Abortion

[Coyote]

I've had just about enough of your dishonesty.

How is extracting the fetus from a woman's womb different from pulling the plug, eh?

Both CANNOT survive without life support.

Both actions have WILLFUL INTENT TO KILL.

Both actions are done with nothing more than CONVENIENCE as their ends.

But is it really "convenience" as an end? Isn't ending suffering, particularly if it's the will of the comotose person (via some sort of written or verbal expression prior to their condition) - something different?

 

[Coyote]

I notice people tend to take the constitution literally when arguing these things but isn't that no different then taking a religious book literally with out regard to intent or deeper meaning as might be found (in the constitution's case) in the Federalist Papers, the philosophies of the time that molded these men, and other supporting documents written by the founders?

 

[palerider]

I've had just about enough of your dishonesty.

You are funny. I don't find the need to redefine words or make ludicrous claims that statements that explictly say a thing in reality say something else. Those who attempt to find meaning in statements other than what the statment explicitly says are the dishonest ones. Refer to the roe decision if you are confused.

How is extracting the fetus from a woman's womb different from pulling the plug, eh?

One instance is letting nature take its course when it becomes clear that medical science can not bring you to recovery. Incidentally, we are not allowed to pull the plug on a comatose or sick individual who can reasonably be expected to recover. The other instance has nothing to do with nature. It is the deliberate killing of a healthy individual.

Are you really this dishonest or are you "in character" and find it necessary to argue the pro choice side? Do you feel dirty and corrupt yet?

That you ascribe personhood to one and not the other proves that your idea is entirely dependent on the CIRCUMSTANCE one finds a human being in.

Letting one die who has no reasonable chance to recover has nothing to do with personhood. It is merely letting nature take its course.

Implicit or explicit -- it is a CONCEPT BORN OF ORDERED LIBERTY.

Sorry, an implicit and entirely made up right to kill one's child does not trump an explicit right to live.

One would imagine that someone as fastidious with punctuation would know the difference. Unless, of course, your punctuation argument is an entirely contrived affair.

So now your argument has diminished to the point that you feel the need to correct spelling errors? How sad.

 

[Coyote]

Not at all since one is healthy and growing and the other is sick and dying. If you let nature take its course, one will continue to grow and the other will die. There is nothing natural about abortion. It is deliberately killing a growing, healthy individual.

Not necessarily - people can come out of comas and natural abortions, particularly very early, are extremely common. There's no certainty that the fetus will continue to grow and be born and be born healthy.

I think Numinus may be right - it's both killing - there is the intent to kill. Same with capital punishment. It's ending life.

 

[palerider]

Did you really think that the ideas embodied in the constitution were invented by its framers?

No. But a government was founded upon those ideas and that government's primary responsibility is to protect the rights they valued.

The idea of the natural rights of man? The idea that the state's power to govern comes from the consent of the governed? The separate and co-equal branches of government and their functions? Invented?

All that you mention was put in place to protect rights, not dole them out. Roe is unconstitutional in that it established a previously non existant right rather than protected a right.

They derive from a particular political school of thought known as MODERN CONSTITUTIONALISM which has its roots in europe.

The words say what they say. Show me the part of the 14th amendment that describes what a person is and states who is not a person. The words are straight forward and explicit. Had the men who wrote the amendment meant to say something else, they would have used different words

If you can close your legal dictionary long enough so that it wouldn't interfere with your education, then you might actually learn something from this experience.

I am learning. I am learning that you, apparently can't read a series of sentences and understand what they mean to the extent that if another man tells you that they mean something entirely different than what they say, you will believe him in lieu of your own ability to read the words.

The words are clear such that anyone can discern its unmistakable roots from john locke's 2nd treatise on civil government. Save your legal dictionary for novice law students.

The words say what they say. Had they intended to say something else,they would have used different words rather than saying one thing and expecting someone down the line to extract a meaning from the words that in no way resembles what they wrote.

That is the meaning of 'persons' as used in the constitution -- not what your legal dictionary says.

