Against abortion and against person-hood?

[Town Heretic]

The argument is about what constitutes a human being

Or as I actually put it, the point where the right our compact is obligated to defend life vests. And everyone has an opinion on that point. None of them are demonstrably and inescapably true. All we know, all the compact makes clear is that the obligation to recognize and protect the unborn vests at some point along our chain of being.

And so I advance an argument that serves the uncontested right by safeguarding every point along that line of being. I've already set out the logical necessity of the action in my last.

There is no logical reason why we as a society should take such an absolutist stance regarding the right to life of a human fetus.

I've actually given you a rebuttal to that. The argument, framed in what our society has decided is true about right and examined by the light of logical necessity in defense of it.

And that's why we need to respect the individual's right to decide for themselves, until that point where we can reasonably and collectively determine 'personhood'.

Except there's no objective litmus in play, only valuation, which means your "until" is an empty bit of convenient rhetoric that fails to meet my argument in route to holding your license to allow some people the potential for butchery and abrogation of a right they are not entitled to sever.

 

[ok doser]

Here are some verses to consider:

Job 3:16
"Or like a miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be, as infants that never saw light."

Ecclesiastes 6:3-4
"If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, 'Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity.'"

Psalms 58:8
"Let them be as a snail which melts away as it goes along, like the miscarriages of a woman which never see the sun."


And this one is perhaps the most damning to the notion that fetuses are of the same inalienable rights and acknowledgment of those born:

Exodus 21:22-23
"If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life"


Right here is inevitably the woman's life being more important than the fetus, and the fetus itself being treated almost as property.

a miscarriage, like the natural death of any living being, is an act of God's will

what you're doing (comparing a deliberate act by the mother to kill her unborn child to an act of God) would be the equivalent of comparing a mother's choice to murder her three year old to an act of God that causes the death of that child

 

[PureX]

Or as I actually put it, the point where the right our compact is obligated to defend life vests. And everyone has an opinion on that point. None of them are demonstrably and inescapably true. All we know, all the compact makes clear is that the obligation to recognize and protect the unborn vests at some point along our chain of being.

Nice the way you slid the "unborn" in there, but in fact that's part of the difference in public opinion as to when we are obligated to protect the right to exist. And is likewise part of what is not demonstrably and inescapably true.

And so I advance an argument that serves the uncontested right by safeguarding every point along that line of being. I've already set out the logical necessity of the action in my last.

I understand that. But the problem with the absolute ideal that you advance is that we do not abide by it in any other instance of the protection of the right of a human being to continued existence. We don't heed that absolute idea regarding capital punishment. We don't heed that absolute ideal regarding self-defense. We don't heed that absolute ideal regarding warfare. We don't even heed that ideal regarding universal health care! In all these instances we recognize mitigating conditions and circumstances that deny the absolute ideal. So why should we heed that absolute ideal regarding abortion?

I've actually given you a rebuttal to that. The argument, framed in what our society has decided is true about right and examined by the light of logical necessity in defense of it.

Our society has decided nothing. It is still very divided on the issue by a multitude of opinions regarding when a fetus becomes a 'person' and should therefor be afforded it's own right to exist. And you have not presented any logical argument or reason why your opinion should usurp everyone else's, such that pregnant women would be forced to comply with it, … except that you think you're right. But we all think we're right, so that lends no particular significance or authority, at all.

And it's the fact that we are all of different opinions about this, and that there is no convincing means by which those differences can be resolved, or transcended, that the law should refrain from forcing women to comply with anyone else's.

If you really want to stop abortion, the way to do it is to develop other alternatives (because no woman WANTS an abortion). Instead of forcing women to have babies to accommodate your will and opinion.

 

[Town Heretic]

Nice the way you slid the "unborn" in there, but in fact that's part of the difference in public opinion as to when we are obligated to protect the right to exist. And is likewise part of what is not demonstrably and inescapably true.

Pure, if someone hasn't been born yet that's what they are and that's what we're talking about when we talk about abortion, when those unborn have the right you do. The Court has given some of them that very thing using an arbitrary standard no more necessarily true or demonstrably the point I noted than another poster's "When they're born" answer to the question of vestment.

I understand that. But the problem with the absolute ideal that you advance is that we do not abide by it in any other instance of the protection of the right of a human being to continued existence.

