NationStates Jolt Archive

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.



Perhaps. It doesn't matter. The point is that you have not shown how pregnancy is a responsibility. I mean, besides your opinion.



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.



Yes. I read that, and in that long post, you have not presented anything to support your claim that pregnancy is a responsiblity.

Just ignore him, he's a Mor(m)on.

Just ignore him, he's a Mor(m)on.

He, or she, has challenged my thinking more than you have.

Flaming is bad, mkay?

So is being a religeous kook.

Just ignore him, he's a Mor(m)on.

Flaming is bad, mkay?

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.
Well, since you've magically added a window, I'm going to magically grow my hair real long and hang it out the window until some handsome prince comes along, climbs my hair, gets me pregnant and then the evil stepmother who is keeping me locked up in here wakes up and kicks me out for being a slut. And then I'll get an abortion. All problems solved.


I never said they weren't differences.



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.
Yes, I did. I believe it was in a post addressed to Neo Bretonnia, in aswer to a question of why the woman's right not to be pregnant trumps the fetus's right to life.

I further believe that this exchange with you started when you challenged me on that by declaring that the fetus not having access to rights shouldn't matter.

And you have been asking me why one person's right to control their own body should trump another person's right to continue their own life, ever since.

But the question is the same, despite your rewordings, and therefore the answer is the same. And that is why I have asked you, more than once, to stop asking me to repeat myself.

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.
I disagree on that.


That is not my assertion at all.
Then we have been talking at cross purposes entirely. Because that is how I have been reading your argument.

It boils down to each of us having a negative opinion of the quality of the other's position...
And, with that being the case, the question is simple:

Do you believe that you are entitled to force your opinion onto another person's body, even if they directly and clearly tell you "No"?

Or do you believe that each individual has the responsibility and the right to make decisions about how their own body participates in reproduction?

...But what about the Life inside you..doesn't he/she have the right to live too? It's not her/his fault that he's/she's there. In our cast away society,do we just cast away a life,and a soul like so much dried tuna fish?




yeah....I guess we do......:confused:

And, with that being the case, the question is simple:

Do you believe that you are entitled to force your opinion onto another person's body, even if they directly and clearly tell you "No"?

Or do you believe that each individual has the responsibility and the right to make decisions about how their own body participates in reproduction?
Precisely.

Pro Choice is just a term that is applied to the abortionist side of the issue to attract those of feeble mind who fall for the ruse that abortion is about the freedom of women to chose what happens to their bodies. Since individual rights only go so far as the point where they impinge on the rights of others, and death definitely impinges on one's rights, the only argument that matters is whether or not the fetus is alive. If it is alive, then abortion is murder. If it is not, then abortion is an excisation of a benign growth.

One must then ask the question "Is the fetus alive?" Abortionists say no. But how can they tell? What evidence do they bring to the table that proves definitively that fetuses are not human beings? The answer is none. There is simply an arbitrary line drawn, with no evidence whatsoever to support it. The fetus is a clump of cells the moment before it is born, and a human being the moment after?

There really is no way to tell if the fetus is alive or not. If one is given a choice between committing what is possibly a murder, or erring on the side of caution, any rational being must choose the safer path.

Additionally, isn't the destruction of potential life just a grave an offense as the destruction of life? Hypothetically, if one were to go back in time and kill Ghandi or MLK or Shakespeare or Pope John Paul II when they were fetuses, would that not be as grave a crime as reversing the effects of their lives after they were dead? Regardless of whether or not the fetus is alive, if left alone, it will eventually become alive. The prevention of such an eventuality is the same as murder.

Well, since you've magically added a window, I'm going to magically grow my hair real long and hang it out the window until some handsome prince comes along, climbs my hair, gets me pregnant and then the evil stepmother who is keeping me locked up in here wakes up and kicks me out for being a slut. And then I'll get an abortion. All problems solved.


Why must you insist on dodging the analogy because not all the loose ends are tied up. If I left out a few small details, it is still completely, and utterly, irrelevant to the main point of the analogy.


Yes, I did. I believe it was in a post addressed to Neo Bretonnia, in aswer to a question of why the woman's right not to be pregnant trumps the fetus's right to life.


Well, either you can quote it or discontinue this debate. Up to you.


I further believe that this exchange with you started when you challenged me on that by declaring that the fetus not having access to rights shouldn't matter.


It was a response you gave as to why the right not to be pregnant has precedence, I was arguing that it doesn't change make the fetus less worthy of consideration.


And you have been asking me why one person's right to control their own body should trump another person's right to continue their own life, ever since.

But the question is the same, despite your rewordings, and therefore the answer is the same. And that is why I have asked you, more than once, to stop asking me to repeat myself.


I haven't made such a generalisation. I have been more specific then that, since the idea that "one person's right to control their own body should trump another person's right to continue their own life" will obviously differ depending on the situation. So I am focusing on abortion as the main situation, and trying to come up with analogies closer to that. Either way, the main replies you have given are the idea about access to rights, which I don't agree with, the analogy of the mother wanting your organs, which I also think is flawed, and that it has already been addressed thoroughly before in the thread. If you don't have any answers for this, or you feel that you are just repeating something else you already said earlier in the thread, you can either quote it or stop the debate as I said, your choice.


I disagree on that.


Ok...


Then we have been talking at cross purposes entirely. Because that is how I have been reading your argument.

Well I assure you that is not what I am arguing. I am not trying to use examples of when your rights are restricted to justify further restriction. I am also not trying to justify restricting your control over your body in every single circumstance. If I was trying to use those examples to justify anything, it would be only for one situation (pregnancy). I would in no means be trying to universalise anything.

So is being a religeous kook.

The significant difference being that one is against the rules of this forum, and the other is a purely subjective label you've attached to an otherwise interesting and intelligent member of this forum who, unlike you, has shown a propensity for thoughtful discussion rather than worthless flaming.

My recommendation, given your posting history, is that you learn to cut it the fuck out, if you want to prolong your stay here.

Additionally, isn't the destruction of potential life just a grave an offense as the destruction of life?
That goes way too far. Every woman who deliberately fails to become pregnant at every opportunity, and menstruates with intention aforethought, has destroyed "potential" life.
I would also like to comment on the general muddledness of the terminology here. Of course a fetus is "alive", as is an embryo, or a fertilized egg, or an unfertilized egg, or a sperm cell; and all of these are "human" (not canine, or elephantine). There is no question about "when human life begins": it doesn't; it just continues; it *began* once, and once only, in the distant past. The question is when "personality" begins. A fertilized egg is no more personal than an unfertilized egg, nor is an early-stage embryo. It gets more difficult when we consider a fetus which has developed the ability to sense, in particular to feel pain, and to react, even if only by little kicks.

The significant difference being that one is against the rules of this forum, and the other is a purely subjective label you've attached to an otherwise interesting and intelligent member of this forum who, unlike you, has shown a propensity for thoughtful discussion rather than worthless flaming.

My recommendation, given your posting history, is that you learn to cut it the fuck out, if you want to prolong your stay here.

Hopefully his newly given day-long vacation will teach him that.

Though I have my doubts :rolleyes:

I'm not going to hold my breath. But hey, it's water under the bridge now.

Yeah, I was going to edit in an on topic argument to the prior post, but Bottle beat me to it. So instead I'll do it here:

Pro Choice is just a term that is applied to the abortionist side of the issue to attract those of feeble mind who fall for the ruse that abortion is about the freedom of women to chose what happens to their bodies.

No, Pro-Choice is a term applied to an argument based on logic, reason, and science. One that uses facts to back up the idea that the woman's body is her own and to refute the idiotic idea of "potential life."

Conversely, Pro-life is just a term applied to the anti-choice side of the issue to attact those easily swayed by emotional appeals and spurious arguments.

Pro Choice is just a term that is applied to the abortionist side of the issue to attract those of feeble mind who fall for the ruse that abortion is about the freedom of women to chose what happens to their bodies. Since individual rights only go so far as the point where they impinge on the rights of others, and death definitely impinges on one's rights, the only argument that matters is whether or not the fetus is alive. If it is alive, then abortion is murder. If it is not, then abortion is an excisation of a benign growth.

One must then ask the question "Is the fetus alive?" Abortionists say no. But how can they tell? What evidence do they bring to the table that proves definitively that fetuses are not human beings? The answer is none. There is simply an arbitrary line drawn, with no evidence whatsoever to support it. The fetus is a clump of cells the moment before it is born, and a human being the moment after?

There really is no way to tell if the fetus is alive or not. If one is given a choice between committing what is possibly a murder, or erring on the side of caution, any rational being must choose the safer path.

Additionally, isn't the destruction of potential life just a grave an offense as the destruction of life? Hypothetically, if one were to go back in time and kill Ghandi or MLK or Shakespeare or Pope John Paul II when they were fetuses, would that not be as grave a crime as reversing the effects of their lives after they were dead? Regardless of whether or not the fetus is alive, if left alone, it will eventually become alive. The prevention of such an eventuality is the same as murder.
6/10

You get points for having this be your first post, for invoking Ghandi and MLK, for referring to pro-choice individuals as "abortionists," for stating that a fetus will "become alive" if it is "left alone," for equating potential with actual being, and for assuming that killing a living thing always is murder.

You also got bonus points for having completely ignored every point on this thread, as well as every substantive argument on the subject of abortion rights which has been made in the last 40 years.

However, you failed to invoke the Nazi regime. You neglected to mention that women who seek abortions are irresponsible sluts seeking to escape the rightful punishment--sorry, consequence--of their sluttery. You forgot to graphically describe late-term abortion procedures and claim that they are commonly used as elective abortion options. Most importantly, you left out how adorable and cuddly babies are.

A decent first effort, but you certainly have room to grow.

Hopefully his newly given day-long vacation will teach him that.

Though I have my doubts :rolleyes:

I'm not going to hold my breath. But hey, it's water under the bridge now.

Why must you insist on dodging the analogy because not all the loose ends are tied up. If I left out a few small details, it is still completely, and utterly, irrelevant to the main point of the analogy.
I'm not dodging it because the loose ends aren't all tied up.

What I'm doing is ridiculing it because it is silly, and I don't take it seriously.

As I told you pages and pages ago, I already told you the answer to the question posed by this analogy, just like all the other analogies. I have a right to escape unlawful imprisonment or detention. It does not matter if the person keeping me prisoner is doing it out of malice or by accident. I have a right to secure my own liberty.

Now you were trying to say with this analogy that, since the shopkeeper has no malicious intent in keeping me prisoner, I just have to sit and be his prisoner until he wakes up, but that is bunk. You claim that I should have no problem with this because since I won't necessarily die while I wait, that means I won't suffer while being cooped up by him. That is also bunk.

1) Why the hell should anyone just sit in imprisonment and not take any action whatsoever to free themselves just because the cause of their imprisonment is a mistake rather than malice? I do not have to stay there until he wakes up. Period. I can secure my freedom by whatever means are available to me. I will use the gun to kill the shopkeeper if that will get me out (though if you've moved him out of the room, I fail to see how just killing him is going to get him off the button). Or I can pull a MacGyver and use the gun in some other way to get out of the trap. But I do not have to say, oh, well, I guess I'll just sit here until he gets around to letting me out.

2) What the hell makes you think I have nothing else to do but sit and wait on the convenience of this sleepy idiot of a shopkeeper? What makes you think I will not suffer by losing my liberty in this way? What makes you think that no one else will suffer by this loss of my liberty? Are you aware that over 60% of women who get abortions already have children that they are raising? In your scenario, what makes you think that while I sit and wait for Mr. Sleeping Beauty to awake, I don't have other dependents who are suffering because I can't be there for them fully, because my energies and resources are taken up with being stuck in your trap?

The fact that you had such gaping holes in your dilemma scenario is evidence that you did not think it through well enough, so it does not advance your argument. But that really does not matter, because lack of malicious intent is not an argument for allowing someone else to take over my body.


Well, either you can quote it or discontinue this debate. Up to you.
I despise you. :) Take note of this request of yours. I will follow up on it when I have the time to do the search. I just did a thread search for my own posts, which are numerous, but that only shows the first line of each post, and the relevant quote came at the end of a long post. That will require me to read most of my own posts for the past 25 or so pages of this thread. You will have to wait until I have time to do that, if you really are not able to remember the history of your own arguments for yourself.


It was a response you gave as to why the right not to be pregnant has precedence, I was arguing that it doesn't change make the fetus less worthy of consideration.
I know that. And I was arguing that it does.


I haven't made such a generalisation. I have been more specific then that, since the idea that "one person's right to control their own body should trump another person's right to continue their own life" will obviously differ depending on the situation. So I am focusing on abortion as the main situation, and trying to come up with analogies closer to that. Either way, the main replies you have given are the idea about access to rights, which I don't agree with, the analogy of the mother wanting your organs, which I also think is flawed, and that it has already been addressed thoroughly before in the thread. If you don't have any answers for this, or you feel that you are just repeating something else you already said earlier in the thread, you can either quote it or stop the debate as I said, your choice.
You have the same options, Hydesland. There's no reason for you to keep telling me that you don't like my answers over and over, either. If you don't want me to respond, you can stop questioning or challenging my statements.

Look, let's settle it this way (which is what I have been trying to suggest for a while now):

You say you don't like the answers I have given you, and direct your questions to someone else and see if they will give you a better answer.

How's that for an idea?


Ok...



Well I assure you that is not what I am arguing. I am not trying to use examples of when your rights are restricted to justify further restriction. I am also not trying to justify restricting your control over your body in every single circumstance. If I was trying to use those examples to justify anything, it would be only for one situation (pregnancy). I would in no means be trying to universalise anything.
Then why even bother to mention that there are other situations in which rights may be restricted, if you did not want to use them as justifying examples for why rights should be restricted in the case of pregnancy? You cannot set up a comparison and then claim that you are looking at the topic in isolation.

One must then ask the question "Is the fetus alive?" Abortionists say no.

no we don't. it is clearly and unambiguously alive and only fools would deny it (well, provided it hasn't died, anyways). of course, so are the sperm and the egg before conception, so clearly being alive isn't what matters.

What evidence do they bring to the table that proves definitively that fetuses are not human beings?

they are human. however, they aren't persons - certainly not at an early stage, at least. as for evidence of this, well, perhaps you'd care to partake in a little thought experiment with me.

imagine that you find yourself in a fertility clinic. a fertility clinic that is on fire. in this burning fertility clinic with you there is an unconscious child and a petri dish in a cooler which you know contains two human blastocysts. you have time to save only one, the toddler or the cooler. if you try to save both, none of you - not you, not the child, and not the cooler - will make it out. which do you rescue?

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.


Nosir. I said that was the appearance being presented.


Perhaps. It doesn't matter. The point is that you have not shown how pregnancy is a responsibility. I mean, besides your opinion.


Of course it's my opinion.


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.


Fair enough. That's where our opinions differ.


Yes. I read that, and in that long post, you have not presented anything to support your claim that pregnancy is a responsiblity.

I think I expressed fairly well why I am of the opinion that I am. The point of it all isn't to prove a fact because the whole concept of responsibility is, on some level, a matter of opinion and/or belief.

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.


Or just coming across that way.


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.

True. But then again, I'd argue that getting both sides to understand that is the key to building some kind of communication. Generally, on this issue, people are so busy talking past each other that they never stop to understand each other's perspectives long enough to have any kind of meaningful discourse.

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.


Some would argue that it does. I don't agree with them, but I do feel that such examples as you mention are examples of people who are shirking their responsibility. In fact, technically both of those examples are behaviors that are punishable by law (at least the littering part on the first example)


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.


As far as I know you're right in how you describe it. When I said I didn't have enough knowledge I meant it more philosophically. Thanks though.


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.

That's not really a definable question in the sense that in the former (not making a child at all) there's nothing to talk about. (Unless I've misunderstood what you're getting at.)

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?

That's the thing. We don't know, but since it is impossible to know we have to turn elsewhere for an answer. Namely, people who CAN answer.


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 characterize it as 'just what we'd like' since pro-life proponents are arguing on behalf of those who can't argue for themselves. Besides, one can equally claim that pro-choice people are imposing their own views on others (the unborn) who don't even get a counter-argument. That's why I brought up the idea that you don't normally see people in their right minds going around wishing they'd been aborted.


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?


'Personal agenda' implies a selfish motive. Like I said above, pro-lifers act on the behalf of others. Believe me, we're not in it for the fun and good times...

Second, check how you're quoting things. I said the paragraph you were responding to, not Hamilay.

Oops, sorry.

He, or she, has challenged my thinking more than you have.

He, in case you were wondering ;) (And thanks)

And, with that being the case, the question is simple:

Do you believe that you are entitled to force your opinion onto another person's body, even if they directly and clearly tell you "No"?

Or do you believe that each individual has the responsibility and the right to make decisions about how their own body participates in reproduction?

Interestingly, one could use that same argument to defend the unborn.

Hopefully his newly given day-long vacation will teach him that.

Though I have my doubts :rolleyes:

Did they get suspended? How can you tell?

Did they get suspended? How can you tell?

There's a thread in moderation about it.

There's a thread in moderation about it.

Ohhh... Thanks. I didn't realize that.

Ohhh... Thanks. I didn't realize that.

I'm stealthy like that. ;)

I'm not dodging it because the loose ends aren't all tied up.

What I'm doing is ridiculing it because it is silly, and I don't take it seriously.


Well... don't.


Now you were trying to say with this analogy that, since the shopkeeper has no malicious intent in keeping me prisoner, I just have to sit and be his prisoner until he wakes up, but that is bunk.

Actually, I didn't assert anything, I just asked what you would do.


You claim that I should have no problem with this because since I won't necessarily die while I wait, that means I won't suffer while being cooped up by him. That is also bunk.


I never said this either. I only asked what you would do, I didn't claim that you wouldn't suffer nor did I claim that you should have no problem.


1) Why the hell should anyone just sit in imprisonment and not take any action whatsoever to free themselves just because the cause of their imprisonment is a mistake rather than malice? I do not have to stay there until he wakes up. Period. I can secure my freedom by whatever means are available to me. I will use the gun to kill the shopkeeper if that will get me out (though if you've moved him out of the room, I fail to see how just killing him is going to get him off the button).

In the original analogy, I said that by shooting him the force would be so great that it would move him.


Or I can pull a MacGyver and use the gun in some other way to get out of the trap. But I do not have to say, oh, well, I guess I'll just sit here until he gets around to letting me out.


Well in this situation you can't do anything other then shoot him. Assuming you would then, can you give more of a reason then: "I do not have to stay there until he wakes up. Period. I can secure my freedom by whatever means are available to me" ?


2) What the hell makes you think I have nothing else to do but sit and wait on the convenience of this sleepy idiot of a shopkeeper?

It's an either or, shoot him or stay there.


What makes you think I will not suffer by losing my liberty in this way?

I didn't say you wouldn't suffer, in fact that was the whole point, that you would suffer. You have to distinguish whether your suffering is more important then the mans life.


What makes you think that no one else will suffer by this loses of my liberty? Are you aware that over 60% of women who get abortions already have children that they are raising? In your scenario, what makes you think that while I sit and wait for Mr. Sleeping Beauty to awake, I don't have other dependents who are suffering because I can't be there for them fully, because my energies and resources are taken up with being stuck in your trap?

Again, I never said no-one will suffer.


The fact that you had such gaping holes in your dilemma scenario is evidence that you did not think it through well enough

Despite this gaping hole being non existent?

But that really does not matter, because lack of malicious intent is not an argument for allowing someone else to take over my body.


If you say so....


I despise you. :) Take note of this request of yours. I will follow up on it when I have the time to do the search. I just did a thread search for my own posts, which are numerous, but that only shows the first line of each post, and the relevant quote came at the end of a long post. That will require me to read most of my own posts for the past 25 or so pages of this thread. You will have to wait until I have time to do that, if you really are not able to remember the history of your own arguments for yourself.


Don't bother, I don't want to put you through that stress just to continue this debate.


Look, let's settle it this way (which is what I have been trying to suggest for a while now):

You say you don't like the answers I have given you, and direct your questions to someone else and see if they will give you a better answer.

How's that for an idea?


Can't be bothered :p


Then why even bother to mention that there are other situations in which rights may be restricted, if you did not want to use them as justifying examples for why rights should be restricted in the case of pregnancy?

I believe I was trying to show that control over ones body should not be a universal rule, and should depend on the circumstance and take each situation by its own merit. This does not mean conversely that I think you should loose control over your body as a right.

<snip>

That's the thing. We don't know, but since it is impossible to know we have to turn elsewhere for an answer. Namely, people who CAN answer.
You mean the people who are in such vehement disagreement about it? That puts us right back where we started, with a debate between born persons, with no fetuses participating.

And since you cannot know what a fetus wants, how can you know which of us a fetus would accept as a representative?

And since you cannot show anything that proves that the fetuses of the world have delegated you to speak for them, why should I accept your arguments as representing the true interests of fetuses?


I wouldn't characterize it as 'just what we'd like' since pro-life proponents are arguing on behalf of those who can't argue for themselves.
But since you cannot know what argument they would make if they could make one, you cannot know that you actually are arguing on their behalf, now can you?

Besides, one can equally claim that pro-choice people are imposing their own views on others (the unborn) who don't even get a counter-argument.
That would put us on even ground then, wouldn't it? If we acknowledge that we are both seeking to have our way on pregnancy/abortion without regard to the desires of fetuses, that would return the debate to being about pregnancy and not about speculations about what a fetus might want if it could want anything.

That's why I brought up the idea that you don't normally see people in their right minds going around wishing they'd been aborted.
An assertion which, of course, is only your belief and has already been refuted by the personal testimonies of other people. It is also irrelevant, since you can ask a born person whether they want to live or not, but you cannot ask a fetus that question.


'Personal agenda' implies a selfish motive. Like I said above, pro-lifers act on the behalf of others. Believe me, we're not in it for the fun and good times...
I have said, you have no proof that you are acting on anyone's behalf but your own. Considering that the net result of anti-choice laws is to give the state control over women's bodies and force women to adhere to your views of how people should be living, I would say that a motive for seeking that result is very likely to be selfish. Not saying that it is, just that it sure as hell looks that way.

Oops, sorry.
You did it again, attributing quotes to me that were actually written by other people.

How are you doing these multi-quotes -- using the button, or cutting and pasting by hand? If you use the little '+' sign button next to the plain quote button for all the posts you want to respond to together, and then click quote on the last one you want to include, you should get a reply window that has all the selected quotes in order, with the right names at their beginnings. This will let you know where each poster's material starts and ends.

Well... don't.
Too late.


Actually, I didn't assert anything, I just asked what you would do.



I never said this either. I only asked what you would do, I didn't claim that you wouldn't suffer nor did I claim that you should have no problem.
And I told you. I would get myself out. I also made fun of the ridiculous and flimsy scenario you set up for me to do it in.


In the original analogy, I said that by shooting him the force would be so great that it would move him.
But he was closer to me then.


Well in this situation you can't do anything other then shoot him. Assuming you would then, can you give more of a reason then: "I do not have to stay there until he wakes up. Period. I can secure my freedom by whatever means are available to me" ?
Why should I?


It's an either or, shoot him or stay there.
Well, guess what then?

:sniper:

Wow. I've been on this forum for years and that is the first time I have ever used a gun smilie.

I didn't say you wouldn't suffer, in fact that was the whole point, that you would suffer. You have to distinguish whether your suffering is more important then the mans life.
Yeah, actually, it kinda is -- IN THIS SCENARIO, if only because someone deserves to get shot for wasting our time with this crap.

If your scenario were not dependent on being complete and utter bullshit to hold together, you would realize that it is a false dilemma because there are lots of ways to escape a room, your arbitrary little rules notwithstanding. Since, realistically, I have options for solving the problem, I can reject your god-mode rules and do what I like, which is what I did when making fun of your little drama.

And you would also realize that it is a bad analogy, because there are lots of ways to get out of your trap without killing the man, but there is no way to get out of a pregnancy without killing an embryo or fetus.


Despite this gaping hole being non existent?
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel less silly. I have explained it enough times. Now I leave it to other readers to judge whether your scenario held together or not.


If you say so....



Don't bother, I don't want to put you through that stress just to continue this debate.



Can't be bothered :p
You can't be bothered to continue, or you can't be bothere not to continue?


I believe I was trying to show that control over ones body should not be a universal rule, and should depend on the circumstance and take each situation by its own merit. This does not mean conversely that I think you should loose control over your body as a right.
A right that is not universal is not a right. If I am not the final arbiter of how my body gets used in all circumstances, then I have lost my right to control my own body.

I also made fun of the ridiculous and flimsy scenario you set up for me to do it in.


...pointlessly, it's not as if I don't know that the scenario would never happen in real life, that wasn't the point though.


But he was closer to me then.


Irrelevant.


Why should I?


Well if you don't want to argue your case then that is fine.


Well, guess what then?

:sniper:

Wow. I've been on this forum for years and that is the first time I have ever used a gun smilie.


Right, well I want you to argue a case as for why, but you seem to be unwilling to do so, so what can I say.


Yeah, actually, it kinda is -- IN THIS SCENARIO, if only because someone deserves to get shot for wasting our time with this crap.


You could have just answered the question right from the beginning, there was no need for this pedanticness. It's not like the fact that being chained up into a darkened cave until birth is completely unrealistic actually has any baring on the point of Plato's analogy of the cave for instance.


If your scenario were not dependent on being complete and utter bullshit to hold together, you would realize that it is a false dilemma because there are lots of ways to escape a room, your arbitrary little rules notwithstanding.

It doesn't matter whether it is arbitrary or not, it's the dilemma I am concerned with, not how realistic the situation presented that the dilemma arises in is.


Since, realistically, I have options for solving the problem, I can reject your god-mode rules and do what I like, which is what I did when making fun of your little drama.


Yes, but it would be pointless, as I never said it was realistic.


And you would also realize that it is a bad analogy, because there are lots of ways to get out of your trap without killing the man, but there is no way to get out of a pregnancy without killing an embryo or fetus.


Well, you can have a C section if the fetus is developed enough.


You can't be bothered to continue, or you can't be bothere not to continue?


If the only way to continue requires reading through the whole thread and digging up old quotes, then I don't want to continue. I also can't be bothered to start all over again and start asking the same questions to someone else, but I will allow someone to respond to the questions I already posted to you.


A right that is not universal is not a right. If I am not the final arbiter of how my body gets used in all circumstances, then I have lost my right to control my own body.

Perhaps I should be more clear. I don't think it should be universalised to an extent that means that when ever this right conflicts with another right, that right should always take priority.

I'm stealthy like that. ;)

lawl :)

You mean the people who are in such vehement disagreement about it? That puts us right back where we started, with a debate between born persons, with no fetuses participating.

And since you cannot know what a fetus wants, how can you know which of us a fetus would accept as a representative?

And since you cannot show anything that proves that the fetuses of the world have delegated you to speak for them, why should I accept your arguments as representing the true interests of fetuses?

But since you cannot know what argument they would make if they could make one, you cannot know that you actually are arguing on their behalf, now can you?

An assertion which, of course, is only your belief and has already been refuted by the personal testimonies of other people. It is also irrelevant, since you can ask a born person whether they want to live or not, but you cannot ask a fetus that question.


It's not as complicated as all that. It's a matter of preserving lives. We can draw reasonable conclusions that they would, if able, choose life. You indicated that it's been refuted by personal testimonials on this thread, but I don't think it's good enough as a refutation. I recall only one (Cabra West) indicating that the best choice would have been abortion, but even in her case the way I read it, it sounds like she's trying to define it from a strictly objective perspective in terms of net level of suffering, as opposed to wishing she weren't alive. (If there's another example that I missed, please let me know.)


That would put us on even ground then, wouldn't it? If we acknowledge that we are both seeking to have our way on pregnancy/abortion without regard to the desires of fetuses, that would return the debate to being about pregnancy and not about speculations about what a fetus might want if it could want anything.


I don't think so, because for us to be on even ground we'd both have to be ignoring the desires of the unborn on an equal level, and I don't think it's unreasonable to hypthesize that the vast majority would choose life.

But at the same time, there's probably not much new to be said about that issue, so I too am all for getting off the sidetrack.


I have said, you have no proof that you are acting on anyone's behalf but your own. Considering that the net result of anti-choice laws is to give the state control over women's bodies and force women to adhere to your views of how people should be living, I would say that a motive for seeking that result is very likely to be selfish. Not saying that it is, just that it sure as hell looks that way.


I know why, from your perspective, it looks like pro-life = advocating state control over woman's bodies, but try to see it from our perspective. We're not interested in control/power. We're interested in legal consistency. If the unborn are people, and it's illegal to kill people, then it should be illegal to kill the unborn. (That's an oversimplification, but it'll do for the purpose of this point.)


You did it again, attributing quotes to me that were actually written by other people.

How are you doing these multi-quotes -- using the button, or cutting and pasting by hand? If you use the little '+' sign button next to the plain quote button for all the posts you want to respond to together, and then click quote on the last one you want to include, you should get a reply window that has all the selected quotes in order, with the right names at their beginnings. This will let you know where each poster's material starts and ends.

The problem is I'm sort of doing two things at once. I'm using the button like you mentioned, but when I start to split up the posts to reply point by point I sometimes lose track of which person I'm replying to because I'm bouncing back and forth between replying to posts and building a database query. Maybe I should just reply to one person at a time.

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'.

Sure. I wasn't defending pro-life philosophical arguments.

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

A black person isn't a white person either, and I am not my neighbor, but generally we are concerned with morally relevant differences, not any difference at all.

but it looks like you have sme other axe to grind there.

As a matter of fact, yes. Quite aside from simple intellectual honesty and argumentative strength--which in and of themselves should lead us to reject using bad arguments about self-ownership--the unwillingness to clearly and consistently approach problems of moral consideration when it comes to cases like abortion has major consequences elsewhere.

Dodging difficult questions with convenient answers is not only dishonest but also dangerous.

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.

Even if morality is subjective, it certainly allows for a very broad sphere of intersubjectivity, so that does not save you.

Even worse, your own argument is implicitly moral, even if you pretend it is not. To maintain that you have a right to your body that supersedes my right to it is to advance a moral claim. So if morality is substanceless, at best we are on equal grounds.

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

Who said anything about you?

Muravyets made a claim about utilitarianism, and when I challenged her to provide a defense of it, she claimed that such a defense had been made earlier in the thread. So I looked, and I found that, in fact, no such defense had been made--at least not for the particular claim in question. That was the point of my post.

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.

Yes, and that's a reasonable--perhaps the reasonable--utilitarian position. Not an absolutist defense of self-ownership that pretends to escape from all the other issues involved.

Yeah, forgive me for not giving a crap about that particular question of his.

I don't care whether you give a crap about my question or not. Look, both you and GNI are missing the relevant context. I challenged a claim, I was told the challenge had already been met, I checked, and I saw it hadn't.

A right that is not universal is not a right. If I am not the final arbiter of how my body gets used in all circumstances, then I have lost my right to control my own body.

So...you don't have the right to free speech because there are laws against libel and slander?

You don't have the right to bear arms because you aren't allowed to buy a .50 machine gun?

Some would argue that it does. I don't agree with them, but I do feel that such examples as you mention are examples of people who are shirking their responsibility. In fact, technically both of those examples are behaviors that are punishable by law (at least the littering part on the first example)

So you don't agree that being a littering asshole without a job removes your right to life, and you don't agree that not doing jury duty removes your right to a fair trial, while people behaving like that clearly don't act according to the responsibilities that come with those rights?
How do you explain then that your 'right to have sex' should be removed if you don't act according to the responsibilities that come with that right (not making someone pregnant unwanted)?
You could say that the first examples are punished because they don't act responsible but certainly not in the same degree as removing the rights which gave them those responsibilities. A small fine for littering isn't the same amount of punishment as killing someone, a fine for not being in a jury isn't the same as being given an unfair trial. I don't see why we should have higher standards for the 'right to have sex' and I think having to undergo an abortion, even having to choose between an abortion or an unwanted baby is far worse than a small fine.
Or you could say that you do get a right even if you don't act according to the responsibilities that supposedly come with it.

And you still haven't given said why not making a baby isn't as abortion (assuming the fetus has no self-awareness).

So you don't agree that being a littering asshole without a job removes your right to life, and you don't agree that not doing jury duty removes your right to a fair trial, while people behaving like that clearly don't act according to the responsibilities that come with those rights?
How do you explain then that your 'right to have sex' should be removed if you don't act according to the responsibilities that come with that right (not making someone pregnant unwanted)?
You could say that the first examples are punished because they don't act responsible but certainly not in the same degree as removing the rights which gave them those responsibilities. A small fine for littering isn't the same amount of punishment as killing someone, a fine for not being in a jury isn't the same as being given an unfair trial. I don't see why we should have higher standards for the 'right to have sex' and I think having to undergo an abortion, even having to choose between an abortion or an unwanted baby is far worse than a small fine.
Or you could say that you do get a right even if you don't act according to the responsibilities that supposedly come with it.


Hang on a sec. I haven't said anything about depriving someone of the freedom to have sex. Your whole point here is based on the idea that I have, which is incorrect.


And you still haven't given said why not making a baby isn't as abortion (assuming the fetus has no self-awareness).

Because it's question begging. It's like asking me to explain the difference between turning off the engine of a car after it's been started and before it's been started. How can you have an abortion when there's no pregnancy? If that doesn't answer your question, I'm not sure what will.

And if pregnancy occurs, then you have a responsibility to that baby.

Of course. And the relevant question is: in what does that responsibility consist? That's a question that requires consideration of rights, however much you don't want to discuss them.

As for "slavery", your argument against that claim is absurd. The fact that I anticipate possible consequences doesn't somehow excuse them. If I know that if I travel on a certain road I run the risk of being kidnapped and forced to work for someone, that does not make it any less slavery if it happens.

It could be reasonably argued that when sex with procreative potential is inseparable from childbirth--in a society where no means of abortion exist--to choose to have sex entails choosing to accept the risk of childbirth. But in a society where means of abortion exist, such a connection is not necessary. If it is imposed against the will of the woman, her body is being used for someone else's ends against her will. It doesn't matter that this enslavement is a consequence of her decision to have sex, because it is not a necessary consequence that she must accept: it is a consequence coercively attached by others, a product of a law with which she may not agree.

By demanding rights and insisting that you aren't obligated to meet those responsibilities

You can't just arbitrarily attach whatever responsibilities you feel like to certain actions. Sorry.

what?
Can you expand on how abortion leads to kids dying in Africa or not dying in Africa?
Sounds like a slippery slope argument.

i believe what they are referring to is that its convenient to complain about abortion... and that it is hypocritical to complain about people not doing anything about it and yet do nothing yourself... may also be construed as lazy... "let somebody else deal with it. i'm to busy shopping for my anti-war t-shirt"

How can you have an abortion when there's no pregnancy?

That's not relevant at all.

Look, you mentioned in an earlier post that kids would rather endure the lives they have than not have been born at all. That may be true, but if you think it offers a case against abortion, then it surely offers a case against non-childbirth as well: there is an imperative to have as many kids as possible, in respect for the potential kid's preference to exist over not to exist.

In any case, it's clear that whatever its consequences this argument does not actually work. We are not concerned for "potential" people, we are concerned for actual people. A person who does not exist has no desires and no will: there is nothing to take into consideration.

Hang on a sec. I haven't said anything about depriving someone of the freedom to have sex. Your whole point here is based on the idea that I have, which is incorrect.

Well, I do remember you saying that you can't accept a right if you don't accept the responsibilities. So you can't accept the right to have sex, unless you accept the responsibility to have a child if you became pregnant. You also said that people shouldn't have sex unless they are prepared to take responsibility for the results. I say that people have rights, even though they sometimes don't accept the responsibilities, doing so doesn't remove the right.

Because it's question begging. It's like asking me to explain the difference between turning off the engine of a car after it's been started and before it's been started. How can you have an abortion when there's no pregnancy? If that doesn't answer your question, I'm not sure what will.

Ok, I see that I missed the word 'bad' in "not making a baby isn't as bad as abortion'. Which would make my question:

And you still haven't given said why not making a baby isn't as bad as having an abortion (assuming the fetus has no self-awareness).

