What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Late Term Abortions (1 Viewer)

vnel8tn said:
timschochet said:
vnel8tn, I understand that you see no moral difference between what a woman chooses to do with a fetus inside her body and Michael Jackson dangling a baby over a balcony. To you, the two are one and the same. I respect your view on this, but I strongly disagree with you and I will strongly fight the possibility that your viewpoint ever becomes established law.
Click to expand...
There is no other situation where one life is inside of another. I tried to use a fanciful analogy earlier where I teleported into someone's stomach, but obviously that's science fiction... There is no analogy in reality, and therefore no situation where I can or need apply this logic.
Click to expand...
Your stated position, and your 'tiny imposition into another's stomach' analogy, seems contrary to your stated strong disagreement, to put you in the same boat. Either one is free to exert their will or not. Should Michael have been free to do whatever he wanted with his body (say, for instance, open his hands and let go), or not? Why, or why not? :shrug:
Click to expand...
I don't want to keep repeating myself. It's a very weak analogy that you're making. In the case of Michael Jackson and his baby, you're talking about two independent human beings, each one with natural rights that the law should recognize. Jackson has no right to harm his baby or put his baby into such a reckless, dangerous situation. In the case of a pregnant woman, we cannot grant the fetus rights without removing rights from the mother that I consider to be sacrosant.
 
vnel8tn said:
The fetus' blood supply is pumped by its own heart. The mother's blood supply does not mix...that is why some babies can be Rh+ blood type, while mom is not.I am interested in how your position reconciles the bolded parts above about how it is inherently wrong (actually stated the purpose of abortion is death to the fetus) to force a woman to become a BIOLOGICAL mother (adoption explanation), but it is not wrong, to force the same upon the father... :shrug:
Click to expand...
While I mostly agree with the libertarian argument, I reject their arguments about the baby pumping its own blood because, as I have stated several times in this thread, the viability or non viability of the fetus is irrelevant to my arument. My argument has solely to do with the rights of the pregnant woman to do as she wills with her body.As far as your second question, it is a fact of life that the man impregnates the woman, and then the woman develops the baby within her body. A woman has the right to choose what she will with her body. The man has no say in the matter. If he does not want to run the risk that he might become a father, he shouldn't have impregnated her in the first place. Once he has done so, he is, IMO, only involved to the extent the woman decides to let him be involved, so long as the fetus is within the woman's body. Once the baby has been delivered, then obviously it becomes a different story.For the several thousand years of human existence, woman were treated as chattel, basically slaves to males. Their role in society was to become pregnant and deliver babies. As a result, they were not allowed to make decisions or receive equal treatment in any way. Only in the last 50 years or so have women in a very very few societies been granted equal status. The right to an abortion is an integral part of this status. If you remove this right or restrict it in any way (including late term abortion), you are returning women to the chattel status they had before, no different than human slavery. Of course, this argument is feminist doctrine, but I find it fits into my libertarian philosophy and I accept it as true.
 
timschochet said:
Only in the last 50 years or so have women in a very very few societies been granted equal status. The right to an abortion is an integral part of this status. If you remove this right or restrict it in any way (including late term abortion), you are returning women to the chattel status they had before, no different than human slavery.
Click to expand...
Why I did ever bother to re-open this thread?
 
[timschochet]

If you take away my right to invite shrunken-down people into my stomach and kill them when they take me up on my offer, I become exactly identical to a slave.

[/timschochet]

 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
timschochet said:
All right. So long as the fetus, or baby, (whichever you deem to call it) is inside the body of the mother, it cannot have independent legal rights, IMO, because these would interfere with the rights of the woman to do what she will to her own body, which to me are sacrosant. Once the baby has been removed from the mother, we no longer need concern outselves with the rights of the mother's body. Therefore, we can now accord the baby individual rights.You'll notice that I make no mention of whether or not the baby is a living being before it exits the womb- unlike other pro-choice people, I'm not willing to engage in this debate. The truth is, I think that some pro-life people make very good points about "viability". But to me, these arguments are irrelevant, since I don't want to take away rights from a woman towards her own body at ANY time. Hope this makes more sense.
Click to expand...
What you call the being is of no consequence to me. It does seem odd that the location of the being is your "line in the sand". It also seems odd that location dictates when the mother has the rights etc. At some point, don't you have to take a look at position to see if it even makes sense? Is there any other instance where you think you could apply this type of logic?
Click to expand...
Not really, no. Baby making is unique. There is no other situation where one life is inside of another. I tried to use a fanciful analogy earlier where I teleported into someone's stomach, but obviously that's science fiction. Even the situation of siamese twins does not apply. There is no analogy in reality, and therefore no situation where I can or need apply this logic.
Click to expand...
Conjoined twins would be similar I suppose. They share a body in some cases. If one wants to have X procedure that could end both their life and the other doesn't. Who has the right to decide? Do you ever pause to think about your black and white stance on such an unique instance?
Click to expand...
I actually thought of this. And the truth is, I don't know. It's a fine moral question, and I would have to really think about my answer before I gave it. At the moment I'm not sure. I wish I could give you a better more definitive answer, but that's the truth.Howver, I don't find it really analogous to a fetus growing within a woman's body.
Click to expand...
Things like this make me wonder if you've really thought about this from a possibility perspective or if you just decided to dig your heels in the ground (for reasons I don't konw), come up with this "belief" and that is that. To have such a black and white stance on this without really trying to figure out the rest is bizarre to me. :shrug:
 
