superiority, but the individual right. Even if the baby is causing a great deal of strain and anguish, is your right to remove this strain and anguish STILL more important the the fetus' right to life? If so, why?
I already told you why.


I'm not sure if this is equivalent, because simply refusing to help me is not the same as actively killing me.
Of course it is equivalent because not helping you by giving you my organs kills you, and not helping the fetus by giving it my body to gestate in kills it as well. I have the right to do both.


I understand what you have been saying, but what I am trying to do is to take this into more depth.
We seem to be skipping over the same surface as we do with true anti-choicers. Maybe there is no more depth to the argument because there is no more depth to the objections against it.

Because in the example she doesn't need to do anything for me to die, she only has to not do something. It is the opposite with abortion, if you do nothing you stay pregnant.

I don't think that quibble matters, but let's accept it and offer another analogy: Let's say I am kidnapped and forced to work. If I kill my captor to escape I can be free, but if I do nothing I will stay kidnapped.

An unwanted pregnancy is an UNWANTED condition, just like being kidnapped and forced to work for someone. Why should I have to remain in an unwanted condition for the benefit of someone else if taking action will free me from it?

The first argument stands as to why I am under no obligation to save the life of another. This second argument serves to explain that I am under no obligation to stay in a condition I don't want to be in, just because somebody else wants me to do it.

Also, you say it has nothing to do with it, but obviously I disagree because I have said outright that it renderse your arguments irrelevant.

how could 'the existence of unjust laws does not justify them' do anything at all to my argument that ska's claim that
that person has no right or justification whatsoever of trying to get me to donate against my will through coercive legal means. It's that simple.
seems to run right up against one of the dominant moral theories in existence, utilitarianism, which seems like it would claim that it could in fact sometimes be just to force people to donate the use of their body - and so at the very least we would have to say that it is arguable, and perhaps here are some reasons why we think utilitarianism is either not correct or that there literally can be no cases where forced donation would come out on top in the hedonistic calculus?

or did you mean it to render irrelevant my subsidiary argument that 1)self-ownership is not universally recognized and 2) even those that recognize it disagree about what it entails?

in addition to buying, selling, and owning, it is illegal to drink alcohol there, and you can be arrested if they smell it on you. they also can have you executed for having sex with a person of the same sex as you. of course we had similar laws in the us until rather recently. thus why any argument containing premises about universally recognized principles of law and self-ownership seems inherently stupid. it ain't universally recognized at all, and even where nominally recognized, there are infringements. if you want an argument sorta like that kind of argument, you need to make a 'should' argument, rather than an 'is' one.
I see, so you do actually think that the fact that one country violates human rights by passing unjust laws is an argument for why another country should do so too.

Let's stay in the realm of the real. We are talking about countries like the USA where this debate is actually going on (as opposed to countries where it is not an issue either because of progressive law or repressive law). As you yourself point out, similar unjust laws were eliminated in the USA, so based solely on what "is", why should the USA pass a new unjust law now?

And how does the fact that the USA used to have unjust laws equate to your argument that it does have unjust laws. The fact that unjust laws exist in Saudi Arabia truly is irrelevant to what is done in the USA. Now, if we were discussing abortion in Saudi Arabia.... only I think that would be a short discussion.

A prisoner can suffer and that is a form of interaction with society. Show me the suffering of a fetus. A prisoner can petition for redress of wrongs. Show me how a fetus can petition a court. A prisoner can be held accountable for his/her transgressions. Show me how a fetus can be held accountable. All of these things are part of defining personhood under the law, and they apply to prisoners but do not apply to fetuses.


That doesn't really mean much. A prisoner still has shit loads of rights taken away, like not to be monitored. Not to have access to private property, not to move freely etc... What about children, children are not able to vote, drink, drive, have sex etc... Different people have different access to rights depending on the circumstance, does not mean they are not worthy of moral consideration. Simply stating stating a bunch of rights a child does have will not change this.


I already told you why.


You said that it does not have the same access to rights as you do. Why should that mean anything?


Of course it is equivalent because not helping you by giving you my organs kills you, and not helping the fetus by giving it my body to gestate in kills it as well. I have the right to do both.


The first is indirect the second is direct. Do you remember the thread about the difference from pushing someone off a cliff and not acting on your duty to save that man from falling off a cliff?


We seem to be skipping over the same surface as we do with true anti-choicers. Maybe there is no more depth to the argument because there is no more depth to the objections against it.

Well lets see shall we.

I know of no actual law against necrophilia or being a necrophiliac. What I do know of is laws against using corpses in that manner, but here's an interesting detail -- those are misdemeanors of the same severity as vandalism and trespass -- you know, property crime. Why? Because the corpse is property and...wait for it...it's not YOUR property. So in other words laws that punish sex with corpses are not punishing you for using your own body willingly. They are punishing you for using someone else's body without getting that other person's permission (which obviously, you can't).

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.105
RCW 9A.44.105
Sexually violating human remains.

(1) Any person who has sexual intercourse or sexual contact with a dead human body is guilty of a class C felony.

(2) As used in this section:

(a) "Sexual intercourse" (i) has its ordinary meaning and occurs upon any penetration, however slight; and (ii) also means any penetration of the vagina or anus however slight, by an object, when committed on a dead human body, except when such penetration is accomplished as part of a procedure authorized or required under chapter 68.50 RCW or other law; and (iii) also means any act of sexual contact between the sex organs of a person and the mouth or anus of a dead human body.

(b) "Sexual contact" means any touching by a person of the sexual or other intimate parts of a dead human body done for the purpose of gratifying the sexual desire of the person.

yeah, i'm not seeing any signed permission slip exceptions there.

yeah, i'm not seeing any signed permission slip exceptions there.

actually you are, you just don't see why. A corpse is the property of no person, you can not own a corpse. Ergo as the corpse is the property of no person, the corpse is the property of the state, and the law quite clearly says "no, you don't have permission"

how could 'the existence of unjust laws does not justify them' do anything at all to my argument that ska's claim that

seems to run right up against one of the dominant moral theories in existence, utilitarianism, which seems like it would claim that it could in fact sometimes be just to force people to donate the use of their body - and so at the very least we would have to say that it is arguable, and perhaps here are some reasons why we think utilitarianism is either not correct or that there literally can be no cases where forced donation would come out on top in the hedonistic calculus?

or did you mean it to render irrelevant my subsidiary argument that 1)self-ownership is not universally recognized and 2) even those that recognize it disagree about what it entails?
You are so full of it, FS. Utilitarianism is not "one of the dominant moral theories in existence." Get real for once. Just because it dominates your thinking doesn't mean it dominates the world. Ye gods, I hate debating with you. Either back that claim up or drop it because it's bull, boring and off topic.

What I am saying, have been saying, and will continue to say as long as you keep posting the same things over and over, is that your argument is irrelevant in its entirety. From your very first post, you have been missing the point and talking about something that has no effect on abortion whatsoever. You have been spinning theoretical fantasies and calling it utilitarianism, which is kind of ironic, but still not relevant.

An unwanted pregnancy is an UNWANTED condition, just like being kidnapped and forced to work for someone. Why should I have to remain in an unwanted condition for the benefit of someone else if taking action will free me from it?


Now we are getting somewhere. Hmmm.

Well, the kidnapper is intentionally restricting your freedoms, unlike a fetus, which is not doing it intentionally. How about this bizarre analogy, say someone passed out on top of a button, which closed a door forcing you to stay trapped inside a shop which had a supply of food. Lets say you know that the man will wake up in 9 months, and your food supply is more then enough to last that long. You have a shotgun, which is so powerful that it is a certainty that shooting the man will force him away from on top of the button, as well as killing him. Do you have a right to kill him?


The first argument stands as to why I am under no obligation to save the life of another. This second argument serves to explain that I am under no obligation to stay in a condition I don't want to be in, just because somebody else wants me to do it.

What if it is the law that you stay in that condition (i.e. prison)?

Edit: I need to go to bed now, but I'll see your responses and reply tomorrow if I have time.

I see, so you do actually think that the fact that one country violates human rights by passing unjust laws is an argument for why another country should do so too.

no

this part of the argument is about the existence of laws restricting what a person may do with their body. it was denied that such laws exist. i have demonstrated that they do. perhaps those making the original denial wish to modify their claim.

why should the USA pass a new unjust law now?
they shouldn't and i have no idea why you think i would argue that they should.

And how does the fact that the USA used to have unjust laws equate to your argument that it does have unjust laws.

i don't recall making that argument here. i mean, yes, it does have tons and tons of unjust laws, but i don't recall discussing them in this thread. and the previous existence of them wouldn't have anything to do with the present existence of them, except as historical context and the like.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.105


yeah, i'm not seeing any signed permission slip exceptions there.
Okay, then I can't let you bang my corpse in Washington, but I don't see anything in that law that says it is illegal to be a necrophiliac. Got any more? Enough to prove that this law is more about limiting your power to use your body rather than your power to use someone else's body for your sexual gratification, you know, like I said?

Also, I would have to ask an expert in the laws of Washington State to be sure that this law does not exist within a larger context of laws that might affect how it is applied. In other words, I'd have to check whether, in fact, I could not leave my corpse to you to do with as you please, since the law you quoted says nothing on that matter.

i am not a utilitarian
That much has been obvious.

but it is ludicrous to deny its prominence.
So you say, but then you say so many things that are not correct.

You are so full of it, FS. Utilitarianism is not "one of the dominant moral theories in existence." Get real for once. Just because it dominates your thinking doesn't mean it dominates the world.

i am not a utilitarian

but it is ludicrous to deny its prominence.

That doesn't really mean much. A prisoner still has shit loads of rights taken away, like not to be monitored. Not to have access to private property, not to move freely etc... What about children, children are not able to vote, drink, drive, have sex etc... Different people have different access to rights depending on the circumstance, does not mean they are not worthy of moral consideration. Simply stating stating a bunch of rights a child does have will not change this.
Hydesland, this is really, really, really, REALLY stressing me out. So much so that I just scolded my cat just because I can't scold you.

Read. The. Thread. Please.

All of these points -- the prisoner thing, the rights thing, the why a fetus is not a child thing, all of it has already been argued in this thread, in detail. If you cannot be bothered to read the thread, why should I take you seriously as wanting to get into depth on the topic? Read the damned thread, and respond to the points already argued, and then we can go forward from there. But for the love of every god ever imagined, stop asking me and others to repeat the whole thread over for you.

This is ridiculous! I have spent over 5 hours today typing the same arguments over and over for people who refuse to read, when I should have been figuring out how to finish a graphics project.


You said that it does not have the same access to rights as you do. Why should that mean anything?
Why should it mean anything that it's not a person?


The first is indirect the second is direct. Do you remember the thread about the difference from pushing someone off a cliff and not acting on your duty to save that man from falling off a cliff?
No, I never go into such threads because such questions are stupid, and such threads are usually full of armchair philosophers who bore the living shit out of me.

It does not matter if one is direct and the other indirect (whatever you want those words to mean in this context). The end result is the same. I have the right to take any action in order to preserve my bodily integrity and I also have the right to refuse to take any action in order to preserve my bodily integrity.


Well lets see shall we.
Yes, you go read the thread, and respond to the arguments already made, and then we'll see.

A corpse is the property of no person, you can not own a corpse.

yes you can. museums do, for example. as does that 'body worlds' art show.

So you say, but then you say so many things that are not correct.
Free Soviets is quite correct here. Utilitarianism is one of the moral theories that pack a weighty punch in today’s world; both in academic and political circles.

Although very few political philosophers are strict utilitarians, not many would deny its appeal, and it has never been succesfully ‘dismissed’, if you will. Moreover, many aspects of social policy, especially the likes of health policy, are driven by utilitarian methods.

Now we are getting somewhere. Hmmm.

Well, the kidnapper is intentionally restricting your freedoms, unlike a fetus, which is not doing it intentionally. How about this bizarre analogy, say someone passed out on top of a button, which closed a door forcing you to stay trapped inside a shop which had a supply of food. Lets say you know that the man will wake up in 9 months, and your food supply is more then enough to last that long. You have a shotgun, which is so powerful that it is a certainty that shooting the man will force him away from on top of the button, as well as killing him. Do you have a right to kill him?
What an idiotic analogy. Why can't I just push him off the button?


