My Very Own Abortion Thread

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]orion wrote:
Gentlemen, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you are unable to lead an ethical discussion.

You argue outcome oriented, you have no fixed ethical pinciples from which to derive at logical conclusions and if you do you simply deny that the conclusion logically follows.

Hell, most of you are unable to distiguish between action and inaction and positive and negative rights.

If you are typical conservatives that means American conseratism is dead, for you argue the EXACT SAME WAY LIKE UTILITARIAN LIBERALS DO.

Next time you feel like accusing a “liberal” of “moral relatiism” simply embrace him as your intellectual twin.

[/quote]

When your ethical system forgets to take into consideration right and wrong there is no point in even discussing it. It is simply an excuse to do what you want and not feel guilty over the consequences others will face. Of course you won?t care because you aren’t the one suffering the consequences.

302

[quote]Cortes wrote:
orion wrote:
Cortes wrote:
What I’ve learned from this thread:

Moral Relativism is Black and White.

Who knew?

What you do not seem to have learned that this is an attack on moral relativism.

When the deliberate neglect of a baby which will almost inevitably lead to his death is discussed as some sort of logical conclusion derived from a proposed ethical system, then I’d say that morals have become pretty fuzzy, no matter your intentions. [/quote]

When the poverty of large parts of a population while other people are thriving is the direct result of an ethical system then I’d say that morals have become pretty fuzzy, no matter your intentions.

I get it, you do not like a possible outcome of ethical principles, therefore they must be wrong.

That is utilitarian thinking, you judge a system by its outcomes.

Just one question, how, or by what standards, do you judge the outcome. if you have sacrificed your principles because you did not like the outcome?

The inevitable result is an “ethical system” that consists of wishful thinking.

You might call that liberal relativism, but I would either drop the term liberal because they do no longer seem to have cornered the market on that type of folly.

303

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
Gentlemen, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you are unable to lead an ethical discussion.

You argue outcome oriented, you have no fixed ethical pinciples from which to derive at logical conclusions and if you do you simply deny that the conclusion logically follows.

Hell, most of you are unable to distiguish between action and inaction and positive and negative rights.

If you are typical conservatives that means American conseratism is dead, for you argue the EXACT SAME WAY LIKE UTILITARIAN LIBERALS DO.

Next time you feel like accusing a “liberal” of “moral relatiism” simply embrace him as your intellectual twin.

To play devil’s advocate, a baby has POSITIVE rights because a woman CHOOSES to get pregant in most cases. Even taking precautions, she embracces the risk of getting pregnant because they are not foolproof. Therefore (accepting the proposition that a baby is human from conception), she may not murder the human being she chose to create. (Just as parents must provide for the birthed children they CHOOSE to bring into this world but not the homeless man down the street).

And by the way, the people on these forums are really not the typical conservatives. Although, I am not a conservative myself, true conservatives’ arguments are much less half-baked. The ‘conservatives’ on thse forums are just ideologues who scream the loudest.[/quote]

While I still feel that the fact that the mother created the situation is not entirely without merit, you cannot argue that the child has a positive right.

There are several problems with this:

a) The problems of positive rights in general. Something that cannot be a right everywhere, at all times, cannot be a right.

You cannot have an inherent right that depends on the ability of others to provide it.

b) Implicit contractual obligations are hard to argue for because the child did not exist to make a contract with.

She wanted A child, but maybe not exactly THIS child?

c) What if she did not choose it and was raped?

That would imply that the negative rights of a child are depending on how that child was conceived and that is not possible.

They are either absolute or not at all, it would fly in the face of a natural rights idea.

304

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
You, wanting her to take her of someone she does not want to take care of is the enslavement part.

You have no right to make her do anything.

Then you can’t use laws to require mothers to provide for their infants and toddlers. Is that your ethical system?

If you are generally against welfare and want to stay consistent, yes.

IF you want to save the child though you are free to do so if it is possible.

Had you looked at the links I provided you would know that that leads to an outcome that probably saves more lives in the long run, respects the rights of the mother to own her own body and leaves the government out of it in most cases.

How I would be “free” to rescue the child? The law in Rothbard land would be against me. So again, do you let the infant die, while standing out the bounds of parent’s property? Do you tell yourself, “well, I’m consistent?”[/quote]

Well there is the obligation of the mother to evict the child with the least amount of violence necessary, and that includes eviction from her womb.

305

[quote]orion wrote:
Cortes wrote:
orion wrote:
Cortes wrote:
What I’ve learned from this thread:

Moral Relativism is Black and White.

Who knew?

