"I'm fat. I need to lose some weight." -- works great if you're 300+ pounds, not so great if you're a 60-lb anorexic. The anorexic is rationalizing. The 300+ lb person is not.
"They aren't really human." -- works great if you're discussing using lab rats for scientific research, not so great if you're talking about Jews in World War II.
Just because something is a rationalization in one context does not mean that it is in another. The argument is entirely illogical. Context is everything here.
To put it another way...All you said was that you don't believe humanity is limited by ethnic group and you implied that most reasonable people nowadays would not limit humanity in this way. Great. I agree. That doesn't mean that humanity can't be limited by something else.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The logic works because you said that one of the problems with protecting individuals from external harm was identifying what the word 'individual' means.
Other societies have killed people we consider to be human individuals.
Our society kills fetuses, which some people consider to be human individuals.
All you've done is assert that it's okay to continue aborting fetuses, because we can't agree on whether or not they're human.
To me, that's a rather flimsy justification for murder.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, you seem to be asserting that because other societies have (as far as our current philosophy is concerned) misidentified what constitutes an individual, we need to consider fetuses human.
Nope, not working for me! Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Scott, you seem to be asserting that because other societies have (as far as our current philosophy is concerned) misidentified what constitutes an individual, we need to consider fetuses human.
The alternative would be -- to use your example -- to continue massacring Jews until we could provide definitive proof of their humanity.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I can't help but notice that all of you are trying to sink this discussion in peripheral details and avoiding the main crux. Let me see if I can steer us back before we drown in B.S.
Q. Under what rule of law should abortion be outlawed?
A. Protection of the individual from external harm.
Q. What constitutes an individual and how do we determine which individual's rights is more important when they clash?
quote:What constitutes an individual and how do we determine which individual's rights is more important when they clash?
If you can answer this definitively, you've managed to resolve, like, three thousand years of legal history.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We can consider possibilities. Is it OK to fire your rifle blindly into a house, because you don't know for sure that anyone's home? Is it good to torture a humanlike figure to death, because you aren't absolutely sure the figure is a person? That should be enough to prevent elective abortion, but not one needed to save the life of the mother.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. The rights aren't clashing. Your statement, that "2 individuals are harmed" is a misleading one, in that it equalizes the amount of harm being done to both parties at the extremes of the scenario. However, an honest look at the situation will reveal that the quantitative harm is NOT equal: women, in America, generally ALL survive their pregnancies, and recover within weeks.
Almost no fetus lives through an abortion.
In what way are these two "harms" equal, as you seem to imply?
2. In terms of individual rights, I'm glad to be on the liberal side for once: applying the right to life to as many human beings as possible. I rarely get to claim a liberal stance for anything; thank you for giving me the opportunity to do so.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me or for everyone else? Because I already said, I believe the fetus is alive. I could be wrong, but I personally would err on the side of caution. (And BTW, I think that is the best argument you've made yet. I have been tempted to make it for you but I decided to wait and see if you'd get there. )
For another mother, though, who truly does not believe that this thing leeching off of her is alive, I won't make that decision. I know what it's like to give birth, do you? Physically, recovery is relatively easy. But emotionally, economically, socially...it's a life-altering thing. Your body actually releases hormones to mess with your mind when it comes to your offspirng...encouraging you to bond with the infant, discouraging you from wanting to give up, and causing you to forget about the most painful parts of pregnancy and childbirth. 10% of women suffer from post partum depression as a result of these hormones.
quote:Have you ever seen a crack baby? Or one with fetal alcohol syndrome?
I personally know one of each who would take great personal exception to the idea that someone would think them better off had they been aborted.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was ill-said. I apologize. I was thinking of the destruction that a mother could do to an unborn fetus without aborting it and in some cases, the death comes, but later. That is the case I knew of personally and was thinking of. I should have considered it a little more before I posted that.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For another mother, though, who truly does not believe that this thing leeching off of her is alive, I won't make that decision. I know what it's like to give birth, do you? Physically, recovery is relatively easy. But emotionally, economically, socially...it's a life-altering thing. Your body actually releases hormones to mess with your mind when it comes to your offspirng...encouraging you to bond with the infant, discouraging you from wanting to give up, and causing you to forget about the most painful parts of pregnancy and childbirth. 10% of women suffer from post partum depression as a result of these hormones.
I fully support public money going towards educating women of these facts before having consentual sex, which is the case in over 99% of all pregnancies.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:For another mother, though, who truly does not believe that this thing leeching off of her is alive, I won't make that decision.
