quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 So arbiter, take a woman who gave birth to a normal healthy newborn. She asks the newborn to leave her house and to stop eating her food. The newborn does nothing but sits and looks at her. So she kicks the newborn out of the house and the newborn freezes to death. Are you saying that the woman should not be held responsible in any legal way because the newborn had no right to claim her property? Are you crazy???

I refer you to my previous post:

quote:

Although an individual can be required to pursue means of seperating themselves from such a situation which endanger the dependant as little as possible...

So no, that would not be an appropriate way to deal with the situation when there are other avenues available.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I refer you to my previous post: So no, that would not be an appropriate way to deal with the situation when there are other avenues available.

So like, wouldn't waiting 9 months and then giving a child for adoption be the best option because it would ultimately result in the separation without endangering a dependant?

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Do you understand that there is a difference between "I do support an abortion" and "I do support the right to an abortion?" If so, I think it's quite clear what the problem is.

I'm stating when I do think there is a right to an abortion. I do not believe that right to be universal in all circumstances. There is no contradiction in my saying that. I can say that I believe a parent has a right to spank their child in certain circumstances, but I do not believe that a parent can spank their child whenever they desire to. Again, there is no contradiction.

quote:

You seem to have problems distinguishing between facts an opinions. Yes, I have offered some opinions regarding your the rationale you've described for your position (or positions, since you can't seem to keep your language straight.) That certainly doesn't imply that everything I've said is an opinion, nor is something "egotistical and vacous [sic]" merely because it is an opinion. Rather, it is the particular nature of your opinions, specifically the lack of any sound rationale which makes them vacuous, and it is your apparent belief that your opinions ought to govern the "right to an abortion" which makes them egotistical. In the future, you would do well to actually understand concepts before you try to use them yourself.

I have given rationale behind my opinions, and it is that rationale you do not agree with. However, merely claming an opinion is "egotistical and philosophically vacuous" is not a very convincing rebuttal. I've tried to explain my rationale in various manners, and you have every right to challange my beliefs, but again, there is no need for such language.

And if a person considers the fetus to be a living person, how is it not equally "egotistical and philosophically vacuous" for you to believe the rights of the mother supercede the rights of the child, or any other human being for that matter? I know that your argument is that the fetus denies a mother's rights to "freedom and individual sovereignty." However, I place some rights above others, and the right of a human to live is placed above the 9 month removal of a sexually consenting woman's right to "freedom and individual soverignty" via an abortion. Perhaps you could describe when the fetus transforms from a non-human to human and if the right of a human to live would ever be placed above another's temporary loss of freedom?

quote:

You suggest that you might have said "this is the way it should be" instead of "[your] opinion." Given that there is a difference between the two, they are not simply exchangable at whim. So I suggested that you might make up your mind about which of the two possible claims accurately represents your position.

It is my opinion and it always has been, that is why, as I've said before, I preface my thoughts on this matter in that way. You were the one who questioned my use of personal opinions on the matter.

quote:

I regret to inform you that your argument is an example of the complex cause fallacy. Engaging in sexual intercourse is not a sufficient condition for pregnancy to arise, and sexual intercourse cannot be the sole cause of pregnancy. Indeed, it requires fertilization, and subsequent implantation in order for pregnancy to begin, and no one engaging in sexual intercourse has any control over whether or not fertilization occurs, nor can they influence whether or not the embryo becomes implated into the lining of the woman's uterus. Sexual intercourse fails to meet the standard of direct causality necessary for responsibility for pregnancy to be implied in any legal or rational sense.

Sexual intercourse is not the only condition that must be met for pregnancy to occur, however it is the defining condition. Without sex, none of the other events could possibly occur, and if somehow every other event you listed did occur, without sexual intercourse there would be no pregnancy.

