|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: "...except in the case of rape or incest." | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days)  Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
When you sling a lot of lead, you're bound to slip up once in a while.
 I write my posts in stream-of-consciousness, so I'm not surprized by the odd inconsistently. And I've never given much thought to abortion - this is all just part of a general philosophy of responsibility. But enough excuses.
Holmes writes: ... your reply was only to suggest a gov't wouldn't be acting within reason or responsibly to pass such a law. We did have anti-abortion laws (not anti-couch laws) at one time. Those laws were removed because they were deemed unreasonable by the legislatures and/or the courts, presumably in agreement with society. I don't see how the hypothetical re-introduction of a law already deemed unreasonable is a "strong counter".
... if such a law passes then it is on the citizen's head not to get a couch unless they know they want to keep it. I'm sorry. I can not begin to fathom how it is "on my head" to follow an unreasonable law.
... we have a moral obligation/responsibility to everyone, including the weaker members, and so have the moral right to tell someone what to do.... There's the logical consistency right there. How does a moral responsibility for somebody give you a right to tell them what to do?
... or we keep our moral noses out because it is no one's business. I thought I explained this. Our moral responsibilities are to everybody else, not to ourselves. We have a responsibility to our fellow men when they screw up. We have no moral "rights". The responsibility to help others includes advising them on how not to screw up - it does not include removing their right to screw up.
So her moral decision can result in a moral obligation on my part?
Exactly. Your moral obligation depends on the condition she is in, not on how she got into that condition.
And as far as alternatives go, society IS presenting an alternative. But the alternative is also unreasonable. Either force her to raise a child for eighteen years or turn it out into the world where it might be adopted? You might as well tell people to eat the couch instead of throwing it away. (Now let's throw away that old, worn-out couch analogy.)
... it is alive and a weaker member of society. Carrots are alive too. Neither a carrot nor a fetus is considered a "member of society".
If you argue that WE must be responsible for a woman and child once she finds herself pregnant, then there is no sense you can argue she cannot be held responsible to have a child after implantation/gestation begins. Read my lips. (Gotta love DaddyBush. ) She has a moral responsibility to follow her comscience, not ours. We have a moral responsibility to follow our (collective) conscience. The two are not related. There can be no if-then. If she, in good conscience, has decided to abort, her moral obligation ends there. Done. Finished. If society forces her to carry the pregnancy to term, they are morally abligated to care for the child. I may be stating it badly, but it seems blindingly obvious to me. That's where the OP question comes in. A rapist forces himself on a woman. If a woman is forced to carry a pregnancy to term, society is forcing the pregnancy on her. She is being raped by society. (So, how's it going over there? Are the dykes holding up? I like dykes.  ) Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Holmes writes: In the US they were not removed because they were deemed unreasonable by anyone. They were removed by the US Supreme Court because it was decided such laws were inconsistent with certain items within the constitution. Okay, so the abortion laws were not considered to be "reasonable" vis a vis the current flavour-of-the-month interpetation of the Constitution? (I didn't mean "reasonable" in the sense of "rational". )
This does not change the fact that it is on your head to follow the law so as not to run afoul of it. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time? Let's get back in perspective here: if anti-abortion laws come back and a woman breaks those laws, she must be willing to face a jail sentence, lethal injection, whatever. But if she complies with the law and has the baby, she's punished anyway? She's forced to raise the child? (Or give it up - which could also be considered a punishment.) It seems to me that "justice" would require something on the plus side for her - say helping her take care of the baby.
Call me crazy but I don't believe one can have responsibility for something that one does not have any control over. You're crazy.  If a flood deposits a foot of silt in my basement, I have no control over that - but it's still my responsibility as a homeowner to clean it up. Similarly, it is my responsibility as a citizen - and a human being - to take care of any "weaker member of society" who needs my help. Once again, if society doesn't do that, what good is it?
If I have responsibility for someone else then I gain an added level of control, beyond just "advising". We are responsible for our spouses, are we not? We took on that responsibility when we promised to love, honour and cherish "in sickness and in health", blah blah blah.... Does that give us "control" over our spouses?
Certainly we don't expect parents to remain in just an advisorial role to their kids. Primarily, we expect parents to feed, clothe and house their kids. Secondarily, we expect them to "advise" them in such a way that they become useful citizens. In what way does that give parents an added level of "control"?
If we do have responsibility for others, then what of the woman's responsibility for the fetus? I keep thinking I've answered this question. The woman who makes a decision to abort has taken responsibility. If society won't allow her to take responsibility in her own way, then the responsibility falls on them. Let's look at the kids again: Junior wants a hamster and he swears blind he'll take care of it. After a week, the hamster is hungry and thirsty in a dirty cage. Do the parents say, "It's your responsibility, not mine," or do they feed the hamster?
