Abortion///cont.

[Town Heretic]

This must not be the only case. The mother has the right to ameliorate any (emphasis added) risk to her life.

No one has that general a right, though self-defense is certainly an argument to raise in a very narrow band, one that shouldn't be confused with any notion of risk, because every pregnancy has risk involved for everyone concerned. And birth itself entails risk, though by no present defended standard would a woman's sudden certainty on avoiding it in the moment be honored.

Ultimately, it's the mother's choice here.

That's just restating the law, not ascribing any particular and inarguable truth to it beyond the fact.

They simply can't be equal by way of their unique physical relationship.

It is true the relationship is unique. It doesn't follow that the relationship necessarily involves ethical, moral, or legal inequality.

..the death scenario simply illustrates the obviousness of such - by necessity - that which the pro-lifer tends to circumvent by appeals to subjective theories of life such as the one you've espoused here.

Except, again, any line in the sand is subjective, including yours. There is no objective truth in your position, no prima facie case that the Court in Roe was anything other than arbitrary in its conclusion.

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

A lie told in robes is still a lie. The Court did nothing but speculate and give its speculation the force of law, to the ongoing potential violation of a right it has no authority to abrogate when recognized.

 

[quip]

No one has that general a right, though self-defense is certainly an argument to raise in a very narrow band, one that shouldn't be confused with any notion of risk, because every pregnancy has risk involved for everyone concerned. And birth itself entails risk, though by no present defended standard would a woman's sudden certainty on avoiding it in the moment be honored.

The emphasis being that this woman may ameliorate such risk in the extreme brings about a question of arbitrariness involving risk at a lesser degree. By what method - legal - or otherwise may you objectively draw the line for her? To presume an equal (defacto) right-to-life of the unborn places her very liberties of saving her own life (imminently so) in check. Moreover, a granted and just exception fails your standard for a non-arbitrary solution. You can't have it both ways.

It seems the only line in the sand to be drawn...is by the mother's hand. Even in cases where imminent risk may be downgraded to mere inconvenience.

Except, again, any line in the sand is subjective, including yours. There is no objective truth in your position, no prima facie case that the Court in Roe was anything other than arbitrary in its conclusion.

Rights exist with quite the subjective nature, such is why they are fought for, debated, demarcated and enumerated. You're free, as well as others, to adopt a particular theory of life whereas a deity may grant an individual inherent rights upon it's "creation". Though, unlike you and I, the court does not enjoy such latitude thus, must rule with this in mind:

Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection. We seek earnestly to do this... [The Constitution] is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States.

Which brings us to this:

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

A lie told in robes is still a lie. The Court did nothing but speculate and give its speculation the force of law, to the ongoing potential violation of a right it has no authority to abrogate when recognized.

No lie to be had.
'Speculation' is precisely what the court did not rule through.

 

[Town Heretic]

The emphasis being that this woman may ameliorate such risk in the extreme brings about a question of arbitrariness involving risk at a lesser degree.

It really doesn't. Like suggesting that because we have a right to defend ourselves it calls assault into question.

By what method - legal - or otherwise may you objectively draw the line for her? To presume an equal (defacto) right-to-life of the unborn places her very liberties of saving her own life (imminently so) in check. Moreover, a granted and just exception fails your standard for a non-arbitrary solution. You can't have it both ways.

Self defense is an exception for taking another life. It doesn't suggest in inequity of right.

It seems the only line in the sand to be drawn...is by the mother's hand. Even in cases where imminent risk may be downgraded to mere inconvenience.

Imminent risk can't be rationally considered an inconvenience any more than your conclusion can be considered a rational necessity. Rather, we should defend life in the absence of agreement as to when that life possesses the rights we have no right to abrogate.

Rights exist with quite the subjective nature, such is why they are fought for, debated, demarcated and enumerated. You're free, as well as others, to adopt a particular theory of life whereas a deity may grant an individual inherent rights upon it's "creation". Though, unlike you and I, the court does not enjoy such latitude thus, must rule with this in mind:

My position in argument is divorced from any religious consideration, existed and was offered purely as a matter of right and examination, an extension of a rationalist's perspective. Both arguments I propounded were established by me before I had any faith in God.

Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection. We seek earnestly to do this... [The Constitution] is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States.

The Court's earnestness isn't in question. It's arbitrary issuance and fiat are another matter.

Which brings us to this:

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

Asserted and answered. The question was when right vests. That is what is meant by when life begins outside of a biological consideration. The Court speculated and enforced the product of that speculation, that arbitrary imposition, to God alone knows what toll.

No lie to be had. 'Speculation' is precisely what the court did not rule through.

Untrue, given the Court's position cannot be empirically established as an unavoidable line in the sand where right and its protection begins. It is, instead, speculation given the force of law, for the reasons enumerated prior and to some extent above.

 

[glassjester]

It really doesn't. Like suggesting that because we have a right to defend ourselves it calls assault into question.

I tried telling him that earlier. Quip refuses to acknowledge this obvious truth.

Self defense is an exception for taking another life. It doesn't suggest in inequity of right.

He's heard this before, too. Again, he won't acknowledge the apparent.

 

[quip]

It really doesn't. Like suggesting that because we have a right to defend ourselves it calls assault into question.

That's exactly what's being suggested here. Given that a woman may only defend herself when only her life is in imminent danger precludes her from defending herself from less imminent risks. In effect she's forced to submit to risks against the common right to contend. Any objection regarding an unjust death of the fetus is simply appealing to the unique circumstance of pregnancy/gestation... the implications of which they're quite wont to otherwise ignore or diminish.

Self defense is an exception for taking another life. It doesn't suggest in inequity of right.

Not under typical circumstances. Self defense is not typical here. She may indeed defend herself from cancer at the cost of the fetus. No where else may this exception be justified nor acceptable but exclusively within the pregnancy scenario. Again, this logically implies a moral inequity between fetus and host.

Imminent risk can't be rationally considered an inconvenience any more than your conclusion can be considered a rational necessity.

Wrong on both counts. The latter, supra.
As for imminent risk...seems the epitome of inconvenience; subsequent death transcends the very concept itself.

Rather, we should defend life in the absence of agreement as to when that life possesses the rights we have no right to abrogate.

Your take on the matter is an ineffectual appeal to ignorance. It fails in rising to the constitutional challenge brought forth by Roe, rather to deflect them as an alternate to rational argumention for overrule. In effect, we're left in a state of stasis regarding any form of resolution.
Unacceptable by any grounds.

My position in argument is divorced from any religious consideration, existed and was offered purely as a matter of right and examination, an extension of a rationalist's perspective. Both arguments I propounded were established by me before I had any faith in God.

God need not apply. You're simply appealing to a personal theory of life by whatever means it was derived.

 

[Town Heretic]

That's exactly what's being suggested here. Given that a woman may only defend herself when only her life is in imminent danger precludes her from defending herself from less imminent risks.

Rather, you only have the right to inflict mortal injury on another in defense of our life, when you are reasonably in apprehension of mortal injury absent that defense.

In effect she's forced to submit to risks against the common right to do so.

Rather, you do not have a right to take a life for a lesser reason. Pregnancy remains the byproduct of a mostly voluntary process and that involves an assumption of risk. Again, who would suggest that since delivery carries a real risk the mother should be allowed to abort moments before that occurs?

On the mistaken notion that self defense implies unequal rights:

Not under typical circumstances.

Not under any.

Self defense is not typical here. She may indeed defend herself from cancer at the cost of the fetus. No where else may this exception be justified nor acceptable but exclusively within the pregnancy scenario. Again, this logically implies a moral inequity between fetus and host.

I'm not presenting other people's arguments so I won't speak to their rationality.

Wrong on both counts. The latter, supra.

Not at all. You trivialize life when you conflate its imperilment with inconvenience. I won't and it isn't reasonable to do so. And your argument that we should accept an arbitrary line in the sand because a majority of jurists decided it was so isn't a logical necessity.

