Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 268
  1. #41
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    What you call absurd is the truth. And thus it is not absurd at all. Rights are real, they exist, but the do not come from simply existing. The come from the hard work of human beings.
    The Founders of America who gave us the U.S. Constitution that gives us the opportunity to practice and realize our rights disagree with you.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
    http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  2. #42
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The definitions you use below are a compositional fallacy. You are using the second definition of right rather than the first. http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesa...ight%5Bnoun%5D
    No more than you. There are a range of offered definitions. Your offering is not so different. It even lists "entitlement" as a related word. Among the Synonyms is Appanage -
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appanage
    "A grant (as of land or revenue) made by a sovereign or a legislative body to a dependent member of the royal family or a principal vassal"

    I am not defining the whole by offering a part, I am offering a part to give you a broader understanding of the whole. I do not dispute that many claim there are rights intrinsic to human beings upon their conception or birth, but I challenge them to offer evidence of this. To show any meaning to such a claim if there are no other men or no other men respect such rights. But the word has also had the more practical understanding that rights extend only as far as your society is willing to acknowledge and respect them. Our culture had declared we condenser all men to have certain rights, and so, for the most part, those under our umbrella do. Those who do not live under the banner of such liberty, say North Korea, have no such rights observed and thus for all intents and purposes have no such rights.

    This is obvious in the fact that I have a "right to bear arms." Does that mean then that the government is obligated to purchase and provide me with those arms?
    We don't understand it that way. We understand that it means you have a free choice to do so or not and that other agents in our society will not act to deprive you of that choice.

    Since when are starvation and exposure anthropomorphic objects that make decisions?
    Since never. But that only makes my point. Without other anthropomorphic agents, rights are meaningless. They only exist and have meaning in the context of a society.

    You are the one that is arguing that a right is something that guarantees something will happen, not I.
    I am not arguing that. I am arguing that a right for something that can never happen or never be secured is meaningless nonsense.

    I am arguing that a right is an inherent property in a person that cannot be removed because other people wish it. It can be infringed up, it cannot be justly removed.
    And I am arguing no such rights exist. That until other people interact with you, rights are nonsense. They only matter when there are other people, and they only have any meaning if someone is willing to accept your view of what rights you have. You can tell Genhis Kahn till you are blue in the face you have a right to live and he can still run you through. Its only if you can get someone else to respect that right that it has any substance. Until then, its just an empty claim.

    Its like saying everyone is King whether or not others choose to acknowledge them as king doesn't take away the fact they are King. Its ridiculous.

    The right to life doesn't guarantee that you stay alive, it means that no other person can justly remove that thing from you.
    And thus only has meaning if there are other people, and only if they have any inclination to respect the right you claim. Otherwise it is just a claim and nothing more. And anyone can claim anything at all.

    Fine, and if that society decides then to define that pregnant women have no right of abortion? Is that a just action too? If so, why don't we just have a national referendum right now on abortion?
    Justice is a bit different. I tend to see it best defined as equitable exchange. But yes, we could decide that women don't have a right to abortion. We in fact did that for quite a while. But later the supreme court ruled that a superseding right to privacy existed in our law and this mandate violated it. Many are trying to have a referendum on abortion in our country, but it so happens they are not in the majority and have not held sway.

    You are confusing when a right is infringed with when it exists.
    I am not confused, I am insisting that it does not meaningfully exist if it is infringed. I can tell you I have the right to astral travel and you can't take it away from me! But its just pissing in the wind. Unless I actually can perform astral travel and unless you have some means to prevent it, then it is simply meaningless to call it a right.

    Without society there is neither a need for "rights" nor any meaning for them. It is only when there are people that such concerns have meaning. And when they do have meaning there is no pre-defined base line for what rights there are or are not. Instead we argue over them until we make some collective decisions or enforce a non collective mandate.

    By your logic if I kidnap and hide a child in a basement where no one can find it that child has no real right to freedom since the authority doesn't have the effective ability to ensure that right.
    But that isn't the case. You would be hard pressed to find a basement where our society did not have any hope of finding the child. I am not arguing that the guarantee of rights need be absolute, only reasonable. In your island scenario I granted the idea that they had no way to sustain the child. In truth they normally might have some recourse to find workable nutrition for it. They may also have some ability to reason with the mother or persuade her to comply. I only agreed for purposes of illustration of a principle, not that such a situation is realistic.

