Ahahahahahahaha... I knew you were going to be simplistic and point to the Zealots as the first terrorists.
I reiterate what I said: Terrorism didn't EXIST in a mearningful way until the 20th century, so what's your point?
Before the capacity for one person (or a very small group of people) to kill many, many people existed (from explosives to chemical weapons to nukes) terrorism was completely different. Of COURSE tyrannical gov'ts were more of a threat than terrorism when the worst terrorists could do is attack you with hand-to-hand weapons. The advent of 20-th century weapons completely changed the equation, so using a pre-20th century comparison of the relative dangers of tryanny and terrorism is nothing but a straw man.
This is going to get modded to oblivion, isn't it? The anti-slashbot POV.
Get over yourself. There's a strong libertarian streak, but there's also plenty of "america sucks, capitalism is evil" types running around.
Two points.
1. My original point was simply this: I don't think you have a right to force someone else to invest in a safety net. Period. I'm well aware that a social security net would benefit both, but if you notice the sig I was replying to stated something to the effect of "if you don't want a net you can splatter on the ground, but I want my social security". Since social security is an everybody-in or everybody-out proposition, the sig in question is just assinine. THAT was my point.
2. You write: I have a feeling that most people who are against it have never been down and out, or poor, or rendered incapable of work.
You're wrong, in my case anyway. I have been poor. I'd say 5 kids in a double-wide trailer with barely enough money to keep food on the table day in and day out is poor by American standards. Social security did squat. My mother-in-law recently had to quit her job to continue her 18-year battle with breast cancer. She gets social security. It's such a pathetic amount it's an insult. It does squat for her.
Studies have shown that increasing the value of food stamps x% can increase poverty by 3 or 4 times as much (in %).
And finally studies also show that the vast majority of Americans who are poor manage to work themselves out of it. I'm not quoting all my "studies show", and I apologize for that, but I'll at least link you on this one: http://townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2 006/02/08/185448.html
So what's my point? Social security is ineffective and largely unnecessary. It's more impotant to have a vital economy that creates jobs than to have a handout that can't even pay the rent.
People extend as much effort as they think they have to - no more. The more paternalistic (or nannyish, take your pick) the gov't becomes, the more people will 'need' that support.
I say let's operate on a minimalist approach to gov't welfare. Private organizastions tend to do a much better job of it anyway. The gov't should be the last resort - not a full-service stop for people who are either genuinely in-need or just lazy or somewhere in between.
Well, and if those young immigrants you're quoting don't like the "high taxes", why would they even come in the first place?
They couldn't cut it in America.
we have free education for everyone, and tuition for university is very low
Yeah, but 8 of the 10 best universities are American. Furthermore, there've been several good articles recently on why the European mindset has let to mediocrity in their university system. You get what you pay for in this case.
Also, the US seems to be pouring less and less money into higher education when compared to upcoming economies like China or India
The US uni system is more self-supporting than Europes. That's why it's better. Not saying there's nothing nto be worried about. As I already said - only time will tell. The US has plenty of issues of it's own to face.
But the uni example you gave was perfect. Go to europe and get cheap higher education. Go to the US and get the best higher education in the world. Take your pick.
I just want to try and make sure exactly what I'm asking you.
My argument:
A. We need to generate an existential definition of "person" 1. We don't have a natural definition of "person". I'm not saying one doesn't exist, just that we don't have one. 2. In order to resolve the abortion debate, we need a definition of "person". 3. Since we can't use a natural definition, we must generate our own.
B.The existential definition we should choose is: a person is created at conception 1. The necessary conditions for personhood: homo sapien, living, entity 2. Thus there's no person before conception (no requirement is satisfied) C1: Earliest possible moment for "personhood" is conception. 1. Any criteria that tightens "person" requirements beyond the three mentioned will also exclude people commonly accepted as "persons". C2: Therefore either the line is at conception OR abortion should be legal but so should some things we currently consider murder. 1. I don't want to broaden scope of murder (do you? - this is where I'm asking for your response) C3: Therefore we should declare (existentially) that the 3 requirements are not only necessary, but sufficient for "person" status.
A corollary to C3 is the following: 1. Past examples of creating additional conditions for personhood: - anti-Semitism - racism - sexism - discrimination based on physical capacity - discriminaton based on mental capacity - discrimination based on political/societal influence - discreimination based on education 2. All of these examples have been rejected not because of specific causes, but because the TYPES of criteria have been rejected. C1. Therefore you can't use any of these types of criteria to tighten definition of "person". 1. There are no additinoal criteria available (feel free to argue) C2: Therefore the original 3 critiera (living, homo sapien, entity) should be sufficient.
Those are my arguments as clearly stated as I can do right now. Please let me know which premise, conclusion, or logical step you think is wrong.
Your concept of investment is too narrow. Investing in your education counts. As does acquisition in goods (e.g. real estate).
The so-called free market is controlled by huge conglomerates whose owners are not well known and whose goals, both short term and long term, are invisible to just about everybody else.
This is conspiracy theory nonsense. The free-market is not controlled. What do you even mean by "free market"? The stock markets? Which ones? With or without real estate markets? This is just a nonsensical statement.
But as long as the fat cats rig the system in their favor
Show me some evidence that this is true. Even a little bit. Even a tiny smidgen.
And, finally, keep in mind that EVEN IF YOU DO my MAIN POINT was just the illogical position of the sig. Even if all you say is true it does not follow that one person should have the right to force their neighbors to help get out of if. That is my point. Not Europe vs. the US, not the nature of free-market capitalism vs. the US economy.
Before we get on tangents at least acknowledge that you're not responding to my actual point, please.
We shouldn't even be asking if a fetus is a person. We should be asking how much it benefits society for us to consider a fetus a person, or to not be a person.
This is one of the most egregious logical errors you've made. How do you get from "personhood is defined existentially" to "personhood should be defined in terms of societal utility"? There's no justification for you to make this leap. None whatsoever. I can't even come up with a metaphor for how arbitrary that leap was.
That is why I look to Nature to motivate whether a fetus is a person or not
You're driving me nuts. You keep saying that's what you want to do. Then you list off a bunch of reasons why a fetus is not a person. Then I point out "OK, fine, but using that criteria neither is an infant/sociopath/retard, etc." And then you drop it entirely, only to bring it up again later in the discussion.
Please respond to my major point of contention. If you think you have found a natural definition of "person" please explain how this criteria allows us to consider the examples I've listed as "persons" OR come out and say you think they are not persons.
I didn't follow your argument about ownership, but let's just drop that for now. Above all else, you simply need to respond to me about your criteria for defining persons. Once we've had that discussion, a lot of my other points are (I think) going to start to become clearer to you.
I'll hold off other responses until we address this issue.
So again: if you think you can fend for yourself - stay in America. If you are afraid to do so - stay in Europe.
Couple this with the fact that I'm reasonably confident Europe's economy will continue to gradually decelerate under the growing burder of it's older, entitled population (coupled with ever decreasing child-bearing rates) - and I'm doubly happy to be where I am. In a few decades Europe is likely to either be in a semi-permenant recession, in social upheavel as young immigrant populations refuse to should outrageously high tax burdens to support elderly indigenous populations. Or I suppose they could trim some fat.
I'm confident I can make a better life for myself in America then I could in Europe - no questions. If you feel you're doing better in Europe, I wish you the best. I can't predict the future; that's just my opinion.