Your take on the matter is an ineffectual appeal to ignorance.

It isn't, but your desperation on the point is leading you into the habit of all zealots when they run out of reason. It isn't ineffectual if you can only declare it so but fail to demonstrate a logical deficiency in either of the proffered arguments. It isn't an appeal to ignorance because it begins and ends in reason, however you feel about it.

It fails in rising to the constitutional challenge brought forth by Roe

Rather, Roe cobbled the wrong standard for examination of their own argument and the conclusion is, again, nothing more or less than an arbitrary standard adopted and enforced by fiat, not reason.

God need not apply. You're simply appealing to a personal theory of life by whatever means it was derived.

If by personal theory you mean the byproduct of a reasoned examination of the foundational right to be, the prohibition of its abrogation, and the inability of anyone to state with objective authority when the vesting of that right could be said to exist, then asserting the necessity of its protection, sure.

 

[quip]

Rather, you only have the right to inflict mortal injury on another in defense of our life, when you are reasonably in apprehension of mortal injury absent that defense.


Rather, you do not have a right to take a life for a lesser reason. Pregnancy remains the byproduct of a mostly voluntary process and that involves an assumption of risk. Again, who would suggest that since delivery carries a real risk the mother should be allowed to abort moments before that occurs?

Yet, your objections begin well before that point. Odd that you had to go to such extremes to curry your point. No, the mother's forced assumption of risk begins at conception; effectively denying the unique physical circumstance inherent to this 'voluntary process', hypocritically quelling the liberty for a 'voluntary corrective'.

"Taking a life for a lesser reason" - within, not outside, the pregnancy context - is the crux of the discussion. Your moral declaration against such harbors no rational discourse...it's mere declarative, prescriptive finger-waving.

Your main thrust for disqualifying abortion, asserted as wrought from the faculties of reason, only work as a dissembling obviation from forthright challenge. Thus, would fail by its own standard of reason.

Self defense is not typical here. She may indeed defend herself from cancer at the cost of the fetus. No where else may this exception be justified nor acceptable but exclusively within the pregnancy scenario. Again, this logically implies a moral inequity between fetus and host.


I'm not presenting other people's arguments so I won't speak to their rationality.

You seem to have no problem authoritatively speaking for them by effectively silencing their voice on the matter. You did not even attempt to meet this challenge by rational rebuttal, so I restated the scenario above in the hopes of one.

Not at all. You trivialize life when you conflate its imperilment with inconvenience. I won't and it isn't reasonable to do so. And your argument that we should accept an arbitrary line in the sand because a majority of jurists decided it was so isn't a logical necessity.

I conflate nothing of the kind. Rather, unconventional physical facts and circumstances blur the otherwise uncontested distinction. thus, we must respond accordingly. Not to rest our reasons upon convenient dissemblance.

As for the 'majority of jurists' part...it does not follow from prior discussion. Sounds more of an outburst, a loud attempt at accusing me of appealing to authority. Yes, I agree with the ruling, though I've brought reason for this to the table. Your implication otherwise is unfounded.

It isn't an appeal to ignorance because it begins and ends in reason, however you feel about it.

Are you not assuming a conclusion based upon an explicit lack of adequate knowledge, specifically knowledge of when rights-to-life commence? It's premised in your argument...I rest my case on the matter.

Rather, Roe cobbled the wrong standard for examination of their own argument and the conclusion is, again, nothing more or less than an arbitrary standard adopted and enforced by fiat, not reason.

In other words, they met the challenges brought to them from lower courts..challenges your assertions can't thus won't meet.

If by personal theory you mean the byproduct of a reasoned examination of the foundational right to be, the prohibition of its abrogation, and the inability of anyone to state with objective authority when the vesting of that right could be said to exist, then asserting the necessity of its protection, sure.

That...and the personal motivation to assemble it without rational disputation.

 

[glassjester]

This unavoidable fetus-to-host relationship bears fact that the mother holds the preponderant moral position only within this particular and unique relationship.