The constitution doesn't define what is or what is not a person. Human beings are persons and the founders acknowledged that we come into being with certain rights. Had they meant that we are born with certain rights, they would have said as much.

It appears that your 'tripod' argument has reached its inevitable demise since it is based on NOTHING MORE than an entry in a legal dictionary.

So far, it isn't even wobbling. You have yet to show me where the 14th amendment says who is or what is a person and who is and what is not. Failing that, you are just jabbering like a monkey.

 

[numinus]

Look whose talking. You who believes words mean other than what they explicitly say.

In formal debates, we rip dictionary meanings as a matter of course. Its called logical rigor.

Not at all since one is healthy and growing and the other is sick and dying. If you let nature take its course, one will continue to grow and the other will die. There is nothing natural about abortion. It is deliberately killing a growing, healthy individual.

Again, the weakness of your argument is evident in that you find it necessary to compare perfectly healthy human beings to those who are sick and dying.

'Perfectly healthy' and 'dying' are circumstances that would render the right to live within a person moot? Is that what you're saying?

Surely, if the intent is to LET AN INDIVIDUAL DIE, then it can be done within the best efforts of medical science, can't it?

How do you reconcile that with the 14th ammendment, pray tell?

You have a right to live. You have no right to have endless amounts of money spent upon treating you if such treatment can not reasonably be expected to see you recover.

So, it is a matter of an infallible medical opinion? What is the next of kin's consent for, then?

And if it is about financial considerations, how is this different from the financial consideration involved in having an abortion?

In fact, you have no right to any healthcare at all. There is a distinct difference between being denied a basic human right and being denied a commodity.

So, the hippocratic oath stands -- as long as payment is forthcoming?

You are piling absurdities one after another when the simple fact remains -- withdrawing life support is permission granted by the state to the medical practitioner and the individual's next of kin to KILL WITHOUT LEGAL CONSEQUENCE (as you so fondly put it) -- in direct contradiction to the right to live.

 

[palerider]

Not necessarily - people can come out of comas and natural abortions, particularly very early, are extremely common. There's no certainty that the fetus will continue to grow and be born and be born healthy.

Then it will die. There is a difference, however, between dying a natural death and being attacked with sharp instruments, or drowned in salt water until you die. And as I pointed out, we aren't allowed to pull the plug on a person in a coma if that person can reasonably be expected to recover. Certain criteria must be present in order to pull the plug.

I think Numinus may be right - it's both killing - there is the intent to kill. Same with capital punishment. It's ending life.

Killing is not the same as letting die. If you are drowning and I stand by while you die when I could have thrown you a float then someone could make a case that I, in a manner of speaking, killed you. If, however, you are at the end stages of cancer and every avenue of treatment has failed, or if you have been injured so badly that no reasonable hope exists for your recovery, letting you die is not, in effect killing you since whatever condition you have is what has killed you and continued treatment offers no increased hope for your recovery.

End of life issues aren't analogous to beginning of life issues and any attempt to make them the same is inherently dishonest.

 

[numinus]

Ok...intent is what matters. That makes sense...but it still seems murky. For example - you know you could save a life but you choose not to - ie you don't want to give up a kidney, you don't want the inconvenience of surgery or recovery. How is intent measured here?

That is why your example doesn't really apply to what I am saying, since the intent to kill is almost impossible to prove.

In pulling the plug on a comatose individual, however, the intent to kill is clear and cannot be construed otherwise.

Let me ask another question..

The purpose of the contraceptive pill for women is to prevent conception. The primary method is by preventing ovulation. The secondary method is by affecting the sperms motility I think. The final method, in the rare case that the others's fail is by preventing implantation of the fertilized egg.

In this case...intent seems rather mixed. How would you view it?

I'm not trying to be smartass btw - I find this seriously intriguing.

Are you asking my opinion based on what I believe or based on the argument I am making here?

 

[Coyote]

That is why your example doesn't really apply to what I am saying, since the intent to kill is almost impossible to prove.

In pulling the plug on a comatose individual, however, the intent to kill is clear and cannot be construed otherwise.



