Why the fetus's status as a person doesn't matter

[TC]

(hope the subtitle got people's attention ;) )




There are basically three conventional arguments for abortion, two of them are bad, the “utilitarian argument” and the “fetus’s aren’t babies” argument are weak, the third (the “dependent burden/violinist” argument) is very strong but it ignores a critical issue and leaves open a possible rebuttal, which I'll address in a fourth argument (which I’ll call the “self-defense” argument).

The first two, weak arguments are common, and the second two arguments are much stronger but relatively uncommon. My guess is that this is because the first two arguments do not justify killing babies, whereas the later two arguments justify killing babies in circumstances relevant to abortion (removing any argument over when a fetus becomes ‘human’), and this makes liberal pro-choicers very squimish. Marxists however, aren’t squimish, we don’t whine that we only want a revolution if its peaceful and no one gets hurt, so we shouldn’t shy away from the much stronger arguments.





The first and weakest argument is what I’ll term the “utilitarian argument” for abortion.

The argument goes something like this:

“Even if abortion is wrong, criminalizing abortion is more wrong because it will just mean that people who want abortions will get them illegally in unsafe conditions”

The appeal of this argument is that it means that one doesn’t have justify abortion at all, they merely have to point out that its impossible to stop it anyways and the consequences of trying to are worse.

This argument is easy to refute however. In reality, most illegal abortions in jurisdictions where abortion is illegal aren’t using coat hangers, they’re carried out by doctors and nurses in sterile conditions who believe strongly enough in what they’re doing to break the law, either in total secrecy or only semi-secretly, declaring that the patient had a miscarriage or that the baby was stillborn depending on the length of pregnancy.

Its also a very stupid argument because the fact that people would do something harmful (or say, murderous) anyways is not an argument that the state should make it easy for them to do so. In fact such an argument could be used to decriminalize almost any crime. Moreover the reality is that while jurisdictions where abortion is banned continue to have abortions, they have magnitudes fewer abortions then jurisdictions where abortion is available on demand or with minimal difficulty. So, if you think a fetus is a baby, and you want to save babies, this is not an argument that will persuade you as criminalizing abortion will still save many babies.

What’s really wrong with this argument though is that the ideology of this argument is basically conservative. It has no regard for women’s rights. Its similar to arguing that drugs and prostitution should be decriminalized because criminalization of drugs or prostitution causes other associated crime, not because people have the right to use drugs or be prostitutes.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The second argument is what I’ll term the “fetus vs baby argument” and it seems to be the most common one on this forum, and unfortunately in politics at large.

The argument goes something like:
"a fetus isn't a baby/person/independent individual/human, therefore it does not have rights so the rights of the pregnant woman are the only ones that are relevant".

It also has a variant where its argued:
”A fetus is really just a part/organ/tissue of the pregnant woman’s body, not an independent organism, so she can do what she likes with it just as she could with any other part of her body”


This argument is intuitively appealing because it argues, in essence, that there are no grounds for dispute, the fetus has no interests.

Whats wrong with this argument is that it makes what amounts to being a scientific/empirical claim, it is not a political, ethical, or human rights claim. This means that it would only take a scientific rebuttal to refute the grounds it lays for abortion.

Pro-lifers love this weak pro-choice argument because it gives them an opportunity to build a case against abortion by building a case for the fetus’s humanity or potential independence. Their case is still a rather weak one, I would argue, because even full term fetuses are significantly different from new borns in terms of their physiology and awareness, but it is clearly an argument that they can have and all they need to do is convince people that fetuses at a certain point are babies...or worse, that you can’t tell precisely when a fetus becomes equivalent to a baby, so if you don’t know “where to draw the line” you should take a conservative line to make sure that abortions don’t kill any babies.

In any case, this argument is very strong when considering embryos and very early term fetuses, but weak at best when considering late term pregnancies.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The third argument, which is less common (probably as it’s the first argument which would, in effect, justify killing babies)

"Even if a fetus is a baby, no one is entitled to use another person’s body without their consent. During pregnancy, a fetus has a parasitic relationship with the woman carrying it. This is not a relationship that a normal person would be entitled to, therefore to oppose abortion is to demand more than human rights for a fetus.”


This is a version of 'violinist scenario' argument developed by Judith Jarvis Thomson.

The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy describes the scenario this way:

Judith Jarvis Thomson provided one of the most striking and effective thought experiments in the moral realm. Her example is aimed at a popular anti-abortion argument that goes something like this: The fetus is an innocent person with a right to life. Abortion results in the death of a fetus. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong. In her thought experiment we are asked to imagine a famous violinist falling into a coma. The society of music lovers determines from medical records that you and you alone can save the violinist's life by being hooked up to him for nine months. The music lovers break into your home while you are asleep and hook the unconscious (and unknowing, hence innocent) violinist to you. You may want to unhook him, but you are then faced with this argument put forward by the music lovers: The violinist is an innocent person with a right to life. Unhooking him will result in his death. Therefore, unhooking him is morally wrong.
However, the argument does not seem convincing in this case. You would be very generous to remain attached and in bed for nine months, but you are not morally obliged to do so. The parallel with the abortion case is evident. The thought experiment is effective in distinguishing two concepts that had previously been run together: “right to life” and “right to what is needed to sustain life.” The fetus and the violinist may each have the former, but it is not evident that either has the latter. The upshot is that even if the fetus has a right to life (which Thompson does not believe but allows for the sake of the argument), it may still be morally permissible to abort.

The original article can be found here:

http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160...l02/thomson.htm (http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm)





One of the reasons why I think this is a very strong argument is because it puts pregnancy in terms of issues of consent, a framework that people are very familiar with in terms of people using each other’s bodies in another intimate physical way: sex. No one would dispute that for an adult man to be in a woman requires her consent, so it should follow that for a baby to be in a woman would also require her consent. Likewise, if everyone agrees that permission to have sex does not entail that one gives up their right to withdraw consent during, there can be no argument that the same does not apply to a pregnancy. So any attempt to frame certain actions or lack of action during pregnancy as establishing some sort of “implied permission” are irrelevant, since consent can be withdrawn at any point.

Personally I think its bizarre that consent to pregnancy isn’t more frequently framed in an analogy to consent to sex. It should be, it would drive the Christians crazy. Pro-choicers should loose their squimishness though and not fall into their opponents demands for purity.

What’s problematic about this argument though is that it doesn’t appear to justify killing a baby (or violinist) only letting one die by depriving it of the needs to live. While its difficult to argue against this argument in the case of a 20 week fetus, which would surely die without access to its host’s womb, in the case of a 35 week fetus which would likely live if delivered by c-section or induced labour, anti-choice people have some ground to stand against this argument. The anti-choice position, is still of course weaker here, because even if a fetus isn’t exclusively dependent on its host carrying it, it is still exclusively dependent on its host delivering it, something it can refuse to do.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think the inadequacy of the third argument is that it focuses solely on the relationship of dependency between the fetus and its host, and focuses only on the inconvenience and discomfort of pregnancy while not addressing the resulting agony of childbirth. Given this I think the problems of the violinist argument can be corrected by framing the issue not in terms of the abortion ending the dependent state of pregnancy, but in abortion preventing childbirth as an act of self defense. The argument can be summarized as this:

“If left without interference, a fetus will cause immense pain, suffering and damage to the woman carrying it. Regardless of whether an a fetus is a baby or not, abortion can then be performed on self-defense grounds in order to protect oneself from the severe physical harm the fetus would otherwise cause; just as killing a person would be lawful if that was the minimum force required to prevent them from causing severe harm to oneself. In the case of pregnancy, lethal force is indeed the minimum force required since removing a fetus with a c-section would also entail severe pain, suffering, and lasting bodily damage and can therefore also be avoided on self-defense grounds.”

The fact is that getting a late term fetus out intact, whichever way you do it, is a lot more painful and damaging than getting a fetus out in pieces. This is often ignored because people don’t want to confront the reality that childbirth is a risky and traumatic thing; people don’t want to discourage people from having babies. The focus on ending pregnancy as such, rather than avoiding childbirth, I think misses the principle motivation for abortion and the strongest argument that it must be an inalienable right: childbirth is agonizingly painful and causes life-long physical damage so it would be a horrific experience to go through against one’s wishes.


And that’s true even with a c-section. Having a c-section is no small deal, its major, seriously invasive surgery with a relatively high mortality risk, risk of major blood loss, uterine hemorrhage, weeks of recovery and massive scaring. It cannot be compared to simply unplugging an I.V. as in the violinist thought experiment, a more apt comparison would be donating a kidney or section of liver (and even those are more minor surgeries with smaller incisions), and clearly no one could demand that someone be forced to undergo such an operation against their will to allow another human being to live. In fact, anyone who has both their kidney’s and an intact liver has through their inaction effectively killed someone who could have been saved through their altruistic donation just as surely as a pregnant woman who would rather abort a full term fetus than have a c-section would be killing it, so any such person claiming that a woman with a full term fetus must go through the sacrifice of seriously invasive surgery (or worse, labour and vaginal delivery) is clearly hypocritical.

If someone *wants* to go through with such a physical sacrifice as a c-section then that is up to them, just as if someone wants to donate a kidney that’s up to them; it is however an entirely unreasonable demand to say that someone *must* do so if they have no inclination to. Killing a fetus, not simply denying it access to ones body, whether it has the status of a baby or not, is an entirely reasonable response to the situation someone is in, in late term pregnancy: it’s the only way to prevent serious harm from coming to themselves.

Were there any other two people, both with human rights, where one was going to cause the other immense bodily harm if they failed to stop it forcibly, no one would object in them taking the prerogative to do so. Similarly, there is no grounds to object to a pregnant woman killing her fetus to prevent it from harming her.

And that’s the principle reason why I think why most people really want abortions rather than the other alternatives, and understandably too, and that’s a point missed by the three conventional arguments.

Unlike the other three, the self-defense argument works just as well when talking about aborting a full term pregnancy as it does when talking about aborting a one week embryo. Like the violinist argument it does not rely on proving that a fetus isn't a person, but unlike the violinist argument it justifies killing a person not merely letting a person die.

I don't think there are any obvious arguments against abortion as self defense that would not amount to a rejection of the right to self defense in general.

[freakazoid]

/me claps his hands, :D wow, that is a really good post TC :D
But I have one problem with the third argument that perhaps you or someone else could answer.

See, the person that was hooked up to the violinist, why did he choose a violinist was he one himself or something?, was done so without his or her permission. Now if someone has sex then they know that there is a chance that they could get pregnant, although this is not so with rape since this would work quite well with the violinist example since it is done without the persons permission.

edit - I would also like to make something clear about babies and the Bible that could be used against "pro-lifers", but I currently do not have my book with me and I do not remember what it says, go figure :P rofl.

edit again - And all this coming from a YEC, :D

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 12:53 am

See, the person that was hooked up to the violinist, why did he choose a violinist was he one himself or something?, was done so without his or her permission. Now if someone has sex then they know that there is a chance that they could get pregnant, although this is not so with rape since this would work quite well with the violinist example since it is done without the persons permission.

If someone has sex they know they have a risk of getting pregnant, but accepting the risk is not the same as volunteering for the possible adverse consequences.

Even the safest sex entails a small risk and one necessarily taken in pursuing ones normal life, just as crossing a street is a small risk. If someone's partner's condom slips off, that doesn't mean that they volunteered for pregnancy and cannot then have an abortion merely because they knew the risk, just as if someone gets hit by a car while crossing the street, they can still expect to be treated in an emergency room for the consequences of a known risk.

