Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Vulcan wrote:I would be surprised that this whole thread has been reduced to a 'take the logic to it's most ridiculous extreme where the logic totally breaks down' discussion... but then, that's where the article posted by the OP started, isn't it.

To be fair, logic is blind.

This argument is predicated on emotion, logic may or may not follow.

dogma wrote:No prohibition against the violation of freedom. Certain freedoms, sure, but not freedom as a general concept.

By "freedom" I was under the assumption that you were discussing a "liberty interest." Which certainly is protected.

There are certain Constitutional rights that make up the idea of "Freedom," but the word itself is so ambiguous to be meaningless.

dogma wrote:Even the prohibition against the deprivation of liberty is couched in "due process", which means that the state won't deprive you of freedom if the state doesn't feel like it.

Which is the point I was making in my original comment to you. There is no such thing as an absolute right, as understood by the Constitution.

dogma wrote:And, before you delve into the "life" argument, personhood isn't tacit to humanity.

That's pretty much the point made in the OP. Do you think infanticide is on the same ethical level as abortion?

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
There's a right against having your life "suck" for 9 months? Where to I sign up?

Aww, its cute that you think I can be so easily redirected.

You asked where the harm lies, I told you where the harm lies. Rights don't enter into the equation without you injecting them into it.

So if my life 'sucks' for some well-defined period of 9 months, I have the right to demand remedial action? Perhaps assassination?

dogma wrote:It is a private action to call the police.

Yes...what's your point? I still can't hire a private actor to do X. You're advocating for that.

dogma wrote:No, I don't expect you to have the same ideas as me. That would be boring. I expect you to spend enough time thinking about things you comment on, philosophically, to understand what is and is not a factual error.

You'll find, or should have found, that I'm very open when it comes to possible arguments. The problem I have with you is based entirely on you tendency to do exactly what you're accusing me of.

What, say one thing and then assert that it's the objective truth without explaining my rationale for it?

No, you're thinking of another poster.

dogma wrote:I am a bastard (possibly a lovable one), and I would be disappointed if no one said so.

I'm going to assume this is another false statement, based on the facts as you've presented them.

dogma wrote:There are no naturally existing limitations on government, not even the SC agrees with that notion.

That's not the argument I made.

dogma wrote:Insofar as rights exist naturally, they are properties of individuals. The state, or really just 'the other', respects them or does not respect them at its purview.

This is fundamentally inconsistent with the concept of rights as fungible.

dogma wrote:State 1 grants rights X, Y, and Z.

State 2 grants rights Y and Z.

By what metric can state 1 be considered, in terms of freedom, equivalent to state 2?

State 2 doesn't recognize "X" as a right. Therefore, State 2 recognizes all freedoms, making it as "free" as State 1. Possibly more free if State 1 recognizes W as a freedom but doesn't grant it, or limits X in some fashion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vulcan wrote:Ah, but the laws against violent crimes ARE working. Violent crimes in America have overall been trending DOWNWARD for several decades now.

If we made abortion illegal I'm pretty sure that abortion in America would trend downward as well.

biccat wrote:

Vulcan wrote:Let's say she has a job that requires physical activity that is impossible in the third trimester and the month or so after giving birth. Let's further say that said job doesn't give pay to women on maternity leave. Let's further say that since she has this crappy job, she hasn't been able to save up enough money to NOT be able to work those 4-5 months without risking loosing her residence and everything she owns.

Still no harm?

Nothing that the government needs to involve itself in, no.

If you're in that precarious of a condition, do you really think it's a good idea to be having unprotected sex? Or engaging in any sort of risky behavior?

So poor women with crappy jobs should stay out of relationships and never get married then? Is that what you are arguing?

That pisses me off on quite a few levels, not least of which being 'poor women don't deserve to have a relationship!'

Vulcan wrote:So poor women with crappy jobs should stay out of relationships and never get married then? Is that what you are arguing?

Nope.

Vulcan wrote:That pisses me off on quite a few levels, not least of which being 'poor women don't deserve to have a relationship!'

I'm sorry that an argument I never made has upset you.

biccat wrote:

Vulcan wrote:Ah, but the laws against violent crimes ARE working. Violent crimes in America have overall been trending DOWNWARD for several decades now.