Remember, I was criticizing the illogic of the original sig, not the European system. I'd rather not get into a debate about which is better: the US or Europe. Obviously I feel the US, you feel Europe. In the end only time will tell.
The point of social security is not that it forces me to protect myself - it forces me to protect your lazy ass. Just because you want a safety net doesn't mean you should be able to make your neighbor help pay for it.
I reference the wrong term. The right term is "anchoring". Anchoring or focalism is a term used in psychology to describe the common human tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor," on one trait or piece of information when making decisions.
During normal decision making, individuals anchor, or overly rely, on specific information or a specific value and then adjust to that value to account for other elements of the circumstance. Usually once the anchor is set, there is a bias toward that value.
In any case, experiments that support "common wisdom" (in this case "fear of the unknown") based on bad logic or poor experiment design are just a pet peeve of mine. This is a perfect example of how not to actually perform an experiment.
Definitely. People would have thought it was a countdown until Google release Google Pie - free pies if you promise to read all the advertisements on the box.
This was a clumsy experiment at best. He's sad people assumed evil and says all that was on the site was the phrase "we don't want you here".
That means the only info was negative. This is a commonly studied human phenomen called "framing" (or something similar). If you give a person very limited info, then they will use that tidbit of info will drastically influence their perception of the question at hand. If it has said something less ominous I'm sure it could have had a better reception. As it was, however, if you only give 1 factoid and the factoid is negative, and there's a countdown - how do you expect people to react?
in Nature birth and death both seem to me to be processes, not events. So it is not clear to me that a line should be drawn in the sand to say "personhood begins here!" We cannot draw such a line to define what is alive.
I agree - they are processes. So what is or is not alive may not be clear. But this doesn't mean we should not draw a line. The line is a practical necessity - even if it doesn't arise from objective reality. "Ownership" isn't really a part of objective reality either (as opposed to possession) and it is also hard to define, and yet it is necessary that we do our best. The same applies here.
You of course left out one possibility- that personhood is only a construct created to make sense of the world, in which case we don't necessarily need to be completely logical in determining what is a person and what is not, since we are reduced to using the concept of "personhood" only for its utility, not its Truth.
You misunderstand me entirely. I've not only accounted for the possibility that it's not a part of objective reality: I'm depending on it. The word "person" (as we're using it) is not something that arises from objective reality - it's an existential term. We give it meaning and definition. This doesn't pop up as a third option, it's the reason we have the two options (at conception, or some other definition). I'm not in search of some ultimate Truth of personhood, anymore than I think we could find some scientifically-sound definition of "ownership".
We called Jews sub-human before, we give them equal humanity now. Whether or not there actual is a value for their humanity is irrelevant. The point is that we agree now it was a morally wrong to denigrate them before - and I believe that for the same logical reasons it is morally wrong to denigrate the unborn now. There's no need, at this stage, to answer the question of whether or not humanity exists in objective reality or not. I think it does not, but in any case the question is academic.
One more thing on the medical regulation- as I understand it the government does regulate medicine, but typically with the goal of protecting or informing the patient, which is not the case with abortion if you do not believe the embryo/fetus to be a person.
True, but circular. If the embryo/fetus is not considerd a person, I don't have a case. That's why I'm arguing that it is morally wrong to not consider them a person. From the argument that the unborn are persons flows everything. If you disprove that, there's no reason to bring up medical regulation at all: you've already won.
Politically this is a completely separate issue, which I tend to think is a real failure of imagination on the part of the US public.
There are two general kinds of crisis pregnancy centers. Those that serve as fronts for abortion centers (look at how much of Planned Parenthoods operating budget comes from profits from abortion). Then there are the numerous centers run by NRLC (national right to life committee) and affiliated organizations. Practically any main-line pro-life group (e.g. those who don't want to blow shit up) spend considerable quantities of their scanty resources supporting crisi pregnancy centers. I've done volunteer work this way myself.
So I think you're wrong. The same grass-roots organizations that oppose abortion are already volunteering/donating/staffing and doing all they can to support crisis pregnancies. If we let them have their way, outlawing abortion (as birth control) would go hand-in-hand with accelerating efforts to support women in need. The hypocrisy of the pro-choice donors is amazing. They're happy to write checks to support NOW or NARAL so that all women can have the choice to be coerced into abortion, while genuine crisis-pregnancy centers languish for lack of funds.
This is a completely different issue than assisted suicide or euthanasia, which is about whether we want to allow people to end their own lives, either through their own actions, or by proxy. But frankly, I don't terribly like the idea of the State involved with that decision, either.
Just to be clear: the gov't heavily regulates medical procedures. The idea that the gov't is somehow staying out of plastic surgery or lasik or organ transplants or skin grafts is absurd. From the fact that MDs need a license to practice to the fact that hospitals and outpatient surgery centers face inspections your whole assumption that somehow gov't should "stay out" of abortion because it's a medical procedure has no legs to stand on. Gov't regulates health care.
We are something more.
Again, I don't want to be disrespectful but I've heard this a million times. And as far as I can tell there are only 2 rational positions to take. First of all, I agree 100% that you are something more than a fetus or an embryo. This is absolutely true. But you are also something more - in just as important and real a sense, as an 8-year old, a 2-year old, or a 1-yr old. You're also more human, in your ability to reason morally, than a genuine sociopath will ever be. You're more human, in you ability to be self-sufficient, than retarded people. You're more human, in your ability to love, than someone with autism. So you have to take one of two positions:
1. All human beings are equal (we're all "persons") 2. Develop some criteria for distinguishing between a member of the species homo sapien, and a "person".
You're clearly trying to do #2, but I challenge you to do so in a way that doesn't lead directly to infanticide, euthenasia, eugenics, etc. That's my whole point. You're welcome to say "kiling 20-year old is worse than kiling a fetus" for any of a vareity of reasons that are valid and true. But I claim that you will not be able to generate non-arbtirary criteria (e.g. something other than: "my criteria is that you've been born") that I won't be able to aply to humans who have been born.
I think the truth in what you are saying is that many womens-rights organizations want to ignore the cost of allowing abortions. They don't seem to want to admit that abortions are by default bad things, and in a best case scenario only the best of several bad options
That's exactly what I'm saying. The difference is that you drastically underestimate the power of these organizations to influence our society. Think about it: you can't even pass informed consent laws in this country. You want women to be free from feeling coerced to have abortions and yet the people in power refuse to even guarantee them information, let alone freedom from coercion. I think you're just naive about how this issue really works. I hate to be emotional about this, but when you've (at age 16) had a 14-year old girl sob on your shoulder "I killed my baby" because her parents told her to get an abortino or get out of the house, maybe you'll understand what I'm talking about. Just imagine yourself as a single woman who's unexpectedly pregnant: what does society want you to do? Get an abortion and all your problems are solved. Sure - you'll have to live with it, but no one else will be burdened by you and your unwanted baby. It's not just babies that are unwanted: it's mothers.
But again, I claim that you seem to want to similarly ignore that making abortions illegal impedes womens rights or freedom, in the liberal political sense I mentioned earlier.