Are you asking my opinion based on what I believe or based on the argument I am making here?

How about both?

 

[Coyote]

Then it will die. There is a difference, however, between dying a natural death and being attacked with sharp instruments, or drowned in salt water until you die. And as I pointed out, we aren't allowed to pull the plug on a person in a coma if that person can reasonably be expected to recover. Certain criteria must be present in order to pull the plug.

Now you are appealing to emotion.

Killing is not the same as letting die. If you are drowning and I stand by while you die when I could have thrown you a float then someone could make a case that I, in a manner of speaking, killed you. If, however, you are at the end stages of cancer and every avenue of treatment has failed, or if you have been injured so badly that no reasonable hope exists for your recovery, letting you die is not, in effect killing you since whatever condition you have is what has killed you and continued treatment offers no increased hope for your recovery.

I think then you could make that same argument with the pill as an abortificant. If despite all - an egg gets fertilized...the pill's effects don't actually kill it, the just prevent it from implanting by making the uterine wall different.

End of life issues aren't analogous to beginning of life issues and any attempt to make them the same is inherently dishonest.

I disagree. Life is a spectrum...at no point does it change what it is, a human life. When I argued abortion, you pointed out that I am arbitrarily made a determination that beginning of life was somehow of less value then at a later point of development - ie after birth. But you make the same arbritrary distinction with the end of the spectrum.

 

[numinus]

How about both?

Well, I might as well let the cat out of the bag, since nothing new is forthcoming from pale's 'tripod'. I was sincerely hoping he had something else in mind for personhood.

The standard for personhood in natural law does not come from the legal dictionary -- it comes from METAPHYSICS. Human existence is known by its nature, its identity and its distinctness in time and space. While individuals do change in infinitessimal increments from one moment to the next -- the changes being a function of the circumstances they are in, human existence DOES NOT.

Even if you are not inclined to metaphysical speculation, the standard for personhood -- as seen strictly within the boundaries of natural law -- is SELF-EVIDENT OR INTUITIVE. There is nothing wrong with such an assertion since ALL LOGICAL CONCEPTIONS, whether mathematical, ethical or legal need to start from AXIOMS. They are true assertions that require no formal proof. In fact, no formal proof is possible. That is why first-order logic is deemed axiomatic. And if you are still not convinced, then you might want to check out godel's 1st and 2nd incompleteness theorem.

So, when one concludes personhood as a fundamental part of human existence (no thanks to the legal dictionary), the ambiguities start to disappear.

A distinct (in nature, identity, space and time) human existence starts from conception and ends in death.

A FUNDAMENTAL AND INDEFEASIBLE right to live is its consequence.

Abortion, capital punishment and euthanasia (in various forms) directly contradict the natural imperative -- THOU SHALT NOT MURDER.

 

[Coyote]

Well, I might as well let the cat out of the bag, since nothing new is forthcoming from pale's 'tripod'. I was sincerely hoping he had something else in mind for personhood.

The standard for personhood in natural law does not come from the legal dictionary -- it comes from METAPHYSICS. Human existence is known by its nature, its identity and its distinctness in time and space. While individuals do change in infinitessimal increments from one moment to the next -- the changes being a function of the circumstances they are in, human existence DOES NOT.

Even if you are not inclined to metaphysical speculation, the standard for personhood -- as seen strictly within the boundaries of natural law -- is SELF-EVIDENT OR INTUITIVE. There is nothing wrong with such an assertion since ALL LOGICAL CONCEPTIONS, whether mathematical, ethical or legal need to start from AXIOMS. They are true assertions that require no formal proof. In fact, no formal proof is possible. That is why first-order logic is deemed axiomatic. And if you are still not convinced, then you might want to check out godel's 1st and 2nd incompleteness theorem.

So, when one concludes personhood as a fundamental part of human existence (no thanks to the legal dictionary), the ambiguities start to disappear.

A distinct (in nature, identity, space and time) human existence starts from conception and ends in death.

