Um, all of them? Isn’t that their basic argument, that no woman should be allowed to have an abortion, much less decide to have one? Meaning that someone else, besides the woman, has the ability to override her choice and tell her what she can and cannot do?
Maybe I’m not parsing this correctly, and maybe you used the wrong group, but I’m not sure what you’re on about here.
I think he means pro choicer, but even then I’ve seen lots of “Men’s Rights” activists say that men should have a say, which amounts to a veto, so…
We could generously assume a typo, that he said “pro-life” when he meant to say “pro-choice”. Or that he simply doesn’t know any pro-lifers other than himself. Or possibly that he believes that pro-lifers defend the right of the woman to decide to get an abortion, but not actually get an abortion, i.e. she has the right to freedom of expression and all that - after all, Stephen King can write all he wants about death and murder and stuff - but the actual act of getting an abortion is contingent on “when and under what circumstances”, which to a pro-lifer means… well, for the most part, “never and none.”
If we were inclined to be generous. I’m not, personally.
What a thread.
So many errors, so little time.
Let’s focus on the OP.
First, I recognize that as a pro-lifer, I was asked to not participate in this thread. I decline to honor that request.
Secondly, as a pro-lifer, I hope that the OP will recognize that the following comments do not arise out of some desire to adopt any position which allows me to support abortion. I think abortion is a great moral wrong.
But I think this OP is a great rhetorical wrong, and an offense to debate and logic.
As to the legal issues: I make no claim to any great expertise in Canadian law, but I can read. Canadian law, like US law, appears to place some emphasis on the actor’s state of mind. Just as in the US, it seems that both what you do, and why you do it, are necessary components to a criminal act.
In this case, the question was whether the accused was guilty of second degree murder. A jury found that she was. At her trial, two experts testified that her mental state was confused, so much so that she lacked the full capacity of reason and could not form the necessary intent to commit second degree murder.
One expert was hired by the defense, and one expert appointed by the court with the consent of both the defense and the Crown (as Canadians call the government as a party to a case).
There was no other expert testimony on the issue.
On appeal, the defense argued that no reasonable jury could have found guilt of second degree murder, because the uncontradicted evidence before them was that the accused’s mental state was impaired.
The appeals court agreed, saying that there was nothign in the record from which the jury could have found otherwise. The facts a reasonable jury could have found supported guilt of infanticide, a crime that requires a much less guilty mental state, but not second degree murder.
(I welcome correction on this point from Canadian lawyers).
So the OP fails to convey any of this, instead suggesting that the judge simply acted on her own in this finding and without summarizing the trial record which made the finding necessary.
Obviously I feel there are many good reasons for American society to change the law regarding abortions.
This case, even as a cautionary tale, doesn’t even begin to come close to one.
Poor show, OP.
What’s best for a woman’s life is to be able to take any and all food from the supermarket without having to pay for it.
The argument isn’t that people should have freedom to do what they want, if they think it is the best for themselves. It’s that people should have the freedom to do what they want, if they think it is the best for themselves, where it doesn’t affect anyone else.
An abortion is not the killing of a person (a “someone else”), while as infanticide is. This is just the same as breaking open an egg to make an omelet is not killing an animal, whereas killing a chick is. What you do with amorphous pus and goo inside your own body is not anyone else’s business.
You are on target. IAACL. Grey has covered the matter thoroughly at #53, with further correct insights at #20, #35 and #40.
Correct.
But note how important context is.
I absolutely reject the proposition that an unborn fetus is “amorphous pus and goo.” I beloieve the fetus is a human being and entitled to a legal protection of his or her life.
But this thread is about logical inconsistency. So the question is not whether that characterization is correct, but whther it’s consistent the other positions taken.
And it absolutely is. In this thread’s context, the position that what you do with amorphous pus and goo inside your own body is not anyone else’s business is consistent with the regulatory scheme advanced by pro-choice people: once born, we have a child; unborn, it’s not a child.
You can object to that on many grounds, but not as a matter of logical consistency.
Judith: Here! I’ve got an idea: Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb - which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’ - but that he can have the right to have babies.
Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother… sister, sorry.
Reg: What’s the point?
Francis: What?
Reg: What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can’t have babies?
Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Reg: It’s symbolic of his struggle against reality.
For nitpicking purposes only: no it’s not, because the egg you break to make an omelet is unfertilized.
