Ted Turner defunds pro-abortion website
Ted Turner must have promised funding to RH Reality Check for only five years.
Either that or he’s not happy with the product.
Or perhaps he has decided to stop promoting abortion, which would be the best news of all.
For whatever reason, Turner’s United Nations Foundation is dropping the abortion-pushing website he launched in 2006 from his list of “Campaigns and Initiatives” as of December 31.
Beginning January 1, 2012, RH Reality Check will join the ranks of the unendowed and have to make it on its own, just like the rest of us ideologues without a sugar daddy.
[Photo of Turner via Zimbio.com]
Dec.09, 2011 4:35 pm |
MSM anti-life bias |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Happy New Year! Pardon me while I do a little “happy dance” ! ;)
Wow just a little bitter aren’t we? Every word is just dripping with jealously. Your envy will consume you…
Hmmm…Christmas gift came a little early this year :-) !
Jealousy? Hardly! Jill would not take a pro-abortionist’s money! They’d have to become pro-life! Good Ted is not funding the pro-abrtion site.
Not seeing the bitterness…? Biggz, perhaps you should stop projecting…
OK…
“RH Reality Check will join the ranks of the unendowed and have to make it on its own, just like the rest of us ideologues without a sugar daddy.”
That doesn’t sound bitter? lol if you say so…
Can I have an ideological sugar daddy? Pretty please?
Sounds wry and tongue-in-cheek to me. Like I said, projecting much?
Good boy, Ted!!
Biggz:
Just read a post of yours on another thread from a few days ago that I didn’t notice at the time, and you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. I do not support criminalizing hormonal contraception. You’re mistaken.
Um… ok… off topic much? I’m not sure what you are raving about X…
I guess you really DO need to brush up on your reading comprehension. And here I just thought I was being sarcastic.
On another thread, one of the Newt posts, you misinterpreted what I was saying to mean that I supported a ban on hormonal contraception. You said something about how I’d never get it outlawed, blah blah blah. But I was not one of the people who opposed hormonal contraceptives on that thread. I’m just correcting you here, because the other post was from so long ago I don’t feel like going back and posting on it because it will be closed soon, anyway.
If you can’t understand what I’m writing, please have an adult read and explain it to you.
Biggz – thou does project too much.
Ok X I am somehow supposed to know you are talking about a completely different thread that is so old it might be taken down soon? Furthermore a thread and comment that has nothing to do with what we are talking about here? But my skills are in question here? How about you try to stick with the rest of us as we debate then we won’t have to revisit a thread from weeks ago just so you can catch up? I can slow down if you need me to….
Ok X I am somehow supposed to know you are talking about a completely different thread that is so old it might be taken down soon?
Ummm…yeah. I’ll go through my original statement and bold the parts I wrote to convey that message:
Just read a post of yours on another thread from a few days ago
READING COMPREHENSION! DO YOU HAVE IT?!
Another thread from a few days ago… yep that’s pretty specific isn’t it? I am supposed to know what the heck you are talking about by that description? Your raving…
And still WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING WE ARE TALKING ABOUT?!?!?!?!?!?
Don’t worry Biggz, she does it to me too.
As for the “sugar daddy” comment, well… this blog is linked to World Net Daily, which is a well known and well funded Right Wing site. The blog owner has a speaking tour, etc that I’m sure since it’s her job, must pay well, and half the postings on here are not from Jill but from her moderator staff. So, it could be said that the moderator team, is using Jill as the funding for their journalistic ventures. Just sayin. When you point the finger at someone else, three fingers are pointing back at you.
LittleZ,
Trust me when I tell you that Jill is not bitter. She was making sardonic reference to the endowed who think they’re relevant because they’re funded, and who think we’re not because we aren’t funded.
I don’t ask for money to support my blog. God takes care of all my needs.
Now, not only is RH missing Heaven’s endowment, but Ted’s as well. We’ll see how committed they are if they can’t line up alternative funding.
Duck,
1. I haven’t written for WND for 11 months, and at any rate it is not well funded. It scrapes by just like most conservative/pro-family/pro-life sites.
2. My speaking nets about 1/4 of what I brought home when I was an RN, and none of the insurance.
3. This blog has NEVER operated in the black. I make less than nothing and the moderators make nothing. We’re all volunteers except for Kelli.
4. Not to get technical, but moderator staff do not write (ProLifer)ations, which is posted here twice weekly by a volunteer blogger, or Life Links, which is reposted here from another blog 2-4x a week. Nor do these comprise “half the postings,” obviously.
If you’d like to donate to help support a blog you frequent without censorship as a hostile guest, I’d be happy to accept it.
I’m sorry, I did come off as crass didn’t I. I didn’t mean to come off that way. Well what I meant was not that you make a killing, but that it’s your job as a blogger/speaker. I didn’t know you stopped writing for WND. And compared to blogspot bloggers, WND is well funded, so I guess I should have added that for perspective.
Thank you for clarifying the who writes what. Seriously.
Gerard – Then what is all the crowing about? Why the nasty dig about a sugar daddy? I think it is bitterness… What is the point of this thread if not to flip a middle finger to someone who is losing the funding you are envious of? Speech gigs not paying what they used to?
Biggz, you didn’t have to know specifically which post I was talking about, I told you what the post was about. *YOU’RE being intentionally obtuse.
No you are being vague and I don’t know what thread you are talking about. Did it have anything to do with Ted Turner or funding of some sort? How did it pertain to what we are talking about here? Or is it you just saw my name and remembered something you wanted to say to me a couple days ago?
I have no idea what you are talking about? You made a comment at me from left field about something from a few days ago… sorry I guess I have moved on but if you would like to tell me what thread you are talking about instead of beating around the bush all day I would be happy to debate it with you…
Jill,
So many of us appreicate what you do. I’m glad you clarified how you’re NOT making a killing.
That’s what Duck, Biggz and Ted are for.
Courtney – No I actually work for a living. I don’t make a living off preaching fear for a profit.
Implying….?
“Courtney – No I actually work for a living. I don’t make a living off preaching fear for a profit.”
Biggz, you preach fear for free. You scare young girls about pregnancy, and about their future life as a Mother. You tell little girls/young women they will have no life if they give birth, give life to another human being.
Biggz, you preach fear for free. You scare young girls about pregnancy, and about their future life as a Mother. You tell little girls/young women they will have no life if they give birth, give life to another human being.
Tyler, being pregnant and/or being a mother is not for everybody, let alone for “young girls.” Whether or not you are generalizing incorrectly about Biggz’ statements I don’t know, but obviously such is very much true from many a pro-life quarter, i.e. pretty much without exception “abortion hurts women,” etc.
Biggz has been on these threads quite frequently this week and, except for one single comment, they are all overwhelmingly snarky, hypocritical, and mean-spirited.
I wonder, why are abortion advocates such an uncheerful bunch? If you seemed more at ease, we’d wonder what the secret to your good attitude was. But since abortion advocates are so negative, is it any wonder that we don’t aspire to become more like you?
Ninek: I wonder, why are abortion advocates such an uncheerful bunch?
Holy Crow, Ninek, look in the mirror. ;)
I didn’t have you figured as a Dead Kennedy’s fan Courtnay! (from the closed thread)
Reality: I didn’t have you figured as a Dead Kennedy’s fan Courtnay!
How about The Baloneyheads or The Dead Milkmen? ;) :)
Back to the topic of this marvelous post, maybe the blessing will continue and RH will be off the internet forever in a few months. (We can pray…) Somehow I doubt many of them are willing to work for free, like Jill and company do.
LittleZ,
Every dime that I have ever made in giving talks has been given to pro-life charities. The talks pay well, but compared to many, I ask comparatively little. So, no, nobody is flipping anyone the bird, or jealous of their income. Unlike the merchants of death, those who are in the pro-life leadership live modest lives by choice, and do what we do in response to God’s leading in our lives.
We like it that way. It’s just delicious to see the merchants of death being bled white and profiting less and less from their deadly avocation.
Get well soon.
REALITY!!! I was waiting for someone to get that ! LOL!
Tyler, being pregnant and/or being a mother is not for everybody, let alone for “young girls.”
Doug, you are correct, it depends on how fearful the young girl is and how fearful the support is around the young girl?
it depends on how fearful the young girl is and how fearful the support is around the young girl?
Tyler, certainly, it could, but in no way is it even necessarily related to “fear,” but rather based on what the girl wants for herself.
What if the young girl (let’s say she’s 14) wants to have sex. Or she wants to ingest heroin. Or she wants to have sex with animals?
If being a mother is not for everyone, then that everyone is definitely not ready for the huge relationship that sex is.
Tyler, certainly, it could, but in no way is it even necessarily related to “fear,” but rather based on what the girl wants for herself.
Sure it is. Once a young girl is pregnant, it is no longer about what she wants. She decided that before having sex, only delusional people, even if they use contraception, think that sex can’t result in pregnancy…so before she had sex she was prepared to accept the consequences…now the only question is whether she is unafraid enough to accept the new life ahead of her, or will she let fear (via peer pressure…that means people like you Doug) turn her into a murderer.
…because, in Doug’s world, it’s all good! Whatever! All choices are equal!
NOT. Some are right, and some are wrong.
Like allowing someone to mainline drugs.
Or kill her baby.
You can learn how to really support women, Doug. And it NEVER involves a ride to the abortionist’s office.
What if the young girl (let’s say she’s 14) wants to have sex. Or she wants to ingest heroin. Or she wants to have sex with animals?
If being a mother is not for everyone, then that everyone is definitely not ready for the huge relationship that sex is.
Courtnay, many/most 14 year olds are not ready for sex, IMO, yeah. Not 100% but I’m not disagreeing with you too much, even though there is not one monolithic “that everyone.”
“Tyler, certainly, it could, but in no way is it even necessarily related to “fear,” but rather based on what the girl wants for herself.”
Sure it is. Once a young girl is pregnant, it is no longer about what she wants.
You’re generalizing incorrectly. And it most certainly can still be about what she wants. Even if we add fear into the motivations we’re considering, what she wants is definitely in the mix.
___
She decided that before having sex, only delusional people, even if they use contraception, think that sex can’t result in pregnancy…
Having sex is not an agreement to remain pregnant. I agree that it’s silly to say that sex can’t result in pregnancy, but who do you really see saying that, whether they are pro-choice or pro-life, and whether they elect to continue pregnancies or end them?
____
so before she had sex she was prepared to accept the consequences…now the only question is whether she is unafraid enough to accept the new life ahead of her, or will she let fear (via peer pressure…that means people like you Doug) turn her into a murderer.
Your wishes are not any necessary “consequences” for the girl. Maybe she continues the pregnancy, maybe not. I’m not for peer pressure – whether it be pro-choice or anti-choice – weighing on her decision. You’re pretending about “murder,” i.e. that you don’t like a thing in no way makes it “murder.”
Courtnay: …because, in Doug’s world, it’s all good! Whatever! All choices are equal!
That’s silly. Whether or not the girl agrees with your opinion, Courtnay, in no way have I said anything to the effect of “whatever.”
___
You can learn how to really support women, Doug. And it NEVER involves a ride to the abortionist’s office.
You’re pretending that your opinion always holds sway, and that’s just not true.
Sorry, Doug. Having sex means having to deal with sex’s consequences. That’s true for any serious action, whether it’s driving, marrying, drinking, or stripping. You choose your actions, you choose what beomes of them.
Again (and please read it this time and understand what I’m saying): what any young girl wants at any given time about her pregnancy in know way confers personhood.
We have lived in a society now where we can get rid of humans we find inconvenient. This has not made us safer, kinder, freer, or wiser. What it HAS done is made millions of us dead. THAT is the legacy of abortion.
We as a society have agreed that murdering the innocent is wrong. You and your ilk are in error when you say that an unborn human is not a human. Science bears me out on that. We can parse words ad nauseum about human, human being, person, personhood, baby, etc. etc., but your verbal gymnastics are meaningless. You are in error. And your resolve to see killing a child so that the mother can live as she wants is a viable solution to a difficult situation makes you complicit. ABSOLUTELY complicit.
My opinion is not what we’re talking about here.
Courtnay: Sorry, Doug. Having sex means having to deal with sex’s consequences. That’s true for any serious action, whether it’s driving, marrying, drinking, or stripping. You choose your actions, you choose what beomes of them.
Sure, but why be “sorry,” there? We’re talking in general, and it’s part and parcel of the human condition that things don’t always work out like we’d want. Yes, some people have sex, and end up having abortions. Some marriages lead to divorce. Some people will drive, have accidents, and get medical attention to take care of unwanted conditions. People don’t start out wanting things to go that way, but sometimes they do.
__
Again (and please read it this time and understand what I’m saying): what any young girl wants at any given time about her pregnancy in know way confers personhood.
I’ve never said anything to the contrary. Regardless of what position society takes, there, I don’t think it will hinge on what a young girl wants, per se, i.e. if nothing else there’s sure a lot more to it than that. My opinion.
____
We have lived in a society now where we can get rid of humans we find inconvenient. This has not made us safer, kinder, freer, or wiser. What it HAS done is made millions of us dead. THAT is the legacy of abortion.
You are using “us” in different ways from many people. We do have a safer, kinder, more free society now than at almost any time in the past, if not for all time. “Wiser”? That’s going to be awfully subjective.
Courtnay: We as a society have agreed that murdering the innocent is wrong.
Has nothing to do with the abortion debate. That you are not in favor of abortion being legal does not make it “murder.”
____
You and your ilk are in error when you say that an unborn human is not a human.
Wrong. I’ve never said that. That’s not the debate. “You and your ilk” nearly continually come up with such strawmen arguments.
___
Science bears me out on that. We can parse words ad nauseum about human, human being, person, personhood, baby, etc. etc., but your verbal gymnastics are meaningless. You are in error. And your resolve to see killing a child so that the mother can live as she wants is a viable solution to a difficult situation makes you complicit. ABSOLUTELY complicit.
My opinion is not what we’re talking about here.
Nonsense. You most certainly are talking about your opinion. And as far as you thinking that ‘science’ is or takes part in the debate, that’s where the error lies. Science does not pronounce upon morality.
Saying “child” itself is your opinion. You’re doing nothing beyond trying to put your own spin on things, and in doing so you’re not even getting to the real argument.
Good night Doug.
Night, Courtnay.
Duck, thank you, apology accepted… big of you…
Good grief, Doug.
You think a family gathers around a pregnant 14 girl and asks her what she wants to do???
They coerce
You will abort, if you don’t you will be kicked out of the house, over my dead body will you have that baby……
Do you also recall the high school that escorts teen girls to get abortions by taxi the same day they get the
positive pregnancy test?
They force
Do you not recall the story of the mother dragging her teenage daughter into the mill by her hair??
It happens everyday.
Center Against Forced Abortion
http://thejusticefoundation.org/cafa/
Biggz, you dolt!
It’s called irony. Jill has always been unendowed, and has been going for all this time without help from the deep-pocket folks. But now RH-RealityCheck is going to have to fend for itself…
Yeah, that’s going to happen.
And it most certainly can still be about what she wants. Even if we add fear into the motivations we’re considering, what she wants is definitely in the mix.
The whole point of fear is that it overrides a person’s rational wants, and can distort a person’s understanding so that they can want something grotesque like an abortion.
Having sex is not an agreement to remain pregnant.
It is my world, and it should be in yours as well.
Your wishes are not any necessary “consequences” for the girl.
Pregnancy is a consequence of sex, I didn’t wish it to be so thank-you very much. Sounds like you need a dose of reality.
Maybe she continues the pregnancy, maybe not. I’m not for peer pressure – whether it be pro-choice or anti-choice – weighing on her decision. You’re pretending about “murder,” i.e. that you don’t like a thing in no way makes it “murder.”
Maybe someone murders you, maybe not. I’m not for peer pressure – whether it be pro-murder or anti-choice – weighing on the murderer’s decision.
You’re pretending about “pregnancy,” i.e that you don’t like a thing in no way makes it “not a real person.”
Having sex is not an agreement to remain pregnant.
Doug, it sounds like you have just advocated for child abandonment, single motherhood, and father abandonment in addition to abortion.
Whoo-hoo! Take that, RHFantasy-Land! …Sorry. What I meant was, it’s nice to see Turner making a responsible decision. …No, that’s even worse, isn’t it? Hm… I’ll get back to you when my inner five-year-old isn’t jumping up in down in schadenfreude-fueled delight. :D
Jill, that’s how I normally am. I get slammed a lot here for being pro-choice, but really, I’m quite reasonable. It’s just that sometimes, I don’t realize how I come off. Years of being insanely socially awkward hasn’t helped in that department either.
HI Duck,
Sometimes Jill allows me to write an article or two. :)
I get paid in thank yous.
Here is one I wrote last year.
https://www.jillstanek.com/2010/12/a-christmas-letter-to-post-abortive-mothers/#more-16844
… and also paid in cyber hugs… This blog couldn’t exist without Carla and her special heart for post-abortive moms.
Duck, come on over to our side. Our ranks are stuffed with “insanely socially awkward” folk. You’ll feel right at home… :)
“They coerceYou will abort, if you don’t you will be kicked out of the house, over my dead body will you have that baby”
So pro-life parents don’t coerce their minor daughters to have the baby? And BTW, in states where parents have the final say, the coercion to have an abortions is perfectly legal – as well as coercion to give birth. Parental notification works both ways.
For the record, I like all of Carla’s posts…one of the reasons I visit this site. Even when she disagrees with someone she is very polite and respectful… something I need to improve upon.
Yes, Duck, join the life side – you get to appreciate/enjoy cute pictures of kids, with less guilt.
Biggz, I didn’t see any bitterness or envy in Jill’s post at all. I agree with others that you are projecting. I chuckled at the last paragraph because it is funny.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. Upston Sinclair
“So pro-life parents don’t coerce their minor daughters to have the baby? And BTW, in states where parents have the final say, the coercion to have an abortions is perfectly legal – as well as coercion to give birth. Parental notification works both ways.”
I think you are confusing parental notification with parental consent. Some states, like mine, the one of the parents need to just be informed and do not have to consent. Granted, you can think that’s “force” to have parents notified if you want, but I would be interested to see what other situations you think that parents have no rights to dictate or even be involved in the medical care of their minor children. I have never seen anyone argue that a fifteen-year-old girl should be allowed to get gastric bypass or breast implants against their parents wishes. In fact, in similar cases that have happened I have seen a lot of the opposite. Would you guys mind explaining why abortion and other reproductive issues are different, in your mind?
I think it’s odd, when I was sixteen I tried to get help for my drug problem, and they called my parents even though I begged them not to. The reasoning being that I was a minor and my parents were responsible for my mental and physical health, and should be informed about what choices I was making. But, if I were a female and pregnant, my parents should have no rights whatsoever to know what mental and physical health issues their minor child was going through? None of that makes sense to me and I would appreciate a choicer explaining the reasoning on that.
Jill,
I’m not going to join the radical right wing and radical pro-life crowds.
“So pro-life parents don’t coerce their minor daughters to have the baby?”
The parents don’t have to do anything at all for her to stay pregnant. No need to coerce.
Are you sure you are familiar with pregnancy?
Tyler, I look at kids pictures with no guilt already. Thanks.
Jack, for the record, I think you should be able to access drug rehabilitation programs without mandatory parental notification. Primary reason being, that often drug use among minors is not always about peer pressure, it’s about neglect, abuse, lack of coping skills, safe environment, etc.
Duck, you could always join the left wing pro-lifers, like me. :)
“Jack, for the record, I think you should be able to access drug rehabilitation programs without mandatory parental notification. Primary reason being, that often drug use among minors is not always about peer pressure, it’s about neglect, abuse, lack of coping skills, safe environment, etc.”
Well, I agree to an extent. If a fourteen year old is pregnant, or a fourteen year old is shooting up heroine, there is almost certainly some family structure problem, possibly abuse issues or something of that nature. I didn’t know a single drug addict who had a good home life, and I know very few young pregnant girls who had a good family structure.
However, don’t you think that the solution is NOT to simply give the child whatever medical care they think they want, without actually working on the problem that got them to the point that they are at. No one asked me WHY I didn’t want to have my parents involved, if they had maybe they would have realized I was in a horribly abusive situation and I could have gotten some actual help. As it was I ended up not getting help for my addiction for two more years. In the same way, I think that not having parental notification for abortion and reproductive help tends not to help the child fix what’s wrong with their home life, it helps sweep it under the rug and could possibly send a young girl back into an abusive or neglectful situation.
Primary reason being, that often drug use among minors is not always about peer pressure, it’s about neglect, abuse, lack of coping skills, safe environment, etc.
Then the whole family needs help. Communication needs to happen and regardless what you think about the family, the parents have a right to know. If you think the life of the child is in danger if you tell the parents, the child needs to be removed from the home anyway. Otherwise the family needs help. Too many people making too much money keeping families in bad situations rather than helping them.
The parents don’t have to do anything at all for her to stay pregnant. No need to coerce.
Thanks for another chuckle!
“Then the whole family needs help. Communication needs to happen and regardless what you think about the family, the parents have a right to know. If you think the life of the child is in danger if you tell the parents, the child needs to be removed from the home anyway. ”
There is something we can agree on Praxedes. I think that if someone ever bothered to sit down and talk to these kids, that maybe the underlying issues of why they were acting out could be worked on. Completely ignoring the parent’s responsibilities is irresponsible and possibly dangerous, but notifying the parents without talking to the child and trying to learn what kind of situation they are in is equally dangerous.
Agreed, Jack. In order to hold the child accountable, most times we need to hold the parent accountable.
I believe abortion has taken much of the parental accountability away. The mindset is that I can do whatever I want and how dare you tell me what is okay or not.
I’m hoping guys like Ted Turner are seeing this in our society and are changing sides.
Duck, is there anything you ARE radical about?
I emphatically embrace the “radical” label. Forget I’m a church going Republican from the South. Forget I believe in traditional roles and gun rights and Jesus. The one thing I need you to remember is that I’m FOR LIFE. I’m for CIVIL RIGHTS. I’m for SOCIAL JUSTICE. And we radicals ask you: where do these rights begin?
Radically, it’s at the beginning.
Jack,
Yes I think more can be done. But what I think should happen is get them involved in the neccessary treatment, THEN get the family the help they need. I know all too well, that when notification happens first in such situations, the family is not helped, and often times abuse continues.
Jack,
You know my thoughts about the term “pro-life” and the liberal spectrum. :)
Courtnay,
Many people, here think I’m radical as it is, because I’m pro-choice and fail to be converted by their evangelistic logic. But if what you’re really trying to ask me is where I fall on the spectrum, social justice, sustainability, accountable government, accountable private sector, moderation, and a tempered capitalist market with a tempered socialist safety net.
“Yes I think more can be done. But what I think should happen is get them involved in the neccessary treatment, THEN get the family the help they need. I know all too well, that when notification happens first in such situations, the family is not helped, and often times abuse continues.”
Yes, I can agree to an extent. What happened with me is they notified my parents, who refused to let me seek treatment and the abuse continued. So notification first was a bad idea there. But, it was also somewhat my responsibility, because I failed to tell anyone why I didn’t want my parents involved.
I simply cannot agree that it is okay to let the minor girl have an abortion and then tell her parents. I can agree, if a minor girl comes in for an abortion, that she is given counseling and her home life should be discussed with a professional who is trained in recognizing abusive situations, before the parents are notified.
“Having sex is not an agreement to remain pregnant. I agree that it’s silly to say that sex can’t result in pregnancy, but who do you really see saying that, whether they are pro-choice or pro-life, and whether they elect to continue pregnancies or end them?”
—
Having sex is a consent to potential parenthood should a pregnancy ensue.
…At least, that’s how it works for men.
Jack, I know we won’t agree on all of it. :) But from what my counselor friends tell me, that’s pretty much what happens anyway. I mean, they are licensed and trained counselors working with a vulnerable group. :)
I can agree, if a minor girl comes in for an abortion, that she is given counseling and her home life should be discussed with a professional who is trained in recognizing abusive situations, before the parents are notified.
The problem here is that some counselors think a prolife parent is an abusive parent. Yes, I know several of them.
Praxedes, key word there. Some. There are also some counselors who think that they can make people not gay. Key word, Some.
Right, Duck, that’s why I said some.
And when these counselors set the child up for an abortion without notifying prolife parents who would help their child and grandchild, their grandchild cannot be brought back to life.
Now if a counselor is killing someone with homosexual tendencies, that is a different story. Otherwise, you’re comparing apples to oranges.
No, what I was comparing is the fact that you said some counselors said prolife parents are abusive. I did not say anything about the end result of a counseling session between therapist and patient. So, my comparison to some couneslors thinking that curing gay is possible, is still a warrented comparison.
But Praxedes, if a counselor is shaming or tells the gay person that there is something wrong with them, that can cause suicidal ideation and damage. Gay and lesbian teens have a suicide rate that is something like 4 times higher than straight teens, directly related to how unaccepted and poorly they are treated. I think her analogy is sound.
I do agree that any counselor who would consider it abusive for simply being pro-life is awful and not deserving of their license.
I do agree that any counselor who would consider it abusive for simply being pro-life is awful and not deserving of their license.
Thank you, Jack. When do you think it is okay for a counselor to bipass telling a prolife parent that their child is pregnant?
“Thank you, Jack. When do you think it is okay for a counselor to bipass telling a prolife parent that their child is pregnant?”
Beatings, sexual abuse, fear that the child will be harmed. I am all for parent’s rights, but I know for a fact that there are plenty of parents who hurt their children, and this needs to be taken into account any time a minor is seeking health care and attempting to bypass their parents. Plus, I am hoping that as we work on reducing and criminalizing abortion, that sexually abused girls will be less likely to be able to be forced by their abuser to obtain an abortion to allow the abuse to continue.
Oh, and in those cases, even while abortion is legal, the counselor should never be allowing the girl to have an abortion and simply go home. If a situation is serious enough to avoid telling the parents, it is serious enough to remove the minor from the home.
“Do you think there are girls who claim they are in fear when they really just want to abort their child?”
Okay, I will only say this once because this topic makes me very angry. Children and teenagers do not tend to lie about abuse. When a child claims abuse, it is almost always the truth. False reports are incredibly rare, and are usually a result of an adult manipulating the child into lying for their own gain (like custody cases). No child should be thought of as a liar for coming forward when someone is hurting them.
That being said, I am sure there are rare cases where some girl has lied about abuse to get a judicial bypass, but it’s incredibly rare. And I do know some teenagers who don’t want to get yelled at, so they don’t want their parents called. But lying about abused is not common.
Lying about abuse is extremely rare. What’s more, is that many trained counselors know how to tell the signs of abuse. Unfortunately our child protective services are underfunded and need improvements in general, and so many children still suffer because counselors hands are tied.
Carla: You think a family gathers around a pregnant 14 girl and asks her what she wants to do??? They coerce…
Sure, Carla, no doubt that happens some times, both as far as coercing her to end the pregnancy as well as to continue it. There still is no “one” way it will be, and what she wants definitely plays a part.
Tyler: The whole point of fear is that it overrides a person’s rational wants, and can distort a person’s understanding so that they can want something grotesque like an abortion.
Or they’re fearful of somebody or some group of people that are trying to coerce them into continuing the pregnancy when they don’t want to. It happens. I’m not for coercion, either way.
___
“Having sex is not an agreement to remain pregnant.”
It is my world, and it should be in yours as well.
No, it’s not “in your world,” and thus you are dissatisfied with your world/our world/the way things are. Hey, we all have our “shoulds” and “should nots” – that’s what morality is, but the fact is that sometimes our actions lead to undesired situations – be it an accident from driving, an unwanted pregnancy from sex, etc., and most people will remedy the situation, though you may not be in favor of it.
__
Your wishes are not any necessary “consequences” for the girl.
Pregnancy is a consequence of sex, I didn’t wish it to be so thank-you very much. Sounds like you need a dose of reality.
Neither you or I is “missing” reality, here. Sure, sometimes people get pregnant from having sex. We’re agreed on that. But for a woman with an unwanted pregnancy to have an abortion is also a consequence of having sex. One thing leads to another, again, though you may not be in favor of it.
____
Maybe she continues the pregnancy, maybe not. I’m not for peer pressure – whether it be pro-choice or anti-choice – weighing on her decision. You’re pretending about “murder,” i.e. that you don’t like a thing in no way makes it “murder.”
Maybe someone murders you, maybe not. I’m not for peer pressure – whether it be pro-murder or anti-choice – weighing on the murderer’s decision. You’re pretending about “pregnancy,” i.e that you don’t like a thing in no way makes it “not a real person.”
How does that even pertain to the abortion debate? Any incorrect pretense on your part is dismissable. Nobody is “pretending about pregnancy” here, that I see. It is what it is. When you get to personhood, that is a separate thing. The abortion debate in the US is really about what status we give the unborn, versus the status we give the pregnant woman or girl. There is society’s position – which you don’t agree with. My own personal opinion of when “person” applies isn’t exactly the same as our societal position, either.
“Having sex is not an agreement to remain pregnant.”
Tyler: Doug, it sounds like you have just advocated for child abandonment, single motherhood, and father abandonment in addition to abortion.
Well, not sure how you’re getting that, Tyler. My point was that while of course we can’t say that “having sex won’t lead to pregnancy,” (often), it’s a different thing than wanting to continue the pregnancy.
If the pregnancy is not continued, there won’t be a “child to be abandoned.”
If she was a 14 year old girl who “wanted” sex, and that was a bad idea, what makes you so sure that she’s make any decision about keeping or killing her baby with any more wisdom and thought?
You are wrong CC.
Here is the parent letter from CAFA. Read it.
http://thejusticefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Dear-Parent-Oct2010.pdf
Doug,
There is no force involved in pregnancy.
Thank you, Tyler! :) I have a hard time reigning in the snark times. Working on it.
Jill,
A big cyber hug to you and I hope Duck joins our side because you are a great boss!! :)
I’ll be sticking with the pro-choicers thanks.
I’m not going to join the radical right wing and radical pro-life crowds.
It is nice to see that you have kept an open mind Duck.
Some Guy: Having sex is a consent to potential parenthood should a pregnancy ensue. …At least, that’s how it works for men.
Right – there is a point with a pregnancy where the ball is in the woman’s court, so to speak.
Carla,
There could be force, if the parents involved refuse to allow for any discussion, and against the pregnant woman’s wishes and possibly against medical advice refuse to allow an abortion. That’s a forced pregancy. Outlawing abortion in all cases, results in forced pregnancies.
Good. If someone really is pregnant and are considering obtaining an abortion and they decide to go research online, the stuff they find should be neutral so that they can make the decisions themselves. Not push them toward one decision or another without knowing their particular situation, that’s just immoral.
Courtnay: If she was a 14 year old girl who “wanted” sex, and that was a bad idea, what makes you so sure that she’s make any decision about keeping or killing her baby with any more wisdom and thought?
There are no such guarantees, Courtnay. Still, what she wants is definitely part of the mix.
Hi Duck,
There is no forced involved in pregnancy. A baby grows on her own with no force involved.
Please link to any sources you can cite on parents forcing a girl to remain pregnant. (You do realize that a young woman intent on ending the life of her child will do so no matter what? Self abortion ring any bells?)
Oh and just so we are clear the opposite of forced abortion is NOT forced birth.
Well, not sure how you’re getting that, Tyler. My point was that while of course we can’t say that “having sex won’t lead to pregnancy,” (often), it’s a different thing than wanting to continue the pregnancy.
So were you trying to say: “Having sex is not an agreement to want to continue the pregnancy” – which is not much different than your original statement and; therefore, my point still stands. You have opened the door to child abandonment, single motherhood, etc….
or ” Having sex is not wanting to continue the pregnancy” – which is an odd statement.
If the pregnancy is not continued, there won’t be a “child to be abandoned.”
Yes, this is true. The child will be dead, not abandoned. What a compassionate world you live in Doug!
If abortion is outlawed, it by it’s very nature will force women with unwanted pregnancies to either dangerously self-abort as you said, or forcibly birth the child. That is exactly what happens when abortion is outlawed. That being said, the same could happen for women not allowed to explore other options. I shouldn’t have to link to any sources if we’re talking about hypotheticals here. I’m just saying, the logic doesn’t add up.
Carla, I have been called a Forced Birther!!
LOL! By a woman in my town who keeps the books for the local church.
What Carla is talking about is that there is no such thing as “naturally” forced pregnancy. The body will gestate the human fetus until it’s born, unless something tragic happens. Duck is talking about the pregnancy being forced to continue naturally against the woman’s wishes to end it. Which would be a result of outlawing abortion. Pro-lifers hope that with education and support, the amount of women who feel like they are being forced to continue a pregnancy will be dramatically reduced. Unfortunately, not all women will be happy to carry the pregnancy to term, but we don’t think that’s reason enough to allow the unborn to be aborted.
Wrong duck.
If abortion is made illegal again women will not choose it. They will not seek it. Thousands of post abortive women testify that if it had been illegal they NEVER would have sought one. Me included. DESPERATE women will use self harm to kill their babies when Roe V Wade is overturned. These women need help.
Gee. What was the situation in 1972 duck?? Do you know how many women died from “illegal abortion?” 39
The logic is that the law restrains behavior!!!
Why outlaw rape? People are going to rape anyway.
Why outlaw theft? People are going to steal anyway.
Why outlaw murder? People are going to murder anyway.
Because people “are going to do it anyway” is a pretty poor excuse for not outlawing it.
Abortion, by its very nature, violently kills a growing preborn fully alive human being.
If abortion is outlawed, it by it’s very nature will force women with unwanted pregnancies to either dangerously self-abort as you said, or forcibly birth the child. That is exactly what happens when abortion is outlawed. That being said, the same could happen for women not allowed to explore other options. I shouldn’t have to link to any sources if we’re talking about hypotheticals here. I’m just saying, the logic doesn’t add up.
Duck, isn’t your choice of words inexact? No one is “forcing” the woman to birth the child or self-abort. You are simply using the word “force” to describe two possible “choices” for the pregnant women, one (self-abort) of which is a crime. If you have a beef with the way nature works, take it up with God. Oh I forgot, you don’t believe in God, so you are left to complain on a website to people who do. Trust me, if you ask God you will get a better answer than the ones we have given you. Open your mind Duck – don’t just criticize the Bible, try to understand it.
Jack, you are correct. Carla, your rhetoric will not change the fact that my logic is correct about what happens when women are forced to carry their pregnancies to term.
I just wonder what lies you have to tell yourself to look at the pictures of aborted babies and not feel compassion for them, to embrace a kind of violence that destroys human life.
It must be really. really dark in there.
Your “logic” isn’t logical at all duck.
There is no force involved in pregnancy at all. A woman who sees no end in sight, who is in a desperate situation, needs a job, has a child already, is single……can have all of that worked out, needs met and that baby continues to grow.
I see it happen everyday.
Tyler…
1)Who said I don’t believe in God?
2)Who said I wasn’t religious?
3)Who said I don’t understand the bible?
4)Who said I never praise the bible instead of “just criticize”?
5)Who said I haven’t “asked God”?
Well, forced as in any activity that is legally restricted is forcing people to either not do or do that activity. We have a plenty of force in our laws. We disagree on what force is necessary in regards to pregnancy. Us pro-lifers think that women and doctors should be restricted from ending the lives of unborn humans. Pro-choicers think that people should be forced to not harm humans only after birth. Which doesn’t make sense to me, as it’s arbitrary. I think a human should be protected from having their life ended legally from as soon as we know that human exists.
Tyler: So were you trying to say: “Having sex is not an agreement to want to continue the pregnancy” – which is not much different than your original statement and; therefore, my point still stands. You have opened the door to child abandonment, single motherhood, etc….
or ” Having sex is not wanting to continue the pregnancy” – which is an odd statement.
You are making a leap from legal abortion to abandoning a born child, and nothing I’ve said “opens the door to that.” I’m fine with society’s approach to the born, and to late-term pregnancies too.
Of course I agree that it would be silly to say that “having sex cannot result in being pregnant.” It’s factual that that is false, as stated. It’s also factual that just because one has sex, they may still elect to have an abortion, and that having sex does not necessarily constitute agreement to remain pregnant.
___
If the pregnancy is not continued, there won’t be a “child to be abandoned.”
Yes, this is true. The child will be dead, not abandoned. What a compassionate world you live in Doug!
That’s not a meaningful argument, though. Saying “baby” or “not baby” or “child” or “not child” are subjective and don’t really weigh on the abortion debate. Personally, I think it’s darn silly to maintain that the zygote or blastocyst is somehow actually “a child,” but I don’t act like that has any necessary impace on the abortion argument. Hey, call it what you want – the question is what position does society take? How do we treat the unborn and the pregnant woman?
Anyway, what I said remains true – whether or not a given person would say the unborn, at a given stage of gestation, is “a child,” if the pregnancy isn’t continued, there won’t be a child to be abandoned. For that matter, I can see an abandoned child being a situation involving more sadness than 1000 abortions.
Jack,
I knew what Duck was talking about. :)
She is trying to equate forced abortion with forced birth which is illogical.
Carla,
You’re still operating under the assumption that every woman who has an unwanted pregnancy will suddenly want her pregnancy should all her “needs” be met. Some women just don’t want to be pregnant, for any number of reasons or no reason at all, that they have their right to. So, that being said, those women, would be getting “forced” as in anything they do to end it would be illegal, to keep their pregnancy. That’s Forced. If that’s not forced, than women getting an abortion because they weren’t told everything will magically work out for them and be happy if they keep it and having doctors and family who say I can’t help you magically make everything better, isn’t forced either.
Tyler…
1)Who said I don’t believe in God? You2)Who said I wasn’t religious? You3)Who said I don’t understand the bible? You4)Who said I never praise the bible instead of “just criticize”? You5)Who said I haven’t “asked God”? You
My responses are in bold.
And why is what I say “rhetoric” and yours isn’t Duck?
LOL
Duck,
I am not operating under any assumptions. I am on the board of a Pregnancy Center. I have walked 4 women through crisis pregnancies. I get to be on this side of life.
Women and men KNOWING that abortion is illegal will likely think two, three, twenty times longer before they have sex. Get it? Sex can sometimes lead to pregnancy. I KNOW!!! The law restrains. The outcome is people taking responsibility for their actions and NOT killing their children because they want to go to college.
I have 4 former zygotes to head to bed. Night all. :)
Courtnay: I have been called a Forced Birther!! LOL! By a woman in my town who keeps the books for the local church.
Courtnay, it does seem that what you want is for there to be legal force aimed at making pregnant women and girls continue pregnancies and give birth, versus allowing them to have abortions.
Carla’s point is that forced abortion is an external, unnatural method of ending the pregnancy both against the woman’s will. Forced pregnancy is allowing a natural process to continue against the woman’s will. In that way they aren’t analogous at all. And like she said, if abortion were not a legal accepted practice, I doubt we would see the numbers we do. If there were a lot of support and care for women facing unplanned pregnancies, a lot of them would most likely be happier about continuing them. Of course, not every single woman will want to carry her pregnancy to term, but not everyone wants to do anything. We can’t legislate on that.
That’s not a meaningful argument, though. Saying “baby” or “not baby” or “child” or “not child” are subjective and don’t really weigh on the abortion debate. Personally, I think it’s darn silly to maintain that the zygote or blastocyst is somehow actually “a child,” but I don’t act like that has any necessary impace on the abortion argument. Hey, call it what you want – the question is what position does society take? How do we treat the unborn and the pregnant woman?
How long (what duration of time) is a human being a zygote, or blastocyst? Is the human being that is eventually aborted ever at this stage of development when the woman actually has the abortion? If not stop using this argument because you are lying and being highly unethical.
Jack: forced abortion is an external, unnatural method of ending the pregnancy both against the woman’s will. Forced pregnancy is allowing a natural process to continue against the woman’s will. In that way they aren’t analogous at all.
Jack, “against the woman’s will” is the deal. Pro-Choicers are not for forcing her, either way.
Doug, I want each baby to have a chance. I repeat: do not have sex if you can’t have the result of sex. Proaborts are doing their own forcing, and in this case, it’s a little body being forced APART.
“Jack, “against the woman’s will” is the deal. Pro-Choicers are not for forcing her, either way.”
We were specifically talking about forced abortion and forced pregnancy, in that conversation Doug.
How long (what duration of time) is a human being a zygote, or blastocyst? Is the human being that is eventually aborted ever at this stage of development when the woman actually has the abortion? If not stop using this argument because you are lying and being highly unethical.
Good grief, Tyler. I said, “I don’t act like that has any necessary impact on the abortion argument.” Late enough in gestation and I do think “baby” applies – my personal opinion – but there too I don’t maintain that carries any necessary weight in the abortion debate.
Jack: We were specifically talking about forced abortion and forced pregnancy, in that conversation Doug.
Sure, and Pro-Choicers are not for forcing women, either way. Pro-Lifers are for legally forcing women to remain pregnant.
You are making a leap from legal abortion to abandoning a born child, and nothing I’ve said “opens the door to that.” I’m fine with society’s approach to the born, and to late-term pregnancies too. Of course I agree that it would be silly to say that “having sex cannot result in being pregnant.” It’s factual that that is false, as stated. It’s also factual that just because one has sex, they may still elect to have an abortion, and that having sex does not necessarily constitute agreement to remain pregnant.
Doug, thanks for sharing the extent of your depravity. Doug you need to understand what a human being is, and why they are valuable. Until you learn this you will continue to treat young human beings like the animals you eat.
“Courtnay, it does seem that what you want is for there to be legal force aimed at making pregnant women and girls continue pregnancies and give birth, versus allowing them to have abortions.”
True… but pretty much every pro-lifer also supports programs and support aimed at helping these women and girls who do not want to continue their pregnancies make a different decision. I also hope with less social acceptance, where abortion isn’t a first, second, or even last option, that people will think differently about their pregnancies, further reducing the numbers of abortion seeking women. I will admit, to be intellectually honest, that some women will probably still want to have an abortion, and they will be forced to continue their pregnancies.
No, we were specifically talking about forced abortion ( a parent forcing a minor to obtain an abortion) versus pro-lifers “forcing” a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. I see them as somewhat similar but different in some ways.
The mom bent on abortion is FORCING her child to die. And that’s what you spend all your time fighting for?
Sure, and Pro-Choicers are not for forcing women, either way. Pro-Lifers are for legally forcing women to remain pregnant.
Only in your misguided understanding of the world.
Hey, call it what you want – the question is what position does society take?
Do you get all of your opinions from society?
How do we treat the unborn and the pregnant woman?
We love them both. What did you think the answer was to this question?
And further, here’s another thing to think about:
Maybe there are some things people shouldn’t be allowed to choose, legally (ie, like injesting cocaine or self-mutilation or killing whoever assaulted their family member). We have laws that limit choice. That’s how a society functions.
Shouldn’t the things people are NOT ALLOWED TO CHOOSE be the killing of their unborn child? When did that start to seem wise???
Jack,
Pro-choicers are for support of women who want to chose to keep their pregnancies yet still need help. Like you said, you can’t make everyone want to keep their pregnanices, expected or not, and for them, we pro-choicers support their choice to abort if they wish. My entire point, is that by making it illegal, by force of law, you are making every woman with a pregnancy expected or not, wanted or not, to keep their pregnancies. That takes the choice out of it doesn’t it? Yeah I think so. It’s also force. Just like force is applied to making people not allowed to use medicinal marajuana even when the doctor thinks it’s the best they can prescribe them for the pain and other symptoms. Force of law prevents them from using it, or doing so illegally. Forced pregnancy will still logically happen should abortion become illegal.
Tyler,
Please demonstrate where you can logically deduce those answers from.
That takes the choice out of it doesn’t it? Yeah I think so. It’s also force.
Come on Duck. You know you are exaggerating when you use the word “force.” You’re correct when you say that the choice to abort is outlawed/removed once abortion is made illegal and the child is protected. However, that does mean women are “forced” to birth because abortion is not really a true choice. It would be like saying that a passer-by is forced to save a person from jumping off a cliff because suicide is illegal. The passer-by is not forced to stop the person from jumping off the cliff, it is just the decent, human thing to do.
Please demonstrate where you can logically deduce those answers from.
Your comments. Or alternatively read and think about Romans Chapter 2.
Tyler,
I’m not exagerating my use of the word force.
However, I was asking you specifically to logically deduce where you got these answers to my questions:
1)Who said I don’t believe in God? You
2)Who said I wasn’t religious? You
3)Who said I don’t understand the bible? You
4)Who said I never praise the bible instead of “just criticize”? You
5)Who said I haven’t “asked God”? You
My responses are in bold.
That’s what I was asking You to do.
Duck, read Romans Chapter 2.
I have read Romans Chapter 2. You, Tyler, tell me where you got those answers. You implied in your response, that I gave you those answers, I’d like to know where you get support for that claim.
”My entire point, is that by making it illegal, by force of law, you are making every woman with a pregnancy expected or not, wanted or not, to keep their pregnancies. That takes the choice out of it doesn’t it? Yeah I think so. It’s also force. Just like force is applied to making people not allowed to use medicinal marajuana even when the doctor thinks it’s the best they can prescribe them for the pain and other symptoms. Force of law prevents them from using it, or doing so illegally. Forced pregnancy will still logically happen should abortion become illegal.”
It does take the choice of abortion away, that is correct. Which would, logically, mean that some women are forced to give birth against what they might have chosen should abortion have remained legal. Our laws prevent all kinds of choices that we disagree with, and cause harm to other people. Even though I think medical marijuana is an odd analogy here, because it doesn’t involve preventing something that would naturally continue from being ended (like a pregnancy would continue if not ended). Maybe.. it’s illegal to remove your organ and sell it. That might work as an analogy a bit better, since laws against organ selling prevent something that would naturally continue (the organ functioning properly) from being ended (the organ being removed). But yeah, laws force certain behaviors and prevent others, abortion laws are no different in that respect.
I think that you and Doug seem to have a different view of what would happen if abortion became illegal than we do, it seems so.
I have read Romans Chapter 2. You, Tyler, tell me where you got those answers. You implied in your response, that I gave you those answers, I’d like to know where you get support for that claim.
Keep reading that Chapter until you get the answer to your own question, until you know how I got that one/same answer to your earlier questions.
Jack, the organ analogy would have been better, thank you. I just thought of the medical pot first, probably due to a recent debate about it. I’m glad you at least recognize my logical reasoning about force even though we idealogically disagree.
Tyler,
Then you should retract your statement that you got the answers of “you” from my comments. Otherwise, please show me where you got them.
Tyler,
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+2&version=NIV
Romans 2 ^
Now, tell me where in there, you get the answers to these questions…
1)Who said I don’t believe in God?
2)Who said I wasn’t religious?
3)Who said I don’t understand the bible?
4)Who said I never praise the bible instead of “just criticize”?
5)Who said I haven’t “asked God”?
Duck, the fact that, after reading Romans 2, you still do not understand why I answered your questions the way I did shows that my answers were correct. Don’t keep embarrassing yourself.
Tyler,
While you clearly can’t seem to understand the simple and very well documented fact of history that two people reading the bible can interpret different things…
You said that you got your impression from …
“Your comments. Or alternatively read and think about Romans Chapter 2.”
So, that would mean that I have said those things in the comments somewhere and therefore can be copy and pasted, and that there is a way to make arguments with citations from Romans Ch2. Otherwise, your accusations are baseless.
Duck here are some other questions for you to consider (and to help you find out why I posted the answers I did):
1)Which God do you believe in?
2)What is your religion?
3)What is your Bible?
4)Show me once that you have praised the Bible?
5)What question did you pose to God?
Feel free to respond, if you would like.
Tyler,
First off, only the god of Christianity and sometimes of Judaism is named God.
Second, would it change your mind even if I answered?
Third, which one? I’ve got about five. And the book of mormom, the Koran, and just about every other religious text I could get my hands on.
Fourth, burden of proof is on the accuser. But if you must know, I usually do on my facebook page, personal and public.
Fifth, more questions than could ever be written here.
Now, get back to actually citing your information for your accusations or retract them. Like I said, burden of proof is on the accuser.
First off, only the god of Christianity and sometimes of Judaism is named God.Second, would it change your mind even if I answered?Third, which one? I’ve got about five. And the book of mormom, the Koran, and just about every other religious text I could get my hands on.Fourth, burden of proof is on the accuser. But if you must know, I usually do on my facebook page, personal and public.Fifth, more questions than could ever be written here.
It seems my answers were prophetic. You are probably more liberal (not ecumenical) than religious. Perhaps spiritual?
Read Romans 2 again.
You’re going around in circles and have yet to show any proof for your accusations. Therefore, have a nice day. When you feel like making accusations with proof, we can continue this conversation. Until then, baseless accusations will be ignored.
Duck, have you ever been diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder or Conduct Disorder?
Has anyone ever asked you this before?
Praxedes, no, I haven’t been diagnosed with those. I assure you, I don’t have them. No, no one who doesn’t know me and is not a medical professional has ever asked me what my medical history consists of.
Tyler: Doug, thanks for sharing the extent of your depravity. Doug you need to understand what a human being is, and why they are valuable. Until you learn this you will continue to treat young human beings like the animals you eat.
Pfft…. You can do better than that. The physical reality of “human being” is not in doubt. You want your wishes enforced on pregnant women, and that is where many people are in disagreement with you.
we were specifically talking about forced abortion ( a parent forcing a minor to obtain an abortion) versus pro-lifers “forcing” a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. I see them as somewhat similar but different in some ways.
Jack, sure, and a parent might want to force the minor either way. I think there was a case where the parents tied a girl up, in a chair, so that she couldn’t go have an abortion (for example). Sounds kooky and over-the-top, but I think that was the deal. As far as people wanting to force women to continue pregnancies, certainly – there are some differences as we’re talking about societal policy versus what a parent or parents might do.
Sure, and Pro-Choicers are not for forcing women, either way. Pro-Lifers are for legally forcing women to remain pregnant.
Tyler: Only in your misguided understanding of the world.
Oh please. What you want is for society to try and force women to remain pregnant by making it illegal for them to have abortions.
Hey, call it what you want – the question is what position does society take?
Tyler: Do you get all of your opinions from society?
Of course not. What I said remains true – the abortion debate is aimed at the position that society takes (whether or not abortion is legal).
____
How do we treat the unborn and the pregnant woman?
Tyler: We love them both. What did you think the answer was to this question?
Depends on what answer is wanted. My own opinion is to have abortion be legal until 22 weeks. Obviously, other people have different opinions. A given person will agree or disagree with society’s position. “Loving them both” means you want your wishes to trump the wishes of the pregnant woman, and it should be no surprise that many people don’t agree with you. You’re not the one pregnant, she is.
Courtnay: Maybe there are some things people shouldn’t be allowed to choose, legally (ie, like injesting cocaine or self-mutilation or killing whoever assaulted their family member). We have laws that limit choice. That’s how a society functions.
Well, Courtnay, no doubt. ;) Yes, society attempts, by legal force, to alter people’s behavior. When it is seen as having a good enough reason, then there’s no griping about it.
___
Shouldn’t the things people are NOT ALLOWED TO CHOOSE be the killing of their unborn child? When did that start to seem wise???
It’s never been wise to pretend that one’s subjective take on things necessarily applies to others. You asked a subjective question and the answer is that the unborn are not “children.” There you go, a subjective answer.
When is it wise for a society to restrict people’s liberty, without a good enough reason? Okay, you think that in the case of abortion, society does have a good enough reason. Not everybody agrees with you.
Jack: I think that you and Doug seem to have a different view of what would happen if abortion became illegal than we do, it seems so.
Jack, not sure what Duck thinks, but while nobody can predict exactly where things would fall, I don’t think we disagree on the broad strokes. There certainly would be less abortions. There’d be some cases of women dying, getting severely hurt by “back alley” stuff or doing things themselves, but not a huge number.
For all I know, you and I don’t really disagree at all as to what would happen. The question is whether society has a good enough reason to make abortion illegal.
Praxedes, why would you ask if Duck had those issues?
“ Jack, not sure what Duck thinks, but while nobody can predict exactly where things would fall, I don’t think we disagree on the broad strokes. There certainly would be less abortions. There’d be some cases of women dying, getting severely hurt by “back alley” stuff or doing things themselves, but not a huge number.
For all I know, you and I don’t really disagree at all as to what would happen. The question is whether society has a good enough reason to make abortion illegal.”
Possibly, that might be where the majority of our difference lies. I believe that human rights should start when the new human organism does, and you believe that they should start later in pregnancy.
Thanks Jack, that is kind of rude of Praxedes.
Depends on what answer is wanted. My own opinion is to have abortion be legal until 22 weeks. Obviously, other people have different opinions. A given person will agree or disagree with society’s position. “Loving them both” means you want your wishes to trump the wishes of the pregnant woman, and it should be no surprise that many people don’t agree with you. You’re not the one pregnant, she is.
Doug you want to rape a woman’s mind by presenting her with a choice that you would not want to make yourself. You lack compassion for the situation that women are in. You acknowledge that she is the one who is pregnant, but don’t want to help her make a moral and a life affirming choice for herself and the new life she carries inside her. You want to expose women to sexual exploitation because you know full well that a large portion of men will use abortion like a chastity belt – to pretend to protect the reputation of the woman’s virginity, career and educational opportunities, or future life while really trying to avoid fatherhood. Get real Doug – you sexiest abortionist.
I want society to protect the unborn and the Mother. This is done by providing excellent health care. And please don’t add your scare tactics and say that protection for the unborn means women will die having back alley abortions or that women who have ectopic pregnancy will not be cared for – you simply know that is untrue. Medical ethics, alone, would stop that from happening. (You appear to trust the professionalism of doctors, and there is no reason there ethics will change when the law changes.)
Duck, you figure a way to artificially the “likes” your comments receive?
Tyler:
Duck has a group with 1,000+ members on Facebook that she links often to Jill’s blog so that her sycophants can come here and kiss her @$$ in a different venue in addition to the facebook group.
;)
Revised…
Depends on what answer is wanted. My own opinion is to have abortion be legal until 22 weeks. Obviously, other people have different opinions. A given person will agree or disagree with society’s position. “Loving them both” means you want your wishes to trump the wishes of the pregnant woman, and it should be no surprise that many people don’t agree with you. You’re not the one pregnant, she is.
Doug you want to rape a woman’s mind by presenting her with a choice that you would not want to make yourself. You lack compassion for the situation that women are in. You acknowledge that she is the one who is pregnant, but don’t want to help her make a moral and a life affirming choice for herself and the new life she carries inside her. You want to expose women to sexual exploitation because you know full well that a large portion of men will use abortion like a chastity belt – to pretend to protect the reputation of the woman’s virginity, career and educational opportunities, or future life while really trying to avoid fatherhood. Get real Doug.
I want society to protect the unborn and the Mother. This is done by providing excellent health care. And please don’t add your scare tactics and say that protection for the unborn means women will die having back alley abortions or that women who have ectopic pregnancy will not be cared for – you simply know that is untrue. Medical ethics, alone, would stop that from happening. (You appear to trust the professionalism of doctors, and there is no reason their ethics will change when the law changes.)
Thanks for explaining Xalisae.
Right – there is a point with a pregnancy where the ball is in the woman’s court, so to speak.
…Right. Or, and bear with me here, what we have is a blatant double-standard and an issue of making up rules as one goes along. Have you ever noticed how pro-choice advocates tend to scoff at the arguments used to argue that a man shouldn’t be held responsible for that which results from sex even though those same pro-choice advocates often times use them in regards to a woman (i.e., “a consent to sex is just a consent to sex!”), yet scream misogyny when someone tries to apply the same standard applied to men to women (i.e., “if you didn’t want to be a parent you shouldn’t have engaged in sex”)?
