Abortion/Rights of the Unborn

[Xray]

Common fallacies of abortion supporters ...

Theodore,

You have presented some impressive challenges here that are hard to refute because you have used the opponents' own arguments as an instrument to weaken their position.

After all you are simply talking about moving a parasite from a woman's body to outside her body so why is it a problem? psychology.

In bygone times, the old, the disabled and countless unwanted children were often 'disposed of' by killing them.

So something has changed in human psychology over the centuries then?

[Brant Gaede]

Common fallacies of abortion supporters

The beating heart fallacy "Its a child when it has a beating heart". So if someone has their heart replaced with an artificial heart they no longer have a right to life?

The "Brain function" fallacy. "When it has brain activity it is a child." There are a number of problems with this argument. here are two; 1) we know very little about the brain. 2) Is the brain of a fetus dispersed in the beginning? (ie is there a distinction between the body of the fetus and its brain).

The "It doesn't yet look human" fallacy. So if someone is born that doesn't "look" human then they are not human? If we create another sentient species do we have the right to kill it simply because it does not look like us?

The "person" Fallacy. This is my personal favorite, namely because its a logic trap waiting to happen. What is a person? there are hundreds of answers and all have their own little delicious twist. I will here however use an example given here.

"Person. Something that is self-aware and aware that it is self-aware. Something that can intend." According to this definitions it should be legal to kill a child so long as they are not self aware. After all a one day old baby is not self aware. (Side question Is a blind, def, mute self aware? if so when?)

People that usually use this argument do not intend to include babies already born in their definition however any definition they give can always be used to justify infanticide.

The "Its a parasite dependent on the mother" fallacy. Again so is an infant or even a small child. The definition of parasite does not require the being be on the inside, that is just most often where parasites are often found. Anyone who accepts this definition must also allow that it is perfectly legal for a mother to abandoned her child any time and any where she sees fit. Further no one may interfere with the child if the mother so chooses as it is HER parasite. (this argument I sometimes call the child as property fallacy)

The real reason why people support abortion.

These are just a few of the more common fallacies that are used by people who support abortion. It is interesting when you examine their arguments logically however and follow them to their natural conclusion. It is however even more interesting when one examines peoples motives for supporting abortion. I usually find that there are two reasons. The first is that it is inherited. The second is that it is a justification. Like genes people inherit idea's and while we have many unique thoughts most of them are inherited by previous generations. The "my body my choice" was never a rational argument but a rationalizing argument from a group of women who hoped to exterminate certain "races" by making it more readily available to them. As for the men... well you never have to worry that your mistress is going to come home to your wife with your baby.

The justification

It is extremely difficult to use reason in an argument with a woman who has had an abortion, which means she fights all the harder to deny reason. The perpetuation of abortion is a way of validating having had an abortion. No? or How? If she ever recognizes abortion as wrong that then means she is guilty of a horrible crime. Forget the fact that she was misled, or that she was deliberately made blind to what she was doing. Forget that she was under emotional distress at the time, and even forget that millions of people like me do not blame her or hold her guilty of any crime. She MUST blame herself for murder.

The distinction.

How can you not consider what she did murder? It is simple, murder is a deliberate, malicious, act of killing. Most women who have abortions have never really thought about the question of is the fetus human. This is why groups like planned parenthood try to get young girls in their doors, get them before they are able to really examine the question of what they are doing, they will be customers for life.

Something to notice

Isnt it interesting that no one ever recommend to these women that they have their tubes tied? With today's technology it is a reversible procedure so why is that never an option? Men i'm not absolving you either, if you don't want kids why don't you have a vasectomy? Such things are much more cost effective than having an abortion, especially when it comes to women who use abortion as birth control. So why not? Because the cultural psychology some how views men and women who cant have babies as being less. It is better to be able to have a baby and abort it than it is to not be able to have a baby even if the process is reversible.