Connect the dots for me. I don't get it. Because the fetus depends on the mother, the mother has a greater right to life? How so?

The Doctor's only obligation is to himself by way of his own moral conscious.

And to the law.
Which is what we're discussing ought to be.

They simply can't be equal by way of their unique physical relationship...

Again... why? Demonstrate how dependence logically necessitates a lesser right.

It seems that you are blatantly engaging in special pleading, here. Over, and over, and over...

In legal regard to theories of life:

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. Blackmun. Roe V Wade.

Who's debating when life begins? That's a simple matter of scientific fact.

 

[quip]

Connect the dots for me. I don't get it. Because the fetus depends on the mother, the mother has a greater right to life? How so?

Simply because we may morally and justly forfeit the life of the unborn (prior examples discussed) where outside the context of pregnancy they would be morally impermissible.

Again... why? Demonstrate how dependence logically necessitates a lesser right.

It seems that you are blatantly engaging in special pleading, here. Over, and over, and over...

That's been discussed over and over. I would say mother retains a demonstrable moral and practical advantage in this regard.

Who's debating when life begins? That's a simple matter of scientific fact.

It seems you are...you've just assumed a particular theory of life based upon biology. The issue you have assuming this position as philosophically unassailable lacks an objective understanding of the issues being debated.


Reread:

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus.

 

[glassjester]

Simply because we may morally and justly forfeit the life of the unborn (prior examples discussed) where outside the context of pregnancy they would be morally impermissible.

Not true. There are scenarios, outside the context of pregnancy, where a life may be justly forfeited to save another. And none of them prove that the saved person has a greater right to be alive than the forfeited.

It seems you are...you've just assumed a particular theory of life based upon biology. The issue you have assuming this position as philosophically unassailable lacks an objective understanding of the issues being debated.


Reread:

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus.

And you accuse Town Heretic of arguing from ignorance?

Anyway, it is objectively true that a new, individual, living human begins at conception.

 

[quip]

Not true. There are scenarios, outside the context of pregnancy, where a life may be justly forfeited to save another. And none of them prove that the saved person has a greater right to be alive than the forfeited.

I'm open to examples.

And you accuse Town Heretic of arguing from ignorance?

Yes. He's specifically using this lack of precise knowledge as a premise to his argument.

Anyway, it is objectively true that a new, individual, living human begins at conception.

Sure, yet you give no objective argument as to why this biological designation for 'life' is estimable for an unequivocal right-to-life.

 

[glassjester]

I'm open to examples.

There was the one from Trent Horn, a Catholic apologist, in the video I linked earlier. He gave the example of two people drowning in the ocean. The two people are far enough apart that by swimming toward one, the would-be rescuer will certainly be allowing the other to drown. Only one life can be saved. Saving that one life means the other must die. Yet neither has an intrinsically greater right to life.

Yes. He's specifically using this lack of precise knowledge as a premise to his argument.

But we do know, objectively, when each human being's life began.

Sure, yet you give no objective argument as to why this biological designation for 'life' is estimable for an unequivocal right-to-life.

Because the right to life is based on being human and being alive. An unborn child is both.

 

[quip]

There was the one from Trent Horn, a Catholic apologist, in the video I linked earlier. He gave the example of two people drowning in the ocean. The two people are far enough apart that by swimming toward one, the would-be rescuer will certainly be allowing the other to drown. Only one life can be saved. Saving that one life means the other must die. Yet neither has an intrinsically greater right to life.

That would be a classic moral dilemma. The swimmer is not taking or imperiling the life of the another as cause in saving his or her own life.

But we do know, objectively, when each human being's life began.

That discussion is between you and TH.

Because the right to life is based on being human and being alive. An unborn child is both.

Some theories of life demand more of the concept than just "being human". :idunno:

 

[glassjester]

That would be a classic moral dilemma. The swimmer is not taking or imperiling the life of the another as cause in saving his or her own life.