But again, that diverges from my point. A person engaging in sexual intercourse must know the possible results of what they are doing. They must also be responsible for all of those possible outcomes.

quote:

If that type of indirect causality was sufficient to indicate an abdication of a human being's inherent rights, then think of all the rights you would have to sacrifice in order to have a party in your home where individuals you didn't know particularly well might be in attendance. Surely you are aware that a possible outcome of this choice is that someone might steal or damage some of your property. It's even within the realm of possibility that you could be raped or killed as a result of your choice to allow other individuals into your home. I doubt you'd suggest that you sacrifice your right to life, your right to personal sovereignty, or your property rights on the basis of your decision to have such a social gathering.

Pregnancy is indirectly caused by sexual intercourse? I urge you to take a few biology classes if you think that to be the case. As I said, intercourse is the defining, and initating event in the preganancy sequence. There is no other natural event that leads to pregnancy other than sexual intercourse. Without sexual intercourse, fertilization could not occur and thus implantation could not occur. This is direct causality, not a sequence of independent or loosely related events needed in your beloved "complex cause fallacy."

I'm also talking purely science in this regard. There is no "science" in saying that someone attending a party "might" or "could" do something. That could be used in any context. Roughly 30% of unprotected sexual encounters between healthy mates will result in pregnancy. This is a repeatable, scientific number. Can you show me the numbers of how often you will get raped or have things stolen if you have a party? If that number was 30% or roughly 1/3rd of the time, you might think twice about having a party, because you knew full-well the possible results.

I'd also have to assume by your use of the "complex cause fallacy" that a smoker is not responsible for any of the health effects they recieve from smoking. After all, there are a number of physiological changes that must occur for a diseased state to be reached. Merely smoking a cigarette won't lead to lung cancer, it requires a whole magnitude of changes that are far more complex than those that lead from sexual intercourse to pregnancy. So I guess a sick smoker should be viewed as an innocent victim that is having his rights removed due to a developing tumor that is of no consequence of his own actions.

quote:

I'll say it again: sexual intercourse does not cause pregnancy, it merely provides the opportunity for pregnancy to arise. However, since the individuals engaging in sexual intercourse have no direct control over whether or not pregnancy results, their decision to pursue that course of action most certainly does not imply any degredation of their rights whatsoever. And to suggest that it does is, as I said before, quite completely "ridiculous."

And I'll say it again. Sexual intercourse is the only means for pregnancy to arise, regardless of the in-betweens. If you are somehow arguing that a person goes into sexual intercourse thinking..."well, we'll have sex, but we just won't let fertilization or implantation occur, so we'll be okay," is ridiculous. The actions following sexual intercourse are repeatable and verifiable and even more so, fully known.

If I let a car out of park at the top of a hill, aimed at a bunch of kids below at a playground, I am responsible for what happens if that car were to kill the children. I can not argue that I did not expect it to roll straight, or that another car might have intercepted it before it got there, or that the kids would have moved. The end result, or at least the probable end result was known, and I set into action the chain of events that would lead to that eventual fate. It is exactly the same in pregnancy. Having sex sets into motion a chain of events, that although may be broken at some point, have a high degree of leading to a pregnancy. Somehow arguing that you believed that one of the points inbetween would not occur and would stop the pregnancy is not a valid excuse.

quote:

Well if you don't want anyone to call your stances egotistical or philosophically vacuous then you shouldn't take stances that meet with that description. Regardless, it isn't a personal attack against you if I describe your position in appropriately harsh language. It is quite obviously a waste of my time to try to get anything remotely intelligent out of you, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't expose the weakness of your arguments for the benefit of the "debate" at hand.

LOL. Just can't stop, eh? Please expose everyone to my "egotistical and philosophically vacuous" opinions and my "weakness."

I guess the meaning behind your avatar says it all:

Arbiter -
1 : a person with power to decide a dispute : JUDGE
2 : a person or agency having the power of deciding

Nothing egotistical in that name.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 So like, wouldn't waiting 9 months and then giving a child for adoption be the best option because it would ultimately result in the separation without endangering a dependant?

Nine months is clearly far outside any remotely acceptable time frame for the situation to be rectified. You could just as easily say, "why not 21 years?"

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I'm stating when I do think there is a right to an abortion. I do not believe that right to be universal in all circumstances. There is no contradiction in my saying that.