Maurile Tremblay said:
The Commish said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
The Commish said:
In your view, what is the difference between a baby's last day in the womb and first day out of the womb if it isn't simple passage through the birth canal.
Click to expand...
I take it you've never given birth. From people who have, I've never heard it described as simple. :coffee:
Click to expand...
;) Poor choice of words....thanks for keeping me on my toes.
Click to expand...
I had a serious point, though. The birth event is a pretty major deal. It shouldn't be downplayed.If we're going to pick a juncture and say, "Before now, I couldn't have forced anyone to go through with what loomed ahead for you. But now that we've reached this juncture, the most laborious part of the process is behind you; so if you want to bow out now, you've got to put the baby up for adoption instead of killing it." I think the conclusion of the birth event seems like a reasonable candidate for that juncture.
Click to expand...
Getting an almost-ready-to-be born fetus out of a woman's uterus is just as difficult as getting one out that wants to come out. It's not like it just magically disappears when the woman decides to terminate the pregnancy.
 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
The Commish said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
The Commish said:
In your view, what is the difference between a baby's last day in the womb and first day out of the womb if it isn't simple passage through the birth canal.
Click to expand...
I take it you've never given birth. From people who have, I've never heard it described as simple. :shrug:
Click to expand...
:shrug: Poor choice of words....thanks for keeping me on my toes.
Click to expand...
I had a serious point, though. The birth event is a pretty major deal. It shouldn't be downplayed.If we're going to pick a juncture and say, "Before now, I couldn't have forced anyone to go through with what loomed ahead for you. But now that we've reached this juncture, the most laborious part of the process is behind you; so if you want to bow out now, you've got to put the baby up for adoption instead of killing it." I think the conclusion of the birth event seems like a reasonable candidate for that juncture.
Click to expand...
Getting an almost-ready-to-be born fetus out of a woman's uterus is just as difficult as getting one out that wants to come out. It's not like it just magically disappears when the woman decides to terminate the pregnancy.
Click to expand...
Yeah but they crush the head before it passes the womb, that makes it OK.
 
timschochet said:
Regarding the concept of rights, this quote is directly from Ayn Rand:

“Rights” are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.

There are legal rights that must be balanced, in the way that Jewell and MT are talking about. But what I was referring to are natural rights, which these legal rights are based. Natural rights, based upon individual human freedom, should not be balanced against the supposed "collective good" of the society, whatever that means. This is the essence of libertarian thought.
Click to expand...
What is the source of natural rights?
 
fsword said:
timschochet said:
Regarding the concept of rights, this quote is directly from Ayn Rand:

“Rights” are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.

There are legal rights that must be balanced, in the way that Jewell and MT are talking about. But what I was referring to are natural rights, which these legal rights are based. Natural rights, based upon individual human freedom, should not be balanced against the supposed "collective good" of the society, whatever that means. This is the essence of libertarian thought.
Click to expand...
What is the source of natural rights?
Click to expand...
My answer, and Ayn's answer, would be man's ability to reason. I suspect your answer is different, however.
 
The Commish said:
Things like this make me wonder if you've really thought about this from a possibility perspective or if you just decided to dig your heels in the ground (for reasons I don't konw), come up with this "belief" and that is that. To have such a black and white stance on this without really trying to figure out the rest is bizarre to me. :coffee:
Click to expand...
No. The abortion issue is, at least for me, much more morally clear than the ambiguous question you are raising, fascinating as it is.
 