I am NOT ignoring that!!! But practically all laws limit freeom: that's what they do. If a father wants to molest his child, that's illegal. That restricts his freedom. But society values the right of the child more than that of the father in this case (the father does have a right to pursue happiness, right?). In this case the imposition on women is greater. I REALIZE this. I would only want to pass laws against abor
Any creature able to understand the moral consequences of it's own actions is probably a person, regardless of species.
You've simply created another criteria for humanity - and one that I flatly reject for these purposes. We simply do not use this criteria when deciding who gets "human rights". Retarded people and infants, for exampe, are afforded MORE protection, not LESS - despite (because of?) their inability to meet your criteria.
If you want to assert personhood for an infant or fetus, you probably want to go with "will probably become a person".
No, you've obviously not understood my point. I abslutely refuse to use that "back door" entry - and it's absurd for you to rely on either. Do we treasure the lives of down syndrome kids because they may, one day, have "human comprehension"? What about sociopaths? They're not as cute and cuddly - but do we say that because of their inability to perceive morality they must therefore be denied human rights? No - in both of these cases we extend the definition of person to those who flatly fail to meet your proposed criteria nor or in the forseeable future. The path you're walking down in unnecessary and doesn't get us anywhere anyway.
I understand the definition of "person" you are using, it's common in philosophy, but I'm not using it. The whole POINT of my argument was that we can define a "person" any way we like. You've picked one arbtirarily. This is totally MISSING THE POINT. The point is that we can choose intelligence, or any of a million other factors or combinations thereof, but in my opinion the best moral definition for person IS "any living homo sapien", not because that has to be the definition, but because it is the best categorization we can make. You've got to try and understand that point. Some people said Jews weren't people, others said blacks weren't people, some say infants aren't people, others say retards aren't people. I'm REJECTING THOSE CRITERIA as being different versions of "you're not like me, so you're not a person".
The point of a law is to incent behavior that makes society a better place (by whatever values your morals suggest).
We are in perfect agreement on this point. I fail to see how my law - AS I ENVISION IT BEING ENFORCED - would be impractical. Believe me, I've been here and thought of this, but we're covering a lot of ground first. The moral argument is one thing (the reason I want to incent behavior) the law is another. I understand full well they are not the same.
About most of your other arguments: you seem to be assuming that the evolution of human society is one of moral progress
That fallacy does annoy me, and I do not make it. I'm not assuming that human society always progresses. Contrast Rome, say, with Nazi Germany. Progress? I AM, however, saying that there are some things once viewed as morally OK that we now view as wrong. All I'm saying is that even though not all history is progress: we can learn from history. That's all.
Cultures evolve towards better use of resources, or get conquered by cultures that do so, and the underlying pattern is one of economic effeciency
Your assumptions are as naive as the ones you accuse me of making. Firstly, I flatly reject the utter moral relativity you seem to be espousing. Secondly, I don't think it's any smarter to attribute economic darwinism to society than it wouuld be to attribute moral darwinism to society. You've substituted one version of the fallacy for another - i've made neither.
If you define that as "human", then more that half of humans die before birth, and all of human society should be turned on its head to prevent that.
Now THIS is an argument that pisses me off, and I had hoped you'd be smart enough not to make it. Society is happy with letting people die. Hundreds of thousands every year from car accidents. We could all drive 25 mph and save lives. We don't. We're happy with the loss of li
Let me start out by saying that the argument you make in favor of being pro-choice is the only argument that, in my mind, has any rational basis at all. And it does have some basis. What it really comes down to is the definition of "human being" (or "person", whatever you want to pick), and the argument that it's a continuum is persuasive.
There are some issues, however. First of all, let's set aside historical definitions because they're either pure speculation (e.g. customs of stone-age tribes) or almost universally invariable examples of what not to do.
You're right to point out that considering infants to be human beings is a relatively modern development. My counterpoint is that this expansion of definition is NOT a "luxury'. Indeed, take a look back at human history and find for me a single example of when a non-homo sapien was ever considered human, only to later be revealed to be a non-human. It's really never happened. And if it has, it's never led to any serious damage.
Now ask the question: how many times through history has something we now consider a person or human being been considered as less than a human being? It is precisely this mistake - this dehumanization of what we now consider human - that has led to a vast majority of the carnage in human history. From outright examples like slavery, anti-semitism, and the Boer rebellions to more insidious examples like religious war the standard precursor to the greatest evils humanity has committed has been to dehumanize the intended victim.
So I would make the serious warning that those who attempt to demarcate what is a human being and what is a homo-sapien have an almost unparalled history of utter failure and that the results of that failure have universally been bloodshed, shame, and misery. It is perhaps the greatest sign of our current western civilization that we have as all-embracing and generous a definition of human as we do. Ultimately, homo-sapien is scientific (the fetus IS in our species and a unique instance thereof) but person is ALWAYS and forever up for defintioin. We can exclude Jews, we can exclude blacks, we can exclude Christians or muslims, lepers or the elderly, infants, or toddlers. We have, in our past, done all of the above and view those decisions with universal abhorence and revulsion.
Now we are doing the exact same thing with the unborn. We have the luxury of extending or revoking personhood because they are powerless and voiceless. But I contend that all the reasons that you give for so doing come down to: a fetus is not like me. Dependent? So are all children. Missing bodily parts? So do amputees. If you lose both your arms and both your legs - we CAN revoke your status as a human just as Nazis considered parapelegics or quadrapalegics sub-human and exterminated them. But do you want to do that? Then why do you want to do this to the unborn?
So I reject your statement: From a biological perspective, anything earlier than about 2 weeks is just silly, because the majority of fertilized eggs don't make it that far anyway. Guess what - most people at 99 don't make it to 100 (or a lot of them don't). Does this make them less human? If you are end-stage brain cancer - are you less human? Survival rates have NOTHING to do with humanity - NOTHING. The "silliness" you perceive is a result of arbitrary cultural norms. It's relative. It would have seemed genuinely silly to consider Jews human if the Nazi empire had lived long enough to raise generations in that mentality. That a concept is silly doesn't necessarily reflect anyting about the concept: it tells us more about the thinker. There's no logic here, it's not biologica, it's purely rhetorical.
And this one is even more ridiculous: From a social perspective, anything before about 6 weeks is pointless, because any law that doesn't allow a woman to motice that she's pregnant and spend a few days making the decision won't limit the number of abortions, only the number of legal ones.
Science doesn't say that at conception you have a new human life.
In a way you're right. It's not science, it's common sense. But it sure as hell isn't religion.
Here's the thing. It's a unique entity - that much is obvious (it's not the same as the mother, has it's own DNA, etc.). It's also alive. So you tell me. If it's alive, it's human, and it's unique how is it not a human being?
Your third sentence is ridiculous and convinces me that you've made up your mind and aren't even considering new ideas.
I'll let you know when you hit me with a new idea. You certainly haven't done it yet.
What's worse, aborting a clump of less than a dozen cells or condemning a child to a bad upbringing by resentful parents?
This is a totally false dichotomy. Why not just do adoption? Furthermore, by this logic, you have to ask why we don't just line all foster kids against a wall and shoot them.
For example, is it better to allow morning after pills, which are seen as abortions by many religions, or to force all those women who don't want a child to bring it to term?
Not just religions, but science too. At conception you have a new human being. So I'm opposed to the morning-after pill. There is some moral difference, however, since with the morning after pill you don't know you are killing a human being - you just might be. So legally, I think there's some room for debate.