Stop skirting the issue. Do you or do you not respect another individuals right to decide for themselves when an abortion is appropriate in their own view and then to act in accordance with their own belief rather than yours?

quote:

I have given rationale behind my opinions, and it is that rationale you do not agree with. However, merely claming an opinion is "egotistical and philosophically vacuous" is not a very convincing rebuttal.

I didn't "merely claim" it was egotistical and philosophically vacuous. I gave you reasons why I attributed it as such on several occasions. Again, what is your problem?

quote:

And if a person considers the fetus to be a living person, how is it not equally "egotistical and philosophically vacuous" for you to believe the rights of the mother supercede the rights of the child, or any other human being for that matter?

Because I've already explained to you the philosophy behind it:

quote:

rights are different than entitlements, and so it only has a right to live insofar as it can sustain it's own life.

The "right to life" does not entail a right to be provided with what one needs to live. So even if a fetus did have a right to life, it wouldn't be violated by removing it from the womb. Consequently, your inference that a mother's rights would have to supercede the rights of the fetus is not in accordance with my claims.

quote:

I know that your argument is that the fetus denies a mother's rights to "freedom and individual sovereignty." However, I place some rights above others, and the right of a human to live is placed above the 9 month removal of a sexually consenting woman's right to "freedom and individual soverignty" via an abortion.

Well, why don't you give some justification for this prioritization of rights? If you actually had some kind of rationale based on logic or some kind of coherent philosophy then I wouldn't have to describe your position using that v-word you seem to be so sensitive about.

quote:

It is my opinion and it always has been, that is why, as I've said before, I preface my thoughts on this matter in that way. You were the one who questioned my use of personal opinions on the matter.

And you were the one who brought up the idea of it being "the way it should be" instead, so don't go trying to pin this mess you've made on me.

quote:

Sexual intercourse is not the only condition that must be met for pregnancy to occur, however it is the defining condition.

Absolutely not. The defining condition is implantation, since that is when pregnancy begins.

quote:

Without sex, none of the other events could possibly occur, and if somehow every other event you listed did occur, without sexual intercourse there would be no pregnancy.

That is simply incorrect. In-vitro fertilization is an example of both fertilization and implantation can take place without sexual intercourse.

quote:

Pregnancy is indirectly caused by sexual intercourse? I urge you to take a few biology classes if you think that to be the case. As I said, intercourse is the defining, and initating event in the preganancy sequence. There is no other natural event that leads to pregnancy other than sexual intercourse. Without sexual intercourse, fertilization could not occur and thus implantation could not occur. This is direct causality, not a sequence of independent or loosely related events needed in your beloved "complex cause fallacy."

Since your premises are false, your argument here fails.

quote:

I'm also talking purely science in this regard. There is no "science" in saying that someone attending a party "might" or "could" do something. That could be used in any context. Roughly 30% of unprotected sexual encounters between healthy mates will result in pregnancy. This is a repeatable, scientific number. Can you show me the numbers of how often you will get raped or have things stolen if you have a party? If that number was 30% or roughly 1/3rd of the time, you might think twice about having a party, because you knew full-well the possible results.

I don't see any relevance in this to the topic at hand. Responsibility based on causality has nothing to do with any kind of probabilistic calculation, nor is it somehow different in the field of the biological sciences than it is everywhere else.

quote:

I'd also have to assume by your use of the "complex cause fallacy" that a smoker is not responsible for any of the health effects they recieve from smoking. After all, there are a number of physiological changes that must occur for a diseased state to be reached. Merely smoking a cigarette won't lead to lung cancer, it requires a whole magnitude of changes that are far more complex than those that lead from sexual intercourse to pregnancy. So I guess a sick smoker should be viewed as an innocent victim that is having his rights removed due to a developing tumor that is of no consequence of his own actions.

