My Very Own Abortion Thread

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
321

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
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.

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. [/quote]

No they are not , but you are very much invited to think it through.

For starters, a negative right and the power to exercise that right are two different things.

You are perfectly free to jump over the Atlantic, alas, it is not in your power to do so.

322

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
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.

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!

[/quote]

I am not sure she necessarily invited him.

Having thought it through, as appealing as it is to me, it holds no water.

The reason is this:

If she invited the child, that could not be said about the child of a rapist.

So, if you base your argument on any kind of invitation, she could abort a rapist´s child, yet not any other child.

That would mean however that the rights of a child depend on how that child was conceived.

That does not go well with the natural law doctrine that states that men have inherent rights because they are men.

323

[quote]orion wrote:
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.

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

[/quote]

That is actually not true. No one goes around all day with the urge to punch someone.

324

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
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.

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.[/quote]

No, it doesn´t because you are a closet utilitarian that only judges something by its outcome.

Your outcome is the same number of abortions that exist now, because you will never convince the majority.

My, or rather Block´s, evictionism, could appeal to moderates on both sides and therefore drastically reduce abortions.

Come on, let go of the last vestiges of conservatism and embrace the lure of outcome oriented ethical decisions.

Embrace your true nature, come out of the closet and dance, dance, dance your way to a new shining future as, a Reagan democrat perhaps?

325

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
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.

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

That is actually not true. No one goes around all day with the urge to punch someone. [/quote]

Therefore it is an urge-

I could have the inherent right to punch someone though, always, it is just that I chose not to exercise it unless I really, really want to.

You may have property rights to a car, you do not need to exercise them or even want to exercise them most of the time, yet they are always there.

326

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
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.

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

That is actually not true. No one goes around all day with the urge to punch someone. [/quote]

Plus, I have whole weeks where I imagine worse things.

327

[quote]orion wrote:
Still haven´t read the link yet?

[/quote]

I’m using my own words and thoughts. I was hoping you would do the same.

328

[quote]orion wrote:
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.

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

[/quote]

Right. Because the other person has a right not to have his body harmed. But, what’s the connection here? It isn’t the unborn child’s actions that gave it life inside the womb. It’s exactly were nature intended.

However, the mother’s actions would, by design (no matter how clever you do the abortion), murder the child. In this case, it is the mother throwing the punch to the nose. A rather fatal one at that.

329

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Still haven´t read the link yet?

I’m using my own words and thoughts. I was hoping you would do the same.[/quote]

I am lazy.

Before I even start to think about something I look what other people thought about it.

There is no need to let a perfectly good cultural heritage go to waste.

330

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
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.

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

Right. Because the other person has a right not to have his body harmed. But, what’s the connection here? It isn’t the unborn child’s actions that gave it life inside the womb. It’s exactly were nature intended.

However, the mother’s actions would, by design (no matter how clever you do the abortion), murder the child. In this case, it is the mother throwing the punch to the nose. A rather fatal one at that.[/quote]

We already discussed this.

There are cases, especially in the last trimester, where it is the norm, that an embryo can survive outside the mother.

Ergo, removing the embryo from the womb does not equal killing.

331

[quote]orion wrote:
Ergo, removing the embryo from the womb does not equal killing.

[/quote]

But, it does. You took deliberate action to remove it from it’s natural enviroment, and it’s sustenance. You’ve killed a human life.

332

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Ergo, removing the embryo from the womb does not equal killing.

But, it does. You took deliberate action to remove it from it’s natural enviroment, and it’s sustenance. You’ve killed a human life.[/quote]

Nonsense.

Removing it in the 8 month does no such thing.

Plus, you already got the difference between killing someone and letting someone die, so why deny that you don´t?

333

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Ergo, removing the embryo from the womb does not equal killing.

But, it does. You took deliberate action to remove it from it’s natural enviroment, and it’s sustenance. You’ve killed a human life.

Nonsense.

Removing it in the 8 month does no such thing.

Plus, you already got the difference between killing someone and letting someone die, so why deny that you don´t?

[/quote]

Are we talking about abortions are and early delivery here? I take it the doctor and nurses would be providing it sustenance?

334

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Ergo, removing the embryo from the womb does not equal killing.

But, it does. You took deliberate action to remove it from it’s natural enviroment, and it’s sustenance. You’ve killed a human life.

Nonsense.

Removing it in the 8 month does no such thing.