When is it wise for a society to restrict people’s liberty, without a good enough reason? Okay, you think that in the case of abortion, society does have a good enough reason. Not everybody agrees with you.
What percentage of society has to agree that an action should be restricted under certain circumstances for you to agree that it should be restricted?
Xalisae,
First off, they don’t kiss my butt. Second off, just because there are other pro-choice posters on here, that doesn’t mean I know who they are. That’s like saying oh your black? My friend’s black do you know him? Real classy.
Praxedes, why would you ask if Duck had those issues?
Because after reading Duck’s many, many comments, I see the simularity to people I know who have been diagnosed with those disorders. Arguing just to argue, continually stirring the pot and not really deep-down caring too much about the issue anyway.
I will be honest and state I don’t care if Duck believes my questions were rude. Duck is the Queen of Rude. She also states she can assure me she doesn’t have these disorders. Those who have these disorders very rarely admit it. She also states she is a mental-health advocate. If this is so, she should find no rudeness in being open about mental health problems and would not feel the need to assure me of anything.
At the end of my marriage to an abusive, alcoholic, porn addict, I got into counseling and was diagnosed co-dependent. I have to be careful not to get sucked into endless arguments with addicts — and I believe Duck is addicted to anger and arguing (and probably other substances). Addicts surround themselves with enablers as xalisae so eloquently (albeit bluntly) points out:
Duck has a group with 1,000+ members on Facebook that she links often to Jill’s blog so that her sycophants can come here and kiss her @$$ in a different venue in addition to the facebook group.
Thanks for my first giggle of the day, X!
Paraxedes, if you and Xalisae read my facebook page as much as you claim, you’d know full well what mental disorders I have and what run in my family. But just up and asking someone is rude. That being said, no, you’re incorrect, I don’t suffer from those. Also, you’re not my doctor.
That being said, Just because you don’t like what I have to say, doesn’t mean I don’t have useful conversations with others. If you don’t like it, you can ignore it. It’d probably be for the better anyway.
I’m rude for asking you what mental issues you have but you post them for all to read? And I have not claimed to go to your FB page often (show me where I did or it’s another lie on your part).
I just now went there curious to see if you linked this post to Jill’s and found that indeed you did. I also noticed one of your female enablers called Jill a very nasty degrading sexist name and you didn’t call her on it. Now that’s classy.
If you don’t want to respond to what I have to say, use your free-will and skip my posts.
Praxedes,
Asking someone you don’t know is rude, when you’re not a healthcare professional providing health care to that person.
What name did they say? I may have not seen it. Also, was it a “very nasty degrading sexist” name? Or was it just a name you don’t like? I myself have called Jill out on admitting to terrorist behavior. She may not like it, but according to the dictionary behaviors she’s done to Reproductive Healthcare workers are terrorist.
So, you’ll see why I ask you what name, and whether or not it really is what you claim or if you just didn’t like it.
What I find disturbing about Duck is that she seems to be completely unaware of how insulting she is. She condescends to us all constantly, then acts mystified when people treat her as though she’s just urinated in their breakfast cereal of choice (and rightly so). To me it just SCREAMS “sociopath!”, but I suppose that’s due in large part to the fact that I go out of my way to monitor the reactions of others to the things I say, because I feel that’s the only way progress is going to be made: when things are allowed to sink in, be felt, and be genuinely considered. This requires a reaction.
Tyler: Revised…
You just couldn’t take saying I was “sexiest,” could you, Tyler? :)
___
Doug you want to rape a woman’s mind by presenting her with a choice that you would not want to make yourself.
Oh brother…. Tyler, how in the world do you know that? The woman has the choice, whether or not you approve, and even if abortion were made illegal. Not all pregnancies are wanted, and thus some women want to end them.
____
You lack compassion for the situation that women are in.
Not relative to you I don’t. The flipside of your statement would be that you want to enslave women to your desires in this matter. Sometimes, it’s best for a woman to have an abortion, your opinion and wishes notwithstanding.
____
You acknowledge that she is the one who is pregnant, but don’t want to help her make a moral and a life affirming choice for herself and the new life she carries inside her. You want to expose women to sexual exploitation because you know full well that a large portion of men will use abortion like a chastity belt – to pretend to protect the reputation of the woman’s virginity, career and educational opportunities, or future life while really trying to avoid fatherhood. Get real Doug.
“Getting real” is acknowledging that you are stamping things with your own take on them. You don’t have any lock on morality, any more than anybody else does. I am fine if she wants to continue the pregnancy. I am saying that if she does not, then your opinion should not hold sway over her. The stuff you said about sexual exploitation is just silly.
____
I want society to protect the unborn and the Mother. This is done by providing excellent health care. And please don’t add your scare tactics and say that protection for the unborn means women will die having back alley abortions or that women who have ectopic pregnancy will not be cared for – you simply know that is untrue. Medical ethics, alone, would stop that from happening. (You appear to trust the professionalism of doctors, and there is no reason their ethics will change when the law changes.)
This is still you pretending that things are other than what they really are. I don’t go on about back-alley abortions, ectopic pregnancies, etc. Those are not the question. The question is whether we as a society have a good enough reason to ban abortion. In general I do trust doctors, yeah.
Not every fertilization results in a pregnancy – there are many failures to implant, percentagewise. And there are some miscarriages. That some pregnancies are ended by the will of the woman likewise is not “the end of society” or “the end of the world.” I know you disagree on the good/bad of it, but when it comes down to taking away the liberty of the woman, I don’t think the fact that some women choose to have abortions constitutes a good enough reason for society to ban them. From your view, taking away that liberty is part of “protecting the woman,” and of course many people are going to disagree, there.
Have you asked if everyone here agrees with your assertion that I’m insulting and condescending to everyone Xalisae? No? Cause I know for a fact, not everyone agrees with you.
Duck has a group with 1,000+ members on Facebook that she links often to Jill’s blog
Well, X, many of Duck’s posts on this thread only have 1 or 2 votes, and this is a relatively “high-voting” thread. Tyler asked right after Duck’s post saying it was kind of rude of Praxedes, and Duck was right, and at least 11 other people agreed.
I remember Reality having 31 votes (and rising) a while back.
Thanks Doug.
To me it just SCREAMS “sociopath!
I could be wrong with my armchair diagnoses of ODD. I very well could be sociopathic in nature, X. Maybe we could ask the CA prison psychologist Laurie Ann Martinez her opinion.
I’m not a doctor but I play one at Jill’s but I will always believe it is rude to kill innocent offspring.
I checked out RH Reality and see that they are asking for money. I sure hope other rich guys and gals will follow Ted’s lead and put their $$ where it helps, not hurts humanity.
Some Guy: …Right. Or, and bear with me here, what we have is a blatant double-standard and an issue of making up rules as one goes along. Have you ever noticed how pro-choice advocates tend to scoff at the arguments used to argue that a man shouldn’t be held responsible for that which results from sex even though those same pro-choice advocates often times use them in regards to a woman (i.e., “a consent to sex is just a consent to sex!”), yet scream misogyny when someone tries to apply the same standard applied to men to women (i.e., “if you didn’t want to be a parent you shouldn’t have engaged in sex”)?
It can’t really be “the same” for men and women, biology already done saw to that. ;)
When there is a born person there to care for, somebody with emotions, somebody that can suffer, somebody who is not inside the body of a person, then yes – most Pro-Choicers are for the man (and the woman) to be held liable for support. Same as Pro-Lifers are. And society in general.
Before that is the case, then there is often a different feeling. At that point, the woman is who is pregnant, not the man. No, it’s not the same between them, and this is not when the man is “held responsible” anyway, i.e. as far as I know no support is compelled prior to birth….?
____
What percentage of society has to agree that an action should be restricted under certain circumstances for you to agree that it should be restricted?
There’s no set amount. It would depend on whether I was for said restriction myself.
*uno momento*
Praxedes,
What does asking that woman who filed a false police report have anything to do with the conversation besides the fact that her profession happened to be psychiatrist?
It can’t really be “the same” for men and women, biology already done saw to that.
That’s a complete intellectual cop-out. You need to take your facetious wink and go back to the drawing board. It mot certainly can be the same. Watch: “Don’t have sex if you don’t want to take care of a kid”. That has nothing to do with biology whatsoever.
When there is a born person there to care for, somebody with emotions, somebody that can suffer, somebody who is not inside the body of a person, then yes – most Pro-Choicers are for the man (and the woman) to be held liable for support. Same as Pro-Lifers are. And society in general.
Before that is the case, then there is often a different feeling. At that point, the woman is who is pregnant, not the man. No, it’s not the same between them, and this is not when the man is “held responsible” anyway, i.e. as far as I know no support is compelled prior to birth….?
So as par for the course, you’re back to setting up an arbitrary line with arbitrary criteria, and then proceeding to argue that the situation to the left of that line is different to the one to the right of it based on those criteria. But you know what? Never mind the fact that your criteria are asinine. That’s not the point. As I so often do, here’s a little illustration for you to highlight what I’m saying.
Woman: “I’m pregnant, but I don’t want to care for any kid!”
Pro-lifer: “You shouldn’t have had sex if you weren’t willing to be a parent.”
Pro-choicer: “Misogynist! Just because she consented to sex doesn’t mean she consented to potentially being a parent!”
…
Man: “My <whatever> is pregnant, but I don’t want to care for any kid!”Pro-choicer: “That’s too bad. You should have thought of that before you spread your legs!”
Pro-lifer: “Didn’t you just say a consent to sex wasn’t a consent to potential parenthood?”
Pro-choicer: “It’s not.”
Pro-lifer: “Then the above stated man shouldn’t be forced to care for any kid since he was only consenting to sex, right?”
Pro-choicer: “No!”
Pro-lifer: “Why not?”
Pro-choicer: “Because <enter reasons here>.”
Pro-lifer: “That’s great and all, but it doesn’t change the fact that you said a consent to sex is just that and nothing more.”
Pro-choicer: “Well, it is.”
Pro-lifer: “Great, so the same standard should be applied to women as well, right?”
Pro-choicer: “No!”
Pro-lifer: “Why not?”
Pro-choicer: “Because then you’d be a misogynist/trying to control women!”
Pro-lifer: “So choice comes before or after sex?”
Pro-choicer: “Before if you’re a male; after if you’re a female.”
Pro-lifer: “Why?”
Pro-choicer: “Because it’s her body!”
Pro-lifer: “But what does that have to do with the decision to engage in an action which one knows can result in a kid?”
Pro-choicer: “…”
It’s humorous to me that it takes less than two minutes for a pro-choicer to contradict themselves.
There’s no set amount. It would depend on whether I was for said restriction myself.
Of course not. As I said to Reality, or whoever it was, as much as you all like to go on about what “society wants”, the simple fact is that both of us know that you don’t care about “society”. And why would you?
Some guy,
Personally, I think that men should be held responsible only if they had chose to keep the pregnancy and then later “left”. As in what happens with most dead beat dad cases, where they agree to have the kid, but then dad disapears.
However, I do wish more men who didn’t want to get pregnant due to sex would use contraception more often and properly. The uh, I forgot a condom, but I love you baby let’s do it, isn’t exactly appealing.
“You just couldn’t take saying I was “sexiest,” could you, Tyler? ”
ROTFLMAO
“Oh brother…. Tyler, how in the world do you know that? The woman has the choice, whether or not you approve, and even if abortion were made illegal. Not all pregnancies are wanted, and thus some women want to end them.”
Like I have said before, I don’t think the morality or legality of abortion depends on whether some women want to remain pregnant. I would hope that with a lot of support and help, and without abortion being touted as a legal choice, that more women would be happier or at least okay with carrying a pregnancy to term. Some women will still remain unhappy about it, just like people remain unhappy that other things that they would like to choose are illegal/unacceptable to society at large.
“Not relative to you I don’t. The flipside of your statement would be that you want to enslave women to your desires in this matter. Sometimes, it’s best for a woman to have an abortion, your opinion and wishes notwithstanding.”
Do you think it’s possible, Doug, that the cultural and societal pressures that we live under have painted abortion as “the best thing” when it may not be in a lot of, if not most, instances? I do, because I have seen it. I know many street girls where everyone told them that they were being responsible and doing the right thing by aborting, and it turns out that abortion was actually very bad for them and didn’t improve their lives at all. I don’t think you are compassionless, but I think the way you express your compassion may fail to take that into account.
“It can’t really be “the same” for men and women, biology already done saw to that. ”
Some Guy: That’s a complete intellectual cop-out. You need to take your facetious wink and go back to the drawing board. It mot certainly can be the same. Watch: “Don’t have sex if you don’t want to take care of a kid”. That has nothing to do with biology whatsoever.
No cop-out, though it was said in jest. The “taking care of a kid” *is* the same – both parents are held liable for support. The fact remains that only the woman can be pregnant. That, however, does not mean that only the man or only the woman is held liable for support.
____
“When there is a born person there to care for, somebody with emotions, somebody that can suffer, somebody who is not inside the body of a person, then yes – most Pro-Choicers are for the man (and the woman) to be held liable for support. Same as Pro-Lifers are. And society in general.
Before that is the case, then there is often a different feeling. At that point, the woman is who is pregnant, not the man. No, it’s not the same between them, and this is not when the man is “held responsible” anyway, i.e. as far as I know no support is compelled prior to birth….?”
So as par for the course, you’re back to setting up an arbitrary line with arbitrary criteria, and then proceeding to argue that the situation to the left of that line is different to the one to the right of it based on those criteria. But you know what? Never mind the fact that your criteria are asinine. That’s not the point. As I so often do, here’s a little illustration for you to highlight what I’m saying.
Woman: “I’m pregnant, but I don’t want to care for any kid!”
Pro-lifer: “You shouldn’t have had sex if you weren’t willing to be a parent.”
Pro-choicer: “Misogynist! Just because she consented to sex doesn’t mean she consented to potentially being a parent!”
The criteria are certainly no more asinine than yours. It’s not “arbitrary” – the unborn can only be inside the woman’s body, not the man’s, and thus things cannot be “equal” there. Once birth occurs, then both man and woman are considered responsible by society, and even you don’t want it any different than that. If men could be pregnant, and if, in a given couple it was the man that was pregnant, Pro-Choicers would treat him as they now do the woman.
Yes, not all women want to continue all pregnancies. Yes, Pro-Lifers think they should. I don’t see Pro-Choicers saying “Misogynist,” though, with regards to how Pro-Lifers feel, there. It is fact that having sex is not necessarily consent to remain pregnant. Doesn’t matter what somebody else’s view of things is. I think that claiming misogyny would be silly, but that’s not what really is going on.
Misogyny: “hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.” If anything, Pro-Lifers would be the ones, there, on the basis of not trusting women, and rather attempting to use legal force against them to satisfy the Pro-Lifer’s wishes, but I don’t really see it as “misogynistic” to think it’s more important for the unborn life to continue than to let women retain the liberty they now have.
Doug, It is not liberating for my gender to continue to be allowed to legally kill our children in the name of choice.
It may be liberating for your gender because more than half of all abortions are coerced, many times by the father. Having sex with women you are not willing to have children with is misogynistic. Man up.
There are differences in the gender. Celebrate these differences.
Some Guy:
Man: “My <whatever> is pregnant, but I don’t want to care for any kid!”Pro-choicer: “That’s too bad. You should have thought of that before you spread your legs!”
Pro-lifer: “Didn’t you just say a consent to sex wasn’t a consent to potential parenthood?”
Pro-choicer: “It’s not.”
Pro-lifer: “Then the above stated man shouldn’t be forced to care for any kid since he was only consenting to sex, right?”
Pro-choicer: “No!”
Pro-lifer: “Why not?”
Pro-choicer: “Because <enter reasons here>.”
Pro-lifer: “That’s great and all, but it doesn’t change the fact that you said a consent to sex is just that and nothing more.”
Pro-choicer: “Well, it is.”
Pro-lifer: “Great, so the same standard should be applied to women as well, right?”
Pro-choicer: “No!”
Pro-lifer: “Why not?”
Pro-choicer: “Because then you’d be a misogynist/trying to control women!”
Pro-lifer: “So choice comes before or after sex?”
Pro-choicer: “Before if you’re a male; after if you’re a female.”
Pro-lifer: “Why?”
Pro-choicer: “Because it’s her body!”
Pro-lifer: “But what does that have to do with the decision to engage in an action which one knows can result in a kid?”
Pro-choicer: “…”
It’s humorous to me that it takes less than two minutes for a pro-choicer to contradict themselves.
You are just conflating different things. Where Pro-Choicers say “the kid has to be cared for,” they are not only “picking on” the man. It applies to the woman, too. Given that the man does not control the woman’s body, there is indeed a point when it’s no longer his decision/both their decisions, and rather is the woman’s. The same would be true on a vice-versa basis if men could get pregnant. It’s not a contradiction to say that women can have abortions, and that men and women are gonna have to provide child support.
____
“There’s no set amount. It would depend on whether I was for said restriction myself.”
Of course not.
Yes, and the same is true for Pro-Lifers.
___
As I said to Reality, or whoever it was, as much as you all like to go on about what “society wants”, the simple fact is that both of us know that you don’t care about “society”. And why would you?
That’s silly. There is “what society wants” and then there are our own individual and group opinions. This is true for both sides of the debate, here, and has nothing to do with “not caring about society.”
Praxedes, Please provide statistical evidence from a scientific method qualifying source showing that “more than half of all abortions are coerced”.
Jack: Like I have said before, I don’t think the morality or legality of abortion depends on whether some women want to remain pregnant. I would hope that with a lot of support and help, and without abortion being touted as a legal choice, that more women would be happier or at least okay with carrying a pregnancy to term. Some women will still remain unhappy about it, just like people remain unhappy that other things that they would like to choose are illegal/unacceptable to society at large.
Jack, good comments, and if there were no unwanted pregnancies, then both pro-lifers and pro-choicers would be happy. You are certainly right that the morality of abortion does not depend on what the pregnant women wants, stated like that. That’s because they are not the only ones with views on morality, and the unqualified “morality” obviously includes the opinons of others. There is certainly the unborn life to consider, as well as the pregnant woman.
Personally, I think preventing a pregnancy is vastly better than having an abortion. I’m surprised at how many abortions there are, and how many unwanted pregnancies there are. I know that people are different in many ways, more or less cautious, etc., and that we change as individuals as we age. I’ve made many a mistake in my life, and frankly, continue to make some, but I remember being age 16 and thinking it would really be a bad deal if I got somebody pregnant. Everybody I knew, and all the situations where such did happen, made me think it was something to definitely be avoided. Not that it ‘had’ to be bad if somebody, somewhere, got pregnant at that age, but that it wasn’t for me.
___
Do you think it’s possible, Doug, that the cultural and societal pressures that we live under have painted abortion as “the best thing” when it may not be in a lot of, if not most, instances? I do, because I have seen it. I know many street girls where everyone told them that they were being responsible and doing the right thing by aborting, and it turns out that abortion was actually very bad for them and didn’t improve their lives at all. I don’t think you are compassionless, but I think the way you express your compassion may fail to take that into account.
Excellent questions. I think we need to define what “the best thing” means. From my point of view, it’s what will have the pregnant woman or girl be the happiest, in the long run.
There are societal pressures, sure, and I’m not saying they are “good,” per se. There are an unlimited number of examples, but let me take one – a high school girl wanting to have an abortion so she can be thin for the prom. If that really is her most prominent motivation, then seems to me there’s a significant chance that she will later regret it. Other situations and motivations will be different, with differing amounts of chance that in the end the abortion would be regretted or not, on balance. But if the girl “wants to look like the pictures in the fashion magazines” – which is unrealistic for most people anyway – then I think that’s an example where societal pressures are having a negative effect. It’s putting the reality or illusion of current, and relatively short-term happiness, above long-term happiness (and even actively working against it, should the girl end up regretting having an abortion, in this case). For what it’s worth, my own best definition of maturity is being able to sacrifice in the short-term, for long-term benefit.
That said, we can’t separate ourselves from society, totally, and who we are and how happy we are do depend on society to a significant extent. We can’t just “discard” society in these considerations; best that we know ourselves enough to make the right decisions, regardless of how much society has to do with it. That can be a tall order….
As for societal pressure, abortion, and what really is the best thing for pregnant girls and women – I don’t know, exactly. Is it negative in “a lot of instances”? Yes, I’d say so, since there are so many abortions to start with. I don’t think it’s so for “most,” and I’ve wondered about this all along – what percentage of people who have abortions end up regretting it, on balance, feeling that it was a net negative.
I’ve never seen a good study about how women felt, years and decades later, and it would be interesting.
There also is the question of “compassion” and “empathy” etc., but might as well do that in another post.
Duck: Personally, I think that men should be held responsible only if they had chose to keep the pregnancy and then later “left”. As in what happens with most dead beat dad cases, where they agree to have the kid, but then dad disappears.
Duck, in a more “perfect world” I agree. (Of course, many people would say that in that world there wouldn’t be abortions, anyway.) There are plenty of cases where the woman is able to take care of the kid, and able to support it, and the man is allowed to not pay. But society is not going to allow them to opt out of paying on their own – first of all, the kid will have to have a “decent” level of support, and the woman would have to agree. It’s certainly more rare, but the same applies to men who have primary or sole custody – if they’re okay with it, and if the court/society thinks the kid will have enough support, then the woman may not have to pay.
____
However, I do wish more men who didn’t want to get pregnant due to sex would use contraception more often and properly. The uh, I forgot a condom, but I love you baby let’s do it, isn’t exactly appealing.
Totally agree, for both sexes.
Praxedes: Doug, It is not liberating for my gender to continue to be allowed to legally kill our children in the name of choice.
That’s really kind of a “bumper-sticker” comment, though. Replies would be that it’s not “killing children,” and that wanting to enslave pregnant women to your opinion is where the “not liberating” comes in.
A more serious and overall more-applicable reply is that for some women, having an abortion *is* better than not having one, and that in the long run they are glad they did so, and they would do the same thing again in similar circumstances. This is not saying that “no women regret abortions.” Obviously, “many” do, among the 1,200,000 or so abortions in the US each year. There are no guarantees that we won’t later regret something. That, per se, is no good reason to make it illegal.
___
It may be liberating for your gender because more than half of all abortions are coerced, many times by the father. Having sex with women you are not willing to have children with is misogynistic. Man up.
That’s just plain silly. I’ve never gotten anybody pregnant, and never will. “I don’t have a dime in it,” so to speak, there. I too very much doubt the “more than half coerced,” but it has nothing to do with me, personally, regardless. I do wonder what percentage of those having abortions feel they were coerced. Also wonder what percentage of women end up regretting having an abortion, on balance.
____
There are differences in the gender. Celebrate these differences.
Well, I’m not sure what to say, here…. ;)
“Carla’s point is that forced abortion is an external, unnatural method of ending the pregnancy both against the woman’s will.”
Sure, but the assumption is still that every pregnancy will continue to gestation without any “external” aid. But what about pregnancy complications? What if a pregnant woman experiences a threatened miscarriage or premature birth due to placental abruption and placenta previa, or a hypertensive disorder? Without proper medical intervention, the the mother’s health and the well-being of her unborn child will be jeopardized. If a woman did not consent to a pregnancy in the first place, under your definitions of “force,” wouldn’t the patient indeed be subjected to “force” if she requires “external” measures to carry the pregnancy to term?
Praxedes, Please provide statistical evidence from a scientific method qualifying source showing that “more than half of all abortions are coerced”.
China.
Sorry Praxedes, invalid. How many times here have people touted the (spurious) “1% of abortions in the US are due to rape” statistic, repeatedly ignoring the fact that elsewhere in the world, the prevalence of rape and, consequently, the percentage of abortions due to rape are much higher? You can’t make cross-country comparisons unless you’re willing to accept them in all cases.
“Personally, I think preventing a pregnancy is vastly better than having an abortion. I’m surprised at how many abortions there are, and how many unwanted pregnancies there are. I know that people are different in many ways, more or less cautious, etc., and that we change as individuals as we age. I’ve made many a mistake in my life, and frankly, continue to make some, but I remember being age 16 and thinking it would really be a bad deal if I got somebody pregnant. Everybody I knew, and all the situations where such did happen, made me think it was something to definitely be avoided. Not that it ‘had’ to be bad if somebody, somewhere, got pregnant at that age, but that it wasn’t for me.”
Agreed on some counts, I would rather society encourage prevention of pregnancies than be in the unenviable position of telling a sixteen-year-old she has to adopt out or raise a child, if abortion was illegal.
I think that you make a good point about people being less or more cautious. As opposed to you at sixteen, I never thought about the consequences of screwing around when I was that age. I still think it’s amazing I never got anyone pregnant, since I wasn’t exactly careful. I think that the crowd I was around was pretty daring, never thought about the future, and was never taught any kind of personal responsibility or such. I think that abortions and unintended pregnancy would be lessened quite a bit if society at large could find a way of effectively reaching people like that.
“ Excellent questions. I think we need to define what “the best thing” means. From my point of view, it’s what will have the pregnant woman or girl be the happiest, in the long run.”
But see, I think your argument falters right there. I don’t think “happy” of one individual is a good indicator of what the best thing is, when it involves two individuals (possibly three, with an active father of the unborn in question involved). If one (the mother) is happy, but the unborn individual isn’t alive anymore and the father is devastated, is that still the best thing? If the abortion doesn’t happen, and the child is happy and healthy, and the father in unhappy, but the mother is happy… you see where I think that happiness may not be the best indicator of what best is? You could apply the same standard to other human rights violations or other issues, and the logic falters there too.
About your example of the prom girl… I think that abortion might perpetuate the problem, there. Instead of working on not making young women feel crappy about naturally gaining weight when pregnant, we have offered them a “solution” that may not be in their best interests.
“ It’s putting the reality or illusion of current, and relatively short-term happiness, above long-term happiness (and even actively working against it, should the girl end up regretting having an abortion, in this case). For what it’s worth, my own best definition of maturity is being able to sacrifice in the short-term, for long-term benefit.”
Agreed. And we can also make the argument that abortion helps perpetuate these pervasive attitudes in our society. If a nineteen-year-old is worried about having an infant in her junior year of college, the answer that our society puts forth as a kind of first response is abortion, generally, yes? It’s much more difficult for us to find a way to structure society so that these women are able to have their babies and finish their education, so we end up offering another solution in the form of abortion. I think that it isn’t hard, for a stressed-out young woman, to not think ahead and grab at that first solution rather than the long-term one that might be much more beneficial. The more women that do grab that short-term solution, the less that we as a society have a reason to fix anything! It’s perpetuating the problem!
Of course, that isn’t even getting into what the unborn’s interests are in this situation.
“ That said, we can’t separate ourselves from society, totally, and who we are and how happy we are do depend on society to a significant extent. We can’t just “discard” society in these considerations; best that we know ourselves enough to make the right decisions, regardless of how much society has to do with it. That can be a tall order….”
No, we can’t discard society. Which is why I, as a pro-lifer, would like to structure a society where there is much, much more encouragement and support for women who are facing an unplanned pregnancy. I think abortion, as well as being ethically and morally wrong, helps perpetuate a society where these things aren’t important.
And I do think it would be interesting to see a study on the after-effects of abortion, since there doesn’t seem to be much information on it.
Hi Megs!!!
Remember this word. INTENT. INTENT. INTENT. Say it with me. INTENT.
The INTENT of an abortion is to kill a growing, innocent human being by forcing the cervix open and sucking out the baby.
The intent of medical intervention that might be needed during pregnancy is to SAVE, HEAL or HELP the baby or mother.
See the difference?
Jack, I actually agree with your ^ post very much. There are some sub-cultures in the US that support early childbearing, and communities there tend to rally around young mothers. But rates of education and income tend to remain pretty low. I agree that it should be possible to achieve educational goals and financial self-sufficiency while having children (if that’s what a woman so desires). But until this happens, accessible abortion is a stop-gap measure. And there will always be women who, despite available support, will still choose the abortion route if faced with an unplanned pregnancy.
The freedom to make this life-changing decision should be up to the woman.
Jack, I actually agree with your ^ post very much. There are some sub-cultures in the US that support early childbearing, and communities there tend to rally around young mothers. But rates of education and income there tend to remain pretty low. I agree that it should be possible to achieve educational goals and financial self-sufficiency while having children (if that’s what a woman so desires). But until this happens, accessible abortion is a stop-gap measure. And there will always be women who, despite available support, will still choose the abortion route if faced with an unplanned pregnancy.
The freedom to make this life-changing decision should be up to the woman.
No Carla, there functionally isn’t a difference if a woman DOES NOT WANT to be pregnant. Subjecting such a woman woman to a C-section to save her unborn child is an act of FORCE.
“No Carla, there functionally isn’t a difference if a woman DOES NOT WANT to be pregnant. Subjecting such a woman woman to a C-section to save her unborn child is an act of FORCE.”
Well, there is a functional difference. If a pregnancy is forcibly aborted, that’s it. The unborn child is dead, and the woman has to deal with the repercussions of having her wanted pregnancy terminated against her will. If a pregnancy is forced by law to continue, the child is alive, and then the woman still has the option to adopt the baby out or raise it herself, even if she has to deal with the repercussions of being forced to give birth to that child. So in the forced pregnancy scenario, there are a few more options than the forced abortion scenario. I know it sounds horribly utilitarian, but you can’t simply leave out the unborn child and their life. Well, you can, but that’s even MORE utilitarian than my viewpoint.
We aren’t comparing forced abortion and pregnancy, Jack, but elective abortion and pregnancy. Just to clarify.
Tell me, Megan, what is the worldwide rate of pregnancy due to rape?
Abortion doesn’t unrape anyone. In our country or any other country. Rape and abortion are both evil, inhumane acts.
What’s going on in China alone should be enough for our leaders to WAKE UP.
“Jack, I actually agree with your ^ post very much. There are some sub-cultures in the US that support early childbearing, and communities there tend to rally around young mothers. But rates of education and income tend to remain pretty low. I agree that it should be possible to achieve educational goals and financial self-sufficiency while having children (if that’s what a woman so desires).”
I live in the south, and I think that young people are less vilified for being young parents down here then at America at large. I am twenty-three and have two children, and have had a few snooty people say something, but not as much as when we visited Oregon. The problem in the southern states with education levels and income goes much further than abortion, but I will ask you this. My state has like the fourth highest abortion rate, and a pretty darn low education and income rates. How is it that abortion doesn’t seem to be helping this problem? Could it be that there are other factors, and that pushing abortion isn’t actually getting to the root of the problem?
“But until this happens, accessible abortion is a stop-gap measure. And there will always be women who, despite available support, will still choose the abortion route if faced with an unplanned pregnancy.
The freedom to make this life-changing decision should be up to the woman.”
Like I said, there are always people who want to do everything, even if it is illegal/unacceptable. I think that using abortion as a stop-gap may actually be hindering what we would all like to see. Women getting the education they need, being able to avoid unwanted pregnancy, and being able to provide for themselves… I don’t think that abortion is necessary for any of this.
“We aren’t comparing forced abortion and pregnancy, Jack, but elective abortion and pregnancy. Just to clarify.”
Oh, we were comparing forced abortion with pregnancy further up on the thread, sorry. There are a lot of posts and I’m tired.
Doug,
The question is whether we as a society have a good enough reason to ban abortion.
What are the reasons that society has that are good enough to allow the Mother to kill her child while it is still inside her?
So far you haven’t supplied a reason, but you have recognized that a fetus is a human life. So tell me what possible reason(s) justifies destroying that life? And cannot a law be constructed that follows this reasoning, i.e. the life of the unborn shall be protected however in the event of X-value the Mother will get to abort…. or does abortion have to be a service that is completely supplied on demand? It seems to come down to the fact that pro-choicers do not value all human life, and feel that there are other considerations that outweigh the value of the life of the unborn. Would you consider the previous sentence a fair statement Doug?
The flipside of your statement would be that you want to enslave women to your desires in this matter.
You have already made this argument before. But it is sort of true, the women would be obligated to follow the law (not my wishes), which I know you would not have a problem with, since the law would represent society’s viewpoint. By erecting a law that protects the unborn Society would be trying to voice the desires/wishes of that fetus, because right now not too many people hear their voice. Morality does enact constraints.
Sometimes, it’s best for a woman to have an abortion, your opinion and wishes notwithstanding.
Extremely rarely, and usually a doctor would be informing the mother and not the other way around. Please see my question above – please list the reasons when it is best for a woman to have an abortion, in your opinion.
Oh Praxedes…
So, while we were talking about the legality and possible “liberation” for women in this country earlier, you then cite China for your statistic. Hmmm… yeah that doesn’t work. Please provide statistical evidence that half of all abortions (in this country where abortions were made legal for “liberation”) are coerced. Thanks.
Duck you are aware that at least half of the unborn children who are aborted are female, aren’t you?
Tyler,
Just to be clear, are you talking about worldwide? US? etc?
But yes, since that worldwide, approx half of all pregnancies worldwide are female, that would make sense.
Most western countries – so the countries in Europe, North America, and South America.
In China, unfortunately the percentage of female babies aborted is much higher than 50%.
Therefore, abortion advocates cannot be said to be pro-female.
I wonder if those stats for China have taken into account that the state has been giving bonus incentives for female childbirth in China for years. Hmmm…
That being said, many pro-choice people can be said to be pro-female, simply because we don’t have to be happy with China’s cultural practices to say that worldwide abortion is a woman’s right. Also, many of us advocate for a comprehensive policy to their population strain, not just abortion.
Furthermore, since worldwide, all pregnancies result in an approx half and half male to female ratio, it would make absolute sense, that half of the abortions are female. So your assertion that pro-choicers cannot be pro-female is nonsense.
Let me make sure that I understand you.
Are you saying that because only 50% of the abortions worldwide result in the death of a female baby you can still count yourself as pro-female?
That is a dismal track record.
Why not work for a better more humane solution?
Why must a woman have the choice to abort another woman? It seems rather unfair to me.
Tyler,
If abortions were prefered so that significantly less than 50% of them were female, that would actually make me a male hater.
The 50/50 is the ideal as far as the sexed split of abortions. Anything significant from that would show a preference for one sex over the other. So yes, I’m pro-female. I’m also not a man hater.
More than anything you are anti-human and are pro-death by abortion. Older women can kill younger women. What age must the younger woman attain so that you will stop the older woman from killing the younger woman?
Ha ha, I’m not anti human. That’s the funniest thing I’ve ever heard. Thanks for the laugh, I’ve got finals to study for.
Tyler,
Before I go. You do know that only approx 50% of births are female right?
Good luck on your finals. I hope it isn’t a biology class that you are taking.
Your disregard for human life – the aborted male and female babies – frightens me. Pro-choice people scare the heck out of me.
Doug,
The question is whether we as a society have a good enough reason to ban abortion.
The “good enough reason” is that the unborn child is a human being, with life, and all human life is sacred. Since all life is sacred, and has inherent dignity, no one, including the Mother, should violate that life’s right to life. There is no reason that anyone, including the Mother, should harm another human being. The location of that life does not affect its inherent right to life – it does not matter that the life is inside the mother or at the local mall, it deserves to be respected. The age of the human life also does not affects its right to continued existence. We should not permit killing a person because it is under or over a certain age. The abilities or development of the life also does not affect its right to life. Human beings should not have to reach a certain threshold of development in order to be granted the right to life, or personhood. We also shouldn’t deny someone their right to life based on their size. Just because an unborn child is smaller than you are, or the child’s Mother, doesn’t grant you or the Mother the right to snuff out its very existence, to treat the child like a candle that has outlasted its usefulness. We also don’t kill someone when their life interferes with our plans or if that life requires something from us. We sacrifice our lives for that other life, that person. If all women new that life was protected in Society then women, both married and unmarried, would be more careful about having sex. Men would also be more careful about having sex. Restraining our sex lives is a small price to pay in order to save human lives.
“My state has like the fourth highest abortion rate, and a pretty darn low education and income rates. How is it that abortion doesn’t seem to be helping this problem? Could it be that there are other factors, and that pushing abortion isn’t actually getting to the root of the problem?”
The struggle for abortion rights has to be vehement because there is so much opposition against it, which might come across as “pushing” abortion as a solution for the world’s problems. It’s not. But a woman might feel like she’s making the best decision for herself at that time by getting an abortion, and that’s all that counts for me in this debate.
But no, it’s not enough to point to the abortion statistics and say, “See, look! Not working!” For all we know, these statistics might be worse with criminalized abortion. Look at Mississippi: one abortion provider in the state (I believe), some of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country, and some of the worst high school graduation rates. Poverty, limited chances for upward mobility, etc. are the underlying factors to poor life outcomes, and we do need to tackle them.
Doug,The question is whether we as a society have a good enough reason to ban abortion.
The “good enough reason” is that the unborn child is a human being, with life, and all human life is sacred. Since all life is sacred, and has inherent dignity, no one, including the Mother, should violate that life’s right to life. There is no reason that anyone, including the Mother, should harm another human being. The location of that life does not affect its inherent right to life – it does not matter that the life is inside the mother or at the local mall, it deserves to be respected. The age of the human life also does not affects its right to continued existence. We should not permit killing a person because it is under or over a certain age. The abilities or development of the life also does not affect its right to life. Human beings should not have to reach a certain threshold of development in order to be granted the right to life, or personhood. We also shouldn’t deny someone their right to life based on their size. Just because an unborn child is smaller than you are, or the child’s Mother, doesn’t grant you or the Mother the right to snuff out its very existence, to treat the child like a candle that has outlasted its usefulness. We also don’t kill someone when their life interferes with our plans or if that life requires something from us. We sacrifice our lives for that other life, that person. If all women new that life was protected in Society then women, both married and unmarried, would be more careful about having sex. Men would also be more careful about having sex. Moderating our sex lives, or putting more effort into utilizing more effective, and less deadly, contraception is a small price to pay in order to save human lives.
Megan, lower high school graduation rates, poverty, and limited chances of upward mobility should not be reasons that a person procures an abortion. The baby should be protected from such self-interested and self-centered reasoning. Currently there are many government and non-government services in place to help pregnant women carry their babies to term and to live productive and upwardly mobile lives post-birth.
“Megan, lower high school graduation rates, poverty, and limited chances of upward mobility should not be reasons that a person procures an abortion. The baby should be protected from such self-interested and self-centered reasoning. Currently there are many government and non-government services in place to help pregnant women carry their babies to term and to live productive and upwardly mobile lives post-birth.”
Self-interested and self-centered? Obviously. There’s only one way for new life to be gestated: through the use of a mature woman’s body. A woman’s body is her own property, and nobody promotes property rights from a utilitarian standpoint.
Self-interested and self-centered? Obviously. There’s only one way for new life to be gestated: through the use of a mature woman’s body. A woman’s body is her own property, and nobody promotes property rights from a utilitarian standpoint.
Some pro-choicers do pose some of their arguments from a utilitarian standpoint. Nonetheless, should we be establishing our laws and our morals based on self-interest as you imply. You make think it is fine in this instance but I can point out many instances where a person’s self-interest would cause society to enter into utter chaos. For example, the self-interest of a genocidal murderer is not protected in law because that person’s self-interest would result in the harm of entire race of human beings….sound familiar?
Is the baby inside her, her property as well? Where do her rights end and the rights of the unborn child begin? I argue that the unborn child’s rights begin as soon as the egg is fertilized. Unless the physical health (her very life is jeopardy), the Mother is obligated to not harm the body of the unborn child, and even when her life is in jeopardy the view should not be to kill the unborn but to save the Mother’s life and the unborn’s life.
No cop-out, though it was said in jest. The “taking care of a kid” *is* the same – both parents are held liable for support. The fact remains that only the woman can be pregnant. That, however, does not mean that only the man or only the woman is held liable for support.
No, it *was* a cop-out, such as is the above response. Even if she does A, a woman will only reach point B if she wants to. By doing A, a man will reach point B regardless of whether or not he wants to. Asserting that each should be held to the standard of the other will cause pro-choicers to either accuse you of (1) wanting to control women, (2) being a misogynist or (3) not caring about the best interests of the child. Case and point.
Pro-lifer: “If the father objects, abortion should be disallowed.”
Pro-choicer: “You just want to keep women barefoot and in the kitchen!”
Pro-lifer: “Don’t engage in sex if you don’t want to take care of a child.”
Pro-choicer: “Misogynist! You just hate women’s sexuality!”
Pro-lifer: “A man should be able to opt out of fatherhood if he doesn’t want to take care of a child.”
Pro-choicer: “No, because that’s not in the best interests of the child!?”
Pro-lifer: “And abortion is…?
Pro-choicer: “It’s not born, so that doesn’t count.”
Pro-lifer: “Why not?”
Pro-choicer: “Because it doesn’t!”
The criteria are certainly no more asinine than yours.
Yes, they really are, Doug, and I have no problems in saying this. My criteria does not differentiate between different individuals, while your criteria require treating not only the born different from the unborn, but the born who fail to meet your criteria from those born who do. And just for the hell of it, I’ll say it again; your criteria are ASININE.
What do you mean when someone is born there is someone who has to be cared for? I’m not a female, and I don’t have any kids, but I’m fairly sure that the unborn have to be cared for. No, you don’t have to change their diapers and manually feed them, but they most certainly aren’t in some bubble shielded from reality.
What does having emotions have to do with anything? What about individuals diagnosed with flat?
What does suffering have to do with anything? What about individuals who have been administered an anaesthesia of some sort?
So the unborn aren’t born? So what? You don’t even hold to born vs. unborn standard. I’d really love to know what point you’re trying to make.
It’s not “arbitrary” – the unborn can only be inside the woman’s body, not the man’s, and thus things cannot be “equal” there. Once birth occurs, then both man and woman are considered responsible by society, and even you don’t want it any different than that. If men could be pregnant, and if, in a given couple it was the man that was pregnant, Pro-Choicers would treat him as they now do the woman.
Tell me, Doug, which comes first? Pregnancy or choosing to have sex? That’s a rhetorical question, of course, because the answer is obvious. Barring rape, do you know what has to happen prior to a pregnancy occurring? Say it with me; “someone has to *choose* to engage in sex”.
Just above, in so many words, you flatly stated that a consent to sex is not a consent to pregnancy/potential parenthood. When I asked you if the same would hold true for a man, you told me ‘no’, and said that it doesn’t hold true for a man because his body isn’t involved. But what kind of sense does that make? You discount the choice which precedes pregnancy in regards to the woman based on something which occurs only because of that initial choice. That’s disingenuous. Imagine the following argument: ”Just because I ran up a $100,000 credit card bill doesn’t mean I agreed to pay it back!”
That’s laughable, right? Virtually everyone would tell me that I shouldn’t have run up such a huge bill if I had no intention of paying it. Unfortauntely for you, it’s no more laughable than your assertion. You scream “choice this!” and “choice that!”, but you ignore the only choice that actually matters and will rail against anyone who says that women should be held to the “you play, you pay” game (a standard, mind you, most pro-choicers have no problems holding a man to). Even though pro-choicers get upset, at the end of the day they’re advocating nothing more than a woman being able to have wanton sex with reckless regard without being held to the consequences of said action.
…Though apparently pointing that out is misogyny or whatever.
Misogyny: “hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.” If anything, Pro-Lifers would be the ones, there, on the basis of not trusting women, and rather attempting to use legal force against them to satisfy the Pro-Lifer’s wishes, but I don’t really see it as “misogynistic” to think it’s more important for the unborn life to continue than to let women retain the liberty they now have.
Unless you’re for what Andrea Yates did to her children, does that mean you’re a misogynist?
You are just conflating different things. Where Pro-Choicers say “the kid has to be cared for,” they are not only “picking on” the man. It applies to the woman, too. Given that the man does not control the woman’s body, there is indeed a point when it’s no longer his decision/both their decisions, and rather is the woman’s. The same would be true on a vice-versa basis if men could get pregnant. It’s not a contradiction to say that women can have abortions, and that men and women are gonna have to provide child support.
There is no conflation here, Doug. I’m not even sure you know what a conflation is. Again I state that the choice to engage in sex comes before pregnancy. Why does that choice not matter?
That’s silly. There is “what society wants” and then there are our own individual and group opinions. This is true for both sides of the debate, here, and has nothing to do with “not caring about society.”
I’ve seen you, Reality, Duck and Megan, I believe, constantly make reference to what “society wants” in regards to abortion.
flat effect*
Jack: I live in the south, and I think that young people are less vilified for being young parents down here then at America at large. I am twenty-three and have two children, and have had a few snooty people say something, but not as much as when we visited Oregon.
Sheesh! I could see looking at a 16 year old that had two kids of different ages, but what the heck – plenty of people at 23 have 2 or more kids.
Someguy, are you arguing for the right for men to “abort” their financial responsibility to an unborn child? And that women should be held accountable for the choices they make?
I do believe that unregulated abortion has helped to create a whole generation of irresponsible women and men. If men did have a right to “abort” their financial and parental responsibilities women would have to become more prudential about who they share their bed with – currently many women feel that it is their “right to have children and for the government, or the father forced, to support them.” With that said, the effort to legalize the Father’s right to “abort” reveals the inherent anti-social self-interest that is embedded in abortion thinking/support. The right of Fathers to abort is race a to the moral bottom, just like the right for women to abort was also a race to the moral bottom. I think a better solution is not to allow women to abort and to revitalize and support traditional marriage. Marriage is truly the best good for man, woman, and the child. It is funny how the old ways/solutions really have the most wisdom, even though they may not be perfect.
The major problem with the old ways, like marriage, being accepted by Society again, is that they involve a self-denial, a value our current society does not appreciate.
“ Excellent questions. I think we need to define what “the best thing” means. From my point of view, it’s what will have the pregnant woman or girl be the happiest, in the long run.”
Jack: But see, I think your argument falters right there. I don’t think “happy” of one individual is a good indicator of what the best thing is, when it involves two individuals (possibly three, with an active father of the unborn in question involved). If one (the mother) is happy, but the unborn individual isn’t alive anymore and the father is devastated, is that still the best thing? If the abortion doesn’t happen, and the child is happy and healthy, and the father in unhappy, but the mother is happy… you see where I think that happiness may not be the best indicator of what best is? You could apply the same standard to other human rights violations or other issues, and the logic falters there too.
It’s part of my thinking, but it’s not really “my argument,” i.e. I’m not saying that everybody *has* to look at the happiness of the woman. The fact is that there are many people who don’t.
As far as the individuals involved, the man’s wishes may be at odds with the woman’s, but I most definitely give the nod to her over him, since she’s not the one pregnant. If the man was pregnant, then the same for him. The unborn individual has no awareness, no emotion, no cognition, no personality, etc., when the great majority of abortions are done. While there is a “human being” as far as a living organism there, there’s “nobody home” yet. While miscarriage can be very sad for the parents, if they want to have a kid, the unborn don’t know and don’t care, and the same is true with abortion.
Jack, I think you said that early on you felt that abortion was wrong, that it was a human rights violation, etc.? Why was that? There’s no “wrong answer” here and I’m not going to be critical of you. I do wonder about having empathy with the unborn, especially to the extent that any empathy with the pregnant woman isn’t enough to want her to keep the legal freedom she now has. To me, “empathy” implies that there must be some emotion on the part of the other party, in this case the unborn, and to a point in gestation, that’s not true.
Do the unborn really “have an interest” before there is any sensation, any caring, etc., on their part? If we take a dead body, or a living body and scoop out the brain, keeping the body alive by pumping oxygenated blood, is there still really “an interest” there?
____
And we can also make the argument that abortion helps perpetuate these pervasive attitudes in our society. If a nineteen-year-old is worried about having an infant in her junior year of college, the answer that our society puts forth as a kind of first response is abortion, generally, yes? It’s much more difficult for us to find a way to structure society so that these women are able to have their babies and finish their education, so we end up offering another solution in the form of abortion. I think that it isn’t hard, for a stressed-out young woman, to not think ahead and grab at that first solution rather than the long-term one that might be much more beneficial. The more women that do grab that short-term solution, the less that we as a society have a reason to fix anything! It’s perpetuating the problem!
I don’t see society as monolithic, at all, on “the 19 year old should have an abortion since she’s in college.” We let her make the decision. Sure, lots of people will understand her, whether she wants an abortion or not, but that’s not really “shoving abortion” at her anymore than it is “shoving motherhood” at her. When you say “perpetuate,” I think there is some putting the cart before the horse there. At times people don’t want to be pregnant, but this is not because abortion is legal, it’s because of other things in their life.
I do agree that it’s “harder to structure society” so people finish their education while having kids. If “restructuring” is really required then obviously that takes a lot more than if the woman just has an abortion. For one thing, in many cases it won’t just be that being in school is making things “hard,” it will be that the pregnancy really isn’t wanted in the first place. Messing about with society won’t change that. I shudder to think of having a kid when I was in college, but of course people are different.
We’re also going into a time when devoting resources and money – to just about anything – will be harder, take longer, take more consideration, etc. Not pronouncing on the good/bad of abortion here, but I see somewhat of a different landscape ahead, with quite a bit of dissatisfaction in it. “Interesting times….”
As far as the individuals involved, the man’s wishes may be at odds with the woman’s, but I most definitely give the nod to her over him, since she’s not the one pregnant. If the man was pregnant, then the same for him. The unborn individual has no awareness, no emotion, no cognition, no personality, etc., when the great majority of abortions are done. While there is a “human being” as far as a living organism there, there’s “nobody home” yet. While miscarriage can be very sad for the parents, if they want to have a kid, the unborn don’t know and don’t care, and the same is true with abortion.
Jack, I think you said that early on you felt that abortion was wrong, that it was a human rights violation, etc.? Why was that? There’s no “wrong answer” here and I’m not going to be critical of you. I do wonder about having empathy with the unborn, especially to the extent that any empathy with the pregnant woman isn’t enough to want her to keep the legal freedom she now has. To me, “empathy” implies that there must be some emotion on the part of the other party, in this case the unborn, and to a point in gestation, that’s not true.
Do the unborn really “have an interest” before there is any sensation, any caring, etc., on their part? If we take a dead body, or a living body and scoop out the brain, keeping the body alive by pumping oxygenated blood, is there still really “an interest” there?
(Megan please note Doug’s) utilitarian thinking …Doug I hope you never fall asleep again, if you do someone should be allowed to kill you, according to your own reasoning, because you won’t know the difference. You are, as is everyone, pretty useless when you are sleeping… there is nobody home when one sleeps.
“The question is whether we as a society have a good enough reason to ban abortion. ”
Tyler: What are the reasons that society has that are good enough to allow the Mother to kill her child while it is still inside her?
What “child”? If you see a child being killed, call a cop. If your argument is going to include rhetorical foot-stomping and table-pounding that amounts to “abortion is wrong because ‘it’s a baby,’ or ‘it’s a child,” then anybody can reply with similarly subjective claims that “it’s not a child,” etc. Nobody gets anywhere that way.
The reason society has legal abortion is because society – and people in general – care about freedom and being free. There is strong will behind the desire to be free, and to be free from government – unless there is a good enough reason otherwise. Lots of people care about the unborn life, to be sure, and thus there is a weighing of the opposing wishes, and valuations made. I’m not saying it’s impossible that abortion would ever be illegal in the US again. But there’s a lot of sentiment for letting the woman keep the liberty she now has, and – at the present time – sufficient opinion to keep abortion legal (to a point in gestation).
____
So far you haven’t supplied a reason, but you have recognized that a fetus is a human life. So tell me what possible reason(s) justifies destroying that life? And cannot a law be constructed that follows this reasoning, i.e. the life of the unborn shall be protected however in the event of X-value the Mother will get to abort…. or does abortion have to be a service that is completely supplied on demand? It seems to come down to the fact that pro-choicers do not value all human life, and feel that there are other considerations that outweigh the value of the life of the unborn. Would you consider the previous sentence a fair statement Doug?
No, not a fair statement, any more than saying that pro-lifers don’t care about the pregnant woman at all. The reason for society allowing abortion is that as a society we are basically a group of people with things in common, things that include wanting to keep the government off our backs – again unless there is a good enough reason. It goes right to the Roe decision. Did the state have a good enough reason to ban abortion? The Court said no, not until a point in gestation. Granted that you disagree.
Yes, the fetus is a human life, but we don’t need “more people” on earth per se, nor is it “the end of the world” if not every pregnancy is continued, certainly not to the extent that we take away the liberty that women now have. The effect on society is the same whether the unborn life ends by the will of the woman or not. Whether there is an abortion or a miscarriage on the other side of the world, or across town, you’ll almost never know of it, and there will be no difference for you whether or not there was one, or a hundred, for that matter. I’m not saying it’s “wrong” for you to be against legal abortion, but consider this lack-of-real-effect, versus not liking the idea of abortion. When weighed against freedom – which has undeniable value to us – no wonder not everybody thinks as you do.
____
“The flipside of your statement would be that you want to enslave women to your desires in this matter. ”
You have already made this argument before.
My point is that the “bumper-sticker” stuff is hardly persuasive, or rational debate. Continue, however….
But it is sort of true, the women would be obligated to follow the law (not my wishes), which I know you would not have a problem with, since the law would represent society’s viewpoint. By erecting a law that protects the unborn Society would be trying to voice the desires/wishes of that fetus, because right now not too many people hear their voice. Morality does enact constraints.
Honestly, that’s silly of you to say. Why would I necessarily agree with a given viewpoint of society? There are ones I disagree with now, same as you.
The desires/wishes of the fetus? Even in the fetal stage, those are not there for a while. “Hear their voice”? There is no “voice” until a point in gestation. There is no awareness, sensation, no desire nor caring about anything. In the vast majority of abortions, there is no “sadness” on the part of the unborn. The deal is that it’s your wishes against those of a woman with an unwanted pregnancy, and since she’s the one pregnant, not you, I’m for letting her decide. Should your personification of the unborn trump the wishes of the pregnant woman – who is undeniably a person with emotion, awareness, the ability to suffer, etc.? I say no and so do many others.
____
Sometimes, it’s best for a woman to have an abortion, your opinion and wishes notwithstanding.
Extremely rarely, and usually a doctor would be informing the mother and not the other way around.
No, not “extremely rarely.” IMO most women who have abortions remain satisfied with their decision. Certainly, some do not, but I’m thinking it’s less than half, way, way less than half. There are well over a million abortions each year in the US alone, and it’s not like there is some huge “secret” about having abortions. Some people regret it, on balance, in the end, and (I’m saying) many more do not. I’ve said it before, but I’ve never seen a good study on what percentage of women really do regret abortions, overall, in the end.
On it being “best” to have an abortion or continue a pregnancy, there is a meaningful statistic among women who have abortions. Quite a few of them, to that point, describe themselves as “pro-life” and as fundamentalist Christians. Among women who describe themselves that way, 15 to 20% of them have abortions. Quite a bit less than the rate among US women as a whole, but still surprisingly high to me, and illustrative that when it’s the person themself who is in the situation – even heretofore “pro-lifers” – they sometimes see that ending the pregnancy is the best thing for them.
The “good enough reason” is that the unborn child is a human being, with life, and all human life is sacred. Since all life is sacred, and has inherent dignity, no one, including the Mother, should violate that life’s right to life.
Tyler, that is not proof of anything. Matters of unprovable belief are hardly necessarily rational argument, and in no way should there necessarily be the presumption that such should apply to any others, especially those who don’t share said beliefs.
What “child”? If you see a child being killed, call a cop. If your argument is going to include rhetorical foot-stomping and table-pounding that amounts to “abortion is wrong because ‘it’s a baby,’ or ‘it’s a child,” then anybody can reply with similarly subjective claims that “it’s not a child,” etc. Nobody gets anywhere that way.