What if it is the law that you stay in that condition (i.e. prison)?
Already addressed in this thread.

Edit: I need to go to bed now, but I'll see your responses and reply tomorrow if I have time.
No, you go read the thread and then we can continue this conversation.

Free Soviets is quite correct here. Utilitarianism is one of the moral theories that pack a weighty punch in today’s world; both in academic and political circles.

Although very few political philosophers are strict utilitarians, not many would deny its appeal, and it has never been succesfully ‘dismissed’, if you will. Moreover, many aspects of social policy, especially the likes of health policy, are driven by utilitarian methods.
A) I am not willing to accept that assertion on the word of any internet philosophy buff. I am objecting to his choices of words in describing utilitarianism, as well as his notions of what utilitarianism is. I would have to see credible academic opinions on the matter, but that is way off the topic of this thread. Posting links on it would amount to a total hijack.

B) I said a long time ago that FS's notion of utilitarianism does not reflect the majority of utlitiarian thought across the broad spectrum of utilitarian ideas. So to that extent as well, his appeals to utilitarianism are bunk.

C) All of a sudden, FS claims to not be a utilitarian, which would certainly explain his inability to base an argument on it successfully.

D) Finally, I would say I am really sick of reading and typing "utilitarianism" since FS arguments "based" on it are irrelevant.

yes you can. museums do, for example. as does that 'body worlds' art show.

Missing the Point, Example #350.

Read the WHOLE post that you respond to, FS. NA said that the STATE exerts ownership and does not give you permission to use the body for your sex life. The state does that because no one else owns the body -- you know, like the person who used to live in it. But if the person who used to live in it willed the body to you, then you would own it and you could do what you liked with it -- just like the Body Worlds artist does with the bodies willed to him for his project.

So we're right back where we started. Necrophilia laws do not restrict what you do with your body. They restrict what you do with someone else's body.

OK, you... people ... have wasted enough of my life. Now I have to go do a whole day's work, starting at 9pm. A pox upon several of you. Good night.

A) I am not willing to accept that assertion on the word of any internet philosophy buff. I am objecting to his choices of words in describing utilitarianism, as well as his notions of what utilitarianism is. I would have to see credible academic opinions on the matter, but that is way off the topic of this thread. Posting links on it would amount to a total hijack.
Hijack ahoy!

Here’s some credible academic opinions on the matter (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/#ClaUti). So credible, indeed, that this ‘internet philosophy buff’ occasionally uses it in preliminary reading for work in his Philosophy Honours degree at his fancy-pants university.

You'll see after reading the article that utilitarianism has never been totally refuted. It's had a bumpy ride down Moral Philosophy Lane, sure, but it still presents a challenge to today's moral philosophers.

<snip whining about FS>
A resolute ‘meh’.

B) I said a long time ago that FS's notion of utilitarianism does not reflect the majority of utlitiarian thought across the broad spectrum of utilitarian ideas.

So how exactly would a utilitarian argue that people have some absolute right of self-ownership? Or, more broadly, that whatever the traits of the fetus (whatever the nature of its preferences) abortion should never be prohibited?

A) I am not willing to accept that assertion on the word of any internet philosophy buff.

dude, its fucking common knowledge. 'greatest good for the greatest number' is one hell of a powerhouse of a moral theory on pretty much all levels of society, including people who have never much thought about ethical theory.

B) I said a long time ago that FS's notion of utilitarianism does not reflect the majority of utlitiarian thought across the broad spectrum of utilitarian ideas. So to that extent as well, his appeals to utilitarianism are bunk.

what notion is that? and what appeals to it have i made, other than noting its existence and prominence, and mentioning that this makes one of ska's claims problematic at best?

C) All of a sudden, FS claims to not be a utilitarian

its not sudden. even a cursory glance at the ethical arguments i advance as my own will show that while i may take utilitarian concerns into account, they can often be trumped by other concerns which i take to be more fundamental.

Missing the Point, Example #350.

Read the WHOLE post that you respond to, FS. NA said that the STATE exerts ownership and does not give you permission to use the body for your sex life. The state does that because no one else owns the body -- you know, like the person who used to live in it. But if the person who used to live in it willed the body to you, then you would own it and you could do what you liked with it -- just like the Body Worlds artist does with the bodies willed to him for his project.

So we're right back where we started. Necrophilia laws do not restrict what you do with your body. They restrict what you do with someone else's body.

that is patently not what NA said:
A corpse is the property of no person, you can not own a corpse.

anyway, is it your contention then that the artist(s?) behind body worlds could go to the state of washington, fuck their corpse-based artwork, tell everyone all about doing so, and they wouldn't be in violation of the law i quoted earlier?

So does anyone actually have a reasonable argument for the position that we should make a person's right to his or her body absolute?

So does anyone actually have a reasonable argument for the position that we should make a person's right to his or her body absolute?

if i were to try to make one, i think i might make it on the psuedo-pragmatic grounds of not trusting others to make the right decisions. i don't think that would hold up for very long at all though.

So does anyone actually have a reasonable argument for the position that we should make a person's right to his or her body absolute?

The pro-bodily sovereignty argument essentially boils down to one's rights and freedom. More specifically, it would probably recognize the body as being the closest thing to one's self, one's 'soul', if you will. The other side would probably be the pragmatic reasons Free Soviets explained.

I would need several days to design even an adequate argument (as would many others, the reason being that the more obvious something is to a person, the harder they will find it to explain it to someone who doesn't find it as obvious).

The pro-bodily sovereignty argument essentially boils down to one's rights and freedom. More specifically, it would probably recognize the body as being the closest thing to one's self, one's 'soul', if you will. The other side would probably be the pragmatic reasons Free Soviets explained.

the problem is that at some point it seems like the utilitarian concerns kick in enough to override one asshole's rights. think of like any sort of situation where the lives of some large number of people hinge on one person's minor inconvenience. suppose further that the one person just plain doesn't care and flat out refuses to help, and that this refusal is in keeping with the generally agreed rights they have. so now we either protect one uncooperative asshole's rights and bunches of people die, or we could violate those rights to the asshole's minor inconvenience and save those lives.

if the rights to one's body are absolute, then it shouldn't matter how small the inconvenience the person would experience or how large the number of people dying. but it seems to me that at some level this becomes ludicrous. a prick of the finger vs 10000 dead, or even worse. at some point you say 'fuck it' and strap down the asshole to do whatever needs doing, and moreover, that this is what you ought do.

i see what you did there. nicely done.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Thank you :).

I tried to play off of a pun of "pro-choice" and develop an idea that could actually be used in politics/reality. I glad that some people caught onto it.

Loved the '1984' reference. :D

Free Soviets, Chumblywumbly and Soheran:

You win. I quit. At this moment, I am so upset that I'm almost ready to quit this entire forum because of bullshit and hijacks. I am sick of people refusing to discuss the topic and hijacking thread after thread to be about their own little pet bit of bullshit with no regard for what others were discussing. I am tired of people thinking that forcing others to repeat themselves endlessly is debate. I am tired of people beating dead horses and wanting me to beat them also. I am tired of dishonesty, of people pulling cheap tactics like constantly changing their arguments, making up their own definitions of terms, and responding to one post, getting called on it, and coming back with a reference to an entirely different post (Free Soviets, that's a reference to your last post to me). I cannot remember the last time there was a really good debate on this forum. All I see is the same bunch of ego-cases making themselves the center of attention.

I came to this thread to discuss abortion. Not utilitarianism. Not necrophilia. Not prohibition in Saudi Arabia. Abortion, an issue that is extremely important to me. If you people have no interest in it, why are you posting here? Is it just because you enjoy jerking around people like me who will try to debate with you?

Free Soviets: You are wrong. Wrong on facts, and wrong on your reasoning. You are also wrong in your understanding of utilitarianism, and you have missed the point of every argument you have managed to derail. Nothing you have done in this thread has changed my view on that in any way. This is far from the first time a debate with you has ended in a total shambles of your confusions. I will never debate with you again about anything. There's no point to it.

Chumblywumbly: I do not give a flying shit about utilitarianism. When I told you it was off topic, I really thought that would clue you that this is not the thread in which to pursue it. If you want to prove what a fabulous and influential philosophy it is, you should have started a thread about it and directed me to that, instead of further hijacking a thread I was really interested in. And nothing that can possibly be said about utilitarianism is going to change my view that FS doesn't understand the first thing about it.

Soheran: You came to the Let's Piss Off Muravyets and Ruin Her Ability to Participate in a Debate party a little too late. And like many others who I would not miss if you all fell off the planet for a while, you apparently did not bother to read the thread. Your question was already posed, addressed, and dealt with, by people other than me.

So you guys can move on to someone else now. You made me lose my cool, and you did it without advancing the debate or adding anything that was even remotely on topic to the thread. Well done.

You have also succeeded in making it impossible for me to continue in this thread, even though abortion rights is something I feel so strongly about that I really feel driven to confront the lies and propaganda of anti-choicers because it affects real lives every day and is the subject of legal battles all across my country, in which my rights are at stake, for real. That is what has me really upset. But fuck that. Who cares when there is Free Soviets' little masturbatory adventure in Utilitariana to be enjoyed?

Have fun enjoying your private party over the corpse of what was once a decent debate, and have a good laugh at my expense if you feel like it. 'Bye.

the problem is that at some point it seems like the utilitarian concerns kick in enough to override one asshole's rights. think of like any sort of situation where the lives of some large number of people hinge on one person's minor inconvenience. suppose further that the one person just plain doesn't care and flat out refuses to help, and that this refusal is in keeping with the generally agreed rights they have. so now we either protect one uncooperative asshole's rights and bunches of people die, or we could violate those rights to the asshole's minor inconvenience and save those lives.

if the rights to one's body are absolute, then it shouldn't matter how small the inconvenience the person would experience or how large the number of people dying. but it seems to me that at some level this becomes ludicrous. a prick of the finger vs 10000 dead, or even worse. at some point you say 'fuck it' and strap down the asshole to do whatever needs doing, and moreover, that this is what you ought do.

Your example is extremely flawed in that the fetus is on the offensive (i.e., by its nature, it is violating the woman's freedom of bodily sovereignty) and thus abortion is merely a correction of the fetus's violating nature.

Your example is extremely flawed in that the fetus is on the offensive (i.e., by its nature, it is violating the woman's freedom of bodily sovereignty) and thus abortion is merely a correction of the fetus's violating nature.

how is that a flaw in my example?

how is that a flaw in my example?

The difference is that the fetus actively engages in egregiously violating the woman's rights by virtue of existence, a factor either misrepresented or not brought up at all in your example.

More specifically, it would probably recognize the body as being the closest thing to one's self, one's 'soul', if you will.

Sure. You could make even a very good utilitarian argument for unrestricted abortion along those lines, even with equal consideration of fetal preferences and a high-end estimate of fetal mental capacity.

The trouble is that those who advance the "self-ownership" argument want to avoid any arguments about moral consideration and mental capacity--understandably so, because our society as a whole is notoriously inconsistent and irrational about such questions. (For instance, it can be rightfully objected that the same arguments for weak consideration of the fetus's life can be made for weak consideration of the life of newborns. This is absolutely true. But who wants to be seen as an advocate of infanticide?) So they precede by attaching an absolute valuation of human bodily sovereignty ("no one can ever tell me what to do with my body") that seems unreasonable to me.

I came to this thread to discuss abortion. Not utilitarianism. Not necrophilia. Not prohibition in Saudi Arabia. Abortion, an issue that is extremely important to me. If you people have no interest in it, why are you posting here? Is it just because you enjoy jerking around people like me who will try to debate with you?

Obviously it's because all of those issues are connected to the philosophical arguments surrounding abortion--not intrinsically, necessarily, but in the specific context of the way it has proceeded in this thread.

Since you were a participant in those arguments, you are certainly aware of this.

Soheran: You came to the Let's Piss Off Muravyets and Ruin Her Ability to Participate in a Debate party a little too late.

Um, I asked a question.

And like many others who I would not miss if you all fell off the planet for a while, you apparently did not bother to read the thread. Your question was already posed, addressed, and dealt with, by people other than me.