What you do not seem to have learned that this is an attack on moral relativism.

When the deliberate neglect of a baby which will almost inevitably lead to his death is discussed as some sort of logical conclusion derived from a proposed ethical system, then I’d say that morals have become pretty fuzzy, no matter your intentions.

When the poverty of large parts of a population while other people are thriving is the direct result of an ethical system then I’d say that morals have become pretty fuzzy, no matter your intentions.

I get it, you do not like a possible outcome of ethical principles, therefore they must be wrong.

That is utilitarian thinking, you judge a system by its outcomes.

Just one question, how, or by what standards, do you judge the outcome. if you have sacrificed your principles because you did not like the outcome?

The inevitable result is an “ethical system” that consists of wishful thinking.

You might call that liberal relativism, but I would either drop the term liberal because they do no longer seem to have cornered the market on that type of folly.
[/quote]

Oh, I agree with you that liberals have certainly not cornered the market on relativism. It seems to plague every system we have available to us today, save Islamism, interestingly enough.

However, this argument is quite simple. It has been stated over and over again. The fact that you choose to ignore or warp that which does not support your own argument does nothing to erode my own. I know it must feel good to claim victory in front of everyone, however, much like a streaker must enjoy the reactions of his “crowd.”

Here’s my ethic: Killing a human is wrong. You were the one…oh, wait, sorry, that was Rothbard. Rothbard was the one who assumed the child was human. “Neglect” is a conscious act which results in murder. Therefore “neglect” is wrong. All of your “arguments” have done nothing to convince me that what you are proposing is nothing more than simple murder. It’s not nearly so complicated as you make it out to be.

Also, you have yet to define the word “welfare.”

306

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:

You can however care for the embryo once it has been evicted from the mothers property, i.e. her womb.

Who says it is just her property during the term? Natural rights? What’s more natural than a human being developing in the womb, by natural design. If a woman owns her body as her property by simply being born with it, through nature, what about the embryo? Again, nature (and most likely, the mother’s own decisions and actions) has placed an embryo in the womb, while also providing the embryo it’s own life.

This just sounds like a weak attempt to get around the non-aggression principle, after a libertarian’s one night stand gone wrong.[/quote]

Then I suggest you re-examine the non aggression principle.

Plus, what is natural is not naturally a natural right or otherwise you´d always have the right to do what comes naturally.

Got it?

307

Please explain this further? Should be interesting.

308

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
You, wanting her to take her of someone she does not want to take care of is the enslavement part.

You have no right to make her do anything.

Then you can’t use laws to require mothers to provide for their infants and toddlers. Is that your ethical system?

If you are generally against welfare and want to stay consistent, yes.

IF you want to save the child though you are free to do so if it is possible.

Had you looked at the links I provided you would know that that leads to an outcome that probably saves more lives in the long run, respects the rights of the mother to own her own body and leaves the government out of it in most cases.

How I would be “free” to rescue the child? The law in Rothbard land would be against me. So again, do you let the infant die, while standing out the bounds of parent’s property? Do you tell yourself, “well, I’m consistent?”

Well there is the obligation of the mother to evict the child with the least amount of violence necessary, and that includes eviction from her womb.
[/quote]

Evict? Like the embryo approached her with the intent to rent out her womb for 9 months, but stopped paying the agreed upon rent? Or, did it sneak in through a window and occupy her womb like a squatter? Just who the hell is responsible for her being pregnant here? Not by the unborn child’s actions, that’s for sure.

Edit: And again, how would I be “free” to rescue the starving infant, when the law would be against me?

309

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
You, wanting her to take her of someone she does not want to take care of is the enslavement part.

You have no right to make her do anything.

Then you can’t use laws to require mothers to provide for their infants and toddlers. Is that your ethical system?

If you are generally against welfare and want to stay consistent, yes.

IF you want to save the child though you are free to do so if it is possible.

Had you looked at the links I provided you would know that that leads to an outcome that probably saves more lives in the long run, respects the rights of the mother to own her own body and leaves the government out of it in most cases.

How I would be “free” to rescue the child? The law in Rothbard land would be against me. So again, do you let the infant die, while standing out the bounds of parent’s property? Do you tell yourself, “well, I’m consistent?”

Well there is the obligation of the mother to evict the child with the least amount of violence necessary, and that includes eviction from her womb.

Evict? Like the embryo approached her with the intent to rent out her womb for 9 months, but stopped paying the agreed upon rent? Or, did it sneak in through a window and occupy her womb like a squatter? Just who the hell is responsible for her being pregnant here? Not by the unborn child’s actions, that’s for sure.

