Abortion

[numinus]

You obviously like games, and you clearly believe that they have a place within this discussion, so lets play one.

You are on trial for your life. You haven't done anything, but you are on trial for your one and only life none the less. The prosecutor rises and states that he is going to delve into the philosophical roots of the concept of guilt and innocence and right and wrong and the notion of rights themselves. And in fact, he is going to examine, and call into question the very foundations of a legal system that has been established to protect those rights and make decisions based on guilt and innocence as if any such thing actually exists and in the end, ask the jury to allow the state to end your life because he is going to prove to the jury that they actually have no right to involve themselves in the issue that exists between you and the state.

When your legal representative rightly stands to object to having such evidence entered into the record against you, do you stay his hand and tell him to let the man continue because you like a good debate or do you let your lawyer object and remind the prosecution that your life is on the line here and the jury is only here to examine the facts as they exist and make a determination based on them?

I submit that if you say that you stop your lawyer and let the prosecutioh continue with his philosophical "evidence" against you, then you are either A) a liar who will say anything in a debate to give your argument the appearance of rationality, or B) insane. If you allow your lawyer to stop the prosecution and insisist that only the facts as they exist be entered into evidence against you for the jury to consider, then you admit that your entire argument is philosophical slight of hand and is based upon standards that you would never allow to be used against you if it were your one and only life that was on the line.

What do you do? Answer, and then we can continue.

I submit that if the very foundation of the legal system is in question then said court has NO POWER OVER ME. I will simply stand and leave these people to continue their charade.

Your turn.

I do not question the idea of the natural rights of man nor the rules of jurisprudence that logically arise from these natural rights nor the right of the state to exist as it does.

What I am questioning is the STANDARD by which one claims PERSONHOOD, either in one's self or in behalf of others? Once that is infallibly demonstrated, then let the logical operation of jurisprudence take its course.

It is a clear and direct question which can be answered by a simple, rational and definitive answer. The fact that you have NOT answered, and instead choose to dance around the question, indicates to me that you have NO ANSWER.

 

[numinus]

That is the nature of this discussion. You tear down their argument, prove that the foundation for their position is specious, wave goodbye to them when they slink away and then watch for them attempt to use the same specious arguments on someone else, at which time you step in to prove that their argument is based on a lie all over again. It is the basic dishonesty of the pro choice side that demands that the discussion continue.

Apparently, the only arguments being torn down is yours.

And if there is any basic dishonesty around here, it is your denial of what is ostensibly a CIRCULAR ARGUMENT that you offered.

No it isn't. Fashion an argument with which you can deny the very right to live to every single human being. If you can do that, you eliminate what you call the "moral quandry" If you can't do it, then you demonstrate that the "moral quandry" never really existed in the first place.

Talk about straw man arguments!

I merely need to demonstrate that the standard by which you apply personhood to a fetus is logically INVALID. Your argument is INVALID because you employed a circular argument to prove the most important aspect of your position.

And you even have the temerity to accuse people for arguing on religious grounds when the fact is, natural law has its basis on theological speculation.

One side of the discussion is inherently dishonest. Of course they won't agree. In order to accept pro choice you must accept as truth a string of provable lies. What sort of person does that?

What I feel about abortion has nothing to do with the logic I am presenting. Proving my sort of person to be 'dishonest' will no more prove your position than your circular arguments.

A truth that is subjected to the crucible of doubt can only emerge invincible. And doubt, whether done within one's self or in the company of others, is the true standard of enlightenment.

There is one way around abortion exactly as there is one way around murder, assault, arson, armed robbery, perjury, and any other crime you care to name. Don't do it. And if you are going to argue for more education ask yourself if you would be willing to strike all laws from the books and rely on education as another way "around" crime.

If a law is based on faulty logic, then by all means, strike it down! There are no sacred cows in the operation of logic.

And what new point? Philosophical slight of hand was the basis for the decision on Roe v Wade in the first place. Sophistry is the oldest form of argument on this topic.

The sc admitted that it is NOT COMPETENT to determine at what point personhood starts, hence decided on the basis of VIABILITY. Viability is an arbitrarily set point at which the state starts to have a compeling stake on the issue.

Clearly, the sc was talking of a POTENTIAL person - and a potential person is not a person.

 

[palerider]

The moral quandry exists between the competing rights of life and freedom, ie, the child's life versus the mother's freedom.

OK. Name a situation in which my right to freedom takes precedence over your right to live. If you can do that, then you establish a moral quandry. Failure to do so, once again, shows that there never was any actual moral quandry to begin with.

Why would fashioning an argument in which it is okay to deny the right to live to "every single human being" be relevant to the argument?

Because unborns, at any stage of development, are exactly as human as you and they are being denied their right to live. If you can't fashion an argument that applies equally to all human beings, then your argument is discriminatory in nature and therefore not valid.

Outlawing something does not prevent it from happening. After all, all the illegal activites you enumerated still occur frequently.[/quiote]

But it does provide a means by which to punish those who engage in the activity and there is no doubt that the frequency of the activity diminishes greatly when the activity can result in criminal prosecution.

