While still remaining coy...I'll give you a subtle descriptive clue: bodily encroachment.
That should give your brain cells exercise for the day.
Against abortion and against person-hood?
- Thread starter Delmar
- Start date
While still remaining coy...I'll give you a subtle descriptive clue: bodily encroachment.
That should give your brain cells exercise for the day.
I don't see pregnancy as a punishment or violation, so I'd phrase it, here she assumed the risk of a foreseeable, natural consequence to her actions.
Necessity and the right to be create it as surely as her actions create the consideration...else, she has issued a de facto invitation and cannot then claim trespass. She has, in essence, given the unborn a nine month lease.
In order, only if we assume the right that shouldn't exist if we address the argument that should have preceded its invention...and nothing was obfuscated.
Rather, as I've said more than once, the argument I make isn't a moral argument or instrument.
The reason I suspect you're pursuing this approach is that you need for me to be making a moral, subjective and/or emotional argument. Because if I do that then I'm essentially just like you and everyone else creating arbitrary lines in the sand and the matter becomes right by fiat and show of hands. Rather, the argument is rational (which needn't be the exclusive wheelhouse of the academic) and remains on course.
I've noted more than once that serious questions of right have moral parallels, that legal, rational restraints frequently carry moral consequence. Now one person may feel or value differently than the next and then see the moral outcome differently. So if you believed that a woman had a right to reproductive freedom that gave her the authority to have an abortion you could see Roe as a moral instrument, or perhaps an incomplete and flawed one. Conversely, were you inclined to believe in the sanctity of life from conception you'd see Roe as preserving some good amid a good bit of moral ill.
That's the problem with moral arguments, they only have gravitas to the extent the parties involved accept the same premise/standard. Reason doesn't care how you feel about a thing. It only cares that the thing is logical and logically defensible.
That's not a rebuttal to what I noted. I haven't argued that the majority of old men who fashioned Roe weren't influenced by a social climate and clamor. I believe they were, demonstrably were, to the point where it overwhelmed good reason.
What Roe ultimately says is that women have the right to a control over the process of their pregnancy until that pregnancy arrives at a point where they don't, where an intervening right prohibits their newly minted procreative autonomy.
It's that recognition, paired with the arbitrary nature of the divide that seats it that led me to the argument they should have considered.
Maybe I'm mincing terms though there exists no necessary right to being created. Perhaps you're referring to the unborn's (assumed) right to continued and necessary sustenance.
The vast difference between property and physicality; absent legal, explicit terms of contract subject to both parties ...renders this analogy less than potent. It again begs the very question of legality.
The preceding argument is being addressed though, not without reasonable qualification.
Mortality not morality. The just/unjust death of the fetus via the abortion procedure is where we're in opposition. To my prior point, to deny it's relevance is rather absurd.
Likewise, by a pure rational standard, you cannot deny the principle in play whereas one human individual has no uncontested right of access to another human individual. The difference in either rational approach lies exclusively within the realm of moral discernment and subjective valuation. specifically, you cannot claim that the mother's "foreseeable" consequence binds her to the unborn's right to exist in lieu nor in spite of said principle without such appeal.
Then the court had more than ample reason to have allowed the voice of women to be heard, represented and deliberated upon..effectively releasing that genie in the bottle you're so vainly attempting to stuff back in.
The parallel is in principle. It's potent enough for the point and isn't offered as more.
:chuckle: Mea culpa, though now I lose your point.
I don't see how, given my argument. I mean we may be, but if we are it's not because of the argument. Unjustifiable is another matter. That it demonstrably is.
The problem with that is you're only really finding a way to recontextualize the particular situation we're addressing. In what other situation would the notion of uncontested access have meaning? None if the argument is necessity and what other context is there?
My argument has nothing to do with subjective valuation save the founding principle of law can be called that...which is an argument, but everything that proceeds from it cannot be so situated or the law becomes nothing more or less than an incoherent plea to power.
And unlike my approach, every attempt to foist upon the chronological line of being a point of sudden value is entirely subjective pleading and my argument resists and rejects it.
