On Abortion

[Bud Struggle]

We have sufficient information to conclude that a fetus feels pain at a certain point. That is sufficient to give it moral consideration. It's whether that moral consideration is significant enough to justify infringing on the bodily rights of another human being.

If babies drowning in puddles was a regular occurrence, we would have a moral obligation to help any child we saw drowning. If people were refusing to do this based on simple inconvenience, I would think we'd be justified in taking legal action against them, preferably to prevent the death of the children.

The main issue is to what degree is "bodily control" a human right. It certainly isn't our right to control the outside of our body. We can't kill anyone we want. Therefore, if one accepts that feeling pain is sufficient for moral legitimacy, one is in a sticky situation. The vegetarian arguments provided by individuals like Peter Singer are minimizing what criteria allow for moral consideration.

I think laws diminish the ability of individuals to feel satisfaction from acting ethically. Therefore, in the long run, it's better to be pro-choice. Aristotle thinks philosophy lets individuals act as they would under law without law. I think he is right. However, the benefit of this knowledge is diminished by the presence of law itself. An individual cannot truly know they would succeed individually at solving a problem if they received help at receiving that problem. Individualism is essential to personality identity, moral accomplishment, and being human.

That's the best argument I have.

Good post up to this point. I can disagree--but you make a good point.

My intuition tells me to be pro-choice.

OK------?

I've yet to align my rationality completely with this view. However, the idea of forcing someone to remain pregnant, to me, seems so repugnant I can't begin to think about being pro-life.

More personal opinion, which is fine.

Furthermore, the death of someone unaware of their future, your actions, and sedated properly, isn't that bad. I'm not even sure preventing a human from enduring this reality is necessarily bad or good.

So "field niggers" in the old South that had no life but to harvest cotton--no training, no education, could barely speak let alone read and write, totally unaware of anything but picking cotton--maybe they could be killed too, if convienient, of course.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

By "intuition," I mean the following. Sometimes a person tells you a completely rational story or a completely rational argument, and you still think it's wrong. However, you have no rational response for them. Of course, it may be illegitimate to trust your intuition. Your intuition could be wrong, and intuition can even change. The problem is it's often difficult to simply reject your intuition because it could be wrong. That's the nature of it.

It would take a more substantial argument, whatever that may be, to convince me to be pro-choice. People have intuitions about belief in God, for instance. They're probably wrong. However, it may take more than 1 legitimate argument to convince them. You may need to alleviate some of their worries they attach to the possibility of "what will happen" if you want to convince them. The fact that someone refuses to believe a rational argument does not mean they are irrational. There is simply some sort of dissonance going on. They have a view, somewhere in their subconscious, that rejects your conclusion. This view is neutral. it could be true or false. It is simply an individuals inclination to trust themselves.

As for the cotton issue, that is exactly what I was saying. The fact that humans are inclined to continue living doesn't mean their life is worth living. We could be mistaken. Negative Utilitarianism is often criticized as possibly causing the extinction of humanity. What I'm saying, then, is that isn't necessarily bad.

Pragmatically, I agree with you, though. I am just saying most of the preconceptions we are simply intuitive rather than logical - hence my worry about rejecting my inclination towards being pro-choice without determining what exactly makes me insistent on remaining pro-choice. I would hope it's a completely valid logical reasoning. Nobody likes having their intuition be proven wrong.

[Bud Struggle]

It would take a more substantial argument, whatever that may be, to convince me to be pro-choice.

Indeed!

That Freudian slip aside! Good post--again. Friday night the margaretas are setting in so let me get back to you later--I have appreciated your posts for some time.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Indeed!

That Freudian slip aside! Good post--again. Friday night the margaretas are setting in so let me get back to you later--I have appreciated your posts for some time.

Thanks. Yes, that was a slip there. I meant to say pro-life, as you mentioned.

[Sarah Palin]

You did'nt show that its not the same species, it has a human genetic code.

Um, that doesn't change the fact that it lives inside of a host and takes nutrients from it...

[Module]

Christ, wall of text- I skimmed it, and it's full of nonsense, to be frank.

I will categorically state that I'm against alien-genocide, and I don't eat meat or condone the killing of animals where it's possible to avoid.