But my main beef is with your "isn't abortion better than..." This is a quality of life argument. They are extremely compelling, extremely popular, and almost always extremly irrational.
My point on the abortion issue was that most people feel that killing a blastocyst is evil for the same reason they feel that killing a cute little puppy is evil, despite being OK with killing animals for food - it's a completely emotional basis.
This is probably true. But it is also true that most people opposed to limiting abortion feel that way for reasons that aren't rational either. The rhetoric is charged on both sides, and I think it's almost axiomatic that human beings tend to make political and religious decisions in non-rational ways. (Decision-making is another fascination of mine, although I'm just learning the basics as I work my way through "Consciousness Explained" by Dennet.)
Unless you assert a soul, it's hard to find a rational basis for this.
It depends on the context. If I am arguing the philosophical morality of abortion I may need to dip back into abstract principles, but what I'm really arguing for above all else is a policy decision. It's law. And I can argue that case effectively without any recourse to mention of a soul one way or the other.
In fact, my primary argument against abortion (as birth control) is constitutionally based. First of all, the Roe v. Wade decision is ludicrous (from a constitutional law standpoint). Secondly, the primary right is the right to life. I believe burden of proof should be on those trying to restric the application of this freedom (since every time it has been historically restricted it has been done so wrongly, as with the Jews, blacks, etc.) So if you want to see a fetus has no right to life - you have to say why. The reason for this is simple: a fetus is unambiguously a unique human being. So if you want to deny a human being human rights - you have to provide the reasoning. I've never seen this successfully done. And as long as the fetus retains the right to life I consider this to trump the right of the woman to control over her own body for 9 months (if pregnancy results from consensual sex between competent adults).
That's a hard-line stance that is softened considerably by my arguments about abortion and sexism. I feel America's abortion policy is decidedly anti-woman. Just look at the reaction of NARAL and NOW to "informed consent" laws. Clearly the pro-choice leaders are far more interested in protecting idealogy (to say nothing of revenue) than with actual freedom (since freedom is nullified by ignorance). So even though I feel the hard-line "right to live" trumps "right to body" is sufficient, I feel the case is actually far, FAR stronger than that once you bring in additional societal issues. I honestly feel like women are cheated by this policy. We tell them they are free, but what we mean is that they are free not to be a burden to men who want to use them for sexual gratification. If women also want to have sex without consequences, then I guess they're happy too. But we've managed to coerce them into making a horrible decision in the name of freedom. It's truly Orwellian.
So even though I'm happy to get into theological and philosophical issues, when I argue abortion policy I find that I can get all the ammunition I need from constituional law etc. rather than needing to go all the way back to defining good vs. evil. I mean, you could argue every issue all the way back to questioning of moral axioms, but I just don't think you need to do that to get an answer in this case. So I start with law, move to sociology, and then move into philosophy if absolutely necessary. Theology I never bring into it except for academic interest.
My point is that many more humans could be saved with the money and time that are spent fighting abortion. The fight over abortion, the war on terror, and the war on drugs are basically destroying our country.
So what? Are you saying we should have allowed slavery to continue and then used the economic might of the US resulting from that to make sure Africans didn't starve?
You're not making nearly as much sense as you think you are making.
I thought that the medical community typically self regulated what sorts of medical procedures it performs
You mean like assisted suicide? We just let the medical community self-regulate on that? How about euthanasia?
Next.
This is biologically natural, but it doesn't change the nature of what it is- the child co-opting the mother's body for its own benefit
Thanks for the congrats. And I have talked to other people about pregnancy. My mother had 6 of us kids. But I'm not trying to argue that being pregant (or labor) is not a burden. It IS. And I'm not saying it's punishment. It's just the natural consequence of having sex. It's a risk you run. And once you've run the risk you have to ask which right has priority: 1. right of child to live (for ever) 2. right of woman to control own body (for 9 months)
Both in terms of time frame and severity (not to mention culpability - the mother is 50% resonsible for the child being there, the child is 0% responsible for being there) the right of the unborn to live is the primary right that ought to be protected.
The problem with the statement is that we mean something a heck of a lot more sophisticated and complicated when we refer to human life. Muscle sheets grown for medical research are in some sense human life
Not to be rude, but this is silly. A fingernail is not a person. An embryo is. This is not a complicated issue. One is a human entity in its entirety, the other is not. Believe me, I've been down this road countless times and the only thing that surprises me is that people still think it's a valid contention. Human life, in this sense, means a unique human being. Not a part of one (human ear on a mouse) and not a potential of one (a sperm or an egg).
I'm not trying to score points. I just think your posts are normally pretty good, but you don't seem to have the courage to face the cost of deciding abortion should be made illegal. But outlawing abortion, we pay a cost in womens rights, paid for by and large by women and not by men.
I realize there is definitely a cost, but I flatly disagree that it is the cost you think it is. Go and read anything from the "feminists for life". Abortion on demand does not free women - nor does it respect them. Try some links: http://www.feministsforlife.org/voices/Voices%20fr om%20Winter02-03.pdf. Abortion is a hellish procedure and it is generally men who actively coerce women into it or at least - through refusal to support them - leave them in a predicament where it seems like the only option. I think the real societal cost of making abortion illegal would be in giving genuine support to women in crisis prenancy - and that's a cost that I'm willing to pay. I think it's a price we, as a society, are indebted to pay. Our current abortion law is like telling mothers of infants they are free to kill their children and then expecting them to do this if they can not afford to feed them. This is a perverse view of freedom.
The only difference is that with abortion we can also convince some of them that their unborn child is a "clump of cells". This usually works until about the time that that same woman sees her "baby" (because that's what they call it if you want to keep it) when she eventually gets pregnant on purpose.
But at heart abortion is just that - the expectation that women abort their unborn rather than become a burden on their boyfriend or on society. It allows men to treat women as reusable sexual objects. When a woman has an abortion she is not free - she lives with that for the rest of her life. But now the father is out of child payments and responsibility. How is that equitible?
Just go ahead an replace "abortion" with "infanticide" in all your arguments and tell me how comfortable you are with legalizing infanticide in the name of women's rights - and whether you think it would make anyone free.
There's also something else to consider though. Do you really want the people who would use abortion as birth control bearing (and raising) lots of children?
No, I don't. But that doesn't mean I think we take that out on the innocent children. Furthermore, there are a lot of people I don't particularly want to have children, but it's a long way from there to making "minimum requirement" type of laws for pregnancy. A long road I don't even want to start down.
While you read this, several living, young human beings probably died of starvation.
Blah blah blah.
A - I DO care. I donate heavily. I can do two things at once.
B - It's about sphere of influence. The US should save US lives first, foreign lives second. That's what countries are there for.
C - It's about principle. Our gov't is not necessarily betraying its principles when it doesn't give enough foreign aid. It is betraying its principles when America is no longer protecting the right to "life, liberty and happiness" of those conceived in its borders.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahahahahahahaha... I knew you were going to be simplistic and point to the Zealots as the first terrorists.
I reiterate what I said: Terrorism didn't EXIST in a mearningful way until the 20th century, so what's your point?
Before the capacity for one person (or a very small group of people) to kill many, many people existed (from explosives to chemical weapons to nukes) terrorism was completely different. Of COURSE tyrannical gov'ts were more of a threat than terrorism when the worst terrorists could do is attack you with hand-to-hand weapons. The advent of 20-th century weapons completely changed the equation, so using a pre-20th century comparison of the relative dangers of tryanny and terrorism is nothing but a straw man.