Edit: And again, how would I be “free” to rescue the starving infant, when the law would be against me?[/quote]

Common sense is not a part of this thread.

310

[quote]orion wrote:
This is mainly an argument aimed at conservatives and as far as I am aware it was first made by Rothbard in the “Ethics of Liberty”:

Let us assume, for discussions sake that an embryo was a human being with all inherent rights.

What is the nature of these rights? Are they positive, i.e. must they be provided by others, or negative, i.e. only need to be respected by others?

That is important distinction, because the same conservatives who would object to the idea that they are forced at gunpoint to provide for the needs of others, expect a mother to keep a child alive.

That child however only has the right to live, not to be kept alive at someone else´s expense.

Therefore, let us separate the child from the mother and see if it lives.

If it doesn´t, the child´s right to live was never violated, it could exercise that right if it had only the power to do so, alas it hasn´t. It basically is in the same position like a person dying of diseases or of old age.

So, the real question for a conservative is, how he can be against abortion and also against welfare when forcing a woman to keep a child alive she does not want basically is welfare?

[/quote]

Your supposition is invalid as a women need not do anything (no action) to keep an embryo alive other than keep herself alive. Welfare is action by one person or group to support others.

Keeping an embryo alive requires no such action. In fact, the only action is the action of terminating the embryo, which, by your scenario, would be infringing on the rights of the embryo to live.

Now once the baby was born it would require action on the mothers part to keep it alive. So this is where your scenario would apply.

So at this point the mother could take no action; neither support nor hinder the baby’s ability to live, which would be totally in support of both parties rights. HOWEVER, by law, if this occurred the mother would be in jail for child neglect.

So your scenario actually shows how the current law is hypocritical in terms of human rights by supporting the born baby over an unborn baby. (Remember your scenario premise was that the embryo had rights as an individual).

311

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I disagree with everything you wrote. I find your ability to toss a helpless child aside without thinking twice disturbing. You can not be a part of a society and expect the society to revolve around your needs.

Societies were developed in order to do well for the whole of the people. I tell you what convince your country to do all the things you think are right and we’ll see how it works out.

There is no gun![/quote]

There also is no man behind the curtain Dorothy.

312

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
Gentlemen, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you are unable to lead an ethical discussion.

You argue outcome oriented, you have no fixed ethical pinciples from which to derive at logical conclusions and if you do you simply deny that the conclusion logically follows.

Hell, most of you are unable to distiguish between action and inaction and positive and negative rights.

If you are typical conservatives that means American conseratism is dead, for you argue the EXACT SAME WAY LIKE UTILITARIAN LIBERALS DO.

Next time you feel like accusing a “liberal” of “moral relatiism” simply embrace him as your intellectual twin.

When your ethical system forgets to take into consideration right and wrong there is no point in even discussing it. It is simply an excuse to do what you want and not feel guilty over the consequences others will face. Of course you won?t care because you aren’t the one suffering the consequences.[/quote]

Well, if you want to talk utilitarianism, your ideas lead to more dead babies than mine.

Too bad, you must support my decision until you find a workable solution that leads to even less dead babies.

Unless of course you have an underlying ethical principle that leads to a different outcome, but than you should be willing to accept its necessary consequences.

Let´s hear it.

PS: The real kicker is, since you have no ethical system you cannot even determine what is “right or wrong” unless you do it by gut feeling.

My ethical system however clearly states what is right and wrong.

It would be wrong for example to force a woman to carry a child shew does not want.

313

[quote]Cortes wrote:
orion wrote:
Cortes wrote:
orion wrote:
Cortes wrote:
What I’ve learned from this thread:

Moral Relativism is Black and White.

Who knew?

What you do not seem to have learned that this is an attack on moral relativism.

When the deliberate neglect of a baby which will almost inevitably lead to his death is discussed as some sort of logical conclusion derived from a proposed ethical system, then I’d say that morals have become pretty fuzzy, no matter your intentions.

When the poverty of large parts of a population while other people are thriving is the direct result of an ethical system then I’d say that morals have become pretty fuzzy, no matter your intentions.

I get it, you do not like a possible outcome of ethical principles, therefore they must be wrong.

That is utilitarian thinking, you judge a system by its outcomes.

Just one question, how, or by what standards, do you judge the outcome. if you have sacrificed your principles because you did not like the outcome?

The inevitable result is an “ethical system” that consists of wishful thinking.

You might call that liberal relativism, but I would either drop the term liberal because they do no longer seem to have cornered the market on that type of folly.