We actually do. You have that same right absent an egregious violation of our compact. But I actually haven't predicated my argument on an absolute. I've noted the standard for abrogation is fairly extraordinary.

We don't heed that absolute idea regarding capital punishment.

I've spoken to that above and before. The unborn simply can't conduct themselves in a way that brings the abrogation into play, but I noted the possibility in relation to the right.

We don't heed that absolute ideal regarding self-defense.

You have an absolute right to defend yourself against someone seeking to take your life.

We don't heed that absolute ideal regarding warfare.

That's one exception I didn't speak to this time around, but the state isn't mandating that you give up your life, only that you risk it in defense of the compact. Sometimes the obligation of right demands that. You could say that to some extent the right of an unborn to its existence, within the framework of the Court's ruling, the one you accept for now, does that as there is some attendant risk, smaller than a soldier's in a time of war, but a risk nonetheless, for a woman carrying to term.

We don't even heed that ideal regarding universal health care!

So you're saying we fail the right in other instances? Well, the argument against what we're allowing with the unborn, along with the history of slavery and suffrage should tell you we do that until enough people point it out and demand that we live up to our declared principles, which is one of the things I'm doing now.

In all these instances we recognize mitigating conditions and circumstances that deny the absolute ideal.

I don't believe that's demonstrably true. The closest you come to that would be with the DP and it takes the abrogation of that very right, on the part of the convicted, to forfeit his/her own. I don't agree with the DP either, but that's the only one of your examples that actually abrogates the right to exist and as I've noted, the unborn don't meet that standard simply by being.

So why should we heed that absolute ideal regarding abortion?

Noting that an absolute doesn't have exception and I gave you one, I gave you my reasoning for the necessity of protecting the unborn. It's in the argument. Because it is the bedrock upon which every other right finds expression and meaning and absent a fairly horrific act on our part we are entitled to it, must have its guarantee. We hold it as a truth self-evident, an endowment by nature's God and we protect it absent that aforementioned, willful self-abrogation by conduct and we only endanger it by absolute necessity in defense of the very compact without which no right is protected.

It is still very divided on the issue by a multitude of opinions regarding when a fetus becomes a 'person' and should therefor be afforded it's own right to exist.

I noted that. It's part of my argument, in fact.

And you have not presented any logical argument or reason

Untrue. I've literally done that. I've set out why we are compelled to protect life. I've noted the foundational approach to right. I've noted the exceptional circumstance by which that fundamental right can be abrogated. I've recognized competing ideas on the point of vestment along with agreement that upon that vestment the unborn stand in the same right and degree as anyone else. And I've set out why, as an operation of reason, we cannot fail to protect the unborn at every point along a chronological chain of being without endangering a right we are not entitled to endanger absent circumstance which isn't present in the consideration.

why your opinion should usurp everyone else's

That's what an argument for anything is in the face of competing notions. So if I thought surgical instruments should be sanitized before an operation and most people thought we should wait until after, well...

, such that pregnant women would be forced to comply with it

You mean denied the right to have a third party end the life in question. Right.

, … except that you think you're right. But we all think we're right, so that lends no particular significance or authority, at all.

Again, that's what argument is all about. I've presented one you haven't taken apart or even fully addressed, but that's the nature of difference and decision.

And it's the fact that we are all of different opinions about this

All opinions aren't of the same weight. When my son was two he'd have eaten candy for lunch and happily passed a law to mandate it for everyone.

, and that there is no convincing means by which those differences can be resolved, or transcended

There is. I just did that very thing in my argument, protecting every opinion on when the right to be vests, the right we agree must be protected, etc.

, that the law should refrain from forcing women to comply with anyone else's.

Except you feel the same way I do, if less consistently. What I mean by that is that you recognize the Court's standard and that protects some of the unborn, even if the woman wants something else. So either you're a hypocrite on the point or you're not rational, if that's your actual concern and standard.

If you really want to stop abortion, the way to do it is to develop other alternatives (because no woman WANTS an abortion). And not by forcing women to have babies to accommodate your will and opinion.

I'd love to stop abortion. In the intervening time I'd love to reduce the likelihood of a woman making the choice the law allows. It's why I'm for teaching people who can have children about contraception and seeing to it that contraceptives are readily available for anyone who wants them, etc.