A FUNDAMENTAL AND INDEFEASIBLE right to live is its consequence.

Abortion, capital punishment and euthanasia (in various forms) directly contradict the natural imperative -- THOU SHALT NOT MURDER.

Interesting...I vaguelly remember axioms in a college course - maybe intro to Philosophy or Logic. That makes it a little clearer.

I would presume then that you would see the pill's affects as murder by omission....?

I also wonder about something else - and it goes back to taxomany, which was an interesting point you brought up.

What is a human? If humans and chimps share almost all of their genes - enough so they can interbreed and produce offspring (which, from what I undersand is not considered impossible) - what does that say about what it means to be human? Does this change the equation and how we regard life?

 

[numinus]

Interesting...I vaguelly remember axioms in a college course - maybe intro to Philosophy or Logic. That makes it a little clearer.

I would presume then that you would see the pill's affects as murder by omission....?

You mean as a contraception or as a means to abort?

From conception to death.

I have some objections to the contraceptive pill -- mostly from the reasoning of the catholic encyclical humanae vitae. But that is a topic for another time.

I also wonder about something else - and it goes back to taxomany, which was an interesting point you brought up.

What is a human? If humans and chimps share almost all of their genes - enough so they can interbreed and produce offspring (which, from what I undersand is not considered impossible) - what does that say about what it means to be human? Does this change the equation and how we regard life?

I don't know about interbreeding but gene manipulation is a real possibility. I think its called 'grafting' or something.

Honestly, I have no position on this regard, since genetics is not one of favorites. I switched side in the debate to get some input from pale. I was serious when I said doubt is the only standard for learning. He obviously was more interested in the 'letter' of the law.

 

[Coyote]

You mean as a contraception or as a means to abort?

From conception to death.

I have some objections to the contraceptive pill -- mostly from the reasoning of the catholic encyclical humanae vitae. But that is a topic for another time.

I was actually thinking of the contraceptive pill since to use it as a means to abort would change the intention right?

I don't know about interbreeding but gene manipulation is a real possibility. I think its called 'grafting' or something.

Honestly, I have no position on this regard, since genetics is not one of favorites. I switched side in the debate to get some input from pale. I was serious when I said doubt is the only standard for learning. He obviously was more interested in the 'letter' of the law.

When you brought up the subject of taxonomy - you perked my interest and I started looking for information. Differences in chromosome number are not always a barrier to producing viable hybrids and there is only one chromosome difference between humans and chimps, which means that interbreeding is possible. The other thing that took me by surprise is that there is evidence that chimpanzees and humans interbred for some time after the two species split. Which makes me wonder how you define a "human".

I find the "letter" of the law a less convincing argument but that could be because personally, I find the spirit of the law to be more powerful.

 

[palerider]

The standard for personhood in natural law does not come from the legal dictionary -- it comes from METAPHYSICS. Human existence is known by its nature, its identity and its distinctness in time and space. While individuals do change in infinitessimal increments from one moment to the next -- the changes being a function of the circumstances they are in, human existence DOES NOT.

Which leads one to wonder how, exactly, the definition ever came to be in the legal dictionary. I understand what you were getting at, but at this point, all the philosophical wrangling has been long done. The rules of the game in the US were established with the writing of the constitution. Arguing over whether the definition of person in a legal dictionary is correct is as pointless an exercise as if a lawyer beleived that he could make his client's case work if he could just get the judge to accept a different definition of bankruptcy or void, or guilty for that matter.

In many cases, centuries of philosophical, and legal wrangling have gone before the defintion that one finds in the legal dictionary. At this point, however, all the wrangling in the world between you and me, or legal council and a supreme court justice is not going to change what it says.

If an entirely unconstitional decision had not been made and actual lives were not being lost in the thousands per day, a philosophical argument on the subject "just for fun" might be appropriate but at this point, such mental masturbation amounts to fiddling while rome burns. Abortion is serious business to me.

If you would like to engage in a philosophical sparing match on some topic in which lives are not on the line, I might enjoy the exercise, but not this topic. It simply isn't appropriate.