Which Of These Three Starements Do You Reject? (Abortion Related)

[David Sklansky]

Given my recent post about how some people won't examine their thoughts for inconsistencies, I wanted to ressurect a topic I broached before in this explicit way. But please understand that I choose this topic only because it is the best real world example of the syndrome that I can think of.

The following are three different points of view that a person can have. Aside from tortured rationalizations, it is clearly not possible to have all three simultaneously and be consistent. But some try to.

Anyway here are three statements. Logically you must pick at least one to reject.

1. If there are clinics in this country which kill mildly handicapped children brought to them by lazy parents, it is not morally wrong to bomb those clinics, risking injury or death to the killers, even if such bombings are against the law, as long as other remedies don't work and bombings do.

2. Fetuses are equally human as children in spite of their age, size, and the fact that they are inside of a mother and couldn't survive otherwise.

3. It is morally WRONG to bomb abortion clinics if there is risk of injury or death to the abortionists, even if there is no other remedy that works but bombings do.

[Piers]

Feelings as to what’s morally right and wrong are determined by an emotional response to the situation. Logic is only indirectly relevant. I see no problem with someone holding contradictory moral beliefs.

Its possible that something bad might happen as a result of holding inconsistent moral beliefs. But then the worlds a dangerous place and there is never any way to guarantee bad stuff won’t happen.

Personally I disagree with 1, agree with 3 and have no feel for 2.

[kerowo]

So either it's a human from conception or open season on tards? Or do I get to reject both 1 and 2?

You should have added a 4 where the fetus is convicted of a captial crime, then is is morally wrong to execute it?

[darom03]

I have to disagree on the first two as they are actually tightly linked.

If you do not believe fetuses are equally human, then you can't logically justify statement number one.

The third one is difficult to answer. If you mean that I only have to agree that it is morally wrong to bomb clinics where abortionists are endangered, then I agree. If you mean that it is then - implicit - morally correct to bomb the clinics as long as no abortionists get hurt, then i can't answer the question as it is a false statement.

I believe in the right to abortion and does not believe that fetuses are human beings. My choices should reflect that.

[ChrisV]

I disagree with at least (2) and possibly (1) also.

Most pro-choice folks disagree with (2), that's really the whole point. Very few people are in favour of killing children.

[eMbAh]

The only real answer is nr 2 but I don't agree with it because you can't force young 17 year old girls to have a child against their will

bombing an abortion clinic is absurd, especially if you kill anyone

am i missing the point?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Logically you must pick at least one to reject.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Why must the rejection be all or nothing?

I have about a 50% rejection level for #1. About a 85% rejection level for #2. And about a 5% rejection level for #3.

Why do you think these have to be 0% or 100%? There is a limit to your ability to recognize what is and is not rational.

PairTheBoard

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Logically you must pick at least one to reject.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Why must the rejection be all or nothing?

I have about a 50% rejection level for #1. About a 85% rejection level for #2. And about a 5% rejection level for #3.

Why do you think these have to be 0% or 100%? There is a limit to your ability to recognize what is and is not rational.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

The following are three different points of view that a person can have. Aside from tortured rationalizations, it is clearly not possible to have all three simultaneously and be consistent. But some try to.

[/ QUOTE ]

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Logically you must pick at least one to reject.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Why must the rejection be all or nothing?

I have about a 50% rejection level for #1. About a 85% rejection level for #2. And about a 5% rejection level for #3.

Why do you think these have to be 0% or 100%? There is a limit to your ability to recognize what is and is not rational.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

The following are three different points of view that a person can have. Aside from tortured rationalizations, it is clearly not possible to have all three simultaneously and be consistent. But some try to.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh. I see. Because you say so. yes daddy.

PairTheBoard

[bluesbassman]

I reject only #2.

[eMbAh]

seems i misunderstood the post, i also reject #2

[andyfox]

If it's not morally wrong to bomb clinics where they're killing children, and fetuses are eqvuialent to children, then it can't be morally wrong to bomb abortion clinics.

I understand that we're often not 100% certain of the facts or how we fell about things. I'm assuming David's post assumes that we are, and that, if we are, we cannot logically hold to all three propositions simultaneously.

[PantsOnFire]

I reject #1 and #2.

[eMbAh]

I don't understand? you say: if it's not morally wrong to bomb clinics then it can't be morally wrong to do it

I would say that it's immoral to bomb the clinic but it's not immoral to make an abortion

[2OuterJitsu]

I reject 1 & 3.

Why can't I accept #2 and still believe that abortions are not immoral(sic)?

[vhawk01]

Did any of you guys read the questions? He just said you must logically reject at least one of them. You all reject 1 or 2 and then ask dumb questions.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
I reject 1 & 3.

Why can't I accept #2 and still believe that abortions are not immoral(sic)?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it is morally wrong to bomb retarded kid killing clinics (rejecting 1) and
it is morally right to bomb fetus killing clinics (rejecting 3) then saying
a fetus is a child (accepting 2) doesn't fit because you are saying you approve of killing kids who are retarded unless they are a fetus. Then you give fetus' the same status as children.

So you are basically for killing retarded people?

This wouldn't be as confusing if it wasn't as full of double negatives.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Given my recent post about how some people won't examine their thoughts for inconsistencies, I wanted to ressurect a topic I broached before in this explicit way. But please understand that I choose this topic only because it is the best real world example of the syndrome that I can think of.

The following are three different points of view that a person can have. Aside from tortured rationalizations, it is clearly not possible to have all three simultaneously and be consistent. But some try to.

Anyway here are three statements. Logically you must pick at least one to reject.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm no friggin' monument to justice! I lost my hand! I lost my bride! Johnny has his hand! Johnny has his bride! You want me to take my heartache, put it away and forget?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nicholas Cage as Ronny Cammareri in "Moonstruck" as he berates Cher for denying that he lost his hand because of his brother(Danny Aiello).

The world is full of inconsistencies and paradoxes.To deny this as an objective manifestation present in our outer and inner world is illusory. Isn't there a cliche connecting consistency and small minds?

[Deorum]

The inconsistencies:

1. It's okay to bomb a clinic where they kill children.

2. A fetus is a child.

3. It's not okay to bomb a clinic where they kill children (fetus = child as per #2).

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
The inconsistencies:

1. It's okay to bomb a clinic where they kill children.

2. A fetus is a child.

3. It's not okay to bomb a clinic where they kill children (fetus = child as per #2).


[/ QUOTE ]

All the above is true but a qualitative understanding might say that a handicapped born child is different than an unborn child. His judgment could very well be that he rejects none of the scenarios.

This thought would not try to be consistent but take a wider perspective of "child" than you would expect. A soldier "kills" in war and another "kills" on the street during a robbery. At what point is there a separation of identity of the two individuals?

Judgment is a sticky matter and "judge not" is a powerful mantra for personal edification.

[soon2bepro]

Reject 1 & 2. as long as by handicapped you mean intellectually handicapped. I don't think they should be considered humans. I guess if you suggested a temporary such condition you'd put me in a difficult position though.

