Political Crossfire Forums

[Gilbert1908]

Selfish_Meme wrote: jimison1 wrote: Rules of analogy (a good place to start): http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:LTr2776uzKUJ:www.cs.berkeley.edu/~russell/papers/ijcai87-analogy.ps+philosophical+rules+of+analogy&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=10&client=flock

Yes, but she still engaged in the behavior that brought her to the state in which she finds herself. She also knew that contraception has a failure rate, an expressed risk, and engaged in the behaviors anyway. Awaking to find that you've been hooked up to a Violinist - who is now dependent on your vital functions for his existence - when in hospital for minor surgery isn't generally considered an expressed or implied risk. Finding people seeds scattered about your bedset or property, likewise, is not a situation in which there is implied or expressed risk, and in which the behaviors, engaged in by the volition rather than by random chance, accident, or coercion, are known to produce issue. The similarities are superficial at best.
So if we engage in risky endevours we deserve any unwanted consequences. I had better not get out of bed in the morning otherwise I might get hit by a car, fired, or wait if i stay in bed I might die of bed sores...no that doesn't make any sense at all. A woman who engages in sex isn't necessarily inviting pregnancy, so the results of it may not be to her liking and she would be morally correct in not wanting them.

Why does a man wear a condom? Why do women engage in various forms of contraception? The answer is obvious. But anyone who does so also understands that NO contraception is 100% effective. In addition you are also assuming somehow that the mere existence of contraceptives means that women getting abortions either had access to them or employed them in some fashion so therefore when they got pregnant it was not only against their will but also due to some fluke based upon faulty function of her contraception.

My strong suspicion is that in many if not most cases this is probably not true. But even if it is true, there can be almost no question that a woman knows that having sex can result in pregnancy and the evidence is in the very fact she may employ contraceptives.

But simply not wanting or intending a result never legally eliminates the responsibility of that result on the parties involved.

Selfish_Meme wrote: jimison1 wrote:
Regarding the lack of awareness of particular threats disuse of his property might foment, he is still aware of some potential threat to the integrity of his property, and that is why, presumably, if he is wise he'd lock the doors and windows, and may, if unusually prudent, even go so far as to have a security system installed. Even if he does lock the doors and windows, installs the security system, and a burglar gets in, he is still liable (not in the sense that he caused the burglary) for his property. However, this analogy, and I feel I've been more than charitable in its rendering, would really only hold if the property owner invited someone to break into his property, which is not the case in your or my articulation.

I think you went backwards here, I was arguing he IS aware of the threats to his property. According to the above though engaging in a risky activity does not make him deserving of bad consequences if he took reasonable precautions.

"reasonable precautions"? If the land lord put up a fence, locked the doors but then told a freind who lived in Australia that he had a place he could stay anytime he was in town and sent him a key to both the fence and the door never thinking the guy would show up then what? One can not engage in behavior which leads directly to a result he does not want and then base his defense on the fact that since he did not like the result his voluntary behavior which invited the result does not count.

Selfish_Meme wrote: jimison1 wrote:
Regarding property rights by way of positive law extended to body sovereignty, I'd have no problem with this analogy if the fetus were in fact part of the women's body. A freshman course in biology or physical anthropology would convince most otherwise. A fetus is an organism by biological taxonomy, distinct from, however dependent he might be, from the mother's body. He has his own genotype, phenotype, and by 5-8 weeks is taxonomically human (H. sapien sapien). It would appear then, forgive my awkward attempt at forum convention, by analogy that a fetus is no more part of a woman's body than a great white shark is part of the ocean.
I never made the claim that an embryo was a part of her body, in fact I was distinctly making the claim that it was a whole other living thing.

The difficulty of the real estate analogy is that the landlord did not create his tenant.

Selfish_Meme wrote: jimison1 wrote:
Regarding incest and the analogy not holding, I think we can assume that most woman do not want to be the object of their fathers, uncles, cousins, or brothers desires for sexual congress. But of course, you're now arguing against the analogy used in defense of your position. If this is a new tactic in argument, I've fallen right into your trap. Well done. You win, the analogy doesn't hold.
I'm not going to presuppose that anybody wants anything, and neither should you I would think.