Changing society's mind on something is a delicate, complicated, and necessarily subtle process. Simply saying, "It's wrong! Don't do it!" isn't going to change anyone's mind and is just going to polarize them against you (you may have noticed). So if you want to "win" the debate and be self-satisfied while the people who were once getting abortions legally are still going to do it illegally (albeit in lesser numbers and at greater risk), then fine, congrats.

No it isn't. You make it illegal and society conforms. Take for example, driving without a seatbelt, or mandating riding a motorcycle with a helmet, or any of the thousands of other laws that we don't necessarily like, but follow none the less.

Education works well as a first step. Implementing more education does not mean that, as prevailing attitutdes toward the practice change, making it illegal would not happen. In fact, increases in education - and some handy breakthroughs in contraception - would probably help your case for banning abortion more than you are.

The breakthroughs in contraception happen after abortion is outlawed and a profit motive comes into being for the perfect contraceptive.

You seem to be looking for an immediate solution to what is at its core a societal problem. Those types of issues don't have immediate solutions that don't come without massive repurcussions. Whatever happened to liberals being the "kings of unintended consequences"?

Subjecting those who kill others to punishment was in the beginning an immediate solution to what was a societal problem. Has it worked 100%? No. Has it signifigantly reduced the number of killings? Without a doubt.

 

[palerider]

I submit that if the very foundation of the legal system is in question then said court has NO POWER OVER ME. I will simply stand and leave these people to continue their charade.

Enough said. Your argument is, and always was nothing more than philosophical slight of hand. Your hypocricy is evident in the fact that you are perfectly willing to introduce "philosophical meanderings" into evedince against unborns whose lives are on the line but would be completely unwilling to see the same sort of argument made against you if it were your own life.

Your hypocricy is exposed. What more is there to say?

What I am questioning is the STANDARD by which one claims PERSONHOOD, either in one's self or in behalf of others? Once that is infallibly demonstrated, then let the logical operation of jurisprudence take its course.

If you were in a court of law and for whatever reason, your personhood were brought into question for the sake of the prosecution's argument, a legal dictionary would be brought out and turned to the "p" section. The judge would announce that the legal definition of the word person was "a human being. At that time, he would ask the prosecution if he could provide any evidence to suggest that you were not a human being. If he can demonstrate that you are not a human being, then he may proceed with his line of evidence that calls your personhood into question. If he can't demonstrate that you are not a human, then any line of evidence that he may have brought forth is rendered null and void.

Can you demonstrate in any real way that unborns are not human beings and therefore not persons as defined in any legal dictionary that you care to reference?

It is a clear and direct question which can be answered by a simple, rational and definitive answer. The fact that you have NOT answered, and instead choose to dance around the question, indicates to me that you have NO ANSWER.

Capitalizing, and boldface don't lend your argument any additional creedence, and I have answered the question. I have laid out the thinking that my position is founded on and you have yet to put even a chip in any one of them. It is you who have done the dance. It is you who has attempted to argue your case against the unborn using a methodology that, by your own admission, would not be acceptable if it were your life that was on the line. I believe you called such a line of thought a "charade". Something so full of pretense as to be accurately called a travesty. The argument you have made is a charade. It has no more creedence than the musings of necromancers and gypsys.

Fashion an argument that denies the right to live to the unborn that you would accept if it were being used against you and you have something. Until then, all you have is, by your own definition, a charade.

 

[palerider]

The sc admitted that it is NOT COMPETENT to determine at what point personhood starts, hence decided on the basis of VIABILITY. Viability is an arbitrarily set point at which the state starts to have a compeling stake on the issue.

Philosophical slight of hand. Nothing more, nothing less. Once again, in the majority decision, justice blackmun acknowledged that should a case ever be made for the personhood of the unborn, that roe collapses. Such a case has been made and people are in jail today as a result of that case.

Viability was a dodge. It was the sophistry upon which they made one of the sloppiest decisions in the history of the court and it remains sophistry to this day.

Clearly, the sc was talking of a POTENTIAL person - and a potential person is not a person.

Since, even at that time, the word person was synonymous with the words human being, the justies decided, based on the evidence available at the time that unborns were potential human beings and not actual human beings. No case can be made today that unborns are potential human beings. Unborns are potential doctors, or teachers, or serial killers, but there is no doubt that they are already human beings.

 

[numinus]

Enough said. Your argument is, and always was nothing more than philosophical slight of hand. Your hypocricy is evident in the fact that you are perfectly willing to introduce "philosophical meanderings" into evedince against unborns whose lives are on the line but would be completely unwilling to see the same sort of argument made against you if it were your own life.

Your hypocricy is exposed. What more is there to say?

The basis of the NATURAL RIGHTS OF MAN, foremost of which is th right to live, IS PHILOSOPHICAL.

Slavery laws, segregation, and prejudice in general are invalid simply because they have no basis from the natural rights of man, which AGAIN, IS PHILOSOPHICAL.

The idea that human beings are born with certain inalienable rights, an idea you keep repeating in this forum, AGAIN, IS PHILOSOPHICAL.

PERSONHOOD IS A PHILOSOPHICAL IDEA. This is fundamentally, A PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE.

Your ignorance is exposed. What more is there to say?