 

[ok doser]

Pure, if someone hasn't been born yet ...

then in purex's bizarre universe, they don't exist, not even as a "someone"

 

[Rusha]

Then why are you arguing against the person who calls it Adamic sin for those who call it murder?

You're as transparent as glass on a spring afternoon

And you are more dimwitted than usual ... you accused me of calling others murderers. That is a flat out lie ... though considering the source, not unexpected.

IF abortion were illegal, anyone utilizing the procedure would be a murderer ... and charged as such. Abortion *should be* treated as premeditated murder. It is the only act in which a person is legally allowed to intentionally kill another human being.

 

[PureX]

Pure, if someone hasn't been born yet that's what they are and that's what we're talking about when we talk about abortion, when those unborn have the right you do. The Court has given some of them that very thing using an arbitrary standard no more necessarily true or demonstrably the point I noted than another poster's "When they're born" answer to the question of vestment.

We all generally agree that personal autonomy becomes evident by birth. And thus the right to continued existence is to be recognized from that point. The courts, however, also recognized that a developing fetus can be birthed as early as the 24th week and survive, so it recognized the autonomy of as yet unborn babies from that point in their development on, precisely because autonomy WAS/IS EVIDENT and DEMONSTRABLE. It was not an "arbitrary" decision.

Nor, as I have already pointed out, was the court's use of autonomy in determining 'personhood', as this is a long standing conceptual and legal relationship.

We actually do. You have that same right absent an egregious violation of our compact. But I actually haven't predicated my argument on an absolute. I've noted the standard for abrogation is fairly extraordinary.

"Fairly extraordinary" according to whom? Again, the people of this nation disagree. And the laws contain all sorts of mitigating provisions and loopholes relativizing our absolute ideal of all human beings having the right to exist. There are many here on TOL who would deny the right of existence to rapists, and even to home invaders. They apparently consider these "extraordinary" enough to warrant suspension of this humanist ideal. And yet you seem to imagine that there could be no circumstance extraordinary enough to suspend this ideal for a fetus with no actual autonomy, and the "personhood" of a house plant, even to the point of forcing women to endure pregnancies that they don't wish to endure. When, in fact, you won't ever be compelled to abide by your own imposed rule.

That's a lot of hubris, Town, from where I'm sitting.

So you're saying we fail the right in other instances? Well, the argument against what we're allowing with the unborn, along with the history of slavery and suffrage should tell you we do that until enough people point it out and demand that we live up to our declared principles, which is one of the things I'm doing now.

When that time comes, I will happily accept the will of the people. But that time seems to be very slow in coming because so far there just isn't any compelling evidence to resolve the debate one way or another. And until there is, I see no reason why your opinion on the issue should overrule everyone else's. And thus far you have not been able to offer one.

I don't agree with the DP either, but that's the only one of your examples that actually abrogates the right to exist and as I've noted, the unborn don't meet that standard simply by being.

First, it's the "being" of the unborn that is in question. And secondly, warfare is the most blatant abrogation of the right to exist that I can think of, as it seeks the annihilation of the 'enemy'. The annihilation of their "being" as a nation, a culture, an economy, and/or as a people (however they are bound together). And at least 50% of the time, warfare is not engaged in defensively, so you can't even call it 'self-defense'.

Noting that an absolute doesn't have exception and I gave you one, I gave you my reasoning for the necessity of protecting the unborn. It's in the argument. Because it is the bedrock upon which every other right finds expression and meaning and absent a fairly horrific act on our part we are entitled to it, must have its guarantee. We hold it as a truth self-evident, an endowment by nature's God and we protect it absent that aforementioned, willful self-abrogation by conduct and we only endanger it by absolute necessity in defense of the very compact without which no right is protected.

This is your opinion. Why should your opinion overrule everyone else's? (Besides the fact that it's yours, and that you think you're right.)

I've literally done that. I've set out why we are compelled to protect life. I've noted the foundational approach to right. I've noted the exceptional circumstance by which that fundamental right can be abrogated. I've recognized competing ideas on the point of vestment along with agreement that upon that vestment the unborn stand in the same right and degree as anyone else. And I've set out why, as an operation of reason, we cannot fail to protect the unborn at every point along a chronological chain of being without endangering a right we are not entitled to endanger absent circumstance which isn't present in the consideration.

You've articulated your opinion, repeatedly. But you have nothing 'demonstrable or inescapable' with which to convince anyone else, nor that would justify usurping their autonomy so as to enforce your opinions over theirs.