This may simply be semantics, but the fetus (if you insist) is quite obviously alive. I've never heard anyone claim the contrary in a debate such as this.
Second, given the many methods of birth control available to any budget, and that the vast majority of pregnancies are caused by a choice, the number of unwanted pregnancies should be approaching zero in the modernized world.
Third, given that the fetus is genetically identical to a human at the time of conception, it is disingenous at best to fault anyone for referring to it as a baby. The only difference between a "fetus" newly conceived and a baby just delivered is about nine months of growth.
Or would you argue that a man who has lost his arm is no longer human because he doesn't look like one?
Posts: 413 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about a man who has lost most of his higher nervous functions?
Look, I'm not in favor of abortions. I just don't see banning them as being the solution to any of the problems we have. Restricting them? Sure, I can see the logic of making it illegal for doctors to perform the overt act which kills the child, which would naturally restrict what kinds of abortions you could legally carry out. Making a real effort to educate the public about the specific medical details of what abortion is and what it does? Sure, all this "letting the air in" business is silly.
But simply banning it won't fix anything that's really wrong with our society. I don't like abortion myself, but laws against it are like laws against suicide...silly in their fundamental concept. Christine has pointed that out, I suppose. She has done so without the tact or clarity that might have made her point, but it's a valid point. I have no sympathy to spare for people who kill themselves. I have none for women who deliberately kill their own children. But you have to be sane about the laws you make and whether they can be enforced practically.
Even assuming that we could enforce such a law, I don't think all abortion should be illegal, anymore than I think that it should ever be mandatory. I may disagree with someone on what specific proceedures should be illegal, but I don't think that disagreement is important compared with other issues.
For instance, the agreement that abortion is generally a bad thing and we should be finding ways of reducing the demand for it. I think many opponents of the culture of abortion fall on opposite sides of the debate because the debate is framed in terms of legality rather than morality.
Maybe I just don't care about legality because that entire part of the system is about to crash and burn. Or maybe there are just too many things that have been determined to be legal which I find deplorable, or things that are illegal which I think would be good (at least for some people). Whatever.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
God, I've been so sick. I'm sure everyone missed me.
I want to clarify something about the arrogance thing. I don't know that I'm right about any of my opinions, I only think I am. I do know the difference. And Tom made the best argument against allowing abortion, and the one I adhere to the most, because it is most logical. If there is a slight posibility that abortion at any stage is murder, then I wouldn't want to be guilty of having an abortion, performing an abortion, supporting abortion, or voting for someone who supports it. And since there is no way of knowing that the fetus is not a human, I believe the only reasonable and logical option is to outlaw it, as it is society's and the government's duty to protect the defenseless.
This to me, is unassailable logic. I challenge anyone to find a flaw in it. If you can, I will never argue the pro-life side again. Bringing up "women's choice" or "what about rape, incest, or deformities" does not address the logical construct. Nor does "your arrogance and bad attitude obscures your point," as I have heard ad nauseam.
And because of the complete logical supremecy of this argument, and a slew of others that are "conservative," it is for this reason that I feel I can make statements like "I personally believe that the conservative viewpoint is based more in wisdom, experience, and rationality, and the liberal viewpoint is based more on unexamined emotionality, impulse, and a desire to be free from any and all restraints." Notice the use of "personally believe" and "based more in widom/impulse..." Now if someone wants to argue that I shouldn't make statements like that because it is rude and does not promote the discussion, you will probably win that one without a fight. I just ask that I not be misinterpreted, and I would like that people recognize that I am really not intentionally trying to offend, usually. Exceptions abound. Things just come out a certain way sometimes, and I tried to keep it in check a while, but it was too tiring, it interfered with my point, and people ignored me. I'm not posting all this so people can skim and move on, not remembering what I said or that I even said anything. As I said before, I'm looking for a reaction. And my natural, offensive style seems to get results. In turn, I let people's intentionally insulting comments toward me slide, and I engage their points (with the occasional verbal jab.) It's fun!! I'm pretty sure that if you read this thread with that in mind you will see that to be the case.
posted
Well, since I started with a pro-life viewpoint and wisdom and experience drove me to a pro-choice viewpoint, I can't see your argument as valid. As for the unassailable logic...well, I could assail it but I remembered why it was that I stopped talking about this subject. Both sides are based on fundamental and unbridgeable differences in their underlying assumptions. Any assaults I made on your logic would stem from my assumptions, and be entirely unreasonable in your world. If there is one thing that wisdom has taught me it's that arguments are won or lost in the underlying assumptions that are rarely (if ever) discussed.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to sound offensive, but just because you moved from a pro-life to a pro-choice viewpoint does not mean my argument is not valid. It is possible that your reasons for changing were flawed. And since I find the logic for being pro-life, as I set it up, to be unassailable, I must conclude that your reasons were in fact flawed. Doesn't mean I'm right, it just means that it will take some kind of deconstruction of the logical framework I am working from in order to change my mind. And the simple assertion that my logic is assailable without pointing out how isn't going to cut it.
