Abortion

[palerider]

Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean that it's not an answer. You and I disagree on who owns women, so what?

No one owns women. No one may own another human being. Unfortunately, your argument suggests that women own their children and that simply can't be in the US.

Your reference to the ownership of women in this subject is no more than a red herring. Do you believe that laws that prohibit men from simply killing their wives constitutes ownership of them?

You have the right to live your life by your lights, other people have that same right, you would deny that right to them, so I disagree with you. Have a nice day.

And there is where your argument must consistently break down. My rights end precisely were another human being's rights begin. Your position begs the question and assumes that unborns are something other than human beings and that simply isn't the case. A woman's rights end at the point that her wants interfere with the basic rights of another human being.

 

[Dr.Who]

Dr. Who,

I do appreciate you trying to answer my questions, and I take no issue with your response, but you didn't answer the questions I was asking about.

I thought as much. Thanks for being gracious.

Pale wants to recognize the rights of the unborn and put them on equal footing with everyone else. This would necessarily ban the practice of abortion in all instances where the mothers' health was not being threatened by the unborn child. My question(s) to him was basically, what ramifications will this have and how can we prepare?

sounds like an interesting question. I think one deserving of its very own thread. I would hope that some would not argue that the hardships of recognizing a persons rights would be a reason to not recognize them.

As with any policy, one can look at the impact a policy is likely to have prior to adopting it. This allows us to plan ahead and have solutions ready for the foreseeable consequences.

Very sensible.

I don't think there is any doubt that enacting his policy will create certain obligations for the state and its taxpayers, this is what I was hoping we could discuss. Pale took my questions as a vein attempt to look for an excuse for why we shouldn't recognize an unborn child's rights but, as I stated, that was not at all my intention. I was merely curious as to whether or not he'd given any thought to the consequences of his policy and see if he had formulated some solutions.

Seems reasonable to consider. Since almost all abortions could be prevented with some planning I imagine that people would actually practice more planning if an easy out were not available. It might even reduce the number of adoptions in total.

Now that there are no more abortions (except medically necessary), there will be more children given up for adoption. While I hope that is not a debatable statement, I won't even guess as to the number because that just seemed to irritate Pale.

Ah but it is debatable. I suspect there would be less and suspect that the data from back when they were illegal would support that.

But if the number did increase I understand there are right now far more people wanting to adopt than there are babies to be adopted.

Lets pretend that there would be more children living in orphanages AND that the rate of pregnancy does not decrease at all. We could treat those children so well that when they become productive citizens and contribute an additional amount to the GDP equal to 42 million more workers per year that the increased revenue to the state in tax dollars and the increased donations to orphanages would easily support such institutions.

 

[Pandora]

We are talking at cross purposes here. I predicating my thoughts on the basis of Pale's Law being in force and all women being required to bear all babies with no exceptions. If you are referring to the situation as it now stands, then yes, the man should have some say in the disposal of the child. Sorry for the confusion.

As far as your scenario of a woman getting a man drunk and getting pregnant, well, I have no sympathy for drunks whether they are driving or fornicating. Caveat emptor, as the saying goes.

I am talking about what is currently happening today.

women have total control over the life and death of a baby and total control over a man's $$ for at least 18 years and neither the child who will die or the man who will pay have any say at all.

and it stinks!

I am ashamed to be female with these sort of double standards and I am fustrated with men that they do not speak up more about it.

 

[GenSeneca]

Again, you seem to be under the impression that because the state provides for children that the state must also provide for adults. What, exactly, is your basis for that line of thought?

Your words on the subject:

I don't make a single argument that can not be applied equally to every human being in this country.

and,

Arguments that can't be applied across the board to all human beings are simply not valid arguments ...

If you're argument doesn't apply equally to all human beings, regardless of such factors as age, then by your own admission its not a valid argument.

 

[dahermit]

Of course it is, and of course there have. The pursuit of happiness is the right to own property and that has been constitutionally worked out already.

Nonsense. Prove that the pursuit of happiness is the right to own property. Also, there are several amendments that could relate to owning property. Nevertheless, now you are stating that pursuit of happiness is the right to own property. Whereas earlier you stated that "...the ability to provide for themselves..." :

You would deprive adults of life if you denied them the ability to provide for themselves. That right is, however, protected. It is known as the right to pursue happiness.

