Post by: Perd Hapley on February 02, 2007, 05:24:59 AM
Quote
Jowly, bumptious theocrat/neocon hybrids don't have a sense of humor, no.
MW,
I'm curious why you lump the "theocrats" in with the "neo-cons." I thought those were two groups that didn't always get along. If by theocrats you mean conservative Christian Republican types like myself, that seems odd. I thought we were pretty conservative, politically, tending to favor gun rights and lower taxes, etc., while neo-cons are more moderate and tend to favor a larger govt. role for domestic issues along with an interventionist foreign policy. I would also not think of neo-cons as being very dependable to support the "theocrat" position on abortion or homosexual marriage. Not that they wouldn't do whatever gets them elected. But neo-con usually seems to mean whatever people want it to.
Yes I know there are plenty of religiously conservative Christians who aren't so libertarian on the gun or tax issues. I think that may be a class divide, between working-class folk like myself and more bourgeois middle-classers.
Post by: MechAg94 on February 02, 2007, 05:30:36 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 02, 2007, 05:35:56 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on February 02, 2007, 05:55:59 AM
All the labeling is pointless. Throw out a few issues and your position. That is what people want to know. The more I read, the more I see that everyone looks at the labels differently anyway.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 02, 2007, 06:10:41 AM
Conservative, liberal and progressive are highly abused terms anyway. I'm a conservative in terms of religion and morals, but my small govt. point of view is both progressive and liberal. I'm trying to use the word leftist when referring to the "liberals" and "progressives." Of course, we don't use those terms correctly, anyway.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 02, 2007, 06:32:22 AM
Most obvious example: School board members, now thrown out, who tried to shove the "intelligent design" bit down everyone's throats in SCIENCE classrooms. It belongs in Religious Studies, NOT Science. Scientific theories are based on conclusions drawn from empirical evidence, with all effort dedicated to proving, DISproving, or expanding on them to make them into scientific fact.
Other examples would be trying to legislate the morality of others based upon one's own belief system. This, however, usually ends in irony, as it's the loudest bible-thumping screaming politicans who tend to get caught with their pants literally down with a transvestite prostitute...or involved in something else that'd horrify the most liberal, but SANE sorts out there in regards to "That's just GROSS" sexual proclivities.
Some people use religion as a way to try to understand themselves. Others use it as a bludgeon to beat others with to cover for the fact that they despise themselves.
The candidate who tried to run on the Constitution party was a theocrat, and a frightening one, defining that Americans must believe in his flavor of Christian scripture, that "this is what an American believes". Uh...no.
And a theocrat/neocon hybrid is the most dangerous sort, as they tend to use their belief system as an excuse for world-spanning political decisions. They're the modern incarnation of the Spanish missionaries, who thought they had a duty to go out and conquer lands, get the gold and convert the natives...by force. The least dangerous is one that just thinks this is all a black and white "second Crusades". The REALLY scary ones are the ones who could care less what happens in the long run, as they truly believe that these are the "end times" and think this is all to do with some sort of final battle, and they'll get hoovered out of their hot tubs in the rapture anyway.
Post by: richyoung on February 02, 2007, 07:11:13 AM
Most obvious example: School board members, now thrown out, who tried to shove the "intelligent design" bit down everyone's throats in SCIENCE classrooms. It belongs in Religious Studies, NOT Science. Scientific theories are based on conclusions drawn from empirical evidence, with all effort dedicated to proving, DISproving, or expanding on them to make them into scientific fact.
You apparently have little to no knowledge of what "Intelligent design" theory actually is.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 02, 2007, 07:31:16 AM
Most obvious example: School board members, now thrown out, who tried to shove the "intelligent design" bit down everyone's throats in SCIENCE classrooms. It belongs in Religious Studies, NOT Science. Scientific theories are based on conclusions drawn from empirical evidence, with all effort dedicated to proving, DISproving, or expanding on them to make them into scientific fact.
You apparently have little to no knowledge of what "Intelligent design" theory actually is.
Generally, when someone says something like that, they provide an explanation.
And yes, I do. It's an unprovable tenet of FAITH relabled as science. It is not provable or disprovable by the scientific method, therefore it is not science.
It's Creationism with a new bottle and some new flavors added to bring it from the Scopes trial into the 21st century.
As I said, it belongs in the Religious Studies classroom. We don't need science being derailed by religion, or the rest of the world, focused on science, will pull happily ahead in all aspects of industry and innovation.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 02, 2007, 07:54:51 AM
I guess I'm wondering who these hybrids are. You seem to think that they dominate the party, so there should be plenty of examples. Can you point out some efforts to enact religious beliefs into law? Something other than ID?
Post by: Tallpine on February 02, 2007, 08:01:13 AM
Quote
And yes, I do. It's an unprovable tenet of FAITH relabled as science. It is not provable or disprovable by the scientific method, therefore it is not science.
It's Creationism with a new bottle and some new flavors added to bring it from the Scopes trial into the 21st century.
It's Creationism with a new bottle and some new flavors added to bring it from the Scopes trial into the 21st century.
The bolded portion above pretty much defines "evolution theory" as well.
What bugs me is that they never seem to teach about the significant problems with evolution theory. It all seems to boil down to: "well, we are here now so we must have evolved"
If you disagree with that logic, then you are some kind of stupid, pig-headed, fanatical religious type.Me - I'm pretty much a skeptic in all matters of religion and science.
Quote
I'm a conservative in terms of religion and morals
That's fine unless you want to impose your religion/morals on others.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 02, 2007, 08:06:42 AM
Ix-nay on the ID-ay. I'll start another thread, OK?
Quote
That's fine unless you want to impose your religion/morals on others.
Ah, but the question is, "what do you mean by that?"
Post by: Tallpine on February 02, 2007, 08:38:17 AM
Quote
Ah, but the question is, "what do you mean by that?"
Basically, if it's not hurting you or some other third party, it's none of your business.
Post by: Bogie on February 02, 2007, 08:38:57 AM
You know, the Republicans used to be the party of the educated...
Post by: Manedwolf on February 02, 2007, 08:40:52 AM
Quote
Ah, but the question is, "what do you mean by that?"
Basically, if it's not hurting you or some other third party, it's none of your business.
Quote
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson
-Thomas Jefferson
Quote
You know, the Republicans used to be the party of the educated...
And yes, the Enlightenment, when statesmen actually SPOKE. When they actually wrote eloquent letters with turns of phrase both sublime and vicious. When philosophers such as Locke and Hume and the essential rights of human beings were argued over a silver pot of coffee by what would be, essentially, traditional Republicans.
Oh well.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 02, 2007, 08:41:26 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 02, 2007, 08:44:26 AM
Quote
Ah, but the question is, "what do you mean by that?"
Basically, if it's not hurting you or some other third party, it's none of your business.
By imposition, do you mean "force of law"? Or can I "impose" my morality/religion just by expressing my point of view? Be more specific, please.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 02, 2007, 08:47:02 AM
Quote
By imposition, do you mean "force of law"? Or can I "impose" my morality/religion just by expressing my point of view? Be more specific, please.
My input on that is that you're perfectly within your rights to say "I believe X, therefore I should..." It's when someone switches to "I believe X, therefore YOU should..." that it starts violating rights.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 02, 2007, 08:47:30 AM
Can you give me some specifics about theocrat/neocon hybrids? Name names. Tell me what they're doing and why you disagree with it.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 02, 2007, 08:55:15 AM
My input on that is that you're perfectly within your rights to say "I believe X, therefore I should..." It's when someone switches to "I believe X, therefore YOU should..." that it starts violating rights.
Such as, "I believe imposing one's beliefs on others is wrong, therefore YOU should not impose your beliefs on others?"