The reason society has legal abortion is because society – and people in general – care about freedom and being free. There is strong will behind the desire to be free, and to be free from government – unless there is a good enough reason otherwise. Lots of people care about the unborn life, to be sure, and thus there is a weighing of the opposing wishes, and valuations made. I’m not saying it’s impossible that abortion would ever be illegal in the US again. But there’s a lot of sentiment for letting the woman keep the liberty she now has, and – at the present time – sufficient opinion to keep abortion legal (to a point in gestation).
I will continue to pound the table that the value of life precedes the value of freedom. In my opinion, it is only logical. Obviously, some people don’t feel that but that it is because, again in my opinion, it is not their own life at stake, just their freedom.
Tyler, that is not proof of anything. Matters of unprovable belief are hardly necessarily rational argument, and in no way should there necessarily be the presumption that such should apply to any others, especially those who don’t share said beliefs.
Only in your opinion. Beliefs are important. Everything you have said to date can be considered to be your belief. You have no more of a “rational” support for your opinions/belief than any religion/religious belief. The difference between a religious view and your own is that various religious people throughout history have provided very rational reasons for believing in God, while atheists have no rational reason for believing anything.
“No cop-out, though it was said in jest. The “taking care of a kid” *is* the same – both parents are held liable for support. The fact remains that only the woman can be pregnant. That, however, does not mean that only the man or only the woman is held liable for support.”
Some Guy: No, it *was* a cop-out, such as is the above response. Even if she does A, a woman will only reach point B if she wants to.
It’s silly for you to say “cop-out.” It’s reality. Yes, the woman will only give birth if she wants to (short of being physically compelled otherwise). That’s no “mystery,” that’s just the way it is. Granted that you think her legal choices should be less than what they are now. It’s no cop-out to note that men cannot be pregnant.
____
By doing A, a man will reach point B regardless of whether or not he wants to.
No, no, no… Maybe the man gets to B or maybe he doesn’t. The proper way to say it is that he does not have control over it *in the same way the woman” does. He can have his say. Maybe his wishes will determine things (many, many women take the man’s desires into account). Maybe not. The bottom-line decision is indeed up to the woman, since she’s the one pregnant. The man doesn’t “reach point B regardless.” He reaches point B if the woman is unwilling to have an abortion.
____
Asserting that each should be held to the standard of the other will cause pro-choicers to either accuse you of (1) wanting to control women, (2) being a misogynist or (3) not caring about the best interests of the child. Case and point.
It’s inherently not the same for men and women, since men can’t be pregnant. Of course many people aren’t desirous of “holding them to the same standard,” due to that fact. Once birth has occurred, and as long as there’s a living kid, society, pro-lifers and pro-choicers all agree that both the man and woman are then liable for support. At that point, that inherent difference between men and women no longer applies. And, I think you mean, “case in point.” ;)
Pro-lifer: “If the father objects, abortion should be disallowed.”
Pro-choicer: “You just want to keep women barefoot and in the kitchen!”
This is you putting words in Pro-Choicers’ mouths. There are any number of similar things we could do with Pro-Lifers saying kooky things. So, what is really going on, there? The Pro-Lifer evidently thinks the man’s opinion should trump that of the woman, *as long as the man is agreeing with the Pro-Lifer.* ;) If the woman wanted to continue the pregnancy and the man wanted it ended, would the Pro-Lifer then say that if the man objects to the continuation, it should be disallowed? Well of course not. This is not about “holding them to the same standard,” this is about the Pro-Lifer’s “shoulds,” and they’re going to think the man or woman is right or wrong, depending on if they agree with the Pro-Lifer.
If somebody, be they Pro-Choice or not, would actually say the “barefoot and in the kitchen” stuff, then they’re silly and I wouldn’t agree with it. Of course no such thing is proven or implied, there. It just means the Pro-Lifer wants the pregnancy continued. We’ve had certain Pro-Lifers say similar wacky stuff right here on Jill’s site, i.e. in effect “Women are immature” and “girls are not to be trusted” (Zeke, for one). But in no way is this really “what Pro-Lifers say.” Likewise, the Pro-Choicer would normally say, “No, the man’s desire should not trump that of the woman, since he’s not the one pregnant. She is.”
I will continue to pound the table that the value of life precedes the value of freedom.
Well, good, Tyler. You’re being straightforward and “making no bones about it,” then. :)
In my opinion, it is only logical.
Okay, why? Do we really “have” to have every single pregnancy continued? Do we really “need more people on earth,” per se? It is one thing to generalize about “life” and “freedom,” but not all fertilizations are going to result in pregnancies or births, anyway, even without any willful abortions. If there truly was a crying need to increase the population faster than what it’s already increasing, and I considered it more important than the woman’s liberty, then I’d be pro-life. But we are light-years from any such thing.
Obviously, some people don’t feel that but that it is because, again in my opinion, it is not their own life at stake, just their freedom.
Well yeah – it’s not the life of the woman (except in very rare circumstances) that’s at issue. She wants to be free. And Pro-choicers want her to be. Neither Pro-Choicers or Pro-Lifers are really, directly affected by the loss of a given unborn life (unless they were the ones pregnant, with a wanted pregnancy, and then it wouldn’t be an issue in the first place). This is true whether it’s failure to implant, miscarriage, or abortion. We are not saying that “life has no value,” here. We are saying that in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, society doesn’t need to use legal force to try and prevent the woman from ending it.
Tyler: Beliefs are important. Everything you have said to date can be considered to be your belief.
Yes, agreed. And that’s what the whole argument is – it’s our beliefs, desires, wishes, valuations, etc. That’s what morality is.
___
You have no more of a “rational” support for your opinions/belief than any religion/religious belief.
Agreed, again, since there isn’t anything beyond what minds think, here. The difference is that I don’t pretend that my opinions reflect some “external reality” that cannot be proven to be anything more than imaginary.
____
The difference between a religious view and your own is that various religious people throughout history have provided very rational reasons for believing in God, while atheists have no rational reason for believing anything.
Gotta disagree, there. People came up with religion to allay fears and uncertainties, no real proof involved (as well as to manipulate others…) “What’s that sound?! What’s that light?!” Oh that – a god did it, the God of Thunder…..
“Rational reason for believing in anything” does not matter. The fact is that we *do* believe in things, and have desires and make valuations. The folly, as I see it, is needing to pretend that what one believes is somehow magically correct, without any more real proof than anybody else has.
Personally, I don’t see the point to being an atheist. How can we say there is no God or no gods? It can never be proven.
Compassion and reason dictate, that since all human life must be born, the unborn’s life trumps the woman’s freedom to choose. If all women choose to abort – no human race, no Doug.
Doug, you and your long posts, lol. You’re killin’ me!
“As far as the individuals involved, the man’s wishes may be at odds with the woman’s, but I most definitely give the nod to her over him, since she’s not the one pregnant. If the man was pregnant, then the same for him. The unborn individual has no awareness, no emotion, no cognition, no personality, etc., when the great majority of abortions are done. While there is a “human being” as far as a living organism there, there’s “nobody home” yet. While miscarriage can be very sad for the parents, if they want to have a kid, the unborn don’t know and don’t care, and the same is true with abortion.”
Hmmm. Even if the unborn don’t care at the time, they probably will eventually. Just like I didn’t care if my mother killed me as a newborn, but looking back I would definitely want to have my infant self protected, if that was my mother’s wish. I think it’s odd to base human rights on the relative consciousness of the human. I mean, we have all heard that argument. Blah, blah coma patients, blah blah newborns. You don’t give up your rights or your stake in remaining alive just because of your conscious level or lack of abilities.
I always hated the “vegetative state coma patient” analogy because I think it logically fails, by the way. I think it’s more apt to compare the fetus to a newborn. Because there is only going to be a limited time (for typical humans) where the fetus is nonsentient and dependent on the mother, just like there is only a limited time where an infant is dependent on a caretaker. A coma patient has no guarantee of getting better and independent (not that that’s a reason to kill them, but that’s not the point).
“Jack, I think you said that early on you felt that abortion was wrong, that it was a human rights violation, etc.? Why was that? There’s no “wrong answer” here and I’m not going to be critical of you. I do wonder about having empathy with the unborn, especially to the extent that any empathy with the pregnant woman isn’t enough to want her to keep the legal freedom she now has. To me, “empathy” implies that there must be some emotion on the part of the other party, in this case the unborn, and to a point in gestation, that’s not true.”
Well, I have many reasons for believing abortion is a human rights violation, some more personal and some more broadly applicable to what I want to see in society. I don’t think that it’s good practice for society to legally allow the killing, because of the wishes of another person, of human beings. It’s not like I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the pregnant woman who doesn’t wish to be pregnant or be a parent, I just don’t think that her wishes can trump the life of someone else. My rights are restricted by my children, as are my wife’s. We cannot neglect or abuse our children. Both of us should have been required to protect our children from when we first knew of their existence. I am a fan of personal liberty for both men and women as much as possible, but not at an unborn child’s (I know that word is subjective, but you know I mean the human organism created by it’s parent’s in utero). Social contract = take care of your children as much as you are able. Personal reasons, I was told all the time by my mother that she wanted to have me aborted (and killed later, but that’s another story). I find the fact that my entire being was dependent on what one of my parents (who despised me for no reason) wanted horrifying. All human’s deserved to be protected legally, especially from their own parents who do not have their best interests in mind.
Those are some basic reasons. I have more if you want them.
I’ll answer the society questions in the next post. :) Too long otherwise.
(Megan please note Doug’s) utilitarian thinking …Doug I hope you never fall asleep again, if you do someone should be allowed to kill you, according to your own reasoning, because you won’t know the difference. You are, as is everyone, pretty useless when you are sleeping… there is nobody home when one sleeps.
Tyler, nope – you’re not even considering what the motivation would be to kill me. Does somebody have a good enough reason to kill me, in your opinion? Much different from a woman with an unwanted pregnancy. And really – Joe Blow is walking down the street. Okay, that is one thing. Now, let’s say that ol’ Joe is inside your body. Is that going to make a difference? You bet it is.
A conscious person who is asleep is just that. There are dreams, sensation, etc. There is “somebody home.” Not the same as having no sensation, no cognition, no awareness at all.
Generalize this – no life = no freedom. You cannot have freedom without there being a life. Freedom is contingent upon life, while life is not contingent upon freedom.
Tyler, nope – you’re not even considering what the motivation would be to kill me. Does somebody have a good enough reason to kill me, in your opinion? Much different from a woman with an unwanted pregnancy. And really – Joe Blow is walking down the street. Okay, that is one thing. Now, let’s say that ol’ Joe is inside your body. Is that going to make a difference? You bet it is.
A fully grown human, especially man consumes more of the earth’s resources than any unborn child does and i want to have as much of the earth’s resources as possible. Also, you may take a parking space I want one day. Those are possible reasons for wanting Joe Blow or yourself dead. Prove that they are not valid reasons?
Compassion and reason dictate, that since all human life must be born, the unborn’s life trumps the woman’s freedom to choose. If all women choose to abort – no human race, no Doug.
Tyler, disagree again. There is no necessary sense in having “compassion” for that which there can be no empathy for, versus caring about the woman’s freedom – the undeniably conscious, emotional woman. And – if there was “nobody,” no minds with desires, then there would be no morality, no such cares or debates in the first place. It’s part and parcel of human nature that we discuss morality because *we do* have desires and beliefs.
“If all women choose to abort…” Well hey, if things were different, then monkeys would be flying out of our butts right now. ;)
In the real world, let’s just say that all women did want to abort. It would make one heck of a difference. I’d say you’d see abortion then be illegal a lot more than you do now. Likewise, let’s witness the effects of population pressure. That makes for life becoming “less dear” just as your proposed scenario makes it more dear.
Doug, previously you said that you don’t believe there is anything beyond what the mind thinks. And that you don’t believe your opinions reflect some “external reality” that can be proven to be anything more than imaginary. Yet you want to give consideration to a motionless human who is asleep (a being that is external to you) the ability to have dreams? You also want to grant women (also external to you) the ability to make choices, why do you want grant imaginary creatures existing in your mind the right to choose? You can’t have it both ways Doug. Either you believe in an external world or you don’t, unless you want to be intellectually dishonest. The contradictions in your answers proof that you don’t even really believe what you are saying.
Doug, how do “you” know that “somebody is home” when they are sleeping, without referring to some external reality that we can both agree on?
“I don’t see society as monolithic, at all, on “the 19 year old should have an abortion since she’s in college.” We let her make the decision. Sure, lots of people will understand her, whether she wants an abortion or not, but that’s not really “shoving abortion” at her anymore than it is “shoving motherhood” at her. When you say “perpetuate,” I think there is some putting the cart before the horse there. At times people don’t want to be pregnant, but this is not because abortion is legal, it’s because of other things in their life.”
I don’t see society as monolithic either… Like I said, it’s a heckuva difference visiting Oregon when you grew up and are used to a southern state. I would imagine there are regional and societal differences wherever you go. The point I was making is that from what I see, abortion is presented as a legitimate option, and that almost by necessity has to influence the thought process of the pregnant woman, yes? I thoroughly enjoy smoking pot, but I haven’t in like five years. You don’t think my decision to not smoke is remotely influenced by the illegality (I don’t want to get in trouble and get my kids taken away.. etc), and the social stigma for some people (getting called lazy, judged for smoking, etc)? What we deem acceptable and legal by society is going to affect how people think and what they do, even if the influence is not particularly strong or obvious. Maybe “pushing” isn’t the right word for what I am trying to convey. I simply think that any “choice” that is deemed by society to be legitimate is going to have an effect on people. Is it really such a stretch to think, if abortion were illegal/very heavily regulated, that many women would take a different route and make a different decision with their pregnancy? In that way, abortion IS influencing the decision by many to abort.
“I do agree that it’s “harder to structure society” so people finish their education while having kids. If “restructuring” is really required then obviously that takes a lot more than if the woman just has an abortion. For one thing, in many cases it won’t just be that being in school is making things “hard,” it will be that the pregnancy really isn’t wanted in the first place. Messing about with society won’t change that. I shudder to think of having a kid when I was in college, but of course people are different.”
Restructured was the only word I could think of to fit, lol. I do agree that we all, as a society, need to be thinking about where we need to be putting our resources for the good of everyone. I can think of many areas I would like to see heavily reduced to make more allowances for women’s support and education, and for their children. And true, no matter what we do not all women will want to keep their pregnancies and carry them to term, but again, I think that’s a poor rationale for keeping it legal. Personally I think I should be able to sell my kidney, lol, but that’s illegal for a good reason, and my personal wants don’t supercede the good reasons organ-selling is illegal in this country. And plus, I already referred to my opinion on how legal abortion actually effects the actual choices of the women who may want to abort. See above. :)
In the real world, let’s just say that all women did want to abort. It would make one heck of a difference. I’d say you’d see abortion then be illegal a lot more than you do now. Likewise, let’s witness the effects of population pressure. That makes for life becoming “less dear” just as your proposed scenario makes it more dear.
What life are taking about in the above paragraph Doug? The same life that you just moments earlier said was not only not worthy of any compassion, but was also a non-entity of some kind that could not even be shown compassion.
Some Guy:
Pro-lifer: “Don’t engage in sex if you don’t want to take care of a child.”
Pro-choicer: “Misogynist! You just hate women’s sexuality!”
Again, that’s really not the pro-choice deal. Pro-Choicers need only say, “There doesn’t have to be “a child” just because somebody has sex. They can have an abortion if the pregnancy is unwanted.”
____
Pro-lifer: “A man should be able to opt out of fatherhood if he doesn’t want to take care of a child.”
Pro-choicer: “No, because that’s not in the best interests of the child!?”
What we really are talking about here is money. You can’t compel very much as far as “fatherhood.” Perhaps the man can have wages attached, tax refunds taken, etc., should he not be willing to pay voluntarily, but other than possible monetary support, there’s nothing there if he doesn’t want there to be. And anyway, pro-lifers and pro-choicers are agreed upon parental support.
___
Pro-lifer: “And abortion is…?
Pro-choicer: “It’s not born, so that doesn’t count.”
No, it would be that there is no “interest” on the part of the unborn, there. There is no caring, no awareness, no cognition, nothing like that. It is the interest of the pregnant woman that is being weighed, and that is not true as far as society compelling unwilling-to-pay parents to contribute, monetarily.
___
Pro-lifer: “Why not?”
Pro-choicer: “Because it doesn’t!”
Beause of the above. And what argument against supporting the born child can there be, that carries the weight of the woman being the one pregnant? It’s a far different thing to be made to pay some money – if that is even possible – versus being pregnant, not wanting to be, and having it be illegal for you to have an abortion.
___
The criteria are certainly no more asinine than yours.
Yes, they really are, Doug, and I have no problems in saying this. My criteria does not differentiate between different individuals, while your criteria require treating not only the born different from the unborn, but the born who fail to meet your criteria from those born who do. And just for the hell of it, I’ll say it again; your criteria are ASININE.
:) Heh – okay, but yeah – you are not differentiating between individuals that really are different, so there’s no necessary logic, there, and no necessary lack of asininity. ;)
____
What do you mean when someone is born there is someone who has to be cared for? I’m not a female, and I don’t have any kids, but I’m fairly sure that the unborn have to be cared for. No, you don’t have to change their diapers and manually feed them, but they most certainly aren’t in some bubble shielded from reality.
The unborn don’t have to be cared for by the man, and that was your comparison – that the man isn’t treated the same as the woman. Well, he’s not the one pregnant. It makes no sense to assume that he won’t be treated any different. Once that difference no longer applies – once birth has occured, and the woman isn’t pregnant – then the man and the woman are treated the same, i.e, they’re both held liable for support.
Joe Blow wasn’t put in the position of being in your body by his own willful actions. In the case of abortion, YOU put Joe Blow in your body and now you want to kill Joe Blow because Joe Blow is in your body. Unfair much?
“Maybe his wishes will determine things (many, many women take the man’s desires into account)”
You bet many, many women will take his wishes into account especially when he says things like, “If you don’t get rid of it, I’m outta here.” “You’ll never see a cent from me.” “Who does it belong too?” “I will kill you.” “You must have missed one of your pills. That’s not my fault.” “You led me on.” “You trapped me.” “Don’t expect me to change a diaper.” “I’ll never marry you.”
Great arguments Prolife Men! Thank you for taking your responsibilities seriously. Thank goodness I am married to a prolifer! They are much more compassionate about all humans. Doug, your arguments are simply silly.
Once abortion becomes illegal, society will restructure itself and will become better because of it.
Some Guy: What does having emotions have to do with anything? What about individuals diagnosed with flat?
Emotions are where morality come from. And what is “flat”? (Besides the earth in some people’s locales. ;) )
___
What does suffering have to do with anything? What about individuals who have been administered an anaesthesia of some sort?
The anesthetized are not inside the body of a person, and are thinking, feeling people who have been put under anesthesia. Suffering is a good bit of what I look at, in this argument. Do I want pregnant women who want to have abortions to suffer, just because you “suffer” at the thought of abortions? Nope.
____
So the unborn aren’t born? So what? You don’t even hold to born vs. unborn standard. I’d really love to know what point you’re trying to make.
That’s not really true. “In or out” makes a big difference. Same old “Joe Blow” example – Joe’s cruising down the street on his Hoveround, that’s one thing. If Smokin’ Joe is inside your body, that’s quite another. And this is without even considering consciousness, etc. Or if ol’ Joe had his sunglasses on.
That said, yeah – I’ve never said the Birth Standard is the end-all of all things. I certainly don’t see it that way. There are massive similarities between the full-term, unborn baby and one that’s already popped out. I definitely see the difference between the early term zygote, blastocyst, embryo and fetus, compared with the late-term fetus that usually has sensation, personality, awareness, emotion, etc.
___
It’s not “arbitrary” – the unborn can only be inside the woman’s body, not the man’s, and thus things cannot be “equal” there. Once birth occurs, then both man and woman are considered responsible by society, and even you don’t want it any different than that. If men could be pregnant, and if, in a given couple it was the man that was pregnant, Pro-Choicers would treat him as they now do the woman.
Tell me, Doug, which comes first? Pregnancy or choosing to have sex? That’s a rhetorical question, of course, because the answer is obvious. Barring rape, do you know what has to happen prior to a pregnancy occurring? Say it with me; “someone has to *choose* to engage in sex”.
I don’t see all that much of a causality dilemma here. 1. Chicken 2. Egg 3. Sex 4. Leggo my Preggo. To be serious – yes indeed, barring rape, it was consensual sex that led to the pregnancy.
___
Just above, in so many words, you flatly stated that a consent to sex is not a consent to pregnancy/potential parenthood.
(Well, “not necessarily consent.” In some relationships, I think it could be – in fact, it could be a contractual matter.)
When I asked you if the same would hold true for a man, you told me ‘no’, and said that it doesn’t hold true for a man because his body isn’t involved. But what kind of sense does that make? You discount the choice which precedes pregnancy in regards to the woman based on something which occurs only because of that initial choice. That’s disingenuous. Imagine the following argument: ”Just because I ran up a $100,000 credit card bill doesn’t mean I agreed to pay it back!”
Well wait a minute here…. Having sex isn’t necessary consent to be a father on the part of the man, either. Nobody is saying the man is actually “agreeing,” are they, if he doesn’t want to be? If a born kid results, then both man and woman are held responsible, again – regardless of whether they actually agreed or consented, specifically. Not trying to be obtuse here – you do see that nothing is really incumbent on the man while the pregnancy is going on, right? It’s only afterward, and then it’s the same for the woman. The guy vanishes the day after the wedding night — nothing is laid on him by society as far as support for a potential kid. It’s only after the biological difference between him and the woman (that he can’t be pregnant) no longer matters (no more pregnancy) that he’s held liable for support, and the same is then true for the woman.
So, before pregnancy, same for both sexes. After pregnancy, ditto. It’s only during pregnancy when the difference shows up, and that is because only the woman can be pregnant. Yes, we allow her to end her pregnancy, to a point in gestation. If the man was pregnant, we’d give him the same deal. It is the biological fact that he cannot be pregnant that results in only the woman having the bottom-line decision about the pregnancy (to a point in gestation).
Gotta go back to work, Some Guy. I appreciate the time and thought you’ve put into this, and will finish replying to you later.
“It’s only afterward, and then it’s the same for the woman.”
I know a man who was ordered to help pay for costs associated with the pregnancy, Doug. I doubt he is the only one in the world.
Sorry, Megan, I missed your reply earlier, too many posts lol.
“The struggle for abortion rights has to be vehement because there is so much opposition against it, which might come across as “pushing” abortion as a solution for the world’s problems. It’s not.”
Well, depends on which side you are standing. I know that on the pro-choice or abortion-supporting websites and such I see a lot of judgment for women like Michelle Duggar, for example. I see a lot of “better aborted than abused” statements (I particularly despise that argument myself). I see some scorn for women who are pro-life and proudly talk about how they kept their pregnancies… Can you not see why we would see that as pushing? I know that you think WE are pushing, and I can’t really deny that because we do have goals that we would like to see legally enforced, but I think that it’s hard to deny that the pro-choice side has it’s elements of encouraging or “pushing” abortion. And like I said in my reply to Doug, I really don’t think that “pushing” has to be blatant or deliberate to have a large effect on people. My vocabulary might be lacking, because I can’t seem to find a good word to encompass what I am trying to convey.
“But a woman might feel like she’s making the best decision for herself at that time by getting an abortion, and that’s all that counts for me in this debate.”
But don’t you want to see a society that gives her more access to other options. I am not at all, not even slightly, saying that abortion is an easy decision for women to make in most cases. But I think that “what she wants” may not get to the heart of what is influencing her and what she could possibly choose otherwise, given more viable solutions than abortion.
“But no, it’s not enough to point to the abortion statistics and say, “See, look! Not working!” For all we know, these statistics might be worse with criminalized abortion. Look at Mississippi: one abortion provider in the state (I believe), some of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country, and some of the worst high school graduation rates. Poverty, limited chances for upward mobility, etc. are the underlying factors to poor life outcomes, and we do need to tackle them.”
Agreed for the most part… and as one of those rare liberal southerners I would be more apt to blame Republican party policies down here than anything else, for the sorry condition these states are in. You and I disagree in that you think abortion will assist in tackling these problems, while I think it has a net negative effect, or mostly be unrelated to improving conditions down here.
Jack,
I only get irritated when people like Sarah Palin trot around the country talking about how she “chose” to keep Trig, but then campaign to take away other women’s choice.
“I only get irritated when people like Sarah Palin trot around the country talking about how she “chose” to keep Trig, but then campaign to take away other women’s choice.”
Palin irritates me for a multitude of reasons, but her statements about Trig are definitely not among them. I think that statements about her choice are more reactionary to the idea that aborting other fetuses with disabilities is preferable to allowing them to live. I have seen absolutely disgusting statements about Trig all over the place. Both sides can be guilty of hypocrisy.
Ugh, I don’t decry him or others born with disabilities. She in particular parading her choice while actively campaigning to take away others is what bugs me. Jack, as you know I’m more than willing to call out hypocrisy from my side. :)
Sarah Palin is in particular bringing her son with her and the rest of her family so they can be together. GASP!!! Trig is not a choice. He is a child. I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge that.
Any thoughts on Maliya and Sasha Obama being paraded around? Perhaps they attended the fundraiser that Michelle spoke at to promote partial birth abortion!! Go Michelle!!
Actively campaigning to take away the rights women to kill their own children. Fixed that for ya.
It is a sad state of affairs when those that are proabortion don’t have children to “parade” because they killed them.
“It is a sad state of affairs when those that are pro-abortion don’t have children to “parade” because they killed them.”
Carla, that line was too funny…
It is like the picture of the baby with the bib that states :”Now I am pro-choice.”
Feeling snarky, Tyler. :)
And waiting so very patiently for Duck to grace us with her presence on this thread……
It’s not the parading around of the kids. It’s the parading of “I chose, but now I want to take away your right to chose!” Ugh, I didn’t think that was so hard to understand.
That second “chose” should be Choose
What exactly is being chosen duck?
Finish your thought…the choice to kill your innocent, preborn human child. It is intellectually dishonest to pretend we are choosing ice cream flavors or hairstyles or a trip to Disney World.
Oh and for the rest of my life, until the day I die I will work to “take away” the “right” of women to kill their own children. I chose abortion and you are darn right I will work so hard so other women don’t make the same mistake I did.
I didn’t think this was so hard to understand.
The smartest thing “abortion rights” activists ever did was to coin the phrase “prochoice.” That shifted our attention towards the act of choosing and away from what was being chosen-the dismemberment of a human being in utero.
-Chuck Colson
If the unborn are NOT human, no justification for elective abortion is necessary. But if the unborn ARE human, no justification for elective abortion is adequate.
-Gregory Koukl
Carla,
Have you forgotten already that I’m literal? I’m being literal when I criticize Palin for her hypocrisy of the word choice, while campaigning to take away other women’s choices.
That being said, here’s a list of the four major choices of women’s reproductive health in order.
Choose to have sex or not have sex.
Choose to use contraception or not use contraception.
Choose to keep the pregnancy or end the pregnancy.
Choose to raise the child after birth or give up for adoption after birth.
Those are the choices. I’ll never choose to drink beer, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t an option when i go to the bar.
“So, before pregnancy, same for both sexes. After pregnancy, ditto. It’s only during pregnancy when the difference shows up, and that is because only the woman can be pregnant. Yes, we allow her to end her pregnancy, to a point in gestation. If the man was pregnant, we’d give him the same deal. It is the biological fact that he cannot be pregnant that results in only the woman having the bottom-line decision about the pregnancy (to a point in gestation).”
Doug so you are basically arguing that a woman can consent to sex, while still not consenting to having a child – fine that can be done with the aid of technology. Now try to imagine this scenario. A Man video records a conversation with a woman before and during their sexual intercourse. And in the video the woman verbalizes to the man that she doesn’t want to have a baby but does want to have sex with this man. Then as a result of this sexual encounter she becomes pregnant and decides to carry the baby to term. For clarity’s sake, the man in the video had said that he didn’t want to have children although he was willing to have sex with this woman. In this situation, does and should this Man have the right to abort his parental and financial responsibilities? The woman has clearly misled him and, thereby, has taken away his reproductive rights.
“Those are the choices. I’ll never choose to drink beer, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t an option when i go to the bar.”
Household cleaners are marked as poisonous so that people will drink them. Why don’t abortions come with warnings?
Certain drugs are lethal and therefore require prescriptions and are not sold OTC. Why don’t abortions require a prescription?
Actions by human beings that cause harm to other human beings are illegal. Why isn’t abortion made illegal?
Some Guy: You scream “choice this!” and “choice that!”, but you ignore the only choice that actually matters and will rail against anyone who says that women should be held to the “you play, you pay” game (a standard, mind you, most pro-choicers have no problems holding a man to). Even though pro-choicers get upset, at the end of the day they’re advocating nothing more than a woman being able to have wanton sex with reckless regard without being held to the consequences of said action.
Oh Please. Your opinion of “the only choice that actually matters” won’t necessarily apply to other people. The consequence of having sex may be having an abortion, for a woman. If there is a born kid, the woman, just like the man, is held liable for support. Prior to that, the man is not held liable. When the woman is pregnant, there is the issue of bodily autonomy, and that does not apply to the man since he’s not the one pregnant. That difference is not going to go away, no matter your cries for “holding them to the same standard.”
___
Misogyny: “hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.” If anything, Pro-Lifers would be the ones, there, on the basis of not trusting women, and rather attempting to use legal force against them to satisfy the Pro-Lifer’s wishes, but I don’t really see it as “misogynistic” to think it’s more important for the unborn life to continue than to let women retain the liberty they now have.
Unless you’re for what Andrea Yates did to her children, does that mean you’re a misogynist?
That’s silly – I don’t think women in general are like Andrea Yates (and who does?). If somebody was actually for what Yates did, what does that make them? In favor of total nut-jobs? Desperate to reduce the world’s population, no matter what?
__
You are just conflating different things. Where Pro-Choicers say “the kid has to be cared for,” they are not only “picking on” the man. It applies to the woman, too. Given that the man does not control the woman’s body, there is indeed a point when it’s no longer his decision/both their decisions, and rather is the woman’s. The same would be true on a vice-versa basis if men could get pregnant. It’s not a contradiction to say that women can have abortions, and that men and women are gonna have to provide child support.
There is no conflation here, Doug. I’m not even sure you know what a conflation is. Again I state that the choice to engage in sex comes before pregnancy. Why does that choice not matter?
You conflated the time before birth with the time after birth, and his liability after birth with his situation prior to birth – not one of liability, but rather the inability to stop the pregnancy on his desire alone. They are not the same thing.
____
As I said to Reality, or whoever it was, as much as you all like to go on about what “society wants”, the simple fact is that both of us know that you don’t care about “society”. And why would you?
“That’s silly. There is “what society wants” and then there are our own individual and group opinions. This is true for both sides of the debate, here, and has nothing to do with “not caring about society.”
I’ve seen you, Reality, Duck and Megan, I believe, constantly make reference to what “society wants” in regards to abortion.
Well of course – society definitely has a position, and from your point of view it’s what you want to be changed. It also operates in something like the “you have to pay for your kids” sentiment for parents. Nothing there even remotely suggest that we “don’t care about society,” as you said.
When did I make a reference to what society wants?
Some Guy: What about individuals diagnosed with flat effect?
They’re still conscious people, i.e. it’s not like their brains have been scooped out; and of course we’re not considering the bodily autonomy of another, there.
Tyler: I do believe that unregulated abortion has helped to create a whole generation of irresponsible women and men.
Other people being “responsible” is not them doing what *you * want, necessarily.
No, no, no Doug. Irresponsibility means you have created a situation where you wesel your way out of the consequences. With abortion, it’s killing your child. The HEIGHT of irresponsibility. Go on and screw like bunnies, if you must. But once the baby’s here, he’s here.
Jack: Hmmm. Even if the unborn don’t care at the time, they probably will eventually.
Yeah, but there is not that “they” there at the time. The caring here is all on the part of born people, and I’m for leaving things to the pregnant woman herself.
___
Just like I didn’t care if my mother killed me as a newborn, but looking back I would definitely want to have my infant self protected, if that was my mother’s wish. I think it’s odd to base human rights on the relative consciousness of the human. I mean, we have all heard that argument. Blah, blah coma patients, blah blah newborns. You don’t give up your rights or your stake in remaining alive just because of your conscious level or lack of abilities.
Well, that does happen, especially when that “you” is gone, even if there is still a “living body” there. There’s an argument that some persistent vegetative states may have more hope of recovery than we previously thought, but if we take out somebody’s brain and keep the body alive, then yeah – there’s a “human being” there, but I say the person they were, the real “them,” is long gone. Either way, the coma patient situation isn’t analogous to the unborn as far as they’re not inside the body of a person.
Jack, in the case of anencephaly, there’s going to be “no brain” and “nobody home,” ever. Do you think such pregnancies should be continued, even if the parents don’t want to?
____
It’s not like I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the pregnant woman who doesn’t wish to be pregnant or be a parent, I just don’t think that her wishes can trump the life of someone else.
Okay, so you’re not for leaving things to the pregnant woman. This is really what the valuation behind our arguments here come down to.
____
My rights are restricted by my children, as are my wife’s. We cannot neglect or abuse our children. Both of us should have been required to protect our children from when we first knew of their existence. I am a fan of personal liberty for both men and women as much as possible, but not at an unborn child’s (I know that word is subjective, but you know I mean the human organism created by it’s parent’s in utero). Social contract = take care of your children as much as you are able.
True that “your rights end where somebody else’s begin,” but here we’re talking about born people, where there the issue of bodily autonomy isn’t a big deal like it is with the pregnant woman.
___
Personal reasons, I was told all the time by my mother that she wanted to have me aborted (and killed later, but that’s another story). I find the fact that my entire being was dependent on what one of my parents (who despised me for no reason) wanted horrifying.
Thanks for the reply, and I’m sorry – that really sucks. You’ve had some real ups and downs, Jack, and I think you turned out great.
Doug – “Tyler, disagree again. There is no necessary sense in having “compassion” for that which there can be no empathy for, versus caring about the woman’s freedom – the undeniably conscious, emotional woman. And – if there was “nobody,” no minds with desires, then there would be no morality, no such cares or debates in the first place. It’s part and parcel of human nature that we discuss morality because *we do* have desires and beliefs.”
Doug a human being has rights because they are human, and not because they have certain abilities, cognitive or otherwise. Membership in the human species has been the historical and current criterion by which we grant equal rights to all humans. The legality of abortion created a subset of laws that goes against this historical criterion Abortion laws are an oddity among our current legislation. That is why abortion law must change. Abortion laws make subjective standards such as cognition, or viability the criterion by which a human is considered a legal person. Viability and cognition are achieved at different points in time for each individual person and thereby create an unjust criterion from which to grant legal persoonhood.
“Joe Blow is walking down the street. Okay, that is one thing. Now, let’s say that ol’ Joe is inside your body. Is that going to make a difference? You bet it is.”
Tyler: A fully grown human, especially man consumes more of the earth’s resources than any unborn child does and i want to have as much of the earth’s resources as possible. Also, you may take a parking space I want one day. Those are possible reasons for wanting Joe Blow or yourself dead. Prove that they are not valid reasons?
“parking space” :) :)
You didn’t address the issue of bodily autonomy, but those may be valid reasons to you. On resources – I’ve heard it said that population pressure is really what’s behind all wars. Food, water, energy – I see some rough times coming for many areas of the world. As for you personally, I cannot change your mind. Your examples put you in such an extreme minority that I don’t think any society would accept it. “Valid,” there, may be your opinion, but few individuals, groups, etc., would agree with you.
____
Doug, previously you said that you don’t believe there is anything beyond what the mind thinks.
To be clear – I was talking about valuation, morality, etc. I do think there is energy and matter that exist, external to the mind, for example. Yes, we all make assumptions, and really – what can a conscious being *truly* be sure of, other than that they’re conscious? That said, I do assume about the energy matter, that you and I are separate consciousnesses, etc.
And that you don’t believe your opinions reflect some “external reality” that can be proven to be anything more than imaginary. Yet you want to give consideration to a motionless human who is asleep (a being that is external to you) the ability to have dreams? You also want to grant women (also external to you) the ability to make choices, why do you want grant imaginary creatures existing in your mind the right to choose? You can’t have it both ways Doug. Either you believe in an external world or you don’t, unless you want to be intellectually dishonest. The contradictions in your answers proof that you don’t even really believe what you are saying.
Good grief – I did not say there is “nothing” beyond what the mind thinks. I didn’t state it like that, in an unqualified manner. You were talking about opinions and belief – and that is what I was talking about too.
The sleeping person who dreams – this has a physical reality behind it – for decades we’ve had plenty of medical technology to “see” what’s going on inside the brain, even when sleeping. I’m not saying the sleeping person, the pregnant woman, or the unborn, are “imaginary.” I accept that they exist in the “real” world on a physical basis. The presence of consciousness, awareness, emotion, etc., likewise is a real thing, same as the lack of it is.
Doug, how do “you” know that “somebody is home” when they are sleeping, without referring to some external reality that we can both agree on?
Tyler, again – in no way have I said or am I saying that there is not external reality beyond what the mind thinks. Physical existence, and I’d also say logic, as with “If all A are B, and all B are C, then all A are C.” The logic *is* a process of the mind, but that principle remains true whether or not a given mind would agree or not, and it also can be a matter of physical reality.
With the sleeping person, I might not know it was only sleep. They could be dead, without me being aware of breathing, other movements, etc. – things of physical reality.
Doug, further to my last point. It was the fact that humans were made in the image of God that helped to recognize the equality, in addition to the dignity and sacredness, of all human beings in law.
Your desire to change the laws in society so that they recognize subjective criteria is crafty. It creates a false liberty that will end up enslaving man to his material nature and reality. Our laws will be beholden to certain individuals and their interpretation of society’s scientific understanding of human development.
Jack: The point I was making is that from what I see, abortion is presented as a legitimate option, and that almost by necessity has to influence the thought process of the pregnant woman, yes? I thoroughly enjoy smoking pot, but I haven’t in like five years. You don’t think my decision to not smoke is remotely influenced by the illegality (I don’t want to get in trouble and get my kids taken away.. etc), and the social stigma for some people (getting called lazy, judged for smoking, etc)? What we deem acceptable and legal by society is going to affect how people think and what they do, even if the influence is not particularly strong or obvious. Maybe “pushing” isn’t the right word for what I am trying to convey. I simply think that any “choice” that is deemed by society to be legitimate is going to have an effect on people. Is it really such a stretch to think, if abortion were illegal/very heavily regulated, that many women would take a different route and make a different decision with their pregnancy? In that way, abortion IS influencing the decision by many to abort.
Agreed, no question about it.
____
“I do agree that it’s “harder to structure society” so people finish their education while having kids. If “restructuring” is really required then obviously that takes a lot more than if the woman just has an abortion. For one thing, in many cases it won’t just be that being in school is making things “hard,” it will be that the pregnancy really isn’t wanted in the first place. Messing about with society won’t change that. I shudder to think of having a kid when I was in college, but of course people are different.”
Restructured was the only word I could think of to fit, lol. I do agree that we all, as a society, need to be thinking about where we need to be putting our resources for the good of everyone. I can think of many areas I would like to see heavily reduced to make more allowances for women’s support and education, and for their children. And true, no matter what we do not all women will want to keep their pregnancies and carry them to term, but again, I think that’s a poor rationale for keeping it legal. Personally I think I should be able to sell my kidney, lol, but that’s illegal for a good reason, and my personal wants don’t supercede the good reasons organ-selling is illegal in this country. And plus, I already referred to my opinion on how legal abortion actually effects the actual choices of the women who may want to abort. See above.
Okay, so it’s then a question of who is “everyone” – including the unborn or not. Right back to personhood. I realize there’s no true reconciliation here – Pro-Lifers think there is great harm in an abortion, even an early-term one, and that’s where many Pro-Choicers disagree.
“Yeah, but there is not that “they” there at the time. The caring here is all on the part of born people, and I’m for leaving things to the pregnant woman herself.”
But that kinda misses my point, see. I don’t deny that the unborn do not care at that time. But I do know that, barring complications or tragedy, that the non-sentient period of that human’s life is temporary. I realize that body autonomy comes into play, here, but for the sake of argument, forget about body autonomy for a minute and answer me this. Can you think of a time where human is temporarily incapacitated, no measurable thoughts or desires, where it is fully known that they will recover within an exact time period, where it is legal to kill them for the reason that they aren’t “there”?
“Well, that does happen, especially when that “you” is gone, even if there is still a “living body” there. There’s an argument that some persistent vegetative states may have more hope of recovery than we previously thought, but if we take out somebody’s brain and keep the body alive, then yeah – there’s a “human being” there, but I say the person they were, the real “them,” is long gone. Either way, the coma patient situation isn’t analogous to the unborn as far as they’re not inside the body of a person.”
Well. I wouldn’t argue against you in the case of the brain being gone, that the human is gone for the most part. But a permanent scenario is necessarily different from a scenario where we know the exact time limit in most cases of the period where the human isn’t “there”.
“Jack, in the case of anencephaly, there’s going to be “no brain” and “nobody home,” ever. Do you think such pregnancies should be continued, even if the parents don’t want to?”
Oh I hate these questions. :( I think it’s a fairly horrifying situation all around. I do not, however, like the thought that because these rare cases exist, that it gives more legitimacy to the practice of aborting non-fatal disabilities, and for abortion all around.
I don’t think we can agree on the body autonomy Doug no matter how much we argue about it. :( I think that body autonomy is great, but it can’t supersede the right of a small human that needs to be protected from harm. There is only one place that a fetus can be gestated, unfortunately.
“In the real world, let’s just say that all women did want to abort. It would make one heck of a difference. I’d say you’d see abortion then be illegal a lot more than you do now. Likewise, let’s witness the effects of population pressure. That makes for life becoming “less dear” just as your proposed scenario makes it more dear.”
Tyler: What life are taking about in the above paragraph Doug? The same life that you just moments earlier said was not only not worthy of any compassion, but was also a non-entity of some kind that could not even be shown compassion.
Life in general, and unborn lives in general. If people thought, “The human race will die out unless we increase the birth rate a lot,” I bet we’d see laws reflecting that, perhaps even compulsory getting-pregnant.
My point with empathy and compassion is asking if it’s even possible to “empathize” with an entity or being that has no emotions in the first place, no awareness, no consciousness. Do you “feel sorry” for the fertilized egg/blastocyst, a “human being,” if it does not later implant? I’m asking because the egg doesn’t care – it’s not aware of anything.
This is not to say that people should not want to have kids, be glad they are pregnant, etc.
Xalisae: Joe Blow wasn’t put in the position of being in your body by his own willful actions. In the case of abortion, YOU put Joe Blow in your body and now you want to kill Joe Blow because Joe Blow is in your body. Unfair much?
Hang on, here, you rascal. I didn’t say ol’ Joe was gonna get whacked – I just said it would make a heck of a difference if he was inside Tyler’s body rather than being outside of it. “Unfair”? Both Joe and the unborn baby are “put inside the body” by others in this example, yes, and nobody is saying they are “guilty” of anything, there.
Doug wrote:
Hang on, here, you rascal. I didn’t say ol’ Joe was gonna get whacked – I just said it would make a heck of a difference if he was inside Tyler’s body rather than being outside of it.
Well… come, now! Surely you know that the predominant reason for bringing up the “bodily autonomy/one-person-inside-another’s-body” idea is as an attempt to justify the forcible removal of that “invader” (which, in the case of a non-viable child, would kill him/her)?
“Maybe his wishes will determine things (many, many women take the man’s desires into account)”
Praxedes: You bet many, many women will take his wishes into account especially when he says things like, “If you don’t get rid of it, I’m outta here.” “You’ll never see a cent from me.” “Who does it belong too?” “I will kill you.” “You must have missed one of your pills. That’s not my fault.” “You led me on.” “You trapped me.” “Don’t expect me to change a diaper.” “I’ll never marry you.”
Or if the woman has known all along that the guy doesn’t want to have kids. It may be the same feeling she has. The point remains – that the man often (usually) has imput. He may have his say. As far as Some Guy bemoaning that the man cannot unilaterally decide to end the pregnancy – that is true. He’s not the one pregnant, the woman is. It’s probably doubtful that Pro-Lifers would want the man to have that as an option in the first place.
“It’s only afterward, and then it’s the same for the woman.”
Praxedes: I know a man who was ordered to help pay for costs associated with the pregnancy, Doug. I doubt he is the only one in the world.
I stand corrected! :)
I’d never heard of that, and I assume it’s very rare, but I’ll take your word for it.
Duck: I’ll never choose to drink beer, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t an option when i go to the bar.
What?! Never?!! :(
Doug,
Yeah, I’ve tried even some of my friend’s snooty beers, just not a fan. So, I don’t order beer at the bar. :)
Doug so you are basically arguing that a woman can consent to sex, while still not consenting to having a child – fine that can be done with the aid of technology. Now try to imagine this scenario. A Man video records a conversation with a woman before and during their sexual intercourse. And in the video the woman verbalizes to the man that she doesn’t want to have a baby but does want to have sex with this man. Then as a result of this sexual encounter she becomes pregnant and decides to carry the baby to term. For clarity’s sake, the man in the video had said that he didn’t want to have children although he was willing to have sex with this woman. In this situation, does and should this Man have the right to abort his parental and financial responsibilities? The woman has clearly misled him and, thereby, has taken away his reproductive rights.
Tyler, IMO this is one of the most interesting arguments within the whole sphere here.
For the sake of argument, I’ve presented the same scenario to others. To make things even more clear, I added that the woman agreed, should pregnancy occur, to have an abortion. So, it’s like there is a contract between the two, right?
While obviously the man has indeed been misled, he is not “at risk” for pregnancy as the woman is – this is the reply I got from a lawyer or judge who used to frequent the AOL abortion debate boards. While in the long run he may be at risk as far as having to pay money, that’s not the same thing as talking about pregnancy/no pregnancy. Him not being at risk as the woman is would likely make any such contract be held as invalid in court, I was told.
If the pregnancy is continued and then there is a born baby, any such agreement would be overridden by society’s dictum that the parents are liable for the kid’s support. Even if the woman said, “Yes, I agreed to have an abortion, and that he would never have to pay anything,” the courts will still order that he pay, up to what the courts feel is the reasonable standard of care, given the incomes of the two parents. (I have two brothers who are divorced and paid child support.)
It’s not absolute – there are plenty of cases where the woman raised the kid on her own and does not ask for paternal support. Or it might be that the woman is very wealthy and/or with a huge income while the man is a pauper. The court might agree that in that case to compel money from the man would be silly and uncalled for. I do think that many states have child support systems that are unfair to the non-primary-custodial parent, usually the man.
I know this is a long answer, but in response to does and should this man have the right to abort his parental and financial responsibilities? the answer is no. Any such agreement may be invalidated by the liability for support on the part of both parents, regardless of what they have mutually agreed upon.
It’d be a crappy deal for the guy, sure, but that will not outweigh child support laws.
Tyler: Actions by human beings that cause harm to other human beings are illegal. Why isn’t abortion made illegal?
Because the unborn are not in society to the same extent that the born are. Because the unborn are inside the body of a person, the person undeniably having rights and freedoms of their own. Because your use of “human being” does reflect the fullness of “legal human being” nor the concept of personhood and having had rights attributed.
Really, abortion is not illegal because there’s not enough sentiment for it to be. If there was sufficient opinion for it to be illegal, it would be.
More on the woman who misled the guy by continuing a pregnancy: Too bad such happens. If the woman is going to have a kid because the man is paying, well, that, IMO, is a crappy reason.
Per Praxedes’ mention of a guy who had to pay pregnancy-related expenses, what if he had to pay, then the woman later chose to have an abortion anyway? I bet that dude would be really bummed-out. ;)
Courtnay: No, no, no Doug. Irresponsibility means you have created a situation where you wesel your way out of the consequences. With abortion, it’s killing your child. The HEIGHT of irresponsibility. Go on and screw like bunnies, if you must. But once the baby’s here, he’s here.
You are pretending that what you want is necessarily other peoples’ responsibilities, Courtnay, and that is just not true.
Sometimes unwanted situations occur. An unwanted pregnancy, a traffic accident, a tree limb breaks a window, or maybe you trip and fall through the darn thing. People seek remedies, they seek to remove the unwanted situations. An abortion may be had, vehicle damage fixed, medical attention sought, broken glass replaced, etc.
Tyler: Doug a human being has rights because they are human, and not because they have certain abilities, cognitive or otherwise.
Prove it.
____
Membership in the human species has been the historical and current criterion by which we grant equal rights to all humans.
Well, that’s somewhat true…. Vast numbers of cultures and socities have had slavery, differing class systems, etc., where it really didn’t work out that way. And no society, anywhere, at any time, has treated the unborn as they did the born.
___
The legality of abortion created a subset of laws that goes against this historical criterion Abortion laws are an oddity among our current legislation. That is why abortion law must change. Abortion laws make subjective standards such as cognition, or viability the criterion by which a human is considered a legal person. Viability and cognition are achieved at different points in time for each individual person and thereby create an unjust criterion from which to grant legal personhood.
No, that’s way, way off. There is no historical treating the unborn as we do the born. Abortion has been illegal, to varying degrees, at some times and places in the past (same as it is now in the US, for that matter) but in no way is that the same thing as having the unborn be legal persons, having full rights, personhood etc. When abortion was (generally) illegal in the US, it only took the say-so of two doctors to make it legal. There was no considering the unborn as legal persons, regardless of abortion itself being more legally restricted. The act of abortion being illegal would not mean that rights were attributed to the unborn, necessarily.
Accidents occur, Doug.Pregnancies are made. Some accidents can be prevented, such as driving while drunk. Don’t want to hit someone while you’re impaired? Don’t drink and drive. Don’t want a baby? Don’t make one. NO ONE MAKES YOU CREATE A HUMAN.
You are pretending that you can just do what you want and kill the other person when they “magically” appear. We’re not talking about an unwanted pregnancy here; we’re talking about an unwanted baby.When we start talking about humans as “accidents” then we have really become monstrous. And that’s the world you and your proaborts inhabit.
What ARE those things in the bucket at the abortion mill, Doug?? C’mon, you like words–what exactly are they???
Babies are MADE, Doug. I hope you learn this before you accidentally drop some off into somebody.
“It’d be a crappy deal for the guy, sure, but that will not outweigh child support laws.”
How about that Doug, the law recognizes the “interests” of the child. However, to me the theory of interests has pushed too far so that it has become a concept to exclude certain human beings. Because of this, the concept is limited in its usefulness to protect all human life. The theory of interests excludes the unborn, because, people like yourself argue that at certain stages of human development humans don’t have consciousness and therefore, can’t have interests which can be considered in a court of law. Sillyness in the most extreme. The standard in law for equality should not be the interests but should be the very humanity of the lifeform.
“No, that’s way, way off. There is no historical treating the unborn as we do the born. Abortion has been illegal, to varying degrees, at some times and places in the past (same as it is now in the US, for that matter) but in no way is that the same thing as having the unborn be legal persons, having full rights, personhood etc. When abortion was (generally) illegal in the US, it only took the say-so of two doctors to make it legal. There was no considering the unborn as legal persons, regardless of abortion itself being more legally restricted. The act of abortion being illegal would not mean that rights were attributed to the unborn, necessarily.”
Doug, if the unborn were considered a legal person, why was it a criminal act to obtain an abortion in the US prior to 1973?
Revised
Doug, if the unborn weren’t considered a legal person why was it a criminal act to obtain an abortion in the US prior to 1973?
Tyler: Doug, further to my last point. It was the fact that humans were made in the image of God that helped to recognize the equality, in addition to the dignity and sacredness, of all human beings in law.
That’s not a fact, that’s an unprovable belief that some people have.
____
Your desire to change the laws in society so that they recognize subjective criteria is crafty.
;) This really cracked me up. “crafty” :) :)
It creates a false liberty that will end up enslaving man to his material nature and reality. Our laws will be beholden to certain individuals and their interpretation of society’s scientific understanding of human development.
The Birth Standard is age-old, and has prevailed since time immemorial. It’s not like the current abortion laws are “changing” anything, there. I don’t want to change the laws. I’m fine with where they are now. Abortion was legal before, during, and after the writing of the Constitution. The “change” and the “abnormal” and the “abberration” would be the times when abortion was more generally illegal.
As to “false liberty” – well, okay, your opinion. And our laws are *always* beholden to certain individuals, groups, etc. For a law to exist, all that is required is that there be sufficient opinion for it.
“Science” is not the debate here. Science does not pronounce upon morality.
Jack: I don’t deny that the unborn do not care at that time. But I do know that, barring complications or tragedy, that the non-sentient period of that human’s life is temporary. I realize that body autonomy comes into play, here, but for the sake of argument, forget about body autonomy for a minute and answer me this. Can you think of a time where human is temporarily incapacitated, no measurable thoughts or desires, where it is fully known that they will recover within an exact time period, where it is legal to kill them for the reason that they aren’t “there”?
No – temporary incapacitation isn’t going to mean legally killable (on that score alone). I guess it’s a matter of degree, though, since sometimes “pulling the plug,” etc., is done. It’s a different situation, though, since – regardless if you agree with the way things are or not – those people were already attributed full rights and personhood at birth.
I also question the “no measurable thoughts or desires” part. A coma patient still has brainwaves – do they not dream or experience consciousness in some ways? It’s different than being “brain dead.”
___
I don’t think we can agree on the body autonomy Doug no matter how much we argue about it. I think that body autonomy is great, but it can’t supersede the right of a small human that needs to be protected from harm. There is only one place that a fetus can be gestated, unfortunately.
Not a problem, Jack. I knew from the beginning that we disagreed on some things.
“Prove it.”
Doug, Roe v. Wade is my proof that the unborn were once recognized as legal persons. If they weren’t there wouldn’t have been a need for Roe v. Wade. The proof is all-too-in-our-face.
“That’s not a fact, that’s an unprovable belief that some people have.”
But Doug the fact that is a belief doesn’t matter. As you said yourself morality and our laws are based on our beliefs.
“That’s not a fact, that’s an unprovable belief that some people have.”
But Doug the fact that it is a belief doesn’t matter. As you said yourself morality and our laws are based on our beliefs.
“No – temporary incapacitation isn’t going to mean legally killable (on that score alone). I guess it’s a matter of degree, though, since sometimes “pulling the plug,” etc., is done. It’s a different situation, though, since – regardless if you agree with the way things are or not – those people were already attributed full rights and personhood at birth.”
Yes, it is a different situation. I was just trying to create a type of thought experiment to get my point across that sentience/non-sentience is not the basis on which we necessarily receive or keep our rights. “Pulling the plug” and other palliative care, that’s another conversation where I suspect you and I don’t disagree as much as we would agree.
Allowing someone to die naturally, without the assistance of machines, is a whole ‘nother ethical issue as opposed to unnaturally removing a healthy fetus.
“I also question the “no measurable thoughts or desires” part. A coma patient still has brainwaves – do they not dream or experience consciousness in some ways? It’s different than being “brain dead.””
Well, their are different levels of coma, from brain death all the way up to just barely incapacitated. Somewhat similar to the differing brain activity in the fetus at different points! The difference is, there is a marked ending point for the fetus’s non-sentience. No such guarantees in a coma patient.
Accidents occur, Doug.Pregnancies are made. Some accidents can be prevented, such as driving while drunk. Don’t want to hit someone while you’re impaired? Don’t drink and drive. Don’t want a baby? Don’t make one. NO ONE MAKES YOU CREATE A HUMAN.