... they are actively trying to protect a member of society. Remember to them it is just like murder.... What "they" think is immaterial. I'm talking about the moral responsibility of society as a whole - and that society as a whole has decided that it is not murder. The attempt by any segment of society to force its own "moral" ideals on society does not change the real moral responsibilities of that society.
I simply cannot accept responsibility for her or any of her choices or any of the consequences of her choices, if I am told I cannot affect anything she does or decisions she makes. That would be pretty unjust. No. That would be a social contract. We agree to work together as a society. You help pay for the road in front of my house. I help help keep the barbarians away from your gates. That doesn't give you the right to decide who can park on my street and it doesn't give me the right to decide who you do let through your gates.
I do not see it as unreasonable to allow a person to live under perhaps less than optimal conditions, instead of letting them be killed. It seems to me that a lot of women have abortions because they are not able to provide those optimal conditions. If society doesn't reassure her that the child will have the best life possible, she is more likely to abort, not less.
Assuming their viewpoint on life and personhood is valid/applicable, the argument presented and such laws are NOT unreasonable. Excuse me for being democratic about this. It is society as a whole that decides what is "reasonable" within that society. If a segment of society believes it is moral to sacrifice virgins, that doesn't make it reasonable.
They aren't raping her, they are protecting what they view as a life. The old "she-was-begging-for-it" ploy, eh? Bottom line: It's her choice. She says, "No." She's forced against her will. That's rape. "Their" views are immaterial. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
holmes writes: I don't believe raising a child if that is what one chose... is a punishment. But I'm saying specifically that that is not what she chose. She chose to abort. If the law won't let her do it, she is being punished.
The prolifers are specifically making the same argument you are, and saying you are ignoring a certain class. Well, I am basically pro-life. I'm also pro-choice.
Parents have control over pretty much every aspect of a child's life. Do you have kids? I count myself lucky if the neighbours aren't on the lawn with torches and pitchforks, wanting to lynch the little hellions.
They decide where kids can go and not go, who they can hangout with or not.... Now, I know you weren't that goodie-goodie when you were a kid.
... they can inflict corporal punishment as well as confine them. Uh... no. Society won't let them do that any more. See, society has more control over the parent than the parent has over the child.
If the parents give the kid a hamster and he kills it saying he knew he wouldn't have wanted to take care of it, no one would say the kid "took responsibility". At the risk of beating another innocent analogy to death: What if he took the hamster to a vet and had it euthanized? (Remember, we're not talking about a woman beating her child to death. We're talking about a medical procedure.) That is a way in which people take responsibility for their pets all the time.
Society as a whole has decided that? Yeah. Pretty much. (I'm not as familiar with your society as I am with my own, of course.)
Society at one time believed killing a black wasn't murder... did that void such concerns from "real" moral responsibility. Well, I didn't say society is always right.
I think you are confusing popularity with some form of absolutism regarding moral responsibility here. I don't think there are any "absolutes" when it comes to morality. I think there is a pretty-damn-near absolute responsibility to take care of the weaker members. It's mainly the qualifications for membership that can change. Don't you confuse popularity with democracy. On any given day, a referendum might ban abortion. But democracy introduces a long-term component. Laws take a long time to change - constitutions take even longer. The moral values of "society" tend to be tempered by those delays. To a large extent, there is "no going back". Slavery won't likely be re-introduced. Women will likely retain the vote.
This week they installed popup "gates" on several blocks (including mine) to keep out certain elements and stop certain types from parking on my street. I said it doesn't give them the right. I didn't say it prevents them from passing bad/unreasonable/oppressive laws. But the ongoing moral consensus eventually removes the worst and most oppressive.
... that's a bit too hyperbolic for my tastes. I prefer to think of myself as dodecahedral.
Anything against one's will is not "rape". As crashfrog might say, violation of one's "body autonomy" is rape. (I'm rather proud of that idea, actually.) Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
holmes writes: I am only discussing what I see to be flaws in his argument. I'm the first to agree that my arguments can be thin (stream-of-consciousness and all - I'm makin' it up as I go along, folks). I'm just trying to thicken 'em up.
Just let me know if this is getting boring or unproductive. I actually felt like it was relatively productive. I'm glad you think so. I think I'm getting close to where I've told you eveything I know. -------------
Anti-abortion laws remove one of those odious choices based on the concept that that choice involves harming (killing) another living being. But they've removed the one choice that she wanted to make. Suppose she goes into a restaurant and the choices of entree are chicken and crab. She's allergic to shellfish - the waiter tells her they're out of chicken. Does she really have a choice?
She is left with choices that do not violate the rights of another. She is left with a choice that violates her rights. (Maybe that's why the courts have struck down anti-abortion legislation?)