IvanKaramazov said:
[timschochet]If you take away my right to invite shrunken-down people into my stomach and kill them when they take me up on my offer, I become exactly identical to a slave.[/timschochet]
Click to expand...
Sounds absurd, doesn't it? But when we're dealing with women and removing their right to an abortion, this is exactly true.
 
timschochet said:
While I mostly agree with the libertarian argument, I reject their arguments about the baby pumping its own blood because, as I have stated several times in this thread, the viability or non viability of the fetus is irrelevant to my arument. My argument has solely to do with the rights of the pregnant woman to do as she wills with her body.
Click to expand...
I find it interesteing that you "reject" an argument posed in your "manifesto" above, merely because you don't find it relevant to your stated position, rather than because it is not factual. It is a lie...an untruth....but you could accept it as fact if you found it relevant to your position. Interesting... :hophead:
 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
Things like this make me wonder if you've really thought about this from a possibility perspective or if you just decided to dig your heels in the ground (for reasons I don't konw), come up with this "belief" and that is that. To have such a black and white stance on this without really trying to figure out the rest is bizarre to me. :hophead:
Click to expand...
No. The abortion issue is, at least for me, much more morally clear than the ambiguous question you are raising, fascinating as it is.
Click to expand...
So to be clear, it's merely location of the fetus/baby/being that determines everything, correct?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
Things like this make me wonder if you've really thought about this from a possibility perspective or if you just decided to dig your heels in the ground (for reasons I don't konw), come up with this "belief" and that is that. To have such a black and white stance on this without really trying to figure out the rest is bizarre to me. :confused:
Click to expand...
No. The abortion issue is, at least for me, much more morally clear than the ambiguous question you are raising, fascinating as it is.
Click to expand...
So to be clear, it's merely location of the fetus/baby/being that determines everything, correct?
Click to expand...
For me, yes. I can't speak for others.
 
vnel8tn said:
timschochet said:
While I mostly agree with the libertarian argument, I reject their arguments about the baby pumping its own blood because, as I have stated several times in this thread, the viability or non viability of the fetus is irrelevant to my arument. My argument has solely to do with the rights of the pregnant woman to do as she wills with her body.
Click to expand...
I find it interesteing that you "reject" an argument posed in your "manifesto" above, merely because you don't find it relevant to your stated position, rather than because it is not factual. It is a lie...an untruth....but you could accept it as fact if you found it relevant to your position. Interesting... :confused:
Click to expand...
I don't know whether it's factual or not. I'm not going to take your word for it one way or the other. My point is, it has nothing to do with my argument.
 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Christo said:
Alright, can we first agree that the non-aggression axiom is a bedrock principal of libertarianism?
Click to expand...
No. The non-aggression principle leads to anarchism, but most libertarians aren't anarchists.But carry on anyway.
Click to expand...
It doesn't lead to anarchism. But some use it to justify anarchism.The basic principle is that it should be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against another person or legitimately owned property of another. So, in a free society, one has the right to manufacture, buy or sell any good or service at any mutually agreeable terms. And there would be no victimless crime prohibitions, price controls, government regulation of the economy, etc.

It does not rule out self-defense. It does not rule out communicating something that is emotionally hurtful, disturbing, hateful, disgusting or obscene. It also does not rule out persuasion.

The difference between anarchists and non-anarchists with respect to the non-aggression axiom is that non-anarchists believe a government can exist as long as there is a well-enforced constitution that sets out a narrow scope of government power. Essentially, the sole role of government is to protect the life, liberty and property of its citizens.

I'm going to have to get back to abortion later.

 
timschochet said:
A woman has the right to choose what she will with her body. The man has no say in the matter.
Click to expand...
Assuming no rape involved, he was invited in (like a mini Tim, shrunken and invited into her stomach), right?
timschochet said:
If he does not want to run the risk that he might become a father, he shouldn't have impregnated her in the first place.
Click to expand...
To be fair, if she didn't want to run the risk that SHE might become a mother, she shouldn't have allowed him in to impregnate her, right?
timschochet said:
Once he has done so, he is, IMO, only involved to the extent the woman decides to let him be involved, so long as the fetus is within the woman's body. Once the baby has been delivered, then obviously it becomes a different story.
Click to expand...
:confused: Your stance enslaves 'man' to the role of fatherhood...an enslavement that your "manifesto" asserts is an inalienable right reserved to the mother who must be allowed to opt in (or out) of parenthood without regard to the child or the father. Fatherhood is established at conception, motherhood is established at some arbitrary date after. Got it!
timschochet said:
For the several thousand years of human existence, woman were treated as chattel, basically slaves to males. Their role in society was to become pregnant and deliver babies. As a result, they were not allowed to make decisions or receive equal treatment in any way. Only in the last 50 years or so have women in a very very few societies been granted equal status. The right to an abortion is an integral part of this status. If you remove this right or restrict it in any way (including late term abortion), you are returning women to the chattel status they had before, no different than human slavery. Of course, this argument is feminist doctrine, but I find it fits into my libertarian philosophy and I accept it as true.
Click to expand...
My view about motherhood elevates the woman above the man. Your assertion that 'abortion' is necessary to provide equal rights, is, in my opinion, an attempt by man to de-emphasize her role...not the other way around.
 