So we ARE to assume that a woman who seeks abortion took contraceptives which makes the abortion morally acceptable, but NOT that a woman pregnant by a relative would prefer she not be so?

[jimison1]

Meme,

One can, without the benefit of full understanding of the in's and out's of enumerative induction, assume or infer quite rationally that when he gets up in the morning, gets out of bed, brushes his teeth, and engages in any other single or set of mundane action(s) that there is a very small probability that he will get hit by a car, fired, etc., independent of other variables (like walking in the street, telling his boss to 'smeg off,' etc.). He accepts, however, in spite of his best efforts to hedge against these negative outcomes, that they may occur. But of course, does he reasonably expect that any of these will occur, provided he isn't engaged in risky behaviors that may make negative outcomes (those that he may not want) more probable. It is only in the case of an accident or recklessness in which these negatives come to fruition. Getting up to work, also, is a matter of necessity. If he wants to eat, have a nice car or bike, a decent place to live (and plant his people seeds), as the vast majority of people do, he must risk getting hit by a car, being fired, etc. in order to go to work to earn an income. This doesn't really apply to sex does it? Unless of course you believe that human beings are animals incapable of keeping their biological impulses in check, ignoring the inhibitory/rational functions the relatively huge neo-cortex God and/or NS gave them, and instead allow themselves to be led about by the amygdala and other attending limbic structures. But of course, I do not want to ascribe to you a position that isn't' your own (straw man). It just seems to me that choosing to engage in sexual behavior - with the well known and statistically verifiable higher negative outcomes regardless of what is precautionary measures compared to the statistical probability of getting hit by a car on one's way to work - is a different animal than getting up each morning, in every meaningful and measurable way. The very fact that one employs measures to avoid pregnancy is an acknowledgment that pregnancy is a possible, if not probable, outcome.

I was arguing both ways, whether he is or isn't, he is still liable for his property. He is even more so liable when he invites the burglar in.

How then does a body sovereignty argument hold? Why would it even be mentioned if a fetus is a distinct entity? If a fetus is distinct, then in body sovereignty we're not just talking about the woman's body are we? The fetus then, as a distinct entity, deserves at least some moral/legal consideration.

Regarding presuppositions, I don't think a reasonable person would expect that a woman wants to get humped by her dad. I don't think I'm extending my commentary beyond what is reasonable or expected.

Best,

Jimison

[jimison1]

[quote=�Prole�]Welcome to PCF, jimison1.

Thank you Prole, good to be here, though I'm not sure if I'll be just passing thru or a regular. I've got a lot on my plate. However, it seems that the posts in this forum are certainly of above average quality, and that will definitely play a part in my decision to continue posting or not.

�The same is true of a tumor, excepting that it is not (nor will ever be) a homo sapien. Whether or not a preborn human (or a tumor) is part of a woman is debatable, but what is true is that it exists within and dependent upon her. It may not be a part of her, but it is completely dependent upon her. And frankly, satisfying its needs for existence is not something that many women wish to do, and with good reason.�

A fetus is not a tumor. A tumor is basically a neoplasm, an uncontrolled abnormal tissue growth that, if left unchecked, will likely cause harm to the mother. The differences between a tumor and a normal pregnancy are hardly subtle. And, sincerely, I beg your pardon, there is no debate in scientific circles as to whether the fetus is distinct and/or set apart from the mother. The connection is one all eutheric animals share, but that doesn't mean the fetus, at 8 weeks taxonomically human (that is to say, all parts necessary to make the fetus recognizably human to a biologist) is part of the mother. Regarding dependence as justification for terminating a pregnancy, then wouldn't the same rules apply to all children? Invalids? The very old? The sick? The injured? They are dependent, aren't they? Why should dependence and in utero residence be sufficient to terminate life, whereas dependence and live birth are not? Regarding what one wishes, that is not terribly compelling given that in most cases of abortion the woman engaged in the behaviors that led to the pregnancy. In our culture we do not simply excuse individuals from responsibility for their actions because they wish it.