However, even if someone deliberately gets pregnant, they could still change their minds and withdraw consent at a later point, just as with any activity that requires personal consent. If someone offered to let a violinist use their circulatory system but then decided against it, they do not lose the right to withdraw that consent and they cannot be compelled to go through with it just because they thought they might at one point.

[freakazoid]

However, even if someone deliberately gets pregnant, they could still change their minds and withdraw consent at a later point, just as with any activity that requires personal consent. If someone offered to let a violinist use their circulatory system but then decided against it, they do not lose the right to withdraw that consent and they cannot be compelled to go through with it just because they thought they might at one point.

lol, I think that this pretty much sums it up. Thanks, :D

[Coggeh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 01:10 am
However, even if someone deliberately gets pregnant, they could still change their minds and withdraw consent at a later point, just as with any activity that requires personal consent. If someone offered to let a violinist use their circulatory system but then decided against it, they do not lose the right to withdraw that consent and they cannot be compelled to go through with it just because they thought they might at one point.
This does draw the question or the point about . A) abortions are only necessary in capitalism b) no need for them in socialism .

It is though the womens choice to begin with . The fetus no matter how long 8 and a half months or 10minutes in the womb is yet not a baby (although science has shown this to be sustainable the fetus mostly can only survive under certain circumstances )

Capitalism does on the basis of maybe the mothers(or mother to be) loses her job , breaks up with her boyfriend in a late stage of which sustaining an baby would be a hard task and so abortions at a late stage must be at the very least legalized and should not be frowned upon in anyway

Socialism however defeats the above arguments but also raises the questions about the reasons why a someone would not go ahead with a baby

The baby can be detected late and one might not want to go through with the pain of pregnancy or might just not be able physically or more likely in a socialist society mentally be able to sustain another or just one child In the case where a mother changes her mind , a womans control over her body is her decision and the fetus is not yet a living thing and should not have control over the mothers right to control her body , socialism is subject to a womans (if not mans or any race or any ethic diversities) right and rightfully should be seen as such .


Thats a basic sum up of my views now on this issue .

But I strongly hold the point that what the board did was wrong in my case and didn't properly give me the chance to progress in my theory of socialism and it took talking to an extremely liberal guy who doesn't show any leftist beliefs to convince me of this , which speaks lengths for some if not alot of members on this site .

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The fundamental problem with rights-based arguments for abortion, however, is that they are very similar to rights-based arguments for private property, capitalism, and the exploitation of the working class.

Surely, if a right to life does not include a right to be provided with the necessities of life, this leads us to the general principle that refusing to provide someone with something is not a violation of their human rights. Thus, a capitalist is not violating workers' rights when he refuses to provide them with the full value of their labour. Likewise, a capitalist is not violating a woman's rights when he refuses to provide her with a job on the grounds of her gender, and so on and so forth - up to the point where you conclude that you have a right to do anything you want with your private property since you are not obligated to provide other people with access to your property. Such conclusions are reactionary and unacceptable, yet they follow logically from the idea that no one is obligated to provide anything to anyone else.

On another note, TragicClown, the "utilitarian argument" you presented in favour of abortion was a straw man. Here is the kind of utilitarian argument I use:

What is the difference between a situation where abortion is legal and one where abortion is illegal? Well, if abortion is illegal, some of the women who wanted abortions will carry their pregnancies to term, going through all the associated suffering and likely ruining both their lives and the lives of their children. Others will seek illegal, unsafe abortions. These are the negative consequences. What about the positive consequences? Is there any benefit to be gained from restricting access to abortion? Well, some children will be born who would not otherwise have been born. But this cannot be considered good in itself - if it were true that we should take legal measures to increase the number of children who are born, why stop at abortion? Why not ban contraception, or, for that matter, encourage people to have unsafe sex so as to produce as many new human beings as possible?

Obviously such a thing would be inhuman (not to mention suicidal for the human species in the long run). The idea that creating a new human life is always desirable leads to unacceptable conclusions, and must be rejected. So it is not in fact always desirable to maximize the number of new humans being born. So there is nothing inherently bad about the fact that legal abortion will reduce the number of births.

Thus, in fact, laws restricting abortion will provide no benefit and will end up causing significant suffering for women - and working class women will be affected above all. So we should not have laws restricting abortion.

[Coggeh]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 09, 2007 01:38 am
Thus, in fact, laws restricting abortion will provide no benefit and will end up causing numerous social problems - problems that will hit the working class above all. So we should not have laws restricting abortion.
I agree , i see making abortions illegal a pavement to the way of "back street abortions" which would only endanger the mothers life .

I mean i do hold sympathy for the fetus or the "child" if you believe its one right to live but i do now agree with the womans right to control of her own body which is contray to socialism , its not necessarily reactionary but it does go against some of what socialism actually stands for .

[TC]

Originally posted by Coggy+--> (Coggy)
This does draw the question or the point about . A) abortions are only necessary in capitalism b) no need for them in socialism .
[/b]

Such a claim makes utterly no sense at all; all of the arguments in favour of abortion rights except the utilitarian one work just as well in socialism as in capitalism.

Clearly the self-defense argument makes the economic situation irrelevant.


Anyways the rest of your post was hard to make out, your grammar and syntax is confusing, its hard to understand what you're talking about.



Coggy

I agree , i see making abortions illegal a pavement to the way of "back street abortions" which would only endanger the mothers life .

As i pointed out, 'back street abortions' are basically a myth. In places where abortion was illegal in the 60s like Romania and America, people didn't have typically 'back street abortions' they had illegal clinical abortions by trained medical personal.

Most illegal abortions are safe, or at least safer than pregnancy and childbirth.

What is wrong with restrictions on abortion isn't that people will have abortions in an unsafe way but that some people who want abortions wont be able to find people willing to provide them. The utilitarian argument then basically fails.

[Coggeh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 01:50 am
Such a claim makes utterly no sense at all; all of the arguments in favour of abortion rights except the utilitarian one work just as well in socialism as in capitalism.

Clearly the self-defense argument makes the economic situation irrelevant.


Anyways the rest of your post was hard to make out, your grammar and syntax is confusing, its hard to understand what you're talking about.
I'm just stating that where abortion is can be a necessity in capitalism when say the mother loses her job , ecnomically it wouldn't have to same effect because childcare and the like would be completely state-subsidized .

Maybe you should read my last post again a bit closer , rather than make me repeat myself ...

[freakazoid]

Maybe you should read my last post again a bit closer , rather than make me repeat myself ...

But where is the fun if you don't have to repeat yourself over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, :D

[Coggeh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 01:50 am
As i pointed out, 'back street abortions' are basically a myth. In places where abortion was illegal in the 60s like Romania and America, people didn't have typically 'back street abortions' they had illegal clinical abortions by trained medical personal.

Most illegal abortions are safe, or at least safer than pregnancy and childbirth.

What is wrong with restrictions on abortion isn't that people will have abortions in an unsafe way but that some people who want abortions wont be able to find people willing to provide them. The utilitarian argument then basically fails.
What are you talking about !?!?

Back street abortions where it endangers the mothers life are completely a realityand endager a mothers life alot more than pregnancy they are not something someone half assed just made up .

Whether it is the main thesis with whats wrong with abortion isn't the point , their are un-safe for the mother and thats a fact .

Your just taking the argument too far at this stage where you just fail .

I've already said abortion is a right for women and is a necessity to socialism as an ideology for giving rights to all . Its her control over her body simple as that .

[TC]

Back street abortions where it endangers the mothers life are completely a realityand endager a mothers life alot more than pregnancy they are not something someone half assed just made up .


Um, no. Just by calling it "back street" doesn't mean its dangerous. In America before roe vs wade, illegal and semi-legal clinical groups of trained doctors and nurses (like the Jane Collective) performed underground abortions in sterile conditions.

Making a medical procedure illegal doesn't necessarily make it more risky for the same doctors to perform it, and abortions are relatively simple, relatively low risk medical procedure. We're not talking about brain surgery here. Doctors who perform abortions illegally aren't crack addicts with coat hangers, they're still trained medical personal who know what they're doing as much as doctors who perform abortions legally do (its not like people ever didn't know how to perform them).

Of course some people do dumb things to try to get rid of pregnancies but that still happens even in areas where abortion is legal and accessible.

Even in those cases its hard to find scenarios where the relative risk of abortion is greater than the relative risk of pregnancy under similar conditions (a "back ally" child birth would be *really* dangerous)

[Political_Chucky]

How dangerous are pregnancies really TragicClown? I'm not arguing your case as I find it as a plausible stand, but I think your 3rd argument is still stronger depending on the circumstances. I just did a quick search for some statistics and for 2001 there were a total of 399 deaths related to pregnancy and childbirth.( Source (http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/p/pregnancy/deaths.htm) ) I'm wondering what the average age of these women were as other sites claim high risk pregnancys occur with ages over 35, and also increase with the addition of medical conditions such as "Heart disease, High blood pressure, Kidney problems, Autoimmune disorders, Sexually transmitted diseases, and Diabetes Cancer"( Source (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/highriskpregnancy.html#cat22) )
But honestly, self-defense is a credible source and any woman who look at these statistics(i'm not sure how reliable they are however) should consider their health as another factor, rather then risking their life. Great post Clown.

[Led Zeppelin]

Good post. I personally don't give a shit about fetuses....seriously, who cares about fetuses?

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 08:18 am
Good post. I personally don't give a shit about fetuses....seriously, who cares about fetuses?
Stem cell researchers? :P



I like the third argument. I think I heard it somewhere before, probably in a general studies lesson.

[cubist]

Originally posted by Coggy+June 09, 2007 02:47 am--> (Coggy @ June 09, 2007 02:47 am)
Edric [email protected] 09, 2007 01:38 am
Thus, in fact, laws restricting abortion will provide no benefit and will end up causing numerous social problems - problems that will hit the working class above all. So we should not have laws restricting abortion.

I agree , i see making abortions illegal a pavement to the way of "back street abortions" which would only endanger the mothers life .

I mean i do hold sympathy for the fetus or the "child" if you believe its one right to live but i do now agree with the womans right to control of her own body which is contray to socialism , its not necessarily reactionary but it does go against some of what socialism actually stands for .

, [/b]
did you even read TC post,

Backstreet abortions will more than likely not be that dangerous,

no more dangerous tahn you are likely to catch MRSA during a C-section,

Its not a dirty man with a coat hanger on a wooden bench.


Granted in other parts of the world it may be danegrous but then its dangerous to have the baby too, we are talking in the civilised western world not the third world.

T

And BTW digging at REvleft wont help your Case the
no thanks to revleft is just gonna wind people up.


I completely agree TC

[Invader Zim]

I disagree with you on several points: -



The first and weakest argument is what I’ll term the “utilitarian argument” for abortion.

The argument goes something like this:

“Even if abortion is wrong, criminalizing abortion is more wrong because it will just mean that people who want abortions will get them illegally in unsafe conditions”

That is not a weak argument, it is a very strong argument because it is true and there is no comprehensive counter argument to it.



This argument is easy to refute however. In reality, most illegal abortions in jurisdictions where abortion is illegal aren’t using coat hangers, they’re carried out by doctors and nurses in sterile conditions who believe strongly enough in what they’re doing to break the law, either in total secrecy or only semi-secretly, declaring that the patient had a miscarriage or that the baby was stillborn depending on the length of pregnancy.