Courtnay, some accidents can be prevented, yes, and so can some pregnancies. Not all accidents nor pregnancies can or will be prevented, though, and then people will seek to remedy the unwanted situations that result, even if it’s a “baby.”
Prevention, of a wreck or an unwanted pregnancy, is certainly preferable to having one, but once they are fact, then prevention is no longer an option.
___
What ARE those things in the bucket at the abortion mill, Doug?? C’mon, you like words–what exactly are they???
Dead embryos and fetuses, or, if you want, “dead babies.”
___
We’re not talking about an unwanted pregnancy here; we’re talking about an unwanted baby.When we start talking about humans as “accidents” then we have really become monstrous.
It’s “monstrous” to take away liberty, as with the woman with an unwanted pregnancy. Okay, let’s go with “unwanted baby.” Hey, some babies *are* accidents – they weren’t intended, and, though I realize you don’t like the concept and wish it were never the case – some are unwanted.
___
You are pretending that you can just do what you want and kill the other person when they “magically” appear.
No, that is not true. What you’d like is for personhood to be attributed to the unborn. If you see a person being killed – you know the drill – call a cop.
___
Babies are MADE, Doug. I hope you learn this before you accidentally drop some off into somebody.
Forgive me if you weren’t at least trying to be somewhat funny, Courtnay, but there was an “LOL” and I hardly ever say that. ;) :) I ain’t got no babies to drop off anywhars, and I’m happily married, no “cheating,” and my wife has had a hysterectomy, so ain’t gonna be no baby-making ’round these parts.
How about that Doug, the law recognizes the “interests” of the child.
Tyler, aside from arguing about “child,” part of the abortion debate is the question of when there can really be an “interest” there.
____
However, to me the theory of interests has pushed too far so that it has become a concept to exclude certain human beings.
Looks like you’re viewing it as some sort of progression that’s been going the opposite way that you’d like. Really, things go back and forth as far as the rights granted to born people – just witness history – but as for the unborn it’s always been very much the same. If anything, the Roe decision did mention thoughts to the contrary, about establishing personhood, the interest of the state in the unborn, etc.
___
Because of this, the concept is limited in its usefulness to protect all human life. The theory of interests excludes the unborn, because, people like yourself argue that at certain stages of human development humans don’t have consciousness and therefore, can’t have interests which can be considered in a court of law. Sillyness in the most extreme. The standard in law for equality should not be the interests but should be the very humanity of the lifeform.
It’s no more silly than what your preferences are. There is not going to be any absolute such as “the very humanity.” It’s always going to depend on the situation, i.e. “is there a good enough reason for the life to end or not?” Wartime, accidents, line-of-duty, self-defense, legal execution for crimes, unwanted pregnancies early enough in gestation…. Not saying it’s impossible that abortion would again be generally illegal in the US, but there’s not going to be one blanket approach.
Tyler: Doug a human being has rights because they are human, and not because they have certain abilities, cognitive or otherwise.
Prove it.
Doug, Roe v. Wade is my proof that the unborn were once recognized as legal persons. If they weren’t there wouldn’t have been a need for Roe v. Wade. The proof is all-too-in-our-face.
No way, Jose. There is a difference between abortion being illegal, and personhood for the unborn. Again – it only took the say-so of two doctors to justify abortion prior to Roe. Obviously, that would not have been true had personhood been the deal. That the act itself is proscribed need say nothing about the nature of that which is affected by the act. One of the big reasons why abortion became illegal in the US is that doctors felt that midwives were encroaching on the docs’ rightful territory. By needing the say-so of doctors for abortion, the midwives were thus shut out.
Doug, how can an “interest” NOT be there???? My goodness, man, human blood is spilt (and not just the mom’s!) Not dog blood. Not monkey blood.
Doug, if the unborn weren’t considered a legal person why was it a criminal act to obtain an abortion in the US prior to 1973?
As above, the influence of doctors, and – to be sure – some feeling that abortion was wrong on a moral level, on the part of politicians and the populace. There are probably other reasons too. But none of that means that legal personhood was deemed present for the unborn. It most certainly was not.
You’re trying to work things backwards, i.e. while legal personhood would mean that abortion would be illegal (as noted right in the Roe decision, no less), the reverse isn’t necessarily true, and definitely not true in the case off the US and abortion law.
Good discussion, everybody. Be back later, now have to go to the Texas Roadhouse and get some beer before Duck drinks it all.
Doug,
lol, I’ll stick with the whiskey. You can have the beer. :)
Doug, how can an “interest” NOT be there???? My goodness, man, human blood is spilt (and not just the mom’s!) Not dog blood. Not monkey blood.
Okay, one more… Courtnay, I love the “My goodness, man” part. :)
Yes, there is blood, and death. Doesn’t “an interest” imply some caring, some awareness? Things are happening all the time in the world, blood and death included, but it’s only the conscious and willful caring, the having desires, etc., that gives rise to the concepts of morality and “interest.” If there is no interest to be taken, and I’m saying the unborn, to a point in gestation, cannot do that, how can an interest be said to be there?
“That the act itself is proscribed need say nothing about the nature of that which is affected by the act.”
Sure it does.
“As above, the influence of doctors, and – to be sure – some feeling that abortion was wrong on a moral level, on the part of politicians and the populace. There are probably other reasons too. But none of that means that legal personhood was deemed present for the unborn. It most certainly was not.”
I can hear boots shaking in your response Doug. The unborn were recognized in law, the influence of doctors had nothing to do with it.
“No way, Jose. There is a difference between abortion being illegal, and personhood for the unborn. Again – it only took the say-so of two doctors to justify abortion prior to Roe. Obviously, that would not have been true had personhood been the deal. That the act itself is proscribed need say nothing about the nature of that which is affected by the act. One of the big reasons why abortion became illegal in the US is that doctors felt that midwives were encroaching on the docs’ rightful territory. By needing the say-so of doctors for abortion, the midwives were thus shut out.”
Prove your version of history. I believe it took two doctors to in order to make sure that the reason for the abortion was to protect the health of the Mother and was not an outright murder of the unborn legal person.
Doug, what id I was 6 months pregnant and decided to drink a case of beer. I am still unsure whether I want this baby. But DON’T TRY TO TAKE AWAY MY LIBERTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That’s monstrous!
PS, I’m not pregnant and I don’t really want a case, but if there’s a cold Miller, I’m all about it. ;)
“Hang on, here, you rascal. I didn’t say ol’ Joe was gonna get whacked – I just said it would make a heck of a difference if he was inside Tyler’s body rather than being outside of it.”
Paladin: Well… come, now! Surely you know that the predominant reason for bringing up the “bodily autonomy/one-person-inside-another’s-body” idea is as an attempt to justify the forcible removal of that “invader” (which, in the case of a non-viable child, would kill him/her)?
No, don’t think so, Paladin. Being unwanted is not necessarily due to any “guilt” or “evil intent” or “invasion” or diabolical plots, etc., on the part of the unborn. Frankly, it’d be silly to maintain that as “the predominant reason,” and I’ve not seen that and would disagree with it myself.
Jack: I was just trying to create a type of thought experiment to get my point across that sentience/non-sentience is not the basis on which we necessarily receive or keep our rights. “Pulling the plug” and other palliative care, that’s another conversation where I suspect you and I don’t disagree as much as we would agree.
Allowing someone to die naturally, without the assistance of machines, is a whole ‘nother ethical issue as opposed to unnaturally removing a healthy fetus.
Medical life support and how far we go with it, the desire of the patient, the rest of the family, society, etc., yeah – it’s different, though I don’t think it’s entirely another ethical issue.
As for sentience/non-sentience, well yeah, that doesn’t *have* to be any standard. Rights could be attributed on that basis, or not.
“That the act itself is proscribed need say nothing about the nature of that which is affected by the act.”
Tyler: Sure it does.
Uh, that would be a ‘no.’
“As above, the influence of doctors, and – to be sure – some feeling that abortion was wrong on a moral level, on the part of politicians and the populace. There are probably other reasons too. But none of that means that legal personhood was deemed present for the unborn. It most certainly was not.”
Tyler: I can hear boots shaking in your response Doug.
Well, then you’re kidding yourself, Holmes. ;)
The unborn were recognized in law, the influence of doctors had nothing to do with it.
Whoa – you had asked why was abortion illegal. The influence of doctors had mega-influence to do with it.
Doug, what if I was 6 months pregnant and decided to drink a case of beer. I am still unsure whether I want this baby. But DON’T TRY TO TAKE AWAY MY LIBERTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That’s monstrous!
PS, I’m not pregnant and I don’t really want a case, but if there’s a cold Miller, I’m all about it.
Courtnay, I fully believe that you would not drink a bunch of booze while you were pregnant. :)
On being 6 months pregnant and drinking a case of beer, or really – doing a bunch of drugs or anything that had a significant chance of harming the “baby,” I’m not sure. If personhood were attributed to the unborn, this question would come to the forefront much more, and I just don’t know. I think that many Pro-Lifers don’t know, either. What, really, would be the best thing to do?
If the unborn were deemed to be persons, there would be a necessary consideration of such. As things are now, for a late-term pregnancy, I think it’s just crazy to take such a risk that may well result in a severely deficient baby and person.
Miller – it’s what I get most among the “normal” draft beers you find. I like it all – right up to Guinness and beyond, to the darkest, dirtiest, stoutest, thickest, most bitter brew there is. But I’ve had a pile of Miller and Miller Light.
“No way, Jose. There is a difference between abortion being illegal, and personhood for the unborn. Again – it only took the say-so of two doctors to justify abortion prior to Roe. Obviously, that would not have been true had personhood been the deal. That the act itself is proscribed need say nothing about the nature of that which is affected by the act. One of the big reasons why abortion became illegal in the US is that doctors felt that midwives were encroaching on the docs’ rightful territory. By needing the say-so of doctors for abortion, the midwives were thus shut out.”
Tyler: Prove your version of history. I believe it took two doctors to in order to make sure that the reason for the abortion was to protect the health of the Mother and was not an outright murder of the unborn legal person.
Heh – it’s your assertion that personhood was accorded when abortion was illegal. The burden of proof is on you; even as many if not most pro-lifers know you are wrong.
If nothing else, just think about it. If the unborn were considered as persons, could the killing of the unborn be justified on the say-so of 2 doctors?
““That the act itself is proscribed need say nothing about the nature of that which is affected by the act.”
Tyler: Sure it does.
Uh, that would be a ‘no.’”
Please provide examples of when it act is made illegal without considering the nature of that which is affected by the act.
Also, can you pleas tell me what source you got the idea that prior to 1973 it “only took two doctors” to have an abortion. If that was case, in event we show a strong preference to protect the unborn legal person.
Doug, how does a society have a CRIMINAL law forbidding abortion and not recognize a victim? Who is the victim in an abortion if the Mother willing consents to it? On this point you have not provided an adequate response. (Previously you have given thoughtful and serious responses, can you please try to do the same on this point.) The two doctors argument does not support your point, but it would support mine. Also if what you say is true, why did the require two doctors and not one?
Doug, you misunderstood Xalisae’s point. She was making the point that by having sexual intercourse, a woman must accept responsibility for the consequences for her actions, whether those consequences were intended or not intended. By accepting both the intended and unintended consequences the woman is responsible for “putting” the baby in her body. I realize that you don’t want to make women responsible for their actions for fear that you will be labeled a misogynist; however, that does not change the fact that what Xalisae said was a true statement. Furthermore, Xalisae when on to say that since the woman is responsible for any pregnancy that occurs it would be highly hypocritical for her to later change her mind and deny her responsibility and the life that she helped to create.
Doug, you misunderstood Xalisae’s point. She was making the point that by having sexual intercourse, a woman must accept responsibility for the consequences for her actions, whether those consequences were intended or not intended. By accepting both the intended and unintended consequences the woman is responsible for “putting” the baby in her body. I realize that you don’t want to make women responsible for their actions for fear that you will be labeled a misogynist
Tyler, no fear of people saying “misogynist!” The point is that the woman is not responsible to what *you* want, but to what she wants.
Yes, being pregnant is a consequence of having sex. At that point the woman will either continue the pregnancy or not. Her responsibility is not to pick the one that you favor, regardless of which one that would be. Same for me, Same for Xalisae, etc. It’s the pregnant woman’s decision, not ours.
Tyler: Please provide examples of when it act is made illegal without considering the nature of that which is affected by the act.
From the Atlantic Monthly: The American Medical Association’s crusade against abortion was partly aprofessional move, to establish the supremacy of “regular” physicians over midwives and homeopaths. More broadly, anti-abortion sentiment was connected to nativism, anti-Catholicism, and, as it is today, anti-feminism. Immigration,especially by Catholics and nonwhites, was increasing, while birth rates among white native-born Protestants were declining. (Unlike the typical abortion patient of today, that of the nineteenth century was a middle- or upper-classwhite married woman.) Would the West “be filled by our own children or by thoseof aliens?” the physician and anti-abortion leader Horatio R. Storer asked in1868. “This is a question our women must answer; upon their loins depends the future destiny of the nation.”
____
DoSomething.org: AMA’s Outlaw Attempt
A campaign to outlaw abortion began in the 1850s, led by the newly formed American Medical Association (AMA), and made reproductive rights a political issue. Doctors, politicians, and religious leaders sought to restrict reproductive rights for various reasons:
Members of the AMA sought to “professionalize” medicine. They used legislation to put midwives, herbalists, and healers out of business. Some members of the government felt that outlawing contraceptives would lead to a decrease in immoral activity. The Comstock Act, passed in 1873, made it illegal to send anything related to birth control or abortion through the mail.
Some Protestant leaders feared losing control of the government to Catholic immigrants. Protestant women were having far fewer children than their Catholic counterparts. This alarmed some legislators and led to the passage of laws outlawing contraceptives and abortion. Between 1860 and 1880, 40 states and territories passed anti-abortion laws. By 1899, contraceptives and abortion were illegal nationwide.
____
people.howstuffworks.com/abortion6.htm
However, one of the main factors in criminalizing abortion in the U.S. was the newly formed American Medical Association and its member doctors. Doctors had economic motivations for advocating against abortion; they lost a significant amount of income to the midwives and private individuals who performed abortions, and the AMA served as an effective legal lobby to block the procedure.
Doctors wanting abortion to be illegal unless *they* said it was needed is not considering the nature of the unborn, but rather that they wanted more exclusive domain over the procedure.
____
Also, can you please tell me what source you got the idea that prior to 1973 it “only took two doctors” to have an abortion. If that was case, in event we show a strong preference to protect the unborn legal person.
Answers.com: The demands on physicians to perform abortions were great and many received additional training in the procedure. The procedure most often used was dilation and curretage, but the injection of potassium soap solution was common by the 1930s. Physicians were legally protected as they were granted the right to conduct therapeutic abortions. Physician-abortionists were considered specialists in the medical community and general practitioners referred their patients to them. The profession officially condemned abortion, but doctors were widely involved, if not directly, then through making referrals. In essence, they could ensure their patients had access to abortion without actually performing them.
Tyler, I found numerous references to it having to be “two doctors” for England, and certain US states, but I’m not seeing a general requirement, now, for the US prior to 1973. It’s been my understanding all along that it was not only the say-so of one doctor, but perhaps it was, if, as above, “Physicians were legally protected as they were granted the right to conduct therapeutic abortions.” In any case, abortions could not have been done in that manner had personhood been attributed to the unborn.
____
Doug, how does a society have a CRIMINAL law forbidding abortion and not recognize a victim?
All that’s needed is sufficient opinion that the act, without enough justification, is a crime. Nothing need be said or inferrred about the unborn. If doctors could get the law passed to protect their incomes, there you go.
___
Who is the victim in an abortion if the Mother willing consents to it? On this point you have not provided an adequate response. (Previously you have given thoughtful and serious responses, can you please try to do the same on this point.)
Depends on if we say the unborn have “an interest” in it. It’s a question. It’s a debate. Regardless, however, even if we say the unborn are “victims,” that has nothing necessarily to do with the act of abortion being illegal. Obviously, it certainly could be why it would be illegal, but it doesn’t have to be. Were abortion to be made illegal now, as before, I think there certainly would be exceptions for the life of the woman, and very likely for rape, incest, and perhaps other situations. This is not the same thing as deeming personhood to be present. That would require due process, under law, at the very least, for the unborn on a case-by-case basis.
___
The two doctors argument does not support your point, but it would support mine. Also if what you say is true, why did the require two doctors and not one?
Well, now I question if it was more than one required. In no way is your point supported, no matter the number of doctors. Perhaps we could do more research on it. Whether one or two or sixteen, were personhood attributed to the unborn, it would then not only be a question of the health of the mother, which *was* the case when abortion was generally illegal in the US.
Doug, how does a society have a CRIMINAL law forbidding abortion and not recognize a victim?
“All that’s needed is sufficient opinion that the act, without enough justification, is a crime. Nothing need be said or inferrred about the unborn. If doctors could get the law passed to protect their incomes, there you go.”
Doug, I find your answer above utterly confusing and hard to follow. Could you please explain how what you are saying would work in a court of law? Perhaps, you can provide an example of how this would work?
The more I read of Doug’s comments, the more troubling they become, it seems.
Things are happening all the time in the world, blood and death included, but it’s only the conscious and willful caring, the having desires, etc., that gives rise to the concepts of morality and “interest.”
Ummm…Doug…I hope you realize that this comment comes off as completely sociopathic, callous and unfeeling, right? I would care about other human beings killed whether or not I they or I had any “interest”. But I guess it goes back to the idea of the comatose man collapsed in your driveway who was physically alive but had been pronounced a “vegetable” who was accidentally ran over by you and whose now completely dead body was found by a police officer. I’d have no qualms with being the arresting officer on duty in that case, and would certainly push to proceed with pressing charges. Whereas, I’m sure you would protest in favor of your innocence on the grounds that no “somebody” had been killed. I just don’t think that should matter. I think for the sake of everyone’s humanity, we should fight vehemently to protect all human life, even those with no “interest” on their parts or our own.
Who is the victim in an abortion if the Mother willing consents to it? On this point you have not provided an adequate response. (Previously you have given thoughtful and serious responses, can you please try to do the same on this point.)
“Depends on if we say the unborn have “an interest” in it. It’s a question. It’s a debate. Regardless, however, even if we say the unborn are “victims,” that has nothing necessarily to do with the act of abortion being illegal. Obviously, it certainly could be why it would be illegal, but it doesn’t have to be. Were abortion to be made illegal now, as before, I think there certainly would be exceptions for the life of the woman, and very likely for rape, incest, and perhaps other situations. This is not the same thing as deeming personhood to be present. That would require due process, under law, at the very least, for the unborn on a case-by-case basis.”
Again, Doug I am not following your answer. I was asking a historical question. When abortion was criminally illegal, who was the victim?
I was not asking a philosophical question about the current legal status of the unborn. We can discuss whether the unborn has an “interest” later and whether the theory of interests was/is the standard by which we define personhood (which is also debatable.)
“Tyler, no fear of people saying “misogynist!” The point is that the woman is not responsible to what *you* want, but to what she wants.”
And Doug, you are wrong. I prefer what Xalisae said: women are responsible for the consequences of their actions (not what they want or don’t want). Nice try though, Doug. You should be a poet, the way you play with words.
people.howstuffworks.com/abortion6.htm
However, one of the main factors in criminalizing abortion in the U.S. was the newly formed American “Medical Association and its member doctors. Doctors had economic motivations for advocating against abortion; they lost a significant amount of income to the midwives and private individuals who performed abortions, and the AMA served as an effective legal lobby to block the procedure.
Doctors wanting abortion to be illegal unless *they* said it was needed is not considering the nature of the unborn, but rather that they wanted more exclusive domain over the procedure.”
All of the above is irrelevant to whether the Court treated the unborn victim as a legal personhood. Perhaps, the above reasoning helped the motivate the Courts to criminalize abortion, but does not disprove that the Court recognized the unborn as legal persons, who are victimized during an abortion.
Doug wrote:
[Paladin]
Well… come, now! Surely you know that the predominant reason for bringing up the “bodily autonomy/one-person-inside-another’s-body” idea is as an attempt to justify the forcible removal of that “invader” (which, in the case of a non-viable child, would kill him/her)?
[Doug]
No, don’t think so, Paladin. Being unwanted is not necessarily due to any “guilt” or “evil intent” or “invasion” or diabolical plots, etc., on the part of the unborn.
Well… I’d only direct you to posts by CC, Megan, and other pro-abortion trolls who say that very thing (i.e. they justify the killing of any unborn child [though they’d never use that term] on the basis that no creature has a right to claim biological support from her body, against her will). I assure you, I didn’t conjure the disgusting idea for myself!
Frankly, it’d be silly to maintain that as “the predominant reason,” and I’ve not seen that and would disagree with it myself.
Interesting. However, I’m not sure how to view that, since your original comment (re: calling the “bodily autonomy = right to expel any fetus at all” by the intriguing descriptors of “guilt” and “evil intent” and “diabolical plot”; if you do not acknowledge the right of the unborn child to live, then why would you see any attempt to kill him/her as “evil”, “diabolical”, etc.? Why would it be any more evil (in your eyes) than would be the act of trimming one’s toe-nails, or getting a cyst removed?
“Tyler, I found numerous references to it having to be “two doctors” for England, and certain US states, but I’m not seeing a general requirement, now, for the US prior to 1973. It’s been my understanding all along that it was not only the say-so of one doctor, but perhaps it was, if, as above, “Physicians were legally protected as they were granted the right to conduct therapeutic abortions.” In any case, abortions could not have been done in that manner had personhood been attributed to the unborn.”
Doug, you have provided me with more evidence. The legal system would not have instituted the criminal law apparatus/regime in addition to these other legal restrictions for therapeutic abortions if they didn’t believe the unborn was a legal person. It be odd for the legal community to create so many legal hoops for women and families to jump through if they considered the unborn a “non-entity.”
Not to get into the issue of “interests” too earlier but all of the above information you cited would indicate that the legal profession at least recognized that Society had an “interest” in the unborn – something Roe v. Wade failed to take into account, as you noted. (We can debate the merits of the actual “interests” (fear of too many Catholics, etc…) themselves another time. The key point is to note that Society had interests, and the legal profession recognized them.)
“Things are happening all the time in the world, blood and death included, but it’s only the conscious and willful caring, the having desires, etc., that gives rise to the concepts of morality and “interest.”
X: Ummm…Doug…I hope you realize that this comment comes off as completely sociopathic, callous and unfeeling, right? I would care about other human beings killed whether or not I they or I had any “interest”.
How does that contradict what I said? You have such thoughts. If “nobody” had such thoughts, desires, cares one way or another in that realm, there would be no morality. How in the world is what I said callous or unfeeling? I’m just saying that this is the way things work, *since* we have feelings.
____
But I guess it goes back to the idea of the comatose man collapsed in your driveway who was physically alive but had been pronounced a “vegetable” who was accidentally ran over by you and whose now completely dead body was found by a police officer. I’d have no qualms with being the arresting officer on duty in that case, and would certainly push to proceed with pressing charges. Whereas, I’m sure you would protest in favor of your innocence on the grounds that no “somebody” had been killed. I just don’t think that should matter. I think for the sake of everyone’s humanity, we should fight vehemently to protect all human life, even those with no “interest” on their parts or our own.
Good Grief…. If it was an accident, why would charges be pressed against me? I can’t see anything from what you said to indicate how the guy got there – did he magically appear under the wheels? If he was a “vegetable,” did he sort of “grow” there like a pumpkin vine?
Tyler: Doug, how does a society have a CRIMINAL law forbidding abortion and not recognize a victim?
“All that’s needed is sufficient opinion that the act, without enough justification, is a crime. Nothing need be said or inferrred about the unborn. If doctors could get the law passed to protect their incomes, there you go.”
Doug, I find your answer above utterly confusing and hard to follow. Could you please explain how what you are saying would work in a court of law? Perhaps, you can provide an example of how this would work?
No “victim” need be recognized. In the case of the doctors who pushed for abortion to be illegal since then it would be more purely their domain alone, rather than that of midwives, etc., the motivation was economic. Okay, so, the docs want a new law. They end up persuading the legislature to enact the law. In court, if somebody wasn’t a doctor, they could then get in trouble for performing an abortion, since now only the docs were supposed to be doing them.
“Tyler, no fear of people saying “misogynist!” The point is that the woman is not responsible to what *you* want, but to what she wants.”
And Doug, you are wrong. I prefer what Xalisae said: women are responsible for the consequences of their actions (not what they want or don’t want). Nice try though, Doug. You should be a poet, the way you play with words.
Nope – your and X’s position is like telling a woman who’s wrecked her car that it’s her “responsibility” not to get medical attention and not to get the vehicle damage fixed. She has an unwanted situation there – she’s hurt and/or has a busted car. You are not for letting her remedy it. In both cases, the woman drove, or had sex. In both cases, there were consequences – a wreck, a pregnancy. Many times, those consequences are not going to be wanted, and people will seek to change them, ameliorate them, counter them, get relief from them, etc. In no way are they “responsible” for picking one thing or another just because of your preferences.
Again, Doug I am not following your answer. I was asking a historical question. When abortion was criminally illegal, who was the victim?
I was not asking a philosophical question about the current legal status of the unborn. We can discuss whether the unborn has an “interest” later and whether the theory of interests was/is the standard by which we define personhood (which is also debatable.)
It’s all the same deal, Tyler. If personhood is not attributed to the unborn, then at least there is the question of “victim or not.” When abortion was illegal, if anything the state was the victim, as the laws were against non-doctors doing abortions. I assume any cases would have been “The state of ****** against Mr. or Mrs. so-and-so.” The states were saying that only doctors should do abortions; the presumption there is that the state has some interest in that – it’s not going to be recorded that “this law is for the economic benefit of doctors,” even if that was the real motivation behind the laws taking effect.
If personhood would be attributed, then yeah, “victim” would apply to the embryo or fetus. Is a kidney a “victim” when it’s removed. We’re probably going to say no. So, the unborn are somewhere in-between, thus it’s a question and it can be debated whether such an entity itself can have “an interest” or if it must be on the part of others, if at all.
“No “victim” need be recognized. In the case of the doctors who pushed for abortion to be illegal since then it would be more purely their domain alone, rather than that of midwives, etc., the motivation was economic. Okay, so, the docs want a new law. They end up persuading the legislature to enact the law. In court, if somebody wasn’t a doctor, they could then get in trouble for performing an abortion, since now only the docs were supposed to be doing them.”
You have two points in the above: 1) Doctors had motivation for instituting the law; 2) though you didn’t notice this yourself, you stated that other doctors would be the victim, due to a loss of business. Your Point 1 is irrelevant – it answer why the law was enacted and not how. In your point 2, the loss of business by other doctors is not a criminal offence that would be dealt within criminal law. Loss of business is a civil matter at most, and more often than not, a purely professional ethics matter to be dealt with internally by the MDA.
So again, why was abortion treated as a criminal matter and who was the victim?
“No “victim” need be recognized. In the case of the doctors who pushed for abortion to be illegal since then it would be more purely their domain alone, rather than that of midwives, etc., the motivation was economic. Okay, so, the docs want a new law. They end up persuading the legislature to enact the law. In court, if somebody wasn’t a doctor, they could then get in trouble for performing an abortion, since now only the docs were supposed to be doing them.”
You have two points in the above: 1) Doctors had motivation for instituting the law; 2) though you didn’t notice this yourself, you stated that other doctors would be the victim, due to a loss of business. Your Point 1 is irrelevant – it answers why the law was enacted and not how. In your point 2, the loss of business by other doctors is not a criminal offence that would be dealt within criminal law. Loss of business is a civil matter at most, and more often than not, a purely professional ethics matter to be dealt with internally by the MDA.
So again, why was abortion treated as a criminal matter and who was the victim?
“It’s all the same deal, Tyler. If personhood is not attributed to the unborn, then at least there is the question of “victim or not.” When abortion was illegal, if anything the state was the victim, as the laws were against non-doctors doing abortions. I assume any cases would have been “The state of ****** against Mr. or Mrs. so-and-so.” The states were saying that only doctors should do abortions; the presumption there is that the state has some interest in that – it’s not going to be recorded that “this law is for the economic benefit of doctors,” even if that was the real motivation behind the laws taking effect.”
What? Again, I am not following. I have never heard of the state being a victim in a criminal case!!! Please explain what you mean, it makes no sense. I think you just made that up.
Paladin: Well… I’d only direct you to posts by CC, Megan, and other pro-abortion trolls who say that very thing (i.e. they justify the killing of any unborn child [though they’d never use that term] on the basis that no creature has a right to claim biological support from her body, against her will). I assure you, I didn’t conjure the disgusting idea for myself!
Well, there you go, yourself, spinning things your own subjective way, i.e. “child.”
Hey, if anybody says that the unborn have willful intent to harm the woman, are in anyway guilty, etc., I’d argue against that as much as anybody. The main deal with bodily autonomy here is that the pregnant woman decides, not you and not pro-lifers in general. As far as “a creature claiming biological support” – what sense does that make? What “claim” can any such entity put forth on its own? None, IMO.
If people take the “parasite” tack, I think that’s usually aimed at pushing pro-lifer’s buttons.
____
“Frankly, it’d be silly to maintain that as “the predominant reason,” and I’ve not seen that and would disagree with it myself.”
Interesting. However, I’m not sure how to view that, since your original comment (re: calling the “bodily autonomy = right to expel any fetus at all” by the intriguing descriptors of “guilt” and “evil intent” and “diabolical plot”; if you do not acknowledge the right of the unborn child to live, then why would you see any attempt to kill him/her as “evil”, “diabolical”, etc.? Why would it be any more evil (in your eyes) than would be the act of trimming one’s toe-nails, or getting a cyst removed?
You lost me there, Paladin. I’ve never said that I’m in favor of no restrictions on abortion, i.e. “any fetus at all.” I’ve never said the woman’s bodily autonomy is absolute, nor that it *has* to be the end-all of the discussion.
It wasn’t that I was seeing abortion as “evil” or “diabolical,” etc., it was that I think it’s silly and pointless to deem the unborn as such. It makes no sense to “blame” the unborn.
Tyler: All of the above is irrelevant to whether the Court treated the unborn victim as a legal personhood. Perhaps, the above reasoning helped the motivate the Courts to criminalize abortion, but does not disprove that the Court recognized the unborn as legal persons, who are victimized during an abortion.
No, it’s not irrelevant. You’d asked why was abortion illegal. It was illegal due to things other than personhood being attributed to the unborn.
Even regardless of that, it’s simple to see that personhood hadn’t been deemed to be present. If that had been the case, then the penalties for breaking the laws would have been different, and there could not have been the negating of the anti-abortion laws by merely the say-so of a doctor or two.
“If personhood would be attributed, then yeah, “victim” would apply to the embryo or fetus. Is a kidney a “victim” when it’s removed. We’re probably going to say no. So, the unborn are somewhere in-between, thus it’s a question and it can be debated whether such an entity itself can have “an interest” or if it must be on the part of others, if at all.”
Thanks again Doug, You are making my points for me. Your example of the Kidney was helpful. Having a kidney removed was never a criminal offence. You keep trying to make this a philosophical question rather than a historical legal question.
If your want to discuss the philosophical issues of personhood we can do so after you provide an answer, that makes somekind of sense, as to why procuring abortions was criminally illegal.
Nope – your and X’s position is like telling a woman who’s wrecked her car that it’s her “responsibility” not to get medical attention and not to get the vehicle damage fixed.
Wrong Doug, our position is not like that. First a car is inanimate. Second, we are advocating the Mother to take care of both herself and the baby (the car, in your example). As you can see, the solution X and I offer the woman is more comprehensive. Our solutions takes care of her and her car!!!
You can still be charged with something regardless of whether or not it was accidental. If you thought it was just a department store mannequin and ran over him/her anyway (or just saw an object and did not bother to investigate), they could still present something like negligent manslaughter or something of the sort, because depending on what you would’ve been able to see in your mirrors as you backed out, you could’ve possibly determined there was a body there (and I don’t really think the law would give a rat’s posterior if they were a “vegetable”, or had part of their brain removed, etc.)
If there is no interest to be taken, and I’m saying the unborn, to a point in gestation, cannot do that, how can an interest be said to be there?
I think that the fact that living things tend to want to continue to go on living should be taken as a given. I think that constitutes “interest” by default. Therefore, I think that this statement: If “nobody” had such thoughts, desires, cares one way or another in that realm, there would be no morality. is faulty, because the morality of “Hey, guy, be a peach and don’t kill other human beings, m’kay? Yes, even if they’re unconscious. Ok. Thanks, buddy.” I believe to be a constant truth, and inherent in every living creature. That’s why people with suicidal ideations are considered to be mentally ill, and things like killing other human beings (including yourself) are largely illegal pretty much worldwide.
Tyler: It be odd for the legal community to create so many legal hoops for women and families to jump through if they considered the unborn a “non-entity.”
It wasn’t “so many legal hoops.” All it took was one doctor (or maybe two if what I originally thought was correct). I’m not saying the unborn were considered non-entities. They just were not considered persons.
___
Not to get into the issue of “interests” too earlier but all of the above information you cited would indicate that the legal profession at least recognized that Society had an “interest” in the unborn – something Roe v. Wade failed to take into account, as you noted. (We can debate the merits of the actual “interests” (fear of too many Catholics, etc…) themselves another time. The key point is to note that Society had interests, and the legal profession recognized them.)
Holy Crow, hang on here – heck, it was the Roe decision that *mentioned* that the state could have an interest. Not that it necessarily did have an interest, but that it could, and thus the permitted restrictions on late-term abortion.
Who knows exactly how much influence the doctors had in the pre-Roe anti-abortion laws? If it was a matter of persuading the legislators to pass the law, plain and simple, and the docs did that, then there would be no necessary interest on the part of society. Technically, yeah – trials would be “the state against Joe Blow,” but in this case really all that would be operative was the the doctors had an interest.
The legal profession need do nothing more than recognize that the law was on the books. No “interest of society” involved.
“Many times, those consequences are not going to be wanted, and people will seek to change them, ameliorate them, counter them, get relief from them, etc. In no way are they “responsible” for picking one thing or another just because of your preferences.”
Simply because a consequence is not wanted does not mean the person is not responsible. She didn’t want the car wreck, but it happened. If she was drunk when the car wreck occurred she would still be held responsible.
Society has an interest in her not driving drunk, just as it has interest in protecting the unborn. Without the unborn, there is no human race, no labour force, no way to support the aging population.
Furthermore, the unborn has an interest since it is living. The unborn does not have to be conscious in order to have an interest. We recognize that plants have an interest in water and sunlight because these things help it to grow. Similarly, an unborn child has an interest in the Mother not aborting him/her. the unborn needs the Mother for sustenance.
And since you’re making the same argument here, let me just copy and paste this here from the other thread:
Doug:
Are you implying that it is good to have a remedy to anything simply because it is legal? Like, if there were a program in place where instead of being charged/going to jail/losing your license for a DUI (justice), you could “remedy” the situation by a legal “bribe” or fee to a certain police officer or judge in lieu of being brought to justice? Would you support that?
Because that would be a more accurate analog to sex/pregnancy/birth or abortion. It would be drinking and getting drunk/driving/caught by the police and charged with DUI or bribing the official through a “fee”.
“Holy Crow, hang on here – heck, it was the Roe decision that *mentioned* that the state could have an interest. Not that it necessarily did have an interest, but that it could, and thus the permitted restrictions on late-term abortion.
Who knows exactly how much influence the doctors had in the pre-Roe anti-abortion laws? If it was a matter of persuading the legislators to pass the law, plain and simple, and the docs did that, then there would be no necessary interest on the part of society. Technically, yeah – trials would be “the state against Joe Blow,” but in this case really all that would be operative was the the doctors had an interest.
The legal profession need do nothing more than recognize that the law was on the books. No “interest of society” involved.”
Doug, you now have no arguments left. You have completely taken away your own previous arguments. I hope I am not being overly presumptuous when I ask this question: are you pro-life now?
“No “victim” need be recognized. In the case of the doctors who pushed for abortion to be illegal since then it would be more purely their domain alone, rather than that of midwives, etc., the motivation was economic. Okay, so, the docs want a new law. They end up persuading the legislature to enact the law. In court, if somebody wasn’t a doctor, they could then get in trouble for performing an abortion, since now only the docs were supposed to be doing them.”
Tyler: You have two points in the above: 1) Doctors had motivation for instituting the law; 2) though you didn’t notice this yourself, you stated that other doctors would be the victim, due to a loss of business.
That wasn’t going to be what the courts said, though. Yeah, docs were behind the passage of the law, but non-docs weren’t going to be tried on the basis of “victimizing the docs.” Rather it would be that they broke the existing law against non-docs doing abortions. The state, not the docs, would be the entity said to have the interest, or the pregnant women.
____
Your Point 1 is irrelevant – it answer why the law was enacted and not how.
Are you being serious, here? How the law was enacted was enough legislators voting for it. You gotta be kidding me if you were really asking that.
____
In your point 2, the loss of business by other doctors is not a criminal offence that would be dealt within criminal law. Loss of business is a civil matter at most, and more often than not, a purely professional ethics matter to be dealt with internally by the MDA.
Doesn’t matter. The law wasn’t saying that “doctors would be the victims.” The law was saying that only doctors can do abortions. Same as it would be illegal for me to remove one of your kidneys, even if you and I both wanted it to go to somebody else. The law isn’t saying that I or we would be “victimizing” doctors, there, either. The law does say it’s the province of doctors, same as for abortions, for that matter.
____
So again, why was abortion treated as a criminal matter and who was the victim?
Because enough legislators voted for there to be a law against non-doctors doing abortions. The victim, if any, would have been the state, and possibly the pregnant women, i.e. rather than saying “Doctors wanted us to pass this law,” the presented deal would have been more like, “We are passing this law to protect women from the less-skilled midwives, etc.”
“It’s all the same deal, Tyler. If personhood is not attributed to the unborn, then at least there is the question of “victim or not.” When abortion was illegal, if anything the state was the victim, as the laws were against non-doctors doing abortions. I assume any cases would have been “The state of ****** against Mr. or Mrs. so-and-so.” The states were saying that only doctors should do abortions; the presumption there is that the state has some interest in that – it’s not going to be recorded that “this law is for the economic benefit of doctors,” even if that was the real motivation behind the laws taking effect.”
What? Again, I am not following. I have never heard of the state being a victim in a criminal case!!! Please explain what you mean, it makes no sense. I think you just made that up.
If the state is the entity that is presumed to have the interest, as with many laws, then breaking the law is going against the state. I am not saying there has to be a “victim,” – that would be on your part, if at all. However, as I said, “if anything (if there is a “victim” at all)” then often crimes are committed against the state, and the state would be the “victim.”
Jack mentioned it being illegal to sell one of his kidneys. Let’s say he goes ahead and does it. He’s broken a law. What “victim” do you see, there?
Nope – your and X’s position is like telling a woman who’s wrecked her car that it’s her “responsibility” not to get medical attention and not to get the vehicle damage fixed.
Wrong Doug, our position is not like that. First a car is inanimate.
Doesn’t matter. We are talking about unwanted situations where you are against a remedy being sought.
___
Second, we are advocating the Mother to take care of both herself and the baby (the car, in your example). As you can see, the solution X and I offer the woman is more comprehensive. Our solutions takes care of her and her car!!!
With all due respect, that’s silly. You’re denying the initial premise that the woman has an unwanted pregnancy. You and I both already agree – correct me if I’m wrong – that the woman wants the car, in working order, etc.
“Because enough legislators voted for there to be a law against non-doctors doing abortions. The victim, if any, would have been the state, and possibly the pregnant women, i.e. rather than saying “Doctors wanted us to pass this law,” the presented deal would have been more like, “We are passing this law to protect women from the less-skilled midwives, etc.””
But that is not what the law said, did, or was about. The law made abortion, itself, illegal for doctors as well as midwives. If they didn’t want midwives performing an abortion that is what the law would have said – “Abortions cannot be done by midwives.” This recent answer also does jive with history either – if abortions were legal for Doctors to perform – why was there Roe V. Wade again, what was the women’s movement complaining about all these years? Did they simply forget to consult Doug’s interpretation of the Law?
‘With all due respect, that’s silly. You’re denying the initial premise that the woman has an unwanted pregnancy. You and I both already agree – correct me if I’m wrong – that the woman wants the car, in working order, etc.’
When you say she wants the car in working order does that really mean she wants the car taken to the wrecking yard so that it can be torn into little pieces? The car is the pregnancy in your example, correct?
Partial revision of earlier post…
This recent answer also doesn’t jive with history either – if abortions were legal for Doctors to perform – why was there Roe V. Wade again, what was the women’s movement complaining about all these years? Did they simply forget to consult Doug’s interpretation of the Law?
X: You can still be charged with something regardless of whether or not it was accidental. If you thought it was just a department store mannequin and ran over him/her anyway (or just saw an object and did not bother to investigate), they could still present something like negligent manslaughter or something of the sort, because depending on what you would’ve been able to see in your mirrors as you backed out, you could’ve possibly determined there was a body there (and I don’t really think the law would give a rat’s posterior if they were a “vegetable”, or had part of their brain removed, etc.)
Yeah, I don’t disagree, there, X. First of all, it would matter if any fault with the driver was really found. If fault was found, then sure – I don’t think the mental competence of the victim would be an issue. Rights and personhood were still attributed to that victim, previously, and what would change that? To speculate, I think brain death might well do it. I’m not saying the unborn, to a point in gestation are like “vegetables” or have part of a brain. I’m saying there is no awareness, no emotion, cognition, etc., at all. If I follow a hearse too closely, and a brain-dead body falls out, and I run it over, fault may be found with me, but I doubt it’s going to be manslaughter or the like.
Additionally, you’re only looking at half the equation – what happens to the “victim.” You’re not looking at the reason for the action. Nothing in your scenario remotely recalls the bodily autonomy issue, nor could carry the weight of it, as far as justification, from what I can see.
___
“If there is no interest to be taken, and I’m saying the unborn, to a point in gestation, cannot do that, how can an interest be said to be there?”
I think that the fact that living things tend to want to continue to go on living should be taken as a given. I think that constitutes “interest” by default.
Yeah, agreed, if “wanting” is there. I’m saying there is no caring, desire, etc., period, before a point in gestation.
___
Therefore, I think that this statement: If “nobody” had such thoughts, desires, cares one way or another in that realm, there would be no morality. is faulty, because the morality of “Hey, guy, be a peach and don’t kill other human beings, m’kay? Yes, even if they’re unconscious. Ok. Thanks, buddy.” I believe to be a constant truth, and inherent in every living creature.
You’re inserting thoughts, desires, and cares, there, though. I’m saying morality *is* those thoughts.
____
That’s why people with suicidal ideations are considered to be mentally ill, and things like killing other human beings (including yourself) are largely illegal pretty much worldwide.
I’m not sure on suicide, but as for laws against killing, it’s because we tend to legislate against that which we fear, i.e. being killed.
“Because enough legislators voted for there to be a law against non-doctors doing abortions. The victim, if any, would have been the state, and possibly the pregnant women, i.e. rather than saying “Doctors wanted us to pass this law,” the presented deal would have been more like, “We are passing this law to protect women from the less-skilled midwives, etc.””
But that is not what the law said, did, or was about.
Tyler, good grief – you wanted to know how the law was enacted. I answered. Then you turn around and say “but that is not what the law said, did, or was about…” Sheesh. (And we’ve already covered those.)
___
The law made abortion, itself, illegal for doctors as well as midwives.
No, it made it illegal unless doctors said abortion was called for.
____
If they didn’t want midwives performing an abortion that is what the law would have said – “Abortions cannot be done by midwives.”
It *did* say that. It said only doctors could do abortions, thus cutting out midwives, etc. That a doctor or doctors had to say that it was needed doesn’t change anything there.
___
This recent answer also does jive with history either – if abortions were legal for Doctors to perform – why was there Roe V. Wade again, what was the women’s movement complaining about all these years? Did they simply forget to consult Doug’s interpretation of the Law?
It was not legal for doctors to perform solely on the woman’s say-so, and that is what Roe did – take away the state restrictions before viability. Without doctors saying it was necessary, a woman could be denied an abortion by the state, and Roe said the states did not have a good enough reason to do that, prior to viability. After viability, it was left to the states – they could restrict abortion if they wanted to.
Doug you missed my response at 4:53 pm.
“Many times, those consequences are not going to be wanted, and people will seek to change them, ameliorate them, counter them, get relief from them, etc. In no way are they “responsible” for picking one thing or another just because of your preferences.”
Tyler: Simply because a consequence is not wanted does not mean the person is not responsible. She didn’t want the car wreck, but it happened. If she was drunk when the car wreck occurred she would still be held responsible.
But so what? Nobody said she wouldn’t be responsible. We’ve already agreed that many times there are consequences for our actions.
___
Society has an interest in her not driving drunk, just as it has interest in protecting the unborn.
Wrong. There’s no agreement to that latter part. That’s your opinion. Society has stated, in effect, that it has an interest in people not driving drunk. No argument there.
But it’s *the fact that society has not stated that it has an interest in protecting the unborn to a point in gestation – certainly not above it’s interest in the freedom of the pregnant woman* – that has you dissatisfied with the way things are.
____
Without the unborn, there is no human race, no labour force, no way to support the aging population.
An if there was any rational belief that the human race was “dying out” (rather than having well more than doubled in my lifetime alone, now past 7 billion and headed for 9 billion) then as we talked about before – it would make a heck of a difference. That’s far from the case now, though.
____
Furthermore, the unborn has an interest since it is living. The unborn does not have to be conscious in order to have an interest. We recognize that plants have an interest in water and sunlight because these things help it to grow. Similarly, an unborn child has an interest in the Mother not aborting him/her. the unborn needs the Mother for sustenance.
Then you’re saying that “interest” is nothing more than biological processes. Okay, but that bypasses the abortion debate. And how does it stack up against the undeniable interest of the pregnant woman, where by no means is it just a matter of biological processes?
X: Doug: Are you implying that it is good to have a remedy to anything simply because it is legal? Like, if there were a program in place where instead of being charged/going to jail/losing your license for a DUI (justice), you could “remedy” the situation by a legal “bribe” or fee to a certain police officer or judge in lieu of being brought to justice? Would you support that?
Heh – so much of the time it really is just about money, and people bargain for all sorts of things. Often very much the same as with other traffic infractions – the state wants money. If the state gets the money, the prosecutor will often agree to a wide range of deals with the defense attorney.
But, to your point, no, in general I don’t want crimes to only result in fines.
____
Because that would be a more accurate analog to sex/pregnancy/birth or abortion. It would be drinking and getting drunk/driving/caught by the police and charged with DUI or bribing the official through a “fee”.
No, because there’s no agreement that those are all the same. Having sex and drinking, per se, isn’t going to be agreed-to as being wrong. Drunk-driving, okay, I think we all agree it’s wrong, and certainly almost all Americans do.
Sex-pregnancy-birth or abortion is like driving-wreck-fix car or not. Or, driving-wreck-get medical attention or not.
“Society has an interest in her not driving drunk, just as it has interest in protecting the unborn.
Wrong. There’s no agreement to that latter part. That’s your opinion. Society has stated, in effect, that it has an interest in people not driving drunk. No argument there.
But it’s *the fact that society has not stated that it has an interest in protecting the unborn to a point in gestation – certainly not above it’s interest in the freedom of the pregnant woman* – that has you dissatisfied with the way things are.”
Doug, if you follow abortion history closely you will notice that the People of the US have not spoken. It has been the judiciary. However, even if we take the judiciary to represent the US society as whole, we can still see that Society still does see the unborn as a legal person with interest. For instance, Roe v. Wade only allowed abortion up to the point of viability, but the Mother was still to consider the unborn, and have medical reasons for the abortion. Later cases in the U.S. extended the length of time that a woman could obtain an abortion during her pregnancy, as long as there were valid health reasons. At no time has the US courts definitely pronounced on the personhood status of the unborn. They simply said that as far as they could tell the unborn have not been recognized as persons in law. I believe this is an error, due to the fact that having an abortion was a criminal offence.
Tyler: Not to get into the issue of “interests” too earlier but all of the above information you cited would indicate that the legal profession at least recognized that Society had an “interest” in the unborn – something Roe v. Wade failed to take into account, as you noted. (We can debate the merits of the actual “interests” (fear of too many Catholics, etc…) themselves another time. The key point is to note that Society had interests, and the legal profession recognized them.)
“Holy Crow, hang on here – heck, it was the Roe decision that *mentioned* that the state could have an interest. Not that it necessarily did have an interest, but that it could, and thus the permitted restrictions on late-term abortion.
Who knows exactly how much influence the doctors had in the pre-Roe anti-abortion laws? If it was a matter of persuading the legislators to pass the law, plain and simple, and the docs did that, then there would be no necessary interest on the part of society. Technically, yeah – trials would be “the state against Joe Blow,” but in this case really all that would be operative was the the doctors had an interest.
The legal profession need do nothing more than recognize that the law was on the books. No “interest of society” involved.”
Doug, you now have no arguments left. You have completely taken away your own previous arguments. I hope I am not being overly presumptuous when I ask this question: are you pro-life now?
Nonsense. You wanted to know why and how abortion was illegal prior to Roe. We covered that. It was not due to personhood being attributed. Okay, fine – who didn’t know that, anyway? This isn’t “having arguments left or not,” this is just the way things were in the past.
Then there was the Roe decision, which removed the requirement for doctors to say an abortion was necessary, and which removed the ability of the states to deny abortions when doctors would not so say.
Since Roe, there have been a few state-level attempts at deeming personhood to be present for the unborn. As things are, those laws, if passed, would be struck down as unconstitutional.
“An if there was any rational belief that the human race was “dying out” (rather than having well more than doubled in my lifetime alone, now past 7 billion and headed for 9 billion) then as we talked about before – it would make a heck of a difference. That’s far from the case now, though.”
I will grant that you are arguing for a slowing of population growth as opposed to a complete halt!! With that in mind, slowing down the rate at which the population grows does not mean we have to use abortion as the means to do so. There are other ways.
Tyler: “Society has an interest in her not driving drunk, just as it has interest in protecting the unborn.
“Wrong. There’s no agreement to that latter part. That’s your opinion. Society has stated, in effect, that it has an interest in people not driving drunk. No argument there.
But it’s *the fact that society has not stated that it has an interest in protecting the unborn to a point in gestation – certainly not above it’s interest in the freedom of the pregnant woman* – that has you dissatisfied with the way things are.”
Doug, if you follow abortion history closely you will notice that the People of the US have not spoken. It has been the judiciary. However, even if we take the judiciary to represent the US society as whole, we can still see that Society still does see the unborn as a legal person with interest. For instance, Roe v. Wade only allowed abortion up to the point of viability, but the Mother was still to consider the unborn, and have medical reasons for the abortion. Later cases in the U.S. extended the length of time that a woman could obtain an abortion during her pregnancy, as long as there were valid health reasons. At no time has the US courts definitely pronounced on the personhood status of the unborn. They simply said that as far as they could tell the unborn have not been recognized as persons in law. I believe this is an error, due to the fact that having an abortion was a criminal offence.
From the 1700s well into the 1800s, nobody really “spoke.” We continued English Common Law, i.e. “abortion’s okay to quickening.” After that, it was not the judiciary, but rather the legislatures, that “spoke” – gradually making abortion illegal (unless doctors said it was needed).
No, society does not see the unborn as persons. If it did, you’d be happy with the way things are.
You’re wrong about Roe and the mother being still to have medical reasons for the abortion, unless you mean in the third trimester.
Not sure what you mean by “later cases,” but Roe left it that women could get abortions to viability. The states, for abortions during the second trimester, could regulate abortion clinics and have certain standards – I forget the exact wording. This is often mistaken as restrictions on abortion itself during the 2nd trimester, but that’s not correct.
And yes, the courts most certainly have pronounced upon personhood. Roe said, in effect, that “if personhood ever were established for the unborn” then things would be different. They’d be protected under the Constitution, for one thing – 14th Amendment. This with the background that personhood had never been attributed to the unborn. The state (on the other side from “Roe” in the case) agreed that no court had proceeded as if personhood was there, and that no court had ever deemed personhood to be present.
Furthermore, the unborn has an interest since it is living. The unborn does not have to be conscious in order to have an interest. We recognize that plants have an interest in water and sunlight because these things help it to grow. Similarly, an unborn child has an interest in the Mother not aborting him/her. the unborn needs the Mother for sustenance.
[Doug]Then you’re saying that “interest” is nothing more than biological processes. Okay, but that bypasses the abortion debate. And how does it stack up against the undeniable interest of the pregnant woman, where by no means is it just a matter of biological processes?
I am not following, how does identifying interest to include biological processes bypass the abortion debate? I think it stacks up quite well. In order to respond I have to phrase my response in the fomr of a question. Why are you privileging (not sure how to word this because consciousness could also be said to be a biological process) mental states above the concrete observable needs of all living things?
Tyler: I will grant that you are arguing for a slowing of population growth as opposed to a complete halt!! With that in mind, slowing down the rate at which the population grows does not mean we have to use abortion as the means to do so. There are other ways.
I hadn’t been arguing for anything to do with population in this thread, as far as me thinking it should speed up in growth or slow down. The rate of growth already *is* slowing down, and by 2040 or 2050 or 2060 I think the forecasts are for things to level out. I’ll probably be dropping off the rolls in there somewhere myself.
I’m not saying that abortion is a “good” way to reduce population, anyway. Preventing pregnancies would be much better. My opinion. I don’t see the population question as nearly as big as the woman’s liberty.
Doug: I hadn’t been arguing for anything to do with population in this thread, as far as me thinking it should speed up in growth or slow down. The rate of growth already *is* slowing down, and by 2040 or 2050 or 2060 I think the forecasts are for things to level out. I’ll probably be dropping off the rolls in there somewhere myself.
I’m not saying that abortion is a “good” way to reduce population, anyway. Preventing pregnancies would be much better. My opinion. I don’t see the population question as nearly as big as the woman’s liberty.
You brought up the size of the population for what reason then? I thought you wanted to argue that there was more than enough people?
I think you recognize now that one of the issues with the size of the population, as it comes into contact with the issue of birth control, is whether the population is growing or not. Indeed, a shrinking population may encourage people to ban abortion, as you have appeared to acknowledge.
I am glad that you acknowledge there are other better ways to reduce the population, if that is one of your goal.
You raised the issue of population size and growth on this thread (and I only looked at this page, not the first page) at various times: December 12 at 4:00 pm and 4:22 pm; and then again on December 13 at 12:07 pm; 1:25 pm; and 2:01 pm.
No, because there’s no agreement that those are all the same.
Then we seem to be at an impasse, because I don’t agree that your initial analogy was accurate.
Having sex and drinking, per se, isn’t going to be agreed-to as being wrong.
I never said that either of those things ARE wrong. For the morally-impared, like yourself, I’ll simply keep the morality discussion to “generally accepted as wrong by a majority of people”. Neither of us was discussing morality. Heck, you’re the last person I would expect to bring it up, since you seem to think all things are equal as long as everyone else says it’s cool.
Drunk-driving, okay, I think we all agree it’s wrong, and certainly almost all Americans do.
Once again, I am not talking about right or wrong. We are talking about cause and effect, desired outcomes, abortion and birth analogs, and justice. However, your statement DOES bring me to an interesting point. That is, WHY “we all agree it’s wrong”. Why drunk driving is illegal, and why abortion should be.