That's what an argument for anything is in the face of competing notions. So if I thought surgical instruments should be sanitized before an operation and most people thought we should wait until after, well…

Well, then, you could produce compelling and demonstrable evidence and reason for your opinion and will usurping theirs. But so far, regarding the 'personhood' of a fetus, you can't.

I've presented one you haven't taken apart or even fully addressed, but that's the nature of difference and decision.

I don't need to take your argument apart, because it's an opinion, not an argument. And we are all entitled to our opinions. All I'm doing is pointing out to you why your opinion shouldn't be allowed to overrule everyone else's simply because it's yours, and because you think it's the right opinion.

I have a similar opinion about abortion as you do. The only difference is that I do not presume that my opinions should overrule everyone else's simply because it's mine, or because I think mine is the more 'righteous' opinion of them all. I believe more damage is being done to humanity by this will to ignore and subjugate the autonomy of our fellow humans than will be done to humanity by allowing abortion.

All opinions aren't of the same weight. When my son was two he'd have eaten candy for lunch and happily passed a law to mandate it for everyone.

It's not the candy that would destroy him, it's the will to force everyone else to comply with our ideals. When we allow that to happen, we destroy the 'personhood' of everyone but the rulers. And we create a world that isn't worth being born into.

Without autonomy, there is no "human life". There is only human existence. And that's not really being human, at all.

I'd love to stop abortion. In the intervening time I'd love to reduce the likelihood of a woman making the choice the law allows. It's why I'm for teaching people who can have children about contraception and seeing to it that contraceptives are readily available for anyone who wants them, etc.

On this, we agree.

 

[Town Heretic]

We all generally agree that personal autonomy becomes evident by birth.

No, we don't. The Court and decision you use doesn't do that and I'd argue no rational human being should or you'd be advancing the nonsensical notion that the moment before a child is delivered it is somehow fundamentally without a thing it should have a breath later.

And thus the right to continued existence is to be recognized from that point. The courts, however, also recognized that a developing fetus can be birthed as early as the 24th week and survive, so it recognized the autonomy of as yet unborn babies from that point in their development on, precisely because autonomy WAS/IS EVIDENT and DEMONSTRABLE. It was not an "arbitrary" decision.

The placement of valuation is arbitrary, no more or less defensible than a number of competing standards. That was my point, not that any position lacks reason, or reasons. The fellow who feels right comes with breath has his. The fellow who believes it comes with a mind capable of impression has his, and so on.

Nor, as I have already pointed out, was the court's use of autonomy in determining 'personhood', as this is a long standing conceptual and legal relationship.

The Scott ruling was founded on a history too. I prefer reason that's founded on something more. So does the Court, if not without unfortunate exception. Or, the danger of precedent that impedes right is in evidence from time to time, lacking the reason that should sustain it and operating mostly by weight. Those are hard to get at. It took a war for slavery.

"Fairly extraordinary" according to whom?

Anyone who understands that a thing of profound impact and rarity should be considered extraordinary in nature. So, any rational soul.

Again, the people of this nation disagree.

Again, that people disagree doesn't alter the observation or argument. Some nut in Peoria may disagree that we have any rights to begin with. What of it? What in that division, everyone against the nut or half the population against the other half, changes one jot of reason?

And the laws contain all sorts of mitigating provisions and loopholes relativizing our absolute ideal of all human beings having the right to exist.

No, it doesn't, which is why I noted the exception to protection of that right as extraordinary and horrific in nature, my disagreement on the point of that exception notwithstanding.

in fact, you won't ever be compelled to abide by your own imposed rule.

I'll never be an alcoholic either, but it has nothing to do with the legitimacy of my argument relating to drunk driving law.

That's a lot of hubris, Town, from where I'm sitting.

Pure, I don't care how you feel your way through this. That's your bias insisting on a mean reading-in. I'm only interested in the argument and whether or not there's a reasoned counter to it, a flaw in it and a defense or amendment that should be raised. So far, I haven't seen any part of it contested as it stands that can't be and hasn't been rebutted.

First, it's the "being" of the unborn that is in question.

No, we know that it exists. The question is about its right to continue doing so, whether it has rights at all and where that fundamental right vests. I've answered on the point.

