Stephen_BostonMA

But you never answered the quesion:I don't know anyone who would let such a situation occur, and I doubt that you would either.

J-D

You and I start from different premises. Reasoning logically from your premises (or at any rate sincerely trying to), you reach one conclusion. Reasoning logically from my premises (or at any rate sincerely trying to), I reach a different one. I don't see how you can justify that there is any more dogmatism in my adherence to my premises than there is in your adherence to yours.

I also think that it's reasonable for somebody who is trying to choose between different premises and who is finding the choice difficult to evaluate them, at least in part, on the basis of the conclusions they lead to. Therefore, I see nothing unreasonable about somebody deciding that there must be something wrong somewhere with your premises precisely because of the conclusions about abortion that they imply.

long winded fool

The only way it could be said that I have left the woman out of the equation is if we assume a woman is not a human organism. In this case, yes, my argument does not include women. Since all women are humans, my argument clearly is in favor of the woman, since it is in favor of all humans.

I view the woman and the fetus through the tinted (or rather untinted) glasses of logic and justice. I discard the glasses of emotional empathy and personal reputation because these things have no place in deciding what the laws of a society ought to be. Once the laws are clear and the difference between legal and illegal is plain, (i.e. once abortion is an illegal practice) then I would put the emotional glasses back on and be more lenient on those whom I have more empathy for. Abortion is homicide and is therefore a violation of inalienable human rights. The lack of consciousness of a fetus should only come into the equation, if it does at all, when deciding the sentence for the criminal who aborted said fetus. Sometimes criminals are given lighter sentences than others due to the circumstances of the law which was broken. This is different than making the crime legal.

So, through the glasses of logic and justice, we have the word "woman" and the word "fetus." What are each of these things? They are humans. They are very different in terms of age, physical dependence, and level of development, but they are exactly the same in terms of their species. In a rational society, the differences between humans affect some rights that are dependent upon individual capability, but never affect the primary inalienable right to exist. Children do not have the same rights as adults, due to their level of development and general inability to make certain difficult decisions. In no case can either be denied the right to be alive. Handicapped adults have different rights than healthy adults due to their inabilities. In no case can either be denied the right to be alive. In no case can (should) any human be denied the right to be alive.

This is incorrect. No one who desires to eliminate legal abortion is necessarily obligated to desire to eliminate birth control, in vitro fertilization, or to adopt unwanted babies. Explain to me how these things are connected, and why you think that someone who is against legal abortion and for birth control and in vitro fertilization is a hyppocrite.

long winded fool

double post

long winded fool

How do you know this?

Explain how you arrive at this conclusion.

Do you believe that it is rational in a society of humans to prevent theivery by murdering potential theives? Or simply that it is rational to get back stolen property by murdering the theif?

Protecting human rights forces people to do a lot of unpleasant things. It forces white landowners to pay black laborers for work they used to get for free. It forces men to ask permission when they want sex, rather than just taking it. And yes, it absolutely forces women (and to a lesser extent, men) to sacrifice large ammounts of time, money, and discomfort in order to protect the life of a human that is legally under their protection. Taking the human safely out of the protection of someone who doesn't want him or her is a perfectly viable alternative, but the key word is "safely" since all humans have the right to be alive. "Safely" always takes time, and for the duration of that time sacrifices must be made in order to respect said human's right to be alive. Make sense?

No I would not. Does this make me a hypocrite? How about this: You think that you ought to have a right to your property. Woud you, Yahzi, steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving child? If you say no, you are a "monster." If you say yes, then are you a liar and a hypocrite? Does the willingness to violate a law in certain circumstances mean that one must be against said law?

long winded fool

I would not. But is it really hypocrisy to campaign for a law that, in extreme, remote circumstances, you would willingly violate? Is there ever a situation when you would steal from someone else? If you also believe in property rights, are you a hypocrite?

long winded fool

I agree. And I don't think you are being dogmatic in the slightest. My response was an explanation as to why I pointed out how rarely pro-choice people change their minds. This proves nothing, as they might simply have the correct position. But I have yet to meet a pro-choice individual who can refute my argument, yet they still assume that it is illogical. You are the only pro-choice individual I've talked to who is not dogmatic in their beliefs. Because you believe that suffering ought to be a worse fate than death in the eyes of justice, your conclusion is logical. Because I believe that death is worse than suffering from a legal perspective, my position is logical. Unless I am mistaken, these are our disagreeing premises. Unless we can agree on the truth value of this premise, we cannot agree on our conclusions.

Would you agree that it is safe to say, since our conclusions both logically follow from our respective premises, and since we only seem to disagree on one premise, that those who feel that inflicting death ought to be considered a worse violation of human rights than inflicting suffering, then they ought to be pro-life? (Assuming of course they are in agreement with the other premises, which we both seem to be.) I agree with you that those who believe that suffering is the worse crime ought to be pro-choice.

John A. Broussard

A bit oversimplified.

A choice could be between aborting a fetus, prior to suffering, or allowing the birth, enormous suffering and then death.

I'm thinking of cases where there is a prenatal diagnosis of a severe genetic defect leading to agony and death shortly after birth.

Stephen_BostonMA

No. However, you do agree that situations can exist in which it is permissible for you to end someone’s life, even if that person is not threatening anyone else's life. Those are situations that would be intolerable to you. After a certain amount of suffering or inconvenience, you would eventually draw a line in the sand, and say "enough is enough."

The abortion debate is really about where one draws the line. I find it intolerable that a woman would be forced by law to endure an unwanted pregnancy.

J-D

I need to qualify that by noting that when you say 'death is worse than any suffering', you're implicitly defining 'death' to include the death of unborn as well as born members of the human species, but to exclude the deaths of members of any other species. I suppose people who accepted that premise, incorporating that qualification, would have to take an anti-abortion position.