No, I didn't bother to read every post in this thread... it's rather long and mostly boring. I figured that since you brought it up, you'd be willing to give at least a brief defense of the position. I would (and have), in similar circumstances.

I'll look for what you reference.

Your example is extremely flawed in that the fetus is on the offensive (i.e., by its nature, it is violating the woman's freedom of bodily sovereignty) and thus abortion is merely a correction of the fetus's violating nature.

Forcibly taking blood from someone is offensive too, even if it saves ten thousand lives.

The difference is that the fetus actively engages in egregiously violating the woman's rights by virtue of existence, a factor either misrepresented or not brought up at all in your example.

my example was designed to undermine the notion of an absolute right over one's body. if we have reason to reject such a notion, then we should do so and not make use of it in arguments. besides, we probably don't need such an absolute right to derive a right-based justification for abortion. and even failing any right-based argument, we've got plenty of other killer arguments for allowing abortion as well.

But who wants to be seen as an advocate of infanticide?

its funny, because it seems to me that most people's moral intuitions would resemble mine in having some amount of support for infanticide in particular limited circumstances. but its really hard to get people to actually think about the issue clearly enough for them to notice.

For the record, nobody earlier answered my question, at least within the last several pages since FS brought up utilitarianism.

Isidoor came closest, but his argument does not hold absolutely: it may be the case that in present circumstances voluntary donation is better utilitarianism-wise than compelled seizure, but it does not follow that utilitarianism advocates an absolute right to self-ownership. We could surely reach a point where the utilitarian costs of permitting non-donation exceed the utilitarian costs of prohibiting it.

The trouble is that those who advance the "self-ownership" argument want to avoid any arguments about moral consideration and mental capacity--understandably so, because our society as a whole is notoriously inconsistent and irrational about such questions. (For instance, it can be rightfully objected that the same arguments for weak consideration of the fetus's life can be made for weak consideration of the life of newborns. This is absolutely true. But who wants to be seen as an advocate of infanticide?) So they precede by attaching an absolute valuation of human bodily sovereignty ("no one can ever tell me what to do with my body") that seems unreasonable to me.


You seem to be suggesting that 'self-ownership' is not a good enough argument on it's own... that it is flawed by it's failure to address 'moral issues'?

I view the 'pro-life' agenda similalry... to me, it is fatally flawed because it focuses on this one factor (it is IMPERATIVE that every single fetus get born), and then doesn't give a shit about the moral implications of that action. It's all 'right', and no 'responsibility'.

Then, of course, you wander off into that deliberate gray area... the weak 'rights' of the fetus, as connected to the 'weak rights' of the infant. Obviously, there is no connection - since rights are contingent in our society, and a fetus ISN'T an infant - but it looks like you have sme other axe to grind there.

To my way of thinking - my right to my body trumps your claim to me. I don't care if you are a person, a fetus of the Pope. You're going to need to invoke something a lot more substantial than 'morality' (which, let's face it, is subjective) to convince me that you are more entitled to my insides than I am.

For the record, nobody earlier answered my question, at least within the last several pages since FS brought up utilitarianism.

Isidoor came closest, but his argument does not hold absolutely: it may be the case that in present circumstances voluntary donation is better utilitarianism-wise than compelled seizure, but it does not follow that utilitarianism advocates an absolute right to self-ownership. We could surely reach a point where the utilitarian costs of permitting non-donation exceed the utilitarian costs of prohibiting it.

The problem with 'nobody answering your question' is... well, is it really relevent?

One school of thought or philosophy is an option - not the intrinsic gospel laws of life. If one person believes their ownership of their body trumps the claim of a foetus or some other... well, doesn't it? Whether or not one school of thought 'agrees' with that?

Why are we supposed (according to your question?) to be considering the subject of right to choose specifically within that one framework?

I guess I try not to look to harshly at how the Catholics approach things like that because on some level they're just trying to be consistent. Many Catholics, I'm sure, would gladly support an abortion in the case of a rape or something like that, but because there's such a rigid approach to thinks, they just can't do so and remain within church policy. It's one of the reasons I'm much happier in my new Church. The Mormon church can be surprisingly pragmatic with a lot of things.


I'm glad that your new church suits you better. This still doesn't answer the question of responsibility though - by virtue of being pregnant, the responsibility for the decision to continue the pregnancy or not is given to the woman in question, and she cannot escape that. That the church offers an opinion on the situation doesn't change her responsibility, especially if she is not religious in the first place.



Yeah I've seen a lot of material from a variety of religious sources that, like you said, focus so strongly on the abortion issue that kids who have needs seem to be left by the wayside. On the other hand, there are a lot of Churches, as well as secular organizations that do pay a great deal of attention to kids in circumstances like what you're talking about, they're just not as widely publicized because, sadly, the public tends not to focus enough on those kinds of issues. The abortion debate does tend to be a distraction

Exactly. Pregnant women consider the whole situation, as well as the immediate question of pregnancy - if they could be more confident that any children they birth would have a decent life, the decision to continue a pregnancy may be more likely.


I also don't hold to the view that people should be forced to parent. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with putting a kid up for adoption.


Adoption isn't always the answer unfortunately - there are many many children waiting for families - again, if the adoption system could be improved somehow so that children didn't grow up in state run facilities, this option would be more attractive.



I'm glad you saw that, because so often people accuse religions of somehow demeaning a woman's ability to think for herself. That's a dangerously fallacious accusation to make but it's disturbingly common on this forum.

Which brings me back to question why women should only be allowed to make the decision after they have been raped - their cognitive powers aren't changed by the experience. I have a lot of trouble with this one.



I wouldn't characterize it as taking away someone's legal autonomy, but I hope that reaching that level of mutual understanding will be a result of this way less confrontational series of messages. (Again, I regret the tone of my first post to you.)

It IS taking away their autonomy, it is forcing them to jeopardise their lives, their health and their wellbeing and their other interests such as jobs and housing compeltely against their will. A pregnancy can have a massive impact and the physical scars last a lifetime, even after a problem-free pregnancy. A doctor will always be able to tell whether a woman has had children, even if he examines her for the first time in her old age.


If it's not too personal a question, are you saying that you would never want to be pregnant, or was it just that particular occasion? I'm only asking out of curiosity so that I can understand better, but if it's too personal then forgive me for being nosy.

If I were to become pregnant now, I would most likely choose to bear and bring up the child. My circumstances are completely different now.



I always take what is said to me to heart if it's within the spirit of honest communication. I may not agree, but that doesn't mean I can't understand. (Some people out there can't see the difference.)

cool :)


I guess if there were on thing I would have you get from this is that those who are pro-life are no interested in control. I know a lot of people characterize it that way and form arguments to try and prove it, but from the point of view of a pro-life advocate, the goal is to achieve legal consistency... where it would be just as illegal to kill a child before birth as after. That's the reason why so often the issue of women's rights seems irrelevant, because nobody's rights supersede the rights of someone else to live, so the point seems moot to us, on that level.


I think it is about control though, as it is about changing the law to force others to do what you want them to. There are two points here - one is the arguement over several pages of this thread about the right to maintain ones physical integrity - I won't spend more time on it here because its been done in depth already, but the thrust of it is that no born person can demand use of my body, there is no justification for giving that right to a feotus.

The other is the point where I entered the discussion - whether you change laws or not, you cannot actually control abortion. I would have done anything to end my pregnancy, which means it would have ended whether legal safe abortion was available or not. I believed utterly that ending the pregnancy was the only responsible course I could take for many many reasons.

To sum up, as a pregnant woman, I have the responsibility to make the decision about the pregnancy, I have the right to preserve my body and self, and I have control of said body. Making abortion illegal will make excersising that control more difficult and dangerous but will not stop it happening.

I believe that women have the right to abortion. I also believe that nobody aspires to it, or enjoys it, or takes it lightly and that there are many things we can do to reduce the amount of abortions that take place. Better sex education, better childcare facilities, more legal protection for working mothers, more flexible working arrangements would all help as would some cultural changes (in the UK at least)so that girls are more confident in saying "not without a condom" and dad is expected to be equally responsible. These are the areas where we should concentrate our efforts if we really care about reducing abortion and making a better world for children.

its funny, because it seems to me that most people's moral intuitions would resemble mine in having some amount of support for infanticide in particular limited circumstances. but its really hard to get people to actually think about the issue clearly enough for them to notice.

I support infanticide. Of course I don't support killing random babies, but I don't have moral problems with using infanticide as a last option if the parents wish so and if there is nobody who wants to adopt the child. The only case where I can see this ever happen is when the baby is severely handicapped and in great pain or if it is going to die prematurely anyway. I only see this as a last resort and honestly wish nobody should ever take such a decision.

But yeah, saying stuff like that makes you a sociopath...

For the record, nobody earlier answered my question, at least within the last several pages since FS brought up utilitarianism.

Isidoor came closest, but his argument does not hold absolutely: it may be the case that in present circumstances voluntary donation is better utilitarianism-wise than compelled seizure, but it does not follow that utilitarianism advocates an absolute right to self-ownership. We could surely reach a point where the utilitarian costs of permitting non-donation exceed the utilitarian costs of prohibiting it.

Well, I don't really advocate absolute rights anyway, so also not the absolute right to ones body. I do think however that abortion should be legal and that nobody should be forced to donate parts of his/her body against his/her will by law under current situations.

I agree that there could be a situation where compulsive donation would be preferable, that's why I don't support an absolute right to self-ownership. There are also a few other measures that could be taken first if more organs are needed, like giving certain incentives for people to donate tissues, before people should be forced to donate.

So in short: in theory I don't see a reason to support full self-ownership over ones body, but in practice I think it has the best effects.

The option quite a significant part of the pro-choice people would pick (as well as most western nations have picked) is not present.

Which is "legal up to a certain point in the pregnancy".

Yeah, what's the "pro-life" people's deal with completely ignoring that we're not in favour of stuff after however many weeks? It just gets completely whitewashed; given that's an extension of the logic of pro-choice, though, I guess they wouldn't be interested. "Logic? Nooooooooooo!":rolleyes:

The problem with 'nobody answering your question' is... well, is it really relevent?

One school of thought or philosophy is an option - not the intrinsic gospel laws of life. If one person believes their ownership of their body trumps the claim of a foetus or some other... well, doesn't it? Whether or not one school of thought 'agrees' with that?

Why are we supposed (according to your question?) to be considering the subject of right to choose specifically within that one framework?
Yeah, forgive me for not giving a crap about that particular question of his.

"Ooooh, lookit me! I invented a philosophical system wherein abortion should be illegal! What do you have to say to that?!?!"

Erm, congrats? You are now Anti-Choicer Philosopher #2 bazillion?

Yawn.

I would have done anything to end my pregnancy, which means it would have ended whether legal safe abortion was available or not. I believed utterly that ending the pregnancy was the only responsible course I could take for many many reasons.

That's where I'm at right now. That's one of the reasons I fight so hard to keep abortion safe and legal. If I become pregnant, I will abort the pregnancy. "Pro-life" individuals are fighting to make sure that I am unable to do so safely, and to ensure that my health and life will be in serious danger if I ever become pregnant. They are directly threatening my health and my life. For me, opposing them is a no-brainer.


These are the areas where we should concentrate our efforts if we really care about reducing abortion and making a better world for children.
That's a very big "if," you know. Most mainstream "pro-life" organizations will choose to prioritize controlling women over saving fetuses any day of the week and twice on Sunday. You can easily verify this by simply tracking the programs and laws they support.

The first lesson a fledgling pro-choicer has to learn is that the forced pregnancy lobby is only interested in preventing abortion insofar as it allows them to control women. If there comes a point where saving fetuses conflicts with controlling women, they will choose controlling women every time.

Chumblywumbly: I do not give a flying shit about utilitarianism. When I told you it was off topic, I really thought that would clue you that this is not the thread in which to pursue it
You made a wildly incorrect statement about the influence of utilitarian theory, then attempted to stifle any refutation of your incorrect statement by classing any refutation as a 'hijack'. Your statement could be (and was) refuted in a couple of posts, and I hardly count a couple of posts that are marginally off-topic yet related as a massive hijack of the thread. Threads go this way all the time on NS:G.

If you want to prove what a fabulous and influential philosophy it is, you should have started a thread about it and directed me to that, instead of further hijacking a thread I was really interested in.
I don't want to prove it's a fabulous and influential philosophy it is, I just wanted to clear up a misunderstanding.