And secondly, warfare is the most blatant abrogation of the right to exist that I can think of

Rebutted. We don't send a man to war to die, but to fight and only by an extraordinary necessity, so as to preserve the state and the protection of all rights. A risk to life exists within that extraordinary and necessary service. But in accepting the Roe decision you both abrogate the woman's right to choose at every point of the pregnancy and agree to put her life at risk too.

Why should your opinion overrule everyone else's?

If the argument stands then I'm right and it should control a reasoned course by necessity. If my opinion isn't reasonable it should be defeated by that same mechanism.

I don't need to take your argument apart, because it's an opinion, not an argument.

My opinion in the matter, reflected in the argument presented, begins and ends in reason. I arrived at it and held it as an atheist. I hold it now and for the same reason, that I've never been given in rebuttal why I shouldn't that undoes it or sustains the charge that any particular in it is defective.

God, I'd hope anyone with an opinion arrived at it by that means. The fact that we believe the outcome of a reasoned course is no argument against either reason or investment in belief as regards the product.

I do not presume that my opinions should overrule everyone else's simply because it's mine

I don't presume my opinion should control because it's mine, but that reason should control because it's superior to whim.

I believe more damage is being done to humanity by this will to ignore and subjugate the autonomy of our fellow humans than will be done to humanity by allowing abortion.

Except this isn't about subjugation of right if the right doesn't exist. So you presuppose the answer to take the offense. And, again, as I noted prior, you uphold the very thing you call subjugation when you support Roe.

 

[Crucible]

And you are more dimwitted than usual ... you accused me of calling others murderers. That is a flat out lie ... though considering the source, not unexpected.

It's this simple, Rusha- if you believe that the fetus is an innocent human being on par with those born, than it is vastly inconsistent to deny abortion as being murder.

Abortion *should be* treated as premeditated murder.

And there it is

 

[quip]

The distinction remains irrelevant. No person - in-utero or otherwise - retains unfettered access to another's body.

 

[Rusha]

It's this simple, Rusha- if you believe that the fetus is an innocent human being on par with those born, than it is vastly inconsistent to deny abortion as being murder.


And there it is

Exactly ... more instances of your spouting off and claiming I said something I didn't say. I never called anyone a murderer. Stating that mother's are legally allowed to intentionally kill their unborn babies via abortion is stating a fact.

 

[PureX]

No, we don't. The Court and decision you use doesn't do that and I'd argue no rational human being should or you'd be advancing the nonsensical notion that the moment before a child is delivered it is somehow fundamentally without a thing it should have a breath later.

It is lacking something fundamental before it is delivered that it has after … a convincing and demonstrable autonomous existence. It is no longer a part of the mother's body. Which is why for eons we humans used birth as the point at which we recognized a new 'person' coming into the world. And the fact that this is also the point at which a human takes it's first breath is also significant, because when that person takes his/her last breath, their 'personhood' will no longer be evident, and will no longer be considered to exist. For the vast majority of human beings that in existence, and that have ever existed, the parameters of a person's existence are their birth, and their death. It's only because of some very recent insights by science that a few of us been caused to question these parameters. And so far those questions remain unanswered.

Not mention that a person does not receive a legal name (identity) until they are birthed. So there is a ton of very long-standing and reasonable precedent for birth being the point at which 'personhood' becomes recognized, both perceptually and legally.

The placement of valuation is arbitrary, no more or less defensible than a number of competing standards.

The only thing "arbitrary" about it was the decision to consider the possibility of birth prior to the actual birth, and ascribe 'personhood' to the fetus based on that possibility, rather then on the actual birth. Otherwise, (and even still), birth IS the determining factor for 'personhood'. Because it is the point at which autonomous personhood physically manifests.

The fellow who feels the right to life comes with breath has his. The fellow who believes it comes with a mind capable of impression has his, and so on.

But the point of recognition that is obvious and evident to all of us, is birth. As it has been since the dawn of time.

Again, that people disagree doesn't alter the observation or argument. Some nut in Peoria may disagree that we have any rights to begin with. What of it? What in that division, everyone against the nut or half the population against the other half, changes one jot of reason?

Ultimately, the general consensus will dictate the rule. American's opinions on abortion have not changed in 50 years. A persistent majority of us believe abortion should be legal in the early stages of pregnancy, but not legal in the later stages. Which is pretty much what the courts long ago decided. Some day, when the general consensus changes, I suspect so will the court's ruling.