Because in the first post I responded to you said that if a fetus wasn't aborted it would later probably be glad it wasn't (most of us would agree they're glad they are born, I'm glad my parents didn't abort me). I find this a pretty weak argument against abortion because:

-a fetus isn't self-aware, it doesn't know it's an entity separate from space and time, so it can't project itself in the future. So where you assume a person regretting that it was aborted, this person doesn't exist, and it never existed, the only thing that did were it's genes and a few cells.

-if it were a good argument against abortion, it would also be a good argument against not reproducing, because there are probably thousand children I didn't make, even though I had the ability. Maybe some of those children would have done pretty amazing stuff, like finding a cure to cancer or something similar.

Of course. And the relevant question is: in what does that responsibility consist? That's a question that requires consideration of rights, however much you don't want to discuss them.

Ok let's talk about rights. But we'll talk about responsibilities, too. What about the rights of the unborn? What about the responsibility the mother has to a person who exists precisely because of her choices? Why do we always look at one side of this question and pretend the other side doesn't exist?


As for "slavery", your argument against that claim is absurd. The fact that I anticipate possible consequences doesn't somehow excuse them. If I know that if I travel on a certain road I run the risk of being kidnapped and forced to work for someone, that does not make it any less slavery if it happens.


First of all, pregnancy =/= slavery. Whether abortion is legal or not. A society in which abortion is illegal isn't a society that enslaves women. Pregnancy is a natural result of sex. It's why birth control exists, an implicit acknowledgement of that fact. A failure of birth control doesn't entitle someone to ignore the practical responsibility to the new life that's been created, and to acknowledge that responsibility is not slavery, any more than obedience to ANY law is slavery.


It could be reasonably argued that when sex with procreative potential is inseparable from childbirth--in a society where no means of abortion exist--to choose to have sex entails choosing to accept the risk of childbirth. But in a society where means of abortion exist, such a connection is not necessary. If it is imposed against the will of the woman, her body is being used for someone else's ends against her will. It doesn't matter that this enslavement is a consequence of her decision to have sex, because it is not a necessary consequence that she must accept: it is a consequence coercively attached by others, a product of a law with which she may not agree.


Firstly, Right and wrong aren't functions of technology.
Secondly, I still dispute the mentality that characterizes illegal abortion as being an imposition against a woman's will any more than illegalizing killing one's own children is.


You can't just arbitrarily attach whatever responsibilities you feel like to certain actions. Sorry.

Hey it's not like I'm pulling this stuff out of thin air. Any time you cause an event that affects another person, you bear responsibility for it to that person.

Hey it's not like I'm pulling this stuff out of thin air. Any time you cause an event that affects another person, you bear responsibility for it to that person.

Hm. That seems pretty extreme to me.

If I glare disgustedly at a man who, as a result of my glaring, becomes angry and snaps at his wife sitting next to him, am I responsible to his wife for my glaring?

What about the rights of the unborn?

There is no reasonable basis for attaching so much weight to the rights of the unborn so as to outweigh a woman's right to control her own body.

First of all, pregnancy =/= slavery.

No, pregnancy isn't slavery. Forced pregnancy is slavery.

Pregnancy is a natural result of sex.

Right. But in today's society pregnancy can be terminated long before childbirth. Denying people this capacity is equivalent to forcing them to be pregnant: it is using their bodies against their will.

A failure of birth control doesn't entitle someone to ignore the practical responsibility to the new life that's been created

Who said it did?

any more than obedience to ANY law is slavery.

I specifically stated why such a law is equivalent to slavery. My reasoning does not apply to every law.

Firstly, Right and wrong aren't functions of technology.

The principles are not. But the applications are, as well as of circumstance broadly.

Secondly, I still dispute the mentality that characterizes illegal abortion as being an imposition against a woman's will any more than illegalizing killing one's own children is.

What do you mean here?

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".

Well, one could argue that if I own my body I own my organs no matter if they're in or out of my body. If I own my organs then why shouldn't I have the right to sell them?

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

If you can get the guard to take a paternity test you can prove the child is his, but you would still have to prove rape. Yes, even if you were willing the guard would most likly be fired, but that's not the same as him serving time for rape . . .

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.

If you own them why not? What gives the government the right to decide what I can or can not do with something I own even IF money changes hands?

...pointlessly, it's not as if I don't know that the scenario would never happen in real life, that wasn't the point though.



Irrelevant.

If you say so.


Well if you don't want to argue your case then that is fine.



Right, well I want you to argue a case as for why, but you seem to be unwilling to do so, so what can I say.
I'd love to argue my position. What I don't want to do is just keep repeating the same statements over and over, which is all I can do in response to you asking me the same questions over and over.

For the third or fourth time: I gave you my reasons for protecting myself against unwanted bodily intrusion and for putting my rights above any rights that might claimed for a fetus. I made my case for those reasons.

If you just plain don't like or won't accept what I had to say, oh well, but asking me to say it over and over is not going to get you a different answer. And since you apparently have nothing new to add or any new attack to launch, maybe it's time to move on.


You could have just answered the question right from the beginning, there was no need for this pedanticness. It's not like the fact that being chained up into a darkened cave until birth is completely unrealistic actually has any baring on the point of Plato's analogy of the cave for instance.
*throws something at Hydesland* I DID ANSWER IT BEFORE NOW!!! I answered that question for you, in response to you, before you ever posted that silly hypothetical. Why the hell do you think I have been complaining about you making me repeat myself!!?? Oh, but I guess you can't be blamed for not remembering, since you can't remember why you started talking to me in the first place, either.



It doesn't matter whether it is arbitrary or not, it's the dilemma I am concerned with, not how realistic the situation presented that the dilemma arises in is.
Because it is entirely arbitrary and thus a false dilemma, there is no real, moral or ethical or even legal dilemma here for you to be concerned with. There is only some little trick of yours to try to make me jump through some kind of hoop for you. If you have nothing to talk about but this hypothetical of yours, and if you insist on pestering me with it any further, rather than either getting back to the topic or bothering someone else, I will be happy to ignore you as well, and I hope you will feel free to do the same, if you really find my arguments that unsatisfactory.


Yes, but it would be pointless, as I never said it was realistic.



Well, you can have a C section if the fetus is developed enough.
*throws another thing at Hydesland* That's called carrying a pregnancy for 7.5 - 9 months and giving birth!


If the only way to continue requires reading through the whole thread and digging up old quotes, then I don't want to continue. I also can't be bothered to start all over again and start asking the same questions to someone else, but I will allow someone to respond to the questions I already posted to you.
Good! Yes. Do that.


Perhaps I should be more clear. I don't think it should be universalised to an extent that means that when ever this right conflicts with another right, that right should always take priority.
It has been perfectly clear since the very first time you said it. I do not disagree with you because I don't understand you. I disagree with you because I think you are wrong for the reasons I have already given you.

lawl :)



It's not as complicated as all that. It's a matter of preserving lives. We can draw reasonable conclusions that they would, if able, choose life.
That's called speculating.

You indicated that it's been refuted by personal testimonials on this thread, but I don't think it's good enough as a refutation. I recall only one (Cabra West) indicating that the best choice would have been abortion, but even in her case the way I read it, it sounds like she's trying to define it from a strictly objective perspective in terms of net level of suffering, as opposed to wishing she weren't alive. (If there's another example that I missed, please let me know.)
A personal anecdote from one person (Cabra West) is good enough to cancel out personal speculations and musings from one person (you). I remember a few more people echoing Cabra, but they may have been just agreeing with her. Your imaginings have no more weight in debate than her personal stories.

I don't think so, because for us to be on even ground we'd both have to be ignoring the desires of the unborn on an equal level, and I don't think it's unreasonable to hypthesize that the vast majority would choose life.
In case you missed it, I said that I do think it is unreasonable.

But at the same time, there's probably not much new to be said about that issue, so I too am all for getting off the sidetrack.
Now wait a minute -- I'm all for staying on track, but just what do you think has been talked out?

Because if you are arguing that you have a right to infringe upon my bodily rights and personal liberty because of what you imagine a fetus might want you to do, and that is part of why you would support laws that would make it hard or impossible for me to get a safe abortion if I needed one, I don't consider that a sidetrack at all. I consider your lack of evidence to support your claims about what fetuses want to be a fatal flaw in that part of your argument and thus fair game for challenge.


I know why, from your perspective, it looks like pro-life = advocating state control over woman's bodies, but try to see it from our perspective.
Since I would be on the receiving end of anti-choice laws, i.e. the state would be exerting control over my body, yeah I guess it must be obvious that I would see it that way.

We're not interested in control/power. We're interested in legal consistency. If the unborn are people, and it's illegal to kill people, then it should be illegal to kill the unborn. (That's an oversimplification, but it'll do for the purpose of this point.)
"If the unborn are people" -- only they aren't.

"If it's illegal to kill people" -- only it isn't. It is only illegal to kill people in circumstances that the law does not allow. Unlawful killing is what murder and manslaughter. Self defense, the death penalty, warfare, are a few examples of circumstances for killing people that the law allows, i.e. lawful killing. It is not automatically illegal to kill people. It is only illegal if the killing fits the legal criteria of murder or manslaughter. Abortion does not because it is allowed by the law and because no person is killed by it.

Two big IFs that turn out not to be able to support your argument.


The problem is I'm sort of doing two things at once. I'm using the button like you mentioned, but when I start to split up the posts to reply point by point I sometimes lose track of which person I'm replying to because I'm bouncing back and forth between replying to posts and building a database query. Maybe I should just reply to one person at a time.
The answers are long enough, you might as well. I try to use multiquotes only when making short responses to short posts.

Ok let's talk about rights. But we'll talk about responsibilities, too.

1. Your "with rights come responsibility" schtick is all very nice, but it misses a basic distinction. What is the moral or responsible thing to do is not the same as what one is legally required to do. A particulal instance of abortion may be immoral or irresponsible, but that doesn't mean abortion should always (even usually) be illegal.

I'm not admitting, btw, that abortion is immoral or irresponsible, only that it doesn't have to be moral and responsible in order to be legal. Many of those in this thread that are pro-choice believe abortion is not a moral choice, but nonetheless recognize that women have a right to make that choice.

2. Your argument that responsibility limits our rights fails. I can use my right to free speech irresponsibly without losing that right.

3. You appear to be arguing a rather silly circular point: the existence of a right means there is a co-extensive responsiblity not to use that right. So one has no rights because it would be irresponsible to exercise them.

What about the rights of the unborn?

What about them? Can you show they exist? What are they?

Can you show they outweigh the rights of the mother to control her own body?

More to the point, what is wrong with the Roe schema that already balances the interest in rights of the unborn against the rights of the mother and, while generally allowing abortion early in the pregancy, generally bans abortion later in the pregnancy?

Finally, just to highlight the absurdity of your "with rights come responsibilities" argument, what are the responsibilities of the unborn that comes along with whatever rights you say they have?

What about the responsibility the mother has to a person who exists precisely because of her choices? Why do we always look at one side of this question and pretend the other side doesn't exist?

Um. By assuming that the zygote/embryo/fetus is "a person" you are rather begging the question. Early in a pregancy, it is rather clear that an unborn is not a person. When the question of personhood becomes more debatable, abortion is limited.

So, contrary to your assertion, the "other side" of the question exists under current U.S. law. It is you that wants to destroy this balance of rights.

First of all, pregnancy =/= slavery. Whether abortion is legal or not.

It is rather sad how someone who claims to be trying to elevate the discussion relies so heavily on a strawman.

It was explained to you at length that a pregnancy is not slavery, but forcing someone to stay pregnant against her will is a form of enslavement. You claimed to understand this earlier, but you appear to have allowed your rhetoric to slip.

A society in which abortion is illegal isn't a society that enslaves women.

Yes. Yes, it is. A society in which abortion is illegal is a society in which women are deprived of fundamental freedoms.

And, while we are on the topic, a society in which abortion is illegal is a society in which abortions still happen and women die needlessly from unsafe abortions. That is an empirical fact.

Pregnancy is a natural result of sex. It's why birth control exists, an implicit acknowledgement of that fact.

So? WTF difference does that make?

A failure of birth control doesn't entitle someone to ignore the practical responsibility to the new life that's been created, and to acknowledge that responsibility is not slavery, any more than obedience to ANY law is slavery.

That some laws may enslave women does not mean that all laws are a form of slavery. Laws that deprive one of control over one's own body -- and a host of other fundamental rights -- are a form of slavery. You've never really addressed that point head on.

Firstly, Right and wrong aren't functions of technology.

Who said they were? But, since you raise the point, why aren't right and wrong influenced by circumstances, including the state of technology? If embryos could be safely removed from a woman without endangering them and they could then be raised to children -- thus ending the pregnancy but causing no harm to the unborn -- would you still have a problem with women terminating their pregnancies?

BTW, abortion is not some modern invention newly created by technology. It has been around at least as long as civilization.

Secondly, I still dispute the mentality that characterizes illegal abortion as being an imposition against a woman's will any more than illegalizing killing one's own children is.

Rather fundamental difference. Keeping one from killing one's children doesn't deprive one of fundamental rights like the right to control over one's own body.

Forcing a woman to remain pregnant and to give birth to a child is clearly an imposition against her will. It also violates fundamental rights.

Hey it's not like I'm pulling this stuff out of thin air. Any time you cause an event that affects another person, you bear responsibility for it to that person.

Again, you appear to confuse moral responsibility (or the question of what is moral behavior) with legal responsibility (or the question of what ought to be illegal). It is simply untrue that I am legally responsible for any and all effects I have on any other person.

(It is also not true that the unborn is a person -- at least not in early stages of the pregnancy. ;))

Hm. That seems pretty extreme to me.

If I glare disgustedly at a man who, as a result of my glaring, becomes angry and snaps at his wife sitting next to him, am I responsible to his wife for my glaring?

Who snapped at his wife, him, or you? At some point someone else made a conscious decision (to snap at somebody). You can't be held responsible for other people's choices.

There is no reasonable basis for attaching so much weight to the rights of the unborn so as to outweigh a woman's right to control her own body.


Except the basis that a life outweighs it. Although I'd still argue that she already exercised that control.



No, pregnancy isn't slavery. Forced pregnancy is slavery.


I disagree, but then, that's been stated to death.



Right. But in today's society pregnancy can be terminated long before childbirth. Denying people this capacity is equivalent to forcing them to be pregnant: it is using their bodies against their will.


Just because we can doesn't mean we should.



Who said it did?


That's been a running theme in this and related threads for a long time, that somehow use of birth control demonstrates a refusal to become pregnant and thus, to not be permitted abortion is equivalent to slavery.



I specifically stated why such a law is equivalent to slavery. My reasoning does not apply to every law.


Did you state that recently? I may have missed it.



The principles are not. But the applications are, as well as of circumstance broadly.

I don't think I agree.




What do you mean here?

Well, by your logic, if a woman is pregnant, (willingly at first) then somewhere along the way changes her mind, then to not permit her an abortion is to make her a slave. My question is: Suppose she changes her mind 3 years later and wants to be rid of her child? Is she then a slave because the law doesn't permit someone to just toss a kid off?

EDIT: The following post is 90% off topic but is posted in response to a specific question. I just want to put all here on notice that I have zero (0) intention of getting sidetracked into a debate over what rights are in general. Following herein is my argument about why it is bad to restrict abortion rights. I personally will not respond to any follow ups that are not about abortion. Thank you.

So...you don't have the right to free speech because there are laws against libel and slander?

You don't have the right to bear arms because you aren't allowed to buy a .50 machine gun?
I knew this would happen. Even as I hit the submit button, I knew someone would start quibbling over this. I hope this answer will make you regret asking the question, and I further hope that its off-topic-ness will make you think twice as well, mod.

A) Why do I say that a right that is not universal is not a right?

Rights belong to people. They are intrinsic in us, and they apply to everything we do. Thus, they are "universal." If a governmental authority exerts a control over our behavior to tell us when we can do or have something and when we can't, then control over that thing no longer belongs to us, but to the state. That thing becomes a privilege, not a right. A privilege is the power to do something, which power actually belongs to someone else who grants it to you, with or without limitations.

For instance, people have a right to move about freely, a right to travel, to change residence, etc. So if you want to move from Boston to Seattle, no agency of the government can tell you you're not allowed to do that.

But the government can tell you that you're not allowed to make the trip by car if you don't have a driver's license. Freedom of movement is a right. Driving on public roads is a privilege. "The Man" cannot stop you from going from one place to another, but he can stop you from getting behind the wheel of a car to do it.

But even so, restricting your privilege to drive does not restrict your right to move about freely. Just because the government isn't helping you do it (by letting you drive without a license), it does not follow that the government is controlling your ability to do it at all. For that to be the case, you would have to file papers asking permission to move from one state to another before you could do it, and if that permission was denied, you'd have to stay where you were.

If that were the case (as it was in the Soviet Union, for instance), you would have no right to move freely. You would only have the privilege of moving where the state let you -- a privilege that could be expanded or restricted or eliminated altogether at the whims of the controlling authority. You would have no control over it whatsoever.

But we don't live that way in modern western democracies. We have the right of freedom of movement, and we do not have to file any notices or permits with the government to change our place of residence or work or travel for business or pleasure, as we please. Even with restrictions on our ability to drive cars, our right of movement remains within our control and is univeral in our lives.


B) Why are the restrictions you list not actually diminishments of the universality of the rights?

The restriction against libel and slander does not diminish the universality of the right to free speech because the right to free speech is meant to safeguard the free exchange and expression of ideas and opinions, where as libel and slander refer specifically to the telling of deliberate lies. Deliberately telling lies is a malicious act against another person, and no right is meant to protect malicious actions. So the right to free speech does not allow you to tell lies about your enemy, just as the right to support yourself and earn a living does not allow you to rob banks.

But even with the restriction against deliberate lies, you still have total freedom to express your opinion of your enemy. As long as you make it clear that you are expressing your opinion, you can badmouth him till you're blue in the face, and he will have a hard time shutting you up. In order for a restriction against slander/libel to be a restriction of the right to free speech, you would have to have certain kinds of speech censored by the government in order to avoid references to certain people or things, or you would have to apply to the government for permission or a license to be a writer, journalist, speaker, artist, etc. Then control over your speech would belong to the state, not to you, and once again you would not have that right.

It's the same with guns. Restricting some kinds of guns does not stop people from arming themselves. A better argument would be to say that requiring licenses to own guns would restrict the right to bear arms by giving the power to control who may have guns and who may not to the state, not to the people. But restricting some kinds of guns or making people announce their gun ownership does not stop people from owning guns.

Now compare that to restricting a person's right to control over their own body. I put it to you that if you allow the state to force a person to give over control of their body to someone else against their will for nine months at a time, then you have effectively taken control of that person's body away from the person and given it to the state. You have given the state the power to make that person's medical decisions, to deny medical care to that person or force medical care upon that person, to put that person at serious risk of permanent illness, injury or even death, all without that person having any say so in the matter. Does it really matter if the state allows that person to go about freely when she is not pregnant? The leash is always there, with the master's hand on the other end of it. Because of the state can just step in preempt control like that, it would be an illusion for the person to think that they really are the ones in control of their lives in general.


C) Why can some restrictions on rights be okay but others not?

I am not going to start quoting from recent writings by Alan Dershowitz on the subject of restricting legal rights because to go too far into that would be off topic, but I will try to stay germane to the abortion issue in my answer. For the record, I do not agree with Dershowitz on many issues. He, for instance, would allow the government to restrict rights far more than I would. But he makes an argument that I do agree with in general, to wit:

Rights are societal constructs designed to correct wrongs.

The right to free speech, for instance, was made to correct the wrong of tyrannical governments maintaining themselves in power by silencing their critics or opposition.

Dershowitz argues that rights can be restricted if society has a legitimate need to restrict in order to correct another wrong. We see this in the case of libel and slander. Once upon a time, there were no laws against such things. In the early 18th century in Britain, for instance, you could write anything about anyone who was at your social class or lower, and get away with it, provided they didn't challenge you to a duel -- or just beat a retraction out of you at the pub. But during the 18th century, the rise of publications/newspapers, together with the rise of modern stock markets and business models, led to serious, often irrevocable damage being done by slanders/libels that hurt a person's public reputation. Suddenly, it was not just a matter of getting teased at the theater or club. Now, whole business ventures and fortunes could be lost by a false rumor that Accountant X was a thief, for example, to an extent far greater than seen before. It is precisely to correct the harm done by slander and libel that speech is restricted to disallow them. (EDIT: By the way, laws against libel and slander are far older than the right to free speech; current legal systems keep them because of the harm done by libel and slander.)

But, as I said above, that restriction does not actually stop you from expressing yourself, so there really is no harm to the holder of the right.

But restricting a person's right to control their own bodies does bring harm to the person to the extent of effectively eliminating the right altogether. Banning abortion would not just seek to balance a conflict between rights of women and any supposed rights of fetuses. It would eliminate the body integrity rights of women altogether in favor of supposed rights of fetuses. It would bring measurable and significant harm to women in order to bring an unmeasurable, assumed benefit to a party that is not even asking for a wrong to be corrected, that we cannot even know is capable of being wronged.

Do we now restrict a person's right to control their own bodies? Yes, we do. We currently do not allow unrestricted abortion after the first trimester. Why? Precisely to address the possible needs of fetuses. And I consider that a perfectly good compromise. By that time, women have generally already made the decision that they want the pregnancy, so continuing with it is not a matter of force. Also, that time frame is in keeping with long-standing tradition of judging life to begin at "quickening."

But this is not good enough for the anti-choice faction. It is not enough that women are perfectly willing to restrict their own right to control over their bodies by accepting the first trimester limitation for the sake of fetuses. No, they must have it that one person must be stripped of their right entirely, and that person is the woman. They do not want to trust women to restrict their own rights for the sake of another. They want to give the state control over women's bodies so the state can make the decision instead of the woman. And they want to lie about it by saying, oh, but it's just a minor restriction, not even as bad as being sent to prison.

Except the basis that a life outweighs it.

No, it doesn't. Life is not in and of itself much of a reason to protect entities from death. Do you regret killing ants?

Although I'd still argue that she already exercised that control.

Obviously she didn't. She has a preference regarding her body, and she is forbidden to exercise it.

What you mean is that she consented in effect by agreeing to sex. But you're still missing my point in this respect. Again, there is a difference between consequences that are necessary and consequences that are the artificial product of a given societal decision. In the case of the former, sex and pregnancy are inseparably connected: if a person consents to one, the person consents to the risk of the other. In the case of the latter, matters change: a person may consent to sex without consenting to the social arrangement that forcibly connects sex and pregnancy by restricting abortion. She has no reason to regard her pregnancy as the consequence of her own choices, because it has been forced upon her by a society that refuses to allow her to do what is technically possible. It is the consequence of their actions, not of hers--and that is the essence of unfreedom.

Just because we can doesn't mean we should.

Indeed. But the fact that we can makes it an issue of freedom. If there is no capacity, there is no denial of freedom.

Did you state that recently? I may have missed it.

"If it is imposed against the will of the woman, her body is being used for someone else's ends against her will."

I don't think I agree.

You probably do. You just aren't thinking about what I'm saying.

A person has a disease that's going to kill her. We can't treat the disease, so we don't. When she dies, are we in any way morally responsible?

A person has a disease that's going to kill her. We can treat the disease easily with our medical technology; it would cost us pennies. Nevertheless, we refuse to do so. When she dies, are we in any way morally responsible?

We may disagree as to the degree of moral responsibility in the second case, but at least if your views on this topic are fairly conventional, you'll grant that in the second case we have more moral responsibility than in the first.

Similarly, if we have no technical capacity to provide for abortion, it's not denying anyone's freedom not to provide it: instead, the issue of pregnancy simply becomes part of the decision to have sex, as you insist should be the case. But once we do, there is no longer any necessary connection between the two: it can be severed, abortions are possible. If we choose anyway not to provide abortion (by the even more aggressive means of banning it), then just as in the second case of my hypothetical, there is an element of intent, of responsibility, on our parts behind that non-provision: we are morally accountable for it, and more important for our point of dispute, people other than the woman are making decisions about her body, decisions with which she may not agree. That's the lack of freedom. (If abortions are impossible as opposed to merely prohibited, there is no "decision." It just is.)

My question is: Suppose she changes her mind 3 years later and wants to be rid of her child? Is she then a slave because the law doesn't permit someone to just toss a kid off?

No, because now it is no longer her decision: there is a child to consider. The welfare of the child outweighs the consideration of her freedom--we can impose parental obligations upon her. But, again, nobody has credibly argued that the fetus has such rights as to justify that.

Furthermore, her own control of her body is not at stake here, and there are options (as there are not with abortion) other than killing if she does not want to care for the child.

Except the basis that a life outweighs it.

Except that you know that isn't true. We don't value all life equally. I presume you eat meat, or at least plants. Both involve killing life.

Personhood is what matters most. And in the early stages of pregnancies the unborn has a less compelling case for personhood than the pig whose bacon I eat does.

Although I'd still argue that she already exercised that control.

Yes, you'd trot out a version of the tired old argument that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy and childbirth. :headbang:

Or you'd say the woman is to "blame" for the pregnancy, so she (and not the unborn) should bear the punishment.

That's been a running theme in this and related threads for a long time, that somehow use of birth control demonstrates a refusal to become pregnant and thus, to not be permitted abortion is equivalent to slavery.

You can't argue effective against what we have actually said, so you have to invent strawmen to burn. How compelling. :rolleyes:

Well, by your logic, if a woman is pregnant, (willingly at first) then somewhere along the way changes her mind, then to not permit her an abortion is to make her a slave.

I answered this fallacious argument long ago and you didn't respond.

Among other things, agreement to sex is not mean you are willing to be pregnant.

But, by your logic, if one starts picking cotton then somewhere along the way changes his/her mind and wants to stop, you can force them to continue picking cotton without making him/her a slave!!!

My question is: Suppose she changes her mind 3 years later and wants to be rid of her child? Is she then a slave because the law doesn't permit someone to just toss a kid off?

Are you really unable to distinguish between terminating an early pregnancy and killing a 3-year old child? Your moral compass needs some work.

Moreover, one can give up a 3-year old for adoption or otherwise terminate one's responsibility for caring for a child. You aren't simply stuck with raising a kid until it is 18 simply because you had sex once.

I knew this would happen. Even as I hit the submit button, I knew someone would start quibbling over this. I hope this answer will make you regret asking the question, and I further hope that its off-topic-ness will make you think twice as well, mod.

Normal topic drift into a relevant issue is hardly an actionable violation, but since you have no intention of responding to the points I would like to make, I'll just wish you a pleasant evening.

Abortion is wrong

why?

Abortion is wrong... I don't understand how it is right at all

Normal topic drift into a relevant issue is hardly an actionable violation, but since you have no intention of responding to the points I would like to make, I'll just wish you a pleasant evening.

Thank you. But feel free to make your points. I'm sure Free Soviets or Soheran or, if we're lucky, Cat-Tribe or Neo Art will be able to make a side debate about it. It's just that I am reserving my perogative to focus on the topic of main interest to me at this time.

EDIT: Also I feel no need to defend my position in re rights in this context because it stands only as my opinion and serves only as a part of the foundation of my position on abortion. I cite it not to assert it as fact, but merely to state my personal beliefs.

Abortion is good. Everyone should have one. :)

yea your mother should of had one with you

Thank you. But feel free to make your points. I’m sure Free Soviets or Soheran or, if we’re lucky, Cat-Tribe or Neo Art will be able to make a side debate about it. It’s just that I am reserving my perogative to focus on the topic of main interest to me at this time.
I’m under the impression that you may have me on ignore already for supposedly ‘hijacking’ the thread, so you may not even see this, but I still don’t understand why you’re getting so angry with relevant side-discussions, and making occasional snide comments about those who do, especially Free Soviets and Soheran.

I mean, this happens all the time here on NS:G.

and making occasional snide comments about those who do, especially Free Soviets and Soheran.

There's a bit of history there.

There’s a bit of history there.
Shame.

Ah well, I won’t open a healing wound.

Who snapped at his wife, him, or you? At some point someone else made a conscious decision (to snap at somebody). You can't be held responsible for other people's choices.

Then it's not actually the case that a woman can be held responsible for getting an abortion at a clinic performed by a doctor? I mean, she may have indirectly created the impetus for the event, but ultimately someone else (the doctor in this case) made a conscious decision to perform the procedure that would lead to the death of a fetus.

Then it's not actually the case that a woman can be held responsible for getting an abortion at a clinic performed by a doctor? I mean, she may have indirectly created the impetus for the event, but ultimately someone else (the doctor in this case) made a conscious decision to perform the procedure that would lead to the death of a fetus.

There are different kinds of responsibility. In this context, we seem mostly concerned with responsibility in the context of choice: which consequences can I be said to have chosen as part of making a particular decision?

The woman here chooses to have an abortion, because that is her intent: that's the consequence she wills of her action. But the person who causes another to snap as his wife in no sense "chooses" that consequence: he does not intend it, and snapping at someone is not a (naturally or morally) necessary part of being glared at, so it cannot be viewed as an inseparable part of his action.

There are different kinds of responsibility. In this context, we seem mostly concerned with responsibility in the context of choice: which consequences can I be said to have chosen as part of making a particular decision?

The woman here chooses to have an abortion, because that is her intent: that's the consequence she wills of her action. But the person who causes another to snap as his wife in no sense "chooses" that consequence: he does not intend it, and snapping at someone is not a (naturally or morally) necessary part of being glared at, so it cannot be viewed as an inseparable part of his action.

It's a simple thing to presume that causing the man discomfort, and by extension, his family and friends, was the intention. And it's simple enough to acknowledge that a doctor has no grave moral obligation to perform an elective abortion procedure any more than the man has a grave moral obligation to snap at his wife.

But ultimately, I'm just curious to see if Neo Bretonnia really wants to uphold fully his earlier statement, and how far causality goes in determining responsibility in his view.

Shame.

Ah well, I won’t open a healing wound.

i don't think its healing very well. i just looked and apparently i've had this effect on mura effectively since she got here.

As a matter of fact, yes. Quite aside from simple intellectual honesty and argumentative strength--which in and of themselves should lead us to reject using bad arguments about self-ownership--the unwillingness to clearly and consistently approach problems of moral consideration when it comes to cases like abortion has major consequences elsewhere.


Since two things are dissimilar, how are you claiming that there is a lack of consistency?

By your logic, being a vegetarian would be 'inconsistent' with being anti-death-penalty...

If the supposed 'argument' over the relevence of 'fetal' rights to 'infant' rights extends beyond the debate of abortion, it is because those trying to argue FOR 'fetal rights' wish it to be so. There is no intrinsic connection.


Dodging difficult questions with convenient answers is not only dishonest but also dangerous.


Which is probably irrelevent.


Even if morality is subjective, it certainly allows for a very broad sphere of intersubjectivity, so that does not save you.


Not at all. If two things are subjective, it doesn't make them identities of one another.

Your assertion of a moral imperative doesn't make it so, even if you suspect there is a moral imperative at work elsewhere.


Even worse, your own argument is implicitly moral, even if you pretend it is not. To maintain that you have a right to your body that supersedes my right to it is to advance a moral claim. So if morality is substanceless, at best we are on equal grounds.


My argument isn't implicitly moral or immoral - it has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with pragmatism. If you've debated with me before (which I know you have) you may be aware that I'm only 'indulging' you by discussing things in terms of 'rights', anyway - since I consider the whole idea of 'rights' to be (pleasant? convenient?) fantasy.

The pragmatic approach is that my body IS my body, not yours. You are going to need to have more than just 'want' to exercise YOUR control over MY body.

You can't be held responsible for other people's choices.



If you are not responsible for my choices, why are you trying to control them?

My question for you would be: Responsible to whom? To one's self? Family? Lover?

Whoever is involved in the given situation.
If I got pregnant right now, I'd have to consider myself and my boyfriend only, since my family are not in any way involved any more.



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.

Well, out of all the options she had, abortion would have been more sensible than keeping me. Putting me up for adoption may or may not have been a good idea, that's virtually impossible to tell. I only compare the two situations I can view with a certain amount of certainty.

And if I hadn't been an influence on people, someone else would have. There are 6 billion people on the planet at this moment, there's no shortage of good or bad influences ;)


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:)

Thanks :)

If you are not responsible for my choices, why are you trying to control them?
Hint: It's got buggerall to do with responsibility.

Anti-choicers don't want you to actually take responsibility for your choices. If you did, you might make decisions they don't like. Taking responsibility for one's sexual choices would mean confronting the fact that, oh crap, you're preggers, and now you have some hard decisions to make. Taking responsibility for one's pregnancy would mean making the measured, thoughtful decision about whether or not it's a good idea for you to continue being pregnant. It would require that you make the best possible decision for you, in your situation, at the time it is happening to you. And if you did that, if you behaved the way a responsible adult would behave, then you might make the same choice that 30% of the women in America make: the choice to terminate your pregnancy.

When anti-choicers say they want you to "take responsibility," they mean that they want you to suffer unnecessary discomfort because it makes them feel better, whether or not doing so is remotely responsible on your part.

It's not as complicated as all that. It's a matter of preserving lives. We can draw reasonable conclusions that they would, if able, choose life. You indicated that it's been refuted by personal testimonials on this thread, but I don't think it's good enough as a refutation. I recall only one (Cabra West) indicating that the best choice would have been abortion, but even in her case the way I read it, it sounds like she's trying to define it from a strictly objective perspective in terms of net level of suffering, as opposed to wishing she weren't alive. (If there's another example that I missed, please let me know.)


I'd like to correct that. I'm not looking at the situation objectively and simply weighing suffering. Humans don't work like that, there are plenty of people who suffer daily and yet are happily alive.
I weigh the time I wished I wasn't alive against the time I was sort of ok with being alive. And I add the problems and suffering my existence inflicted on others.
I've wished I wasn't alive for most of the time I have been alive, and have tried but failed several times to correct that. In short, had my mom aborted me she would have saved everyone involved an awful amount of problems, troubles and pain.

I'd like to correct that. I'm not looking at the situation objectively and simply weighing suffering. Humans don't work like that, there are plenty of people who suffer daily and yet are happily alive.
I weigh the time I wished I wasn't alive against the time I was sort of ok with being alive. And I add the problems and suffering my existence inflicted on others.
I've wished I wasn't alive for most of the time I have been alive, and have tried but failed several times to correct that. In short, had my mom aborted me she would have saved everyone involved an awful amount of problems, troubles and pain.
I've had a pretty swell life. I had a great childhood. I've had a generally good time being on this Earth. I'm in no hurry to die.

But I would 100% rather never have been born than know that my mother was forced to bear me against her wishes. No contest. No question.

I wouldn't force my mother to give me blood against her wishes, even if I needed it to live. Why the fuck would I EVER be okay with forcing her to give up her body for me? I can't imagine hating my mother enough to violate her in that way.

Yes, you'd trot out a version of the tired old argument that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy and childbirth. :headbang:

Or you'd say the woman is to "blame" for the pregnancy, so she (and not the unborn) should bear the punishment.
Among other things, agreement to sex is not mean you are willing to be pregnant.

Why isn't consent to sex, consent to the consequences of sex? Its got nothing to do with 'blame'. But its a simple fact that no contraceptive is 100% effective, and that sex carries a risk of STI's.
And why should the unborn bear the punishment for a situation which it did not contribute?
If you are not mature enough to bare the consequences of sex, then its my opinion you still have a lot of growing up to do before you have sex.

Then it's not actually the case that a woman can be held responsible for getting an abortion at a clinic performed by a doctor? I mean, she may have indirectly created the impetus for the event, but ultimately someone else (the doctor in this case) made a conscious decision to perform the procedure that would lead to the death of a fetus.
Consent.

If you are not responsible for my choices, why are you trying to control them?

I haven't seen Neo saying that in any thread. I thought he'd been quite supportive of what happened to you personally, after stories were straightened out. But it doesn't mean he has to agree with the concepts. And the only time Neo gets ruffled, is when people are only interested in mud-flinging. I don't think defending his opinions, mean he's trying to be controlling. Unless you're willing to let it slide both ways..