You seem to be taking this far too personally. None of us are trying to attack your character, but if you post an incorrect statement that is tangential to the main discussion, I see nothing wrong in refuting it.

Have fun enjoying your private party over the corpse of what was once a decent debate, and have a good laugh at my expense if you feel like it. 'Bye.
Please, calm down.

No-one was trying to stifle debate over abortion, no-one was trying to personally attack you.

The problem with 'nobody answering your question' is... well, is it really relevent?

yes. if the proposed argument against abortion hinges on an absolute right to your own body, then it very much matters that a major ethical theory and our moral intuitions more generally seem to suggest that no such absolute right exists. so a person holding the absolute right position must either:
1) demonstrate that utilitarianism is wrong (and figure out a way past thought experiments like the finger prick vs the deaths of ten thousand from a few posts back),
2) modify their argument to not talk about absolute rights, but some lesser concept of rights, or
3) abandon that line of argument entirely

Yeah, forgive me for not giving a crap about that particular question of his.

"Ooooh, lookit me! I invented a philosophical system wherein abortion should be illegal! What do you have to say to that?!?!"

Erm, congrats? You are now Anti-Choicer Philosopher #2 bazillion?

Yawn.

that is not soheran's or my point. surely you agree that we ought only use good arguments, both when defending abortion and just generally. if so, then we should subject arguments even from our own side to critical examination.

one such argument, used by ska and mura among many many others, is the "a person has an absolute right to their body, therefore they cannot* ever under any circumstances be forced to donate blood or organs or carry a fetus to term."

the problem is, this isn't clearly and obviously true. one of the major ethical systems held by lots and lots of people rejects it outright, and our moral intuitions seem to say that we in fact should be ok with forcing the use of peoples bodies against their will in certain circumstances.

*they really mean to mean "ought not" here, but for some reason in this thread decided that is was more important and thus the long digression about is/ought and the existence of certain sorts of laws.

<snip>

To sum up, as a pregnant woman, I have the responsibility to make the decision about the pregnancy, I have the right to preserve my body and self, and I have control of said body. Making abortion illegal will make excersising that control more difficult and dangerous but will not stop it happening.

I believe that women have the right to abortion. I also believe that nobody aspires to it, or enjoys it, or takes it lightly and that there are many things we can do to reduce the amount of abortions that take place. Better sex education, better childcare facilities, more legal protection for working mothers, more flexible working arrangements would all help as would some cultural changes (in the UK at least)so that girls are more confident in saying "not without a condom" and dad is expected to be equally responsible. These are the areas where we should concentrate our efforts if we really care about reducing abortion and making a better world for children.

<snip>

That's a very big "if," you know. Most mainstream "pro-life" organizations will choose to prioritize controlling women over saving fetuses any day of the week and twice on Sunday. You can easily verify this by simply tracking the programs and laws they support.

The first lesson a fledgling pro-choicer has to learn is that the forced pregnancy lobby is only interested in preventing abortion insofar as it allows them to control women. If there comes a point where saving fetuses conflicts with controlling women, they will choose controlling women every time.
The two posts above are quoted for overwhelming truth.

Bewilder's whole post is so amazingly cool and well expressed, and Bottle's is so bitterly correct, that it reminds me why I feel so strongly about this issue, and why I cannot allow three annoying individuals to drive me out of this discussion.

So I'm back with apologies for my outburst. Since FS, Chumbwumbly and Soheran are apparently more interested in their side topic than the main one, I will just ignore them and stay focused on the part of this thread that is important to me.


(By the way, I don't know how to use the ignore function (don't know where the magic button is because I've never used it), so if someone could TG me the simple and obvious instructions, I would appreciate it. Thanks.)

that is not soheran's or my point. surely you agree that we ought only use good arguments, both when defending abortion and just generally. if so, then we should subject arguments even from our own side to critical examination.

one such argument, used by ska and mura among many many others, is the "a person has an absolute right to their body, therefore they cannot* ever under any circumstances be forced to donate blood or organs or carry a fetus to term."

the problem is, this isn't clearly and obviously true. one of the major ethical systems held by lots and lots of people rejects it outright, and our moral intuitions seem to say that we in fact should be ok with forcing the use of peoples bodies against their will in certain circumstances.

*they really mean to mean "ought not" here, but for some reason in this thread decided that is was more important and thus the long digression about is/ought and the existence of certain sorts of laws.

I think you've yet to show that this opinion is actually held by "lots and lots of people". See, I have severe difficulties believing that even a substantial segment of society would hold the opinion that it's ok to force people to donate tissue or blood. If that was the case, I somehow don't think we would have the massive debates about organ donation that we have today.

Even "assumed consent" seems to be rejected by a sizeable amount of the population, and that concept still gives you the right to opt out and keep your organs. If so many people object to the notion of having to sign a statement to keep all of your body after you're dead, I don't see them flocking to the idea that you should be forced to give parts of it while you're still alive (without being able to opt out).

I figure this is useful info for anybody who posts here, particularly on a topic as tense as abortion, so here goes:

If you click on the name of a poster (like right next to one of their posts), you should have several options pop up. One option is "View Public Profile." Click that one. On their public profile page, you should see an option to "Add [name] to your buddy list" and an option to "Add [name] to your ignore list." If you click the ignore option, you'll be given a chance to confirm that you want to add that name to your ignore list, and save the updated list.

Alternatively, you can go directly to your own Control Panel, select "Buddy/Ignore lists" and add in a name as needed.

Thank you! :)

(By the way, I don't know how to use the ignore function (don't know where the magic button is because I've never used it), so if someone could TG me the simple and obvious instructions, I would appreciate it. Thanks.)
I figure this is useful info for anybody who posts here, particularly on a topic as tense as abortion, so here goes:

If you click on the name of a poster (like right next to one of their posts), you should have several options pop up. One option is "View Public Profile." Click that one. On their public profile page, you should see an option to "Add [name] to your buddy list" and an option to "Add [name] to your ignore list." If you click the ignore option, you'll be given a chance to confirm that you want to add that name to your ignore list, and save the updated list.

Alternatively, you can go directly to your own Control Panel, select "Buddy/Ignore lists" and add in a name as needed.

I think you've yet to show that this opinion is actually held by "lots and lots of people". See, I have severe difficulties believing that even a substantial segment of society would hold the opinion that it's ok to force people to donate tissue or blood.

you'll note that i said "in certain circumstances"

the easiest circumstances to draw this out in are somewhat outlandish (though technically possible): we need a small sample of person x's blood or ten thousand will die. person x is an asshole and tells us to go fuck ourselves. so we either force x to give or we allow ten thousand to die. in my experience, nobody takes the absolute protection of x's right to self-ownership route here and like with the burning fertility clinic, anyone who did say they we're going to keep to the absolute protection, damn the ten thousand, would rightfully be declared a monster. so if the absolute conception doesn't hold absolutely, then it isn't.

as for utilitarianism being held by lots and lots of people, what sort of demonstration would you like?

This discussion has ranged pretty far afield in terms of the relevant issues. We hear an awful lot about rights. Usually a lot of legal talk is mixed in to make it all sound very official and noble. Some people know what they're talking about, most don't.

We hear about mother's rights, woman's rights, human rights, the rights of the unborn (or lack therof), rights of adults, rights of minors, rights of adolescents. We hear about the rights over one's body, the right to live, the right to help, the right to withold help. The right to choose life, the right to choose abortion, the right to this, the right to that.

What isn't talked about is responsibility.

Some people have just read that line and rolled their eyes. You know who you are and should be ashamed of yourself that the very mention of the word 'responsibility' triggers such a reaction in you.

But it's time to talk about responsibility. Responsibility makes things more complex and less fun, but having it is what makes you an adult. Responsibilities also come hand in hand with rights. You don't deserve rights unless you accept a corresponding level of responsibility with them.

For example, you have a right to free expression. Paired with that is a responsibility to use that right in a way that doesn't cause unfair harm to others. You have the right to worship in whatevery way your conscience dictates but the responsibility to respect that right in others, as well as not allow your religion to harm others. (This is why human sacrifice isn't allowed by the law no matter what religion may call for it.)

So, to those who are enamored with peppering this discussion with lectures on women's rights, let's talk about the responsibility that comes with those rights. (These apply to men as well)

If you're going to go out there and exercise your right to sleep with somebody, then you accept a level of responsibility with it. You're responsible for safeguarding the health of your lover. You're responsible for doing so in such a way as to not violate any vows you've made (No cheating.) You're responsible for making sure, before you go through with it, that you know and understand the possible results of this action.

And this is why the slavery analogy is not only fallacious but silly. (This is also why rape cases are different.) You know, before committing to the act, what can happen. You know that biologically the function of sexual intercourse is to cause pregnancy. (Yes, it's fun too but if humans had evolved to reproduce asexually then we wouldn't be screwing each other.) Using birth control is fine but it doesn't somehow give a free pass to ignore those responsibilities. It's just a way to minimize the chances of an unwanted pregnancy taking place. And if pregnancy occurs, then you have a responsibility to that baby. If you can't raise him or her then adoption is an option.

Backtracking just a little let's reiterate something. Using birth control is not a free pass that means that somehow since you didn't mean to get pregnant that the universe owes it to you to not make you be pregnant. You're not magically entitled to an abortion just because the condom broke or the pill didn't work. It's not somehow unfair that you got pregnant and we, as a culture, don't owe it to you to safeguard your desire to shirk that responsibility.

Pregnancy isn't a punishment for immoral behavior and anybody that says otherwise is being shortsighted and judgmental, but it's not only the extreme religious right saying so. It's remarkable how often pro-choice supporters act as though it were exactly that, and then criticize those on the other side who say so.

If you're not in a place in your life where having a child is a viable option then don't have sex. It's so ridiculously simple that people forget about it all the time in this cloud of discussion over rights and freedoms. You're also free NOT to have sex, you know. Exercise that if you don't want to worry about responsibilities. Wait until the time is right where you could handle it if it happens. It's not hard. It's simple good advice. Nobody in their right mind would advise you to go snowboarding if you don't have health insurance. Nobody in their right mind would advise you to buy a car if you're unemployed. Do we still have the right to do those things? Of course we do, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

I'm not being a hypocrite here. When I was younger I got my girlfriend pregnant and we did what was right. We accepted responsibility for that baby. We had enough support from our families that it wasn't necessary to put him up for adoption. Neither of us was working, we were both still in school, I had no experience whatsoever with raising a baby and my girlfriend had only a little. Fortunately, both of us were raised to take responsibility for our actions. Not everyone agreed with our choice, even a Catholic member of my family suggested abortion (irony) but I was raised better than that.

Today, that baby is growing into a man that I'm proud to call my son. He knows the circumstances of his birth and has seen, by example, the benefits of taking responsibility. I've strictly taught him to avoid putting himself in a similar position, because while it worked out well for us, it's not the ideal way to go. He's been taught to be responsible, not only for the consequences of his actions, but to think responsibly before taking those actions.

Having an abortion isn't a way to fulfill responsibility. It's paying someone to make the problem go away. No amount of rhetoric about the welfare of the child's future or the plight of children in the world will somehow make that any different. Even kids that have had a difficult life would rather have faced those difficulties than to never have lived. Anyone who says something like "I sish I'd never been born" are usually only saying that because they're pissed off or because they're experiencing clinical depression and are considered in need of medical attention.

To those of you arguing pro choice: If you find this post insulting because it comes off as saying you're irresponsible, then take no offense but understand that this is the way you're presenting yourselves. By demanding rights and insisting that you aren't obligated to meet those responsibilities, you make yourselves look like adolescents who want to hae their cake and eat it too. If that's not the image you want to put out there, then I'd urge you to talk more about responsibility.

This came out a lot longer than I meant for it to. I apologize for the length.

Responsibility is insubstantial and therefore irrelevant.

you'll note that i said "in certain circumstances"

the easiest circumstances to draw this out in are somewhat outlandish (though technically possible): we need a small sample of person x's blood or ten thousand will die. person x is an asshole and tells us to go fuck ourselves. so we either force x to give or we allow ten thousand to die. in my experience, nobody takes the absolute protection of x's right to self-ownership route here and like with the burning fertility clinic, anyone who did say they we're going to keep to the absolute protection, damn the ten thousand, would rightfully be declared a monster. so if the absolute conception doesn't hold absolutely, then it isn't.

as for utilitarianism being held by lots and lots of people, what sort of demonstration would you like?