I'll never be an alcoholic either, but it has nothing to do with the legitimacy of my argument relating to drunk driving law.

You don't have to be an alcoholic to be a drunk driver. So even you could be a drunk driver. But you cannot become pregnant. So you will never suffer the loss of autonomy that you propose to inflict on all pregnant women.

Pure, I don't care how you feel your way through this. That's your bias insisting on a mean reading-in. I'm only interested in the argument and whether or not there's a reasoned counter to it, a flaw in it and a defense or amendment that should be raised. So far, I haven't seen any part of it contested as it stands that can't be and hasn't been rebutted.

You're seeing what you want, and not seeing what you don't. I have asked time and time again why you think your opinions of 'personhood' should trump everyone else's, when you have no demonstrable evidence to back it up, and so far you have offered nothing but absolutist ideals about the sanctity of human existence. Which doesn't really have much of anything to do with the function and purpose of the law, or of the establishment of governments in general. We do charge our government with the responsibility of protecting our right to life, but then we make loopholes and exceptions for who has that right and when they don't, all the time. So that idealism alone doesn't seem to be a particularly strong argument for the machinations of government and the rule of law. BOTH of which are far more concerned with social function than ideology, just as they should be.

We don't send a man to war to die, but to fight and only by an extraordinary necessity, so as to preserve the state and the protection of all rights.

Baloney! We send them out to kill people and destroy things. Very often not because we are under a direct threat, ourselves, but because we want something that someone else isn't giving us.

But in accepting the Roe decision you both abrogate the woman's right to choose at every point of the pregnancy and agree to put her life at risk too.

I have no idea what this is about.

If the argument stands then I'm right and it should control a reasoned course by necessity. If my opinion isn't reasonable it should be defeated by that same mechanism.

Everyone's opinion is reasonable, to some degree. Some more than others, and others equally so. Reason is only the arbiter if it leads to a consensus. And yours does not. Neither has anyone else's until the point of birth. Then, we all agree: the birthed baby is an autonomous person, and warrants rights, accordingly.

My opinion in the matter, reflected in the argument presented, begins and ends in reason. I arrived at it and held it as an atheist. I hold it now and for the same reason, that I've never been given in rebuttal why I shouldn't that undoes it or sustains the charge that any particular in it is defective.

Mine, too, and me, either.

My reasoning has not caused a consensus, either. And that's why I do not believe I should be trying to impose it on everyone else, just because I think I'm right.

I believe it's far more important for me to allow other people to be wrong, than it is for me to force them to be right.

I don't presume my opinion should control because it's mine, but that reason should control because it's superior to whim.

That's a false choice, of course, because nearly no one is determining this issue by whim. Most people feel pretty strongly about it, and have given it a good deal of thought.

Reason is important, and so are ideals, but ultimately, I think what matters is the outcome. And the outcome of forcing your (mine, or anyone else's) ideals on others, to the extent of controlling their bodies, is far worse than the outcome of legalized abortion, as it currently stands.

Except this isn't about subjugation of right if the right doesn't exist. So you presuppose the answer to take the offense. And, again, as I noted prior, you uphold the very thing you call subjugation when you support Roe.

You really do love that old, "Nut, huh! YOU did!" argument, don't you. I hope someday that you'll finally realize that it doesn't work. Ever. Because it's fundamentally irrational and makes everyone who uses it look childish.

Allowing women their right to choose what happens inside their own bodies is not oppressing anyone. And the loss of a fetus, occurring as a result of some woman's choice, is not our responsibility, nor our doing. As I stated before, if we want to stop abortion, the right way to do it is to offer women better alternatives. NOT force them to carry babies in their bodies that they don't want! That's absurd even on the face of it!

 

[Town Heretic]

It is lacking something fundamental before it is delivered that it has after … a convincing and demonstrable autonomous existence.

Not even Roe agrees with you on that one and you said you agreed with Roe.

It is no longer a part of the mother's body

Then all you're saying is that it has been born. As with Roe, the ability to exist independent of the mother is present prior to that...but none of that has anything to do with my argument so I'll leave it there.

For the vast majority of human beings that in existence, and that have ever existed, the parameters of a person's existence are their birth, and their death. It's only because of some very recent insights by science that a few of us been caused to question these parameters. And so far those questions remain unanswered. Not mention that a person does not receive a legal name (identity) until they are birthed.