Well, he certainly isn't directly responsible for it in any kind of sense that would justify removing any of his rights. If the tumor is a threat to his rights, he has every right to defend himself against it to the best of his ability. I don't really see where you're going with this.

quote:

If I let a car out of park at the top of a hill, aimed at a bunch of kids below at a playground, I am responsible for what happens if that car were to kill the children. I can not argue that I did not expect it to roll straight, or that another car might have intercepted it before it got there, or that the kids would have moved. The end result, or at least the probable end result was known, and I set into action the chain of events that would lead to that eventual fate. It is exactly the same in pregnancy. Having sex sets into motion a chain of events, that although may be broken at some point, have a high degree of leading to a pregnancy. Somehow arguing that you believed that one of the points inbetween would not occur and would stop the pregnancy is not a valid excuse.

Obviously in both cases you are responsible for setting a chain of events into motion which could lead to a possible conclusion. You are not directly responsible for that conclusion, however, in the case of letting a car hit a bunch of children then clearly setting that chain of events into motion in the first place is an essentially equivalent wrong. In the case of pregnancy, however, either the embryo must attatch to the wall of the uterus, in which case the embryo is responsible if it can be considered a person. If it cannot be considered a person, then it doesn't have any rights to begin with and it's destruction is not a negative consequence as far as I can see.

quote:

I guess the meaning behind your avatar says it all: Arbiter - 1 : a person with power to decide a dispute : JUDGE 2 : a person or agency having the power of deciding Nothing egotistical in that name.

And if it is, what then? It seems to me that you're in no position to complain about personal attacks, even if they did in fact exist.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Nine months is clearly far outside any remotely acceptable time frame for the situation to be rectified. You could just as easily say, "why not 21 years?"

Well, if an infant would be able to file a lawsuit, I doubt it would get resolved in a much shorter time. Besides, out of those 9 months, only the last couple are problematic. If it weren't for missing the period, most women wouldn't even notice the first 4-5. That's like what, 0.5% of your lifetime? And 21 years is more like 30%. There is a noticable difference.

As for the point you mentioned with Neo, the law agrees that some rights are more important than others. If you take away someone's life, the punishment is more sever than if you obstructed that person's right to vote, for example.

quote:

The "right to life" does not entail a right to be provided with what one needs to live. So even if a fetus did have a right to life, it wouldn't be violated by removing it from the womb. Consequently, your inference that a mother's rights would have to supercede the rights of the fetus is not in accordance with my claims.

So say, me and some other guy are diving, and his bottle runs out. My bottle is full, but I kinda don't feel like giving him a bit of my air, even if it would not harm me. So I leave him to die, although I did not kill him directly. Are you trying to say that is morally or legally justified?

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 So say, me and some other guy are diving, and his bottle runs out. My bottle is full, but I kinda don't feel like giving him a bit of my air, even if it would not harm me. So I leave him to die, although I did not kill him directly. Are you trying to say that is morally or legally justified?

that hugely depends on your morals and the laws that govern the country you are in.

is it moral to support the possible continued deterioration of the gene pool by taking such measures to sustain the life of an irresponsible person?

as for legallity, i hold an uninformed belief that in most countries, people are not enforced to being 'good samaritans' by law.

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Stop skirting the issue. Do you or do you not respect another individuals right to decide for themselves when an abortion is appropriate in their own view and then to act in accordance with their own belief rather than yours?

How am I skirting the issue? I believe that a person is entitled to certain rights, except when they infringe upon the rights of others. Of all human rights, I believe the right to live, or in terms more appropriate to this discussion, the "right to life," supercedes all others, because without life, other rights are a moot point.

I have given the definition of when I believe life begins. I have even given an exception to my anti-abortion stance when it comes to cases of rape. However, when used in cases following sexual intercourse between two consenting adults as a means of birth control, I do not believe the woman has a "right" to an abortion. In this case, the fetus' right to continue its growth and development outweighs the right of a woman to lose 9 months of "personal freedom and soverignty."

All of our rights come with responsibilities and limitations. I have the right to free speech, but I can not threaten a person or use that right to cause public unrest. I have a right to bear arms, but I cannot own automatic weapons, or use those arms in any way I see fit. An individual has the right to personal freedom, but not when it means the death of another individual. This is even more so when this loss of a "right" is a temporary situation that is the direct result of their own actions.