I'd like to correct that. I'm not looking at the situation objectively and simply weighing suffering. Humans don't work like that, there are plenty of people who suffer daily and yet are happily alive.
I weigh the time I wished I wasn't alive against the time I was sort of ok with being alive. And I add the problems and suffering my existence inflicted on others.
I've wished I wasn't alive for most of the time I have been alive, and have tried but failed several times to correct that. In short, had my mom aborted me she would have saved everyone involved an awful amount of problems, troubles and pain.

Thats so said :( :( :( I hope things get better for you.

I've had a pretty swell life. I had a great childhood. I've had a generally good time being on this Earth. I'm in no hurry to die.

But I would 100% rather never have been born than know that my mother was forced to bear me against her wishes. No contest. No question.

I wouldn't force my mother to give me blood against her wishes, even if I needed it to live. Why the fuck would I EVER be okay with forcing her to give up her body for me? I can't imagine hating my mother enough to violate her in that way.

Let's hypothetical here....So far those situations are only for you, and its easier to make statements like 'I'd rather die than VIOLATE someone's body' etc. It all sounds very noble. But what about if it were for someone else you loved?
What if the only way to save your child, would be to force your husband to give up one of his kidneys? Are you hating your husband because you want to see your child live?

Why isn't consent to sex, consent to the consequences of sex? Why is an abortion not a consequence of sex?

Let's hypothetical here....So far those situations are only for you, and its easier to make statements like 'I'd rather die than VIOLATE someone's body' etc. It all sounds very noble. But what about if it were for someone else you loved?

Fuck no. I love my baby brother to distraction, but I would never steal piece of our mother's body to prolong his life. I would give of my own body if I could possibly do so, but the only body I have the right to give is my own.

I wouldn't steal a stranger's organs against their wishes, so why would I do that to my own mother?

This is not "nobility." This is simply, basic, fundamental human decency. The idea that not violating people is some amazing noble gesture is...bletch...man, I just wanna barf thinking about that. That's like claiming that it's noble for a guy to refrain from raping a woman that he really wanted to rape. Sorry, asshole, but it doesn't matter how much you want her vagina. You're not noble for refraining from raping her. You don't get a cookie.


What if the only way to save your child, would be to force your husband to give up one of his kidneys? Are you hating your husband because you want to see your child live?
No, you would not be "hating your husband because you want to see your child live." Obviously. Wanting your child to live would not be the problem, and you know it, because wanting your child to live is a feeling that is totally understandable and valid. How you choose to ACT on the feelings is the issue.

My partner's body is NOT MINE. I do not get to take pieces of his body against his will simply because I want them, no matter how much I want them, no matter why I want them.

Why is an abortion not a consequence of sex?

Perhaps it is. But its not an immediate consequence.
But, its a pretty negative one. Right up there with taking HIV drugs, as far as happy sex experiences go..

Perhaps it is. But its not an immediate consequence.
But, its a pretty negative one. Right up there with taking HIV drugs, as far as happy sex experiences go..Yeah, but it negates the consent to pregnancy and childbirth.

Yeah, but it negates the consent to pregnancy and childbirth.

I don't particularly want an STD. I don't want to be pregnant at my age. But I consent to both when I have sex, even if its not what I planned and even if I was as safe as possible.
Whether sex is consent to childbirth is different. Because you don't have to carry the child to term. But you do consent to pregnancy.

Perhaps it is.
It's not.

Becoming pregnant may sometimes be a consequence of sex. Remaining pregnant and eventually giving birth is only one of the many possible consequences of becoming pregnant.

Abortion isn't a "consequence of sex," it's a possible option when confronted with the consequence of pregnancy.

It's not.

Becoming pregnant may sometimes be a consequence of sex. Remaining pregnant and eventually giving birth is only one of the many possible consequences of becoming pregnant.

Abortion isn't a "consequence of sex," it's a possible option when confronted with the consequence of pregnancy.

Already addressed it. And note that I said that if it was a consequence, then so was anti-viral medication...etc etc.
:) Agree with u.

I don't particularly want an STD. I don't want to be pregnant at my age. But I consent to both when I have sex, even if its not what I planned and even if I was as safe as possible.
Whether sex is consent to childbirth is different. Because you don't have to carry the child to term. But you do consent to pregnancy.
I do not consent to pregnancy when I have sex. I consent to deal with the possibility that I may become pregnant (despite many efforts to prevent this from happening on my part), but I do not in any way consent to be pregnant. If I become pregnant I will terminate the pregnancy, precisely because I do not consent to be pregnant.

When I consent to make out with somebody, I retain the right to say "STOP" at any time and for any reason. They don't get to claim that I consented to have sex simply because I consented to make out.

Similarly, when I consent to take the chance that I may become pregnant, this does not in any way equate to me consenting to remain pregnant for one single instant longer than I choose to be pregnant.

My consent can be withdrawn at any time, just like it can with sexual activity.

Already addressed it. And note that I said that if it was a consequence, then so was anti-viral medication...etc etc.
:) Agree with u.
Yah, just clarifying.

Perhaps it is. But its not an immediate consequence.
But, its a pretty negative one. Right up there with taking HIV drugs, as far as happy sex experiences go..

This is what I actually said.
There was a little bit after....Perhaps it is.

Perhaps it is. But its not an immediate consequence.
But, its a pretty negative one. Right up there with taking HIV drugs, as far as happy sex experiences go..

I think nobody here claims it's positive.
It's been said again and again by the pro-choice crowd, but I gladly repeat it one more time : We'd rather abortions weren't necessary, but as it is women can be in situations in which abortion just is the more sensible and responsible choice. And they should have any legal right to make that decision.

I don't particularly want an STD. I don't want to be pregnant at my age. But I consent to both when I have sex, even if its not what I planned and even if I was as safe as possible.
Whether sex is consent to childbirth is different. Because you don't have to carry the child to term. But you do consent to pregnancy.

So, by that logic, since you consented to contracting an STD, should you be denied the cures?

Consent.

I'd prefer not to.

Perhaps it is. But its not an immediate consequence.
But, its a pretty negative one. Right up there with taking HIV drugs, as far as happy sex experiences go..
So is an unwanted pregnancy. Now that we have established that sex is about present pleasure and future misery, Laerod's point stands, and yours doesn't.

I don't particularly want an STD. I don't want to be pregnant at my age. But I consent to both when I have sex, even if its not what I planned and even if I was as safe as possible.
Whether sex is consent to childbirth is different. Because you don't have to carry the child to term. But you do consent to pregnancy.
YOU may consent to anything you like.

YOU do not have the right to force ME to consent to anything at all.

As Bottle has pointed out, the process that starts with getting asked out on a date and ends with a baby is incremental and each and every step must be consented to separately, by the individuals involved directly in the process at any given time. Not by any outside observers or armchair moralizers.

Also, "consent" that is forced (by violence, intimidation, or force of law) is NOT consent because consent must be voluntary. Otherwise it is just compliance with a requirement. So as soon as abortion is banned, women lose the power to "consent" to pregnancy, because they have lost the power to not consent. In other words, you have to choose to consent, and if you take away the right to choose, well...

By the way, if you think women "consent" to pregnancy by having sex and should not be allowed to avoid that outcome by abortion, do you also oppose contraception, since that is another way women can avoid the consequence you say they consented to by consenting ot sex?

If you say so.



I'd love to argue my position. What I don't want to do is just keep repeating the same statements over and over, which is all I can do in response to you asking me the same questions over and over.


What you are repeating is that this has already been addressed in this thread in response to someone else.


For the third or fourth time: I gave you my reasons for protecting myself against unwanted bodily intrusion and for putting my rights above any rights that might claimed for a fetus. I made my case for those reasons.


A vague case, but when I challenged them, you again said that these challenges had already been discussed in the thread (it hasn't as far as I'm concerned). There's not much I can do in this situation, I don't want you to go through all the trouble, like I said, of digging up all the old quotes. So it's really either you address the points that you have allegedly already adressed to different people, or we stop this debate.


*throws something at Hydesland* I DID ANSWER IT BEFORE NOW!!! I answered that question for you, in response to you, before you ever posted that silly hypothetical. Why the hell do you think I have been complaining about you making me repeat myself!!?? Oh, but I guess you can't be blamed for not remembering, since you can't remember why you started talking to me in the first place, either.


You answered it and made a case with two main points, access to rights, and the analogy of the mother wanting your organs. When I challenged the first one, you said it had already been discussed with someone else and refused to go on. I challenged the second analogy, trying to create a different analogy which seems closer to abortion to see if you would still do have the same answer when the conditions are changed. Admittedly, I didn't expect that you would actually answer "yes I would still shoot him".


Because it is entirely arbitrary and thus a false dilemma, there is no real, moral or ethical or even legal dilemma here for you to be concerned with. There is only some little trick of yours to try to make me jump through some kind of hoop for you. If you have nothing to talk about but this hypothetical of yours, and if you insist on pestering me with it any further, rather than either getting back to the topic or bothering someone else, I will be happy to ignore you as well, and I hope you will feel free to do the same, if you really find my arguments that unsatisfactory.


The very first sentence is nonsensical. An ethical dilemma is not dependent on the situation being arbitrary or not. Anyway, the ethical dilemma is practically the same as the ethical dilemma in abortion, that was the point, it's not off topic.


It has been perfectly clear since the very first time you said it. I do not disagree with you because I don't understand you. I disagree with you because I think you are wrong for the reasons I have already given you.

Saying that it doesn't fall under your definition of a right is not actually a reason to say it is wrong.

Why isn't consent to sex, consent to the consequences of sex?

Because it's not.

Maybe you hoped for something mroe elegant than that, but the truth is sometimes just cold, hard truth.

Consenting to sex is not consenting to unwanted problems potentially associated with sex. It SHOULD include understanding of those possible complications... although it doesn't always (yay for 'abstinence education'... the bright idea that you can educate someone by NOT telling them the facts... pure gold) work that way.

I consent to a ride in a car. I am AWARE that there could be accidents. I am NOT consenting to a 36-car-pile-up.

I consent to a bacon-and-egg sandwich. I am AWARE that there could be harmful ramifications (like.. cholesterol). I am NOT consenting to food poisoning or a choking death.

And there's where the whole 'you consented' argument falls down - it's a special exception. You don't see the medics on the side of the road looking at the bleeding family of four, stroking their beards and saying "Well, they went for a drive, they consented to having this 18-wheeler smash them into jam".

Perhaps it is. But its not an immediate consequence.


Neither is pregnancy, actually....

That's called speculating.

A personal anecdote from one person (Cabra West) is good enough to cancel out personal speculations and musings from one person (you). I remember a few more people echoing Cabra, but they may have been just agreeing with her. Your imaginings have no more weight in debate than her personal stories.


Not necessarily. I did qualify my original statement such that there are (few) exceptions, but in the absence of greater detail from Cabra in terms of how she personally feels about it (not relative to what was more logical for her mother) no firm conclusion could be drawn in either case, but at best that's one exception covered by the qualifier I included.


In case you missed it, I said that I do think it is unreasonable.


Right. Our opinions differ here.


Now wait a minute -- I'm all for staying on track, but just what do you think has been talked out?

Because if you are arguing that you have a right to infringe upon my bodily rights and personal liberty because of what you imagine a fetus might want you to do, and that is part of why you would support laws that would make it hard or impossible for me to get a safe abortion if I needed one, I don't consider that a sidetrack at all. I consider your lack of evidence to support your claims about what fetuses want to be a fatal flaw in that part of your argument and thus fair game for challenge.


What's been talked out is the issue of what an unborn baby would hypothetically want. We seem to have reached the core opinion for each of our positions, and they differ. At this point all we can do is acknowledge it, agree to disagree, and move on. In a recent post you quite eloquently pointed out (On a different specific item) that you were expressing an opinion that forms a foundation for a belief. So it is here but for both of us. There's nothing to prove or disprove in an opinion.


"If the unborn are people" -- only they aren't.


That too is a matter of opinion, and one of the defining elements of just about ant abortion debate.


"If it's illegal to kill people" -- only it isn't. It is only illegal to kill people in circumstances that the law does not allow. Unlawful killing is what murder and manslaughter. Self defense, the death penalty, warfare, are a few examples of circumstances for killing people that the law allows, i.e. lawful killing. It is not automatically illegal to kill people. It is only illegal if the killing fits the legal criteria of murder or manslaughter. Abortion does not because it is allowed by the law and because no person is killed by it.

Two big IFs that turn out not to be able to support your argument.


Obviously abortion is legal. If the debate were on strictly legal matters then there'd be nothing to discuss because the current legal status is plain. The fact that we believe that abortion should be illegal is the fuel for the discussion and the reason why the current legality of abortions is irrelevant in terms of what ought to be. (from the pro-life perspective).


The answers are long enough, you might as well. I try to use multiquotes only when making short responses to short posts.

Yeah I think from now on I'll only combine long posts if I have replies that would cover multiple people's replies, or if I have time to focus on it. So much for saving space ;)

What you are repeating is that this has already been addressed in this thread in response to someone else.



A vague case, but when I challenged them, you again said that these challenges had already been discussed in the thread (it hasn't as far as I'm concerned). There's not much I can do in this situation, I don't want you to go through all the trouble, like I said, of digging up all the old quotes. So it's really either you address the points that you have allegedly already adressed to different people, or we stop this debate.



You answered it and made a case with two main points, access to rights, and the analogy of the mother wanting your organs. When I challenged the first one, you said it had already been discussed with someone else and refused to go on. I challenged the second analogy, trying to create a different analogy which seems closer to abortion to see if you would still do have the same answer when the conditions are changed. Admittedly, I didn't expect that you would actually answer "yes I would still shoot him".



The very first sentence is nonsensical. An ethical dilemma is not dependent on the situation being arbitrary or not. Anyway, the ethical dilemma is practically the same as the ethical dilemma in abortion, that was the point, it's not off topic.



Saying that it doesn't fall under your definition of a right is not actually a reason to say it is wrong.

Apparently, when you said you were not interested in continuing with this argument, you were lying.

What part of "this is all the answer you're going to get from me" do you not understand?

I get it -- you don't like what I told you, you think it leaves questions unanswered, whatnot and etc. Oh well. I guess I failed to give satisfaction to you. I'll make a note to feel inadequate about that one of these days. In the meantime, I made my argument. Period. If you don't like it, go ahead and reject it. But I stand by it as presented.

Now, I don't know about you, but I'm done beating this particular dead horse. When you have something new or further to talk about, I'll be happy to take that up.

<snip>

So, because you are religiously opposed to abortion, it should be made illegal for everyone, including those who do not share your religious beliefs?

Then it's not actually the case that a woman can be held responsible for getting an abortion at a clinic performed by a doctor? I mean, she may have indirectly created the impetus for the event, but ultimately someone else (the doctor in this case) made a conscious decision to perform the procedure that would lead to the death of a fetus.

Nah, that doesn't work unless abortionists went around at random aborting pregnancies. The actions of the abortionist were deliberately set into motion by the mother and thus she has a legitimate share in the responsibility for the outcome, unlike your earlier analogy in which some guy, annoyed at you, snaps at his wife. (As I assume in your analogy, getting the guy to snap at his wife was not part of your plan w hen glaring at him! :) )

If you are not responsible for my choices, why are you trying to control them?

I think Piu replied to this question better than I can, but I feel obligated to take a crack at it... Please see my next post. So many others have asked similar questions I'm just gonna wite another rant to try and cover it. :)

Whoever is involved in the given situation.
If I got pregnant right now, I'd have to consider myself and my boyfriend only, since my family are not in any way involved any more.


And that's where our opinions differ, because I maintain that you also have a responsibility to the new life that would be formed by your actions.


Well, out of all the options she had, abortion would have been more sensible than keeping me. Putting me up for adoption may or may not have been a good idea, that's virtually impossible to tell. I only compare the two situations I can view with a certain amount of certainty.


Thanks for clarifying that.


And if I hadn't been an influence on people, someone else would have. There are 6 billion people on the planet at this moment, there's no shortage of good or bad influences ;)


True dat, but we all contribute in our own way. Ever seen 'It's a Wondeful Life'? I think that movie holds more truth in it than most.

I'd like to correct that. I'm not looking at the situation objectively and simply weighing suffering. Humans don't work like that, there are plenty of people who suffer daily and yet are happily alive.
I weigh the time I wished I wasn't alive against the time I was sort of ok with being alive. And I add the problems and suffering my existence inflicted on others.
I've wished I wasn't alive for most of the time I have been alive, and have tried but failed several times to correct that. In short, had my mom aborted me she would have saved everyone involved an awful amount of problems, troubles and pain.

You know, I've been there. I don't mean to suggest that my own pain is equivalent, or even in the same league, as yours. I have no way of knowing. But I do know what the barrel of a loaded .45 tastes like, and I know how it is to look into your own future and see nothing but misery and fear. I also know that even at its lowest, my life is infinitely valuable, and so is yours. Always has been.


I haven't seen Neo saying that in any thread. I thought he'd been quite supportive of what happened to you personally, after stories were straightened out. But it doesn't mean he has to agree with the concepts. And the only time Neo gets ruffled, is when people are only interested in mud-flinging. I don't think defending his opinions, mean he's trying to be controlling. Unless you're willing to let it slide both ways..


Thanks! :)

So, because you are religiously opposed to abortion, it should be made illegal for everyone, including those who do not share your religious beliefs?

Oh man please tell me that's not all you've come away with after all my posts!

I've fallen pretty behind in the multiple long posts that have been directed toward me in the last couple days, so I'm going to write one reply meant to cover it all without individually quoting every section. If I miss something, do please let me know.

Stand by...

So, because you are religiously opposed to abortion, it should be made illegal for everyone, including those who do not share your religious beliefs?

if someone really believed that god specifically said that abortion was wrong and ought not be allowed, then wouldn't it be insane of them to not attempt to make it so?

So, because you are religiously opposed to abortion, it should be made illegal for everyone, including those who do not share your religious beliefs?

Of course. Just like my religious beliefs demand people have abortions, so it should be made illegal for everyone to not have at least one.

Aren't religious dilemmas nice ?

Not necessarily. I did qualify my original statement such that there are (few) exceptions, but in the absence of greater detail from Cabra in terms of how she personally feels about it (not relative to what was more logical for her mother) no firm conclusion could be drawn in either case, but at best that's one exception covered by the qualifier I included.
Yes, I was aware of your pro forma disclaimer, however, you still went ahead and presented your biased speculations as the foundation of that part of your argument, as if they were facts.


Right. Our opinions differ here.



What's been talked out is the issue of what an unborn baby would hypothetically want. We seem to have reached the core opinion for each of our positions, and they differ. At this point all we can do is acknowledge it, agree to disagree, and move on. In a recent post you quite eloquently pointed out (On a different specific item) that you were expressing an opinion that forms a foundation for a belief. So it is here but for both of us. There's nothing to prove or disprove in an opinion.
This is true, and of course, you are entitled to your opinion. Yet, similar to the matter of the first paragraph above, if you continue to use your biased speculations about what a fetus might hypothetically want as a foundation for arguing in favor of taking away my rights in reality, as if your biased speculations were fact, then it is a fair tactic for me to point out the lack of factuality behind your opinion, as well as its bias, and to keep pointing it out.


That too is a matter of opinion, and one of the defining elements of just about ant abortion debate.
No, that is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of law. The law does not recognize fetuses as people for any legal purposes before quickening, and therefore the law does not extend legal rights to fetuses before quickening. Since there are no non-medically-necessary abortions after quickening, the entire argument over the legal rights of fetuses is moot.

Before quickening, fetuses are not people and do not have rights like people do. After quickening, fetuses rights are already protected, and they do have rights, BUT those rights are equal to everyone else's. That means they do not have MORE rights than any other person, and that means they do not get to benefit themselves at my expense against my will, anymore than you would have the right to do that. That is why, in cases of medical necessity, the woman's life/health/rights still trumps the fetuses, if the woman chooses not to sacrifice her needs for its (so, if a medical emergency is identified, and the woman chooses to follow medical advice and get a late abortion, the fetus cannot stop her).

Now, the anti-choice side can argue if it likes whether that should be changed, and whether fetuses before quickening should be given legal person status, and whether the rights of a fetus should trump the woman's rights in all cases, but there is one thing they cannot deny -- If they want the woman's rights to be subordinate to the fetuses, then they are giving fetuses MORE rights and superior rights to any other born person in the world.


Obviously abortion is legal. If the debate were on strictly legal matters then there'd be nothing to discuss because the current legal status is plain. The fact that we believe that abortion should be illegal is the fuel for the discussion and the reason why the current legality of abortions is irrelevant in terms of what ought to be. (from the pro-life perspective).
So, you acknowledge that you want to change the law, but you don't think the debate should focus on legal matters?

The current legality of abortion already grants rights to fetuses and BALANCES those rights with the rights of women, so that both are accorded as close to equal protection under the law as possible (just as if fetuses were people).

What is there about that arrangement that you cannot accept? Are you ready now to admit that the only thing that will satisfy you is the complete stripping of rights to bodily integrity away from women in order to subordinate women's bodies to fetal and/or state control? And are you ready to accept that the majority of people, who believe in equality under the law for all people, will not accept that because it is unfair, and that that is why you will never, never get your way? Even if you managed to outlaw abortion, your laws would be broken on a daily basis, just as they are in places like Ireland and Equador. Why? Because such laws are inherently unjust. Human life cannot continue in harmony under such laws, and there is no moral obligation to obey unjust laws.

In anticipation of Neo Bretonnia's next big missive, and for general reference going forward, I'd like to restate that I do not care about opinions in the abortion debate all that much. I have little interest in changing anyone else's beliefs about the matter. I fundamentally do not care WHY people want to outlaw abortion. I only care about the actions they take towards that goal.

I only care about things that can affect my life in reality. I care about the law, about access to medical services, and about who gets to make decisions controlling my body. There is no personal explanation of beliefs, no outlining of an opinion, no appeal to emotion or religion, that is going to make me care about anything other than those pragmatic things.

When I argue people's opinions with them, my only goal is to show up the disconnect between their beliefs and the pragmatic realities of law and medicine. By showing them that unbridgeable gap, I am trying to explain why their arguments are not persuading me to accept their rules for my life.

I think the abortion debate goes nowhere and gets very tense doing it because the anti-choice side has only personal beliefs on which to found their argument. Their entire platform is fundamentally impractical, because it is not really about any practical realities of human life. It is about getting the outside world to match their inner ideals. It is about getting the rest of the world to agree with them on this point, regardless of the practical results. That is why they keep arguing their beliefs and their wishes. They cannot show any actual injustice in the real world that needs to be corrected or need that wants filling, with which to persuade others. All they can say is, "I beileve..." and the only answer to that is "Well, I don't, so I don't care." And thus the two sides end up just yelling at each other over personal differences.

Meanwhile, US law already has found a balancing compromise between the two sides, and it is called Roe v. Wade. The current legal state of abortion allows for the co-existence of all beings and two sides. If I were to insist on getting my own way 100%, I would say the limitations on abortion made specific in current US law are unnecessary and should be done away with because there is no need for the law to interfere with decisions best made by doctors and patients. But I am willing to compromise in order to share my country with others, so I am happy to accept the restrictions we have now, as a concession to the fetal-rights side. But they are not willing to give anything in return, it seems. I am willing to let them have their fetal rights, but they are not willing to let me have my woman's rights.

So I put it out there: Which side is being more reasonable? The one that wants to respect all rights equally? Or the one that wants to make one class of people subordinate to another, by giving one superior rights over the other? The side that is willing to share, or the side that wants its own way with no sharing?

<snip>

In the big post I mentioned I'll include replies to the items you raised here.

In Canada, our side won.

There is no law on abortion. None.

Fetuses have no rights. None.

You could abort a baby in the eighth month if you wanted.

In Canada, our side won.

There is no law on abortion. None.

Fetuses have no rights. None.

You could abort a baby in the eighth month if you wanted.
And yet, I'll bet a nickel (US; I can't afford to bet a Canadian nickel anymore) that there are NOT whole boatloads of elective abortions in the 8th month in Canada. Why? Possibly because people can be trusted to make sound decisions when they are in charge of their own lives.

And yet, I'll bet a nickel (US; I can't afford to bet a Canadian nickel anymore) that there are NOT whole boatloads of elective abortions in the 8th month in Canada. Why? Possibly because people can be trusted to make sound decisions when they are in charge of their own lives.

Less than 0.4% of all abortions are late term abortions (after the 20th week).

Source: http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/22-Late-term-Abortions.PDF

And for those who feel brave enough opening an Excel sheet from an unknown source:

http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/StatsCan-gestation-times-1995-2003.xls

A synopsis:

http://dawn.thot.net/abortion_rights.html#2

It would appear that you are right in assuming that women are making responsible choices about late term abortions.

EDIT: You should have bet the Canadian nickel.

It is kind of funny that the Republican Party is less Pro-Life than NS voters in this poll, yet pro-life policies are planks of the Republican Party platform.

That's politics for you.

If we can find a way to show that a foetus is actually an 'illegal immigrant', in legal terms... and that the lack of clearly defined gender in an early term foetus is basically the same as 'being gay'... the Republican pary would stop opposing abortion, completely.

Hell, they'd mandate it.

It is kind of funny that the Republican Party is less Pro-Life than NS voters in this poll, yet pro-life policies are planks of the Republican Party platform.

Since two things are dissimilar, how are you claiming that there is a lack of consistency?

Because they are not relevantly dissimilar.

By your logic, being a vegetarian would be 'inconsistent' with being anti-death-penalty...

Not even remotely.

If the supposed 'argument' over the relevence of 'fetal' rights to 'infant' rights extends beyond the debate of abortion, it is because those trying to argue FOR 'fetal rights' wish it to be so. There is no intrinsic connection.

Absolutely there is.

Those who deny fetal rights say "The fetus lacks certain qualities that are the basis for rights." It follows that other entities that lack the same qualities also do not have rights. That's basic logic.

Not at all. If two things are subjective, it doesn't make them identities of one another.

Who said it did? But as a simple matter of fact, human beings have similar enough moral frameworks that we can and do have productive arguments about ethics. If morality is subjective, then, it must be true that it has a good deal of intersubjectivity: our basic subjective moral intuitions are similar enough that we have the common ground necessary to meaningfully discuss ethical questions.

My argument isn't implicitly moral or immoral - it has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with pragmatism.

"Pragmatism" is itself a moral stance, at least if it is supposed to mean anything in terms of what we should do... which seems a prerequisite for its invocation in this discussion.

The pragmatic approach is that my body IS my body, not yours.

The strictly "pragmatic approach" is that bodies "belong" to whoever has the force necessary to take control of them. Which gets us absolutely nowhere.

Oh man please tell me that's not all you've come away with after all my posts!

Yep, although its probably good part due to the fact that I skipped a large chunk of the debate...
And my comment was mainly because it surprised me that you were saying that (or at least coming across that way {as I said I skipped a lot of this discussion})

if someone really believed that god specifically said that abortion was wrong and ought not be allowed, then wouldn't it be insane of them to not attempt to make it so?

No it wouldn't be, it would be reasonable.

Less than 0.4% of all abortions are late term abortions (after the 20th week).

Source: http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/22-Late-term-Abortions.PDF

And for those who feel brave enough opening an Excel sheet from an unknown source:

http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/StatsCan-gestation-times-1995-2003.xls

A synopsis:

http://dawn.thot.net/abortion_rights.html#2

It would appear that you are right in assuming that women are making responsible choices about late term abortions.

EDIT: You should have bet the Canadian nickel.
Curses! I am no true gambler, it seems. ;)

Yep, although its probably good part due to the fact that I skipped a large chunk of the debate...
And my comment was mainly because it surprised me that you were saying that (or at least coming across that way {as I said I skipped a lot of this discussion})

Gotcha. Hopefully my rant will clear that up some.

One of the tendencies I've noticed when a discussion starts to stretch out over several pages and the primary participants posts start to look like stacks of blocks and text, is that things start to meander around into side discussions that sometimes overshadow the original point. Some minor issue becomes almost as important as the base premise itself, and I think it distorts the arguments on both sides into an almost total loss of perspective.

One other thing I'd like to point out is that we all know how easy it is to miss each other's points or misunderstand intent... There's a reason for it. Namely, communication is a lot harder in writing than in actual interpersonal conversation. I read once that something lik 80% of communication is tone and body language, while around 20% is the actual spoken words. So just imagine, here we are, all of us, handicapped to 20% of our normal communicative capacity. No wonder we struggle sometimes. That's why it's important to cut your opponent a little slack. Gotcha games don't really benefit anybody if all one is doing is nitpicking syntax and missing the meaning the poster is trying to convey.

All of that is the reason I'm writing this, since I've got like 3 or 4 people to reply to and the arguments are becoming similar, but meandering a bit. This post is an effort to consolidate that and clarify without trying to simply steer the varything threads of conversation back. If anybody feels I've missed something, let me know.

Remember, guys... The vast majority of this stuff is based on opinion. Even though some of it has a concrete legal definition, there's a widely supported opinion that those laws are unjust and should be changed, so even then it biols down to people's worldview. There are certain worldviews at work here that are the core of the argument. The ones I'm aware of are:

Either an unborn baby counts as a person or not.
Either a woman's right to end a pregnancy supercedes the unborn's right or not.

It's hard to break that down any further.

Law:
Now, we do have some legal precedent establishing certain arbitrary limits to when an elective abortion can occur or at what point killing a pregnant woman counts as 2 murders for the price of 1. Roe v. Wade is the most oft-cited but consider this: The Pro-Life position on RvW is that it is legislation from the bench and not supported by the Constitution. The right to an abortion is in no way explicitly stated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. This is not a religious argument. Now, obviously there will be disagreement on that point, maybe even to the point of another core worldview, but I'm just stating the position. We're also not comfortable with arbitrary limits. Every day, medical technology makes a fetus viable at an earlier and earlier stage of development. What was considered unviable 20 years ago could easily survive now. If nothing else, arbitrary limits ought to be reexamined.

Who wants what:
It is not in the least bit unreasonable to hold the opinion that an unborn baby would choose life over abortion. Obviously in the real world there's no way for such to even remotely comprehend what's happening or form an opinion, but one thing a fetus certainly has is a survival instinct. We all do. Human infants are basically helpless in their ability to defend themselves so having a survival instinct in practice doesn't do much good, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. Furthermore, (and I won't go into gruesome detail) Unborn babies have been observed to react with agitation during the early stages of an abortion. (As early as 12 weeks in that I know of) If anything can be used as an indicator of intent, that's enough for me.

Control:
I can only speak for those whom I have spoken with personally, and literature that I've read, but let me be clear: Pro-Life advocates are not in it to control you. Period. To accuse them of being control freaks is fallacious and brings the motive of the accuser into question, as far as whether they're truly interested in reasonable debate. To advocate for a law to protect unborn babies the objective is to save lives. In that sense, they're no different from organizations like M.A.D.D. (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) M.A.D.D. wants to reduce deaths from traffic accidents due to drunken drivers. Control, as such, is not the idea. The Pro-Life movement isn't any different. If you still want to insist that Pro-Lifers are out to control you, then for the sake of consistency you must hold that same charge against ALL advocated for ANY law that would impact behaviors.

Slavery:
I still can't take the argument that a pregnant woman who isn't permitted to have an abortion is somehow a slave seriously. It's a misuse of the term and emotional rhetoric. Just because you can pick up a dictionary and shoehorn the definition to fit your perspective doesn't somehow make the assertion an intellectually honest one. In fact, it weakens your standing in the eyes of your opponents just as much as you might feel Pro-Life debators weaken their standing by engaging in appeals to emotion like using photographs of aborted fetuses and so forth.

Responsibility:
I won't rehash what I said earlier but suffice it to say I am of the view that a pregnant woman has a responsibility to her unborn child whether she meant to get pregnant or not. (By now it should go wi thout saying that I am exclusing rape cases from that statement.) "I didn't mean to" isn't a justification for taking this action. One isn't given a pass on responsibilities just because they practiced safe sex. The universe owes them nothing.

Punishment:
An unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment. I'll repeat, because inevitably somebody will quote me later on down the line and inform me that pregnancy shouldn't be a punishment. My response: "Duh." (In fact, a very recent post alluded to exactly that despite my past statements to this effect.) Bear with me, while I use the jackhammer approach:
An unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment.
An unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment.
An unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment.
An unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment.
An unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment.
An unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment.
An unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment.

Ok. I say that because taking responsibility =/= punishment. Taking responsibility is what adults do when their actions bring about circumstances that they need to deal with in some way. That's all. If I put a dent in my neighbor's car, getting it repaired for him isn't a punishment on me it's just me taking responsibility. On a related note:

Paying for an Abortion isn't taking responsibility:
From the perspective of the Pro-Life position, getting an abortion is only a way of escaping responsibility rather than taking it because it means taking the life of an unborn person who had no say in any of it, and who is ultimately the one paying the price. Essentially, it's passing the responsibility on to them, as if they were to blame for the situation. Kinda like if I dent my neighbor's car and force someone else to pay for the damage. Sure, the dent gets fixed but have I acted responsibly? Of course not.

Baby's Rights:
As mentioned above, there are certain legal precedents established to address the issue of the rights of the unborn, or lack therof. We, as Pro-Life advocates, feel those laws are not just. Plain and simple. That's our opinion. No amount of reminding us of those laws will change our minds on it, because the current status of the law is not in question. We know. Thanks.

Mom's Rights:
I reject the argument that the mother has the right to eject her tenant at any time because:

1)It's inconsistent with the law. The law generally forbids terminating a pregnancy after a certain point, yet this argument would have to apply equally from the day of conception all the way up to the moment before birth. Apparently, the law does NOT recognize that right. As I stated above, I don't take my moral cues from what's legal, but those who argue this point tend to take comfort in the current status of the law in this area. They shouldn't because it's not on their side either.

2)You can't even eject someone from an apartment without just cause. As long as a tenant is paying rent and not violating their lease, you cannot legally force them out. Clearly there's a different mentality at work here. And imagine, evicting a tenant doesn't automatically result in their death. Abortion does.

3)She's pregnant in the first place as a result of her own choices and actions. To cry victim now and characterize the baby as an invader who has taken over her body without her consent is hyperbole. Generally, when we discuss matters of consent it's within the context of opposing desires. If I want to h ave sex with you I need your consent or it's rape. If I want to come visit you in your home I need consent to enter otherwise, at the least, it's tresspassing. Consent always implies conflicting intent and action. Who is violating consent when a woman is pregnant? The baby? Nope. As we've established, a fetus isn't aware enough to consciously be an invader (although even then to initiate an invasion would require premeditation by someone who doesn't exists prior to the fact.) The dad? Nope. She consented to his having sex with her, and he has no more control over what happens in her womb that she does. It's a non-sequitur and emotional rhetoric on the same level as calling it enslavement.

I think that addresses all the important elements of the last couple posts directed my my way. Aside from syntax arguments, let me know if I've overlooked something. If there seems to be any contradiction between something said here with something posted recently, don't try and hit me over the head with it just ask me about it. It's always possible that I've changed my mind on something or just expressed it poorly at some point.

Ok I'm done for now. Have at me.

Sorry for the length.

Nah, that doesn't work unless abortionists went around at random aborting pregnancies. The actions of the abortionist were deliberately set into motion by the mother and thus she has a legitimate share in the responsibility for the outcome, unlike your earlier analogy in which some guy, annoyed at you, snaps at his wife. (As I assume in your analogy, getting the guy to snap at his wife was not part of your plan w hen glaring at him! :) )

Let's try this again. As I mentioned to Soheran (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13409806&postcount=559), I'm asking out of curiosity. I just want a thoughtful answer.

I convince a man's girlfriend to break up with him, knowing that he is already deeply depressed and will commit suicide if the last good thing in his life leaves him.