If you were in a court of law and for whatever reason, your personhood were brought into question for the sake of the prosecution's argument, a legal dictionary would be brought out and turned to the "p" section. The judge would announce that the legal definition of the word person was "a human being. At that time, he would ask the prosecution if he could provide any evidence to suggest that you were not a human being. If he can demonstrate that you are not a human being, then he may proceed with his line of evidence that calls your personhood into question. If he can't demonstrate that you are not a human, then any line of evidence that he may have brought forth is rendered null and void.

If the sc itself cannot determine personhood, then this particular judge is presumptous indeed. And the normal course of the appeals process would prove so.

Can you demonstrate in any real way that unborns are not human beings and therefore not persons as defined in any legal dictionary that you care to reference?

I have already demonstrated how the legal dictionary fails the standard of logical rigor.

Your assertion that personhood has been proven through logical rigor is a LIE. The sc itself admitted that they CANNOT MAKE A DETERMINATION OF PERSONHOOD.

That you insist on using a dictionary definition, which in turn is based on an ARBITRARY taxonomical classification speaks abundantly about the precarious foundation of your whole argument.

Capitalizing, and boldface don't lend your argument any additional creedence, and I have answered the question. I have laid out the thinking that my position is founded on and you have yet to put even a chip in any one of them. It is you who have done the dance. It is you who has attempted to argue your case against the unborn using a methodology that, by your own admission, would not be acceptable if it were your life that was on the line. I believe you called such a line of thought a "charade". Something so full of pretense as to be accurately called a travesty. The argument you have made is a charade. It has no more creedence than the musings of necromancers and gypsys.

It is pointless for you to continue your argument since you have NOT PRESENTED A LOGICAL STANDARD BY WHICH YOU CLAIM PERSONHOOD. At best, your claim of personhood is NOTHING MORE THAN INTUITION OR THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION.

And your constant editorializing merely serve to hide this FACT.

Fashion an argument that denies the right to live to the unborn that you would accept if it were being used against you and you have something. Until then, all you have is, by your own definition, a charade.

The sc already has. It is called VIABILITY. A potential person has an inherently defective human right since its personhood is indeterminate.

 

[numinus]

Philosophical slight of hand. Nothing more, nothing less. Once again, in the majority decision, justice blackmun acknowledged that should a case ever be made for the personhood of the unborn, that roe collapses. Such a case has been made and people are in jail today as a result of that case.

How does the musings of this particular sc judge supersede the decision itself, hmmm?

Viability was a dodge. It was the sophistry upon which they made one of the sloppiest decisions in the history of the court and it remains sophistry to this day.

Of course its a dodge. The decision is the result of incompetent argument, the same argument that you are offering here.

Since, even at that time, the word person was synonymous with the words human being, the justies decided, based on the evidence available at the time that unborns were potential human beings and not actual human beings. No case can be made today that unborns are potential human beings. Unborns are potential doctors, or teachers, or serial killers, but there is no doubt that they are already human beings.

You have just proven my point.

You have openly admitted that 'human being' is synonymous with 'person' - hence your argument is based on a SELF-REFERENCING FALLACY.

 

[palerider]

PERSONHOOD IS A PHILOSOPHICAL IDEA. This is fundamentally, A PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE.

No. This is a legal debate as it will ultimately be settled in a courtroom and not in a university by a gang of philosophers. The fact that you don't even grasp the nature of the debate is telling.

If the sc itself cannot determine personhood, then this particular judge is presumptous indeed. And the normal course of the appeals process would prove so.

Again, no. The SC "would not" determine personhood. They chose, instead, to accept the sophist's argument that unborns were not human beings. In the eyes of the law, human being and person are interchangable terms. In order to rule that unborns were not persons, they had to rule that unborns were not human beings until they reach a certain level of maturity. A belief that simply can not be rationally held today.

I have already demonstrated how the legal dictionary fails the standard of logical rigor.

No. You have "said" that the legal dictionary fails the standard of logical rigor. You have not demonstrated anything. In order to "demonstrate" that it fails the standard of logical rigor, you would have to examine how the word and definition got into the dictionary in the first place and prove that the means by which it got there failed. To date, you have not done so.

Your assertion that personhood has been proven through logical rigor is a LIE. The sc itself admitted that they CANNOT MAKE A DETERMINATION OF PERSONHOOD.

Again, the SC "would not" make the determination of personhood until the unborn reached a certain level of maturity based on their decision to accept the argument that unborns are not human beings until they reach a certain level of maturity. There is a difference and if you fail to grasp that, then clearly you need to go back to the drawing board and apply some "logical rigor" to your position. If you understand the difference and prefer, instead, to misrepresent, the decision of the SC then my accusiation of sophistry on your part is reinforced. Which is it?

That you insist on using a dictionary definition, which in turn is based on an ARBITRARY taxonomical classification speaks abundantly about the precarious foundation of your whole argument.

Prove that legal dictionaries state that human being and person are interchangable terms based on an arbitrary taxonomical classification. Then prove that anything about taxonomical classification is arbitrary. You have your work cut out for you so you better get cracking. This is what happens when you set out to apply standards to others that you would not be willing to have applied to you. You find yourself digging, and digging, and digging until eventually you are in a hole that you will nver get out of.