I think this might be right where this comparison falls down... in your example, the lifes of thousands are at stake. Reduce that down to a one-on-one : One possible donor who's a dick and will not donate, and one possible life saved.
Most people will agree that x in this example should be donating whatever's needed, but most will also agree that if x has his own reasons why he doesn't want to donate, this needs to be respected. X will not be forced.

This discussion has ranged pretty far afield in terms of the relevant issues. We hear an awful lot about rights. Usually a lot of legal talk is mixed in to make it all sound very official and noble. Some people know what they're talking about, most don't.

We hear about mother's rights, woman's rights, human rights, the rights of the unborn (or lack therof), rights of adults, rights of minors, rights of adolescents. We hear about the rights over one's body, the right to live, the right to help, the right to withold help. The right to choose life, the right to choose abortion, the right to this, the right to that.

What isn't talked about is responsibility.

<snip>
Actually, that is not true. Responsibility has been raised by pro-choice posters. It is true it has not been addressed by the thread's hijackers, but if you ignore that side argument (vast though it is), you will find several references to abortion being the responsible choice in many circumstances in which it is chosen.

EDIT: I didn't respond to the rest of your long post because it was pretty much a repeat of your earlier points, which is fine because it will help to get us back on track. But I have already addressed those points, and I think I'll wait until other people have a crack at them and maybe break up your post into more manageable portions, before having another go at it myself.

And this is why the slavery analogy is not only fallacious but silly. (This is also why rape cases are different.) You know, before committing to the act, what can happen.

What if, hypothetically, you took part in some bet or contest for which the penalty for losing was slavery?

Having an abortion isn't a way to fulfill responsibility. It's paying someone to make the problem go away.

So if a corporation spills toxic waste in a river, it is irresponsible for it to pay for the cleanup?

To those of you arguing pro choice: If you find this post insulting because it comes off as saying you're irresponsible, then take no offense but understand that this is the way you're presenting yourselves. By demanding rights and insisting that you aren't obligated to meet those responsibilities, you make yourselves look like adolescents who want to hae their cake and eat it too. If that's not the image you want to put out there, then I'd urge you to talk more about responsibility.

I don't understand. The right pro-choice is demanding is the right to legal abortion. As your interpretation of responsibility is to not have said abortion, being responsible thus makes the right to have an abortion completely irrelevant in 99% of cases. Why on earth would one desire legal abortion and also consider women obliged to take responsibility of following the pregnancy through to birth?

Responsibility is insubstantial and therefore irrelevant.

Ok now we know your position, thanks.

Actually, that is not true. Responsibility has been raised by pro-choice posters. It is true it has not been addressed by the thread's hijackers, but if you ignore that side argument (vast though it is), you will find several references to abortion being the responsible choice in many circumstances in which it is chosen.


True. But I don't think it's talked about enough, and definitely not by the pro-life side. So if I were to edit my post I'd add the word 'enough' to the end of the statement about it not being talked about.


EDIT: I didn't respond to the rest of your long post because it was pretty much a repeat of your earlier points, which is fine because it will help to get us back on track. But I have already addressed those points, and I think I'll wait until other people have a crack at them and maybe break up your post into more manageable portions, before having another go at it myself.

Cool.

Actually, that is not true. Responsibility has been raised by pro-choice posters. It is true it has not been addressed by the thread's hijackers, but if you ignore that side argument (vast though it is), you will find several references to abortion being the responsible choice in many circumstances in which it is chosen.

I'll admit, I don't personally address the "responsibility" angle because it's so obvious and self-evident to me that abortion can be just as responsible a choice as continuing a pregnancy. It's fundamentally difficult for me to wrap my head around the idea that some people simply don't accept that.

To me, it's like somebody debating whether or not it's responsible to drive a car. There are situations in which driving a car is responsible, and situations in which it is not responsible. There are individuals for whom driving is the right choice, and individuals for whom it is not the right choice. There are safe, responsible ways to drive, and there are dangerous and irresponsible ways to drive. It boggles my mind than any normal-functioning adult human would need this explained to them.

Frankly, in the context of this debate, I think anybody who insists that abortion is "irresponsible" is asking to be ignored. They obviously aren't interested in reality, so why waste time hashing over the topic with them? It's like arguing with somebody who insists that it's never responsible to drive a car. What's the point?

They aren't actually talking about "responsibility," anyhow. They are talking about a belief that certain actions warrant punishment, and it's wrong for an individual to seek to escape punishment. Since I don't agree that consensual sexual activity warrants punishment, and since I don't believe forced pregnancy should EVER be used to punish anybody, I obviously reject everything in their line of thinking. Fundamentally, I see them as no different from the people who believe in stoning promiscuous women. These are people who support the physical abuse of women who choose to have sex, and in so doing they give up any claim to moral standing with me. Personally, I know that as long as they deem my actions "irresponsible" I'm probably doing exactly the right thing. :D

I think this might be right where this comparison falls down... in your example, the lifes of thousands are at stake. Reduce that down to a one-on-one : One possible donor who's a dick and will not donate, and one possible life saved.
Most people will agree that x in this example should be donating whatever's needed, but most will also agree that if x has his own reasons why he doesn't want to donate, this needs to be respected. X will not be forced.

perhaps. but we can no longer talk about some absolute right of x's. x is allowed to be a dick on some other basis entirely.

Having an abortion isn't a way to fulfill responsibility. It's paying someone to make the problem go away. No amount of rhetoric about the welfare of the child's future or the plight of children in the world will somehow make that any different. Even kids that have had a difficult life would rather have faced those difficulties than to never have lived. Anyone who says something like "I sish I'd never been born" are usually only saying that because they're pissed off or because they're experiencing clinical depression and are considered in need of medical attention.

I sort of semi-agreed with you, up to this exact point.
Responsibility is about taking a look at your options, and then going for the one that you consider best for all involved. In some cases that's keeping the child cause you're in a situation that allows you to do so (you've got family support, income, mental stability, no school/university/education to finish, etc.). In other cases it's more responsible to have an abortion.

And yes, I'm one of those who say "It would have been better for all involved if I had never been born". I'm not depressed or in need of any medical attention of any kind, I'm simply stating a fact.
Had I not been born, my mother would not have stayed with her abusive husband ("for the sake of the children", and cause she would not have had any support whatsoever from her family, and back then even from the government). Had I not been born, I would not have been forced to go through abuse, hatred, pain (both physical and mental), depression, self-harm and utter helplessness.
I'm happy now, very much so, but even if I do live for another 25-30 years, and even if every single one is as happy as this, it will not make up for that time in hell that was my childhood.

Had my mother acted responsibly, she would have aborted me.

What if, hypothetically, you took part in some bet or contest for which the penalty for losing was slavery?


I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Are you asking if it would be responsible to submit to slavery if I lose the bet?


So if a corporation spills toxic waste in a river, it is irresponsible for it to pay for the cleanup?


It's not the same. In the case of a toxic spill, there's really only one approach to handling the emergecy (other than just ignoring it, of course, which we would all agree is not a responsible approach!) and that's to clean it up. If said company has the infrastructure to do it then fine, otherwise they would be expected to hire someone else to clean it up. I'd liken an abortion to the company that spends only a few bucks to cover it up (to hell with the damage to the environment) as opposed to the larger cost of clening it up properly.


I don't understand. The right pro-choice is demanding is the right to legal abortion. As your interpretation of responsibility is to not have said abortion, being responsible thus makes the right to have an abortion completely irrelevant in 99% of cases. Why on earth would one desire legal abortion and also consider women obliged to take responsibility of following the pregnancy through to birth?

I'm not sure I understand either, but if you're asking why abortion should be legal if it almost never would get used (ideally) my answer is that it shouldn't be legal, with exceptions included for cases of rape/incest or when mom's life is endangered.

I sort of semi-agreed with you, up to this exact point.
Responsibility is about taking a look at your options, and then going for the one that you consider best for all involved. In some cases that's keeping the child cause you're in a situation that allows you to do so (you've got family support, income, mental stability, no school/university/education to finish, etc.). In other cases it's more responsible to have an abortion.

To put it another way, good things can often follow an irresponsible action, or can occur in spite of one. Doesn't change the fact that the action was irresponsible.

Sometimes continuing a pregnancy is an irresponsible choice. That doesn't mean you can't end up with a beautiful, wonderful child as a result of that irresponsible choice. People sometimes do irresponsible things and still end up okay in the end. Such is life.

I'll admit, I don't personally address the "responsibility" angle because it's so obvious and self-evident to me that abortion can be just as responsible a choice as continuing a pregnancy. It's fundamentally difficult for me to wrap my head around the idea that some people simply don't accept that.

To me, it's like somebody debating whether or not it's responsible to drive a car. There are situations in which driving a car is responsible, and situations in which it is not responsible. There are individuals for whom driving is the right choice, and individuals for whom it is not the right choice. There are safe, responsible ways to drive, and there are dangerous and irresponsible ways to drive. It boggles my mind than any normal-functioning adult human would need this explained to them.

Frankly, in the context of this debate, I think anybody who insists that abortion is "irresponsible" is asking to be ignored. They obviously aren't interested in reality, so why waste time hashing over the topic with them? It's like arguing with somebody who insists that it's never responsible to drive a car. What's the point?

They aren't actually talking about "responsibility," anyhow. They are talking about a belief that certain actions warrant punishment, and it's wrong for an individual to seek to escape punishment. Since I don't agree that consensual sexual activity warrants punishment, and since I don't believe forced pregnancy should EVER be used to punish anybody, I obviously reject everything in their line of thinking. Fundamentally, I see them as no different from the people who believe in stoning promiscuous women. These are people who support the physical abuse of women who choose to have sex, and in so doing they give up any claim to moral standing with me. Personally, I know that as long as they deem my actions "irresponsible" I'm probably doing exactly the right thing. :D
You and I are in agreement again.

I cannot understand how anyone with any real life experience can think that there is one universal boilerplate "responsible" decision that will fit all situations, and they know what it is. Every time I pursue such arguments, it turns out as you describe: The person is really arguing for imposition of their personal beliefs onto other people and merely labeling those beliefs "responsibility" in order to justify the imposition.

Also, they cannot prove the "irresponsibility" of different decisions by judging them in the context of real situations, where they often turn out to be actually responsible under the circumstances. Instead, the criterion for judging whether a decision is responsible or not becomes merely how much it deviates from their personal agenda.

What isn't talked about is responsibility.

Some people have just read that line and rolled their eyes. You know who you are and should be ashamed of yourself that the very mention of the word 'responsibility' triggers such a reaction in you.

I rolled my eyes. Twice. I bet you get to decide what is responsible and irresponsible behaviour, instead of the women whose lives are affected.

If you're going to go out there and exercise your right to sleep with somebody, then you accept a level of responsibility with it. You're responsible for safeguarding the health of your lover. You're responsible for doing so in such a way as to not violate any vows you've made (No cheating.) You're responsible for making sure, before you go through with it, that you know and understand the possible results of this action.

One of the possible results is that the birth control fails and the woman may have to get an abortion. Women are not unaware of this. Whether or not deciding to have sex anyways is a responsible decision is up to the woman, in my opinion.

Using birth control is fine but it doesn't somehow give a free pass to ignore those responsibilities.

I was right. You are deciding what is responsible behaviour.

It's not somehow unfair that you got pregnant and we, as a culture, don't owe it to you to safeguard your desire to shirk that responsibility.

And you are deciding when we are being irresponsible.

Pregnancy isn't a punishment for immoral behavior...

Apparently, it is a consequence of sex that each of us must be forced to bear if we happen to get pregnant despite our efforts to the contrary.

Having an abortion isn't a way to fulfill responsibility.

I'll leave that up to the pregnant woman. I don't think you get to decide that for her.

I think it is entirely responsible for pregnant women to get an abortion. Nothing in your post, long as it was, suugests otherwise.

I'll admit, I don't personally address the "responsibility" angle because it's so obvious and self-evident to me that abortion can be just as responsible a choice as continuing a pregnancy. It's fundamentally difficult for me to wrap my head around the idea that some people simply don't accept that.