My point stands as stated.
-stormin
This is going to get modded to oblivion, isn't it? The anti-slashbot POV.
2 006/02/08/185448.html
Get over yourself. There's a strong libertarian streak, but there's also plenty of "america sucks, capitalism is evil" types running around.
Two points.
1. My original point was simply this: I don't think you have a right to force someone else to invest in a safety net. Period. I'm well aware that a social security net would benefit both, but if you notice the sig I was replying to stated something to the effect of "if you don't want a net you can splatter on the ground, but I want my social security". Since social security is an everybody-in or everybody-out proposition, the sig in question is just assinine. THAT was my point.
2. You write: I have a feeling that most people who are against it have never been down and out, or poor, or rendered incapable of work.
You're wrong, in my case anyway. I have been poor. I'd say 5 kids in a double-wide trailer with barely enough money to keep food on the table day in and day out is poor by American standards. Social security did squat. My mother-in-law recently had to quit her job to continue her 18-year battle with breast cancer. She gets social security. It's such a pathetic amount it's an insult. It does squat for her.
Studies have shown that increasing the value of food stamps x% can increase poverty by 3 or 4 times as much (in %).
And finally studies also show that the vast majority of Americans who are poor manage to work themselves out of it. I'm not quoting all my "studies show", and I apologize for that, but I'll at least link you on this one: http://townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/
So what's my point? Social security is ineffective and largely unnecessary. It's more impotant to have a vital economy that creates jobs than to have a handout that can't even pay the rent.
People extend as much effort as they think they have to - no more. The more paternalistic (or nannyish, take your pick) the gov't becomes, the more people will 'need' that support.
I say let's operate on a minimalist approach to gov't welfare. Private organizastions tend to do a much better job of it anyway. The gov't should be the last resort - not a full-service stop for people who are either genuinely in-need or just lazy or somewhere in between.
-stormin
Well, and if those young immigrants you're quoting don't like the "high taxes", why would they even come in the first place?
They couldn't cut it in America.
we have free education for everyone, and tuition for university is very low
Yeah, but 8 of the 10 best universities are American. Furthermore, there've been several good articles recently on why the European mindset has let to mediocrity in their university system. You get what you pay for in this case.
Also, the US seems to be pouring less and less money into higher education when compared to upcoming economies like China or India
The US uni system is more self-supporting than Europes. That's why it's better. Not saying there's nothing nto be worried about. As I already said - only time will tell. The US has plenty of issues of it's own to face.
But the uni example you gave was perfect. Go to europe and get cheap higher education. Go to the US and get the best higher education in the world. Take your pick.
-stormin
I just want to try and make sure exactly what I'm asking you.
My argument:
A. We need to generate an existential definition of "person"
1. We don't have a natural definition of "person". I'm not saying one doesn't exist, just that we don't have one.
2. In order to resolve the abortion debate, we need a definition of "person".
3. Since we can't use a natural definition, we must generate our own.
B.The existential definition we should choose is: a person is created at conception
1. The necessary conditions for personhood: homo sapien, living, entity
2. Thus there's no person before conception (no requirement is satisfied)
C1: Earliest possible moment for "personhood" is conception.
1. Any criteria that tightens "person" requirements beyond the three mentioned will also exclude people commonly accepted as "persons".
C2: Therefore either the line is at conception OR abortion should be legal but so should some things we currently consider murder.
1. I don't want to broaden scope of murder (do you? - this is where I'm asking for your response)
C3: Therefore we should declare (existentially) that the 3 requirements are not only necessary, but sufficient for "person" status.
A corollary to C3 is the following:
1. Past examples of creating additional conditions for personhood:
- anti-Semitism
- racism
- sexism
- discrimination based on physical capacity
- discriminaton based on mental capacity
- discrimination based on political/societal influence
- discreimination based on education
2. All of these examples have been rejected not because of specific causes, but because the TYPES of criteria have been rejected.
C1. Therefore you can't use any of these types of criteria to tighten definition of "person".
1. There are no additinoal criteria available (feel free to argue)
C2: Therefore the original 3 critiera (living, homo sapien, entity) should be sufficient.
Those are my arguments as clearly stated as I can do right now. Please let me know which premise, conclusion, or logical step you think is wrong.
-stormin
Your concept of investment is too narrow. Investing in your education counts. As does acquisition in goods (e.g. real estate).
The so-called free market is controlled by huge conglomerates whose owners are not well known and whose goals, both short term and long term, are invisible to just about everybody else.
This is conspiracy theory nonsense. The free-market is not controlled. What do you even mean by "free market"? The stock markets? Which ones? With or without real estate markets? This is just a nonsensical statement.
But as long as the fat cats rig the system in their favor
Show me some evidence that this is true. Even a little bit. Even a tiny smidgen.
And, finally, keep in mind that EVEN IF YOU DO my MAIN POINT was just the illogical position of the sig. Even if all you say is true it does not follow that one person should have the right to force their neighbors to help get out of if. That is my point. Not Europe vs. the US, not the nature of free-market capitalism vs. the US economy.
Before we get on tangents at least acknowledge that you're not responding to my actual point, please.
-stormin
We shouldn't even be asking if a fetus is a person. We should be asking how much it benefits society for us to consider a fetus a person, or to not be a person.
This is one of the most egregious logical errors you've made. How do you get from "personhood is defined existentially" to "personhood should be defined in terms of societal utility"? There's no justification for you to make this leap. None whatsoever. I can't even come up with a metaphor for how arbitrary that leap was.
That is why I look to Nature to motivate whether a fetus is a person or not
You're driving me nuts. You keep saying that's what you want to do. Then you list off a bunch of reasons why a fetus is not a person. Then I point out "OK, fine, but using that criteria neither is an infant/sociopath/retard, etc." And then you drop it entirely, only to bring it up again later in the discussion.
Please respond to my major point of contention. If you think you have found a natural definition of "person" please explain how this criteria allows us to consider the examples I've listed as "persons" OR come out and say you think they are not persons.
I didn't follow your argument about ownership, but let's just drop that for now. Above all else, you simply need to respond to me about your criteria for defining persons. Once we've had that discussion, a lot of my other points are (I think) going to start to become clearer to you.
I'll hold off other responses until we address this issue.
-stormin
So again: if you think you can fend for yourself - stay in America. If you are afraid to do so - stay in Europe.
Couple this with the fact that I'm reasonably confident Europe's economy will continue to gradually decelerate under the growing burder of it's older, entitled population (coupled with ever decreasing child-bearing rates) - and I'm doubly happy to be where I am. In a few decades Europe is likely to either be in a semi-permenant recession, in social upheavel as young immigrant populations refuse to should outrageously high tax burdens to support elderly indigenous populations. Or I suppose they could trim some fat.
I'm confident I can make a better life for myself in America then I could in Europe - no questions. If you feel you're doing better in Europe, I wish you the best. I can't predict the future; that's just my opinion.
Remember, I was criticizing the illogic of the original sig, not the European system. I'd rather not get into a debate about which is better: the US or Europe. Obviously I feel the US, you feel Europe. In the end only time will tell.