And as for abortions- like I said, there is a point when a thing becomes a living, self-aware, thing. That's the point where removal of something that isn't alive becomes killing something that is alive. This is something science can tell us, so I'm willing to put it in the hands of scientists, rather than get pushed to extremes by opposition from either ideological group.

You skimmed it and apparently found nothing you could argue against. Well done for this non-response.

Here'a a good reason. It's best to protect everything "human" from death because we humans are such bad judges of what is actually human. We judge what is human based on our lifestyles and our timeline so that in 1830 Lily Belle Desrumeaux would have been equally blythe about Blacks not being "human as Communist Desrumeaux is today about a fetus. In 1880 Maude Desrumeaux would have been equally dismissive of Native Americans as humans as would Bertha Desrumeaux been about Jews being humans. And the list goes on.

All these people were products and their times and lifestyles--so what's to say we aren't the products or our times and lifestyles? Maybe a future generation well look back in horror at Communist Desrumeaux's pro-abortion stance as we look back at Lily Belle or Maude or Bertha.

We are just such poor judges and since we can't "know" the best we can do is err on the side of caution.

This is an absolutely absurd and mindless reply to the arguments I have made. I have already said why a fetus and a baby in terms of 'personhood' are two fundamentally different things. My argument in that regard obviously is applicable to an even greater degree to Jews/blacks/Native Americans, you know, as they're adult human beings.
You're setting up a emotional strawman argument by bringing up social groups as comparable examples. The argument that a fetus is not a human being does not come from faulty social distinctions, but from scientific consideration and, frankly, common sense.
The fact that a fetus does not participate in human society, the fact it cannot comprehend social 'rights', or even the conscious human experience of life, the world around it, and it's relationships to other people is not a matter of opinion, but is fact. It is in a womb. No amount of woudla/coulda is going to change that.
'We humans' are not bad judges of what is human except for when it benefits those in power. Lily Belle, Maude and Bertha Desrumeaux don't exist. But I do. I, unlike a hypothetical Lily Belle, Maude or Bertha, live in the modern era, where the knowledge of science is far greater and far more common than it was in 1880, where everybody who wasn't a white straight male was considered subhuman on a totally fabricated basis, for the purpose of justifying and supporting socio-economic hierarchies. Fetuses aren't a social group that participates in the economic system. In fact, in 'developed' nations the low birthrate and aging population is a cause for great concern for governments, who acknowledge the need for the constant replenishment of the labour force to support a capitalist economy.

Your opposition to a woman's right to choose is based on pure emotion at best, and dishonesty at worst. To suggest I 'could' be wrong because people have been wrong in the past is simply a cheap, transparent way to avoid arguing the point.
And isn't it funny how those who 'err on the side of caution' always 'err' on the side that makes the less amount of sense ...? You might not be able to back up your point (thus feel the need to avoid committing to it), but others aren't with you on that.

[Bud Struggle]

You skimmed it and apparently found nothing you could argue against. Well done for this non-response.


This is an absolutely absurd and mindless reply to the arguments I have made. I have already said why a fetus and a baby in terms of 'personhood' are two fundamentally different things.

Typical Revleft CCer introductory bluster!

My argument in that regard obviously is applicable to an even greater degree to Jews/blacks/Native Americans, you know, as they're adult human beings.

Only ADULT human beings. Didn't know "Adult" was now the definition of a human being.

You're setting up a emotional strawman argument by bringing up social groups as comparable examples. The argument that a fetus is not a human being does not come from faulty social distinctions, but from scientific consideration and, frankly, common sense.

Yea, science and COMMON SENSE.

The fact that a fetus does not participate in human society, the fact it cannot comprehend social 'rights', or even the conscious human experience of life, the world around it, and it's relationships to other people is not a matter of opinion, but is fact.

Lily Belle Desrumeaux would have made those exact arguments about Blacks in 1830.

It is in a womb. No amount of woudla/coulda is going to change that.

Lily Belle Desrumeaux would have said the same about a Black's location south of the Maxon Dixon line.

'We humans' are not bad judges of what is human except for when it benefits those in power.

When it comes to unborn babies--you are in power.

Lily Belle, Maude and Bertha Desrumeaux don't exist. But I do.