That's what you're saying, but I don't feel my rights are being violated. How about if we say, "I believe that you have a right to live as you wish, so long as you do not infringe on others' lives"? That seems like a moral belief we should impose on everyone, so as to preserve freedom. After all, what are laws against murder, theft, slavery and rape, if not impositions of morality?
Post by: charby on February 02, 2007, 10:48:51 AM
-C
Post by: Tallpine on February 02, 2007, 11:04:24 AM
Quote
Or can I "impose" my morality/religion just by expressing my point of view?
No ... or "yes" ... or whatever 
You can always express your point of view, and it is my problem if I am offended.
OTOH, if you express your point of view to your congressperson/senator with the intent of infringing my rights to live as I choose then you are imposing your morality/religion on me.
Actually, fistful - we probably have pretty similar views on morality, but I just don't want either your or my moral views imposed on others. I see lots of people that make bad lifestyle choices and suffer for it (and unfortunately the children too), but any attempt to legislate who you marry and who you sleep with engenders more problems than solutions.
Just always remember that the anti-gun people are trying to impose their "moral" views on the rest of us.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 02, 2007, 11:21:27 AM
Quote from: charby
The early Catholic Church is an example of a Theocrat/neocon. They wanted to conquer/own the world and make every one Catholic.
That's not precise enough. The "Church" wasn't out to conquer/own the world itself. They wanted the Princes of the world to all be Catholic, to ensure all their subjects were Catholic, and to seek to conquer non-Catholic lands and bring those people into the church when possible.
The key was they wanted those Princes to acknowledge both the spiritual and temporal leadership of the Pope. To pay fealty to the Popes as the ultimate arbiters of all questions religious and secular.
It is a fine distinction, but a real one. Power behind the throne versus power on the throne. Control versus direct ownership.
Post by: richyoung on February 02, 2007, 12:12:51 PM
Post by: glockfan.45 on February 02, 2007, 01:03:24 PM
Quote
Theocrat is definitely a pejorative outside of the Middle East, not the same at all as "social conservative." Really, one could be a social conservative without favoring any "restrictive" legislation. I'm a social conservative, but I don't want to outlaw sodomy and I'd even consider legalizing prostitution and drugs.
That POV doesnt match up well with your sig line.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 02, 2007, 01:41:40 PM
Post by: Ron on February 02, 2007, 02:34:56 PM
Quote
To me, a theocrat is anyone who tries to use legislative powers to enact as law the tenets of their particular belief system, thus restricting the rights of others who don't believe as they do.
That's right!! We only want godless materialistic elites enacting the tenants of their belief system!
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 03, 2007, 02:34:34 PM
Quote
Theocrat is definitely a pejorative outside of the Middle East, not the same at all as "social conservative." Really, one could be a social conservative without favoring any "restrictive" legislation. I'm a social conservative, but I don't want to outlaw sodomy and I'd even consider legalizing prostitution and drugs.
That POV doesnt match up well with your sig line.
Then you're probably not understanding one of them. What's not clear to you?
Post by: glockfan.45 on February 03, 2007, 05:35:53 PM
Quote
Then you're probably not understanding one of them. What's not clear to you?
Perhaps I am just misinterpreting things but your signature line would imply you to be pro-life which would logically make you against legal abortion.
Quote
Really, one could be a social conservative without favoring any "restrictive" legislation. I'm a social conservative, but I don't want to outlaw sodomy and I'd even consider legalizing prostitution and drugs.
Which doesnt work well with this sentiment. Explain yourself .
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 03, 2007, 05:48:46 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 03, 2007, 06:29:14 PM
I prefer "anti-abortion." I don't feel the need for euphemisms. As I have explained in this thread, I believe law should impose the moral idea of human rights. That is, if you violate someone's rights by killing them or stealing from them, you should face legal consequences. Abortion is a clear violation of the rights of the child. The fact that you would equate infanticide with prostitution or drug use is very sad.
Post by: Stand_watie on February 03, 2007, 08:54:40 PM
Quote
Then you're probably not understanding one of them. What's not clear to you?
Perhaps I am just misinterpreting things but your signature line would imply you to be pro-life which would logically make you against legal abortion.
Quote
Really, one could be a social conservative without favoring any "restrictive" legislation. I'm a social conservative, but I don't want to outlaw sodomy and I'd even consider legalizing prostitution and drugs.
Which doesnt work well with this sentiment. Explain yourself .Why doesn't it work well with his sentiment?
Post by: Stand_watie on February 03, 2007, 09:01:02 PM
Post by: glockfan.45 on February 04, 2007, 03:56:57 AM
Quote
I believe law should impose the moral idea of human rights
Morals are relative, you will find the nation to be pretty well divided on the issue (abortion) so I fail to see where any one group has the right to declare an act moral or immoral in this case. I personaly find the practice to be grotesque beyond a certian point, however the debate is still on about what passes as life so its hardly prudent for you or I to dictate personal philosophy to others on the matter.
Quote
That is, if you violate someone's rights by killing them or stealing from them, you should face legal consequences. Abortion is a clear violation of the rights of the child.
Depends on what you consider to be a child. I dont buy the "at the moment of conception argument". Quote
I'm a social conservative, but I don't want to outlaw sodomy and I'd even consider legalizing prostitution and drugs.
Summed up you either believe in the right of personal freedoms and responsibilities, or you believe that people can be dictated to based upon what a certian group feels is moral and right. My question for you is which is it?
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 04, 2007, 06:37:40 AM
If a fetus is a person, then he/she is protected by anti-murder laws. That I think is the core of fistful's position. From that POV, anti-abortion legislation is not additionally restrictive, at least not more than any anti-murder law already in effect. So, there is no inconsistency in his position.
The problem is to what extent the enforcement of an anti-murder-abortion law would necessitate new auxiliary grotesque laws which will be more than restrictive to females. Now that is where his position is highly assailable especially from a pragmatic standpoint.
The other weak spot is at the very beginning, namely when does a fetus become a person. Since it is probably a person when born, and just a cell at conception, it is not obvious to me where the dividing line is. And even then, it is not clear to me that society has the right to stipulate that the mother's life and well-being is less worthwhile than a fetus's. My logic is that the mother's personhood is beyond doubt while the fetus's is in doubt. Therefore, the safest bet is to give all rights and responsibilities to the mother, as that maximizes our chances of being right.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 04, 2007, 12:32:26 PM
Glockfan, if you want to understand me, I'll have to hash out this notion of imposing morality. All law, from laws against murder to equal opportunity laws to the tax code, is an imposition of morality of some sort. In a free country, the morality imposed by law would be what we might call the libertarian ethic. In other words, you have a right to live and believe as you wish, provided you don't infringe my right to do the same. Such a standard of law is not concerned with belief, and usually not with speech, but with action. You're free to disagree with the libertarian ethic in theory, but not in practice. To some extent, you are forced to live by it.
So, you have a right to believe and say that embryos are not persons, but not to kill the embryo based on that belief. We know that an embryo is of the same species as its parent and that it is a new organism. That is what reproduction does; it adds new members to the species. So we can agree that a human embryo is a human being and a new individual. It is not a part of its mother's body. Like other immature humans, it is not allowed to exercise all of its human rights, but it does have an inviolate right to life. That is, if you agree with the concept of human rights or at least agree that innocent humans must not be killed out-of-hand.
When we move from an objective concept of the embryo as a human (defined by biology) to a subjective concept of the embryo's personhood, and then kill embryos based on a denial of personhood, we are indeed imposing our morality on that embryo in a way that violates the notion of human rights. To accomodate CAnnoneer's view, we would have to replace human rights with personhood rights. Such a regime is far more flexible, thus more open to abuse. A human, the way I am using the term, is defined by fact (DNA and other physical characteristics). A "person" is defined in any way one chooses. It is a way of classifying others as sub-human in the same way the "lower races" or the mentally deficient have been dehumanized (or in our parlance de-personized) in the past.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 04, 2007, 01:10:51 PM
The problem is to what extent the enforcement of an anti-murder-abortion law would necessitate new auxiliary grotesque laws which will be more than restrictive to females. Now that is where his position is highly assailable especially from a pragmatic standpoint.