To me, it's like somebody debating whether or not it's responsible to drive a car. There are situations in which driving a car is responsible, and situations in which it is not responsible. There are individuals for whom driving is the right choice, and individuals for whom it is not the right choice. There are safe, responsible ways to drive, and there are dangerous and irresponsible ways to drive. It boggles my mind than any normal-functioning adult human would need this explained to them.

Frankly, in the context of this debate, I think anybody who insists that abortion is "irresponsible" is asking to be ignored. They obviously aren't interested in reality, so why waste time hashing over the topic with them? It's like arguing with somebody who insists that it's never responsible to drive a car. What's the point?

I see what you're saying, but it would be worth your while to consider that point of view, of for no other reason than to be able to honestly say you've looked at it objectively.

There are those on my side of the discussion who find it equally unimaginable that people would suggest that abortion is somehow a responsible option, to th epoint of characterizing it as being almost noble. As long as the two sides insist that each ot her's perspectives are utterly incomprehensible, then this will go on and on forever, with no progress in communicating whatsoever. At which point you must ask yourself "Will I be part of the problem, or part of the solution?"


They aren't actually talking about "responsibility," anyhow. They are talking about a belief that certain actions warrant punishment, and it's wrong for an individual to seek to escape punishment. Since I don't agree that consensual sexual activity warrants punishment, and since I don't believe forced pregnancy should EVER be used to punish anybody, I obviously reject everything in their line of thinking. Fundamentally, I see them as no different from the people who believe in stoning promiscuous women. These are people who support the physical abuse of women who choose to have sex, and in so doing they give up any claim to moral standing with me. Personally, I know that as long as they deem my actions "irresponsible" I'm probably doing exactly the right thing. :D

I don't know who "they" is meant to be, but you should know by now I'm not one to look at it as punishment and I have an issue with anyobe who does. Don't let a generalization like that keep you from being open to discussion.


I sort of semi-agreed with you, up to this exact point.
Responsibility is about taking a look at your options, and then going for the one that you consider best for all involved. In some cases that's keeping the child cause you're in a situation that allows you to do so (you've got family support, income, mental stability, no school/university/education to finish, etc.). In other cases it's more responsible to have an abortion.


My question for you would be: Responsible to whom? To one's self? Family? Lover?


And yes, I'm one of those who say "It would have been better for all involved if I had never been born". I'm not depressed or in need of any medical attention of any kind, I'm simply stating a fact.
Had I not been born, my mother would not have stayed with her abusive husband ("for the sake of the children", and cause she would not have had any support whatsoever from her family, and back then even from the government). Had I not been born, I would not have been forced to go through abuse, hatred, pain (both physical and mental), depression, self-harm and utter helplessness.

I don't know the details so I apologize if I step out of line here... But I'd suggest that there may have been other options besides those she chose OR abortion. On the other hand, sometimes life just blows and we're all here to do our best with what we've got. I'm sincerely sorry that you've experienced such pain and difficulty, and I have no doubt that you deserved none of it. Yet, from what little I know of you from having exchanged posts on here, you seem like a good and decent person, and you might be surprised at how many people's lives you've touched in a positive way that makes the choice your mom made the correct one.


I'm happy now, very much so, but even if I do live for another 25-30 years, and even if every single one is as happy as this, it will not make up for that time in hell that was my childhood.

Had my mother acted responsibly, she would have aborted me.

I have no way of knowing what it was like for you, but like I said I'm glad you're here, for what it's worth. (If I may be so bold as you extend to you a :fluffle:)

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Are you asking if it would be responsible to submit to slavery if I lose the bet?



It's not the same. In the case of a toxic spill, there's really only one approach to handling the emergecy (other than just ignoring it, of course, which we would all agree is not a responsible approach!) and that's to clean it up. If said company has the infrastructure to do it then fine, otherwise they would be expected to hire someone else to clean it up. I'd liken an abortion to the company that spends only a few bucks to cover it up (to hell with the damage to the environment) as opposed to the larger cost of clening it up properly.



I'm not sure I understand either, but if you're asking why abortion should be legal if it almost never would get used (ideally) my answer is that it shouldn't be legal, with exceptions included for cases of rape/incest or when mom's life is endangered.

I'm saying that simply because people know possible consequences of sex doesn't mean that the slavery analogy is wrong in itself. There is no part of the definition of slavery which says that slavery is only slavery when the enslaved didn't know that they could be enslaved. In the hypothetical, the person knows what they're getting into (with slavery as a possible consequence) but it would obviously still be slavery if that happened.


Well, I was mostly just irritated with your second sentence in that quote there. However, an abortion reverts the situation to how it was before the pregnancy, as a full environmental cleanup reverts the situation to pre-spill. You may argue that the foetus has been harmed, but that would be like the short-term consequences of dead fish from the initial spill. Otherwise, both remove the problem entirely.


Okay, but the earlier post implied differently...

For example, you have a right to free expression. Paired with that is a responsibility to use that right in a way that doesn't cause unfair harm to others. You have the right to worship in whatevery way your conscience dictates but the responsibility to respect that right in others, as well as not allow your religion to harm others.
By demanding rights and insisting that you aren't obligated to meet those responsibilities, you make yourselves look like adolescents who want to hae their cake and eat it too.

This looked to me like you would be comfortable with the pro-choice lobby getting their rights as long as they exercised your responsibility as well.

Ok now we know your position, thanks.



True. But I don't think it's talked about enough, and definitely not by the pro-life side. So if I were to edit my post I'd add the word 'enough' to the end of the statement about it not being talked about.



Cool.
Please see my most recent response to Bottle in reference to what I'm saying here.

In regards your idea about the pro-choice side not focusing enough on responsibility, I would dispute that, and say that our entire argument is based on ideas of responsibility and that we want to give people good and safe access to all the resources they need to make the most responsible decisions under whatever circumstances they may find themselves at any given time.

If you do not think that we talk about responsibility enough, maybe it is because we do not limit our idea of responsibility the same way you do. Your post, in which you described what you consider "responsible" is clearly based on a set of personal beliefs which are meaningful to you but not to people who do not share them. The same is true in reverse, where the belief systems on which we base our ideas of "responsibility" are not meaningful to you because you do not share them. Therefore, is it not possible that, when you say we don't address responsibility enough, you really mean that we don't address your beliefs enough -- in other words, we don't agree with you enough? Is it not possible that we talk about responsibility plenty, but you just choose to reject our statements because you don't agree with them?

That of course is your right, but it is not the same as us not talking about responsibility.

I rolled my eyes. Twice. I bet you get to decide what is responsible and irresponsible behaviour, instead of the women whose lives are affected.

Okay so you're proud of. instead of ashamed, of the fact that the mere mention of the word 'responsibility' caused you to react with derision.


One of the possible results is that the birth control fails and the woman may have to get an abortion. Women are not unaware of this. Whether or not deciding to have sex anyways is a responsible decision is up to the woman, in my opinion.


Noted within the context of the above.


I was right. You are deciding what is responsible behaviour.
And you are deciding when we are being irresponsible.


Meaning very little coming from someone who has expressed what you just did in regards to the meaning of responsibility.


Apparently, it is a consequence of sex that each of us must be forced to bear if we happen to get pregnant despite our efforts to the contrary.


Punishment and consequence are not the same.


I'll leave that up to the pregnant woman. I don't think you get to decide that for her.

As you've said.


I think it is entirely responsible for pregnant women to get an abortion. Nothing in your post, long as it was, suugests otherwise.

IYHO, which, as I said, means very little at this point.

Hydesland, this is really, really, really, REALLY stressing me out. So much so that I just scolded my cat just because I can't scold you.

Read. The. Thread. Please.


I have, and nothing answered it satisfactorily. The answers that addressed this were incredibly laughable, and often just pseud. But despite this:


All of these points -- the prisoner thing, the rights thing, the why a fetus is not a child thing, all of it has already been argued in this thread, in detail. If you cannot be bothered to read the thread, why should I take you seriously as wanting to get into depth on the topic? Read the damned thread, and respond to the points already argued, and then we can go forward from there. But for the love of every god ever imagined, stop asking me and others to repeat the whole thread over for you.


The bold indicates that you may not understand the premise of my argument . All I am trying to point out is that different people have different rights, not that they are in any way in the same situation, nor that they are equivalent. I am not arguing that because such and such is this, so should the fetus be like this. I am trying to explain why access to rights is such a meaningless argument on which to base anything that it should be rejected. This is not me trying to argue for abortion.


This is ridiculous! I have spent over 5 hours today typing the same arguments over and over for people who refuse to read, when I should have been figuring out how to finish a graphics project.


I don't believe that from what I have seen that you are actually really addressing my argument, but if you really think you are then you can always quote where you have addressed this. From what I have read through, it has not been addressed.


Why should it mean anything that it's not a person?


It doesn't mean anything.


No, I never go into such threads because such questions are stupid, and such threads are usually full of armchair philosophers who bore the living shit out of me.


Well the thread was kind of more to do with economics...


It does not matter if one is direct and the other indirect (whatever you want those words to mean in this context). The end result is the same. I have the right to take any action in order to preserve my bodily integrity and I also have the right to refuse to take any action in order to preserve my bodily integrity.


It matters hugely. I can refuse to give organs to my mother, which will cause her to die. But I cannot physically kill her. Secondly, for the billionth time, having an abortion is not refusing to take any action, it is the exact opposite.

What an idiotic analogy. Why can't I just push him off the button?


Way to dodge the question, no you can't push him because the button is outside the shop. Now can you answer?


Already addressed in this thread.


Whatever, the point is that you have in no way shown that this apparent universal truth is actually.... true. There are many times when you are obliged to give up some of your freedoms. You cannot simply say "I have no obligation to stay in a condition I don't want to" and act as if it is objective fact, with just one analogy.

I'm saying that simply because people know possible consequences of sex doesn't mean that the slavery analogy is wrong in itself. There is no part of the definition of slavery which says that slavery is only slavery when the enslaved didn't know that they could be enslaved. In the hypothetical, the person knows what they're getting into (with slavery as a possible consequence) but it would obviously still be slavery if that happened.

Yes, that's true, but if I may borrow your analogy for a moment: If I make a bet in which I'm wagering my own slavery as the result of a loss, then I hardly have a right to whine should I lose and then have to follow through with what I committed to.

Mind you, this is not to be taken as an acknowledgement of the validity of the slavery analogy as it pertains to pregnancy. A pregnant woman isn't a slave, even if not permitted an abortion. She may consider her position difficult, unfair, unjust... but that's not slavery.


Well, I was mostly just irritated with your second sentence in that quote there. However, an abortion reverts the situation to how it was before the pregnancy, as a full environmental cleanup reverts the situation to pre-spill. You may argue that the foetus has been harmed, but that would be like the short-term consequences of dead fish from the initial spill. Otherwise, both remove the problem entirely.


The fact that the fetus has been harmed is exactly my point.


Okay, but the earlier post implied differently...

This looked to me like you would be comfortable with the pro-choice lobby getting their rights as long as they exercised your responsibility as well.

I'm don't understand what you mean here.

Please see my most recent response to Bottle in reference to what I'm saying here.

In regards your idea about the pro-choice side not focusing enough on responsibility, I would dispute that, and say that our entire argument is based on ideas of responsibility and that we want to give people good and safe access to all the resources they need to make the most responsible decisions under whatever circumstances they may find themselves at any given time.

If you do not think that we talk about responsibility enough, maybe it is because we do not limit our idea of responsibility the same way you do. Your post, in which you described what you consider "responsible" is clearly based on a set of personal beliefs which are meaningful to you but not to people who do not share them. The same is true in reverse, where the belief systems on which we base our ideas of "responsibility" are not meaningful to you because you do not share them. Therefore, is it not possible that, when you say we don't address responsibility enough, you really mean that we don't address your beliefs enough -- in other words, we don't agree with you enough? Is it not possible that we talk about responsibility plenty, but you just choose to reject our statements because you don't agree with them?

That of course is your right, but it is not the same as us not talking about responsibility.

Your point is well taken. That's part of why in my post I dinged the pro-life side especially for not raising it enough at one point.