Not that it really matters in countering OMG’s rather silly strawman, but the Devil they say is in the details.
Actually, most pro-choicers, even the most ardent ones, will still agree that there’s a point between conception and birth where the fetus really has become a proto-human, abortion really becomes icky and shouldn’t ever be performed except if the life of the mother hangs in the balance (a concept which is mostly supported by the law).
Where each person draws this particular line varies, but I don’t think **OMG **will be able to point to any pro-choicer (or any Doper) who said abortion at Birth-1 hour is just fine. Nevermind Birth+1.
Alternate interpretation: No one other than the mother can decide. Plus, the mother can’t, either. In other words, the set of people in the world that do not include the mother cannot decide for her to have an abortion. This is true for both pro-life and pro-choice. But pro-life has an extra restiction: the mother also can’t decide.
Point of law: in Canada there is nothing illegal about having an abortion at Birth-1 hour. The Supreme Court of Canada struck down the abortion law out of the Criminal Code because it was unconstitutional. That has left us with no abortion law, and more recent attempts to create an abortion law have failed.
Whether that is fine or not, is another question.
Well, no outbreak of mass infanticide has occurred, toddlers are not hunted for sport, nor can elementary schools randomly select kindergartners to butcher to add protein to the school lunch menu.
I understand it’s a frequent pro-life claim that pro-choice attitudes lead to negative consequences for the society overall (though the timeframe gets constantly stretched out so the real negatives are always just around the corner), but darned if I can see any real-world examples around here. We didn’t even bring back the death penalty, as an “anti-life” society might have.
Been busy sooo…
This is all I need to quote. Why not? Obviously, that’s a rhetorical question because of location. But the question therefore becomes what does location matter?
Naw, it’s just deferring to the English language. Are you seriously going to argue against the English language? You have access to the internet; how hard would it be to look stuff up? Very hard, apparently.
<enter more quote mining here which will be ignored>
That’s the cover used, but it’s not. It’s, as I said, about when and under what circumstance, if any.
As is usually asked of me, “Why?”.
Apparently, this doesn’t apply to the arguments pro-choicers make.
Indeed it is.
It’s apparent you neither understand what a straw man is nor what it means for an argument to be logically consistent.
Here, in this very thread, you said:
Let’s assume we have a pregnant woman and that said woman wants to have an abortion because she can’t afford to take care of that child once it’s born. That is, she’s aborting for no reason stemming from the fact that it’s her body, but rather for a reason independent of it. Conceivably, adoption would be an option, but the woman in question would rather kill her child rather than have someone else take care of it. You’d find that most every pro-choicer would support that decision on the basis that it’s her body, even though her decision to abort has nothing to do with the fact that it’s her body aside from the fact that she can abort. However, if said woman had just given birth and wanted to kill that child because, one, she can’t afford to take care of that child and, two, because she couldn’t bear the thought of someone else raising her child, you’d find that most every pro-choicer would claim that she’s SOL because we’re no longer dealing with her body. But given your above quoted statement and your probable response to a woman who wanted to abort for the exact reasons a woman might want to kill her newborn child, this is nonsensical.
In both cases the reasons for and stated intent behind the woman’s actions, as well as the ultimate outcome, are precisely the same, yet you only consider one of those situations palpable. How can this be, given the line about “a woman being allowed to have an abortion because her life is most affected”? Yeah, you’ll try to qualify that statement with a “because it’s her body”, but you’d be engaging in a fair amount of intellectual dishonesty since, as we all know by know, the majority of abortions are done for no reason relating to the woman’s body. As I pointed out to someone else, only to have it ignored, abortion does not exist in a bubble and women do not have abortions just to have them. They have them for stated reasons. When, for example, a woman aborts her child because she does not feel like she could take care of it and doesn’t want to give it to anyone else and you support her ability to do so, you’re effectively stating “I support your choice to kill your child because you did not feel as if you could care for it and did not want to give up for adoption.” You can obfuscate, as I know you probably want to and will, but that’s what it boils down to. If you can support such a “choice”, especially under the rationalization that she should be allowed to do so because it’s her life that will be altered, then under what basis can you say ‘no’ to infanticide when it’s rationalized under the same basis? If the mother’s life will be affected in the exact same way by either allowing or disallowing a specific action, then why would one action be acceptable and the other wrong? Her life, self-determination and all that jazz, right?
