Queen of Swords

Originally posted by Elaborate:
<strong> 30% would be a good possibility. </strong>

What's the reason for arbitrarily picking 30%? Why not, say, 25%, or 20%?

<strong>And I would always get a second opinion for something as serious as abortion.</strong>

So let's assume the first opinion and second opinion don't harmonize. One estimates the risk as significant and the other doesn't (let's say 75% and 29% - which would be the cutoff according to your possibility). Who gets to decide whether the woman can have an abortion or not?

<strong>2. Life-threatening to Serious (i. e. something that would cause extreme sickness and/or disability)</strong>

Who gets to decide what "extreme sickness" is? Do you have any examples of what you would consider to be "extreme sickness"?

<strong>3. Correct</strong>

Except under unusual circumstances, where the more than one form of contraceptive was not used? I'm still curious as to what would happen if a rapist abducted and held a woman long enough for the effects of any pills to wear off.

This quesion, by the way, isn't answered : What happens to a woman who is on the pill, but gets pregnant anyway as a result of rape?

<strong>I consider it a necessary precaution to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Not everyone needs a car, but everyone needs to take proper care of their health. </strong>

You have not answered the question, so I shall repeat it : How do you expect women who don't have money to pay for the pills? Please note that the operative word is "how". Give examples of how women who do not have money are supposed to afford these pills. No need to talk about cars; no one has mentioned cars here previously.

<strong>And a thirteen year old is provided for by her parents, so they are the ones who should pay for it.</strong>

What do you suggest should be done if her parents are not willing to pay for contraceptives?

By the way, you did not answer this question, so I will repeat it : It's all very well and good to want to change people's attitudes, but do you suggest that women are forced to deliver children they do not want until attitudes change?

<strong>She has no choice in this matter, it is entirely her parents' fault. </strong>

So what is she supposed to do if she gets pregnant? How is saying "it is entirely her parents' fault" going to impact on the pregnancy in any way?

<strong>But how much is a thirteen year old going to need contraception?</strong>

Well, she needs to be taking pills just in case she's raped, according to your reasoning.

<strong>Learn self-defence?</strong>

Admirable advice, if hardly 100% effective against rape.

<strong>Again, there are many more products out there than you or I realize, and i would bet there is one she could use without an adversive reaction.</strong>

What if there are no such products? Should a woman resign herself to delivering child after unwanted child?

You fail to answer this question, so I will repeat it : If a female relief worker in, say, Afghanistan, is held and raped repeatedly, would you consider it permissible for her to get an abortion?

<strong>Unnecessary: pregnancy caused by improper protection and/or lack of forethought.</strong>

This is your definition, not anyone else's that I'm aware of. Is there any reason why a pregnant woman should be made to define her pregnancy according to your terms? By the way, who gets to define "improper" - you or the pregnant woman?

You fail to answer these questions, so I will repeat them : What happens to the women who are in the unlucky 10%? Should they be forced to undergo pregnancy and labor against their will, perhaps jeopardizing their jobs, relationships and mental health? Who compensates them for the cost of pregnancy and delivering the child?

<strong>But why would anyone rely on only one method?</strong>

Maybe they were relief workers in Afghanistan - lucky to have one product.

You fail to answer this question, so I repeat it : I don't see why a woman should be held responsible for what the consequences of a rapist's actions. Could you explain the reasoning behind this?

<strong>And I don't see why the child should be killed for the rapist's actions.</strong>

Do you define a zygote as being a child?

<strong>An hour's Google search could not bring about a study.</strong>

I see, so your assertion is completely unsupported.

<strong>Possibly. Many unwanted pregnancies occur through failure to use contraception. The woman "forgot her pill", or "he didn't withdraw in time", or "the condom borke". That seemingly small mistake had a large consequence. Faced with this huge responsibility, yes, most would do what they could.</strong>

"Most would do what they could" - what exactly does this mean? Is this your answer to the question : Is she likely to then become responsible and behave in such a way as to produce a healthy child? Is "what they could" sufficient to produce a healthy child? Do most pregnant women have the resources necessary to produce a healthy child from an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy that they are forced to go through with - and do they then use those resources?

<strong>It is obvious that this issue cannot be resolved to our repsective satisfactions in on debate on a message board. Neither of us will "win" (if winnning a debate is possible), and convince the other of his or her position. </strong>

Are you trying to end this debate?