Because I would say it's not ok to kill an unconcious man simply because he will wake up after a while, but by the same token it shouldn't be ok to kill a fetus since it will likely become a human. I don't have a good answer to this.

I guess it has to do with the fact that there are people who already know this unconscious man and love him/like him/need him, and when you kill him you're hurting them by taking away their chance to see him again. If there are no such people, I guess the only moral responsibility has to do with everyone's need for assurance that they won't be killed whenever they're not watching.

It could also have to do with the likeliness of becoming a human, but I'm not sure.

I need to do more thinking on the subject, that's for sure.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
I reject #1 and #2.

[/ QUOTE ]

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
The inconsistencies:

1. It's okay to bomb a clinic where they kill children.

2. A fetus is a child.

3. It's not okay to bomb a clinic where they kill children (fetus = child as per #2).




All the above is true but a qualitative understanding might say that a handicapped born child is different than an unborn child. His judgment could very well be that he rejects none of the scenarios.

This thought would not try to be consistent but take a wider perspective of "child" than you would expect. A soldier "kills" in war and another "kills" on the street during a robbery. At what point is there a separation of identity of the two individuals?

Judgment is a sticky matter and "judge not" is a powerful mantra for personal edification.



[/ QUOTE ]

Also ,as noted in the original post by OP there are the adjectives "fetal child" and "retarded child". Clearly you cannot then base your syllogism(or lack thereof) by the word "child" as there are of course differences. So which is more logical; the use of "child" or the qualifying adjectives?

This is a difficulty with mathematical presentation of real life situations not the least of which is the attempting to place a number implicitly on a word. If "child" were somehow a number,say "3" then there is no problem, the queries would solve themselves. Otherwise the idea of a "retarded 3" or "fetal 3" must be dealt with.

[David Sklansky]

The child being handicapped had nothing to do with the point at all. I almost didn't even use that word. I did it only to provide some supposed reason for the killing.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Logically you must pick at least one to reject.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Why must the rejection be all or nothing?

I have about a 50% rejection level for #1. About a 85% rejection level for #2. And about a 5% rejection level for #3.


PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally accept that answer. In fact it is close to mine. But it strays from the point. Because in real life many people won't admit that they do this. Especially in regards to #2

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
he child being handicapped had nothing to do with the point at all. I almost didn't even use that word. I did it only to provide some supposed reason for the killing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Appreciate that, but you can change "handicapped" to "healthy" or just plain "child" and my observer can think the same logically and accept all three statements.No rejections.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
I did it only to provide some supposed reason for the killing.

[/ QUOTE ]
I suppose a more general arguement is to examine the situations where a human life is voluntarily taken.

Some of the more prominent examples are capital punishment, euthenasia, abortion, assisted suicide. This could even be extended to making life-threatening decisions like separating co-joined twins.

All of these have differenct facets to each situation. However, I can say in general that I do not condone the bombing or killing of anyone who would take it upon to themselves to carry out any of these actions unless I came across someone in act and whatever they were doing was currently illegal.

[Drew_aces15]

Proponents of abortion (or many of them) have long since stopped trying to say a fetus is not human. What else could it be? Instead the status of "person-hood" is either bestowed or denied to it. In this case I see #2 as irrelevant, because certain people can justify murder without regard to the victim being human.

Killing handicapped children, unborn children, abortion doctors, or handicapped-children-killers is immoral. Is the real question, "is killing people to stop an injustice like abortion or euthanasia moral or justified?"? If so, I say no.

I reject #1 - and lament that in this hypothetical, there are no other remedies

[luckyme]

I tend to reject any moral question that has an ALWAYS in it, or implies one.
So, all 3 are rejected on moral grounds, with 3 the closest to being accepted.
1. would be more tempting if the parents were in the building, but still rejected. As set up,it's a bit like blaming the gun.

luckyme

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
The child being handicapped had nothing to do with the point at all. I almost didn't even use that word. I did it only to provide some supposed reason for the killing.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does make a difference when weighing the moral principles involved. If the children were in horrible agony due to an illness they are going to die from within the week and these are mercy killings by the parents, it evokes different moral principles than if they are having the kids killed because they are say, boys, or brown eyed, or they don't like the shape of their noses.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Logically you must pick at least one to reject.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Why must the rejection be all or nothing?

I have about a 50% rejection level for #1. About a 85% rejection level for #2. And about a 5% rejection level for #3.


PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally accept that answer. In fact it is close to mine. But it strays from the point. Because in real life many people won't admit that they do this. Especially in regards to #2

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is, this is probabably the way most people actually come to determine their position on the issues. They apply an intuitive analogue type processing to these various inclinations. Out of that they come to decisions on how to act. Their decisions must be all or nothing. Either they vote yes or no. Either they speak out against the bombings or they don't. They have arrived at their decisions in a rational way. It works.

Now you claim they should examine their decisions based on the unrealistic model of all or nothing denials of certain propositions. The model is not even realistic for how you think. Then you condemn them because they cannot justify their decisions according to a model neither you nor they employ to arrive at their decisions. You aren't making any sense.

PairTheBoard

[Phil153]

If fetuses are full human beings than bombing abortion clinics is not morally wrong under most moral systems.

[David Sklansky]

But some people DO subscribe to those positions 100%. Or at least SAY they do. Especially the one about fetuses being human beings.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
But some people DO subscribe to those positions 100%. Or at least SAY they do. Especially the one about fetuses being human beings.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Saying" they do amounts to the kind of Decision to Act that I was talking about. They commit to that position like they would casting a vote. What's behind the vote may be very mixed. But at some point they have to pull the lever. Especially if they're in politics.

PairTheBoard

[goofball]

Maybe your hospital in #1 should lure in street orphans, then kill them.

[2OuterJitsu]

[ QUOTE ]
But some people DO subscribe to those positions 100%. Or at least SAY they do. Especially the one about fetuses being human beings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why aren’t fetuses human beings?

BTW I reject 1&3.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But some people DO subscribe to those positions 100%. Or at least SAY they do. Especially the one about fetuses being human beings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why aren’t fetuses human beings?

BTW I reject 1&3.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because then abortion would be murder.

A more interesting question is when do they become human beings.

[goodgrief]

At a certain state, a fetus is not a human being because it is incapable of surviving outside of my body. It drinks my blood and eats my flesh. As I am not Jesus, I object to this without my consent. I don't fully understand why men care about abortion. They wouldn't tolerate the Alien growing in their abdomens without their consent, not for a moment. But since it can't happen to them, suddenly it is not so bad for some outside lifeform to live off of somebody else's body.

I don't think the male opinion on abortion is remotely relevant, be you Sklansky, be you Albert Einstein for that matter. What you guys are missing about the story of Mary and Jesus is that the angel came to Mary and informed her. She did have a choice. If she had said "eff no," then the angel would have gone to somebody else. My reading of it anyway. For all we know, the angel of God inquired of lots of women if they wanted to carry the son of God and got a good horse laugh, and that's why he was reduced to asking this of a starry-eyed 14 year old to begin with.