That may or may not be true, but there are still plenty of quacks out there using inferior equipment and lacking the training and going ahead anyway for extortionate amounts of money and there still are enough girls using coat hangers to be a concern. This is not a weak argument but a well documented result of a prohibition on abortion.

In many countries criminal sanctions result in unsafe abortions which cause the deaths of about 70,000 women every year world wide, and a much larger number suffer from infections, injury and trauma.

http://www.ifpa.ie/abortion/facing3.html



Its also a very stupid argument because the fact that people would do something harmful (or say, murderous) anyways is not an argument that the state should make it easy for them to do so.

If something is harmful and causes deaths, illness and massive expense which must ultimately be footed by the state then it is in the interest of the state to legalise and then standardise such proceedures and limit its own costs. That is from a purely cold hearted financial point of view, from a moral point of view if women are going to do it anyway you may as well ensure that they don't harm them selves in the process, thus legalisation and standardisation are vital.


It has no regard for women’s rights.

And? It is an argument based on indisputable facts. Just because it lacks the ideological edge doesn't make it any less valid.



The second argument is what I’ll term the “fetus vs baby argument” and it seems to be the most common one on this forum, and unfortunately in politics at large.


You are quite right on this one it is a worthless argument for the very reason you highlighted.




This is a version of 'violinist scenario' argument developed by Judith Jarvis Thomson.


Likewise, if everyone agrees that permission to have sex does not entail that one gives up their right to withdraw consent during, there can be no argument that the same does not apply to a pregnancy.

This is actually a rather weak argument with a very obvious rebuttle. With the exception of rape the woman has played a concenting part in the creation of the embryo/fetus whatever. The conservative argument is that an element of self responcibility has to be taken when one engages in sexual intercourse. Thomson's scenario ignores this by suggesting thatt he music lovers break into your home when you are asleep and hooking you up against your will. As rape is already illegal and most conservatives would see an exception to the rule in the case of abortion and rape then the argument is null.

Personally I disagree with the conservatives. A mistake or accident should not be in effect a life sentance to the woman who, unless they put the child up for adoption, will be forced to care for the child for a further 18 years, plus the nine months. However the counter argument is an obvious one, thus it is not a strong argument. You can argue that a woman can change her mind, but the conservative responce is "you make your bed you lie in it". At this point there is no longer a debate but a deadlock of ethical opinion.

[luxemburg89]

This does draw the question or the point about . A) abortions are only necessary in capitalism b) no need for them in socialism .


I'm sorry but I reckon there would be a need for them in a socialist society. We would be foolish to think things like rape wouldn't happen in our society - I'm afraid they would. Equally underage pregnancy and generally unwanted pregnancies would still exist - there would always be a need for abortion.

[Coggeh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 06:17 pm

This does draw the question or the point about . A) abortions are only necessary in capitalism b) no need for them in socialism .


I'm sorry but I reckon there would be a need for them in a socialist society. We would be foolish to think things like rape wouldn't happen in our society - I'm afraid they would. Equally underage pregnancy and generally unwanted pregnancies would still exist - there would always be a need for abortion.
Ya i know :blink: , read on alittle in that post and it shows that abortions would also be very necessary if not for the obvious reason such as rape and the like in a socialist society

[Hegemonicretribution]

I must have written 10000 or so words on a slightly altered "unwanted intimacy" argument (and others) over the last week or so, and I wish that you had wrote this out sooner :P

I suppose it is hard for people not to constantly put the fetus first, or at least on equal par with the mother; I have tried using these arguments with limitted success but having seen a rough sketch of the main debate shown like this I think I may well adopt my approach. I have never been the biggest fan of the violinist analogy, but the argument itself is strong, as you have pointed out.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by Coggy+June 09, 2007 01:59 am--> (Coggy @ June 09, 2007 01:59 am)
[email protected] 09, 2007 01:50 am
Such a claim makes utterly no sense at all; all of the arguments in favour of abortion rights except the utilitarian one work just as well in socialism as in capitalism.

Clearly the self-defense argument makes the economic situation irrelevant.


Anyways the rest of your post was hard to make out, your grammar and syntax is confusing, its hard to understand what you're talking about.
I'm just stating that where abortion is can be a necessity in capitalism when say the mother loses her job , ecnomically it wouldn't have to same effect because childcare and the like would be completely state-subsidized .

Maybe you should read my last post again a bit closer , rather than make me repeat myself ... [/b]
And perhaps you should read TC's original post again.

Some women just don't want to have children, either at certain times or permanently. When they get pregnant, they are thus presented with a problem. That's why abortions are necessary in any society.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 10:10 pm
Some women just don't want to have children, either at certain times or permanently. When they get pregnant, they are thus presented with a problem. That's why abortions are necessary in any society.
Of course. But in a society where sexual education is provided to all, and where a wide range of contraceptive methods are widely available, the number of unwanted pregnancies would be dramatically reduced.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I haven't read this thread, but I have read your post. Well-done.
However the bit below I do have some qualms with. Maybe they've already been addressed. If so, I'm sorry.

I don't mind your positions on the "first argument", except this:


Originally posted by TC+--> (TC)In reality, most illegal abortions in jurisdictions where abortion is illegal aren’t using coat hangers, they’re carried out by doctors and nurses in sterile conditions who believe strongly enough in what they’re doing to break the law, either in total secrecy or only semi-secretly, declaring that the patient had a miscarriage or that the baby was stillborn depending on the length of pregnancy.[emphasis added][/b]

Worldwide? Where have you read this?


Originally posted by TC+--> (TC)The argument goes something like:
"a fetus isn't a baby/person/independent individual/human, therefore it does not have rights so the rights of the pregnant woman are the only ones that are relevant".

It also has a variant where its argued:
”A fetus is really just a part/organ/tissue of the pregnant woman’s body, not an independent organism, so she can do what she likes with it just as she could with any other part of her body”[/b]

These two are basically the same as the parasite argument, except more scientifically precise. Well, except the second one. Calling the embryo or fetus a parasite, part, organ, or tissue of the mother are mere metaphors. But that doesn't matter.


Originally posted by TC
Whats wrong with this argument is that it makes what amounts to being a scientific/empirical claim, it is not a political, ethical, or human rights claim. This means that it would only take a scientific rebuttal to refute the grounds it lays for abortion.

Not really.
To say that the embryo/fetus has an essentially parasitic relation to its mother is basically the same thing as saying that it's not an individual and independent person with rights. There's no intrinsic difference. If anything, the latter is a more precise description of the embryo/fetus.


Originally posted by TC
Pro-lifers love this weak pro-choice argument because it gives them an opportunity to build a case against abortion by building a case for the fetus’s humanity or potential independence. Their case is still a rather weak one, I would argue, because even full term fetuses are significantly different from new borns in terms of their physiology and awareness, but it is clearly an argument that they can have and all they need to do is convince people that fetuses at a certain point are babies...or worse, that you can’t tell precisely when a fetus becomes equivalent to a baby, so if you don’t know “where to draw the line” you should take a conservative line to make sure that abortions don’t kill any babies.

Not really. Nothing inside of anyone, by definition, can ever attain status as an independent person with rights.

The age of the embryo/fetus can never, by the logic of that argument, allow whatever rights conservatives want to attribute to a human embryo/fetus to trump the rights of the mother as a free citizen.


[email protected]
Personally I think its bizarre that consent to pregnancy isn’t more frequently framed in an analogy to consent to sex.

I don't really think it's that bizarre.
The sexual violation of a woman by a man, let's say, don't grant the woman the right to kill the man. Not without a fair trial anyway. It does, however, grant the woman the right to remove the man's cock from her ass-hole, twat, or mouth. So when using this argument, a common ground must be established between those involved in the debate that convenient abortions involve killing the embryo/fetus. Otherwise, the obvious rebuttal from the conservative will be that the women may have the right to remove the embryo/fetus, but without killing it. In the same manner as you wouldn't kill a man simply for his cock being in you. Or maybe you would. I wouldn't object. But then again, the embryo/fetus isn't exactly violently forcing itself into you.

Well, upon reading the rest of your post, I see you would probably agree with me here. For whatever reason, I thought you were defending that argument. Well, don't I look a fool? Probably I shouldn't even post this.


TC
“If left without interference, a fetus will cause immense pain, suffering and damage to the woman carrying it. Regardless of whether an a fetus is a baby or not, abortion can then be performed on self-defense grounds in order to protect oneself from the severe physical harm the fetus would otherwise cause; just as killing a person would be lawful if that was the minimum force required to prevent them from causing severe harm to oneself. In the case of pregnancy, lethal force is indeed the minimum force required since removing a fetus with a c-section would also entail severe pain, suffering, and lasting bodily damage and can therefore also be avoided on self-defense grounds.”

This seems like a good argument as well. I might use it. Thanks.
However, it still rests on the notion that you must first establish, that the embryo/fetus doesn't have rights since it's in its mother. Or however you like to word that. You seem to have come us with various ways. If this isn't fundamentally agreed upon, then you'll hear the rebuttal that the mother knew the consequences of her deliberate and consensual actions that led to the conception of the embryo/fetus, and therefore, she doesn't have the right to kill it.
You'll have a hard time convincing conservative Christians that self-defense is somehow more important, in matters of the life and death of innocent babies, than pain, inconvenience, making more orphans, hiding the sin of extra marital sex, etc. (the reasons normally given for soliciting abortions*).

*I dunno, they're just guesses.

[Invader Zim]

Not really. Nothing inside of anyone, by definition, can ever attain status as an independent person with rights.

Rights are an entirely subjective and man made and as such if they are applied by enough people or by people in authority then yes a fetus can attain rights. For example in 35 US states (I believe that is the number, though don't quote me) the deliberate killing of a fetus, with the exception of an abortion, is considered a homicide. This rather contradicts the position that the unborn have no rights, when it is an objecive fact that some societies do accord them rights.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I assume the position that rights are limited by the rights of others, meaning that someone's right to life cannot trump another's right to control one's self. Compare to parasites. Don't ignore my first statement because there are no human parasites. If there were, it would be illegal according to any rational legal code.

[Invader Zim]

I assume the position that rights are limited by the rights of others, meaning that someone's right to life cannot trump another's right to control one's self.

I wouldn't really know. But in Ireland for example there is an all out prohibition on abortion as there is in several US states. So presumably there they place the right to life higher than the right to control.

That is the major problem I have with the entire abortion debate, ultimately it comes down to one question, what has the greater right? The unborn to life or a woman to choice? Ultimately it is a subjective ethical question and different peoples and communities answer that very differently. This idea that one side has some kind of either materialistic or moral high ground is just plain wrong, both sides produce regularly produce arguments which are equally valueless. Personally I find the pro-choice arguments more persuasive, but at the end of the day that is hardly a challenge. I do dispise it however when I am informed that this is the only correct position to have on the matter. It automatically irritates me and makes me want to argue the devils advocate; because any hard and fast approach to a complex moral question is fucking stupid and diserves to be lambasted and the proponent ridiculed.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Given the embryo/fetus's position and relation to its mother, for all practical purposes, it doesn't have rights and therefore its "rights" cannot be protected by the state. Effectively it has absolutely no rights whatsoever. It is completely and entirely subject to its host. To say that it has a right to life competing with its mother's right to control her body and its contents is absurd. To quote TC's "fourth argument", "[The relationship between an embryo or fetus and its mother] is not a relationship that a normal person would be entitled to, therefore to oppose abortion is to demand more than human rights for a fetus.