If we made abortion illegal I'm pretty sure that abortion in America would trend downward as well.

Officially, it would go to near zero. Some doctors might continue to provide abortions on prinicple, but I wouldn't bet on them reporting it.

Unofficially, 'trips to China' and back alley abortions would climb very quickly. And we would not get good statistics on how many women choose those options... although we would get to hear about all the women who die from having back alley abortions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Vulcan wrote:So poor women with crappy jobs should stay out of relationships and never get married then? Is that what you are arguing?

Nope.

Vulcan wrote:That pisses me off on quite a few levels, not least of which being 'poor women don't deserve to have a relationship!'

I'm sorry that an argument I never made has upset you.

But you think that poor women who would be in major finacial difficulty from pregnancy should not engage in ANY sexual activity, married or not?

Since NO form of birth control is 100% effective, there is ALWAYS the possibility that sex can lead to pregnancy, no matter how careful you are. So the only way to totally prevent pregnancy is to NOT have sex, period. And, well, I can probably count the number of men in the WORLD who would stay in a marriage without sex on one hand...

Tell me where the chain of logic breaks down.

Vulcan wrote:I would be surprised that this whole thread has been reduced to a 'take the logic to it's most ridiculous extreme where the logic totally breaks down' discussion... but then, that's where the article posted by the OP started, isn't it.

There will never be an agreement on this subject, because there really isn't any moderates involved.

One side screams 'baby killers!"

The other screams 'woman haters!' (This is the short version of it, the long version is 'you don't think women are smart enough to make decisions!')

And nothing ever comes of it.

It might be a good idea to lock this thread now. No one is going to persuade anyone of anything, even the need for a change in the nature of the discussion.

You're talking about abortion. Thats not the OP so who gives a . Talk about the actual topic.

Frazzled wrote:

You're talking about abortion. Thats not the OP so who gives a . Talk about the actual topic.

Oh, okay then.
The article is bullhonkey.
Euthanasia should not be used in that way, for definite.
Whether it should be used at all is another debate, but it should not be used like that.

Frazzled wrote:

Vulcan wrote:I would be surprised that this whole thread has been reduced to a 'take the logic to it's most ridiculous extreme where the logic totally breaks down' discussion... but then, that's where the article posted by the OP started, isn't it.

There will never be an agreement on this subject, because there really isn't any moderates involved.

One side screams 'baby killers!"

The other screams 'woman haters!' (This is the short version of it, the long version is 'you don't think women are smart enough to make decisions!')

And nothing ever comes of it.

It might be a good idea to lock this thread now. No one is going to persuade anyone of anything, even the need for a change in the nature of the discussion.

You're talking about abortion. Thats not the OP so who gives a . Talk about the actual topic.

Sorry, Frazzled. I was talking about the writer of the article, not the OP.

okley dokley

I think everyone should watch "If these walls could talk" the first one. And the first sequence. Look what happens to women when abortion is illegalized.
Its actually on youtube. But posting it would be against dakka policy. Really moving tail. And bloody, very very very bloody. If you re young dont watch it.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

MrMerlin wrote:
I disagree.

Look at it this way: If a woman wants to kill her 2-year old, is it still her descision?

This enters into a debate that I think we both know is a complete minefield; whether a foetus can be classed as a person.
A foetus may or may not be aware, a 2-year-old certainly is.
A foetus cannot survive outside of the womb without specialised machinery, a 2-year-old can.

However, regardless of this, I still think the woman (and the man, to an extent - it takes two to tango, as they say) should make up their own minds on the issue. This is an issue, I feel, that should be left to personal morality to decide, rather than a blanket judgement by society on an issue that is about as black-and-white as a rainbow.

I dont think anyone should decide wheter someone else should live or not. Its not their descision. If they dont want the child they should give it away, not kill it.

MrMerlin wrote:I dont think anyone should decide wheter someone else should live or not. Its not their descision. If they dont want the child they should give it away, not kill it.

Which requires having the baby first, with all the attendant sacrifices therof.

So should a poor married couple be forced to carry the baby to term, taking the woman out of work for at least four months and potentially wrecking their precarious financial status?

MrMerlin wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

MrMerlin wrote:
I disagree.

Look at it this way: If a woman wants to kill her 2-year old, is it still her descision?