You're right that we have a difference in how we see the range of options to meet responsibility. It's also why I noted that pro-choice advocates shouldn't take my post to mean that I'm calling them irresponsible per se. It's just that all the focus on the rights aspect does tend to drown out the talk of responsibility that should naturally go with it hand in hand. Since the pro-life side generally doesn't raise the issue at all except the anomalous ones that like to treat it like a punishment, it tends to make people paint all pro-choice debators with the broad brush of being in favor of pregnancy = puishment which is not the case.

Regarding utilitarianism, abortion is inherently utilitarian. Abortion is a means to a greater good, as in you remove and kill the fetus in order to stop pregnancy. No one will ever say that abortion is an end in itself.

Not only that, but the main reason abortion was legalised in the UK were for utilitarian reasons (people were having abortions anyway, better to regulate it and legalise it then not legalise it).

You don't deserve rights unless you accept a corresponding level of responsibility with them.


I don't know if this is true. What responsibility comes with the right to life, or the right to a fair trial for instance? I think you get certain rights no matter what you do. I can't see anything that makes me lose my right to life, or a fair trial.


Using birth control is fine but it doesn't somehow give a free pass to ignore those responsibilities. It's just a way to minimize the chances of an unwanted pregnancy taking place. And if pregnancy occurs, then you have a responsibility to that baby. If you can't raise him or her then adoption is an option.

So what is your opinion on the morning after pill? If you're against it, why? Isn't preventing the zygote to implant the same as aborting a fetus? Why not?

Having an abortion isn't a way to fulfill responsibility. It's paying someone to make the problem go away. No amount of rhetoric about the welfare of the child's future or the plight of children in the world will somehow make that any different. Even kids that have had a difficult life would rather have faced those difficulties than to never have lived. Anyone who says something like "I sish I'd never been born" are usually only saying that because they're pissed off or because they're experiencing clinical depression and are considered in need of medical attention.


This is were I disagree most. I'm assuming that a fetus doesn't know it's alive, it doesn't know it's an entity separate from space and time, so it doesn't know it has a future, and a pleasant or not so pleasant life ahead of it. The way I see it is that the fetus never knows it would have a pleasant, or even a very difficult life if it wasn't aborted. The hypothetical child that would rather face certain difficulties instead of never being born never exists and never existed. I believe being a person is more than having human DNA and multiplying cells, you only become a person once you're mentally able to know you exist. If you don't know this you don't have an interest in staying alive.
I agree that when looking back I'm quite happy I was born, but if I was aborted, or if my parents never met, or if my blastocyst never implanted and I was a miscarriage I wouldn't really have minded.

Yes, that's true, but if I may borrow your analogy for a moment: If I make a bet in which I'm wagering my own slavery as the result of a loss, then I hardly have a right to whine should I lose and then have to follow through with what I committed to.

Mind you, this is not to be taken as an acknowledgement of the validity of the slavery analogy as it pertains to pregnancy. A pregnant woman isn't a slave, even if not permitted an abortion. She may consider her position difficult, unfair, unjust... but that's not slavery.



The fact that the fetus has been harmed is exactly my point.



I'm don't understand what you mean here.

You might not be entitled to whine personally, but slavery is inherently wrong regardless of the reason for it, and you should be entitled to escape from it.


In the context of your use of the chemical spill analogy, the cheap cleanup and to hell with the damage to the environment would imply that there were lasting effects. This is not the case with abortion.


You said that one has a right to free expression and must exercise responsibilities that come with that right to free expression. You also complained about how pro-choice people want rights but not responsibilities. If we have both, then, as you and pro-choice people define them, we would then have legal abortion which was not used.

You suggested earlier that I look at your reply to Bottle for details on your reply to me, and if I"m not mistaken this is the one you meant:


You and I are in agreement again.

I cannot understand how anyone with any real life experience can think that there is one universal boilerplate "responsible" decision that will fit all situations, and they know what it is. Every time I pursue such arguments, it turns out as you describe: The person is really arguing for imposition of their personal beliefs onto other people and merely labeling those beliefs "responsibility" in order to justify the imposition.

Ok all you pro-choice people, ready for a shocker?

In part, at least, you are correct. When a person like me describes responsibility as I have, we are seeking to advance our own ideas and beliefs on what that responsibility is.

Responsibility isn't a concrete enough subject to discuss it any other way. What's important then, is to achieve a mutual understanding on what each side considers responsible, and why that is.

So then you're entitled to know just what the hell gives Neo Bretonnia the balls to label his perspective as most responsible.

My answer is simple: The responsibility to the unborn. We will, of course, disagree as to what level the unborn is entitled to this, but that is the origin of it. When I look at this situation, I see a human life that exists due to the actions of a woman and her lover, who didn't ask to be there, who has no desire to control or harm anyone, who deserves, as any human does, to have his or her welfare considered as part of any decision that affects them.

It's like I said in my long post/rant. Not many would choose death over life except those with issues of depression or those in a temporary hardship. We all have to deal with truobles in life, some worse than others, but people who have it rough don't universally wish they'd never been born.


Also, they cannot prove the "irresponsibility" of different decisions by judging them in the context of real situations, where they often turn out to be actually responsible under the circumstances. Instead, the criterion for judging whether a decision is responsible or not becomes merely how much it deviates from their personal agenda.

I wouldn't call it a matter of personal agenda, at least in this case. It's a matter of perspective, as I described just now.

Okay so you're proud of. instead of ashamed, of the fact that the mere mention of the word 'responsibility' caused you to react with derision.

No. Wrong. I am responding with derision to your attempt to define for me what is and is not a responsibility. Don't most adults act this way when you treat them like an idiotic child?

Noted within the context of the above.

Then I guess you noted it in the improper context.

Meaning very little coming from someone who has expressed what you just did in regards to the meaning of responsibility.

See above.

Punishment and consequence are not the same.

Did I say they were? Nor is pregnancy inherently a responsiblity.

As you've said.

Well, I thought it was worth pointing out that she gets to decide what is responsible, not you.

IYHO, which, as I said, means very little at this point.

Actually, I was stating a fact. You have claimed that pregnancy is a responsibility. You have done nothing to support such a claim. So rather than meaning very little, it means that you are making a baseless claim. Not a very successful way to debate.

Let me make it clearer. Tell me why a pregnant woman should see her pregnancy as a responsibility that must be borne.

Therefore, is it not possible that, when you say we don't address responsibility enough, you really mean that we don't address your beliefs enough -- in other words, we don't agree with you enough? Is it not possible that we talk about responsibility plenty, but you just choose to reject our statements because you don't agree with them?

That's precisely what is going on.

When an anti-choicer bemoans the lack of "responsibility" on the part of pro-choicers and reproductive rights supporters, they are really just bemoaning the fact that we don't believe it is "responsible" to use forced pregnancy to shame sluts.

What is and is not responsible is a matter of opinion. It's perfectly fine if somebody holds a different opinion than I hold. But it's pointless for them to pretend that I'm not concerned about responsibility simply because I reject their personal opinion about what is and is not responsible. Beyond being pointless, it's extremely rude for them to continue using this tactic even after we've specifically hashed out this very point many times over.

This subject is one that I have personally addressed with the main anti-choicers in this thread on previous occasions. The fact that they still try to play this particular card should be a clear signal to anybody who is entertaining the idea of talking to them.

I have, and nothing answered it satisfactorily. The answers that addressed this were incredibly laughable, and often just pseud. But despite this:
Then the answer should be that you rejected the answers you got and were hoping for a different one. However, you are not going to get a different one from me. Sorry.


The bold indicates that you may not understand the premise of my argument . All I am trying to point out is that different people have different rights, not that they are in any way in the same situation, nor that they are equivalent. I am not arguing that because such and such is this, so should the fetus be like this. I am trying to explain why access to rights is such a meaningless argument on which to base anything that it should be rejected. This is not me trying to argue for abortion.
I kind of don't like it when people try to argue a position they do not really hold because they are seldom good at it. Their arguments tend to be stilted and awkward because they are neither natural nor well thought out.

The answer to this objection is that differing rights and conflicting rights are a constant issue in society and the law and are balanced by society and the law every day. The mere fact that differing rights exist is not an invalidation of the access to rights argument because it is one of the most common features of modern life anyway. If you argue rights are not a valid argument in abortion because of such differences and conflicts, you may as well argue that they are not valid to bring up in regard to anything.

I don't believe that from what I have seen that you are actually really addressing my argument, but if you really think you are then you can always quote where you have addressed this. From what I have read through, it has not been addressed.
I'm not going to do that because it is my opinion that you do not see my remarks as being relevant to your arguments because you don't agree with them. It is my opinion that I addressed your argument. It is your opinion that my remarks were not relevant. There is really nothing more to be said about that, in my opinion (again).


It doesn't mean anything.
I disagree. Since we are discussing legal rights, and the law applies only to legal persons, then the fact that fetuses are not legal persons means that legal rights cannot apply to them, and therefore, they have no rights that can trump the rights of a legal person.


Well the thread was kind of more to do with economics...
Another reason for me to have avoided it.


It matters hugely. I can refuse to give organs to my mother, which will cause her to die. But I cannot physically kill her. Secondly, for the billionth time, having an abortion is not refusing to take any action, it is the exact opposite.
Actually, if your mother tries to hook herself up to your body so that she can physically leech off you to continue her own existence at your physical expense, like a vampire, and you do not want her to do that, yes, you can kill her, if that is what it takes to get her off you.

As for your second point, I already addressed that as well, though it might have been in response to someone else -- which is why it pays to read the whole thread, not just the posts addressed to oneself. As I have said previously in this thread -- abortion is a remedial action designed to correct an unwanted condition. It is analagous to taking action to escape unlawful imprisonment, or to cure a disease, or to remove an intruder from one's home, or remove a threat to one's life, in that they are all actions meant to remedy a bad situation.

You might not be entitled to whine personally, but slavery is inherently wrong regardless of the reason for it, and you should be entitled to escape from it.


But consider this: If, continuning in the gambling analogy, I enter into slavery as a result of a pre-existing agreement that I entered into willingly, is it truly slavery anymore? I suggest that it is not.


In the context of your use of the chemical spill analogy, the cheap cleanup and to hell with the damage to the environment would imply that there were lasting effects. This is not the case with abortion.


The lasting effect is a dead fetus.


You said that one has a right to free expression and must exercise responsibilities that come with that right to free expression. You also complained about how pro-choice people want rights but not responsibilities. If we have both, then, as you and pro-choice people define them, we would then have legal abortion which was not used.

Why would it be so important to have it if it were never to be used?

I don't know if this is true. What responsibility comes with the right to life, or the right to a fair trial for instance? I think you get certain rights no matter what you do. I can't see anything that makes me lose my right to life, or a fair trial.


Good questions.

My right to life carries with it the responsibility to be a productive and contributing member of my community. It comes with it a responsibility to live harmoniously with my environment.

My right to a fair trial comes with the responsibility to participate, if called, in a jury. It comes with the responsibility to, should I ever participate in one either as a defendant or as a witness, to be honest in my testimony.


So what is your opinion on the morning after pill? If you're against it, why? Isn't preventing the zygote to implant the same as aborting a fetus? Why not?


I don't have an opinion on it because I lack the knowledge to formulate one. I'm on the fence.


This is were I disagree most. I'm assuming that a fetus doesn't know it's alive, it doesn't know it's an entity separate from space and time, so it doesn't know it has a future, and a pleasant or not so pleasant life ahead of it. The way I see it is that the fetus never knows it would have a pleasant, or even a very difficult life if it wasn't aborted. The hypothetical child that would rather face certain difficulties instead of never being born never exists and never existed. I believe being a person is more than having human DNA and multiplying cells, you only become a person once you're mentally able to know you exist. If you don't know this you don't have an interest in staying alive.
I agree that when looking back I'm quite happy I was born, but if I was aborted, or if my parents never met, or if my blastocyst never implanted and I was a miscarriage I wouldn't really have minded.

Well the problem there is that, as you noted, there's no way to know beforehand whether life would be worth living, an unborn baby can't really have an opinion on the matter. That comes with just about anything. A 5-year-old who is about to start school has no concept of what it will be like, whether it will be a positive, negative or indifferent experience. Nevertheless we can reasonably expect that at the end of their school 'career', very few will say they wish they'd never learned to read, write, add and subtract.