The other weak spot is at the very beginning, namely when does a fetus become a person. Since it is probably a person when born, and just a cell at conception, it is not obvious to me where the dividing line is. And even then, it is not clear to me that society has the right to stipulate that the mother's life and well-being is less worthwhile than a fetus's. My logic is that the mother's personhood is beyond doubt while the fetus's is in doubt. Therefore, the safest bet is to give all rights and responsibilities to the mother, as that maximizes our chances of being right.
The other weak spot is at the very beginning, namely when does a fetus become a person. Since it is probably a person when born, and just a cell at conception, it is not obvious to me where the dividing line is. And even then, it is not clear to me that society has the right to stipulate that the mother's life and well-being is less worthwhile than a fetus's. My logic is that the mother's personhood is beyond doubt while the fetus's is in doubt. Therefore, the safest bet is to give all rights and responsibilities to the mother, as that maximizes our chances of being right.
What a jumble of patently absurd notions, poor logic and worse ethics. I could spend a week untangling them all. Where to begin?
Equal enforcement of murder laws would certainly involve no new laws. People participating in abortions would be treated as participants in any other contract murder. Mothers, abortionists and other parties would, of course, be liable to prosecution as murderers. CAnnoneer's ramblings on this angle are a result of his speculation that maternal psychology affects miscarriage. He imagines trials in which juries would convict miscarrying women of murder on the basis of their being "stressed" or being angry with their husbands. Or he thinks that women would be force-fed and kept in hospitals to assure a successful pregnancy. Though of course we don't do this sort of thing with parents whose children are already born. Assail away, CAnny.
CAnnoneer, you are correct that there is no bright line between conception and birth. How you can then see some legal line between a child being a "person" on one side of the womb and "just a cell" on the other side is puzzling, except that you simply want to avoid any alignment with Pat Robertson on domestic policy. Conception is obviously the bright line at which we know that a new life has begun, and a human one. There is no reason not to respect that life from the beginning.
Being a man of science, I wonder how you can speak of a zygote being "just a cell." As if you were unaware of one-celled organisms. As if you didn't know that every elephant, dog and zebra, like every human, began life as a cell. We're all clumps of cells, you know. Some have more than others.
You speak of balancing the rights of the fetus against those of the mother. A true conception of rights doesn't need to balance anything. My rights do not, and cannot, infringe on yours. Nor can the fetus infringe on the mother's rights. After all, he is there at his mothers' and/or father's behest. If she chose to have sex, then she chose to hazard the child's existence inside her. Killing the child would be worst sort of refusal to accept responsibility for her actions. If she was raped, then our quarrel is with the rapist, not the hapless child, nor with those who would deny her an abortion. He was the one who violated her rights. She can no longer exercise the right not to be pregnant. That's part of the horror of rape. A man violated her right to control her body. Killing the child cannot change that. Rape cannot be undone.
If you want to maximize your chances of being right, then by all means allow the child to be born. Why not? The stakes are desperately high for the fetus, not so much for the mother. The fetus loses everything. The mother may lose her reputation. She may suffer a set-back in her education and never have the career she wanted. She may have to give her baby for adoption and always suffer that loss. She may spend her life in poverty. You may not be convinced that the embryo is really a person worthy of protection, but will you take the chance of allowing a murder just to avoid these things? Am I saying that she is less "worth-while" than the child? How so? I simply ask that the child be allowed to continue to live. As I have already stated, either she agreed to engage in pregnancy-inducing behavior or she was raped. In the first case, she has no right to weasel out of the consequences of her decision, when that would involve killing an innocent person. In the second case, murdering a child does not "undo" rape.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 04, 2007, 01:29:54 PM
Post by: roo_ster on February 04, 2007, 07:14:09 PM
CAnnoneer, thanks for doing half my work for me.
Glockfan, if you want to understand me, I'll have to hash out this notion of imposing morality. All law, from laws against murder to equal opportunity laws to the tax code, is an imposition of morality of some sort. In a free country, the morality imposed by law would be what we might call the libertarian ethic. In other words, you have a right to live and believe as you wish, provided you don't infringe my right to do the same. Such a standard of law is not concerned with belief, and usually not with speech, but with action. You're free to disagree with the libertarian ethic in theory, but not in practice. To some extent, you are forced to live by it.
So, you have a right to believe and say that embryos are not persons, but not to kill the embryo based on that belief. We know that an embryo is of the same species as its parent and that it is a new organism. That is what reproduction does; it adds new members to the species. So we can agree that a human embryo is a human being and a new individual. It is not a part of its mother's body. Like other immature humans, it is not allowed to exercise all of its human rights, but it does have an inviolate right to life. That is, if you agree with the concept of human rights or at least agree that innocent humans must not be killed out-of-hand.
When we move from an objective concept of the embryo as a human (defined by biology) to a subjective concept of the embryo's personhood, and then kill embryos based on a denial of personhood, we are indeed imposing our morality on that embryo in a way that violates the notion of human rights. To accomodate CAnnoneer's view, we would have to replace human rights with personhood rights. Such a regime is far more flexible, thus more open to abuse. A human, the way I am using the term, is defined by fact (DNA and other physical characteristics). A "person" is defined in any way one chooses. It is a way of classifying others as sub-human in the same way the "lower races" or the mentally deficient have been dehumanized (or in our parlance de-personized) in the past.
But, hey, dehumanizing inconvenient others makes social/sexual experimentation in a consequence-free environment possible!Glockfan, if you want to understand me, I'll have to hash out this notion of imposing morality. All law, from laws against murder to equal opportunity laws to the tax code, is an imposition of morality of some sort. In a free country, the morality imposed by law would be what we might call the libertarian ethic. In other words, you have a right to live and believe as you wish, provided you don't infringe my right to do the same. Such a standard of law is not concerned with belief, and usually not with speech, but with action. You're free to disagree with the libertarian ethic in theory, but not in practice. To some extent, you are forced to live by it.
So, you have a right to believe and say that embryos are not persons, but not to kill the embryo based on that belief. We know that an embryo is of the same species as its parent and that it is a new organism. That is what reproduction does; it adds new members to the species. So we can agree that a human embryo is a human being and a new individual. It is not a part of its mother's body. Like other immature humans, it is not allowed to exercise all of its human rights, but it does have an inviolate right to life. That is, if you agree with the concept of human rights or at least agree that innocent humans must not be killed out-of-hand.
When we move from an objective concept of the embryo as a human (defined by biology) to a subjective concept of the embryo's personhood, and then kill embryos based on a denial of personhood, we are indeed imposing our morality on that embryo in a way that violates the notion of human rights. To accomodate CAnnoneer's view, we would have to replace human rights with personhood rights. Such a regime is far more flexible, thus more open to abuse. A human, the way I am using the term, is defined by fact (DNA and other physical characteristics). A "person" is defined in any way one chooses. It is a way of classifying others as sub-human in the same way the "lower races" or the mentally deficient have been dehumanized (or in our parlance de-personized) in the past.
fistful pretty much nails it: objective criteria for being a human versus subjective criteria for being a person.
Of course, forcing folks to think about uncomfortable topics in a rational way that does not allow for fudging doesn't make one popular.
Post by: roo_ster on February 04, 2007, 07:26:12 PM
I disagree with the "discrediting" comment. fistful's argument logically flows from the fact that at conception, a new human it tossed into the mix.
Most don't like to follow logic down to so far, though. They'd prefer to have contradiction to logical application, if that application offends some other sensibility they might hold.