MarcoPolo

Google isn't the final repository of all knowledge. I think he/she was just saying that he couldn't find what he was looking for using a Google search. Do you rely on Google for all your questions?

Amazing the little suggestions people can pick up on.

It's like my discussion with DD. It's clear neither of us are going to give in to our semantic war, so there's really no use to continue. But I'm a glutton for punishment so I'll continue.... sigh.

MarcoPolo

Fine. I understand you and you understand me. Let's shake hands and move on the the next big one.

No. Not oak trees.

Ok. Just one.

Sounds fun.

You're right. That's a parallel of the zygote argument. So yes, in that scenario, you would have to be fined if it was the law. (Even though it obviously would never happen, it's still an accurate comparison.)

long winded fool

"Umm, last I looked, refuting the facts used in an argument invalidates it."

I was arguing from logic and using facts in an analogy. In order to make my logic clearer, I pulled some facts off the top of my head and created an analogy which you refuted by claiming my facts were errant, which I will concede for the sake of argument. Do you see now that refuting the facts of an analogy doesn't refute the argument? To avoid going off on a tangent, I don't argue the facts of your analogies, I only argue the logic. If you have an unproven premise in an analogy, I will grant you it and then either refute the logic, or point out where your analogy doesn't represent your argument. This is why I said: "Insert whatever analogy you want," or something to that effect. The analogy is not the argument. Please don't confuse the two.

"If there is something I missed that you would particularly like me to respond to, please point it out. I hope to have cleared up the following: "grey area" refers to a gradual development and not an unknown. Your burden of proof examples do not apply in the way you want them to, because pro-abortionists believe to have already 'checked'."

Doubting Didymus, would you say that not all homo sapiens are human? What if you thought that 'humanity' was sufficiently developed after six months and aborted a five-month-old fetus, only to discover later that humanity is "sufficiently developed" after only four months? Would you agree that you would be guilty of involuntary manslaughter? And what if you abort an embryo at four months and realize later that after three months a human embryo is human? You can run this back to conception. This is an unknown and my analogy stands. You must be absolutely sure that what you are killing could not possibly be a human.

"No, I would not draw a line at full development. I do not think a line can be drawn. A thick gradiation of shading is appropriate."

This is where your argument fails. You need a line. Without a line laws are subjective. Do you know of any subjective laws? (Keeping in mind the definition of the word "law.") How much humanity is needed before the killing of a human being becomes unlawful? Are four-month-old fetuses human or are they not? They are not "getting there." There is development of organs, tissues, and bone structure. There is NO development of humanity. Something is either human or it's not. To say that development is a gray area is equivalent to saying that the darker the man's skin, the less his humanity. You are inventing criteria. Since you seem so hesitant (for good reason) to define humanity I'll go ahead and do it. "Humanity" is defined as the quality of being human. "Human" is defined as a human being. (rather redundant I suppose.) "Human being" is defined as any living or non-living member of the family Hominidae, specifically of the group "Homo." Killing an innocent member of the family Hominidae, specifically of the group Homo, is murder. A human zygote is a member of the family Hominidae and is of the group Homo, specifically homo sapiens sapiens, therefore, by this accepted logic, there is no gradation of the development of humanity. The zygote is a human being from the moment of conception. (And NOT before. The word 'conception' in regards to reproduction refers to the creation of a new member of a given species, in this case, homo sapiens sapiens, or human beings. A sperm and an egg are not human until they become a human. A seed is not a tree.) Therefore, killing a zygote is murder. Your only recourse is to say that human rights apply to some humans but not all. Then the line that you draw is just as arbitrary as the line Adolf Hitler draws. If laws are subjective, then I draw my line at the age of 18. Now I can do whatever I want to any human younger than 18. You don't need to understand my criteria, you just need to respect my rights.