And I'm not speaking of entitlements. The fetus has a right to a livable environment, much the same as we all do. Do you not believe in a right to clean air, or potable drinking water, or the right to live in a hospitable environment? If so, why should the fetus be an exception? It had no choice in being conceived and must have a hospitable placental environment. Much the same as you have no choice but to live on the Earth, and I would argue you too have a right to a hospitable environment. If that is not the case, why do we have so many laws and agencies whose aim it is to protect the environment? I assure you it isn't making anyone rich.

quote:

The "right to life" does not entail a right to be provided with what one needs to live. So even if a fetus did have a right to life, it wouldn't be violated by removing it from the womb. Consequently, your inference that a mother's rights would have to supercede the rights of the fetus is not in accordance with my claims.

Then you need to look back at my previous post. Does a person on life support no longer have a "right to life?" Does a premature infant only kept alive my artificial means no longer have a "right to life?" These are circumstances where an individual is being provided with what one needs to live, and I think most people would agree they have a right to life.

quote:

Well, why don't you give some justification for this prioritization of rights? If you actually had some kind of rationale based on logic or some kind of coherent philosophy then I wouldn't have to describe your position using that v-word you seem to be so sensitive about.

See my post above. The right to life supercedes all because without life, all other rights are meaningless.

quote:

That is simply incorrect. In-vitro fertilization is an example of both fertilization and implantation can take place without sexual intercourse.

In-vitro fertilization is an artificial means of potentially achieving the exact same thing as sexual intercourse when a couple is not able to reproduce by natural means. That has no berring on the fact that for natural reproduction to occur, sexual intercourse is the first and defining event. I'd also like to point out that in-vitro fertilization does not guarantee implantation, only fertilization. If the female has a problem with her uterus, in-vitro fertilization will have no affect on her being able to become pregnant.

quote:

I don't see any relevance in this to the topic at hand. Responsibility based on causality has nothing to do with any kind of probabilistic calculation, nor is it somehow different in the field of the biological sciences than it is everywhere else.

The point is people have sex with the knowledge that a very substantial propability exists that they will become pregnant. Going into an event with knowledge of what can and will occur a very large percentage of the time makes them responsible for whatever that outcome may be. Sex is even unique in that its sole function biologically is to reproduce. Consentually performing an act which was designed for reproduction, then wanting to have an abortion, which by my definition destroys another's life is not a right, it is an escape from the consequences of one's actions.

quote:

Well, he certainly isn't directly responsible for it in any kind of sense that would justify removing any of his rights. If the tumor is a threat to his rights, he has every right to defend himself against it to the best of his ability. I don't really see where you're going with this.

My point here is that without smoking, he would not have developed complications related to smoking. If a couple decides to have sex, they may have to face the "complications" of sex, which in this case is pregnancy. In both cases, the individual had the free choice to decide what they would or would not do and what the consequences may be. If a person decides to proceed with a particular action, knowing what can occur, it is their responsibility to deal with the consequences. The tumor is not analagous to a fetus in this case and that was not my intention. A tumor is a malignant growth of a persons own cells that left untreated will cause death. A fetus is a genetically unique collection of cells that in most cases does not put the life of the "host" in any type of mortal danger and has a definitive timecourse in which it will affect the mother.

(When the fetus does present a clear risk of death to the mother, I also find an exception to my anti-abortion stance. This fits easily into my position. The mother's right to an abortion outweighs the rights of the fetus because the fetus can now be seen as being in a position to remove the mother's right to life. I also have other more emotional reasons, such as the possibility of her having other children or loved ones to care for.)

quote:

Obviously in both cases you are responsible for setting a chain of events into motion which could lead to a possible conclusion. You are not directly responsible for that conclusion, however, in the case of letting a car hit a bunch of children then clearly setting that chain of events into motion in the first place is an essentially equivalent wrong. In the case of pregnancy, however, either the embryo must attatch to the wall of the uterus, in which case the embryo is responsible if it can be considered a person. If it cannot be considered a person, then it doesn't have any rights to begin with and it's destruction is not a negative consequence as far as I can see.