To refute TC's argument that this argument falls short in the case of developed fetuses: The very condition of the fetus inside of the woman's body is what negates its "rights" and what establishes its complete subjection to its mother, and not whether or not the fetus is capable of life independently of its host.

Perhaps TC's argument refutes the violinist analogy, but not the fact that things in bodies are the property of that body.

[Invader Zim]

for all practical purposes, it doesn't have rights and therefore its "rights" cannot be protected by the state.

But the very nature of rights are based upon tradition, common law and general public opinion. This is why varing societies have very different approaches to the issue of rights.

In the opinion of the Catholics of Ireland the right to life of the unborn is a solid and quite probab;y unshakable view. They aren't wrong, they live in a different culture which places a higher value upon the "rights" of the unborn.


Effectively it has absolutely no rights whatsoever.

I disagree, it effectively has the rights which society is willing to afford it. If that includes the right (rightly or wrongly) not to be aborted then that is one of the rights it has.


To say that it has a right to life competing with its mother's right to control her body and its contents is absurd

I don't disagree with you, but why do you consider it any more absurd than any other human moral judgement?


The very condition of the fetus inside of the woman's body is what negates its "rights"

but that is where you are mistaken. You have this idea - shared by a great many - that rights are some how fixed and/or correct. They aren't, the ideal of rights is nothing but a human construct and some societies apply rights to fetuses. they aren't wrong and they aren't correct. It is completely subjective.

[freakazoid]

Rights are an entirely subjective and man made

Sure there man made if you are an athiest, ;) Saying that rights are only man made is a very dangerous slippery slope. If this where to be true then perhaps what Hitler did wasn't actually bad, see how it can get bad?

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 03:49 am

Rights are an entirely subjective and man made

Sure there man made if you are an athiest, ;) Saying that rights are only man made is a very dangerous slippery slope. If this where to be true then perhaps what Hitler did wasn't actually bad, see how it can get bad?
Without man nature is a deaf-mute.

If man didn't exist, there would be no rights, how can you say otherwise? That doesn't make any logical sense. Even if there was some God, how would there be rights in the animal kingdom? Could a lion not kill a sheep for food anymore, or he'd go to hell?

That's so ridiculous.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 05:49 am

Rights are an entirely subjective and man made

Sure there man made if you are an athiest, ;)
No, I am not an atheist and yet I staunchly believe that rights are entirely subjective and man-made.

None of the sacred texts of any of the major world religions gives the slightest hint that God (or the gods) provided human beings with absolute deontological rights. On the contrary, what we tend to find are obligations (such as the Ten Commandments), but no rights. There is absolutely no good religious reason to accept a rights-based ethic. There is also no good secular reason, but that's another story.


Saying that rights are only man made is a very dangerous slippery slope. If this where to be true then perhaps what Hitler did wasn't actually bad, see how it can get bad?
Incorrect. I am a utilitarian, which means that I believe suffering is inherently bad and happiness is inherently good. Hitler caused enormous suffering and very little happiness. Therefore he was evil. No appeal to "rights" is required.

[freakazoid]

Even if there was some God, how would there be rights in the animal kingdom?

God created man differently than animals, that is if you believe in a God to begin with.


Incorrect. I am a utilitarian, which means that I believe suffering is inherently bad and happiness is inherently good. Hitler caused enormous suffering and very little happiness. Therefore he was evil. No appeal to "rights" is required.

But if someone believes that things can be inherently bad and good that means that there are morals, which then leads us to C.S. Lewis' book Mere Christianity, :D :P If there are morals then there are natural rights. If Hitler killling all of those people is inherently bad and evil then the right to life is a natural right.

[Comrade J]

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

Well, at least we know now where Hitler got his 'morals'.

[freakazoid]

Yeah because what he did was what the Bible taught, <_< Even the part where it teaches that Jesus wasn&#39;t a Jew. <_< And the part about love you neighbor as yourself, it didn&#39;t actually say that. <_< Your knowledge of the Bible is just amazing, have you considered becoming a theologin? <_<

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 06:14 am
But if someone believes that things can be inherently bad and good that means that there are morals, which then leads us to C.S. Lewis&#39; book Mere Christianity, :D :P
Yes.


If there are morals then there are natural rights.
No. This is a non-sequitur and complete nonsense. "Morals" do not equal "rights". Allow me to explain the difference between deontological and consequentialist ethics:

Deontology (from the Greek Deon, meaning obligation) holds that certain actions are good or evil in and of themselves, regardless of their consequences. You have an obligation to do or not to do certain things; most often, the obligation is prohibitive (you must not do X), because it&#39;s easier to list the things one should not do rather than all the things one should do.

In the simplest terms, a deontological ethical rule is one that looks like this:

"You must never ............... , even if everyone else does it, and no matter the consequences."

For example, telling a child that he must never lie means giving him a deontological rule. Claiming that it is always evil to kill another human being is also a deontological rule. All "natural rights" are deontological.

***

Consequentialism, as the name implies, looks at the consequences of an action to determine whether that action is good or evil.

Consequentialism is also known as "agent-neutral ethics", because it is not only concerned with the things you do - it is concerned with the things everyone does. Deontology prescribes a certain personal code of conduct that you should follow regardless of what happens around you, and regardless of what other people do. Consequentialism, since it cares about the effects of your actions, is naturally concerned with the way your actions impact other people, and the way their actions impact you.

In the simplest terms, a consequentialist ethical rule is one that looks like this:

"............... is the greatest good. Any action that promotes ............... is good. Any action that promotes the opposite of ............... is evil."

For example, dedicating your life to saving others by practicing medicine is a consequentialist moral decision. Saying that world hunger should be eliminated is a consequentialist statement. Utilitarianism - the view that good actions are those that promote happiness and bad actions are those that cause suffering - is a consequentialist moral theory.


If Hitler killling all of those people is inherently bad and evil then the right to life is a natural right.
Not true. Do not reverse the implication here. Yes, it is true that if people have a natural right to life, then killing people is wrong. But the reverse is not necessarily true. If killing is wrong, that does not have to be for reasons of natural rights; there are plenty of other reasons why killing may be wrong (such as utilitarian reasons, for example).

Also, if the right to life is a natural right, then you should never kill another human being, for whatever reason. So you should not kill Hitler if you had the chance.

The whole problem with rights-theory is that it forbids you from harming people even when a small harm can lead to a much greater good (such as killing Hitler and saving millions).

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 09, 2007 10:09 pm
But the very nature of rights are based upon tradition, common law and general public opinion. This is why varing societies have very different approaches to the issue of rights.
Many societies also view the collective ownership of capital as a really, really bad thing. Should we also abandon that principle?

We&#39;re talking about human rights in terms of basic individual autonomy. All rights established by liberalism and expanded upon by socialism derive from that. To subject a woman to the needs of the things in her body is unquestionably a violation of that. Read my post carefully and this will become quite obvious to you.


In the opinion of the Catholics of Ireland the right to life of the unborn is a solid and quite probab;y unshakable view. They aren&#39;t wrong, they live in a different culture which places a higher value upon the "rights" of the unborn.

I live in one such culture and here abortion is also illegal and condemned even by many leftists.


I don&#39;t disagree with you, but why do you consider it any more absurd than any other human moral judgement?

Human rights and the protection thereof is not a moral judgment. Human rights are arrived at through the rational establishment of democracy and equality as founding principles, which are the basis of scientific socialism. The inevitable trends of human politics lead towards universal liberty, and that is what "human rights" are based upon. It is the revolutionary political interest of the masses in the material conditions of our day and age to establish universal freedom. Not "morality".

Human rights are the liberties entitled to all in a free society. If our society is not a free society, we cannot affirm that the liberties we do not enjoy are therefore not human rights.


but that is where you are mistaken. You have this idea - shared by a great many - that rights are some how fixed and/or correct. They aren&#39;t, the ideal of rights is nothing but a human construct and some societies apply rights to fetuses. they aren&#39;t wrong and they aren&#39;t correct. It is completely subjective.

Why are you here to defend people&#39;s desire to dominate women&#39;s bodies?

[Publius]

Sure there man made if you are an athiest, ;) Saying that rights are only man made is a very dangerous slippery slope. If this where to be true then perhaps what Hitler did wasn&#39;t actually bad, see how it can get bad?

That was probably the weakest attempt t a slippery slope fallacy I&#39;ve ever seen.

You actually FAILED at committing one fallacy (slippery slope) and in its place committed an entirely different fallacy (non sequitir). That&#39;s impressive, in a sad way.

Anyway, that&#39;s complete tosh. But it would take a more cogent description of subjective morality for me to even attempt to combat it.

[RevMARKSman]

If this where to be true then perhaps what Hitler did wasn&#39;t actually bad, see how it can get bad?

No. It wasn&#39;t "bad" in any objective sense since "bad" can&#39;t be defined. But I wouldn&#39;t like that to happen again and therefore I fight against it. I wouldn&#39;t like it to happen again because it wouldn&#39;t be in my material interest. 1) Nazism is based on flawed scientific premises. If Nazism was implemented today where I live, who knows what they might do in the name of "racial science"? As covered in #2, I&#39;d be one of the "superior people" but there would be no accountability. I could just as well be imprisoned or killed for being a communist and therefore "inferior". Hey, my eyes are green, that must mean I&#39;m "inferior"&#33; Who wants to live like that, in constant fear of irrational leadership? 2) Sure I would be part of the "superior Aryan race" (even then I&#39;d be deprived of a few good friends who would be carted away, and I wouldn&#39;t like that) but Nazism failed to deliver - no one lived a luxurious life except perhaps Hitler himself; everyone had to work hard and obey orders.
That&#39;s not what I want. End of story. No "morals" or "objective rights" involved.


Easy. Gimme another example. Come on, give it your best shot.

[freakazoid]

You actually FAILED at committing one fallacy (slippery slope) and in its place committed an entirely different fallacy (non sequitir). That&#39;s impressive, in a sad way.

A slippery slope is a fallacy? And what is a non sequitir? I don&#39;t even get what you are trying to say, :(

[Kwisatz Haderach]

A non-sequitur (Latin for "does not follow") is a statement where the conclusion simply does not follow from the premises. An obvious example would be "the sky is blue, therefore my apartment is on the 4th floor". What does the colour of the sky have to do with your apartment? Nothing. That&#39;s a non-sequitur.

See also: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic...s.html#sequitur (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#sequitur)

[freakazoid]

Oh, thanks for the definition, :D

I still don&#39;t see how what I said was a fallacy or a non-sequitur. :(

[RevMARKSman]

Oh, thanks for the definition, biggrin.gif

I still don&#39;t see how what I said was a fallacy or a non-sequitur. sad.gif


Because the conclusion "I support Hitler" does not follow from "I don&#39;t believe in morality." See my post.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 12:49 am
Sure there man made if you are an athiest, ;) Saying that rights are only man made is a very dangerous slippery slope. If this where to be true then perhaps what Hitler did wasn&#39;t actually bad, see how it can get bad?
If rights are "man made" then "men" do so based on their interests, which are based on what they understand from a material reality. How Hitler fits in this is something I don&#39;t understand about your "argument". After all, I can conclude that "what Hitler did" was against most people&#39;s interests or dismiss it as something "wrong" or "unfair", making your "appeal to Hitler" pointless (whether what I think concerning what those "rights" should be is right or wrong, or if we live in a matrix-like reality and therefore "we can&#39;t we sure we know anything even what&#39;s right and wrong for us" is irrelevant).