Thoughts don't make a human. If they did, chimpanzees would be humans and brain dead people would be some species other than human. Thoughts are not the basis for rights. Comatose humans have rights. To need the presence of thoughts to consider an organism human is as ultimately illogical as requiring light colored skin before humanity can be considered. (I hate to keep bringing up the race thing, but to give anyone the power to determine which kinds of human beings have rights and which don't is just too reminiscent of slavery.) You can't redefine humanity to suit your lifestyle anymore than the slave owners could before the civil war. Because they got away with it didn't change the fact that it was irrational, and because abortion is legal right now doesn't change the fact that it is just as irrational. You've looked in the bush and found member of the family Hominidae, of the species homo sapiens sapiens, and declared it was not human (and therefore neither of these things) and killed it.

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: long winded fool ]</p>

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by MarcoPolo:

<strong>Google isn't the final repository of all knowledge. </strong>

No one said it was. However, if one makes a positive claim, one may be called upon to back up that claim.

<strong>I think he/she was just saying that he couldn't find what he was looking for using a Google search. </strong>

Assuming that this is indeed what he/she means, I would be more than happy to wait as he/she did further research in order to back up his/her claims.

<strong>Do you rely on Google for all your questions?</strong>

No, I have a crystal ball.

<strong>
Amazing the little suggestions people can pick up on.</strong>

Amazing the erroneous, bizarre and unsupported statements people can make.

LordSnooty

Sounds fine to me. I conceed this. If something is human in name only, and has no intelligence, consciousness or ability to feel pain, then that's fine. Human rights do not apply to all humans. Happy now?

What exactly do you value so much in a zygote? What is so valuable? Is it valuable because it is referred to as 'human'? Is that the only reason it has any value, because it has human DNA? What is this fascination with the term 'human'? It's just a point of language.

Do you value the lives of human beings for any other reason? Is the label 'human' the only posession of value that any person has?
Comatose patients have thoughts.
No, the reason you bring up 'the race thing' is that you love using flawed, antagonistic analogies in order to insult those that disagree with you.

A black human has every right to exist. He or she is exactly the same as a white human, only with a different skin colour. A zygote, however, shares nothing in common with a developed human being apart from DNA. Perhaps you use this analogy because you believe that blacks have no intelligence or feelings - like, ooh, a zygote.

I somehow doubt you like your analogy quite so much when the boot is on the other foot.
It is human. But it is not human. Yours is an argument based in crass sentimentality and ill-informed semantic contradiction. You have yet to raise a single, solitary scrap of evidence which suggests that abortions are wrong. Oh, except for the classic 'a fetus is technically referred to as human'.

You'll have to do better than that.

Paul

Philosoft

If you are referring to the nation's legal system, this doesn't seem right at all. In fact, the parallels are unmistakable. The laws themselves are non-subjective, inasmuch as they read something like, "It is illegal to do X." But we have an entire branch of government whose job it is to tell us exactly what behaviors are equivalent to X. And representatives of that same branch must decide in each case whether an individual's behavior is, in fact X. This is a clear-cut case of subjectivity.

In regards to the topic at hand, a law, rule, whatever, that reads, "It is illegal to kill humans" leaves wide open the definition of "human." Didymus' gradation must define "human" for the purposes of law, but your analogy is fatally flawed.

<strong> Which invites yet more subjectivity. You imply the presence of human DNA is equivalent to "being human," but are there not actions we consider uniquely human that zygotes cannot do? Why are these actions not included in the definition of "human"?

long winded fool

Then, Paul, can you refer to a scrap of evidence that suggests slavery is wrong which excludes the fact that African-Americans are human beings? Your reasoning doesn't follow. I think your argument would be to prove that African Americans ARE human beings in the same way that I've proven that zygotes are human beings. What if I say that African Americans don't look or behave enough like Caucasians to be considered human? How is this any different than your claim that zygotes don't look or behave enough like developed humans to be considered human? You might say that there is a larger gap, but this is entirely subjective to your own criteria. If I simply declare that a human being can't have dark skin, does that mean I've won the argument? All you can say is, "that's a ridiculous criteria," in the same way that I say thoughts are a ridiculous criteria for humanity. Think carefully, does the killing of a human being have to cause pain before it is murder? Does it have to stop thoughts? If I break into a hospital and disconnect the life-support from someone's brain-dead mother, will I be charged with murder? If this is not murder, and they charge me with murder, then I must necessarily get off absolutely scott-free. (unless I have an inept lawyer.) Laws are not subjective in a democracy, LordSnooty. Murder is defined as the killing of an innocent human being, and a human being is any organism of the species "homo." There is a reason that there is not a huge list of qualities that determine the difference between humanity and non-human humans. There is a reason that personal intuition is not necessarily reflective of the laws of this country. Personal intuition is, by definition, subjective. What we would like to be right and wrong is often different from what IS right and wrong. We learned our lesson with the emancipation proclamation. The phrase "all men are created equal" has been expanded into all humans are created equal. Race, gender, and AGE all fall under the umbrella term of humanity, and therefore are protected by the Constitution of the United States. Your drawing of a line of humanity, however practical and useful it is, is unlawful and not rational. I apologize if the parallel with racism and slavery offends you, but this IS a logical parallel. Your point that you are using different criteria is irrelevant. You are determining criteria, which is not lawful.

