Theocrat/neocon hybrids - is there such an animal?

[CAnnoneer]

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 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.

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?

[Matthew Carberry]

CAnnon,

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.

[CAnnoneer]

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.

[Matthew Carberry]

Hey, pointing out possible issues don't equal agreement or disagreement.

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?

[CAnnoneer]

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.

[Matthew Carberry]

Not sure why you are getting so smug, like you've scored some kind of "point" against me nor why you are equating fistful and I?

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.

[CAnnoneer]

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.

[Matthew Carberry]

Thank you.

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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.

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.

I wasn't using the gun control argument that "crime is rare, therefore you probably won't need a gun."  Look at what I said in context:

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. 

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.   

[CAnnoneer]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

How about, "can't be helped without killing another innocent person without sufficient reason?"

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? 

[Perd Hapley]

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.

[CAnnoneer]

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 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.

[Perd Hapley]

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. 

[Perd Hapley]

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.

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?   

[CAnnoneer]

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.

[roo_ster]

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.

[Ron]

Here is a 5 month fetus.

Just want to put CAnnoneers 7th month statement in context.

[CAnnoneer]

Ron, don't forget to show the portrait of the mother as well. For a complete perspective.

[Ron]

We aren't talking about chopping her up or drowning her in salt water.

[CAnnoneer]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

If pregnancy is so terrible, why are so many infertile women trying so hard to get pregnant?  Why are women having sex indiscriminately, given the dangers of pregnancy? 

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. 

[CAnnoneer]

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

[roo_ster]

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).