Other names--other places--they existed...you are all archtypes.

I, unlike a hypothetical Lily Belle, Maude or Bertha, live in the modern era,

They each lived in their own "modern era." What makes your "modern era" anything special?

where the knowledge of science is far greater and far more common than it was in 1880, where everybody who wasn't a white straight male was considered subhuman on a totally fabricated basis, for the purpose of justifying and supporting socio-economic hierarchies.

Now a human fetus is considered a subhuman on a totally fabricated basis, for the purpose of supporting a certain Politically Correct mindset.

Fetuses aren't a social group that participates in the economic system.

Neither were women for the longest time--so you acknowledge that for a long time women weren't really human?

Your opposition to a woman's right to choose is based on pure emotion at best, and dishonesty at worst.

Bluster again.

To suggest I 'could' be wrong because people have been wrong in the past is simply a cheap, transparent way to avoid arguing the point.

Well you seem to be pretty wrong in the present thinking that Communism is the way of the future--so I think you have a pretty substiantial track record of being wrong.

And isn't it funny how those who 'err on the side of caution' always 'err' on the side that makes the less amount of sense ...?

In YOUR HUMBLE OPINION!

You might not be able to back up your point (thus feel the need to avoid committing to it), but others aren't with you on that.

I don't know. Every time I take a swing through Abortion-town I get some new doubters in full term abortion on demand.

[Kronos]

So "field niggers" in the old South that had no life but to harvest cotton--no training, no education, could barely speak let alone read and write, totally unaware of anything but picking cotton

I would like to offer this song to pay tribute to our colored brothers and sisters, for their courage and perseverance during those turbulent decades, following the abolition of slavery not long before, of the 50s and 60s.

(everybody sing along)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y72cWf59Alo


Wo, are we movin' too slow?
Have you seen us,
Uncle Remus . . .
We look pretty sharp in these clothes (yes, we do)
Unless we get sprayed with a hose
It ain't bad in the day
If they squirt it your way
'Cept in the winter, when it's froze
An' it's hard if it hits
On yer nose
On yer nose

Just keep yer nose
To the grindstone, they say
Will that redeem us,
Uncle Remus . . .
I can't wait till my Fro is full-grown
I'll just throw 'way my Doo-Rag at home
I'll take a drive to BEVERLY HILLS
Just before dawn
An' knock the little jockeys
Off the rich people's lawn
An' before they get up
I'll be gone, I'll be gone
Before they get up
I'll be knocking the jockeys off the lawn
Down in the dew

[Module]

[FONT=Verdana]

Typical Revleft CCer introductory bluster!

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Only ADULT human beings. Didn't know "Adult" was now the definition of a human being.

It’s not a definition. You’re avoiding the point. Both adults and new born babies are different from fetuses in the ways I have listed previously. All differences are relevant from birth. These differences are more marked in adults, therefore the point is more obvious.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Yea, science and COMMON SENSE.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Yep.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

Lily Belle Desrumeaux would have made those exact arguments about Blacks in 1830.

She would’ve been blatantly wrong. I’m not. You could use such responses to somebody claiming the same about rocks. You’re still not making an argument. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

Lily Belle Desrumeaux would have said the same about a Black's location south of the Maxon Dixon line.

Black people aren’t in wombs. See above. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

When it comes to unborn babies--you are in power.

You’ve avoided my point. ...You’ve even cut it out of my quotes?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

Other names--other places--they existed...you are all archtypes.

Pointless response, just like your comparisons.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

They each lived in their own "modern era." What makes your "modern era" anything special?

Same reason why my opinion on whether or not the world is round is ‘special’ compared to the opinions on the same issue of those who lived 2000 years ago. It’s called evidence.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

Now a human fetus is considered a subhuman on a totally fabricated basis, for the purpose of supporting a certain Politically Correct mindset.

It’s not a fabricated basis. You don’t have a response to this.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

Neither were women for the longest time--so you acknowledge that for a long time women weren't really human?