As for Sklansky's questions, abortion isn't about logic and reason. It is about the visceral horror of having an unwanted life form, frequently the child of your rapist or the child of somebody you now hate and regret sleeping with, growing in your very body. It is quite simply intolerable, in the way that allowing a cancer cell free reign to grow in your body is intolerable. Making excuses for male creeps who bomb abortion clinics, on the grounds that they are logically consistent, is horsehockey. Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. You are not a little mind. You are better than this.





[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But some people DO subscribe to those positions 100%. Or at least SAY they do. Especially the one about fetuses being human beings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why aren’t fetuses human beings?

BTW I reject 1&3.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
At a certain state, a fetus is not a human being because it is incapable of surviving outside of my body. It drinks my blood and eats my flesh. As I am not Jesus, I object to this without my consent.

[/ QUOTE ]
This idea has some problems. Firstly, it assumes that you have the right to do whatever you please with your body. Medicine does not allow self harm, and society does allow suicide or euthanasia, yet we allow the killing of something which isn't actually your body at all.

Secondly, dependency is a slippery slope. A baby requires constant care, involving a significant part of your time and resources, and is essentially helpless. Yet, society forces you to care for it, even against your will, and punishes you if you kill it, even though it totally dependent on you.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the male opinion on abortion is remotely relevant

[/ QUOTE ]
That's like saying that the white opinion on Tutsi-Hutu genocide is not remotely relevant. If society accepts that the baby is a legitimate third party, then what you (or women) think has no bearing on laws. And really, it's not like pregnancy is unexpected or unavoidable, except in cases of rape where abortion is usually allowed under any system. You claim control over your body then claim no responsibility when you create a life then decide to kill it.

BTW I am pro abortion, but find your claims of absolute rights to be without merit.

[goodgrief]

Whoa, dude, a fetus is not a baby, and if you think a fetus is a baby, as many men do, as I say, get back to me when you've carried the baby in your body for 9 months and then strained it out through your genitals.

[eMbAh]

I don't understand your outburst? anyone rejecting #2 is pretty much agreeing with you

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Whoa, dude, a fetus is not a baby, and if you think a fetus is a baby, as many men do, as I say, get back to me when you've carried the baby in your body for 9 months and then strained it out through your genitals.

[/ QUOTE ]
Always a pleasure to have a rational debate with a woman.

[kerowo]

I think it comes out through only one genital though.

[goodgrief]

Before you are capable of having a rational debate, you need to be capable of reading for comprehension. You're not at that level yet.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whoa, dude, a fetus is not a baby, and if you think a fetus is a baby, as many men do, as I say, get back to me when you've carried the baby in your body for 9 months and then strained it out through your genitals.

[/ QUOTE ]
Always a pleasure to have a rational debate with a woman.

[/ QUOTE ]
This was an excellent start to my day. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the male opinion on abortion is remotely relevant, be you Sklansky, be you Albert Einstein for that matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement biases your stand. A father has as much right as a mother, IMHO, except in matters of non-consensual pregnancies, to decide on the viability and future of the fetus.

Society doesn't agree. The courts don't agree.

Abortion for convenience is retarded. The issue has no absolute morality.

[ QUOTE ]
Whoa, dude, a fetus is not a baby, and if you think a fetus is a baby, as many men do, as I say, get back to me when you've carried the baby in your body for 9 months and then strained it out through your genitals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I chuckled. But you further establish your bias. So you have a womb. It's yours to do as you like with. What of the emotional distress you cause the father when you come back from a clinic saying you had an abortion because you didn't feel ready to bring a baby into this world?

Is that not relevant?

[PairTheBoard]

I think the argument can reasonably be made by someone who is both Pro-Choice and who believes that Fetuses are Fully Human, or as in the OP, "Fetuses are equally human as children"; that even though Fetuses are equally human as children the circumstance of abortion are different than the circumstances of killing children. These differences in circumstances bring in additional moral principles that must be weighed and which produce a different quality of moral judgement for the two. While there may still be a moral condemnation of abortion, the quality of moral judment is such that the state should not involve itself in the decision by making abortions illegal. While the quality of moral judgement for killing children is such that the State should involve itself. This in fact is, I believe, pretty much the position a lot of religious minded politicians take.

I think the OP strongly condemns it as "illogical". We must draw conclusions from premises the way the OP dictates. I think the OP overestimates his ability to recognize what is and is not rational.

PairTheBoard

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whoa, dude, a fetus is not a baby, and if you think a fetus is a baby, as many men do, as I say, get back to me when you've carried the baby in your body for 9 months and then strained it out through your genitals.

[/ QUOTE ]
Always a pleasure to have a rational debate with a woman.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh, it sucks for me that idiots share my views. I could do a much better job of arguing this position.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the argument can reasonably be made by someone who is both Pro-Choice and who believes that Fetuses are Fully Human, or as in the OP, "Fetuses are equally human as children"; that even though Fetuses are equally human as children the circumstance of abortion are different than the circumstances of killing children. These differences in circumstances bring in additional moral principles that must be weighed and which produce a different quality of moral judgement for the two. While there may still be a moral condemnation of abortion, the quality of moral judment is such that the state should not involve itself in the decision by making abortions illegal. While the quality of moral judgement for killing children is such that the State should involve itself. This in fact is, I believe, pretty much the position a lot of religious minded politicians take.

I think the OP strongly condemns it as "illogical". We must draw conclusions from premises the way the OP dictates. I think the OP overestimates his ability to recognize what is and is not rational.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I don't think fetuses are anything close to human children, but for the sake of fair argument, I often grant my opponent the seemingly important concession that fetuses=human children. I still have no problem demonstrating that abortion is still just peachy.

[borisp]

Haven't read the thread, but #2 is obviously a reject because our cognitive analysis of this question is something the fetuses are incapable of, and our capability for this cognitive analysis is our criterion for justifying the elevation of human beings to the status of being able to make these ridiculous abstract judgments.

Oops, I was applying Sklansky's consistency bit. Guess I shouldn't have responded then. Oops, I'm doing it again.

[chillrob]

Wow, I am so tempted to reply to the ridiculous statements made by the "female member" but they seem in no way related to the OP so I will refrain. Maybe she should start another thread for the subject, if she actually wants to bother posts made by the global womb-less minority.

Anyway, with regards to the original post, I agree with 2 and 3 and may agree with 1 as well, although I would have to think about it a lot and the exact formulation of the choice seems to be changing throughout the thread.

I definately think it is possible to be logically consistent and still agree with all 3 statements. For Sklansky's logical impossibility to hold true, he is making an assumption which I disagree with. His assumption is that life is generally a positive thing. I believe that life is most basically a negative, and support abortion in all cases because I believe it to be the most painless way out of an existence destined to be filled with pain. I do believe fetuses are human, and believe the most humane thing to do is to extinguish their desitined to be painful lives as quickly and painlessly as possible.

I would probably not object to the existence child-killing clinic if I could be assured that the children were being killed in a completely pain-free manner, and if the "lazy parents" were willing to either also accept the same pain-free death, or be sterilized so that they would bring no one else into the world.