While I understand that this is a sensitive subject for some, emotional sentiment is absent from my argument. I am using logic alone. Because I have no particular warm sentiments for a zygote doesn't change the fact that its willful destruction must fall under the category of murder and thus is unlawful. I have no specifically warm sentiments for any particular abortion doctors either, but to unlawfully kill one, even under the assumption that you're ultimately saving lives, is vigilante justice at best and must fall under pre-meditated murder. Don't appeal to my desires. My desires are irrelevant to this argument, as are yours, my friend. Abortion must be unlawful. I can think of no rational way around this, and apparently neither, so far, can anyone else.

LordSnooty

How about this: African Americans are intelligent, conscious and sentient human beings. This is obvious and easily provable by science. You can't say the same for a zygote! It may technically be human being, but it lacks humanity.
Yes, but really I think you know that's a slightly silly argument. Science has shown us that people of all nationalities are essentially the same in terms of intelligence and sentience. It hasn't shown the same for a zygote/fetus/embryo in the very earliest stages of development.

I can see your point, but I don't think it's fair or rational.
You haven't explained why you think it's ridiculous though. I'd have a lot more respect for your point of view if you'd actually explain why you think an unthinking, inanimate blob qualifies as human in any real sense.
If you 'murdered' someone that was brain-dead, then you should be arrested on a lesser charge than murder. You did no harm to the old woman - who was technically dead anyway. But you would probably cause emotional harm to the woman's family, and you'd probably be a bit mentally disturbed, so you'd need to be put away somewhere for the safety of yourselves and others. But it's hardly murder. You can't murder a dead person.
As yet, I am as confused as ever. I base most of my decisions on logic combined with sensible morality. But your logic eludes me. Technical terminology seems to be the basis of your argument. You appear to prefer the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of it (odd, since abortion is legal!). You didn't answer my question about the 'value' of a zygote either. I'm genuinely interested to know your answer.

Paul

Elaborate

It would be up to her doctor's acvice. Unfortunately, I am not a doctor, so I'm not in a position to wiegh the necessary. 30% was a guess. I apologize for not explaining in advance.

If there is such a difference between the two opinions, I would suggest a third. I you could not afford a third, go with the most realistic.

A doctor.

She bears the child if she can do so safely. No reason the child should die.

On the Planned Parenthood site, most of the contraceptives listed have a note that says family planning centers will provide them at a reduced cost.

There isn't anything she can do at that point. Just one of those things that I think has to be changed.

Yes. They may give up the child for adoption after birth, though.

What do you think she has to do? Bear the child.

I don't know about other people, but I would not let my thirteen year old child even be in a situation that could result in rape.

Actually, mace and/or stun guns work rather well.

She should abstain from sex, and learn, say, judo. And carry mace.

Certainly, if tshe can afford to work relief in Afghanistan, she can afford an implant.

Yes, that is my definition. You asked for it. That is what I think is a resonable definition of improper.

[quote]You fail to answer these questions, so I will repeat them : What happens to the women who are in the unlucky 10%? Should they be forced to undergo pregnancy and labor against their will, perhaps jeopardizing their jobs, relationships and mental health? Who compensates them for the cost of pregnancy and delivering the child? [QUOTE]
They bear the, and give it up for adoption. The father helps pay.

She isn't being held responsible, she is refraining from killing a child that did not ask to be created.

Yes, I do.

And that is why I retracted the statement later in the paragraph, and explained how I made it.

Put more simply than I did before, yes.

Well, I don't see much point in continueing an exercise in futility. Do you?