You see, that’s not a “dramatic misinterpretation” of anything. It’s just a simple examination of the argument put forth. You’re free to amend it if you want, throwing in all kinds of other factors like sentience or location, if you choose, but to mindlessly claim “straw man!” over and over and over again is quite tiring.
As it is, this brings us to the point of the thread.
And neither does it pop into existence at birth. Or any time before that.
You should have just typed out “You wouldn’t think so if you were a woman”, because that’s what your argument essentially is. At any rate, it’s not true and, in the case of pregnancy, I definitely wouldn’t.
Not unless I’m your life is being threatened.
Yes, it is correct. Notice my OP made no mentions of her conviction, but rather her sentencing.
And do you know why you wouldn’t find a mention of abortion in any cite? Because they came before the fact? Why would you expect a mentioning of abortion in a transcript dated June 23, 2009/February 4, 2011 when it was first mentioned on September 9, 2011?
The ruling just happened six days ago. The transcript has yet to be posted, though that’s not much of a problem. You have the internet; you can do a quick internet search to see that very nearly every site reporting on the incident has the exact same abortion related quote(s).
Ridiculous, yet considering the forum, not surprising. Your interpretation makes little sense given the abortion quote. Does Canadian society take into consideration the mental state of the mother when she wants to have an abortion? Of course they don’t. If Canadian society does not take into consideration the mental state of the mother when she has an abortion, and a mother who aborts was likened to a mother who kills her newborn in the eyes of society, then how can your contention be true? Furthermore, few Canadians, and people in general, sympathize with a mother who aborts her child the same way they sympathize with a mother who kills her newborn? Most people, both pro-life and pro-choice (outside of the Dope, mind you), would seem not to. The reading of those statements simply ignore the abortion quote. A quote I didn’t make up, but rather the judged used in handing down a suspended sentence.
I’ve asked this question twice before, and I guess I’ll ask it again; what was the point of bringing up abortion, in a country which has no laws against abortion, in a case which most people would say didn’t have anything to do with abortion other than to draw parallels between a woman who aborts and a woman who kills her newborn? A simple, non-trick question.
If you don’t understand how, it’s probably because the thread wasn’t about whether or not she should have been charged with 2nd degree murder or infanticide, but rather the woman’s sentencing and the judge’s rationalization for handing down said sentencing.
(Oh, and fwiw, even though it’s not really relevant, both psychiatric experts admitted to having little experience with infanticide, and relied on statements from Effert that had been arguably contradicted by other evidence.)
He can point at me, if he wants. I don’t have a moral objection to an elective Birth-1 abortion, but in practical terms I’m highly dubious at the notion that there are doctors willing to perform one. I find it far more likely that a doctor whose extremely late-term patient demanded an abortion would write it off as a result of the stresses of the impending delivery and possibly increase her painkillers.
Heck, I’ve no doubt whatsoever that many many many women have said at some point “I don’t care any more! I want this out of me NOW!”
It’s conceivable to me that Birth-1 elective abortions have indeed occurred, though why such a vanishingly rare situation should influence the overall issue escapes me. It would be like banning clown makeup because of John Wayne Gacy.
I wouldn’t point at Bryan. I’d point at Peter Singer, since he’s more well-known and more visible.
I think this thread deserves to be hijacked, and hopefully you do not disagree.
First, some questions. If a person requires life support which involves them having no ability to make decisions for themselves, whoever holds their power of attorney may legally decide to “pull the plug,” right? If I am missing a nuance here, please point it out to me.
If my last assertion is more or less correct, do you agree that it is not morally wrong for this power to exist? If you agree, what justification do you have to morally distinguish that example from an unborn person who also can not make decisions for themselves, and is not viable? Using this logic, can we not at least set the bar for moral outrage at abortions at viability?
Well, I make no claim to fame, of course, but I do fit Kobal’s “(or any Doper)” criterion.
Well then, one second ago I fertilized a chicken’s egg. Is it now a chick or still basically just protein goo?
So what you’re saying is, that if go up to someone who is foolish or immature; or someone who is Jewish (a child of Abraham); or someone who is an offspring of a parent; or someone who is strongly effected by a social movement (a child of the '90s); and I hit that person, I am guilty of child abuse?
Because those people (the immature, the tribal member, etc.) are all children. If I hit them, it’s child abuse.
This debate is about logical consistency, right?