quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: But in the future, I will try to be more persuasive and less abrasive.
Hey! I just popped into the last post on the last page of this thread without even reading the opening post, much less anything else, and the first sentence I read was that one. I like it! Good sentence.
Edit: And hey! I got the ToPP (Top of Page Post for those unaware of my shorthand). And I wasn't even trying! Woo! Its all downpage from here. Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you are doing the very thing you claim to hate in that very post.....you are assuming there is no middle ground, when to a lot of people there IS, and then claiming someone HAS to be dense not to get your points.
You claim to only care about being the arbitrator of "what works" for you, but then you deny others the same right to decide for themselves.
"You are perfectly within your rights to feel that way, but I disagree and your opinion has no dominion over a woman's choice."
But that isn't contrary to the argument....it is the central tenant of my belief....that I don't think that your beliefs, religious or otherwise, have enough weight to overrule the mothers choice on what happens to her own body.
I refuse to allow you the right to restrict what this discussion is about, because it affect more than just the fetus.
You feel the future rights of something that may or may not be born even if left alone outweighs the rights of a woman who is already been born and is living her life as she sees fit.
I don't.
By ignoring the nuances of other peoples perceptions and writing them off as dense because they don't agree with you, you are missing the entire point.
If it was as simple and uncomplicated as you have said you feel it is then there wouldn't really be a debate.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been trying to find ways to categorize the debate that flourishes from different subjects. So far, abortion debates most resemble the patterns found also in debates between vegetarians and meat-eaters.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really? I've never been in one of those debates. I guess I'd have to formulate an opinion before I did.
Kwea, I understand there are a lot of gray areas as far as the philosophy of the debate is concerned. What makes it so confusing is that my philosophy interferes with how those gray ares are defined. It is very complicated, on many levels. I define for myself the issue in very stark terms, for my own reasons (which I expressed in that last post). I respect that you and most others do not. You all have your own reasons. I think that in order to tolerate gray areas, one must have less defined logical parameters. No problem. Don't think that when I arbitrate "what works" for me, I think that they must work for everyone else. You believe what you want and how you want.
BUT...I think that in order for you to believe differently from me, you have to define your own reasons, and if you are perfectly honest with yourself you will see that you don't have anything that really works. I only say that because I've thought long and hard about it, and I've argued my position against many pro-choicers, and no one has a better response than what has been presented here. I have determined that those responses are woefully inadequate, and so I don't have any qualms with telling you or anyone else that I think it is senseless, unreasonable, and amoral to be pro-choice.
[edit] I have determined those responses to be woefully inadequate, but of course, you don't have to accept that. But what you should do is have a reason for rejecting it, and it should be better than "well, I disagree." Which is only slightly better than the most common retort I hear, which is "you're an idiot."
[also edit] Not that you should do it now. We've gone over this long enough, and I don't think anybody is about to bring anything new to the table. If you wan't to convince me that I'm mistaken, you can try again later. If your arguments are good enough to convince other's and you don't care about convincing me, then we can just drop it entirely.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Don't think that when I arbitrate "what works" for me, I think that they must work for everyone else. You believe what you want and how you want.
...I have determined that those responses are woefully inadequate, and so I don't have any qualms with telling you or anyone else that I think it is senseless, unreasonable, and amoral to be pro-choice.
So using arbitrary and personal criteria that you admit are at least problematic, you arrive at a moral determination which only applies to other people?
By extention, however YOU determine an issue is how we should behave, unless we are able to convince YOU otherwise.
I'm sure you have already decided who I should vote for...
Posts: 11 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: BUT...I think that in order for you to believe differently from me, you have to define your own reasons, and if you are perfectly honest with yourself you will see that you don't have anything that really works. I only say that because I've thought long and hard about it, and I've argued my position against many pro-choicers, and no one has a better response than what has been presented here. I have determined that those responses are woefully inadequate, and so I don't have any qualms with telling you or anyone else that I think it is senseless, unreasonable, and amoral to be pro-choice.
I have have determined that you are not worth the effort that I have already expended trying to explain that what works for me doesn't make me amoral. You saying otherwise means completely nothing to me.
I will tell you that I find it completely obnoxious to declare yourself the moral (or intellectual)superior to everyone who disagrees with you in this thread.
Your much vaunted "logic" is no more than the simple posturing of a person who can't comprehend that others have a right to their own views on things, and that those views are not necessarily inferior to your own.
You obviously feel yourself qualified to determine what other people should be allowed to do with their lives. I am just glad that you lack the ability to enforce your views.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Kwea, I don't have a problem telling you what I think, and neither do you. Whether I am right or wrong, I am able to tell you precisely why I think your position is amoral and illogical. Compare...
You tell me I'm obnoxious, not worth the effort, and unable to comprehend that other people have the right to make their own decisions. From what I gather, you feel this way because 1) you disagree with me and 2) I have the nerve to be so unabashadly frank and precise in explaining how and why I feel a certain way.
If my "logic" is jus a bunch of posturing, then how come you don't try and deconstruct it? You can call it what you want, but you haven't made the slightest bit of progress toward proving me wrong. You're just yelling at me about how I'm a big jerk, and an idiot (not in so many words).
You're obviously very frustrated. Me? I'm probably acting smug.
Threadender, my moral determination applies to everyone, if it is correct. Because if it is, then abotion is wrong, and of course everyone should act accordingly. Why is this a problem? If you are pro-choice, you make the claim that I should not be trying to make decisions that rightfully a woman's to make.
As for having to convince me otherwise, only if you feel like trying. I don't make any demands. I don't see why this is so hard for people to realize. I am pro-life, and I am able to explain why, in no uncertain terms. Part (or all) of the reason I am pro-life is because my reasoning requires me to assign values of right and wrong. If I only applied those standards of right and wrong to myself, then I would have to be pro-choice.
That is the *il*logical basis of the pro-choice argument, that notions of right and wrong only applies to the person who has the notion. Except the notion of the wrongness of applying the the notion of the wrongness of killing an unborn baby. That notion (the first one) must apply to everyone. Does that make sense? Because it is certainly a double standard.
Hmm, I know what I'm trying to say, but I wouldn't be surprised if it looks like gibberish. If anyone can paraphrase the above paragraph for me, I'd appreciate it!
[edit] Made a sentence bold, because it's important.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Totally unrelated to the rest of the posts (or at least I assume this is... I didn't actually read every single post in this thread, only about the first half of them) But... Wouldn't abortion send the baby/unbornchild/fetus/whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-it straight to Heaven? Since they haven't been born, it seems to me that it would be impossible for them to have committed any sins. Or does the fact that they were unbaptized condemn them to Hell?
...That is no longer entirely representative of my views (And I freely admit to being agnostic and therefore not really believing in Heaven/Hell, or having a problem with abortion... But the whole sending-straight-to-heaven thing is a bit extreme even for me)
But it has still bothered me for quite a long time. So is it that the abortion wouldn't send the soul to Heaven, or that people have a problem with sending the soul straight to Heaven? (ie, even though life on earth may be imperfect, it is really needed to appreciate Heaven... I could totally go with that argument, you can't appreciate the good things without experiencing things that aren't good...)
So I guess I just answered my own question.
I'm still posting this anyways.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure how it works in the faiths where you have to get baptised. My non-denominational view would be that aborted babies go right to Heaven. I just don't see how that justifies ending 25% of all pregnancies voluntarily.
I probably wouldn't mind abortion so much if it was something a few hundred women did every year. It would make me a little sad, but I'd shrug, say Whatchagonna do, and never think of it again. For me, it's the sheer scope of things that gets to me.
What are these women doing that 3 million are getting knocked up when they didn't mean to and half of those abort? It's the wantonness that angers me. (That and anything in the second trimester or later is vile to hear described.)
I don't know who these Guttmacher folks are, but they seem purely clinical with a pro-contreceptive angle. They're claiming the number of abortions is tied directly to the number of unintended pregnancies. Decrease the unintended pregnancies, decrease the number of abortions.
What they don't explain is what we do different from Western Europe that they have very low abortion rates and ours are among the highest in the developed world. We have groups that give pills and condoms out free or cheap. What more should we be doing?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find your attitude, particularly in this thread, to be obnoxious and smug. I also find your logic to be faulty, and feel your opinion to be narrow-minded and feel it fails to consider all of the related points that matter to me.
I wasn't yelling this time, or calling you names, nor was I saying anything that others haven't.
I DO understand why you believe what you do, Resh. I am not even saying that you are completely wrong. I don't consider abortion to be a viable option in my life because I agree with at least some of your logic.
But the disconnect happens whenever you try to mandate how others must life their lives, and when you take control of other peoples medical treatment. I feel this is as evil, and just as problematic, as anything abortion does.
I understand that you don't agree, but I don't call you amoral or thick, or slow. I understand that there is a gray area, where there are two poor choices rather than one good and one evil. I chose the pro-life stance because, regardless of my own personal feelings, I think that personal freedom regarding your own life, and your own medical treatments, trump all of your arguments.
But I also understand that even personal freedom isn't limitless, so even that isn't black and white, as nice as that would be.
YOU are the one acting like a child, calling others amoral and even evil, and even comparing them to Nazi's, all because they don't agree with you. Your simplistic views refuse to even consider the fact that it is possible to disagree with your opinions without being either of those things.
I don't' need to dissect your logic...I just don't find it compelling enough to remove personal freedom from the mother. I think that out of two very poor options, I choose the one that doesn't violate the rights of a living, breathing human being, the only one granted rights by our laws and our Constitution....the mother.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm fairly sure that birth control in Western Europe is cheaper than here. Recently in an entirely different discussion that I was having on an entirely different website... It came out that the women from Britain were astonished to find out that people had to pay for birth control pills here. I guess that they are more or less covered by the national health insurance in Britain.
...And I guess people would argue that abstinence only education is counterproductive. I personally believe that education about safe-sex is better than abstinence only education... Not just in the sense of preventing abortions, but also just in the sense of giving people knowledge. I don't have any statistics to say whether or not safe-sex education reduces abortions, but I think that I've seen some before. Then again, with a topic as controversial as Abortion, you can generally find statistics to support just about anything.
What do you think of the morning-after pill? Do you consider it abortion or not?
Posts: 3 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: That is the *il*logical basis of the pro-choice argument, that notions of right and wrong only applies to the person who has the notion. Except the notion of the wrongness of applying the the notion of the wrongness of killing an unborn baby. That notion (the first one) must apply to everyone. Does that make sense? Because it is certainly a double standard.
So, if I get this right you're saying that if you know something is wrong then you should expect others to behave accordingly to the knowledge that it is wrong.
And I can agree, kind of. I'd say that if WE know something is wrong then WE should expect others to behave accordingly.
Which is why I think we can all agree on things like murder, assault etc.
BUT what I think you're missing is that there are many issues for which there is no right/wrong consensus, in which case we might be wronging someone else by forcing our morality on them. For example there are those on this board who *know* that eating meat and dairy together is wrong, but I don't expect them to project that belief onto me since there is no broad consensus that it is.
quote:I don't think I've ever stated where I think life begins. Neither have I said what I think defines personhood (the two are not necessarily the same thing). All I've ever said is that since there is no way of knowing what that point is, I find myself without any choice but to be pro-life.
The part where everyone seems to get upset with me is my insistence that the way I've come to this conclusion is both morally and logically superior to others. I guess that's impolite.
It's not just impolite it's flat wrong. You can't go around claiming that your conclusion is logically superior when you haven't looked at all the facts. In proper decision analysis the certain equivalent of a deal or decision is determined by the probability of the different outcomes as well as their value. (Where probability is the decision makers degree of belief that the outcome will occur). Your entire "analysis" ignores the fact that the probability and value of the outcomes is relative, as it is for all decisions.
Now, that's not so say you couldn't use decision analysis to logically prove your point - you could. BUT you'd need to look at all aspects of the decision and see how sensitive the solution is to "reasonable" changes in the probabilities and values to make sure it's robust enough to be considered universal... We can dither more about what constitutes "reasonable" changes but take it as meaning a swing which covers the beliefs/values of a suitable percentage of the population - say 95% or such).
Employing this method you'll be able to conclude that murder, assault, rape etc are all wrong. But you *won't* be able to do the same for abortion.
So, the bottom line is that your conclusion works for you but it's arrogant, as well as logically insincere, to claim it works for anyone/everyone else.
The argumentum ad ignorantiam [fallacy] is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true. He adds, A qualification should be made at this point. In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence despite searching, as positive evidence towards its non-occurrence. (Copi 1953)
To support this, one might add a third case, the argument that something is false or true because the speaker cannot (or finds it hard to) conceive otherwise. This argument by lack of imagination is sometimes expressed in the form "Y is absurd (because I can not imagine it), therefore it must be untrue," or "It is hard to see how..." [ie I personally cannot see, or lack imagination, how], and is sometimes confused with the logically valid method of argument, reductio ad absurdum. A logical argument using reductio ad absurdum would be framed as "X logically leads to a provably impossible (absurd) conclusion, therefore it must be false." In reductio ad absurdum, it is necessary to show that accepting X implies a contradiction (such as "not X", or "Y and not Y" for some other proposition Y). In an argument from ignorance, the speaker asserts "X implies not Y", where Y is believed to be, but cannot be proven, true, rather than something which is provably contradictory.
Copi's argument concerns the Y condition; That in this case of "X implies not Y" for some other proposition Y, some weight must be given to the probability that the speaker's evaluation of Y is correct. For example, if proposition X is "This man was shot", and proposition Y is "There was no bullet", the speaker's qualification to assert condition Y must be considered. A coroner who had examined the body is most likely qualified to draw this conclusion, but an eyewitness is probably unqualified.
Argument from personal incredulity is very similar, e.g. "I am unable to believe/understand X, therefore it must be false."
quote:For example there are those on this board who *know* that eating meat and dairy together is wrong, but I don't expect them to project that belief onto me since there is no broad consensus that it is.
Bad analogy. No one here, including those of us who keep kosher, thinks there's anything wrong with YOU eating milk and meat together (assuming you are not Jewish).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Employing this method you'll be able to conclude that murder, assault, rape etc are all wrong. But you *won't* be able to do the same for abortion.
The same could be said about slavery in 1860, yet it was wrong for Americans to keep slaves, and the Thirteenth Amendment was still a proper use of government coercion to make them stop.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bad analogy. No one here, including those of us who keep kosher, thinks there's anything wrong with YOU eating milk and meat together (assuming you are not Jewish).
Yeah, I guess it might have been a bad analogy...
The point I was trying to make (apparently without success) is that you know there's something wrong with it for you and any of those who share your beliefs (ie Jews) but there isn't a general consensus that your beliefs are right so it doesn't extend to everyone. Similarly Resh knows abortion is wrong for him, and by extension can claim that applies to those who believes what he does but there isn't any consensus that his beliefs are the right ones so he can't/shouldn't extend it farther than that.
So, I guess what I'm saying is I chose this example knowing that you didn't extend it beyond those who are Jewish but trying to make the point that you make - that you don't extend your belief about kosher laws to those who don't share your beliefs in general...
(PS - hope you weren't offended...)
quote:The same could be said about slavery in 1860, yet it was wrong for Americans to keep slaves, and the Thirteenth Amendment was still a proper use of government coercion to make them stop.
Actually I'm not 100% convinced this it true (that the same could be said, I do 100% agree that slavery had to go)... the swing in beliefs would be very broad but the disparity in outcomes can make up for that.
On the other hand I won't say I'm 100% convinced that it isn't true either... because I have knowledge that someone in 1860 wouldn't so I can't tell where an analysis based on the knowledge of the day would lead.
What I'm about to try to articulate is tricky and will probably not be clear so I apologize in advance if it comes across badly... It does seem to me that we can better/more easily quantify the long-term impact (and thus the "value" of different outcomes) of abortion than of slavery, if for no other reason than there are things (contraception) that create a similar situation. Since the outcome is the lack of a new influence and not and ongoing event it may be easier to quantify.
But it's important to note that just because something is the logical choice in a decision analysis doesn't say it will have a positive outcome and vice-versa.
Besides, I never made any statements/judgements about morality, simply that Resh is claiming superior logic without actually applying logic.
posted
I don't know how you can say I'm not applying logic. You may think my logic is weak, but that doesn't mean it is. You have to show that it is in order to back up a statement like that.
[edit] Talking about outcomes is not gonna do it. You are arguing that the means justify the ends. No matter the utopian society that results, that doesn't excuse killing millions of innocent people.
Kwea, I know you weren't yelling. I was just saying it. I do that sometimes, if you've noticed.
Saying that I'm mandating how people should live, or as Just_me says, there isn't a general consensus in opinion and so I shouldn't extend my beliefs of right an wrong beyond those who are are pro-life, these are distortions of my point. I am saying that abortion is objectively wrong. You may disagree, but as far as I'm concerned, that doesn't make it any less wrong. I think it is wrong enough that it should be outlawed, regardless of how many people want it to remain legal. But this is a separate issue. The constitutionality of the "right" to have an abortion is not what I'm talking about. Even if the founding fathers specifically said "Women may abort their children for any reason," I would still argue that it is a horrible sin. So don't change the subject.
Besides, I'm not even saying that I think it is certainly wrong. The crux of my argument is that there is no way to know that it is not wrong, and therefore the only moral option is to be against it. Bringing up how I compared abortion to the holocaust is changing the subject as well, because although I did do that on this very thread, that was pretty much a different argument that I was making.
Thanks for posting the stuff about the argument from ignorance fallacy, orlax. It puts my argument in an interesting light that I had not considered.
I think it perhaps applies, but if anything, my argument uses the fallacy to make its point. It is because the propositions cannot be proven or disproven that one must choose the pro-life side. In a situation like this, there is no excuse to err on the side of caution.
Which makes me think of something. I've read several times now on this thread that it is better to err on the side of the woman's right to choose, because she is the only one we can be certain is a human life, and so it would be wrong to infringe upon her "constitutionally protected rights." (Sorry, the quotations are not necessary; I just can't help but express my disdain for such a ridiculous idea. A topic for another thread.) So we are both choosing to err on the side of caution. But my caution is for the possible life of an innocent human child. The other caution is for the woman's freedom from being stuck with a kid she doesn't want (for whatever reason, even the good ones.) This is not anything new. I said it many many posts ago: one of us is wrong, and it is certainly better to be guilty of my wrong than to be guilty of the other wrong. I guess I'm like someone who belives in God just in case he's real. Because he doesn't want to suffer the consequences of being wrong. Not a good reason for believing in God, and maybe my reason for being pro-life is no better. But if I were pro-choice, I would hate to find out the hard way that I was wrong.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:ing about outcomes is not gonna do it. You are arguing that the means justify the ends. No matter the utopian society that results, that doesn't excuse killing millions of innocent people.
I am absolutely *NOT* talking about the ends justifying the means. I am talking about a logical approach to decision analysis in which the possible outcomes are identified, given a weight (value) and a probability and this information is used to identify the "best" decision.
I'm not going to to argue about whether your option is the "only moral option". I will, however, make the argument that you haven't presented your argument as a logical one, but as a moral one so you shouldn't claim your logic is irrefutable.
You keep saying you don't have any way of knowing it's not wrong... and you've said before that that means that you therefore logically have only one option.
This isn't true if your degree of belief that it is wrong and the value you place on it not being wrong are such that overall it's "worth the chance". Ot that the value you place on possibly wronging someone if it is OK and you forbid it outweighs the value you place on not forbidding it and it being wrong.
This is what I think people were getting at earlier with the talk of this not being a black and white issue.
This probably makes no sense since I need to sleep... maybe I'll try to clarify more tomorrow (but not likely since I'm swamped and shouldn't even have taken the time to post as much as I did)
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
DEKA, I'm ok with the morning after pill. I've seen those stats on fertilized eggs being flushed from the system naturally, so I usually go with implantation as my when life starts point. To me, the morning after pill is just fixing a mistake.
And while it makes me a little squicky, if women are going to abort, I'd rather they do it early. It's less gross to me before you can feel the baby moving. I know it's something of a rationalization, but I'm ok with that.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It made pretty good sense, Jm. I guess I agree, actually. Two things though... just because my logical propositions require moarl judgments doesn't make them illogical. I claim it is irrefutable (while perfectly prepared to be proven wrong if someone can do it) as a moral argument. And that is exactly what abortion requires; some moral judgments.
And second, it's true about degrees of belief, but at what point do you determine that one degree outweighs the other? Surely you place more weight on the degrees of possibility of personhood over the woman's rights. I mean to say, a 25% possibility of personhood would be enough to determine that abortion is wrong, right? What about 10%? 5%? 1%? Where do you draw the line, and how do you determine where the line is? I don't trust human judgment enough to accurately guage this, and so.... pro-life.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think you are putting far too little value on a person's right to not be killed by another human being.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
OK.. I got a minute... looks like I lucked out and checked back right after you posted.
First, thanks for actually trying to understand... I appreciate it.
I agree that moral judgements enter into it - to me they enter into the value placed on the possible outcomes.
About where to draw the line...
If I was to approach this using decision analysis techniques I would use this basic approach: 1) identify the outcomes 2) assign value to the outcome 3) assign probabilities to options 4) Multiply the value of the outcome back through the probabilities in the path that leads to it to find the "value" of that option.
As a simplistic example, let's say I'm examining the decision of prohibiting abortion in the first few weeks of pregnancy.
1) identify the outcomes... there are 4:
Allow abortion, is person
Forbid abortion, is person
Allow abortion, is not person
Forbid abortion, is not person
2) I use my morality to assign "values" to the outcome. This gets a little hairy but here's some numbers based on the basic morality that it is bad to take life, good to save life and neutral to take or save non-life (normalized on a scale of 0-100)
Allow abortion, is person = 0 (bad)
Forbid abortion, is person = 100 (good)
Allow abortion, is not person = 70 (little better than neutral since I feel could be harming others if I forbid it)
Forbid abortion, is not person =30 (little worse than neutral for similar reasoning)
3) Let's assume the probability of person-hood is 25%...
Using the notation p(event) is the probability of the event and v(event) is the value of the event, the the relative weight of forbidding is: =p(person)*v(forbid - person) + (1-p(person))*v(forbid - not person)
Which in this case in 47.5. Similarly the value of allowing is 52.5. So, if I have accurately and subjectively defined my values and probabilities I can see that overall I place more value on allowing abortion.
Of course lots of things can change this... as soon as I raise my probability of person-hood above about 28.5% it swings the other way.
So, the bottom line is that each person has to assign their own values and probabilities and make the decision themselves. Their decision may not be moral according to your or my morality but still may be logical given their own morality.
BTW - for what it's worth I don't have my own views on abortion even rally figured out yet. I'm loathe to forbid it outright but think it makes sense to after a certain point... To me life doesn't suddenly begin with the fertilized egg but I don't know when it really does begin. I do know, however, that I felt no moral qualms about offering a friend a ride to the clinic after her father raped and impregnated her...
OK, back to work now....
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you are putting far too little value on a person's right to sovereignty over his own body.
One could argue that restricting abortion does not, ultimately, limit the sovereignty a person has over their own body.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think you are putting far too little value on a person's right to not be killed by another human being.
Am I just imagining that this sounds a bit hostile? I didn't indicate what value I placed on a "person's"* right not to be killed. So how would you know what value I place on it? My point was that in Reshpeckbiggle's posts, he seems to think that the woman's rights are of no value or of negliable value. They don't figure into his construction at all.
* The personhood of a fetus has not been established.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you are putting far too little value on a person's right to sovereignty over his own body.