�Regarding your final self-critiquing post, minor spelling and grammatical errors are tolerable; we're here to discuss ideas, not nitpick on superficial mistakes. And as long as said mistakes aren't so huge as to make posts incomprehensible (which your's was not), it's not worth fretting over. Furthermore, you can edit your posts by clicking the �edit� button over the post, and thus keep your appearance of flawlessness intact.�

I like to apologize for each and every mistake made that I become aware of. It keeps my fellow 'truth-detectives' constantly aware of the fact that I am almost wholly fallible (which should be obvious), and that I am very much open to correction should facts, rules, conventions, etc., of any area of inquiry come in conflict with what I've posted.

�It has helped me numerous times, and is one of the many reasons why I get frequent requests from religious leaders to become their messiah. :wink:[/quote]

I've already got an object of worship, but thanks for the offer. Should God and I have a falling out, I'll keep you in mind. However, that may cause some intolerable and insoluble conflict, as my nihilist buddy once said concerning the clash of what appears to be incommensurable middle eastern and western cultures, �The world doesn't seem big enough for two Gods.�

Best regards,

Jimison

[jimison1]

To clarify an earlier point, it is apparent by natural light that choosing to �keep it in your pants� to avoid pregnancy is an entirely different circumstance than choosing to stay in bed to avoid being hit by a car or fired. We generally call a person who choses to abstain from sex, choosing instead to engage in non-coital sexual activities to slake the desires/needs/biological imperatives which he or she may be 'naturally' driven to have (though I may be equivocating on that term), etc., who did so to avoid the probable and unwanted consequences of those actions a reasonable responsible person. We generally call a person who stays in bed all day to avoid getting hit by a car or fired an ambulance (to take him away to the happy farm for having paranoid delusions). I'm not being flippant or dismissive Meme, it's just that the rejoinder you offered wasn't terribly compelling.

Best,

Jimison

[jsmcs73]

Hi all,

I'm new to political debate and apologize if some things I say sound like rhetoric. Not intended.

I argue from the gut, how I feel.

Meme.....if that was all that it took for you to feel attacked then I think your posting on the wrong subject since it inspires such emotion from so many on both sides of the argument.

Keep in mind that by my beliefs, you are arguing for the legal murder of children.

Peace

[Selfish_Meme]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Why does a man wear a condom? Why do women engage in various forms of contraception? The answer is obvious. But anyone who does so also understands that NO contraception is 100% effective. In addition you are also assuming somehow that the mere existence of contraceptives means that women getting abortions either had access to them or employed them in some fashion so therefore when they got pregnant it was not only against their will but also due to some fluke based upon faulty function of her contraception. It is obvious and I didn't assume any such thing, what was said was that a woman who availed herself of contraceptives was trying not to get pregnant, she did not wish to be pregnant, but she wished to have sex. I never said all women who have abortions have access to contraceptives or even used them. A woman who uses contraceptives though is in a morally better position though.

Gilbert1908 wrote: But simply not wanting or intending a result never legally eliminates the responsibility of that result on the parties involved. You are correct there is a responsibility to be met. She must make a decision on what to do with her life and that of the embryo.

Gilbert1908 wrote: "reasonable precautions"? If the land lord put up a fence, locked the doors but then told a freind who lived in Australia that he had a place he could stay anytime he was in town and sent him a key to both the fence and the door never thinking the guy would show up then what? One can not engage in behavior which leads directly to a result he does not want and then base his defense on the fact that since he did not like the result his voluntary behavior which invited the result does not count. And if the friend did not leave? It is still his responsibility but is it not his right to ask the friend to go?

Gilbert1908 wrote: So we ARE to assume that a woman who seeks abortion took contraceptives which makes the abortion morally acceptable, but NOT that a woman pregnant by a relative would prefer she not be so? see first point.