    If that child then really has no such right, under what logic could I possibly be punished or said to have done wrong?
    There are many other rationales for taking action beyond what rights you do or don't have.

    So then slave owners did nothing wrong then?
    That is a moral judgement. I think slave owners were immoral by virtue of their selfish exploitation of other human beings through the use of threatened violence and death. But the slaves had no actual rights and the slave owners did not largely see themselves as immoral.

    ---------- Post added at 10:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    The Founders of America who gave us the U.S. Constitution that gives us the opportunity to practice and realize our rights disagree with you.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
    http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
    I am aware of that. They are welcome to debate me on the matter.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  3. #43
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I am aware of that. They are welcome to debate me on the matter.
    Humm, that sounds like an invitation for a thread on the philosophy of natural rights which this country was founded upon.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	rights.jpg 
Views:	28 
Size:	49.8 KB 
ID:	3395
    Last edited by eye4magic; March 15th, 2013 at 12:06 PM.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  4. #44
    Katforichon
    Guest

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Oh, and I also think that there should be more restrictions on what stage in pregnancy abortions are legal. In the earliest stages possible, I think that would at least satisfy both parties.

  5. #45
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,293
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But they can't get a warrant without legitimate state interest so legitimate state interest is a prerequisite.
    They can only get a warrant if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed. The question of legitimate state interest comes earlier in discussing whether or not something is a crime. As far as the warrant is concerned, the fact that the action is a crime constitutes "standing" the legal term for a legitimate interest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    And the default for ANY act that is done in private is that it's none of the state's business.
    I'm not sure why that would be the case. I would argue that it by default is legal, and that it is outside of legitimate interest, but it isn't, by default, done in private.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Regardless, it has no bearing on the legitimacy of the notion that viable fetuses have a legal right to life.
    I think it is actually fundamental to the question. The reasoning behind the question of viability is that it presumably means that she has a better alternative than killing it to escape the use of her womb. But what if that alternative is, at best, ephemeral? What if the alternative to her womb is a machine I own and it is the only one? Why does the existence of such a machine, even if I will not allow her to use it, mean that she must continue to house the child in her womb?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    We don't understand it that way. We understand that it means you have a free choice to do so or not and that other agents in our society will not act to deprive you of that choice.
    Can you name a specified right in the Constitution which is interpreted in that way?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    Since never. But that only makes my point. Without other anthropomorphic agents, rights are meaningless. They only exist and have meaning in the context of a society.
    That is like saying a law doesn't exist if no one breaks it. Because we define something as a prohibition against an action doesn't mean that the action is necessary for the prohibition to exist. The lack of opposition to something does not mean that it doesn't exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    I am not arguing that. I am arguing that a right for something that can never happen or never be secured is meaningless nonsense.
    I think you should re-read what you just wrote. You are arguing that a right is an entitlement to an action or service. Look at your example below.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    And I am arguing no such rights exist. That until other people interact with you, rights are nonsense. They only matter when there are other people, and they only have any meaning if someone is willing to accept your view of what rights you have. You can tell Genhis Kahn till you are blue in the face you have a right to live and he can still run you through. Its only if you can get someone else to respect that right that it has any substance. Until then, its just an empty claim.
    This proves my point above. Because Khan runs me through does not mean that I don't have the write to live, it means he violates that right. Likewise, because a robber shoots and kills you doesn't mean that the law prohibiting homicide doesn't exist, it means the robber violated that law. A right is not a utilitarian measure that only exists if it has been fulfilled, it is measure against which other actions are judged.