[freakazoid]

Because the conclusion "I support Hitler" does not follow from "I don&#39;t believe in morality." See my post.

Ok. I&#39;ll expand on what I had said.
If rights are man made then that would mean that there actually is no such thing as rights, no one has a right to anything. If this is true then what Hitler did to the Jews and others wasn&#39;t bad. Why? Because the people have no rights, what he did wasn&#39;t bad.


After all, I can conclude that "what Hitler did" was against most people&#39;s interests or dismiss it as something "wrong" or "unfair", making your "appeal to Hitler" pointless

But it doesn&#39;t matter what those people&#39;s interests are. They have no rights, there interests are irrelevant.
What if the peoples interests are for what Hitler did? What if the peoples interests are for capitalism? Do we then not have a right to change that?

[RevMARKSman]

But it doesn&#39;t matter what those people&#39;s interests are. They have no rights, there interests are irrelevant.
What if the peoples interests are for what Hitler did? What if the peoples interests are for capitalism?

Their interests are relevant because if I give them the things they want, they&#39;ll feel nicely toward me and possibly become my friend. Then they&#39;ll give me things I like. That&#39;s in my interests, as is just having friends.

If their interests are for Hitler, I don&#39;t give a fuck. MY interests aren&#39;t. Strongly AGAINST in fact, for reasons I outlined before.


Ok. I&#39;ll expand on what I had said.
If rights are man made then that would mean that there actually is no such thing as rights, no one has a right to anything. If this is true then what Hitler did to the Jews and others wasn&#39;t bad. Why? Because the people have no rights, what he did wasn&#39;t bad.


Rights do exist, society creates them. "Natural rights" do not exist. Society creates and destroys rights for individuals and groups depending on whether they are beneficial to the people in that society. What Hitler did wasn&#39;t "bad" (objectively "wrong" or violating "natural rights") since rights and morals are not objective, but I don&#39;t support it and I&#39;d violently fight anyone who did. The capitalists have a right to property because the state sees it in their interest to create and enforce that right. If it was in the state (or whatever other power structure) &#39;s interest to withdraw the right to private property, it would destroy that right and not enforce it. There is, as an abstract concept, a "right" for everything. A right to kill, a right not to be killed. But humans enforce certain rights in certain situations based on what they deem to be in their material self-interest.

[freakazoid]

Strongly AGAINST in fact,

I would sure hope so.


since rights and morals are not objective,

Sure they are.

[luxemburg89]

QUOTE
since rights and morals are not objective,



Sure they are.


No, they aren&#39;t objective. Simply because you idiotically believe in the ten commandments, and the other teachings of your bible, it doesn&#39;t make them objective. Morals are dependent on the feelings, and beliefs, of the group who makes the morals, not necessarily the views of those who are told to obey them. As these morals are based on opinions, they are subjective.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 01:22 am






Ok. I&#39;ll expand on what I had said.
If rights are man made then that would mean that there actually is no such thing as rights

Think about that for 5 fucking seconds and you&#39;d realize how stupid it is.

Houses are man made, so does that mean there actually are no such things as houses?

Movies are man made, so does that mean there are actually no such things as movies?

Jokes are man made, so does that mean there are actually no such things as jokes?

So then why the fuck do you think that just because morality is man made it doesn&#39;t exist?

Listen, you make the same mistake that every dumbass religious makes, namely conflating &#39;subjective&#39; with &#39;fake&#39;. Don&#39;t do that.



, no one has a right to anything.

All people have a right to life.


If this is true then what Hitler did to the Jews and others wasn&#39;t bad. Why? Because the people have no rights, what he did wasn&#39;t bad.

This, again, doesn&#39;t really follow.

If there are no rights then Hitler has no right to kill anyone either. So the argument is self-defeating.



But it doesn&#39;t matter what those people&#39;s interests are. They have no rights, there interests are irrelevant.

Yes, they do have rights. Who here is contending that they don&#39;t? Well, you and Hitler. But none else is, so what point are you making?



What if the peoples interests are for what Hitler did?

Then their interests are immoral.


What if the peoples interests are for capitalism?

Ditto.


Do we then not have a right to change that?

Yes. Well, at least you can try.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 02:11 am




Sure they are.

Objectively prove what rights are. What morality is.

Oh, that&#39;s right, you can&#39;t, because I could easily reject what you suppose as objective human morality, which then, by definition, would mean it is no longer objective human morality, it&#39;s merely objective TO A CERTAIN GROUP, that is to say, it&#39;s SUBJECTIVE.

In order to demonstrate objective morality, you have to already presuppose objective morality, or else nothing makes sense. Say, for example, you wanted to demonstrate that rape is wrong. In order to prove that there is an objective criteria that says rape is wrong, you would have to start with some notion of that objective criteria to begin with, or else you&#39;d never find it, because it&#39;s non-physical; it&#39;s an idea. So what you&#39;re saying is that there exists a certain non-physical entity called morality. Problem. You&#39;re positing what must be a non-physical entity, but you can&#39;t physically demonstrate that which is non-physical. Furthermore, I take it that since all non-physical entities share the same properties (only one property, non-existence) they are to be taken as identical, following Leibniz&#39;s law. But once you do that, you&#39;ve stipulated that anything called morality is SUBJECTIVE. You&#39;ve completely destroyed your own argument.

Well, you could get around this, I guess, by using God. You could say God creates our objective morality, which would give it an ontology. But, if God can create it, and can change it, it can&#39;t be objective in any meaningful sense. It&#39;s pure tautology to say "objective is whatever God says it is." And if objective morality transcends God, we obviously have another set of problems, such as how do we even know this morality exists if we can&#39;t experience it, how do we know God is really &#39;God&#39;, how do we even know if this God knows of the objective morality, etc., all of this in addition to the fact that we still can&#39;t demonstrate the existence of this morality.

And all of this is coming from me, a person who has never taken a philosophy class in his life. Imagine what a real philosopher could do to your non-sense ideas.

[freakazoid]

Morals are dependent on the feelings, and beliefs, of the group who makes the morals, not necessarily the views of those who are told to obey them. As these morals are based on opinions, they are subjective.

Which then comes back to that if this is true then there is no reason to believe that what Hitler did was bad, there would be no reason to go fight and kill him.

Who is to say that your morals are right and his is wrong?


f there are no rights then Hitler has no right to kill anyone either.

Who is to say that he can&#39;t do it though? Who is to stop him and why?


Think about that for 5 fucking seconds and you&#39;d realize how stupid it is. .... So then why the fuck do you think that just because morality is man made it doesn&#39;t exist?

A house is real physical thing, a house is literally man made. What you are trying to say about morals and rights is that they are man made up.

[Publius]

Which then comes back to that if this is true then there is no reason to believe that what Hitler did was bad, there would be no reason to go fight and kill him.

Of course there is a reason.



Who is to say that your morals are right and his is wrong?

Myself, and no one else, because I&#39;m an autonomous person with my own opinions and I&#39;m responsible for my own actions.

I have full discretion to decide what my moral code is and on what basis it is founded. Luckily, you (or rather, unluckily on your case) have the same ability.

Nothing &#39;says&#39; my morals are right or wrong other than myself, and those who agree with me, and that&#39;s all I need. I don&#39;t your warrant, I don&#39;t need God&#39;s warrant, and fuck you for thinking I need someone else to tell me how I need to behave. That&#39;s condescending and patronizing and I won&#39;t have any of it.

Now, to practical matters: my moral code has certain proscriptions about things like human rights, things which are important to me. If I disagree with someone on these things, then we&#39;ll quarrel. This doesn&#39;t scare me like it apparently does you. I don&#39;t need God backing me up, I have myself. So when I meet a racist or a fascist I know he&#39;s wrong because his viewpoint is ignorant, because he&#39;s anti-intellectual, because he can&#39;t respond with argument so he must respond with violence, etc.

And I&#39;m convinced that other people will see that this is wrong. And, luckily, people don&#39;t behave that way. People ARE willing to fight for human dignity and sovereignty.

Why be moral? Because to be immoral is to be wrong, ethically, factually, and logically, and I won&#39;t take part in any of that. Will you?



Who is to say that he can&#39;t do it though?

Me and everybody like me, and that ought to be enough to stop anyone. We have armies who fight for this sort of thing; see World War II.


Who is to stop him and why?

People who disagree and are willing to fight for what they stand for; good people.



A house is real physical thing, a house is literally man made. What you are trying to say about morals and rights is that they are man made up.

I used other examples. Why did you ignore them?

What I&#39;m trying to say is exactly what I said. Morality is man-made but it is real, just like language is man-made but real, like jokes are man-made but real, and like houses are man-made and real.

All of those are man-made, and only some of them are physical, but they are all real. Like morality.

What you&#39;re trying to tell me is analogous to say saying "Well, I don&#39;t find that joke funny, so obviously it isn&#39;t real." That&#39;s a bad argument. It&#39;s evident to everyone except, perhaps, you.

[freakazoid]

This doesn&#39;t scare me like it apparently does you.

I didn&#39;t say that, I&#39;m merely playing devils advocate.


People ARE willing to fight for human dignity and sovereignty.

Yup.


see World War II.

Even Woody Guthrie joined to fight. :D



I used other examples. Why did you ignore them?

I didn&#39;t ignore them, just replace "house" with any of your other examples.


What you&#39;re trying to tell me is analogous to say saying "Well, I don&#39;t find that joke funny, so obviously it isn&#39;t real."

No, a joke is a joke, whether or not it is actually funny. A joke does not have to be funny to be a joke.
What I was trying to say is that a house is actually a real physical thing. A movie is a real physical thing, well.. kind of. A joke, while not physical, is a real thing... in a way. But what you are trying to say is that morals are made up, not just man made.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 01:22 am

Because the conclusion "I support Hitler" does not follow from "I don&#39;t believe in morality." See my post.

Ok. I&#39;ll expand on what I had said.
If rights are man made then that would mean that there actually is no such thing as rights, no one has a right to anything.
By Jove, I think he&#39;s got it&#33;


If this is true then what Hitler did to the Jews and others wasn&#39;t bad.

Well shit, spoke too soon, clearly. Tell me freakazoid are you familiar with the term non sequitur?


Why? Because the people have no rights, what he did wasn&#39;t bad.

No, what he did was bad, at least as far as I and many others are concerned, because our logically constructed morality indicates that genocide is bad.


But it doesn&#39;t matter what those people&#39;s interests are. They have no rights, there interests are irrelevant.

Wrong. Their interests are the basis for morality.


What if the peoples interests are for what Hitler did? What if the peoples interests are for capitalism? Do we then not have a right to change that?

If it is in the interest of the people to have capitalism then we&#39;re going to have capitalism. However the material interest of the proletariat is not capitalism and they are therefore justified in struggling against it.

[freakazoid]

Well shit, spoke too soon, clearly.

That&#39;s what you get for thinking something good about me, :P XD


Tell me freakazoid are you familiar with the term non sequitur?