At risk of provoking the anti-Straussian troglodytes, I shall quote a bit from the man:
"Finite, relative problems can be solved; infinite, absolute problems cannot be solved. In other words, human beings will never create a society which is free from contradictions."
----Leo Strauss
In our case, we have a society that values human rights quite highly, but is willing to look the other way and see them eviscerated* when upholding the human rights of an unseen, silent, and physically small human could possibly inconvenience another visible, vocal, and full-grown human.
* Perhaps "dismembered" or "dilated & extracted" would be better terms here?
Post by: Ron on February 04, 2007, 07:45:24 PM
Quote
Most don't like to follow logic down to so far, though. They'd prefer to have contradiction to logical application, if that application offends some other sensibility they might hold.
Rights don't really exist to the materialists any more than absolute morality does.
They are both customs of convenience to them.
Our rights flow from our culture in their world and can be taken away at the whim of whomever is in power. They will not be able to decry this infringement on our God given rights.
They will not be able to argue consistently for inalienable rights because in their world rights are only a human construct. They are not something we are imbued with by our Creator but constructs that evolve with time.
The only real law to them when it is boiled right down to the essence is might makes right. The law of the jungle.
They use fancy words and arguments to dissemble, just keep taking what they believe to its logical conclusion and you will see that those in power make the rules.
The materialist who claims to believe in inalienable rights has no basis for his argument other than it is his preference.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 04, 2007, 08:29:53 PM
Perhaps this passage was confusing.
Quote
You speak of balancing the rights of the fetus against those of the mother. A true conception of rights doesn't need to balance anything. My rights do not, and cannot, infringe on yours. Nor can the fetus infringe on the mother's rights. After all, he is there at his mothers' and/or father's behest. If she chose to have sex, then she chose to hazard the child's existence inside her.
Allow me to expand.
You speak of balancing the rights of the fetus against those of the mother. A true conception of rights doesn't need to balance anything. My rights do not, and cannot, infringe on yours. If I am violating your rights, it is not because I am exercising my rights. It is because I have overstepped what I have a right to do. Nor is it possible for a fetus to infringe on the mother's rights, as the fetus is not capable of choosing to take residence in the womb or of choosing to leave. After all, he is there at his mothers' and/or father's behest. If she chose to have sex, then she chose to engage in behavior that might impregnate her. There are instances where very young or very ignorant girls might not understand the consequences of sex, but this is why we don't allow twelve-year olds to consent. In any case, I submit that no girl too naive to understand the birds and the bees would not still know that sex is something she is not supposed to be doing. Her conscience would tell her there are consequences, even if she doesn't know what those are.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 04, 2007, 09:50:08 PM
I agree with your post. But, since you have reached this level of clarity, I think you owe it to yourself to try to take a few steps further down that line of reasoning and think about the broader implications, inclusive of those whom you deem "non-materialist".
fistful,
The discreditation boils down to a few simple points:
1) My "ramblings" will be confirmed by any ObGyn MD as well as literature I have suggested. But, instead of educating yourself on the subject, you choose to caricature my position blindly.
2) You are clearly ok in treating women like criminals, if the life of what you perceive as a person is in potential danger. So you are ok with infringing the rights of one person for the sake of the preservation of the rights of what you deem as another. So you contradict yourself in two posts simultaneously.
3) a fertilized egg is a cell. As we have talked previously, if there were something special about it, cloning would not be possible, but it is and has been demonstrated on mammals and is claimed to have been demonstrated with humans. Again, why do I have to rehash this?
4) Is it a serious stance that true rights are never to be balanced and can never be in contradiction? All human history is based on exactly a balancing act of rights between the individual and society, among individuals, and individual and environment. (Also a trivial counterexample - two castaways and one lifevest.) If maintaining the above (and actually repeating it just in case I misunderstood) is not discrediting, what is?
5) Maximization problem: since the rights of mother and child add up to a constant, while the probability of personhood is 1 vs unknown, the "rightness maximization" approach is clearly "all bets on the mother".
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 05, 2007, 11:07:06 AM
I know my view of rights is different than the distorted view so common today. I suppose I can't complain if I'm misunderstood. I keep trying to tackle two issues at once. When we speak of "balancing" one person's rights against another's, or one person's rights conflicting with another's, it is indicative of an incorrect view of rights. It supposes that you and I can have a right to the exact same thing at the same time. If we're in the lifeboat together with one vest, how can we both claim a right to it? If the vest belongs to one of us, that person has a right to it. If the vest belongs to neither of us, then no one of us has a right to it. What's so complicated?
The old saw goes that "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." The old saw is correct. I have a right to swing my fist; I do not have a right to swing it in the near vicinity of your nose. In your way of thinking, Cannoneer, you would have to say that my right to swing my fist at your nose is outweighed by your right not to be hit. Your way of thinking still leaves me with a right to hit you in the nose. Why?
The child's rights don't have to be "balanced" or wieghed against anyone else's. The child, like any human, has a right not to be harmed without good cause. The only good cause that seems apparent would be to save the life of the mother. Certainly, we all have a right to "control our own bodies," but we should also agree that my control of my own body is forfeit when I'm pointing a gun at you. I have a right to point a gun in a direction that doesn't violate your rights, but not to point it at you at whim.
We don't need to "bet" on one person's rights against another, because rights never conflict. Children have a right to expect care from their parents, whether this be a womb, food, shelter, etc. The mother simply has no right to withhold necessary care from a child that is totally dependent on her for survival. When a man impregnates a woman, that woman and child now have a claim on him. He used to have a right to sole control of everything he owned - not anymore. In a way, he no longer has control over his own body or property. Women are in the same boat. Either she chose to have sex, or she was forced to. In any case, an irreversible decision has been made. In case of rape, her rights have been violated. That does not grant a right to kill innocent third parties.
If I always bring up rape, it is because it is the one exception to the fact that "choice" is a canard. The vast majority of pregnancy results from chosen behavior known to result in pregnancy. Choice occurs BEFORE conception.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So any Ob/Gyn can confirm for me that women deliberately, premeditatively miscarry their children? I think they must be keeping that a secret, so they can keep making money from those totally unnecessary abortions. CAnny, I am aware that psychology has a bearing on miscarriage. Where you go off the deep end of fantasy is in thinking such things would even come close to being legal proof of malicious intent.
Quote
2) You are clearly ok in treating women like criminals, if the life of what you perceive as a person is in potential danger. So you are ok with infringing the rights of one person for the sake of the preservation of the rights of what you deem as another.
That is just emotionally loaded rhetoric, and you know it. It's obvious that if I perceive one person as attempting to murder someone else, I will consider them a criminal. I'm not just OK with it, I demand it.
Quote
3) a fertilized egg is a cell. As we have talked previously, if there were something special about it, cloning would not be possible, but it is and has been demonstrated on mammals and is claimed to have been demonstrated with humans.
Please expand; I don't know what your point is and I don't recall reading this before.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 05, 2007, 11:24:50 AM
Quote from: jfruser
fistful pretty much nails it: objective criteria for being a human versus subjective criteria for being a person.
I appreciate the compliment, especially considering the source. I'm very frustrated with anti-abortion Christians acting as if abortion were a religious issue. I don't know if I can bear another iteration of "it's not a political issue; it's a moral issue." As if the two could never coincide. The anti-abortion side needs to totally abandon the scriptural argument outside of the church, and just stick to scientific fact, coupled with the concesus that innocents ought not be killed.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 05, 2007, 11:57:52 AM
Like, for example, from the extreme religiousity sorts...Abortion is Bad. Right. AND...from the same people, the Morning After Pill is bad, and even The Pill is Bad and Condoms are Bad. Okay. So...the means that PREVENT one from getting to the stage where they'd need an abortion are bad, too? Come on! Choose. People will have sex, like it or not. They can do it safely, or in an unsafe manner, and are more likely to want an abortion if it's the latter. If the Pill is denied to them or denounced enough through misinformation that they don't use it, they're also more likely to want an abortion. If you want less abortions, stop freaking getting in the way of the effective tools that can prevent people from getting to the point where they're likely to want one!