If these clinics, however, are places where the children suffer more pain, i.e. - are tortured to death, and there is no way for the law to stop them, I guess I would think that bombing them was ok, and therefore would reject none of the three statements.

[Greeksquared]

I have a question that I have always wanted answered posed to those that reject #2...

When is the point in the creation of life where some one is considered human. A 3 month old child has no more chance at surviving by itself than a newly fertilized egg. This can even be true for children up to 2 years of age. I'm not sure how I would do now without my mom.

So where is this point? And why do you feel this way?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a question that I have always wanted answered posed to those that reject #2...

When is the point in the creation of life where some one is considered human. A 3 month old child has no more chance at surviving by itself than a newly fertilized egg. This can even be true for children up to 2 years of age. I'm not sure how I would do now without my mom.

So where is this point? And why do you feel this way?

[/ QUOTE ]
there is no 'Point', so people just make one up.

luckyme

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
Given my recent post about how some people won't examine their thoughts for inconsistencies, I wanted to ressurect a topic I broached before in this explicit way. But please understand that I choose this topic only because it is the best real world example of the syndrome that I can think of.

The following are three different points of view that a person can have. Aside from tortured rationalizations, it is clearly not possible to have all three simultaneously and be consistent. But some try to.

Anyway here are three statements. Logically you must pick at least one to reject.

1. If there are clinics in this country which kill mildly handicapped children brought to them by lazy parents, it is not morally wrong to bomb those clinics, risking injury or death to the killers, even if such bombings are against the law, as long as other remedies don't work and bombings do.

[/ QUOTE ]
I reject this because I think it is wrong to perform "vigilante justice" via a bombing attempt. Even if you can't seem to stop them any other way, as mentioned, you still don't get to play God.
[ QUOTE ]

2. Fetuses are equally human as children in spite of their age, size, and the fact that they are inside of a mother and couldn't survive otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]
I accept this one, as I believe fetuses and infants and mentally incapacitated adults, all of whom could not survive without assistance, should be allowed to live.
[ QUOTE ]

3. It is morally WRONG to bomb abortion clinics if there is risk of injury or death to the abortionists, even if there is no other remedy that works but bombings do.

[/ QUOTE ]
I accept this one, again due to the idea of vigilante "justice" being wrong.

Not sure why this is being asked, although I assumed it was an attempt to show how those who are anti-abortion are inconsistent (Is that right, Sklansky?) Maybe it would be more appropriate to classify those who choose to bomb abortion clinics as inconsistent? I can't think of any sane person who would bomb a clinic, so it should be no surprise that a nutjob might have some inconsistent reasoning.

All I can surmise from this post is that Sklansky is pointing out that people who bomb abortion clinics are not using consistent reasoning. Anybody find something else? Maybe I am missing the point, please enlighten me if so.

[AlexM]

I reject 1 and 2, but...

I don't see how it's logically necessary to reject one. There's no reason a person can't believe a fetus is equally human as anyone and still support a mother's right to abortion while opposing the murder of born children.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a question that I have always wanted answered posed to those that reject #2...

When is the point in the creation of life where some one is considered human. A 3 month old child has no more chance at surviving by itself than a newly fertilized egg. This can even be true for children up to 2 years of age. I'm not sure how I would do now without my mom.

So where is this point? And why do you feel this way?

[/ QUOTE ]

Once the baby meets the following criteria, especially those bolded:

an·i·mal - noun

1. any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli

This all happens about halfway through the pregnancy I believe.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the male opinion on abortion is remotely relevant

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with most of what you said, but this is plain sexist.

[David Sklansky]

"At a certain state, a fetus is not a human being because it is incapable of surviving outside of my body."

So what happens when technology can keep two month old fetuses alive outside the womb?

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
2. Fetuses are equally human as children in spite of their age, size, and the fact that they are inside of a mother and couldn't survive otherwise.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Why aren’t fetuses human beings?


[/ QUOTE ]

I really have difficulty seeing why people get so worked up about this point. Its just a matter of how we choose to define the word human. One might have esthetical objects to someone’s definition but its impossible for anyone to actually be wrong.

The only problem would be if the concept of human here was being automatically tied in with some already pre-existing definition of human, say in some legal documents. However the OP did give such a reference point.

[btmagnetw]

[ QUOTE ]
"At a certain state, a fetus is not a human being because it is incapable of surviving outside of my body."

So what happens when technology can keep two month old fetuses alive outside the womb?

[/ QUOTE ]why would that matter to him? the fetus itself is still inviable.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a question that I have always wanted answered posed to those that reject #2...

When is the point in the creation of life where some one is considered human. A 3 month old child has no more chance at surviving by itself than a newly fertilized egg. This can even be true for children up to 2 years of age. I'm not sure how I would do now without my mom.

So where is this point? And why do you feel this way?

[/ QUOTE ]
there is no 'Point', so people just make one up.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a point because an egg with a sperm sticking out of it isn't human while a new born is. No one knows when it is.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a question that I have always wanted answered posed to those that reject #2...

When is the point in the creation of life where some one is considered human. A 3 month old child has no more chance at surviving by itself than a newly fertilized egg. This can even be true for children up to 2 years of age. I'm not sure how I would do now without my mom.

So where is this point? And why do you feel this way?

[/ QUOTE ]
there is no 'Point', so people just make one up.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a point because an egg with a sperm sticking out of it isn't human while a new born is. No one knows when it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, we'll leave it at that.
Essentially, I claim that we don't know where it is because there is no point to 'know'. We pick one, as we do with many situations in a state of change (hill, mountain. child-adult).
You claim because we don't know where the point is, therefore there is one.
oh,well,

luckyme

[kerowo]

Because we don't know where the point is or how to determine it now doesn't mean there isn't one. It doesn't take much of an imagination to realize that on the journey from goo to you there was a point where you changed from primarily not human to primarily human.

Unfortunately, people use their political/religous views to paint this picture and define that point to suit their needs and the abortion debate gets bogged down in these details that have no proof only feeling.

[Peter666]

Rejecting #3 is the politically incorrect answer, and therefore the best answer.

The only logical alternative is to admit that all fetuses, infants, and retards are parasites and should be disposed of when necessary.

[chillrob]

It seems like no one else is taking on the original argument, that it is impossible to logically accept all three statements. It is only impossible if one assumes that human life is something positive. I would like to see Mr. Sklansky (or someone else) address this.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like no one else is taking on the originaly argument, that it is impossible to logically accept all three statements. It is only impossible if one assumes that human life is something positive. I would like to see Mr. Sklansky (or someone else) address this.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? LDO.

[chillrob]

LDO?

[kerowo]

Like duh, obviously

[chillrob]

I don't think someone positing logical arguments should impose their own value systems on others.

[kerowo]

I said LDO because I didn't think anyone but a sociopath would have a problem accepting as axiomatic that human life has value.