The Artificial Womb

Last year an Artificial Womb was successfully created. When having a conversation about abortion regardless of which side you are on and see how irrational the other persons response is. The common opposite responses are;

1) God is against artificial wombs

2) My body my choice

starting in reverse order. We have removed the question of my body my choice. For the sake of argument assume for a minute that the cost of transfer is equal too or less than the cost of an abortion, would you support outlawing abortion? No? why not? because its psychological. In the vast majority of cases the fact that the child is out their changes the mothers view on wanting to give it up. This is why there are so many last minute changes in cases of after birth adoptions. Now the god is against argument. Does the bible say he is against artificial wombs? Does it even hint to it? If you reject it because its artificial then you must also reject heart bypasses, air planes, dental work, artificial hands, etc. When you add in artificial wombs the same irrationalities become much more clear. But especially for the pro abortion people. After all you are simply talking about moving a parasite from a woman's body to outside her body so why is it a problem? psychology.

It's not when human starts, it's when rights start. Just as it's hard to justify the notion that a woman has no right to an abortion in the first tri-mester, it's hard to justify the notion she still has that right in the third.

My Mother felt guilt for the rest of her life that she tried to induce an abortion in 1934 of her favorite child, my sister, Joan, who died seven years ago of renal failure consequent to juvenile diabetes. Even though she was quite the liberal she subsequently maintained that you do the sex you accept the consequences.

--Brant

[Theodore]

Baal no human child has been born from an artificial womb, this is not because it cannot be done but because any scientist that allows the fetus to come to term would go to jail. This however is irrelevant to the subject at hand. The fact that it exists and the fact that weather or not it works now or not is unimportant. The point being made about the existence of the artificial womb is does it change anything?

Common fallacies of abortion supporters ...

Theodore,

You have presented some impressive challenges here that are hard to refute because you have used the opponents' own arguments as an instrument to weaken their position.

Isn't that how you defeat any argument by pointing out the errors inherit to the opponent argument. Notice though that baal does not refute me. Why?

After all you are simply talking about moving a parasite from a woman's body to outside her body so why is it a problem? psychology.

In bygone times, the old, the disabled and countless unwanted children were often 'disposed of' by killing them.

So something has changed in human psychology over the centuries then?

yes human psychology has evolved, that is patternes of thought within groups of individuals has changed. Has these practiced changed because morality has changed or because our thoughts about morality has changed?

In comparison I will point out a recent change of moral views which is still on going. Take the both societal and individual view of masturbation 50 years ago, compare that with today's evolving societal view of masturbation.

What do I mean by societal psychology? As children we learn the fallacy of democracy ie we assume the majority belief is right. For many this belief carries on into adulthood.

[Theodore]

Brant

That is where my view comes from. The fetus is human, the fetus is alive according to the scientific definition. The question for me is at what point does the mother not have the right to terminate the child. At what point do you say here it's okay and here it's not. Every argument I have heard is equally valid as an argument for infanticide.

[BaalChatzaf]

Brant

That is where my view comes from. The fetus is human, the fetus is alive according to the scientific definition. The question for me is at what point does the mother not have the right to terminate the child. At what point do you say here it's okay and here it's not. Every argument I have heard is equally valid as an argument for infanticide.

And for good reason. Human infants born alive are not quite yet persons. Human infants come half-baked from the oven (so to speak).

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Brant

That is where my view comes from. The fetus is human, the fetus is alive according to the scientific definition. The question for me is at what point does the mother not have the right to terminate the child. At what point do you say here it's okay and here it's not. Every argument I have heard is equally valid as an argument for infanticide.