Well, honestly, I'm just kicking around side bars. None of that is really a part of my argument. I'm poking around within your contextual assertions for the sake of clarity. If/then, if you would. If you're going to compare the unborn to a rapist I'm going to note the absence or real parallel outside of the response on the part of the woman who decides that both are unwanted intrusions on her sense of personal, physical autonomy.
Rather, the Court erred by failing to consider what it should have as a logical necessity, instead allowing itself to be moved by the climate of the day to create a thing that as the dissent ably pointed out, cannot be reasonably approached by an argument of due process and is otherwise a near legislative cobbling, an illustration not of reason, but of the capitulation of power divorced from either a moral compass or a rationally inclusive approach. As to genies and bottles and stuffing...I am guilty in the same sense of a man wrongly convicted and arguing on appeal for the consideration he was due and denied...except that I am arguing for right itself and what must come from that.
The arrogance of your position simply requires a reproof on behalf of the supreme court as to have allowed the issue of abortion/woman's rights to ever reach its level of consideration, for the intended purpose of avoiding a forthright confutation against the claim itself...for fear it would unlikely ever rationally and justly accomplish (rightfully so, in retrospect). Given the sorry state of women's rights prior to Roe/Wade, the issues' progressive broach was justly initiated, inevitably so. While the accompanying dismissive arrogance to deny women their voice only exacerbated the issue. Not to deliberate upon the issue on the part of the court would have remained unconscionable, fainthearted and unjustifiable. Your admission in denial of such only serves to evince that your "incontestable" appeal to the unborn's right to life cannot stand upon its own merit and therefore must impose - by design - a grave injustice upon women in an indulgent effort at sustaining its oppressive (mis)representation of right.
This is not a rational dispensation of justice but rather a tyrannical rationale to deny one.
Last edited:
PureX
Well-known member
And this is evidenced by the continued irrational attack on women's rights in general, to enforce by any means necessary, and at anyone else's cost, an individual subjective opinion about abortion.
The absurdly idiotic, biased, and harmful legislative attempts being made by anti-abortion politicians all across the country bear witness to their singular desire to enforce their own moral opinion by any means, and at any cost, to anyone else. And it reveals the true moral bankruptcy that is fueling their actions.
Reason isn't arrogant. Attempting to meet it with appeals to emotion and circular declarations, however, might well be.
Given the only "right" that failed to exist before Roe is the right to legal abortion, that's a curious criticism and a neat circle.
Roe rather pointedly makes the case that no one denied women "their voice". Everyone with standing deserves to be heard on the law if they can advance a meaningful point of consideration. In fact, it was that very thing that led to my argument, considering the merits of all involved within the context of the law.
You're mistaken in nearly every count. Supra on the hearing bit. What I've said is that the reproductive right Roe establishes regarding abortion doesn't exist in Roe past the point where that same decision arbitrarily assigns right to the unborn and denies the mother the right to interfere with it. I've noted that their line in the sand isn't any more self evident than any other and that, given the argument I've set out prior, none of them should reasonably control. Roe is predicated on emotionalism and arrogance of the worst sort, a monument to public pressure and a failure of consideration.
And my argument has stood and called for challenge, invited examination of its points. That's not fearful or avoidance, unlike the meat of those who advance emotional rhetoric in lieu of meeting that public and particular challenge.
Well, no. The imposition is Roe, which creates a thing at odds with reason then rejects its own cobbled right the moment that right meets an arbitrary valuation and assignment. Roe is only consistent in its inconsistency.
Only true of those who support Roe or any arbitrary, arrogant, presumptive assertion of the right to determine and deny essential human dignity against reason itself.
Institutionalized irrationality and the imposition of emotional fiat is no public virtue.
For me, the distinction is that a new life has begun at fertilization. That constitutes person hood IMO. The very latest that a new person is growing is about 5 days after fertilization in the fallopian tubes, the zygote then works its way into the uterus and implants itself into the uterine wall, the endometrium. At the point of implantation person-hood is 100% established.
alwight
New member
That still seems a bit arbitrary to me but once implanted it becomes much more likely to develop a central nervous system and thus a capacity to be a person in time.