It is pointless for you to continue your argument since you have NOT PRESENTED A LOGICAL STANDARD BY WHICH YOU CLAIM PERSONHOOD. At best, your claim of personhood is NOTHING MORE THAN INTUITION OR THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION.

My position is a legal one and in order to make the argument that it is not based on any sort of logical standard, you are going to have to go back to the beginnings of our legal system and the systems that it was based upon and prove that they, themselves were not based on a logical standard.

You just keep digging. You see, you aren't assaulting my position since I didn't make it up from whole cloth in the manner that you have made up yours. My position is founded in the sciences, and in the legal system. It isn't a fabrication that I invented just to have something with which to pass the time.

My argument is based on a standard by which I would be willing to be tried for my life. Yours is not one by which you would be willing to be tried for your life. That says all that need be said about the validity of your argument.

The sc already has. It is called VIABILITY. A potential person has an inherently defective human right since its personhood is indeterminate.

Again, viability was a dodge. It was sophistry. An unborn child is nothing at 9 months that it wasn't at 9 seconds other than more mature. Our inalienable rights are not based upon our level of maturity. This nation was founded upon the idea that we come into being with the right to live, not that we grow into it.

 

[palerider]

How does the musings of this particular sc judge supersede the decision itself, hmmm?

Those were not musings. Do you believe that "musings" are ever included in SC decisions? Once again, the fundamental dishonesty of your argument reveals itself. Justice blackmun's statement that: "f this suggestion of personhood is established, [Roe's] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment." was not a musing but instead established the limits of the roe decision. The suggestion of personhood has been established, and more, and as a result, roe is no longer a valid decision.

Of course its a dodge. The decision is the result of incompetent argument, the same argument that you are offering here.

You have openly admitted that 'human being' is synonymous with 'person' - hence your argument is based on a SELF-REFERENCING FALLACY.

Maybe you don't understand the nature of fallacies. You can only claim that it is a self referencing fallacy, if the reference is wrong. Prove that person and human being are not interchangable terms in legal dictionaries and you can claim a self referencing fallacy since the item being referenced would in fact, be wrong. Certain elements must be present in order to claim a fallacy. Take the appeal to authority fallacy for example. One can only claim a fallacy if the authority one appeals to is not an expert on the subject at hand. If one is appealing to an authority that is expert, no such fallacy can be claimed. By the same token, if I am referencing accurate information, you have no basis upon which to claim a self referencing fallacy. Saying that (A) is the same as (B) and therefore (A) and (B) are synonymous is not fallacious if (A) is indeed synonymous wth (B). Since I am referencing a valid authority who states explicitly that A and B are one in the same, no fallacy is present.

Nice try though, if you want to call sophistry any sort of try at all.

 

[numinus]

No. This is a legal debate as it will ultimately be settled in a courtroom and not in a university by a gang of philosophers. The fact that you don't even grasp the nature of the debate is telling.

You are entirely clueless if you think a courtroom argument is not a philosophical debate. Anything that involves LOGIC is a philosophical exercise.

Mere assertions do not imbue a statement with truth-value. Nor do self-referencing statements. Nor do statements of a purely speculative nature. Nor do arguments that lead to an ostensibly paradoxical conclusion.

Again, no. The SC "would not" determine personhood. They chose, instead, to accept the sophist's argument that unborns were not human beings. In the eyes of the law, human being and person are interchangable terms. In order to rule that unborns were not persons, they had to rule that unborns were not human beings until they reach a certain level of maturity. A belief that simply can not be rationally held today.

That you would presume to know the intent of the sc justices only demonstrates your desperation in this debate.

No. You have "said" that the legal dictionary fails the standard of logical rigor. You have not demonstrated anything. In order to "demonstrate" that it fails the standard of logical rigor, you would have to examine how the word and definition got into the dictionary in the first place and prove that the means by which it got there failed. To date, you have not done so.

LOL.

I need do no such thing. I merely need to demonstrate (and I have) that such a premise leads to a paradoxical conclusion. No amount of whinning on your part would change the operation of logic.

Again, the SC "would not" make the determination of personhood until the unborn reached a certain level of maturity based on their decision to accept the argument that unborns are not human beings until they reach a certain level of maturity. There is a difference and if you fail to grasp that, then clearly you need to go back to the drawing board and apply some "logical rigor" to your position. If you understand the difference and prefer, instead, to misrepresent, the decision of the SC then my accusiation of sophistry on your part is reinforced. Which is it?

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html

"Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, IS NOT IN A POSITION TO SPECULATE AS TO THE ANSWER.. [p160] "

You really are hanging on a very thin line.

Incidentally, this is the complete context of justice blacknum's opinion which you kept mentioning but had no courage to post:

"A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. IF this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [n51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [n52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."

It is amusing how you misconstrued a hypothetical sentence as fact. So, who exactly is dishonest, eh?

Prove that legal dictionaries state that human being and person are interchangable terms based on an arbitrary taxonomical classification.

When you define human beings as homo sapien, you are in fact employing a taxonomical classification, do you not?