I believe it is in this very thread that I had asked what that term means, and then someone answered me, :D Actually I think that it was in this thread, and it was said for the same reason that you posted, which I tried to explain better, :(

edit - or maybe it was said in the Unfair Restriction thread... I don&#39;t know, I have been jumping between a few threads and I don&#39;t remember which was said in what. :unsure:

edit again - Why are you restricted Publius? Anger the wrong person I suppose, :P XD. You seem to be some kind of leftist.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 05:46 pm





I didn&#39;t say that, I&#39;m merely playing devils advocate.

How ironic.



I didn&#39;t ignore them, just replace "house" with any of your other examples.



A joke is real physical thing, a joke is literally man made. What you are trying to say about morals and rights is that they are man made up.


Hmm.



No, a joke is a joke, whether or not it is actually funny. A joke does not have to be funny to be a joke.

Exactly.



What I was trying to say is that a house is actually a real physical thing. A movie is a real physical thing, well.. kind of. A joke, while not physical, is a real thing... in a way. But what you are trying to say is that morals are made up, not just man made.

You don&#39;t know what you&#39;re trying to say.

Morals are as real as jokes are, and they are real in the exact same sense.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:08 pm
I believe it is in this very thread that I had asked what that term means, and then someone answered me, :D Actually I think that it was in this thread, and it was said for the same reason that you posted, which I tried to explain better, :(

So you know what it means, but do you understand exactly why I would apply it to your post that talks about how killing jews is right because morality is man made?


edit again - Why are you restricted Publius? Anger the wrong person I suppose, :P XD. You seem to be some kind of leftist.

Publius joined as cappie, so you can climb down off the high horse.

[freakazoid]

Morals are as real as jokes are, and they are real in the exact same sense.

So there ARE such things as objective morals?


You don&#39;t know what you&#39;re trying to say.

I know what I am trying to say, I am just not very good at expressing myself and getting my point across, :(


So you know what it means, but do you understand exactly why I would apply it to your post that talks about how killing jews is right because morality is man made?

Yes I do. I had assumed that the connection between the two things would be obvious, so I skipped some steps. Guess I should of explained it all from the beginning the first time.


Publius joined as cappie, so you can climb down off the high horse.

Why are you attacking me? I was merely asking why he was restricted. From reading his posts it would appear the he is some kind of leftists. I do not see how that means that I am on a high horse.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:52 pm

So you know what it means, but do you understand exactly why I would apply it to your post that talks about how killing jews is right because morality is man made?

Yes I do. I had assumed that the connection between the two things would be obvious, so I skipped some steps. Guess I should of explained it all from the beginning the first time.
It&#39;s not obvious because your conclusion does not follow from the premise - unless you want to show me otherwise?



Why are you attacking me? I was merely asking why he was restricted. From reading his posts it would appear the he is some kind of leftists. I do not see how that means that I am on a high horse.

Oh come on, don&#39;t play silly buggers:

"Anger the wrong person I suppose"

That quote suggests that you believe that restrictions come about as a result of us morally bankrupt commies getting angry and arbitrarily deciding to boot you into a cage as opposed to days and days of discussion.

[freakazoid]

That quote suggests that you believe that restrictions come about as a result of us morally bankrupt commies

Morally bankrupt commies? I have never said that, or even hinted at something like that. I think that you guys actually have pretty good morals, hence you are commies/anarchist.


arbitrarily deciding to boot you into a cage as opposed to days and days of discussion.

Well actually, the OI is caging us. Funny, I don&#39;t recollect days and days of discussions before I was restricted. What I remember was one day trying to post in the AMPP thread and getting a message saying that I did not have permission to do that, and then seeing that I have "Restricted Member" under my screen name.

edit - also notice the :P after I said that, which I was, trying, to imply that it was in jest.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:28 pm

That quote suggests that you believe that restrictions come about as a result of us morally bankrupt commies

Morally bankrupt commies? I have never said that, or even hinted at something like that. I think that you guys actually have pretty good morals, hence you are commies/anarchist.


arbitrarily deciding to boot you into a cage as opposed to days and days of discussion.

Well actually, the OI is caging us. Funny, I don&#39;t recollect days and days of discussions before I was restricted. What I remember was one day trying to post in the AMPP thread and getting a message saying that I did not have permission to do that, and then seeing that I have "Restricted Member" under my screen name.

edit - also notice the :P after I said that, which I was, trying, to imply that it was in jest.
What are these "steps" you left out of your argument? (I notice you&#39;re dodging the point here)

[freakazoid]

I didn&#39;t dodge your point. Someone else already responded to the post saying that it was a non-sequitur and I posted how the one thing could lead to that result. I have already answered your question before you asked it.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:52 pm






edit again - Why are you restricted Publius? Anger the wrong person I suppose, tongue.gif XD. You seem to be some kind of leftist.

Yes, I am some kind of genius.



So there ARE such things as objective morals?

You don&#39;t know what subjective or objective mean, do you?

For what must be the thousandth fucking time, &#39;objective&#39; does not mean &#39;real&#39; and &#39;subjective&#39; does not mean &#39;fake&#39;. Get that error out of your head, it&#39;s the source of all your confusion.

Morality IS real but it ISN&#39;T objective.



I know what I am trying to say, I am just not very good at expressing myself and getting my point across, :(

Well, there&#39;s that too...

[freakazoid]

You don&#39;t know what subjective or objective mean, do you?

I do know what they mean. I don&#39;t know why you seem to think that I think that they mean real and fake, I have never said that.

[Publius]

I do know what they mean. I don&#39;t know why you seem to think that I think that they mean real and fake, I have never said that.

You quoted me on this:



Morals are as real as jokes are, and they are real in the exact same sense.



So there ARE such things as objective morals?

This shows a misunderstanding of the issue.

[freakazoid]

I&#39;m still not exactly sure how you think I am saying that objective and subjective mean fake and real. Subjective means that it depends on the person, kind of. And objective means that it is universal, like natural rights, kind.


QUOTE

Morals are as real as jokes are, and they are real in the exact same sense.


QUOTE

So there ARE such things as objective morals?


This shows a misunderstanding of the issue.

You are saying that morals are as real as jokes. Whether or not a joke is funny is subjective, but being funny isn&#39;t what makes a joke a joke. So morals are real, like you say.

[Publius]

I&#39;m still not exactly sure how you think I am saying that objective and subjective mean fake and real. Subjective means that it depends on the person, kind of. And objective means that it is universal, like natural rights, kind.

Here&#39;s an even easier way of sorting it out: subjective is first-person in nature, objective is third-person.

Please tell me you know what I mean by that.



You are saying that morals are as real as jokes. Whether or not a joke is funny is subjective, but being funny isn&#39;t what makes a joke a joke. So morals are real, like you say.

No.

Here&#39;s the comparison: morals are like jokes. Both morals and jokes objectively exist. That is, there are things that exist that are called &#39;morals&#39; and that are called &#39;jokes&#39;, things that have an ontology separate from any one person. But both &#39;morality&#39; and &#39;jokes&#39; have a subjective dimension -- jokes are subjectively funny and morals are subjectively right.

So you&#39;re confused. You&#39;re confusing the objective existence of things called morals with the objective nature of the morals themselves. Listen to this for a simplification: If I wrote down a list of morals in a book, then those morals objective exist -- they exist in third person, quantifiable, medium -- but they are subjective in nature -- they are interpreted by each of us individually -- so we refer to them as &#39;subjective&#39; morals. You might there&#39;s a contradiction in &#39;subjective&#39; morals existing &#39;objectively&#39;, but that&#39;s only if you confuse what are, to be honest, confusing terms. That&#39;s why I like third person and first person better.

See if you can make sense of this: there exist, in a third person manner, moral lessons which can only be experience in a first person manner. It&#39;s like your brain exists, but I can&#39;t experience it like you can.

That a thing called &#39;morality&#39; exists is not subjective -- it objectively exists. What that &#39;morality&#39; is, and what it means to anyone IS subjective.

That&#39;s the difference, don&#39;t forget it.

[freakazoid]

Here&#39;s an even easier way of sorting it out: subjective is first-person in nature, objective is third-person.

Your way of defining it was a lot simpler than mine, :D

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Going back a little, to the issue of rights...


Originally posted by freakazoid+--> (freakazoid)no one has a right to anything. If this is true then what Hitler did to the Jews and others wasn&#39;t bad. Why? Because the people have no rights, what he did wasn&#39;t bad.[/b]
I thought I have already explained the difference between deontological and consequentialist ethics here. Just because people have no rights, that doesn&#39;t mean there can&#39;t be other reasons why killing people is bad.


freakazoid
But it doesn&#39;t matter what those people&#39;s interests are. They have no rights, there interests are irrelevant.
Stop right there. That is an extremely great misconception. Rights and interests are very different things.

Rights are rules that obligate you to always act in a certain way towards a certain person. If the person X has the right known as Y, then you must always do Z in relation to that person. For instance, if Joe has a right to life, then you must never kill him (even if killing him would save a million lives). In this case, "Joe" is the person and "not killing" is the action.

Rights tend to cause problems. If every human being has a right to life, then you must never kill another human being. So you must not fight back when someone is trying to kill you. Whoops. In practice, there are numerous exceptions to most rights, and there are some rights that contradict each other.

In any case, when you say that someone has some rights, you are saying that other people must always behave in certain ways towards that person. And if you have no rights, that simply means that there is nothing which is absolutely forbidden to be done to you. It does NOT mean that anyone can do anything to you at any time. It only means that nothing is off the table; nothing is always forbidden (but some things may still be forbidden in most cases).

I suppose that is the simplest way to put it: Rights are based on the idea that some actions are always forbidden. If there are no rights, that means that nothing is always forbidden (but things may still be forbidden in most cases).

For example, a right to life forbids killing. If there is no right to life, killing may be okay sometimes.

[Intelligitimate]

Edric O&#39;s criticisms are spot on. In fact, I would say your tendency to accept Libertarian principles is disturbing, Tragic, to say the least.

I would also like to voice my support for the "not a person" position. There is no real possibility of a scientific refutation at this point: the fetus is not a person. The only problem I see with this argument is that it leaves open the possibility of infanticide. There is no clear place to draw a line, but the rarity of late term abortions, which are almost always medical in nature anyway, makes this a rather insignificant issue.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 02:12 pm
There is no real possibility of a scientific refutation at this point: the fetus is not a person.

There is no real possibility of a scientific validation of that point, either, since "personhood" is not a scientifically defined concept. What makes your definition any more persuasive than any other?

[red team]

Here&#39;s a question for you.

Do you support abortion for people like these (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC41Siq43lI)?

Or do you think they&#39;re worthwhile enough to keep in the human gene pool?

But, hey I&#39;m not an elitist at all.

I support high school drop-out billionaires too. They really have great fashion sense. But, I wouldn&#39;t want to be driving on the same road as them.

Not that it matters anyway. Once we run out of oil or eco damage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCD5dMQDDYg&mode=related&search=) takes its toll we&#39;ll be eating each other or using dead people for fish bait.

The end of the world is closer than you think. And the problem is as was always the problem: too many idiots too little space or resources.

[pusher robot]

Do you support abortion for people like these?

Or do you think they&#39;re worthwhile enough to keep in the human gene pool?

But, hey I&#39;m not an elitist at all.


Fascinating. How much support for abortion is based on barely-disguised eugenics, I wonder? Drs. Binding and Hoche, call your offices&#33; We must prevent Lebensunwertes Leben&#33;

Disgusting.