You know, you can say a person doesn't drive a car until after they're born too, but it still doesn't have anything to do with the argument for protection and right. Slavery had a rich history too. It was still contrary to our guiding principle and happily left on the dung heap of civilization.

But the point of recognition that is obvious and evident to all of us, is birth. As it has been since the dawn of time.

Rather, after birth it becomes impossible to deny the right, though the infant is no more capable of autonomous existence than it was a moment before the application of an arbitrary valuation protected it.

Ultimately, the general consensus will dictate the rule. You don't have to be an alcoholic to be a drunk driver. So even you could be a drunk driver.

No. I rarely drink and never drink and drive. A kid who was like my little brother was killed by one. So, back to the point: you don't have to be capable of an act to have a reasoned opinion on it.

But you cannot become pregnant. So you will never suffer the loss of autonomy that you propose to inflict on all pregnant women.

You mean the loss we support, unless you also disagree with Roe but want the right to end the unborn's life to be extended to cover everything before the live birth.

You're seeing what you want, and not seeing what you don't.

I made an argument. You're engaging in mind reading, declaration and side bar. lain: I understand why, but there it is.

I have asked time and time again why you think your opinions of 'personhood' should trump everyone else's

I've answered as often that I have an argument, reason and if that reason isn't defeated it should prevail for the reasons offered.

Reason is only the arbiter if it leads to a consensus.

See, that's what's wrong with relying on something other than reason to shape law. Reason is an arbiter of what is logical, rational, reasonable. If you want to be or frame law from an illogical, irrational and unreasonable position you can go with another choice.

I believe it's far more important for me to allow other people to be wrong, than it is for me to force them to be right.

Not if you support Roe. For that matter it's not true if you believe in criminal law.

That's a false choice, of course, because nearly no one is determining this issue by whim. Most people feel pretty strongly about it, and have given it a good deal of thought.

If your choice isn't dictated by logic, by reason, it might not be a whim but it might as well be. You might as well toss darts. So no, it isn't a false choice. Insert any term that makes you comfortable in opposition to reason and it changes nothing.

Reason is important, and so are ideals, but ultimately, I think what matters is the outcome.

Which we understand by what faculty? And there you are, again.

You really do love that old, "Nut, huh! YOU did!" argument, don't you.

That's no rebuttal. Rather, in the course of debate it's important to show someone in your position that they're in contravention of their own argument. Because irrationality has a consequence and that illustrates it aptly enough. Don't like it, be consistent. Better yet, be reasoned.

I hope someday that you'll finally realize that it doesn't work. Ever. Because it's fundamentally irrational and makes everyone who uses it look childish.

Why your hypocrisy should make me look childish God alone knows. I think you simply continue to feel and declare your way through this...

And the loss of a fetus, occurring as a result of some woman's choice, is not our responsibility, nor our doing.

Ah, the Pilate gambit. Well, it is her moral problem, but I'm not advancing that flag, except as morality tends to attend questions of right. And if we fail to defend right, it is our problem, because that sort of thing doesn't exist in a vacuum.

As I stated before, if we want to stop abortion, the right way to do it is to offer women better alternatives. NOT force them to carry babies in their bodies that they don't want! That's absurd even on the face of it!

And as I answered, not even you believe that or you have a problem with your support of Roe and a worse problem if you advance the intellectually AND morally repugnant notion of extending her right/control to the moment of birth.

 

[Delmar]

It absolutely could. If a pregnant woman was unintentionally doing something that ended up causing a miscarriage (perhaps not even realizing she was pregnant), then under your unborn personhood law she would be liable for manslaughter.

If you make an unborn baby specifically a "person" then there is a whole set a provisional rules tha have to be crafted alongside it in order to protect people from situations like the one I described. That's complicated and isn't easy to come up with and propose, and much harder to pass

Go back to sleep.

 

[quip]

I'd argue no rational human being should or you'd be advancing the nonsensical notion that the moment before a child is delivered it is somehow fundamentally without a thing it should have a breath later.

Likewise, the similar nonsensical notion which blusters the opposite extreme whereas an unborn "child" is somehow fundamentally a person at conception, months prior to the capacity for breathing (If indeed "breath" remains a standard). So, the question remains: How can we even begin to draw this non-arbitrary line you're so fond of?