You seem to be confused, which is it?

Debter? I am afraid that I don't follow you. I don't owe anyone, even for my home.

"Debater". Stop playing the fool, it does not become you. Have you spell checked your postings lately...I have, and you make plenty of typos/spelling errors also.

 

[GenSeneca]

I thought as much. Thanks for being gracious.

Thanks for taking me seriously.

sounds like an interesting question.

I thought it was reasonable to consider.

I think one deserving of its very own thread.

Done. Hope to see you there!

I would hope that some would not argue that the hardships of recognizing a persons rights would be a reason to not recognize them.

You know they will but I will consider any argument for, or against, recognizing their rights to be off topic in the new thread.

Very sensible.

Thanks, hopefully the replies in that thread will also be sensible.

Seems reasonable to consider. Since almost all abortions could be prevented with some planning I imagine that people would actually practice more planning if an easy out were not available. It might even reduce the number of adoptions in total.

Are you sure about that? Irresponsible people act irresponsibly and I don't think lack of an easy out will result in a large reduction of unplanned pregnancies. Anywho... we can continue that discussion in the other thread.

Ah but it is debatable. I suspect there would be less and suspect that the data from back when they were illegal would support that.

I hope we can look at this further in the other thread. If you have the data available, then please bring it with you.

But if the number did increase I understand there are right now far more people wanting to adopt than there are babies to be adopted.

Great, lets get some numbers in the other thread.

Lets pretend that there would be more children living in orphanages AND that the rate of pregnancy does not decrease at all. We could treat those children so well that when they become productive citizens and contribute an additional amount to the GDP equal to 42 million more workers per year that the increased revenue to the state in tax dollars and the increased donations to orphanages would easily support such institutions.

Check your stats... Unless I misunderstood you, there are not 42 million abortions a year.

 

[palerider]

Your words on the subject:

I don't make a single argument that can not be applied equally to every human being in this country.

and,

Arguments that can't be applied across the board to all human beings are simply not valid arguments ...

I wouldn't have thought that you would take a poster's words out of context in an attempt to make a point..even when playing the devil's advocate. I suppose you are "in character" and actually being the devil himself huh?

The first quote came from the following:

"My views aren't pro life. My views are centered in the law and logic. I don't make a single argument that can not be applied equally to every human being in this country. It is not necessary for me to single out any particular group in order to argue my position. Any argument that separates one group from all others in order to justify doing them harm is flawed and no different in character from the arguments made by stalin, lenin, pol pot, and every other monster in history who managed to dehumanize a particular group so that they could be killed without legal consequence."

Clearly the statement was in reference to killing without judicial review or legal consequences.

The second quote came from the following:

"So. If I place you in a position where you are not wanted and not welcome and manage to do it while comitting a crime, have I effectively erased your right to live? Arguments that can't be applied across the board to all human beings are simply not valid arguments Coyote."

Again, the statement was in specific reference to killing without judicial review or legal consequences.

If you're argument doesn't apply equally to all human beings, regardless of such factors as age, then by your own admission its not a valid argument.

If, as I have said, we are talking about killing without judicial review and without legal consequence. I looked up every instance in which I made such a statement and in each and every case, as I am sure you know, the statement was specifically about killing without consequence.

Is there a particular reason you deliberately chose to use my words out of context?

 

[GenSeneca]

I wouldn't have thought that you would take a poster's words out of context in an attempt to make a point..even when playing the devil's advocate. I suppose you are "in character" and actually being the devil himself huh?

LOL, the devil himself... I like your style Pale.

I don't know if you noticed but I made sure to include accurate hyperlinks to the specific posts from which I extracted the quotes, in anticipation of such an accusation. I will gladly explain my use of them:

"My views aren't pro life. My views are centered in the law and logic. I don't make a single argument that can not be applied equally to every human being in this country. It is not necessary for me to single out any particular group in order to argue my position. Any argument that separates one group from all others in order to justify doing them harm is flawed and no different in character from the arguments made by stalin, lenin, pol pot, and every other monster in history who managed to dehumanize a particular group so that they could be killed without legal consequence."