I agree with you when you say that "both sides are based on fundamental and unbridgeable differences in their underlying assumptions." I just think that the assumptions for one are wrong and the assumptions of the other are not. The only assumptions I make are 1) we cannot know that a fetus is not a human, and 2) it is a governmental and societal responsibility (morally) to protect the defenseless. In order to deconstruct this argument, you would have to show that one or both of those assumptions are false. It's as simple as that.
edit: added (morally), as this is an important distinction
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the underlying assumptions of the abortion debate are usually pretty clear, if completely pointless. Christine doesn't assume that the fetus is "human", you assume that it should be considered human until proven otherwise. I don't care about the "humanity" of the fetus one way or the other.
My underlying assumption is that it simply isn't practical to outlaw abortion in this day and age, it is simply too easy for educated women in our modern society to reliably abort their own pregnancies. Unless you want to turn every miscarriage into a criminal investigation, you might as well leave abortion (of some types, at least) legal and concentrate on finding other ways to encourage changes in the sexual and moral culture.
My other assumption is that almost none of the current laws are going to survive the coming extinction crisis, and thus it doesn't matter a good damn what the laws are. But even if you don't believe such a thing is about to happen, my first posited assumption bears examination.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You keep making that point, Survivor. I actually agree with you. We are not long for this Earth. But that doesn't excuse immorality in the meantime. And even if we couldn't enforce the law (and I think we could), at least we wouldn't be actively condoning something as awful as abortion and our own suicide.
By the way, I just finished responding to Kwea's highly insulting post on the other thread that this one is linked to. I know some of my statements are found to be offensive by some, but I don't actually set out to insult anyone here. I try to keep my "sweeping generalizations" impersonal. So how come blatently offensive and insulting attacks on me are excused but I get called on anything I say that can be interpreted ---correctly sometimes, but not always--- negatively?
Could it be because I am found to be genuinely threatening? Maybe I'm wrong and arrogant to think this, but I'm taking it to mean that my arguments are in fact so strong that I must be attacked. Like Bill O'Reilly, or George W. Bush. If those men really meant nothing and had no power or influence, would anyone make a big deal about them? If O'Reilly really is just a blowhard and Bush really is just an idiot, then why would people actively try to destroy them? I'm not equating myself with them, but I think the principle is the same.
posted
I think it's more because you don't seem open to changing your mind. Thus they see no advantage in not antagonizing you in the hope that you'll go away (or commit suicide, I've had that suggestion thrown my way a couple of times ).
In a larger sense, I think that it is Card that the camper-trolls on this forum regard as a threat. Otherwise, they probably wouldn't be camper-trolling his forum, eh? By driving off or subverting Card's native fanbase, they hope to both reduce his popularity and to convince him that he's insane for writing the kinds of things he writes.
I think that mostly they just succeed in making fools of themselves, but they do seem to have caused some pretty serious emotional conflicts for a few good people. All in the service of humanism, I suppose.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lest anyone wonder whether Richard's speculations might in fact be accurate, let me remind them that he claims to be a member of an inhuman species dedicated to the extermination of our own. In fact, he's repeatedly asserted that he has little understanding of and no sympathy for human motivations. So that might help you measure exactly how accurate his suggestions on that front might be.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not to sound offensive, but just because you moved from a pro-life to a pro-choice viewpoint does not mean my argument is not valid.
My only point in saying that I went from a pro-life to a pro-choice viewpoint was to counter your point that age, wisdom, or experience had anything to do with this. I don't assume that I am definitely right as you do.
As for the underlying assumption, you are missing the most important one. You are assuming that there is absolute truth in this world that we are measuring against.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Like Bill O'Reilly, or George W. Bush. If those men really meant nothing and had no power or influence, would anyone make a big deal about them?
It's because of their power and influence that they worry people. The loudest talking idiot can often convince people who are likeminded into following them down whatever harebrained path they're headed towards.
quote:You are assuming that there is absolute truth in this world that we are measuring against.