Ultimately, it's his girlfriend who makes the decision that causes him to commit suicide, and it's not like he can do much to help it, because what with not being in his right mind, he has no real power to choose otherwise. Why go back to the person who convinced her to take the actions that would lead to his death when looking at responsibility? Why not go back to my father who abused me as a child and was the cause of me being an evil prick who convinced a woman to leave a man to die? Is he responsible? Why not go back to my father's parents, who gave him the genetic predisposition for alcoholism and a learned pattern of abuse? Why go two causal steps back? Why not three or four?

Seriously. Is it really that hard to stop worrying about perfect analogies and actually confront the issue? Who's responsible in a case like this? That's what the question's about, as per the statement from you that I first responded to.

Hey it's not like I'm pulling this stuff out of thin air. Any time you cause an event that affects another person, you bear responsibility for it to that person.

Law:
Now, we do have some legal precedent establishing certain arbitrary limits to when an elective abortion can occur or at what point killing a pregnant woman counts as 2 murders for the price of 1. Roe v. Wade is the most oft-cited but consider this: The Pro-Life position on RvW is that it is legislation from the bench and not supported by the Constitution. The right to an abortion is in no way explicitly stated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. This is not a religious argument. Now, obviously there will be disagreement on that point, maybe even to the point of another core worldview, but I'm just stating the position. We're also not comfortable with arbitrary limits. Every day, medical technology makes a fetus viable at an earlier and earlier stage of development. What was considered unviable 20 years ago could easily survive now. If nothing else, arbitrary limits ought to be reexamined.

Going to ignore most of your post for now(for one I think other people will be able to state my arguments for me, and in a much better way) instead I'm going to respond to the bolded...

A counter to that is that simply because it is not explicitly stated, does not mean that it does not exist (the Tenth Amendment)

And also, it is not legislation from the bench, it is a supreme court decision, and who pray tell decides the constitutionality of laws? You got it... The Supreme Court

Let's try this again. As I mentioned to Soheran (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13409806&postcount=559), I'm asking out of curiosity. I just want a thoughtful answer.

I convince a man's girlfriend to break up with him, knowing that he is already deeply depressed and will commit suicide if the last good thing in his life leaves him.

Ultimately, it's his girlfriend who makes the decision that causes him to commit suicide, and it's not like he can do much to help it, because what with not being in his right mind, he has no real power to choose otherwise. Why go back to the person who convinced her to take the actions that would lead to his death when looking at responsibility? Why not go back to my father who abused me as a child and was the cause of me being an evil prick who convinced a woman to leave a man to die? Is he responsible? Why not go back to my father's parents, who gave him the genetic predisposition for alcoholism and a learned pattern of abuse? Why go two causal steps back? Why not three or four?

Seriously. Is it really that hard to stop worrying about perfect analogies and actually confront the issue? Who's responsible in a case like this? That's what the question's about, as per the statement from you that I first responded to.

Don't take offense, and maybe I'm just reading you wrong, but when you said to Soheran this:

But ultimately, I'm just curious to see if Neo Bretonnia really wants to uphold fully his earlier statement, and how far causality goes in determining responsibility in his view.

It strikes me that you may be looking to reject any reply that doesn't match up with how you interpreted that original statement, as opposed to incorporating any new reply into it for a fuller picture.

It's not that simple. You can't insist on some general rule of how many causal steps to take before responsibility is shed. If I steal your pen and as a result you can't write a check to cover a purchase, am I responsible? Probably so. On the other hand, am I responsible for some other event 6 or 7 causal steps down the line? Probably not.

At the same time, is Hitler responsible for 6M dead Jews? Yeah he is (although certainly not exclusively), and God only knows how many causal steps are between him and each time a trigger was pulled or a gas chamber button pressed.

So who's responsible for an abortion? The woman who initiated it. The abortionist who performed it. Every nurse/tech involved in the process. Hell, if it's someone who is unduly pressured into it by someone else, then that person gets a piece too, why not?

Is that what you're looking for?

It strikes me that you may be looking to reject any reply that doesn't match up with how you interpreted that original statement, as opposed to incorporating any new reply into it for a fuller picture.

I'm really not looking to reject any reply you make. Hell, the whole point of my question was to clarify what you meant by that statement. To wit, whether you meant what was there or your view was a bit more complicated than such a simplistic response could convey. I kinda figured it was the latter.

It's not that simple. You can't insist on some general rule of how many causal steps to take before responsibility is shed. If I steal your pen and as a result you can't write a check to cover a purchase, am I responsible? Probably so. On the other hand, am I responsible for some other event 6 or 7 causal steps down the line? Probably not.

At the same time, is Hitler responsible for 6M dead Jews? Yeah he is (although certainly not exclusively), and God only knows how many causal steps are between him and each time a trigger was pulled or a gas chamber button pressed.

So who's responsible for an abortion? The woman who initiated it. The abortionist who performed it. Every nurse/tech involved in the process. Hell, if it's someone who is unduly pressured into it by someone else, then that person gets a piece too, why not?

Is that what you're looking for?

Yeah. You're spreading the blame around pretty liberally, which is at least somewhat consistent. Of course, it could also be consistent to say that only the person who actually performed the act which caused the death of the fetus is responsible. But that wouldn't work well within our legal system. As it is, our legal system tends to spread the blame around pretty liberally too.

I'll even go so far as to say that spreading the blame around to what is often an arbitrary degree seems to be a normal thought process for most people. I'm not quite sure why. But that's probably a topic for another day.

Abortion should be illegal. It's your child. You created it even if you were raped. Its still your child. Its alive. At least give it to an orphanage.

Yes, because there is a shortage of people in the world, and orphanages are great places to grow up :headbang:

Abortion should be illegal. It's your child. You created it even if you were raped. Its still your child. Its alive. At least give it to an orphanage.

*snip*

I wish you had spent half as much time responding to this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13409073&postcount=544) and this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13409414&postcount=548)as you have making excuses for why you are ignoring arguments made against your viewpoint and instead are repeating yourself.

I may respond more fully later, but here are a few comments off the top of my head.

Either an unborn baby counts as a person or not.

1. No. You mistate the debate. Your position apparently is that an unborn baby is always a person from the moment of conception. Many believe, with good reason, that a clump of cells doesn't qualify as a person but that a late-term fetus might qualify.

2. You have yet to make a compelling argument that early-term unborns are persons.

Either a woman's right to end a pregnancy supercedes the unborn's right or not.

Again, you slightly mistate things, but you are closer here.

Regardless, you have failed to make a compelling argument here. You just keep stating "I believe ...." without justification.

Law:
Now, we do have some legal precedent establishing certain arbitrary limits to when an elective abortion can occur or at what point killing a pregnant woman counts as 2 murders for the price of 1. Roe v. Wade is the most oft-cited but consider this: The Pro-Life position on RvW is that it is legislation from the bench and not supported by the Constitution. The right to an abortion is in no way explicitly stated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. This is not a religious argument. Now, obviously there will be disagreement on that point, maybe even to the point of another core worldview, but I'm just stating the position. We're also not comfortable with arbitrary limits. Every day, medical technology makes a fetus viable at an earlier and earlier stage of development. What was considered unviable 20 years ago could easily survive now. If nothing else, arbitrary limits ought to be reexamined.

Now, see, what this paragraph highlights is your ignorance of the subject matter at hand.

First, pursuant to the 9th and 14th Amendments, many fundamental rights are protected by the Consitution even though they are not expressly stated in the Constitution.

More importantly, the Roe regime doesn't set "arbitrary limits" on abortion. To the contrary, it allows abortion to be banned (except in exceptional circumstances) once the fetus is viable. The "arbitrary limits" were (1) never arbitrary and (2) haven't been the law for more than 15 years. See Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833), 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Who wants what:
It is not in the least bit unreasonable to hold the opinion that an unborn baby would choose life over abortion. Obviously in the real world there's no way for such to even remotely comprehend what's happening or form an opinion, but one thing a fetus certainly has is a survival instinct. We all do. Human infants are basically helpless in their ability to defend themselves so having a survival instinct in practice doesn't do much good, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. Furthermore, (and I won't go into gruesome detail) Unborn babies have been observed to react with agitation during the early stages of an abortion. (As early as 12 weeks in that I know of) If anything can be used as an indicator of intent, that's enough for me.

1. The ability to "react with agitation" is hardly sufficient for personhood. Otherwise, all animals and some plants would be persons with a right to life.

2. Regardless, you are again showing your ignorance of the subject you are talking about. About 90% of abortions in the United States occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, with about 60% occuring in the first 8 weeks. The remaining abortions are almost all due to exceptional circumstances like a threat to the life of the mother. So, you should be happy with the current Roe regime.



Slavery:
I still can't take the argument that a pregnant woman who isn't permitted to have an abortion is somehow a slave seriously. It's a misuse of the term and emotional rhetoric. Just because you can pick up a dictionary and shoehorn the definition to fit your perspective doesn't somehow make the assertion an intellectually honest one. In fact, it weakens your standing in the eyes of your opponents just as much as you might feel Pro-Life debators weaken their standing by engaging in appeals to emotion like using photographs of aborted fetuses and so forth.

You've demonstrated at length your inability to take seriously the plight of a woman forced to carry a child to birth against her will.

It is rather sad really that you speculate about the importance of of agitation in a clump of cells, but ignore the deprivation of freedom from an adult woman.


Responsibility:
I won't rehash what I said earlier but suffice it to say I am of the view that a pregnant woman has a responsibility to her unborn child whether she meant to get pregnant or not. (By now it should go wi thout saying that I am exclusing rape cases from that statement.) "I didn't mean to" isn't a justification for taking this action. One isn't given a pass on responsibilities just because they practiced safe sex. The universe owes them nothing.

And I've already responded that your whole "responsibility" argument is hogwash.

At best, this is a weak argument for what a woman ought to do, not for what she should be legally required to do.

Mom's Rights:
I reject the argument that the mother has the right to eject her tenant at any time because:

1)It's inconsistent with the law. The law generally forbids terminating a pregnancy after a certain point, yet this argument would have to apply equally from the day of conception all the way up to the moment before birth. Apparently, the law does NOT recognize that right. As I stated above, I don't take my moral cues from what's legal, but those who argue this point tend to take comfort in the current status of the law in this area. They shouldn't because it's not on their side either.

2)You can't even eject someone from an apartment without just cause. As long as a tenant is paying rent and not violating their lease, you cannot legally force them out. Clearly there's a different mentality at work here. And imagine, evicting a tenant doesn't automatically result in their death. Abortion does.

3)She's pregnant in the first place as a result of her own choices and actions. To cry victim now and characterize the baby as an invader who has taken over her body without her consent is hyperbole. Generally, when we discuss matters of consent it's within the context of opposing desires. If I want to h ave sex with you I need your consent or it's rape. If I want to come visit you in your home I need consent to enter otherwise, at the least, it's tresspassing. Consent always implies conflicting intent and action. Who is violating consent when a woman is pregnant? The baby? Nope. As we've established, a fetus isn't aware enough to consciously be an invader (although even then to initiate an invasion would require premeditation by someone who doesn't exists prior to the fact.) The dad? Nope. She consented to his having sex with her, and he has no more control over what happens in her womb that she does. It's a non-sequitur and emotional rhetoric on the same level as calling it enslavement.

1) You don't understand the law you are relying on. A woman has a right to abortion. Period. That right exists and maintains the same strength throughout the pregnancy. However, just as compelling state interests can justify limitations upon other rights (like free speech), the Roe regime
recognizes that a the point of viability the competing interests are such that abortion can be banned except where necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

2) Um. Are you suggesting an unborn has a signed lease limiting the rights of the mother? In the absense of such a document, your eviction argument is without merit.

3) If you want to come visit me in my home, you need my consent to enter. You also need my consent to remain in my home. You may not remain against my will. So much for your trespassing argument.

Regardless, you ignore the role of the state. If the state imposes its will and requires a woman to remain pregnant, it is the state that is invading her rights and depriving her of freedom.

YOU may consent to anything you like.

YOU do not have the right to force ME to consent to anything at all.

As Bottle has pointed out, the process that starts with getting asked out on a date and ends with a baby is incremental and each and every step must be consented to separately, by the individuals involved directly in the process at any given time. Not by any outside observers or armchair moralizers.

Also, "consent" that is forced (by violence, intimidation, or force of law) is NOT consent because consent must be voluntary. Otherwise it is just compliance with a requirement. So as soon as abortion is banned, women lose the power to "consent" to pregnancy, because they have lost the power to not consent. In other words, you have to choose to consent, and if you take away the right to choose, well...

By the way, if you think women "consent" to pregnancy by having sex and should not be allowed to avoid that outcome by abortion, do you also oppose contraception, since that is another way women can avoid the consequence you say they consented to by consenting ot sex?

Where did I mention forcing anything on anyone?
Where did I say that women should not be allowed to avoid pregnancy by aborting??
All I was saying, is that when you have sex, you take the good with the bad.
And the only thing i mentioned about abortion, was that it is unpleasant.

So, by that logic, since you consented to contracting an STD, should you be denied the cures?

No. But you knew the risks when you engaged in sex. It shouldn't be a suprise when something goes wrong. And I really think people should take more responsibility for themselves.

By the way, if you think women "consent" to pregnancy by having sex and should not be allowed to avoid that outcome by abortion, do you also oppose contraception, since that is another way women can avoid the consequence you say they consented to by consenting ot sex?

Contraception? Please tell me you are not trying to put preventing a life in the same category as destruction of it?

Contraception? Please tell me you are not trying to put preventing a life in the same category as destruction of it?
Why not? You are. After all, an embryo doesn't qualify as an individual life.

One of the tendencies I've noticed when a discussion starts to stretch out over several pages and the primary participants posts start to look like stacks of blocks and text, is that things start to meander around into side discussions that sometimes overshadow the original point. Some minor issue becomes almost as important as the base premise itself, and I think it distorts the arguments on both sides into an almost total loss of perspective.

Yes, but 'tis NSG. That's how it tends to go around here.

One other thing I'd like to point out is that we all know how easy it is to miss each other's points or misunderstand intent... There's a reason for it. Namely, communication is a lot harder in writing than in actual interpersonal conversation. I read once that something lik 80% of communication is tone and body language, while around 20% is the actual spoken words. So just imagine, here we are, all of us, handicapped to 20% of our normal communicative capacity. No wonder we struggle sometimes. That's why it's important to cut your opponent a little slack. Gotcha games don't really benefit anybody if all one is doing is nitpicking syntax and missing the meaning the poster is trying to convey.

Agreed, but again all I can say is that is the unfortunate tendency in NSG threads.

All of that is the reason I'm writing this, since I've got like 3 or 4 people to reply to and the arguments are becoming similar, but meandering a bit. This post is an effort to consolidate that and clarify without trying to simply steer the varying threads of conversation back. If anybody feels I've missed something, let me know.

Again, to the first part, NSG debates follow this pattern. And to the second part, unfortunately I am entirely opposed to your postion so I doubt I'd be able to find what you've missed.

Remember, guys... The vast majority of this stuff is based on opinion. Even though some of it has a concrete legal definition, there's a widely supported opinion that those laws are unjust and should be changed, so even then it biols down to people's worldview.

But that's just politics, NB. The entirety of politics boils down to a competition to choose the worldview the laws on an issue reflect.

There are certain worldviews at work here that are the core of the argument. The ones I'm aware of are:

Either an unborn baby counts as a person or not.
Either a woman's right to end a pregnancy supercedes the unborn's right or not.

It's hard to break that down any further.

Nothing to comment on here... It's good so far.


Law:
Now, we do have some legal precedent establishing certain arbitrary limits to when an elective abortion can occur or at what point killing a pregnant woman counts as 2 murders for the price of 1. Roe v. Wade is the most oft-cited but consider this: The Pro-Life position on RvW is that it is legislation from the bench and not supported by the Constitution. The right to an abortion is in no way explicitly stated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Ah, but you forget that the SCOTUS is the Supreme Law of the Land (plus that nice handy Amendment 9). What they say goes. For proof, see how Nullification went back in Jacksonian times.

We're also not comfortable with arbitrary limits. Every day, medical technology makes a fetus viable at an earlier and earlier stage of development. What was considered unviable 20 years ago could easily survive now. If nothing else, arbitrary limits ought to be reexamined.

Agreed here. At some point, technology could advance so we can only really choose 3 times: Conception, the quickening (legal precedent, see English Common Law), or the most concrete: Birth/natural viability (when you can take the baby out and it does not need artificial machine support)

Who wants what:
It is not in the least bit unreasonable to hold the opinion that an unborn baby would choose life over abortion.

In the same sense that a dog or cow or ant obviously "chooses" to live, then it isn't unreasonable at all. However, how much it could be called choice rather than just basic instinct is up for debate and probably creates a deep scientific debate I wouldn't be able to settle.

Furthermore, (and I won't go into gruesome detail) Unborn babies have been observed to react with agitation during the early stages of an abortion. (As early as 12 weeks in that I know of) If anything can be used as an indicator of intent, that's enough for me.

But does an ant not squirm around when you squish it without killing it? Do fish not move erratically when you hook them while fishing? Moot point, as reacting to stimuli is a basis for biological life and not for personhood. Surely we're not arguing whether a fetus is a biological creature, but whether it is a person, so any argument proving it has the characteristics of biological life and then saying it has personhood is thus render null, since the two concepts can exist separate from each other.

Control:
I can only speak for those whom I have spoken with personally, and literature that I've read, but let me be clear: Pro-Life advocates are not in it to control you. Period. To accuse them of being control freaks is fallacious and brings the motive of the accuser into question, as far as whether they're truly interested in reasonable debate. To advocate for a law to protect unborn babies the objective is to save lives. In that sense, they're no different from organizations like M.A.D.D. (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) M.A.D.D. wants to reduce deaths from traffic accidents due to drunken drivers. Control, as such, is not the idea. The Pro-Life movement isn't any different. If you still want to insist that Pro-Lifers are out to control you, then for the sake of consistency you must hold that same charge against ALL advocated for ANY law that would impact behaviors.

In their defense, the people who argue for "pro-life" laws do seem to usually be contradictory in relation to their other views; this, among other argument flaws which I will not go into, do put their true motive into question.

Slavery:
I still can't take the argument that a pregnant woman who isn't permitted to have an abortion is somehow a slave seriously. It's a misuse of the term and emotional rhetoric. Just because you can pick up a dictionary and shoehorn the definition to fit your perspective doesn't somehow make the assertion an intellectually honest one. In fact, it weakens your standing in the eyes of your opponents just as much as you might feel Pro-Life debators weaken their standing by engaging in appeals to emotion like using photographs of aborted fetuses and so forth.

Well, the denotative definition of slavery includes what pregnancy includes, so they are correct. The fact that people have a culturally-ingrained connotation of slavery as another type is not their problem, though it can make their arguments look emotionalist.

Responsibility:
I won't rehash what I said earlier but suffice it to say I am of the view that a pregnant woman has a responsibility to her unborn child whether she meant to get pregnant or not. (By now it should go without saying that I am exclusing rape cases from that statement.) "I didn't mean to" isn't a justification for taking this action. One isn't given a pass on responsibilities just because they practiced safe sex. The universe owes them nothing.

The universe is matter, it has no say whatsoever in anything.

Punishment:
An unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment. I'll repeat, because inevitably somebody will quote me later on down the line and inform me that pregnancy shouldn't be a punishment. My response: "Duh." (In fact, a very recent post alluded to exactly that despite my past statements to this effect.) Bear with me, while I use the jackhammer approach:
An unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment.
An unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment.
An unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment.
An unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment.
An unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment.
An unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment.
An unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment.

Yes it is.
Yes it is.
Yes it is.
Yes it is.
Yes it is.
Yes it is.
Yes it is.

1) Jackhammers do nothing but piss people off
2) Yes it is. If they are not allowed to terminate pregnancy, then the state is punishing them.


Ok. I say that because taking responsibility =/= punishment. Taking responsibility is what adults do when their actions bring about circumstances that they need to deal with in some way. That's all. If I put a dent in my neighbor's car, getting it repaired for him isn't a punishment on me it's just me taking responsibility. On a related note:

But thus far, no persons have or can be damaged.

Paying for an Abortion isn't taking responsibility:
From the perspective of the Pro-Life position, getting an abortion is only a way of escaping responsibility rather than taking it because it means taking the life of an unborn person who had no say in any of it, and who is ultimately the one paying the price. Essentially, it's passing the responsibility on to them, as if they were to blame for the situation. Kinda like if I dent my neighbor's car and force someone else to pay for the damage. Sure, the dent gets fixed but have I acted responsibly? Of course not.

Who are you to say that it is never the honestly responsible choice? You don't have enough knowledge to say for sure if preventing a person from entering the world is irresponsible.

Actually, given demographic and sociological data, I'd tend to say it is in more cases than it's not.

Baby's Rights:
As mentioned above, there are certain legal precedents established to address the issue of the rights of the unborn, or lack therof. We, as Pro-Life advocates, feel those laws are not just. Plain and simple. That's our opinion. No amount of reminding us of those laws will change our minds on it, because the current status of the law is not in question. We know. Thanks.

Not talking about babies. Babies are post-birth. Get your terminology correct. If it WERE a person, then why are birth certificates and other such legal matters recognizing personhood only handled after birth?

Even if flimsy, there is slight precedent, even disregarding Roe v Wade.

Mom's Rights:
I reject the argument that the mother has the right to eject her tenant at any time because:

1)It's inconsistent with the law. The law generally forbids terminating a pregnancy after a certain point, yet this argument would have to apply equally from the day of conception all the way up to the moment before birth. Apparently, the law does NOT recognize that right. As I stated above, I don't take my moral cues from what's legal, but those who argue this point tend to take comfort in the current status of the law in this area. They shouldn't because it's not on their side either.

Actually, it is consistent with law. VERY consistent, especially with the US's trend of supporting property rights. (Think about it... It really has. The government's 60 year precedent of dealing with slavery shows how far the government goes to protect property rights, even at the expense of other rights).

2)You can't even eject someone from an apartment without just cause. As long as a tenant is paying rent and not violating their lease, you cannot legally force them out. Clearly there's a different mentality at work here. And imagine, evicting a tenant doesn't automatically result in their death. Abortion does.

A fetus is not a tenant. It is more like a squatter (who you CAN instantly boot, BTW) who eats your food, makes a mess, and disregards your rights for its own.

3)She's pregnant in the first place as a result of her own choices and actions.

Not necessarily; if she didn't want pregnancy, then her actions were not a choice to get pregnant. Fail.

To cry victim now and characterize the baby as an invader who has taken over her body without her consent is hyperbole.

No, if the pregnancy is unwanted, that's exactly what it is.

Generally, when we discuss matters of consent it's within the context of opposing desires. If I want to have sex with you I need your consent or it's rape. If I want to come visit you in your home I need consent to enter otherwise, at the least, it's tresspassing. Consent always implies conflicting intent and action. Who is violating consent when a woman is pregnant? The FETUS?

Yes. The woman didn't say it could grow there.

As we've established, a fetus isn't aware enough to consciously be an invader

Yes it is

The dad? Nope. She consented to his having sex with her, and he has no more control over what happens in her womb that she does. It's a non-sequitur and emotional rhetoric on the same level as calling it enslavement.

I don't think anyone here blames the dad.




So there's my take, NB.

No I'm not. Maybe instead of putting words in my mouth to suit your arguments, you could actually read what I've posted.
No, an embryo doesn't count as a human life. But it does at the 20 week point.

This is a debate about abortion. One assumed your comments were relevant to that discussion. Apparently one would be wrong. Only about 1.4% of abortions in the U.S. occur at 20+ weeks into the pregnancy. And those abortions are almost all (if not all) due to medical necessity.

What I don't understand is how one day, its not human, the next day it is.

One day it is not viable, the next day it is.

One day it is inside a woman's womb, the next day it can survive outside the womb.

Not that having an line of demarcation is inherently bad. The law is replete with such lines. One day you can't vote, then next day you can. One day your mortgage is paid on time, the next day it is overdue. Etc, etc, etc.

Those who deny fetal rights say "The fetus lacks certain qualities that are the basis for rights." It follows that other entities that lack the same qualities also do not have rights. That's basic logic.


No one is 'denying' fetal rights' A foetus HAS no rights, and neither should it. To 'deny' implies that 'rights' are the starting point.

Some might wish to GRANT rights to a foetus...

The reason why it is illogical, is because it is inconsistent. We don't grant the right to vote, to an infant. My nine-year-old can't drive.

Why? Because 'rights' often depend on a certain level of development.

'Denying' rights to a blob of cells is hardly illogical or unfair.


Who said it did? But as a simple matter of fact, human beings have similar enough moral frameworks that we can and do have productive arguments about ethics.


Not even vaguely true. There are pretty much no moral constants that exist universally.


"Pragmatism" is itself a moral stance, at least if it is supposed to mean anything in terms of what we should do...


Rubbish. I like chocolate, so I will do things that get me chocolate - that isn't a 'moral stance', even though you could argue it as the basis for one.


which seems a prerequisite for its invocation in this discussion.

The strictly "pragmatic approach" is that bodies "belong" to whoever has the force necessary to take control of them. Which gets us absolutely nowhere.

On the contrary - it says that the 'mother' immediately takes control of the 'right', in the discussion between mother and embryo.

No one is 'denying' fetal rights' A foetus HAS no rights, and neither should it. To 'deny' implies that 'rights' are the starting point.

No, it doesn't, but this semantic pedantry is irrelevant.

'Denying' rights to a blob of cells is hardly illogical or unfair.

Are you paying any attention? At all? I have never disputed that.

Not even vaguely true. There are pretty much no moral constants that exist universally.

Universally? No. Find me a single truth or standard of any character that has universal acceptance.

Does the lack of such universality mean we can't discuss anything at all? :rolleyes:

Rubbish. I like chocolate, so I will do things that get me chocolate

"The rock is pulled to the Earth by the force of gravity, so it will fall."

That tells us what will happen. It is predictive. It is not a matter of decision-making: it does not address what we should do, it does not explain why we should go with one particular choice or another. At most it tells us which one we are likely to choose--but the fact that we are likely to choose something doesn't give us a reason to choose it.

On the contrary - it says that the 'mother' immediately takes control of the 'right', in the discussion between mother and embryo.

What does that have to do with pragmatism?

Not necessarily. I did qualify my original statement such that there are (few) exceptions, but in the absence of greater detail from Cabra in terms of how she personally feels about it (not relative to what was more logical for her mother) no firm conclusion could be drawn in either case, but at best that's one exception covered by the qualifier I included.


I thought I had made that quite clear by now, but let me spell it out again : I would have preferred not to have been born.

And that's where our opinions differ, because I maintain that you also have a responsibility to the new life that would be formed by your actions.


Yes, definitely. You need to make an informed guess about its future, and then choose what would be best for it. In my case, that would have been abortion, in other cases (most cases, as a matter of fact, it's still not the majority of women who choose abortions nor the majority of pregnancies that get aborted), it's having the child.
To be responsible is making a responsible choice, and having the option of actually acting responsibly is vital.


True dat, but we all contribute in our own way. Ever seen 'It's a Wondeful Life'? I think that movie holds more truth in it than most.

I have, I didn't like it much.


You know, I've been there. I don't mean to suggest that my own pain is equivalent, or even in the same league, as yours. I have no way of knowing. But I do know what the barrel of a loaded .45 tastes like, and I know how it is to look into your own future and see nothing but misery and fear. I also know that even at its lowest, my life is infinitely valuable, and so is yours. Always has been.


It's not the future that almost pushed me over the edge a nubmer of times, it was the present. It wasn't the though of waking up tomorrow to the same misery, it was the sheer misery of the moment. I'm an optimist, I always assumed tomorrow would be better than today, but today sometimes was utterly unbearable. I knew even if tomorrow would be the best possible day, it would still never make today go away entirely.

If you've been there, you know as well as I do that the argument "Well, if that kid doesn't want to live it can still kill itself" is mindbogglingly stupid and uniformed. It's not easy to kill yourself, it's fucking difficult!

No. But you knew the risks when you engaged in sex. It shouldn't be a suprise when something goes wrong. And I really think people should take more responsibility for themselves.


Yes, you take the rsik of having to deal with STDs or a pregnancy. Responsibly, you should try and limit the raisk of either.
You can either carry the pregancy to term or abort it. You can either seek medical help for the STD, or suffer without.
What's that got to do with responsibility?

Yes, you take the rsik of having to deal with STDs or a pregnancy. Responsibly, you should try and limit the raisk of either.
You can either carry the pregancy to term or abort it. You can either seek medical help for the STD, or suffer without.
What's that got to do with responsibility?
Well, see, it's responsible to get medical treatment for your STD, but it's irresponsible to get medical treatment for your pregnancy. Wait, no, that's not it...

An unwanted STD isn't a consequence of sex, and therefore nobody should have to endure an untreated STD. Meanwhile, an unwanted pregnancy IS a consequence of sex, and therefore must be endured no matter what because it is the only responsible choice.

Or maybe it's that STDs can have physical ill effects, but pregnancy cannot. Since there's no physical cost to being pregnant, it's selfish for anybody to terminate a pregnancy.

I'm sure one of these arguments will magically become valid at some point if I just repeat them enough times.

Well, see, it's responsible to get medical treatment for your STD, but it's irresponsible to get medical treatment for your pregnancy. Wait, no, that's not it...

An unwanted STD isn't a consequence of sex, and therefore nobody should have to endure an untreated STD. Meanwhile, an unwanted pregnancy IS a consequence of sex, and therefore must be endured no matter what because it is the only responsible choice.

Or maybe it's that STDs can have physical ill effects, but pregnancy cannot. Since there's no physical cost to being pregnant, it's selfish for anybody to terminate a pregnancy.

I'm sure one of these arguments will magically become valid at some point if I just repeat them enough times.

Severe head trauma might help :)

Severe head trauma might help :)
**headdesk**

**headdesk**

**headdesk**

Ahhh, it all makes sense now...

Well, you see, an untreated STD will persist. However, if you endure the unwanted pregnancy for 9 months, the pregnancy will all go away. See? If you just have some patience there are no lasting effects.

...

...

Well, no... see, pregnancies do affect the health of the mother, sometimes more and sometimes less. I'll have to read into the medical stuff again, but I think a good deal of pregnancies lead to health problems, and a good deal of those become chronic.

Well, see, it's responsible to get medical treatment for your STD, but it's irresponsible to get medical treatment for your pregnancy. Wait, no, that's not it...

An unwanted STD isn't a consequence of sex, and therefore nobody should have to endure an untreated STD. Meanwhile, an unwanted pregnancy IS a consequence of sex, and therefore must be endured no matter what because it is the only responsible choice.

Or maybe it's that STDs can have physical ill effects, but pregnancy cannot. Since there's no physical cost to being pregnant, it's selfish for anybody to terminate a pregnancy.

I'm sure one of these arguments will magically become valid at some point if I just repeat them enough times.

Well, you see, an untreated STD will persist. However, if you endure the unwanted pregnancy for 9 months, the pregnancy will all go away. See? If you just have some patience there are no lasting effects.

...

...

Well, no... see, pregnancies do affect the health of the mother, sometimes more and sometimes less. I'll have to read into the medical stuff again, but I think a good deal of pregnancies lead to health problems, and a good deal of those become chronic.

The ... ... implies sarcasm, or I thought it did. Also, I was more thinking of the most obvious lasting effect of giving birth. ;)

The ... ... implies sarcasm, or I thought it did. Also, I was more thinking of the most obvious lasting effect of giving birth. ;)
What possible lasting effect could result from passing a watermelon through a lemon-sized hole?

I think you're just making this up!

I haven't seen Neo saying that in any thread. I thought he'd been quite supportive of what happened to you personally, after stories were straightened out. But it doesn't mean he has to agree with the concepts. And the only time Neo gets ruffled, is when people are only interested in mud-flinging. I don't think defending his opinions, mean he's trying to be controlling. Unless you're willing to let it slide both ways..



Neo Bretonnia wants to change the law to take away my choice; i.e. he wants to control what I do in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.

I'm not sure what you mean by "slide both ways" but I cannot understand how having every pregnant person decide for themselves is controlling. :confused:

Where did I mention forcing anything on anyone?
Where did I say that women should not be allowed to avoid pregnancy by aborting??
All I was saying, is that when you have sex, you take the good with the bad.
And the only thing i mentioned about abortion, was that it is unpleasant.
You also suggested that you oppose women having the right to do it.

As for my use of the word "force," I was attacking your use of the word "consent." A law that bans abortion forces a woman to carry a pregnancy whether she wants to or not. That force (of law) eliminates her ability to consent, because to consent, you have to have the ability to choose. If the law does not allow her to choose, then it is not asking for her consent, it is merely forcing her to do what it wants.

So, in the real world, your consent argument cannot stand and cannot be used in an argument for why abortion should be banned. As soon as you ban abortion, all questions of consent to pregnancy evaporate along with it, because it no longer matters whether the woman consents or not.

Please refer to my earlier post in which I talk about how I don't care about people's beliefs, personal opinions, or theories about how they wish life worked. I only care about how those subjective intangibles affect the real world that I live in and the laws that govern me. The above is an example of how your faulty notion of "consent" would destroy itself as well as my rights if it were used as a foundation for a law.


No. But you knew the risks when you engaged in sex. It shouldn't be a suprise when something goes wrong. And I really think people should take more responsibility for themselves.
Women who abort unwanted pregnancies are taking responsibility for themselves. They either experienced a misfortune or made a mistake, and they are doing what they have to do to remedy it.


Contraception? Please tell me you are not trying to put preventing a life in the same category as destruction of it?
No, I was asking you if you put them in the same category.

Because if you do not, then your argument about the chain of consent from sex to pregnancy falls apart. If you assume that consent to sex = consent to pregnancy, but you allow the woman to get out of having given her supposed consent by using contraception, why shouldn't she be allowed to get out of it by abortion too, if the contraception fails?

I'm really not looking to reject any reply you make. Hell, the whole point of my question was to clarify what you meant by that statement. To wit, whether you meant what was there or your view was a bit more complicated than such a simplistic response could convey. I kinda figured it was the latter.



Yeah. You're spreading the blame around pretty liberally, which is at least somewhat consistent. Of course, it could also be consistent to say that only the person who actually performed the act which caused the death of the fetus is responsible. But that wouldn't work well within our legal system. As it is, our legal system tends to spread the blame around pretty liberally too.

I'll even go so far as to say that spreading the blame around to what is often an arbitrary degree seems to be a normal thought process for most people. I'm not quite sure why. But that's probably a topic for another day.

Maybe that would lead us to a new and better answer: Anyone who is in a position to put a stop to it, or at least to avoid participating in it, shares in the blame.

Maybe that would lead us to a new and better answer: Anyone who is in a position to put a stop to it, or at least to avoid participating in it, shares in the blame.

In a legal sense? Not a very good idea... we used to have Sippenhaft, and it was abolished once the Nazi regime fell. For pretty obvious reasons, actually.

snip

If anybody feels I've missed something, let me know.

snip



Thanks for the long response and for continuing a civil debate :) There are a couple of areas I'd like you to expand on:



Control:
I can only speak for those whom I have spoken with personally, and literature that I've read, but let me be clear: Pro-Life advocates are not in it to control you. Period. To accuse them of being control freaks is fallacious and brings the motive of the accuser into question, as far as whether they're truly interested in reasonable debate. To advocate for a law to protect unborn babies the objective is to save lives. In that sense, they're no different from organizations like M.A.D.D. (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) M.A.D.D. wants to reduce deaths from traffic accidents due to drunken drivers. Control, as such, is not the idea. The Pro-Life movement isn't any different. If you still want to insist that Pro-Lifers are out to control you, then for the sake of consistency you must hold that same charge against ALL advocated for ANY law that would impact behaviors.



The issue I have with this is simply that making abortion illegal does not stop it from happening and endangers the lives and the wellbeing of women and their dependants. TCT (in another thread) presented strong and compelling evidence on this, and I have explained to you that I would have ended my pregnancy at any cost if the safe, legal option were not available to me. However, there are things we can do to reduce the number of abortions and I mentioned some of them in my last post to you. It seems to me that if pro-lifers really cared about reducing abortion they would stop wasting time, effort and money on the legal aspect and focus on these other areas.