Christo said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Christo said:
Alright, can we first agree that the non-aggression axiom is a bedrock principal of libertarianism?
Click to expand...
No. The non-aggression principle leads to anarchism, but most libertarians aren't anarchists.But carry on anyway.
Click to expand...
It doesn't lead to anarchism. But some use it to justify anarchism.The basic principle is that it should be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against another person or legitimately owned property of another. So, in a free society, one has the right to manufacture, buy or sell any good or service at any mutually agreeable terms. And there would be no victimless crime prohibitions, price controls, government regulation of the economy, etc.

It does not rule out self-defense. It does not rule out communicating something that is emotionally hurtful, disturbing, hateful, disgusting or obscene. It also does not rule out persuasion.

The difference between anarchists and non-anarchists with respect to the non-aggression axiom is that non-anarchists believe a government can exist as long as there is a well-enforced constitution that sets out a narrow scope of government power. Essentially, the sole role of government is to protect the life, liberty and property of its citizens.

I'm going to have to get back to abortion later.
Click to expand...
I don't suscribe to this. However, I will grant you that many libertarians do.There is another branch of libertarianism, led by Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman and others, that believe that government can use force in legitimate situations, and that we need not (and practically speaking will not) ever have a non-agression society. These men are of the opinion, however, that the more libertarian a society tends to be, the freer and more productive it becomes as well. This represents my own view of libertarianism. It's a key point where I separate from Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard, as much as I like many of their ideas.

However, I fail to see where you can derive a pro-life position from the non-agression axiom without some convoluted thinking. But I'm willing to listen.

 
So, ending the life of a baby birth minus 1 day is ok, but birth plus 1 day is not, correct Tim?

 
vnel8tn said:
My view about motherhood elevates the woman above the man. Your assertion that 'abortion' is necessary to provide equal rights, is, in my opinion, an attempt by man to de-emphasize her role...not the other way around.
Click to expand...
Whether or not you elevate the woman above the man, you are in effect forcing at least some of them into a situation they do not want to be in when you make abortion illegal. YOU are making that choice for women, not them. YOU are defining the role for them, not them. I am not attempting to de-emphasize the role of women, only to allow them THEM to choose that role. If women agree with you about motherhood, great. But let them have the freedom to make that decision.
 
timschochet said:
I don't know whether it's factual or not. I'm not going to take your word for it one way or the other. My point is, it has nothing to do with my argument.
Click to expand...
Figures...I call :confused: From:http://www.americanpregnancy.org/duringpregnancy/fetallifesupportsystem.html

The placenta is responsible for working as a trading post between the mother's and the baby's blood supply. Small blood vessels carrying the fetal blood run through the placenta, which is full of maternal blood. Nutrients and oxygen from the mother's blood are transferred to the fetal blood, while waste products are transferred from the fetal blood to the maternal blood, without the two blood supplies mixing.
Click to expand...
If they don't mix, then the mother's heart cannot pump the fetus' blood.Your manifesto asserts at least one lie, prima facie. I point it out...you opt to 'reject' it as irrellevant. I attempt to give a simple explanation with the Rh + example & you ignore it. :shrug: I guess it is too much to acknowledge when a factual error is pointed out it in your post.

 
One thing I have learned from the FFA is that Ayn Rand seems to be a nutcase and that I shall never read anything written by that person. The supposed positions that the backers of Rand fight are crazy and ludicrous.

 
Worm said:
timschochet said:
Worm said:
So, ending the life of a baby birth minus 1 day is ok, but birth plus 1 day is not, correct Tim?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Click to expand...
Now, do define "is ok".is ok = the woman should have the rightis ok = you don't think there's anything wrong with it?
Click to expand...
The woman should have the right. As I've said before several times, I would not personally approve of a woman who chose a late term abortion without a very good reason. Though there ARE some good reasons.
 