This enters into a debate that I think we both know is a complete minefield; whether a foetus can be classed as a person.
A foetus may or may not be aware, a 2-year-old certainly is.
A foetus cannot survive outside of the womb without specialised machinery, a 2-year-old can.

However, regardless of this, I still think the woman (and the man, to an extent - it takes two to tango, as they say) should make up their own minds on the issue. This is an issue, I feel, that should be left to personal morality to decide, rather than a blanket judgement by society on an issue that is about as black-and-white as a rainbow.

I dont think anyone should decide wheter someone else should live or not. Its not their descision. If they dont want the child they should give it away, not kill it.

And here I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I appreciate that you were polite and calm with your points though.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Spoiler:

MrMerlin wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

MrMerlin wrote:
I disagree.

Look at it this way: If a woman wants to kill her 2-year old, is it still her descision?

This enters into a debate that I think we both know is a complete minefield; whether a foetus can be classed as a person.
A foetus may or may not be aware, a 2-year-old certainly is.
A foetus cannot survive outside of the womb without specialised machinery, a 2-year-old can.

However, regardless of this, I still think the woman (and the man, to an extent - it takes two to tango, as they say) should make up their own minds on the issue. This is an issue, I feel, that should be left to personal morality to decide, rather than a blanket judgement by society on an issue that is about as black-and-white as a rainbow.

I dont think anyone should decide wheter someone else should live or not. Its not their descision. If they dont want the child they should give it away, not kill it.

And here I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I appreciate that you were polite and calm with your points though.

I guess you're right. We'd just repeat ourselves.....

I think thats also the case in the rest of the thread.....

biccat wrote:
By "freedom" I was under the assumption that you were discussing a "liberty interest." Which certainly is protected.

There are certain Constitutional rights that make up the idea of "Freedom," but the word itself is so ambiguous to be meaningless.

Sure, because "liberty interest" is a very specific term, and totally not a passing of the buck to "freedom".

biccat wrote:
That's pretty much the point made in the OP.

No it isn't. You claimed that "water is wet" given that killing a fetus is tacit to infanticide.

I'm arguing that a fetus is not a person. These are clearly distinct arguments.

biccat wrote:
So if my life 'sucks' for some well-defined period of 9 months, I have the right to demand remedial action? Perhaps assassination?

Civil law seems to thrive on the idea that remediation is acceptable.

Additionally, the death penalty seems to continue on the basis of retribution.

biccat wrote:
Yes...what's your point? I still can't hire a private actor to do X. You're advocating for that.

To do what? Kill a fetus?

Sure, I'm advocating that capacity, it isn't the capacity to kill a person.

biccat wrote:
What, say one thing and then assert that it's the objective truth without explaining my rationale for it?

No, you're thinking of another poster.

I've claimed that things are objectively true?

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:There are no naturally existing limitations on government, not even the SC agrees with that notion.

That's not the argument I made.

Really?

biccat wrote:
Only if you conceive of rights as commodities is fungibility required. Fungibility of rights stems requires a conception of rights as stemming from government, rather than naturally existing limitations on government.

I mean, I suppose you might not believe in the bold portion, but you still made the argument that rights stem from nature.

biccat wrote:
This is fundamentally inconsistent with the concept of rights as fungible.

Nope.

Right X can exchanged for right Y, insofar as said rights are held in basic equivalence by either the rights holder, or the people establishing the rights holder.

biccat wrote:
State 2 doesn't recognize "X" as a right. Therefore, State 2 recognizes all freedoms, making it as "free" as State 1. Possibly more free if State 1 recognizes W as a freedom but doesn't grant it, or limits X in some fashion.

So you recognize that it isn't a question of free vs. not-free, and rather a question of degree.

Good, I'm glad you've approached sense.

So is anyone actually supportive of the original post's argument that babies are not actual persons with a right to life?

add a poll!

Chowderhead wrote:

It would be pointless to debate this issue with anyone that would make a moral equivalency between a dress/chicken/tree and a human being. You just don't get it. You probably don't get a lot.

The next time you are in dire trouble, don't call a human for help. Call your cutesy meme. See if it answers.

Best,

dogma wrote:Sure, because "liberty interest" is a very specific term, and totally not a passing of the buck to "freedom".