Sure, but the point is that the other swimmer's life already is imperiled (just like an unborn child, living inside a dying woman). And it remains imperiled, even unto death, when the rescuer swims toward the one, and (necessarily) away from the other.

This parallels the doctor's position in the case of a pregnant woman whose life is in danger. It is, in fact, two lives that are in danger (just as in the case of the swimmers), is it not? If mom dies, baby dies, too.

The rescuer (the doctor), by working to save the one, necessarily allows the other to die.

That discussion is between you and TH.

Alright.

Some theories of life demand more of the concept than just "being human". :idunno:

Not objective ones.

Do you subscribe to any such theory? Or is this a red herring?

 

[George Affleck]

There was the one from Trent Horn, a Catholic apologist, in the video I linked earlier. He gave the example of two people drowning in the ocean. The two people are far enough apart that by swimming toward one, the would-be rescuer will certainly be allowing the other to drown. Only one life can be saved. Saving that one life means the other must die. Yet neither has an intrinsically greater right to life.

This is not a situation where one life is forfeited for another.
This is a great mistake of logic.

Both lives are deemed lost in your scenario.

If one is saved from death, a victory is won.
The other's death was determined by previous circumstances, not by the saving of the one.

 

[glassjester]

This is not a situation where one life is forfeited for another.
This is a great mistake of logic.

Both lives are deemed lost in your scenario.

If one is saved from death, a victory is won.
The other's death was determined by previous circumstances, not by the saving of the one.

Same with a pregnant woman, man.

If the rescuer does nothing, both lives are lost.

 

[Town Heretic]

Yet, your objections begin well before that point.

I don't take your meaning. How so?

Odd that you had to go to such extremes to curry your point.

Life and death considerations are by their nature extreme. But my point is made by the same faculty the argument is sustained, reason.

No, the mother's forced assumption of risk begins at conception; effectively denying the unique physical circumstance inherent to this 'voluntary process', hypocritically quelling the liberty for a 'voluntary corrective'.

Absent rape the act that leads to conception is a voluntary process and the mother's will begins with that decision. You can't point out any hypocrisy and if you can't illustrate it you shouldn't advance it.

"Taking a life for a lesser reason" - within, not outside, the pregnancy context - is the crux of the discussion.

Taking life for any reason other than the defense of your own or another's is the standard. The crux of the discussion is when right vests and what we must do about that question in relation to what we know and agree upon and what we differ over and cannot assert without an arbitrary assignation.

Your moral declaration against such harbors no rational discourse.

I've made none. My argument is entirely rational. Both are. They weren't offered or constructed as moral instruments and you're off the rails declaratively speaking.

Your main thrust for disqualifying abortion, asserted as wrought from the faculties of reason, only work as a dissembling obviation from forthright challenge. Thus, would fail by its own standard of reason.

Sorry, but that's no argument or set out sustaining the declaration. My argument isn't asserted as reason, it's offered as such, inviting objection or examination of its parts, something you've eschewed for this poor tactic. There is no dissembling and you know it, which is why you lay the charge without foundation. You conclusion, "thus" notwithstanding, is entirely of that declarative cloth, of no particular support or part beyond it and so cannot be objected to in particular, only noted for what it is and isn't.

You seem to have no problem authoritatively speaking for them by effectively silencing their voice on the matter.

Rather, I advance my own argument and the necessity for subsuming every other standard. Meet it or don't. Trying to taint it because it doesn't suit you doesn't suit reasoned discourse.

You did not even attempt to meet this challenge by rational rebuttal

That wasn't a challenge. It was a declaration of fact (that my argument silences others) offered as though that in some meaningful sense should make it objectionable. Reason is by its nature authoritative. So is law. Neither are odious because they preclude other answers or action. They are only objectionable to the extent they can be demonstrated defective.

I conflate nothing of the kind.

We're simply going to differ. If you think it reasonable to describe the imperilment of life as an inconvenience I think you prima facie trivialize the issue.

Rather, unconventional physical facts and circumstances blur the otherwise uncontested distinction. thus, we must respond accordingly. Not to rest our reasons upon convenient dissemblance.