    Likewise, if the government broke into your house today and seized your computer without warning, would you say your right to not be unreasonably searched didn't exist or was broken?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    And thus only has meaning if there are other people, and only if they have any inclination to respect the right you claim. Otherwise it is just a claim and nothing more. And anyone can claim anything at all.
    You mean that it is actualized around other people, fine. But not being actualized doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    I am not confused, I am insisting that it does not meaningfully exist if it is infringed.
    This is a self-contradictory statement. Something cannot be infringed if it doesn't exist. The fact that you make the statement, I believe, is illustrative of the logical flaw in the argument, you are measuring a thing's existence solely on a favorable outcome of someone's actions. But that is an inappropriate measure for existence here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    But that isn't the case. You would be hard pressed to find a basement where our society did not have any hope of finding the child.
    You are attempting to shift the goal post. If such a basement did exist (and I think if you remember the history of recent kidnappings you would agree it well could), would that child then not have a right ot freedom. After all, we can't well enforce it, so by your own definition it doesn't exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    There are many other rationales for taking action beyond what rights you do or don't have.
    You didn't answer the question. "If that child then really has no such right, under what logic could I possibly be punished or said to have done wrong? "

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    That is a moral judgement. I think slave owners were immoral by virtue of their selfish exploitation of other human beings through the use of threatened violence and death. But the slaves had no actual rights and the slave owners did not largely see themselves as immoral.
    But under what reasoning where they immoral to use exploitation and violence if the slaves had no such rights against that treatment?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  6. #46
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,506
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    They can only get a warrant if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed. The question of legitimate state interest comes earlier in discussing whether or not something is a crime. As far as the warrant is concerned, the fact that the action is a crime constitutes "standing" the legal term for a legitimate interest.
    If there is no legitimate state interest in preventing an activity, then I hold that it is not a crime.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm not sure why that would be the case. I would argue that it by default is legal, and that it is outside of legitimate interest, but it isn't, by default, done in private.
    But anything that one chooses to do in private is none of the state's concern unless there is a legitimate state interest to be concerned about it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think it is actually fundamental to the question. The reasoning behind the question of viability is that it presumably means that she has a better alternative than killing it to escape the use of her womb. But what if that alternative is, at best, ephemeral? What if the alternative to her womb is a machine I own and it is the only one? Why does the existence of such a machine, even if I will not allow her to use it, mean that she must continue to house the child in her womb?
    Why would the existence of a machine that allows the fetus to live outside of the womb mean that she must keep it in her womb?

    She can remove the child from the womb at any point she pleases. If there is a way to keep it alive once it is out then society should grant it the right to life and all that the things that society gives those with those rights.
    Last edited by mican333; March 15th, 2013 at 06:27 PM.

  7. #47
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,293
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If there is no legitimate state interest in preventing an activity, then I hold that it is not a crime.
    Rather you mean it should not be a crime. As long as it is within the Constitutional powers, the matter of interest is largely moot.

    That said, we are still on the same point, the question of interest relates to the crime itself, privacy is screen for investigations, it does not make something legal or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But anything that one chooses to do in private is none of the state's concern unless there is a legitimate state interest to be concerned about it.
    But that is unrelated to whether or not it was done in private. Murder is illegal and the state has a legitimate interest in it regardless of whether it was done in a home or in a public square.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Why would the existence of a machine that allows the fetus to live outside of the womb mean that she must keep it in her womb?
    So in your view she can remove the fetus from her womb, at say, 8 months and it is up to society to care for it if she does not wish?

    It would seem that viability is more a practical matter in this case than an actual moral distinguishing point. She can remove the child from her womb at any point and leave it regardless of technical capacity to care for it on the part of society.

    What you seem to be suggesting is that once the fetus achieves a specific amount of development where we could keep it alive then we are obligated to do so.

    And why do you hold that the "right to life" means that support is provided to you rather than not interfered with. Is the right to bear arms similar? What about the right to privacy, must society provide you with a private area?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  8. #48
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,506
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That said, we are still on the same point, the question of interest relates to the crime itself, privacy is screen for investigations, it does not make something legal or not.
    But we are discussing my philosophy on the matter. And it goes like this

    1. Under the principle of liberty, people should be free to do anything they want without government interfering or even knowing about their activities.
    2. There are exceptions to #1, which are things that society has a valid interest in preventing people from doing to each other (aka crimes) and that likewise allows for peoples activities to be investigated IF they are under suspicions of doing those things that should be prevented.

