BTW, if it is indeed true that there are no just exceptions to equality under the law, then don’t the unborn have a right to a fair trial before they are deemed guilty? Before we level the ultimate penalty – capital punishment – against them for their misdeeds?
Remember, you’re the one who said,
Don’t they have a right to a trial before one declares that they are “not innocent”? That is, if it is indeed true that there are no just exceptions to “ll are equal under law.”
What happened to “free consent is A-OK with me”?
My kind? What the hell is that supposed to mean? This is an insult pulled out of your ass.
And you’re the guy who waxed purple over restrictions on your liberty, not me. And let me let you in on a secret. In most jurisdictions, prostitution is a–wait for it!–crime! If there’s someone here who’s having trouble making distinctions, I don’t think it’s me.
Don’t be disingeneous - you were comparing the suffering of pregnancy versus death, so it was clearly the foetus that you, and subsequently I, was referring to. And so it was the foetus that feels nothing after abortion. Jump around in your argument all you want to, but please do me the courtesy of not assuming I’m a total idiot, and I can read. Thanks.
I agree that abortion is traumatic. I never said it wasn’t. The question is, is it more traumatic than being forced to carry an unwanted baby to term, and are the possible physical after-effects worse than the certain ones of a full-term pregancy and delivery? I highly doubt it.
What part of “dichotomy” don’t you understand?
There is a clear dilemma in the situation. Someone’s going to have something bad happen to them, either way. So this is a clear case where the free consent of one party is not going to be given, either because they are withholding it (the woman) or are anyway not developmentally able to give it (the foetus). To me, the woman’s rights outweigh the foetus’s. I have made a choice whose free consent is more important to me. How does that deny my quoted statement?
I am responding collectively to your two most recent posts in response to mine.
Here is the relevant Pennsylvania Law on what acts are prohibited regarding drugs by the CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, DRUG, DEVICE AND COSMETIC ACT of 1972. All PA Criminal Code references to controlled substances refer to this Act. (Don’t be fooled by the URL. Even online law libraries link to here. Apparently, the PA gov’t operates off an AOL account.)
Here you will find references to how it is illegal to possess distribute, sell, etc. all manner of substances and equipment with the intent to get you high, but nowehere does it in fact state that it is a crime to actually get high.
Prostitution and Related Offenses in the Public Indecency section of the Pennsylvania Criminal Code. Pennsylvania defines prostitution (as relevant to our discussion) as:
I believe it is very telling that Prostitution is listed under the Public Indecency section, along with guidelines for dirty bookstores and prohibitions against freak shows, and NOT in the Sexual Offenses category, where pedophilia and rape reside.
Notice it does NOT say simply “sex for money”.
As was discussed in at least one long-ago thread, laws against prostitution are generally against what is known as “common prostitution”. As I read PA law, barring any decided legal precedent, you could make an arrangement to be a “kept” man or woman by one other, which is essentially sex for money, and it is not a crime. In other words, you can effectively lease your orifices and protruberances discriminatingly as with an apartment or a house. You can’t rent them out frequently to all and sundry like a hotel room or a taxi.
To summarize:
Sex with one person exclusively + no exchange of money: legal
Sex with many people + no exchange of money: legal
Sex with one person exclusively + exchange of money: legal
Sex with many people + exchange of money: illegal
Prostitution laws in your state are a restriction of business and trade activities, which only indirectly affect how you may employ your body. YMMV.
Okay, I see your point. Thanks for delivering it in such a hostile manner.
It seems a completely unsatisfactory resolution of the dichotomy, however. Having read this:
…I have a question for you. Let’s focus on the pregnant mom you’re so concerned with. Which would be more traumatic for her, prohibiting her from having an abortion or killing her? If you’ve already clarified this particular point, I’m not recollecting. It’s a long thread.
I meant to add, by way of bringing this drugs ‘n’ hookers hijack back to the thread topic, that laws are generally very careful to avoid telling you what to do with your body. Certain practices are frowned upon by the public at large or are not in the best interests of the community as a whole, but in the end, as long as you are not hurting anyone or causing a public danger or nuisance, they don’t tell you what to do with your own self.