[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Women most certainly did participate in the economic system. Unpaid work is still work. My statement that fetuses don’t participate in the economic system does not directly support the fact that they shouldn’t be regarded as a part of human society, just that they are not a socio-economic group that the ruling class has an inherent interest in subjugating.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

Bluster again.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Well you seem to be pretty wrong in the present thinking that Communism is the way of the future--so I think you have a pretty substiantial track record of being wrong. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Then you should have no problem demonstrating why. So, go on.[/FONT]

[Bud Struggle]

[QUOTE=Desrumeaux;1483437]It’s not a definition. You’re avoiding the point. Both adults and new born babies are different from fetuses in the ways I have listed previously. All differences are relevant from birth. These differences are more marked in adults, therefore the point is more obvious.[/FONT][/COLOR];/quote] It doesn't matter that there are some differences--differences dont warrent death.

[FONT=Verdana]

She would’ve been blatantly wrong. I’m not.

No...you are as wrong as she is.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

You could use such responses to somebody claiming the same about rocks. You’re still not making an argument.

And you are with your appeals to "Common Sense?" [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

Black people aren’t in wombs. See above.

You miss the point--Blacks were slaves in respect to their location. A fetus is not a human because of it's location. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

You’ve avoided my point. ...You’ve even cut it out of my quotes?

This quote:

You're setting up a emotional strawman argument by bringing up social groups as comparable examples. The argument that a fetus is not a human being does not come from faulty social distinctions, but from scientific consideration and, frankly, common sense.

There is no scietific consideration--it all comes down to personal opinion as to when human life begins. There's no scientific "life-o-meter" that can tell you when life begins. It's an ethical decision--not a scientific one.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana]

Same reason why my opinion on whether or not the world is round is ‘special’ compared to the opinions on the same issue of those who lived 2000 years ago. It’s called evidence.

This is nonsense--as I said above there is no "science" as to when human life begins. It's an ethical not a scientific decision. Either side can bring in science to prove its point. But in the end it's a moral decision and nothing else.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

It’s not a fabricated basis. You don’t have a response to this.

For any human to decide another human isn't quite up to standards is a fabrication. [/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana]

Women most certainly did participate in the economic system. Unpaid work is still work. My statement that fetuses don’t participate in the economic system does not directly support the fact that they shouldn’t be regarded as a part of human society, just that they are not a socio-economic group that the ruling class has an inherent interest in subjugating.

Well you are wrong there. Fetuses contribute to the economic system just as much as unpaid women in past ages. There are entire medical hospitals and specialties, all sorts of sonogram devices--lots of drugs and plenty of other things that make fetuses as economicly viable in the Capitalist world. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

Then you should have no problem demonstrating why. So, go on.

[/FONT]You don't ACTUALLY think there's going to be a world wide Revolution and everyone's going to turn to Marx and Stalin and Trotsky, do you?

[Module]

It doesn't matter that there are some differences--differences dont warrent death.

[FONT=&quot]No...you are as wrong as she is.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And you are with your appeals to "Common Sense?"[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You miss the point--Blacks were slaves in respect to their location. A fetus is not a human because of it's location. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This quote: There is no scietific consideration--it all comes down to personal opinion as to when human life begins. There's no scientific "life-o-meter" that can tell you when life begins. It's an ethical decision--not a scientific one.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This is nonsense--as I said above there is no "science" as to when human life begins. It's an ethical not a scientific decision. Either side can bring in science to prove its point. But in the end it's a moral decision and nothing else.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]For any human to decide another human isn't quite up to standards is a fabrication. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Well you are wrong there. Fetuses contribute to the economic system just as much as unpaid women in past ages. There are entire medical hospitals and specialties, all sorts of sonogram devices--lots of drugs and plenty of other things that make fetuses as economicly viable in the Capitalist world. [/FONT]

You don't ACTUALLY think there's going to be a world wide Revolution and everyone's going to turn to Marx and Stalin and Trotsky, do you?