    Since I hold that abortion is not one of those things that society has a valid interest in preventing, there is no valid reason to investigate if one has one.

    Another way to put is "Unless there is a valid reason for it to be illegal it should be legal." That maxim doesn't mention privacy but clearly if it's not illegal, then there can be no exception to one's right to privacy regarding it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But that is unrelated to whether or not it was done in private. Murder is illegal and the state has a legitimate interest in it regardless of whether it was done in a home or in a public square.
    If it's a crime, where it is done is irrelevant. If it's not a crime, then if it's done in private then it's private.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So in your view she can remove the fetus from her womb, at say, 8 months and it is up to society to care for it if she does not wish?
    If its viable, it should be treated exactly the same as if she gave birth to a baby and decided to not keep it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And why do you hold that the "right to life" means that support is provided to you rather than not interfered with. Is the right to bear arms similar? What about the right to privacy, must society provide you with a private area?
    Again, this is irrelevant minutia. I am making absolutely no specific claims on what society should grant those who have a "right to life". I'm just saying that whatever society gives those who it deems it has a "right to life" is what should give a fetus once it is viable.
    Last edited by mican333; March 18th, 2013 at 11:41 AM.

  9. #49
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,293
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But we are discussing my philosophy on the matter.
    Earlier we were discussing the legal aspects of it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    1. Under the principle of liberty, people should be free to do anything they want without government interfering or even knowing about their activities.
    2. There are exceptions to #1, which are things that society has a valid interest in preventing people from doing to each other (aka crimes) and that likewise allows for peoples activities to be investigated IF they are under suspicions of doing those things that should be prevented.
    There is another exception to number one which is us doing actions in public. Noone has an expectation of privacy within the public sphere, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    If it's a crime, where it is done is irrelevant. If it's not a crime, then if it's done in private then it's private.
    Agreed, which is why privacy has no bearing on whether it is illegal or not. An action is legal or illegal based on its inherent properties, not based on whether it is public or private.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    If its viable, it should be treated exactly the same as if she gave birth to a baby and decided to not keep it.
    But that is a different problem. A naturally born baby only requires publically available, relatively inexpensive care. A premature baby requires significant expensive treatment (remember the concept of viability you used was theoretical survival given the use of any current technology). So does her personal preference for not carrying the baby outweigh our right to possibly a significant portion of our incomes?

    Let me also add a complication to this. Viable is not an absolute term, it is a probability. It can also result in birth defects and long term complications. So lets say that a baby was 6 months in development, could be born with a 51% chance of surviving, but with an 80% chance of having long term heart or other problems. Is the mother inducing the birth still permissible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Again, this is irrelevant minutia. I am making absolutely no specific claims on what society should grant those who have a "right to life". I'm just saying that whatever society gives those who it deems it has a "right to life" is what should give a fetus once it is viable.
    But you are, you are saying that if she gives birth we are obligated to take care of the infant. Because if not, what is the practical difference in saying that she can't intentionally kill the baby at 8 months?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  10. #50
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,506
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Agreed, which is why privacy has no bearing on whether it is illegal or not. An action is legal or illegal based on its inherent properties, not based on whether it is public or private.
    I never argued otherwise. I'm saying if it's legal and done in private, then the government should not know about it.

    And if it's not a crime (defined as that which the state has no valid interest in preventing) then the government has no basis to declare it illegal and therefore has no valid reason to investigate whether someone does it in private.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But you are, you are saying that if she gives birth we are obligated to take care of the infant. Because if not, what is the practical difference in saying that she can't intentionally kill the baby at 8 months?
    I retract any and all previous claims that the right to life inherently includes anything other than what the society itself deems the right to life ensures.

    So all I'm saying is that when a fetus is viable it should have the right to life. What the "right to life" specifically entails is irrelevant to my argument.

  11. #51
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by StephTheStuden View Post
    • Should abortion be completely legal, or completely illegal?
    • Or what are certain regulations or circumstances in which possible laws could/should have exceptions? Age restrictions, health reasons, rape cases, insurance policies, cost, etc?
    • Is making abortions illegal a violation of the woman's rights? Or is maybe allowing abortions a violation of the unborn child's life?
    • How could this debate be solved?
    1) When it comes to legality... it should be whatever the majority feel it should be. IMO this is especially true when you are talking about moral issues. To do anything else would be a dictatorship.