-stormin
I'm thrilled that we have a massive nanny-state in Europe where those afraid of personal risk and responsibility can find a peaceful haven.
-stormin
Another hilarious sig.
Imagine the awful power of the suicide knife. Or the suicide rock. Or the suicide stick.
Terrorism didn't EXIST in a mearningful way until the 20th century, so what's your point?
-stormin
Best. Response. Evar.
I always feel so conflicted when ACs make good posts. Such a waste.
-stormin
Your sig bugs me. That's probably the point.
If you want a safety net: invest.
The point of social security is not that it forces me to protect myself - it forces me to protect your lazy ass. Just because you want a safety net doesn't mean you should be able to make your neighbor help pay for it.
-stormin
I reference the wrong term. The right term is "anchoring".
Anchoring or focalism is a term used in psychology to describe the common human tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor," on one trait or piece of information when making decisions.
During normal decision making, individuals anchor, or overly rely, on specific information or a specific value and then adjust to that value to account for other elements of the circumstance. Usually once the anchor is set, there is a bias toward that value.
This article (and more info) found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring
Framing, by contrast, is described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(economics)
In any case, experiments that support "common wisdom" (in this case "fear of the unknown") based on bad logic or poor experiment design are just a pet peeve of mine. This is a perfect example of how not to actually perform an experiment.
-stormin
Definitely. People would have thought it was a countdown until Google release Google Pie - free pies if you promise to read all the advertisements on the box.
-stormin
This was a clumsy experiment at best. He's sad people assumed evil and says all that was on the site was the phrase "we don't want you here".
That means the only info was negative. This is a commonly studied human phenomen called "framing" (or something similar). If you give a person very limited info, then they will use that tidbit of info will drastically influence their perception of the question at hand. If it has said something less ominous I'm sure it could have had a better reception. As it was, however, if you only give 1 factoid and the factoid is negative, and there's a countdown - how do you expect people to react?
-stormin
in Nature birth and death both seem to me to be processes, not events. So it is not clear to me that a line should be drawn in the sand to say "personhood begins here!" We cannot draw such a line to define what is alive.
I agree - they are processes. So what is or is not alive may not be clear. But this doesn't mean we should not draw a line. The line is a practical necessity - even if it doesn't arise from objective reality. "Ownership" isn't really a part of objective reality either (as opposed to possession) and it is also hard to define, and yet it is necessary that we do our best. The same applies here.
You of course left out one possibility- that personhood is only a construct created to make sense of the world, in which case we don't necessarily need to be completely logical in determining what is a person and what is not, since we are reduced to using the concept of "personhood" only for its utility, not its Truth.
You misunderstand me entirely. I've not only accounted for the possibility that it's not a part of objective reality: I'm depending on it. The word "person" (as we're using it) is not something that arises from objective reality - it's an existential term. We give it meaning and definition. This doesn't pop up as a third option, it's the reason we have the two options (at conception, or some other definition). I'm not in search of some ultimate Truth of personhood, anymore than I think we could find some scientifically-sound definition of "ownership".
We called Jews sub-human before, we give them equal humanity now. Whether or not there actual is a value for their humanity is irrelevant. The point is that we agree now it was a morally wrong to denigrate them before - and I believe that for the same logical reasons it is morally wrong to denigrate the unborn now. There's no need, at this stage, to answer the question of whether or not humanity exists in objective reality or not. I think it does not, but in any case the question is academic.
One more thing on the medical regulation- as I understand it the government does regulate medicine, but typically with the goal of protecting or informing the patient, which is not the case with abortion if you do not believe the embryo/fetus to be a person.
True, but circular. If the embryo/fetus is not considerd a person, I don't have a case. That's why I'm arguing that it is morally wrong to not consider them a person. From the argument that the unborn are persons flows everything. If you disprove that, there's no reason to bring up medical regulation at all: you've already won.
Politically this is a completely separate issue, which I tend to think is a real failure of imagination on the part of the US public.
There are two general kinds of crisis pregnancy centers. Those that serve as fronts for abortion centers (look at how much of Planned Parenthoods operating budget comes from profits from abortion). Then there are the numerous centers run by NRLC (national right to life committee) and affiliated organizations. Practically any main-line pro-life group (e.g. those who don't want to blow shit up) spend considerable quantities of their scanty resources supporting crisi pregnancy centers. I've done volunteer work this way myself.
So I think you're wrong. The same grass-roots organizations that oppose abortion are already volunteering/donating/staffing and doing all they can to support crisis pregnancies. If we let them have their way, outlawing abortion (as birth control) would go hand-in-hand with accelerating efforts to support women in need. The hypocrisy of the pro-choice donors is amazing. They're happy to write checks to support NOW or NARAL so that all women can have the choice to be coerced into abortion, while genuine crisis-pregnancy centers languish for lack of funds.
-stormin
This is a completely different issue than assisted suicide or euthanasia, which is about whether we want to allow people to end their own lives, either through their own actions, or by proxy. But frankly, I don't terribly like the idea of the State involved with that decision, either.
Just to be clear: the gov't heavily regulates medical procedures. The idea that the gov't is somehow staying out of plastic surgery or lasik or organ transplants or skin grafts is absurd. From the fact that MDs need a license to practice to the fact that hospitals and outpatient surgery centers face inspections your whole assumption that somehow gov't should "stay out" of abortion because it's a medical procedure has no legs to stand on. Gov't regulates health care.
We are something more.
Again, I don't want to be disrespectful but I've heard this a million times. And as far as I can tell there are only 2 rational positions to take. First of all, I agree 100% that you are something more than a fetus or an embryo. This is absolutely true. But you are also something more - in just as important and real a sense, as an 8-year old, a 2-year old, or a 1-yr old. You're also more human, in your ability to reason morally, than a genuine sociopath will ever be. You're more human, in you ability to be self-sufficient, than retarded people. You're more human, in your ability to love, than someone with autism. So you have to take one of two positions:
1. All human beings are equal (we're all "persons")
2. Develop some criteria for distinguishing between a member of the species homo sapien, and a "person".
You're clearly trying to do #2, but I challenge you to do so in a way that doesn't lead directly to infanticide, euthenasia, eugenics, etc. That's my whole point. You're welcome to say "kiling 20-year old is worse than kiling a fetus" for any of a vareity of reasons that are valid and true. But I claim that you will not be able to generate non-arbtirary criteria (e.g. something other than: "my criteria is that you've been born") that I won't be able to aply to humans who have been born.
I think the truth in what you are saying is that many womens-rights organizations want to ignore the cost of allowing abortions. They don't seem to want to admit that abortions are by default bad things, and in a best case scenario only the best of several bad options
That's exactly what I'm saying. The difference is that you drastically underestimate the power of these organizations to influence our society. Think about it: you can't even pass informed consent laws in this country. You want women to be free from feeling coerced to have abortions and yet the people in power refuse to even guarantee them information, let alone freedom from coercion. I think you're just naive about how this issue really works. I hate to be emotional about this, but when you've (at age 16) had a 14-year old girl sob on your shoulder "I killed my baby" because her parents told her to get an abortino or get out of the house, maybe you'll understand what I'm talking about. Just imagine yourself as a single woman who's unexpectedly pregnant: what does society want you to do? Get an abortion and all your problems are solved. Sure - you'll have to live with it, but no one else will be burdened by you and your unwanted baby. It's not just babies that are unwanted: it's mothers.