Christo said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Christo said:
Alright, can we first agree that the non-aggression axiom is a bedrock principal of libertarianism?
Click to expand...
No. The non-aggression principle leads to anarchism, but most libertarians aren't anarchists.But carry on anyway.
Click to expand...
It doesn't lead to anarchism. But some use it to justify anarchism.The basic principle is that it should be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against another person or legitimately owned property of another. So, in a free society, one has the right to manufacture, buy or sell any good or service at any mutually agreeable terms. And there would be no victimless crime prohibitions, price controls, government regulation of the economy, etc.

It does not rule out self-defense. It does not rule out communicating something that is emotionally hurtful, disturbing, hateful, disgusting or obscene. It also does not rule out persuasion.

The difference between anarchists and non-anarchists with respect to the non-aggression axiom is that non-anarchists believe a government can exist as long as there is a well-enforced constitution that sets out a narrow scope of government power. Essentially, the sole role of government is to protect the life, liberty and property of its citizens.

I'm going to have to get back to abortion later.
Click to expand...
The difference between a government and a Rotary club is that the government necessarily uses aggressive force -- it must collect taxes, for example. That's what makes it a government.If nobody is allowed to use aggressive force, then nobody is allowed to be a government.

So if you subscribe to the non-aggression principle, you are -- knowingly or unknowingly -- subscribing to anarchism.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Challenge Everything said:
One thing I have learned from the FFA is that Ayn Rand seems to be a nutcase and that I shall never read anything written by that person. The supposed positions that the backers of Rand fight are crazy and ludicrous.
Click to expand...
Ayn Rand is only the source of some of my arguments here. But can you be more specific? Which of my stated views do you find to be crazy and ludicrous? And why?
 
timschochet said:
My answer, and Ayn's answer, would be man's ability to reason. I suspect your answer is different, however.
Click to expand...
Every man has different ability/talent to reason, and men of equal ability can reason differently, arriving at different outcomes. If men can differ, then natural rights are subjective. In essence, it sounds as if there really are no natural rights? :unsure: What am I missing? :confused:
 
timschochet said:
Worm said:
timschochet said:
Worm said:
So, ending the life of a baby birth minus 1 day is ok, but birth plus 1 day is not, correct Tim?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Click to expand...
Now, do define "is ok".is ok = the woman should have the rightis ok = you don't think there's anything wrong with it?
Click to expand...
The woman should have the right. As I've said before several times, I would not personally approve of a woman who chose a late term abortion without a very good reason. Though there ARE some good reasons.
Click to expand...
But I thought the issue of life was not important and there is no such thing as an unborn child? Why do you disapprove of it (let's just talk standard case here, no rape/incest/medical issues)?
 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
Things like this make me wonder if you've really thought about this from a possibility perspective or if you just decided to dig your heels in the ground (for reasons I don't konw), come up with this "belief" and that is that. To have such a black and white stance on this without really trying to figure out the rest is bizarre to me. :confused:
Click to expand...
No. The abortion issue is, at least for me, much more morally clear than the ambiguous question you are raising, fascinating as it is.
Click to expand...
So to be clear, it's merely location of the fetus/baby/being that determines everything, correct?
Click to expand...
For me, yes. I can't speak for others.
Click to expand...
I'd be hard pressed to find another individual that holds this particular position...no need to qualify your remarks.
 
timschochet said:
Challenge Everything said:
One thing I have learned from the FFA is that Ayn Rand seems to be a nutcase and that I shall never read anything written by that person. The supposed positions that the backers of Rand fight are crazy and ludicrous.
Click to expand...
Ayn Rand is only the source of some of my arguments here. But can you be more specific? Which of my stated views do you find to be crazy and ludicrous? And why?
Click to expand...
Going back to the beginning of the thread, I stated my peace but also seeing (birth -1 day = okay but birth +1 day = not okay) seems to be pretty ludicrous. If this position is not held by Rand, then I retract some of the ludicrous about him and replace it onto you. I have always been a Pro-Choicer but this stance is beyond belief.
 
Maurile Tremblay said:
The difference between a government and a Rotary club is that the government necessarily uses aggressive force -- it must collect taxes, for example. That's what makes it a government.If nobody is allowed to use aggressive force, then nobody is allowed to be a government.So if you subscribe to the non-aggression principle, you are -- knowingly or unknowingly -- subscribing to anarchism.
Click to expand...
Well, to be honest, Rand at least tries to argue against this by proposing taxes for her very limited government be collected voluntarily- supposedly through lotteries and other means. Perhaps John Galt and Hank Reardon are simply willing to donate funds for their own protection. As I mentioned, I'm skeptical of this idea. Murray Rothbard would agree with you- he broke from Rand in the 1960's and formed an anarcho-libertarian movement based upon this idea.
 