Biologically speaking, it is the mother who "forces" the embryo to implant not the other way around. The mother's uterus becomes thick, occluding the exit of the zygote through the cervix into the vagina, and it also produces a thick mucus via the uterine glands which further adds to "capture" the zygote. It is then the mother who proceeds to produce the vital components of the placenta, "forcing" the embryo and then fetus to continue development.

When it comes to the analogy, because you do not see any direct responsibility, you cannot fault a person for letting a car out of park and killing children anymore than a person having sex and becoming pregnant. The person can say that they let the car out of park to see what would happen, or to check the grade of the ground, or any other possible explaination other than that of maliciously killing children. A couple can say they had sex for the fun of it or for other reasons other than wanting to become pregnant. However, in both cases the parties must have weighed all possibilites before setting into action a chain of events that would lead to "negative" outcomes. In both cases, each is responsible for whatever may occur.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono The point is people have sex with the knowledge that a very substantial propability exists that they will become pregnant. Going into an event with knowledge of what can and will occur a very large percentage of the time makes them responsible for whatever that outcome may be. Sex is even unique in that its sole function biologically is to reproduce. Consentually performing an act which was designed for reproduction, then wanting to have an abortion, which by my definition destroys another's life is not a right, it is an escape from the consequences of one's actions.

by that logic you could say that the jews who had the possibility to leave nazi germany during the holocaust before they were captured but didn't should be held responsible for their own deaths.

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T by that logic you could say that the jews who had the possibility to leave nazi germany during the holocaust before they were captured but didn't should be held responsible for their own deaths.

Did they know they would be killed or put in concentration camps if they stayed? Did they have the ability to leave if they wanted with no help from outside sources? Probably not to both of those.

If you have sex, you know there is a good chance of becoming pregnant, and the only thing you have to do to completely avoid that pregnancy is not have sex. The Jews knew things were bad, but I cannot believe that they knew with any certainty that they would be put to death if they stayed. Also, the process of leaving a country is much different than simply not having sex in order to not get pregnant.

Yes, you must give consent to the original action, but that also requires that you know the outcome of that action. I don't think by consenting to remain in Germany, the Jews knew they would be killed. A person consenting to sex knows they may become pregnant. Besides, pregnancy is the direct biological result of sexual intercourse created by the mother and the father. Being put in a concentration camp is the effect of outside sources totally independent of the Jews.

I was born with a lazy eye, which I had fixed when I was 18, I was also a "mistake" which forced my parents to quit college early. They very well could have become olympic level track athletes if it werent for me. I'm pretty glad I didn't get aborted, but that was 22 years ago.

Still, can't help but think that parents should be allowed to control how they breed, sure it sounds really cruel, but there it is.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Did they know they would be killed or put in concentration camps if they stayed? Did they have the ability to leave if they wanted with no help from outside sources? Probably not to both of those. If you have sex, you know there is a good chance of becoming pregnant, and the only thing you have to do to completely avoid that pregnancy is not have sex. The Jews knew things were bad, but I cannot believe that they knew with any certainty that they would be put to death if they stayed. Also, the process of leaving a country is much different than simply not having sex in order to not get pregnant. Yes, you must give consent to the original action, but that also requires that you know the outcome of that action. I don't think by consenting to remain in Germany, the Jews knew they would be killed. A person consenting to sex knows they may become pregnant. Besides, pregnancy is the direct biological result of sexual intercourse created by the mother and the father. Being put in a concentration camp is the effect of outside sources totally independent of the Jews.

i stated the jews in question did know of the holocaust and it's immediate results, and had the possibility to flee; regardless if there were a thousand such cases or one, the analogy stands... on second thought, the analogy stands even if there was not even one such case;
the question then would be: had there been a jewish person in nazi germany who knew of the holocaust and the dangers it poses him, who had the ability to flee, yet did not flee - should he be held responsible for his own death?

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)