Then prove that anything about taxonomical classification is arbitrary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

"But there is still controversy. Scientists such as Morris Goodman[10] of Wayne State University in Detroit argue that the Bonobo and Common Chimpanzee are so closely related to humans, their genus name should also be classified with the Human genus Homo: Homo paniscus, Homo sylvestris, or Homo arboreus. An alternative philosophy suggests that the term Homo sapiens is actually the misnomer, and that humanity should be reclassified as Pan sapiens. In either case, a name change of the genus is problematic because it complicates the taxonomy of other species closely related to humans, including Australopithecus."

As I said - arbitrary.

You have your work cut out for you so you better get cracking. This is what happens when you set out to apply standards to others that you would not be willing to have applied to you. You find yourself digging, and digging, and digging until eventually you are in a hole that you will nver get out of.

What's so difficult about googling wiki, eh?

My position is a legal one and in order to make the argument that it is not based on any sort of logical standard, you are going to have to go back to the beginnings of our legal system and the systems that it was based upon and prove that they, themselves were not based on a logical standard.

And so I did. You are aware of the historical beginning of natural law, aren't you?

You just keep digging. You see, you aren't assaulting my position since I didn't make it up from whole cloth in the manner that you have made up yours. My position is founded in the sciences, and in the legal system. It isn't a fabrication that I invented just to have something with which to pass the time.

Your argument does not coincide with the supreme court's. And if you think taxonomy is infallible science, then you really are in trouble.

My argument is based on a standard by which I would be willing to be tried for my life. Yours is not one by which you would be willing to be tried for your life. That says all that need be said about the validity of your argument.

Most amusing!

The fact that there are countless martyrs of the catholic faith does not make its doctrine infallible. You must be thoroughly confused by now.

Again, viability was a dodge. It was sophistry. An unborn child is nothing at 9 months that it wasn't at 9 seconds other than more mature. Our inalienable rights are not based upon our level of maturity. This nation was founded upon the idea that we come into being with the right to live, not that we grow into it.

I never said it wasn't a dodge. It was the result of INCOMPETENT ARGUMENT, like yours.

 

[numinus]

Those were not musings. Do you believe that "musings" are ever included in SC decisions? Once again, the fundamental dishonesty of your argument reveals itself. Justice blackmun's statement that: "f this suggestion of personhood is established, [Roe's] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment." was not a musing but instead established the limits of the roe decision. The suggestion of personhood has been established, and more, and as a result, roe is no longer a valid decision.

It was a hypothetical sentence - hence 'musing'. You do not even have the honesty to include the word IF in your quotes.

Maybe you don't understand the nature of fallacies. You can only claim that it is a self referencing fallacy, if the reference is wrong. Prove that person and human being are not interchangable terms in legal dictionaries and you can claim a self referencing fallacy since the item being referenced would in fact, be wrong. Certain elements must be present in order to claim a fallacy. Take the appeal to authority fallacy for example. One can only claim a fallacy if the authority one appeals to is not an expert on the subject at hand. If one is appealing to an authority that is expert, no such fallacy can be claimed. By the same token, if I am referencing accurate information, you have no basis upon which to claim a self referencing fallacy. Saying that (A) is the same as (B) and therefore (A) and (B) are synonymous is not fallacious if (A) is indeed synonymous wth (B). Since I am referencing a valid authority who states explicitly that A and B are one in the same, no fallacy is present.

Nice try though, if you want to call sophistry any sort of try at all.

You still don't get it, do you?

You assume person = human when that is the proposition to be proven in the first place. All legal precedents prior to roe v wade defines person as a POST-NATAL HUMAN hence the necessity to prove the proposition.

You are going in circles - like a dog chasing its tail. Ultimately POINTLESS.

 

[vyo476]

OK. Name a situation in which my right to freedom takes precedence over your right to live. If you can do that, then you establish a moral quandry. Failure to do so, once again, shows that there never was any actual moral quandry to begin with.

If I was attempting to make you my slave and forcibly keep you that way I doubt any jurisdictions in this country would call you killing me anything other than self-defense.

Because unborns, at any stage of development, are exactly as human as you and they are being denied their right to live. If you can't fashion an argument that applies equally to all human beings, then your argument is discriminatory in nature and therefore not valid.

Okay.

But it does provide a means by which to punish those who engage in the activity and there is no doubt that the frequency of the activity diminishes greatly when the activity can result in criminal prosecution.

So you'd feel satisfied at a simple reduction in the scope of the problem?

No it isn't. You make it illegal and society conforms. Take for example, driving without a seatbelt, or mandating riding a motorcycle with a helmet, or any of the thousands of other laws that we don't necessarily like, but follow none the less.

Seatbelt laws and helmet laws aren't anywhere near as touchy as abortion. If society simply conformed to all laws, even ones they felt very strongly against, then (and just for starters) there never would have been an American Revolution.

Slavery is another great example. It took the bloodiest war in American history just to make it illegal in the South, and a further hundred years of racial oppression, bigotry, and segregation before racial equality started to become a reality.

Society does not conform to the law; the law is based on society. When you try and take that in the wrong direction the results are always bad. Rather than changing the law to change society, we must change society to change the law.

The breakthroughs in contraception happen after abortion is outlawed and a profit motive comes into being for the perfect contraceptive.

That is a viable economic scenario, yes, but contraception is already a competitive market and profit motive would only increase as awareness of the topic increases and support for abortion wanes.

