long winded fool

Why should any parent be legally responsible for the welfare of their child? Why should their right to live their life how they see fit be trumped by their child's right to not starve to death? If you are not giving up your rights to feed your neighbor's starving child, how can you expect them to give up their rights to feed her when they never wanted her in the first place? Is this unfair? Do you see this as a misapplication of justice?

I would guess that slavery is more likely to occur in Rwanda than Canada. The reason being that human rights are not as respected in Rwanda as they are in Canada, even though one particular minority, unborn humans, has the legal right to exist in Rwanda and not in Canada. Canada does not respect human rights as much as it could, (even though, on the average, it respects human rights more than Rwanda does,) and is therefore less healthy a society than it could be. The relevant fact is: Slavery is technically less likely to occur in a society where all humans, regardless of arbitrary criteria, have the legal right to be alive due to an incompatibility it has with basic human rights laws, than it is to occur in a society where almost all humans have the legal right to be alive. (Like Canada, for instance.)

I do not point this out as an emotional appeal. The truth is, slavery (in the sense of forced human manual labor) is extremely unlikely to occur in most places that abortion is legal. I do not claim that legal abortion will lead to the enslavement of a minority that we the majority care about. I simply point out that it is the suppression of the legal rights of a minority that we the majority do not care about, and that, from a standpoint of legal precedent and logical application of human rights, this is functionally similar to slavery.

J-D

Can we please get just the definition straight before we get into inference and argument?

Is your definition of a 'healthy society' this: 'a society which is founded upon laws which are entirely beneficial, and in no way detrimental, to cooperation between individuals for the mutual survival of all members, born and unborn, of the species from which the members of the society are drawn'? Can you just confirm that that is what you mean by that term?Firstly, it is not true that all fears are instinctive. Secondly, it is not true that 'fear' means the same thing as 'the fight-or-flight instinct'. Thirdly, I see no reason to accept your assertion that all forms of depression are rooted in fear.As it happens, I've never seen a bombed abortion clinic. But what do you think they prove? Did the formation of the Ku Klux Klan prove that freeing the slaves was 'detrimental to social cooperation'? Do assaults on police officers prove that the creation of a police force is 'detrimental to social cooperation'? I see no grounds to believe that, on balance, legalising abortion reduces social cooperation.Using a tool for a purpose other than the one for which it was originally designed is not necessarily irrational. Using a body part for a function other than the one for which evolution originally shaped it is not necessarily irrational. And responding to an instinct in a manner divergent from the objective that provided the original evolutionary basis for its development is not necessarily irrational. The purposes of evolution itself, insofar as it is metaphorically respectable to speak so, are neither rational nor irrational: they are non-rational.Whatever may be the facts in the case of banning slavery, you have given no grounds to justify your assertion that legalising abortion reduces respect for the law, in the short term, the long term, or any other term. Possibly it reduces your respect for the law, I don't know. It doesn't have that effect on me.

J-D

What does the word 'technically' mean in that sentence?

What it seems to mean is: 'in fact, not, but this contradicts the model in my head--and I am prepared to call black white in order to avoid acknowledging that the facts disprove the model in my head'.

Yahzi

I completely demolished your reasoning by pointing out that you only appl;y it to other people; never to yourself.

Your response was to ignore me.

And now you assert that the silence you have imposed on me is my fault?

long winded fool

Once again, it is you who are ignoring me, Yahzi. You pointed out your supposed demolition and I showed that it is not the case.

Look:

long winded fool

Ok, I confirm it. And I reference my previous posts to back up this definition, so don't say that I have given no reason for you to accept this definition. You don't have to accept it, but I have given plenty of reasons why you should.

Good, now we're getting somewhere. So you do believe that there is something else in the universe that animals can respond to besides instincts culled through natural selection. Please tell me what that something is. Where does it come from?