Slavery:
I still can't take the argument that a pregnant woman who isn't permitted to have an abortion is somehow a slave seriously. It's a misuse of the term and emotional rhetoric. Just because you can pick up a dictionary and shoehorn the definition to fit your perspective doesn't somehow make the assertion an intellectually honest one. In fact, it weakens your standing in the eyes of your opponents just as much as you might feel Pro-Life debators weaken their standing by engaging in appeals to emotion like using photographs of aborted fetuses and so forth.



If my body is used against my will, to the detriment of my health and wellbeing, if I am forced to give up employment, housing, education etc, if I am forced to renege on my existing responsibilities and obligations, if I must have my life permanently and irrevocably changed not by my will but by yours and if I have no legal recourse, what am I? I am a slave.

It is not rhetoric, but demonstrable truth.




Punishment:
An unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment.

snip



Except that women who didn't consent to sex are allowed to abort their unwanted pregnancies, no problem. You previously answered that you don't know why its acceptable for rape victims to abort but not for women who consent to sex. That's fair enough, and I appreciate your honesty. My point is that your gut feeling or belief is enough when you are making decisions in your own life, but it is not enough to influence my decision, especially when it conflicts with reason.




Paying for an Abortion isn't taking responsibility:

snip




I'm not sure if you meant this the way it sounds, but responsibility is at the core of a pregnant woman's decision making process, as I have mentioned before. To imply that pro-choicers think stumping up the cash somehow covers it misses so much of what we've been saying, and is almost funny when you compare the cost of birthing a child, let alone bringing one up, with the cost of an abortion.



Baby's Rights:
snip



I'm not sure how you could give rights to non-sentient clumps of cells, but even if you gave them the exact same rights as adults, they wouldn't have the right to use my body against my will.


The two most important points for me are the rape exception which makes no sense at all outside the concept of punishment, and the focus on criminalising women who have abortions rather than making changes that would reduce the number of abortions.

Hint: It's got buggerall to do with responsibility.

snip



I think you're right :(

The two most important points for me are the rape exception which makes no sense at all outside the concept of punishment, and the focus on criminalising women who have abortions rather than making changes that would reduce the number of abortions.
This is a point which should be harped on endlessly: How much time should she do? It's amazing how many people state that they think abortion should be criminalized, yet they wriggle and squirm away from the simple question of how much time a woman should do for getting an abortion.

Remember that one in three American women will get an abortion during her lifetime. Do you know three women?

<snip>

Remember, guys... The vast majority of this stuff is based on opinion. Even though some of it has a concrete legal definition, there's a widely supported opinion that those laws are unjust and should be changed, so even then it biols down to people's worldview. There are certain worldviews at work here that are the core of the argument. The ones I'm aware of are:

Either an unborn baby counts as a person or not.
Either a woman's right to end a pregnancy supercedes the unborn's right or not.

It's hard to break that down any further.
Granted, with the proviso that there is an even more widely held opinion that the changes the anti-choice side wants to make are more unjust than the existing status quo could ever be. I base that assertion on many years of political opinion polls that have shown consistently since Roe that the majority of people support a woman's right to choose.

I am not trying to suggest that my side is right just because it is the majority. No, instead I am showing that beliefs about what is just and right belong to both sides.

(And I'm just mentioning that my view is the majority opinion just because I can.)

Law:
Now, we do have some legal precedent establishing certain arbitrary limits to when an elective abortion can occur or at what point killing a pregnant woman counts as 2 murders for the price of 1. Roe v. Wade is the most oft-cited but consider this: The Pro-Life position on RvW is that it is legislation from the bench and not supported by the Constitution. The right to an abortion is in no way explicitly stated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. This is not a religious argument. Now, obviously there will be disagreement on that point, maybe even to the point of another core worldview, but I'm just stating the position. We're also not comfortable with arbitrary limits. Every day, medical technology makes a fetus viable at an earlier and earlier stage of development. What was considered unviable 20 years ago could easily survive now. If nothing else, arbitrary limits ought to be reexamined.
A) Cat-Tribe did a much better job than I could of pointing out how and why you are wrong about the law, so I refer you back to him.

B) The opinions of the anti-choice side are immaterial to me. I am perfectly aware, and have been for a long time, WHY they think what they think, but after all these years, their "We don't like it" arguments have failed to sway me to agree with them, and nothing has changed. It still boils down to this: I will not allow you to take away my rights just because it would make you feel more comfortable if I did. I am especially not going to let you have your way when your foundational argument is as factually incorrect as Cat-Tribe has shown it to be.

Who wants what:
It is not in the least bit unreasonable to hold the opinion that an unborn baby would choose life over abortion. Obviously in the real world there's no way for such to even remotely comprehend what's happening or form an opinion, but one thing a fetus certainly has is a survival instinct. We all do. Human infants are basically helpless in their ability to defend themselves so having a survival instinct in practice doesn't do much good, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. Furthermore, (and I won't go into gruesome detail) Unborn babies have been observed to react with agitation during the early stages of an abortion. (As early as 12 weeks in that I know of) If anything can be used as an indicator of intent, that's enough for me.
A) Cat-Tribe and Minaris have already debunked this "it jerked when I poked it so it must be a person" argument quite well, so I refer you back to them.

B) You still fail to show me how you know the thoughts and desires of this little homunculus you imagine for yourself. I demand to see any evidence whatsoever that any fetus or embryo in the history of the world ever asked anyone not to abort it, or declared its desire to live, or designated anyone else as its proxy to represent its interests to the rest of humanity, or in any way ever suggested to anyone that it "wants" something.

I maintain that you are representing no interests or desires or wants but your own. You claim to represent a party that does not exist. You claim to be telling me what someone else wants, but you yourself are the one who compiled the list of demands you attribute to this mythical "other."

This "what the fetus wants/would want" argument is one of the most obvious fictions of the anti-choice side. There is zero basis in fact for it. I will not allow you to take away my rights by writing laws to match a fairy tale you made up specially for the purpose.

Control:
I can only speak for those whom I have spoken with personally, and literature that I've read, but let me be clear: Pro-Life advocates are not in it to control you. Period. To accuse them of being control freaks is fallacious and brings the motive of the accuser into question, as far as whether they're truly interested in reasonable debate. To advocate for a law to protect unborn babies the objective is to save lives. In that sense, they're no different from organizations like M.A.D.D. (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) M.A.D.D. wants to reduce deaths from traffic accidents due to drunken drivers. Control, as such, is not the idea. The Pro-Life movement isn't any different. If you still want to insist that Pro-Lifers are out to control you, then for the sake of consistency you must hold that same charge against ALL advocated for ANY law that would impact behaviors.
A) History (both recent and long term) proves that laws that ban abortion do not save lives, but in fact put more lives at risk and lead to increased deaths of children and women. With the historical record of a consistent 100% failure rate in the saving lives department, it amazes me that anti-choicers still try to claim they are only interested in saving lives. I can only conclude that they are either lying or they are shockingly incompetent and too stupid to figure out what they are doing wrong. Either way, I am not going to let them write the laws I have to live under.

B) The practical effect of anti-choice laws is to control women's bodies. Whether that is the planned intention of anti-choicers or not is completely immaterials. I do not care if you didn't mean for your laws to strip me of my rights. I only care that your laws do strip me of my rights. It is on that basis that I dismiss this argument of yours as irrelevant and continue to oppose your attemtps to influence the law.

C) We have already discussed why not all restrictions of rights are created equal. It is the degree of restriction that matters, not the claimed good intentions of the restrictors.

Slavery:
I still can't take the argument that a pregnant woman who isn't permitted to have an abortion is somehow a slave seriously. It's a misuse of the term and emotional rhetoric. Just because you can pick up a dictionary and shoehorn the definition to fit your perspective doesn't somehow make the assertion an intellectually honest one. In fact, it weakens your standing in the eyes of your opponents just as much as you might feel Pro-Life debators weaken their standing by engaging in appeals to emotion like using photographs of aborted fetuses and so forth.
Cat-Tribe has already explained several times over why you are completely and mind-blowingly wrong about this, so I refer you back to him.

Responsibility:
I won't rehash what I said earlier but suffice it to say I am of the view that a pregnant woman has a responsibility to her unborn child whether she meant to get pregnant or not. (By now it should go wi thout saying that I am exclusing rape cases from that statement.) "I didn't mean to" isn't a justification for taking this action. One isn't given a pass on responsibilities just because they practiced safe sex. The universe owes them nothing.
A) I like Minaris's remark about the universe being just matter and having no say on this issue.

B) By now it should go without saying that your personal opinions about what other people do are meaningless and unimportant to everyone other than you, and therefore they do not add any weight or meaning or validity to your arguments. You have consistently failed to show how your notion of responsible action is the only possible responsible action in any given situation. Just saying "It's my opinion that it is" doesn't cut it. So it's your opinion, I get that. What I don't get is why you expect anyone else to care.

C) How do you reconcile your argument that the fetus's presumed right to live should trump the woman's acknowledged right to control her own body with your argument that a woman who has been raped is allowed to opt out of your responsibility requirements? Are you saying that you would still force a raped woman to give birth but at least acknowledge that she didn't bring her misery upon herself (no, actually, you did with your abortion-ban laws)? Or are you saying that a woman who was raped doesn't have to carry the pregnancy and fuck-all to the fetus's presumed rights? Which is your position -- will you heartlessly condescend to tell a raped woman that you realize it's not her fault, but you're still going to make her suffer for the sake of the fetus? Or will you admit that your argument about fetal rights is bunk?

These two arguments conflict with each other so badly that you can't have them both. Either your rape exception is bunk, or your fetal rights trump women's rights argument is bunk. Please pick which one you will drop.

Punishment:
An unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment. I'll repeat, because inevitably somebody will quote me later on down the line and inform me that pregnancy shouldn't be a punishment. My response: "Duh." (In fact, a very recent post alluded to exactly that despite my past statements to this effect.) Bear with me, while I use the jackhammer approach:
An unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment.
An unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment.
An unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment.
An unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment.
An unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment.
An unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment.
An unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment.
A) The laws you want to put in place would make it a punishment.

B) Your constant harping on your weird notions of responsibility cast it in the function of a punishment.

C) It does not matter if it is not a punishment. It is still unwanted and that, alone, is a reason to take action to end it. Being in a bad relationship, or being poor, or being sick are not punishments either, but that does not mean it is wrong to take action to change those conditions.

Ok. I say that because taking responsibility =/= punishment. Taking responsibility is what adults do when their actions bring about circumstances that they need to deal with in some way. That's all. If I put a dent in my neighbor's car, getting it repaired for him isn't a punishment on me it's just me taking responsibility. On a related note:

Paying for an Abortion isn't taking responsibility:
From the perspective of the Pro-Life position, getting an abortion is only a way of escaping responsibility rather than taking it because it means taking the life of an unborn person who had no say in any of it, and who is ultimately the one paying the price. Essentially, it's passing the responsibility on to them, as if they were to blame for the situation. Kinda like if I dent my neighbor's car and force someone else to pay for the damage. Sure, the dent gets fixed but have I acted responsibly? Of course not.
So... are you saying that it is not responsible to pay your bills?


Baby's Rights:
As mentioned above, there are certain legal precedents established to address the issue of the rights of the unborn, or lack therof. We, as Pro-Life advocates, feel those laws are not just. Plain and simple. That's our opinion. No amount of reminding us of those laws will change our minds on it, because the current status of the law is not in question. We know. Thanks.
A) Abortion has nothing to do with babies. Babies exist after birth, not before. As Minaris said, you need to get your terms right if you want to make yourself clear. Or keep misusing language, if what you really want is to distort the debate and make appeals to emotion while claiming that you're not.

B) See my comments, above, in re your inability to know what anyone wants before they are born, as well as the irrelevance of your opinions about the existing laws, as well as the fact that you are not the only one who thinks they are standing up for justice.

Mom's Rights:
I reject the argument that the mother has the right to eject her tenant at any time because:

1)It's inconsistent with the law. The law generally forbids terminating a pregnancy after a certain point, yet this argument would have to apply equally from the day of conception all the way up to the moment before birth. Apparently, the law does NOT recognize that right. As I stated above, I don't take my moral cues from what's legal, but those who argue this point tend to take comfort in the current status of the law in this area. They shouldn't because it's not on their side either.

2)You can't even eject someone from an apartment without just cause. As long as a tenant is paying rent and not violating their lease, you cannot legally force them out. Clearly there's a different mentality at work here. And imagine, evicting a tenant doesn't automatically result in their death. Abortion does.
Cat-Tribe and Minaris both showed how and why you are wrong again, so I refer you back to them again. At what point are you going to accept that an argument based on ignorance and factual errors is not a valid argument?

3)She's pregnant in the first place as a result of her own choices and actions. <snip>
An obvious and foolish error made by all anti-choicers: mistaking propaganda for fact.

The vast majority of abortions are done for women who either used birth control which failed, or who were in situations where they did not have access to birth control at the time, which they would have used if they could have. The fact that the overwhelming majority of pregnancies that are aborted are pregnancies that would have been prevented if possible, if not for the intervention of bad luck or some other misfortune (such as rape or poverty or living in a society that does not allow access to or use of contraceptives) proves that women who do not want their pregnancies are not pregnant by their own choices.

All you are doing here is trying to trot out the "chain of consent" argument that Piu tried (consent to sex = consent to pregnancy), and that has already been shown to be nothing but a house of cards.

In an age of overpopulation, abortion is a good thing. If people ever become an endangered species I (although I doubt this could happen in the span of my lifetime) would be a pro-lifer. I do not think that white rhino babies should be aborted. People babies definitely should be. In fact, I look down at many people who do not have abortions, espescially if they are not financially secure.

Some of you guys make really long posts. A lot of them from different perspectives are very intelligently written. I salute you.

For the most part, people's responses were very civil and intelligent, and I appreciate it very much as, I'm sure, do those who are reading these threads for the sake of honest in terest in the subject. Thanks! :)

I'm gonna try and shuffle the replies into categories. I dunno how well it will work so please bear with me through this experiment.

Replies focusing on law:
Going to ignore most of your post for now(for one I think other people will be able to state my arguments for me, and in a much better way) instead I'm going to respond to the bolded...

A counter to that is that simply because it is not explicitly stated, does not mean that it does not exist (the Tenth Amendment)

And also, it is not legislation from the bench, it is a supreme court decision, and who pray tell decides the constitutionality of laws? You got it... The Supreme Court

First, pursuant to the 9th and 14th Amendments, many fundamental rights are protected by the Consitution even though they are not expressly stated in the Constitution.
More importantly, the Roe regime doesn't set "arbitrary limits" on abortion. To the contrary, it allows abortion to be banned (except in exceptional circumstances) once the fetus is viable. The "arbitrary limits" were (1) never arbitrary and (2) haven't been the law for more than 15 years. See Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833), 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
1) You don't understand the law you are relying on. A woman has a right to abortion. Period. That right exists and maintains the same strength throughout the pregnancy. However, just as compelling state interests can justify limitations upon other rights (like free speech), the Roe regime
recognizes that a the point of viability the competing interests are such that abortion can be banned except where necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.


Ah, but you forget that the SCOTUS is the Supreme Law of the Land (plus that nice handy Amendment 9). What they say goes. For proof, see how Nullification went back in Jacksonian times.


I can only comment generally on these but let me remind everybody that the current state of the law has no impact on the opinion of a pro-life advocate who believes the law to be unjust. Having said that, keep in mind the following things:

SCOTUS is NOT the supreme law of the land. To suggest it is is to give all Government power to that one, single branch. Basic High School Civics teaches us that the Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution of the United States. Historical Fact of Interest: The ability for the Supreme Court to determine the Constitutionality of a law is NOT a power granted to it within the Constitution itself. That's a power it claimed for itself under, IIRC, Chief Justice Marshall back in the early 1800s.

Now, while it's true that the Bill of Rights/Constitution implicitly preserve rights to the States not explicitly granted to the Fed, A Pro-life advocate will not be swayed by this as a support for legal abortion ri ghts precisely because, from the perspective of a pro-lifer, that right would come at the expense of another's life every time it is exercised and thus isn't a legitimate right.

Force/Control:
Neo Bretonnia wants to change the law to take away my choice; i.e. he wants to control what I do in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.


You've demonstrated at length your inability to take seriously the plight of a woman forced to carry a child to birth against her will.
Regardless, you ignore the role of the state. If the state imposes its will and requires a woman to remain pregnant, it is the state that is invading her rights and depriving her of freedom.

In their defense, the people who argue for "pro-life" laws do seem to usually be contradictory in relation to their other views; this, among other argument flaws which I will not go into, do put their true motive into question.


If my body is used against my will, to the detriment of my health and wellbeing, if I am forced to give up employment, housing, education etc, if I am forced to renege on my existing responsibilities and obligations, if I must have my life permanently and irrevocably changed not by my will but by yours and if I have no legal recourse, what am I? I am a slave.


The disconnect between our respective points of view, and the gap I'm trying to bridge is, people on your side see it as being force exercised against you. I can see the logic you're using to come to that conclusion, but my goal is to get the same from your side.

To remove an option from your list of choices in a case like this is not to control you. It's like I said with the M.A.D.D. analogy. Does anyone here think M.A.D.D. is out to exert control? If you do, would you say they were justified? What I want you to take from this is that from the perspective if a pro-lifer, they are the same. We're not control freaks.

And the result is no more slavery than being disallowed from driving a car while inebriated. Think about it. It's your car, isn't it? Your body your booze. Why isn't it slavery? Does the fact that others' lives are endangered somehow change the definition, in your point of view, such that it isn't control or slavery anymore?

Now follow that through, using the perspective of the pro-life movement.

The status/intent of the unborn:

There are a couple of replies I got on this topic that I won't repost because, in trying to maintain a civil tone in my post I don't want to tempt myself to respond to abrasive-for-its-own-sake replies in kind, but my intent is still to cover all replies to the best of my ability.


1. The ability to "react with agitation" is hardly sufficient for personhood. Otherwise, all animals and some plants would be persons with a right to life.
1. No. You mistate the debate. Your position apparently is that an unborn baby is always a person from the moment of conception. Many believe, with good reason, that a clump of cells doesn't qualify as a person but that a late-term fetus might qualify.

In the same sense that a dog or cow or ant obviously "chooses" to live, then it isn't unreasonable at all. However, how much it could be called choice rather than just basic instinct is up for debate and probably creates a deep scientific debate I wouldn't be able to settle.
But does an ant not squirm around when you squish it without killing it? Do fish not move erratically when you hook them while fishing? Moot point, as reacting to stimuli is a basis for biological life and not for personhood. Surely we're not arguing whether a fetus is a biological creature, but whether it is a person, so any argument proving it has the characteristics of biological life and then saying it has personhood is thus render null, since the two concepts can exist separate from each other.
But thus far, no persons have or can be damaged.
Not talking about babies. Babies are post-birth. Get your terminology correct. If it WERE a person, then why are birth certificates and other such legal matters recognizing personhood only handled after birth?


Two thoughts on these:

Firstly, unborn humans aren't animals. (At least, no moreso than you or I.) There's a clear distinction between a human being and an animal. That's why hamburgers are good and cannibalism is bad. To reduce an unborn human to that level is, to me, a tactic to justify the act of killing one.

This is gross, I admit, but I ask you this: Given that there are people out there who are comfortable eating their own placentas or artificially grown human tissue (the latter as a possible food source for long-term space travel) could you imagine using an aborted fetus for food?

I know that may come across as an appeal to emotion but I assure you that's not my intent. My intent is to demonstrate that there is a start contrast in perception of a fetus vs. other 'disposable' forms of human living tissue.

So is it a person? Any answer I can give to that would be purely opinion, so there's little to be gained arguing it, but my instinct tells me it is, my logic tells me it is. If that's not enough one can always apply Pascal's Wager. If I'm wrong and you're right, then I look like a fool. If you're wrong and I'm right, then millions of people are being put to death every year.

Rights/Consent:


2) Um. Are you suggesting an unborn has a signed lease limiting the rights of the mother? In the absense of such a document, your eviction argument is without merit.
3) If you want to come visit me in my home, you need my consent to enter. You also need my consent to remain in my home. You may not remain against my will. So much for your trespassing argument.


Yes. The woman didn't say it could grow there.
A fetus is not a tenant. It is more like a squatter (who you CAN instantly boot, BTW) who eats your food, makes a mess, and disregards your rights for its own.
Actually, it is consistent with law. VERY consistent, especially with the US's trend of supporting property rights. (Think about it... It really has. The government's 60 year precedent of dealing with slavery shows how far the government goes to protect property rights, even at the expense of other rights).
Not necessarily; if she didn't want pregnancy, then her actions were not a choice to get pregnant. Fail.
No, if the pregnancy is unwanted, that's exactly what it is.

I'm not sure how you could give rights to non-sentient clumps of cells, but even if you gave them the exact same rights as adults, they wouldn't have the right to use my body against my will.


Nobody's rights are protected at the expense of another's life. (Except the right to live itself, which is not in dispute.) If I come to your home and you subsequently revoke permission for me to be there, you can kick me out but you cannot kill me. Even if I break in you cannot use lethal force against me unless and until your life is in imminent danger from me, or you have reason to believe it is.

The problem with Abortion is it's sort of contradictory in the sense that on the one hand if you use the home analogy it seems like you should be justified in kicking out the occupant, but given that such action would result in their death such justification is gone.

The only person who can make the pregnancy situation happen or not is the mom. She can choose whether or not to have sex. (Bewilder: This is why the cases of rape is a special case) and so she is, at that time, exercising her rights. She can simply choose not to have sex. Otherwise, she's not somehow entitled to protection from the result of that choice if things don't go her way. In every other aspect of life we're expected to deal with the results of our choices and yet this seems to be an exception in the minds of the pro-choice advocates.

Punishment:

Yes it is.<snip>
1) Jackhammers do nothing but piss people off
2) Yes it is. If they are not allowed to terminate pregnancy, then the state is punishing them.

The two most important points for me are the rape exception which makes no sense at all outside the concept of punishment, and the focus on criminalising women who have abortions rather than making changes that would reduce the number of abortions.


A punishment is an action taken to discipline a subordinate. It does not fit the reality here.

Responsibility:

Who are you to say that it is never the honestly responsible choice? You don't have enough knowledge to say for sure if preventing a person from entering the world is irresponsible.


I'm not sure if you meant this the way it sounds, but responsibility is at the core of a pregnant woman's decision making process, as I have mentioned before. To imply that pro-choicers think stumping up the cash somehow covers it misses so much of what we've been saying, and is almost funny when you compare the cost of birthing a child, let alone bringing one up, with the cost of an abortion.
Except that women who didn't consent to sex are allowed to abort their unwanted pregnancies, no problem. You previously answered that you don't know why its acceptable for rape victims to abort but not for women who consent to sex. That's fair enough, and I appreciate your honesty. My point is that your gut feeling or belief is enough when you are making decisions in your own life, but it is not enough to influence my decision, especially when it conflicts with reason.


Responsibility starts before the clothes come off. Responsible options don't cost innocent people their lives. Gut feeling isn't objective enough to make a decision on, especially one that's difficult. Bewilder, you suggest that pro-choice folks don't think that just coming up with the money for abortion is sufficient for meeting responsibility (If I read you right). If that's the case, then what is, other than paying the bill?

Miscellaneous:
I wish you had spent half as much time responding to this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13409073&postcount=544) and this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13409414&postcount=548)as you have making excuses for why you are ignoring arguments made against your viewpoint and instead are repeating yourself.


Be specific. You quoted two posts with multiple points adressed in each.


2. Regardless, you are again showing your ignorance of the subject you are talking about. About 90% of abortions in the United States occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, with about 60% occuring in the first 8 weeks. The remaining abortions are almost all due to exceptional circumstances like a threat to the life of the mother. So, you should be happy with the current Roe regime.

Threat to the life of the mother is not a matter of dispute. We all agree on it. Yet people agitate for the right to 'boot the tenant' at any time. That being the case, why is this even relevant?


I thought I had made that quite clear by now, but let me spell it out again : I would have preferred not to have been born.

What you quoted there was posted before I read one of your more recent posts on the subject.

Yes, definitely. You need to make an informed guess about its future, and then choose what would be best for it. In my case, that would have been abortion, in other cases (most cases, as a matter of fact, it's still not the majority of women who choose abortions nor the majority of pregnancies that get aborted), it's having the child.
To be responsible is making a responsible choice, and having the option of actually acting responsibly is vital.


To me, an informed guess is no basis for making a decision on whether to let a human be allowed to live.


It's not the future that almost pushed me over the edge a nubmer of times, it was the present. It wasn't the though of waking up tomorrow to the same misery, it was the sheer misery of the moment. I'm an optimist, I always assumed tomorrow would be better than today, but today sometimes was utterly unbearable. I knew even if tomorrow would be the best possible day, it would still never make today go away entirely.

If you've been there, you know as well as I do that the argument "Well, if that kid doesn't want to live it can still kill itself" is mindbogglingly stupid and uniformed. It's not easy to kill yourself, it's fucking difficult!

Who ever made that argument? Sounds like somebody who needs a good thumping.


In a legal sense? Not a very good idea... we used to have Sippenhaft, and it was abolished once the Nazi regime fell. For pretty obvious reasons, actually.

What's Sippenhaft?


The issue I have with this is simply that making abortion illegal does not stop it from happening and endangers the lives and the wellbeing of women and their dependants. TCT (in another thread) presented strong and compelling evidence on this, and I have explained to you that I would have ended my pregnancy at any cost if the safe, legal option were not available to me. However, there are things we can do to reduce the number of abortions and I mentioned some of them in my last post to you. It seems to me that if pro-lifers really cared about reducing abortion they would stop wasting time, effort and money on the legal aspect and focus on these other areas.


I looked at the posts TCT introduced in the post you refer to (It was actually earlier in this thread) and the study was conducted by an organization founded by a former chief of Planned Parenthood. Not exactly objective enough to impress. I also found that study to fail miserably at comparing apples to apples. I'm not convinced that making abortion illegal would have *NO* impact on the number of abortions performed each year. That's simply contrary to common sense.

But you're right in that there are many areas that can be focused on simultaneously to reduce the number of abortions, not just protesting them alone. Education, birth control, etc are all important and should all be addressed individually, but that doesnt, in our minds, justify sitting still while there are laws in place that enable abortion to continue in the meantime.

Edit: That took WAY too long

<snip>

Your post came up while I was writing my reply to the others, but it should cover your points as well, especially with the number of times you replied by pointing to TCT and Minaris ;)

Maybe that would lead us to a new and better answer: Anyone who is in a position to put a stop to it, or at least to avoid participating in it, shares in the blame.

Are you sure you want to go that far?

Lots of people would have been able to stop it had they killed or disfigured the man and/or the woman who ultimately brought about the pregnancy. Their parents, their friends, their grandparents, etc. And had their parents not had sex in the first place, they would not have existed, which would have put a stop to it quite effectively. Same thing goes for a long list of distant ancestors.

But since we can only punish those who are living, we'll limit it to the friends and parents and possibly grandparents, I guess. What should their punishments be?

Are you sure you want to go that far?

Lots of people would have been able to stop it had they killed or disfigured the man and/or the woman who ultimately brought about the pregnancy. Their parents, their friends, their grandparents, etc. And had their parents not had sex in the first place, they would not have existed, which would have put a stop to it quite effectively. Same thing goes for a long list of distant ancestors.

But since we can only punish those who are living, we'll limit it to the friends and parents and possibly grandparents, I guess. What should their punishments be?

No, that's swinging to a ridiculous extreme.

I'm trying to figure out your angle here. Are you being nitpicky, or am I missing what you're trying to get at?

The argument about what an embryo would want, if it had the capacity to want anything, has got to be the silliest thing I've seen in a while. Would a tree want to be cut down, if a tree was a person and could want things? Obviously, the tree wouldn't want to be cut down. Therefore cutting down a tree is murder.

The argument about what an embryo would want, if it had the capacity to want anything, has got to be the silliest thing I've seen in a while. Would a tree want to be cut down, if a tree was a person and could want things? Obviously, the tree wouldn't want to be cut down. Therefore cutting down a tree is murder.

well, yeah, its a shitty argument for taking something to be murder. however, it does seem that these sort of interests ('wants') might hold some moral standing.

No, that's swinging to a ridiculous extreme.

I'm trying to figure out your angle here. Are you being nitpicky, or am I missing what you're trying to get at?

You're probably completely missing it. Everyone else I've asked has done that. They just end up begging the question in some form or not seeing why it matters. I can understand why you think it's nitpicky, though. Causality as a mode of conferring responsibility and how it gets applied isn't exactly an issue that most people bring up in abortion debates. Perhaps because most people never bother to question those kind of assumptions. Maybe I'm a crazy bastard for wanting to question those assumptions. :)

Given that I'm not sure causality even exists in the way we conceive of it, your conclusion isn't really important to me. I just like to see an intelligent fellow try to reason it out so that I can understand why people think the way they do.

You're probably completely missing it. Everyone else I've asked has done that. They just end up begging the question in some form or not seeing why it matters. I can understand why you think it's nitpicky, though. Causality as a mode of conferring responsibility and how it gets applied isn't exactly an issue that most people bring up in abortion debates. Perhaps because most people never bother to question those kind of assumptions. Maybe I'm a crazy bastard for wanting to question those assumptions. :)

Given that I'm not sure causality even exists in the way we conceive of it, your conclusion isn't really important to me. I just like to see an intelligent fellow try to reason it out so that I can understand why people think the way they do.

Gotcha.

To me, it actually is an important question, as my religion teaches me that every person is held responsible for their own choices, so naturally causality is a factor.

So in the example you set up at the beginning of this set of exchanges, you would bear neither the blame nor the responsibility for the guy's wife getting snapped at because the guy you glared at has his own agency, and by his own freedom of action turned and snapped. It wasn't an inescapable sequence of events set in motion by your original act.

In the example of an abortion (just to keep it relevant to the thread) any person who participates in the act is responsible because collectively they're setting in motion a sequence of events that inevitably lead to the death of the unborn.

When you brought up the idea of all the other people whose actions indirectly historically contributed to this scenario, you essentially introduced people who aren't responsible for it because nothing they did led to the inevitable event of an abortion. Even the father isn't necessarily part of it unless he was a deliberate enabler in which case he's part of that collection of people who brought it about.

Another element that I didn't mention before is intent. Not relevant to causality itself, but very relevant in terms of responsibility and blame. That's where it REALLY gets complicated.

On some level I think it's impossible to come up with one all encompassing rule that applies in every single case and satisfies all requirements.

Gotcha.

To me, it actually is an important question, as my religion teaches me that every person is held responsible for their own choices, so naturally causality is a factor.

So in the example you set up at the beginning of this set of exchanges, you would bear neither the blame nor the responsibility for the guy's wife getting snapped at because the guy you glared at has his own agency, and by his own freedom of action turned and snapped. It wasn't an inescapable sequence of events set in motion by your original act.

In the example of an abortion (just to keep it relevant to the thread) any person who participates in the act is responsible because collectively they're setting in motion a sequence of events that inevitably lead to the death of the unborn.

I'm still not sure why the woman's decision and request for the procedure was part of an inescapable sequence of events. It's not like a doctor can't refuse to perform an elective abortion procedure, just as it's not like the man can't refrain from snapping at his wife.

When you brought up the idea of all the other people whose actions indirectly historically contributed to this scenario, you essentially introduced people who aren't responsible for it because nothing they did led to the inevitable event of an abortion. Even the father isn't necessarily part of it unless he was a deliberate enabler in which case he's part of that collection of people who brought it about.

Another element that I didn't mention before is intent. Not relevant to causality itself, but very relevant in terms of responsibility and blame. That's where it REALLY gets complicated.

On some level I think it's impossible to come up with one all encompassing rule that applies in every single case and satisfies all requirements.

Well, I think you're on your way to creating a general rule. You have three relevant factors. Inescapability, causality, and intent. Why don't you believe you can come up with a generally applicable standard using those three?

I'm still not sure why the woman's decision and request for the procedure was part of an inescapable sequence of events. It's not like a doctor can't refuse to perform an elective abortion procedure, just as it's not like the man can't refrain from snapping at his wife.


Because she set the series of events in motion with the intent of producing the result of an abortion, and has the power to stop it at any point prior to the event itself. Now, it is rue that her simply showing up at the clinic and paying her money doesn't mean the event is now inescapable, but she still bears her portion of blame because, from her frame of reference, it is inevitable unless she changes her mind.

As opposed to the guy snapping at his wife. You didn't set that into motion deliberately, and once you glared at him you had no further control over what happened next.


Well, I think you're on your way to creating a general rule. You have three relevant factors. Inescapability, causality, and intent. Why don't you believe you can come up with a generally applicable standard using those three?

I guess I feel that way because this sort of thing is complex enough that one could always find an exception somehow.

Because she set the series of events in motion with the intent of producing the result of an abortion, and has the power to stop it at any point prior to the event itself. Now, it is rue that her simply showing up at the clinic and paying her money doesn't mean the event is now inescapable, but she still bears her portion of blame because, from her frame of reference, it is inevitable unless she changes her mind.

As opposed to the guy snapping at his wife. You didn't set that into motion deliberately, and once you glared at him you had no further control over what happened next.

What if I did set it into motion deliberately? Would I be responsible then?

I guess I feel that way because this sort of thing is complex enough that one could always find an exception somehow.

Well naturally. Many people view abortion as being wrong in general, but not in certain exceptional cases. Is it silly for them to think that the rule is that abortion is wrong in general, while allowing for exceptional cases?

What if I did set it into motion deliberately? Would I be responsible then?

Then, in fairness, you too bear a measure of responsibility, if we assume you knew this guy well enough to anticipate his behavior after your glare.

No that it relieves him of the burden of blame either. Although his actions may be pretictable and consistent, due to his personality and so on, he still has his own free agency and is in control of his own choices at all times.


Well naturally. Many people view abortion as being wrong in general, but not in certain exceptional cases. Is it silly for them to think that the rule is that abortion is wrong in general, while allowing for exceptional cases?

It isn't silly to acknowledge exceptions, I agree... But in a subject as serious as this even exceptions should be well defined, which makes them nothing but an extension of the general rule.

For the most part, people's responses were very civil and intelligent, and I appreciate it very much as, I'm sure, do those who are reading these threads for the sake of honest in terest in the subject. Thanks! :)

I'm gonna try and shuffle the replies into categories. I dunno how well it will work so please bear with me through this experiment.

I'm not sure why I should bother replying when you seem to insist on not actually responding to the arguments I make. For that reason, I'll mostly just address your categories and not your specific words.

Replies focusing on law:

1. You ignore the very salient point that you don't seem to understand the law you are opposing. You went on about "arbitrary limits" and changes in the point of viability. Clearly you didn't know that the general limit placed on abortion laws in the U.S. is prior to viabillity. :headbang:

2. You are technically correct that the Supreme Court is not the highest law in the land. The Constitution is and the Supreme Court is the highest arbiter of what the Constitution says. That isn't some role simply grabbed by Justice Marshall, but is the role spelled out for the Supreme Court in the Consitution itself and in The Federalist Papers.

3. Clearly, your viewpoint doesn't actually care whether the Constitution protects the right to abortion or not. Even if it protected abortion expressly, you would still say the law was unjust, wouldn't you? So let's not waste time arguing about a point that doesn't matter to you and you don't understand very well anyway.

Force/Control:

1. You seem to have strayed far from the initial argument about force and control. When you jumped into the conversation, you were objecting to my statements that those who seek to ban BOTH ABORTION AND BIRTH CONTROL are seeking to enslave women.

2. MADD doesn't seek to deprive anyone of any fundamental rights and narrowly focuses on stopping drunk driving. They don't try to stop everyone from either drinking or driving, but merely the combination. (Even then it is only when you are drunk beyond a certain point.) Your analogy here doesn't play very well.