Harm done and potential for harm done to the lives and property of others. I’m sure that if it could be proven that drunk driving is no longer harmful to the driver, others in their vicinity, and the property of the driver and others in the vicinity, no one would care if someone were driving drunk or not. Right? That is why drunk driving is illegal. It harms others. Drinking in and of itself is not a bad thing. Driving isn’t either. However, the second you hit someone, you’ve committed a big, bad, super-wrong no-no. And, I don’t think anyone would care whether he ran into a mom pushing her baby carriage down the street, or someone so vegetably he wouldn’t have been out of place in a can of Progresso: this is a man who has killed another human being, and everyone would most likely be appalled.
Sex is not wrong in and of itself. Getting pregnant is not wrong in and of itself, either. However, when another human life enters the equation and is made to hang in the balance (see: abortion), that is when these simple things go from “Fine, nobody gives a hoot.” to “Hey now, buddy, you’d better wait a second, ok?”. Serving your time is equivalent to giving birth because they both carry the aspect of justice. Abortion and bribes carry the same weight because they both entail skirting justice for your own self-interest and either killing another human being who is the resulting child of that union (and getting away with it with zero penalty, currently) or not paying a price equal or at least partially congruent to the damage caused.
Tyler: I am not following, how does identifying interest to include biological processes bypass the abortion debate? I think it stacks up quite well. In order to respond I have to phrase my response in the fomr of a question. Why are you privileging (not sure how to word this because consciousness could also be said to be a biological process) mental states above the concrete observable needs of all living things?
When we talk about an “unborn baby” needing certain things early in gestation, or plants needing water and sunlight, as you mentioned, we’re talking about scientific fact, not morality. It’s fact, as far as sustaining metabolism, growth, etc., but science does not pronounce upon morality, and whether or not the unborn keep living, necessarily, is the question.
As far as “privileging” – I really wasn’t doing that, just noting that the concepts of legal interest, morality, societal laws, etc., come from consciousness, emotion, etc.
____
You brought up the size of the population for what reason then? I thought you wanted to argue that there was more than enough people?
Tyler, you had said, “Without the unborn, there is no human race..” My point was that we are not there, we are at the opposite end. If anything the greatest threat to the human race is the sheer numbers of us.
____
I think you recognize now that one of the issues with the size of the population, as it comes into contact with the issue of birth control, is whether the population is growing or not. Indeed, a shrinking population may encourage people to ban abortion, as you have appeared to acknowledge.
Yeah, I’d say we’d need a rapidly shrinking population – enough to get people somewhat panicky – to shift opinion around like that.
____
I am glad that you acknowledge there are other better ways to reduce the population, if that is one of your goal.
Man, I don’t care about that hardly at all. The rate of growth is already shrinking, and there are a multitude of more imminent problems confronting us.
____
You raised the issue of population size and growth on this thread (and I only looked at this page, not the first page) at various times: December 12 at 4:00 pm and 4:22 pm; and then again on December 13 at 12:07 pm; 1:25 pm; and 2:01 pm.
Yes, the point being that we don’t need every single pregnancy continued. Then a correction to Some Guy. Then population pressure being behind wars. Then noting that the perceived value of life can change with the supply of it.
“No, because there’s no agreement that those are all the same.”
Xalisae: Then we seem to be at an impasse, because I don’t agree that your initial analogy was accurate.
Well, I’ll try not to leave it at this impasse, anyway. You had mentioned sex and drunk driving. The latter is generally condemned, the former is not. If you just want to look at actions that lead to consequences, why use DUI versus just driving and having an accident?
___
Having sex and drinking, per se, isn’t going to be agreed-to as being wrong.
I never said that either of those things ARE wrong. For the morally-impared, like yourself, I’ll simply keep the morality discussion to “generally accepted as wrong by a majority of people”. Neither of us was discussing morality. Heck, you’re the last person I would expect to bring it up, since you seem to think all things are equal as long as everyone else says it’s cool.
Pfft… My morals are no more impaired than yours are. I just don’t agree with you in everything, that’s all. If you’re going to go for a better analogy, great.
____
Drunk-driving, okay, I think we all agree it’s wrong, and certainly almost all Americans do.
Once again, I am not talking about right or wrong. We are talking about cause and effect, desired outcomes, abortion and birth analogs, and justice. However, your statement DOES bring me to an interesting point. That is, WHY “we all agree it’s wrong”. Why drunk driving is illegal, and why abortion should be.
You’re not talking about right or wrong if you’re finally away from DUI. Few people see a good enough reason for allowing drunk driving. For cause and effect, sex to pregnancy and driving to accident works well – they both are actions that may have consequences, and in the case of pregnancy and accident, theydo/have.
____
Harm done and potential for harm done to the lives and property of others. I’m sure that if it could be proven that drunk driving is no longer harmful to the driver, others in their vicinity, and the property of the driver and others in the vicinity, no one would care if someone were driving drunk or not. Right? That is why drunk driving is illegal. It harms others. Drinking in and of itself is not a bad thing. Driving isn’t either. However, the second you hit someone, you’ve committed a big, bad, super-wrong no-no. And, I don’t think anyone would care whether he ran into a mom pushing her baby carriage down the street, or someone so vegetably he wouldn’t have been out of place in a can of Progresso: this is a man who has killed another human being, and everyone would most likely be appalled.
Texting while driving is often just as dangerous or more than driving drunk. The vast majority of the time, people drive drunk and nothing bad happens. DUI is illegal because there *is* risk, a risk that’s not outweighed by the feeling that there is a good enough reason to allow it. The risk is not necessarily harming others. It may be harming property.
But anyway, why talk about DUI? DUI is a “maybe something happens” deal while sex leading to pregnancy is a “something happened” deal.
____
Sex is not wrong in and of itself. Getting pregnant is not wrong in and of itself, either. However, when another human life enters the equation and is made to hang in the balance (see: abortion), that is when these simple things go from “Fine, nobody gives a hoot.” to “Hey now, buddy, you’d better wait a second, ok?”
Well, “wait a second,” is one thing, but that’s not saying that abortion is worse than taking away the freedom that women have in the matter.
____
Serving your time is equivalent to giving birth because they both carry the aspect of justice.
Nope – serving the time is the legal penalty, the “paying of the debt to society.” Not so with giving birth. There’s no legal penalty for having sex just because it leads to pregnancy (or for just having sex). And the pregnant woman does not owe a baby to society.
____
Abortion and bribes carry the same weight because they both entail skirting justice for your own self-interest and either killing another human being who is the resulting child of that union (and getting away with it with zero penalty, currently) or not paying a price equal or at least partially congruent to the damage caused.
No – you’re confusing breaking the law – the bribe – with abortion, which is not a crime. Your opinion does not make for “justice.”
You, me, Tyler, Courtnay, etc.,were talking about actions/consequences. So why not just driving the car, which may lead to an accident (an unwanted situation), and having sex, which may lead to a pregnancy (an unwanted situation when the woman wants an abortion)?
[Doug]”When we talk about an “unborn baby” needing certain things early in gestation, or plants needing water and sunlight, as you mentioned, we’re talking about scientific fact, not morality. It’s fact, as far as sustaining metabolism, growth, etc., but science does not pronounce upon morality, and whether or not the unborn keep living, necessarily, is the question.”
Science can help inform our morality, and our laws. However, when we become engaged in picking and choosing the scientific facts that we want to assign a moral value to that we can either be inclusive or exclusive. To carve out consciousness from our human existence and attribute to it some greater significance than other biological processes is not being scientific or moral. It is highly ethical form elitism and specieism. Science helps us make distinctions, but it also allows us to identify similarities. If you could explain why you want to value consciousness over my ability to digest food I would like to hear it.
[Doug} – As far as “privileging” – I really wasn’t doing that, just noting that the concepts of legal interest, morality, societal laws, etc., come from consciousness, emotion, etc.
Yes you were. I do not see how the concepts of legal interest, morality, societal laws, etc., come from consciousness, emotion, etc..Historically, our laws came from Scripture, Greek Law, and Roman Law which had no concept of consciousness. In Western society our morality was based on the bible, the ten commandments and the Gospel of Jesus. If I missed something please let me know.
[Doug] “Tyler, you had said, “Without the unborn, there is no human race..” My point was that we are not there, we are at the opposite end. If anything the greatest threat to the human race is the sheer numbers of us.”
This is makes no sense, and I have no idea where you are going with this or what kind of point you are trying to make. How does the sheer number of humans on the planet impact whether or not abortion should be legal? Your arguments are really beginning to lose their punch.
Revised…
Science can help inform our morality, and our laws. However, when we become engaged in picking and choosing the scientific facts that we want to assign a moral value to then we can either be inclusive or exclusive. To carve out consciousness from our human existence and attribute to it some greater significance than other biological processes is not being scientific or moral. It is a highly unethical form elitism and specieism. Science helps us make distinctions, but it also allows us to identify similarities. If you could explain why you want to value consciousness over my ability to digest food I would like to hear it.
Well, I’ll try not to leave it at this impasse, anyway. You had mentioned sex and drunk driving. The latter is generally condemned, the former is not. If you just want to look at actions that lead to consequences, why use DUI versus just driving and having an accident?
I used DUI vs. just driving because it increases the likelihood of getting into an accident. Having sex usually increases MY chances of getting pregnant, so I thought drunk driving would be applicable. But, if you would rather say just regular driving, fine. We’ll say regular driving would be like sex with overlapping contraception including at least one barrier method, and drunk driving would be like having unprotected sex. See? Still matches up just fine.
Texting while driving is often just as dangerous or more than driving drunk.
Yeah. And you would be so kind as to note the last 3 places I’ve lived recently made texting while driving illegal because it IS a danger to the texter and those around him/her. We can interchange texting while driving for DUI, if it will make you feel better, Dougy. M’kay? All better now?
The vast majority of the time, people drive drunk and nothing bad happens. DUI is illegal because there *is* risk, a risk that’s not outweighed by the feeling that there is a good enough reason to allow it. The risk is not necessarily harming others. It may be harming property.
Ok. Now please explain to me why someone’s mailbox enjoys more legal protection to continue existing unmolested from the threat of drunk drivers (infringing on the drunk’s liberty, even! HARUMPH!)than a gestating human being has in the womb from his/her parent(s). I’d like to think that a gestating human being has at least a little more “interest” than a mailbox, Doug.
But anyway, why talk about DUI? DUI is a “maybe something happens” deal while sex leading to pregnancy is a “something happened” deal.
Doug, if I had a baby for every time I had sex…I probably would’ve had a lot less sex by now. You DO realize that not every coitus produces offspring, right? Just like not every time you drive drunk you get caught/damage or harm someone or something? But I think I see what the problem is, here. I’m using social/lawful analogs to biological actions and consequences. I think you’re being confused by this. Justice exists in the natural world. Chimpanzees mourn their dead offspring. Cuckoo eggs are discovered for the intruders they are and pushed out of the nest. And the more developed an organism is, the more inclined that organism is to care for their offspring at their own expense. Legal abortion is quite the regression, really. It shows more in common with a rabbit (short gestational period, less investment in young, less developed brain, more inclined to sacrifice young to live because creating more young is an easier process) who eats her own young for various reasons than a higher primate or even creatures like elephants and dolphins (long gestational period, more invested in each offspring produced, longer periods of interaction with parent(s) in order to learn more about survival because survival mechanisms are more complex and rely more on intellect and less on instinct).
Well, “wait a second,” is one thing, but that’s not saying that abortion is worse than taking away the freedom that women have in the matter.
Ok, then since I have to spell it out for you, I’ll finish out my thought. “Wait a second, buddy, you just can’t do that to someone else, huh?” Abortion IS worse than taking away “the freedom that women have in the matter”. Taking away an entire lifespan from another living human being most certainly IS worse than inconveniencing a lady for 9 months or so. Yes it is. Forcing a drunk driver to take a taxi home if they don’t want to get charged with DUI (or making the texting driver wait to read their texts until they’re out of their car) is not worse than him/her possibly injuring or killing themselves or someone else in an accident or damaging property in an accident.
Nope – serving the time is the legal penalty, the “paying of the debt to society.” Not so with giving birth. There’s no legal penalty for having sex just because it leads to pregnancy (or for just having sex). And the pregnant woman does not owe a baby to society.
Societal justice:biological justice (and yes, I do realize that since we’re talking about abortion, there will be some overlap here, but we need to get the biological part straight, first). The pregnant woman owes a baby to…the freaking baby, Doug. I don’t technically “owe” my kids anything, but since they’re in my custody and care by default, and I created them so biology put them there in the first place, you’d better believe I “owe” them at least basic care, or else they’re going away to foster care and my @$$ is heading to the slammer. There’s your overlap. With abortion illegal, there STILL would be no “legal penalty for having sex if it leads to pregnancy”. There WOULD, however, be a legal penalty for killing the resulting offspring, which already exists for offspring post-birth, and I’m not b!tching about “WAAAHHHH, I GOTS NO FREEDOMS AND STUFF!!! BAAAWWWWWWWW!!!!”
Xalisae and Tyler—
Y’all nailed it.
Doug wrote:
[Paladin]
Well… I’d only direct you to posts by CC, Megan, and other pro-abortion trolls who say that very thing (i.e. they justify the killing of any unborn child [though they’d never use that term] on the basis that no creature has a right to claim biological support from her body, against her will). I assure you, I didn’t conjure the disgusting idea for myself!
[Doug]
Well, there you go, yourself, spinning things your own subjective way, i.e. “child.”
(*wry look*) Come, friend… that’s a bit disingenuous, don’t you think? Unless you’re willing to indict yourself on the same count, in the opposite direction (i.e. labelling your own use of terms which downplay/deny the personhood of the human fetus as “abortion-tolerant, subjective spin”)? “Child” refers to the biological offspring of the mother and father (in the case of humans), does it not? As such, it is perfectly reasonable for me to use the term.
Hey, if anybody says that the unborn have willful intent to harm the woman, are in anyway guilty, etc., I’d argue against that as much as anybody.
That is quite reasonable of you; but I do not (save, perhaps, in the cases of pro-abortion people who are extreme enough to detach completely from reality in their histrionics) claim that abortion-tolerant arguers claim personal intent and/or malice on the part of the child. More on that, below.
The main deal with bodily autonomy here is that the pregnant woman decides, not you and not pro-lifers in general.
Well… I’d have to ask: “decides WHAT?” And any appeals to “It’s my choice, not yours” is utterly question-begging and silly; no sane person denies that a woman is physically free to choose to have an abortion (in places where the grisly practise is currently legal), but that was never in question. The question remains, “SHOULD she have the choice to kill her child, at will, on the basis that she (for any reason, large or small) refuses the embryo (etc.) life-support from her body, since the embryo has no intrinsic right to that support?”
As far as “a creature claiming biological support” – what sense does that make? What “claim” can any such entity put forth on its own? None, IMO.
You seem to be confusing at least two different definitions of “claim”: (a) an explicit, conscious demand (based on some appeal to justice) for some perceived good, and (b) an intrinsic right (based on some appeal to justice, or charity, or some other standard) to some perceived good, whether it is explicitly demanded or not. For me to say that “I have a claim on my wife’s affections” does not mean that I have necessarily run up to her and demanded it; it means merely that I’m in a position to expect it, all things being equal. In my reference to the unborn child’s “claim” on the life-support of the mother, I meant it in the second sense.
If people take the “parasite” tack, I think that’s usually aimed at pushing pro-lifer’s buttons.
That’s possible, in some cases, to be sure. But some abortion-tolerant arguers use such language in an effort to de-humanise the child in their OWN minds, in an attempt to ensure that the killing of that child will not hurt them (emotionally, psychologically, spiritually, etc.) so much. De-humanisation is quite the standard tool for those who wish to eliminate a particular class of humans, in fact, and history is replete with graphic examples.
[Doug]
You lost me there, Paladin. I’ve never said that I’m in favor of no restrictions on abortion, i.e. “any fetus at all.” I’ve never said the woman’s bodily autonomy is absolute, nor that it *has* to be the end-all of the discussion.
All right. But refresh my memory: what sorts of restrictions DO you consider to be right and just? And if you do not believe that a mother’s bodily autonomy is absolute, then on what basis do you ever restrict it… especially given that you do not recognise the personhood of the unborn child? Wouldn’t that make “your” restrictions on the mother somewhat arbitrary?
Doug wrote:
Nope – your [Tyler’s] and X’s position is like telling a woman who’s wrecked her car that it’s her “responsibility” not to get medical attention and not to get the vehicle damage fixed.
(*wry look*) For one who was looking askance at the use of the term “unborn child” (on the grounds that it was “subjective spin”), this is a rather odd comment for you to make: surely you can see that your characterisation of abortion as “getting medical attention” (would a guillotine qualify, if attended by a licensed physician?) and “getting the damage fixed” (what damage?) show a decided and subjective slant/bias toward the abortion-tolerant view?
Doug wrote, in reply to Tyler:
[Tyler]
Abortion and bribes carry the same weight because they both entail skirting justice for your own self-interest and either killing another human being who is the resulting child of that union (and getting away with it with zero penalty, currently) or not paying a price equal or at least partially congruent to the damage caused.
[Doug]
No – you’re confusing breaking the law – the bribe – with abortion, which is not a crime. Your opinion does not make for “justice.”
(!) Oh, come now! Surely even you do not believe that “it’s protected by law; therefore, it’s just!” Laws do not (at least in the non-Judeo-Christian position, such as yours) drop out of the sky, ready-made and infallible; they are created by fallible (and worse) human beings, many of whom have agendas which they want to advance through the making of those laws. In fact: unless you can offer your own standards by which things can be deemed “just” (apart from the mere happenstance of a law/decree being enacted by a government, and apart from your mere personal tastes/whims), then you’ll have cut the ground out from under your own ability to speak coherently about “justice” at all!
Honestly, I do find myself puzzled by the approach you (and a hand-ful of other commenters/bloggers) use, here: the “utter relativism” approach of saying, for example, “the laws allowing the abuse of black slaves, back in U.S.A. history, were not unjust in any objective sense; it’s just that I didn’t like them, and enough humans believed as I do that the laws were changed!” Unless you sincerely believe that nothing is worthy of praise or condemnation, that we are not obliged to avoid any evil or promote any good (since you may see such terms as arbitrary, subjective nonsense), and that we are free to do as we wish, so long as we have either the approbation of society or the power to defy society, I really must ask you what your standards are, and from where they come!
(Almost equally perplexing is the curious idea, from a good many non-theist contributers to blogs, that evil things “are those things which are generally against the nature of man”, and “they’d have eventually become illegal, in any case”; such people express a deep mysticism and faith which puts the faith of many theists to shame! :) )
Actually, Paladin, I was the one who wrote that to Doug-not Tyler-and Doug didn’t even really address what I was saying, because my analogy (in order to remain congruent to abortion) would have to occur with the condition that bribery has been made legal. ;)
Ah. A thousand pardons, milady; may I be forgiven if I offer a large enough bribe? :)
Knock yourself out! In my hypothetical world, it’s recently been made legal, therefore an acceptable and just avenue of redemption, according to Doug. ;P
[Doug]“When we talk about an “unborn baby” needing certain things early in gestation, or plants needing water and sunlight, as you mentioned, we’re talking about scientific fact, not morality. It’s fact, as far as sustaining metabolism, growth, etc., but science does not pronounce upon morality, and whether or not the unborn keep living, necessarily, is the question.”
Tyler: Science can help inform our morality, and our laws. However, when we become engaged in picking and choosing the scientific facts that we want to assign a moral value to that we can either be inclusive or exclusive. To carve out consciousness from our human existence and attribute to it some greater significance than other biological processes is not being scientific or moral. It is highly ethical form elitism and specieism. Science helps us make distinctions, but it also allows us to identify similarities. If you could explain why you want to value consciousness over my ability to digest food I would like to hear it.
We may take scientific facts into account as for as us making moral vaulations and laws, yeah, but still – it’s not “science” that is having any imput into morality. It’s all us. How many species are able to digest food? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? It’s our brains that make us the singular species on earth we are. To me, a “person” is not merely an organism with metabolism. At the very least, there has to be some mental awareness, etc. – my opinion.
____
[Doug} – As far as “privileging” – I really wasn’t doing that, just noting that the concepts of legal interest, morality, societal laws, etc., come from consciousness, emotion, etc.
Yes you were. I do not see how the concepts of legal interest, morality, societal laws, etc., come from consciousness, emotion, etc..Historically, our laws came from Scripture, Greek Law, and Roman Law which had no concept of consciousness. In Western society our morality was based on the bible, the ten commandments and the Gospel of Jesus. If I missed something please let me know.
Ahem – without consciousness, etc., there would be no laws relating to morality, Bible, etc.
___
[Doug] “Tyler, you had said, “Without the unborn, there is no human race..” My point was that we are not there, we are at the opposite end. If anything the greatest threat to the human race is the sheer numbers of us.”
This is makes no sense, and I have no idea where you are going with this or what kind of point you are trying to make. How does the sheer number of humans on the planet impact whether or not abortion should be legal? Your arguments are really beginning to lose their punch.
Sure it makes sense. You’re talking about lack of births and there being “no human race.” Reality is that there are billions of people on earth now, lots of births and lots of unborn, and a still-rapidly-growing population. It’s not “too few unborn” that is our problem.
Xalisae: I used DUI vs. just driving because it increases the likelihood of getting into an accident. Having sex usually increases MY chances of getting pregnant, so I thought drunk driving would be applicable. But, if you would rather say just regular driving, fine. We’ll say regular driving would be like sex with overlapping contraception including at least one barrier method, and drunk driving would be like having unprotected sex. See? Still matches up just fine.
I think that’s cool – have to see the rest of what you wrote, X. My objection to using DUI is that it’s already defined as a crime, while obviously having sex is not.
____
Ok. Now please explain to me why someone’s mailbox enjoys more legal protection to continue existing unmolested from the threat of drunk drivers (infringing on the drunk’s liberty, even! HARUMPH!)than a gestating human being has in the womb from his/her parent(s). I’d like to think that a gestating human being has at least a little more “interest” than a mailbox, Doug.
Hey, there is such a thing as property rights in our culture and laws. The drunk driver, or any driver, or any other person at all, isn’t allowed to legally damage the mailbox without the owner’s consent, nor to damage the gestating human being without the consent of the pregnant woman. Not saying that “property rights” really covers the pregnant woman and the unborn, but with the mailbox that’s about it – there’s no counter-argument nearly as meaningful as the bodily autonomy and rights-of-the-woman concepts in the case of the pregnant woman. Re the mailbox – just who do you see arguing for the “drunk’s liberty to damage it”?
____
But anyway, why talk about DUI? DUI is a “maybe something happens” deal while sex leading to pregnancy is a “something happened” deal.
Doug, if I had a baby for every time I had sex…I probably would’ve had a lot less sex by now. You DO realize that not every coitus produces offspring, right? Just like not every time you drive drunk you get caught/damage or harm someone or something?
Of course sex doesn’t always produce pregnancy, but when we’re talking about continuing or ending a pregnancy, the chance that sex won’t mean conception no longer matters.
___
But I think I see what the problem is, here. I’m using social/lawful analogs to biological actions and consequences. I think you’re being confused by this. Justice exists in the natural world. Chimpanzees mourn their dead offspring. Cuckoo eggs are discovered for the intruders they are and pushed out of the nest. And the more developed an organism is, the more inclined that organism is to care for their offspring at their own expense. Legal abortion is quite the regression, really. It shows more in common with a rabbit (short gestational period, less investment in young, less developed brain, more inclined to sacrifice young to live because creating more young is an easier process) who eats her own young for various reasons than a higher primate or even creatures like elephants and dolphins (long gestational period, more invested in each offspring produced, longer periods of interaction with parent(s) in order to learn more about survival because survival mechanisms are more complex and rely more on intellect and less on instinct).
I’m glad to see you mention the chimps. Yes, they do have some consciousness, behavior, and emotions involving morality. There really are “chimp societys” with expectations, ideals of what is proper, conceptions of good/bad/right/wrong in the moral realm. They have ideas of “justice.” “Social/lawful analogs to biological actions and consequences…” :) What?! Isn’t all we need an action that can/does lead to other occurrences?
If “survival” was dependent on having as many pregnancies continued as possible, that would be one thing. But the rabbits, the chimps, elephants, dolphins, etc., are not making the conscious willful decision about how many kids they have, are they? If people were acting solely on instinct, *that* would be a regression. But this is all conscious and willful stuff – the abortion debate itself, and the woman’s desire to either continue the pregnancy or to end it.
____
Well, “wait a second,” is one thing, but that’s not saying that abortion is worse than taking away the freedom that women have in the matter.
Ok, then since I have to spell it out for you, I’ll finish out my thought. “Wait a second, buddy, you just can’t do that to someone else, huh?” Abortion IS worse than taking away “the freedom that women have in the matter”. Taking away an entire lifespan from another living human being most certainly IS worse than inconveniencing a lady for 9 months or so. Yes it is. Forcing a drunk driver to take a taxi home if they don’t want to get charged with DUI (or making the texting driver wait to read their texts until they’re out of their car) is not worse than him/her possibly injuring or killing themselves or someone else in an accident or damaging property in an accident.
No, it’s not necessarily worse than taking away the woman’s liberty. There’s no agreement that the unborn are “someone else” in the same manner that born people are, especially earlier in gestation versus later. We don’t need an unlimited number of people on earth. We don’t need every single pregnancy continued.
____
Nope – serving the time is the legal penalty, the “paying of the debt to society.” Not so with giving birth. There’s no legal penalty for having sex just because it leads to pregnancy (or for just having sex). And the pregnant woman does not owe a baby to society.
Societal justice:biological justice (and yes, I do realize that since we’re talking about abortion, there will be some overlap here, but we need to get the biological part straight, first). The pregnant woman owes a baby to…the freaking baby, Doug. I don’t technically “owe” my kids anything, but since they’re in my custody and care by default, and I created them so biology put them there in the first place, you’d better believe I “owe” them at least basic care, or else they’re going away to foster care and my @$$ is heading to the slammer. There’s your overlap.
It’s your opinion that “a baby is owed to…the baby.” That’s not biological justice. There is no such thing. That’s your own “shoulds” and “should nots.”
___
With abortion illegal, there STILL would be no “legal penalty for having sex if it leads to pregnancy”. There WOULD, however, be a legal penalty for killing the resulting offspring, which already exists for offspring post-birth, and I’m not b!tching about “WAAAHHHH, I GOTS NO FREEDOMS AND STUFF!!! BAAAWWWWWWWW!!!!”
Even if you were complaining, there’s nothing as weighty as the bodily autonomy of the pregnant woman with which you could challenge the child support laws. Aside from us thinking it’s right or wrong, at birth your kids were attributed full rights and personhood.
Paladin: Well… I’d only direct you to posts by CC, Megan, and other pro-abortion trolls who say that very thing (i.e. they justify the killing of any unborn child [though they’d never use that term] on the basis that no creature has a right to claim biological support from her body, against her will). I assure you, I didn’t conjure the disgusting idea for myself!
[Doug] “Well, there you go, yourself, spinning things your own subjective way, i.e. “child.”
(*wry look*) Come, friend… that’s a bit disingenuous, don’t you think? Unless you’re willing to indict yourself on the same count, in the opposite direction (i.e. labelling your own use of terms which downplay/deny the personhood of the human fetus as “abortion-tolerant, subjective spin”)? “Child” refers to the biological offspring of the mother and father (in the case of humans), does it not? As such, it is perfectly reasonable for me to use the term.
I’ve never “downplayed” the personhood of the fetus. I’ve said that personally I see some developing as gestation goes on. Not that that really matters to our debate, which is predicated upon personhood not being there for the unborn (whether that makes us glad or sad). Saying “fetus” and “embryo” is not spinning things in a pro-choice way, since they’re strictly medically and biologically correct. My point is that arguments based on “child” or “baby” are meaningless. The same is true for saying “abortion is okay because it’s not a baby.” It’s a subjective thing; it’s in the eye of the beholder.
____
“Hey, if anybody says that the unborn have willful intent to harm the woman, are in anyway guilty, etc., I’d argue against that as much as anybody.”
That is quite reasonable of you; but I do not (save, perhaps, in the cases of pro-abortion people who are extreme enough to detach completely from reality in their histrionics) claim that abortion-tolerant arguers claim personal intent and/or malice on the part of the child. More on that, below.
“The main deal with bodily autonomy here is that the pregnant woman decides, not you and not pro-lifers in general.”
Well… I’d have to ask: “decides WHAT?”
To continue the pregnancy or to end it. She’s the one pregnant, not you.
___
And any appeals to “It’s my choice, not yours” is utterly question-begging and silly; no sane person denies that a woman is physically free to choose to have an abortion (in places where the grisly practise is currently legal), but that was never in question. The question remains, “SHOULD she have the choice to kill her child, at will, on the basis that she (for any reason, large or small) refuses the embryo (etc.) life-support from her body, since the embryo has no intrinsic right to that support?”
We know from the get-go that we’re talking about it being legal or not to have an abortion. But yeah, in spite of that usage of “child,” there, I think you stated the question well.
____
“As far as “a creature claiming biological support” – what sense does that make? What “claim” can any such entity put forth on its own? None, IMO.”
You seem to be confusing at least two different definitions of “claim”: (a) an explicit, conscious demand (based on some appeal to justice) for some perceived good, and (b) an intrinsic right (based on some appeal to justice, or charity, or some other standard) to some perceived good, whether it is explicitly demanded or not. For me to say that “I have a claim on my wife’s affections” does not mean that I have necessarily run up to her and demanded it; it means merely that I’m in a position to expect it, all things being equal. In my reference to the unborn child’s “claim” on the life-support of the mother, I meant it in the second sense.
I’m not confusing them. They are different. Above, you say, “since the embryo has no intrinsic right to that support.” Then here you bring it up – “an intrinsic right” – but of course there’s no agreement that any such thing exists. Okay, yeah – you expect your wife’s affection. With the non-conscious, non-sentient, etc., unborn, there is nothing like that. There is not that “they” there.
___
“If people take the “parasite” tack, I think that’s usually aimed at pushing pro-lifer’s buttons.”
That’s possible, in some cases, to be sure. But some abortion-tolerant arguers use such language in an effort to de-humanise the child in their OWN minds, in an attempt to ensure that the killing of that child will not hurt them (emotionally, psychologically, spiritually, etc.) so much. De-humanisation is quite the standard tool for those who wish to eliminate a particular class of humans, in fact, and history is replete with graphic examples.
I rarely see the “parasite” stuff at all. At most, it’s a slight and tangential argument here. Depends on how the word is used, i.e. when the requirement for it being a different species come in, that knocks it away from really applying. Maybe some people do use it to “work on their own minds,” but of course we see that ad infinitum on the parts of pro-lifers, i.e the personification of the unborn.
___
“You lost me there, Paladin. I’ve never said that I’m in favor of no restrictions on abortion, i.e. “any fetus at all.” I’ve never said the woman’s bodily autonomy is absolute, nor that it *has* to be the end-all of the discussion.”
All right. But refresh my memory: what sorts of restrictions DO you consider to be right and just? And if you do not believe that a mother’s bodily autonomy is absolute, then on what basis do you ever restrict it… especially given that you do not recognise the personhood of the unborn child? Wouldn’t that make “your” restrictions on the mother somewhat arbitrary?
Yes – I’m balancing the mother’s rights with the developing consciousness, etc., of the unborn. If it were up to me, I’d draw the line at 22 weeks. As the fetus develops it usually does get personality, awareness, emotion, etc., tending toward what the full-term born baby has. Personally I *do* see personhood developing later in gestation.
“Nope – your [Tyler’s] and X’s position is like telling a woman who’s wrecked her car that it’s her “responsibility” not to get medical attention and not to get the vehicle damage fixed.”
Paladin: (*wry look*) For one who was looking askance at the use of the term “unborn child” (on the grounds that it was “subjective spin”), this is a rather odd comment for you to make: surely you can see that your characterisation of abortion as “getting medical attention” (would a guillotine qualify, if attended by a licensed physician?) and “getting the damage fixed” (what damage?) show a decided and subjective slant/bias toward the abortion-tolerant view?
I didn’t say that having an abortion is “just” getting medical attention. I was talking about being injured and/or having vehicle damage. That would be the unwanted situation that is desired to be remedied.
X: Abortion and bribes carry the same weight because they both entail skirting justice for your own self-interest and either killing another human being who is the resulting child of that union (and getting away with it with zero penalty, currently) or not paying a price equal or at least partially congruent to the damage caused.
[Doug] No – you’re confusing breaking the law – the bribe – with abortion, which is not a crime. Your opinion does not make for “justice.”
Paladin: (!) Oh, come now! Surely even you do not believe that “it’s protected by law; therefore, it’s just!”
First of all, no – I don’t mean that a given law will automatically agree with a given opinion of what is just. (Of course not.) But X was saying “same weight” and while there’s no argument about the bribe, there most certainly is about abortion. I see it as a greater breach of justice to deny the woman a legal abortion.
___
Laws do not (at least in the non-Judeo-Christian position, such as yours) drop out of the sky, ready-made and infallible; they are created by fallible (and worse) human beings, many of whom have agendas which they want to advance through the making of those laws. In fact: unless you can offer your own standards by which things can be deemed “just” (apart from the mere happenstance of a law/decree being enacted by a government, and apart from your mere personal tastes/whims), then you’ll have cut the ground out from under your own ability to speak coherently about “justice” at all!
No argument there, Paladin.
___
Honestly, I do find myself puzzled by the approach you (and a hand-ful of other commenters/bloggers) use, here: the “utter relativism” approach of saying, for example, “the laws allowing the abuse of black slaves, back in U.S.A. history, were not unjust in any objective sense; it’s just that I didn’t like them, and enough humans believed as I do that the laws were changed!” Unless you sincerely believe that nothing is worthy of praise or condemnation, that we are not obliged to avoid any evil or promote any good (since you may see such terms as arbitrary, subjective nonsense), and that we are free to do as we wish, so long as we have either the approbation of society or the power to defy society, I really must ask you what your standards are, and from where they come!
“Unjust” is in the eye of the beholder. For laws or changing them, all that’s required is sufficient opinion. This isn’t saying that you or I will agree with a given law, but as far as how laws come to be, that’s it. Is it “just” to have female genital mutilation, as some cultures do? Eye of the beholder.
Yes, things are subjective here, but we *do* praise and condemn, all the time. As a society we’re basically a group of people with lots in common. We don’t agree on everything, but there is enormous commonality of opinion on evil and good. Within society we’re not totally free to do as we wish – it works a lot better for there to be some rules. If we go against those rules far enough, we’ll get put out of society – killed or imprisoned. I’m for free will and personal freedom, unless the gov’t has a good enough reason to restrict us. With abortion, the debate is over whether there is or isn’t a good enough reason.
____
(Almost equally perplexing is the curious idea, from a good many non-theist contributers to blogs, that evil things “are those things which are generally against the nature of man”, and “they’d have eventually become illegal, in any case”; such people express a deep mysticism and faith which puts the faith of many theists to shame!)
That was well said. :) Yeah, I know what you mean, and I gotta say they are kidding themselves – they’re engaging in logical fallacies. Given the assumptions I make (like everybody else; many assumptions) I don’t say there is objective good or evil, nor that a given thing “would have become illegal, in any case.” How can we know that? “In any case”? I mean, come on…
Still, *we do* make moral vaulations all the time – we have many such thoughts – and I would say that is the nature of man.
X: Knock yourself out! In my hypothetical world, it’s recently been made legal, therefore an acceptable and just avenue of redemption, according to Doug. ;P
Hey – you were the one that made it legal, X. Nobody said that I or any other given person would necessarily agree with it.
Anyway, after all the above, let’s go back to actions/consequences. Have sex, maybe get pregnant. Drive, maybe have an accident. When pregnancy isn’t desired, that situation will be one that many people want to seek a remedy for, same as they’d want medical attention for injury in the car wreck. You think society has a good enough reason to deny women an abortion, I don’t.
[Doug] It’s our brains that make us the singular species on earth we are. To me, a “person” is not merely an organism with metabolism. At the very least, there has to be some mental awareness, etc. – my opinion.
We should include all of the qualities, matter, substances, abilities, and processes that make us human, and comprise our human nature. Our rational part/being, or as you say our consciousness, set us apart from plants and other animals, but we do share much in common with these other creatures, especially the animals. Therefore, why pick only one part of our human nature to be the defining attribute, such as consciousness, for legal personhood? How does picking consciousness differ from picking race or color as the defining criterion for legal personhood, except that it is a more inclusive criterion? Therefore, it is inclusiveness of the criterion that is good, and we should therefore, define legal personhood in the broadest terms possible so that the maximum amount of human beings will be included in its definition.
___
[Tyler] Yes you were. I do not see how the concepts of legal interest, morality, societal laws, etc., come from consciousness, emotion, etc..Historically, our laws came from Scripture, Greek Law, and Roman Law which had no concept of consciousness. In Western society our morality was based on the bible, the ten commandments and the Gospel of Jesus. If I missed something please let me know.
[Doug] Ahem – without consciousness, etc., there would be no laws relating to morality, Bible, etc.
I get it, you may have a career as a pro-choice comedian. But who came first the human fertilized egg or the human consciousness? But your reply gets off topic we are not trying to talk about the mind’s contribution to or creation of law but how the human being has been recognized as a person for legal purposes. Our current concept of a legal person would have come out/evolved from of our Judeo-Christian history/culture.
A full response would be too long winded here and I doubt if I could sufficiently explain it or if I have the knowledge base to do so. I would need to be a legal expert in order to provide you with the proper answer about the history of legal personhood I would like to supply.
We should include all of the qualities, matter, substances, abilities, and processes that make us human, and comprise our human nature. Our rational part/being, or as you say our consciousness, set us apart from plants and other animals, but we do share much in common with these other creatures, especially the animals. Therefore, why pick only one part of our human nature to be the defining attribute, such as consciousness, for legal personhood? How does picking consciousness differ from picking race or color as the defining criterion for legal personhood, except that it is a more inclusive criterion? Therefore, it is inclusiveness of the criterion that is good, and we should therefore, define legal personhood in the broadest terms possible so that the maximum amount of human beings will be included in its definition.
Tyler, yes, we share a ton with other species, but it’s still our brains and consciousness that make us the singular race on earth that we are, that make us “people.” I’m not saying it’s our “only defining attribute,” but it’s the difference between “somebody” being there and not being there. I’m also not saying that has to be the qualification for legal personhood – that’s a different deal than just restricting abortion. We don’t need more people on earth, per se, so I see no need for “the maximum amount of human beings,” period. Especially not if it means taking away the freedom that women have in the matter of abortion.
___
[Tyler] Yes you were. I do not see how the concepts of legal interest, morality, societal laws, etc., come from consciousness, emotion, etc..Historically, our laws came from Scripture, Greek Law, and Roman Law which had no concept of consciousness. In Western society our morality was based on the bible, the ten commandments and the Gospel of Jesus. If I missed something please let me know.
[Doug] Ahem – without consciousness, etc., there would be no laws relating to morality, Bible, etc.
I get it, you may have a career as a pro-choice comedian. But who came first the human fertilized egg or the human consciousness? But your reply gets off topic we are not trying to talk about the mind’s contribution to or creation of law but how the human being has been recognized as a person for legal purposes. Our current concept of a legal person would have come out/evolved from of our Judeo-Christian history/culture.
You may be right – I don’t know. But the Birth Standard for rights and personhood is age-old, and isn’t restricted to Jews and Christians. I wasn’t trying to be funny – the things at issue in the abortion debate are matters of valuation, etc. – functions of consciousness.
___
A full response would be too long winded here and I doubt if I could sufficiently explain it or if I have the knowledge base to do so. I would need to be a legal expert in order to provide you with the proper answer about the history of legal personhood I would like to supply.
I don’t think it’s all that hard, as far as it’s application to the abortion debate. Full rights and personhood have never been attributed to the unborn, in any culture around the world, in all of history. Birth is not always automatic according of full rights to all – some cultures have had slavery off and on, caste or class systems, etc. But the “never before birth” deal is there.
On consciousness and our human brains – it’s important because all morality comes from the mind. Even if we allow for the possibility of other beings in the universe, gods, aliens, other “higher” beings than us earthly humans, they too may have their valuations. Ideas, ideals of what is right/wrong/good/bad in the moral realm – this is not anything with physical existence, this is stuff internal to the mind.
Tyler, why do you think every pregnancy should necessarily be continued? Whether by miscarriage or willful abortion, that a given pregnancy is not continued would almost never affect you. You wouldn’t know of it, be it across town or across the world.
{Doug]”I’m not saying it’s our “only defining attribute,” but it’s the difference between “somebody” being there and not being there.”
This is the response that you have to validate. I would argue that consciousness does not do make “somebody” home, so that it can be used for legal personhood even if it does differentiate us from other creatures on average. Unfortunately, it is an elitist statement when one uses consciousness to differentiate among other human beings. It is also a vague statement because it does not specify the level of consciousness that is required for you to recognize when “somebody” is home?
This statement also establishes a certain class of people, those who have the “set” level of consciousness, to decide who has a “somebody home” and who doesn’t.
This kind of thinking can and has led humanity to some very scary outcomes.
I don’t think you have considered all of the implications of using consciousness as the criterion for legal personhood.
[Doug]We don’t need more people on earth, per se, so I see no need for “the maximum amount of human beings,” period. Especially not if it means taking away the freedom that women have in the matter of abortion.
The second sentence contains a noble aspiration and not wants to take away anybody’s rights. However, there are a number of problems with this sentence. First, it contains a huge “if” statement, so in certain sense, for it to be a valid statement your first sentence would have to be true – and I don’t think it is since this first sentence was based on purely subjective opinion. Your opinion that “you” don’t think we need more humans should not impact on the rights of the unborn, or those men and women who want to have more children. Your definition of who is or isn’t a person should not be imposed on the unborn without proof.
The second problem with the second sentence is that it presupposes that a women’s right to abortion is a true right and that she doesn’t have “any” other options. If the criterion used for a legal person includes the unborn, this right of the Mother to abort is not a real right. Furthermore, even if abortion is considered a right, she does have other options so her rights have not been infringed upon to such a large degree.
Ultimately, the second sentence requires that we, as a society, should come to a consensus about the value and rights of the unborn, and whether it is a legal person or not. If the unborn is a legal person the Mother should not be able to abort on demand, she will have a legal responsibility to protect and not to harm the legal person growing inside her. Right now, our society, and in particular our legal system, does not have clarity on this issue.
[Doug]Tyler, why do you think every pregnancy should necessarily be continued? Whether by miscarriage or willful abortion, that a given pregnancy is not continued would almost never affect you. You wouldn’t know of it, be it across town or across the world.
This is honest and good question. I will not simply by stating the obvious reply by retorting with the rhetorical question: why does anyone care about any injustice against any other human?
I would state the above, although completely true, rhetorical question/statement because pregnancy is a personal issue. It affects men, women and children intimately. Each pregnancy results in a man or a woman. I think our species, the human race, is good. The human race should be continued and the only way for that to done, is to continue each and every pregnancy. Once we begin to artificially end pregnancies we engage in bringing about the end of the human race. The pregnancy that is ended may have been my child’s future spouse, my future in-law.
There are somethings that are right, and one of those things that is right is the life of every human being. It is our faith, the deepest part of human existence, that guides us on these most important questions. My faith, my religion teaches me that all life has value, was made in the image in God, and is therefore sacred. I accept that these are religious reasons, but these are the same religious reasons that established our laws, instituted and defined what were and are crime in our society. These religious reason transcend the more natural reasoning of any particular country or person. These transcendental reasons cross country boundaries and provide humanity with an objective standard by which can recognize the equality, and legal personhood, of all human beings. These transcendental reasons are more inclusive than the reasons supplied solely from science because they go outside of the boundaries of science. These maybe Christian transcendental values but they are shared by many other religious faiths. And for the faiths that have different transcendental values, we must talk with them and reason why our we feel our transcendental values are correct. This last point is why religious freedom is so important. Religious freedom is very close to the freedom to think philosophically about subjects. I would argue that by making consciousness the criterion for legal personhood you would be establishing the first hammer by which all of our fundamental freedoms would be brought down. It is the beginning of a materialistic worldview that does not permit or even recognize freedom.
Lastly, Doug, your very question reveals a coarsening of your own heart. You may think it doesn’t and you may feel that it is presumptuous for me to say that, but Doug, you will have to remember, that like you, I am human and therefore, I share with you a similar biological and experiential make-up.
Revised a number of the grammatical errors and added a few additional comments….
Doug]Tyler, why do you think every pregnancy should necessarily be continued? Whether by miscarriage or willful abortion, that a given pregnancy is not continued would almost never affect you. You wouldn’t know of it, be it across town or across the world.
This is an honest and a good question. I will not answer by simply stating the obvious reply which would be to retort the following rhetorical question: why do we care about any injustice committed against any human being?
I won’t ask the above rhetorical question because I think you already know the answer to the question that you asked me!
Your question really amounts to asking me why I consider good the things I consider good. Even more than that, your question is asking me to define the concept “good.” These are deep questions and questions I cannot hope to answer. Fortunately, what is Good has been written on our hearts. Sadly, following our heart, the Good, is difficult because we are fallen creatures and live in a fallen world (although I use religious language I think the language accurately reflects our human condition).
Pregnancy is a personal issue. It affects men, women and children intimately. Each pregnancy results in a man or a woman. I think our species, the human race, is good. The men and women of our human race should be continued and the only way for that to be achieved is to continue each and every pregnancy. Once we begin to artificially end pregnancies we engage in bringing about the end of the human race. The pregnancy that is ended may have been my child’s future spouse, my future in-law, a future friend of mine or my child’s, etc…
Moreover, there are some things that are right, and one of those things that are right is the life of every human being. It is our faith, the deepest part of our human existence, which guides us on these most important questions. My faith and my religion teaches me that all life has value, was made in the image in God, and is therefore sacred. I accept that these reasons are religious reasons, but these are the same religious reasons that established our laws, instituted and defined what were and are criminal acts in our society. These religious reasons transcend the more natural reasoning of any particular country or person. These transcendental religious reasons cross country boundaries and provide humanity with an objective standard by which we can recognize the equality, and legal personhood, of all human beings. These transcendental reasons are more inclusive than the reasons supplied solely from science because they go outside of the boundaries of science. These maybe Christian transcendental values but they are shared by many other religious faiths. And for the faiths that have different transcendental values, we must talk with them and reason why we feel our transcendental values are correct and most in alignment with the spiritual truths we, as human beings, discern. This last point is why religious freedom is so important. Religious freedom is very close to the freedom to think philosophically and spiritually about subjects. I would argue that by making consciousness the criterion for legal personhood you would be establishing the first hammer by which all of our fundamental freedoms would be brought down. It is the beginning of a materialistic worldview that does not permit or even recognize freedom. I wish I had a more rational answer for you, but some parts of life are mysterious and require faith in order to see/accept their goodness.
Lastly, Doug, on a personal level, I worry that your very question reveals a coarsening of your own heart. You may think it doesn’t and you may feel that it is presumptuous for me to say that, but Doug, you will have to remember, that like you, I am human and therefore, I share with you a similar biological and experiential make-up.
“Forced Obesity” brought to you by the Duck and Doug School of Logic
An ever increasing percentage of the Western populous is obese.
Regardless of how the weight gain occurred, when people become obese, we want to make sure they have a specific choice available to rid themselves of unwanted pounds.
Free, safe, legal liposuction.
If we don’t have free, safe and legal liposuction available for every obese person, we are forcing them to remain obese.
What, we hear you say, don’t people have the option to rid themselves of obesity through natural means by consuming less and exercising more?
We at the D&D SOL don’t believe so. If you are obese, and you can’t access free, safe and legal liposuction, you are being forced to remain obese by the anti-lipos.
Why, we hear you ask, would you require the law to allow and taxpayers to subsidize elective surgery?
We at the D&D SOL believe that every obese person is a victim. A person who becomes obese by overeating and under exercising is not
…silly iPad loves to close comments before I am finished and won’t let me go back and edit…now where was I… Oh yes,
The Duck and Doug School of Logic (D&D SOL)
If obese people don’t have access to free, safe and legal liposuction, they are being forced to remain fat by the anti-lipos, or worse still, they might go to a back alley lipo clinic, or attempt to perform lipo on themselves.
Of course, the D&D SOL isn’t pro-lipo, we just think that it’s an option that should be considered, made available, given legal approval and completely subsidised with taxpayer funding. We also argue that lipo is ten times safer than dieting and exercise, based on an outdated study by the Liposuction Surgeons Society. We think it’s unrealistic that obese people would take months out of their lives and suffer the discomfort of Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers, and Curves. We deny that free, safe and legal lipo might result in a relaxed attitude towards responsible nutrition and exercise. But again, we’re not pro-lipo, just really sure that everyone should be able to have lipo whenever they want, as many times as they want, paid for by the taxpayer, and if we don’t, you’re forcing us to remain fat.
Remember our motto at the D&D School of Logic- “Over eating does not imply consent to obesity. Keep lipo free, safe and legal!”
:) Michelle, that was classic!
Anyway, after all the above, let’s go back to actions/consequences. Have sex, maybe get pregnant. Drive, maybe have an accident. When pregnancy isn’t desired, that situation will be one that many people want to seek a remedy for, same as they’d want medical attention for injury in the car wreck. You think society has a good enough reason to deny women an abortion, I don’t.
I don’t think you’re getting that the situation you describe is not analogous to abortion. “drive, maybe have an accident” sure, but abortion isn’t the part where the driving person gets medical attention. The abortion part is the part where the driving person injures/kills someone else, Doug. THAT should be a “good enough reason” to NOT “deny women an abortion”, but to make abortion just as illegal as drunk driving because other human lives are taken. And hell, at least one human life is ended in almost EVERY SINGLE ABORTION! People drive drunk all the time without harming anyone else! If anything, there is MORE reason for society to protect the right to live of gestating human beings than to make drunk driving illegal!
But I think this statement sums up your callousness and detachment from our “community of human beings” (as Duck would put it) rather nicely:
Tyler, why do you think every pregnancy should necessarily be continued? Whether by miscarriage or willful abortion, that a given pregnancy is not continued would almost never affect you. You wouldn’t know of it, be it across town or across the world.
I don’t know, Doug. Why should I give a sh!t if someone decides to invade your home and bash your skull in one of these days? You probably live far away from me. It’s highly likely that someone invading your home and bashing your skull in with a cricket bat would certainly never affect me. I probably wouldn’t know it. If I stopped frequenting Jill’s before it happened, I’d almost definitely never know of it.
However, I still don’t think it should be legal for someone to invade your home and bash your skull in with a cricket bat. Why? Because I wouldn’t want someone to do that to me. Why? Because you’re a human being who deserves to have your life protected by the law. Why? Because we’re in this together, and if we don’t respect each other enough to try and do what we can to protect each other, we might as well be dogs eating our own poop in the front yard, running around naked, killing other male dogs so we can rape the females whenever we want, eating the pups we have that we don’t want, and rolling around reveling in filth whenever we find it.
Don’t be a dog, Doug. It’s undignified, and I always thought you had the capacity to be such a dignified fellow.
michelle,
don’t forget to mention that any attempt to regulate the liposuction industry even when clinics have killed people is nothing but a ploy of anti-lipos to try to take away our right to be thin.
{Doug]”I’m not saying it’s our “only defining attribute,” but it’s the difference between “somebody” being there and not being there.”
Tyler: This is the response that you have to validate. I would argue that consciousness does not do make “somebody” home, so that it can be used for legal personhood even if it does differentiate us from other creatures on average. Unfortunately, it is an elitist statement when one uses consciousness to differentiate among other human beings. It is also a vague statement because it does not specify the level of consciousness that is required for you to recognize when “somebody” is home?
If there were no consciousness, there would be no concepts such as “elite” in the first place. It’s not vague to differentiate between conscious and not conscious. Granted there is a time in gestation when it’s “becoming” and somewhat of a gray area. However, if we would draw the line to err on the side of caution, i.e. restrict abortion earlier rather than later, there, are you going to be okay with that? No, you’d still push for conception. In the end, my opinion is that it’s silly to say that a mere living body, with no mental awareness, is “somebody.” How really, is that “somebody” more than a dead body, for example?
____
This statement also establishes a certain class of people, those who have the “set” level of consciousness, to decide who has a “somebody home” and who doesn’t.
No, Tyler, I’m saying conscious or not conscious. If there is a reasonable argument that some level of consciousness is there, I’d say that’s “conscious.”
____
This kind of thinking can and has led humanity to some very scary outcomes.
Oh please. The Birth Standard has been, period, whether or not you think those “scary outcomes” were in force or not.
____
I don’t think you have considered all of the implications of using consciousness as the criterion for legal personhood.
I have not proposed that. There are certainly other things to think about, as far as legal personhood. What I think makes for “somebody” and what constitutes a real person is not necessarily going to be the same as far as what legal personhood would be. For instance – I do see some personhood being there later in gestation, but I wouldn’t automatically deem legal personhood to be there, since there are other things to think about, the pregnant woman’s bodily autonomy among them. Abortion restrictions are one thing, attributing full rights and personhood is another.
[Michelle] Remember our motto at the D&D School of Logic- “Over eating does not imply consent to obesity. Keep lipo free, safe and legal!”
Remember, when Pro-Lifers raise objections like this one, the people at D&D SOL we will come back and actually acknowledge the fetus as baby, and say there is no comparison between fat and a baby. Then they will continue to argue that a baby is much more of burden than fat, and restricts the Mother’s future choices much more than being obese.
Those at D&D SOL need to keep their eyes open for the full duration of the baby’s life and recognize that fetus is always a life, from fertilization to natural death, and not simply when they want to win an argument.
Go Broncos!
[Doug]We don’t need more people on earth, per se, so I see no need for “the maximum amount of human beings,” period. Especially not if it means taking away the freedom that women have in the matter of abortion.
Tyler: The second sentence contains a noble aspiration and not wants to take away anybody’s rights. However, there are a number of problems with this sentence. First, it contains a huge “if” statement, so in certain sense, for it to be a valid statement your first sentence would have to be true – and I don’t think it is since this first sentence was based on purely subjective opinion. Your opinion that “you” don’t think we need more humans should not impact on the rights of the unborn, or those men and women who want to have more children. Your definition of who is or isn’t a person should not be imposed on the unborn without proof.
Well, yeah, that is how I see it. As far as more people on earth, it’s a question – there are arguments to be made both ways. It’s not 100% one way or the other, and of course people are disagreeing on it. The flipside of what you said is that your opinion should not trump that of the pregnant woman.
____
The second problem with the second sentence is that it presupposes that a women’s right to abortion is a true right and that she doesn’t have “any” other options. If the criterion used for a legal person includes the unborn, this right of the Mother to abort is not a real right. Furthermore, even if abortion is considered a right, she does have other options so her rights have not been infringed upon to such a large degree.
Hang on, here Bucko. If she has an unwanted pregnancy and wants an abortion, your saying “she has other options” may not mean diddly to her. If it’s what she wants against what you want, I’m giving the nod to her, since she’s the one pregnant. Same as if she had a wanted pregnancy, and somebody else is saying, “she should have an abortion.” Why should that person’s desire trump hers?
____
Ultimately, the second sentence requires that we, as a society, should come to a consensus about the value and rights of the unborn, and whether it is a legal person or not. If the unborn is a legal person the Mother should not be able to abort on demand, she will have a legal responsibility to protect and not to harm the legal person growing inside her. Right now, our society, and in particular our legal system, does not have clarity on this issue.
I don’t think a consensus is really what you want. You want your opinion to hold sway. If personhood amendments and laws keep getting voted down or struck down, are you gonna be happy? I don’t think so.