And another argument, from certain conservative groups. From the same people...Abortion is Bad. And...Welfare For Mothers and Children is Bad. Ooookay...So you don't want to pay for Welfare Queen And Her Six Mouths To Feed, BUT...you want to disallow abortion, too. What's the solution, there, then? Choose, allow abortion, or keep doling out funds to welfare mothers as they keep having more and more kids they didn't want. You're against abortion, you're for taxpayers paying the bill. Simple as that.
And from the left, too, not innocent in all this. One solution to welfare mothers has been a suggestion of Norplant implants for welfare recipients as a condition for receiving welfare. BUT...the ACLU fights that as "violating their rights"!
End result, ALL sides of the issue are MEDDLING in a way that not only tells people what they can and can't do with their bodies, but ends up causing taxpayers to pay through the nose for an out of control welfare state and a vicious cycle of poverty as unwanted children have unwanted children. This, in turn, drags down everyone, as that sort is, I believe, statistically more likely to end up in the hood/barrio crime cycle that kills cities.
See why I like LIBERTARIAN viewpoints instead?
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 05, 2007, 12:00:53 PM
All it would do it place the decision to criminalize at the level where all other homicides (criminal, negligent or justifiable) are, the individual state level.
What is "crim. neg homicide" in one state may be "manslaughter" in another and the criteria for "justifiable" are not universal either. There is little outcry that this somehow deprives the rights of those who take a human life in other fashions nor that it forms a "patchwork" of laws that require Federal standards.
If you don't like, say, North Dakota's laws, move or try to change them or live with them. If you want an abortion and can't have it in your own state, it is up to you to travel somewhere you can do so legally or choose to break the law and put yourself at greater risk by having one illegally. As long as you are free to travel, it doesn't have to be easy or convenient. If PP or others want to give you a bus ticket, great. If not, suck it up and take care of business yourself, as was stated, if you weren't raped you had the ultimate ability to avoid the situation in the first place.
In any event, just like any other medical treatment, don't order me to pay for it with my tax dollars.
Post by: richyoung on February 05, 2007, 01:01:33 PM
I find many arguments presented by several sides of the political spectrum to be patently hypocritical and self-contradictory, myself.
Quote
Like, for example, from the extreme religiousity sorts...Abortion is Bad.
As is most murder...
Quote
Right. AND...from the same people, the Morning After Pill is bad, and even The Pill is Bad and Condoms are Bad.
I have no problem with contreception. Other than the roman Catholics, I know of no other Christian sect that does. From whence does thou get this mistaken opinion?
Quote
Okay. So...the means that PREVENT one from getting to the stage where they'd need an abortion are bad, too?
What's wrong with abstinence?
Quote
Come on! Choose. People will have sex, like it or not.
Actions will have consequences, like it or not. Or, alternately, we should allow children under 12 to have sex? Teachers and students? How about the mentally retarded? Alzheimer's patients? People in a persistant vegatative state? The fact is, we have no problem declaring that in some circumstances, sex between certain groups of people is OFF-LIMITS, with varying degrees of consequences that can be prison, loss of job, or both, etc.
Quote
They can do it safely, or in an unsafe manner, and are more likely to want an abortion if it's the latter. If the Pill is denied to them or denounced enough through misinformation that they don't use it, they're also more likely to want an abortion. If you want less abortions, stop freaking getting in the way of the effective tools that can prevent people from getting to the point where they're likely to want one!
Refresh my memory - where in the United States to adults have any problems getting condoms or birth control pills?
Quote
And another argument, from certain conservative groups. From the same people...Abortion is Bad.
...that is correct...
Quote
And...Welfare For Mothers and Children is Bad.
Yes. The applicable commandment is "Thou Shalt Not Steal." Please note there is no weasle out clause, such as "Thou Shalt Not Steal, Unless Thy Has A Majority Vote To Steal, And Callest Thou It "Welfare", or "Progressive Taxation", or "Economic Redistribution". Christians are also admonished to be good citizens - in this country, that means not only fulfilling our citizenly duties, but also attempting to prevent the government from seizing power and authority it does not have. Under the Constitution, where, oh WHERE, is the Government granted the authority to take money from one person, in ordxer to give it to another? Search all you want, but it isn't in there.
Quote
Ooookay...So you don't want to pay for Welfare Queen And Her Six Mouths To Feed, BUT...you want to disallow abortion, too. What's the solution, there, then?
Solution One: Keep your legs together, woman.
Solution Two: - Fail to follow Solution One, we put your kid up for adoption and snip your tubes.
Quote
Choose, allow abortion, or keep doling out funds to welfare mothers as they keep having more and more kids they didn't want.
You present a false dicotomy.
Quote
You're against abortion, you're for taxpayers paying the bill. Simple as that.
I'm for INDIVIDUAL RESPONSABILITY. Simple as THAT.
Quote
And from the left, too, not innocent in all this. One solution to welfare mothers has been a suggestion of Norplant implants for welfare recipients as a condition for receiving welfare. BUT...the ACLU fights that as "violating their rights"!
If you are on the government teat., your rights are gone....
Quote
End result, ALL sides of the issue are MEDDLING in a way that not only tells people what they can and can't do with their bodies, but ends up causing taxpayers to pay through the nose for an out of control welfare state and a vicious cycle of poverty as unwanted children have unwanted children. This, in turn, drags down everyone, as that sort is, I believe, statistically more likely to end up in the hood/barrio crime cycle that kills cities.
Its this simple, maned - you tax something, you get LESS of it - you subsidize it, you get MORE of it. Guess what welfare does - subsidize the creation of fatherless children already in poverty - so we get more of it.
Quote
See why I like LIBERTARIAN viewpoints instead?
"I don' thin you know what that word means..." - Carlos Montoya
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 05, 2007, 01:01:52 PM
Some birth-control pills are abortions in pill form (potentially). They may prevent pregnancy in some cases, but in other cases, they are used to murder people. Thus the controversy. Can you at least agree that such a position is consistent with the anti-abortion point of view?
Quote
Like, for example, from the extreme religiousity sorts...Abortion is Bad. Right. AND...from the same people, the Morning After Pill is bad, and even The Pill is Bad and Condoms are Bad.
Riiiight. Your brush is slanderously broad. General opposition to birth control is not part of the anti-abortion movement. There are some people that oppose all birth control for religious reasons. This has nothing to do with abortion. There are many more religious people who use birth control methods but don't want schools teaching them. This has nothing to do with abortion.
RE: Welfare
Conservatives (and Libertarians) wish to reform or eliminate welfare because it is seen as an incentive to have MORE children (among other reasons). Unlike your view, which is that poor women are animals who can't stop having sex, my view is that human beings can control themselves when they understand the consequences of having children they cannot support. They need not murder their children to avoid wasting my money. Besides, ever heard of adoption?
Quote
This, in turn, drags down everyone, as that sort is, I believe, statistically more likely to end up in the hood/barrio crime cycle that kills cities.
Your suggestion is that we kill potential criminals in the womb. That IS some freaky economics. Very libertarian of you.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 05, 2007, 01:07:42 PM
Quote
I have no problem with contreception. Other than the roman Catholics, I know of no other Christian sect that does. From whence does thou get this mistaken opinion?
Rich, I'm sure you've seen this a thousand times before. Discredit your opponent by equating his reasonable position with the extremism of those more radical than he.