timschochet said:
The woman should have the right. As I've said before several times, I would not personally approve of a woman who chose a late term abortion without a very good reason. Though there ARE some good reasons.
Click to expand...
:confused: Holy Crap....I thought I had it figured out, then this. What exactly is there to approve/disapprove of? You've made it clear that it's black/white issue. You've also made it clear you don't consider a fetus one day from birth anything close to a baby one day after birth. What the heck are you talking about here???

 
fsword said:
timschochet said:
My answer, and Ayn's answer, would be man's ability to reason. I suspect your answer is different, however.
Click to expand...
Every man has different ability/talent to reason, and men of equal ability can reason differently, arriving at different outcomes. If men can differ, then natural rights are subjective. In essence, it sounds as if there really are no natural rights? :lmao: What am I missing? :lmao:
Click to expand...
It would take me hours of writing to properly respond to this statement, and the thread is about a more specific issue. Let me just say that I believe that man's reasoning power results in certain objective truths, and that we do not need the presence of God to arrive at those truths.
 
timschochet said:
fsword said:
timschochet said:
My answer, and Ayn's answer, would be man's ability to reason. I suspect your answer is different, however.
Click to expand...
Every man has different ability/talent to reason, and men of equal ability can reason differently, arriving at different outcomes. If men can differ, then natural rights are subjective. In essence, it sounds as if there really are no natural rights? :lmao: What am I missing? :lmao:
Click to expand...
It would take me hours of writing to properly respond to this statement, and the thread is about a more specific issue. Let me just say that I believe that man's reasoning power results in certain objective truths, and that we do not need the presence of God to arrive at those truths.
Click to expand...
I think you mean subjective truths...not objective.
 
timschochet said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
The difference between a government and a Rotary club is that the government necessarily uses aggressive force -- it must collect taxes, for example. That's what makes it a government.If nobody is allowed to use aggressive force, then nobody is allowed to be a government.So if you subscribe to the non-aggression principle, you are -- knowingly or unknowingly -- subscribing to anarchism.
Click to expand...
Well, to be honest, Rand at least tries to argue against this by proposing taxes for her very limited government be collected voluntarily- supposedly through lotteries and other means. Perhaps John Galt and Hank Reardon are simply willing to donate funds for their own protection. As I mentioned, I'm skeptical of this idea. Murray Rothbard would agree with you- he broke from Rand in the 1960's and formed an anarcho-libertarian movement based upon this idea.
Click to expand...
If a government doesn't collect taxes, if it doesn't claim the power of eminent domain, if it doesn't reserve for itself the exclusive authority within its territory to maintain a military, if it doesn't claim the ability to negotiate treaties with other nations (and bind its citizens to the terms of those treaties), if it doesn't pass laws describing which goods may be imported or exported -- if it doesn't use aggressive force at all -- then in what sense is it a government?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
timschochet said:
The woman should have the right. As I've said before several times, I would not personally approve of a woman who chose a late term abortion without a very good reason. Though there ARE some good reasons.
Click to expand...
:lmao: Holy Crap....I thought I had it figured out, then this. What exactly is there to approve/disapprove of? You've made it clear that it's black/white issue. You've also made it clear you don't consider a fetus one day from birth anything close to a baby one day after birth. What the heck are you talking about here???
Click to expand...
OK, I am going to explain again. When I speak of a woman's right to an abortion, including a late term abortion, I regard it as a natural right which the law should recognize. This should be the woman's choice, and the state should not interfere. That aspect of the issue is black and white. This being said, I can give a personal opinion as to whether or not something SHOULD be done. I think it highly unlikely that a woman would choose a late term abortion for no other reason than that she suddenly decides not to have a baby (which is the example pro-life people always give.) There are usually good reasons for the very rare cases of late term abortions. But if this was the reason given, I would personally disapprove, though my approval or disapproval would have no effect on the woman's freedom to take that action.

You've also made it clear you don't consider a fetus one day from birth anything close to a baby one day after birth. I've never made that clear at all. What I've stated from the start is that it's irrelevant to my argument.