{Doug]In the end, my opinion is that it’s silly to say that a mere living body, with no mental awareness, is “somebody.” How really, is that “somebody” more than a dead body, for example?”
The fetus is alive and the dead body is not. Doug, I know you knew the difference prior to asking that question. Why do you stubbornly refuse to recognize the life of the fetus, and choose a more exclusive criterion such as consciousness for determining legal personhood?
[Doug]”No, Tyler, I’m saying conscious or not conscious. If there is a reasonable argument that some level of consciousness is there, I’d say that’s “conscious.””
Who decides and why do they get to decide?
[Tyler]This kind of thinking can and has led humanity to some very scary outcomes.
[Doug]”Oh please. The Birth Standard has been, period, whether or not you think those “scary outcomes” were in force or not.”
Consciousness will be used/has been used to deny the elderly, and the mentally disabled the right to life an medical support.
“Tyler, why do you think every pregnancy should necessarily be continued? Whether by miscarriage or willful abortion, that a given pregnancy is not continued would almost never affect you. You wouldn’t know of it, be it across town or across the world.”
This is an honest and a good question. I will not answer by simply stating the obvious reply which would be to retort the following rhetorical question: why do we care about any injustice committed against any human being?
I won’t ask the above rhetorical question because I think you already know the answer to the question that you asked me!
I’m aware of what you’re talking about, but the “being against injustice” stuff also applies to how we feel about the pregnant woman. It still goes to our valuation.
____
Your question really amounts to asking me why I consider good the things I consider good. Even more than that, your question is asking me to define the concept “good.” These are deep questions and questions I cannot hope to answer. Fortunately, what is Good has been written on our hearts. Sadly, following our heart, the Good, is difficult because we are fallen creatures and live in a fallen world (although I use religious language I think the language accurately reflects our human condition).
I think a more broadly true answer is that we deem “bad” things which we don’t want, things we fear, etc. That which is desired, etc., is said to be “good,” and “right” etc.
____
Pregnancy is a personal issue. It affects men, women and children intimately. Each pregnancy results in a man or a woman. I think our species, the human race, is good. The men and women of our human race should be continued and the only way for that to be achieved is to continue each and every pregnancy. Once we begin to artificially end pregnancies we engage in bringing about the end of the human race. The pregnancy that is ended may have been my child’s future spouse, my future in-law, a future friend of mine or my child’s, etc…
I think that argument bears the seeds of its own destruction, i.e. increasing population will bring about a “cheapening of life” more than anything else.
____
Moreover, there are some things that are right, and one of those things that are right is the life of every human being. It is our faith, the deepest part of our human existence, which guides us on these most important questions. My faith and my religion teaches me that all life has value, was made in the image in God, and is therefore sacred. I accept that these reasons are religious reasons, but these are the same religious reasons that established our laws, instituted and defined what were and are criminal acts in our society. These religious reasons transcend the more natural reasoning of any particular country or person. These transcendental religious reasons cross country boundaries and provide humanity with an objective standard by which we can recognize the equality, and legal personhood, of all human beings. These transcendental reasons are more inclusive than the reasons supplied solely from science because they go outside of the boundaries of science. These maybe Christian transcendental values but they are shared by many other religious faiths. And for the faiths that have different transcendental values, we must talk with them and reason why we feel our transcendental values are correct and most in alignment with the spiritual truths we, as human beings, discern. This last point is why religious freedom is so important. Religious freedom is very close to the freedom to think philosophically and spiritually about subjects. I would argue that by making consciousness the criterion for legal personhood you would be establishing the first hammer by which all of our fundamental freedoms would be brought down. It is the beginning of a materialistic worldview that does not permit or even recognize freedom. I wish I had a more rational answer for you, but some parts of life are mysterious and require faith in order to see/accept their goodness.
Tyler, that’s okay – I appreciate the thought you put into it. I note that “faith” is not possible without consciousness, and even a certain level of consciousness, at that. “Religious freedom,” yeah, cool, but when people start wanting to legislate their beliefs from that arena, that’s when the trouble often starts.
____
Lastly, Doug, on a personal level, I worry that your very question reveals a coarsening of your own heart. You may think it doesn’t and you may feel that it is presumptuous for me to say that, but Doug, you will have to remember, that like you, I am human and therefore, I share with you a similar biological and experiential make-up.
Again, no problem – the abortion debate is a great one as it takes us all down to the unprovable assumptions we all make. If anything I’d say that to put the non-conscious unborn above the certainly-conscious pregnant woman seems quite coarse, harsh, unfair, and unfeeling to some of us, too. Thus, there is the considerable debate there is.
[Doug]”…since there are other things to think about, the pregnant woman’s bodily autonomy among them.”
Please define what you mean by bodily autonomy.
[Doug]”I don’t think a consensus is really what you want. You want your opinion to hold sway. If personhood amendments and laws keep getting voted down or struck down, are you gonna be happy? I don’t think so.”
Nor will you be satisfied if women can’t kill the unborn at their whim.
[Doug]”I think that argument bears the seeds of its own destruction, i.e. increasing population will bring about a “cheapening of life” more than anything else.
____”
Too late Doug, abortion, and the faulty use of the advances in medical science, have already cheapened life, population growth notwithstanding.
[Doug]”I think a more broadly true answer is that we deem “bad” things which we don’t want, things we fear, etc. That which is desired, etc., is said to be “good,” and “right” etc.”
And what of those people who desire bad things such as murdering people, are those then Good. Surely, no subjective standard of personal desires can have any merit.
[Doug]”Tyler, that’s okay – I appreciate the thought you put into it. I note that “faith” is not possible without consciousness, and even a certain level of consciousness, at that. “Religious freedom,” yeah, cool, but when people start wanting to legislate their beliefs from that arena, that’s when the trouble often starts.”
You are no different then a religious person, you want to impose your beliefs on the unborn and on the society who does not agree with you.
[Doug]”Again, no problem – the abortion debate is a great one as it takes us all down to the unprovable assumptions we all make. If anything I’d say that to put the non-conscious unborn above the certainly-conscious pregnant woman seems quite coarse, harsh, unfair, and unfeeling to some of us, too. Thus, there is the considerable debate there is.”
And I feel the opposite. The non-conscious unborn’s life trumps the bodily autonomy of the conscious woman for nine months. I think it is coarse, harsh, and unfair, unfeeling and violent to kill the unborn.
Michelle PRC ED: “Forced Obesity” brought to you by the Duck and Doug School of Logic
Well, let us see, here…. Usually, these things are full of logical errors, logical fallacies, straw men arguments, etc., but let’s see…
___
An ever increasing percentage of the Western populous is obese.
Yep, at least for now.
___
Regardless of how the weight gain occurred, when people become obese, we want to make sure they have a specific choice available to rid themselves of unwanted pounds.
Okay, if that is your wish, then yes, you could state it that way.
____
Free, safe, legal liposuction.
This is already getting away from the abortion argument. Who do you see saying that “abortions should be free”? As to whether liposuction itself should be legal, do we have a good enough reason, as a society, to make it illegal?
____
If we don’t have free, safe and legal liposuction available for every obese person, we are forcing them to remain obese.
Your analogy is breaking down further here. Taking away one method of remedying the unwanted situation is not necessarily the same as forcing the situation to continue. In the case of people losing weight by diet and exercise, for example, it would not be. If Pro-Lifers were talking about merely banning one method for ending an unwanted pregnancy, while leaving other legal methods, your analogy would be more on point.
____
What, we hear you say, don’t people have the option to rid themselves of obesity through natural means by consuming less and exercising more?
Well there you go. If pregnant women had other legal means to end unwanted pregnancies when they wish, you’d have a point.
____
We at the D&D SOL don’t believe so. If you are obese, and you can’t access free, safe and legal liposuction, you are being forced to remain obese by the anti-lipos.
That’s not Duck and Doug. That’s Michelle leaving logic behind, pretending that non-analogous situations are the same. If somebody wants to use legal force to try and make obese people remain obese, then you’d have a decent analogy – and of course it would be with the positions of Pro-Lifers, not Pro-choicers.
___
Why, we hear you ask, would you require the law to allow and taxpayers to subsidize elective surgery?
This is at least a good question. There are many things our tax money goes for. Some things we think should be subsidized, some things not. If obesity was seen as a bad enough problem, perhaps there would be a consensus that tax money would be well-used as a subsidy, there.
____
If obese people don’t have access to free, safe and legal liposuction, they are being forced to remain fat by the anti-lipos, or worse still, they might go to a back alley lipo clinic, or attempt to perform lipo on themselves.
No, this is Michelle still pretending about “free.” Other than that, it’s not that people want others to be legally forced to remain obese. What is true is that pro-lifers want to legally force women to stay pregnant.
____
Of course, the D&D SOL isn’t pro-lipo, we just think that it’s an option that should be considered, made available, given legal approval and completely subsidised with taxpayer funding. We also argue that lipo is ten times safer than dieting and exercise, based on an outdated study by the Liposuction Surgeons Society. We think it’s unrealistic that obese people would take months out of their lives and suffer the discomfort of Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers, and Curves. We deny that free, safe and legal lipo might result in a relaxed attitude towards responsible nutrition and exercise. But again, we’re not pro-lipo, just really sure that everyone should be able to have lipo whenever they want, as many times as they want, paid for by the taxpayer, and if we don’t, you’re forcing us to remain fat.
This is just more irrational, untrue comparisons. It’s a straw man argument.
____
Remember our motto at the D&D School of Logic- “Over eating does not imply consent to obesity. Keep lipo free, safe and legal!”
You’re still pretending about “free.” However, yes – becoming obese does not imply consent to remaining obese. Does anybody really want lipo-suction (or dieting, exercise, etc) to be illegal? It’s not pro-choicers with whom you’re really making the analogy. It’s pro-lifers.
Xalisae: I don’t think you’re getting that the situation you describe is not analogous to abortion. “drive, maybe have an accident” sure, but abortion isn’t the part where the driving person gets medical attention. The abortion part is the part where the driving person injures/kills someone else, Doug.
Nope. Drive, maybe have an accident. Have sex, maybe get pregnant. If the results of driving are unwanted, a remedy may be sought. If the results of having sex are unwanted, a remedy may be sought.
X, you saying “someone is killed” is your opinion of one of the remedies. That’s a separate thing.
____
THAT should be a “good enough reason” to NOT “deny women an abortion”, but to make abortion just as illegal as drunk driving because other human lives are taken. And hell, at least one human life is ended in almost EVERY SINGLE ABORTION! People drive drunk all the time without harming anyone else! If anything, there is MORE reason for society to protect the right to live of gestating human beings than to make drunk driving illegal!
No, because not everybody agrees with you. You are presuming that every pregnancy should necessarily be continued, and there’s no agreement on that. It would come at the cost of denying the woman’s liberty, and as such there is a lot of feeling that society does not have a good enough reason. I realize you disagree, there. However, failures-to-implant happen all the time. Miscarriages are not infrequent. That a given pregnancy ends with an abortion because that is the wish of the pregnant woman is not “the end of the world.” Not every conception leads to birth, as it already is. I know that many people hate the idea of abortion, but really – how are they harmed by the abortion or miscarriage of one pregnancy? Especially to the extent that we would deny the wishes of a pregnant woman with an unwanted pregnancy?
____
Why should I give a sh!t if someone decides to invade your home and bash your skull in one of these days? You probably live far away from me. It’s highly likely that someone invading your home and bashing your skull in with a cricket bat would certainly never affect me. I probably wouldn’t know it. If I stopped frequenting Jill’s before it happened, I’d almost definitely never know of it.
True, but what reason would they have? If you don’t think it’s a good enough one, then you’re going to be against it. It would cause suffering for me, my wife, etc. It’s against the law. We tend to legislate against that which we fear – like being attacked or having our stuff stolen, and being in society you want things to reflect that, etc. Any of these could be why you’re against the skull-bashing.
It’s not absolute, though. There could be reasons why you thought I deserved to be attacked or killed.
____
However, I still don’t think it should be legal for someone to invade your home and bash your skull in with a cricket bat. Why? Because I wouldn’t want someone to do that to me. Why? Because you’re a human being who deserves to have your life protected by the law. Why? Because we’re in this together, and if we don’t respect each other enough to try and do what we can to protect each other, we might as well be dogs eating our own poop in the front yard, running around naked, killing other male dogs so we can rape the females whenever we want, eating the pups we have that we don’t want, and rolling around reveling in filth whenever we find it.
Don’t be a dog, Doug. It’s undignified, and I always thought you had the capacity to be such a dignified fellow.
Weakening your argument with silly ad hominem stuff doesn’t do anything for you, X.
Okay – yes – you want society to be a certain way. You feel as most do in society. Yet you want the unborn to be treated as if they are in society and no inside the body of a person, and that makes a heck of a difference, whether you think it should or not. You are “taking the side” of the non-sentient, non-suffering unborn, over the pregnant woman, and that’s why so many people disagree with you.
Doug wrote, in reply to Michelle:
This is already getting away from the abortion argument. Who do you see saying that “abortions should be free”?
Er… would Barack Obama, President of the United States, do? Or Sen. Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader? Or Rep. Nancy Pelosi, previous Speaker of the House? By “free”, surely you realised that we mean “free to the one PROCURING” the abortion (i.e. covered by tax-payer funds)?
{Doug]In the end, my opinion is that it’s silly to say that a mere living body, with no mental awareness, is “somebody.” How really, is that “somebody” more than a dead body, for example?”
The fetus is alive and the dead body is not. Doug, I know you knew the difference prior to asking that question. Why do you stubbornly refuse to recognize the life of the fetus, and choose a more exclusive criterion such as consciousness for determining legal personhood?
Tyler, just being alive is not what makes us people. Just being a living organism isn’t what does it. The life of the unborn is not at issue (I grant you – the unborn in this argument are alive). What is at issue are our varying valuations of the woman’s liberty and the life of the unborn.
____
[Doug]“No, Tyler, I’m saying conscious or not conscious. If there is a reasonable argument that some level of consciousness is there, I’d say that’s “conscious.””
Who decides and why do they get to decide?
We all do inasmuch as we vote, write our Congresspeople, etc. There are plenty of laws now that reflect what state legislatures think, what the Supreme Court thought, etc. Ultimately, we all decide; given that we all won’t agree, probably, ever.
If you just want a medical definition of consciousness, I’m sure they are out there. If you’re really interested, what do you think we should look at? Brainwaves?
____
[Tyler]This kind of thinking can and has led humanity to some very scary outcomes.
[Doug]“Oh please. The Birth Standard has been, period, whether or not you think those “scary outcomes” were in force or not.”
Consciousness will be used/has been used to deny the elderly, and the mentally disabled the right to life an medical support.
That’s not the same thing as the Birth Standard. On consciousness, would you want to have your body kept alive if “you” were gone, if your mind was no more?
____
[Doug]“…since there are other things to think about, the pregnant woman’s bodily autonomy among them.”
Please define what you mean by bodily autonomy.
The right to “own our own bodies,” to be independent, to decide, including ending a pregnancy if we’re pregnant.
____
[Doug]“I don’t think a consensus is really what you want. You want your opinion to hold sway. If personhood amendments and laws keep getting voted down or struck down, are you gonna be happy? I don’t think so.”
Nor will you be satisfied if women can’t kill the unborn at their whim.
No, not simply “at their whim.” I am for some restrictions. But somewhat in general, with the qualification of it being early enough in gestation – yes, I think women should be able to have abortions. Yes, the unborn die in an abortion. I don’t think society has a good enough reason to completely ban abortion.
____
[Doug]“I think that argument bears the seeds of its own destruction, i.e. increasing population will bring about a “cheapening of life” more than anything else.
Too late Doug, abortion, and the faulty use of the advances in medical science, have already cheapened life, population growth notwithstanding.
That would not necessarly negate what I said. Okay, you don’t agree with all uses of medical science. We have had a great decline in mortality due to medical science, and it follows – it happens in every society where that is the case – that there will be a decline in fertility, too. If abortion was illegal, then it stands to reason that population increase would be even greater, leading to more population-pressure effects.
____
[Doug]“I think a more broadly true answer is that we deem “bad” things which we don’t want, things we fear, etc. That which is desired, etc., is said to be “good,” and “right” etc.”
And what of those people who desire bad things such as murdering people, are those then Good. Surely, no subjective standard of personal desires can have any merit.
Tyler, those people will be put out of society, i.e. killed, imprisoned, etc. A society is basically a group of people with things in common, and if you go far enough outside the bounds of society, then “you’re out.”
“Subjective standard”? Well, yeah, it’s all subjective. Morality is not a bucket of stuff, than you can kick over in your driveway. It’s concepts of the mind, relative to the subject that is thinking them. People tend to want the same things and have great commonality of desires, the world over, and thus we have similar laws for the most part.
___
“Tyler, that’s okay – I appreciate the thought you put into it. I note that “faith” is not possible without consciousness, and even a certain level of consciousness, at that. “Religious freedom,” yeah, cool, but when people start wanting to legislate their beliefs from that arena, that’s when the trouble often starts.”
You are no different then a religious person, you want to impose your beliefs on the unborn and on the society who does not agree with you.
Nope, there is a big difference. You want to impose your beliefs on the pregnant woman, who without doubt is conscious, can suffer, has personality, emotions, etc. I am for leaving it up to her. You may think some things about the unborn, but this really comes down to you against the pregnant woman, and pro-choicers are on her side.
Paladin, I have not said that all abortions should be free, nor have I seen Duck say that. Michelle was talking about us, not the politicians you mentioned.
That said, have those politicians really advocated that all abortions be free?
Doug wrote, in reply to Xalisae:
[Re: the brick-bat metaphor] True, but what reason would they have?
Why, exactly, would they need one? Given your utter moral relativism, the question makes almost no sense (i.e. “reason” indicates that someone is accountable to you, to logic, to society, etc., for what they do, which is hardly something that a moral relativist can require of anyone).
If you don’t think it’s a good enough one, then you’re going to be against it. It would cause suffering for me, my wife, etc. It’s against the law. We tend to legislate against that which we fear – like being attacked or having our stuff stolen, and being in society you want things to reflect that, etc. Any of these could be why you’re against the skull-bashing.
You know, I really do wonder… and please forgive me if this comes across as crass… whether many of those who embrace utter moral relativism do so out of a sublimated sense of pride. It’s certainly attractive as a debating position: it’s quite difficult for any opponent to articulate a foot-hold against it (how can anyone, if you deny that there is such a thing as a foot-hold, for anyone?), and it sounds at least superficially tolerant, easy-going, live-and-let-live-esque, and respectful of the views of others… though it really isn’t any of the above, since it does to every possible moral position what euthanasia does to every possible person deemed “unqualified to live”. It kills all positions, whatsoever, and it’s really very much like a dressed-up form of argumentative solipsism. For instance: however can you prove that anyone other than you truly exists in the world? One can’t, if the arguer is unwilling to grant the premise (after all, he could be dreaming of you, and others, and his very body, etc.)! The same sort of “null set argument” comes into play with utter moral relativism: it’s unassailable… not because it’s so very strong and invulnerable, but because there’s nothing there to assail! One might as well threaten to beat the vacuum of space with a horse-whip, as try to assail utter moral relativism; it’s an attack upon the empty set.
Most of my efforts (and those of others on this forum, I suspect), Doug, have been trying to probe the extent to which you truly believe what you say… and how deeply you believe it. (Even the responses which have expressed outrage, incredulity, and/or incorrect characterisations of your own views, have likely been sincere attempts to say, not necessarily in so many words, “You don’t really believe this rubbish, do you? Surely you at least believe [this], instead?”)
Can I convince you that there exists an objective morality, beyond the mere opinions, personal tastes, biological hard-wiring, psychological and sociological conditioning, and the like? No more than I can convince you that there exists an objective reality outside of your own mind, no. That sort of delusion, as Chesterton once remarked, is no undone by argument, but by shattering it from above; it needs an exorcism, not a rebuttal. It needs a theophany, not a syllogism.
I am, of course, happy to chat with you about any number of things… but I did want to own up to the fact that, if you challenge me to assail and defeat your straw man without straw, I must humbly admit complete defeat, and pray for the theophany, instead.
Doug wrote:
Paladin, I have not said that all abortions should be free, nor have I seen Duck say that. Michelle was talking about us, not the politicians you mentioned.
You’re welcome to ask her about specifics, of course; but I’m rather surprised that you would NOT want them to be free… either in the “at tax-payer expense” (which is not really free, either, but let that pass), or in the “utterly unrestricted” sense. And surely you noticed that Michelle was being dramatic, and that she was using some rather common pro-abortion beliefs in her hyperbolic (and, IMHO, very clever) story?
That said, have those politicians really advocated that all abortions be free?
My dear fellow, it’s hardly a mere matter of advocacy; it’s a matter of what they’ve already DONE. Are you unaware of tax-payer-funded abortions in the District of Columbia, done by the actions and cooperation of the above people? Are you unaware of the efforts to cover abortion under Medicare, and now under “Obamacare”?
X, you saying “someone is killed” is your opinion of one of the remedies. That’s a separate thing.
Not “someone”, Doug. A living human being is killed, and that is beyond dispute. I really don’t feel like arguing with you about the “someone” b.s. you’ve concocted as a rationalization of your opinion, so, I won’t.
We disagree profoundly as to the accuracy of the analogy, we are at an impasse in regards to this matter…so be it.
No, because not everybody agrees with you.
So slavery was ok, because they had a consensus at one point. Ok.
You are presuming that every pregnancy should necessarily be continued, and there’s no agreement on that.
There is also not an agreement that banks should not give their money to armed robbers at gunpoint, or else there wouldn’t be bank robbers. Now…should we legalize it?
It would come at the cost of denying the woman’s liberty,
I speak from the experience of being “the woman”, Doug, and there was no “liberty” denied me by carrying my child(ren) to term that was worth the life (of either of them, not just the one I was pregnant with when it was what would’ve been determined to be “life ending” by the majority of pro-legal-abortionists).
and as such there is a lot of feeling that society does not have a good enough reason.
After having been “the woman”, weighing my inconvenience against the life of my child(ren), I look at them, see them in society, and can’t help but realize that society has an interest to make certain that not only they, but EVERY CHILD LIKE THEM THAT IS GESTATING be allowed to live and swell its ranks. Society DOES have a good enough reason.
I realize you disagree, there.
And how, buddy.
However, failures-to-implant happen all the time. Miscarriages are not infrequent.
And SIDS exists. That’s not an argument for infanticide, Doug.
That a given pregnancy ends with an abortion because that is the wish of the pregnant woman is not “the end of the world.”
Yep. And the world will keep on a’turnin’ if a housewife in Nevada blows her toddler’s brains out tomorrow with a sea fishing harpoon. Once again, not an argument for killing one’s children.
Not every conception leads to birth, as it already is. I know that many people hate the idea of abortion, but really – how are they harmed by the abortion or miscarriage of one pregnancy?
The same way I’d be harmed by a housewife in Nevada killing her toddler tomorrow. The same way society as a whole would be harmed had I aborted either of my children and society had to do without both of them now.
Especially to the extent that we would deny the wishes of a pregnant woman with an unwanted pregnancy?
Damn, Doug! Where were you during my first pregnancy when I wished for a million dollars! I didn’t realize that just because I was pregnant, all my wishes should come true! XD
These are not your “A” game, Doug. Weak.
Doug, a woman’s bodily autonomy ceased to exist as soon as she became pregnant. As soon as she became pregnant she began sharing parts of her body with the body of the unborn. It is bad understanding of the science involved to say that a pregnant woman has bodily autonomy even if you believe consciousness is the legal criterion for personhood. The statement that a woman has bodily autonomy when she is pregnant is blatantly false.
Doug wrote, in reply to Xalisae: “True, but what reason would they have?”
Paladin: Why, exactly, would they need one?
Because in Xalisae’s scenario they’re going to do it. Same as with Michelle’s stuff – is it realistic to pretend that it’s representative of what people want? Is it a rational example, analogy, comparison, etc., or not?
___
Given your utter moral relativism, the question makes almost no sense (i.e. “reason” indicates that someone is accountable to you, to logic, to society, etc., for what they do, which is hardly something that a moral relativist can require of anyone).
It makes plenty of sense. What is their motivation? No, their reason does not mean they are accountable to me, society, etc., and in no way did I say or imply that they would have to be. Come on – is anybody really going to want that “only lipo-suction” be the possible remedy for obesity? Of course not. Is there significant support for home-invasions, without considerable extentuating circumstances that X did not mention? Of course not. This is not real-world stuff.
____
“If you don’t think it’s a good enough one, then you’re going to be against it. It would cause suffering for me, my wife, etc. It’s against the law. We tend to legislate against that which we fear – like being attacked or having our stuff stolen, and being in society you want things to reflect that, etc. Any of these could be why you’re against the skull-bashing.”
Paladin: You know, I really do wonder… and please forgive me if this comes across as crass… whether many of those who embrace utter moral relativism do so out of a sublimated sense of pride. It’s certainly attractive as a debating position: it’s quite difficult for any opponent to articulate a foot-hold against it (how can anyone, if you deny that there is such a thing as a foot-hold, for anyone?), and it sounds at least superficially tolerant, easy-going, live-and-let-live-esque, and respectful of the views of others… though it really isn’t any of the above, since it does to every possible moral position what euthanasia does to every possible person deemed “unqualified to live”. It kills all positions, whatsoever, and it’s really very much like a dressed-up form of argumentative solipsism. For instance: however can you prove that anyone other than you truly exists in the world? One can’t, if the arguer is unwilling to grant the premise (after all, he could be dreaming of you, and others, and his very body, etc.)! The same sort of “null set argument” comes into play with utter moral relativism: it’s unassailable… not because it’s so very strong and invulnerable, but because there’s nothing there to assail! One might as well threaten to beat the vacuum of space with a horse-whip, as try to assail utter moral relativism; it’s an attack upon the empty set.
There are plenty of “foot-holds.” Let’s look at what morality really is. Let’s look at what people actually do think, rather than come up with far-fetched examples that don’t play out in the real world. I don’t “kill all positions.” It’s a given, here, that lots of people feel the life of the unborn is the most important thing, and that lots of others feel the woman’s rights, feelings, etc., are.
No, I can’t “prove” there are others than me. Nobody can. I’ve noted, many times, that the only thing a conscious entity can *really* be sure of is the fact of its own consciousness. Beyond that, there will be assumptions. We *all* make those assumptions, and I’ve said – again, numerous times – that I’m assuming we are separate consciousnesses, separate people, etc.
Yes – there might be a “waking up” from something akin to a dream, and finding out that reality – or at least what is then perceived versus what was thought to be the prior case – is much different. That’s true for all of us (how ever many of us there are). I’m going with many of the same assumptions that you are.
Moral relativism is “assailable,” but it always involves unprovable belief. Anyway, there is huge commonality of desire around the world, and we tend to have similar laws, etc. There very much is “the human condition” to look at.
____
Most of my efforts (and those of others on this forum, I suspect), Doug, have been trying to probe the extent to which you truly believe what you say… and how deeply you believe it. (Even the responses which have expressed outrage, incredulity, and/or incorrect characterisations of your own views, have likely been sincere attempts to say, not necessarily in so many words, “You don’t really believe this rubbish, do you? Surely you at least believe [this], instead?”)
Yeah, I think there is some of that, although the “rubbish” obviously can apply both ways.
___
Can I convince you that there exists an objective morality, beyond the mere opinions, personal tastes, biological hard-wiring, psychological and sociological conditioning, and the like? No more than I can convince you that there exists an objective reality outside of your own mind, no. That sort of delusion, as Chesterton once remarked, is no undone by argument, but by shattering it from above; it needs an exorcism, not a rebuttal. It needs a theophany, not a syllogism.
If anything, I would say that as we all make assumptions, pretending that one’s assumptions are “objectively correct” is more delusional then remembering they are assumptions in the first place.
Paladin: I am, of course, happy to chat with you about any number of things… but I did want to own up to the fact that, if you challenge me to assail and defeat your straw man without straw, I must humbly admit complete defeat, and pray for the theophany, instead.
Paladin, where do you see me present straw men arguments? Given the assumptions that both you and I make, I do not think I’ve put forth any. I’m not “appealing to authority” or engaging in any logical fallacies, IMO – and if any can be pointed out, then fine, let me know.
Again, given the assumptions – that we on this planet are separate consciousnesses, separate “people” etc., I’m not basing my arguments on things which cannot be proven to be imaginary. As far as “straw men” – where exactly do you see me misrepresenting an opponent’s position?
Doug, a woman’s bodily autonomy ceased to exist as soon as she became pregnant.
Wrong, Tyler. It most certainly did not. you (and some others) may want to abridge it somewhat, but it’s definitely there.
Paladin, I have not said that all abortions should be free, nor have I seen Duck say that. Michelle was talking about us, not the politicians you mentioned.
You’re welcome to ask her about specifics, of course; but I’m rather surprised that you would NOT want them to be free… either in the “at tax-payer expense” (which is not really free, either, but let that pass), or in the “utterly unrestricted” sense. And surely you noticed that Michelle was being dramatic, and that she was using some rather common pro-abortion beliefs in her hyperbolic (and, IMHO, very clever) story?
I don’t want abortions to be free in the sense that I think they are so “good” that tax money should necessarily go for them. Maybe if I thought the need to reduce the population was vast and immediate or something, but I don’t feel that way. I’m not for utterly-unrestricted abortions either. Michelle may have been hyperbolic, but the main deal is that she should have been talking about pro-lifers. “Legally forced to remain obese” would not be pro-choicers, it’d be pro-lifers, same as “legally forced to remain pregnant.” If Michelle likes that kind of deal, a better one would be how “pro-choicers want to “enslave” women.
___
“That said, have those politicians really advocated that all abortions be free?”
My dear fellow, it’s hardly a mere matter of advocacy; it’s a matter of what they’ve already DONE. Are you unaware of tax-payer-funded abortions in the District of Columbia, done by the actions and cooperation of the above people? Are you unaware of the efforts to cover abortion under Medicare, and now under “Obamacare”?
First of all, that’s still not saying that all abortions should be free.
I don’t know what exactly were the varying positions, before, or now, or what is proposed for the future. Aside from Michelle’s untrue comparisons, you have a point about tax-payer money going for “other people’s abortions.” Agreed that they would be free for some people, then. As far as what the general pro-choice position is, I’m not sure there. And of course I’m not even sure what Duck thinks, there.
[Doug] If there were no consciousness, there would be no concepts such as “elite” in the first place. It’s not vague to differentiate between conscious and not conscious. Granted there is a time in gestation when it’s “becoming” and somewhat of a gray area. However, if we would draw the line to err on the side of caution, i.e. restrict abortion earlier rather than later, there, are you going to be okay with that? No, you’d still push for conception.
There still would be elites because the people determining when the unborn is conscious have all the power. Indeed, they would be the only human beings legally entitled to be called persons by your very own definition of those terms!
I was trying to point out that your definitional starting point for legal personhood creates this dichotomy between human beings who are legal persons and those who are not legal persons. Science does not make this definition, only your understanding of consciousness as legal personhood would create this definition of legal person. I was also trying to show how legislation based on this concept of personhood as consciousness would not be following scientific understanding of what is a human being and what isn’t.
Furthermore, I was trying to point out the gray area you referred to. Since consciousness does develop over time for each person and also develops at different rates and in different degrees for each human being a strict “conscious/ not conscious” delineation is not truly possible scientifically. Scientifically each fetus would have to be monitored for signs of consciousness. Furthermore, there would have to be a very solid understanding of what consciousness is and what it isn’t. I don’t think the scientific community has this figured out so precisely yet, but perhaps you can correct me if I the scientific community has agreement about this. Doug, what is the first sign of consciousness?
___
[Tyler]This statement also establishes a certain class of people, those who have the “set” level of consciousness, to decide who has a “somebody home” and who doesn’t.
[Doug]No, Tyler, I’m saying conscious or not conscious. If there is a reasonable argument that some level of consciousness is there, I’d say that’s “conscious.”
Glad to hear that. But I would like you to change the point at which point you recognize the unborn as a person to the moment of fertilization from the moment of consciousness.
____
Hang on, here Bucko. If she has an unwanted pregnancy and wants an abortion, your saying “she has other options” may not mean diddly to her. If it’s what she wants against what you want, I’m giving the nod to her, since she’s the one pregnant. Same as if she had a wanted pregnancy, and somebody else is saying, “she should have an abortion.” Why should that person’s desire trump hers?
She may not like the options present to her and “feel” that they don’t mean anything to her, but they are there nonetheless. So objectively speaking she has options aside from abortion. Just because the fetus doesn’t have consciousness doesn’t mean that a woman should be permitted to kill the baby.
[Doug]”I know that many people hate the idea of abortion, but really – how are they harmed by the abortion or miscarriage of one pregnancy?”
Loss of future friends, etc……a degradation of a human life. Reducing a human being to his/her ability to have consciousness. It puts at risks their future health care should they ever lose their consciousness at some point.
“I’m not “appealing to authority” or engaging in any logical fallacies, IMO – and if any can be pointed out, then fine, let me know.”
Doug, you are appealing to the authorities who can determine when consciousness commences in human life.
Xalisae: These are not your “A” game, Doug. Weak.
Well, let’s see whatcha got…
____
X, you saying “someone is killed” is your opinion of one of the remedies. That’s a separate thing.
Not “someone”, Doug. A living human being is killed, and that is beyond dispute. I really don’t feel like arguing with you about the “someone” b.s. you’ve concocted as a rationalization of your opinion, so, I won’t.
Well, I was replying to where you said, “someone.” Looking at Situation/Remedy with Situation/Remedy is one thing, but putting one’s opinion in place of one remedy greatly changes things. That’s stating a conclusion as part of the premise, and that is illogical.
____
“No, because not everybody agrees with you.”
So slavery was ok, because they had a consensus at one point. Ok.
No, that’s not my position. There is no magic “okay” out there, in the first place. I might or might not agree with a given consensus, same as you. I don’t think society had a good enough reason for slavery in the past, nor do I now, just as I don’t think it has a good enough reason to take away the liberty that woman have in regards to having an abortion.
____
“You are presuming that every pregnancy should necessarily be continued, and there’s no agreement on that.”
There is also not an agreement that banks should not give their money to armed robbers at gunpoint, or else there wouldn’t be bank robbers. Now…should we legalize it?
You presented your opinion as if it were logical proof, and that’s what I took issue with.
It’s already legal for banks to give money to armed robbers at gunpoint, by the way. ;) What are you going to do – put people in jail because they had a gun in their face? And, as wacky an example as you gave, still – what if there *was* an agreement not to give armed robbers the money? Is that really going to ensure that no bank employees ever give over the money when they have a gun in their face? No. So, whether or not said agreement was in force, there would still be bank robbers.
____
“It would come at the cost of denying the woman’s liberty,”
I speak from the experience of being “the woman”, Doug, and there was no “liberty” denied me by carrying my child(ren) to term that was worth the life (of either of them, not just the one I was pregnant with when it was what would’ve been determined to be “life ending” by the majority of pro-legal-abortionists).
I agree – you were not denied liberty – you were allowed to do what you wanted to do, there. You also had the liberty to have an abortion, should you have wanted to. But those who would take away the woman’s legal right to have an abortion most certainly are aiming at denying the woman’s liberty, there.
____
“and as such there is a lot of feeling that society does not have a good enough reason.”
After having been “the woman”, weighing my inconvenience against the life of my child(ren), I look at them, see them in society, and can’t help but realize that society has an interest to make certain that not only they, but EVERY CHILD LIKE THEM THAT IS GESTATING be allowed to live and swell its ranks. Society DOES have a good enough reason.
I realize you disagree, there.
And how, buddy.
Yeah, there is disagreement, as above.
____
“However, failures-to-implant happen all the time. Miscarriages are not infrequent.”
And SIDS exists. That’s not an argument for infanticide, Doug.
Well, I agree about SIDS and infanticide. There’s nothing like the autonomy argument, there. I also don’t think there is “a lot of feeling in society” that there is.
____
“That a given pregnancy ends with an abortion because that is the wish of the pregnant woman is not “the end of the world.”
Yep. And the world will keep on a’turnin’ if a housewife in Nevada blows her toddler’s brains out tomorrow with a sea fishing harpoon. Once again, not an argument for killing one’s children.
I don’t see people saying it is.
____
Not every conception leads to birth, as it already is. I know that many people hate the idea of abortion, but really – how are they harmed by the abortion or miscarriage of one pregnancy?
The same way I’d be harmed by a housewife in Nevada killing her toddler tomorrow. The same way society as a whole would be harmed had I aborted either of my children and society had to do without both of them now.
Your own personal feeling of “harm” can’t be argued – you feel as you do. But as far as society, there is a big difference between born toddlers and the unborn, especially earlier in gestation versus later, and between the motivation of a pregnant woman – bodily autonomy involved – with somebody killing a toddler.
____
“Especially to the extent that we would deny the wishes of a pregnant woman with an unwanted pregnancy?”
Damn, Doug! Where were you during my first pregnancy when I wished for a million dollars! I didn’t realize that just because I was pregnant, all my wishes should come true! XD
Heh. ;)
To be serious, nobody says that all your wishes should or would come true. But your wish – to continue the pregnancy or to end it – were both legal choices. And many people say they should remain that way for other women.
[Tyler]Doug, a woman’s bodily autonomy ceased to exist as soon as she became pregnant.
[Doug]Wrong, Tyler. It most certainly did not. you (and some others) may want to abridge it somewhat, but it’s definitely there.
Doug, please prove how my statement above is untrue. For my statement to be true, I did not have to construct a new definition of a human being. Biological autonomy has nothing to do with the consciousness of the Mother or the unborn. Thus, a Mother’s bodily autonomy ended when she became pregnant. This is not my opinion, but a biological fact.
“I know that many people hate the idea of abortion, but really – how are they harmed by the abortion or miscarriage of one pregnancy?”
Tyler: Loss of future friends, etc……a degradation of a human life. Reducing a human being to his/her ability to have consciousness. It puts at risks their future health care should they ever lose their consciousness at some point.
You could also say loss of future enemies, criminals, etc. No, the future health care doesn’t really come into it. The Birth Standard has been with us for thousands of years, and – whether you agree with it or not – at birth is when full rights and personhood are attributed. There are questions about extreme medical measures to keep people alive, or to keep the body alive, yes. Is there no point where you’d say, “unplug me if I ever got there…”?
Tyler, just being alive is not what makes us people. Just being a living organism isn’t what does it. The life of the unborn is not at issue (I grant you – the unborn in this argument are alive). What is at issue are our varying valuations of the woman’s liberty and the life of the unborn.
I disagree. It is the living organism that does it. The life of the unborn is at issue because the standard of consciousness as the point of legal personhood puts the very life of the unborn at risk, in harm’s way.
You want to make the fetus’s life about the liberty of the women but unfortunately for the Mother she is biologically linked to the baby as soon as she becomes pregnant and is no longer, by scientific definition, an autonomous human being.
I value the women’s liberty and you do as well. However, you do not value the liberty of the unborn. You have chained the very life of the unborn to the decision that the Mother makes.
But where the main difference is the valuation we give to the unborn. You don’t value the unborn until it has a consciousness and be said to suffer, where as I say it has value as soon as it is conceived/fertilization.
“If there were no consciousness, there would be no concepts such as “elite” in the first place. It’s not vague to differentiate between conscious and not conscious. Granted there is a time in gestation when it’s “becoming” and somewhat of a gray area. However, if we would draw the line to err on the side of caution, i.e. restrict abortion earlier rather than later, there, are you going to be okay with that? No, you’d still push for conception.”
Tyler: There still would be elites because the people determining when the unborn is conscious have all the power. Indeed, they would be the only human beings legally entitled to be called persons by your very own definition of those terms!
Well, yeah, society is deciding for the unborn here. That’s true regardless of what you or I want to happen. My own feelings of what personhood is and when it’s present are not the totality of what I’d look at as far as the abortion debate (legal human beings) – there are definitely other things to consider.
____
I was trying to point out that your definitional starting point for legal personhood creates this dichotomy between human beings who are legal persons and those who are not legal persons. Science does not make this definition, only your understanding of consciousness as legal personhood would create this definition of legal person. I was also trying to show how legislation based on this concept of personhood as consciousness would not be following scientific understanding of what is a human being and what isn’t.
For the *manyeth* time – science does not pronounce upon morality. Society values freedom, and while I agree with you that the unborn are, scientifically, “human beings,” that is far from the end-all of the debate.
You’re wrong about “would create this definition of legal person.” We’ve already got that. You don’t like it.
____
Furthermore, I was trying to point out the gray area you referred to. Since consciousness does develop over time for each person and also develops at different rates and in different degrees for each human being a strict “conscious/ not conscious” delineation is not truly possible scientifically.
Agreed – for the majority of the unborn that do eventually develop consciousness. There will be some time when things are just getting going.
____
Scientifically each fetus would have to be monitored for signs of consciousness. Furthermore, there would have to be a very solid understanding of what consciousness is and what it isn’t. I don’t think the scientific community has this figured out so precisely yet, but perhaps you can correct me if I the scientific community has agreement about this. Doug, what is the first sign of consciousness?
For the first sign, we have to define consciousness. However, probably brain waves. Whaddayathink? You’re right there is plenty of disagreement on when various components of sensation, awareness, etc., are there.
___
[Tyler]This statement also establishes a certain class of people, those who have the “set” level of consciousness, to decide who has a “somebody home” and who doesn’t.
[Doug]”No, Tyler, I’m saying conscious or not conscious. If there is a reasonable argument that some level of consciousness is there, I’d say that’s “conscious.”
Glad to hear that. But I would like you to change the point at which point you recognize the unborn as a person to the moment of fertilization from the moment of consciousness.
Well dang, Hoss, lots of people wish that others would agree with them. And, I’ve heard it said that people in Hell want ice water. ;)
____
“Hang on, here Bucko. If she has an unwanted pregnancy and wants an abortion, your saying “she has other options” may not mean diddly to her. If it’s what she wants against what you want, I’m giving the nod to her, since she’s the one pregnant. Same as if she had a wanted pregnancy, and somebody else is saying, “she should have an abortion.” Why should that person’s desire trump hers?”
She may not like the options present to her and “feel” that they don’t mean anything to her, but they are there nonetheless. So objectively speaking she has options aside from abortion. Just because the fetus doesn’t have consciousness doesn’t mean that a woman should be permitted to kill the baby.
That “should,” among others, is what the argument is about. Does society have a good enough reason to trump the woman’s desire if she wants to continue a pregnancy. You and I both would say no. You’re saying it does have a good enough reason if she wants to end a pregnancy, though.
Doug, in addition to not valuing the unborn that do not have consciousness, you want the Mother to be able to take away the autonomy of those unconscious unborn.
[Doug]”Well dang, Hoss, lots of people wish that others would agree with them. And, I’ve heard it said that people in Hell want ice water.”
How did you know my nn is Hoss??? Does that make you Little John?
“I’m not “appealing to authority” or engaging in any logical fallacies, IMO – and if any can be pointed out, then fine, let me know.”
Tyler: Doug, you are appealing to the authorities who can determine when consciousness commences in human life.
Well…. ;) I was referring to formal “logical fallacies.” Like this: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx
How did you know my nn is Hoss??? Does that make you Little John?
I didn’t know your nickname is Hoss. I’ve also said, “Bucko” and perhaps some others – “Holmes,” or “you rascal” etc., are some possibilities.
On my Facebook page I’ve a picture of Hoss Cartwright for me. :)
[Doug]”You’re wrong about “would create this definition of legal person.” We’ve already got that. You don’t like it.”
My understanding of the legal situation is that the courts have not pronounced definitely that the unborn isn’t a person, just that they could not find any precedents of the unborn being recognized as a legal person in the past. The distinction here is important. The Courts have left some wiggle room here to declare the unborn persons.
Doug, in addition to not valuing the unborn that do not have consciousness, you want the Mother to be able to take away the autonomy of those unconscious unborn.
There’s no will, no volition, there in the first place. The entire abortion debate is predicated on people’s different desires, and the unborn – to a point in gestation – don’t have any. As far as being “autonomous” the unborn are “independent organisms” – I grant you that. But there is also the meaning of “autonomous” that involves “acting or able to act in accordance with rules and principles of one’s own choosing.”
I am not saying the unborn “have no value” or “cannot be valued.” Heck, at times people want to have kids very much. The loss of a pregnancy – a miscarriage, for example, can be VERY sad for a woman or couple. I see such a miscarriage as 1000 times or more sadder than a woman having an abortion when she has an unwanted pregnancy.
“On my Facebook page I’ve a picture of Hoss Cartwright for me”
Lol, that doesn’t surprise me at all, for some reason. :D
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/233/hossr.jpg/
The guy was a god.
Doug: “I’m not “appealing to authority” or engaging in any logical fallacies, IMO – and if any can be pointed out, then fine, let me know.”
Tyler: Doug, you are appealing to the authorities who can determine when consciousness commences in human life.
[Doug]:Well…. I was referring to formal “logical fallacies.”
Getting you to acknowledge that you are appealing to authorities is a big first step and was very hard to do. But I am glad that you have admitted that you are appealing to authorities. We can now talk about those authorities and how they arrive at their distinctions/pronouncements.
Lol Doug, from now on I am only referring to you as Hoss. Not as an ad hominem, but because we both like Bonanza. :D
[Tyler]Doug, a woman’s bodily autonomy ceased to exist as soon as she became pregnant.
[Doug]”Wrong, Tyler. It most certainly did not. you (and some others) may want to abridge it somewhat, but it’s definitely there.”
Doug, please prove how my statement above is untrue. For my statement to be true, I did not have to construct a new definition of a human being. Biological autonomy has nothing to do with the consciousness of the Mother or the unborn. Thus, a Mother’s bodily autonomy ended when she became pregnant. This is not my opinion, but a biological fact.
Yer still mixing-up stuff, though, Rodrick. ;)
“Biological autonomy” – no argument there. This is what applies to the unborn too, since they are independent organisms. However – the woman obviously remains so, so that wasn’t goin’ away once she was pregnant.
As far as being an entity with will and volition, that can act on its own desires, the woman most certainly is that, before, during, and after pregnancy.
So what’s left? I guess it’s the legal freedom to act in accordance with one’s own desires, and that’s what we’re arguing about – should society restrict that further or not in the case of abortion. Here too, in any case as of now abortion is legal so when she got pregnant she still had that bodily autonomy (even if it bums some people out).
Doug, if you only worded your following statement in this fashion it would have been correct:
“The entire abortion debate is wrongly predicated on people’s different desires.”
[Doug]”As far as being an entity with will and volition, that can act on its own desires, the woman most certainly is that, before, during, and after pregnancy.”
Correct the Mother is asserting her will over the life of the unborn. We have a term that describes when people treat other human beings as property that they can dispose: slavery. The Mother who gets an abortion is acting like a slave owner, the Mother is destroying, and denying fundamental human rights to, another human being.
[Doug, in reply to Xalisae]
“True, but what reason would they have [for assaulting you with a brick-bat]?”
[Paladin]
Why, exactly, would they need one?
[Doug]
Because in Xalisae’s scenario they’re going to do it.
(?) I think you may have misunderstood my point. I ask, “Why would they need a reason [by which I assume you mean a “good” or “sufficient” reason], EVEN IF they’re going to do thus-and-so?” Why can they not do so simply on a whim, or on raw impulse? Who should be in any position to stop them, or to discriminate against them on the spurious basis that “their reasons are not good enough” (by some subjective judgment of yours, or mine, or anyone else)?
Same as with Michelle’s stuff – is it realistic to pretend that it’s representative of what people want? Is it a rational example, analogy, comparison, etc., or not?
I’m afraid this is a mere appeal to the gallery, friend; any talk of “realism” carries very little weight in a discussion where general social beliefs and behaviours change with each passing season; that which was hideous and unthinkable (save for a very few who were quickly labelled “deviant”) in the past has often become commonplace, accepted, and even lionised, today. I hope I don’t need to prove that rather self-evident fact to you…
Michelle may have been hyperbolic, but the main deal is that she should have been talking about pro-lifers. “Legally forced to remain obese” would not be pro-choicers, it’d be pro-lifers, same as “legally forced to remain pregnant.”
(!!) :) My dear sir, are you unaware of the fact that this is (unless I’ve grossly misunderstood her) precisely what she DID mean? It’s a rather standard canard of abortion-tolerant people that they portray pro-life people as “enslaving women by forcing them to remain pregnant” (with the corollary that, unless tax-payer-funded abortions are available to those who “need” them [e.g. women on Medicare, etc.], our society is “imprisoning poor women in such “slavery”); and Michelle most certainly seemed to be “illustrating absurdity by absurdity”, i.e. showing how the portrayal is not only a grossly unfair caricature, but utterly absurd in its conclusions (i.e. by showing how equally absurd it would be to claim “imprisonment in fat” for women who were denied free (i.e. tax-payer-funded) liposuction, etc.
Look at the following list, if it helps:
pro-lipo: “Women have an absolute right to be non-fat, no matter what their prior actions!”
pro-abort: “Women have an absolute right to be non-pregnant, no matter what their prior actions!”
pro-lipo: “If we withhold free liposuction from poor, over-weight women, we imprison them in a dungeon from which only the rich can escape!”
pro-abort: “If we withhold free abortion from poor, pregnant women, we imprison them in a dungeon from which only the rich can escape!”
The list goes on. Does that clarify? Her example was (I’m guessing) meant to show how the “women must be allowed abortion (at no cost to them, if they’re poor!), or else it will violate their absolute right not to be pregnant.” After all: would you insist on granting such a civil right (so firmly defended by you, on behalf of all women) only with a price-tag? Will your largesse extend only to the upper classes?
[Paladin]
My dear fellow, it’s hardly a mere matter of advocacy; it’s a matter of what they’ve already DONE. Are you unaware of tax-payer-funded abortions in the District of Columbia, done by the actions and cooperation of the above people? Are you unaware of the efforts to cover abortion under Medicare, and now under “Obamacare”?
[Doug]
First of all, that’s still not saying that all abortions should be free.
It’s most certainly saying that THOSE PEOPLE wish abortions to be “free” (in the illusory sense of being tax-payer-funded), for EVERYONE. These same three people wish to implement a national health-care system in which all expenses would be paid by the state (read: the tax-payer), not by the “patient”. Do you truly think these three people would, after their strident abortion-advocacy, EXCLUDE abortion from that “free health care”? I can’t see how you COULD think so.
“Tyler, just being alive is not what makes us people. Just being a living organism isn’t what does it. The life of the unborn is not at issue (I grant you – the unborn in this argument are alive). What is at issue are our varying valuations of the woman’s liberty and the life of the unborn.”
I disagree. It is the living organism that does it. The life of the unborn is at issue because the standard of consciousness as the point of legal personhood puts the very life of the unborn at risk, in harm’s way.
Well good grief, Hop Sing, my point was that we agree that the unborn here are alive. But “living organism” alone is far from doing it. There are virtually an unlimited number of living organisms on earth, but how many are people? How many can be people? A very small percentage.
___
You want to make the fetus’s life about the liberty of the women but unfortunately for the Mother she is biologically linked to the baby as soon as she becomes pregnant and is no longer, by scientific definition, an autonomous human being.
I gotta disagree, Tyler. http://www.dictionary.com and for ‘Biology’ under “autonomous” it says “existing and functioning as an independent organism.” The pregnant woman certainly still is that, link or no.
____
I value the women’s liberty and you do as well. However, you do not value the liberty of the unborn. You have chained the very life of the unborn to the decision that the Mother makes.
There is no “liberty” for the unborn, early enough in gestation. They don’t want anything. There is no will present, no voilition. There’s not yet a “them” there to have any such desire. Liberty only matters when “somebody cares about something.” It’s not me that has “chained the very life of the unborn to the woman’s decision.” That’s the way it is now, though, and to a point in gestation I want it to remain that way.
____
But where the main difference is the valuation we give to the unborn. You don’t value the unborn until it has a consciousness and be said to suffer, where as I say it has value as soon as it is conceived/fertilization.
I pretty much agree with that, though I’d say to that point I value the wishes of the pregnant woman more.
[Paladin]:Can I convince you that there exists an objective morality, beyond the mere opinions, personal tastes, biological hard-wiring, psychological and sociological conditioning, and the like? No more than I can convince you that there exists an objective reality outside of your own mind, no. That sort of delusion, as Chesterton once remarked, is no undone by argument, but by shattering it from above; it needs an exorcism, not a rebuttal. It needs a theophany, not a syllogism.”
Brilliant. Well put Paladin.
Unfortunately, however, Doug, recognizes an objective reality to a certain extent. His position, unfortunately, is really insidious and evil. Doug has fallen into and accepted the Cartesian Mind/Body split. It is a nasty philosophical error to fall into.
“You’re wrong about “would create this definition of legal person.” We’ve already got that. You don’t like it.”
Tyler: My understanding of the legal situation is that the courts have not pronounced definitely that the unborn isn’t a person, just that they could not find any precedents of the unborn being recognized as a legal person in the past. The distinction here is important. The Courts have left some wiggle room here to declare the unborn persons.
Full “legal person” is at birth. Whether you agree with it or not, prior to that, the status is different. Courts have said all sorts of things, frankly, but birth is the biggie. FWIW I think the restrictions on late-term abortions constitute a limited form of rights and personhood. The courts really have not left wiggle room for deeming personhood. That does not mean it’s impossible or that it will never happen. But as of now, with the Roe decision (and others) in place, full personhood for the unborn ain’t happenin’.
Paladin, I think Doug needs to read Aristotle and St. Thomas.
Good heavens! This thread is bolting like a runaway stallion!
Doug, regarding the reference to a “straw man”: my apologies; that was actually a wry attempt at humour (especially since I couldn’t resist the “without straw” quip! :) ), and not a reference to the actual fallacy, so-called.
I was trying to point out, however, that you seem to seek to maintain a sort of moral frame-work (e.g. you maintain a firm belief in the bodily autonomy of women, as per your comment to Tyler:
[Tyler]
Doug, a woman’s bodily autonomy ceased to exist as soon as she became pregnant.
[Doug]
Wrong, Tyler. It most certainly did not. you (and some others) may want to abridge it somewhat, but it’s definitely there.
The phrases “most certainly” and “definitely” don’t seem to suggest mere opinion, friend; they suggest, far more strongly, a belief in a moral absolute. Given your normative “utter skepticism and relativism”, I really don’t see how you can maintain anything of the sort.
Re: Tyler:
:) Well… *everyone* needs to read Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, but I digress…
Tyler: Unfortunately, however, Doug, recognizes an objective reality to a certain extent. His position, unfortunately, is really insidious and evil. Doug has fallen into and accepted the Cartesian Mind/Body split. It is a nasty philosophical error to fall into.
Oh for Pete’s sake. You just want everybody else to agree with you. But that is not reality, and if there is “insidious” and “evil” here it can certainly be said of you, and pro-lifers wanting to take away the freedom that women currently have.
As for “objective reality” – you and I make many of the same assumptions. So far so good, but when the assumptions diverge, that’s where the arguing begins.
You have certain unprovable beliefs that not everybody else shares. This hardly means that they are “wrong” in some objective way.
[Doug]: “I gotta disagree, Tyler. http://www.dictionary.com and for ‘Biology’ under “autonomous” it says “existing and functioning as an independent organism.” The pregnant woman certainly still is that, link or no.”
Definitions fudged by pro-choicers. Pro-choicers are trying to change accepted definitions of science in order to facilitate their ideology. I think, even you, would consider this a bad thing to do, as you recognize that the abortion debate is a debate about values from the pro-choice perspective.