From what I'm told, opposition to birth control was almost universal in Christianity until the last few decades. I ran across a fundamentalist (Calvinist) group a little while ago, that taught that we should let God control the womb. I guess those people don't lock their doors or get vaccines, either.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 05, 2007, 01:54:32 PM
Make sure the law is in the appropriate venue (as low as possible, based on the Constitution) and either work to change it, move to somewhere where folks agree with you or put up with it.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 09, 2007, 05:25:58 PM
Quote from: fistful
In case of rape, her rights have been violated. That does not grant a right to kill innocent third parties.
Aha. So not only does the woman suffer a first violation (the rape), now she also must suffer a second violation (gestation and birth), because her right to her body and time is beaten by the right of an unwanted fetus to live. So, after all, rights can be contradictory and so do have to be "balanced" or at least "prioritized".
Quote
The vast majority of pregnancy results from chosen behavior known to result in pregnancy.
Majority has nothing to do with it, because we are discussing rights, not practicalities. If we did, I would use very different arguments anyway.
Quote
fantasy is in thinking such things would even come close to being legal proof of malicious intent.
Who guarantees that? Why wouldn't it lead to that? Besides, this is not the real point, is it? If you are pro-life, why do you care which way the abortion was done - in a clinic or by self-induced miscarriage? The result is the same and can be equally intentional. You should be in uproar about it in both cases. Why aren't you?
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 09, 2007, 05:37:05 PM
You're argument on "competing rights" rests on the supposition that bearing the child to term is both "a second violation" and that such a violation is equivalent to death.
If that equivilence can't be proven, then you are arguing convenience of the mother versus death for the child. Which is no argument at all.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 09, 2007, 05:59:00 PM
Quote from: carebear
If that equivilence can't be proven, then you are arguing convenience of the mother versus death for the child.
Fistful argued that true rights can never be in contradiction. The above is a counterexample unless he and you believe that right to one's body is no "true right". Both of you need to make up your minds and let me know.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 09, 2007, 06:05:38 PM
You need to define the "right to one's body" a little tighter. What is it based on and can we demonstrate logically or philosophically that carrying an infant is in fact an imposition on that right, if it does exist?
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 09, 2007, 06:22:09 PM
Quote from: carebear
You need to define the "right to one's body" a little tighter. What is it based on and can we demonstrate logically or philosophically that carrying an infant is in fact an imposition on that right, if it does exist?
I certainly cannot because I believe absolute rights do not exist but are established by society. It is fistful and Ron that believe that absolute rights exist and so base their opinions on that. All I have done is follow the views to expose the internal contradictions.
Still, I find it amusing that fistful would obviously pick and choose which right to recognize and which not, yet still maintain that his choice is somehow absolute and so not a choice at all. That kind of convoluted self-righteous self-delusion is absolutely delicious. Hehe.
Note: Edited for accuracy at carebear's notice.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 09, 2007, 06:42:32 PM
Again, I haven't stated MY position on this topic, other than the taking of a human life is, by legal definition, a homicide and that the legality of homicides, of whatever kind, in my opinion, should be determined at the State level for consistency.
What I've asked for is your definition of the "right to one's body". Even if such a right is socially determined, it should follow logically from some consistant basis. For definition, perhaps substitute an explanation for "why", in your opinion, anyone has a "right to their body". No matter the basis of the position (spiritual or philosophical), it should be explainable.
If you don't give the philosophical or logical underpinning of a belief, it appears to rest on mere opinion. And personal opinion is far from a sufficient basis for supporting anything claimed to be a widespread "socially" (not personally) determined right.
If our society believes it, tell me why. If you can't, at least tell me why you do.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 09, 2007, 06:56:58 PM
Quote from: carebear
Explaining why a woman or anyone else has a right to her body will
Ok, I am game.
A society with personal freedom and private property is more successful than a tyrannical collectivist society with communal property. Therefore it is in the interest of society to agree to the former, rather than the latter, social conventions. The right to determine what happens to your body while precluding other people's unwelcome influence on it seems pretty straightforwardly emanating from the established principles of personal freedom and private property.
The equivalent of a pregnancy is to be pumped full of hormones, be forced to undergo significant structural, chemical, and biological changes, carry excess weight and suffer much discomfort for a protracted period of time, and finally spend hours in excruciating pain, while being at no insignificant health risk throughout the ordeal. If this condition is self-imposed, e.g. in a wanted pregnancy, then it is under free will and legal use of one's private property. If it is not, it is in violation of both.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 09, 2007, 07:11:59 PM
That's a very sound argument, in my opinion, because it doesn't rest on a particular moral viewpoint or some amorphous "right to privacy" but rather the right to property.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 13, 2007, 06:58:09 AM
Quote from: fistful
In case of rape, her rights have been violated. That does not grant a right to kill innocent third parties.
Aha. So not only does the woman suffer a first violation (the rape), now she also must suffer a second violation (gestation and birth), because her right to her body and time is beaten by the right of an unwanted fetus to live. So, after all, rights can be contradictory and so do have to be "balanced" or at least "prioritized".
The rape and the pregnancy are obviously the same violation. The violation of rape has more effect on some women than on others. In some cases, it results in pregnancy. But however her rights are violated by the rapist, the mother's right to her body is not "beaten" by the fetus or by those who would ban abortion. It is simply limited by the fact that she is now a mother, just as in any other pregnancy. We might regret the way she became pregnant, but that cannot be helped.
I can play it your way if you like. If rights have to be balanced or prioritized, it would be perfectly reasonable to say that the right of the child to live outweighs the right of the mother to be un-pregnant. What would be wrong with that? It might be hard on the mother, but hardship is sometimes required when another person's life is at stake.
Quote
Quote
The vast majority of pregnancy results from chosen behavior known to result in pregnancy.
Majority has nothing to do with it, because we are discussing rights, not practicalities. If we did, I would use very different arguments anyway.
Quote
If I always bring up rape, it is because it is the one exception to the fact that "choice" is a canard. The vast majority of pregnancy results from chosen behavior known to result in pregnancy. Choice occurs BEFORE conception.
I was explaining why I dealt with rape, the hard case, rather than the pathetically easy case of careless women whining about the unplanned pregnancy they got themselves into.
Quote
Quote
fantasy is in thinking such things would even come close to being legal proof of malicious intent.
Who guarantees that? Why wouldn't it lead to that? Besides, this is not the real point, is it? If you are pro-life, why do you care which way the abortion was done - in a clinic or by self-induced miscarriage? The result is the same and can be equally intentional. You should be in uproar about it in both cases. Why aren't you?
I think I explained myself well enough in a previous thread. If you'd like to go through the case for "self-induced miscarriage" again, maybe I'll consider digging up my rebuttal.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 13, 2007, 10:57:51 AM
Quote from: fistful
The rape and the pregnancy are obviously the same violation.
This is the point of contention. If you want, you may argue that society does not continue the violation, it just prevents the discontinuation of the violation. To me, that is equally violating, in a sense making society the rapist's accomplice. No matter how you dance about balancing rights, in the end abortion prohibition throws out the window some of the fundamental rights of somebody you recognize as a person and you deem innocent. "Can't be helped" can be used to justify virtually anything.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 13, 2007, 11:08:18 AM
So you're willing to say that the embryo might have rights, correct? So then, what does the mother face that would "outweigh" those rights? What is it about pregnancy that is so terrible that an innocent person should be killed to end it?
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 13, 2007, 11:26:10 AM
Quote from: fistful
The rape and the pregnancy are obviously the same violation.
This is the point of contention.