Beyond that, he's assuming that he is somehow smart or privileged enough to access this truth and that anyone who disagrees with him is not.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay...but if there isn't some absolute truth in this world, then what is the point of getting so worked up over an assertion that you believe is incorrect?
You think that you're right and he's wrong, that's why you're arguing. Saying that there is something inherently wrong with his belief that the things he believes are the truth doesn't bear even the thinnest examination unless you can demonstrate that there is something objectively wrong with those beliefs themselves, not simply the fact that they are believed.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're nuts Well, maybe you're using a definition of "nice" that has more to do with physical grace and perfection, but you wouldn't really be able to judge that from posts on the internet.
Or could you?
Besides, my body is designed more for practicality than aesthetics. I prefer to think of it as "rugged". Like my personality Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Our values have been turned upside down.
Whose values? And why is their overturning a bad thing? And why are these values better than any others?
Posts: 130 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
On abortion, yes, it's a moral as well as religious issue. At the moment I don't think that the government should intervene either way, to fund abortion clinics or prohibit it. This is for my own reasons and based off my own experience.
After a day spent at a conference concerning human trafficking and poverty though, I wonder why we're so concerned about the, maybe thousands of abortions that take places as opposed to the 10s of thousands of bona fide (no debate about whether or not their indivduals) humans, many infants and children, who die from hunger or conflict (or are enslaved or exploited).
Posts: 130 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Our values have been turned upside down.
Whose values? And why is their overturning a bad thing? And why are these values better than any others?
Those are the real questions. It turns out that if you don't have the right answers, you get yelled at.
By the way, the number of abortions in America is estimated to be about 1.4 million per year. That's not to downplay the importance of human trafficking and hell, about twenty thousand other problems. Concerning abortion, I think the first step is to convince enough people that abortion actually is a problem in the first place. And not just the problem of "why are their so many unwanted pregancies?" More of the magnitude of "why is our government allowing babies to be killed without restriction?"
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Watching resh and survivor bounce their personalities off of each other is like some sort of christmas gift.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with abortion is that it is an issue largely tied to religious beliefs. If a person believes that life begin at conception than abortion seems like murder, but if a person believes that life begins when a person is born then abortion is not murder to them. When the government tries to make laws about abortion, then oftentimes religious beliefs are some part of the law and that means the government is imposing religious beliefs on the population which may or may not share them and violates the separation of church and state.
In countries where abortion is illegal, it happens anyway, but instead of going to a hospital women literally resort to coat hangers. If abortions were made illegal, it's very likely they would continue anyway.
In addition, people often say that people who abort shoul just carry the babies and put them up for adoption, but truly, you have to ask those people if they've adopted any children.
I also think people should realize that for most women the decision to have an abortion is not an easy one. Humans aren't wired to want to give up their children, and women do consider issues before having an abortion and it is rather unfair to make laws implying that women are incapable of making their own decisions. If it is against your beliefs to have an abortion, don't have one (also think that men really should be saying less on this issure considering they don't have wombs and they will never carry a child)
I myself am uncertain of my views on abortion, but I don't think that views I have should be forced upon others. I think the solution to preventing so many unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortion is better birth control and better education about how to use birth control, and for education about birth control to be taught at an earlier age.
In my high school, birth control isn't taught until 10th grade and by then many students, in reality, are already having sex. Some suggest trying to teach chastity, but honestly, lessons in abstinence tend to be a complete joke or preaching which just makes teenagers want to rebel more.
I still think that if people concerned about abortion put so much value on human life then they should focus on saving the lives of people who are already born who die all around the world everyday.
Posts: 130 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I don't think it is his worst book, it certainly has some problems. I like the theme, but it seriously falls apart in the realism category. The Mechs and Hoverbikes are unbelievable. The military stuff is obviously written by someone who has not served, and the idea that these guys are cruising around NYC with unregistered class III NFA weapons shows shows a naivety about legal issues concerning firearms or what precisely military folks can get away with. Having carried the SAW myself, I think it's pretty funny that Cole, (Who apparently has an "S" on his chest,) was running for miles with an M249 SAW, (That's the US nomenclature for it, BTW, Minimi is the Euro version.)
