"...except in the case of rape or incest."

I'll by your book if you write it Ringo

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

This debate gfives me an idea for a new thread....

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

doubleThis message has been edited by JustinC, 03-16-2006 11:01 PM

Wow, this topic really blew up. Sorry for the late reply, I was stressing over a presentation for the last couple of days.

quote:

---

I'm not unsympathetic to that point of view, but where is that point where it has those rights?

​

And, indeed, yes, she has certain responsibilities. Food, clothing, shelter if she has them to give.

---

Why does she even has this responsibility? Why does she have to give up her resources for the well being of this child?And if she does, why doesn't she need to give up some of her resources (through the placenta) in the couple of months before the baby is born? What's the significant difference?

quote:

---

But you can't, for instance, legally compel a parent to give up a kidney for their own child. They have every right to sit there and watch their child die rather than risk their own life on the operating table. It's hard to imagine who could make such a choice but there's no legal reason they couldn't.

---

Is the only issue, for you then, that the mother has a small chance of dying while carrying the baby and delivering it?Do you feel abortion should be legal up until the couple of days before labor?I'm not setting you up for any arguments, just trying to flush out your position.

quote:

---

We're talking about newborns? Yes, I agree. Care of a newborn can be transferred to another person so fatal abandonment is hardly necessary. Care of a fetus cannot.

---

The care of a viable fetus can certainly be transferred to other people. Does the mother have the right to abort it then? because it may be safer for her to have an abortion than to have a C-section or give birth?

quote:

---

The fact that the fetus cannot survive outside of the uterus of its mother is unfortunate for the fetus but it's irrelevant to the fact that no person can compel you to make space for them inside your body, or collect parts of your body for their own health or nourishment.

---

Again, viable fetus's can be transferred to others for care.

quote:

---

Sovereignty of the body is absolute.

---

Up until the days before labor? The mother has no responsibility for the well being of this child since her body trumps all?Again, I don't know your position, these are innocent questions.

quote:

---

I don't see it that way. And I don't see what being a stranger has to do with it. For that matter - a fetus is a stranger to you; its connection to you is merely genetic. You've never spoken to it, never made any arrangements or deals with it. It's as unknown to you as any other person you've never met.

---

Stranger may be a bad word to use. By stranger I don't mean someone you never met before. I'm just trying to say that the obligations and relationship between a mother and child or father and child is different than that between you and some random person you meet who is not your child.[EDIT] For butchering the English languageThis message has been edited by JustinC, 03-16-2006 11:21 PM

Body autonomy. Well, it isn't that small; but no, for me, the issue is body autonomy. Human beings have a right not to have their bodies be invaded by another human being. I don't know. I'm not comfortable restricting late-term abortions because that doesn't give a woman much time to:1) suspect pregnancy after a missed period
2) obtain and perform a test for pregnancy
3) locate an abortion provider, possibly in another state
4) save money for procedure, lodging, travel
5) arrange work schedule to permit several days' absence
6) travel to provider, submit to tests, be counseled, have abortionI mean it's not like you miss a period and you're in there the next day, having the abortion. Not to mention that there are a whole lot of organizations whose stated purpose is to delay your abortion by whatever means necessary until it's no longer legal for you to have one. Sure. She's under no obligation to put herself at risk for another person. I don't believe a mother-child relationship exists between a woman and an unwanted pregnancy. It's more of a relationship of antagonist-defender.

Ehhhh... I went back and looked at his post and see very little that I'd agree with. My point was only that members of both sides agree to the same exception.I agreed completely with your assessment that it is because people aren't thinking much about what they are saying and there is a scale or spectrum of desirability which will include that exception, despite their being no logical reason/criteria for its existence.He seems to be arguing that you have misunderstood the argument that anti-abortionists make, and that if a double standard exists for them it has a logical defense, being the hatred of sin and such.Not saying he is correct or your post doesn't affect his argument, just placing a humongous wall between the points he raised and what I raised. I had actually thought of replying to that post (earlier) due to some odd points he tried to make.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

I generally like your posts, so I was sort of disappointed to see you not acknowledge that your couch analogy was adequately refuted. CS had a strong counter, and your reply was only to suggest a gov't wouldn't be acting within reason or responsibly to pass such a law. But that's just name-calling or an assertion.If for some reason people were making and buying couches and throw them out every few months (lets say it became some fad) and this was seriously affecting garbage disposal services, waste containment facilities, and sightliness of the city, why would that not be reasonable or responsible?And in any case his point stands, 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. Given that I am wholly prochoice, I thought this was an interesting challenge.What's worse, you move on to a logical inconsistency... and yet... and This is completely contrary. Either we have a moral obligation/responsibility to everyone, including the weaker members, and so have the moral right to tell someone what to do, or we keep our moral noses out because it is no one's business. You cannot have it both ways.Indeed my eyebrows shoot up at being told the results of a woman's decision, which I have no right to interfere with, is equally my responsibility. Really? So her moral decision can result in a moral obligation on my part?And as far as alternatives go, society IS presenting an alternative. They do not say that she must raise the child, only that she must continue the pregnancy to deliver the child, because it is alive and a weaker 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.Okay, now don't take this as mean spirited. The subthread title is meant jokingly and though I am being forceful in my argument, I am hoping to arouse a better response than what you gave CS. I agree in people minding their own business, and am prochoice, so I want people on my side picking up their game.This message has been edited by holmes, 03-17-2006 11:51 AM

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest you agreed with his post 100%. It was basically the last line of his post that I felt was relevant, and that I felt was similar to the point you had made.Sorry for being unclear.