    2) Same as 1.

    3) Yes, it is a violation of women's rights. No, it is not a violation of the unborn child's life. The second answer justifies the first. And the second answer cannot be "yes". If it was yes then that would mean that avoiding conception itself would be a violation of the unborn child's rights. That would mean that a man could walk up to any woman and legally force her to have sex with him... and any woman could do the same to a man. I know I'm taking the example to the extreme, but that is my point. Any cutoff point you incorporated into the determination would be just personal opinion. Now we are right back to #1... and according to #1 it would be a violation of the woman's rights and not a violation of the unborn child's rights.

    4) It can't and shouldn't be "solved". People are going to have differing opinions on it no matter how you argue it. To actually "solve" it would mean having to change everyone's opinion on it. That's just not possible for an issue like this... other than maybe killing everyone with a differing opinion.

  12. #52
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,293
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I never argued otherwise. I'm saying if it's legal and done in private, then the government should not know about it.
    I think we are talking at crossed purposes now. I was arguing here that privacy cannot be the reasoning behind its legality, it can't be the defense of the act.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    And if it's not a crime (defined as that which the state has no valid interest in preventing) then the government has no basis to declare it illegal and therefore has no valid reason to investigate whether someone does it in private.
    Which is somewhat a different issue. Which is why we are discussing viability. No one disagrees that the government has a legitimate interest in preventing murder. The question is how do we distinguish, fundamentally the difference between a human being that cannot be murdered and a human life which can be killed.

    You have responded that viability makes the difference, but I don't see the underlying reason behind that reasoning. It would seem an arbitrary one since it is not only dependent on our technology, but is a relatively undefined term.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I retract any and all previous claims that the right to life inherently includes anything other than what the society itself deems the right to life ensures.
    Understood, to the extent that I was confusing your position with Sig's as well sorry for any confusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    So all I'm saying is that when a fetus is viable it should have the right to life. What the "right to life" specifically entails is irrelevant to my argument.
    It would seem relevant to the application of the law and the definition of viable. If the fetus had a strong likelihood of surviving a birth if it were placed on machine X, but there is no way it could be placed on machine X (there is only one perhaps and it is being used) is the mother then obligated to keep the child in her womb?

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    1) When it comes to legality... it should be whatever the majority feel it should be. IMO this is especially true when you are talking about moral issues. To do anything else would be a dictatorship.
    So if the majority decides then that we can euthanize toddlers, you are fine with that?

    Quote Originally Posted by libre
    If it was yes then that would mean that avoiding conception itself would be a violation of the unborn child's rights.
    This is a slippery slope fallacy. Because I choose freely to not engage in an action regarding a non-existent being is not the same thing as engaging in an action towards an existent being. There is a legal and moral difference between two people not starting a company and thereby harming those who would have benefited from the company's product and specifically denying a person sale of the good.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  13. #53
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,506
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think we are talking at crossed purposes now. I was arguing here that privacy cannot be the reasoning behind its legality, it can't be the defense of the act.
    Broadly defined, privacy is being left alone by the government and people have a right to be left alone. If the government cannot interfere with a certain activity that you may choose to do, then by definition the activity is legal.

    And there is no need to legally defend an act that is legal.

    And whether the act is done publicly and privately is irrelevant. While you are waiving any claim to privacy when doing something in public, that has no bearing on whether the government can interfere with your activity. Even in public, you have the right to be left alone by the government.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Which is somewhat a different issue. Which is why we are discussing viability. No one disagrees that the government has a legitimate interest in preventing murder. The question is how do we distinguish, fundamentally the difference between a human being that cannot be murdered and a human life which can be killed.
    It sounds like you don't understand my position. I'm saying once a fetus is viable, it is officially a human being just like you and I are human beings and likewise is subject to every legal protection against being killed that you and I receive.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You have responded that viability makes the difference, but I don't see the underlying reason behind that reasoning. It would seem an arbitrary one since it is not only dependent on our technology, but is a relatively undefined term.
    Definition: When the fetus can survive outside of the womb. So the term is defined and when that moment is can be objectively determined (there is a point where it absolutely cannot survive and there is a point where it absolutely can survive). And the fact that technology determines when that point is does not mean that there is not a clearly defined point.