[chillrob]

I am not a sociopath, nor in favor of murder, but I feel human life has more negative than positive (as explained more in an earlier post). I believe all abortions are positive because it saves the individual from a lifetime of pain. Very similar reasoning to that supporting euthanasia.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not a sociopath, nor in favor of murder, but I feel human life has more negative than positive (as explained more in an earlier post). I believe all abortions are positive because it saves the individual from a lifetime of pain. Very similar reasoning to that supporting euthanasia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dumb Post of the Day.

[chillrob]

How about least foolishly optimistic post ever?

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
How about least foolishly optimistic post ever?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you keep yourself alive then?

You've either found a reason to go on living or you are a coward for not ending your life. Which is it? And, assuming you are not a coward, what is the reason?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not a sociopath, nor in favor of murder, but I feel human life has more negative than positive (as explained more in an earlier post). I believe all abortions are positive because it saves the individual from a lifetime of pain. Very similar reasoning to that supporting euthanasia.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that is in any way similar to your argument for supporting euthenasia, you should probably not bother making any threads about your position on euthenasia.

[Phil153]

He didn't say life should be ended. Merely that it's better off not being started at this time in history.

[chillrob]

This is pretty close to what I believe - I certainly believe the prevention of new life is better than ending life. I know that abortion does end some life (regardless of whether someone chooses to consider it full human life or not) but any life is going to be ended one way or the other at some point - I think abortion is the best way for it to end.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
This is pretty close to what I believe - I certainly believe the prevention of new life is better than ending life. I know that abortion does end some life (regardless of whether someone chooses to consider it full human life or not) but any life is going to be ended one way or the other at some point - I think abortion is the best way for it to end.

[/ QUOTE ]

To make a conclusion like that, one has to know what will happen in the afterlife, "to sleep perchance to dream - ay, there's the rub." But there is no way to prove (with human reasoning) what will happen, and thus, no reason to make your conclusions.

[chillrob]

I don't see how anything I have said relates in any way to the existence or non-existence of an afterlife. I personally don't believe there is one, but even if there is, that does not change the general negativity of human life on this plane of existence.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
At a certain state, a fetus is not a human being because it is incapable of surviving outside of my body. It drinks my blood and eats my flesh. As I am not Jesus, I object to this without my consent. I don't fully understand why men care about abortion. They wouldn't tolerate the Alien growing in their abdomens without their consent, not for a moment. But since it can't happen to them, suddenly it is not so bad for some outside lifeform to live off of somebody else's body.

I don't think the male opinion on abortion is remotely relevant, be you Sklansky, be you Albert Einstein for that matter. What you guys are missing about the story of Mary and Jesus is that the angel came to Mary and informed her. She did have a choice. If she had said "eff no," then the angel would have gone to somebody else. My reading of it anyway. For all we know, the angel of God inquired of lots of women if they wanted to carry the son of God and got a good horse laugh, and that's why he was reduced to asking this of a starry-eyed 14 year old to begin with.

As for Sklansky's questions, abortion isn't about logic and reason. It is about the visceral horror of having an unwanted life form, frequently the child of your rapist or the child of somebody you now hate and regret sleeping with, growing in your very body. It is quite simply intolerable, in the way that allowing a cancer cell free reign to grow in your body is intolerable. Making excuses for male creeps who bomb abortion clinics, on the grounds that they are logically consistent, is horsehockey. Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. You are not a little mind. You are better than this.





[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But some people DO subscribe to those positions 100%. Or at least SAY they do. Especially the one about fetuses being human beings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why aren’t fetuses human beings?

BTW I reject 1&3.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]



If you consented to sex you consented to at least a chance of pregnancy. This is the equivalent of saying to someone "maybe you should come on a boat trip with me". If the person ends up showing to the boat trip, do you have a right to throw him off the boat mid way?

If you were raped... i agree with you. The baby, as far as your concerned, is a parasite growing inside.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At a certain state, a fetus is not a human being because it is incapable of surviving outside of my body. It drinks my blood and eats my flesh. As I am not Jesus, I object to this without my consent. I don't fully understand why men care about abortion. They wouldn't tolerate the Alien growing in their abdomens without their consent, not for a moment. But since it can't happen to them, suddenly it is not so bad for some outside lifeform to live off of somebody else's body.

I don't think the male opinion on abortion is remotely relevant, be you Sklansky, be you Albert Einstein for that matter. What you guys are missing about the story of Mary and Jesus is that the angel came to Mary and informed her. She did have a choice. If she had said "eff no," then the angel would have gone to somebody else. My reading of it anyway. For all we know, the angel of God inquired of lots of women if they wanted to carry the son of God and got a good horse laugh, and that's why he was reduced to asking this of a starry-eyed 14 year old to begin with.

As for Sklansky's questions, abortion isn't about logic and reason. It is about the visceral horror of having an unwanted life form, frequently the child of your rapist or the child of somebody you now hate and regret sleeping with, growing in your very body. It is quite simply intolerable, in the way that allowing a cancer cell free reign to grow in your body is intolerable. Making excuses for male creeps who bomb abortion clinics, on the grounds that they are logically consistent, is horsehockey. Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. You are not a little mind. You are better than this.





[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But some people DO subscribe to those positions 100%. Or at least SAY they do. Especially the one about fetuses being human beings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why aren’t fetuses human beings?

BTW I reject 1&3.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]



If you consented to sex you consented to at least a chance of pregnancy. This is the equivalent of saying to someone "maybe you should come on a boat trip with me". If the person ends up showing to the boat trip, do you have a right to throw him off the boat mid way?

If you were raped... i agree with you. The baby, as far as your concerned, is a parasite growing inside.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the direction rational people usually head to in abortion debates (as opposed to those who just dig their feet in, kick and scream about Jesus and souls and whatever). So, I would be remiss if I didn't ask you the following: What 'chance' threshold corresponds to what level of responsibility? If you consented to sex, you consented to...lets say a 10% chance of pregnancy. Does this make you 100% culpable? Specifically, contrast it to a rape scenario, where we can probably all agree you are 0% culpable. Do you need to be 0% culpable for abortion to be wrong, or just some small amount? Lets say you go and have a vasectomy and your wife has tubal ligation and then you consent to have sex. Your chance of getting pregnant in this case is probably pretty close to your chance of being raped and impregnated walking down the street at midnight. Very low. What is your culpability in this situation?

FWIW, I generally agree with your stance. I think that the 'implicit contract' argument is a good one. I think we might just disagree on what acts constitute this implicit contract with the potential fetus. I think "finding out you are pregnant and not getting an abortion for a few months" is high on the list. "Having a condom break" probably isn't.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If you consented to sex you consented to at least a chance of pregnancy. This is the equivalent of saying to someone "maybe you should come on a boat trip with me". If the person ends up showing to the boat trip, do you have a right to throw him off the boat mid way?

[/ QUOTE ]

Even cleaned up so it's a fitting analogy, I don't see that argument even getting off the ground. - You're invited on a boat ride, you agree, the boat starts to sink, ( which you knew was a risk), should you allow yourself to drown to 'go through with the deal you made'?