Plus, you already got the difference between killing someone and letting someone die, so why deny that you don´t?

Are we talking about abortions are and early delivery here? I take it the doctor and nurses would be providing it sustenance?[/quote]

Did I not post that to respect the embryos rights she´d have to evict it as gently as possible?

If the doctors wish to care for the child, they are free to do so.

They might even be paid by you, because if you are that desperate to save those babies lives you would raise the money for an incubator, would you not?

335

[quote]orion wrote:
They might even be paid by you, because if you are that desperate to save those babies lives you would raise the money for an incubator, would you not?[/quote]

They aren’t that desperate. If they really cared about not having abortions, then they’d set something up similar to an organ donor system where you volunteer to pay to cover incubators etc.

But it’s all about getting EVERYONE to think their way.

336

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Ergo, removing the embryo from the womb does not equal killing.

But, it does. You took deliberate action to remove it from it’s natural enviroment, and it’s sustenance. You’ve killed a human life.

Nonsense.

Removing it in the 8 month does no such thing.

Plus, you already got the difference between killing someone and letting someone die, so why deny that you don´t?

Are we talking about abortions are and early delivery here? I take it the doctor and nurses would be providing it sustenance?

Did I not post that to respect the embryos rights she´d have to evict it as gently as possible?

If the doctors wish to care for the child, they are free to do so.

They might even be paid by you, because if you are that desperate to save those babies lives you would raise the money for an incubator, would you not?
[/quote]

So wait. You’re narrowing an “abortion” to delivery at a point where doctors would be able to simply provide it a bottle of formula, basically?

And what’s it matter if she killed it gently?

And what if the doctors didn’t provide for it? You’ve now deliberately starved a child to death. Remember it was deliberately removed from it’s sustenance.

337

[quote]Makavali wrote:
orion wrote:
They might even be paid by you, because if you are that desperate to save those babies lives you would raise the money for an incubator, would you not?

They aren’t that desperate. If they really cared about not having abortions, then they’d set something up similar to an organ donor system where you volunteer to pay to cover incubators etc.

But it’s all about getting EVERYONE to think their way.[/quote]

As opposed to being proud of a stance that protects the murder of unborn children? Oh you really told us pro-lifers.

Edit.
By the way, why assume we aren’t supporting pro-life related activities? It’s one of the biggest charitable/activist fields of my Church.

338

[quote]orion wrote:
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.”

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?

[/quote]

I’m going to type this very slowly: The is no neglect/murder on the part of a mother toward millions of children, because she had no part in either the creation of those children or their current misery.

The situation at hand, however, carries with it mitigating circumstances, not the least of which is that the mother in question is the architect of her child’s life. The child did not exist before her conscious decision to engage in action which eventuated its creation.

The circumstances are not the same, no matter how much you would gleefully jump up and down equating the two.

And you still have not defined the word “welfare.” This is the third time I have asked for it.

339

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Ergo, removing the embryo from the womb does not equal killing.

But, it does. You took deliberate action to remove it from it’s natural enviroment, and it’s sustenance. You’ve killed a human life.

Nonsense.

Removing it in the 8 month does no such thing.

Plus, you already got the difference between killing someone and letting someone die, so why deny that you don´t?

Are we talking about abortions are and early delivery here? I take it the doctor and nurses would be providing it sustenance?

Did I not post that to respect the embryos rights she´d have to evict it as gently as possible?

If the doctors wish to care for the child, they are free to do so.

They might even be paid by you, because if you are that desperate to save those babies lives you would raise the money for an incubator, would you not?

So wait. You’re narrowing an “abortion” to delivery at a point where doctors would be able to simply provide it a bottle of formula, basically?

And what’s it matter if she killed it gently?

And what if the doctors didn’t provide for it? You’ve now deliberately starved a child to death. Remember it was deliberately removed from it’s sustenance.

[/quote]

I am saying that removing an embryo does not equal killing it.

Once it is removed from the mother, care for it, if you wish.

If not, don´t force others to do what you are unwilling to do.

340

[quote]Sloth wrote:
By the way, why assume we aren’t supporting pro-life related activities? It’s one of the biggest charitable/activist fields of my Church.[/quote]

Probably the same reason Westerners see Islam practitioners as violent conservatives. I haven’t seen that it’s working. What exactly do your pro-life charities do? Why not do something similar to what I suggested? Why try to change every person mind?