    Nor does medical technology influencing medical ethics make medically ethical decisions inherently problematic. A hundred years ago, people with certain conditions would be allowed to die from them because the technology didn't exist to save them. Once we achieved the technology to save those people, we likewise established a moral obligation to save those people. But again, this is irrelevant minutia for I am not even arguing that we have an obligation to save anyone with current medical technology (I believe we do but I'm not arguing that here). I'm saying that whatever the "right to life" entitles a human being to, a viable fetus, since it counts as a human being, is likewise entitled to that (and what those specific things are is irrelevant to my argument).

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It would seem relevant to the application of the law and the definition of viable. If the fetus had a strong likelihood of surviving a birth if it were placed on machine X, but there is no way it could be placed on machine X (there is only one perhaps and it is being used) is the mother then obligated to keep the child in her womb?
    No. If the current state of medical technology would not allow it to live (and not having enough of it available can be factored it) then it's not viable.



    ---------- Post added at 12:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:50 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    1) When it comes to legality... it should be whatever the majority feel it should be. IMO this is especially true when you are talking about moral issues. To do anything else would be a dictatorship.
    Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.
    Last edited by mican333; March 20th, 2013 at 09:21 AM.

  14. #54
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,293
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Broadly defined, privacy is being left alone by the government and people have a right to be left alone. If the government cannot interfere with a certain activity that you may choose to do, then by definition the activity is legal.
    This is a bit tautological. It is private if it is legal and it is legal because it is private. What specifically determines whether or not the government has an interest in the act?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Definition: When the fetus can survive outside of the womb. So the term is defined and when that moment is can be objectively determined (there is a point where it absolutely cannot survive and there is a point where it absolutely can survive). And the fact that technology determines when that point is does not mean that there is not a clearly defined point.
    But that isn't exactly correct. There isn't a clear point, it is a probability that is baby specific. At X time a baby would have some percent chance of survival, it isn't as if there is an exact day and bam, the baby can now survive, there is uncertainty in that process.

    I also don't see how our technology could possibly be a determining factor. What right exists that is determined by our ability to provide it? Is our freedom of speech dependent on the social development of others? It would seem odd that this right is the sole one whose determination is based upon the decisions of others.

    Likewise its far too variable (which makes it distinct from other rights as well). Does the baby lose the right if the machine required breaks and we don't know how to fix it? Does the abortion then become permissible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    No. If it is removed and it dies, then it clearly was not viable.
    So then if the child is removed via vaginal contractions at 9 months but is unable to access machine X (which I'll define as a mother) and dies due to lack of feeding it was not viable either right?

    The problem, as I see it here, is that you are trying to use a utilitarian approach (if the baby survives), but then handwaving away the complications that actually come from making that the defining criteria. Really, your moral position seems to be, the mother has the right to remove the child from her body at any point. If it dies because we are not capable of caring for it or if it does due to other circumstance, it is defined as not viable and therefore no ethical problem arose. Likewise, if it dies from lack of access to a specific medical technology then it was not viable and therefore isn't a moral issue either.