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. 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". I'm sorry. I can not begin to fathom how it is "on my head" to follow an unreasonable law. There's the logical consistency right there. How does a moral responsibility for somebody give you a right to tell them what to do? 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. Exactly. Your moral obligation depends on the condition she is in, not on how she got into that condition. 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.) Carrots are alive too. Neither a carrot nor a fetus is considered a "member of society". 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

Hey Shraf? I just did a re-examination of the source that you gave me about how childbirth is 11 times more dangerous than abortions. It seems to be a pro-choice oriented site, as it's mission statement attests. Seems like most pro-life and Pro-choice websites in one aspect: Bias. Course it is hard to come up with an unbiased review of the touchy subject, and it does site sources. But the source for the fact that pregnancy is 11 times more dangerous than abortion source is labeled "lbid". I've seen this in books, and everytime I do see it I get suspicious. What does lbid mean? Are they citing themselves?PLus, if you cite this site for pro-choice, I can also cite a source for pro-life that says the opposite and has numerous statistics like the former.Just being Devil's advocate.BTW: Why did you change your old avatar? The old one seemed better than the new one your using.This message has been edited by LudoRephaim, 03-17-2006 12:19 PM

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

It's actually "ibid", and it's a bibliographical term for "different page from the same citation." If you see it used like this:

quote:

---

C. Frog, A Book About Something (Frogger Press, 2006) p. 120

​

Ibid, p. 200

---

then you know it's telling you that the second citation is from page 200 of the same book used in the first citation. It's from the latin "ibidem", roughly "the same place."

Hi, Ludo.One difference between the site that schraf cited and a typical anti-abortion site is that shraf's site lists the sources of the information used. If you want, you can actually look up the papers that are cited and see whether the information is taken out of context and, more importantly, determine whether the methodology is sound; you can also find out whether the sources are peer-reviewed journals (or reports citing peer-reviewed journals), and so the information has passed through a process where experts in the field evaluate the methodologies used and whether the methodologies can lead to the conclusions that are drawn.This reminds me of an incident that I have already related here. On another message board someone claimed that women who have abortions are more likely to have emotional problems. He cited an anti-abortion web site; as you point out, it is reasonable to wonder whether the site's bias has led them to pull information out of context or to cite poorly conducted studies. Rather than look up a pro-abortion site (which would have the same potential problems), I decided to go directly to Pub Med to find out what was in the actual research literature.I already knew the claim was bogus; what I expected to find was, as an estimate, less than 30% of the studies would show a correlation between poor mental health and abortion and the rest no correlation. Instead, I did not find a single study at all that supported the idea that abortion is emotionally traumatic for the woman. Every single study that I found (I will stress, though, that I am not an expert at looking things up) concluded either that there was no correlation between mental health and abortion, or that negative mental health effects correlated strongly with the religious beliefs of the mother.I have little doubt that if we were to look at the actual research literature, that shraf's claims would be verified. If you want, you can do a literature search yourself (that would be a useful skill to learn in any case) and report what you find. If what you find contradicts shraf's claims then maybe someone (probably schraf herself) will be compelled to do her own search, and then this discussion would actually become based on facts.Of course, ultimately whether abortion is right or wrong is a moral argument, and so the facts may have little bearing on this (except, of course, that we can discard arguments that have their basis on incorrect premises).Edited to correct a typo (and a pretty funny one, too).This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 17-Mar-2006 05:39 PM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

OKay, that is what it means. Could come handy in a super long College paper. Thanks for da info

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

Did you make that word up intentionally? I think its a great descriptor for some people around here (not you). Whoaa there! 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. Another court could rule that they are consistent and we could get them back, or alterations could be made to the constitution to remove any inconsistency.Those possibilities are looking more likely all the time. Being a believer in civil disobedience I do agree that one does not have to follow what one believes is an unjust law. Not sure if that always extends to unreasonable laws, but we can agree for sake of argument.This does not change the fact that it is on your head to follow the law so as not to run afoul of it. Demands of society may always be different than demands of conscience. Call me crazy but I don't believe one can have responsibility for something that one does not have any control over. If I believe X is another person's business, then I have no responsibility for X or anything coming from it. My only moral responsibility is to myself. If I have responsibility for someone else then I gain an added level of control, beyond just "advising". Certainly we don't expect parents to remain in just an advisorial role to their kids. And we don't have police advising thieves and murderers to stop screwing up.I might add that you have bumped into another issue. If we do have responsibility for others, then what of the woman's responsibility for the fetus? Or society's responsibility? It is not so much that they are telling the woman she is not allowed to screw up, they are actively trying to protect a member of society. Remember to them it is just like murder, and I assume you would not suggest police should not interfere with a murder in progress, right? Of course we may be finding a theoretical divide between us, with neither of us being right or wrong, just different. 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. Despite being for abortion rights, 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. Indeed your criticism at best argues that we should invest more in childcare so that even the children who are not adopted, get good care. Ahhhhhh, but THAT is a different argument. Assuming their viewpoint on life and personhood is valid/applicable, the argument presented and such laws are NOT unreasonable. It is only if their view of life and personhood are not appropriate that such laws begin to seem unreasonable.This gets to the basics of breaking down an argument. Your position had hidden premises, which are not inherently true. That's not quite true. They aren't raping her, they are protecting what they view as a life. I do agree that they have an obligation to that life if they protect it and she does not want it. I don't see how that acts as an argument that they cannot protect it. Its rainy, cold, and still heading fascist (despite the recent left victories). The dykes seem to be holding though.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

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". ) 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. 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? 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? 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"? 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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