But there is no real question about that. Refusing to murder a child is not "forcing a woman to be pregnant." If a girl is kidnapped, raped, conceives and is held for nine months, she will have a child without any third party "forcing her to stay pregnant." At that point, even the rapist is no longer "forcing her to stay pregnant" - that part is over now. That's just how nature works. Conception leads to gestation leads to birth. Maybe you should have learned that in school or something. Now if she is found the morning after the rape, the community should certainly do everything they reasonably can to keep the girl from being violated, even if they have to kill the rapist to rescue her. She should be set free, so she can take a bath, get treated for any diseases, talk to someone about what happened and try to return to normal. Now if there were a way of undoing her pregnancy, without murdering an innocent and defenseless embryo, that would be great. But there isn't. About all we can do is try to find adoptive parents, if the mother wishes. So, rather than allowing someone to be murdered, I would let the violation continue. Again, some things can't be undone.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 13, 2007, 11:39:40 AM
I cannot in good sense authorize the brutal violation of the rights of an undeniable person for the potential rights of something I have all empirical reasons to believe is no person at all.
I understand your argument about genetic humanity. But, monkeys are ~ 99% human and mice are 70% human. Does that mean we need to extend them 99% and 70% human rights by that token? This seems completely nonsensical to me.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 13, 2007, 11:48:22 AM
Quote
I understand your argument about genetic humanity. But, monkeys are ~ 99% human and mice are 70% human. Does that mean we need to extend them 99% and 70% human rights by that token? This seems completely nonsensical to me.
Me too. I'm talking about human rights, so they would only apply to humans. It's a black and white distinction between humans on one side and animals on the other. Historically, animals have been dealt with in this way. Even though a cow is more "human" than an insect, humans have not normally granted cows any more respect. We might like them better, but we still kill them, brand them, etc.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 13, 2007, 01:05:16 PM
My point is I am not convinced if the fetus is a person or not. It might be, it might not be. My guess is it is not, because if you have dealt with babies you'd notice they are essentially blanks. Without psychology or personality, it is just a lump of flesh, trainable yes, growable yes, but not much beyond that.
I cannot in good sense authorize the brutal violation of the rights of an undeniable person for the potential rights of something I have all empirical reasons to believe is no person at all.
I cannot in good sense authorize the brutal violation of the rights of an undeniable person for the potential rights of something I have all empirical reasons to believe is no person at all.
What brutal violation? The woman is not the one being torn apart or burned by chemicals. The child is the one getting that treatment. What on earth is brutal about telling a woman she can't kill her baby? But you would allow it just based on your guess that the fetus is not a person? Why not err on the side of the child? WHY? What brutal things are going to happen to the woman?
I haven't "dealt with" babies much, but even I know they are not blanks. Different infants behave differently. Besides, "lumps of flesh" do not grow, nor are they trainable. Only living things do that, and in this case, it is a human being. Why not treat it like one? Why do you expect a baby to speak or solve problems or exhibit other behavior that is above their age level? A four year old couldn't follow this conversation, but that doesn't make him less of a person, just a younger one.
And since you have dealt with babies (I'm assuming they were out of the womb) and found them non-personal, would you be OK with killing a few? How old would your kids get before you decided it was not right to kill them?
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 13, 2007, 04:29:56 PM
Quote from: fistful
And since you have dealt with babies (I'm assuming they were out of the womb) and found them non-personal, would you be OK with killing a few? How old would your kids get before you decided it was not right to kill them?
Precisely. Since there is a continuous change from non-sentience to sentience and from a lump of human flesh into a person, I have to establish a pragmatic demarkation line that is not based on personhood because the fetus's personhood is highly questionable.
For me, that line is when the fetus can biologically survive without the mother's body, and that means the 7th month of pregnancy. From that point on, it is a separate viable human organism even if it is still inside the mother and even if it might not technically be a person yet. Before the 7th month, I consider it part of the mother and thus the mother should have complete control and nobody else, individual or gov, has the right to butt in.
Under this system, there is protection for the child, yet the limitations on the mother are essentially non-existent because she has 7 months to make up her mind one way or the other. The system takes care of rape victims' rights as well.
Post by: roo_ster on February 13, 2007, 05:08:27 PM
My point is I am not convinced if the fetus is a person or not. It might be, it might not be. My guess is it is not, because if you have dealt with babies you'd notice they are essentially blanks. Without psychology or personality, it is just a lump of flesh, trainable yes, growable yes, but not much beyond that.
Dr. Singer:My wife and I have produced two of those babies. Balnks, they are not. They both had their own, distinct personalities from the get-go. The differences are more marked for non-siblings. All you gotta do is observe.
Post by: Ron on February 13, 2007, 05:17:11 PM
Just want to put CAnnoneers 7th month statement in context.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 13, 2007, 06:14:12 PM
Post by: Ron on February 13, 2007, 06:25:48 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 13, 2007, 06:34:26 PM
We aren't talking about chopping her up or drowning her in salt water.
Of course not. Just forcing her through 9 months of pregnancy and hours of excruciating agony, as well as increased risk of breast cancer, embolism, anemia, retinal delamination, stroke, vaginal tear, and a few other blessings/duties/unhelpables.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 14, 2007, 07:27:02 AM
You inflate the negative side of pregnancy, despite medical advances that make pregnancy safer. And to avoid these possible dangers that may not occur, you perscribe certain death for an innocent human, on the flimsy basis that he or she is not "sentient" or is more dependent on mother than he will be later on. And what is with this nonsense about the embryo not being seperate from its mother? That is just arbitrary, semantic nit-picking, just as paper-thin as any other justification for baby-killing. Why are you saying these things? Why shouldn't the baby be allowed to live? Give me a real answer.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 14, 2007, 08:51:07 AM
Quote from: fistful
If pregnancy is so terrible, why are so many infertile women trying so hard to get pregnant?
Many don't know what they are in for. Others do, but their instict to procreate is stronger than their fears of what is involved and the associated risks.
Quote
Why are women having sex indiscriminately, given the dangers of pregnancy?
See above, as well as pleasure, ignorance, carelessness, etc. Why do people bungee-jump, sky-dive, fresh-water-kayak, swim with crocs and sharks, etc.? Why do people do all sorts of dangerous things?
Quote
You inflate the negative side of pregnancy, despite medical advances that make pregnancy safer.
Tell that to the women that still die or survive serious damage as a result of pregnancies. By forcing women to continue a pregnancy, you are the one pulling the trigger in the Russian roulette, make no mistake about it. That modern science has deceased the number of live rounds in the revolver does not change in any way your fundamental position as the one pressing the barrel against her skull and pulling the trigger. You really have to face up to that.
Quote
Why are you saying these things?
I have made my motivations clear several times over - I want to protect individual person's rights. The mother is undeniably a person entitled to those rights, while I don't know what the fetus is and therefore I am uncertain as to its rights. Under such circumstances, I cannot in sound mind violate one person's rights because I have doubts about potential rights of something else. I am open to new evidence that beyond any doubt proves that the fetus is a person of equal standing as the mother and thus should be afforded the same rights. If that is accomplished, I will gladly change my stance to anti-abortion based on reasonable balance of rights. Meanwhile, we can speculate and try to attack the problem from multiple directions, which is something I have been doing by providing multiple and sometimes disjoint arguments.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 14, 2007, 10:13:41 AM
Quote
Many don't know what they are in for. Others do, but their instict to procreate is stronger than their fears of what is involved and the associated risks.
If women are that stupid or feral, then maybe they shouldn't have rights. After all, they can't help but hurt themselves. I believe you've mentioned having a wife or girlfriend. Do you have children? Was she stupid enough to take the Big Chance of pregnancy? Why would you even have sex with her? She could be hurt, don't you know. You really need to lose this dangers-of-pregnancy argument. It's pathetic. No one's going to buy that abortion is justified to spare women from a natural part of their life cycle, especially when they usually bring on those dangers by choosing to have sex. Childbirth is something the female body is made for. Abortion, not so much. I submit that abortion is more dangerous than bringing a child to term. Of course, that's difficult to substantiate with real numbers. I would think the most harm to the woman from giving birth is the financial and social consequences, not health-wise. That would be a more persuasive argument for you, though it's still very weak.