People using this argument should have their house, car and health insurance company declare bankruptcy when they make a claim just to see if they really live by this 'accepting the risk' philosophy and simply shrug and say, "well, I agreed to this."

Every day we take actions with risk, that doesn't bind us to suffering the full effects of the damage just to keep some deal we didn't make.

When you go into a restaurant you are at some risk of being poisoned. So now you should go through with your death? Seek treatment? Why, you agreed to the risk?

When you drive across a bridge there is some chance it'll collapse, should you jump or go through with the fall.

When you drive home from work, you risk getting hit by a drunk driver, should you seek treatment? Would you sue? why, you agreed to it?

luckyme

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Every day we take actions with risk, that doesn't bind us to suffering the full effects of the damage just to keep some deal we didn't make.

[/ QUOTE ]
In the case of parenthood, it does. What about parents who discover, on birth, that their child is retarded, or deformed, or otherwise deficient? They're not allowed to kill it, even though it's barely more "human" than a fetus (arguably less), and are forced to care to it for 18 years. Surely this is a greater burden than a natural part of life, pregnancy? Why one and not the other? The abortion advocates show a great deal of inconsistency here.

As for goodgrief, I'd wager that most women don't share her Sigourney-Weaver-in-Alien type horror when they have an inconvenient pregnancy.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every day we take actions with risk, that doesn't bind us to suffering the full effects of the damage just to keep some deal we didn't make.

[/ QUOTE ]
In the case of parenthood, it does. What about parents who discover, on birth, that their child is retarded, or deformed, or otherwise deficient? They're not allowed to kill it, even though it's barely more "human" than a fetus (arguably less), and are forced to care to it for 18 years. Surely this is a greater burden than a natural part of life, pregnancy? Why one and not the other? The abortion advocates show a great deal of inconsistency here.

As for goodgrief, I'd wager that most women don't share her Sigourney-Weaver-in-Alien type horror when they have an inconvenient pregnancy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats because it is deemed as an implicit contract, not because it is a potential risk. Thats the point I was trying to get at in the post before lucky's. What is the threshold for an implicit contract? Is it based on likelihood or some other factor? I agree, for some reason, pregnancy seems to be different, but I don't think its just the abortion advocates that are being inconsistent.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the direction rational people usually head to in abortion debates (as opposed to those who just dig their feet in, kick and scream about Jesus and souls and whatever). So, I would be remiss if I didn't ask you the following: What 'chance' threshold corresponds to what level of responsibility? If you consented to sex, you consented to...lets say a 10% chance of pregnancy. Does this make you 100% culpable? Specifically, contrast it to a rape scenario, where we can probably all agree you are 0% culpable. Do you need to be 0% culpable for abortion to be wrong, or just some small amount? Lets say you go and have a vasectomy and your wife has tubal ligation and then you consent to have sex. Your chance of getting pregnant in this case is probably pretty close to your chance of being raped and impregnated walking down the street at midnight. Very low. What is your culpability in this situation?

[/ QUOTE ]



By virtue of the fact that you are taking a 10% chance, you are risking 10% to face the full realization of that event. You can lower your chances but this doesnt change the situation, other than making you less exposed to risk.

Give me an example where you take a certain risk but some how don't have to face the consequences should that chance play out?

Also i don't believe its as much a positive obligation versus you simply not having the right to actively intervene to commit aggression.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

You're invited on a boat ride, you agree, the boat starts to sink, ( which you knew was a risk), should you allow yourself to drown to 'go through with the deal you made'?

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, what do you mean allow yourself? You took a risk of the boat sinking and the boat is sinking? What would you do differently?

You should note that you don't have to let yourself drown. The risk of the boat sinking and of drowning have two different probabilities because there are circumstances where the boat will sink but you wont drown.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You're invited on a boat ride, you agree, the boat starts to sink, ( which you knew was a risk), should you allow yourself to drown to 'go through with the deal you made'?

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, what do you mean allow yourself? You took a risk of the boat sinking and the boat is sinking? What would you do differently?

You should note that you don't have to let yourself drown. The risk of the boat sinking and of drowning have two different probabilities because there are circumstances where the boat will sink but you wont drown.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, and there are situations where you may get pregnant and you don't have to put a teenager through college. We don't have to go through with the play just because the initial trigger has occurred.

If you decided to have sex, condom breaks or pill fails and you wake up with 14 year old to support that would be the 'risk' or 'implied contract' that would make this type of argument have some validity. When the only outcome is some cells that may one day become a voter, you can deal with the cells as they are, today.

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every day we take actions with risk, that doesn't bind us to suffering the full effects of the damage just to keep some deal we didn't make.

[/ QUOTE ]
In the case of parenthood, it does. What about parents who discover, on birth, that their child is retarded, or deformed, or otherwise deficient? They're not allowed to kill it, even though it's barely more "human" than a fetus (arguably less), and are forced to care to it for 18 years. Surely this is a greater burden than a natural part of life, pregnancy? Why one and not the other? The abortion advocates show a great deal of inconsistency here.


[/ QUOTE ]

How would current law in some area have any bearing on what is a good action in another area? By that approach, no law would ever be changed because they are already 'right' and new areas would just have current laws expanded into them, whether a good fit or not.

Are there "abortion advocates"? Are they in the same category as "assault advocates" who claim you can smack the guy trying to steal your purse?

There is no inconsistency on the pro-choice part, they don't buy your claims of 'sameness' between things that aren't the same, that's all.

I wonder if that 17 year old in prison over consensual oral sex was victim of a "well, it's child abuse if a 31 year old does it" sameness argument. Life is fairer if different situations are treated as if they are different and solved on that basis.

luckyme

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is the direction rational people usually head to in abortion debates (as opposed to those who just dig their feet in, kick and scream about Jesus and souls and whatever). So, I would be remiss if I didn't ask you the following: What 'chance' threshold corresponds to what level of responsibility? If you consented to sex, you consented to...lets say a 10% chance of pregnancy. Does this make you 100% culpable? Specifically, contrast it to a rape scenario, where we can probably all agree you are 0% culpable. Do you need to be 0% culpable for abortion to be wrong, or just some small amount? Lets say you go and have a vasectomy and your wife has tubal ligation and then you consent to have sex. Your chance of getting pregnant in this case is probably pretty close to your chance of being raped and impregnated walking down the street at midnight. Very low. What is your culpability in this situation?

[/ QUOTE ]



By virtue of the fact that you are taking a 10% chance, you are risking 10% to face the full realization of that event. You can lower your chances but this doesnt change the situation, other than making you less exposed to risk.

Give me an example where you take a certain risk but some how don't have to face the consequences should that chance play out?

Also i don't believe its as much a positive obligation versus you simply not having the right to actively intervene to commit aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I take it you don't agree with the conclusion of the Thomson thought experiment? At least, your last sentence implies that.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You're invited on a boat ride, you agree, the boat starts to sink, ( which you knew was a risk), should you allow yourself to drown to 'go through with the deal you made'?

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, what do you mean allow yourself? You took a risk of the boat sinking and the boat is sinking? What would you do differently?