But again, I claim that you seem to want to similarly ignore that making abortions illegal impedes womens rights or freedom, in the liberal political sense I mentioned earlier.
I am NOT ignoring that!!! But practically all laws limit freeom: that's what they do. If a father wants to molest his child, that's illegal. That restricts his freedom. But society values the right of the child more than that of the father in this case (the father does have a right to pursue happiness, right?). In this case the imposition on women is greater. I REALIZE this. I would only want to pass laws against abor
Any creature able to understand the moral consequences of it's own actions is probably a person, regardless of species.
You've simply created another criteria for humanity - and one that I flatly reject for these purposes. We simply do not use this criteria when deciding who gets "human rights". Retarded people and infants, for exampe, are afforded MORE protection, not LESS - despite (because of?) their inability to meet your criteria.
If you want to assert personhood for an infant or fetus, you probably want to go with "will probably become a person".
No, you've obviously not understood my point. I abslutely refuse to use that "back door" entry - and it's absurd for you to rely on either. Do we treasure the lives of down syndrome kids because they may, one day, have "human comprehension"? What about sociopaths? They're not as cute and cuddly - but do we say that because of their inability to perceive morality they must therefore be denied human rights? No - in both of these cases we extend the definition of person to those who flatly fail to meet your proposed criteria nor or in the forseeable future. The path you're walking down in unnecessary and doesn't get us anywhere anyway.
I understand the definition of "person" you are using, it's common in philosophy, but I'm not using it. The whole POINT of my argument was that we can define a "person" any way we like. You've picked one arbtirarily. This is totally MISSING THE POINT. The point is that we can choose intelligence, or any of a million other factors or combinations thereof, but in my opinion the best moral definition for person IS "any living homo sapien", not because that has to be the definition, but because it is the best categorization we can make. You've got to try and understand that point. Some people said Jews weren't people, others said blacks weren't people, some say infants aren't people, others say retards aren't people. I'm REJECTING THOSE CRITERIA as being different versions of "you're not like me, so you're not a person".
The point of a law is to incent behavior that makes society a better place (by whatever values your morals suggest).
We are in perfect agreement on this point. I fail to see how my law - AS I ENVISION IT BEING ENFORCED - would be impractical. Believe me, I've been here and thought of this, but we're covering a lot of ground first. The moral argument is one thing (the reason I want to incent behavior) the law is another. I understand full well they are not the same.
About most of your other arguments: you seem to be assuming that the evolution of human society is one of moral progress
That fallacy does annoy me, and I do not make it. I'm not assuming that human society always progresses. Contrast Rome, say, with Nazi Germany. Progress? I AM, however, saying that there are some things once viewed as morally OK that we now view as wrong. All I'm saying is that even though not all history is progress: we can learn from history. That's all.
Cultures evolve towards better use of resources, or get conquered by cultures that do so, and the underlying pattern is one of economic effeciency
Your assumptions are as naive as the ones you accuse me of making. Firstly, I flatly reject the utter moral relativity you seem to be espousing. Secondly, I don't think it's any smarter to attribute economic darwinism to society than it wouuld be to attribute moral darwinism to society. You've substituted one version of the fallacy for another - i've made neither.
If you define that as "human", then more that half of humans die before birth, and all of human society should be turned on its head to prevent that.
Now THIS is an argument that pisses me off, and I had hoped you'd be smart enough not to make it. Society is happy with letting people die. Hundreds of thousands every year from car accidents. We could all drive 25 mph and save lives. We don't. We're happy with the loss of li
Let me start out by saying that the argument you make in favor of being pro-choice is the only argument that, in my mind, has any rational basis at all. And it does have some basis. What it really comes down to is the definition of "human being" (or "person", whatever you want to pick), and the argument that it's a continuum is persuasive.
There are some issues, however. First of all, let's set aside historical definitions because they're either pure speculation (e.g. customs of stone-age tribes) or almost universally invariable examples of what not to do.
You're right to point out that considering infants to be human beings is a relatively modern development. My counterpoint is that this expansion of definition is NOT a "luxury'. Indeed, take a look back at human history and find for me a single example of when a non-homo sapien was ever considered human, only to later be revealed to be a non-human. It's really never happened. And if it has, it's never led to any serious damage.
Now ask the question: how many times through history has something we now consider a person or human being been considered as less than a human being? It is precisely this mistake - this dehumanization of what we now consider human - that has led to a vast majority of the carnage in human history. From outright examples like slavery, anti-semitism, and the Boer rebellions to more insidious examples like religious war the standard precursor to the greatest evils humanity has committed has been to dehumanize the intended victim.
So I would make the serious warning that those who attempt to demarcate what is a human being and what is a homo-sapien have an almost unparalled history of utter failure and that the results of that failure have universally been bloodshed, shame, and misery. It is perhaps the greatest sign of our current western civilization that we have as all-embracing and generous a definition of human as we do. Ultimately, homo-sapien is scientific (the fetus IS in our species and a unique instance thereof) but person is ALWAYS and forever up for defintioin. We can exclude Jews, we can exclude blacks, we can exclude Christians or muslims, lepers or the elderly, infants, or toddlers. We have, in our past, done all of the above and view those decisions with universal abhorence and revulsion.
Now we are doing the exact same thing with the unborn. We have the luxury of extending or revoking personhood because they are powerless and voiceless. But I contend that all the reasons that you give for so doing come down to: a fetus is not like me. Dependent? So are all children. Missing bodily parts? So do amputees. If you lose both your arms and both your legs - we CAN revoke your status as a human just as Nazis considered parapelegics or quadrapalegics sub-human and exterminated them. But do you want to do that? Then why do you want to do this to the unborn?
So I reject your statement: From a biological perspective, anything earlier than about 2 weeks is just silly, because the majority of fertilized eggs don't make it that far anyway. Guess what - most people at 99 don't make it to 100 (or a lot of them don't). Does this make them less human? If you are end-stage brain cancer - are you less human? Survival rates have NOTHING to do with humanity - NOTHING. The "silliness" you perceive is a result of arbitrary cultural norms. It's relative. It would have seemed genuinely silly to consider Jews human if the Nazi empire had lived long enough to raise generations in that mentality. That a concept is silly doesn't necessarily reflect anyting about the concept: it tells us more about the thinker. There's no logic here, it's not biologica, it's purely rhetorical.
And this one is even more ridiculous: From a social perspective, anything before about 6 weeks is pointless, because any law that doesn't allow a woman to motice that she's pregnant and spend a few days making the decision won't limit the number of abortions, only the number of legal ones.
Science doesn't say that at conception you have a new human life.
In a way you're right. It's not science, it's common sense. But it sure as hell isn't religion.
Here's the thing. It's a unique entity - that much is obvious (it's not the same as the mother, has it's own DNA, etc.). It's also alive. So you tell me. If it's alive, it's human, and it's unique how is it not a human being?
Your third sentence is ridiculous and convinces me that you've made up your mind and aren't even considering new ideas.
I'll let you know when you hit me with a new idea. You certainly haven't done it yet.
-stormin
What's worse, aborting a clump of less than a dozen cells or condemning a child to a bad upbringing by resentful parents?
This is a totally false dichotomy. Why not just do adoption? Furthermore, by this logic, you have to ask why we don't just line all foster kids against a wall and shoot them.