Drug laws in general don’t tell you that you can’t be high. Prostitution laws don’t say you can’t be promiscuous. That’s why it’s wrong for there to be laws that say you must be pregnant for nine months and endure birth.
Thanks for the cite. From that cite:
I haven’t drilled into every part of the cite yet, but until I do, I’ll concede your point that there isn’t an explicit prohibition noted with regard to use. But it’s clear to me that the primary objective of the CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, DRUG, DEVICE AND COSMETIC ACT is to prevent the citizenry from using / abusing drugs. It is designed to prevent people from using illegal narcotics, whether or not that is executed by throwing users in the the slammer. The law, if executed in a manner that was completely effective (certainly it isn’t) would mean nobody in Pennsylvania gets to partake of illegal drugs. It is still a state-sanction limitation on what we Pennsylvanians can do. So, I’m not sure a meaningful distinction is being drawn, upon reflection and an incomplete reading.
I guess our mileages do vary, because again, the 4th bullet in your summary is a restriction regarding how a person may use his or her body. The exchange of money is an intrinsic part of the act, as intended by the person who presumably has autonomy over her body.
And wherever pedophilia restrictions reside in the code, this is another example of where the state prohibits the use of one’s body because it sees a compelling reason to do so. Perhaps this is a better example for you. Now, you may disagree that abortion provides a similarly compelling state interest to interfere. But my point is, and was, that “bodily autonomy” is not an inviolable boundary, as some folks (not necessarily you) seem to think it is.
If someone attempts to kidnap you, you do not have to take them to court and prove them guilty before you are allowed to use whatever means necessary to free yourself.
Your kind are those that think a crime is whatever they say it is and can pass into law. Your posts only reinforce that belief.
Prostitution is a good example. In certain counties in Nevada, there is no (minimal) crime associated with prostitution. The biggest worry for some counties is when a brothel closes and the county looses revenue.
If there is a crime associated with prostitution in your jurisdiction, it is due to the moral tyrants that have passed a law that is itself a crime. A crime is an act that denies peaceful pursuit; no matter your name for it.
r~
Show me where. Show me where I asserted something should be law merely because I want it to be, devoid of any justification. Show how that’s different about what you assert should be law, in terms of process (not conclusions). That’s how honest debaters proceed on this board. They don’t pull meaningless accusations out of their asses.
No, a crime is a violation of the criminal code. An act that denies peaceful pursuit may or may not be criminal, but it certainly has ethical implications. You have to stop repeating this as if this is some long-settled, indisputable human law that everybody keeps forgetting.
Full disclosure: Item 33 under Prohibited Acts declares it is illegal to use drug paraphernalia to consume drugs. That’s as close as it gets to saying that being under the effect of drugs is illegal, as far as I can find.
One has to marvel at the precision of the wording in the link. They won’t (or can’t, I presume, due to some court decision) declare that being stoned is a crime. There is a certain sanctity of the body inherent in that precision.
If the exchange of money (or specifically to PA, the running of a business) were an act of the body, I might be able to see your point.
I, and Pennsylvania, see it differently. Sexual Offenses are listed under “Offenses Involving Danger to the Person”. Clicking around that link will show you that Pedophilia is taken care of by defining “Rape” as, among other things: “…sexual intercourse with a complainant…Who is less than 13 years of age.”
The law, by its classification, does not so much prohibit what you can do with your body as as it does limit what can be done with to another’s body. Sanctity again.
My statements above should make it clear I don’t find your assessment valid.
Again, I guess we’ll have to disagree. I see nothing illogical with a prostitute lobbying for a change in prostitution laws, basing it on an argument of, “It’s my body. I should get to decide how to use it.”
Well, it does both, just as an abortion restriction would. A pedophile who would argue that he should be able to do what he pleases with his body would be reminded that there’s another body involved. Pro-life arguments–which I understand many do not agree with–hold the very same thing. So my point, again, is that “bodily autonomy” is not an inviolable boundary, certain not to the extent some in this thread seem to hold. A compelling state interest can override that “right to autonomy,” just as it does in other instances.
Which do you find invalid? That there is a sufficient state interest? If so, I agree that we’re on opposite sides of the fence and I need no clarification.
Or is it that “bodily autonomy” really is a more or less inviolable boundary, by itself, or it ought to be, whether or not all other laws are consistent with this notion?