[Selfish_Meme]

jsmcs73 wrote: Hi all,

I'm new to political debate and apologize if some things I say sound like rhetoric. Not intended.

I argue from the gut, how I feel.

Meme.....if that was all that it took for you to feel attacked then I think your posting on the wrong subject since it inspires such emotion from so many on both sides of the argument.

Keep in mind that by my beliefs, you are arguing for the legal murder of children.

Peace

If we let emotional posting through then suddenly everyone is very angry, and no one is discussing they are just in a verbal fist fight, that is why the rule exists. What you did is called an ad hominem attack. Attacking the person rather than the logic. The best way is to assume that everyones feelings are as strong as yours and keep emotion out of your posts. They will read better, get better responses and garner more respect. Having a strong emotion doesn't prove anything except you had a strong emotion, you will convince nobody by calling them names. They will just stop listening to you.

Keep in mind that by my beiefs you want to turn women into chatel.

[Selfish_Meme]

jimison1 wrote: He accepts, however, in spite of his best efforts to hedge against these negative outcomes, that they may occur. But of course, does he reasonably expect that any of these will occur, provided he isn't engaged in risky behaviors that may make negative outcomes (those that he may not want) more probable. It is only in the case of an accident or recklessness in which these negatives come to fruition. No one expects an accident, but you can take precautions, you can also remedy them. Remedying the effects of accidents is taking responsibility.

jimison1 wrote: Getting up to work, also, is a matter of necessity. If he wants to eat, have a nice car or bike, a decent place to live (and plant his people seeds), as the vast majority of people do, he must risk getting hit by a car, being fired, etc. in order to go to work to earn an income. This doesn't really apply to sex does it?
Sex is a social bonding device for humans as well as for procreation. A woman doesn't always go to bed with a guy simply to have a child.

jimison1 wrote: Unless of course you believe that human beings are animals incapable of keeping their biological impulses in check, ignoring the inhibitory/rational functions the relatively huge neo-cortex God and/or NS gave them, and instead allow themselves to be led about by the amygdala and other attending limbic structures. But of course, I do not want to ascribe to you a position that isn't' your own (straw man). It just seems to me that choosing to engage in sexual behavior - with the well known and statistically verifiable higher negative outcomes regardless of what is precautionary measures compared to the statistical probability of getting hit by a car on one's way to work - is a different animal than getting up each morning, in every meaningful and measurable way. The very fact that one employs measures to avoid pregnancy is an acknowledgment that pregnancy is a possible, if not probable, outcome. It is a risk no doubt about it. The moral person takes responsibility for the consequences.

jimison1 wrote: I was arguing both ways, whether he is or isn't, he is still liable for his property. He is even more so liable when he invites the burglar in. A burglar can't be invited, it's only something you can say in English, because then they are not burgling. The embryo is not wanted, even if they want to have sex.

jimison1 wrote: How then does a body sovereignty argument hold? Why would it even be mentioned if a fetus is a distinct entity? If a fetus is distinct, then in body sovereignty we're not just talking about the woman's body are we? The fetus then, as a distinct entity, deserves at least some moral/legal consideration. And thats what my argument was from the start. An embryo must be aborted with the due process of law. Body sovereignty is the only position to take, because if you don't then why does the embryos rights supersede the woman's? Why is its rights paramount? The woman is the owner of her body, she is a greater being than an embryo. Yes, she is. Not only is she cells and distinct DNA, like the embryo, she is, memories, thoughts, emotions, self-aware, capable of further engendering more of her species. The embryo is simply potential. It is distinct DNA but does not have a personality, memories, thoughts. The only argument you could possibly make for its existence overiding hers is that there is some ineffable right humans have inherently not to be killed. We kill animals and bacteria that have all the same traits as an embryo. What does the bit of human DNA matter? It's only slightly different from any other animals.

jimison1 wrote: Regarding presuppositions, I don't think a reasonable person would expect that a woman wants to get humped by her dad. I don't think I'm extending my commentary beyond what is reasonable or expected. If you want we can continue this but it is a waste of time in regards to the main debate I think. Apologies.

