No, no, no, SenorDibble. I’d say nice try, but in a written medium, it’s a bit pathetic. This is what you said:
[Bolding added.] Ain’t the written word grand? So, stop flailing, stop lying, and come back from the dark side. You can do it!
That’s MisterSister to you, sparky. And I’ll leave it to the readers to decide if my question was a reasonable one of clarification. If you think otherwise, given the judgement you’ve displayed in this thread, I’ll learn to live with it.
Clearly you’re too much for me, professor. I make arguments and they are rendered invisible by your secret powers.
No problem. I appreciate the thought.
No, I don’t believe that’s true. I would argue that you deny these liberties to an entire class of humans. I realize you’d hold otherwise.
No, because I’m not saying so. You want to make “liberty” an equation with your definition alone. Were that a given, you’d be correct.
Pregnancy is indeed a singular circumstance, no one, myself included, would deny. A blameless human entity relies on another for its existence. But to ensure this existence, that would mean that certain individuals would be forced to concede a certain aspect of their bodily autonomy. As in many, many instances where rights conflict, the question becomes this: Which right prevails?
I would argue that the right for an innocent to exist, a blameless individual who has not willfully created any hazard, is as inviolable a right a there is one (and there’s no truly inviolable right). Does the mother have the right to bodily autonomy? Not if she doesn’t have the right to live. Even for the mother, the right for her to live is the more fundamental right. It has to be.
No right is meaningful if it is not founded on the right to live. The right to live is as fundamental and necessary a right as any right can be. That’s how I resolve the undeniable conflict of rights that exists.
Where that denial is an undue burden that is not associated with the protection of another’s more urgent right.
Dude, can’t you read? Here, let me parse it for you:
instead of giving me the reasons you think you’re right, you give me a bunch of bullshit reasons. Meaning you’re still giving me reasons.
What’s the matter, don’t have a real argument anymore? Semantic nitpicking and accusations of lying are about all you got left? Can’t attack the actual premises, hey?
Appealing to the gallery? Can’t speak for yourself?
So, in other words, got nothing left but smart comebacks, huh?
This is great. Here, I’m still game. I’ll try again. This is what you said (bolding added):
Are you really having this much trouble reading your own words?
Right! I’m the one dancing through a semantic minefield. You’re funny. I’m growing very fond of you.
No, it means I won’t waste any more time engaging a “debater” who ignores what he likes and demands that the argument focus only on what he’d prefer, then summarizes it all in a great big, huffing, puffing outrage over his own nonsense. Since you asked.
So “Yes”, then?
Oh, yeah? Sez you. (Your turn.)
It took you two days to come up with that?
Deep Breath
Look, this is what I’m seeing from you:
“Waah, I tried to move the goalposts, but Dibble didn’t fall for it, so I’ll pitch a fit and that’ll show him”
Here’s what you’re seeing from me, apparently:
“I made this killer argument, but Dibble’s dodging the thing by trying to constrain the whole debate to a tack ( he thinks ) he’s got a hope of winning”. Is that about right?
Well, I don’t think this argument can be won, as we have fundamental, almost essential, differences about the existence of intrinsic rights and the personhood of the foetus. And, while that’s not cool, it is still liveable. But we can debate our stances, maybe some undecided person is reading and can be swayed. So that’s been my approach.
I’m trying to get across the reasons behind the reasons for my stance. I think that helps everyone in seeing where I’m coming from. My ideas on socially derived rights and the meaning of personhood are fundamental to a lot more than my stance on abortion. So it helps if everyone can see the underlying philosophical basis for my argument. I could dig even deeper, but then we’re into idealist vs realist and that doesn’t actually help this debate.