My understanding of biology is that all sensory information that an animal takes in is compiled in the brain into specific patterns that the brain initially reacts to by secreting chemicals on an unconscious level, (using the appropriate glands of course, please be reasonable and do not point out that brain matter itself does not secrete chemicals.) This reaction is what we call instinct. All reactions are instinctive. Our instincts can lead us to do irrational things, such as freezing in the headlights of an oncoming truck, or our instincts can be ignored, and we can take action against our instinctive reactions using logic and reason, such as getting up there and giving that speech despite stage fright. But one thing that is entirely incompatible with my understanding of biology is the notion that the reaction of "fear" can come from anything other than pure instinct. If you believe that it can, I ask you where else this reaction can come from.

And name a form of depression that is not rooted in fear. Even chemical imbalances that people are born with are called imbalances specifically because they trigger the instinct of fear in situations where it is not warranted, which is then translated into sadness (also rooted in fear.) FWIW, anger, irritation, rage, and annoyance are all rooted in the basic instinct of fear. Just about every negative emotion besides lust has its roots in the instinct triggered by a perceived threat. The variations are merely different responses to the same instinct. We do not always associate them with fear, but all of these unpleasant emotional states are a response to a perceived threat.

That's the paradox. I see no reason to believe that legal abortion reduces social cooperation either, but I do see a reason to believe that arbitrary discrimination by the powerful majority against minorities, in other words unequal and alienable human rights, creates a precedent that is detrimental to social cooperation. How do I reconclie the two? Should I just forget that legal abortion is a form of the latter? Is this honest?

Ok. I'll concede here. Suicide is not necessarily irrational simply because I cannot say that survival is rational. Both life and death technically exist outside the bounds of rationality. Non-rational as you say. So, suicide is never rational.

long winded fool

No, it means that slavery is highly unlikely to occur in either society, at least in modern times. But do you really read that sentence and disagree with it? Do you really think that human slavery is less likely to occur in a society where almost all humans have rights than it is to occur in a society where all humans have rights? Isn't this blatantly dishonest, but convenient reasoning designed to further a particular ideology?

Yahzi

This thread is quite long. Thank you for re-posting your response.

How?

Your entire premise relies on sex being an invitation to pregnancy. Yet you do not consider skiing to be an invitation to breaking legs - if that does happen, you expect the doctor to do everything in his medical power to help you. Nor do you consider building a house to be an invitation to inviting in poor homeless bums.

The point you simply refuse to consider is this: if a woman takes appropriate steps to make it clear that she does not desire another person to invade her body, then she is as entitled to remove that person as you are if you take appropriate steps to make it clear that you do not desire another person to invade your house. The fact that the person will die if removed from the body is not the woman's problem, just as the fact that the person will die if removed from your house is not your problem.

Again your entire argument rests upon sex as inescabably an invitation to pregnancy. You can lock your door, and do whatever you want in your house, and that doesn't count as making you responsible for others; but a woman cannot lock her womb and do whatever she wants.

Do you see the double standard? When the lock on your door fails, you don't have to live with the intruder; but when the lock on the woman's womb fails, you expect her to.

Sex is not necessarily an invitation to pregnancy. People are allowed to have sex for reasons other than pregnancy. If the precautions they took fail, they are allowed to remedy the situation.

Yes, I know you are sick of the skiing example: but it still holds. You want to put sex in a unique category because it might result in the creation of a human life - which then could lead to a human death. But this is simple special pleading: there are thousands of activities that might result in a human death, and you don't see any need to put them in a special category.

Unwanted, uninvited fetuses are not a woman's responsibility.

Yes.

I don't see the relation. In any case, as far as I know, slavery has only existed in societies that did not allow abortion.

No, it does not. Your failure to understand reality is not an argument.

You just contradicted yourself.

The simple fact is, your right to life is trumped by my right to protect myself or others. In every state in the USA, it is perfectly legal to shoot a rapist if that is the only way you can stop him from commiting a rape, even if the life of the victim is not at risk. The cops already know this. The courts already know this. You don't this, but you don't have to, because other people protect you.