I'm hoping that I am drawing out why this is not really an argument of punishing a person or forcing something on someone.... Sorry, you're not - not for me, anyway. It looks like a life sentence - or even a death sentence.
That last point really has to be understood, that society might have more control than a parent does not argue that society has less control over the actions of an individual. I don't think I do understand that. At least, I don't agree with it. Society has the same control over a parent as over a child. The parent's control over the child is within that framework. The parent also has responsibility for the child, a responsibility which is governed by society. Society has a responsibility to the individual, whether parent or child. The child - having no responsibilities at all - would seem to be the least "controlled" of all. (But I'm starting to lose track of what that has to do with the topic. )
If the child had it euthanized because he didn't want to care for it he would not be considered "taking responsibility" for it. It is avoiding responsibility. (Please don't mangle my analogies. ) We are talking about the difference between neglecting a hamster and euthanizing it. You might think there are other choices that "should" be made, but euthanasia is certainly more responsible than neglect.
The only time euthanasia is considerd "care" is when an animal is in pain, and will likely die that way. (You're a bit heavy-handed in deciding for everybody else what they consider "care", aren't you? ) The analog (aaarrrghh!) with abortion would be saying that it is only "responsible" if the fetus would likely die anyway.
I don't know much about Canada, but from what I hear it is beginning to trend right, just like the rest of the west. It's a short-term "trend". It's happened three times already in my lifetime. Every time, the righties just show what a**holes they are and make it worse for themselves in the long run. (But that's another topic.)
In any case abortion is definitely NOT a decided issue in the US or Europe or it wouldn't be topical. I may have missed the news every night for the last few years, but it's my impression that abortion isn't very "topical" in Canada. Gay marriage is certainly more topical, and even that is fading fast. I'm optimistic that the rest of the world will catch up eventually.
I might add there is already less freedom of communication and to act than there was. Hmm.... I heard about a new-fangled invention called the "Internet", or something like that, that was supposed to allow instantaneous communication around the world. We never had that when I graduated from fetus to baby. I wonder how this "Internet" will reduce our freedom of communication? (Yet another topic.)
I feel a personal desire to help those in need, but recognize that this is not a universal feeling and that whole societies have operated just fine without such ideas. No, different societies have different standards of how to help those in need. I have never heard of a human society that had no such standard at all. By definition, it can't be a "society" unless the members take care of each other.
Only our technological ability has given nations with such technology an ability to care for weaker members that is not practical for other nations. Once again, you are talking about the level of care, not a "to-care-or-not-to-care" situation. (And, of course, it is medical technology that allows us to provide safe abortions.)
As far as I can tell we are actively re-inventing slavery. Workers have always been mistreated by employers. It's just insulting to compare that to slavery.
You can say it doesn't give them a right, but if consensus is that it does, then it does. I guess I'm thinking of "rights" in a more absolute sense than you are. The US Constitution (or is it the Declaration of Independence?) speaks of "inalienable" rights. The UN has a "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". No consensus can remove those rights - it can only pass laws that violate those rights.
Hitler rose amongst a relatively democratic nation. Nonsense. (And you are aware, of course, that the first one to mention Hitler automatically loses the debate. ) Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
holmes writes: Raising the kid or giving it to foster care is not the same as having to do something which will certainly adversely effect you in a physical way. It isn't? Have you forgotten about he risks of pregnancy before the child is even born? (And you really need to learn to trim the fat on your analogies - the waitress' eye colour is not relevant. )
Yes, she has a choice, though bounded by restrictions set by others. That happens all the time. And, as I have been trying to point out, some of those restrictions are not deemed "reasonable" by society.
When there are two individuals, there is a competition of rights.... But there are not two individuals involved - only one with a medical condition.
The only time she could make such a claim is if the fetus does not have rights. Bingo.
Which is what I keep pointing to is the crux of the whole argument. And the argument has been settled - the fetus does not have "rights" which trump those of the woman. All you have done is speculate that those "rights" might some day be recognized.
... the concept that a restriction on abortion is a death sentence for the mother is absurd. Nothing absurd about it. It certainly has been a death sentence for women in the past. Facts ain't absurd.
... ironically abortion is most certainly a death sentence for the fetus (which you don't seem to mind). Well, I do mind, as I have said. But the simple fact of the matter is that the constitution/courts do not view it as a "death sentence" for the fetus.
... unless the fetus is not considered a child. Why do I have to keep repeating this? It isn't.
... would euthanasia of an ailing relative or an irritatingly spongy relative be considered "care"? Wouldn't infanticide be considered "care"? By some people, yes. By society, no. It's all relative.
It can be a responsible decision to abort for many other reasons, but that is not the same thing as "taking responsibility for" the fetus. What's the difference between making a "responsible decision" and "taking responsibility"? (I'm going to leave out discussing the Internet, since it's off-topic - and your argument against yourself is better than anything I could come up with. )
There were many societies, especially pre tech civilizations, which could not afford care for the weakest. The weakest are invariably the newborn. If any society did not take care of them, that society would be extinct.