Tyler: Getting you to acknowledge that you are appealing to authorities is a big first step and was very hard to do. But I am glad that you have admitted that you are appealing to authorities. We can now talk about those authorities and how they arrive at their distinctions/pronouncements.
Ahem. Good grief – yes – both pro-choicers and pro-lifers want their positions reflected in law, but you’re silly if you think that was ever in doubt or if I said anything to the contrary.
As far as logical fallacies, though, I think you’re getting into ‘Appeal to Authority’ and “Special Pleading’ and “Appeal to Belief,” etc.
Doug, I apologize if the last comment sounded like I was attacking you personally. I was trying to comment on your viewpoint rather than you personally. For the record, I don’t think you are evil or insidious.
[Doug]:”You have certain unprovable beliefs that not everybody else shares. This hardly means that they are “wrong” in some objective way.”
All value propositions are in unprovable, in the sense of “proof” that you mean. However, we can argue about which value propositions are more reasonable. In this sense I believe it is more reasonable to recognize all human life as legal persons.
Doug, regarding the reference to a “straw man”: my apologies; that was actually a wry attempt at humour (especially since I couldn’t resist the “without straw” quip! ), and not a reference to the actual fallacy, so-called.
Thanks, Paladin. :)
____
I was trying to point out, however, that you seem to seek to maintain a sort of moral frame-work (e.g. you maintain a firm belief in the bodily autonomy of women, as per your comment to Tyler:
[Tyler]: Doug, a woman’s bodily autonomy ceased to exist as soon as she became pregnant.
[Doug]: Wrong, Tyler. It most certainly did not. you (and some others) may want to abridge it somewhat, but it’s definitely there.
The phrases “most certainly” and “definitely” don’t seem to suggest mere opinion, friend; they suggest, far more strongly, a belief in a moral absolute. Given your normative “utter skepticism and relativism”, I really don’t see how you can maintain anything of the sort.
Sigh….. No, not a moral absolute. I mean the societal idea that the woman is free to act as she wishes (in the matter of abortion or not).
Her getting pregnant did not change this. She still is free to act. She most certainly is, whether one likes the fact or not. She definitely is, whether one likes the fact or not.
This is not to say this is any “absolute” nor that it could not be changed. I even mentioned that Tyler and some others may want to effect such change – the part about abridging it somewhat. But *her bodily autonomy did not cease to exist as soon as she became pregnant*.
Tyler is wishing for a change in the status quo. He could as well say, “Her right to vote ceased to exist as soon as she voted Democratic.”
Definitions fudged by pro-choicers.
Oh Tyler… FFS…. ;)
Lol Doug, from now on I am only referring to you as Hoss. Not as an ad hominem, but because we both like Bonanza. :D
Deal, Jack. :)
Or should I say “Miss Kitty”? : P
Doug, if you only worded your following statement in this fashion it would have been correct:
“The entire abortion debate is wrongly predicated on people’s different desires.”
If we’ve abandoned all serious debating here, and are just having fun, then look – pro-lifers are wrong because they want the will of pregnant women subverted to their own, just as the slave owners wanted the will of slaves subverted to their own, and this will make everybody with any fear or loathing of slavery run away from the pro-lifers, collecting at one spot on the world, and it will start to spin lop-sidedly and irregularly, and this will gradually draw the moon into lower orbit where it will destroy the ozone layer and we’ll all fry, or, just as likely or perhaps less or more, the earth’s axial and orbital perturbations will bring the aliens down on us.
Doug: “Sigh….. No, not a moral absolute. I mean the societal idea that the woman is free to act as she wishes (in the matter of abortion or not).”
When the law changes she won’t be so free to act to murder the unborn. Men, as you have already indicated, are compelled by society to care for their biological children.
[Doug]:But *her bodily autonomy did not cease to exist as soon as she became pregnant*.
It did too, quite literally. Anything she does with her body, once she is pregnant, affects another human being. Although, the choices available to her still the same, her physical actions have consequences. We want to restrict her physical actions so that she does not harm the unborn baby, we don’t and cannot limit the abstract choices that exist in her mind.
Nite all!!
Tyler: Correct the Mother is asserting her will over the life of the unborn. We have a term that describes when people treat other human beings as property that they can dispose: slavery. The Mother who gets an abortion is acting like a slave owner, the Mother is destroying, and denying fundamental human rights to, another human being.
There are no “fundamental human rights.” It’s an idea that appeals to many people, but it really does not work that way. Rights are attributed by societies (among other things). Here, we’re talking about society’s position on the unborn and the pregnant woman. Yes – I agree that there is at least somewhat of the “property” idea with thinking the woman should be allowed to have an abortion. The unborn are inside the body of the pregnant woman – and as such I think some of the “property” feeling applies.
Already went through the part about pro-lifers being like slave-owners.
Paladin: (?) I think you may have misunderstood my point. I ask, “Why would they need a reason [by which I assume you mean a “good” or “sufficient” reason], EVEN IF they’re going to do thus-and-so?” Why can they not do so simply on a whim, or on raw impulse? Who should be in any position to stop them, or to discriminate against them on the spurious basis that “their reasons are not good enough” (by some subjective judgment of yours, or mine, or anyone else)?
I mean they would have had some motivation. I didn’t mean it would necessarily be seen as “good” or “sufficient.” Heck, my point was that it probably would not be seen that way by a significant amount of people. Sure, they could stop on a whim or raw impulse. I don’t see anything in X’s scenario to rule that out.
Who should be in any position to stop them? That’s going to first depend on whether one wants them stopped or not. In X’s example most people are going to want them stopped – the example is far enough “out there” that I think that’s easily seen as true. The existing legal authorities would too. So, I’d say the great majority of people would say they should be stopped, and the way things are, the law and courts, police, etc., would too. This is fine with me – overall I’m satisfied with the way are laws come to be, and how they’re applied. Not a perfect system but I’m not seeing a better one that’s easily obtainable.
____
“Same as with Michelle’s stuff – is it realistic to pretend that it’s representative of what people want? Is it a rational example, analogy, comparison, etc., or not?”
I’m afraid this is a mere appeal to the gallery, friend; any talk of “realism” carries very little weight in a discussion where general social beliefs and behaviours change with each passing season; that which was hideous and unthinkable (save for a very few who were quickly labelled “deviant”) in the past has often become commonplace, accepted, and even lionised, today. I hope I don’t need to prove that rather self-evident fact to you…
If in a different “season” people wanted to ban remedies for obesity, or to ban all save lipo-suction, then you’d have a point, and if that were true now, I wouldn’t have remarked on it. As reality is, though, now, it was a nutty example. No argument at all that things can change as you mention, but I’m not seeing opinions on obesity remedies changing that way any time soon.
____
“Michelle may have been hyperbolic, but the main deal is that she should have been talking about pro-lifers. “Legally forced to remain obese” would not be pro-choicers, it’d be pro-lifers, same as “legally forced to remain pregnant.”
(!!) My dear sir, are you unaware of the fact that this is (unless I’ve grossly misunderstood her) precisely what she DID mean? It’s a rather standard canard of abortion-tolerant people that they portray pro-life people as “enslaving women by forcing them to remain pregnant” (with the corollary that, unless tax-payer-funded abortions are available to those who “need” them [e.g. women on Medicare, etc.], our society is “imprisoning poor women in such “slavery”); and Michelle most certainly seemed to be “illustrating absurdity by absurdity”, i.e. showing how the portrayal is not only a grossly unfair caricature, but utterly absurd in its conclusions (i.e. by showing how equally absurd it would be to claim “imprisonment in fat” for women who were denied free (i.e. tax-payer-funded) liposuction, etc.
Again, Doug and Duck aren’t saying “free abortions for all.” If we were, then I could go with your reasoning, at least right there. I also agree with you that some pro-choicers go too far in their arguments, but I have not seen Duck or myself do that, at least to any significant degree – and if we are truly mistaken about something, we will admit it. I’ll be the first to argue with somebody – pro-choice or pro-life, if I disagree with what they say.
____
pro-lipo: “Women have an absolute right to be non-fat, no matter what their prior actions!”
pro-abort: “Women have an absolute right to be non-pregnant, no matter what their prior actions!”
Yet again, I don’t think that is the “Duck and Doug” position, but continue…
pro-lipo: “If we withhold free liposuction from poor, over-weight women, we imprison them in a dungeon from which only the rich can escape!”
pro-abort: “If we withhold free abortion from poor, pregnant women, we imprison them in a dungeon from which only the rich can escape!”
And if we’d been saying that we really gotta have free abortion in the US, then I could see that. I’m not sure about Duck – don’t think she was saying that, and I sure wasn’t.
____
The list goes on. Does that clarify? Her example was (I’m guessing) meant to show how the “women must be allowed abortion (at no cost to them, if they’re poor!), or else it will violate their absolute right not to be pregnant.” After all: would you insist on granting such a civil right (so firmly defended by you, on behalf of all women) only with a price-tag? Will your largesse extend only to the upper classes?
I don’t think I’ve ever recommended free abortions. I really have not thought about it much. Perhaps there are pro-choicers who say what you’re talking about, there, but again – sure don’t think it’s me, and probably not Duck.
If I took the most truly misogynistic and “whacko” pro-life sentiments and portrayed them as coming from you, you’d probably disagree as well.
____
My dear fellow, it’s hardly a mere matter of advocacy; it’s a matter of what they’ve already DONE. Are you unaware of tax-payer-funded abortions in the District of Columbia, done by the actions and cooperation of the above people? Are you unaware of the efforts to cover abortion under Medicare, and now under “Obamacare”?
First of all, that’s still not saying that all abortions should be free.
It’s most certainly saying that THOSE PEOPLE wish abortions to be “free” (in the illusory sense of being tax-payer-funded), for EVERYONE. These same three people wish to implement a national health-care system in which all expenses would be paid by the state (read: the tax-payer), not by the “patient”. Do you truly think these three people would, after their strident abortion-advocacy, EXCLUDE abortion from that “free health care”? I can’t see how you COULD think so.
If so, I did not know that. Didn’t know that any of the proposals would make it that taxpayer-money would go for abortions for everyone. Nor that the state would pay for everything, via the tax payer.
I’m not for that. All in all, I hope the new health care deal is repealed.
All value propositions are unprovable, in the sense of “proof” that you mean. However, we can argue about which value propositions are more reasonable. In this sense I believe it is more reasonable to recognize all human life as legal persons.
Okay, Tyler, good that you see than about valuation. And yeah, this is whole deal is really about which is more reasonable, if you will. Both the woman’s liberty and the life of the unborn are considered, and valued in different ways by different people.
On one hand, I think that attributing personhood to the unborn would make for who-knows-what-all as far as possible penalties on the woman for her behavior, should it be seen to be harmful or potentially harmful to the unborn. It wouldn’t just be having abortion be illegal; it’d be opening up a horrendous can of worms.
On the other hand, I think no, it’s more reasonable to leave things as they are now. We simply do not need to have every pregnancy continued, especially against the will of the pregnant woman.
“But *her bodily autonomy did not cease to exist as soon as she became pregnant*.”
Tyler: It did too, quite literally. Anything she does with her body, once she is pregnant, affects another human being. Although, the choices available to her still the same, her physical actions have consequences. We want to restrict her physical actions so that she does not harm the unborn baby, we don’t and cannot limit the abstract choices that exist in her mind.
Consequences, your wants, etc. do not affect this. “Autonomous” does not mean “will affect no others.” You seem to be arguing that.
On the biological/scientific level the pregnant woman is still autonomous. She’s an independent organism, whether or not she’s got “babies” inside.
As far as what is the deal with the abortion argument – the woman’s legal freedom – that does not change just because she is pregnant. I know you *want* it to change, but it’s not that way now.
Doug, kudos for totally missing the point.
There is another option for ending an unwanted pregnancy.
It’s called birth.
Even the most cruel breed of fetus lovers can’t force a woman to remain pregnant for longer than 285 days, give or take a few..
I threw the ‘free’ in there with a tiny hesitation that you might take the analogy down a rabbit trail if you don’t agree with taxpayer funded abortion. Kudos again for missing/dodging the point.
Respectfully,
Sex makes babies. Overeating causes obesity.
Pregnancy ends naturally with birth. Obesity ends naturally with diet and exercise.
Lack of access to abortion doesn’t force a woman to complete her pregnancy any more than lack of access to liposuction forces one to remain obese.
Claiming that sex is not giving consent to pregnancy is like saying that over eating is not giving consent to obesity.
My analogy isn’t perfect- few are. One glaring difference is that while lipo is expensive, risky and uncomfortable, it doesn’t take the life of any innocent bystanders.
I don’t need access to a surgeon to be able to access all my rights as a woman, but if my mother had chosen an abortion when she was pregnant with me, all of my rights would have been permanently violated.
I’m so sorry that you couldn’t see that your own children deserved better. I’m sorry if my sarcasm was disrespectful. I pray that one day soon your eyes will be opened to one of the simplest foundational truths of the universe:
The right to life holds humanity together. If some of us are robbed of the right to life, all of us are.
Abortion is completely avoidable. We don’t need it, we shouldn’t want it, and we should all be protected from it. It diminishes all of us.
Doug, kudos for totally missing the point.
I don’t think I did, Michelle, but continue…
___
There is another option for ending an unwanted pregnancy. It’s called birth.
Sure, and nobody pretends that’s not so. Nobody “missed the point.” The question is do we, as a society, have a good enough reason to try and legally force women to continue pregnancies.
____
Even the most cruel breed of fetus lovers can’t force a woman to remain pregnant for longer than 285 days, give or take a few..
Agreed, but is there a demonstrable need on the part of society to force them for any length of time? FWIW, I’m okay with the restrictions later in gestation, so I’m not saying the answer is an automatic “no.”
____
I threw the ‘free’ in there with a tiny hesitation that you might take the analogy down a rabbit trail if you don’t agree with taxpayer funded abortion. Kudos again for missing/dodging the point.
I was actually taken by surprise at that. Wasn’t missing the point or dodging anything; I’ve just never said that.
____
Respectfully, Sex makes babies. Overeating causes obesity. Pregnancy ends naturally with birth. Obesity ends naturally with diet and exercise.
I’m not disagreeing here too much. The causes – yes- fully agreed there. I would note that sometimes pregnancy ends naturally with miscarriage. It’s not only with birth. While “diet and exercise” are in a way more “normal” than lipo-suction, they still are matters of choice, they require much more of a “positive” intent and action than does just remaining pregnant, where it’s much more passive.
____
Lack of access to abortion doesn’t force a woman to complete her pregnancy any more than lack of access to liposuction forces one to remain obese.
Here I do have to disagree. Yes, if a woman can’t get an abortion, she may be then forced to complete the pregnancy. Is this not what pro-lifers want, as far as laws banning or further restricting abortion?
Agreed that lack of lipo-suction would not force one to remain obese, as there are other methods that can remedy the situation. But if a pregnant woman wants to end the pregnancy, abortion is the only way at the time, almost surely. If there were other methods, there, you would not just be against abortion, you’d be against those other methods as well. We don’t tell the obese person, “Just wait the 285 days until you take care of or start taking care of the situation,” and pro-choicers are not for telling the pregnant woman that either.
____
Claiming that sex is not giving consent to pregnancy is like saying that over eating is not giving consent to obesity.
Yes – agreed 100%. No doubt about it. And in both cases, it’s not that the pregnant or obese person agreed to stay that way.
____
My analogy isn’t perfect- few are. One glaring difference is that while lipo is expensive, risky and uncomfortable, it doesn’t take the life of any innocent bystanders.
You did well with, Claiming that sex is not giving consent to pregnancy is like saying that over eating is not giving consent to obesity. Can’t get much better than that. I’m certainly not saying the unborn are “guilty.” There’s no capacity for guilt in the first place. And yes – abortion does mean that the unborn die. That’s a given.
____
I don’t need access to a surgeon to be able to access all my rights as a woman, but if my mother had chosen an abortion when she was pregnant with me, all of my rights would have been permanently violated.
It depends on whether or not you want a surgical procedure. If nobody wanted to have abortions, we’d both be happy. However, no – there was no attribution of rights to you, broadly – before birth – and specifically, not at all before a point in gestation.
____
I’m so sorry that you couldn’t see that your own children deserved better. I’m sorry if my sarcasm was disrespectful.
I didn’t really feel you were being sarcastic or disrespectful, just using some bad analogies, and misrepresenting my and Duck’s opinions and statements.
I’ve never gotten anybody pregnant, and have no kids, and no matter who you talk to – pro-choicers or pro-lifers, they would not say that I’ve ever had any kids. So as far as “deserved better” I totally do not know what you mean.
____
I pray that one day soon your eyes will be opened to one of the simplest foundational truths of the universe:
The right to life holds humanity together. If some of us are robbed of the right to life, all of us are.
Abortion is completely avoidable. We don’t need it, we shouldn’t want it, and we should all be protected from it. It diminishes all of us.
That’s predicated on seeing the unborn as “one of us” already, and not everybody agrees with you there. Yeah, you can say that “abortion is avoidable,” but do we need to enforce that on a societal basis, at the cost of taking away the liberty that women currently have? I say no. Legal abortion has not meant that “all of us are robbed of the right to life.” I see humanity holding together the same way, whether or not abortion is legal, and whether a given pregnancy ends in birth, abortion, or miscarriage.
The “diminishes all of us” feeling is that which many people have for taking away freedom when there is not seen to be a good enough reason for it, and with respect to the abortion argument that’s what many pro-choicers feel.
[Tyler]: Doug, a woman’s bodily autonomy ceased to exist as soon as she became pregnant.
Wrong, Tyler. It most certainly did not. you (and some others) may want to abridge it somewhat, but it’s definitely there.
I value the women’s liberty and you do as well. However, you do not value the liberty of the unborn. You have chained the very life of the unborn to the decision that the Mother makes.
[Doug}: There is no “liberty” for the unborn, early enough in gestation. They don’t want anything. There is no will present, no voilition. There’s not yet a “them” there to have any such desire. Liberty only matters when “somebody cares about something.” It’s not me that has “chained the very life of the unborn to the woman’s decision.” That’s the way it is now, though, and to a point in gestation I want it to remain that way.
I disagree with your above statement with one admission. First my admission is this: it is true at this point in our legal history the unborn do not have liberty.
However, I disagree with your statement that they cannot “have” liberty. Either 1) liberty is a concept by the state that is granted to its persons or 2) it is something that inheres to an individual being, independent of state authorization.
If it is 1) then the state can give the freedom to anyone or anything/any species it chooses. The organisim does not have to be conscious to be granted this liberty, even though the thing or being may require a will and a mind to exercise that liberty. The ability or lack of ability to exercise liberty is independent of liberty itself.
If it is 2) then we have an values argument about who or what has liberty. You want to set up consciousness as the defining the moment when liberty is granted, and I want to establish that it is membership in the human species that causes liberty to inhere in us.
____
[Tyler]: But where the main difference is the valuation we give to the unborn. You don’t value the unborn until it has a consciousness and be said to suffer, where as I say it has value as soon as it is conceived/fertilization.
[Doug]: I pretty much agree with that, though I’d say to that point I value the wishes of the pregnant woman more.
True to a certain, and I wish you would grant me and my fellow pro-lifers this much: we aren’t against all of the Mother’s wishes, just those wishes that abort her fetus. In the future, I would appreciate if you were a bit more accurate when you make this accusation. I have tried not to generalize your statement of not valuing the pre-conscious unborn to arguing that you don’t value all human life. Just as that would be incorrect for me to do, it would be incorrect for you to say I don’t value the wishes of women. I have more to say on this and will follow it up in a separate post.
_____
[Doug]: Full “legal person” is at birth. Whether you agree with it or not, prior to that, the status is different. Courts have said all sorts of things, frankly, but birth is the biggie. FWIW I think the restrictions on late-term abortions constitute a limited form of rights and personhood. The courts really have not left wiggle room for deeming personhood. That does not mean it’s impossible or that it will never happen. But as of now, with the Roe decision (and others) in place, full personhood for the unborn ain’t happenin’.
Nope.
____
Doug]: “I gotta disagree, Tyler. http://www.dictionary.com and for ‘Biology’ under “autonomous” it says “existing and functioning as an independent organism.” The pregnant woman certainly still is that, link or no.”
[Doug]: Consequences, your wants, etc. do not affect this. “Autonomous” does not mean “will affect no others.” You seem to be arguing that.
[Doug]: On the biological/scientific level the pregnant woman is still autonomous. She’s an independent organism, whether or not she’s got “babies” inside.
Autonomous refers to an “independent” organism; an embryo is another organisim. Therefore, within the Mother there are two organisms. She is not autonomous. She is not self-governing, she governing for two. She is neither existing independently nor functioning independently.
What I have learned from this discussion so far:
1) We need to establish a whole set of laws just for pregnant women – they are an unique phenomena in our human existence/condition. We need laws that recognize their unique situation. We can do this by recognizing in law the personhood of the life that gestates inside her. Further to personhood laws for the unborn, we need employment laws that appreciates the two legal persons that exist in a pregnant woman so that she can have the mobility, flexibility and security at her workplace. We also need criminal laws that capture this state of a woman’s life, protects the unborn’s rights, ensures that crimes committed against pregnant are recognized as assaults against two legal persons. The recognition of the uniqueness of the pregnant women, as opposed to the non-pregnant woman and the man would help clarify the rights of the pregnant women as well as the rights of the unborn.
We have come to a point in our history where it is possible for some of us to fail to recognize the unity of the Mother and the unborn child. We have people in society now who are fully conscious that the unborn is a living human and completely dependent on the Mother, but are willing to allow it to be killed. These same people refuse to see how the Mother is dependent on the unborn baby. They refuse to recognize that to be a “Mother” in the first place requires that a woman has to be pregnant. They do not see that a whole series of actions by the Mother is dependent/determined by the gestating fetus. The pregnancy has predetermined a number of required actions on the part of the Mother. The pregnancy, itself, has impacted her liberty at the moment of fertilization. Indeed, the best way to understand a pregnant woman’s liberty is to understand it as a shared liberty, a liberty shared with the child from the moment of conception onward until birth. If she refuses to share that liberty she should be held accountable.
In addition to adopting the emancipation rhetoric for the unborn, I think the Pro-Life side should start calling themselves pro-choice. Pro-Lifers support right of the Mother and the Baby to be able to choose. Furthermore, most pro-lifers support Mothers in choosing to take true contraception, to place any child up for adoption, and/or to raise the child herself. The Baby gets to choose. The only choice that the pro-lifer does not support is the choice to kill.
By calling themselves pro-choice Pro-Lifers will force the Pro-Aborts to clearly define their position – that they are pro-abortion, and that abortion is the only choice they support that we don’t. Furthermore, by taking this stance, the Pro-Abortion side will be forced to explain their misleading information and rhetoric about what is and isn’t contraception so that the public will understand that many of these so-called contraceptive drugs abort human beings.
Tyler: I value the women’s liberty and you do as well. However, you do not value the liberty of the unborn. You have chained the very life of the unborn to the decision that the Mother makes.
Yep – she’s the one who is pregnant.
___
then the state can give the freedom to anyone or anything/any species it chooses. The organisim does not have to be conscious to be granted this liberty, even though the thing or being may require a will and a mind to exercise that liberty. The ability or lack of ability to exercise liberty is independent of liberty itself.
Yeah, I don’t disagree with that.
____
[Tyler]: But where the main difference is the valuation we give to the unborn. You don’t value the unborn until it has a consciousness and be said to suffer, where as I say it has value as soon as it is conceived/fertilization.
[Doug]: I pretty much agree with that, though I’d say to that point I value the wishes of the pregnant woman more.
True to a certain, and I wish you would grant me and my fellow pro-lifers this much: we aren’t against all of the Mother’s wishes, just those wishes that abort her fetus. In the future, I would appreciate if you were a bit more accurate when you make this accusation. I have tried not to generalize your statement of not valuing the pre-conscious unborn to arguing that you don’t value all human life. Just as that would be incorrect for me to do, it would be incorrect for you to say I don’t value the wishes of women. I have more to say on this and will follow it up in a separate post.
I didn’t say you “were against the mother’s wishes,” per se. What would I be “accusing” you of? That you want what you want? Hey, that’s a given, Holmes. I do see you putting your wishes above the wishes of a pregnant woman with an unwanted pregnancy. Hey – pro-choicers are not for that. It would be the same if you wanted her to have an abortion, whether she wanted it or not.
____
[Doug]: Full “legal person” is at birth. Whether you agree with it or not, prior to that, the status is different. Courts have said all sorts of things, frankly, but birth is the biggie. FWIW I think the restrictions on late-term abortions constitute a limited form of rights and personhood. The courts really have not left wiggle room for deeming personhood. That does not mean it’s impossible or that it will never happen. But as of now, with the Roe decision (and others) in place, full personhood for the unborn ain’t happenin’.
Nope.
:) That’s it? ;)
Yeah, that is the deal and that’s why you are dissatisfied with the way things are.
____
Doug]: “I gotta disagree, Tyler. http://www.dictionary.com and for ‘Biology’ under “autonomous” it says “existing and functioning as an independent organism.” The pregnant woman certainly still is that, link or no.”
[Doug]: Consequences, your wants, etc. do not affect this. “Autonomous” does not mean “will affect no others.” You seem to be arguing that.
[Doug]: On the biological/scientific level the pregnant woman is still autonomous. She’s an independent organism, whether or not she’s got “babies” inside.
Autonomous refers to an “independent” organism; an embryo is another organisim. Therefore, within the Mother there are two organisms. She is not autonomous. She is not self-governing, she governing for two. She is neither existing independently nor functioning independently.
Tyler, you’re still sounding like, “Because one body is inside the other, they are not autonomous.” Hey, if two people hold hands, are they not autonomous? The pregnant woman is autonomous, even though she’s got another organism inside her. We’ve all got millions of organisms inside us, after all. She is indeed self-governing, to the extent of her rights. Yeah, she is “governing for two” – I certainly agree with you there, and she can decide to continue the pregnancy or to end it.
We have come to a point in our history where it is possible for some of us to fail to recognize the unity of the Mother and the unborn child. We have people in society now who are fully conscious that the unborn is a living human and completely dependent on the Mother, but are willing to allow it to be killed. These same people refuse to see how the Mother is dependent on the unborn baby. They refuse to recognize that to be a “Mother” in the first place requires that a woman has to be pregnant.
Tyler, nice post, but the above part is circular. The mother is really not “dependent on the unborn baby.” She can, after all, have an abortion. Not even all pro-lifers would agree with you about the “woman has to be pregnant” to “be a mother” part, too.
Good grief! Not only did I miss a message, but it was one of the largest on this page! :)
Doug wrote:
Same as with Michelle’s stuff – is it realistic to pretend that it’s representative of what people want? Is it a rational example, analogy, comparison, etc., or not?
But: surely you’ve had enough experience with the study of ethics, philosophy, and the like to know that these disciplines deal with abstract (though hardly irrelevant or spurious) concepts which can often be too subtle to demonstrate without extreme-sounding examples? I don’t know of many cases where, for example, a lunatic with a nuclear bomb is demanding that I rape an innocent woman (or else he’ll detonate the bomb and kill millions of people), but it’s a clear way to test the questions, “does the end justify the means?” and “can one do evil, even if the end result is good?”. Morality, like olive oil, sometimes requires great pressure in order to extract the desired result. Since that’s the case, it’s not of much use for you to complain about the “realism” factor; that wasn’t ultimately its point. As Michelle already mentioned: all metaphors are limited and inexact (especially since an exact metaphor would be identical to the topic itself, and therefore utterly useless as a metaphor); they seek to make one situation understandable (at least in principle) by means of using another example to illuminate it. It’s akin to the use of fairy tales with morals; it would hardly be reasonable, for example, to reject a child’s fiction story which teaches about unselfishness, on the mere basis that the existence of talking animals seems doubtful to you! Just so, here.
I’d also add, yet again: it’s something of a lack of imagination for you to speak of an image being “unrealistic, irrational, etc.”, simply because you find it implausible; whole-sale acceptance of homosexual “marriage” was considered utterly unthinkable in our culture, even 50-60 years ago, as was the idea of the mass-slaughter of the unborn through legal, state-protected (and sponsored, in some cases) abortion. Had you travelled back to the year 1925 and proclaimed (on the radio, or to a large crowd) that the legal abortion of over 50,000,000 unborn humans was the common practise, and that homosexuality was lionised in most media outlets (and mandated as “sensitivity training” in the public schools and universities, on pain of losing one’s job, being arrested, or being sued), the masses would have called you a madman; surely you know this? If so, then I can hardly understand your protestations of “this isn’t realistic/irrational”; such a standard is so flimsy and myopic as to be comical, and it shows an utter ignorance of human history.
[Paladin]
Given your utter moral relativism, the question makes almost no sense (i.e. “reason” indicates that someone is accountable to you, to logic, to society, etc., for what they do, which is hardly something that a moral relativist can require of anyone).
[Doug]
It makes plenty of sense. What is their motivation?
And I ask again: what possible relevance would their motivation have to anyone (save for themselves)? You brought up this topic in reply to Xalisae’s example of your murder with a brick-bat; if the only reason you ask is because of idle curiosity (i.e. once the answer is known, it will be treated as a bit of trivia, and it will have no bearing on the situation whatever), then why did you bring it up at all?
No, their reason does not mean they are accountable to me, society, etc., and in no way did I say or imply that they would have to be.
Then–with all due respect–I see no purpose for your question, frankly; it’s irrelevant and extraneous to the main issue at hand (i.e. the morality of any given action).
Come on – is anybody really going to want that “only lipo-suction” be the possible remedy for obesity?
This is an appeal to the gallery, friend, and it’s void of any logical weight (especially as a rhetorical question, cloaking your raw opinion and personal feelings about what the future might hold).
Of course not. Is there significant support for home-invasions, without considerable extentuating circumstances that X did not mention? Of course not. This is not real-world stuff.
That, dear fellow, is as emotion-based of an evasion of the point as I’ve seen in quite some time, from you. One could easily have said the same about abortion, contraception, the attempt to normalise homosexuality, the attempt to normalise “trans-genderism” (and its variants), etc., at many times in human history; and it settles nothing at all. You’re saying, in essence: “This is unrealistic, until such a time as it becomes realistic”… which is what we, in logical circles, call a “tautology” (i.e. a vacuous truth with no content, whatsoever). Most of your comments, in fact, do reduce themselves to tautologies… which is yet another reason why I call “utter moral relativism” vacuous.
There are plenty of “foot-holds [for criticising moral things in the frame-work of moral relativism].” Let’s look at what morality really is.
Morality is, so far as I can tell (and the dictionaries and encyclopaedias of the world seem to corroborate this, I think), the study of “right and wrong” actions, and the study of the bases for making such determinations (i.e. what humans “should” and “should not” do: what is “good” and what is “evil” in human actions and behaviour). I see no possible way to talk coherently about anything of the sort, without some acknowledgment of objective standards.
Let’s look at what people actually do think, rather than come up with far-fetched examples that don’t play out in the real world.
That is (forgive the pun on your beliefs) merely your personal opinion, friend. And again: even the most far-fetched examples seek not necessarily to make the far-fetched seem plausible, but to illuminate the moral principles hidden behind them (which are often difficult to see with the unaided eye). You might consider such examples to be akin to a stain used to make microscopic objects distinguishable on a microscope slide.
I don’t “kill all positions.”
You may not intend to do so (and I didn’t say that “you” do so, personally, per se); but your WORLD-VIEW (of utter moral relativism) does, whether you like it or not. If there is no objective standard by which length may be measured, then there is no way to say that one object is longer than another, for example; just so, with morality, if there is no objective standard by which such issues are measured.
It’s a given, here, that lots of people feel the life of the unborn is the most important thing, and that lots of others feel the woman’s rights, feelings, etc., are.
And I hope you understand that this statement of facts (which are true) says nothing, whatsoever, about the rightness or wrongness of any of those positions, whatsoever.
No, I can’t “prove” there are others than me. Nobody can. I’ve noted, many times, that the only thing a conscious entity can *really* be sure of is the fact of its own consciousness. Beyond that, there will be assumptions. We *all* make those assumptions, and I’ve said – again, numerous times – that I’m assuming we are separate consciousnesses, separate people, etc.
But you don’t seem to realise that your assumptions, by your current standards, have no basis in any “fact” at all! If your assumptions and my assumptions are “equally likely (or unlikely) to be valid or invalid”… or, more accurately, if you view the whole idea of “valid/invalid” as an extraneous addition/over-lay with no meaning… then what have you said substantially about morality? Nothing at all!
Yes – there might be a “waking up” from something akin to a dream, and finding out that reality – or at least what is then perceived versus what was thought to be the prior case – is much different. That’s true for all of us (how ever many of us there are). I’m going with many of the same assumptions that you are.
I’m not at all confident in trusting that, I’m afraid… especially since you might “agree” with me on those points out of mere happenstance (e.g. we’re both on the same train for wildly different purposes: you, to get to work, and I, to escape a raving brick-bat-wielding murderer! :) ).
Moral relativism is “assailable,” but it always involves unprovable belief.
I’m afraid that makes no sense at all; you might as well say that I can attempt to punch my own shadow! That’s true, but hardly worth saying, and quite useless as a recommendation.
Anyway, there is huge commonality of desire around the world, and we tend to have similar laws, etc.
That is true… but your world-view is not at all equipped to make any judgments about those laws, trends, etc., since it claims that there are no standards by which any such judgments can ever be made, by definition.
There very much is “the human condition” to look at.
(*sigh*) Friend, that is certainly true… but your view leaves you only that: to look. You cannot do anything more than that, with regard to moral discernment of anything. You are free to point your camera at anything you like, but you are not free to take an actual picture of any of it, since you have ripped all the machinery out of it! You may gaze at the actions of man, but you are powerless to say “yea” or “nay” to any of it, save through meaningless preference which cannot be said to be “good” or “evil” or anything of the kind! Do think this through: if your maxim of morality boils down to “I will not do anything that I will not, in fact, do”, then surely you see the emptiness and pointlessness of saying it?
Yeah, I think there is some of that, although the “rubbish” obviously can apply both ways.
Well… I, and others who are not moral relativists, are free to judge this-or-that to be rubbish; you, on the other hand, cannot, since your own code neutralises every attempt. If, for example, you were to call my comments “rubbish” (which you are welcome to do, by the way; I sometimes think so, myself, in fact!), why should I treat that pronouncement as anything more significant than the mere happenstance of your mood, your physiology, etc.? If you complain (hypothetically) that I have wronged you by taking your $20 bill, why should I treat that any differently than I’d treat your declaration, “I have a head-ache”? (To which I’d reply, with sympathy: “Oh, dear… I do hope you feel better soon!” What else could I say?)
If anything, I would say that as we all make assumptions, pretending that one’s assumptions are “objectively correct” is more delusional then remembering they are assumptions in the first place.
Oh, dear… I do hope you feel better soon! :)
[Doug]: Tyler, nice post, but the above part is circular. The mother is really not “dependent on the unborn baby.” She can, after all, have an abortion. Not even all pro-lifers would agree with you about the “woman has to be pregnant” to “be a mother” part, too.
Dependency implies a circularity of intertwined and contingent actions on the part of the beings involved in the dependent relationship. In short, dependency requires a co-dependency.
How is that for redundancy?!!
[Doug]: Tyler, you’re still sounding like, “Because one body is inside the other, they are not autonomous.”
Correct.
{Doug}: Hey, if two people hold hands, are they not autonomous?
Correct. AKA marriage!!
[Doug]: The pregnant woman is autonomous, even though she’s got another organism inside her. We’ve all got millions of organisms inside us, after all.
Incorrect. The millions of organisms inside us prove we are not autonomous. Therefore, the Mother is not autonomous. Furthermore, one of those organisms is another human being.
[Doug]: Not even all pro-lifers would agree with you about the “woman has to be pregnant” to “be a mother” part, too.
Next time I will explicitly state that I am referring to biological Motherhood, but in any event, I think it was fairly obvious that I was referring to biological Motherhood in the post.
Incorrect. The millions of organisms inside us prove we are not autonomous. Therefore, the Mother is not autonomous. Furthermore, one of those organisms is another human being.
Tyler, that’s getting ridiculous. Nobody is thus autonomous, according to you.
The woman is autonomous – she’s an independent organism (separate, and not in symbiosis) and she doesn’t have to do what the fetus says. ;)
____
Next time I will explicitly state that I am referring to biological Motherhood, but in any event, I think it was fairly obvious that I was referring to biological Motherhood in the post.
That doesn’t change anything. You had said: These same people refuse to see how the Mother is dependent on the unborn baby. They refuse to recognize that to be a “Mother” in the first place requires that a woman has to be pregnant.
First, let me say that I agree, of course, that a woman cannot be a mother without having conception occur at least one time. But that does not mean that the “mother is dependent on the baby.” We could be talking about the unborn, or the born. We could be talking about a live birth, an abortion, or a miscarriage. We could be talking about a blastocyst which failed to implant 13,800 years ago. Doesn’t matter whether the “baby” is still around or not. *Doesn’t matter if there was a pregnancy or not* (as with the failure to implant). The woman is still the biological mother.
Y’all have worked me pretty hard in this thread. In 3 days it’s going to “time out” with comments being disabled after two weeks’ time.
This is also my last day of work; off until January 5, so I may not be around as much. Just sayin’….
I’ll definitely try to keep going, and if necessary we could move to a new thread where there aren’t many comments.
“Same as with Michelle’s stuff – is it realistic to pretend that it’s representative of what people want? Is it a rational example, analogy, comparison, etc., or not?”
Paladin: But: surely you’ve had enough experience with the study of ethics, philosophy, and the like to know that these disciplines deal with abstract (though hardly irrelevant or spurious) concepts which can often be too subtle to demonstrate without extreme-sounding examples? I don’t know of many cases where, for example, a lunatic with a nuclear bomb is demanding that I rape an innocent woman (or else he’ll detonate the bomb and kill millions of people), but it’s a clear way to test the questions, “does the end justify the means?” and “can one do evil, even if the end result is good?”.
I hear you there, but misrepresenting somebody else’s position is still folly.
___
Morality, like olive oil, sometimes requires great pressure in order to extract the desired result. Since that’s the case, it’s not of much use for you to complain about the “realism” factor; that wasn’t ultimately its point. As Michelle already mentioned: all metaphors are limited and inexact (especially since an exact metaphor would be identical to the topic itself, and therefore utterly useless as a metaphor); they seek to make one situation understandable (at least in principle) by means of using another example to illuminate it. It’s akin to the use of fairy tales with morals; it would hardly be reasonable, for example, to reject a child’s fiction story which teaches about unselfishness, on the mere basis that the existence of talking animals seems doubtful to you! Just so, here.
In principle, what you are talking about is reasonable. In practice, what Michelle said does not fit with Duck and I. After all that’s occurred here, she may have a point about some pro-choicers – and as with “free abortions” I don’t necessarily agree.
Paladin: I’d also add, yet again: it’s something of a lack of imagination for you to speak of an image being “unrealistic, irrational, etc.”, simply because you find it implausible; whole-sale acceptance of homosexual “marriage” was considered utterly unthinkable in our culture, even 50-60 years ago, as was the idea of the mass-slaughter of the unborn through legal, state-protected (and sponsored, in some cases) abortion. Had you travelled back to the year 1925 and proclaimed (on the radio, or to a large crowd) that the legal abortion of over 50,000,000 unborn humans was the common practise, and that homosexuality was lionised in most media outlets (and mandated as “sensitivity training” in the public schools and universities, on pain of losing one’s job, being arrested, or being sued), the masses would have called you a madman; surely you know this? If so, then I can hardly understand your protestations of “this isn’t realistic/irrational”; such a standard is so flimsy and myopic as to be comical, and it shows an utter ignorance of human history.
Holy Crow…. I’m with you on most of that. But a rational comparison most certainly can be made. It’s not going back to 1925…. It’s just what Duck and I have said on this very forum in the very, very recent past. It’s not a rational argument and it is the “straw man” fallacy to misrepresent that.
____
And I ask again: what possible relevance would their motivation have to anyone (save for themselves)? You brought up this topic in reply to Xalisae’s example of your murder with a brick-bat; if the only reason you ask is because of idle curiosity (i.e. once the answer is known, it will be treated as a bit of trivia, and it will have no bearing on the situation whatever), then why did you bring it up at all?
Because their motivation may make all the difference in the world. If it’s just one nut-job who feels the need to make a good-size indentation in Old Doug’s cranium, because he saw a vision in his morning bowl of Frankenberry or Count Chocula, that is one thing. If the assaulter has what the majority of people feel is a good enough reason to bash me, that’s far different. That could well mean that X would not give a crap.
____
“Come on – is anybody really going to want that “only lipo-suction” be the possible remedy for obesity?”
This is an appeal to the gallery, friend, and it’s void of any logical weight (especially as a rhetorical question, cloaking your raw opinion and personal feelings about what the future might hold).
Perhaps it is a sort of appeal, yes. But first, what Duck and I have said is not analogous to that. If we are now away from what Michelle was saying, and into the truly hypothetical, then fine. Otherwise – even if we’d be speaking of “some other pro-choicers,” there still is the valid question of “would anybody really feel like that?”
____
“Of course not. Is there significant support for home-invasions, without considerable extentuating circumstances that X did not mention? Of course not. This is not real-world stuff.”
That, dear fellow, is as emotion-based of an evasion of the point as I’ve seen in quite some time, from you. One could easily have said the same about abortion, contraception, the attempt to normalise homosexuality, the attempt to normalise “trans-genderism” (and its variants), etc., at many times in human history; and it settles nothing at all.
If X had placed her example at enough of a different time, that would be one thing. But your objections to what I said don’t take into account that X was speaking of “right now.” Her question amounts to “Why should I give a crap?” The motivation of the person making my head look like Linus’s in the ‘Peanuts’ TV cartoons may make all the difference in the world. Let’s go with the “home invasion” theme that X proposed:
If 2 guys in their 20’s scout out a retired cop’s house, and they plot to rob him one night for money for drugs, and upon breaking into his house, they get filled full of lead (or, if he could manage, to bash their skulls in), then “I don’t give a crap.” Heck, I’m all for it, actually. I’m fine with the guy’s motivation, there. Yet if he knows the 12 year old next door is mentally disabled and harmless, and the 12 year old breaks into the house, then I don’t think the ex-cop should shoot to kill. If he did, I would not be fine with the guy’s motivation.
____
You’re saying, in essence: “This is unrealistic, until such a time as it becomes realistic”… which is what we, in logical circles, call a “tautology” (i.e. a vacuous truth with no content, whatsoever). Most of your comments, in fact, do reduce themselves to tautologies… which is yet another reason why I call “utter moral relativism” vacuous.
No, not at all. X asks why she should give a crap. Okay, let’s look at the situation. Is it certain she would give a crap? Is it possible? Is it impossible?
“There are plenty of “foot-holds [for criticising moral things in the frame-work of moral relativism].” Let’s look at what morality really is.”
Paladin: Morality is, so far as I can tell (and the dictionaries and encyclopaedias of the world seem to corroborate this, I think), the study of “right and wrong” actions, and the study of the bases for making such determinations (i.e. what humans “should” and “should not” do: what is “good” and what is “evil” in human actions and behaviour). I see no possible way to talk coherently about anything of the sort, without some acknowledgment of objective standards.
So obviously it is ideas of “good/bad/right/wrong” in the moral realm, and any associated “shoulds” and “should nots.” Doesn’t have to be “objective” – if “everybody” or “all consciousnesses” think that “Q is good,” then we can go from there – we’ve already defined it as good, and it may well be that there are logical courses of action aimed at ensuring it. It’s still a subjective thing – it’s subjective to “all of us” in that example. In the real world it’s often not 100%, and then it would be subjective to those that hold the opinion.
___
“Let’s look at what people actually do think, rather than come up with far-fetched examples that don’t play out in the real world.”
That is (forgive the pun on your beliefs) merely your personal opinion, friend. And again: even the most far-fetched examples seek not necessarily to make the far-fetched seem plausible, but to illuminate the moral principles hidden behind them (which are often difficult to see with the unaided eye). You might consider such examples to be akin to a stain used to make microscopic objects distinguishable on a microscope slide.
It wasn’t me stating an opinion, it was me asking about the example, i.e. is it plausible, does it make sense, does it have any application to what we are talking about? If, knowing that, we can then figure things out, easily understand them, “see them with the unaided eye,” etc., so much the better.
____
I don’t “kill all positions.”
You may not intend to do so (and I didn’t say that “you” do so, personally, per se); but your WORLD-VIEW (of utter moral relativism) does, whether you like it or not. If there is no objective standard by which length may be measured, then there is no way to say that one object is longer than another, for example; just so, with morality, if there is no objective standard by which such issues are measured.
You lost me there, Paladin. Why would there need to be an “objective standard” for length or measurement, when we are seeking to determine only which of two objects is the longer? Or, if we can say that “this one is longer,” how does that prove an “objective standard”?
Morality in no way needs any “objective standards.” All that’s required is that there are thoughts in the moral realm, feelings of “good,bad,right,wrong” and feelings of what the “shoulds” and the “should nots” are. As you said, “right and wrong actions” etc. At the most basic, all that’s needed is one mind having ideas of what is right and wrong.
Pursuant to that last post, if we say that, “This object is longer,” based on physical quantities, is that not good enough?
Likewise, if we say that, “I most want the unborn to live,” then we will deem abortion bad, evil, a “should not,” etc.
If we say that, “I most want pregnant women to be able to have legal abortions,” then we’ll say differently.
“It’s a given, here, that lots of people feel the life of the unborn is the most important thing, and that lots of others feel the woman’s rights, feelings, etc., are.”
Paladin: And I hope you understand that this statement of facts (which are true) says nothing, whatsoever, about the rightness or wrongness of any of those positions, whatsoever.
I don’t agree, and think you are supposing something that at the least cannot be proven. Regardless of anything or anybody they might ascribe it to, all that’s needed for somebody to say, “abortion is morally wrong,” is that they don’t desire it.
____
“No, I can’t “prove” there are others than me. Nobody can. I’ve noted, many times, that the only thing a conscious entity can *really* be sure of is the fact of its own consciousness. Beyond that, there will be assumptions. We *all* make those assumptions, and I’ve said – again, numerous times – that I’m assuming we are separate consciousnesses, separate people, etc.”
But you don’t seem to realise that your assumptions, by your current standards, have no basis in any “fact” at all!
So what? Who can truly prove anything beyond the fact of their own consciousness? I’m saying that I’m making some assumptions, and, given those, that other people are too.
___
If your assumptions and my assumptions are “equally likely (or unlikely) to be valid or invalid”… or, more accurately, if you view the whole idea of “valid/invalid” as an extraneous addition/over-lay with no meaning… then what have you said substantially about morality? Nothing at all!
There’s plenty of meaning. We strongly desire some things, and greatly hate or fear others. We do have such feelings. “Equally valid or invalid”? That is in the eye of the beholder. If all minds desperately wanted no orange vegetables to be eaten, they would say it’s wrong to eat carrots.
____
“Yes – there might be a “waking up” from something akin to a dream, and finding out that reality – or at least what is then perceived versus what was thought to be the prior case – is much different. That’s true for all of us (how ever many of us there are). I’m going with many of the same assumptions that you are.”
I’m not at all confident in trusting that, I’m afraid… especially since you might “agree” with me on those points out of mere happenstance (e.g. we’re both on the same train for wildly different purposes: you, to get to work, and I, to escape a raving brick-bat-wielding murderer! ).
How does that matter? If we make the assumptions, and make the same assumptions, then to that point we agree. I’m assuming you are a separate, conscious entity, different than myself. If that is true, and if we are communicating, then don’t you also assume that I’m a separate, conscious entity?
“Moral relativism is “assailable,” but it always involves unprovable belief.”
I’m afraid that makes no sense at all; you might as well say that I can attempt to punch my own shadow! That’s true, but hardly worth saying, and quite useless as a recommendation.
Oh please. You were saying there’s “nothing there to assail” as far as relative morality. Hey – disagree away with another person’s morality; you’ve assailed it. Argue it, etc.
____
“Anyway, there is huge commonality of desire around the world, and we tend to have similar laws, etc.”
That is true… but your world-view is not at all equipped to make any judgments about those laws, trends, etc., since it claims that there are no standards by which any such judgments can ever be made, by definition.
No, that’s not true. We’re all free to judge. The fact is that we *do judge,* and all the time. We have feelings of “right, wrong, good, bad” in the moral realm.
___
“There very much is “the human condition” to look at.”
(*sigh*) Friend, that is certainly true… but your view leaves you only that: to look. You cannot do anything more than that, with regard to moral discernment of anything.
Disagree – if we see the vast majority of people on earth wanting to live, then for them to say that killing people on earth without a good enough reason is morally wrong makes perfect sense. If it is our own “moral discernment” you are after, then most of us agree with the “wrong” feeling.
___
You are free to point your camera at anything you like, but you are not free to take an actual picture of any of it, since you have ripped all the machinery out of it! You may gaze at the actions of man, but you are powerless to say “yea” or “nay” to any of it, save through meaningless preference which cannot be said to be “good” or “evil” or anything of the kind!
The camera is just fine. We can and do say “yea” and “nay” all the time. It’s not “meaningless preference” – just ask us. “Good” and “evil” are those very ‘sayings’ – they are our feelings, pronouncements, etc.
____
Do think this through: if your maxim of morality boils down to “I will not do anything that I will not, in fact, do”, then surely you see the emptiness and pointlessness of saying it?
I wouldn’t state it like that. For our motivation, I say that (short of being physically compelled otherwise) we choose that which we want the most, or that for which we have the least distaste, from among our available options. For morality, it’s willful desire expressed as ideas of “right action” and “wrong conduct” etc.
____
“Yeah, I think there is some of that, although the “rubbish” obviously can apply both ways.”
Well… I, and others who are not moral relativists, are free to judge this-or-that to be rubbish; you, on the other hand, cannot, since your own code neutralises every attempt.
No it doesn’t. You and I are both free like that – it’s our judgment, our judgments. This is whether we ascribe our opinions to God, gods, books, other people, etc., or just that “it’s how I feel.”
____
If, for example, you were to call my comments “rubbish” (which you are welcome to do, by the way; I sometimes think so, myself, in fact!), why should I treat that pronouncement as anything more significant than the mere happenstance of your mood, your physiology, etc.? If you complain (hypothetically) that I have wronged you by taking your $20 bill, why should I treat that any differently than I’d treat your declaration, “I have a head-ache”? (To which I’d reply, with sympathy: “Oh, dear… I do hope you feel better soon!” What else could I say?)
I’m not saying you necessarily should treat my pronouncements any certain way, unless they are a matter of logic, in reference to what you and I both agree is external, physical reality, etc. If it’s just me having my say, if it’s my opinion, then so be it. If society has rules against taking the money, then if you want to remain in society, the best chance to assuage your desire, there, is to not take the money, or to give it back, rather than giving no weight to my (or society’s) complaint.
[Tyler]: Incorrect. The millions of organisms inside us prove we are not autonomous. Therefore, the Mother is not autonomous. Furthermore, one of those organisms is another human being.
[Doug]: Tyler, that’s getting ridiculous. Nobody is thus autonomous, according to you.
The woman is autonomous – she’s an independent organism (separate, and not in symbiosis) and she doesn’t have to do what the fetus says.
Remember we were talking about biological autonomy.
Conversely, if the Mother is biologically autonomous, then so is the unborn, from embryo to baby.
[Tyler]: Next time I will explicitly state that I am referring to biological Motherhood, but in any event, I think it was fairly obvious that I was referring to biological Motherhood in the post.
[Doug]: That doesn’t change anything. You had said: These same people refuse to see how the Mother is dependent on the unborn baby. They refuse to recognize that to be a “Mother” in the first place requires that a woman has to be pregnant.
[Doug]: First, let me say that I agree, of course, that a woman cannot be a mother without having conception occur at least one time. But that does not mean that the “mother is dependent on the baby.”
Biologically speaking, she ceases to be the mother of that child if that child passes away (Didn’t you try argue this against Xalisae?). Her biological identity is dependent on the existence of that unborn child. Furthermore, her conscious actions are dependent on the child’s existence because if she wants to end the pregnancy she has to arrange for an abortion or modify her behavior in some other way, and if she wants to continue the pregnancy she is will also have to modify her life and her actions in a certain way to facilitate the proper growth of the fetus. The amount of food she will consume will change if she wants to continue the pregnancy, her mobility will be impacted as the pregnancy advances to the later stages, her hormones change etc… She is biologically dependent on this child whether she wants the child or not, but perhaps not to a life ending extent. Her biological make-up is dependent on the existence or the non-existence of the fetus.
Tyler: Conversely, if the Mother is biologically autonomous, then so is the unborn, from embryo to baby
Sure, and that’s right in line with the “independent organism” deal as I’ve been saying all along.
____
Biologically speaking, she ceases to be the mother of that child if that child passes away (Didn’t you try argue this against Xalisae?).
No, and no (don’t remember anything like that with Xalisae). Dead or alive, the progeny are hers, i.e. she’s the mother.
___
Her biological identity is dependent on the existence of that unborn child.
Nope, the blastocyst might not have implanted, she never was pregnant, and the blastocyst is long dead, but she’s still the biological mother.
____
Furthermore, her conscious actions are dependent on the child’s existence because if she wants to end the pregnancy she has to arrange for an abortion or modify her behavior in some other way, and if she wants to continue the pregnancy she is will also have to modify her life and her actions in a certain way to facilitate the proper growth of the fetus.
Hard to believe you’re serious. Her conscious actions *might be related* to the baby, but in no way does that mean she’s “dependent” on it.
____
The amount of food she will consume will change if she wants to continue the pregnancy, her mobility will be impacted as the pregnancy advances to the later stages, her hormones change etc… She is biologically dependent on this child whether she wants the child or not, but perhaps not to a life ending extent. Her biological make-up is dependent on the existence or the non-existence of the fetus.
You are equating “being affected by” or “being concerned with” with “being dependent on,” and that’s just not true. The unborn are dependent on the mother (obviously) but the woman’s not dependent on the unborn. The unborn can live or die, and the woman will go on. The unborn can be wanted or unwanted, and the woman continues. The woman doesn’t have to do what the unborn say – she’s independent of that.
On “her biological makeup,” it sure seems like you are confusing that with “biological condition,” as with pregnancy. What we are composed of, how we are physically constituted – these are not the same thing as being hungry or not, being pregnant or not, being infected or not, etc.
Doug wrote, in reply to my comment:
[Paladin]
Er… what, exactly, do you suppose “offspring” would mean, if not a young one who is the (small) biological product (forgive the crass word) of his/her biological parents? As for “little”, I’ll challenge you to show me an unborn child who is larger than his/her mother!
[Doug]
Oy vey, ask a Latin speaker to translate “young one” and “little one” into English.
I assume you meant: “…translate […] into Latin? Or “translate the Latin equivalent into English?”
If the answer is “fetus” then okay.
I speak a bit of Latin, but the way… enough to know that it’s rather naive of you to expect there to be only one possible word, phrase or saying in Latin which could possibly be translated as “little one”, “offspring”, etc.
Or, have “fetus” translated into English.
Er… that’s precisely what I thought Webster’s, Lewis & Short, and I (using their resources) just did! Are you claiming that The Lewis & Short dictionary, etc., erred?
That “offspring” tend to be relatively smaller than something else in no way means that what the coo-coo for cocoa puffs websites say is correct.
(*wry look*) You’ve often spoken of your respect for finding and avoiding fallacies; may I add “ad hominem” to that list? This last sentence of yours was positively dripping with it, and it said nothing germane to the point, friend.