 

[Town Heretic]

Likewise, the similar nonsensical notion which blusters the opposite extreme whereas an unborn "child" is somehow fundamentally a person at conception, months prior to the capacity for breathing (If indeed "breath" remains a standard).

I couldn't agree more as an operation of logic.

And so I don't advance either or any particular claim. Instead, I recognize that none of them can claim a self-authenticating, demonstrably necessary position that as an operation of reason rejects the other valuations.

We have a right that cannot be abrogated given the want of condition that would justify it in the unborn, provided their right to right itself has vested, but we cannot determine when that vestment can be said to be certain. Then the only way we can avoid, as a matter of law and reason, a gross miscarriage of justice and violation of a fundamental right upon which rests every other is to protect every moment in potential vestment along that chain of being, regardless of where we, individually and subjectively, believe that vesting to occur.

So, the question remains: How can we even begin to draw this non-arbitrary line you're so fond of?

I don't know. I suspect it is impossible. I can't see how any point isn't essentially a declaration of value, reasons for the value notwithstanding. So we protect life, understanding that in doing so we satisfy our obligation to a right we are not empowered to abrogate.

 

[quip]

I couldn't agree more as an operation of logic.

And so I don't advance either or any particular claim. Instead, I recognize that none of them can claim a self-authenticating, demonstrably necessary position that as an operation of reason rejects the other valuations.

Then what was your motive for illustrating such inanity to Px?

I don't know. I suspect it is impossible. I can't see how any point isn't essentially a declaration of value, reasons for the value notwithstanding. So we protect life, understanding that in doing so we satisfy our obligation to a right we are not empowered to abrogate.

So, you draw the line at the fruitless efforts at drawing one? Pounding sand in your ears is one tactic....not very becoming yet it holds to a certain myopic effectiveness.

Rather though, instead protect life by focusing your efforts at combating the real-world factors (social, economic, spiritual (lackthereof)) that supplement the choice to abort...lest you appear more the idealistic zealot who's goal to "protect life" exist as a mere ostensible objective along the path to a more self-satisfying conclusion.

 

[Ktoyou]

No, we don't.

That's telling him!

 

[PureX]

You mean the loss we support …

Supporting freedom of choice does not make us responsible for the choices people make. To think so would be hubris beyond all reason.

Ah, the Pilate gambit. Well, it is her moral problem, but I'm not advancing that flag, except as morality tends to attend questions of right. And if we fail to defend right, it is our problem, because that sort of thing doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Actually, it ALL exists in a vacuum in that sense, as we are not in charge of the morality of others. Nor are we responsible for the morality of others. We are only nominally in charge of our own morality, and moral behavior. And that's it.

You can run behind all the flags you want, but this remains the reality of it. And when you try to force your moral righteousness on others, all you will succeed in doing is becoming a moral-minded tyrant,

And as I answered, not even you believe that or you have a problem with your support of Roe and a worse problem if you advance the intellectually AND morally repugnant notion of extending her right/control to the moment of birth.

What you find morally repugnant is your own issue to deal with. That you think you should have the right for force others to comply with your moral opinions is the issue being discussed. And so far, I have not seen you pose any convincing justification for it. Nor has anyone else. Which is why no one is convinced, and no consensus on the issue exists, prior to birth.

 

[Town Heretic]

Then what was your motive for illustrating such inanity to Px?

Why do you tell a fellow his fly is open?

So, you draw the line at the fruitless efforts at drawing one?

I delineate reason from speculation and rest my part in reason.

Rather though, instead protect life by focusing your efforts at combating the real-world factors (social, economic, spiritual (lackthereof)) that supplement the choice to abort.

Why would you assume a) that I don't or wouldn't do that in any case and b) that it's an either/or? I actually (and previously within this thread) agreed on the point of addressing the things that minimize the potential for that choice being made.

..lest you appear more the idealistic zealot who's goal to "protect life" exist as a mere ostensible objective along the path to a more self-satisfying conclusion.

I'd say my responsibility ends with presenting a reasoned argument consistent with the principles at the foundation of law. I'm disinterested in what anyone's bias reads into my motivation. I can't control it, I can only point back to the argument, the nature of it, the want of doing what nearly everyone involved in the issue does, which is conflate the imposition of a valuation with a necessary truth. Instead, I begin with our necessary truth, the one that founds our compact and without which it ceases to function and move from there to an examination of what can be known and what then should be done about it.