[jimison1]

One last statement before I set to writing for a grade: Selfish_Meme wrote: �I did not define 'person' or 'personhood' because the constitution didn't. I am only arguing the consequences of what is in the constitution. It makes the assumption of what a person is not me.�

I may be reading this wrong, please correct if I am, but it would it seem as though, by your reading of the constitution, that the definition of personhood is not present in your statements: ... �did not define personhood because the Constitution didn't,� and �It [the Constitution] makes the assumption of what a person is not me,� and simultaneously present in your statement: �I am only arguing the consequences of what is in the constitution.�

How can one argue from the consequences of what is in the Constitution if what you're arguing about isn't in the Constitution? You are quite right, however, that the definition of personhood is not in the Constitution. The language in which Roe, the seminal case in abortion rights in the US, is couched in moral language and rife with references to personhood (and other undefined points such as traditional ideas of mediate animation, ensoulment, etc.), and biological inaccuracies that could have been corrected by referencing any biology textbook. In spite of the fact that personhood isn't defined, rights were denied the fetus using personhood. The 'escape clause' in Roe is the product of equally bad reasoning: If a fetus can be shown to be a person, then the State would have cause to limit access to abortion. How can a fetus, or any other being, be shown to be a person if 'person' has never been defined?

Best,

Jimison

[Selfish_Meme]

jimison1 wrote: How can one argue from the consequences of what is in the Constitution if what you're arguing about isn't in the Constitution?
The legal consequences for a person are defined in the constitution, no it doesn't say what a person is. I would expect to go with the currently accepted definition. That is only my opinion though. All you need to know is that there is a such a thing as a person and then you can see how the constitution affects them legally.

[jimison1]

Sorry mate, but the embryo isn't potential: Capable of being but not yet in existence. The embryo is actual: Being, existing, or acting at the present moment. Also, at 8 to 12 weeks, the points of gestation at which the vast majority of abortions take place (88%, according the NIH), we are talking about a fetus (not a cluster of cells, a blastocyte, or an embryo). We are talking about a taxonomical human being.

Remedying the effects of the accident by taking human life? Neat. Next time I get less than an 'A' on an exam, I'm going to kill my professor.

So the social bonding of sex cannot be achieved by any other means? Methods that do not put a woman in the position to terminate the life of her progeny? The post-climax effects of sex, the release of oxytocin most notably, can be duplicated by all sorts of less morally thorny enterprises (from heavy petting to nursing).

Regarding the burglar, this whole argument, pro or anti, seems to me an exercise in rhetoric. Personally, I don't feel either side has, logically speaking, a more sound argument. However, I do expect individuals advocating a particular view to acknowledge the realities of that view, and stand by them.

Who said anything about the rights of a fetus being paramount? Certainly not me. But using your criteria, which is very similar to Dennet's: memory, thoughts, emotions, self-awareness, etc., I could use, as a legal argument, that someone who is in a deep sleep is able to be killed for the same reasons you're using to justify abortion.

�The woman is the owner of her body, she is a greater being than an embryo. Yes, she is.�

Is that a valid form for an argument for something? Ok. Abortion is morally wrong. Yes it is.

Regarding potential, c.f. above.

Regarding embryos and abortions, c.f. above, as the majority of abortions are not performed on embryos, but on fetuses.

The ineffable rights of humans? How are they ineffable if you can point to or speak of them? Discuss them? Argue in favor of them? I appreciate this approach: try to talk over the American's head using sesquipedal language to confuse him into submission. Note: I've read the O.E.D. 2nd to the middle of 'Q.' This combined with my background in Latin and Ancient Greek, from my seven years of sacerdotal education, along with education formal education in philosophy, physical anthropology, and biological psychology, oh yeah, and there aren't going to be too many words that you know that I don't. By the way, the �ineffable argument� clearly isn't the only argument that I can make, as I've made one in a very different vein, and one that rests on biological facts not airy abstractions concerning the unassailable human right to life.