For example, is it better to allow morning after pills, which are seen as abortions by many religions, or to force all those women who don't want a child to bring it to term?
Not just religions, but science too. At conception you have a new human being. So I'm opposed to the morning-after pill. There is some moral difference, however, since with the morning after pill you don't know you are killing a human being - you just might be. So legally, I think there's some room for debate.
But my main beef is with your "isn't abortion better than..." This is a quality of life argument. They are extremely compelling, extremely popular, and almost always extremly irrational.
-stormin
My point on the abortion issue was that most people feel that killing a blastocyst is evil for the same reason they feel that killing a cute little puppy is evil, despite being OK with killing animals for food - it's a completely emotional basis.
This is probably true. But it is also true that most people opposed to limiting abortion feel that way for reasons that aren't rational either. The rhetoric is charged on both sides, and I think it's almost axiomatic that human beings tend to make political and religious decisions in non-rational ways. (Decision-making is another fascination of mine, although I'm just learning the basics as I work my way through "Consciousness Explained" by Dennet.)
Unless you assert a soul, it's hard to find a rational basis for this.
It depends on the context. If I am arguing the philosophical morality of abortion I may need to dip back into abstract principles, but what I'm really arguing for above all else is a policy decision. It's law. And I can argue that case effectively without any recourse to mention of a soul one way or the other.
In fact, my primary argument against abortion (as birth control) is constitutionally based. First of all, the Roe v. Wade decision is ludicrous (from a constitutional law standpoint). Secondly, the primary right is the right to life. I believe burden of proof should be on those trying to restric the application of this freedom (since every time it has been historically restricted it has been done so wrongly, as with the Jews, blacks, etc.) So if you want to see a fetus has no right to life - you have to say why. The reason for this is simple: a fetus is unambiguously a unique human being. So if you want to deny a human being human rights - you have to provide the reasoning. I've never seen this successfully done. And as long as the fetus retains the right to life I consider this to trump the right of the woman to control over her own body for 9 months (if pregnancy results from consensual sex between competent adults).
That's a hard-line stance that is softened considerably by my arguments about abortion and sexism. I feel America's abortion policy is decidedly anti-woman. Just look at the reaction of NARAL and NOW to "informed consent" laws. Clearly the pro-choice leaders are far more interested in protecting idealogy (to say nothing of revenue) than with actual freedom (since freedom is nullified by ignorance). So even though I feel the hard-line "right to live" trumps "right to body" is sufficient, I feel the case is actually far, FAR stronger than that once you bring in additional societal issues. I honestly feel like women are cheated by this policy. We tell them they are free, but what we mean is that they are free not to be a burden to men who want to use them for sexual gratification. If women also want to have sex without consequences, then I guess they're happy too. But we've managed to coerce them into making a horrible decision in the name of freedom. It's truly Orwellian.
So even though I'm happy to get into theological and philosophical issues, when I argue abortion policy I find that I can get all the ammunition I need from constituional law etc. rather than needing to go all the way back to defining good vs. evil. I mean, you could argue every issue all the way back to questioning of moral axioms, but I just don't think you need to do that to get an answer in this case. So I start with law, move to sociology, and then move into philosophy if absolutely necessary. Theology I never bring into it except for academic interest.
-stormin
My point is that many more humans could be saved with the money and time that are spent fighting abortion. The fight over abortion, the war on terror, and the war on drugs are basically destroying our country.
So what? Are you saying we should have allowed slavery to continue and then used the economic might of the US resulting from that to make sure Africans didn't starve?
You're not making nearly as much sense as you think you are making.
-stormin
I thought that the medical community typically self regulated what sorts of medical procedures it performs
r om%20Winter02-03.pdf. Abortion is a hellish procedure and it is generally men who actively coerce women into it or at least - through refusal to support them - leave them in a predicament where it seems like the only option. I think the real societal cost of making abortion illegal would be in giving genuine support to women in crisis prenancy - and that's a cost that I'm willing to pay. I think it's a price we, as a society, are indebted to pay. Our current abortion law is like telling mothers of infants they are free to kill their children and then expecting them to do this if they can not afford to feed them. This is a perverse view of freedom.
You mean like assisted suicide? We just let the medical community self-regulate on that? How about euthanasia?
Next.
This is biologically natural, but it doesn't change the nature of what it is- the child co-opting the mother's body for its own benefit
Thanks for the congrats. And I have talked to other people about pregnancy. My mother had 6 of us kids. But I'm not trying to argue that being pregant (or labor) is not a burden. It IS. And I'm not saying it's punishment. It's just the natural consequence of having sex. It's a risk you run. And once you've run the risk you have to ask which right has priority:
1. right of child to live (for ever)
2. right of woman to control own body (for 9 months)
Both in terms of time frame and severity (not to mention culpability - the mother is 50% resonsible for the child being there, the child is 0% responsible for being there) the right of the unborn to live is the primary right that ought to be protected.
The problem with the statement is that we mean something a heck of a lot more sophisticated and complicated when we refer to human life. Muscle sheets grown for medical research are in some sense human life
Not to be rude, but this is silly. A fingernail is not a person. An embryo is. This is not a complicated issue. One is a human entity in its entirety, the other is not. Believe me, I've been down this road countless times and the only thing that surprises me is that people still think it's a valid contention. Human life, in this sense, means a unique human being. Not a part of one (human ear on a mouse) and not a potential of one (a sperm or an egg).
I'm not trying to score points. I just think your posts are normally pretty good, but you don't seem to have the courage to face the cost of deciding abortion should be made illegal. But outlawing abortion, we pay a cost in womens rights, paid for by and large by women and not by men.
I realize there is definitely a cost, but I flatly disagree that it is the cost you think it is. Go and read anything from the "feminists for life". Abortion on demand does not free women - nor does it respect them. Try some links: http://www.feministsforlife.org/voices/Voices%20f
The only difference is that with abortion we can also convince some of them that their unborn child is a "clump of cells". This usually works until about the time that that same woman sees her "baby" (because that's what they call it if you want to keep it) when she eventually gets pregnant on purpose.
But at heart abortion is just that - the expectation that women abort their unborn rather than become a burden on their boyfriend or on society. It allows men to treat women as reusable sexual objects. When a woman has an abortion she is not free - she lives with that for the rest of her life. But now the father is out of child payments and responsibility. How is that equitible?
Just go ahead an replace "abortion" with "infanticide" in all your arguments and tell me how comfortable you are with legalizing infanticide in the name of women's rights - and whether you think it would make anyone free.
-stormin
There's also something else to consider though. Do you really want the people who would use abortion as birth control bearing (and raising) lots of children?
No, I don't. But that doesn't mean I think we take that out on the innocent children. Furthermore, there are a lot of people I don't particularly want to have children, but it's a long way from there to making "minimum requirement" type of laws for pregnancy. A long road I don't even want to start down.
-stormin
While you read this, several living, young human beings probably died of starvation.
Blah blah blah.
A - I DO care. I donate heavily. I can do two things at once.
B - It's about sphere of influence. The US should save US lives first, foreign lives second. That's what countries are there for.
C - It's about principle. Our gov't is not necessarily betraying its principles when it doesn't give enough foreign aid. It is betraying its principles when America is no longer protecting the right to "life, liberty and happiness" of those conceived in its borders.
-stormin