You obviously disagree, but I must have missed where you’ve done the same. In my view, you’ve repeated the same statements of belief without grounding them in anything more coherent. If this happened in the middle of some post on page 2, I still haven’t seen it. I’ve tried to make my rationale the focus of my argument. Look up the word - it’s not as simple as just “the reasons” - it’s the fundamentals, the “reason behind the reason”. Like I said, I know you have a rationale, but I don’t think you’re actually arguing those fundamental reasons, only the derived reasons.
Let’s be clear - I’m not accusing you of dishonest arguing here. But I do think you think your rationale is so obvious as not to need stating. I’m sure it should be clear by now that that’s not the case.
As for the “directing traffic” thing - like I said, I wasn’t the main focus of that divergence, and I pointed out my take on things in that part just so it didn’t seem I was ignoring the point, that it did fit into my worldview, but in a way that completely negated its significance for the abortion debate. But I percieved you as still bringing it up when it had clearly been dealt with. This gave me a feeling of having my earlier posts ignored or worse, twisted around and the meaning corrupted. So that made me a little snippy, and hence the “read the damn thread” comment. I apologise, I should have just restated the point. My bad. But you can see where I’m coming from, can’t you?
I can. I’m off to work now, but I’ll try to give this the response it deserves later today. Your post is much appreciated.
There is no fundamental right to live at the expense of another. No one has the right to enslave another; no matter the circumstances; no matter the eminence of death.
I am not the one that would deny liberty to the class of humans that hold liberty for all; no matter the sin or vice. Yet you also do not recognize when liberties are justly forfeit. Yes, there is an entire class of humans that forfeits liberty even to life. These are the ones that have already taken or threatened another’s body or health or liberty.
Self defense is an inalienable right, enslavement is not.
I understand that you have a very strong opinion that those that commit the act (sin?) of sex are somehow subject to loss of inalienable rights. I hold the opinion that they are not.
However, the demand of justice goes beyond even your well considered and supported and very strong opinions. Justice demands proof beyond reasonable doubt. Prove that pregnancy does not threaten the body or health or liberty of the pregnant.
ItS
forgive
r~
[QUOTE=rwjefferson]
Tell that to my tax bill.
This is the thing that keeps bugging me. The fetus/baby does not “take” another’s body. It is not a parasite. The fetus is not capable of knowing or choosing to be where it is.
Is self defense an inalienable right if ones’ life is not threatened?
The problem here is the assertion of what justices is supposed to be about. **Stratocaster ** and I have both maintained that the ulimate justice is protecting the life of an innocent person. Prove that abortion does not threaten the fetus’ life.
We can go one better and prove that the fetus is not, in fact “alive” in a meaningful way. (Prior to viability, of course.)
These are the characteristics of life you can find in any basic biology textbook. I found these here. Without meeting all of these criteria, an object is not considered “alive”:
So let’s look at them one by one and see if they apply to a previable fetus.
** * Metabolism: chemical and energy transformations** No, not completely. The fetus is incapable of obtaining or digesting food or obtaining oxygen needed for metabolic processes. All nutrients and oxygen are leached from the mother’s bloodstream into the fetal bloodstream. Likewise, all wastes are metabolized by her body, not by the fetus.
*** Maintain internal conditions separated from an outside environment: homeostasisNo. A fetus cannot regulate its body temperature. Outside of a womb or warmed incubator, it will chill and die of cold.
*** Growth: conversion of materials from the environment into components of organism Yes.
*** Reaction to select stimuli, physiologically and/or behaviorallyYes, on the level of a bacterium or single-celled organism. All reactions are reflexive in nature, not cognitive.
*** Reproduction: making copies of individuals via the mechanism of genetic transfer: sections of DNA molecules that contain instructions for organization & metabolism No.
*** Evolution: change in characteristics of individuals, resulting from mutation & natural selection - these result in adaptations** No. Evolution is a product of reproduction, which the fetus cannot do. The fetus is a product of evolution, but not a contributor.
So there’s four clear “no”, one clear “yes” and one very qualified “yes”.