The sentence appeared to stand alone. "I don't make a single argument that cannot be applied equally to every human." There was no caveat, it did not read, "I don't make a single argument that cannot be applied equally to every human [in regards to killing without judicial review]." So does your statement only apply to your arguments regarding killing without judicial review, or does it stand alone and apply to all your arguments regarding equal rights for every human? Because I was under the impression that every argument you've made in this thread revolved around support of equal rights for all human beings and without exception. And by exception, I don't mean exceptions for such things as self defense, I mean exceptions such as race, sex and age.

If that sentence is only applicable to killing without judicial review, is your previous statement, "My views are centered in the law and logic", also strictly limited to your views on killing without judicial review or does it stand alone as representative of all your views regarding abortion? Because I was under the impression that all your views on the topic of abortion were based on the law and logic.

How about the statement that followed the one I quoted? "It is not necessary for me to single out any particular group in order to argue my position." Does that statement apply only to your position on killing without judicial review, or does it also stand alone in reference to your position that rights are to be equally recognized?

And the last sentence: "Any argument that separates one group from all others in order to justify doing them harm is flawed..." (I cut it off there because at that point its an independent clause and the independent clause that follows does not modify the statement, although you will probably disagree) Your argument that rights of the unborn trump the rights of the born does separate one group from another but rather than doing so for the purpose of justifying physical harm, you are doing it to justify violating the rights of the born (one group) in favor of the unborn (another group) and you are doing so by discriminating based on age (from conception to the cut off at adulthood).

Clearly the statement was in reference to killing without judicial review or legal consequences.

Perhaps that was your intention but it was not explicitly stated as such and your statements as quoted are consistent with your other arguments on the topic.

You have repeatedly stated that due to the hierarchy of rights, life trumps all the others... Yet you have never added the caveat that this only applies to those who are not yet adults when making that statement and instead simply took it for granted that (as an unstated premise) only the unborn and childrens right to life trumps the other rights of adults. However, you have stated, in essence, that the rights of adults cannot trump one another and therefore discount the possibility of socialism taking root... Which is not an equal application of the right to life but one that's slanted against adults.

"So. If I place you in a position where you are not wanted and not welcome and manage to do it while comitting a crime, have I effectively erased your right to live? Arguments that can't be applied across the board to all human beings are simply not valid arguments Coyote."

Again, this statement appears to stand alone. Or are you suggesting that arguments that deal with the recognition of our rights CAN be applied unequally, to some or all humans, and still be valid arguments? Because that would suggest pro-abortion arguments could be valid ones.

Again, the statement was in specific reference to killing without judicial review or legal consequences.

Perhaps... but your statements seem to apply "across the board" and are entirely consistent with your other statements/arguments on the topic.

Is there a particular reason you deliberately chose to use my words out of context?

Mess with the devil you get the horns... Like that? I tied in your accusation of my becoming the devil while playing his advocate.

But seriously... it is possible my impressions of you, and your arguments, are flawed... that you've not been advocating for equal rights for all human beings but instead you've been arguing for special rights that apply only to specific groups, such as the unborn and children, but do not apply to adults.

 

[palerider]

I don't know if you noticed but I made sure to include accurate hyperlinks to the specific posts from which I extracted the quotes, in anticipation of such an accusation. I will gladly explain my use of them:

Observe my posting style. If I intend for a sentence to stand alone; it stands alone.

Perhaps that was your intention but it was not explicitly stated as such and your statements as quoted are consistent with your other arguments on the topic.

Following your rationalization, I suppose you believe that I also am arguing that since freedom is a basic human right, that no one may rightly be imprisoned, no matter what crime he is guilty of because I didn't explicitly say it whenever I state that freedom is a basic human right.

See sophism (modern usage)

Mess with the devil you get the horns... Like that? I tied in your accusation of my becoming the devil while playing his advocate.

The reference wasn't to the horns. The reference was to his being the father of lies and sophistry (modern usage) his primary tool.