Only if you don't understand the distinction.

I have a sneaking suspicion you don't.

dogma wrote:I'm arguing that a fetus is not a person. These are clearly distinct arguments.

And the OP's article is arguing that an infant is not a person.

If an infant is not a person, then infanticide is legitimate. In fact, this is the same argument Peter Singer made a decade ago (or so).

Do you think that personhood automatically attaches at birth?

dogma wrote:Additionally, the death penalty seems to continue on the basis of retribution.

Or convenience. As in the instant case.

Phanatik wrote:It would be pointless to debate this issue with anyone that would make a moral equivalency between a dress/chicken/tree and a human being. You just don't get it. You probably don't get a lot.

One post to ad hominem, classy.

Anyway, I'm also backing out of this conversation. I forgot where I was going with my posts anyway.

Phanatik wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:

It would be pointless to debate this issue with anyone that would make a moral equivalency between a dress/chicken/tree and a human being. You just don't get it. You probably don't get a lot.

The next time you are in dire trouble, don't call a human for help. Call your cutesy meme. See if it answers.

Best,

EDIT: feth it. Phanatik's not worth my effort.

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:Sure, because "liberty interest" is a very specific term, and totally not a passing of the buck to "freedom".

Only if you don't understand the distinction.

I have a sneaking suspicion you don't.

You're aware that "liberty" is basically just "freedom that I like", yes?

biccat wrote:
And the OP's article is arguing that an infant is not a person.

If an infant is not a person, then infanticide is legitimate. In fact, this is the same argument Peter Singer made a decade ago (or so).

Indeed it is. Shockingly personhood isn't an idea that is set in stone.

biccat wrote:
Do you think that personhood automatically attaches at birth?

I think it is convenient to make that presumption.

biccat wrote:
Or convenience. As in the instant case.

I don't know, I held a fairly significant grudge against my gamete and the gamete of my partner for deciding to merge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanatik wrote:
It would be pointless to debate this issue with anyone that would make a moral equivalency between a dress/chicken/tree and a human being. You just don't get it. You probably don't get a lot.

I'll be the first to say that I would shoot any random person directly in the head if forced to choose between doing that to said random person, and my pet chicken.

Human life carries exactly as much value as you place on it.

This thread...

That clip doesn't even have the part about the burnt toast that no amount of scrapping will fix. Fail clip!

Why are men even commenting on the issue its none of our fething business.

Jubear wrote:Why are men even commenting on the issue its none of our fething business.

If the fetus is theirs it sort of is. I actually wonder sometimes why the father's opinion is considered so irrelevant in the matter of abortion. I get that he's not the one who has to carry the kid around for nine grueling months, but still. Then again I don't really care about this issue and I don't think about it much

LordofHats wrote:

Jubear wrote:Why are men even commenting on the issue its none of our fething business.

If the fetus is theirs it sort of is. I actually wonder sometimes why the father's opinion is considered so irrelevant in the matter of abortion. I get that he's not the one who has to carry the kid around for nine grueling months, but still. Then again I don't really care about this issue and I don't think about it much

There's a whole set of issues involved.

The major one is, as you've noted, that men don't have to carry around a kid for 9 months or incur all the associated health risks. In instances in which the man wants the child aborted, and the woman does not, health again comes into play.

Then there's the broader issue of imposing upon the woman something she doesn't want, which fits into the whole idea of gender equality and the traditionally subservient role of the "weaker" sex.

I have no problem with the idea that the woman should have primacy regarding a biological situation that potentially endangers her life. If the guy wants another baby, he can go knock someone else up. The only really dicey issue is child support.

LordofHats wrote:

Jubear wrote:Why are men even commenting on the issue its none of our fething business.

If the fetus is theirs it sort of is. I actually wonder sometimes why the father's opinion is considered so irrelevant in the matter of abortion. I get that he's not the one who has to carry the kid around for nine grueling months, but still. Then again I don't really care about this issue and I don't think about it much

Cant force a lass to make decisions about her own body. If she decides to keep it then its our business not before tho.

Jubear wrote:Why are men even commenting on the issue its none of our fething business.

Bull gak. None of your business maybe, in which case, here, take this test. Oops looks like you're not sustainable. Please go stand in that line. Our attendants will help you shortly.