Furthermore, people cannot take food off your plate at a restruant, even if they are starving. They can't take food out of your house, no matter how hungry they are. If they resist the police's efforts to stop them, then the police will use physical force, upto and including deadly force if it becomes necessary.

In your world, the cops would tug gently on the invader's sleeve, and if that didn't work, they would go away quietly. They can't tackle him and forcibly subdue him; that might kill him (or one of them).

In my world, they can club him into submission. And if he dies - it is not a crime. If they tackle him, and he resists, then he is threatening them; and at that point they are entitled to use deadly force. And they are allowed to tackle him, knowing that it might require them to use deadly force. Because his right to life does not trump all other rights.


Your entire position depends on two things: sex as inescapably an invitation to pregnancy, and the notion that our law values life above everything else. Both are simply wrong.

long winded fool

A woman can lock her womb. Sex is an invitation to pregnancy. That is what it's for. That's why it exists, so women can get pregnant. This does not mean that a woman must desire to get pregnant every time she has sex, and this does not mean that a woman should not use contraceptive techniques if she wants to have sex without getting pregnant, it means that, should she get pregnant, whether she likes it or not, she is responsible for her offspring. (and so is her partner.) She has many rights that trump her offspring's rights, but only her right to life can logically trump her offspring's right to life.

Breaking into someone's home is a crime. Raping a woman is a crime. Being conceived is not a crime, therefore the conceived ought to have the legal right to exist.

The lock on her womb cannot fail unless she engages in behavior that evolved specifically for the purposes of propogation. Again, I do not claim that it is "wrong" to have sex for reasons other than propogation, I claim that all humans have the right to life.

So I can kill my three year old son because the precautions I took so that the recreational sex I had would not result in human life failed?

My great grandmother (obese) didn't know she was pregnant until she actually gave birth to my great uncle in the bathroom. He was an uninvited, unwanted human who invaded her womb and her home. SHould it be legal for her to kill this crying baby?

This is a strawman. I do not believe anything you just said, but I do believe that the right to life trumps all other rights. The key is legal responsibility. Homicide is not legal except in life-threatening situations. An exeption in the US is unborn humans. This exception is not wise because it contradicts the notion of human rights. The notion of human rights implies that the most basic rights are granted to things that are human regardless of subjective opinion and democratic vote. Racism or sexism can never be used democratically to define certain humans out of the right to be alive. This is no longer the case. Rights are granted only to humans who qualify by being a member of the majority.

First of all, my argument does not depend on sex as inescapably an invitation to pregnancy. It depends on equal and inalienable human rights. The fact is, no fetus can commit a crime, since there can be no motive. Only when the fetus' birth is a direct threat to the life of the mother is abortion legally (and logically, assuming equal human rights) an option.

Secondly, the right to life trumps all other rights. You need to accept it. It is a requisite for the human right to life. You cannot kill me unless you believe (and a judge and jury agree with you) that my actions, and therefore existence, is a direct threat to your or to someone else's life. This is the most elementary and fundamental truth of legal rights. You cannot kill me just for breaking into your house. Your lawyer would never use this defense, because you would go to jail. You must feel, and be justified in feeling, that I am a threat to your life. Breaking and entering is reason enough in almost all circumstances to justify the assumption that the occupant was acting in self-defense when he killed the intruder. The simple act of damaging and invading your property is not what gives you the right to shoot me. A "tresspassers will be shot" sign is not a legal defense. You must say "I feared for my life." I suggest you read up on your law before you wind up in hot water with your local authorities.

Yahzi

Your failure to understand reality is not an argument. The failure rate of contraception and the existance of rape are facts which refute your claim.

Your personal moral code is not an argument. You do not get to say what other people's lives are for. The fact that sex and pregnancy are biologically linked is no more significant than the fact that cancer and death are biologically linked. That's what cancer is for; to kill you. Yet you have zero, repeat zero, qualms about using technology to its fullest to eliminate your cancer. Even if you smoked for 20 years, you'd still be outraged if the doctors refused to treat you.