I’m not going to continue this tedious line by line arguing with you.
Ethical decisions can and should be made on the basis of the avaliable scientific evidence, not what we would wish to be true (that’s unethical, really). Like I said above, what we know about fetuses, what isn’t a matter of ethics or opinions, is that they’re in the womb. It doesn’t participate in human society as an individual. From my first post; the fetus is in a lightness cavity in the body of a human being. It has no thoughts or opinions or relationships or aspirations or interests, or any appreciation for life whatsoever. [Opinion and perception can do very little to alter that. What’s relevant is the meaning of it!] So why does it have any kind of a 'right' to it? You still haven’t answered this question.
You also haven’t answered the question of what makes somebody a human being? Is that because you don’t really have an answer to that, either?
You’re right that it’s hard to place a line where an organism becomes a human being on purely scientific grounds, because the implications and relevance is social. But what isn’t hard to do is to give scientific fact social meaning, and thus make social decisions on it’s basis. Fetuses aren’t a part and have no way to be a part of human society. We can prove this through scientific evidence. So fetuses have absolutely no claim to social equality with people.
You say that differences don’t warrant death. Not inherently, no. I’m not making any claims about anything on the basis of there being differences, but on the basis of what these differences are. I wouldn’t, for example, claim that grass isn’t the same colour as the sky because there is ‘a difference’, but because what one of those differences is, is that ‘the sky isn’t green’.
What is with you and faulty comparisons between fetuses and black people? A womb isnt just a ‘location’, a womb means that a fetus inside the womb does not interact with the world around it as an individual. Black people do, and have always done so.
And before you ask, that’s not an ‘ethical distinction’, either.
Life doesn’t mean it should be regarded as a person. So is the aforementioned grass ‘alive’. Like I said, scientific fact has social implictions.
And finally, in reference to fetuses contributing to the economic system just as much as unpaid women, you obviously have no idea what that really means. Fetuses don’t do any work, or produce anything of value. Women do, and have always done so. No drugs or ‘sonograms’ or ‘plenty of other things’ make fetuses participate in the economy. That’s all I can really say to that – that’s just factually incorrect. I’m not sure how you even thought that made sense or was true.

[Bud Struggle]

No need to copy all of the above.

My point is that science tells us nothing about what makes a human beyond some random facts. It really has no explanation of consciousness (though Dennett's Consciousness Explained is a pretty good try.) Your expatiation that "humanness" has something to do with participation in society--is interesting enough, but babies don't exactly participated in society and while they and children (for the most part) don't work and don't produce anything of values are definite participants in the economy in the same way a fetus does. As to the definition of human--it's anything that is or has the potential to be a complete human being. Sperm isn't human because it's only 1/2 half of what it takes to be human. A fertilized egg is human. Now to be honest my definition is as arbitrary as your definition of a human as someone that has societal and economic viability.

The real problem though is that of rights. And rights are totally subjective. If there are God given rights than those rights are determined by the nature of the universe--if there is no God then all rights are arbitrary. A fetus can have rights in some societies, not in others. A woman can have rights in some societies and not in others. There is no right and wrong to slavery because no one has any natural right to be free. All rights come from society.

My position is that since ANYTHING can be ethical we should err on the side of caution and treat all human life as equal. Treat a Black as the same as a white as the same as a woman as the same as a fetus. We should treat everything human with the same moral worth.

That would help us avoid the mistakes we've made in the past.

[Module]

No need to copy all of the above.

My point is that science tells us nothing about what makes a human beyond some random facts. It really has no explanation of consciousness (though Dennett's Consciousness Explained is a pretty good try.) Your expatiation that "humanness" has something to do with participation in society--is interesting enough, but babies don't exactly participated in society and while they and children (for the most part) don't work and don't produce anything of values are definite participants in the economy in the same way a fetus does. As to the definition of human--it's anything that is or has the potential to be a complete human being. Sperm isn't human because it's only 1/2 half of what it takes to be human. A fertilized egg is human. Now to be honest my definition is as arbitrary as your definition of a human as someone that has societal and economic viability.

The real problem though is that of rights. And rights are totally subjective. If there are God given rights than those rights are determined by the nature of the universe--if there is no God then all rights are arbitrary. A fetus can have rights in some societies, not in others. A woman can have rights in some societies and not in others. There is no right and wrong to slavery because no one has any natural right to be free. All rights come from society.

My position is that since ANYTHING can be ethical we should err on the side of caution and treat all human life as equal. Treat a Black as the same as a white as the same as a woman as the same as a fetus. We should treat everything human with the same moral worth.

That would help us avoid the mistakes we've made in the past.