    If we were to punch a hole in the brain cavity of an 8month old fetus then there is no medical equipment capable of making it surive and therefore it is not viable and there was no ethical problem. Now you might object to that act and say that we are making the baby not viable, but the same is true of your argument. If you induce the removal of the fetus you are making what was viable to be no longer viable.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #55
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,506
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is a bit tautological. It is private if it is legal and it is legal because it is private. What specifically determines whether or not the government has an interest in the act?
    That's a complicated question and there's likely a variety of answers. But in short, it is the burden of the government to show that it has a legitimate interest in preventing an activity before it can infringe on one's privacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But that isn't exactly correct. There isn't a clear point, it is a probability that is baby specific. At X time a baby would have some percent chance of survival, it isn't as if there is an exact day and bam, the baby can now survive, there is uncertainty in that process.
    And it's the same with premature newborns. They don't all survive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I also don't see how our technology could possibly be a determining factor. What right exists that is determined by our ability to provide it?
    The right to life. Certainly in the past when technology did not allow a newborn with severe medical problems to survive it would be allowed to die without anyone receiving legal punishment for neglect like they might today if they could save it but just decided not to.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Likewise its far too variable (which makes it distinct from other rights as well). Does the baby lose the right if the machine required breaks and we don't know how to fix it? Does the abortion then become permissible?
    Again, what if we can't find an incubator that is needed to save a premature born baby?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So then if the child is removed via vaginal contractions at 9 months but is unable to access machine X (which I'll define as a mother) and dies due to lack of feeding it was not viable either right?
    Correct.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The problem, as I see it here, is that you are trying to use a utilitarian approach (if the baby survives), but then handwaving away the complications that actually come from making that the defining criteria. Really, your moral position seems to be, the mother has the right to remove the child from her body at any point. If it dies because we are not capable of caring for it or if it does due to other circumstance, it is defined as not viable and therefore no ethical problem arose. Likewise, if it dies from lack of access to a specific medical technology then it was not viable and therefore isn't a moral issue either.
    Again, I am offering no specifics on what a viable baby is specifically entitled to other than whatever else those who have a right to life are entitled to. So if society has a rule that doctors have no obligation to give newborns (vaginal or otherwise) a certain level of treatment to save its life, then both fetuses and newborns do not have a right to such things. And if the rules are the doctors must do everything possible to save them, then the doctors must do their best to save them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If we were to punch a hole in the brain cavity of an 8month old fetus then there is no medical equipment capable of making it surive and therefore it is not viable and there was no ethical problem. Now you might object to that act and say that we are making the baby not viable, but the same is true of your argument. If you induce the removal of the fetus you are making what was viable to be no longer viable.
    But if the opinion of the medical establishment was that an 8 month old is viable (it can be removed from the womb and expected to survive) then it has a right to life.

    And btw, I'm not saying my criteria is perfect. If there was a perfect criteria that raised no moral issues I'd choose that one above "viability". But there is none so pointing out imperfections or specific moral quandaries does not really shoot it down.
    Last edited by mican333; March 20th, 2013 at 12:16 PM.

  16. #56
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So if the majority decides then that we can euthanize toddlers, you are fine with that?
    That question is as silly as asking if I would be okay if the majority decided it was okay to continue to make it illegal to kill toddlers. Of course I would think it was okay to continue to make it illegal to kill toddlers. Why? Because that is what we consider to be a good moral decision. How we come to that decision is a debate all into itself.

    The point is that if a majority of people felt that it was okay to kill toddlers then that would mean we find that action morally acceptable overall. Thus, at the time that decision was made it would seem to be as morally acceptable to them as it is currently morally unacceptable to do it now.

    All of that said, trying to get me to say I would be okay with it now at a time when clearly no one would find it okay is a poor attempt imo to cloud, if not improperly discredit, my perfectly valid point. [/quote]

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is a slippery slope fallacy. Because I choose freely to not engage in an action regarding a non-existent being is not the same thing as engaging in an action towards an existent being. There is a legal and moral difference between two people not starting a company and thereby harming those who would have benefited from the company's product and specifically denying a person sale of the good.
    Well, I will agree that denying abortion is a slippery slope. THAT was the point of that example. You pretty much make my case for me.

    I believe you might want to rethink your company example though... it actually supports the idea of legalized rape. If you know you could save millions of people by taking action (like starting up that company) but decide to let them die by not doing it then I think it is clear that is a million times more immoral than starting that company, saving those millions of people, but denying just one of them.

    The fault in the example of course is that the people are live breathing/thinking people throughout the example. In the case of abortion the fetus just has potential to become a newborn. Yes, if left unhindered the fetus will probably become a newborn... however, the EXACT same thing can be said about the conception.

    So, why can't you agree to forced conception? IMO the only real reason is because you probably find legalized rape way too objectionable. That women should have more rights than that. Don't want to put words in your mouth... am I wrong here?