3. You blithely ignore the extent to which being pregnant dominates the life of the mother. Forcing someone to remain pregnant for nine months and go through childbirth simply isn't comparable to taking away someone's car keys for an hour or two.

If that's not enough one can always apply Pascal's Wager. If I'm wrong and you're right, then I look like a fool. If you're wrong and I'm right, then millions of people are being put to death every year.

Um. If we enact laws supporting your view, millions upon millions of women will be deprived of basic rights including the right to control their own bodies. Ten of thousand of women (or more) will die from unsafe abortions. It is more than simply you looking like a fool. The easy with which you cavalierly dismiss the impact your view has on women is very troubling.

Rights/Consent:

I'm going to repeat some arguments I made earlier.

What are the rights of the unborn? Can you show they exist? What are they?

Can you show they outweigh the rights of the mother to control her own body?

More to the point, what is wrong with the Roe schema that already balances the interest in rights of the unborn against the rights of the mother and, while generally allowing abortion early in the pregancy, generally bans abortion later in the pregnancy?


Responsibility:
1. Your "with rights come responsibility" schtick is all very nice, but it misses a basic distinction. What is the moral or responsible thing to do is not the same as what one is legally required to do. A particulal instance of abortion may be immoral or irresponsible, but that doesn't mean abortion should always (even usually) be illegal.

I'm not admitting, btw, that abortion is immoral or irresponsible, only that it doesn't have to be moral and responsible in order to be legal. Many of those in this thread that are pro-choice believe abortion is not a moral choice, but nonetheless recognize that women have a right to make that choice.

2. Your argument that responsibility limits our rights fails. I can use my right to free speech irresponsibly without losing that right.

3. You appear to be arguing a rather silly circular point: the existence of a right means there is a co-extensive responsiblity not to use that right. So one has no rights because it would be irresponsible to exercise them.

4. Finally, just to highlight the absurdity of your "with rights come responsibilities" argument, what are the responsibilities of the unborn that comes along with whatever rights you say they have?

2. Regardless, you are again showing your ignorance of the subject you are talking about. About 90% of abortions in the United States occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, with about 60% occuring in the first 8 weeks. The remaining abortions are almost all due to exceptional circumstances like a threat to the life of the mother. So, you should be happy with the current Roe regime.Threat to the life of the mother is not a matter of dispute. We all agree on it. Yet people agitate for the right to 'boot the tenant' at any time. That being the case, why is this even relevant?

1. You miss the point entirely. The point at which you claim the unborn can even merely be agitated is past the point where 90% of abortions occur. And that remaining 10% generally falls in the categories of necessary for the life or health of the mother or rape. So what is your problem with the current abortion practice in the U.S.?

2. If all you want is agreement that women shouldn't be allowed to have late-term abortions except in exceptional circumstances, then you have it (at least from me, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the laws of the United States).

3. You still don't seem to be understanding our side of the debate. A woman has a right to control her own body (and other fundamental rights) that extends throughout the pregnancy. That doesn't go away. What does happen is that, past the point of viability, other compelling interests outweigh those rights except in extreme circumstances.

I looked at the posts TCT introduced in the post you refer to (It was actually earlier in this thread) and the study was conducted by an organization founded by a former chief of Planned Parenthood. Not exactly objective enough to impress. I also found that study to fail miserably at comparing apples to apples. I'm not convinced that making abortion illegal would have *NO* impact on the number of abortions performed each year. That's simply contrary to common sense.

So let's see your reasons for dismissing a peer-reviewed study that is co-authored by the World Health Organization and published in The Lancet medical journal. (Here are links for those playing at home: link, link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/11/abortion.global.ap/index.html), link (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2007/10/11/index.html)).

1. A weak ad hominem that the Guttmacher Institute isn't objective enough. That would be pathetic even if you could justify calling the WHO and The Lancet biased.

2. A non sequitur about how the study fails to compare "apples to apples." You'll have to explain how that statement isn't just nonsense.

3. The study fails to conform to your preconceived ideals, therefore it must be wrong. :headbang:

But you're right in that there are many areas that can be focused on simultaneously to reduce the number of abortions, not just protesting them alone. Education, birth control, etc are all important and should all be addressed individually, but that doesnt, in our minds, justify sitting still while there are laws in place that enable abortion to continue in the meantime.

But the facts show that if you really want to reduce abortion, you would focus your attention on what works -- education, birth control, etc. Those solutions do more to actually reduce abortion than a law that enslaves and endangers women.

It isn't silly to acknowledge exceptions, I agree... But in a subject as serious as this even exceptions should be well defined, which makes them nothing but an extension of the general rule.

Fair enough. If you ever get around to making that sort of rule for conferring responsibility, let me know.

well, yeah, its a shitty argument for taking something to be murder. however, it does seem that these sort of interests ('wants') might hold some moral standing.
If they actually existed, instead of being purely hypothetical. If my aunt had four wheels, she'd be a wagon, and then what would she want?

If they actually existed, instead of being purely hypothetical. If my aunt had four wheels, she'd be a wagon, and then what would she want?

things have interests. even things that aren't conscious. even things that aren't animate.

Force/Control:


The disconnect between our respective points of view, and the gap I'm trying to bridge is, people on your side see it as being force exercised against you. I can see the logic you're using to come to that conclusion, but my goal is to get the same from your side.

To remove an option from your list of choices in a case like this is not to control you. It's like I said with the M.A.D.D. analogy. Does anyone here think M.A.D.D. is out to exert control? If you do, would you say they were justified? What I want you to take from this is that from the perspective if a pro-lifer, they are the same. We're not control freaks.

And the result is no more slavery than being disallowed from driving a car while inebriated. Think about it. It's your car, isn't it? Your body your booze. Why isn't it slavery? Does the fact that others' lives are endangered somehow change the definition, in your point of view, such that it isn't control or slavery anymore?

Now follow that through, using the perspective of the pro-life movement.

There are two very important differences between your example and the pro-life stance :

1) In your example, the interest group pressures to enforce existing law. Pro-life are not trying to enforce existing law, they are trying to change existing law.

2) The point about stopping people to drive while drunk is to avoid danger for others. They are not opting to force drunk drivers to give medical attention to the victims of car crashes caused by said danger, are they?
And yet you would refuse medical attention to women who made a mistake, had an accident and are trying to do the responsible thing to set matters right again.


Rights/Consent:
Nobody's rights are protected at the expense of another's life. (Except the right to live itself, which is not in dispute.) If I come to your home and you subsequently revoke permission for me to be there, you can kick me out but you cannot kill me. Even if I break in you cannot use lethal force against me unless and until your life is in imminent danger from me, or you have reason to believe it is.

The problem with Abortion is it's sort of contradictory in the sense that on the one hand if you use the home analogy it seems like you should be justified in kicking out the occupant, but given that such action would result in their death such justification is gone.

To use one of my favourite examples again : Imagine you caused a car accident. Let's just assume simple carelesness, or let's assume your brakes weren't working. Either way, you are at fault.
The person you hit is seriously injured, both kidneys fail and his life is in danger. You - incidentally - are the only person who is a close enough match to your victim to be able to donate one of your kidneys.
Now, I'm not asking it you would donate - we could assume that your son for example also has severe kidney problems and is also a match for you, and you had planned to give your kidney to him, as you know he wouldn't make it without. Or let's assume that your religion forbids you to have any sort of blood transfer, and the kidney couldn't be removed without one.
What I'm wondering is if you would feel it's morally and ethically right in a situation like the above to force the person who caused the accident to donate an organ, regardless of his personal feelings, religious beliefs, social responsibilities or family concerns.


The only person who can make the pregnancy situation happen or not is the mom. She can choose whether or not to have sex. (Bewilder: This is why the cases of rape is a special case) and so she is, at that time, exercising her rights. She can simply choose not to have sex. Otherwise, she's not somehow entitled to protection from the result of that choice if things don't go her way. In every other aspect of life we're expected to deal with the results of our choices and yet this seems to be an exception in the minds of the pro-choice advocates.

As pointed out before, I agree with you that she'll have to deal with the pregnancy. But I propose that she has to have the right to chose the most responsible option for her and her situation, no matter what that's going to be.



Responsibility starts before the clothes come off. Responsible options don't cost innocent people their lives. Gut feeling isn't objective enough to make a decision on, especially one that's difficult. Bewilder, you suggest that pro-choice folks don't think that just coming up with the money for abortion is sufficient for meeting responsibility (If I read you right). If that's the case, then what is, other than paying the bill?

It's choosing not to carry a baby to term in a situation where the mother feels she's unable to do so.


Who ever made that argument? Sounds like somebody who needs a good thumping.

Oh, I've been told that a good few times on here.


What's Sippenhaft?

I don't think there's a direct translation. One website suggested "clan responsibility".
What it means is that the individual isn't the only one liable for his/her actions, they can carry legal sentences for the whole family.
It's commonly practiced in authoritarian regimes, I think China still happily engages in it. Nazi-Germany used it a lot.

I'm not sure why I should bother replying when you seem to insist on not actually responding to the arguments I make. For that reason, I'll mostly just address your categories and not your specific words.


You seem to be hell-bent on making it needlessly confrontational. I specifically said to just let me know if I miss anything. I"m debating against 4 people at once, stuff is bount to get missed. Wah.


1. You ignore the very salient point that you don't seem to understand the law you are opposing. You went on about "arbitrary limits" and changes in the point of viability. Clearly you didn't know that the general limit placed on abortion laws in the U.S. is prior to viabillity. :headbang:


Actually, my most recent post didn't use the word 'arbitrary.' Yet you seem to insist that I 'went on" about it. No wonder you don't want to quote my actual words...


2. You are technically correct that the Supreme Court is not the highest law in the land. The Constitution is and the Supreme Court is the highest arbiter of what the Constitution says. That isn't some role simply grabbed by Justice Marshall, but is the role spelled out for the Supreme Court in the Consitution itself and in The Federalist Papers.


Show me where, in the U.S. Constitution the Supreme Court is granted the power to declare laws unconsititional.


3. Clearly, your viewpoint doesn't actually care whether the Constitution protects the right to abortion or not. Even if it protected abortion expressly, you would still say the law was unjust, wouldn't you? So let's not waste time arguing about a point that doesn't matter to you and you don't understand very well anyway.

Actually, if the Contitution did expressly protect such a right, then there'd never have been a Roe V Wade and the entire landscape of the debate would be different, even if my own feelings on it were the same.


1. You seem to have strayed far from the initial argument about force and control. When you jumped into the conversation, you were objecting to my statements that those who seek to ban BOTH ABORTION AND BIRTH CONTROL are seeking to enslave women.

I never objected to birth control, so it's never been an issue to me. Why is this relevant? Let someone who actually wants to ban birth control defend themselves.


2. MADD doesn't seek to deprive anyone of any fundamental rights and narrowly focuses on stopping drunk driving. They don't try to stop everyone from either drinking or driving, but merely the combination. (Even then it is only when you are drunk beyond a certain point.) Your analogy here doesn't play very well.

I reject the assertion that abortion is a findamental right. That's the whole premise here. Your problem is that you want to ignore this, and you're needlessly aggravating yourself over it. You seem to expect me to respond as if I shared your view and get frustrated when I don't. My advice is to either look more clearly at my fundamental premise, or prepare to have yourself an ulcer. (And keep the little headbang graphics comin')


3. You blithely ignore the extent to which being pregnant dominates the life of the mother. Forcing someone to remain pregnant for nine months and go through childbirth simply isn't comparable to taking away someone's car keys for an hour or two.


So your premise is: Neo Bretonnia doesn't see this as a means of control, thus he must be ignoring the level to which pregnancy impacts the mother's life. Let me clue you in: I've got 3 kids and one on the way. In each case I was with the mother from start to finish. I know better than most men and frankly, a helluva lot of women how much pregnancy impacts a woman's life. How many kids have you got?


Um. If we enact laws supporting your view, millions upon millions of women will be deprived of basic rights including the right to control their own bodies. Ten of thousand of women (or more) will die from unsafe abortions. It is more than simply you looking like a fool. The easy with which you cavalierly dismiss the impact your view has on women is very troubling.


Actually, I can see why you take that position, given that you only seem to be analyzing one piece of the argument at a time. Looking at it from the broader perspective, namely, one in which ecucation and birth control are improved, where people are encouraged to be more responsible for themselves rather than make excuses and so on, your bleak picture starts to look a lot better.


I'm going to repeat some arguments I made earlier.

What are the rights of the unborn? Can you show they exist? What are they?

Can you show they outweigh the rights of the mother to control her own body?


Why do you ask questions that you have every intention of dismissing any answer I give to?


More to the point, what is wrong with the Roe schema that already balances the interest in rights of the unborn against the rights of the mother and, while generally allowing abortion early in the pregancy, generally bans abortion later in the pregnancy?


Are you now asserting that the unborn DO have some set of concrete rights?


1. Your "with rights come responsibility" schtick is all very nice, but it misses a basic distinction. What is the moral or responsible thing to do is not the same as what one is legally required to do. A particulal instance of abortion may be immoral or irresponsible, but that doesn't mean abortion should always (even usually) be illegal.


Show me where I've said abortion should always be illegal.


2. Your argument that responsibility limits our rights fails. I can use my right to free speech irresponsibly without losing that right.


So you yell 'fire' in a crowded theater and this cannot result in your loss of certain rights, including to an extend free speech, even temporarily?


3. You appear to be arguing a rather silly circular point: the existence of a right means there is a co-extensive responsiblity not to use that right. So one has no rights because it would be irresponsible to exercise them.


Please show me where I've indicated that people have a responsibility not to use their rights.


4. Finally, just to highlight the absurdity of your "with rights come responsibilities" argument, what are the responsibilities of the unborn that comes along with whatever rights you say they have?


Now THAT is an intelligent question. I'll have to think on it but for now I'm thinking that the unborn, like any person, would at a minimum have a responsibility, once born, to be a productive and contributing member of the community.

You know, to present a good point, it isn't necessary to be abrasive at every possible opportunity.


1. You miss the point entirely. The point at which you claim the unborn can even merely be agitated is past the point where 90% of abortions occur. And that remaining 10% generally falls in the categories of necessary for the life or health of the mother or rape. So what is your problem with the current abortion practice in the U.S.?


Your 90% number is inaccurate for establishing a threshold for when a fetus can be agitated.


2. If all you want is agreement that women shouldn't be allowed to have late-term abortions except in exceptional circumstances, then you have it (at least from me, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the laws of the United States).


Tell me, What is the # of weeks established by RvW?


3. You still don't seem to be understanding our side of the debate. A woman has a right to control her own body (and other fundamental rights) that extends throughout the pregnancy. That doesn't go away. What does happen is that, past the point of viability, other compelling interests outweigh those rights except in extreme circumstances.


You kind of remind me of my ex-wife. She went around with the assumption that anytime someone disagreed with her, that it must be that they simply didn't understsand her point. It never dawned on her that one can understand her point fine and still disagree.

Tell me, what might those other compelling interests be?


So let's see your reasons for dismissing a peer-reviewed study that is co-authored by the World Health Organization and published in The Lancet medical journal.

1. A weak ad hominem that the Guttmacher Institute isn't objective enough. That would be pathetic even if you could justify calling the WHO and The Lancet biased.

Actually, when it comes to analyzing credibility, the objectivity of the people behind such a study is quite relevant. An argument is only Ad hominem when you're attacking the debater, not a person who comes up in a debate.


2. A non sequitur about how the study fails to compare "apples to apples." You'll have to explain how that statement isn't just nonsense.


By the tone of your statement, I doubt very seriously you're prepared to read any reply of mine objectively.


3. The study fails to conform to your preconceived ideals, therefore it must be wrong. :headbang:


Ah, right. That must be it.


But the facts show that if you really want to reduce abortion, you would focus your attention on what works -- education, birth control, etc. Those solutions do more to actually reduce abortion than a law that enslaves and endangers women.

Actually, your interpretation of a set of data whose objectivity is in question shows that. Not enough to convince me.

Tell me, does your common sense really tell you that illegalizing an activity has -NO- statistically significant impact on how often that activity occurs?

*snip*

I may come back to some of your points in more detail further, but a few points I want to address right away.

Actually, my most recent post didn't use the word 'arbitrary.' Yet you seem to insist that I 'went on" about it. No wonder you don't want to quote my actual words...

Not your most recent post, which skipped the issue, but the one before it to which I was responding read (emphasis added)

Now, we do have some legal precedent establishing certain arbitrary limits to when an elective abortion can occur or at what point killing a pregnant woman counts as 2 murders for the price of 1. Roe v. Wade is the most oft-cited but consider this: The Pro-Life position on RvW is that it is legislation from the bench and not supported by the Constitution. The right to an abortion is in no way explicitly stated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. This is not a religious argument. Now, obviously there will be disagreement on that point, maybe even to the point of another core worldview, but I'm just stating the position. We're also not comfortable with arbitrary limits. Every day, medical technology makes a fetus viable at an earlier and earlier stage of development. What was considered unviable 20 years ago could easily survive now. If nothing else, arbitrary limits ought to be reexamined.

Are you still going to claim you never went on about arbitrary limits? Or are you going to admit you were in err about the state of the law in the United States?

Show me where, in the U.S. Constitution the Supreme Court is granted the power to declare laws unconsititional.

Try reading Article III (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/). Particularly Section 2.

Actually, if the Contitution did expressly protect such a right, then there'd never have been a Roe V Wade and the entire landscape of the debate would be different, even if my own feelings on it were the same.

You mostly dodged the point, but you do seem to be admittting that your view would stay the same regardless of what the Constitution said.

Show me where I've said abortion should always be illegal.

Ooh. Bad attempt at a dodge. Among other things I specifically said "or usually" be illegal.

So you yell 'fire' in a crowded theater and this cannot result in your loss of certain rights, including to an extend free speech, even temporarily?

Meh. There are limits on what can do with free speech, but they are not co-extensive with some duty to use speech responsibily.

In other words, are there some limits on speech? Yes. Are there circumstances where I can loose my right to free speech? Yes. Am I required to use my speech responsibily? No. Your argument fails.

Your 90% number is inaccurate for establishing a threshold for when a fetus can be agitated.

What part is inaccurate? That about 90% of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy? Or your suggestion that an unborn can first be agitated at about 12 weeks? Has something other than my argument caused you to change that threshold?


Tell me, What is the # of weeks established by RvW?

I've already explained to you that the current Roe regime doesn't set a number of weeks. To the contrary, states are allowed to ban abortion (with medical exceptions) from the point of viability -- whenever that point occurs.

Are you still going to claim you never went on about arbitrary limits? Or are you going to admit you were in err about the state of the law in the United States?


Just because a fetus is viable, doesn't stop the limit from being completely arbitrary, because that's what it is. Its not objective fact that as soon as the fetus becomes viable it has rights.

:headbang: i beileve god made us for a porpose in woman over 18 who no what there doing there is no accedent pregnacys

:headbang: i beileve god made us for a porpose in woman over 18 who no what there doing there is no accedent pregnacys

but wat about teh possibly of sum1 suprised sexing woman over 18?

things have interests. even things that aren't conscious. even things that aren't animate.
Now, this sentence doesn't even MEAN enough to me for me to agree or disagree. Things that aren't conscious aren't "interested".
Sartre, somewhere in Being and Nothingness, talked about a village being "destroyed" by a hurricane-- but only humans would call it "destruction", because only the humans have an expectation that the village should continue to be there. The wood? It used to be a stand of trees, then it was a stack of sawn boards, then it was an arranged into houses, then it was a more scattered arrangement, and if it is all gathered and burned, now it is ash and smoke, but none of that is "destruction", it is just matter changing form, and the matter doesn't care which state it is in. Do you think wood is "happier" when it's in a house, or when it's in a tree? I say the atoms are equally "happy" to be ash and smoke-- that is to say, they are not happy, nor unhappy, at all.

Now, this sentence doesn't even MEAN enough to me for me to agree or disagree. Things that aren't conscious aren't "interested".
Sartre, somewhere in Being and Nothingness, talked about a village being "destroyed" by a hurricane-- but only humans would call it "destruction", because only the humans have an expectation that the village should continue to be there. The wood? It used to be a stand of trees, then it was a stack of sawn boards, then it was an arranged into houses, then it was a more scattered arrangement, and if it is all gathered and burned, now it is ash and smoke, but none of that is "destruction", it is just matter changing form, and the matter doesn't care which state it is in. Do you think wood is "happier" when it's in a house, or when it's in a tree? I say the atoms are equally "happy" to be ash and smoke-- that is to say, they are not happy, nor unhappy, at all.

happiness doesn't enter into it.

things outside of the human realm can have interests. for example, it isn't crazy to talk about the interests of an ecosystem being in conflict with certain human interests.

for example, it isn't crazy to talk about the interests of an ecosystem being in conflict with certain human interests.
The animate creatures within the ecosystem may have "interests": the bear is interested in eating the salmon; the salmon is interested in not getting eaten by the bear. HUMANS may be interested in preventing the bear and salmon from becoming extinct. Nature has no such interest: the entire dinosaurian ecosystem collapsed, and life went on, just in a different form.

The animate creatures within the ecosystem may have "interests": the bear is interested in eating the salmon; the salmon is interested in not getting eaten by the bear. HUMANS may be interested in preventing the bear and salmon from becoming extinct. Nature has no such interest: the entire dinosaurian ecosystem collapsed, and life went on, just in a different form.

in so far as the abstract entity 'nature' exists, it seems that its interest is bound up with the continued existence of life and biodiversity. but i didn't say nature as a whole anyways, i said an ecosystem - which also has an interest in continued existence and also 'stability' of a sort.

in so far as the abstract entity 'nature' exists, it seems that its interest is bound up with the continued existence of life and biodiversity.
No, if all life on Earth ceased, the rock-ball would keep on spinning anyhow. The Moon isn't bothered by its absence of biodiversity. Mars, possibly, once had some life and now doesn't-- do you think the planet cares?
but i didn't say nature as a whole anyways, i said an ecosystem - which also has an interest in continued existence and also 'stability' of a sort.
The "ecosystem" doesn't have any interest. Humans may have interest in the ecosystem, but that's different.
You seem to be using the word "interest" in some idiosyncratic way which does not convey anything to me. Someone has an "interest" when he/she is, consciously, "interested"; speaking of an unconscious object as "interested" just sounds like "the pathetic fallacy" of projecting your emotions where they aren't, like "the very clouds wept to see the horrific battle" (poetic? maybe. factual? no). Speaking of an abstraction as being "interested" sounds like a "category mistake", along the lines of "The number five is cheerful."

No, if all life on Earth ceased, the rock-ball would keep on spinning anyhow. The Moon isn't bothered by its absence of biodiversity. Mars, possibly, once had some life and now doesn't-- do you think the planet cares?

different uses of the term 'nature' i think

The "ecosystem" doesn't have any interest. Humans may have interest in the ecosystem, but that's different.
You seem to be using the word "interest" in some idiosyncratic way which does not convey anything to me. Someone has an "interest" when he/she is, consciously, "interested"; speaking of an unconscious object as "interested" just sounds like "the pathetic fallacy" of projecting your emotions where they aren't, like "the very clouds wept to see the horrific battle" (poetic? maybe. factual? no). Speaking of an abstraction as being "interested" sounds like a "category mistake", along the lines of "The number five is cheerful."

actually, its pretty much standard to talk of the interests of non-human entities like animals and plants and ecosystems in many of the environmental fields, particularly environmental ethics and environmental law.

different uses of the term 'nature' i think



actually, its pretty much standard to talk of the interests of non-human entities like animals and plants and ecosystems in many of the environmental fields, particularly environmental ethics and environmental law.
It does not convey any meaning to me. Do you have any clue what they mean, either? I'm sure a lawyer would love to have a client whose "interests" are whatever the lawyer says they are, provided he somehow gets paid for doing this.

It does not convey any meaning to me. Do you have any clue what they mean, either? I'm sure a lawyer would love to have a client whose "interests" are whatever the lawyer says they are, provided he somehow gets paid for doing this.
Hehe, without following the conversation you're having with FS, this pretty much sums up the "fetal rights"/"arguing on behalf of fetuses" aspect of the anti-choice debate -- the "payment" being that anti-choicers get to have their way on nothing more than their say-so.

Now I'm only responding for fun. There are 2 things yo'uve started doing that make this a pointless pissing match, and I'm not here for the piss. 1) You're just looking for 'gotchas' in my posts, rather than making even a token attempt to understand the meaning and 2) You're adjusting your premises as you go to avoid conceding a point.

Not your most recent post, which skipped the issue, but the one before it to which I was responding read (emphasis added)

Actually, I did address it, possibly not to your satisfaction but meh. I'm glad you admitted not my most recent post but then where were you getting off accusing me of going on about it... But more interestingly, you went on to accuse me of (bolded by me):


Are you still going to claim you never went on about arbitrary limits? Or are you going to admit you were in err about the state of the law in the United States?

Even though what I ACTUALLY did was to specify that I hadn't said anything about arbitrary in that most recent post. I never claimed to have NEVER used the term, although I can see how it would be very convenient indeed for you if I had.

See what I mean? You're not reading my posts for substance = you're not looking for meaningful dialogue = boring as hell for me. If you don't want to communicate then fine, you don't have to, but I also don't have to play your game.

As far as the issue of arbitrary, I have more to say on that but I'll save it for a future post. I figure if I'm gonna do th elegwork to get my info together, I want it to be for someone who will actually READ it.


Try reading Article III (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/). Particularly Section 2.


Uhuh. I read it. Now what?


You mostly dodged the point, but you do seem to be admittting that your view would stay the same regardless of what the Constitution said.


I haven't dodged the point. I indicated that in a hypothetical like that the whole debate would be utterly different because the whole history behind it would be different. That should be obvious to you. And yes, my feelings would still be the same but how that affected the law and what I'd do about it would also be different. This too should be fairly obvious. You seem to have a tendency to accuse people of dodging whenever they answer a post in a way you don't like/is inconvenient for you.


Ooh. Bad attempt at a dodge. Among other things I specifically said "or usually" be illegal.


You said 'always' and then put 'or usually' in parenthesis. Best I can tell, you were trying to set it up so that you could have it both ways no matter how I replied.

Almost clever.


Meh. There are limits on what can do with free speech, but they are not co-extensive with some duty to use speech responsibily.

In other words, are there some limits on speech? Yes. Are there circumstances where I can loose my right to free speech? Yes. Am I required to use my speech responsibily? No. Your argument fails.


Ok so you concede that I'm right in that freedom of speech can be taken away, but you feel that certain used of free speech being illegal =/= having a requirement to u se it responsibly. Seems to me that either this is a matter of opinion (and thus unprovable) or you have an aversion to the word 'responsible.'


What part is inaccurate? That about 90% of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy? Or your suggestion that an unborn can first be agitated at about 12 weeks? Has something other than my argument caused you to change that threshold?


60% is the number I've seen. Still high, but significantly different.


I've already explained to you that the current Roe regime doesn't set a number of weeks. To the contrary, states are allowed to ban abortion (with medical exceptions) from the point of viability -- whenever that point occurs.

And that point is... c'mon, we're almost there.

Fair enough. If you ever get around to making that sort of rule for conferring responsibility, let me know.

Heh. If I do I'll patent it and become a rich philosopher...

Wait... that's an oxymoronl, ain't it?

Bah.

There are two very important differences between your example and the pro-life stance :

1) In your example, the interest group pressures to enforce existing law. Pro-life are not trying to enforce existing law, they are trying to change existing law.

2) The point about stopping people to drive while drunk is to avoid danger for others. They are not opting to force drunk drivers to give medical attention to the victims of car crashes caused by said danger, are they?
And yet you would refuse medical attention to women who made a mistake, had an accident and are trying to do the responsible thing to set matters right again.


I see what you're saying, but M.A.D.D. actually is behind a great many changes in law (Usually to increase penalties for DWI) as well as lowering the legal blood-alcohol limit.

But that's kinda irrelevant. The point is their actions do not constitute exercising control over others, and the other is pro-life.

As to point 2)Being injured in a car accident and being pregnant aren't the same thing. One is unnatural and (always a bad thing) severely damagin to the body. The other is a perfectly natural process. Essentially, you're talking abot medical treatment for a condition that doesn't equate to an injury.

(I know how people are going to react to that last statement. I'm ready. :) )

To use one of my favourite examples again : Imagine you caused a car accident. Let's just assume simple carelesness, or let's assume your brakes weren't working. Either way, you are at fault.
The person you hit is seriously injured, both kidneys fail and his life is in danger. You - incidentally - are the only person who is a close enough match to your victim to be able to donate one of your kidneys.
Now, I'm not asking it you would donate - we could assume that your son for example also has severe kidney problems and is also a match for you, and you had planned to give your kidney to him, as you know he wouldn't make it without. Or let's assume that your religion forbids you to have any sort of blood transfer, and the kidney couldn't be removed without one.
What I'm wondering is if you would feel it's morally and ethically right in a situation like the above to force the person who caused the accident to donate an organ, regardless of his personal feelings, religious beliefs, social responsibilities or family concerns.


Actually, if you cause a car accident that leaves another person injured to the point of death, you coul dvery well be charged with manslaughter. You would be held criminally responsible for their death. You do raise an interesting point though... Would offering to donate a kidney allow you to avoid that? That might be a good topic for discussion. So should one be forced? I dunno. I could see both sides of that argument.


As pointed out before, I agree with you that she'll have to deal with the pregnancy. But I propose that she has to have the right to chose the most responsible option for her and her situation, no matter what that's going to be.

Well that's where our opinions differ. You see abortion as a responsible option. I do not. :)


It's choosing not to carry a baby to term in a situation where the mother feels she's unable to do so.

[QUOTE=Cabra West;13414146]
Oh, I've been told that a good few times on here.

Well whoever said it needs a good thumping. I assure you, that is not my position nor is it the position of anybody I hang out/go to church with.


I don't think there's a direct translation. One website suggested "clan responsibility".
What it means is that the individual isn't the only one liable for his/her actions, they can carry legal sentences for the whole family.
It's commonly practiced in authoritarian regimes, I think China still happily engages in it. Nazi-Germany used it a lot.

Ohhh ok thanks. That seems very unjust to me.

I see what you're saying, but M.A.D.D. actually is behind a great many changes in law (Usually to increase penalties for DWI) as well as lowering the legal blood-alcohol limit.

But that's kinda irrelevant. The point is their actions do not constitute exercising control over others, and the other is pro-life.

Well, that would raise the question, do you have to pay for not drinking and driving? Will it change your life forever not to drink and drive? Will you no longer be able to live up to your previous responsibilities if you don't drink and drive?
No?
See, there's a difference between protective laws and proscriptive laws. There are safety regulations when you go bungee-jumping, too, but that doesn't mean bungee-jumping gets outlawed. Regulating something and outright prohibiting something are two very, very different things.


As to point 2)Being injured in a car accident and being pregnant aren't the same thing. One is unnatural and (always a bad thing) severely damagin to the body. The other is a perfectly natural process. Essentially, you're talking abot medical treatment for a condition that doesn't equate to an injury.

(I know how people are going to react to that last statement. I'm ready. :) )


What's unnatural about getting injured? And what's natural about being pregnant? And since when is something morally justifiable just cause it's natural? Cannibalism is natural when food is scarce, and yet we wouldn't morally agree with it, would we?
And considering the permanent damage a pregancy carried to term can - and in many cases does - inflict on the female body, I would very much argue the fact that it doesn't equate to injury.
Statistically speaking, the chances of dying due to the effects of pregnancy or childbirth are significantly higher than the chances to die of an abortion (provided both take place with medical assistance)


Actually, if you cause a car accident that leaves another person injured to the point of death, you coul dvery well be charged with manslaughter. You would be held criminally responsible for their death. You do raise an interesting point though... Would offering to donate a kidney allow you to avoid that? That might be a good topic for discussion. So should one be forced? I dunno. I could see both sides of that argument.

Oh, no. Not offer it in exchange for having the charges dropped.
Being forced to give up your organ, no matter what.



Well that's where our opinions differ. You see abortion as a responsible option. I do not. :)

You haven't yet explained why it would not be a responsible choice.

Well, that would raise the question, do you have to pay for not drinking and driving? Will it change your life forever not to drink and drive? Will you no longer be able to live up to your previous responsibilities if you don't drink and drive?
No?
See, there's a difference between protective laws and proscriptive laws. There are safety regulations when you go bungee-jumping, too, but that doesn't mean bungee-jumping gets outlawed. Regulating something and outright prohibiting something are two very, very different things.


That's an interesting point, but I'd maintain that the life-changing decision was made long before the question of abortion came up.


What's unnatural about getting injured? And what's natural about being pregnant? And since when is something morally justifiable just cause it's natural? Cannibalism is natural when food is scarce, and yet we wouldn't morally agree with it, would we?

Getting injured is a detriment to the survival of the species. Pregnancy is absolutely necessary for it.

And actually, I would morally agree with cannibalism for survival. (Think of the soccer team that crashed in the Andes. They ate some of their dead to survive. I have no problem with that. Do you?)


And considering the permanent damage a pregancy carried to term can - and in many cases does - inflict on the female body, I would very much argue the fact that it doesn't equate to injury.
Statistically speaking, the chances of dying due to the effects of pregnancy or childbirth are significantly higher than the chances to die of an abortion (provided both take place with medical assistance)


Statistically, being pregnant has long term benefits on the female body, like reduced likelihood of breast cancer for example.


Oh, no. Not offer it in exchange for having the charges dropped.
Being forced to give up your organ, no matter what.


I know what you meant. Like I said, I could see that argument form both sides.



You haven't yet explained why it would not be a responsible choice.

Actually I have. You just disagree with my reasoning ;)

And actually, I would morally agree with cannibalism for survival. (Think of the soccer team that crashed in the Andes. They ate some of their dead to survive. I have no problem with that. Do you?)

This being the imperative. If they weren't dead before being eaten?

For the most part, people's responses were very civil and intelligent, and I appreciate it very much as, I'm sure, do those who are reading these threads for the sake of honest in terest in the subject. Thanks! :)

I'm gonna try and shuffle the replies into categories. I dunno how well it will work so please bear with me through this experiment.
I took my time to look at your comments and other people's responses to them before posting mine. Sorry for the delay.

Replies focusing on law:

I can only comment generally on these but let me remind everybody that the current state of the law has no impact on the opinion of a pro-life advocate who believes the law to be unjust. Having said that, keep in mind the following things:

<snip>
The first sentence of this section is the only one that matters, because it shows that there is no point in discussing the law with you because you do not care. You obviously have no interest at all in compromising with our side on this matter, as we have already compromised with you. So that essentially means that all further debate is pointless. The only question you leave open is which of us will get to make the law, and on that there can be no discussion, no explanation, no debate, no agreement -- only opposition and political wrangling as we struggle to keep each other's views out of government. Your own recalcitrance on this issue puts an end to civil discourse and guarantees nothing but conflict.

As to the rest of your remarks, you are wrong again, as always. This has been explained to you time and time again, yet you persist in repeating the same errors over and over. I understand now that this is because you fundamentally do not care how the US legal system works, or what legal concepts our system follows. You only care about how you WANT it to work, and current reality be damned. You use it only as something to hang your propagandistic arguments on, because, in your mind, the system you are talking about is disposable and will be disposed of as soon as you get to reshape the law to reflect your desires. Posters like TCT may as well explain the law to a cat, for all the attention you are paying to them.

However, I do not think this means that we should abandon arguing the law against you. Every time you, or any other anti-choice advocate, starts spouting erroneous nonsense about what the law actually is or how it actually works, you are spreading a lie which is, apparently, deliberately meant to deceive the uninformed (since it obviously is not sincere; if you had any real concern to describe the actual law, you would correct your mistakes).

Therefore, it is for the sake of those who may not know that what you are saying is false that people like us must keep blowing the whistle on your lies and errors. But we must always remind ourselves that all we are doing is exposing you to others. You leave us no option but to argue against you, not debate with you.

Force/Control:

The disconnect between our respective points of view, and the gap I'm trying to bridge is, people on your side see it as being force exercised against you.