Babies do participate in society. They communicate with their parents and with people around them, they acknowledge and react to their surroundings. They do that from birth. Not before.
My point about fetuses not producing anything was, and for some reason this is the third time I’m saying this, in response to you saying that denying fetuses ‘personhood’ is made of the same stuff as was denying ‘personhood’ to black people or women.
How can the definition of human be something that has the potential to be a complete human being? If it has the potential to be one then it simply isn’t one already, is it? Do we call acorns oak trees? No, of course not. They’re not oak trees, they’re acorns.
You’re correct, all rights are subjective, there is no such thing as natural rights. But when you’re arguing about whether or not it’s unjust to end something’s life you’re speaking of your own ethics, what you consider to be good social behaviour. You say that anything can be ethical, but by suggesting we err on the side of caution you have already made an ethical judgment upon which side so-called ‘caution’ is. You have made a judgment about what should be considered enough to grant personhood – being of the human species.
Societies do not produce social rights for the hell of it, they produce them as social laws, informal or formal, for the purpose of making social interaction between individuals within a society ‘easier’. Social rights don’t exist because society sees people as deserving of certain things specifically as human beings, but as persons who interact with one another within a society. If you’re suggesting that it is good social practice not to abort fetuses on the grounds that they are ‘people’, then the burden is upon you to prove why this should be the case, when in a sociological sense people they are not. A person isn’t defined simply by biology, you are right, and I have already agreed with you, there. A person, however, in regards to how they relate to ethics, is a social concept.
You can’t simply state ‘A fetus might be a person therefore we ought to err on the side of caution and presume it is so’.
A dog might be a person. A plant might be a person. A rock might be a person. You have to draw a line somewhere, and that you have. The only thing you have so far failed to do in terms of making an ethical decision in regards to abortion is actually backing up your opinion. Ethics aren’t a free for all because they’re created by humans. The very idea that killing people is wrong is an ethical idea that is not shared by all societies.
When you say that erring on the side of caution is accepting abortion as wrong then you have made an ethical decision. Why is erring on the side of caution accepting abortion is wrong and not, instead, accepting that a woman should be able to control her own body?
You also haven’t responded to one of the main points in my original post;
Even if the fetus was a person, would it have a right to use the body of a woman against her will?
Would it be right for somebody who needed an organ transplant to forcefully take out somebody else’s organs for them to use? Should that person not be able to resist? Why should a woman not resist a fetus’ using of her body against her will in the same way?
You’re perfectly entitled to your own ethical points of view, but you shouldn’t kid yourself that you’re being fair and consistent. You are totally unable to demonstrate the consistency, or justice, in your own point of view. Your only defence is ‘you might be wrong, therefore we shall assume I am right’. It’s a flawed defence! Your argument places the welfare of the fetus above the welfare of the woman herself. That alone contradicts your idea that you oppose abortion on the grounds that all ‘human beings’ should be treated equally.

[Bud Struggle]

Desrumeaux, thanks for the civility of your replies usually in these kinds of discussions I get the usual slew of insults after a post or two.

It seems we agree on quite a few points--but our conclusions are quite different.

Anyway, my point is that "personhood" if not all inclusive of everything human can and is completely arbitrary. You could look further down the Internet dial and find sites like Stormfront deciding "personhood" belongs only to people who lack of melanin in their skin or less than 1/16th part Jewish blood. Women were for the bulk of history as "the weaker sex" and looked on as something not quite fully human. All by societal definition. All though are "ethical" judgments made to produce specific ends. What makes any societies decision of what constitutes a human wrong? As far as I could see--nothing. So if a society decides a certain group of people are not deserving of personhood they can so ordain.

I rather avoid all those decisions about what personhood is and when it begins and consider everything in the chain of human life as having the rights of personhood. And here we come to the real trouble--that of the rights of a woman over her body. Who does that body belong to society or the woman? If the body belongs to society--then there is no real problem because society dictates the ethical and if society says that a baby has the right to live inside a woman's body--then it can. On the other hand if a woman "owns" her own body--she has the right to do with it as she wants, maybe. Under property rights--I certainly can do a lot of what I want with my property--but I can't kill someone that trespasses on my land.