Oh, I agree with you that liberals have certainly not cornered the market on relativism. It seems to plague every system we have available to us today, save Islamism, interestingly enough.

However, this argument is quite simple. It has been stated over and over again. The fact that you choose to ignore or warp that which does not support your own argument does nothing to erode my own. I know it must feel good to claim victory in front of everyone, however, much like a streaker must enjoy the reactions of his “crowd.”

Here’s my ethic: Killing a human is wrong. You were the one…oh, wait, sorry, that was Rothbard. Rothbard was the one who assumed the child was human. “Neglect” is a conscious act which results in murder. Therefore “neglect” is wrong.

All of your “arguments” have done nothing to convince me that what you are proposing is nothing more than simple murder. It’s not nearly so complicated as you make it out to be.

Also, you have yet to define the word “welfare.”
[/quote]

Islam is pretty simple, it is a religion and therefore avoids the question of logical consistency.

Then, neglect, and that is where your “neglect is murder”-argument falls to the ground, is not an act, it is the willful decision NOT TO ACT.

But, let us say for a moment that I accepted your argument, which I don´t.

What follows?

That you are a mas murderer because millions of children die each year because you chose not to help them?

If you do not accept thus outcome of your premise, there must be to it than that.

What exactlky?

314

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Plus, what is natural is not naturally a natural right or otherwise you´d always have the right to do what comes naturally.

Got it?

Please explain this further? Should be interesting.[/quote]

The urge to punch someone in the face is quite natural but does not imply a natural right to actually do it?

315

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
You, wanting her to take her of someone she does not want to take care of is the enslavement part.

You have no right to make her do anything.

Then you can’t use laws to require mothers to provide for their infants and toddlers. Is that your ethical system?

If you are generally against welfare and want to stay consistent, yes.

IF you want to save the child though you are free to do so if it is possible.

Had you looked at the links I provided you would know that that leads to an outcome that probably saves more lives in the long run, respects the rights of the mother to own her own body and leaves the government out of it in most cases.

How I would be “free” to rescue the child? The law in Rothbard land would be against me. So again, do you let the infant die, while standing out the bounds of parent’s property? Do you tell yourself, “well, I’m consistent?”

Well there is the obligation of the mother to evict the child with the least amount of violence necessary, and that includes eviction from her womb.

Evict? Like the embryo approached her with the intent to rent out her womb for 9 months, but stopped paying the agreed upon rent? Or, did it sneak in through a window and occupy her womb like a squatter? Just who the hell is responsible for her being pregnant here? Not by the unborn child’s actions, that’s for sure.

Edit: And again, how would I be “free” to rescue the starving infant, when the law would be against me?[/quote]

Still haven´t read the link yet?

316

[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
Gentlemen, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you are unable to lead an ethical discussion.

You argue outcome oriented, you have no fixed ethical pinciples from which to derive at logical conclusions and if you do you simply deny that the conclusion logically follows.

Hell, most of you are unable to distiguish between action and inaction and positive and negative rights.

If you are typical conservatives that means American conseratism is dead, for you argue the EXACT SAME WAY LIKE UTILITARIAN LIBERALS DO.

Next time you feel like accusing a “liberal” of “moral relatiism” simply embrace him as your intellectual twin.

When your ethical system forgets to take into consideration right and wrong there is no point in even discussing it. It is simply an excuse to do what you want and not feel guilty over the consequences others will face. Of course you won?t care because you aren’t the one suffering the consequences.

Well, if you want to talk utilitarianism, your ideas lead to more dead babies than mine.

Too bad, you must support my decision until you find a workable solution that leads to even less dead babies.

Unless of course you have an underlying ethical principle that leads to a different outcome, but than you should be willing to accept its necessary consequences.

Let´s hear it.

PS: The real kicker is, since you have no ethical system you cannot even determine what is “right or wrong” unless you do it by gut feeling.

My ethical system however clearly states what is right and wrong.

It would be wrong for example to force a woman to carry a child shew does not want.

[/quote]

Right and wrong would be a system of morals. Ethics then build on these morals. How exactly would my guidelines cause more dead children? This entire thread I have argued a woman should be required to carry the child she created and then take care of the child until it can take care of itself. You think women should be allowed to abort babies. In my world baby lives in yours it dies.

317

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
This is mainly an argument aimed at conservatives and as far as I am aware it was first made by Rothbard in the “Ethics of Liberty”:

Let us assume, for discussions sake that an embryo was a human being with all inherent rights.

What is the nature of these rights? Are they positive, i.e. must they be provided by others, or negative, i.e. only need to be respected by others?