You cannot get past the crude notion that if someone chooses to have sex, they must accept the risk of pregnancy. But the simple fact is, thanks to medical technology, they don't. Because it can be fixed.

Says who? Who created this law that if you do A, B, or C while taking reasonable precautions, you are not liable for the accidental negative result; but if you do S suddenly (and only) you are? Who made up this special exemption?

You want to argue that the exemption is justified because a life is at stake; but this is not special. The only way it is special is that life might be created; lives being destroyed are commonplace. I don't see how creating a life and then destroying it is any different than destroying a life.

So what? My rights do not depend on whether you are committing a crime or not; my rights are my rights. If you accidentally break into my house, I still get to throw you out.

And again you demonstrate that you simply cannot separate sex from pregnancy.

The mere act of living is engaging in behaviour that evolved specifically for hte purposes of death. We're supposed to die. That's what old age is about. And yet you do not object to using medical technology to preserve the life of old people.

What you need to do is accept that your linking of pregnancy as the punishment for sex is a religous concept. It cannot be defended or explained any other way.

If you knew anything about the law, you would already understand the answer.

Accepting the child for the first three years rather clearly is entering into a contract.

She doesn't have the right to kill it, she has the right to eject it from her life. If that kills it, that is not her problem.

Your failure to understand the law does not constitute an argument.

Human rights and legal rights are rather different. In any case, no human rights are being attacked. The fetus is free to go to any country that will accept it as a citizen. What the fetus is not free to do is continue to appropriate the personal property of someone else. If the fetus dies because it cannot live without stealing, that is not a violation of its human rights.

You do not have the right to live at someone else's expense. This is the principle I keep demonstrating with my bum example, and it is the principle you keep ignoring.

See above.

See above. And below.

If you are a professional car thief, of a thouroughly non-violent nature, and you get sent to prison, and one day you see a hole in the fence and you make a run for it, and the guards shoot you in the back and you die... will they go to jail?

Why, no. Even though your escaping from prison is not a direct threat to anyone's life, the guards are legally allowed to shoot you to death. This is just one example; there are many others.

You are simply wrong: the right to life does not have to trump all other rights to build a functioning society. And in fact, it never has: in no society, ever, has the right to life trumped property rights.

You don't live in Texas, I see.

Kindly note that 3 and 4 are not about life. If you read the entire article, you will see that child molesting is one of the crimes you are allowed to use the appropriate amount of force to prevent. The article makes it clear that deadly force is possibly the appropriate amount.

In other words, you are factually wrong: in Arizona, I am allowed to use deadly force to prevent a child from being molested if that is the only option open to me. No one's life has to be at stake.

Under your scheme, if we knew the child molester wasn't going to kill the child with the knife he had in his hands, if we knew the molestor would only use his weapon to defend himself, we would just have to stand there and wait till he finished. Notice that people don't do that, and the law does not require you to do that. Notice that you are factually wrong.

I understand that. What you do not understand is contained in the above quote by the Pima County Attorney.

See above.



Again: you accept the principle that people cannot live by stealing (we know this because you own private property). You counter it by asserting that the fetus was not stealing, because having sex is a legal contract that binds you support whatever random stranger happens along during the course of it. This view, of sex as a contract, is a religous view: it is not a requirement of society, society will not collapse without it, no other rights of the citizenry depend up on it. It is purely a religious view.

Secondly, you persist in this delusion that the only time the cops can kill you is if you are directly threatening another human life. I don't know how you can read a newspaper on a daily basis and still think this is true, but if you are still confused about it, I suggest you contact the Pima County Attorney's office for clarification.

Your argument depends on: pregnancy as a moral consequence of sex, and life as more important than anything else. Neither of these are necessarily true. Neither of them are currently true in America.