<snip>

Now follow that through, using the perspective of the pro-life movement.
Why should we? Why should we go to so much effort and tie ourselves into such intellectual knots to buy into your viewpoint, when you have already made it clear that you have absolutely no intention of reciprocating?

We have told you how, in practical terms and in practical application, the laws you desire result in actual control and force against women. That is not a matter of perception. It is a matter of fact. We have history and current examples of nations that ban abortion to point to.

Your only response, for days and days, has been, "Oh, but we mean it in the best possible way, and only for your own good."

I don't give a flying rat's ass how you mean it. I want you and your kind and your meaningless, drivel-filled laws out of my life. I was willing to compromise with you with Roe, and that compromise offer remains on the table, but I will not give another inch. It is your turn to make concessions to me. All your wheedling and fawning about how you're only concerned with human well-fare strikes me as so much bullshit when I compare it to the human misery and human death that your laws produce every single time they are applied in reality.


The status/intent of the unborn:
<snip>

Two thoughts on these:

Firstly, unborn humans aren't animals. (At least, no moreso than you or I.) There's a clear distinction between a human being and an animal. That's why hamburgers are good and cannibalism is bad. To reduce an unborn human to that level is, to me, a tactic to justify the act of killing one.

This is gross, I admit, but I ask you this: Given that there are people out there who are comfortable eating their own placentas or artificially grown human tissue (the latter as a possible food source for long-term space travel) could you imagine using an aborted fetus for food?

I know that may come across as an appeal to emotion but I assure you that's not my intent. My intent is to demonstrate that there is a start contrast in perception of a fetus vs. other 'disposable' forms of human living tissue.

So is it a person? Any answer I can give to that would be purely opinion, so there's little to be gained arguing it, but my instinct tells me it is, my logic tells me it is. If that's not enough one can always apply Pascal's Wager. If I'm wrong and you're right, then I look like a fool. If you're wrong and I'm right, then millions of people are being put to death every year.
So now we're up to "intent of the unborn", are we? We've gone from "rights" to "would want" to "does want" and now all the way up to "intent." When are you going to lay out the new 20 Year Plan of the Supreme Embryonic Soviet for us all to follow?

You complain that "some" of the replies on this point are just too "abrasive" for you to dignify with responses, which I guess is why you ignore actual counter arguments in favor of just reposting your propaganda speeches over and over. Well, prepare to ignore the following then:

You, sir, are being, and have been from the start, 100% dishonest.

You have been making all kinds of claims that you have been asked to back up with evidence, which you have failed to even try to do every single time. Yet you persist in making those claims over and over, knowing full well they are not true.

You tack pro forma disclaimers about "opinion" to all your fairy tales, yet you then carry on to present them as if they are factual bases for your arguments and to insist that the law be rewritten to match them. And you complain that others are "abrasive" when we call you on it and reject your arguments.

You constantly deny that you make appeals to emotion, scold others for making appeals to emotion, then make some of the most outrageous appeals to emotion that I've ever read, and think you're saving yourself by mentioning that although your claptrap might sound like an appeal to emotion, it really isn't because you didn't intend it to be. On that last one, I call outright, deliberate lie.

You have the unmitigated gall to spin tales of cannibalism in this thread, as if pro-choicers really are the proverbial "baby-eaters" that satirists mention as a joke, and then you dare to claim that you are not making an appeal to emotion. Well, you've appealed to a couple of emotions in me, chief among them being disgust for you and your cheap tactics.

Rights/Consent:
<snip>

Punishment:
<snip>


Responsibility:
<snip>

Errors, lies, and moralistic propaganda yet again.

In re Rights/Consent -- Error. TCT, myself and others have already explained precisely how and why you are wrong time and time again. On the basis that your entire argument misses reality, it is rejected. Come up with a better one, or drop that argument, because your approach does nothing but fail.

In re Punishment -- Lie. The practical effect of all abortion ban laws is to turn pregnancy into a punishment for being female. You may not like that, but that's the way it works in places like Equador that have exactly the kinds of laws you desire. Also, you are lying about your own attitude because in the very next paragraph you put all responsibility for pregnancy onto women (abandoning your earlier pro forma disclaimers about holding men responsible too, now, eh? (high time; I never believed you)), and cast having to carry a pregnancy as something a woman should not be allowed to avoid, as a consequence of her making a decision you don't approve of. I don't care if you would rather not call that "punishment." Just like "slavery," the dictionary disagrees with you, and all your attempts to manipulate language will not change that.

In re Responsibility: Moralistic propaganda. All your fancy paragraph boils down to is, if a woman wants to be a filthy little non-virgin slut-whore, she has to take the punishment that you say god hands out for that.


Miscellaneous:

<snip>

To me, an informed guess is no basis for making a decision on whether to let a human be allowed to live.
No, you prefer to use uninformed guesses as the basis for such a decision.

<snip>

Originally Posted by Cabra West
What's unnatural about getting injured? And what's natural about being pregnant? And since when is something morally justifiable just cause it's natural? Cannibalism is natural when food is scarce, and yet we wouldn't morally agree with it, would we?

And actually, I would morally agree with cannibalism for survival. (Think of the soccer team that crashed in the Andes. They ate some of their dead to survive. I have no problem with that. Do you?)

And yet you referred to cannibalism and the eating of dead fetuses as part of your argument against not classifying fetuses as persons. Your lack of consistency is making you laughable.

Heh. If I do I'll patent it and become a rich philosopher...

Wait... that's an oxymoronl, ain't it?

Bah.

Hehe. I already have a standard, but you don't see me trying to publish it. My views on metaphysics and morality and religion are much more interesting anyway. Someone might actually bother reading those.

Although I never would have an abortion myself, (especially now that I am pregnant and see how fast the fetus actually develops.) I am fervently prochoice.


Making abortions illegal will not stop abortions. It will just risk the mother's life as well as the mother tries unsafe methods. A desperate woman is capable of a lot, especially a desperate teenage without much experience or stake in the world.
Furthermore, those with money and affluence will still be able to travel and have abortions elsewhere, countries where it is still legal, where poor women (and often the women who would be most affected, and the women with least knowledge on birth control methods) would not have that option.

My mother had an abortion when she was a teenager and was raped by a family member. As if that experience would have been traumatic enough, you want to force someone in that situation to have a child?

I escaped poverty. There was a time I was walking 8 miles to and 8 miles from work five days a week, plus 50 hour work weeks, so that I could save money to rise above the situations I came from. I can't imagine if I got pregnant then-- I wouldn't have been able to manage that pregnant, and how would I have afforded childcare? I mean, I'm pregnant now despite birth control pills (no antibiotics, no missing pills) - sometimes it happens. I am lucky now to have a husband who ensures we will have no problems properly raising a child. Plus, working over 30 hours a week during pregnancy has shown the same risk of pre-term and low birthweight children as smoking during pregnancy.

What about in cases where a woman is a drug addict and can not stay sober?

So really, I think we can't know all situations, and even if you would not have an abortion yourself... it's been illegal before. Didn't work. Caused even more deaths.

Also, I think this is an issue of morality because the contested idea of when life begins... I like the government to stay out of my life, finances, and morality as much as possible. Such measures as trying to make a federal law to make abortion illegal merely expand the scope and power of the federal government. No thanks.

More death, not lives saved, and expanded power of the fed... mmm, no, can't back that.

My motto in the whole thing is "Choose life, but CHOOSE."

I mentioned this conversation to a friend of mine, and I feel like sharing her reaction:

"Yeah, some people don't like the idea of me getting an abortion, but that doesn't matter to me at all. Only thing that I care about is, how do they plan to stop me?"

This being the imperative. If they weren't dead before being eaten?

She simply said cannibalism. Now you're introducing the element of murder. Different landscape.


Errors, lies, and moralistic propaganda yet again.


Well the civility was nice while it lasted. You just can't resist reverting, can you? (Here's the part where you justify it. G'head. You know you want to.)

Hehe. I already have a standard, but you don't see me trying to publish it. My views on metaphysics and morality and religion are much more interesting anyway. Someone might actually bother reading those.

You should post it sometime.

Well, I assumed that was implied, as really, I think one would have a hard time arguing the immorality of eating already dead people if it was necessary for survival.

And in other cases where there is natural death involved ? Perhaps there are silly people that believe that being consumed by humans is better than being consumed by worms.

She simply said cannibalism. Now you're introducing the element of murder. Different landscape.

Well, I assumed that was implied, as really, I think one would have a hard time arguing the immorality of eating already dead people if it was necessary for survival.

You should post it sometime.

Why, so most of the pro-choicers and the pro-lifers can both perform the intellectual equivalent of barking at me ferociously? That'd just be a waste of time all around.

Isn't there something to be said for putting it out there and letting your opponents have at it, and see how it holds up?:)

Frankly, I'm a lot harder on my own arguments than anyone here. I might discuss it with one of my former philosophy profs, though. He might find a hole I haven't noticed. Or much more likely, an area where it's not completely consistent with my other beliefs. It's hard to eliminate those areas, and I'm not deluded enough to think I can avoid them completely.

Well, I assumed that was implied, as really, I think one would have a hard time arguing the immorality of eating already dead people if it was necessary for survival.

I think it only becomes immoral if you hold out for the BBQ sauce.

Why, so most of the pro-choicers and the pro-lifers can both perform the intellectual equivalent of barking at me ferociously? That'd just be a waste of time all around.

Isn't there something to be said for putting it out there and letting your opponents have at it, and see how it holds up?:)

It does not convey any meaning to me. Do you have any clue what they mean, either? I'm sure a lawyer would love to have a client whose "interests" are whatever the lawyer says they are, provided he somehow gets paid for doing this.

ok, hold up. we know that we can and should protect the interests of beings unable to communicate or even formulate them effectively. think infants and the senile and those in comas. how do we decide what those interests are?

Hehe, without following the conversation you're having with FS, this pretty much sums up the "fetal rights"/"arguing on behalf of fetuses" aspect of the anti-choice debate -- the "payment" being that anti-choicers get to have their way on nothing more than their say-so.

i am still unclear what mura's problem is, given that my argument in favor of abortion is stronger than anything she holds.

i am still unclear what mura's problem is, given that my argument in favor of abortion is stronger than anything she holds.

Lack of fiber?

Lack of fiber?

hah

60% is the number I've seen. Still high, but significantly different.

Almost 90% is the number reported consistently by the Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm):

In 2004, for women from areas where weeks of gestation at the time of abortion were adequately reported (44 reporting areas), 61% of reported legal induced abortions were known to have been obtained at <8 weeks' gestation and 87% at <12 weeks (Table 6). Overall (41 reporting areas), 28% of abortions were known to have been performed at <6 weeks' gestation, 18% at 7 weeks, and 15% at 8 weeks (Table 7). Few reported abortions were known to have occurred after 15 weeks' gestation: 3.7% at 16--20 weeks and 1.3% at >21 weeks.

See, e.g., 2003 (http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm) ("Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 61% were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88% at <13 weeks. "), 2002 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm) ("Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 60% were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88% at <13 weeks. "), 2001 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm) ("Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 59% were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88% at <13 weeks."), 2000 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm) ("Fifty-eight percent of all abortions for which gestational age was reported were performed at <8 weeks of gestation, and 88% were performed before 13 weeks.").

this is a vary controversial case and most boys don't understand the issue enough, however I am a boy and I think that it is more of a females choice than a males. I don't think a male has the right to say that they shouldn't have an abortion. I am pro choice in this case and I believe that things happen as they should and you shouldn't fight something that is inevitable. yes you can change minor details and what is wished for seems to usually happen for me so the the female who is pregnant should have the right of abortion and if she cant she may have a miscarriage from her unwilling wish for the baby to go away. it would end in the baby's death in ether case.

Try reading Article III (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/). Particularly Section 2.
Uhuh. I read it. Now what?

I guess you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Article III, Section 2 makes clear that the judicial power (invested by Article III, Section 1 in the Supreme Court and inferior federal courts) includes the power to decide the meaning of the Constitution:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution ...
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned [within the judicial power of the United States], the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

If this is not clear enough for you, I refer you to The Federalist #78 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm) which makes it crystalline. I quote just some of the relevant discussion (emphasis added):

"The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."



Finally, if Marbury v. Madison (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/5/137.html), 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), were nothing but a power-grab, the legislative and executive branches have had over 200 years to correct the usurpation. Their lack of action on this point speaks for itself. Regardless, Chief Justice Marshall (for a unanimous Court) correctly explained:

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.
5 U.S. at 177-178.

ok, hold up. we know that we can and should protect the interests of beings unable to communicate or even formulate them effectively. think infants and the senile and those in comas. how do we decide what those interests are?
That is difficult, certainly.
But those are sentient beings, who actually do HAVE interests (the comatose are not currently "sentient", but we assume the possibility of waking; Terry Schiavo had no "interests"). What I am pointing out to you is that plants, rocks, and abstractions like "ecosystems" do not have any "interests" in the first place, although HUMANS may have intersts in what happens to the plants or the rocks or the systems.

<snip>

Well the civility was nice while it lasted. You just can't resist reverting, can you? (Here's the part where you justify it. G'head. You know you want to.)

<snip>

And is this also the part where you fail defend your argument -- don't even try to defend it, let alone address the points I made -- and resort to insulting remarks against my personality instead -- again?

I am as civil towards your arguments as they deserve.

EDIT:

Like this charming personal attack:

Originally Posted by Free Soviets
i am still unclear what mura's problem is, given that my argument in favor of abortion is stronger than anything she holds.
Lack of fiber?

the comatose are not currently "sentient", but we assume the possibility of waking; Terry Schiavo had no "interests"

so raping her would be fine?

And is this also the part where you fail defend your argument -- don't even try to defend it, let alone address the points I made -- and resort to insulting remarks against my personality instead -- again?

Yes, yes I quake in fear at the might of your overwhelming arguments. That must be it. Although it's very endearing to me the way you try and play the victim. It's really kinda cute.


I am as civil towards your arguments as they deserve.


And the expected justification. Predictable as a clock.


EDIT:

Like this charming personal attack:

Oh Wah. It was a joke. Get over yourself.

I guess you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Translation: "Anybody who doesn't see things my way must be missing the point. After all, I'm never wrong so..."


Article III, Section 2 makes clear that the judicial power (invested by Article III, Section 1 in the Supreme Court and inferior federal courts) includes the power to decide the meaning of the Constitution:


No, it does not say that. You want to present yourself as an expert in the law, fine, whatever. But historical fact tells a different story. Nothing in this paragraph describes the power you're referencing.


"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution ...
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned [within the judicial power of the United States], the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Nothing. Surprise! The rest of your text isn't to be found in the Constitution. The power to decide Constitutionality came later. Here's a quick Wiki quote for you. If you want the rest of the article just Wiki 'SCOTUS.'


That changed during the Marshall Court (1801–1836), which declared the Court to be the supreme arbiter of the Constitution (see Marbury v. Madison) and made a number of important rulings which gave shape and substance to the constitutional balance of power between the federal government (referred to at the time as the "general" government) and the states. In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, the Court ruled that it had the power to correct interpretations of the federal Constitution made by state supreme courts. Both Marbury and Martin confirmed that the Supreme Court was the body entrusted with maintaining the consistent and orderly development of federal law.




If this is not clear enough for you, I refer you to The Federalist #78 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm) which makes it crystalline. I quote just some of the relevant discussion (emphasis added):



You seriously need to get over yourself. Your imperious tone doesn't win you the points in a debate you seem to think it does. When people disagree with you you seem to presume that it's because they're not seeing your point. You need to understand that people can disagree with you even when they know exactly what you're saying.

Especially when your historical facts are in error.

This topic......again? I think I'll just watch this time even though I'm anti-abortion.I and Muravyets have had our arguements....good times...good times.Muravyets, I find you fun to argue with because you are my exact opposite(on this subject anyway).Murav,you kicked my ass last time so like I said for now I'm just watching.

Don't change you're mind Murav,I'll be back to throw words at you later.:D

so raping her would be fine?

At one point she was conscious, and it would be reasonable to suppose that she had preferences regarding the future state of her living body. Since we have strong reasons not to reduce the valuation of preferences to an actual sensation of pain and pleasure, there is no reason to deny recognition of that preference after she is no longer conscious.

So, no, she has no interests, but she had interests, and those interests should still be safeguarded.

Regardless of whether or not the girl was raped, a human is conceived. Is it tragic? Yes, but more tragic is the thought that every day over 5,000 unborn babies are slaughtered in the name of women's rights.

When we give up on the rights of the future generation, we forfeit our own rights. Because if you want to boil it down to a cells argument, then we are all a pile of cells. But those cells function together, in a unique complex manner, so that each one of us is alive and conscious.

And when the law can execute a murderer for killing an unborn child, how can it allow an abortionist to do the same at the same term of pregnancy? Abortion is murder, plain and simple. Because whether or not you consider it human yet, it will become a human baby. And that human baby has every right to the breath you and I breathe, as we do. He/She has a future. Abortion may have already killed the man or woman who could cure AIDS, or cancer, or any number of diseases. Abortion is killing our future.

We may as well forget about adoption. All those rich couples who can't have children of their own. Those who are too snobby to take a child from a third world country, just because they want a child that looks like them. No, let us deny them the joy of raising a child that they can love and nurture, and spoil. Let us forget how much joy a child brings into the lives of families, with its laughter and innocence. No, of course...abortion is the only way to go.

God forbid that in cases of incest, the child be born deformed or crippled or mentally ill. God forbid that we let them have a chance of enjoying a life, regardless of their handicaps. No, let us make the choice for them. Because after all, we as humans know best. We did after all develop a nuclear warhead, and use two of them on enemies. We do after all go to war over greed and politics, and kill each other for no more than a dollar. God forbid that we actually have a heart, and love each other, no matter what.

God forbid that we actually do something right for a change, and usher in a child into the world, and raise them to be strong and just individuals. Individuals with strong moral fiber, and good character. Individuals that people can look up to, and admire. Individuals that can make a difference.

No, let's just kill them, and call it by a fancy name. When the truth is, the doctor takes a vacuum and sucks the fetus out of the womb when the abortion isn't a success. Or, when an abortion fails, and the fetus is thrown in a trash can still alive, and it is left to die. No, women have a right to kill their babies. God forbid they actually become mothers at the tender age of 16, regardless of the fact that civilizations have been marrying girls off at ages as young as 9 and 10.

Of course, we pampered Americans cannot handle the stress of such a thing. And when the mother feels bad about the abortion later, the people around her tell her she's imagining things. But the reality is, she can't seem to quit thinking about what her child might have grown up to be. Nor can she erase the longing she feels to know that child. Even if it is 5 years, 10 years, or 40 years down the road.

God forbid, we as human beings actually do something good, and allow life to flourish. God forbid.

8/10

You're getting better. Regardless of whether or not the girl was raped, a human is conceived. Is it tragic? Yes, but more tragic is the thought that every day over 5,000 unborn babies are slaughtered in the name of women's rights.

Right there in the first paragraph you put "unborn babies" in a sentence with the word "slaughter" and link this to the ever-loathed rights of women. Strong start.


When we give up on the rights of the future generation, we forfeit our own rights. Because if you want to boil it down to a cells argument, then we are all a pile of cells. But those cells function together, in a unique complex manner, so that each one of us is alive and conscious.

The slippery slope argument is timeless. It works for arguing that gay people shouldn't have rights and women shouldn't get the vote, and it sure as hell is useful here!


And when the law can execute a murderer for killing an unborn child, how can it allow an abortionist to do the same at the same term of pregnancy? Abortion is murder, plain and simple. Because whether or not you consider it human yet, it will become a human baby. And that human baby has every right to the breath you and I breathe, as we do. He/She has a future. Abortion may have already killed the man or woman who could cure AIDS, or cancer, or any number of diseases. Abortion is killing our future.

It is important to always remember to repeat the "potential = actual" lie that has been a mainstay of anti-choice rhetoric for decades. It wouldn't be a poorly-constructed anti-choice screed without this.

It's also great how you invoke the laws on fetal "murder" which were pushed through by anti-choicers specifically as a back-door tactic, but you pretend as if these laws had some other source.


We may as well forget about adoption. All those rich couples who can't have children of their own. Those who are too snobby to take a child from a third world country, just because they want a child that looks like them. No, let us deny them the joy of raising a child that they can love and nurture, and spoil. Let us forget how much joy a child brings into the lives of families, with its laughter and innocence. No, of course...abortion is the only way to go.

You seem to dislike rich snobs, which we can all get behind, but you appear to be arguing that wealthy people who are too snobby to care about needy children should be forced to produce biological children of their own. It would probably be better if you put this in the form of a "consequence." Like, "Rich women are selfish gold-digging whores who need to be brought down a peg, and forced childbirth is just the ticket."


God forbid that in cases of incest, the child be born deformed or crippled or mentally ill. God forbid that we let them have a chance of enjoying a life, regardless of their handicaps. No, let us make the choice for them. Because after all, we as humans know best. We did after all develop a nuclear warhead, and use two of them on enemies. We do after all go to war over greed and politics, and kill each other for no more than a dollar. God forbid that we actually have a heart, and love each other, no matter what.

You come tantalizingly close to invoking the genocides of WWII, but you don't quite pay off. You also advocate that we worry about what the fetus would choose, but immediately turn around and insist that humans can't be trusted to make such choices. I don't think the world is ready for the "fetuses are super-human" theory.


God forbid that we actually do something right for a change, and usher in a child into the world, and raise them to be strong and just individuals. Individuals with strong moral fiber, and good character. Individuals that people can look up to, and admire. Individuals that can make a difference.

Wandering, vague, irrelevant. Perfect for an anti-choice argument.


No, let's just kill them, and call it by a fancy name. When the truth is, the doctor takes a vacuum and sucks the fetus out of the womb when the abortion isn't a success.

Emphasize this more! Everyone knows that icky = wrong!


Or, when an abortion fails, and the fetus is thrown in a trash can still alive, and it is left to die.

This is your one major stumble. Abortion is a 100% effective way to prevent a woman from throwing her born infant in the trash, after all, so trashcan babies don't support your stance in the least.


No, women have a right to kill their babies. God forbid they actually become mothers at the tender age of 16, regardless of the fact that civilizations have been marrying girls off at ages as young as 9 and 10.

For all of human history, younger generations have loved being told that they're wimpy compared to previous generations. One of the best ways to win friends and influence people is to remind them that back in your day they sold 9 year old girls to be raped by men four times their age, up hill both ways.


Of course, we pampered Americans cannot handle the stress of such a thing. And when the mother feels bad about the abortion later, the people around her tell her she's imagining things.

This is brilliant, because it doesn't even rise to the level of anecdotal evidence.


But the reality is, she can't seem to quit thinking about what her child might have grown up to be. Nor can she erase the longing she feels to know that child. Even if it is 5 years, 10 years, or 40 years down the road.

If there's one thing women need, it's more ignorant yahoos telling them what they think and feel. I know that I wouldn't even have a favorite color without total strangers over the internet letting me know that I really love pink because it's so soft and feminine.


God forbid, we as human beings actually do something good, and allow life to flourish. God forbid.
Solid closing, with a mournful and yet self-righteous invoking of the Lord.

Over all, I think this was a very strong performance.

After hearing of the March for Life yesterday in Washington, D.C., I was curious as to see the general consensus on the topic.
HEres the thing:
if you are stupid enough to not take precautions during sex, why should the child pay the price, is my question to pro-abortion groups.
and for the anti-abortion groups: you want the baby to live right? so how will it be taken care of? by a bunch of horny teenagers?
Solution: anyone Pro-abortionists who refuse to answer this question right, should have their tubes tied off, anti abortionists should take care of all the orphanges in the country.
but i do support abortion if it save the mother due to complications or rape.
oh and heres my question to the pros on this forum:
can you honestly terminate that?
http://www.multiplesoutlet.com/members/701515/uploaded/baby_oneseis.jpg

epic lulz

Impressive, but you missed the 'it might grow up to cure cancer!' line. :p

Yes, yes I quake in fear at the might of your overwhelming arguments. That must be it. Although it's very endearing to me the way you try and play the victim. It's really kinda cute.



And the expected justification. Predictable as a clock.



Oh Wah. It was a joke. Get over yourself.

It was an insult, just like the first part of the post above is an insult. I don't expect you to start showing civility. I just wish (vainly) that you would quit accusing me of, and scolding me for, being uncivil, when you can barely stop short of outright flaming of me.

If you really find it impossible to argue the topic rather than mock and insult me personally, you can always put me on ignore, just like I did with FS. It won't stop me from attacking your arguments, just like it didn't stop FS from commenting about me, but at least you'll get back to posting your propaganda, instead of just revealing yourself to be a hypocrite.


EDIT: By the way, you're wrong again, about yet another thing. That line you called a "justification," was not a justification. It was a dismissal.

This topic......again? I think I'll just watch this time even though I'm anti-abortion.I and Muravyets have had our arguements....good times...good times.Muravyets, I find you fun to argue with because you are my exact opposite(on this subject anyway).Murav,you kicked my ass last time so like I said for now I'm just watching.

Don't change you're mind Murav,I'll be back to throw words at you later.:D
Haha, if you're taking notes from this thread, then I look forward to a tough fight against well structured arguments. Yay, for challenge. :D

HEres the thing:
if you are stupid enough to not take precautions during sex, why should the child pay the price, is my question to pro-abortion groups.
and for the anti-abortion groups: you want the baby to live right? so how will it be taken care of? by a bunch of horny teenagers?
Solution: anyone Pro-abortionists who refuse to answer this question right, should have their tubes tied off, anti abortionists should take care of all the orphanges in the country.
but i do support abortion if it save the mother due to complications or rape.
oh and heres my question to the pros on this forum:
can you honestly terminate that?
http://www.multiplesoutlet.com/members/701515/uploaded/baby_oneseis.jpg

phew thanks for linking to a cute picture.

no, you cannot honestly terminate a 3 month old baby.

your solutions are not practical.

how would you have a woman prove that she was using some form of birth control at the time she got pregnant?

At one point she was conscious, and it would be reasonable to suppose that she had preferences regarding the future state of her living body. Since we have strong reasons not to reduce the valuation of preferences to an actual sensation of pain and pleasure, there is no reason to deny recognition of that preference after she is no longer conscious.

So, no, she has no interests, but she had interests, and those interests should still be safeguarded.

whatever we call them, how do we go about figuring out what those most certainly unstated preferences/interests/whatever are? what ought be safeguarded?

whatever we call them, how do we go about figuring out what those most certainly unstated preferences/interests/whatever are?

By using whatever information we have as to their preferences in their prior conscious state, or, failing that, by considering what we would want for ourselves in their place.

By using whatever information we have as to their preferences in their prior conscious state, or, failing that, by considering what we would want for ourselves in their place.

and when we consider what we would want, we have to do this at some level of abstraction, right? we aren't talking about either trivial preferences of ours, or preferences of ours that we know aren't widely shared, for example. and so we must instead be considering something more like what is good for them, right?

That's an interesting point, but I'd maintain that the life-changing decision was made long before the question of abortion came up.



See, I think that's where Bottle got it right :
Does going out on a date imply consent to sex? Does snogging imply consent to sex? Does lying in bed together naked imply consent to sex?
No. Consent needs to be given at every stage, and a decision can be changed at any moment. And once consent is withdrawn, anything further can and will be regarded as rape.
That also applies to possible pregnancy. Just cause I had sex doesn't mean I gave consent to carry a pregnancy to term.


Getting injured is a detriment to the survival of the species. Pregnancy is absolutely necessary for it.

That doesn't make injuries any less natural. Or pregnancies any more desirable, for that matter.


And actually, I would morally agree with cannibalism for survival. (Think of the soccer team that crashed in the Andes. They ate some of their dead to survive. I have no problem with that. Do you?)

No. Personally, I don't even really have a problem with that guy who found someone suicidal over the internet to invite home and eat. It was done consentially, although the mental health of the main course might be up for debate.


Statistically, being pregnant has long term benefits on the female body, like reduced likelihood of breast cancer for example.

That certainly balances the statistical possibility of dying while giving birth.


Actually I have. You just disagree with my reasoning ;)

I'm having trouble finding reason in it, I have to admit, yes.

To Bottle:

The rich snobs deal was pure sarcasm...I'm sure you are familiar with that word.


Abortion is a 100% effective way to prevent a woman from throwing her born infant in the trash...

Except when it is the doctor who is throwing the baby in the trash.

Et cetera, et cetera, you know the pro-life line. But here is a twist...a website dedicated to abortion survivors...yeah those fetuses that you thought were dead survived...this website is dedicated to a few of them.

http://joseromia.tripod.com/survivors.html

HEres the thing:
if you are stupid enough to not take precautions during sex, why should the child pay the price, is my question to pro-abortion groups.
]

Just an aside, precautions do not always ensure no baby. Only abstinence does that. I am pregnant despite "precautions" (I am married and able to take care of a child financially and physically/emotionally able to handle pregnancy; so thankfully it's not a big issue) Birth control pills and condoms are not 100% effective even when used appropriately.

and so we must instead be considering something more like what is good for them, right?

Right. But not in any absolute sense. "What is good for them" can only be defined relative to what they would will for themselves. That's always the case, whatever the circumstances of the person in question. The problem is not ethical, but epistemological: "How can we know what they would will for themselves?"

A different kind of problem applies to deciding what is "good" (in a moral sense demanding consideration) for something like an ecosystem, that has no will and no preferences at all. It is not a difficulty in using a standard, but a lack of a standard. The sort of equality at the heart of morality, the equality that leads us to respect entities independent of the utility to us, gets us nowhere: we can grant equal consideration to an ecosystem, but what is it that we are considering? There can be no element of empathy here, no element of "if I were Entity X I would object to your behavior," because if we were non-sentient we would have no will and no desires with which to object.

Translation: "Anybody who doesn't see things my way must be missing the point. After all, I'm never wrong so..."

No, it does not say that. You want to present yourself as an expert in the law, fine, whatever. But historical fact tells a different story. Nothing in this paragraph describes the power you're referencing.

Nothing. Surprise! The rest of your text isn't to be found in the Constitution. The power to decide Constitutionality came later. Here's a quick Wiki quote for you. If you want the rest of the article just Wiki 'SCOTUS.'

You seriously need to get over yourself. Your imperious tone doesn't win you the points in a debate you seem to think it does. When people disagree with you you seem to presume that it's because they're not seeing your point. You need to understand that people can disagree with you even when they know exactly what you're saying.

Especially when your historical facts are in error.

1. As to the comments about my debate style and tone, pot calls the kettle.

2. I do recognize that my tone can be imperious (good word, btw). I'll try to work on it. But it is a bit difficult to control one's scorn when a layman is speaking utter nonsense about the law. Your views on abortion are one thing, but your denial of judicial review is beyond the pale.

3. Are you seriously relying on a Wikipedia article? I cited not just the Constitution itself but also the writings of the Founders and 200 years of Supreme Court precedent. Even if the Wiki article said what you think -- and it doesn't--it would hardly be convincing evidence of the "historical facts."

4. Pray tell, how does the Supreme Court have the power to decide Fact and Law in every case arising under the Constitution, but not have the power to interpet the Constitution itself? Care to address the actual logic of Federalist 78 and Marbury v. Madison?

5. Reardless your understanding of "historical facts" is severly lacking. Judicial review did not spring full-blown from the brain of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury. The concept had been long known. The generation that framed the Constitution presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to the Constitution. They held this presumption because of colonial American practice. Judicial review in the English common law originated at least as early as Dr. Bonham's Case (http://plaza.ufl.edu/edale/Dr%20Bonham's%20Case.htm) in 1610. Judicial review was utilized in a much more limited form by Privy Council review of colonial legislation and its validity under the colonial charters. In 1761 James Otis, in the Writs of Assistance Case (http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/writs.htm) in Boston, argued that British officers had no power under the law to use search warrants that did not stipulate the object of the search. Otis based his challenge to the underlying act of Parliament on Bonham's Case, the English Constitution, and the principle of “natural equity.” John Adams subsequently adopted this reasoning to defend the rights of Americans by appeal to a law superior to parliamentary enactment. And there were several instances known to the Founders of state court invalidation of state legislation as inconsistent with state constitutions.

Practically all of the Founders who expressed an opinion on the issue in the Constitutional Convention appear to have assumed and welcomed the existence of court review of the constitutionality of legislation, and I have already noted the power of judicial review was explicity set forth in The Federalist Papers (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html). Similar statements affirming the power of judicial review were made by Founders duing the state ratifying conventions. In enacting the Judiciary Act of 1789 (http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm), Congress explicitly made provision for the exercise of the power, and in other debates questions of constitutionality and of judicial review were prominent.

And, as I have also noted, in the 200 years since Marbury the power of judicial review has been accepted and further expounded. If it were truly a mere power-grab, it could have long ago been nullified. Objections to judicial review motivated by a dislike for a specific line of caselaw are both historically inaccurate and rather tedious. (In writing this brief overview of some of the history of judicial review, I've relied on numerous sources beyond the original sources linked above. I wouldn't claim to have known all of the above off the top of my head. :))

Right. But not in any absolute sense. "What is good for them" can only be defined relative to what they would will for themselves. That's always the case, whatever the circumstances of the person in question. The problem is not ethical, but epistemological: "How can we know what they would will for themselves?"

even in the case of crazy people or the brain-damaged, or people who can't feel pain but love playing sports? shit, even you and me have most likely preferred or willed things that were objectively opposed to our interests (or whatever we want to call the concept i'm grasping for here). we were teenagers once, after all. there is most certainly an at least quasi-objective sense of good at work, and our interests are what aligns with that good, regardless of whether we currently recognize such.

There can be no element of empathy here, no element of "if I were Entity X I would object to your behavior," because if we were non-sentient we would have no will and no desires with which to object.

of course, if we were the person in a coma we would will and desire nothing, and if we were the crazy person who wishes to cut themselves we would will and desire as crazily as they do, and so would not in fact object. so when we make these sorts of considerations, we have to allow for normalizing in the case of impaired humans in order to have them make sense. similarly, we must engage in some limited anthropomorphizing when considering the more abstract parts of the non-human realm.

[clumps of cells are not people if that where the case I would be arrested for shaving also how does one march for life? (I presume this is the opposite of a death march)


I totally agree. They actually have found stem cells that could be used to treat DREADFUL diseases like lupus, or arthritis. No more fony pills that make u vomit and suposedly cure pain. If only George BUsh was intelligent.............:(

shit, even you and me have most likely preferred or willed things that were objectively opposed to our interests (or whatever we want to call the concept i'm grasping for here).

Of course, but they were also opposed to the sum total of our preferences.

As far as "concrete" questions of will--like "Should I let him have this piece of candy?"--the question is less "Will he say he wants it if I ask?" and more "If he were in his right mind and fully aware of the consequences, would he rationally choose to undertake this action?"

When it comes to dealing with people who for whatever reason are possessed of poor judgment, insofar as we are justified in restricting the expression of their preferences, we are justified because we do so in deference to their preferences as a whole. Perhaps she prefers to indulge in cocaine, but does she prefer to ruin her life as a consequence?

We are not justified if what we do instead is replace their conception of what a good life constitutes, fully conceived and understood in the light of reason and knowledge that the person may be lacking, with someone else's.

It may also be reasonable to restrict a person's autonomy in line with respecting the autonomy of a future self of theirs that may have a different conception of a good life.

of course, if we were the person in a coma we would will and desire nothing,

Right, but as I said in my original post, we are obligated to treat them in certain ways in deference to the autonomy of the person they were. In considering what we would will for ourselves in their place, "their place" is not them in a coma but them prior to being in a coma.

and if we were the crazy person who wishes to cut themselves we would will and desire as crazily as they do,

They are not in their right minds. By "right mind" I do not mean any sense of normality--my intent is not to say that they have violated human norms of desire, though that may be an indicator. Rather, it is to say that their capacity for rational judgment is distorted. They do not know what they will and cannot act in accordance with it.

similarly, we must engage in some limited anthropomorphizing when considering the more abstract parts of the non-human realm.
We MUST??? No, we do not have to do that. In fact I would consider it very stupid to make any decisions based on what we know to be false.