The fetus is alive though not biologically independently, but has no social, only that biological, context. Rights are a human invention conferred by reality--not God--respecting human nature. Rights are the right to right action. Let's take a woman eight months pregnant who wants to abort her unborn child, not for the sake of her health, you can/might posit she has a right to abort the pregnancy but not the right to have an abortion, which would be a positive right. Positive rights are not human rights but government rights which are all violations of rights. Since you are not a woman, I suggest you concern yourself with something else concerning rights for I don't understand the essential nature of your concern--is it rights generally or only "the right to life"? which seems too much of an intellectualization and intellectualizations are tools of tyranny or/and the tool of the woman eight months pregnant who wants an abortion for arbitrary reasons and the doctor tells her to get lost or get psychological help (optional). The law might rightfully say the doctor cannot induce an abortion for arbitrary reasons late in the pregnancy for as the fetus grows in the womb it grows to the point of not needing the womb so it can be removed from the womb and its life preserved which would be an abortion--stopping the pregnancy--which is not also killing. The social context is created thereby.

--Brant

there are social mores, not just legal ones, but you don't get legally unjustified ones because you feel like it--as for infanticide, the infant has a social context and can have all the rights he can make use of when he makes use of them and when he cries for mommy it's his cry of the right to life and when he's old and senile he still has all the rights he can use, he still has the right to life as long as he can act including the act of breathing--volition does not obtain--and, BTW, does a woman have the right to get her pregnancy aborted three weeks after having the sex that caused it--i.e., a right to get an abortion right then or do you say, "No!"?--the fact that you have this problem or that problem about abortion and rights is not an argument against abortion but an argument for more thinking and education: at least yours, depending on the agenda at hand, which doesn't gainsay I've got the same problem

[Brant Gaede]

Brant

That is where my view comes from. The fetus is human, the fetus is alive according to the scientific definition. The question for me is at what point does the mother not have the right to terminate the child. At what point do you say here it's okay and here it's not. Every argument I have heard is equally valid as an argument for infanticide.

And for good reason. Human infants born alive are not quite yet persons. Human infants come half-baked from the oven (so to speak).

Ba'al Chatzaf

They are 100% persons--100% if survivable outside the womb. This is an arbitrary materialistic reductionism.

--Brant

[Theodore]

Brant

That is where my view comes from. The fetus is human, the fetus is alive according to the scientific definition. The question for me is at what point does the mother not have the right to terminate the child. At what point do you say here it's okay and here it's not. Every argument I have heard is equally valid as an argument for infanticide.

The fetus is alive though not biologically independently, but has no social, only that biological, context. Rights are a human invention conferred by reality--not God--respecting human nature. Rights are the right to right action. Let's take a woman eight months pregnant who wants to abort her unborn child, not for the sake of her health, you can/might posit she has a right to abort the pregnancy but not the right to have an abortion, which would be a positive right. Positive rights are not human rights but government rights which are all violations of rights. Since you are not a woman, I suggest you concern yourself with something else concerning rights for I don't understand the essential nature of your concern--is it rights generally or only "the right to life"? which seems too much of an intellectualization and intellectualizations are tools of tyranny or/and the tool of the woman eight months pregnant who wants an abortion for arbitrary reasons and the doctor tells her to get lost or get psychological help (optional). The law might rightfully say the doctor cannot induce an abortion for arbitrary reasons late in the pregnancy for as the fetus grows in the womb it grows to the point of not needing the womb so it can be removed from the womb and its life preserved which would be an abortion--stopping the pregnancy--which is not also killing. The social context is created thereby.

--Brant

there are social mores, not just legal ones, but you don't get legally unjustified ones because you feel like it--as for infanticide, the infant has a social context and can have all the rights he can make use of when he makes use of them and when he cries for mommy it's his cry of the right to life and when he's old and senile he still has all the rights he can use, he still has the right to life as long as he can act including the act of breathing--volition does not obtain--and, BTW, does a woman have the right to get her pregnancy aborted three weeks after having the sex that caused it--i.e., a right to get an abortion right then or do you say, "No!"?--the fact that you have this problem or that problem about abortion and rights is not an argument against abortion but an argument for more thinking and education: at least yours, depending on the agenda at hand, which doesn't gainsay I've got the same problem

It is false to claim that because I am not a woman it is none of my business. If I see slavery should i keep my mouth shut because I am not a slave? After all many slaves in the south were quite happy as slaves. Yes, yes I know the story that all slaves in the south were treated bad, however the evidence of this does not wash. If I see injustice then I must speak up. If the people I am speaking to are not rational than it is simply enough to say "I disagree" if they are however rational I should try to point out the error in their thinking. Right and wrong is not a matter of social context (read John Galt's speach).