That's interesting bluster considering the history of women suffrage. Check the time-line for yourself.
Roe simply recognizes the developmental progression inherent to gestation. It's a pragmatic approach whereas the court/state is compelled by an adaptive point in adjusting right and well-being of both the unborn and mother in direct correlation to the former's level of development; minimizing imminent risks to suffering and death to all parties concerned, as a necessary consideration. This reflects the impracticability and absurdity of preserving rights for a zygote and/or denying protections to an embryo moments prior to birth. Either extreme is unacceptable for reasons given prior.
Last edited:
It's nothing of the sort and conflating abortion with a continuation of suffrage is about as mistaken.
Rather, Roe creates an arbitrary line in that biological progression to assign right. It's no more rationally compelling than any other arbitrary distinction.
No, it's a subjective valuation draped in robes and power.
It's not minimizing risk to the infant at all. It's disregarding the infant except in consideration with its own hubris.
Using "this" as though something which hasn't been established rationally must have been, because you find it pragmatic, is neither argument nor truth.
Rather, only in protecting the unborn at every point of being can we guarantee the absence of assuming a power to which we understand there is no right.
All rights are arbitrary and assigned as such else, they'd never bother attempts at enumeration/declaration.
We've exhausted these points.
Some believe that. Most don't. As with assignment all we can say uniformly is that at some point we possess them. The rest goes back to the argument.
The nature of the thing.
"Them" is vague. How do we specify the particulars non-arbitrarily?
Only if you developed amnesia. In which case, you already agreed with me.
Otherwise, we're talking about right and vestment.There's argument, but it doesn't matter if rights are absolute in establishment or cobbled wishcraft. I'm not trying to convince you that rights exist outside of men's desire for them (though the case can be and has been made, philosophically) especially since it doesn't really alter or impact the arguments I've made. That is, whether or not right itself is an arbitrary designation, the right to exist is the foundation of every proceeding right. It is indispensable, the first cause from which arises every other protection. There is no disagreement on the point that can move it without undoing every other. So it is necessary that we safeguard it and the self-interest it promotes and protects. And so my arguments follow.
Only if you developed amnesia. In which case, you already agreed with me.
There's argument, but it doesn't matter if rights are absolute in establishment or cobbled wishcraft. I'm not trying to convince you that rights exist outside of men's desire for them (though the case can be and has been made, philosophically) especially since it doesn't really alter or impact the arguments I've made. That is, whether or not right itself is an arbitrary designation, the right to exist is the foundation of every proceeding right. It is indispensable, the first cause from which arises every other protection. There is no disagreement on the point that can move it without undoing every other. So it is necessary that we safeguard it and the self-interest it promotes and protects. And so my arguments follow.
Sure, though the right to exist is not without exception. In the case of abortion, one, contrary to other such exemption, is deemed inexorably by you as having no standing for just deliberation.
True. The things that can abrogate it are pretty horrific violations of the compact though, largely taking the life of another without justification. Rape was on that list for a while. Treason still is. In other words, if you take the rights from another, or endanger the rights of everyone within the republic you could stand to lose that foundational protection.
But nothing remotely like that can be set at the feet of the present consideration, so I've largely dropped that boilerplate and touch on it lightly, in passing, when I think to mention it, only going into particulars when the need arises.
Abortion doesn't have the predicate, the gross and willful violation of another's right and/or injury absent some fairly rare circumstances that we've touched on prior. Outside of the thorny problem of endangerment and self-defense it's simply not in the ballpark.
And that ballpark was designed and designated by who and what non-arbitrary measure?
As no right can have meaning without the ability to exercise it, life is by rational necessity preeminent among them. In recognition of that, the willful abrogation of it carries the most severe penalty a social compact can impose. And even then many argue against it. Abortion doesn't approach the litmus in nearly any case and by no means as the rule.