But seriously... it is possible my impressions of you, and your arguments, are flawed... that you've not been advocating for equal rights for all human beings but instead you've been arguing for special rights that apply only to specific groups, such as the unborn and children, but do not apply to adults.

Yes, if your above rationalizations in fact, reflect your actual impression of my arguments, then you have them wrong. I argue for equal protection of rights, not equal rights as an absolute. I doubt that you will ever hear me argue that children shoudl be allowed to drink, smoke, drive, gamble, bear arms, vote, or go to war just because adults can. The fact that I regularly point out that rights may be denied under our legal system if a certain formula is followed should explain my position clearly.

I believe I have stated to you that if each unborn is given his day in court and just cause is shown for his life to be forfiet, that I would have no arguments with abortion. I would have thought that statement alone would make my stance on abortion crystal clear.

 

[GenSeneca]

The reference wasn't to the horns. The reference was to his being the father of lies and sophistry (modern usage) his primary tool.

While I do appreciate such flattery, perhaps I am more akin to Satan's mentally challenged younger brother... (just ask any lefty on the board, they'll tell ya! )

I argue for equal protection of rights, not equal rights as an absolute.

You repeatedly denied any analogous relationship between welfare and the state forcing a woman to carry a child to term. Well since no such word existed that fit my definition, I have coined one:

Welfare: The state forcing an individual to provide for another individual, by the legal confiscation and redistribution of property.

Wombfare: The state forcing an individual to provide for another individual, by preventing the legal termination of a pregnancy.

How is that for a bit of sophistry? Now onto the lies...

Pale is arguing in support of Wombfare for a special class of human known as the unborn, whose rights trump those of the born. Since wombfare is limited to those in the womb, Pale can argue for it as policy without fear that it will lead to justifying socialist policies outside the womb, such as welfare.

 

[samsara15]

That's what I keep saying, General, but Pale denies it because it does not fit his old fashioned definition of socialism. The point is that the individual is at the service of the state. Oh well, it worked for ancient Sparta, at least for a while.

 

[palerider]

You repeatedly denied any analogous relationship between welfare and the state forcing a woman to carry a child to term. Well since no such word existed that fit my definition, I have coined one:

Welfare: The state forcing an individual to provide for another individual, by the legal confiscation and redistribution of property.

Wombfare: The state forcing an individual to provide for another individual, by preventing the legal termination of a pregnancy.

Again, not honest by a country mile. Your "wombfare" allows one individual absolute ownership of another to do with as they please. It gives the power of a monarch to one individual over another; here in the US where we went to war in rebellion of such power of one individual over another.

Pale is arguing in support of Wombfare for a special class of human known as the unborn, whose rights trump those of the born. Since wombfare is limited to those in the womb, Pale can argue for it as policy without fear that it will lead to justifying socialist policies outside the womb, such as welfare.

What do you know. You said you were going to lie and you did it. Unusual tactic. By the way, I don't believe I have ever seen a response that was further away from the actual statements it was intended to rebutt. Congratulations.

 

[palerider]

That's what I keep saying, General, but Pale denies it because it does not fit his old fashioned definition of socialism. The point is that the individual is at the service of the state. Oh well, it worked for ancient Sparta, at least for a while.

You just don't seem to be able to get anything right do you? In the first place, the "old fashioned" definition of socialism is the definition of socialism. Any unilataral redefinition on your, or anyone else's part is the description of something other than socialism as it already has a definition.

Secondly, in sparta, parents could kill thier children at will for any or no reason; and it didn't work for them as evidenced the thebians (a peaceful people) decisive victory over sparta which relegated them to the dusbin of history. All societies that disregard human rights in favor of convenience eventually end up there.

 

[dahermit]

Secondly, in sparta, parents could kill thier children at will for any or no reason; and it didn't work for them as evidenced the thebians (a peaceful people) decisive victory over sparta which relegated them to the dusbin of history. All societies that disregard human rights in favor of convenience eventually end up there.

You are putting your opinion forward as fact. All societies have eventually ended up there without regard to disregarding human rights.

 

[palerider]

You are putting your opinion forward as fact. All societies have eventually ended up there without regard to disregarding human rights.

Can you offer up any evidence that it was not due precisely to thier disregard for human rights?