The end of the world is closer than you think.

So says you and an unbroken line of doom-mongerers since the dawn of civilization. I&#39;ll believe it when I see it.

[red team]

Fascinating. How much support for abortion is based on barely-disguised eugenics, I wonder? Drs. Binding and Hoche, call your offices&#33; We must prevent Lebensunwertes Leben&#33;

Disgusting.

Really? How is it anymore disgusting than letting them be born to be semi-literate, drunken, brutish neanderthals who would serve as excellent cannon fodder or factory fodder for the rich?

Sure you may have sympathy for the fetus, but you want take away that welfare money and destroy all publicly funded programs that the poor depend because they must be personally responsible for making a living as criminals and live an existence not much better than an abandoned dog. Or do you think picking through trash for scraps of food and wife and child beating is also a worthy lifestyles for the poor to have?

These people usually self-abort each other through wars and such, but carpet bombing with napalm also kills off some of the more intelligent who haven&#39;t yet fled the country being carpet bombed by such people that are so proud of their work. "Son, I&#39;m proud even though you&#39;re born from a semi-literate, drunken, whore, you make a great artillery man" as they army officer would say.

And me being inhumane? Abortion like suicide is much more humane than to live as human trash in a system that doesn&#39;t allow you to be anything more if you&#39;re poor. Do you think the rich would stand for it if the poor demanded publicly funded services or do you think they would sic a somewhat more privileged uniformed sadist on them if they demanded a fair share of socially produced wealth?

[pusher robot]

Really? How is it anymore disgusting than letting them be born to be semi-literate, drunken, brutish neanderthals who would serve as excellent cannon fodder or factory fodder for the rich?

Being poor is not a genetic disorder. It cannot be cured through extermination.

Who do you think you are to decide what lives are worth living? The only person&#39;s live you can make that judgment for is your own.

[red team]

I was proposing voluntary legalized abortion, not forced extermination or are your mind not able to differentiate between the two.

But, of course libertarian hypocrites like the poor to be voluntarily poor. It makes them good expendable workers and soldiers that don&#39;t question the judgement of the rich because it is in the interest of the rich.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I&#39;m bored so I think I&#39;ll play devil&#39;s advocate for a while.

I think that regarding late-term abortion, the argument really comes down to two conflicting rights; the "baby"&#39;s right to life versus the woman&#39;s right to absolute bodily autonomy. ("Baby" here meaning whatever is in the mother&#39;s womb in the late term of pregnancy.) The main argument against late-term abortion is that the baby has, at this point, an inalienable right to life, antecedent to the will of the mother or anybody else, provided that the life of no one else is in danger. However, an equally strong case could be made for the woman&#39;s right to absolute bodily autonomy. Thus, I feel that there can be no infallible argument against abortion, and that any opposition to late-term abortion is merely subjectively based. But which right is more important?

Well first of all, it is important to realize that in reality, the right to life is certainly not inalienable in the eyes of humanity. Hundreds of thousands of years of war, revolution and capital punishment have shown that it is in fact acceptable to terminate a life in certain circumstances. I for one believe that protection of an equally (or more) important right is reasonable grounds for the violation of the right to life. Of course that same argument could be made against the right to absolute bodily autonomy, with reference to our somewhat embarrassing history of patriarchal domination in society and the home (which includes the bedroom), and of the olde perception of women as "spoils of war". However, the difference is that humanity has (thankfully) dropped such exploitative views. Women are no longer seen as the sexual playthings of men, at least outside theocracies, and any attempt to label them as such meets with harsh opposition from all corners of society. This is a result of the women&#39;s movement, and the realization that women are people too. Women have since acquired (just about) equal status as men in society, and as such the right to bodily autonomy has since been returned to the fairer sex. However, there has been no movement or discovery which might lead humanity to restore to all the inalienable right to life. Absolute pacifism is widely regarded as an unworkable ideology, and though war is frowned upon, it is still considered necessary by most when something more important than the right to life is at steak.

Thus I feel that if we are to speak of "inalienable" rights, we must in the first instance speak of the woman&#39;s right to absolute bodily autonomy, rather than the right to life.

[red team]

Who do you think you are to decide what lives are worth living? The only person&#39;s live you can make that judgment for is your own.

Nice quote to emphasized such indignation of the "unalienable" right to life.

But, prove to me that money isn&#39;t anything other than a useful psychological fiction for the accumulation of political power in influencing other people who are powerless to do the bidding of the powerfull. Or in other words, a self-justifying tautology in conjunction with the ownership claim granted over property through purchases using money.

So here&#39;s my quote in response to your quote:

who do you think you are to tell the someone who cannot afford to raise a potential offspring through the economic-political system of monetary control by wage payers over wage earners not to voluntarily terminate such a potential offspring? Further, suppose such a dependency relationship in political power through monopoly control over monetary flows (which is nothing more than a boomerang back to the "rich") is found disgusting for the person valuing freedom for her potential offspring, who are you to tell her not to terminate a future potential wage-slave?

[pusher robot]

who do you think you are to tell the someone who cannot afford to raise a potential offspring through the economic-political system of monetary control by wage payers over wage earners not to voluntarily terminate such a potential offspring?

I do not presume to do so.


But, prove to me that money isn&#39;t anything other than a useful psychological fiction for the accumulation of political power in influencing other people who are powerless to do the bidding of the powerfull.

If the value of money is a psychological fiction, then the value of anything is a psychological fiction. People value money. This can be objectively measured, therefore it is real. The value exists. It is not intrinsic, obviously, but based on the expectation that it can be traded for other things of equal or greater value. Its value is no more fictional than that of diamonds, or steel, or beer.

[red team]

If the value of money is a psychological fiction, then the value of anything is a psychological fiction. People value money. This can be objectively measured, therefore it is real. The value exists. It is not intrinsic, obviously, but based on the expectation that it can be traded for other things of equal or greater value. Its value is no more fictional than that of diamonds, or steel, or beer.

It says a lot, but it doesn&#39;t say anything. Nothing that isn&#39;t already obvious and nothing that is relevant. Consumption can entirely by accomplished without money while other methods can be used to quantify physical costs in production. Money and value isn&#39;t a physical property useful to quantify cost than hate or love a physical property useful for predicting the rise of a dictatorial or democratic regime.

People value money

Wrong, people value purchases for the purpose of consumption.

Money may be used to accomplish purchases,
but purchases can be accomplished without using money.

Its value is no more fictional than that of diamonds, or steel, or beer.

But, it can&#39;t be quantified and only the bearer of money affects the value of what is demanded by the same bearer. That means if I have all the money in the world I can demand anything of my subjects. In other words, money is political power to bend other people to your will as well as establishing arbitrarily the value of physical items because of the bending of political will. If I&#39;m penniless would I dig in a diamond mine just to have something worthy being traded by those who hold the majority of political capital as represented by money? If ownership and accumulation of "value" which physically can&#39;t be accomplished any more than love or hate can be owned or accumulated is done away with then what are my alternatives? My alternatives for securing what I want can be entirely democratic in nature if means of purchases is not circulated, but spent upon purchases and based on physical property laws. None of which exists in the present order of "value" trading.

[la-troy]

Thus I feel that if we are to speak of "inalienable" rights, we must in the first instance speak of the woman&#39;s right to absolute bodily autonomy, rather than the right to life.

tell me if I understand you correctly.You are saying that a person right to control or express their body is more important than someones right to live?

now his is not directed at you specifically but to a number of individuals who seem to think that life has lost it&#39;s value and have turned the argument about abortion into one about the abuse of women and their right to "choose ".

I totally disagree whit that.
Here is my view on the issue ( otherwise from my views about safer sex practices)

I find abortion to be vile and disgusting thing. I also recognize that it is often necessary and sometimes much better than than than the alternatives. I have also come to the belie (due mainly to this forum) that me deciding that I do not like the thing or whatever should not be the determining factor for someone else&#39;s life. That said I shall go on.

During the first trimester, from a purely scientific view, the embryo display very little if any human characteristics and as such is not a human n a scientific view. therefore the abortion question is not one of ending life, from a dispassionate view. now after the first trimester it does become one of ending live. and in my view ending the live of any human being, no matter how common it is :angry: , is wrong, unless that life endangers others and it is impossible to safe the life and if that person wishes to do so.

A "womans" right of choose, does not extend this far. killing a human being murder plain and simply. if she does not wish to carry out the pregnancy then she can induce labour and have the baby and leave it by signing off her rights. simply as that.
Saying that its her body is stupid as it affects other human beings.


Edit: a 100 post wow

[Qwerty Dvorak]

what does war and the right to life have to do with a type of meat?
Something tells me that you&#39;ll be pleased to hear that I don&#39;t quite get you. Please elaborate.


tell me if I understand you correctly.You are saying that a person right to control or express their body is more important than someones right to live?
Well really the only thing I&#39;m saying to be definitely true is that that&#39;s what it comes down to; a conflict between two important rights. I don&#39;t have any terribly strong personal feelings either way, but for the sake of debate, yeah, let&#39;s assume I&#39;m saying that.


During the first trimester, from a purely scientific view, the embryo display very little if any human characteristics and as such is not a human n a scientific view. therefore the abortion question is not one of ending life, from a dispassionate view. now after the first trimester it does become one of ending live. and in my view ending the live of any human being, no matter how common it is mad.gif , is wrong, unless that life endangers others and it is impossible to safe the life and if that person wishes to do so.
I disagree. If you remove your own subjective emotions from the picture, basically what you have is two rights, both claimed to be inalienable, conflicting with one another. I personally believe that in general, the civilized world is much quicker to alienate one&#39;s right to life than their right to absolute bodily autonomy.


A "womans" right of choose, does not extend this far. killing a human being murder plain and simply. if she does not wish to carry out the pregnancy then she can induce labour and have the baby and leave it by signing off her rights. simply as that.
Saying that its her body is stupid as it affects other human beings.

Well I could just as easily retort by saying that a baby&#39;s right to life does not extend that far.

Really you have shown that your only opposition to abortion is a) emotive, and b) based on the assertion that the right of the unborn to life overrides all other rights, including that of the woman to absolute bodily autonomy. You have provided no reasoning as to why this should be so.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 02, 2007 07:29 pm
Consumption can entirely by accomplished without money while other methods can be used to quantify physical costs in production.

Consumption can occur but efficient allocation can not.

Physical costs are only a subset of all costs of production. What about opportunity costs? Labor costs? Risk costs? Moral costs?


Money and value isn&#39;t a physical property useful to quantify cost than hate or love a physical property useful for predicting the rise of a dictatorial or democratic regime.

You are going severely astray by assuming that physical costs are the only costs that exist, and that physical properties are the only relevant factors of value. They&#39;re not, quite obviously I thought.

Value is never a physical property. If it were, it would be objective to the individual, which it clearly is not as evidenced by the fact that different people value different things differently. Thus it is subjective to the individual and only tangentially related to its physical properties. Only by quantifying subjective value using a common standard can it be objectively measured and aggregated to a larger set.


Money may be used to accomplish purchases,
but purchases can be accomplished without using money.
So what? This does not refute the fact that people value money because it can be exchanged for something else of greater or equal value.


But, it can&#39;t be quantified and only the bearer of money affects the value of what is demanded by the same bearer.Money can&#39;t be quantified? I have &#036;23 in my pocket. There, I just quantified it.