[Prole]

jsmcs73 wrote: I argue from the gut, how I feel.
Well, this is a debate forum, not an opinion one. If you don't have anything to back your opinions other than the fact that they exist, then the chances of productive debate are nil.

jimi wrote: The very fact that one employs measures to avoid pregnancy is an acknowledgment that pregnancy is a possible, if not probable, outcome.
The fact also remains that if proper measures are taken (birth control pill, for instance), the chances of getting pregnant through sex are extremely minute. I would guess off the top of my head something like 1 in 100,000 are one's chances of conceiving; I could be off by a factor of 5 quite easily, but my point would still stand: the chances of getting someone pregnant with proper birth control is extremely low, and hardly high enough to say, "Well you put yourself at risk." The risk is so extremely minute that it is no wonder that people expect not to be pregnant when using birth control, and justifiably so.

And even if the risk were much higher, then what of it? Should people not be permitted to deal with the consequences of risks being realized simply because they know (or should know, anyway) of them?

jimi wrote: A fetus is not a tumor. A tumor is basically a neoplasm, an uncontrolled abnormal tissue growth that, if left unchecked, will likely cause harm to the mother. The differences between a tumor and a normal pregnancy are hardly subtle.
You imply that pregnancy does not cause harm to the mother; this is clearly, in many cases, untrue. Pregnancy is medically harmful to the mother, and abortion is arguably safer than pregnancy (and in any case, the medical risks realized are different, so there is hardly a universal truth as to whether abortion or pregnancy is safer). But around 98% of women have abortion on non-medical grounds (or at least claim to); this clearly indicates that it is the social and economic impact of a pregnancy that a woman is trying to prevent with an abortion.

Are tumors bad for a woman? Often yes, though I don't know what the rate is between benign and malignant tumors. Is pregnancy bad for women? Again, the answer is often yes. That they are both potentially bad for a woman is their key similarity, and the key reason why it should remain acceptable to remove both.

jimi wrote: Regarding dependence as justification for terminating a pregnancy, then wouldn't the same rules apply to all children? Invalids? The very old? The sick? The injured? They are dependent, aren't they? Why should dependence and in utero residence be sufficient to terminate life, whereas dependence and live birth are not?
Because a preborn human exists as an entity that is specifically dependent upon the mother, and whose dependence cannot be removed without killing the preborn human; it is not that the preborn human should be killed, but that there is no safe way of removing its dependence without killing it. As far as the old, the sick, the injured, etc, dependence can be relinquished quite fast.

I admit that with this position I am playing devil's advocate, and am undecided as to whether there should be legal responsibility for one to care for another. But ask yourself: if I dropped a kid off at your house, would you take care of him for the next nine months? I'm going to guess that you personally would. But do you think this should be a legal requirement? I'm guessing you would. But personally, I am undecided, and many people are of the opinion that it should not be a requirement. It is at the very least a conflict of rights; of a woman's autonomy compared to a preborn human's right to life (if either indeed exists, and I submit that the latter does not exist from conception).

[jimison1]

All I need to know to justify killing a human being is that such a concept exists, and that concept is denied to fetuses? I don't need to know how that concept is defined? Then how on Earth would I recognize a person when I see one? I could rely on the etymology, but that seems insufficient (as the the Etruscan derivation denotes, one is a person if that person has a face). One could rely on philosophers to give us that definition, but they have been unable to do so for almost 2000 years. Soul theory to Locke, Descartes to Dennet, no real explanation of the approach used to come to the characteristics of a moral person, let alone, a reason why a person has moral/legal rights conferred upon him or her, and a non-person doesn't.

Best,

Jimison

[Prole]

A better question is, why extend it to a fetus at all? If there is not justification for why anyone should have rights, then I do not see why they could.

As per your question of "What makes someone human?" I believe that it is not merely the fact that they are homo sapien, but that they have consciousness. This does not exist in preborn humans from conception, nor does it exist until around the tenth week (when the preborn human is in fact a fetus). The vast majority of abortions (either drug induced or vaccum abortions) are done by this time. That does not make it neccessarily acceptable for dilation and extraction abortions to occur, but is worth noting to gain and accurate perception of the current abortion atmosphere.

[jimison1]

Prole,

What are you arguing?

Yes or no, does having sex create a pregnancy? I do not require qualifications. I have formal training in human reproduction, you're numbers are off, and I do not require a refresher course in a forum. The original statement, �When you have sex, you risk pregnancy� is a true statement, regardless of what numbers you find to cloud the relative straightforwardness of this issue.

I'd say that having sex does increase the 'risk' of pregnancy, that isn't in dispute at all. And I'm confused as to what the statement, �Should people not be permitted to deal with the consequences of risks being realized simply because they know (or should now, anyway) of them?� Yes, they should be permitted to deal with the consequences of their actions. That's sort of what I'm arguing in favor of.

The harm to the mother isn't the cause, as you have so aptly stated, of the vast majority of abortions (less than 5% according to the NIH). So how is this relevant to what we're discussing, and how does this contradict anything I've said regarding abortion? I also made clear in the quote you took that I was comparing a tumor and a normal pregnancy.

Now you're committing amphiboly: Often with regard to the harm caused by tumors isn't the same quantity as often' denotes with regard to pregnancies. I assume you know this. But just in case: in the US obstetric death rates are at about 1 for every 10,000 births (WHO), and the death rates for women with cancer about 195 for every 100,000 people (men and women) surveyed (American Cancer Society).

The problem is the hypothetical you've put forth bares no resemblance to the realties of abortion. You're not dropping a kid off at my house expecting me to care for him/her. I didn't ask or do anything to induce your decision to drop the kid off at my house. But since you mention it, if you were to drop your kid off at my house, there's one thing that I'm certain of, I wouldn't kill the kid.

Best,

Jimison

[Selfish_Meme]

jimison1 wrote: Sorry mate, but the embryo isn't potential: Capable of being but not yet in existence. The embryo is actual: Being, existing, or acting at the present moment. Also, at 8 to 12 weeks, the points of gestation at which the vast majority of abortions take place (88%, according the NIH), we are talking about a fetus (not a cluster of cells, a blastocyte, or an embryo). We are talking about a taxonomical human being.

Remedying the effects of the accident by taking human life? Neat. Next time I get less than an 'A' on an exam, I'm going to kill my professor.

So the social bonding of sex cannot be achieved by any other means? Methods that do not put a woman in the position to terminate the life of her progeny? The post-climax effects of sex, the release of oxytocin most notably, can be duplicated by all sorts of less morally thorny enterprises (from heavy petting to nursing).

Regarding the burglar, this whole argument, pro or anti, seems to me an exercise in rhetoric. Personally, I don't feel either side has, logically speaking, a more sound argument. However, I do expect individuals advocating a particular view to acknowledge the realities of that view, and stand by them.

Who said anything about the rights of a fetus being paramount? Certainly not me. But using your criteria, which is very similar to Dennet's: memory, thoughts, emotions, self-awareness, etc., I could use, as a legal argument, that someone who is in a deep sleep is able to be killed for the same reasons you're using to justify abortion.

�The woman is the owner of her body, she is a greater being than an embryo. Yes, she is.�

Is that a valid form for an argument for something? Ok. Abortion is morally wrong. Yes it is.

Regarding potential, c.f. above.

Regarding embryos and abortions, c.f. above, as the majority of abortions are not performed on embryos, but on fetuses.

The ineffable rights of humans? How are they ineffable if you can point to or speak of them? Discuss them? Argue in favor of them? I appreciate this approach: try to talk over the American's head using sesquipedal language to confuse him into submission. Note: I've read the O.E.D. 2nd to the middle of 'Q.' This combined with my background in Latin and Ancient Greek, from my seven years of sacerdotal education, along with education formal education in philosophy, physical anthropology, and biological psychology, oh yeah, and there aren't going to be too many words that you know that I don't. By the way, the �ineffable argument� clearly isn't the only argument that I can make, as I've made one in a very different vein, and one that rests on biological facts not airy abstractions concerning the unassailable human right to life.