Subjecting those who kill others to punishment was in the beginning an immediate solution to what was a societal problem. Has it worked 100%? No. Has it signifigantly reduced the number of killings? Without a doubt.

Murder is not a social problem in the way abortion is. Murderers are sociopaths who exist outside society's set of norms and values; people who believe in and practice abortion exist within society's set of norms and values. While the definition of murder has changed and evolved over time, from a crime that could only be committed against a few select people (the "dregs" of society were not included, especially in Roman society) to a crime that can be committed against anyone barring certain circumstances (self-defense, capital punishment, and war).

Remember, laws regarding who can be murdered have changed as society's views have changed - not the other way around.

 

[palerider]

If I was attempting to make you my slave and forcibly keep you that way I doubt any jurisdictions in this country would call you killing me anything other than self-defense.
Okay.

OK. Now, what would I need to do in order to make you my slave? I would have to own you and if I owned you, then I could do with you whatever I wished. You would not be able to go anywhere without my express permission. You could only do things that I allowed you to do. And this situation would last forever unless I, by an act of will, decided to let you go.

Clearly, the child is not making a slave of its mother. But since you seem to have such intense feelings against slavery, perhaps you should reconsider your position on abortion since there is one situation in which one human being can kill another human being and reasonably expect that there will be no legal consequence. If the one human being owns the other then she certainly has the right to do with her property whatever she wishes. Are you saying that the child is her property? Her slave to do with as she pleases?

So you'd feel satisfied at a simple reduction in the scope of the problem?

Are you satisfied that wife beating continues even though it is against the law? Or would you prefer to erase the laws that makes it illegal for a husband to beat his wife and rely on more specific education to hold down the problem. I want to see abortion stopped entirely but reality tells me that it will continue whatever laws are written, but as with all other crimes, we have to accept that it will continue but at least there is a mechanism with which to punish those who engabe in the activity.

Seatbelt laws and helmet laws aren't anywhere near as touchy as abortion. If society simply conformed to all laws, even ones they felt very strongly against, then (and just for starters) there never would have been an American Revolution.

That depends entirely on who you talk to. The revolution was over a 2 cent tax on tea. We are talking about a million human beings being killed every year in the US without legal representation. In case you missed that day in history class, the revolution was over things being done to the people who lived in the colonies regardless of their feelings on the matter. If the king wanted their land, he simply took it. If he wanted their money, he simply took it. If he wanted them dead, he had them killed.

A situation existed in which one person had absolute life and death control over another and the one who was being controlled had no recourse, no right to appeal in court, no rights at all.

Sound familiar? My bet is that if they could arm themselves, the unborn would stage a revolution that would be far more justified than our own revolution against the king. After all, he just wanted 2 more cents on a block of tea. He hadn't killed 40 million of us.

Slavery is another great example. It took the bloodiest war in American history just to make it illegal in the South, and a further hundred years of racial oppression, bigotry, and segregation before racial equality started to become a reality. [/quote}

So are you saying that it wasn't worth the effort? It would be better to still be living in a society in which one human being can own another and do with the one whatever they wish? Oh, I almost forgot. You do want that sort of society. You do like the idea of women owning their children so that they can do with them as they wish up to and including killing them.

Society does not conform to the law; the law is based on society. When you try and take that in the wrong direction the results are always bad. Rather than changing the law to change society, we must change society to change the law.

This statement is too stupid to even answer. Try eliminating all laws and see if we indeed have laws that have conformed to society. Eliminate all laws and see if society continues on, uninterrupted, because our laws have conformed to society and not the other way around. That sort of thinking is why liberals are the kings of unintended consequences. It demonstrates an undisputable misunderstanding of reality.

Murder is not a social problem in the way abortion is.

You don't think so? Remove the laws that make murder illegal and watch it become a social problem that dwarfs abortion in a very short time.

Murderers are sociopaths who exist outside society's set of norms and values; people who believe in and practice abortion exist within society's set of norms and values.

sociopath - n - one whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

Our society is based on the idea that you have certain rights and it is the responsibility of government to protect those rights. People who kill others are considered criminals. By the same token, people who want to own others woud be considered sociopaths by your way of thinking. I would suggest that in the case of slavery, and abortion, the entire society has accepted sociopathic behavor as the norm. I can think of other societies that accepted sociopathic behavior as the norm. Should I name a few for you so you can know what sort of company you are in?

While the definition of murder has changed and evolved over time, from a crime that could only be committed against a few select people (the "dregs" of society were not included, especially in Roman society) to a crime that can be committed against anyone barring certain circumstances (self-defense, capital punishment, and war).

So, in your view, unborn children are the dregs of society and you would prefer to go back to the sort of legal system that existed in old Rome? See you at the colosseum. I find it very interesting that you would hold up a society that became so debased that the killing of thousands of innocents was seen as a reason for a holiday as an example of how you believe a society should act. I would argue that as a result of thier failure to protect everhone within the society and their devaluing of certain lives, that the entire society became sociopathic.

It was good enough for calligula so its good enough for you? Is that what you are saying?

Remember, laws regarding who can be murdered have changed as society's views have changed - not the other way around.

So you think it is a good idea for society to accept that certain sorts of human beings aren't really worthy of having their rights protected so long as you are not in that group?