We MUST??? No, we do not have to do that. In fact I would consider it very stupid to make any decisions based on what we know to be false.

there is a fact of the matter about what things are good for an ecosystem and what things are not. that good is what is in its interest. this is actually a less problematic idea than the widely accepted 'public interest'. anyways, when contemplating those interests, we must do some limited anthropomorphizing, because that is the best way for us to think about such issues.

It was an insult, just like the first part of the post above is an insult. I don't expect you to start showing civility. I just wish (vainly) that you would quit accusing me of, and scolding me for, being uncivil, when you can barely stop short of outright flaming of me.

If you really find it impossible to argue the topic rather than mock and insult me personally, you can always put me on ignore, just like I did with FS. It won't stop me from attacking your arguments, just like it didn't stop FS from commenting about me, but at least you'll get back to posting your propaganda, instead of just revealing yourself to be a hypocrite.


EDIT: By the way, you're wrong again, about yet another thing. That line you called a "justification," was not a justification. It was a dismissal.

Cry me a river, Muravyets. You opened up hostilities, not I, and even when I responded I was milder by far than you. I have nothing to prove so you can keep the shots up if you want, but I'm done with this pissing match.

See, I think that's where Bottle got it right :
Does going out on a date imply consent to sex? Does snogging imply consent to sex? Does lying in bed together naked imply consent to sex?
No. Consent needs to be given at every stage, and a decision can be changed at any moment. And once consent is withdrawn, anything further can and will be regarded as rape.
That also applies to possible pregnancy. Just cause I had sex doesn't mean I gave consent to carry a pregnancy to term.


The difference is that at each step you listed, conscious thought is involved in either proceeding or not. Once sex is done, a person doesn't consciously go one way or the other, it all happens it's own way, thus, the last stage of conscious intent is the one where the decision gets made. Namely, sex.


That doesn't make injuries any less natural. Or pregnancies any more desirable, for that matter.


Injury is common, not natural. Maybe you and I are using two different meanings.


No. Personally, I don't even really have a problem with that guy who found someone suicidal over the internet to invite home and eat. It was done consentially, although the mental health of the main course might be up for debate.


Agreed.




That certainly balances the statistical possibility of dying while giving birth.


Actually, I think it does. Complications due to pregnancy isn't anywhere near the top of the list of causes of death in women. Breast cancer is.

1. As to the comments about my debate style and tone, pot calls the kettle.

Looking at my overall posts history, you can't say I haven't made an effort to keep a civil tone.


2. I do recognize that my tone can be imperious (good word, btw). I'll try to work on it. But it is a bit difficult to control one's scorn when a layman is speaking utter nonsense about the law. Your views on abortion are one thing, but your denial of judicial review is beyond the pale.

I'm not a law expert, and if I seem to come across as pretending to be, I certainly don't mean to. To me, the whole law issue is of minor importance in the grand scheme of the debate. Abortions are already legal, that's not a matter of dispute. More on that in a sec.


3. Are you seriously relying on a Wikipedia article? I cited not just the Constitution itself but also the writings of the Founders and 200 years of Supreme Court precedent. Even if the Wiki article said what you think -- and it doesn't--it would hardly be convincing evidence of the "historical facts."


I'm the first to acknowledge that as a source, Wiki blows monkey chunks. (Although it's annoying that whenever I call others out on that, suddenly Wiki becomes gospel. c'est la vie I guess.) But I used it because I was at work and knew it would be a quick place to go and because it matches what I was taught in school. That was one of the big things the instructor focused on, that initially the SCOTUS didn't have the power to declare laws unconstitutional, but that it came later as a result of the decision in question.

In any case, I also didn't mean to come across as having a problem with that power. Frankly I think it's a good one. But, IMHO, The Supreme Court made a mistake with RvW on the grounds that it legalizes a form of killing humans sans due process.

But that's where we disagree, so it is what it is.


4. Pray tell, how does the Supreme Court have the power to decide Fact and Law in every case arising under the Constitution, but not have the power to interpet the Constitution itself? Care to address the actual logic of Federalist 78 and Marbury v. Madison?

IIRC, (and yes this is off the top of my head) Marbury Vs. Madison was a case the Supreme Court was supposed to rule on, but did not do so because it instead called one of the laws involved Unconstitutional.

<snip>


(In writing this brief overview of some of the history of judicial review, I've relied on numerous sources beyond the original sources linked above. I wouldn't claim to have known all of the above off the top of my head. :))

Acknowledged.

That's politics for you.

If we can find a way to show that a foetus is actually an 'illegal immigrant', in legal terms... and that the lack of clearly defined gender in an early term foetus is basically the same as 'being gay'... the Republican pary would stop opposing abortion, completely.

Hell, they'd mandate it.

I bet that Republicans are more pro-choice than Democrats. I mean 73% pro-choice! That is an overwhelming majority. I just do not understand why both parties are not pro-choice.

there is a fact of the matter about what things are good for an ecosystem and what things are not.
No, no, no: ecosystems will do whatever the physical laws compel; some of these outcomes are good FOR HUMANS and some are not, but nothing is either "good" or "bad" for the abstraction known as the "system".
that good is what is in its interest.
No: we must decide what is in OUR interest. IT isn't "interested" in what we like or don't like. In response to a massive asteroid strike, the system shed all its dinosaurians and other megafauna, and generated new ones; this was not in the dinosaurs' interest, although in retrospect it was in ours; the "system" just DID NOT CARE, or more precisely, does not have the capacity to be "interested".
this is actually a less problematic idea than the widely accepted 'public interest'. anyways, when contemplating those interests, we must do some limited anthropomorphizing, because that is the best way for us to think about such issues.
No, no, no, anthropomorphizing an impersonal abstraction is the absolute worst way to think about this, because it has no element of truth.

The difference is that at each step you listed, conscious thought is involved in either proceeding or not. Once sex is done, a person doesn't consciously go one way or the other, it all happens it's own way, thus, the last stage of conscious intent is the one where the decision gets made. Namely, sex.


That's only if you choose not to make any more conscious decisions after that. You can choose to do that at any stage, though. I can decide to just go with the flow and see what happens from the moment I first meet a person, or I can decide that, no, I don't want that.


Injury is common, not natural. Maybe you and I are using two different meanings.


We most certainly are. ;)
I suspect what you were trying to do was use the word "natural" to imply "desirable". It's been used that way a lot in the past, things are labelled "unnatural" to say that they're in fact undesirable or immoral (see homosexuality, for example). But that's a slippery slope, not everything that's natural is desirable. War is natural for primates, yet it's neither moral nor desirable. Brushing your teeth and using deodorant is not natural, yet I'd say most people find it definitely desirable.

Injuries are natural in the sense that most people will experience a good few of them in their lifetime. They're not desirable, but mostly unavoidable.
Pregnancy is natural in the sense that most women will experience one or more in their lifetime. Yet the question if they're desirable can only be answered case by case.
Both injuries and pregnancies can be treated and "cured".



Actually, I think it does. Complications due to pregnancy isn't anywhere near the top of the list of causes of death in women. Breast cancer is.

Really?
1600 women die every day (http://gentlebirth.org/archives/matmort2.html) in childbirth. How many die each day due to breast cancer?

Cry me a river, Muravyets. You opened up hostilities, not I, and even when I responded I was milder by far than you. I have nothing to prove so you can keep the shots up if you want, but I'm done with this pissing match.
A) You call me "abrasive" and I am abrasive. That is not the same as insulting people, putting down their intelligence, suggesting they have "problems" of a mental or emotional nature, or making jokes about them to other people, as you have done. You can keep up your "I'm the civil one" act if you like. Your words are on the screen for all to judge for themselves.

B) I don't believe you. You have turned every single debate we have shared into a personal pissing match between us, and I don't believe you're going to give that up now. But we shall see, shan't we?

I can put FS on ignore because our arguments are not germane to each other and do not compete with each other, so there is no need for us to refer to each other, especially since I dislike his tactics so much that I can't keep my cool while engaging with him.

But I cannot ignore you because your argument is the very heart of what I am opposing and arguing against. So unless you choose to ignore me, then you are stuck with me as an opponent, as uncivil as you may find me. I have no intention of changing my tone, and I will no longer ask you to refrain from ad hominems and personal insults, either to or about me.

I will only go on record, as of this moment, in asking you to stop criticising me as doing things that you yourself do too. Do not scold me for being "uncivil" as long as you continue to insult me and make personal jokes at my expense. At least stop being that much of a hypocrite.

Or don't. Your choice. Whatever, the debate will carry on.

No, no, no: ecosystems will do whatever the physical laws compel; some of these outcomes are good FOR HUMANS and some are not, but nothing is either "good" or "bad" for the abstraction known as the "system".

so there is no difference to an ecosystem between cutting it down and causing the extinction of its keystone species, and protecting that ecosystem. they are equivalent in terms of effect on the ecosystem?

When it comes to dealing with people who for whatever reason are possessed of poor judgment, insofar as we are justified in restricting the expression of their preferences, we are justified because we do so in deference to their preferences as a whole. Perhaps she prefers to indulge in cocaine, but does she prefer to ruin her life as a consequence?

We are not justified if what we do instead is replace their conception of what a good life constitutes, fully conceived and understood in the light of reason and knowledge that the person may be lacking, with someone else's.

It may also be reasonable to restrict a person's autonomy in line with respecting the autonomy of a future self of theirs that may have a different conception of a good life.

respect for autonomy is sort of orthogonal to the issue. the farther away from those that can formulate a conception of what is in their interest, the more we must rely on more objective measures of what is good for beings like them in general. so in most cases for humans we defer to their reading of their preferences to see what is in their interests, though there clearly are cases where people's preferences work against their interest.

interests are not a straightforward expression of preferences. in humans, our preferences are typically quite important to our interests because our autonomy is a key component of what we are. we do damage to people by unnecessarily restricting their autonomy. but more generally, to be in something's interest is to be good for that thing.

as a side note, the recourse to past preferences or possible future preferences won't work when it comes to, for example, humans born with brain damage of certain types. they have none, had none, and won't have any later either. we still must act in and protect their interests, and the nature of that interest is just what is good for them..

They are not in their right minds. By "right mind" I do not mean any sense of normality--my intent is not to say that they have violated human norms of desire, though that may be an indicator. Rather, it is to say that their capacity for rational judgment is distorted. They do not know what they will and cannot act in accordance with it.

what are you using 'will' to mean such that a person can act against what they will? are you claiming that underneath the crazy they really will non-crazy?

interests are not a straightforward expression of preferences. in humans, our preferences are typically quite important to our interests because our autonomy is a key component of what we are. we do damage to people by unnecessarily restricting their autonomy. but more generally, to be in something's interest is to be good for that thing.

Yes, and I'm willing to grant that this is not entirely dependent on preferences, though the standard is difficult to pin down. We can speak of what is "good" for an ecosystem without asserting that it benefits anyone in the utilitarian sense.

My point is that we have no reason to take such a notion of "good" into moral consideration. We might give it some other kind of consideration--we might, for instance, have a sort of esteem for a good ecosystem (or a sense of repulsion at a bad one), as we might for a good piece of artwork, or a good human being for that matter. Our consideration of goodness may even motivate us to pursue it as an end in itself--just as an artist might attempt to create a great piece of artwork for its own sake, a society might protect ecosystems for their own sake. But we have no such obligation.

they have none, had none, and won't have any later either. we still must act in and protect their interests, and the nature of that interest is just what is good for them.

I'm willing to bite the bullet on this one. We have no such obligation. We might be justified in doing so anyway--there is something to say for a society that is unwilling to make that sort of decision--but we are not obligated to.

what are you using 'will' to mean such that a person can act against what they will?

We can distinguish between what a person wills for herself as a whole and what a person wills in a particular concrete context, and we can note a contradiction between them if the concrete action is incompatible with the ends viewed holistically--say, a suicidal person whose emotional state causes her to fail to take into account the good (by her conception) she can get out of life. We can even distinguish between what a person wills in a particular concrete context and what she actually does--say, the addict who recognizes that she should not indulge, but goes ahead and does so anyway.

are you claiming that underneath the crazy they really will non-crazy?

In a sense, yes.

Someone who has delusions about reality, who believes adamantly what is not true, can be restrained because if he were aware of the truth, he would not do what he attempts to. Someone who is incapable of sound decision-making, who whatever the state of his knowledge cannot make or act on rational decisions about what to do (because he is overwhelmed by emotion, perhaps), can be restrained because if he were capable of such judgment, he would not do what he attempts to. We need not question his preferences, merely his capacity to rationally express them in his behavior.

Someone who understands her situation, makes rational decisions about it, and has the self-control to act on them cannot be restrained on the basis of what is good for her--even if the ends she pursues are highly abnormal. That abnormality may be an indicator of decision-making that is not rational or a conception of reality that is deluded--but it can only serve as an indicator. It is not a reason in itself.

so there is no difference to an ecosystem between cutting it down and causing the extinction of its keystone species, and protecting that ecosystem. they are equivalent in terms of effect on the ecosystem?
They are DIFFERENT, but the "system" has no PREFERENCES.
~2 billion years ago, the ecosystem was overrun by the cyanophytes, who had mastered the new trick of water-based photosynthesis, flooding the atmosphere with poisonous oxygen and causing the extinction of nearly all previously existing life-forms. Was that "different"? You bet. Was that "good" or "bad"? That's up to us to say. The "system" is always changing, and does not regard any particular kind of change as any better than any other (the system does not "regard" things, at all!)

Really?
1600 women die every day (http://gentlebirth.org/archives/matmort2.html) in childbirth. How many die each day due to breast cancer?

Yeah, but that's outside the U.S., and everyone knows that those people don't matter.

I don't feel it's my position to decide what is right for one woman or another.

I can say the only way I would ever have an abortion is if my life was at risk because of the pregnancy, I was raped and became pregnant (unlikely, I know), I was a victim of incest, or the baby was not expected to survive or have a good quality of life. I would not have an "abortion of convenience" because I know there are couples who would be willing to adopt the child and make sure he/she had a good life.

Looking at my overall posts history, you can't say I haven't made an effort to keep a civil tone.

You have mostly kept a civil tone (although not always) and I appreciate that.

But my comment about the pot and kettle was aimed more towards your comments about me thinking I'm always right and thinking that my opponents must misunderstand me. You've said plenty along those lines (which is typical for a discussion of heat-felt beliefs).

I'm not a law expert, and if I seem to come across as pretending to be, I certainly don't mean to. To me, the whole law issue is of minor importance in the grand scheme of the debate. Abortions are already legal, that's not a matter of dispute. More on that in a sec.

I am a law expert, but I don't try to appeal to that authority but rather let my words and citations speak for themselves. Some of the imperiousness of my tone comes with frustrations in trying to explain law to layman. I'll try to work on that.

I believe you started the discussion about law. I merely stepped in to correct you when you made inaccurate statements about the law.

I recognize that (with the possible exceptions of (1) the burden of proof being on you to justify a change in law and (2) you don't quite grasp the state of the law you oppose) the issue of whether abortion is protected by the Constitution and the fact that abortion is currently in the early stages of pregnancy are moot points to you.

I'm the first to acknowledge that as a source, Wiki blows monkey chunks. (Although it's annoying that whenever I call others out on that, suddenly Wiki becomes gospel. c'est la vie I guess.) But I used it because I was at work and knew it would be a quick place to go and because it matches what I was taught in school. That was one of the big things the instructor focused on, that initially the SCOTUS didn't have the power to declare laws unconstitutional, but that it came later as a result of the decision in question.

I don't know who your instructor was or what he/she taught you. But, while it is correct to say the Court didn't assert and expound upon judicial review prior to Marbury, it is incorrect to say the Court never had that power before Marbury.

I assert that the power of judicial review is expressly codified in Article III, but also that the Founders essentially unanimously viewed the Court as having such a power under the Constitution. That power is the essence of the judiciary's role in our government.

In any case, I also didn't mean to come across as having a problem with that power. Frankly I think it's a good one.

Good. You did come accross as opposed to that power. I'm glad that isn't the case.

But, IMHO, The Supreme Court made a mistake with RvW on the grounds that it legalizes a form of killing humans sans due process.

But that's where we disagree, so it is what it is.

I'd nitpick your phrasing, but essentially this is where we disagree. We can discuss that disagreement about the law if you wish, but it appears the question really doesn't matter to you in the end.

I would note that Roe is just the seminal case and is not the exact state of the law in the U.S. Also, the Constitution protects the life, liberty, and property of persons, not all humans.


IIRC, (and yes this is off the top of my head) Marbury Vs. Madison was a case the Supreme Court was supposed to rule on, but did not do so because it instead called one of the laws involved Unconstitutional.

Well, that isn't entirely accurate and isn't at all responsive to the question I asked. I suggest we just let it go.

FWIW, you might wish to actually read Marbury v. Madison (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/5/137.html), 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), before the next time you opine about it. ;) If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I'll try not to be too pompous or dickish in answering. :D

60% is the number I've seen. Still high, but significantly different.
Almost 90% is the number reported consistently by the Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm):

In 2004, for women from areas where weeks of gestation at the time of abortion were adequately reported (44 reporting areas), 61% of reported legal induced abortions were known to have been obtained at <8 weeks' gestation and 87% at <12 weeks (Table 6). Overall (41 reporting areas), 28% of abortions were known to have been performed at <6 weeks' gestation, 18% at 7 weeks, and 15% at 8 weeks (Table 7). Few reported abortions were known to have occurred after 15 weeks' gestation: 3.7% at 16--20 weeks and 1.3% at >21 weeks.

See, e.g., 2003 (http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm) ("Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 61% were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88% at <13 weeks. "), 2002 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm) ("Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 60% were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88% at <13 weeks. "), 2001 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm) ("Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 59% were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88% at <13 weeks."), 2000 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm) ("Fifty-eight percent of all abortions for which gestational age was reported were performed at <8 weeks of gestation, and 88% were performed before 13 weeks.").

I'm disappointed you've not responded to the above facts. It seems to me they present a serious challenge to your view of abortion practices in the U.S.

About 90% of abortions occur before the threshold you earlier posited as relevant. And, as we've already agreed, most (if not all) of the remaining abortions fit within exceptions that you agree should exist.

A) You call me "abrasive" and I am abrasive. That is not the same as insulting people, putting down their intelligence, suggesting they have "problems" of a mental or emotional nature, or making jokes about them to other people, as you have done. You can keep up your "I'm the civil one" act if you like. Your words are on the screen for all to judge for themselves.

Yes, everything is in public view, and I'm perfectly comfortable with that.


B) I don't believe you. You have turned every single debate we have shared into a personal pissing match between us, and I don't believe you're going to give that up now. But we shall see, shan't we?


See above.


I can put FS on ignore because our arguments are not germane to each other and do not compete with each other, so there is no need for us to refer to each other, especially since I dislike his tactics so much that I can't keep my cool while engaging with him.

But I cannot ignore you because your argument is the very heart of what I am opposing and arguing against. So unless you choose to ignore me, then you are stuck with me as an opponent, as uncivil as you may find me. I have no intention of changing my tone, and I will no longer ask you to refrain from ad hominems and personal insults, either to or about me.


Actually, I'm not stuck with you. No rule says I must respond to you. When you've replied to me in a civil way, I've responded in kind. When it stops being civil, I stop debating you. Anyone who doubts this can go back over the last few pages and see for themselves. In terms of pissing match, I refuse to continue it. In fact, I see little value in going beyond this post unless something truly worthwhile comes up.


I will only go on record, as of this moment, in asking you to stop criticising me as doing things that you yourself do too. Do not scold me for being "uncivil" as long as you continue to insult me and make personal jokes at my expense. At least stop being that much of a hypocrite.


I've reached out to you on several occasions to find a commonality with which to smooth things over. You've rejected every single attempt I've made. The joke I made to FS was not intended as a personal attack, and, if up until now, you'd shown the slightest inclination to reconciliation I'd apologize anyway for the misunderstanding. Since it seems that absolutely no matter what I say you'll turn it into something ugly, I'll not bother.


Or don't. Your choice. Whatever, the debate will carry on.

It will, but that doesn't in any way compel me to respond to you.


I am a law expert, but I don't try to appeal to that authority but rather let my words and citations speak for themselves. Some of the imperiousness of my tone comes with frustrations in trying to explain law to layman. I'll try to work on that.

FWIW I can understand that. I've actually had 2 major careers in my life and I always get incensed when a layman presumes to hold greater knowledge than I. I do understand and I will refrain from doing it to you in the future.


I don't know who your instructor was or what he/she taught you. But, while it is correct to say the Court didn't assert and expound upon judicial review prior to Marbury, it is incorrect to say the Court never had that power before Marbury.

I assert that the power of judicial review is expressly codified in Article III, but also that the Founders essentially unanimously viewed the Court as having such a power under the Constitution. That power is the essence of the judiciary's role in our government.


In the spirit of what you said here:


If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I'll try not to be too pompous or dickish in answering. :D


I do have a question. Earlier, you quoted Article III but in reading it for myself I just didn't see where it says that. Can you clear that up?


I'm disappointed you've not responded to the above facts. It seems to me they present a serious challenge to your view of abortion practices in the U.S.

About 90% of abortions occur before the threshold you earlier posited as relevant. And, as we've already agreed, most (if not all) of the remaining abortions fit within exceptions that you agree should exist.

I haven't replied because I'm still "doing my homework" on it, as it were. I'm backchecking my own source to make sure it's not in error, and comparing it with others. More on that as it comes.

what?
Can you expand on how abortion leads to kids dying in Africa or not dying in Africa?
Sounds like a slippery slope argument.

A comparison is not a slippery slope argument since he didn't state one causes the other.

That's only if you choose not to make any more conscious decisions after that. You can choose to do that at any stage, though. I can decide to just go with the flow and see what happens from the moment I first meet a person, or I can decide that, no, I don't want that.

IMHO by that point, the last point of decision has been crossed.



We most certainly are. ;)
I suspect what you were trying to do was use the word "natural" to imply "desirable". It's been used that way a lot in the past, things are labelled "unnatural" to say that they're in fact undesirable or immoral (see homosexuality, for example). But that's a slippery slope, not everything that's natural is desirable. War is natural for primates, yet it's neither moral nor desirable. Brushing your teeth and using deodorant is not natural, yet I'd say most people find it definitely desirable.

Injuries are natural in the sense that most people will experience a good few of them in their lifetime. They're not desirable, but mostly unavoidable.
Pregnancy is natural in the sense that most women will experience one or more in their lifetime. Yet the question if they're desirable can only be answered case by case.
Both injuries and pregnancies can be treated and "cured".


That's not exactly what I mean by natural. "Natural" in this case means things done on purpose by the body. The body never seeks to injure itself through accidents, violence, etc. Pregnancy is completely natural and desireable from the standpoint of survival.


Really?
1600 women die every day (http://gentlebirth.org/archives/matmort2.html) in childbirth. How many die each day due to breast cancer?

Actually, your statistic doesn't say 1600 women die in childbirth each year. It says they die in pregnancy AND childbirth, and the study doesn't conclusively pin the cause of death on the pregnancy itself, rather, on poor conditions surrounding it. Therefore, it's not proof of the inherent danger of pregnancy.

In 2005, 502,000 women died from breast cancer alone, and that's just ONE example of a risk that's reduced, statistically, by pregnancy.

I'm going to find out tomorrow if I'm pregnant. If so, I'm within the threshhold to get a medical abortion (pills rather than surgery), and I shall do so on Wednesday. It bothers me in the way any medical procedure would, but no more than that.

I'm going to find out tomorrow if I'm pregnant. If so, I'm within the threshhold to get a medical abortion (pills rather than surgery), and I shall do so on Wednesday. It bothers me in the way any medical procedure would, but no more than that.
Here's hoping you're not pregnant. The med abortion pills are certainly way, way, WAY better than the alternatives you'd be stuck with in an anti-choice state, but it's still not a fun way to spend your time.

If you end up going with mifepristone, be sure to have somebody with you after you take the second tablet (when you're at home). The bleeding may get pretty heavy and it's safest to have somebody around to help you out. (You probably already knew that.)

Here's hoping you're not pregnant. The med abortion pills are certainly way, way, WAY better than the alternatives you'd be stuck with in an anti-choice state, but it's still not a fun way to spend your time.

If you end up going with mifepristone, be sure to have somebody with you after you take the second tablet (when you're at home). The bleeding may get pretty heavy and it's safest to have somebody around to help you out. (You probably already knew that.)

Yes, I've been doing quite a bit of research. I'm hoping quite strongly that I'm not pregnant, because medical or surgical, this is going to wreak havoc on my body.

Still, better than bringing an unwanted child into the world IMO. And luckily, in this country, my opinion is all that matters.

Yes, I've been doing quite a bit of research. I'm hoping quite strongly that I'm not pregnant, because medical or surgical, this is going to wreak havoc on my body.

It really makes me laugh when people claim that women have abortions willy-nilly because they're so "convenient." Yeah, like the doctor just waves his magical Baby-Be-Gone wand over your tummy and all's well.

Nobody who has ever sat with a woman during a surgical abortion would believe that bullshit. Nobody who has held somebody's hand while she's cramping and bleeding and miscarrying would believe it.

People complain about women using abortion "as birth control," like taking the abortion pill is as easy as taking your birth control Pill each morning. "Durr, why should I use contraceptive options like condoms or the birth control Pill, when I could just endure a couple days of barfing, diarrhea, cramping, and two weeks of bleeding from my vagina? That sounds like a cake walk!" It's almost as if the people spouting the "abortion shouldn't be used as birth control" crap don't have the least idea what they're talking about...


Still, better than bringing an unwanted child into the world IMO. And luckily, in this country, my opinion is all that matters.
Terminating an unwanted pregnancy is unpleasant enough as it is, without adding a bunch of selfish jerks trying to shove their bossy little noses up your uterus. I'm glad you live in a country where you can make this choice for yourself.

Nobody who has ever sat with a woman during a surgical abortion would believe that bullshit. Nobody who has held somebody's hand while she's cramping and bleeding and miscarrying would believe it.

People complain about women using abortion "as birth control," like taking the abortion pill is as easy as taking your birth control Pill each morning. "Durr, why should I use contraceptive options like condoms or the birth control Pill, when I could just endure a couple days of barfing, diarrhea, cramping, and two weeks of bleeding from my vagina? That sounds like a cake walk!" It's almost as if the people spouting the "abortion shouldn't be used as birth control" crap don't have the least idea what they're talking about... No...couldn't be...

I'm a woman with a higher education, very well educated when it comes to STI and pregnancy prevention, and yet even I had an oops moment. It would be ridiculous to penalise me, force me to carry a pregnancy to term based on the outdated notion of 'she had sex, she deserves ALL the consequences and those consequences mean she must have the baby'.

The consequences are indeed dire. This is not a decision I make lightly, although as I've said, I have no moral qualms about termination. Physically, this is a very serious procedure, and it is not something I'd willingly or unworredly face.

I can't take the pill because I am prone to migraines with aura, which alone increase the possibility of blood clots and stroke. Estrogen based contraceptives increase that risk to a ridiculously high extent. Condoms clearly aren't effective all the time, since a condom was used in my situation. An IUD is very expensive, but is what I'll pursue if I'm not pregnant...or after I abort.

I'm a woman with a higher education, very well educated when it comes to STI and pregnancy prevention, and yet even I had an oops moment.

Well there's yer problem right there! You're a woman who decided to have sex as if you have the right or something, and now you've got these crazy notions that you should be allowed to make an informed adult decision about the medical treatment you receive.

You should have remembered that when you consent to fuck, you also consent to give up your right to make medical decisions for yourself.


It would be ridiculous to penalise me, force me to carry a pregnancy to term based on the outdated notion of 'she had sex, she deserves ALL the consequences and those consequences mean she must have the baby'.

Personally, I don't think those "consequences" go far enough. Why should women get to irresponsibly get off the hook by putting their unwanted babies up for adoption? After all, they consented to have sex, so they obviously consented to be a parent for the rest of their lives.


The consequences are indeed dire. This is not a decision I make lightly, although as I've said, I have no moral qualms about termination. Physically, this is a very serious procedure, and it is not something I'd willingly or unworredly face.

You seem to forget that abortion is yucky. Like, really yucky. You obviously have not seen enough yucky aborted fetus pictures. If you'd seen how yucky it is, you'd know it's wrong.


I can't take the pill because I am prone to migraines with aura, which alone increase the possibility of blood clots and stroke. Estrogen based contraceptives increase that risk to a ridiculously high extent. Condoms clearly aren't effective all the time, since a condom was used in my situation. An IUD is very expensive, but is what I'll pursue if I'm not pregnant...or after I abort.
You know, if it weren't for your obvious femaleness, I'd say you were an informed person making responsible medical decisions about your own prescriptions and treatments. It's almost as if you know more about your personal medical situation than anybody else around here. Which might lead one to think that perhaps you, and not any of them, should be deciding on the course of your medical care.

But that would be downright nutty.

I'm going to find out tomorrow if I'm pregnant. If so, I'm within the threshhold to get a medical abortion (pills rather than surgery), and I shall do so on Wednesday. It bothers me in the way any medical procedure would, but no more than that.

Thanks for choosing abortion. Not that you are not a great person and we couldnt use more like you, but the world is overpopulated and we need as many abortions as we can get.

Thank goodness you can do the pill abortion if you are pregnant. I have heard that the operations are not very comfortable and fun.

Thank goodness you can do the pill abortion if you are pregnant. I have heard that the operations are not very comfortable and fun.
For those who may not know:

"Pill abortions" are not very comfortable or fun. The way it usually works these days is that you take one dose of mifepristone at the doctor's office after you've had a thorough exam and a talk with the doc. You are given four misoprostol pills to take home with you, and you're supposed to take them on days 2, 3, and 4.

Women often begin to bleed after the first pill (while still at the doctor's office), but it's relatively light. After taking the second pill (at home), the miscarriage will occur. It usually starts about half an hour after you take the pill and continues for 3-8 hours. Cramping tends to come in waves. There will be clots and much heavier bleeding than what you'd see during a normal menstrual period. At some point during this you will pass the embryo, but it's usually too small to even see. Nausea and diarrhea are common side effects.

Bleeding will lessen after the miscarriage, but it will continue for as much as two weeks.

Compared to a surgical abortion, there are some pros and cons.

Bleeding is heavier with the abortion pill method. The abortion itself also takes longer, and pill abortions have a slightly higher failure rate than surgical abortions.

However, you can be at home or wherever you want to be, with whomever you'd like to have around at the time (if anyone). There aren't any shots or anesthesia to worry about. Pill abortions are also more effective early on in a pregnancy, while vacuum aspiration is less reliable at early stages.

Surgical abortions are over faster and tend to be accompanied by less bleeding. You spend less time cramping and generally no time barfing or having diarrhea. You only have to make a single visit for the abortion itself, though some states/countries require that bullshit "waiting period" BS to make it more annoying and difficult.

However, anesthesia is often involved, and some people don't react well to that. You also have to deal with an invasive procedure in a clinical setting. Some people prefer to have doctors and professionals around during this type of thing, but other people would prefer to be alone or in a more private environment. Women who have surgical abortions also sometimes feel that they are less directly in control of what is happening to them (which could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the individual).

IMHO by that point, the last point of decision has been crossed.

I think you're just closing your eyes to reality there.
Any woman finding out she's pregnant HAS to make at least one more decision, one way or another.



That's not exactly what I mean by natural. "Natural" in this case means things done on purpose by the body. The body never seeks to injure itself through accidents, violence, etc. Pregnancy is completely natural and desireable from the standpoint of survival.


Not from the standpoint of the body, though. Just think about it : Increased risk of diabetes, back problems that can grow chronical, the lymbic system acting up, morning sickness... for the most part, a pregnancy cannot be distinguished from an illness from the biological view of the body providing.


Actually, your statistic doesn't say 1600 women die in childbirth each year. It says they die in pregnancy AND childbirth, and the study doesn't conclusively pin the cause of death on the pregnancy itself, rather, on poor conditions surrounding it. Therefore, it's not proof of the inherent danger of pregnancy.

In 2005, 502,000 women died from breast cancer alone, and that's just ONE example of a risk that's reduced, statistically, by pregnancy.

See, I've been wondering... you keep saying it's reduced by pregnancy. So, if I'm pregnant for say, 3 months, and then abort, that would also reduce the risk of breast cancer, right?
So the healthiest choice for all women would be to drop the contraception, get pregnant as often as possible and abort the unwanted ones?

Thanks for choosing abortion. Not that you are not a great person and we couldnt use more like you, but the world is overpopulated and we need as many abortions as we can get.

Thank goodness you can do the pill abortion if you are pregnant. I have heard that the operations are not very comfortable and fun.

"Thanks for choosing abortion"...that might make a good bumper sticker :D

If I choose to have more children down the line, they'll be adopted.

FWIW I can understand that. I've actually had 2 major careers in my life and I always get incensed when a layman presumes to hold greater knowledge than I. I do understand and I will refrain from doing it to you in the future.

Not really your problem to worry about. You don't know that really know anything about the law. I could be a egotistical 13-year old. :p

You should certainly feel free to argue law with me and the onus is on me to control any frustration. :cool:


In the spirit of what you said here:

I do have a question. Earlier, you quoted Article III but in reading it for myself I just didn't see where it says that. Can you clear that up?

Well, let's quickly note that Artice VI (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article06/) tells us that: "This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

Let us also note that Article I (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/) and Article II (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/) fail to give final power to interpret the Constitution to either the executive or legislative branch.

So, let's now turn to Article III (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/), Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ..."

I think it inherent in the idea of judicial power that the Court has the power to interpret law. As Justice Marshall declared in Marbury (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=5&invol=137), "It is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." That this was intended by the Founders to be so read is confirmed by Federalist #78 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm): "The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."

One also can look to the overall scheme of the Constitution, particularly the setting up of checks and balances. The judicial power to interpret law is the judiciary's primary check on the other branches. Without it, the system of checks and balances fails.

Regardless, in Article III (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/), Section 2, we are informed: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution ..."

Thus, any doubt that the Court has the power in both Law and Equity to rule on cases involving the meaning of the Constitution is removed. Such cases are emphatically within the judicial Power.

Finally, in Article III (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/), Section 2, we learn: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. "

Thus, the judicial power includes the jurisdiction over both fact and law questions in cases arising under the Constitution. Again, the Court has the power to interpret law, including the Supreme Law of the Land.

Another case you might check out that confirms the Court's power of judicial review is the unanimous decision in Cooper v. Aaron (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=358&invol=1), 358 U.S. 1 (1958):

As this case reaches us it raises questions of the highest importance to the maintenance of our federal system of government. It necessarily involves a claim by the Governor and Legislature of a State that there is no duty on state officials to obey federal court orders resting on this Court's considered interpretation of the United States Constitution. Specifically it involves actions by the Governor and Legislature of Arkansas upon the premise that they are not bound by our holding in Brown v. Board of Education (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=347&invol=483), 347 U.S. 483. That holding was that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids States to use their governmental powers to bar children on racial grounds from attending schools where there is state participation through any arrangement, management, funds or property. We are urged to uphold a suspension of the Little Rock School Board's plan to do away with segregated public schools in Little Rock until state laws and efforts to upset and nullify our holding in Brown v. Board of Education have been further challenged and tested in the courts. We reject these contentions.
. . .
However, we should answer the premise of the actions of the Governor and Legislature that they are not bound by our holding in the Brown case. It is necessary only to recall some basic constitutional propositions which are settled doctrine.

Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land." In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation," declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, "to support this Constitution." Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous Court in 1859, said that this requirement reflected the framers' "anxiety to preserve it [the Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against resistance to or evasion of its authority, on the part of a State . . . ." Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506, 524.

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: "If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery . . . ." United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136. A Governor who asserts a power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, "it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases . . . ." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 397 -398.


As it was with Brown, it is true of Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.


I haven't replied because I'm still "doing my homework" on it, as it were. I'm backchecking my own source to make sure it's not in error, and comparing it with others. More on that as it comes.

Okey dokey. Although I doubt you can come up with more objective, accurate, or authoritative numbers than those from the CDC.