You have a very thin skin if you think I’m being hostile. Check out Iraq pit threads if you want to see me hostile.
It seems perfectly OK to me. That’s why we’re arguing, isn’t it.
Assuming you’re not talking about killing her in her sleep, unbeknownst to her, but rather in a violent fashion, I’d say that killing her would be. What’s your point?
Are you contending that death is equally as traumatic for an aborted foetus as it is for an adult human fully able to anticipate that death? Because then you’re using a different sense of the word “traumatic”, and it behooves you to point this out if we’re to argue honestly.
Let me get this clear - I believe what that little appeal to emotion is supposed to do, is make me think about the fact that the foetus is being killed, and that that’s worse than whatever happens to the woman? This would only work if I saw an adult woman and an unborn foetus as equivalent. I don’t. I’d hope that were clear by now, but it seems it isn’t. Argue about that position, don’t try and step around it by all these “what ifs” and invalid comparisons you and sarahfeena have been making. It obscures the real conflict - baby versus woman.
Did you really think I’d say that death was better? :dubious:
I think I understand you now. If the very act itself (not the consequences) are more traumatic, then that decides it for you?
Oh, I get it. You get to decide the terms of the debate. I missed that part in the OP. So, please explain. Your axiom is that a fetus is not equivalent to an adult woman in terms of the right to live. What makes that axiom superior to one that states the counter? Answer in terms of inherent rights, not in the consequences of protecting those rights. Because when you say:
…a few things are clear, at least to me. The fetus is certainly victimized, in your words. But that victimization is preferable at least in part because it creates the least “in the moment” suffering. This is an interesting and incoherent syllogism, if I’m understanding it correctly, in that a painless murder would seem to trump the alternative in many instances. It could create the least trauma / suffering, correct? Hence my question, which is not an appeal to emotion, it’s a direct reaction to what you asserted. Assume a person could be dispensed with painlessly. Is that a preferable sentence for a convicted burglar, as an example? He experiences no real trauma (let’s say he’s killed in his sleep by a painless means), and he avoids the undeniable trauma of a prison sentence. Or is the consequence of the act a consideration, the consequence of the act beyond the moment? Suppose I need my brother’s internal organ as a transplant, to avoid a prolonged and painful death. Can I humanely kill him and have the organ harvested? After all, that produces the least trauma over all, if we define trauma as you seem to.
So, which is it? Equivalency or suffering that decides the matter? Certainly it could be both, but that implies a shitload of qualifiers to cover all conceivable circumstances. Let’s suppose abortion were an excruciatingly painful act for the fetus. Does the mother still prevail, because she is the “superior” being–i.e., the one with the overriding right? If so, then no more red herrings about who suffers least. That will also help you to avoid making statements about “invalid comparisons” when your assertions were what invited the comparisons.
Or does the fetus “win” in this scenario because the probability of the mother’s trauma being worse is lesser? In which case, the equivalency of the beings is irrelevant.
In instances where the being involved has not yet developed brain waves or reached the age of being able to live on its own or feel pain, yes. For all others, no.
Yes.
If the burgler involved has not yet developed brain waves or reached the age of being able to live on its own or feel pain, yes. For all other burglers, no.
Yes, I think it is. I don’t think unwanted, abused children are good consequences of forced mothering. I don’t think mentally anguished bio mothers and angry adopted kids are good consequences of forced adoption. I don’t claim that every instance of forced mothering or adoption is painful or bad, but the possibilities are there, and I believe they are statistically greater than those traumatized by abortion. Regardless, the choice of taking each chance should be up to the parent, as is every choice in parenting.
If the brother involved has not yet developed brain waves or reached the age of being able to live on its own or feel pain, yes. For all other brothers, no.
Once a person has developed brain waves capable of suffering or pain, or is able to live on its own, we must ethically treat it as a human with rights (assuming it is human, and not another animal, of course).
I son’t understand the question.
If I were presented with such evidence, I would reevaluate my stance on abortion proceedures, perhaps to include mandatory pain relief for the fetus. But the right to abortion should still stand.
How is it a red herring? It’s something to be considered in making abortion laws, and also in making our own personal moral decisions about abortion. It is not the sole critereon on which my beliefs stand, but it is a consideration.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand this part either.
