[quote=“jdsmith”][quote=“Bodo”][quote=“jdsmith”]Two women dead from RU-486
edition.CNN.com/2006/HEALTH/03/1 … index.html[/quote][/quote][/quote]
2 people died while trying to kill other people? Oh shame.
[quote=“Hobbes”]
So perhaps I overstated my position in saying that only one question even existed? Maybe. But I am very reluctant to distance myself too much from it. Why? Because I am convinced that it is by far the most important question. It is the base question. And I still believe that all too often it is “skipped over” so that people can call each-other “immoral baby killer” and “backward misogynist” and whatever else – all without discussing where most of them really disagree. [/quote]
I think spook is more on target, on what the debate is about. One side values privacy, autonomy, etc, and the other “life.” While side A may accept Side B’s value of life, they can argue that feti (?) aren’t lives at all.
But this is only half of a good values debate. There are a whole other set of issues surrounding the values of autonomy, as are clear in The Handmaid’s Tale by Atwood. These other issues are probably what drive the charges of mysogynism.
[quote]
Anyway, I’m out of time. So here’s my quick wrap-up of my thoughts on the “no affirmative duty to support” argument:
[color=black]1. A person has no general affirmative duty to use their body (or anything else that is theirs) to save the life of another.
- A person may, in some cases, assume such affirmative duty through that person’s actions. [/color]
H[/quote]
I trust you’ll forgive me if I abstain from discussion of Libertarian property-rights theory. (I think the plane should be returned to the workers who were robbed of surplus value while building it. 
)
I note your second point above with curiousity. What if the person who needed the organ was my 18 year old child? (Is that closer to what you’re getting at?)
Thanks for the responses, s.b. I am particularly interested in your question about the 18-year old child, which you can be sure I will think about.
Unfortunately, right now I have to think about less interesting things. So at this point I’ll have to just leave it with a sincere “Nice discussing this with you.” (except for that crazy misguided notion of the ‘stolen’ surplus value )
Anyway, have a good day! 
H
EDIT: I decided that I did still have a few minutes, and that I would be remiss not to respond to spook
It’s futile to apply logical argument in the pro-choice/pro-life debate because belief isn’t derived from logical deduction. It precedes it. The only value of argument is to show internal inconsistencies in the belief system which may force it to be amended at most.
I’m curious as to what the premises behind the two positions are. Would this be a fair statement of the pro-choice premise?:
The right to control one’s body is a fundamental human right which no other right supersedes when it’s in conflict with it.
And would this be a fair statement of the pro-life position?:
The right to life is a fundamental human right which no other right (other than, obviously, the right of self-defense) supersedes when it’s in conflict with it.
[quote=“spook”]It’s futile to apply logical argument in the pro-choice/pro-life debate because belief isn’t derived from logical deduction. It precedes it. The only value of argument is to show internal inconsistencies in the belief system which may force it to be amended at most.
I’m curious as to what the premises behind the two positions are. Would this be a fair statement of the pro-choice premise?:
The right to control one’s body is a fundamental human right which no other right supersedes when it’s in conflict with it.
And would this be a fair statement of the pro-life position?:
The right to life is a fundamental human right which no other right (other than, obviously, the right of self-defense) supersedes when it’s in conflict with it.[/quote]
Doesn’t the question still return to “At what moment do the cells in a uterus become a fetus/human being who has rights?”
And isn’t the answer going to differ in just about everyone? When my wife told me she was pregnant, the baby did not resemble a baby and was smaller than a grain of rice. But, from the moment she told me, I was a father and that mass of cells was my child. I assumed responsibility of that child then.
That is me and that is MY opinion. Not everyone shares my opinon.
[quote=“jdsmith”][quote=“spook”]It’s futile to apply logical argument in the pro-choice/pro-life debate because belief isn’t derived from logical deduction. It precedes it. The only value of argument is to show internal inconsistencies in the belief system which may force it to be amended at most.