Further I do not see how the fact that the child is now an Air breather makes a difference. A day does not a difference make. I don't give a damn what society says is right and wrong. In the words of Lazarus long "Does history record any case in which the majority was right?". The very serious point which goes beyond abortion which is vitally important IS NOT ABORTION. That is the serious problem with this subject. Everyone always assumes that an argument for or against abortion is about abortion. That is wrong. The question is at what point to we recognize a human as having rights. The law currently recognizes both a fetus and a child as property. The law grudgingly recognizes a few rights of the child, rights however are not a matter of law. At what point do we say "You have rights" and "You dont have rights". That is the REAL question here. The fact that the child now breaths air does not appear to me to be a legitimate reason to recognize its rights. How is it rational to say that a parasite (which is what an infant is) does now has a right to life when the only thing that has changed is location. If the mother has a right to kill the infant in the womb she also has the right to kill the infant outside of the womb. (I say here kill not murder). Infants are dumb animals, human animals yes but animals none the less. They are less sentient than a dog. How can it have rights? It cannot act. It cannot sustain itself. Crying does not count as self sustaining action, it is animal reaction to pain. Why does an infant have more rights than a dog? Granting anyone the authority to say "now you don't have rights." and "now you do" has always proven to be a very bad thing. Throughout history the moment you give anyone that power it always expands to greater and greater extents until more and more people have their rights abrogated." Again abortion is a symptom of the larger question. When does a sentient being get rights, and why then.

In your case Brant why does the fact that the child now breaths air suddenly grant it the right to live?

[Theodore]

Brant

That is where my view comes from. The fetus is human, the fetus is alive according to the scientific definition. The question for me is at what point does the mother not have the right to terminate the child. At what point do you say here it's okay and here it's not. Every argument I have heard is equally valid as an argument for infanticide.

And for good reason. Human infants born alive are not quite yet persons. Human infants come half-baked from the oven (so to speak).

Ba'al Chatzaf

So again I ask and please let us have a straight answer, "Is infanticide moral?".

[Brant Gaede]

In your case Brant why does the fact that the child now breaths air suddenly grant it the right to live?

Rights are sanctioned by law, not granted. The child's context has switched from biological to social. I would posit that if a fetus is late-term aborted it may be possible to save its life and that may be a moral if not legal imperative.

--Brant

[Theodore]

So slavery is moral if sanctioned by law?

[Theodore]

What you seem to be saying is that is I get a law passed making abortion illegal than I have right on my side.

[BaalChatzaf]

Brant

That is where my view comes from. The fetus is human, the fetus is alive according to the scientific definition. The question for me is at what point does the mother not have the right to terminate the child. At what point do you say here it's okay and here it's not. Every argument I have heard is equally valid as an argument for infanticide.

And for good reason. Human infants born alive are not quite yet persons. Human infants come half-baked from the oven (so to speak).

Ba'al Chatzaf

So again I ask and please let us have a straight answer, "Is infanticide moral?".

Morality is opinion. What is your opinion. I don't approve of infanticide myself. That is my opinion.

Since morality does not flow from the laws of physics and nature one cannot make an empirically based moral pronouncement.

We know force is the change of momentum with respect to time.

What is morality? It surely is not fact or derived from fact in the same way physical laws are.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Brant

That is where my view comes from. The fetus is human, the fetus is alive according to the scientific definition. The question for me is at what point does the mother not have the right to terminate the child. At what point do you say here it's okay and here it's not. Every argument I have heard is equally valid as an argument for infanticide.