That is important distinction, because the same conservatives who would object to the idea that they are forced at gunpoint to provide for the needs of others, expect a mother to keep a child alive.

That child however only has the right to live, not to be kept alive at someone else´s expense.

Therefore, let us separate the child from the mother and see if it lives.

If it doesn´t, the child´s right to live was never violated, it could exercise that right if it had only the power to do so, alas it hasn´t. It basically is in the same position like a person dying of diseases or of old age.

So, the real question for a conservative is, how he can be against abortion and also against welfare when forcing a woman to keep a child alive she does not want basically is welfare?

Your supposition is invalid as a women need not do anything (no action) to keep an embryo alive other than keep herself alive. Welfare is action by one person or group to support others. Keeping an embryo alive requires no such action. In fact, the only action is the action of terminating the embryo, which, by your scenario, would be infringing on the rights of the embryo to live.

Now once the baby was born it would require action on the mothers part to keep it alive. So this is where your scenario would apply. So at this point the mother could take no action; neither support nor hinder the baby’s ability to live, which would be totally in support of both parties rights. HOWEVER, by law, if this occurred the mother would be in jail for child neglect.

So your scenario actually shows how the current law is hypocritical in terms of human rights by supporting the born baby over an unborn baby. (Remember your scenario premise was that the embryo had rights as an individual).

[/quote]

It is not so much whether she needs to act, but whether she needs to tolerate another person on her property.

You do not need to do anything to support a trespasser either, yet you want him gone.

318

[quote]orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
This is mainly an argument aimed at conservatives and as far as I am aware it was first made by Rothbard in the “Ethics of Liberty”:

Let us assume, for discussions sake that an embryo was a human being with all inherent rights.

What is the nature of these rights? Are they positive, i.e. must they be provided by others, or negative, i.e. only need to be respected by others?

That is important distinction, because the same conservatives who would object to the idea that they are forced at gunpoint to provide for the needs of others, expect a mother to keep a child alive.

That child however only has the right to live, not to be kept alive at someone else´s expense.

Therefore, let us separate the child from the mother and see if it lives.

If it doesn´t, the child´s right to live was never violated, it could exercise that right if it had only the power to do so, alas it hasn´t. It basically is in the same position like a person dying of diseases or of old age.

So, the real question for a conservative is, how he can be against abortion and also against welfare when forcing a woman to keep a child alive she does not want basically is welfare?

Your supposition is invalid as a women need not do anything (no action) to keep an embryo alive other than keep herself alive. Welfare is action by one person or group to support others. Keeping an embryo alive requires no such action. In fact, the only action is the action of terminating the embryo, which, by your scenario, would be infringing on the rights of the embryo to live.

Now once the baby was born it would require action on the mothers part to keep it alive. So this is where your scenario would apply. So at this point the mother could take no action; neither support nor hinder the baby’s ability to live, which would be totally in support of both parties rights. HOWEVER, by law, if this occurred the mother would be in jail for child neglect.

So your scenario actually shows how the current law is hypocritical in terms of human rights by supporting the born baby over an unborn baby. (Remember your scenario premise was that the embryo had rights as an individual).

It is not so much whether she needs to act, but whether she needs to tolerate another person on her property.

You do not need to do anything to support a trespasser either, yet you want him gone.

[/quote]

Ah, except that by her own action she invited the trespasser on (in) her property. So that would be like telling someone to come in your house and then shooting them as a trespasser. Wouldn’t fly in the courts in California, maybe Texas!

319

[quote]Islam is pretty simple, it is a religion and therefore avoids the question of logical consistency.
[/quote]

Islam is internally contradictory and Allah employs conventional logic, which is why several of Muhammad’s later Medinan surahs abrogate numerous earlier Meccan surahs. The law of noncontradiction therefore does not apply in the universe created by the Islamic god.

I’m willing to engage you on the internal consistency of the Bible anytime.

320

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Edit:

Nevermind. Sorry, but this is the dumbest arguement for murder I’ve ever read.

First of all it is not murder, it simply cannot be.
[/quote]

You’re saying that depriving an embryo of food, water, and oxygen is not murder. In the embryonic stage of human development, the embryo has no alternative to receiving these through the umbilical chord. The situation of the embryo does not fundamentally change once the baby has been delivered.

It still requires all the support from caretakers, though the infant is not now in the mother’s womb. The entire basis of your argument is that the mother should not be forced to carry something “she does not want” in her personal property: “herself.”

However, the embryo/infant cannot have rights with the mother having the right to dispose of the inconvenience of the embryo (or infant) at any time. The Rothbardian ethics and your ethics are mutually exclusive.