I’m curious as to what the premises behind the two positions are. Would this be a fair statement of the pro-choice premise?:
The right to control one’s body is a fundamental human right which no other right supersedes when it’s in conflict with it.
And would this be a fair statement of the pro-life position?:
The right to life is a fundamental human right which no other right (other than, obviously, the right of self-defense) supersedes when it’s in conflict with it.[/quote]
Doesn’t the question still return to “At what moment do the cells in a uterus become a fetus/human being who has rights?”
And isn’t the answer going to differ in just about everyone? When my wife told me she was pregnant, the baby did not resemble a baby and was smaller than a grain of rice. But, from the moment she told me, I was a father and that mass of cells was my child. I assumed responsibility of that child then.
That is me and that is MY opinion. Not everyone shares my opinon.[/quote]
Exactly. Doesn’t the Catholic Church believe that masturbation is a sin, because even human sperm that hasn’t come anywhere near an egg is perceived as potential human life? Of course, most of us – even Catholics – feel that’s an absurd position.
Taken a step further, the instant that a sperm comes into contact with an egg it has the capacity to become a human being, but it definitely is not a human being. It’s merely an egg and a sperm. Anyone who denies that is a liar. An egg that has become fertilized is no more a human being than a fertilized chicken egg is a chicken.
Regardless of how one feels about eggs, most people would agree that a woman’s decision whether or not to bring into this world a child that may or may not be wanted, may or may not have a supportive (or known) father, may or may not have a mother who is physically, financially, or emotionally able to care for and support that child not just as a baby but for many years until the child becomes an independent adult, is an immense decision. In fact, most people surely believe that her right to make that immense decision should trump the right of a mere fertilized egg to divide into 4 cells, then 8 cells and eventually develop into an embryo, and then a fetus, and then a human baby.
Obviously, very, very few people would feel a woman should have the right to abort a nine-month old fetus (perhaps unless her life is in danger). But an egg that was fertilized one second ago (the opposite end of the spectrum) is a different matter and I believe few people would object to a woman’s right to abort a fertilized egg.
The problem, of course, is that the development from egg to human being is a spectrum and people draw the line in different places on when the potential mother’s rights are trumped by the rights of the potential baby. Therefore, it seems reasonable for each potential mother to have the right to make that personal, subjective decision for herself, within the constraints of reasonable legal guidelines that ensure her decision won’t be clearly in violation of commonly held views of propriety. It’s a tricky issue to be sure, but Roe v. Wade is a reasonable effort to lay down those legal constraints within which people can make that immense and personal decision.
The voice of reason: :bravo:
And the voice of ignorance: :raspberry:
Elsewhere you mention you are a lesbian, so clearly this debate has little to interest you personally, which might explain why you’ve not bothered thinking it through. Perhaps best to to stick with what you are interested in and leave your half-baked ideas to yourself, no?
HG
I didn’t think pro-choice advocates allowed for the criminalization of abortion during pregnancy at any time before the fetus exits the birth canal fully. Wasn’t that the line that was being drawn during the “partial birth abortion” debate?
[quote=“jdsmith”][quote=“spook”]It’s futile to apply logical argument in the pro-choice/pro-life debate because belief isn’t derived from logical deduction. It precedes it. The only value of argument is to show internal inconsistencies in the belief system which may force it to be amended at most.
I’m curious as to what the premises behind the two positions are. Would this be a fair statement of the pro-choice premise?:
The right to control one’s body is a fundamental human right which no other right supersedes when it’s in conflict with it.
And would this be a fair statement of the pro-life position?:
The right to life is a fundamental human right which no other right (other than, obviously, the right of self-defense) supersedes when it’s in conflict with it.[/quote]
Doesn’t the question still return to “At what moment do the cells in a uterus become a fetus/human being who has rights?”[/quote]
It may but I don’t think so. Otherwise there would be a serious effort to establish that moment legally and pro-choice advocates would allow for the criminalization of some abortions, which I don’t think they do.