Quote
See above, as well as pleasure, ignorance, carelessness, etc. Why do people bungee-jump, sky-dive, fresh-water-kayak, swim with crocs and sharks, etc.? Why do people do all sorts of dangerous things?
And such people suffer the consequences of their actions - actions that don't contribute to the propagation of the species. I thought you were one of those heartless libertarian types. Quote
Tell that to the women that still die or survive serious damage as a result of pregnancies. By forcing women to continue a pregnancy, you are the one pulling the trigger in the Russian roulette, make no mistake about it. That modern science has deceased the number of live rounds in the revolver does not change in any way your fundamental position as the one pressing the barrel against her skull and pulling the trigger. You really have to face up to that.
Ooh, OK, I'll go ponder. I'm pulling the trigger? No, the abortionist does that. I'm putting a gun to someone's head? No, in most cases, the woman is doing that to herself by having sex. Your arguments are really spinning out of control. Quote
I am open to new evidence that beyond any doubt proves that the fetus is a person of equal standing as the mother and thus should be afforded the same rights. If that is accomplished, I will gladly change my stance to anti-abortion based on reasonable balance of rights.
Think about what you're saying. You're going to allow someone to be killed, because you're not sure if they have rights? If it's possible those humans may have rights, why not protect them from being killed until we find out otherwise? The downside isn't near what you make it out to be.
Post by: roo_ster on February 14, 2007, 10:38:48 AM
I have made my motivations clear several times over - I want to protect individual person's rights. The mother is undeniably a person entitled to those rights, while I don't know what the fetus is and therefore I am uncertain as to its rights. Under such circumstances, I cannot in sound mind violate one person's rights because I have doubts about potential rights of something else. I am open to new evidence that beyond any doubt proves that the fetus is a person of equal standing as the mother and thus should be afforded the same rights. If that is accomplished, I will gladly change my stance to anti-abortion based on reasonable balance of rights. Meanwhile, we can speculate and try to attack the problem from multiple directions, which is something I have been doing by providing multiple and sometimes disjoint arguments.
You don't know what a fetus is? I would suggest a biology textbook* for more context, but the crib sheet version is "fetus=human."Your insistence on using a subjective definition for "person" relative to an objective definition for "human" is very curious. Care to describe/define what you think is a "person" vs what is a human, so we don't all jump to conclusions by relying on how just such human-replacement/substitute terms have been used in history?
Also, why should "person-rights" replace "human-rights" as our standard for treatment of others?
If my German Shorthaired Pointer has more person-like qualities than my infant daughter, ought my dog receive more consideration as to its quality of life, convenience, value, etc. if I must choose between the two?
[FWIW, I am not trying to bust your chops. I understand that folks can have logically inconsistent beliefs. I don't exclude myself**. I think we owe it to ourselves and those we debate with to examine them and acknowledge them.]
* abebooks.com is a terrific resource for old textbooks. I refuse to buy any textbook that costs more than its S&H (usually, ~$3.50 for the first book). I picked up several old algebra & geometry books for our neighbor, who needs some drills to tune up her rusty math skills. I plan on picking up a bunch more on all sorts of topics, inveterate bibliophile that I am.
** To give an example, I think it perfectly fine to call on tradition in an argument. As some wag once wrote, "Tradition is democracy for the dead," and they ought to have a say. I am especially wary of "Year Zero" millenarian types who think that they can chuck tradition & force humanity to fit their theory of what human relations ought to be (marxists, doctrinaire libertarians, others with ideologies that logically flow without reference to human nature or human practice, pretty much anybody who takes JJ Rousseau seriously).
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 14, 2007, 01:00:15 PM
Quote from: fistful
If women are that stupid or feral, then maybe they shouldn't have rights. After all, they can't help but hurt themselves. No one's going to buy that abortion is justified to spare women from a natural part of their life cycle, especially when they usually bring on those dangers by choosing to have sex. Childbirth is something the female body is made for.
The above is just priceless. Be sure to read it on Sunday to your female parishioners. Don't forget to mention the 50% death-in-birth rate typical for the Middle Ages, the 80% vaginal tear rate even nowadays, and all other statistics you can dig out; after all, that's what they are "made for". Let us know how it went.
Quote
And such people suffer the consequences of their actions - actions that don't contribute to the propagation of the species. I thought you were one of those heartless libertarian types.
I am a heartless libertarian, but I do not pull any roulette triggers. I am not the one smashing a bungee-jumper's legs or the one eviscerating a lion-tamer. I do not participate in or inflict the "punishment". If you ban abortion you are the one inflicting a preventable punishment. Why is it that you do not get this?
Quote
You're going to allow someone to be killed, because you're not sure if they have rights? If it's possible those humans may have rights, why not protect them from being killed until we find out otherwise? The downside isn't near what you make it out to be.
You are essentially gambling in an environment of lack of information, because you feel that the risk is worth the reward, while the penalty for being wrong is acceptable to you. I refuse to gamble, especially with other people's rights and especially when it would not be me who pays the penalty of my being wrong.
Post by: Ron on February 14, 2007, 01:19:14 PM
Quote
I refuse to gamble, especially with other people's rights and especially when it would not be me who pays the penalty of my being wrong.
Your argument is weak.You are gambling that the unborn child isn't a person.
You and your ilk provide moral cover to those who would destroy human life because it isn't convenient.
If you really cared about life and our rights you would choose to err on the side of caution.
The truth is you err on the side of convenience because you don't care. You are more concerned with the freedom of licentiousness than you are with the liberty that has corresponding responsibilities, like protecting the life of powerless innocents.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 14, 2007, 01:24:13 PM
Quote from: jfruser
Care to describe/define what you think is a "person" vs what is a human, so we don't all jump to conclusions by relying on how just such human-replacement/substitute terms have been used in history? Also, why should "person-rights" replace "human-rights" as our standard for treatment of others?
I do not believe that everything that is genetically human must automatically be afforded person rights. The simplest way to think about it is that since rights are not absolute but a social convention, it stands to reason that only members of the society are automatically accorded "membership" rights. Humans outside that society do not have them, but can acquire them. Conversely, humans inside a society can lose their membership rights under certain circumstances, e.g. gross misconduct.
Believe it or not, this is how human societies have functioned in practice since times immemorial. The entire system of jurisprudence is a study in how membership rights are reassigned based on level of misconduct. Criminals generally drop form "gold membership" to something else. Immigrants get naturalized and boosted to full "gold membership". If you follow human history you will see this happening innumerable times in all forms and guises.
Simultaneously, there is the general illusion that somehow "pan-human rights" are preserved and accorded based on religious ideas of equal creation etc, which was later modified to genetically based rights once people learnt a bit more biology. My approach is more sociological than genetic.
From this pragmatic perspective, the issue of abortion is really an issue as to when the genetically human material is ready to enter the society as a full member, very much like an immigrant is naturalized under certain circumstances. Thus my desire to understand when that would be appropriate is naturally emanating from this very pragmatic/mechanistic sociological view.
Now, I understand that there are no "natural" inhibitives for all sorts of violence to be perpetrated by abuse of the above society-based view. It is not my job to provide such because I believe in personal choice and freedom of association. If a bunch of fascists/zealots want to come kill me because I am no member of their clique/cult, then it is their choice to do so, as it is mine to blow them away.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 14, 2007, 01:30:30 PM
Quote from: Ron
You are gambling that the unborn child isn't a person. You and your ilk provide moral cover to those who would destroy human life because it isn't convenient.
Maybe a better way to say it is "I prefer to gamble with the potential rights of an entity that might be entitled to them, rather than violate the unquestionable rights of a person who is certainly entitled to them."
I do not provide moral cover for anybody. If others would choose to twist my ideas to their purposes, it is their choice and responsibility to do so.