Call me a liar again and I'm done with you on the point. Find your argumentative feet or simply stop talking to me. This is unacceptable.

As for the 'majority of jurists' part...it does not follow from prior discussion. Sounds more of an outburst, a loud attempt at accusing me of appealing to authority.

So far it's by and large what you've done. So...

Yes, I agree with the ruling, though I've brought reason for this to the table. Your implication otherwise is unfounded.

I don't think you have no reason or I'd have said it. You've leaned too often on declaration and insult of the soft pedaled sort, but my implication is to the point. Beyond that I didn't imply, I noted your reliance on that particular.

Are you not assuming a conclusion based upon an explicit lack of adequate knowledge, specifically knowledge of when rights-to-life commence?

Too broad. To narrow, if you're asking if I'm assuming a conclusion as to when right vests, no. The arguments made underscore the impossibility of that and the equal impossibility of divestment. Else, I'm not assuming, but illustrating with reason why the point of protection for what exists in potential is logically necessary.

In other words, they met the challenges brought to them from lower courts..challenges your assertions can't thus won't meet.

That doesn't begin to rephrase or sum what it followed, so until you do better with it I'll give it the same apparent thought: no, you're mistaken. Now try to show how that's true.

That...and the personal motivation to assemble it without rational disputation

The motivation for reason is only of importance to the person motivated or the person who, unable to unseat the reason must concentrate on the messenger.

 

[quip]

Sure, but the point is that the other swimmer's life already is imperiled (just like an unborn child, living inside a dying woman). And it remains imperiled, even unto death, when the rescuer swims toward the one, and (necessarily) away from the other.

Though circumstance independent to the swimmer put both lives in jeopardy. The swimmer played no part in their current endangerment nor them his. He or she is simply performing an heroic moral act in saving one.

This parallels the doctor's position in the case of a pregnant woman whose life is in danger. It is, in fact, two lives that are in danger (just as in the case of the swimmers), is it not? If mom dies, baby dies, too.

The rescuer (the doctor), by working to save the one, necessarily allows the other to die.

You're making my point for me. In no other than the pregnancy scenario would this be permissible. (Nor possible. Re: logically necessary)

Not objective ones.

None of them are....that's the very issue!

Do you subscribe to any such theory? Or is this a red herring?

Of course. Though, my personal theory of life is limited to my personal purview. In otherwords, unlike you and others, I don't presume to impose it upon others.

 

[glassjester]

Though circumstance independent to the swimmer put both lives in jeopardy. The swimmer played no part in their current endangerment nor them his. He or she is simply performing an heroic moral act in saving one.

Just like the doctor treating the mother and unborn child...

You're making my point for me. In no other than the pregnancy scenario would this be permissible. (Nor possible. Re: logically necessary)

Where am I in error, here?

In both the case of the swimmers, and the mother and child...
- Two lives are endangered.
- Without intervention, both will die.
- By saving one, the rescuer must allow the other to die.

None of them are....that's the very issue!

Not so. It is objectively true that a human's life begins at conception.

Of course. Though, my personal theory of life is limited to my personal purview. In otherwords, unlike you and others, I don't presume to impose it upon others.

Of course you do. If someone killed me (I am thirty-two years old), and argued in court that he personally believes that life begins at thirty-three - I am sure you would gladly allow the law to impose upon the criminal, a "theory of life" other than his personal one.

 

[George Affleck]

Same with a pregnant woman, man.

If the rescuer does nothing, both lives are lost.

Not so.
If the rescuer does nothing, he/she is not a rescuer; just a bystander.

I am simply pointing out that the moral dilemna is not which one to save.
It is between saving one or none.

No culpability attaches to itself to the rescuer for leaving one to die while rescuing the other.
That was your original statement; "the would-be rescuer will certainly be allowing the other to drown".
This is not true. The rescuer is not allowing the other to drown at all.
He/she has no moral obligation to the one not saved if only one can be saved.