Don’t be ridiculous. That’s completely false, and I seriously doubt that you believe that – that most “pro-choice advocates” believe abortion should be allowed till the time of birth. That’s a crazy, extreme position and almost no one believes that except psychopaths and anti-abortion crusaders.
Most women are sane enough that the decision whether or not to abort is an extremely difficult, emotional issue that only gets more difficult as the pregnancy proceeds. I would think most women would only consider one in the initial weeks and even then would feel terrible about the decision, but feel it’s the right decision given all the circumstances.
No. Partial birth abortion is an even more wrenching topic, but those abortions are NOT performed in the 9th month, as you suggest. Moreover, that’s an emotional argument to distract from the fact that the development process IS a spectrum and in the very early stages the potential life form looks nothing like a human being at all. A fertilized egg is simply an egg, not a human being.
Don’t be ridiculous. That’s completely false, and I seriously doubt that you believe that – that most “pro-choice advocates” believe abortion should be allowed till the time of birth. That’s a crazy, extreme position and almost no one believes that except psychopaths and anti-abortion crusaders.
Most women are sane enough that the decision whether or not to abort is an extremely difficult, emotional issue that only gets more difficult as the pregnancy proceeds. I would think most women would only consider one in the initial weeks and even then would feel terrible about the decision, but feel it’s the right decision given all the circumstances.
No. Partial birth abortion is an even more wrenching topic, but those abortions are NOT performed in the 9th month, as you suggest. Moreover, that’s an emotional argument to distract from the fact that the development process IS a spectrum and in the very early stages the potential life form looks nothing like a human being at all. A fertilized egg is simply an egg, not a human being.[/quote]
I honestly didn’t realize that pro-choice advocates allowed for laws restricting abortions at any point during pregnancy. I thought that was the “slippery slope” argument. At what point during pregnancy do most people who are pro-choice think it’s legitimate to restrict abortion legally?
I believe most pro-choice advocates feel Roe v. Wade lays down reasonable guidelines and feel a woman should have the right to make that extremely difficult and personal decision personally, according to the dictates of her own conscience and the particular facts in her specific case, within the constraints laid down by that legal opinion (ie. essentially that means she should have the right to decide within the 1st trimester only).
I believe most pro-choice advocates feel Roe v. Wade lays down reasonable guidelines and feel a woman should have the right to make that extremely difficult and personal decision personally, according to the dictates of her own conscience and the particular facts in her specific case, within the constraints laid down by that legal opinion (ie. essentially that means she should have the right to decide within the 1st trimester only).[/quote]
Are you saying pro-choice advocates accept laws restricting 2nd trimester and later abortions?
How would you state the premise behind the pro-choice position?
[quote=“spook”] Are you saying pro-choice advocates accept laws restricting 2nd trimester and later abortions?
How would you state the premise behind the pro-choice position?[/quote]
I can only speak for myself and obviously “pro-choice advocates” have a wide range of beliefs, just as “anti-choice advocates” do. But I believe most rational women and organizations that believe in a woman’s right to an abortion feel that Roe v. Wade is reasonable and therefore accept laws restricting abortions after the 1st trimester.
What is the basis for me having that belief? I guess I formed it over the years based on things I have read and heard including from organizations such as NOW and Planned Parenthood.
While many anti-choice people wave placards of bloody fetuses and try to paint pro-choice people as crazed extremists, I believe that’s far from the truth. I feel confident that most women who have abortions and most who advocate in favor of her right to do so, feel that it is an extremely difficult and painful decision, but in the 1st trimester it may be reasonable for the potential mother to feel the immense implications for her outweigh the rights of the fertilized egg or very early-stage embryo.
Most pro-choice advocates aren’t clamoring for greater rights to abort; they’re struggling to cling to the rights that they have as Christians, Republicans and other anti-choice crusaders try to chip away at such rights until they can finally break through and overturn Roe v. Wade, so that the rights of an egg will always trump those of a grown woman.