    If I'm correct then we pretty much are in agreement... when it comes to having children a woman should have complete control over her own body and all it's functions.

    I will grant you that abortion is not as pretty as simply preventing the conception to begin with. However, the end result is EXACTLY the same.

  17. #57
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,506
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    That question is as silly as asking if I would be okay if the majority decided it was okay to continue to make it illegal to kill toddlers. Of course I would think it was okay to continue to make it illegal to kill toddlers. Why? Because that is what we consider to be a good moral decision. How we come to that decision is a debate all into itself.

    The point is that if a majority of people felt that it was okay to kill toddlers then that would mean we find that action morally acceptable overall. Thus, at the time that decision was made it would seem to be as morally acceptable to them as it is currently morally unacceptable to do it now.
    But only to the majority (which could be as low as 51%). YOU, I assume, would still be against killing toddlers and would think that such a law should never exist despite what the majority wants. Assuming I'm correct about that, then whether or not toddlers should be killed should not be left to the majority but instead a different principle should be applied in determining such issues.

  18. #58
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But only to the majority (which could be as low as 51%). YOU, I assume, would still be against killing toddlers and would think that such a law should never exist despite what the majority wants. Assuming I'm correct about that, then whether or not toddlers should be killed should not be left to the majority but instead a different principle should be applied in determining such issues.
    But again, if it was 51% then clearly it would not be as objectionable to the society as a whole as it is to a society that is currently 100% (or at least I hope 100%) against it. Thus, this example is just a cheap attempt to cloud the issue. What I might or might not believe in some EXTREMELY unlikely reality is irrelevant to the discussion. I mean, surely you don't decide issues in our current reality based on what you think you might do in some extremely unlikely pretend reality... right?

  19. #59
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,506
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    But again, if it was 51% then clearly it would not be as objectionable to the society as a whole as it is to a society that is currently 100% (or at least I hope 100%) against it.
    But you said that abortion law should be decided by the majority which means if 51% decided they wanted a certain law, that's what the law should be. And if we are basing our laws on killing based on the majority, then by extension, if 51% think toddlers should be killed, then that should be the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    Thus, this example is just a cheap attempt to cloud the issue.
    No it's not. And I ask that you refrain from such rude comments in the future.


    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    What I might or might not believe in some EXTREMELY unlikely reality is irrelevant to the discussion.
    No it's not. If you believe that the majority should decide the laws, then either apply that consistently with any hypothetical situation or you explain why that situation should be exempt.

    So do you believe that the laws should be decided by the majority or not?

  20. #60
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But you said that abortion law should be decided by the majority which means if 51% decided they wanted a certain law, that's what the law should be. And if we are basing our laws on killing based on the majority, then by extension, if 51% think toddlers should be killed, then that should be the law.
    It IS irrelevant to the discussion. How could I possibly know what I would believe or not believe in a reality where something like killing toddlers was approved by 51% of the people? I clearly would be a vastly different person in such a reality... just like everyone else. Just like the Constitution would most likely be different and a billion other things. Maybe you can phantom such a reality but I can't. That is not the reality I live in. All I can say with certainty is that in a world where 51% approved of killing toddlers is that 51% would... well, approve of killing toddlers. Okay, how is this statistic from some most likely impossible reality relevant to this discussion?

    How about we just try to address this reality and not some inconceivable alternate universe?

    Maybe if you changed the example to something you think I might currently disagree with but a reasonable percentage of people do agree with? I'd give a list of examples but I don't want it to seem like I'm trying to sidetrack the thread or belittle the current topic in any way.

 

 
Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 20
    Last Post: May 13th, 2009, 05:11 AM
  2. Righteous Controversy
    By minorwork in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: November 19th, 2008, 10:55 AM
  3. Please solve this mystery
    By Snoop in forum Community Advice Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 15th, 2007, 06:35 AM
  4. Solve this mystery
    By Snoop in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: February 19th, 2006, 09:20 AM
  5. Which Branch Should Step In And Solve This Problem?
    By ophelia in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: April 8th, 2005, 05:01 PM

Members who have read this thread in the last 45 days : 1

You do not have permission to view the list of names.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •