quote:Ah. See, no it doesn't. The government can take away property but they do not make you work off a debt. If you choose to not work and live on charity or whatever, the government does not force you to work.
Of course they do. In, for example, cases of car accidents where you cannot afford the treatment you're given. You then have a debt. They don't put you in debtor's prison if you don't pay, but there's a clear-cut use of force nonetheless.
Citizens are also compelled to pay off debts in small claims court.
quote:I'm not sure what you mean here? Are you talking of the body sovereignty of the fetus?
I was talking about a circumstance in which we do take away a person's right to body-sovereignty. You said it was rare. I should've been more clear, I wasn't disagreeing with you, simply pointing out that we do take that away...and in fact do so in situations involving abortion, namely late-term abortion.
quote:I agree there is a moral responsibility. I won't agree that there should be a legal one.
Well, of course. I left off the 'in my opinion' because it gets clunky after awhile.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We need a sex tax to cover the cost to government of abortions. They do it with cigarettes and alcohol for other medical ramifications. Maybe they should put the abortion tax on alcohol, since I'm sure it's to blame for many unwanted pregnancies.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was trying to think like a liberal. Sorry, they tend not to tax their own causes. In fact, they give them tax free status and government subsidies.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, and that's why the Daily Show failed and the Half Hour News Hour was such a smashing success.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to eat babies and install microchips in people that force them to be atheist muslims. Sorry, I was just trying to think like a liberal, lol.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In case you didn't get the point (indeed, you didn't) it references your claim that liberals have no sense of humor and the idea one need only look at radio to prove it.
I mean, "X have no sense of humor" is so flat a point on its own, I don't even need to go into it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Disprove my radio comment by pointing to the daily show. Pictures help when your words are empty. Oooh Oooh, Jay Leno's news paper clipping typo's and Bloopers and out-takes, Ha Ha Ha. News bloopers, they are funny. Maybe McCain will fall down some stairs, wont that be great on the Daily Show?
posted
You know, I agree with malanthrop on this one.
Have you ever heard Rush? Savage? Scarborough? O'Reilly?
Clearly these guys aren't meant to be taken seriously, which means they must be there for comedic and entertainment purposes, which is personally how I enjoy them.
Given that, it's clear that the Right is dramatically overrepresented when it comes to having a sense of humor in the media.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, it's really a shame that right-wing "principles" translate better to slandering people for entertainment purposes.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The best you can come up with is Comedy Central? John Stewart would probably make a better president than Obama.
"Is that the best you could do?" followed by "What you could do is better than the President of the United States" is not exactly what I would call a coherent strategy for trying to slap down my posts.
Maybe you should do some mild review before hitting 'add reply.' double-check your notes, or sommat.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Rakeesh, I am still failing to make clear the distinction I am trying to make.
Sovereignty over possessions is different than sovereignty over your own body.
The government will use force to take your money. They would I guess come with sheriffs and evict you from your home and take your stuff.
They will not force you to compel you by force to take a job or to keep one. They will not stand over you with a gun while you dig ditches or keep you locked up until you finish a computer program*. They do not make you donate blood.
The only case where the law forces or considers forcing non-criminal adults to relinquish ownership over their own body is, as you mentioned, pregnancy.
*It is possible that prisons still require labour nowadays, but you have to do something illegal to get there.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sovereignty over possessions is different than sovereignty over your own body.
Different...but not inviolate, as you were suggesting earlier. That was my point. Body sovereignty is not some sacred cow the government never, ever touches. We as citizens in this society do not have the right to do what we want, how we want, when we want in all cases to our bodies.
And come to think of it, I wonder if the government does force us into a medical choice after a car crash? I'm not a doctor, so I'm asking: what would happen if I had a broken leg and didn't want to go to a hospital for it after a car crash? Unless I had my lawyer standing right there, I wonder if I wouldn't somehow end up with a cast on my leg? That's an honest question-I really don't know one way or another.
Anyway, my point was that in a car crash, the government does force people to take on long-term consequences if those consequences could have been mitigated by the person involved. And yes, you're right, they're not exactly 'physical consequences'...but the car crash comparison is so faulty in so many ways, don't I get at least one area of leeway? After all, you're continually asking we set aside the fetus part of the comparison, right?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not exactly. I am (for the purposes of this argument) conceeding that the fetus has rights.
It does not have the right to use someone else's body against their will. Nobody does. Or should.
(I get that that is probably the only right that is important to it.)
The only people who are forced to let someone else use their body are criminals, slaves, and pregnant woman. It used to be women in general which I think is part of the reason that women's rights advocates are so adamant about it.
It is a sacred cow.
As for the medical choice thing, I think that competent adults are allowed to deny treatment - leave hospitals against medical advice and so forth. Of course, denying treatment could be grounds for deciding that someone is not competent.
posted
I dunno, I mean would you mess with a scared cow? I wouldn't.
quote:It does not have the right to use someone else's body against their will. Nobody does. Or should.
Except when it does. We've discussed it already, but there's already a time when the fetus has the protected right to use a woman's body against her will: late-term abortions.
Should that right be abolished? And I'm not talking about cases where the woman's health is in danger, either. Should late-term abortions be legal in this country, because nobody does or should have the right to use someone else's body against their will?
quote:The only people who are forced to let someone else use their body are criminals slaves, and pregnant woman. It used to be women in general which I think is part of the reason that women's rights advocates are so adamant about it.
Except that the overwhelming majority of pregnant women aren't 'forced' to let someone else use their body against their will. Just like 'criminal slaves' for that matter.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoops. Should have been a comma between criminals and slaves.
The majority of pregnant women are joyfully (one hopes) allowing the fetus to use their body. It is the ones who are being forced to let the fetus use their bodies that I am concerned with here.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is the ones who are being forced to let the fetus use their bodies that I am concerned with here.
I understand that. They still haven't been 'forced', or at least not 'forced' without a qualifier.
"Sign on the dotted line or your brains instead of your signature will adorn this contract." That's force.
"I stayed up really late and woke up really early after turning the AC down really cold and not drying off after I took a shower and now I'm forced to have a cold." That's...not really the same kind of force.
Both are extreme examples, both are 'force'. But one has a context and the other doesn't, really.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"you got a cold, but if you try to do anything about it I'm going to throw you in jail", however, is back to the first kind of force.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Assuming that neither of us is equating pregnancy with having a cold and acknowledging that that is not really how you get a cold, the second example should be more like:
"I stayed up really late and woke up really early after turning the AC down really cold and not drying off after I took a shower and now I'm forced to have a cold. And there is a cure for the cold that the government won't let me have. - ETA: Or what fugu said.
And we are back to, "but it is her fault." And I am saying that, while there is, I think, a moral obligation, her fault is not so heinous as to justify her having to give up control over her body to someone else against her will.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"you got a cold, but if you try to do anything about it I'm going to throw you in jail", however, is back to the first kind of force.
Completely true. However, that's not the part that was relevant. The guy wasn't 'forced' to have a cold.
quote:Assuming that neither of us is equating pregnancy with having a cold and acknowledging that that is not really how you get a cold, the second example should be more like:
Of course. All comparisons fall at least somewhat short, that one pretty badly I admit.
quote:And we are back to, "but it is her fault." And I am saying that, while there is, I think, a moral obligation, her fault is not so heinous as to justify her having to give up control over her body to someone else against her will.
For me we're back to, "But it's their fault."
The problem with the last part of your statement is the disconnect. You say that she didn't do anything so 'heinous' to justify her giving up control over her body. The disconnect lies in the fact that what she did gave up control over her body. There exists a medical remedy for that situation, but the fact remains that it wasn't as though one night a man and a woman had unprotected sex, and in the morning the stork knocked on the door and thrust a claim slip into her hand saying, "This is yours in nine months! Deal with it!"
Also, I notice that you didn't answer my question about late-term abortions.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The problem with the last part of your statement is the disconnect. You say that she didn't do anything so 'heinous' to justify her giving up control over her body. The disconnect lies in the fact that what she did gave up control over her body. There exists a medical remedy for that situation, but the fact remains that it wasn't as though one night a man and a woman had unprotected sex, and in the morning the stork knocked on the door and thrust a claim slip into her hand saying, "This is yours in nine months! Deal with it!"
Also, I notice that you didn't answer my question about late-term abortions.
Are you saying that by having sex a woman gives up her right to control her body? I disagree.
I missed the question about late term abortions. How late are you talking about? Do you mean fetuses that would be viable?
We really need artificial wombs, don't we?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: By that logic, we give up control over our bodies by getting in a car, since there's a substantial increase in the chance of bodily harm.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I dunno, I mean would you mess with a scared cow? I wouldn't.
quote:It does not have the right to use someone else's body against their will. Nobody does. Or should.
Except when it does. We've discussed it already, but there's already a time when the fetus has the protected right to use a woman's body against her will: late-term abortions.
Should that right be abolished? And I'm not talking about cases where the woman's health is in danger, either. Should late-term abortions be legal in this country, because nobody does or should have the right to use someone else's body against their will?
The trouble with late-term abortions is the increasing grayness of the rights of the fetus, because babies born in the last trimester can live. After about 32-34 weeks, they don't even need extreme medical intervention to do it (some intervention, but not extreme). At 37 weeks, they are considered full term. A late-term abortion does one more than removing the unwanted pregnancy, because it requires actively killing the baby before it comes out or, in the case of partial-birth abortions, on the way out.
I'm not sure where this fits into the whole control over the body control part of the debate, since that particular line of thinking isn't at the heart of my abortion opinion, but let me take a stab at it this way: After 6 months of pregnancy, a woman has had ample opportunity to terminate. If she hasn't terminated by now, then she has exercised control of her body by making the choice to carry to term.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you saying that by having sex a woman gives up her right to control her body? I disagree.
That's one way to put it. Another way to put it would be that by having sex, a woman takes a chance at helping to create a life which she is then responsible for. Likewise for men, though in a different way of course. By having sex a man takes a chance at creating a life and having a responsibility towards it.
Your restatement of my statement only works if you're looking at the situation entirely from a body-control standpoint.
quote:I missed the question about late term abortions. How late are you talking about? Do you mean fetuses that would be viable?
Well, let's just pick a time Christine mentioned: 32 weeks. Do you think, because no one and nothing has a right to force someone else's body to support them, that a woman should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy on those grounds alone? You don't need to explain why you believe that, if you do-it's the discussion we've been having all along.
But if not, why not?
quote:Rakeesh: By that logic, we give up control over our bodies by getting in a car, since there's a substantial increase in the chance of bodily harm.
Well, when we get into a car, we do give up the right to expect to never, ever, ever be in a car accident, among other things. Heck, alcohol for example.
-----
Christine,
quote:After 6 months of pregnancy, a woman has had ample opportunity to terminate. If she hasn't terminated by now, then she has exercised control of her body by making the choice to carry to term.
The difficulty here is this: can't precisely the same reasoning be applied to the decision to have unsafe sex? "After four years* of being warned that unprotected sex can result in pregnancy, a woman (and the man she was with) had ample opportunity to avoid the pregnancy."
*Granted, I'm dissatisfied with sex-education in our country (I think everyone is), but generally I think there aren't very many people over 18 who at the very least haven't been told more than once that to have unprotected sex can result in a pregnancy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, the late term abortion is emotionally very tough. I think that women should carry through to natural labour but I balk at forcing them.
I would agree to laws (and to strict enforcement of laws) similar to what we have in Illinois that provide a doctor to determine the viability of a fetus and if there is any reasonably likelihood of viability mandate the best way of removing a baby from the woman to preserve the life and health of that baby as long as the woman is not in serious physical danger.
I would consider adding C-section to that list of ways of removing a baby if it made medical sense though that is problematic.
I would also consider even 24 or 26 weeks rather than 32.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh, the late term abortion is emotionally very tough. I think that women should carry through to natural labour but I balk at forcing them.
I agree with the first and the second, but I personally wouldn't balk at forcing them unless the mother's health was at risk. I know that's a subjective term.
quote: I would agree to laws (and to strict enforcement of laws) similar to what we have in Illinois that provide a doctor to determine the viability of a fetus and if there is any reasonably likelihood of viability mandate the best way of removing a baby from the woman to preserve the life and health of that baby as long as the woman is not in serious physical danger.