That’s interesting. I had no clue that pro-choice organizations accepted laws restricting abortion after the 1st trimester or that Roe v. Wade allowed any criminalization of abortion whatsoever.
The pro-choice position is actually almost identical to the pro-life position then apparently except for determining when human life begins. It appears jdsmith was right.
That makes clarifying the premise behind the pro-choice position much more difficult though and I don’t have a clear idea what it is. Can anyone state it?
I thought I did. I thought it’s the following:
a. A baby is a human being and it is murder to kill a human being. Murder is illegal.
b. A fertilized egg is not a human being. However, it has the capacity to develop into an embryo and then a fetus and then a human being.
c. Killing an egg is not murder. Murder is only the killing of a human being. However, the situation is complex because a fertilized egg does not suddenly become a human being; it gradually develops into one so there is no clear dividing line at which killing of that living tissue becomes murder, but a decision must be made.
d. A woman’s rights to control her own body and decide whether or not she wishes to reproduce are very fundamental and personal rights and should not be usurped by a bunch of men in Congress that know nothing about the circumstances of her life, how her egg came to be fertilized and whether she has the ability to raise a child.
c. Therefore, there’s a strong public interest in favor of prohibiting murder, but there are also strong and compelling reasons why a woman should have the right to determine whether to prevent a fertilized egg in her body from becoming a human that she will be responsible for, and unfortunately there’s no clear line for distinguishing between the two strong compelling public interests.
d. Roe v. Wade is an attempt to enact a reasonable compromise between those two interests and I believe most pro-choice advocates feel it’s a reasonable compromise that should remain the law, while anti-choice advocates want to eliminate it so the egg’s rights will always prevail over the woman’s.
[quote=“Mother Theresa”]I thought I did. I thought it’s the following:
a. A baby is a human being and it is murder to kill a human being. Murder is illegal.
b. A fertilized egg is not a human being. However, it has the capacity to develop into an embryo and then a fetus and then a human being.
c. Killing an egg is not murder. Murder is only the killing of a human being. However, the situation is complex because a fertilized egg does not suddenly become a human being; it gradually develops into one so there is no clear dividing line at which killing of that living tissue becomes murder, but a decision must be made.
d. A woman’s rights to control her own body and decide whether or not she wishes to reproduce are very fundamental and personal rights and should not be usurped by a bunch of men in Congress that know nothing about the circumstances of her life, how her egg came to be fertilized and whether she has the ability to raise a child.
c. Therefore, there’s a strong public interest in favor of prohibiting murder, but there are also strong and compelling reasons why a woman should have the right to determine whether to prevent a fertilized egg in her body from becoming a human that she will be responsible for, and unfortunately there’s no clear line for distinguishing between the two strong compelling public interests.
d. Roe v. Wade is an attempt to enact a reasonable compromise between those two interests and I believe most pro-choice advocates feel it’s a reasonable compromise that should remain the law, while anti-choice advocates want to eliminate it so the egg’s rights will always prevail over the woman’s.[/quote]
Is aborting a fetus in the 3rd trimester of pregnancy murder except to save the life of the mother?
And the voice of ignorance: :raspberry:
Elsewhere you mention you are a lesbian, so clearly this debate has little to interest you personally, which might explain why you’ve not bothered thinking it through. Perhaps best to to stick with what you are interested in and leave your half-baked ideas to yourself, no?
HG[/quote]
OK, so you are saying that because I’m never going to have a baby inside me (there is no such thing as rape it seems!) I don’t have a say in this?
So no men are allowed to voice their opinions then.
Not at all, read my comment again, I just thought it might explain the fact you’d not bothered to proffer anything particularly enlightening, at best, or mindlessly provacative, at worst.
HG
OK, you don’t see it that way. Fine by me.
Some people feel that a fetus is a person. Killing a person is murder. Girls taking the abortion pill can thus be seen as murderers (by some people) who died in the act.
If a person died while trying to kill another…many people would think…so what?