One could argue that restricting abortion does not, ultimately, limit the sovereignty a person has over their own body.
How is that? Being forced to grow another being inside your body is a pretty significant intrusion on one's freedom, resources, health etc.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My point was that in Reshpeckbiggle's posts, he seems to think that the woman's rights are of no value or of negliable value. They don't figure into his construction at all.
And Resh didn't indicate what value he placed on a person's right to sovereignty over his body. That's my point.
You only know that he doesn't consider it to be greater than 1/100th (or 1/1000th, etc.) of the value of a person's* right to not be killed by another human being, assuming this is being weighted based on the probability he listed.
That might be because he doesn't value a person's right to sovereignty over his body. It might also be because of how much he values a person's right to not be killed by another human being.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:How is that? Being forced to grow another being inside your body is a pretty significant intrusion on one's freedom, resources, health etc.
Therein lies the problem. For example, let's say I decide to start crossing a busy street. There's cars coming and such, but I find a good opening and go for it.
In the middle of the street, I decide I don't want to cross the street anymore, and have a seat on the ashphalt (ouch! Hot!). Are the cars bearing down on me forcing me to move on to the other side?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Being forced to grow another being inside your body is a pretty significant intrusion on one's freedom, resources, health etc.
"Not being allowed to another" is very different from "being force to grow another."
There are very few instances where a person does not have complete and total control over whether there is another growing inside her.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I've read several times now on this thread that it is better to err on the side of the woman's right to choose, because she is the only one we can be certain is a human life, and so it would be wrong to infringe upon her "constitutionally protected rights." (Sorry, the quotations are not necessary; I just can't help but express my disdain for such a ridiculous idea. A topic for another thread.)
Statements like this were my indication that a woman's rights were not being given sufficient value.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How is that? Being forced to grow another being inside your body is a pretty significant intrusion on one's freedom, resources, health etc.
And statements like this are a pretty good indication that a person's right not to be killed is not being given sufficient value.
And the idea that government can't restrict a right in some way to protect another from imminent threat of death is worthy of disdain.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And statements like this are a pretty good indication that a person's right not to be killed is not being given sufficient value.
How so? I don't see that statement as having anything to do with a person's right not to be killed, one way or the other.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay. Is there any point in having this discussion anymore? I can understand that you are passionate about this, but I don't think you are even listening to me anymore.
I haven't said that one right trumps the other. I just said that both rights exist. Saying that it is a significant intrusion is not the same as saying that it isn't worth it. Clearly, for many people, it is more than worth it. For me, it would be worth it.
And I am not that far from your point of view. My only argument is that this is more complicated than "killing babies is bad".
Is it such a bad thing to even be able to see the arguments the other side is making?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure it does, Mr. Squicky. That statement doesn't take into account at all a person's right not to be killed, thus it's not being given sufficient value.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Err...that statement doesn't say that the right of the fetus not to be killed doesn't outweigh the significant intrusion. The relative weighing is not addressed at all. All it is saying is that it is a significant intrusion.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Sure it does, Mr. Squicky. That statement doesn't take into account at all a person's right not to be killed, thus it's not being given sufficient value.
It didn't take that into account, because I was only responding to your comment on how pregancy didn't impact a woman's right's to her body.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Well, I'm not sure if you're speaking to me or Dagonee, but I actually did listen to what you said. I also understand what you're saying. I was just pointing out what I perceieved as a flaw in your reasoning, which was your choice of the word 'force'. In my opinion, almost no women are forced to become pregnant, no more than I am forced to have to use the facilities after eating or drinking.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but you do not believe abortion should be restricted. If that is correct, then it seems to me that you either: a) don't think the fetus is a person, and thus is not worthy of the protection of the second right you say you recognize, or b) think that whatever level of personhood the fetus has achieved is not sufficient to justify the government compelling anything on its behalf.
Aren't you, in effect, saying that the woman's right to choose does trump the fetus's right to not be killed, if you acknowledge such a right as applying to a fetus at all?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It didn't take that into account, because I was only responding to your comment on how pregancy didn't impact a woman's right's to her body.