Latin for “young one” and “little one” is gonna be something like the roots of “juvenile” or “adolescent” or “infant” with an article, or “unum paulum.”
See above; surely you know that there are an untold number of ways to say “little one/offspring/child” in Latin, depending on the age of the offspring, depending on the situation, and even depending on the mood of the author? Most languages have manifold ways of saying the same thing, after all:
son = “filius”, “natus”, “puer meus”, etc.
daughter = “filia”, “nata”, “puella mea”, etc.
infant = “infans”, “natus/a”, “neonatus/a”, etc.
little one = “parvus/a”, “fetus”, “paulus/a”, etc.
Also, Latin often uses implicit articles, and even implicit conjunctions (e.g. “vir” = “[the] man” or “[a] man”, depending on context; “Vita bona” = “Life [is] good” as well as “[the] good life” or “[a] good life”; “Dominus vobiscum” = “The Lord [be] with you”, etc.); there’s not always a need for an explicit article (and “unum” is an adjective (being a cardinal number), not an article, anyway).
Do think about this: for you to say “‘Fetus’ can’t possibly mean ‘little one’, because I know of at least a few other ways to say ‘little one’ is as illogical as saying that “‘felis’ can’t possibly mean ‘cat’, since there are many other words for ‘cat’: kitty, kitten, moogie, etc.”! (Try translating “kitty” back into Latin, and see what happens; translation is not, sad to say for us mathematicians, a 1-to-1, onto function, where every single Latin word is matched exactly and only with one English word.)
[Doug]: You are equating “being affected by” or “being concerned with” with “being dependent on,” and that’s just not true. The unborn are dependent on the mother (obviously) but the woman’s not dependent on the unborn. The unborn can live or die, and the woman will go on. The unborn can be wanted or unwanted, and the woman continues. The woman doesn’t have to do what the unborn say – she’s independent of that.
[Doug]: On “her biological makeup,” it sure seems like you are confusing that with “biological condition,” as with pregnancy. What we are composed of, how we are physically constituted – these are not the same thing as being hungry or not, being pregnant or not, being infected or not, etc.
Doug, now I am confused. If a woman has bodily and biological autonomy like you have said, why do some Mothers abort their unborn babies?
Doug wrote, in reply to my comment:
[Paladin]
But: surely you’ve had enough experience with the study of ethics, philosophy, and the like to know that these disciplines deal with abstract (though hardly irrelevant or spurious) concepts which can often be too subtle to demonstrate without extreme-sounding examples?
[Doug]
I hear you there, but misrepresenting somebody else’s position is still folly.
And it’s precisely my point that she did NOT misrepresent your position, per se, nor did she ever intend to represent your position exactly (see her comment on December 19, 2011 at 8:00 am; when she called her own comment an “analogy” and “sarcasm”, did that not suggest to you that she was making a parody of your position… and for the purpose of illustrating the flaws in your view, were it put into practise?).
In principle, what you are talking about is reasonable. In practice, what Michelle said does not fit with Duck and I. After all that’s occurred here, she may have a point about some pro-choicers – and as with “free abortions” I don’t necessarily agree.
See above. In addition: I have to say that you seem to be trying mightily to “make a gread deal of hay” out of one small detail of her metaphor (which, again, was never meant to be exact, as she said, herself); the idea that she (or I) would need to “prove that you and Duck wan all abortions to be free” in order for you to give ANY attention to the REST of the metaphor (and its many points and sub-points) is rather odd, frankly… and it smacks of another fallacy with which you might be familiar: the “red herring”. To wit: even if she or I conceded your point entirely, and said, “Mea culpa… forget all about the issue of ‘free’ abortions/liposuctions!”, do you not see that you’d still have a great deal of formidable material to which you’d have to respond?
Doug wrote, in reply to my comment:
[Paladin]
I’d also add, yet again: it’s something of a lack of imagination for you to speak of an image being “unrealistic, irrational, etc.”, simply because you find it implausible; whole-sale acceptance of homosexual “marriage” was considered utterly unthinkable in our culture, even 50-60 years ago, as was the idea of the mass-slaughter of the unborn through legal, state-protected (and sponsored, in some cases) abortion. […]
[Doug]
Holy Crow…. I’m with you on most of that. But a rational comparison most certainly can be made. It’s not going back to 1925…. It’s just what Duck and I have said on this very forum in the very, very recent past.
(?) I think you may have misunderstood my point. When you asked (rhetorically) if “anyone could rationally be expected to insist on free, legal, etc., liposuction” (with the expected answer of “no”), I object to that on at least three points:
a) Michelle’s metaphor (as she made quite plain) was never meant to be a lock-step, 1-to-1 match with your views/situation; it was meant to compare two similar, but also somewhat dissimilar, views (i.e. yours, and the hypothetical pro-lipo person).
b) your suggestion that the scenario was too ridiculous even to consider was illogical (since, as I and many others have already said, interminably, the human race has already shown itself capable of embracing what was heretofore outrageous and “unthinkable” and “irrational”) and dismissive (you laugh it off and dodge it without so much as an attempt to respond to the substance of the argument).
c) When I referred to “years ago”, I was not talking about the date at which the argument was formulated; I was referring to the fact that your plaintive question of “who would ever take such a position?” was–forgive me–silly and illogical; some of your very own views were so outrageous in past ages that you, yourself, might well have been burned at the stake for holding them… and virtualy no-one would have questioned the verdict! Do remember that, the next time you try to pawn off a scenario as “too outrageous to entertain”!
It’s not a rational argument and it is the “straw man” fallacy to misrepresent that.
See above, and see my previous comment; you are mistaken, on both counts.
[Paladin]
And I ask again: what possible relevance would their motivation have to anyone (save for themselves)? You brought up this topic in reply to Xalisae’s example of your murder with a brick-bat; if the only reason you ask is because of idle curiosity (i.e. once the answer is known, it will be treated as a bit of trivia, and it will have no bearing on the situation whatever), then why did you bring it up at all?
[Doug]
Because their motivation may make all the difference in the world. If it’s just one nut-job who feels the need to make a good-size indentation in Old Doug’s cranium, because he saw a vision in his morning bowl of Frankenberry or Count Chocula, that is one thing. If the assaulter has what the majority of people feel is a good enough reason to bash me, that’s far different.
Again: given that you’re operating from the paradigm of “there are no objective standards for morality”, I really don’t see how you can maintain anything of the sort. To wit: the examples you cite are certainly different, just as a dirty coin is different from a clean coin, but.. what OF it? What possible relevance does the difference make to a moral relativist, re: morality? More on that, below.
That could well mean that X would not give a crap.
Through random chance, yes; but your scenario says nothing to the point. The fact that “the culture at large” seems to accept [A] as a proposition says nothing especially about whether any given person will embrace it; it means only that, all other things being equal, it would be reasonable for one to assume that a randomly-chosen person would be somewhat more likely to embrace it than not.
Perhaps it is a sort of appeal, yes. But first, what Duck and I have said is not analogous to that. If we are now away from what Michelle was saying, and into the truly hypothetical, then fine. Otherwise – even if we’d be speaking of “some other pro-choicers,” there still is the valid question of “would anybody really feel like that?”
The only logical answer to that would be “I have no idea, one way or the other; it’s not guaranteed, but it’s certainly possible.” Your opinions (or mine) as to the plausibility of any given scenario are, quite frankly, completely irrelevant… especially since the purpose of the original metaphor was to teach (i.e. show you the flaws in your own position, by analogy and a sort of implicit reductio ad absurdum), not to convince you that the specific scenario would ever happen.
If X had placed her example at enough of a different time, that would be one thing. But your objections to what I said don’t take into account that X was speaking of “right now.”
My dear chap, I assure you: I knew that, full well! (BTW: Xalisae did not make her objection “era-specific”; I rather suspect that she’d find her question to be valid, even if the two of you imagined yourselves to be 20 years in the future; the era really wasn’t the point, at all.)
Her question amounts to “Why should I give a crap?”
Have you missed the reason WHY she asked the question? It was not simply a literal request for raw data; it was also a rbuke to your utter moral relativism, and an attempt to show you that she, if she were to adopt a world-view like yours, would have no more compelling of a need to care about your murder than you care about the killing of a 5-day-old embryo/blastocyst. If all morality is illusory and/or mere social happenstance, then there is no special reason to follow it, so long as one is powerful/rich/sneaky/etc. enough to accomplish that non-conformity.
I also suspect that Xalisae was hoping against hope that you (personally) would draw yourself up, blink, and say, “Wow… I wouldn’t like it if Xalisae were so callous about my murder, since I or any human should be worth enough to have their murder move the heart of another good person, at least somewhat! And if my world-view would allow her to do that and still consider herself a ‘good’ person, then my world-view must be flawed!”
If 2 guys in their 20’s scout out a retired cop’s house, and they plot to rob him one night for money for drugs, and upon breaking into his house, they get filled full of lead (or, if he could manage, to bash their skulls in), then “I don’t give a crap.” Heck, I’m all for it, actually. I’m fine with the guy’s motivation, there. Yet if he knows the 12 year old next door is mentally disabled and harmless, and the 12 year old breaks into the house, then I don’t think the ex-cop should shoot to kill. If he did, I would not be fine with the guy’s motivation.
All right. Now, the $64,000 question: on what basis are you “not fine” with the ex-cop’s massacre of the disabled boy? What about it bothers you, exactly? To what standard of “right/wrong”, “justice/injustice”, etc. do you appeal, when protesting the fact that his “reason” is not satisfactory? It must be one of two things: (a) the result of an external, objective source of “rightness/wrongness” (or whatever words you wish to use, when describing “positive vs. negative” in the moral domain), or (b) your mere personal whims/tastes… akin to your like or dislike for anchovies.
X asks why she should give a crap. Okay, let’s look at the situation. Is it certain she would give a crap? Is it possible? Is it impossible?
By all means, we can ask all of the above… but since they are all abstract, a priori questions, you would not move even one jot closer to the objective, which is to give a BASIS for having her care about your murder, and for deciding whether she was right or wrong, satisfactory or unsatisfactory, human or inhuman, in her position. The question of “COULD she?” is absolutely distinct from the more relevant question, “SHOULD she?” Surely you know that we’ve been “pestering” you about the latter, and not about the (utterly-self-evident) former?
Doug wrote, in reply to my comment:
[Paladin]
Morality is, so far as I can tell (and the dictionaries and encyclopaedias of the world seem to corroborate this, I think), the study of “right and wrong” actions, and the study of the bases for making such determinations (i.e. what humans “should” and “should not” do: what is “good” and what is “evil” in human actions and behaviour). I see no possible way to talk coherently about anything of the sort, without some acknowledgment of objective standards.
So obviously it is ideas of “good/bad/right/wrong” in the moral realm, and any associated “shoulds” and “should nots.”
Right.
Doesn’t have to be “objective” –
It would quickly reduce itself to mere nonsense and vacuity, if it were not.
if “everybody” or “all consciousnesses” think that “Q is good,” then we can go from there – we’ve already defined it as good, and it may well be that there are logical courses of action aimed at ensuring it.
That simply doesn’t follow, at all. If every last person were to think that “2 + 2 = 5”, then it could rightly be said that every last person would be deceived, in such a case. You seem to be suggesting that “social consensus determines morality”; but isn’t that precisely what you’re trying to PROVE (i.e. defending moral relativism)? It’s hardly cricket to assume what you’re trying to prove, you know.
You lost me there, Paladin. Why would there need to be an “objective standard” for length or measurement, when we are seeking to determine only which of two objects is the longer?
Well… surely you can see that, if the ruler (which we seek to use as a standard) kept changing in size (or bent double on itself, turned to liquid or gas, rearranged the numbers, etc.), it would be impossible to make any determinations about length, at all? If the finish-line of a race were to keep moving away, how would one ever determine the winning time?
Morality in no way needs any “objective standards.”
I’m afraid it does, dear fellow… just as mathematics requires numbers. Try to imagine one without the other, and one either conjures up “numbers” in some other form (e.g. words or variables, in some sort of consistent order), or else nothing at all.
All that’s required is that there are thoughts in the moral realm, feelings of “good,bad,right,wrong” and feelings of what the “shoulds” and the “should nots” are.
Do you not see that all of your terms “good, bad, right, wrong” are utterly meaningless, if that is so? If “good” means simply “what I happen to be doing”, then why add the extra word? Why not simply say “this is what I am doing”? If “good” means simply “what happens to please me”, then why speak of “good” at all, unless you already have the idea that it is “better” to be pleased than to be displeased? There’s a hidden standard, waiting in the shadows, even then!
Paladin-
I’m afraid all your explanations of my arguments (as spot-on as they were, bravo!) are for naught, friend.
From lurking about here, all I can determine from subsequent writings of our adversary-friend Doug is that, were I to embark on a campaign to make the home invasion and assault/murder at his address publicly acceptable and enough members of society believe it should be seen as a societal right or just action, then it would be so. He doesn’t seem to have a real morality of his own, but he simply seems to be ready to side with whatever society has come to accept or see as worthwhile (why he actively engages on a crusade of defense for these currently-upheld pseudo-ideals against us is beyond me, though. Fear of change, perhaps? lol!). He’s adopted what amounts to mob mentality as a sort of prosthetic morality for himself.
He’d have made a wonderful juror at the trial of Roxy Hart. He’d fit right in, I’m afraid.
Let us say, Doug, just to put your mind at ease, that this is an alternate reality in which gangsters like Bonnie and Clyde became SO wildly popular, and the general public became SO sympathetic to their criminal celebrity that for their sake (and certain other popular and well-known criminals like them), the public eventually urged the police to leave them be and let them do as they pleased. That eventually, society changed laws to reflect that if a criminal was proficient at plying his or her trade to a remarkable degree, anything they did became legal and the criminal justice system would no longer seek to bring them to justice. So in their case, the notion of justice itself had been changed to become a variant of “Might makes right.”
Now, the criminals who burst into your home, assaulting you and your wife in this criminal-tolerant or even criminal-oriented world were some of the best! Lucky you! They decided to leave their calling card at YOUR home and honor YOU with their crime (if it could even be called that in this reality…I mean…I would still consider it a crime…But I also have my own standards. *smirk*). You’ll be the envy of every house on your block, if you ever leave intensive care.
And Doug-way to be intentionally obtuse yet again in response to my statement of the bank robbers. Of course it’s legal for bank employees to give money to armed assailants (unless of course, it’s later found out that one of the bank employees was in cahoots with the robbers. You know that IS illegal, right?). Don’t be so dense. You know I was speaking of the armed men TAKING The money from them, not them GIVING the money.
Doug wrote, in reply to my comment:
I don’t agree, and think you are supposing something that at the least cannot be proven. Regardless of anything or anybody they might ascribe it to, all that’s needed for somebody to say, “abortion is morally wrong,” is that they don’t desire it.
:) Er… do you note the irony in saying that my comment “cannot be proven”, and then following it with an utterly unprovable statement (among a host of others, including your thesis statement)? (I think I can make the case that it is provably FALSE, in fact, but: more on that, below.)
[Paladin]
But you don’t seem to realise that your assumptions, by your current standards, have no basis in any “fact” at all!
[Doug]
So what? Who can truly prove anything beyond the fact of their own consciousness?
That depends very much on your definition of “proof”. There are two general types of proof: a priori (a.k.a. “intrinsic”) proofs, and a posteriori (a.k.a. “extrinsic”) proofs. The former are abstract statements which do not require sense-data (e.g. proving the Pythagorean Theorem), and they can be proven beyond all doubt, whatsoever (i.e. with 100% certainty); the latter are sense-data-dependent, and they cannot be proven beyond all doubt (i.e. one can’t prove every last alternative to be completely impossible), but they CAN be proven beyond all REASONABLE doubt. Physical scientists often put that as follows: “To deny [x] when [x] has been proven (extrinsically) true would involve a violation of sane reason.” Think of trying to deny the law of gravity (in the normal, non-quantum-level course of events), and you may see what I mean; deny it, and you will be written off as a lunatic.
I’m saying that I’m making some assumptions, and, given those, that other people are too.
Yes… and I’ll say, yet again: that says nothing at all about morality, whatsoever. Yes, I heard your protestations about “relative morality being sufficient”… but that simply isn’t the case, and (as I mentioned earlier) any attempt will degenerate either into a flat contradiction, or into a tautology (i.e. vacuous truth, meaning nothing). Suppose one were to say, “The rightness of my actions depends on whether I like/want the action, or not”; and when asked why that standard is used, one replies by saying, “because likes and wants are the basis for my morality”… which is utterly circular, and says nothing. One might as well say “I will do what I will do,” (which is true, but utterly empty of content) or “I like what I like,” or “I judge to be moral that which I do not judge to be immoral or neutral.” None of them say anything at all; they are mere winds and words.
[Paladin]
If your assumptions and my assumptions are “equally likely (or unlikely) to be valid or invalid”… or, more accurately, if you view the whole idea of “valid/invalid” as an extraneous addition/over-lay with no meaning… then what have you said substantially about morality? Nothing at all!
[Doug]
There’s plenty of meaning. We strongly desire some things, and greatly hate or fear others. We do have such feelings.
Of course, we have such feelings; but since we already have words for “I like this”, “I don’t like that”, etc., why do you feel the need to over-lay extraneous terms such as “morally right” and “morally wrong” to the mix? Ockham’s razor would slash them away, at very least. Any appeal to morality by a moral relativist is akin to an appeal to God by an absolute atheist; unless you’re speaking metaphorically, or making some sort of joke, the whole business is nonsense!
“Equally valid or invalid”? That is in the eye of the beholder. If all minds desperately wanted no orange vegetables to be eaten, they would say it’s wrong to eat carrots.
They would say, perhaps. But the issue of “SHOULD they say” is still distinct… and unanswered, yes?
How does [the fact that we might reach the same conclusion only by happen-stance] matter? If we make the assumptions, and make the same assumptions, then to that point we agree.
I think you’ve missed my point, here; if one student reaches a correct sum through a mastery of arithmetic, and another student reaches a correct sum by raw guess-work, surely you can see a practical difference between the methods? Especially when the technique needs to be transferred to another area/discipline/problem, I’d far prefer the former to the latter.
I’m assuming you are a separate, conscious entity, different than myself. If that is true, and if we are communicating, then don’t you also assume that I’m a separate, conscious entity?
Of course. But how is that at all germane to the point (of trying to deny that utter moral relativism is completely vacuous)?
“To deny [x] when [x] has been proven (extrinsically) true would involve a violation of sane reason.”
I cannot help but agree emphatically with that statement. ;P
“Oy vey, ask a Latin speaker to translate “young one” and “little one” into English.”
Paladin: I assume you meant: “…translate […] into Latin? Or “translate the Latin equivalent into English?”
“Equivalent”? If the claim is that “fetus” is Latin for “young one” and/or “little one” then that’s what we want to look at.
___
“If the answer is “fetus” then okay.”
I speak a bit of Latin, but the way… enough to know that it’s rather naive of you to expect there to be only one possible word, phrase or saying in Latin which could possibly be translated as “little one”, “offspring”, etc.
I wasn’t going with that. As below, I also say we can go from Latin to English. Either way, that would be satisfactory.
____
“Or, have “fetus” translated into English.”
Er… that’s precisely what I thought Webster’s, Lewis & Short, and I (using their resources) just did! Are you claiming that The Lewis & Short dictionary, etc., erred?
No, no error is claimed there. But it was not presented as if all we are looking for is the possibility that whatever “fetus” translates into could be small, could be considered as a “young one,” etc. It was presented as is “fetus” directly translates into “young one” or “little one” in English. Is “fetus” really Latin for “young one” or “little one”? No it’s not.
____
“That “offspring” tend to be relatively smaller than something else in no way means that what the coo-coo for cocoa puffs websites say is correct.”
(*wry look*) You’ve often spoken of your respect for finding and avoiding fallacies; may I add “ad hominem” to that list? This last sentence of yours was positively dripping with it, and it said nothing germane to the point, friend.
:) Hey – some of the websites truly are wacky, crazy, full of factual errors, full of opinion presented as fact, etc. They are aimed at people too gullible to know any better.
On the other hand, yes – you have a point about my description of those websites. I do maintain that fetus does not really mean “young one” or “little one” in Latin.
____
“Latin for “young one” and “little one” is gonna be something like the roots of “juvenile” or “adolescent” or “infant” with an article, or “unum paulum.””
See above; surely you know that there are an untold number of ways to say “little one/offspring/child” in Latin, depending on the age of the offspring, depending on the situation, and even depending on the mood of the author? Most languages have manifold ways of saying the same thing, after all:
son = “filius”, “natus”, “puer meus”, etc.
daughter = “filia”, “nata”, “puella mea”, etc.
infant = “infans”, “natus/a”, “neonatus/a”, etc.
little one = “parvus/a”, “fetus”, “paulus/a”, etc.
I certainly bow to your superior knowledge of Latin, Paladin. There is still a difference in “what could be meant as being young or little,” and directly translating a word from one language into another. If the claim had been that “fetus means something in Latin that would often be said to be little or young,” I would not be arguing it.
____
Also, Latin often uses implicit articles, and even implicit conjunctions (e.g. “vir” = “[the] man” or “[a] man”, depending on context; “Vita bona” = “Life [is] good” as well as “[the] good life” or “[a] good life”; “Dominus vobiscum” = “The Lord [be] with you”, etc.); there’s not always a need for an explicit article (and “unum” is an adjective (being a cardinal number), not an article, anyway).
Do think about this: for you to say “‘Fetus’ can’t possibly mean ‘little one’, because I know of at least a few other ways to say ‘little one’ is as illogical as saying that “‘felis’ can’t possibly mean ‘cat’, since there are many other words for ‘cat’: kitty, kitten, moogie, etc.”! (Try translating “kitty” back into Latin, and see what happens; translation is not, sad to say for us mathematicians, a 1-to-1, onto function, where every single Latin word is matched exactly and only with one English word.)
Again, I bow to your knowledge of Latin, and appreciate the time you put into these posts. I am not saying that “fetus” could not possibly mean something that is little or young. I am saying that “fetus” is not Latin for those terms. That is how it was presented, as if those terms *are* “fetus” in Latin. If the claim had been that ” ‘ parvus’ is Latin for ‘little one’ ” then I would not be arguing.
Doug, now I am confused. If a woman has bodily and biological autonomy like you have said, why do some Mothers abort their unborn babies?
Tyler, because on balance they are unwanted. Because, all in all, the woman does not want to have a baby. This is not to say that the baby is not inside the woman. That is a given.
@Xalisae: (*laugh!*) I’d not registered that, until you mentioned it! Hooray for the most common variable, I suppose! ;)
Paladin: it’s precisely my point that she did NOT misrepresent your position, per se, nor did she ever intend to represent your position exactly (see her comment on December 19, 2011 at 8:00 am; when she called her own comment an “analogy” and “sarcasm”, did that not suggest to you that she was making a parody of your position… and for the purpose of illustrating the flaws in your view, were it put into practise?).
That 2nd post by Michelle was pretty good, and honestly – I felt better after reading it. Sarcasm is fine, but will it really be a meaningful comment on the abortion issue? As far as “the flaws in my view,” well hey – then I do want a pretty decent representation of my view.
All wrangling and complex mansions of thought aside, I agree that some people get pregnant, and some people get fat, due to their own choices, their own actions. Fact. It’s also fact that many of those people will not want to remain pregnant or fat, any longer. The obvious and most-applicable analogy here, no sarcasm or “inexactness” involved, is that pro-lifers are against people seeking remedies for those conditions.
___
“Because their motivation may make all the difference in the world. If it’s just one nut-job who feels the need to make a good-size indentation in Old Doug’s cranium, because he saw a vision in his morning bowl of Frankenberry or Count Chocula, that is one thing. If the assaulter has what the majority of people feel is a good enough reason to bash me, that’s far different.”
Again: given that you’re operating from the paradigm of “there are no objective standards for morality”, I really don’t see how you can maintain anything of the sort. To wit: the examples you cite are certainly different, just as a dirty coin is different from a clean coin, but.. what OF it? What possible relevance does the difference make to a moral relativist, re: morality? More on that, below.
Xalisae did ask me, not you. I’ve never asserted any “objective standards for morality.” It’s obvious to me that morality is “of the mind.” This was about what Xalisae would think, not me or you. She asked me about her reaction.
____
“That could well mean that X would not give a crap.”
Through random chance, yes; but your scenario says nothing to the point. The fact that “the culture at large” seems to accept [A] as a proposition says nothing especially about whether any given person will embrace it; it means only that, all other things being equal, it would be reasonable for one to assume that a randomly-chosen person would be somewhat more likely to embrace it than not.
So what? Xalisae is not “random” here, she is her own person. If we find out the situation, we can ask her, directly.
___
“If X had placed her example at enough of a different time, that would be one thing. But your objections to what I said don’t take into account that X was speaking of “right now.”
My dear chap, I assure you: I knew that, full well! (BTW: Xalisae did not make her objection “era-specific”; I rather suspect that she’d find her question to be valid, even if the two of you imagined yourselves to be 20 years in the future; the era really wasn’t the point, at all.)
She did ask “in the present tense.” Look – you’re the one who has brought up how things can change over time. Maybe she would have thought differently about some things in the past. Maybe she would think differently about some things in the future. Could she ever change her views? That’s a separate question for her.
[Tyler]: Doug, now I am confused. If a woman has bodily and biological autonomy like you have said, why do some Mothers abort their unborn babies?
[Doug}: Tyler, because on balance they are unwanted. Because, all in all, the woman does not want to have a baby. This is not to say that the baby is not inside the woman. That is a given.
But if there are a million other independent autonomous organisms living inside the Mother, why is she focusing on the fetus? What is about the fetus that is making her want to abort the fetus rather than all of the other living organisms inside her?
If she is truly autonomous, as you say, what difference does the fetus make her in life and that bodily autonomy? How does the fetus affect/impact her bodily autonomy? Doesn’t the definition of bodily autonomy preclude the possibility of the fetus ever affecting that autonomy? At this point in the argument, is there a difference between an aborted fetus and a surgically removed unwanted malignant growth?
Doug, even a malignant shouldn’t be able to affect a woman’s bodily> autonomy. You must be referring to some other type of autonomy rather than “bodily” autonomy?
Side-topic, but: on some days, I’d give a great deal to have names associated with the “likes” on some of these posts! Curiosity is getting the better of me… :)
“Her question amounts to “Why should I give a crap?”
Paladin: Have you missed the reason WHY she asked the question? It was not simply a literal request for raw data; it was also a rbuke to your utter moral relativism, and an attempt to show you that she, if she were to adopt a world-view like yours, would have no more compelling of a need to care about your murder than you care about the killing of a 5-day-old embryo/blastocyst. If all morality is illusory and/or mere social happenstance, then there is no special reason to follow it, so long as one is powerful/rich/sneaky/etc. enough to accomplish that non-conformity.
If she’s using her conclusion as part of the premise, then that’s not logical. Hey – the situation *can make a difference.* I’m betting that X would be in favor of killing under certain situations.
___
I also suspect that Xalisae was hoping against hope that you (personally) would draw yourself up, blink, and say, “Wow… I wouldn’t like it if Xalisae were so callous about my murder, since I or any human should be worth enough to have their murder move the heart of another good person, at least somewhat! And if my world-view would allow her to do that and still consider herself a ‘good’ person, then my world-view must be flawed!”
That’s why I wanted to know what the situation was – if what you say could apply.
____
“If 2 guys in their 20’s scout out a retired cop’s house, and they plot to rob him one night for money for drugs, and upon breaking into his house, they get filled full of lead (or, if he could manage, to bash their skulls in), then “I don’t give a crap.” Heck, I’m all for it, actually. I’m fine with the guy’s motivation, there. Yet if he knows the 12 year old next door is mentally disabled and harmless, and the 12 year old breaks into the house, then I don’t think the ex-cop should shoot to kill. If he did, I would not be fine with the guy’s motivation.”
All right. Now, the $64,000 question: on what basis are you “not fine” with the ex-cop’s massacre of the disabled boy? What about it bothers you, exactly? To what standard of “right/wrong”, “justice/injustice”, etc. do you appeal, when protesting the fact that his “reason” is not satisfactory? It must be one of two things: (a) the result of an external, objective source of “rightness/wrongness” (or whatever words you wish to use, when describing “positive vs. negative” in the moral domain), or (b) your mere personal whims/tastes… akin to your like or dislike for anchovies.
I would not want the boy to be unhappy, nor his family. I don’t want suffering, per se. “Anchovies” :) I’ve often compared people’s “moral” opinions to wanting anchovies or not on pizza. “Eye of the beholder.”
____
“X asks why she should give a crap. Okay, let’s look at the situation. Is it certain she would give a crap? Is it possible? Is it impossible?”
By all means, we can ask all of the above… but since they are all abstract, a priori questions, you would not move even one jot closer to the objective, which is to give a BASIS for having her care about your murder, and for deciding whether she was right or wrong, satisfactory or unsatisfactory, human or inhuman, in her position. The question of “COULD she?” is absolutely distinct from the more relevant question, “SHOULD she?” Surely you know that we’ve been “pestering” you about the latter, and not about the (utterly-self-evident) former?
It’s not “abstract.” It’s how X would feel. There is no necessary “should.” Let’s look at reality – how people actually do feel.
Morality is, so far as I can tell (and the dictionaries and encyclopaedias of the world seem to corroborate this, I think), the study of “right and wrong” actions, and the study of the bases for making such determinations (i.e. what humans “should” and “should not” do: what is “good” and what is “evil” in human actions and behaviour). I see no possible way to talk coherently about anything of the sort, without some acknowledgment of objective standards.
“So obviously it is ideas of “good/bad/right/wrong” in the moral realm, and any associated “shoulds” and “should nots.”
Right.
Well, that’s a first. ;) Paladin, my best wishes to you and all of yours, this holiday season.
____
“Doesn’t have to be “objective” –
It would quickly reduce itself to mere nonsense and vacuity, if it were not.
Nope – you’re pretending that your view of “morality” is that it stems from an unassilable vision of reality, when the reality is that it’s your subjective vision of it.
___
“if “everybody” or “all consciousnesses” think that “Q is good,” then we can go from there – we’ve already defined it as good, and it may well be that there are logical courses of action aimed at ensuring it.”
That simply doesn’t follow, at all. If every last person were to think that “2 + 2 = 5?, then it could rightly be said that every last person would be deceived, in such a case. You seem to be suggesting that “social consensus determines morality”; but isn’t that precisely what you’re trying to PROVE (i.e. defending moral relativism)? It’s hardly cricket to assume what you’re trying to prove, you know.
Physical or logical – which includes mathematics – quantities are different. Given our shared perceptions of the physical nature of the universe, and of logic/mathematics, your example makes no sense. No, no “deception,” there. Rather, what would account for that is a different definition of “2” or “5,” if anything. I am not asserting there is anything beyond what you and I agree upon, while you and I are.
____
“You lost me there, Paladin. Why would there need to be an “objective standard” for length or measurement, when we are seeking to determine only which of two objects is the longer?”
Well… surely you can see that, if the ruler (which we seek to use as a standard) kept changing in size (or bent double on itself, turned to liquid or gas, rearranged the numbers, etc.), it would be impossible to make any determinations about length, at all? If the finish-line of a race were to keep moving away, how would one ever determine the winning time?
What does “the ruler” have to do with it? If we think that one item is longer than the other, we’re going to say that, no? We look at two items, we move around them, or “turn them around in our hands,” if possible, we compare them, etc., then we say which one is longer.
____
“Morality in no way needs any “objective standards.”
I’m afraid it does, dear fellow… just as mathematics requires numbers. Try to imagine one without the other, and one either conjures up “numbers” in some other form (e.g. words or variables, in some sort of consistent order), or else nothing at all.
No it doesn’t. We can agree on logic and mathematics. But they can represent external physical reality, among other things. Morality is not that way. Morality is a concept of the mind.
____
“All that’s required is that there are thoughts in the moral realm, feelings of “good,bad,right,wrong” and feelings of what the “shoulds” and the “should nots” are.”
Do you not see that all of your terms “good, bad, right, wrong” are utterly meaningless, if that is so?
Nonsense. In X’s example, it’s what she thinks, whether she gives a crap or not, etc.
____
If “good” means simply “what I happen to be doing”, then why add the extra word? Why not simply say “this is what I am doing”?
I didn’t say that’s what it simply means. “Good” depends on feelings. It’s not just chance. And in no way does it have anything necessarily to do with “what I am doing.” It may be entirely unrelated to that. It may just be what is desired by that mind, whether or not they have anything to do with it, directly.
____
If “good” means simply “what happens to please me”, then why speak of “good” at all, unless you already have the idea that it is “better” to be pleased than to be displeased? There’s a hidden standard, waiting in the shadows, even then!
Heh – then yeah – there’s the “hidden standard” of “we like what we like,” and that we’d rather be pleased than displeased.
X: From lurking about here, all I can determine from subsequent writings of our adversary-friend Doug is that, were I to embark on a campaign to make the home invasion and assault/murder at his address publicly acceptable and enough members of society believe it should be seen as a societal right or just action, then it would be so.
Why do you say that? There is no guarantee the others would agree with you.
____
He doesn’t seem to have a real morality of his own, but he simply seems to be ready to side with whatever society has come to accept or see as worthwhile (why he actively engages on a crusade of defense for these currently-upheld pseudo-ideals against us is beyond me, though. Fear of change, perhaps? lol!). He’s adopted what amounts to mob mentality as a sort of prosthetic morality for himself.
Nonsense. There are my own feelings, and they may or may or not be in agreement with society’s position, just the same as what is true for you, X. In no way will I necessarily agree with “mob rule” or what a given majority says. Again, same as you.
___
Let us say, Doug, just to put your mind at ease, that this is an alternate reality in which gangsters like Bonnie and Clyde became SO wildly popular, and the general public became SO sympathetic to their criminal celebrity that for their sake (and certain other popular and well-known criminals like them), the public eventually urged the police to leave them be and let them do as they pleased. That eventually, society changed laws to reflect that if a criminal was proficient at plying his or her trade to a remarkable degree, anything they did became legal and the criminal justice system would no longer seek to bring them to justice. So in their case, the notion of justice itself had been changed to become a variant of “Might makes right.”
As stated, I wouldn’t agree that it was right. In general, neither you nor I will necessarily agree that such would be right, from what I can tell from what you’ve written.
___
Now, the criminals who burst into your home, assaulting you and your wife in this criminal-tolerant or even criminal-oriented world were some of the best! Lucky you! They decided to leave their calling card at YOUR home and honor YOU with their crime (if it could even be called that in this reality…I mean…I would still consider it a crime…But I also have my own standards. *smirk*). You’ll be the envy of every house on your block, if you ever leave intensive care.
Well there you go – now you’ve stated more about the motivation of “Bonnie and Clyde.” I would not agree with that. Yeah, in fact – the public did give Bonnie and Clyde “a lot of love,” but it didn’t change the overall human moral perception that it’s “wrong” to have our stuff stolen, and for us to be killed without a good enough reason. In general, we fear those, feel they are wrong, and tend to legislate against them.
____
And Doug-way to be intentionally obtuse yet again in response to my statement of the bank robbers. Of course it’s legal for bank employees to give money to armed assailants (unless of course, it’s later found out that one of the bank employees was in cahoots with the robbers. You know that , right?). Don’t be so dense. You know I was speaking of the armed men TAKING The money from them, not them GIVING the money.
Makes no sense, X. If there is being “intentionally obtuse” here, it’s not on my part. It’s either on your part, or you just made a mistake. Here is what you said:
There is also not an agreement that banks should not give their money to armed robbers at gunpoint, or else there wouldn’t be bank robbers. Now…should we legalize it?
Look, I knew you were referring to “the people taking the money.” But you said, “or else there wouldn’t be bank robbers.” Well, what if there *was* an agreement that banks “should not give the money to the people”? Really, that’s what we have now, right? (Because it’s lot legal for the people to have the money.) As you said, you really meant the money passing from the bank to the people, illegally.
So, to directly respond to what you did say – that unless we had that agreement, there would not be bank robbers, all I can say is that we *do* have that agreement (per what you said, above), and there are still bank robbers.
Your question, “should we legalize it?” was based on a false premise – that there would be no bank robbers if we had an agreement that banks should not give up their money.
“Tyler, because on balance they are unwanted. Because, all in all, the woman does not want to have a baby. This is not to say that the baby is not inside the woman. That is a given.”
But if there are a million other independent autonomous organisms living inside the Mother, why is she focusing on the fetus? What is about the fetus that is making her want to abort the fetus rather than all of the other living organisms inside her?
Well, Tyler, it’s up to her. However, I’m betting the potential size, the time of its residence, the impact on the woman, etc., might just make a difference. ;)
Paladin: Side-topic, but: on some days, I’d give a great deal to have names associated with the “likes” on some of these posts! Curiosity is getting the better of me… :)
I don’t think many people, period, are reading this old, long, and soon-to-have-disabled-comments thread.
[Doug]: Well, Tyler, it’s up to her.
Doug, why is it up to her? If you respond that it is her choice because it is her body that makes my previous question relevant again: How does the fetus affect/impact her bodily autonomy? Do you consider the fetus a part of the Mother’s body or a separate autonomous being?
[Doug]:However, I’m betting the potential size, the time of its residence, the impact on the woman, etc., might just make a difference.
Could you please clarify some of the reasons you listed above. When you say that a woman is aborting the fetus because of its size are you trying to argue that the Mother is fearful of giving birth? What does the }potential seize” of the fetus have to do with abortion in your opinion?
Does “the time of its residence” refer to the nine months it takes to complete a typical pregnancy?
When you said that the “impact on the woman” might be a reason for the Mother to abort what kind of impacts does a fetus on a woman?
Lastly, do not all of the above listed reasons indicate/reveal that the fetus and the Mother are in a “symbiotic” relationship? And that all of these reasons indicate that her body is not autonomous, but rather that the pregnant Mother who desires an abortion is trying to make her body autonomous, to reinstate her body to its pre-pregnant condition? Or are you saying that a woman’s bodily relationship with a fetus is no different than her body’s relationship with a parasite?
Doug, I am still not clear when you talk about bodily autonomy for a pregnant woman. What does “bodily autonomy” mean in the context of the biology of the pregnant woman and the biology of the unborn?
I’m saying that I’m making some assumptions, and, given those, that other people are too.
Paladin: Yes… and I’ll say, yet again: that says nothing at all about morality, whatsoever. Yes, I heard your protestations about “relative morality being sufficient”… but that simply isn’t the case, and (as I mentioned earlier) any attempt will degenerate either into a flat contradiction, or into a tautology (i.e. vacuous truth, meaning nothing). Suppose one were to say, “The rightness of my actions depends on whether I like/want the action, or not”; and when asked why that standard is used, one replies by saying, “because likes and wants are the basis for my morality”… which is utterly circular, and says nothing. One might as well say “I will do what I will do,” (which is true, but utterly empty of content) or “I like what I like,” or “I judge to be moral that which I do not judge to be immoral or neutral.” None of them say anything at all; they are mere winds and words.
Well good grief, Paladin, you’d said that, “your assumptions, by your current standards, have no basis in any “fact” at all!”
I have agreed, all along, that nothing beyond the fact of its own consciousness is truly “provable” for a consciousness (conscious entity). I’m not claiming that morality comes from any “external fact.”
I’m saying assumptions are necessarily involved, for more than that. When it comes to morality, that that is the case. You have pointed out things in that beyond-the-fact-of-its-own conscousness area that you say are hardly objective fact, and I agree.
Yes – the “rightness of my actions depends on whether I like/want the action, or not.” Only think is – that’s for me. Nobody is saying that others will necessarily agree or disagree. Indeed, likes and wants are the basis for morality, on the individual basis, that of groups, of entire societies, etc. That is not necessarily saying that another given entity will agree with it.
“I like what I like.” Yes, of course.
“I will do what I will do.” This is true as well, but the subject’s and any other applicable entity’s morality will be involved here too, i.e. even if all other things being equal the subject wanted to do a thing, the opinion of other entities could well make a difference. Maybe he wants to kiss that pretty girl over there, but he’d rather not get charged with some version of ‘assault,’ so in the end his desire to stay out of jail predominates.
Doug, I am still not clear when you talk about bodily autonomy for a pregnant woman. What does “bodily autonomy” mean in the context of the biology of the pregnant woman and the biology of the unborn?
Tyler, there is the societal idea of bodily autonomy, and that is really the one that is at issue in the abortion debate – that she has a right to do what she wants with her body and its contents, up to a point (of course). That point is arguable, and is argued all the time.
In the “context of the biology of the pregnant woman” it really is not at issue. It does have “meaning,” i.e. the unborn can die without her dying, etc. There, it’s “just the (physical) facts, ma’am.” ;)
Why do you say that? There is no guarantee the others would agree with you.
Oh for Pete’s sake, Doug…Pretend I am a highly-skilled and very powerful Jedi, if it makes you more comfortable with my scenario. XD
In general, we fear those, feel they are wrong, and tend to legislate against them.
Yes, but you seem to be turning a blind eye to the numerous times in history in which either those people committing the crimes WERE the ones who did the legislating. You need to step out of the comfort of your trust-box and let yourself realize that society as a whole in many situations over the years has NOT decided that crimes against certain groups (those determined to be “witches” in Salem, blacks later on in America, Jews in Germany, etc.) were “wrong” or that they were really crimes at all. You’re so unconcerned with others and have so much faith in “society” that you seem to be unwilling to see that human beings are flawed and capable of a great many evils, society is made out of human beings, and therefore society has the capacity to be flawed and also capable of a great many evils-even against its own components.
But you said, “or else there wouldn’t be bank robbers.”
Yes. Because the prospective bank robbers would think about their planned actions, determine them to be inappropriate, and then not engage in the behavior. Nobody would do anything they didn’t think was right to themselves-whether they’ve justified a wrongdoing to themselves or just don’t think it is wrong in the first place. Even if they regret it afterward, there was something going on in their brains at the time they did it that was making them think it was ok. Although…I don’t know. Maybe that’s just MY faith in “society” playing tricks on me.
Anyway, my point was that apparently at least a few people think it should be ok to forcibly withdraw money from a bank that isn’t yours, and typically, those are the ones we see opting to forcibly withdraw money that isn’t theirs from banks.
(Doug): “Tyler, because on balance they are unwanted. Because, all in all, the woman does not want to have a baby. This is not to say that the baby is not inside the woman. That is a given.”
But if there are a million other independent autonomous organisms living inside the Mother, why is she focusing on the fetus? What is about the fetus that is making her want to abort the fetus rather than all of the other living organisms inside her?
“Well, Tyler, it’s up to her.”
Doug, why is it up to her? If you respond that it is her choice because it is her body that makes my previous question relevant again: How does the fetus affect/impact her bodily autonomy? Do you consider the fetus a part of the Mother’s body or a separate autonomous being?
I realize you don’t agree on the extent that bodily autonomy should apply here, but it’s up to her because it’s her body that is pregnant. There could be hundreds of millions, even billions or more other opinions, but she is the only one that is pregnant. We all have millions of bacteria inside us. Okay, that’s one deal. I bet if I could wave a magic wand and make you pregnant, this second, it would have more impact on you than taking away or adding one of those bacteria.
___
“However, I’m betting the potential size, the time of its residence, the impact on the woman, etc., might just make a difference.”
Could you please clarify some of the reasons you listed above. When you say that a woman is aborting the fetus because of its size are you trying to argue that the Mother is fearful of giving birth? What does the “potential seize” of the fetus have to do with abortion in your opinion?
Who knows on “fearful of giving birth.” That is not the same as being pregnant, being the parent of a born kid, etc. You’d have to ask her. She could have given birth, before, and found it not all that bad, but still not want to have another kid, no way. If the “unborn baby” didn’t get beyond the size of a bacteria, didn’t have any more impact on the woman that that, then could well be she wouldn’t care so much.
____
Does “the time of its residence” refer to the nine months it takes to complete a typical pregnancy?
Yeah, or the time left in the pregnancy.
____
When you said that the “impact on the woman” might be a reason for the Mother to abort what kind of impacts does a fetus on a woman?
Get pregnant yerself, sonny boy, and experience those “impacts what does a fetus on a woman.” ;)
____
Lastly, do not all of the above listed reasons indicate/reveal that the fetus and the Mother are in a “symbiotic” relationship?
Mostly no, and a little tiny bit of “well, perhaps, yes.” The “yes” is that I guess there is some, though farfetched, case to be made that they are in a commensalist relationship, like the bacteria in our digestive systems – if in fact they are (there’s debate there too).
As far as mutualism and parasitism (two other types of symbiosis) I don’t think it fits. Overall, I think you gotta have different species for the “symbiotic” to apply.
And that all of these reasons indicate that her body is not autonomous, but rather that the pregnant Mother who desires an abortion is trying to make her body autonomous, to reinstate her body to its pre-pregnant condition? Or are you saying that a woman’s bodily relationship with a fetus is no different than her body’s relationship with a parasite?
[Doug]: Tyler, there is the societal idea of bodily autonomy, and that is really the one that is at issue in the abortion debate – that she has a right to do what she wants with her body and its contents, up to a point (of course). That point is arguable, and is argued all the time. In the “context of the biology of the pregnant woman” it really is not at issue. It does have “meaning,” i.e. the unborn can die without her dying, etc. There, it’s “just the (physical) facts, ma’am.”
Doug, so am I right in concluding that “bodily autonomy” means “the ability of one person to use their body to kill the unborn with society’s permission.” Does this mean that when people make the claim for bodily autonomy they are claiming a right to abortion?
X: From lurking about here, all I can determine from subsequent writings of our adversary-friend Doug is that, were I to embark on a campaign to make the home invasion and assault/murder at his address publicly acceptable and enough members of society believe it should be seen as a societal right or just action, then it would be so.
“Why do you say that? There is no guarantee the others would agree with you.”
Oh for Pete’s sake, Doug…Pretend I am a highly-skilled and very powerful Jedi, if it makes you more comfortable with my scenario. XD
:) Ha! You may be, X. That wouldn’t still make for you to be able to change society’s opinion on home invasion, necessarily, though.
____
“In general, we fear those, feel they are wrong, and tend to legislate against them.”
Yes, but you seem to be turning a blind eye to the numerous times in history in which either those people committing the crimes WERE the ones who did the legislating. You need to step out of the comfort of your trust-box and let yourself realize that society as a whole in many situations over the years has NOT decided that crimes against certain groups (those determined to be “witches” in Salem, blacks later on in America, Jews in Germany, etc.) were “wrong” or that they were really crimes at all. You’re so unconcerned with others and have so much faith in “society” that you seem to be unwilling to see that human beings are flawed and capable of a great many evils, society is made out of human beings, and therefore society has the capacity to be flawed and also capable of a great many evils-even against its own components.
How does that alter what I said? The legislators themselves don’t want to be killed or have their stuff stolen. Sure, it’s not to say that “everybody on earth gets the exact same treatment.” This has been true and will continue to be true. I won’t necessarily agree with a given societal dictum any more than you do.
___
“But you said, “or else there wouldn’t be bank robbers.”
Yes. Because the prospective bank robbers would think about their planned actions, determine them to be inappropriate, and then not engage in the behavior.
That does not make sense. Again, here is what you said: There *is also not* an agreement that banks should not give their money to armed robbers at gunpoint, or else there wouldn’t be bank robbers.
Let’s say “there *was* an agreement that banks should not give their money to armed robbers at gunpoint.” What would that necessarily matter? Nothing. Why would bank robbers care? They’re not operating under the assumption that banks are going to willingly give them the money, now.
____
Nobody would do anything they didn’t think was right to themselves-whether they’ve justified a wrongdoing to themselves or just don’t think it is wrong in the first place. Even if they regret it afterward, there was something going on in their brains at the time they did it that was making them think it was ok. Although…I don’t know. Maybe that’s just MY faith in “society” playing tricks on me.
Uh… what? ;) I agree that (short of physical compulsion otherwise) people will do what they want, the most, from among their available options. In no way am I placing any “ultimate” faith in society. You and/or I may agree or disagree with a given society’s position on an issue. “Society,” is just one more entity with an opinion, albeit often reflected in law, now.
On the bank robbers – I’m just saying it would really not make any difference to them whether or not there was an agreement to “not give robbers the money.” The robbers are there to take the money, not depend on the bank to willingly hand it over. And, “not agreeing to not hand it over” is not the same thing as “agreeing to hand it over.”
On “faith in society” I think we can generalize somewhat. It tends to do what most of its members and/or its more-influential members want. If there is enough opinion for a law to be made, it will be. All a law or a societal position need for existence is sufficient opinion that it should be. This is not saying that a given individual, group, or the majority will necessarily agree with it.
____
Anyway, my point was that apparently at least a few people think it should be ok to forcibly withdraw money from a bank that isn’t yours, and typically, those are the ones we see opting to forcibly withdraw money that isn’t theirs from banks.
I don’t know that I’d say that is true. Do they really think “it’s okay”? Do they really want a society where that is permitted? I say no. I think they more want some “free” money for themselves more than they want to avoid the risk of the penalties that society will lay on them if they get caught. Robbers aren’t sitting around saying, “I think society should be changed like this….” They’re sitting around saying, “Is it worth it for us to try this…?”
[Doug]: Tyler, there is the societal idea of bodily autonomy, and that is really the one that is at issue in the abortion debate – that she has a right to do what she wants with her body and its contents, up to a point (of course). That point is arguable, and is argued all the time. In the “context of the biology of the pregnant woman” it really is not at issue. It does have “meaning,” i.e. the unborn can die without her dying, etc. There, it’s “just the (physical) facts, ma’am.”
Doug, so am I right in concluding that “bodily autonomy” means “the ability of one person to use their body to kill the unborn with society’s permission.” Does this mean that when people make the claim for bodily autonomy they are claiming a right to abortion?
Tyler, of course – within the context of the abortion debate – bodily autonomy is mentioned as being a justification for abortion being legal, yeah. We believe in liberty; we think it’s good for the individual to be free, up to a point where society has a good enough reason to restrict it.
It means a lot more than that (abortion should be legal) within society, but again, within the context of abortion and legality, then indeed – killing the unborn (having an abortion) – very probably with restrictions later in gestation – is what it means for most people. I say that because neither pro-lifers nor most pro-choicers support totally unregulated, unrestricted abortion.
Tyler: And that all of these reasons indicate that her body is not autonomous, but rather that the pregnant Mother who desires an abortion is trying to make her body autonomous, to reinstate her body to its pre-pregnant condition?
No – the biological autonomy really never changes much, still different organisms, etc. As far as “trying to reinstate her body to its pre-pregnant condition,” makes sense to me. She wasn’t pregnant then, and she doesn’t want to be pregnant now…
____
Or are you saying that a woman’s bodily relationship with a fetus is no different than her body’s relationship with a parasite?
Yet again – I don’t think the “parasite” thing would truly fit for the unborn since they’re not a different species.
Doug, it appears that I may have found a logical fallacy in one of your arguments. You have claimed previously that a woman has a right to abortion because she has bodily autonomy. You then went on to define “bodily autonomy” as the right to have an abortion. Is this not a fallacy in definition? Isn’t the pro-choice side begging the question when they raise the topic of “bodily autonomy” in order to defend the right to abortion?
You have claimed previously that a woman has a right to abortion because she has bodily autonomy.
Tyler, I’ve said that that is part-and-parcel of it for many people, and that within society bodily autonomy relates to us being free to do what we want, unless society has a good enough reason to restrict that freedom. I’m not claiming any “absolute” right here (there is no such thing).
___
You then went on to define “bodily autonomy” as the right to have an abortion. Is this not a fallacy in definition?
Come on, I didn’t state it like that, in an unqualified manner. How about this: “within the context of the abortion debate – bodily autonomy is mentioned as being a justification for abortion being legal” – how about that, Tyler, especially since that’s what I did say?
____
Isn’t the pro-choice side begging the question when they raise the topic of “bodily autonomy” in order to defend the right to abortion?
Hey – people care about liberty, they care about being free. It’s part of the debate, it’s part of the argument. It’s generally true that in society we all want to have our own bodily autonomy, and we also want many things in common (that’s really what makes us a society in the first place). There may well be arguing – as there is – about where our rights should stop, and society’s need for regulation begins. It’s a question.
I think it’s less than a day until this thread shuts down as far as comments. We’ll need to go to another thread if we want to keep going.
[Tyler]: Isn’t the pro-choice side begging the question when they raise the topic of “bodily autonomy” in order to defend the right to abortion?
{Doug]: Hey – people care about liberty, they care about being free. It’s part of the debate, it’s part of the argument. It’s generally true that in society we all want to have our own bodily autonomy, and we also want many things in common (that’s really what makes us a society in the first place). There may well be arguing – as there is – about where our rights should stop, and society’s need for regulation begins. It’s a question.
Doug, unless you can prove that using the “bodily autonomy” argument to support the right to abortion is not a logical fallacy I will continue to think that it is the case. As of now, you have not provided me with a reason to think otherwise. In fact, it appears your logical mind seems to be yielding to the fact that pro-choicers are committing a logical fallacy when they use the “bodily autonomy” argument to defend the right to abortion?
Hmm… Comments still going…
Merry Christmas, Tyler!
Doug, unless you can prove that using the “bodily autonomy” argument to support the right to abortion is not a logical fallacy I will continue to think that it is the case. As of now, you have not provided me with a reason to think otherwise. In fact, it appears your logical mind seems to be yielding to the fact that pro-choicers are committing a logical fallacy when they use the “bodily autonomy” argument to defend the right to abortion?
“Prove it’s not a logical fallacy”? What does that mean?
Dude, people care about being free, and thus our societal laws and principles of government tend to involve freedom and bodily autonomy, quite often, especially in the sense of the laws that *do not* exist, as it’s seen that society does not have a good enough reason to restrict or take away our freedom in a given circumstance.
Merry Christmas.
Doug, if bodily autonomy is simply not an euphemism for abortion, abortion is merely one way a woman can exercise her bodily autonomy. The argument about abortion is really an argument about what the proper limits of bodily autonomy are. Society already puts limits on bodily autonomy. For example, currently society only permits legal persons who have reached the age of majority to drink alcohol. Society also forbids certain drug use and the use of one’s own body to kill another person. Historically, society has defined harm to another or oneself as the threshold at which point one’s bodily autonomy is restricted.
With respect to abortion we need to consider the competing values of protecting and affirming each unborn human life to not protecting and not affirming each unborn life. These are the choices that exist for the Mother due to her bodily autonomy. Her bodily autonomy is independent of these two outcomes. She has her bodily autonomy whether she affirms and protects the unborn life or not. Therefore, the liberty that is defined as bodily autonomy is not a justification for abortion. Similarly, the liberty that all US citizens share does not permit one US citizen to murder another US citizen.
Furthermore, by not protecting the unborn by restricting the woman’s bodily autonomy to her own body we have expanded the accepted definition of what constitutes bodily autonomy beyond its historical “no harm to another or oneself” limitation. If this definition of bodily autonomy does not change or remains on the legal books society would be exposed to hearing arguments that will say it is arbitrary to confine the concept of bodily autonomy to pregnant women. Certain people will argue that since a pregnant woman can terminate another human being grown adults should be able to terminate their own life. These people will argue that bodily autonomy should not be a liberty granted to only born pregnant human beings.
So the question remains: is bodily autonomy the right of every human being, or does bodily autonomy have some limits, and can we extend those limits to protect the unborn? Or alternatively society can ask if the unborn have a right to bodily autonomy (aka personhood) and the protections that right would afford them. Ultimately, however, society needs to squarely ask the following questions: What does the killing of the unborn really mean and what does the killing of the unborn say about our society.