I kind of don't like it when people try to argue a position they do not really hold because they are seldom good at it. Their arguments tend to be stilted and awkward because they are neither natural nor well thought out.

The answer to this objection is that differing rights and conflicting rights are a constant issue in society and the law and are balanced by society and the law every day. The mere fact that differing rights exist is not an invalidation of the access to rights argument because it is one of the most common features of modern life anyway. If you argue rights are not a valid argument in abortion because of such differences and conflicts, you may as well argue that they are not valid to bring up in regard to anything.


Well we must make a distinction between rights and access to rights. I am not dismissing that the rights are in conflict and therefore have the issue dismissed, I am arguing that a seperate issue about how a fetus doesn't have access to use its rights (not that it doesn't have any) does not in itself make it less worthy of moral consideration.


I'm not going to do that because it is my opinion that you do not see my remarks as being relevant to your arguments because you don't agree with them. It is my opinion that I addressed your argument. It is your opinion that my remarks were not relevant. There is really nothing more to be said about that, in my opinion (again).


Ok.


I disagree. Since we are discussing legal rights, and the law applies only to legal persons, then the fact that fetuses are not legal persons means that legal rights cannot apply to them, and therefore, they have no rights that can trump the rights of a legal person.

Well, legal rights are arbitrary by their very nature (in fact rights in general are). Perhaps then I am arguing that fetus' should be recognised as legal persons, at least from a certain time in development.


Another reason for me to have avoided it.


You don't like economics?


Actually, if your mother tries to hook herself up to your body so that she can physically leech off you to continue her own existence at your physical expense, like a vampire, and you do not want her to do that, yes, you can kill her, if that is what it takes to get her off you.


But there are still clear differences:

1) The mother is doing it intentionally and has the ability herself to stop
2) The mother is leeching off you for an indefinite amount of time, the fetus' time is limited and you know this.


As for your second point, I already addressed that as well, though it might have been in response to someone else -- which is why it pays to read the whole thread, not just the posts addressed to oneself. As I have said previously in this thread -- abortion is a remedial action designed to correct an unwanted condition. It is analagous to taking action to escape unlawful imprisonment, or to cure a disease, or to remove an intruder from one's home, or remove a threat to one's life, in that they are all actions meant to remedy a bad situation.

But just because it will remedy a bad situation, in itself, does not explain why this situation should be allowed to be remedied if it costs the life of a fetus. You have to show how your bad situation is more important.

No. Wrong. I am responding with derision to your attempt to define for me what is and is not a responsibility. Don't most adults act this way when you treat them like an idiotic child?



To those of you arguing pro choice: If you find this post insulting because it comes off as saying you're irresponsible, then take no offense but understand that this is the way you're presenting yourselves. By demanding rights and insisting that you aren't obligated to meet those responsibilities, you make yourselves look like adolescents who want to hae their cake and eat it too. If that's not the image you want to put out there, then I'd urge you to talk more about responsibility.



Did I say they were? Nor is pregnancy inherently a responsiblity.


By implying that I'm advanceing the idea of pregnancy as a consequence within the same context one might make it a punishment, you are implying it, certainly.


Actually, I was stating a fact. You have claimed that pregnancy is a responsibility. You have done nothing to support such a claim. So rather than meaning very little, it means that you are making a baseless claim. Not a very successful way to debate.


No matter how strongly you hold an opinion, it doesn't become a fact.


Let me make it clearer. Tell me why a pregnant woman should see her pregnancy as a responsibility that must be borne.

Here you go (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13408009&postcount=465)

Way to dodge the question, no you can't push him because the button is outside the shop. Now can you answer?
If the button is outside the shop and he is unconscious on top of it, then he is also outside the shop, and if I am trapped inside, then there's nothing I can do about it at all, is there?

Congratulations! You have achieved role reversal, casting me as the fetus on the inside, and your sleeping shopkeeper on the outside as the pregnant woman controlling the button of my life.


Whatever, the point is that you have in no way shown that this apparent universal truth is actually.... true. There are many times when you are obliged to give up some of your freedoms. You cannot simply say "I have no obligation to stay in a condition I don't want to" and act as if it is objective fact, with just one analogy.
Nonsense. This thread has talked at length about the fundamental, practical differences between things like prison and pregnancy, for instance, as to why some situations require a person to give up some rights for a time and others do not. You and others have failed absolutely to show any reason why these distinctions are not valid, whereas I and others have shown that, since the law starts from the default position that humans have rights which cannot be taken away or restricted without very good reason, it stands to reason that the law will examine each case and determine whether it demands a restriction of rights, whose rights, how much restriction, and above all, what the likely consequences of such restriction will be. In all cases, in nations that revere human rights, it is judged that subjecting an unwilling human being to having their body used by another person is unacceptable. Not even prisoners are used for organ harvesting or baby production or drug testing or other such physical uses against their will, even though they have other rights restricted as punishment for their crimes.

So your assertion that because some rights get restricted in some circumstances, that means that I have no rights over myself and cannot take action to protect my rights in any circumstance is false.

If the button is outside the shop and he is unconscious on top of it, then he is also outside the shop, and if I am trapped inside, then there's nothing I can do about it at all, is there?

Congratulations! You have achieved role reversal, casting me as the fetus on the inside, and your sleeping shopkeeper on the outside as the pregnant woman controlling the button of my life.


Huh? If I failed to mention, there is a window that you can shoot through. You can shoot the man off the button through the window (but you can't escape through it). Also remember that he will wake up and free you in 9 months, and you have enough to survive for that long.


Nonsense. This thread has talked at length about the fundamental, practical differences between things like prison and pregnancy, for instance, as to why some situations require a person to give up some rights for a time and others do not.

I never said they weren't differences.


You and others have failed absolutely to show any reason why these distinctions are not valid, whereas I and others have shown that, since the law starts from the default position that humans have rights which cannot be taken away or restricted without very good reason, it stands to reason that the law will examine each case and determine whether it demands a restriction of rights, whose rights, how much restriction, and above all, what the likely consequences of such restriction will be.

And you haven't shown (or at least from what I've seen), that the life of a fetus is not a "very good reason" for temporary restriction of rights.


In all cases, in nations that revere human rights, it is judged that subjecting an unwilling human being to having their body used by another person is unacceptable. Not even prisoners are used for organ harvesting or baby production or drug testing or other such physical uses against their will, even though they have other rights restricted as punishment for their crimes.


Yes, it is unacceptable and is a right. But again, this right is in conflict with the life of the fetus, some say it is acceptable to kill the fetus to preserve this right, others don't. Neither have shown why though.


So your assertion that because some rights get restricted in some circumstances, that means that I have no rights over myself and cannot take action to protect my rights in any circumstance is false.

That is not my assertion at all.

To those of you arguing pro choice: If you find this post insulting because it comes off as saying you're irresponsible, then take no offense but understand that this is the way you're presenting yourselves. By demanding rights and insisting that you aren't obligated to meet those responsibilities, you make yourselves look like adolescents who want to hae their cake and eat it too. If that's not the image you want to put out there, then I'd urge you to talk more about responsibility.

Okay. So you think we're acting like spoiled teenagers. And you think this because you think we're not willing to talk about responsibility. Wow. Way to have a whole buch of preconceived notions that do not fit the bill. Again, I roll my eyes at your arrogance.

By implying that I'm advanceing the idea of pregnancy as a consequence within the same context one might make it a punishment, you are implying it, certainly.

Perhaps. It doesn't matter. The point is that you have not shown how pregnancy is a responsibility. I mean, besides your opinion.

No matter how strongly you hold an opinion, it doesn't become a fact.

I see where the confusion arose. My fault. I will restate it a little clearer:

It is my opinion that the pregnant woman herself is the only person who can judge what is most responsible for her.

It is a fact that you have not presented anything to suggest otherwise.

Here you go (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13408009&postcount=465)

Yes. I read that, and in that long post, you have not presented anything to support your claim that pregnancy is a responsiblity.

<snip>

Your point is well taken. That's part of why in my post I dinged the pro-life side especially for not raising it enough at one point.

You're right that we have a difference in how we see the range of options to meet responsibility. It's also why I noted that pro-choice advocates shouldn't take my post to mean that I'm calling them irresponsible per se. It's just that all the focus on the rights aspect does tend to drown out the talk of responsibility that should naturally go with it hand in hand. Since the pro-life side generally doesn't raise the issue at all except the anomalous ones that like to treat it like a punishment, it tends to make people paint all pro-choice debators with the broad brush of being in favor of pregnancy = puishment which is not the case.
Well, it's nice that, after all the posts of telling us how our decisions are irresponsible, you add that disclaimer that you aren't calling us irresponsible.

But if you acknowledge that the conflict over who is talking about responsibility, and how much, and how responsibly, is entirely subjective, then that pretty much makes it pointless to argue about it, in a way doesn't it? It boils down to each of us having a negative opinion of the quality of the other's position, and really I think that the only response is, "Well I disagree," and move on to other aspects. Because neither of us, obviously, is going to convince the other that they are being irresponsible.

Good questions.

My right to life carries with it the responsibility to be a productive and contributing member of my community. It comes with it a responsibility to live harmoniously with my environment.

My right to a fair trial comes with the responsibility to participate, if called, in a jury. It comes with the responsibility to, should I ever participate in one either as a defendant or as a witness, to be honest in my testimony.

No, I don't agree. Being a littering jobless asshole doesn't remove your right to life. Refusing to be in a jury doesn't remove your right to a fair trial.

I don't have an opinion on it because I lack the knowledge to formulate one. I'm on the fence.

You use it when you notice the condom ruptured or something. It's basically a pill with a high dose of certain hormones in it. I believe it causes the blastocyst (128 cells or less at this stage) to not implant, so it causes a miscarriage. At least that's how I believe it works, maybe look it up at wiki.

Well the problem there is that, as you noted, there's no way to know beforehand whether life would be worth living, an unborn baby can't really have an opinion on the matter. That comes with just about anything. A 5-year-old who is about to start school has no concept of what it will be like, whether it will be a positive, negative or indifferent experience. Nevertheless we can reasonably expect that at the end of their school 'career', very few will say they wish they'd never learned to read, write, add and subtract.

So what's the difference between not making a child and killing it before it ever realizes what happens? I'm pretty sure that if I made a child right now it would grow up and be happy. Maybe it will grow up to find a cure for AIDS or something similar.

You suggested earlier that I look at your reply to Bottle for details on your reply to me, and if I"m not mistaken this is the one you meant:




Ok all you pro-choice people, ready for a shocker?

In part, at least, you are correct. When a person like me describes responsibility as I have, we are seeking to advance our own ideas and beliefs on what that responsibility is.

Responsibility isn't a concrete enough subject to discuss it any other way. What's important then, is to achieve a mutual understanding on what each side considers responsible, and why that is.

So then you're entitled to know just what the hell gives Neo Bretonnia the balls to label his perspective as most responsible.

My answer is simple: The responsibility to the unborn. We will, of course, disagree as to what level the unborn is entitled to this, but that is the origin of it. When I look at this situation, I see a human life that exists due to the actions of a woman and her lover, who didn't ask to be there, who has no desire to control or harm anyone, who deserves, as any human does, to have his or her welfare considered as part of any decision that affects them.

It's like I said in my long post/rant. Not many would choose death over life except those with issues of depression or those in a temporary hardship. We all have to deal with truobles in life, some worse than others, but people who have it rough don't universally wish they'd never been born.
Yet you have no way of knowing what a fetus would choose if it could choose, so not only are you imposing your personal views on born persons, you are also imposing them on fetuses. You know, I was a fetus once, and I'm pro-choice now. What makes you think I wouldn't have been if you could have asked my opinion before I was born and I could have answered you?

No matter how you slice it, NB, when the anti-choice side seeks to impose its views on others through the law, they are not talking about either women or babies or fetuses. They are only talking about themselves and what they would like.


I wouldn't call it a matter of personal agenda, at least in this case. It's a matter of perspective, as I described just now.
First, you just finished, in the rest of your post above this, outlining your personal agenda, yet now you say it isn't a matter of personal agenda?

Second, check how you're quoting things. I said the paragraph you were responding to, not Hamilay.