And for good reason. Human infants born alive are not quite yet persons. Human infants come half-baked from the oven (so to speak).

Ba'al Chatzaf

So again I ask and please let us have a straight answer, "Is infanticide moral?".

Morality is opinion. What is your opinion. I don't approve of infanticide myself. That is my opinion.

Since morality does not flow from the laws of physics and nature one cannot make an empirically based moral pronouncement.

We know force is the change of momentum with respect to time. We know the speed of light in a vacuum is bout 300,000 kilometers a second.

What is morality? It surely is not fact or derived from fact in the same way physical laws are.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Morality is opinion. What is your opinion. I don't approve of infanticide myself. That is my opinion.

Since morality does not flow from the laws of physics and nature one cannot make an empirically based moral pronouncement.

We know force is the change of momentum with respect to time.

What is morality? It surely is not fact or derived from fact in the same way physical laws are.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Morality is drived from human nature hence it's objectifiable.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Morality is opinion. What is your opinion. I don't approve of infanticide myself. That is my opinion.

Since morality does not flow from the laws of physics and nature one cannot make an empirically based moral pronouncement.

We know force is the change of momentum with respect to time.

What is morality? It surely is not fact or derived from fact in the same way physical laws are.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Morality is drived from human nature hence it's objectifiable.

--Brant

And non quantifiable and non-testable. Which is why there are so many moral systems. It is the antithesis of physical science. It is not subject to empirical test and possible falsification.

Let us know when you can, in strict and empirically testable terms, derive human morality from the epigenetics of the human genome.

Until then it is hot air and word salad.

Have you not wondered why physical science succeeds where ethics, morality and aesthetics flounders and fails?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Morality is opinion. What is your opinion. I don't approve of infanticide myself. That is my opinion.

Since morality does not flow from the laws of physics and nature one cannot make an empirically based moral pronouncement.

We know force is the change of momentum with respect to time.

What is morality? It surely is not fact or derived from fact in the same way physical laws are.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Morality is drived from human nature hence it's objectifiable.

--Brant

And non quantifiable and non-testable. Which is why there are so many moral systems. It is the antithesis of physical science. It is not subject to empirical test and possible falsification.

Let us know when you can, in strict and empirically testable terms, derive human morality from the epigenetics of the human genome.

Until then it is hot air and word salad.

Have you not wondered why physical science succeeds where ethics, morality and aesthetics flounders and fails?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Philosophy is not science. You cannot "empirically testable" your own, non-scientific statements. Basically there are two moralities, sacrifice and not sacrifice, make a choice and say why. You affirm philosophy every time you deny its validity. Morality as subjective means/implies morality as objective, somewhere.

--Brant

[Dan Haggerty]

The unborn are un-persons. Since when do un-persons have rights?

Unborn are "un-persons" as you put it. That was the point of my post, I was showing the consequences of treating something as a human life with rights since as a result of giving them legal protection. In this case if an unborn non-person has rights, a women has more rights before she is born than after she is born. Slippery slope indeed.

Dan/Bob,

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act might interest you [bolded part in italics mine]:

http://en.wikipedia....of_Violence_Act

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".^[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

That is interesting. I did not know about that but it does not surprise me. Frankly, it looks like one of those Laws conservatives get on the books because it looks reasonable but is simply a Trojan Horse to get the idea of legal rights for fetuses established. I’ll have to research it more however to derive a better opinion.

I can understand the argument that a fetus is human life in the third trimester since it is formed and capable of living outside of the womb, and would grant that is a possibility, but otherwise a hunk of protoplasm that has the potential to be a human is no basis for rights. Until he becomes a tax right-off he is a part of his mother’s body and hers to direct.

[Xray]

Isn't that how you defeat any argument by pointing out the errors inherit to the opponent argument.

I think it is more a case of pointing out contradictions rather than downright errors.

