|
|
#101
06-17-2007, 10:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Try this on for size...
[ 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. 
|
|
#102
06-17-2007, 10:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Try this on for size...
[ 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.
|
|
#103
06-17-2007, 11:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Try this on for size...
[ 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.
|
|
#104
06-17-2007, 11:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Try this on for size...
[ 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
|
|
#105
06-17-2007, 11:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Try this on for size...
[ 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.
|
|
#106
06-18-2007, 02:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Try this on for size...
[ 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.)
|
|
#107
06-18-2007, 01:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Try this on for size...
[ 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.
|
|
#108
06-18-2007, 05:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Which Of These Three Starements Do You Reject? (Abortion Related)
[ 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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