As we live in society--I kind of think that societies preferences take precedence over that of the individual. Sovereign personhood leads to too many real problems with people living together in peace. In the end society has to make the decision on the question of who owns the baby in a woman's body. I because of the abuses of the societal definition of personhood stated above--rather think abortion should be outlawed. Actually here in the United States for the first time (in a long time) the majority of citizens are pro-life. If that trend continues--who know how society will decide?

[Rascolnikova]

There's a lovely Phillip K. Dick story in which the law defines a person as one who can do elementary algebra. I quite approve.


One of the unfortunate habits of revleft is that arguments on abortion tend to focus on whether or not it is ethical to have an abortion in a given circumstance. The more relevant discussion is about who should have the right to make that judgment call.

[Bud Struggle]

There's a lovely Phillip K. Dick story in which the law defines a person as one who can do elementary algebra. I quite approve.

Well that lets me out as a person. Maybe I could find a job as someone's kitten. (Because I'm so cuddley and lovelable. )

One of the unfortunate habits of revleft is that arguments on abortion tend to focus on whether or not it is ethical to have an abortion in a given circumstance. The more relevant discussion is about who should have the right to make that judgment call.

Hopefully, that's where I was going with my argument.

[Rascolnikova]

Well that lets me out as a person. Maybe I could find a job as someone's kitten.

Oh perfect! I've always wanted to shoot you with minimal legal consequence.*

(Because I'm so cuddley and lovelable. )

not cuddley. . . terminally nice.

Hopefully, that's where I was going with my argument.

I hope so too.

I'd like to point out that under plenty of legal structures, you certainly can harm someone who trespasses on your land, and you certainly can harm someone who trespasses in your body. In fact, the basis for the cases where this is not legal is that bodily integrity should outweigh property rights.

in what manner does your argument hold?



* as much as I sometimes wish I could make you face reality or shut up, I would not actually ever shoot you, or even want to, really. . . especially if you were a kitten.

This is why we need re-education camps.

[Bud Struggle]

Oh perfect! I've always wanted to shoot you with minimal legal consequence.*

You're never going to make a case for Communism if you go around killing fluffy little kittens.

not cuddley. . . terminally nice.

I'll certainly take that as a compliment!

I'd like to point out that under plenty of legal structures, you certainly can harm someone who trespasses on your land, and you certainly can harm someone who trespasses in your body. In fact, the basis for the cases where this is not legal is that bodily integrity should outweigh property rights.

in what manner does your argument hold?

What I can do if someone trespasses on my land is inform the authorities that society uses to enforce its laws (the police.) They are the ones that are responsible for seeing that justice is done. Taking the "law" into my own hands is always a tricky and dangerous thing. As far as someone trespassing in your own body--that depends--if one "invites" a person into one's body (for example a woman that has concentual sex) I don't think the woman has the right to kill the guy after it's done or could society punish the man for having sex. If a woman has concentual sex that produces a baby--she shouldn't have the right to terminate that life. After all sex produces babies, there are plenty of ways of preventing insemination and she "invited" the baby in by have the sex in the first place.

I could see that rape would be quite the opposite.

* as much as I sometimes wish I could make you face reality or shut up, I would not actually ever shoot you, or even want to, really. . . especially if you were a kitten.

This is why we need re-education camps.

[Nwoye]

I posted this in another thread on abortion but I figure I'll post it here:

suppose a woman's (adult) son develops a serious and rare form of cancer, one which requires an immediate heart/liver/spleen whatever transplant. the problem is, only a direct relative can provide the new organ, and his mother is the only direct relative he has (for whatever reason). Is that mother morally obligated to give up a part of her body for the transplant? And furthermore, can the state force her to do so?

[Richard Nixon]

I posted this in another thread on abortion but I figure I'll post it here:

suppose a woman's (adult) son develops a serious and rare form of cancer, one which requires an immediate heart/liver/spleen whatever transplant. the problem is, only a direct relative can provide the new organ, and his mother is the only direct relative he has (for whatever reason). Is that mother morally obligated to give up a part of her body for the transplant? And furthermore, can the state force her to do so?

Yes because that would save a life. However I'd prefer organ harvesting from healthy prisoners.