Well, wouldn't that be a contradiction of what you've said before? What you're describing sounds to me like a pretty clear case of the state usurping body-sovereignty from the woman.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is a bit mushy, but the fetus is being removed from her at her request. I think there is a little room for negotiation for the fetus's rights when it comes down to what kind of procedure is used.
Again, this would need to make some medical sense to both the fetus and the mother. C-sections are a major medical procedure and I don't know how they stack up risk-wise against an ordinary abortion.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is a bit mushy, but the fetus is being removed from her at her request. I think there is a little room for negotiation for the fetus's rights when it comes down to what kind of procedure is used.
I can appreciate that...it's just the thing is, you're saying not only that body-sovereignty shouldn't be inviolate morally, but it shouldn't be inviolate legally either?
ETA: You know...maybe this was just a matter of phrasing, or how I'm reading it, but when we're talking about late-term abortion and you say, "There's a little room for negotiation..." (emphasis mine)
I've read it, and I've re-read it and thought about it for a few minutes now, and it makes me wonder just how substantial your belief even in the moral rights of a fetus are, if there's only a little room for negotiation for it even late-term.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You know, I agree with malanthrop on this one.
Have you ever heard Rush? Savage? Scarborough? O'Reilly?
Clearly these guys aren't meant to be taken seriously, which means they must be there for comedic and entertainment purposes, which is personally how I enjoy them.
Given that, it's clear that the Right is dramatically overrepresented when it comes to having a sense of humor in the media.
You've proven me wrong....A liberal with a sense of humor. nice Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's not he only one, malanthrop. To add to Obama's intelligence, wisdom, charisma, bravery and decisiveness, he also has a great sense of humour.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is a bit mushy, but the fetus is being removed from her at her request. I think there is a little room for negotiation for the fetus's rights when it comes down to what kind of procedure is used.
I can appreciate that...it's just the thing is, you're saying not only that body-sovereignty shouldn't be inviolate morally, but it shouldn't be inviolate legally either?
ETA: You know...maybe this was just a matter of phrasing, or how I'm reading it, but when we're talking about late-term abortion and you say, "There's a little room for negotiation..." (emphasis mine)
I've read it, and I've re-read it and thought about it for a few minutes now, and it makes me wonder just how substantial your belief even in the moral rights of a fetus are, if there's only a little room for negotiation for it even late-term.
Eh...you're reading more into "little" than I meant. Stick an "at least" in front of it or change it to "some".
My belief in the rights of the fetus are indeed variable, but if a fetus can live without using the woman's body (viable) it should, baring serious risks to the woman, be given a chance to.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
That makes sense. The 'little' the way it read to me was very jarring. My mistake.
quote:My belief in the rights of the fetus are indeed variable, but if a fetus can live without using the woman's body (viable) it should, baring serious risks to the woman, be given a chance to.
Can someone or something be said to actually have rights if they're 'variable'? But speaking of variables, it seems to me that your belief in the right to body-sovereignty is a bit variable too.
How strong is your belief in the right to body-sovereignty when the fetus only might live without using the woman's body? And if you believe that a fetus has some (variable) rights, and you also believe that body-sovereignty rights aren't sacred, why is the bar set at 'when the fetus can live outside the body without serious risks to the woman'?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The woman has chosen to have a procedure to take the fetus out. Either way, the fetus is not going to be using her body anymore.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh I like you in this room. KM maybe too but I can't decide, it's a bit mushy. I won't interject beyond this. Enjoying your exchange.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:The woman has chosen to have a procedure to take the fetus out. Either way, the fetus is not going to be using her body anymore.
But she does not decide the means. She is no longer in control of her own body. She doesn't get to say what is done when and how or even by whom.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I realize I'm badgering you on this subject...it's just that, earlier in our discussion, one of the keystones (it seemed to me) of your argument was that body-sovereignty both is inviolate from a legal standpoint, and should be inviolate from a moral standpoint.
Now that that does not appear to be the case, I'm trying to understand why and reconcile it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah...and I was trying to make some compromise.
You are right. Even the small concession of giving late-term viable fetuses a legal right to be removed in a way that is best for them without causing serious risk to the woman would, indeed, erode that concept of body sovereignty.
No compromise.
My thinking was mushy.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