 
The Commish said:
timschochet said:
fsword said:
timschochet said:
My answer, and Ayn's answer, would be man's ability to reason. I suspect your answer is different, however.
Click to expand...
Every man has different ability/talent to reason, and men of equal ability can reason differently, arriving at different outcomes. If men can differ, then natural rights are subjective. In essence, it sounds as if there really are no natural rights? :lmao: What am I missing? :lmao:
Click to expand...
It would take me hours of writing to properly respond to this statement, and the thread is about a more specific issue. Let me just say that I believe that man's reasoning power results in certain objective truths, and that we do not need the presence of God to arrive at those truths.
Click to expand...
I think you mean subjective truths...not objective.
Click to expand...
No, I mean exactly what I wrote.
 
timschochet said:
fsword said:
timschochet said:
My answer, and Ayn's answer, would be man's ability to reason. I suspect your answer is different, however.
Click to expand...
Every man has different ability/talent to reason, and men of equal ability can reason differently, arriving at different outcomes. If men can differ, then natural rights are subjective. In essence, it sounds as if there really are no natural rights? :lmao: What am I missing? :lmao:
Click to expand...
It would take me hours of writing to properly respond to this statement, and the thread is about a more specific issue. Let me just say that I believe that man's reasoning power results in certain objective truths, and that we do not need the presence of God to arrive at those truths.
Click to expand...
So the Founding Fathers had it wrong when they stated "Nature's Creator" as the source and justification of unalienable/inalienable rights (whether or not that source is "God"?) If true, then you are building an argument for natural rights based upon nothing, (from nothing comes everything). Man's ability to reason is inherrent at his creation. Man's ability to reason well is based upon a variety of factors; and even still, two well reasoned men can reach different conclusions, often contradictory and opposing each other. It seems your argument is might makes right.
 
Worm said:
timschochet said:
Worm said:
timschochet said:
Worm said:
So, ending the life of a baby birth minus 1 day is ok, but birth plus 1 day is not, correct Tim?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Click to expand...
Now, do define "is ok".is ok = the woman should have the right

is ok = you don't think there's anything wrong with it

?
Click to expand...
The woman should have the right. As I've said before several times, I would not personally approve of a woman who chose a late term abortion without a very good reason. Though there ARE some good reasons.
Click to expand...
But I thought the issue of life was not important and there is no such thing as an unborn child? Why do you disapprove of it (let's just talk standard case here, no rape/incest/medical issues)?
Click to expand...
 
fsword said:
So the Founding Fathers had it wrong when they stated "Nature's Creator" as the source and justification of unalienable/inalienable rights (whether or not that source is "God"?) If true, then you are building an argument for natural rights based upon nothing, (from nothing comes everything). Man's ability to reason is inherrent at his creation. Man's ability to reason well is based upon a variety of factors; and even still, two well reasoned men can reach different conclusions, often contradictory and opposing each other. It seems your argument is might makes right.
Click to expand...
Fsword, as hopefully you very well know, many of the Founding Fathers were deists, or even atheists, and when they spoke of "Nature's Creator" it was a nebulous term, which, during the Enlightenment, was synonymous with the power of reason. There is no difference in this between their ideas and mine.
 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
timschochet said:
The woman should have the right. As I've said before several times, I would not personally approve of a woman who chose a late term abortion without a very good reason. Though there ARE some good reasons.
Click to expand...
:wall: Holy Crap....I thought I had it figured out, then this. What exactly is there to approve/disapprove of? You've made it clear that it's black/white issue. You've also made it clear you don't consider a fetus one day from birth anything close to a baby one day after birth. What the heck are you talking about here???
Click to expand...
OK, I am going to explain again. When I speak of a woman's right to an abortion, including a late term abortion, I regard it as a natural right which the law should recognize. This should be the woman's choice, and the state should not interfere. That aspect of the issue is black and white. This being said, I can give a personal opinion as to whether or not something SHOULD be done. I think it highly unlikely that a woman would choose a late term abortion for no other reason than that she suddenly decides not to have a baby (which is the example pro-life people always give.) There are usually good reasons for the very rare cases of late term abortions. But if this was the reason given, I would personally disapprove, though my approval or disapproval would have no effect on the woman's freedom to take that action.

You've also made it clear you don't consider a fetus one day from birth anything close to a baby one day after birth. I've never made that clear at all. What I've stated from the start is that it's irrelevant to my argument.
Click to expand...
The fact that it is irrelevant to you makes it crystal clear :hifive:
 
Worm said:
But I thought the issue of life was not important and there is no such thing as an unborn child? Why do you disapprove of it (let's just talk standard case here, no rape/incest/medical issues)?
Click to expand...
I've already stated this several times.
 
It's complicated......

At 17 weeks gestation our baby had been diagnosed with major heart defects requiring a minimum of three risky open-heart surgeries beginning at birth, and would later require a heart transplant. At 19 weeks we were finally given our amnio results which revealed our baby also had Trisomy 21.