That means if I have all the money in the world I can demand anything of my subjects.You can demand, but they can refuse to comply. They are free to set their price to whatever they wish.

If I&#39;m penniless would I dig in a diamond mine just to have something worthy being traded by those who hold the majority of political capital as represented by money?I can&#39;t tell you what you personally would do, but one acting rationally would do so.

In other words, money is political power to bend other people to your will as well as establishing arbitrarily the value of physical items because of the bending of political will.You keep making conclusory assertions like this without giving any reason to believe them.

If ownership and accumulation of "value" which physically can&#39;t be accomplished any more than love or hate can be owned or accumulated is done away with then what are my alternatives?Are you saying that value cannot be accumulated? Why not?

My alternatives for securing what I want can be entirely democratic in nature if means of purchases is not circulated, but spent upon purchases and based on physical property laws.What does this mean? Would diamonds be valuable? How do you account for non-physical costs?

[Sentinel]

A "womans" right of choose, does not extend this far. killing a human being murder plain and simply. if she does not wish to carry out the pregnancy then she can induce labour and have the baby and leave it by signing off her rights. simply as that.
Saying that its her body is stupid as it affects other human beings.

Why am I not surprised that this was said by male user. Your contempt for womens rights and autonomy, perhaps women in general, is astounding. How do you, a man, expect yourself to have the slightest idea of just what the fuck &#39;inducing labor and having the baby&#39; means?

The emotional and physical scars it can leave?

The pain?

You don&#39;t, but yet you are telling others to accept that fate because of your own moral objections for them having an abortion.

You, sir, are a reactionary.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Serpent+July 03, 2007 09:46 am--> (Serpent &#064; July 03, 2007 09:46 am) Ostracism ftw

:cool: [/b]
Please don&#39;t spam OI.


[i]Originally posted by la&#045;troy+--> (la&#045;troy)A "womans" right of choose, does not extend this far.[/b]

Well from your reading your posts, i find it difficult to believe that you accept any idea of a woman&#39;s &#39;right&#39; to choose at all. I mean, the only period in which you accept abortion is in the first trimester, and this position has nothing to do with women&#39;s autonomy but rather what you regard as the &#39;scientific&#39; view of a fetus at that stage; autonomy doesn&#39;t come into that... well at least not for you.

So.... I think it would be more accurate to characterise your position as "A &#39;womans&#39; right... is ."


la&#045;[email protected]

killing a human being murder plain and simply.

So killing a person (ignore the fact that in this case you&#39;re classifiying an unborn fetus as a &#39;person&#39;) is never justified? Ever? And you&#39;re a revolutionary? Because there&#39;s no such thing as a &#39;bloodless revolution&#39;


la troy

if she does not wish to carry out the pregnancy then she can induce labour and have the baby and leave it by signing off her rights. simply as that.

lol&#33; That&#39;s just so ridiculously authoritarian.

You&#39;re advocating that the state force women to carry pregnancies to term, who cares what the women wants right? Coz women have an obligation to be incubators&#33; :rolleyes:

[wtfm8lol]

Something tells me that you&#39;ll be pleased to hear that I don&#39;t quite get you. Please elaborate.

no one else was replying to your post, and i didn&#39;t feel like making any objections to it based on logical grounds, so i was just pointing out that you said "steak" rather than "stake".

anyway, about the original post: the violinist argument has a fatal flaw, which is that if the person attached to the violinist had put the violinist in the position he was in (the position being that of needing a host to stay alive), that person is obligated to keep the violinist alive. in the original argument, the person did not put the violinist in the position he is in, and so has no obligation to help him, whereas a mother puts the fetus in the position it is in, and so she would be obligated to keep the parasite alive.

the self-defense argument also does not convince me. that argument is similar to saying that if i lock a person up in a cage and make it so the only way for him to escape would be to hurt me, i am justified in killing him to protect myself.

the argument for abortion that does convince me, however, is the argument that a life without consciousness and which either has never had consciousness or never will again have consciousness is not worth saving. if a life without consciousness and which has never had it is worth saving, all women would be obligated to have all of their eggs fertilized and i would be violating the right of my sperm to live by wiping them up with a tissue and throwing them into the trash.

[la-troy]

This is my third attempt at replying.


Well from your reading your posts, i find it difficult to believe that you accept any idea of a woman&#39;s &#39;right&#39; to choose at all. I mean, the only period in which you accept abortion is in the first trimester, and this position has nothing to do with women&#39;s autonomy but rather what you regard as the &#39;scientific&#39; view of a fetus at that stage; autonomy doesn&#39;t come into that... well at least not for you.

whoops&#33;&#33;&#33; my bad

not really. read my post again senior. you see I am against brining this issue or reducing it to pointless squabbles about somebody telling a next individual what to do whit their body. again my views are this during the first three months nobody should have a say it is completely up to the woman.

So in summary it is not that she has no autonomy but rather that in this period it is not a question.

As far as I am concerned the question of autonomy really starts after the first trimester.
When in my view, and I use a little biology to back this up, they are pretty much human beings.

I stated that in that case I, personally, do not believe in a womens autonomy extending this far. this far meaning, to the extent of deliberately killing another human being. Is this partially based on my emotion? yes&#33;&#33; I won&#39;t deny it.


So killing a person (ignore the fact that in this case you&#39;re classifiying an unborn fetus as a &#39;person&#39;) is never justified? Ever? And you&#39;re a revolutionary? Because there&#39;s no such thing as a &#39;bloodless revolution&#39;
ohh dear ohh dear

ok now omg ohh shit sssss shit shit

let me ask you this do you believe in killing and individual just because he belongs to a certain class? killings may be justified but in many of the justified case it is still murder. We should not use the death of a human being to prove to our self that we have advance past our barbaric years.


lol&#33; That&#39;s just so ridiculously authoritarian.

I was not suggesting anything of the sort senior. I just but forward a possibly solution which from what I have read and from people I have spoken to is not overly painful or emotionally wrecking but if sentinel has any experiences he cares to share I am more than willing to take them into account.


You don&#39;t, but yet you are telling others to accept that fate because of your own moral objections for them having an abortion.

wow may i suggest this program I say advertising it is called hooked on (something)
It helps individuals to read properly I might also suggest a class in English literature.
please lay off the Shakespeare.


I find abortion to be vile and disgusting thing. I also recognize that it is often necessary and sometimes much better than than than the alternatives. I have also come to the belie (due mainly to this forum) that me deciding that I do not like the thing or whatever should not be the determining factor for someone else&#39;s life. That said I shall go on.

I am sure my typos aren&#39;t that bad.

[Never Give In]

I believe that a baby is a human being that has already been born. I believe that a fetus is not yet born and does not have the exact same human rights as the baby. The mother should have the complete choice to abort the fetus if she sees fit.

In the case of rape, poverty, or simply becoming accidentaly pregnant, the mother should not have to endure the hardships, nor should the baby. It isn&#39;t "killing" the baby in my eyes. I think once the baby is born it gains the right to not have it&#39;s life taken.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Never Give [email protected] 14, 2007 02:04 am
I believe that a baby is a human being that has already been born. I believe that a fetus is not yet born and does not have the exact same human rights as the baby. The mother should have the complete choice to abort the fetus if she sees fit.

In the case of rape, poverty, or simply becoming accidentaly pregnant, the mother should not have to endure the hardships, nor should the baby. It isn&#39;t "killing" the baby in my eyes. I think once the baby is born it gains the right to not have it&#39;s life taken.
That&#39;s very nice and heartwarming, but your beliefs do not constitute an argument.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

That&#39;s very nice and heartwarming, but your beliefs do not constitute an argument.
Why not? His post is full of assertions and contains premise, inference and conclusion. How is it not an argument?

[Red Tung]

What constitutes "born"?

You know I do like current pro-choice laws because in a few decades time given genetics technology we may have "unborn" fully grown people in artificial wombs. :D

All I&#39;ll need to do is get a rich girlfriend to get pregnant twice and eventually transfer the fetuses into artificial wombs and we&#39;ll be immortal from the organ farms keeping "fetuses" :lol:

[la-troy]

Originally posted by Never Give [email protected] 14, 2007 02:04 am
I believe that a baby is a human being that has already been born. I believe that a fetus is not yet born and does not have the exact same human rights as the baby. The mother should have the complete choice to abort the fetus if she sees fit.

In the case of rape, poverty, or simply becoming accidentaly pregnant, the mother should not have to endure the hardships, nor should the baby. It isn&#39;t "killing" the baby in my eyes. I think once the baby is born it gains the right to not have it&#39;s life taken.
what do you mean by becoming accidentally pregnant?

and why do you feel that the fetus in the womb does not have the same rights?

[Never Give In]

Originally posted by la&#045;troy+July 16, 2007 11:20 am--> (la&#045;troy &#064; July 16, 2007 11:20 am)
Never Give [email protected] 14, 2007 02:04 am
I believe that a baby is a human being that has already been born. I believe that a fetus is not yet born and does not have the exact same human rights as the baby. The mother should have the complete choice to abort the fetus if she sees fit.

In the case of rape, poverty, or simply becoming accidentaly pregnant, the mother should not have to endure the hardships, nor should the baby. It isn&#39;t "killing" the baby in my eyes. I think once the baby is born it gains the right to not have it&#39;s life taken.
what do you mean by becoming accidentally pregnant?

and why do you feel that the fetus in the womb does not have the same rights? [/b]
By accidentaly pregnant, I mean a number of things. A broken condom, sometimes birth control pills don&#39;t work, stuff like that. As well as the before stated reason, rape. You know, every once in a while a woman is pregnant and DOES NOT want to have a baby. If the woman does not feel she is ready for a baby, or did not mean to have a baby, then she has every right to abort it.

The fetus is scientifically only a human in development. I believe that a mother has every right to get an abortion because it is only a human in development.

It is not killing a life that "could have been" in my eyes, or perhaps it is, just that it happens every single time you have sex. Every time the man climaxes, he releases thousands of lives that "could have been".

Just because the fetus is further in development then the sperm, does not mean that the mother can&#39;t abort it without being a murderer. Once the baby is born, if she ends the baby&#39;s life, then it is definitely murder and should be treated as murder.

[pusher robot]

Once the baby is born, if she ends the baby&#39;s life, then it is definitely murder and should be treated as murder.

Well, why? That particular dividing line is as arbitrary as any other.

[la-troy]

By accidentaly pregnant, I mean a number of things. A broken condom, sometimes birth control pills don&#39;t work, stuff like that. As well as the before stated reason, rape. You know, every once in a while a woman is pregnant and DOES NOT want to have a baby. If the woman does not feel she is ready for a baby, or did not mean to have a baby, then she has every right to abort it.

was not attacking you bub just wanted to know what you meant by accidentally getting pregnant. And i some what agree with you.



Just because the fetus is further in development then the sperm, does not mean that the mother can&#39;t abort it without being a murderer. Once the baby is born, if she ends the baby&#39;s life, then it is definitely murder and should be treated as murder.

now here is where I disagree. what is the difference between a baby that has exited the womb and one that is still in it after three months. nothing absolutely nothing. Three months is adequate time to decide whether or not you want a baby. three months is also the average time it takes for a fetus to develop a functioning drain and active nervous system so it feels. it can survive outside of the mother among other things.


The fetus is scientifically only a human in development. I believe that a mother has every right to get an abortion because it is only a human in development.

how do you tell what a human is?