You should note that you don't have to let yourself drown. The risk of the boat sinking and of drowning have two different probabilities because there are circumstances where the boat will sink but you wont drown.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, and there are situations where you may get pregnant and you don't have to put a teenager through college. We don't have to go through with the play just because the initial trigger has occurred.

If you decided to have sex, condom breaks or pill fails and you wake up with 14 year old to support that would be the 'risk' or 'implied contract' that would make this type of argument have some validity. When the only outcome is some cells that may one day become a voter, you can deal with the cells as they are, today.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

i never said you have an obligation to even pay for the child once its born. I just said you had no right to slay the child.

[ QUOTE ]

If you decided to have sex, condom breaks or pill fails and you wake up with 14 year old to support that would be the 'risk' or 'implied contract' that would make this type of argument have some validity. When the only outcome is some cells that may one day become a voter, you can deal with the cells as they are, today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not sure what you're saying here. Could you rephrase please?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You're invited on a boat ride, you agree, the boat starts to sink, ( which you knew was a risk), should you allow yourself to drown to 'go through with the deal you made'?

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, what do you mean allow yourself? You took a risk of the boat sinking and the boat is sinking? What would you do differently?

You should note that you don't have to let yourself drown. The risk of the boat sinking and of drowning have two different probabilities because there are circumstances where the boat will sink but you wont drown.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, and there are situations where you may get pregnant and you don't have to put a teenager through college. We don't have to go through with the play just because the initial trigger has occurred.

If you decided to have sex, condom breaks or pill fails and you wake up with 14 year old to support that would be the 'risk' or 'implied contract' that would make this type of argument have some validity. When the only outcome is some cells that may one day become a voter, you can deal with the cells as they are, today.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

i never said you have an obligation to even pay for the child once its born. I just said you had no right to slay the child.

[ QUOTE ]

If you decided to have sex, condom breaks or pill fails and you wake up with 14 year old to support that would be the 'risk' or 'implied contract' that would make this type of argument have some validity. When the only outcome is some cells that may one day become a voter, you can deal with the cells as they are, today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not sure what you're saying here. Could you rephrase please?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think that a right to life includes a right to all the things required to sustain a life? In other words, do I have a right to food and shelter and medicine?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Give me an example where you take a certain risk but some how don't have to face the consequences should that chance play out?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you don't have to face the consequences then its not a risk.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
i never said you have an obligation to even pay for the child once its born. I just said you had no right to slay the child.

[/ QUOTE ]

you must be replying to Phil's post. He was talking about children. I was continuing on with the aborting a pregnancy topic.

luckyme

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is the direction rational people usually head to in abortion debates (as opposed to those who just dig their feet in, kick and scream about Jesus and souls and whatever). So, I would be remiss if I didn't ask you the following: What 'chance' threshold corresponds to what level of responsibility? If you consented to sex, you consented to...lets say a 10% chance of pregnancy. Does this make you 100% culpable? Specifically, contrast it to a rape scenario, where we can probably all agree you are 0% culpable. Do you need to be 0% culpable for abortion to be wrong, or just some small amount? Lets say you go and have a vasectomy and your wife has tubal ligation and then you consent to have sex. Your chance of getting pregnant in this case is probably pretty close to your chance of being raped and impregnated walking down the street at midnight. Very low. What is your culpability in this situation?

[/ QUOTE ]



By virtue of the fact that you are taking a 10% chance, you are risking 10% to face the full realization of that event. You can lower your chances but this doesnt change the situation, other than making you less exposed to risk.

Give me an example where you take a certain risk but some how don't have to face the consequences should that chance play out?

Also i don't believe its as much a positive obligation versus you simply not having the right to actively intervene to commit aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I take it you don't agree with the conclusion of the Thomson thought experiment? At least, your last sentence implies that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Her example is no different than rape - as i understand it.

Also, I'm saying it would be an unjust killing to abort someone from your boat trip who you have given a maybe invitation to. Is that not the test of Thomson's example, whether or not the abortion is unjust killing?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Give me an example where you take a certain risk but some how don't have to face the consequences should that chance play out?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you don't have to face the consequences then its not a risk.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The 'risk' is in becoming pregnant. We're not talking Angeline Joli here and adopting children if the condom breaks.

It's these mandatory 'playing out' concept that baffles me.

It's a strange worldview that looks at giving birth as a penalty to pay.

luckyme

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is the direction rational people usually head to in abortion debates (as opposed to those who just dig their feet in, kick and scream about Jesus and souls and whatever). So, I would be remiss if I didn't ask you the following: What 'chance' threshold corresponds to what level of responsibility? If you consented to sex, you consented to...lets say a 10% chance of pregnancy. Does this make you 100% culpable? Specifically, contrast it to a rape scenario, where we can probably all agree you are 0% culpable. Do you need to be 0% culpable for abortion to be wrong, or just some small amount? Lets say you go and have a vasectomy and your wife has tubal ligation and then you consent to have sex. Your chance of getting pregnant in this case is probably pretty close to your chance of being raped and impregnated walking down the street at midnight. Very low. What is your culpability in this situation?

[/ QUOTE ]



By virtue of the fact that you are taking a 10% chance, you are risking 10% to face the full realization of that event. You can lower your chances but this doesnt change the situation, other than making you less exposed to risk.

Give me an example where you take a certain risk but some how don't have to face the consequences should that chance play out?

Also i don't believe its as much a positive obligation versus you simply not having the right to actively intervene to commit aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I take it you don't agree with the conclusion of the Thomson thought experiment? At least, your last sentence implies that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Her example is no different than rape - as i understand it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not exactly what I meant. Framing abortion as "actively intervening to commit aggression" is the part I'm referring to. Do you agree that abortion is acceptable in cases of rape? If so, then the way you frame abortion is dishonest at best.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Give me an example where you take a certain risk but some how don't have to face the consequences should that chance play out?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you don't have to face the consequences then its not a risk.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The 'risk' is in becoming pregnant. We're not talking Angeline Joli here and adopting children if the condom breaks.

It's these mandatory 'playing out' concept that baffles me.

It's a strange worldview that looks at giving birth as a penalty to pay.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, its a nonsense misuse of concepts. If abortion is an option then the chance of sex accidently leading to a child is massively reduced.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Give me an example where you take a certain risk but some how don't have to face the consequences should that chance play out?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you don't have to face the consequences then its not a risk.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The 'risk' is in becoming pregnant. We're not talking Angeline Joli here and adopting children if the condom breaks.

It's these mandatory 'playing out' concept that baffles me.

It's a strange worldview that looks at giving birth as a penalty to pay.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Obligation to uphold. Under my implicit contract model, anyhow.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Obligation to uphold. Under my implicit contract model, anyhow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this only a one generation implicit contract or am I obligated to the fetus of my great grandchildren because this group of cells today are known to one day potentially be grandparents .. I can't claim ignorance of that chain of events.