Just for shits and giggles, lets hold fire up to our rubric of life:
*** Metabolism: chemical and energy transformations** Yes. The chemicals and energy in wood are transformed into heat and light.
*** Maintain internal conditions separated from an outside environment: homeostasis** Yes. As long as fuel and oxygen (food and air) are present, a fire will stay a fire, no matter what you do to its outside environment.
*** Growth: conversion of materials from the environment into components of organism** Yes. Fire grows as is converts materials from the environment into more fire.
*** Reaction to select stimuli, physiologically and/or behaviorally** No.
*** Reproduction: making copies of individuals via the mechanism of genetic transfer: sections of DNA molecules that contain instructions for organization & metabolism** No.
*** Evolution: change in characteristics of individuals, resulting from mutation & natural selection - these result in adaptations** No.
So we have three clear “no” and three clear “yes”.
Ergo, a previable fetus is slightly less “alive” than a fire!
Obviously, this is ridiculous, as we know fire isn’t alive. But it does show us that non-alive things can have one or more of the characteristics of life and still not be alive. I do think it’s also clear that by scientific definition, a previable fetus is not alive. If it is not alive, it has no right to life.
If you’re going to argue that its *potential *to be fully alive in the future gives it the right to life, then you have to answer for me 1. why spermatazoa are not similarly granted the right to life and 2. how you plan to prosecute mothers who naturally miscarry, violating their zygote’s “right to life”.
Two points:
I disbelieve the notion of “ultimate justice”. All justice is relative.
I believe the foetus, while innocent (whatever that matters) , is not a person.
It better do a heck of a lot more than threaten, or else it’s a really lousy abortion. So what? That’s the whole point of the exercise - to end a foetus’s life/existence/parasitism/symbiosis/whatever. Death/end of the foetus isn’t just a side-effect of abortion. I know this. It changes nothing.
Obviously, it IS ridiculous to state that fire is alive, as you say. So…maybe there is a little more to life than what can be understood or listed in a biology textbook.
In terms of your questions…
Spermatazoa are merely cells…without fertilization, there is no way to save them and turn them into a baby. A fetus, as I mentioned way way back in the thread, has its OWN SPECIFIC human DNA…not the mother’s, not the father’s. And if not interfered with, is on an unstoppable trajectory towards becoming a baby (unless something is wrong with it that causes a miscarriage, as addressed in the next point). This is not true of sperm, so I never understand the comparison.
There is no reason to prosecute mothers who naturally miscarry. Sometimes people die through no fault of anyone else. Sometimes there is something wrong and the zygote does not form into a baby. Sometimes there are genetic problems. None of these things are the mother’s fault, just as if (God forbid) a child gets cancer and dies, or has a genetic defect and dies, it would not be the mother’s fault. Also, sometimes a miscarriage happens because of a hormonal or other type of problem with the mother’s physiology. Again, not her fault.
I was just trying to point out that we have a different concept of justice. In your mind, justice demands that a woman’s body not be held in slavery to another. To my mind, justice demands that we protect those who cannot protect themselves. So, for your concept of justice to be served, as you put it, I must “prove that pregnancy does not threaten the body or health or liberty of the pregnant.” But for my concept of justice to be served, then you must “prove that an innocent life is not eliminated.”
So…where does this leave us?
Like I said before - somewhere in the middle. I believe when we last visited the middle ground, we we looking at the region betwwn 3 and 6 months, with each of us favouring one end of that.
We both, I think, understand that that’s what we’d compromise on, not our ideal.
It is still true that any and every pregnancy carries threat to body and health even to death.
I understand what you are saying; but innocence does not change the circumstances. No one has the right to enslave another; no matter the circumstances; no matter the eminence of death; no matter the innocence; no matter. This is the ultimate spirit of justice; no matter the words or law.
ItS
Peace
r~
I just want to be clear. I had posted this:
You may well have read this and still consider this less than an argument. Can you confirm? Thanks.