I'm certainly not trying to talk over your head, I seriously doubt I could. If anything you are talking over our heads, just what you accuse me of? Lets count the unknown words shall we. My original post was about how the constitution allowed for abortion through legal means. I proposed an analogy to show how a legal process might work. Unlike Thompson I was not trying to justify the morality of abortion but got suckered into it in later posts anyway.

Taking responsibility for ones actions is what mature people do. Why would you have to say it is the same as killing? Unless you are trying to laden your argument emotionally for effect. Which probably means it is without substance.

I did not say that social bonding can only be done in one way. I just said it was one valid way in response to someone else seeming to state that sex leads to procreation always.

The burglar analogy wasn't mine, it was yours. I don't think it works because a burglar is unwanted allways or he isn't a burglar. The property owner is not responsible for burglars or squatters, regardless of whether he asked them over. The burglars and squatters are still performing an act against the wishes of the property owner.

You could try to use that argument about deep sleep, but someone in a deep sleep is still more than an embryo or fetus. They still have memories, thoughts and history.

[jimison1]

Prole,

Actually a child isn't self-aware until about age 2, and sometimes as late as 3. Still comfortable using consciousness as the criterion?

J

[galba]

Selfish_Meme wrote:
jsmcs73 wrote:
Regardless of the intent behind the act of sex by an individual it is the primary way in which one INVITES pregnancy, intentional or not.
But not the only reason to have sex, so to have sex is not always to invite pregnancy, even if it is the primary way. It is also one primary way to develop closeness in a relationship, to show love and interest. It can also be a primary form of monetary transaction in some cases.

But still, the original purpose it for reproduction. Similar to how if you eat a lot, you get fat. However, fat cells and a life are different. (contrary to common belief)

Selfish_Meme wrote:
jsmcs73 wrote:
I believe that abortion is a social SICKNESS. And that the constitution clearly indicates that the rights afforded there apply to our prodigy(unborn children) as well as us.

As I said, you do have a right to your opinion, but your opinion is not proof. Show us where in the constitution it says that unborn embryos are protected in such a way that they cannot be killed legally.
What about people from other countries visiting the US? They are not citizens, but they still get constitutional rights.

[Prole]

jimison1 wrote:
The harm to the mother isn't the cause, as you have so aptly stated, of the vast majority of abortions (less than 5% according to the NIH). So how is this relevant to what we're discussing, and how does this contradict anything I've said regarding abortion? I also made clear in the quote you took that I was comparing a tumor and a normal pregnancy.

Simply because a woman has an abortion on non-medical grounds does not mean that she does not have an abortion to overall improve her own utility. Is the social stigma sometimes incurred by people who get pregnant not enough? Is the disruption that pregnancy poses to pregnant woman's life not enough? Perhaps not if an abortion kills a moral entity. But if no moral entity is violated (which is debatable), then I submit that any justification is both viable and acceptable.


Jimison wrote: The problem is the hypothetical you've put forth bares no resemblance to the realties of abortion. You're not dropping a kid off at my house expecting me to care for him/her. I didn't ask or do anything to induce your decision to drop the kid off at my house. But since you mention it, if you were to drop your kid off at my house, there's one thing that I'm certain of, I wouldn't kill the kid.

Ok. What if the kid just magically appeared at your doorstep. Again, I doubt that you personally would kill the kid. But do you think that everyone should be legally obligated to do the same?

[Selfish_Meme]

galba wrote: But still, the original purpose it for reproduction. Similar to how if you eat a lot, you get fat. However, fat cells and a life are different. (contrary to common belief)
The original purpose for reproduction is not relevant. It is used for other things as well now.

galba wrote: What about people from other countries visiting the US? They are not citizens, but they still get constitutional rights. As far as I see they have the same rights an embryo or fetus has, which is not to say none.