There are a lot of untested assumptions built into this implicit claim.

luckyme

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obligation to uphold. Under my implicit contract model, anyhow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this only a one generation implicit contract or am I obligated to the fetus of my great grandchildren because this group of cells today are known to one day potentially be grandparents .. I can't claim ignorance of that chain of events.

There are a lot of untested assumptions built into this implicit claim.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]



Heres how i see it at least.

You don't have positive obligations to the child. However, you do not have a right to initiate murder either. If the child invaded your body with no implicit consent, then you can violently remove it. Otherwise, you have no right to actively slay the child if you gave it a maybe invitation to enter your property.

I dont believe your contractually actively responsible for paying for the child once the child is born.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obligation to uphold. Under my implicit contract model, anyhow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this only a one generation implicit contract or am I obligated to the fetus of my great grandchildren because this group of cells today are known to one day potentially be grandparents .. I can't claim ignorance of that chain of events.

There are a lot of untested assumptions built into this implicit claim.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I reject the implicit contract argument wrt to abortion, but it is what I understand the pro-life position to be founded on. It eliminates the need to be able to predict every possible eventuality, and thus your 'grandkids and grandkids grandkids' question. We just tell everyone while they are young that it is implied, if you have sex, you are obligated to the fetus until it is born.

That seems like a lot of BS, and is very inconsistent with how we approach...well, just about everything else. But its the only real reason I can see for Thomson's (ironclad, IMO) argument to not extend past rape victims and to all women.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obligation to uphold. Under my implicit contract model, anyhow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this only a one generation implicit contract or am I obligated to the fetus of my great grandchildren because this group of cells today are known to one day potentially be grandparents .. I can't claim ignorance of that chain of events.

There are a lot of untested assumptions built into this implicit claim.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]



Heres how i see it at least.

You don't have positive obligations to the child. However, you do not have a right to initiate murder either. If the child invaded your body with no implicit consent, then you can violently remove it. Otherwise, you have no right to actively slay the child if you gave it a maybe invitation to enter your property.

I dont believe your contractually actively responsible for paying for the child once the child is born.

[/ QUOTE ]

Abortion isn't active murder, though. Its simply the denial and removal of the things necessary to sustain life. Unfortunately, there are only limited ways to get that thing out of there, but what I learned in medical ethics class is that "unavoidable, 100% likely negative side-effects of an acceptable procedure" are vastly different from "negative outcomes directly sought." So, since the outcome we are looking for is removal of the fetus, it is simply unfortunate that this necessarily results in fetal death.

Just like the Thomson example. Its unfortunate that unhooking our friend the violinist leads inexorably to his death. But thats his problem. We aren't on the hook for the things he needs to survive.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obligation to uphold. Under my implicit contract model, anyhow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this only a one generation implicit contract or am I obligated to the fetus of my great grandchildren because this group of cells today are known to one day potentially be grandparents .. I can't claim ignorance of that chain of events.

There are a lot of untested assumptions built into this implicit claim.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]



Heres how i see it at least.

You don't have positive obligations to the child. However, you do not have a right to initiate murder either. If the child invaded your body with no implicit consent, then you can violently remove it. Otherwise, you have no right to actively slay the child if you gave it a maybe invitation to enter your property.

I dont believe your contractually actively responsible for paying for the child once the child is born.

[/ QUOTE ]

Abortion isn't active murder, though. Its simply the denial and removal of the things necessary to sustain life. Unfortunately, there are only limited ways to get that thing out of there, but what I learned in medical ethics class is that "unavoidable, 100% likely negative side-effects of an acceptable procedure" are vastly different from "negative outcomes directly sought." So, since the outcome we are looking for is removal of the fetus, it is simply unfortunate that this necessarily results in fetal death.

Just like the Thomson example. Its unfortunate that unhooking our friend the violinist leads inexorably to his death. But thats his problem. We aren't on the hook for the things he needs to survive.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think we're getting closer to the finer points of the argument. Heres my refutation:


Lets think about my boat example. Your essentially saying that out to sea i can decide to throw you off because you require my boat's ceramic floor to avoid drowning. The fact is you gave this guy a maybe invitation to use your boat and you did the same to the child. You do have an obligation to this contract but nothing further.

IF he invaded your boat midway, like a pirate, you can obviously thorw him off.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If the child invaded your body with no implicit consent, then you can violently remove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Women that go to out at night and walk to their car alone after dinner are known to have some chance of rape and then pregnancy. Walking to their car means they have agreed to take that risk and it's consequences. It's ludicrous of them to whine for an abortion when such outcomes are well-known. It's an implicit agreement, I'm told.

ok, gotcha now. hmmm...Or do only you get to pick what we've implicitly agreed? I have a million of them if I'm allowed.

luckyme

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the child invaded your body with no implicit consent, then you can violently remove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Women that go to out at night and walk to their car alone after dinner are known to have some chance of rape and then pregnancy. Walking to their car means they have agreed to take that risk and it's consequences. It's ludicrous of them to whine for an abortion when such outcomes are well-known. It's an implicit agreement, I'm told.

ok, gotcha now. hmmm...Or do only you get to pick what we've implicitly agreed? I have a million of them if I'm allowed.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to respond, but this is the response I was going to make, so I won't bother.

[borisp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the child invaded your body with no implicit consent, then you can violently remove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

...Walking to their car means they have agreed to take that risk...It's an implicit agreement...I have a million of them if I'm allowed.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is exactly why you need to take into account the potential for universally beneficial equilibrium strategies. Part of these will be contingency plans for deviations from equilibrium.

Or are you not interested in the "greater good?"

(Disclaimer: I actually have no opinion whatsoever about the original question, but I feel compelled to point out this potential response.)

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the child invaded your body with no implicit consent, then you can violently remove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Women that go to out at night and walk to their car alone after dinner are known to have some chance of rape and then pregnancy. Walking to their car means they have agreed to take that risk and it's consequences. It's ludicrous of them to whine for an abortion when such outcomes are well-known. It's an implicit agreement, I'm told.

ok, gotcha now. hmmm...Or do only you get to pick what we've implicitly agreed? I have a million of them if I'm allowed.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

It is an excellent point and is forcing me to reform my position back to some of yours & vhawk's earlier points - hopefully im not pushing it so bear with me.

I think it all depends how much your inviting the guest versus them showing up against your will and wishes.

So if you give an invitation by not taking precautions against an event, you are inviting that event. If you take precautions you are showing with your actions that the event has no welcome invitation and will be resisted.

This is the equivalent of a women who carries pepper spray and holds her finger on an emergency button versus one walking around with a sign saying rape me and is naked with 100 bucks hanging out her ass.

In relation to abortion, a women who takes precautions like birth control and such, should not bear full responsibility for a chance event that was not welcomed and can resist said event.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how anything I have said relates in any way to the existence or non-existence of an afterlife. I personally don't believe there is one, but even if there is, that does not change the general negativity of human life on this plane of existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that even though you are saying life is negative, that cannot be true. It is in reality positive no matter how much suffering endured until you decide to kill yourself. Because you have not decided to kill yourself yet, you still think life is good enough worth living, and hence positive even with all the complaining.