FORCING a woman - to abort or to stay pregnant against her will, is always going to be traumatic. Taking away her right to make medical desicions for herself is going to cause pain and suffering, no matter which side is being forced. It would be just as traumatic to be forced to have an abortion as it would to be forced to stay pregnant. Thank goodness no one’s talking about FORCING women to get abortions. The way to minimize suffering is to make the choice each woman’s individual decision. Only she (and her doctor) know which decision is likely to be more traumatic for her.
You may indeed have anecdotes about mothers who are traumatized by having abortions. I can match you anecdote for anecdote with a story of a bio mother or child traumatized by the fact that they chose adoption. (I can show you a whole Pit full of abusive, fucked up parents who are traumatized by having kids.) My main point in the whole debate is that people need to be free to choose the trauma of their choice. 
Consequences are important too. Don’t get why you think I think they aren’t. The consequences of the murder of a person are pretty bad, wouldn’t you say?
No, I get to object when I can see that a new argument is being shaped as a “gotcha” trap, rather than earlier points directly addressed.
I’m just amused that all your argument is via these “well, wait, what if…” arguments, rather than straightforward debate. I’ve very clearly said what I think - this Socratic stuff isn’t going to suddenly make me go “Aha, I had faulty premises all along! How could I have been so blind! I’m a cold-blooded murderer”, when you haven’t addressed the premises directly. The free will of a woman is more important than the life of her unborn foetus, and that’s got nothing to do with drugs, prostitution, or the lif of that same woman. I don’t see you attacking the notion that the woman has a right to choose.
Why the heck would I argue in terms of rights I don’t believe exist? Or haven’t you read the earlier posts where I set out at length what I see as the basis for derived rights? I’m certainly not going to repeat myself - read the damn thread.
Only where the killing and the consequent suffering are the only factor on one side of the equation. “in the moment” suffering is certainly not a large side of the woman’s side of the argument, it’s all about the long-term consequences there.
It’s all “in the moment” on the foetus side of the scales because “in the moment” suffering is all the foetus has. If there was long-term suffering on the foetus’ part, the whole argument would look verty different, but the foetus dies, and that’s it as far as its suffering goes. I can’t argue for its long-term suffering, because there is none.
As to the aborting mother’s long-term suffering, I’ve already argued that I believe it’s less than that of the mother forced to carry to term. If you believe different, you’re welcome to makie your case.
I never said consequences didn’t matter. Cite where I said they didn’t? Certainly, by the way I’ve used trauma in refernece to the preganant woman, I’m talking about long-term effects.
What’s wrong with “a shitload of qualifiers?” And we only need concern ourselves with how it applies to abortion, in this debate, not “all concievable circumstances”
Who said all suffering is physical? I can well believe abortion is painful for a late-term foetus. So what? Its suffering is brief, all the same. That’s not a red herring, it’s the truth of the matter.
First person to bring up “last moments stretched out to eternhity” arguments get my derisive laughter.
The “invalid comparison” comment was about all that sidetracking guff about drugs and prostitution. Stick to the issue.
The equivalency is relevant because it points to whose suffering we believe carries more weight.
Once again, someone’s got to suffer. You think it should be the woman, for the rest of her life. I don’t
I completely did not mean to insult you…I am just operating on a stream-of-consciousness level right now, which tends to happen to me when I am in a long thread that has meandered off the original topic all over the place. When you said that a woman will suffer trauma from having an unwanted baby, the first thing I thought was that she may suffer (psychologically) just as much from having an abortion as having that unwanted baby.
I actually have no idea which is worse, psychologically. I suppose it really depends on the person. It really is beside the point, anyway, so I’m sorry if I took the thread in that direction. My point was just that death is worse than any of these other possibilities.
I hear you, and I understand the point you were trying to make. It was the jumping topics that riled me a little. No hard feelings.
I realise it might vary from woman to woman, that’s why it should be the woman’s choice. And I don’t gree that the death of a foetus is necessarily worse than anything else, but again, that difference of opinion is why we need this type of argument in the first place.
I’m glad that you aren’t still irritated with me…because I have another pretty good reason that my abilities to use logic may be compromised…I just found out I am pregnant! I think the hormones may already be making me squirrley. 