What do I mean by societal psychology? As children we learn the fallacy of democracy ie we assume the majority belief is right. For many this belief carries on into adulthood.

Do you think there exists a better political system than a democracy?

[Theodore]

Isn't that how you defeat any argument by pointing out the errors inherit to the opponent argument.

I think it is more a case of pointing out contradictions rather than downright errors.

What do I mean by societal psychology? As children we learn the fallacy of democracy ie we assume the majority belief is right. For many this belief carries on into adulthood.

Do you think there exists a better political system than a democracy?

Though this is off topic I will answer this question. Yes there are two better systems than democracy, The best system is the republicanism of early America.

The next best system to republicanism is Monarchy. Why? Because there is a single neck to cut off when the government becomes overly oppressive. The worst part about democracy is that ALL democratic systems are in practice oligarchies, and the systems are set up in such a way as to allow the rulers to circumvent the democratic process. What is worse still is that these same oligarchs are blameless because they have the "will of the people" behind them. When they do something people don't like they say "we were elected by the will of the majority and therefore carry out the will of that majority." even if they do not represent the majority. Behind the belief that democracy is the best system is the belief that because my gang has more guns than your gang I am right. For this reason I guess you could call me a monarchist-anarchist. I do not believe in the utopia of Anarchy, yet philosophically I agree with them. I support limited monarchy because I like Thomas Paine believe government is a necessary evil, thus we should chain the government as much as possible, by adopting monarchy this means that when the "rulers" step out of line they cant point to someone else and say "I am just carrying out their will."

Jeffersonian republicanism is better because it creates so much friction as to stall the gears of government. In practice it prevents both the majority and the minority from imposing their will upon one another. Besides repealing the 17th amendment we should also go back to the original way presidents and vice presidents were elected. That is to say whoever gets the most votes is president, whoever gets the second most votes is vice president. Not only would this make things far more entertaining, but it would have the added benefits of opening up the political field, and making things fare more difficult for the government.

[BaalChatzaf]

Though this is off topic I will answer this question. Yes there are two better systems than democracy, The best system is the republicanism of early America.

Complete with hot and cold running chattel slavery.

Britain got rid of slavery in 1832, without a war. The U.S. got rid of it in 1865 with 620,000 dead and 1.5 million maimed in a country whose population was 32 million.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Though this is off topic I will answer this question. Yes there are two better systems than democracy, The best system is the republicanism of early America.

Complete with hot and cold running chattel slavery.

Britain got rid of slavery in 1832, without a war. The U.S. got rid of it in 1865 with 620,000 dead and 1.5 million maimed in a country whose population was 32 million.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The Brits didn't need slavery, but they imported from the South and almost went to war for the South. They built the Alabama for the South and paid reparations after the war for that. It was all about the money. Too much of it was wrapped up in slavery.

--Brant

"Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me . . . . "

[Dan Haggerty]

The fact America had slavery has nothing to do with the concept of a Constitutional Republic or the historical achievement it was to create one. Slavery was accepted as a compromise during that era, in the context of that era, to get the Constitution passed. The fact it was a compromise and immoral was paid with a high cost in the Civil War.

[Brant Gaede]

The fact America had slavery has nothing to do with the concept of a Constitutional Republic or the historical achievement it was to create one. Slavery was accepted as a compromise during that era, in the context of that era, to get the Constitution passed. The fact it was a compromise and immoral was paid with a high cost in the Civil War.

The creation of a Federal Republic was a terrible mistake. It is now running up against a brick wall thanks to the current acceleration of history. The SCOTUS decision on Obamacare is part of that acceleration.

--Brant

[Dan Haggerty]

_{That is a failure to follow the principles in the Constitution, or more importantly a failure to impart enough protections in it to begin with. It also doesn't help that as a culture we took a left hand turn over the past two hundred years as well. No Government can stand to bad ideas run amok. That still does not change that it is a solid form of Government and I have yet to read one that would be superior. I'm open to the possibility but I have to see it.}