A surgeon at the major teaching hospital where we'd had our fetal echocardiogram informed us that even if our baby somehow survived his palliative surgeries, this latest diagnosis meant he would not ever be eligible for a heart transplant. As we sat talking quietly in our living room, our priest shared with us that he’d spent time at the same hospital where we’d had our fetal echocardiogram and where our son would have had surgery.

He was there to support the family of a three-month-old who was having heart surgery. In the three weeks or so that he tended to this family, he also met 10 other families in the waiting room, each of whom also had young babies undergoing heart surgery. Sadly, within the short space of time our priest was there, every single one of those babies died.

Our priest came away from that experience feeling that this world-renowned children’s hospital was basically experimenting on babies. He saw their futile suffering and likened it to being crucified. The family he had gone there to support later told him that if they had only known what their baby would be forced to go through before dying, they would never have chosen surgery. Our priest told us that he believed we were not choosing our son’s death, only choosing the timing of his death in order to spare him a great deal of suffering. Something he said that brought us great comfort was “God knows what is in your hearts.” God knows our choice was based on mercy and compassion. Who would better understand our hearts than God, who made the choice for His own Son to die?

 
About a year ago, my cousin went into have an abdominal hernia fixed. She was born with kidney problems that required multiple abdomen surgeries, which led to scarring and fibrous growths on her uterus that resulted in three complicated pregnancies. Just hours before she was scheduled for the operating room, the surgeon realized he had not conducted a pregnancy test. Despite using birth control, my cousin had somehow gotten pregnant. Considering her history and condition, the surgeon did not believe it was wise to bring the child to term. He believed she would probably miscarry without at least six months of bed rest, and that she would risk not only her health but possibly her life. She got a second opinion from another doctor who believed that he could safely help her bring the child to term, though it would be a very complicated pregnancy.

My Catholic, Republican, generally "pro-life" sister and mother related this to me at the time. My cousin had not yet decided what she would do, but my sister was certain: if she were my cousin, with three children under five years old who needed a mother to raise them (and a father who traveled often and for long periods for work), she would have terminated the pregnancy. I, on the other hand - a gay liberal pro-choice Democratic male - sensed I wouldn't have been able to go through with an abortion. I would have felt devastated thinking about having ended the possible life of my own child.

It turned out my cousin felt the same way. My aunt and uncle flew from New Jersey to Seattle and took care of their three grandchildren while my cousin remained in bed. She gave birth to another beautiful girl. Having learned to temper my tendency to engage in political arguments with my Republican family, I never revisited with my sister what she said she would have done in that situation. Nevertheless, I doubt she would ever admit that despite her professed pro-life Catholicism, she actually believes in the right to an abortion.

 
Jackstraw said:
It's complicated......At 17 weeks gestation our baby had been diagnosed with major heart defects requiring a minimum of three risky open-heart surgeries beginning at birth, and would later require a heart transplant. At 19 weeks we were finally given our amnio results which revealed our baby also had Trisomy 21. A surgeon at the major teaching hospital where we'd had our fetal echocardiogram informed us that even if our baby somehow survived his palliative surgeries, this latest diagnosis meant he would not ever be eligible for a heart transplant. As we sat talking quietly in our living room, our priest shared with us that he’d spent time at the same hospital where we’d had our fetal echocardiogram and where our son would have had surgery. He was there to support the family of a three-month-old who was having heart surgery. In the three weeks or so that he tended to this family, he also met 10 other families in the waiting room, each of whom also had young babies undergoing heart surgery. Sadly, within the short space of time our priest was there, every single one of those babies died.Our priest came away from that experience feeling that this world-renowned children’s hospital was basically experimenting on babies. He saw their futile suffering and likened it to being crucified. The family he had gone there to support later told him that if they had only known what their baby would be forced to go through before dying, they would never have chosen surgery. Our priest told us that he believed we were not choosing our son’s death, only choosing the timing of his death in order to spare him a great deal of suffering. Something he said that brought us great comfort was “God knows what is in your hearts.” God knows our choice was based on mercy and compassion. Who would better understand our hearts than God, who made the choice for His own Son to die?
Click to expand...
I'm terribly sorry for your loss, Jackstraw, but I'm glad that your family had the power and freedom to make this difficult decision, and were not restricted by a law which would neither know nor care about your specific situation. That is the point of this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Paddington
A Prayer Of Salvation
15 16 17
Replies
832
Views
14K
dkp993
dkp993
Deepster
Attending the Ryder Cup - Tips or advice?
Replies
6
Views
279
TLEF316
TLEF316
nirad3
*** Official House/Trance Music Thread
Replies
8
Views
265
Leroy Hoard
Leroy Hoard

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top