 

[palerider]

You are entirely clueless if you think a courtroom argument is not a philosophical debate. Anything that involves LOGIC is a philosophical exercise.

Then you lied when you said that you would not want the philosophical concepts of guilt and innocence and rights themselves entered into evidence against you if it were your life on the line?

Mere assertions do not imbue a statement with truth-value. Nor do self-referencing statements. Nor do statements of a purely speculative nature. Nor do arguments that lead to an ostensibly paradoxical conclusion.

Once again, my statements are not self referencing. They reference materials that I did not create. And there is no paradox within my position.

That you would presume to know the intent of the sc justices only demonstrates your desperation in this debate.

Considering the amount of writing that has been done on the case of Roe v Wade by both the justices and outside sources referencing the writings, interviews, and statements by the justices, one need not "presume" to know the intent of the judges.

I need do no such thing. I merely need to demonstrate (and I have) that such a premise leads to a paradoxical conclusion. No amount of whinning on your part would change the operation of logic.

Your dishonesty is tiresome. The only paradox you have found was within a strawman of your own making. There is no paradox within my position.

"Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, IS NOT IN A POSITION TO SPECULATE AS TO THE ANSWER.. [p160] "

You really are hanging on a very thin line.

I would challenge you to provide a bit of credible science circa 1972 that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being or that the unborn is not alive from the time fertilization is complete. I can save you some time by telling you that there is none. Of course, feel free to find it, bring it here and prove that the justice who said that was not a bald faced lar.

Incidentally, this is the complete context of justice blacknum's opinion which you kept mentioning but had no courage to post:

"A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. IF this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [n51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [n52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."

It is amusing how you misconstrued a hypothetical sentence as fact. So, who exactly is dishonest, eh?

No case could be cited in 1972. That statement is not true today so refer back to the justice's acknowledgement that IF this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. Since there is now case law that establishes personhood, roe has become invalid.

When you define human beings as homo sapien, you are in fact employing a taxonomical classification, do you not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

"But there is still controversy. Scientists such as Morris Goodman[10] of Wayne State University in Detroit argue that the Bonobo and Common Chimpanzee are so closely related to humans, their genus name should also be classified with the Human genus Homo: Homo paniscus, Homo sylvestris, or Homo arboreus. An alternative philosophy suggests that the term Homo sapiens is actually the misnomer, and that humanity should be reclassified as Pan sapiens. In either case, a name change of the genus is problematic because it complicates the taxonomy of other species closely related to humans, including Australopithecus."

As I said - arbitrary.

Yeah, you said it, but as of yet, have failed to prove it. A scientist arguing that chimps are people too hardly constitutes proof of anything; especially that the science of taxonomy is arbitrary.

What's so difficult about googling wiki, eh?

Nothing at all if you don't mind referencing questionable material. Wiki is hardly a bastion of credibility.

Your argument does not coincide with the supreme court's. And if you think taxonomy is infallible science, then you really are in trouble.

Still waiting for you to prove that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being.

Your apparently congenital dishonesty has grown very tiresome. I will be happy to continue the conversation with you, but if you misrepresent my position one more time, I am through with you. I don't mind discussing the issue, but constantly correcting your misrepresentations plus discussing the topic is too much. If you can't be honest, then I am not interested in talking to you.

By the way, unless you can come up with an argument that denies the right of the unborn to live that you would not accept if it were being used against you if it were your life on the line, we don't have much to talk about anyway as that is evidence enough that both your position, and the arguments you are making to support it are both shams.

 

[vyo476]

OK. Now, what would I need to do in order to make you my slave? I would have to own you and if I owned you, then I could do with you whatever I wished. You would not be able to go anywhere without my express permission. You could only do things that I allowed you to do. And this situation would last forever unless I, by an act of will, decided to let you go.

So it'd be okay (and wouldn't in fact be slavery) if I made a slave of you, had absolute power over you and all that, so long as you knew that it'd be over someday?

Clearly, the child is not making a slave of its mother. But since you seem to have such intense feelings against slavery, perhaps you should reconsider your position on abortion since there is one situation in which one human being can kill another human being and reasonably expect that there will be no legal consequence. If the one human being owns the other then she certainly has the right to do with her property whatever she wishes. Are you saying that the child is her property? Her slave to do with as she pleases?

Slavery is not about killing people. It was legal, sure, but there have been (and still are) plenty of situations in which one person can kill another without legal consequence. Don't believe me? Join the army.

Are you satisfied that wife beating continues even though it is against the law? Or would you prefer to erase the laws that makes it illegal for a husband to beat his wife and rely on more specific education to hold down the problem. I want to see abortion stopped entirely but reality tells me that it will continue whatever laws are written, but as with all other crimes, we have to accept that it will continue but at least there is a mechanism with which to punish those who engabe in the activity.

You want to see abortion stopped but your inability to grasp complexity tells you that its impossible. Or perhaps your more simplistic desire to punish the "wrongdoers," I don't know which.

Domestic violence is a crime of passion. Abortion is not (remember all those "convenience" statements you kept making?). A majority of people can be opposed to crimes of passion, and they'll still happen in large numbers - perpetrated in many cases by people who are opposed to them.