The pacing and logic leaps were unbelievably rapid, even for military geniuses. Oh and the part about Washington state courting the rebels simply kills me. Outside of Pugetropolis, this is a red state, and we tote guns. Even inside the sound area, there are scads of libertarians and people like me who are all over the map politically. And dear god, there are a ton of prior service folks up here. Washington is about as pro-military as San Diego, (Which with 14 bases is pretty pro-mil.) I suspect any leftist rebellion would draw the rooftop voters, posthaste. Oregon and Vermont are also both blue states that are not typically Democratic at all. They would not be the ones openly courting secession, I think. I think California would be the most likely candidate, as it has an economy thatcould support sucession, (Though it would be a tactical nightmare to try to defend from the FedGov.)
But aside from the numerous realism issues, the book is still good, and I agree with the basic cautionary tale about polarization, partisanship and cults of personality.
Posts: 186 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I still think that if people concerned about abortion put so much value on human life then they should focus on saving the lives of people who are already born who die all around the world everyday.
It's very nice of you to tell people who think something different than you how they should act. Would you tell someone who opposes the killing of children by frustrated parents that they should volunteer at a day care center rather than favor making such killings illegal?
You also seem to be assuming that it's not possible to care for those who are born while also working to grant legal protection to the unborn, as evidenced by the enormous amount of work done by pro-life people along those lines.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously. That "if you REALLY cared, you'd be devoting your energy elsewhere" thing is the most obnoxious argument EVER. It just brings with it such a huge presumption that one's opponents are hypocritical moral cretins.
Which is useful, I suppose ... it helps me identify irrational individuals who have lost the ability to put themselves in their opponents' shoes.
But still. Next person who uses it gets a pie in the face.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Puppy if you really cared you would devote your energy elswwwWWAAHH AAUGH I'M ALLERGIC TO RHUBARB
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahhhhhh, rhubarb pie. There's nothing better. Except perhaps rhubarb-strawberry sauce on thick french toast.
*hungry*
quote:Oh and the part about Washington state courting the rebels simply kills me. Outside of Pugetropolis, this is a red state, and we tote guns. Even inside the sound area, there are scads of libertarians and people like me who are all over the map politically. And dear god, there are a ton of prior service folks up here. Washington is about as pro-military as San Diego, (Which with 14 bases is pretty pro-mil.) I suspect any leftist rebellion would draw the rooftop voters, posthaste.
Thank you, Mazer -- that was a bit difficult to swallow in the book -- having been born and raised here (with a taste of WY, UT, and NY just for flavoring). It felt very . . . oh, what is the word I'm searching for . . . surrealistic -- that's it!
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Seriously. That "if you REALLY cared, you'd be devoting your energy elsewhere" thing is the most obnoxious argument EVER. It just brings with it such a huge presumption that one's opponents are hypocritical moral cretins.
That, and the whole "gay people CAN marry" argument both make me go bonkers. Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The differences in various political and position stances, in my humble though very excellent opinion, stem more from differences in PRIORITIES than from anything else, including logic, information, and upbringing.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I loved Empire because of its message. There were a few unrealistic parts to the story, but this novel was very good. I had for a long time discouraged political party loyalty prioritized before national pride and thankfulness to live in someplace as great as America. From homosexuality to abortion to Iraq to whatever divides the red and blue states, we're all Americans in this, and Empire was one of my favorite books to recommend when I talk to some of the extreme leftist youngsters who seem to have been raised to think of George W. Bush as a wretched lifeless monster.
Empire was, in short, an insightful book, and when I read the original post of this forum, I think part of the reason some people might not like it is that we can't argue with it without exposing ourselves as part of the evil this book warns against. There really were a lot of Star Wars parallels, I might add, which isn't exactly a bad thing, because Star Wars has weaknesses in acting and short-term plot.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I lived in areas that don't have many extreme rightist youngsters. Everyone's left-winged, right-handed. I know the rightist youngsters would probably have their own set of negative presumptions about the other wing if I ever met one. I hear about this kind of thing from everywhere in the media. In terms of George W. Bush, which is what I mentioned in that post, it appears according to some of the polls that some either they aren't voting or they don't think the President is on their side. I don't want to make assessments like this based on people I've never met, so I'll try to keep to what I've seen. Look how the media tried to portray Rube and Cole.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, if people really do start becoming more Republican than American (I said Republican JUST to balance the "extreme leftist" mentions), Empire might not be fictional. Except for the stupid dam that was built for no reason with the water levels changeability and the secret base. And the Princeton guy who takes over the United States. And the very heavy military-grade weapons that just happened to be in the car when the Imperial AT-STs invaded.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
).![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Well, maybe you're using a definition of "nice" that has more to do with physical grace and perfection, but you wouldn't really be able to judge that from posts on the internet.![[Mad]](mad.gif)