You put your care for those that were strongest and most likely to benefit the group as a whole. No. The strong can take care of themselves. That's the antithesis of society.
... slave wages.... Oxymoron.
Do you honestly believe that the above mentioned documents set out actual "rights" that we really possess, and cannot be change by consensus? That's kinda exactly my point: They do (or at least the interpretations of them do) represent a consensus. The consensus being that a fetus is not a person and is therefore not entitled to the "rights" defined therein.
The fact is that there are more rights than those enumerated, and yet not recognized by either the US or the UN, based on popular social consensus of what is NOT a right. So, how do you define what "rights" are? I thought we agreed that the popular flavour-of-the-month is no way to determine rights. If we don't go with a long-term consensus, enshrined in constitutions and declarations, how do we define rights?
You must fight against the society around you for every right you demand. Your success determines what rights you will enjoy. I don't "demand" any rights. I form a consensus with the rest of society about what rights we agree should be extended to whom. One of the things we have agreed on is that women should have the right to abortion. That agreement is a consensus whether or not I personally agree with it.
Hitler DID rise to power from within a democratic nation. No. Weimar Germany was never democratic except in name only. (But that's another topic.)
... free people have often taken steps backward and gladly put the yoke on their own necks. Life is about choices. Security versus freedom. Security against being blown up versus freedom to drive around with a bomb in your car. That's not the same as "gladly putting the yoke on their own necks".
There's a new rule if you hadn't heard: the first person to mention that the first person to mention hitler loses, when mentioning Hitler actually applies to the argument at hand, loses. Heheheh. Sorry, I don't read sentences over one line long. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
holmes writes: But you can't use that (such an assumption to be true) in an argument against someone who is AA. It becomes a circular argument. Ah, but that's where the OP comes in. The anti-abortionists claim that the fetus is human and therefore has rights - yet it is somehow "okay" to abort it in the case of rape (or incest). Their position is inherently inconsistent (maybe even "hypocritical", as somebody hyperbolically suggested ). Clearly, there is a consensus - even among anti-abortionists - that a fetus is not (fully) human, that a fetus does not have (full) human rights.
My suggestion is that the consensus was not regarding abortion. A temporary truce so that sides can buy time to defeat an enemy is not consensus on the issues which divided them. And my suggestion is that you can't call a truce "temporary" until it's over.
I certainly DON'T expect nonUS citizens to know about our constitution, unless they start discussing it. I used the buzzword "inalienable" rights - and indicated that I didn't know if it was from the Constitution or the Declaration. I also used the buzzword "Universal" Declaration of Human Rights. I used both buzzwords as a suggestion that there is a (more-or-less) universal consensus on the subject of inalienable human rights. I did not present it as a treatise on constitutional law. (Who would have thought the Mighty holmes would have reading comprehension difficulties? ) Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
holmes writes: Remember I already addressed this. Did I not tell you I have a short memory? I don't remember.
The AAs specifically said there is NO exception for rape or incest. Well, then I guess this whole thread has just been a waste of time.
Uh... it's over... The consensus was NOT that abortion was okay. You're still looking at it from a very America-centric viewpoint.
The AAs have finally placed two members on the court they feel will reverse public policy, and immediately got an AA law on the lawbooks. So I did miss the news last night. Abortion is now illegal in the US?
There is no universal consensus on the subject of inalienable rights. There may be no universal consensus on what rights are inalienable. There seems to be a consensus that there are rights that are inalienable. The US (and a few other jurisdictions) notwithstanding, there does seem to be a widespread (if not universal) agreement that woman have a right to "body autonomy". I see that trend as increasing, not decreasing.
Your own commentary conflicts with some of the founding theories on it. So George Washington et al. really meant "all men are created equal" to include black men? Subsequent legislators and jurists interpreted it to exclude women? It seems that all that remains of the "founding theories" is the rhetoric - the buzzwords. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: I feel that I am more morally obligated to help someone who gets screwed over than some who screws up themselves.
Your opnion is noted. How many opinions do you think I'll need to collect before I can buy a cup of coffee?
But the people who are strongly opposed to abortion consider the fetus a member of society and the abortion of that fetus murder. Are there no laws against murder?
That's where the OP question comes in. A rapist forces himself on a woman. If a woman is forced to carry a pregnancy to term, society is forcing the pregnancy on her. She is being raped by society. Which is why the phrase “except in cases of rape or incest” should be included in an anti-abortion law. But that's the whole point of the OP. How is a fetus conceived by rape less of a member of society? (Edit: removed an extra "is" is. ) This message has been edited by Ringo, 2006-03-20 12:14 PM Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