That depends entirely on who you talk to. The revolution was over a 2 cent tax on tea. We are talking about a million human beings being killed every year in the US without legal representation. In case you missed that day in history class, the revolution was over things being done to the people who lived in the colonies regardless of their feelings on the matter. If the king wanted their land, he simply took it. If he wanted their money, he simply took it. If he wanted them dead, he had them killed.

A situation existed in which one person had absolute life and death control over another and the one who was being controlled had no recourse, no right to appeal in court, no rights at all.

The Revolution: The law was made and society did not conform.

The Civil War: The law was hinted at and society refused in advance to conform.

Black emancipation: The law was made and society refused to conform.

Prohibition: The law was made and society did not conform.

Perhaps it wasn't the law that they disliked but the manner in which it was made; that does not matter. The simple fact is that society does not conform to the law as you said it does. Every time a law is made that society overwhelmingly dislikes, trouble results.

So are you saying that it wasn't worth the effort? It would be better to still be living in a society in which one human being can own another and do with the one whatever they wish? Oh, I almost forgot. You do want that sort of society. You do like the idea of women owning their children so that they can do with them as they wish up to and including killing them.

My you are in twisting mood today.

I'm not saying it wasn't worth the effort. I'm not saying I'd prefer to live in a society with legal slavery. Maybe, even, the Civil War was unavoidable. Maybe violence was necessary and no amount of talking, no amount of education, could have corrected the societal imbalance that caused the damn thing. I don't think that this is true of the abortion debate, though, and neither do you; otherwise you wouldn't be using your time on a debate site.

Oh, and that last bit? Very offensive. I'd rather not get into an insult-trading match, so cool it, okay?

This statement is too stupid to even answer. Try eliminating all laws and see if we indeed have laws that have conformed to society. Eliminate all laws and see if society continues on, uninterrupted, because our laws have conformed to society and not the other way around. That sort of thinking is why liberals are the kings of unintended consequences. It demonstrates an undisputable misunderstanding of reality.

This entire paragraph is bunk. Laws do result from societal values. Where do you think things like anti-sodomy laws came from? Why do you think they're heading out the window now?

The elimination of law would result in chaos. This does not mean that laws are not formed based on social premises; it simply means that social premises and individual inclinations often differ, especially when the relationship between the social norms in question and human nature is strained at best.

The concept of "murder" is a societal value. Society says, "killing is wrong." Then society says, "No, wait, killing is okay in the following circumstances." The killing that is wrong is murder. The killing that is not is legal. You cannot justify the killing that is not wrong using non-social terms.

You don't think so? Remove the laws that make murder illegal and watch it become a social problem that dwarfs abortion in a very short time.

That's just it - remove it how? Forcibly, against the will of the people, who believe murder is wrong. Yeah, if the law were gone, there'd be more killing - but the majority of people would still believe murder is wrong. The law would be back shortly.

You can't get people to accept a change in law if they believe ardently that it should not be changed. That is the basis of my point on abortion. Take it or leave it.

sociopath - n - one whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

Our society is based on the idea that you have certain rights and it is the responsibility of government to protect those rights. People who kill others are considered criminals. By the same token, people who want to own others woud be considered sociopaths by your way of thinking. I would suggest that in the case of slavery, and abortion, the entire society has accepted sociopathic behavor as the norm. I can think of other societies that accepted sociopathic behavior as the norm. Should I name a few for you so you can know what sort of company you are in?

It is impossible for a society to accept sociopathic behavior. Basically you're saying that society would be encouraging anti-societal behavior, and that does not and cannot happen - even the "Fight the Power" anti-society stuff that is common today isn't anti-social because it has formed an alternative society that exists within our own, with it's own anti-mainstream norms and values.

It is entirely possible that modern society's values would have been sociopathic to the Founding Fathers, but that is irrelevant to a sociological discussion. All societies evolve, their norms and values changing. That is inescapable.

So, in your view, unborn children are the dregs of society and you would prefer to go back to the sort of legal system that existed in old Rome? See you at the colosseum. I find it very interesting that you would hold up a society that became so debased that the killing of thousands of innocents was seen as a reason for a holiday as an example of how you believe a society should act. I would argue that as a result of thier failure to protect everhone within the society and their devaluing of certain lives, that the entire society became sociopathic.

It was good enough for calligula so its good enough for you? Is that what you are saying?

Actually, here is what I'm saying:

"Yelling at each other about it isn't going to solve the problem, and none the solutions put forth by either side can be agreed upon by both. Finding and implementing solutions would be a much worthier usage of time. I tried starting a thread a few months ago on finding ways around abortion - but people would rather come to these threads and argue in a circular fashion."

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=30550&postcount=611

In case you need clarification, I don't believe that abortion is a positive thing, or that it ought to be allowable. I do believe that in order for it be eradicated, more steps than legislation are necessary, and some of those steps must necessarily come before outlawing the practice - otherwise people won't accept the law.

Pay attention.

So you think it is a good idea for society to accept that certain sorts of human beings aren't really worthy of having their rights protected so long as you are not in that group?

No, I don't. I also don't think it's a good idea for the government to legislate against what society believes, as history has shown us what kind of messes that produces. I think it's a better idea for the forward-thinking among us to begin to change society's mind on abortion before discussing legislation again.