OK, well if the statement was meant entirely with those restrictions, then I agree, it does not necessarily have to do with both rights.
I still object to the terms "intrusion" and "force", though. I do not think they're applicable. If I invite someone over to dinner, he's, y'know, eats dinner with me.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Okay. Is there any point in having this discussion anymore? I can understand that you are passionate about this, but I don't think you are even listening to me anymore.
I'd like to know why you think this. I've responded very directly to what you've said. I have refused to accept the unstated assumptions that underly your post.
quote:I haven't said that one right trumps the other. I just said that both rights exist. Saying that it is a significant intrusion is not the same as saying that it isn't worth it. Clearly, for many people, it is more than worth it.
And saying that actual preventing of killing is more important than the concerns of sovereignty - and even thinking that this is not a close weighing - is not the same as saying it's not a significant intrusion.
Your responses have been making assumptions - such as that Resh doesn't value bodily sovereignty or that Resh doesn't recognize that pregnancy is an intrusion - that are not warranted, because if Resh values life to a large enough degree, Resh does not have to hold the positions you've assumed he does in order to be self-consistent.
quote:Is it such a bad thing to even be able to see the arguments the other side is making?
Another unwarranted assumption, this time about my view. Nothing I've said gives you a basis for thinking that I think it bad to be able to see the arguments the other side is making.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:In my opinion, almost no women are forced to become pregnant
boots wasn't talking about women being forced to become pregnant, but rather to continue being pregnant when a medical procedure exists to change this.
People aren't forced to break their leg while skiing. However, if you are denying them the medical procedures to fix their leg, you could say that they are forced to continue with a broken leg.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was speaking to Dagonee (with that post). I am happy to amend my statement to "not being allowed to stop growing" rather than "being forced to grow". It is still significant.
And you are wrong. I do think that there should be some restrictions on abortion. I am not sure what those should be.
And, as I have said, I would not (God willing) get an abortion myself.
I am not advocating abortion; I am just trying to assert that it is not as simple as Reshpeckobiggle is making it out to be.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:boots wasn't talking about women being forced to become pregnant, but rather to continue being pregnant when a medical procedure exists to change this.
People aren't forced to break their leg while skiing. However, if you are denying them the medical procedures to fix their leg, you could say that they are forced to continue with a broken leg.
Granted re: skiing on broken legs. But it sort of falls apart on careful examination. First of all, it's far from inevitable or even likely that if you ski, you'll break a leg. There are lots of skiers out there who regularly play at their sport, with no broken limbs. In the comparison, the same cannot be said of sex. Barring infertility and properly used birth control, if you have sex pregnancy will result.
It also fails because who is to say that a pregnant woman is 'broken'? A broken leg is, obviously, deficient and in need of repair.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Barring infertility and properly used birth control, if you have sex pregnancy will result.
Err...I think you may want to check that statement. Sex doesn't inevitibly lead to pregnancy anywhere outside of an abstinence-only sex-ed classroom.
[edit]:Also, removing properly used birth control is kind of a big thing, don't you think? I mean, if we look at skiers who ski recklessly and don't use any protective equipment, I'd imagine that the incidence of broken legs per capita would increase quite a bit.[/edit]
quote:It also fails because who is to say that a pregnant woman is 'broken'?
The woman, I would imagine.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Err...I think you may want to check that statement. Sex doesn't inevitibly lead to pregnancy anywhere outside of an abstinence-only sex-ed classroom.
Well, alright. Let me get extra-specific, then. Vaginal sexual intercourse, when practiced between two fertile partners who either aren't using birth control properly, or aren't using it at all, between people of opposite gender, if repeated, will inevitably lead to pregnancy, Mr. Squicky.
Do you disagree? I think it's pretty obvious that those conditions are what I was getting at, but I'll grant the possibility of misinterpretations.
----------
quote:The woman, I would imagine.
Then perhaps she should not have helped to break herself? And anyway, that's a subjective judgement in a way that a broken leg isn't.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
