Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. My attempt to interpret both sides[W:139, 451]

[FutureIncoming]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

The erroneous part of your argument is the assumption that it will have any effect on abortion laws.

WHEN WILL YOU START BEING PROPERLY SPECIFIC? Mere say-so of any sort does not affect any existing law; people affect existing laws, sometimes as a result of things that got said. In the case of the placenta argument, its main purpose is to help keep abortion legal. That is far more important a goal than modifying the law to extend the range of legal abortions --although that argument COULD be used to promote such a change. YOU claimed that there was no significant difference between a nearly-born human and a recently-born human, and so I mentioned the placenta argument to prove YOU WERE WRONG. Anything more than that would simply be icing on the cake.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

You are unfamiliar with the life cycle of scholarly articles. ....

THANK YOU FOR THE POINTS YOU RAISED. The main problem that lead to your post, though, was the assumption that just because something had not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, it was automatically worthless. I invite you to think about Isaac Newton's "Principia" BEFORE it was published, because mere publication did not-at-all change the validity of the arguments presented in that document. And the same can be said for any other "seminal paper" you care to specify, BEFORE it was published. Publication does not affect validity! And so fake journals are bad because they contain invalid-though-published papers --AGAIN, publication does not affect validity.

And all peer-review does (when effective), is point out invalidities BEFORE publication. Provided any exist to be found. In a Debate, the peers are the participants in the Debate; it is up to them to find invalidities in the arguments of the opposition. If Side A of the Debatethe one side insists that Side B side must allow 3rd-parties to find invalidities in Side B's arguments, then why is Side A participating in the Debate in the first place? They want others to do their work for them!

 

[HowardBThiname]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

WHEN WILL YOU START BEING PROPERLY SPECIFIC? Mere say-so of any sort does not affect any existing law; people affect existing laws, sometimes as a result of things that got said. In the case of the placenta argument, its main purpose is to help keep abortion legal.

Which, because of the reasons I already cited -- it will not be of any assistance. It's useless.

That is far more important a goal than modifying the law to extend the range of legal abortions --although that argument COULD be used to promote such a change. YOU claimed that there was no significant difference between a nearly-born human and a recently-born human, and so I mentioned the placenta argument to prove YOU WERE WRONG. Anything more than that would simply be icing on the cake.

You do appear to like patting yourself on the back -- that's all well and fine, but no one else is joining in. Haven't you noticed that? How many prochoicers here are throwing their weight behind your placenta theory?

 

[nota bene]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

THANK YOU FOR THE POINTS YOU RAISED. The main problem that lead to your post, though, was the assumption that just because something had not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, it was automatically worthless. I invite you to think about Isaac Newton's "Principia" BEFORE it was published, because mere publication did not-at-all change the validity of the arguments presented in that document. And the same can be said for any other "seminal paper" you care to specify, BEFORE it was published. Publication does not affect validity! And so fake journals are bad because they contain invalid-though-published papers --AGAIN, publication does not affect validity.

And all peer-review does (when effective), is point out invalidities BEFORE publication. Provided any exist to be found. In a Debate, the peers are the participants in the Debate; it is up to them to find invalidities in the arguments of the opposition. If Side A of the Debatethe one side insists that Side B side must allow 3rd-parties to find invalidities in Side B's arguments, then why is Side A participating in the Debate in the first place? They want others to do their work for them!

I like how you make the false claim that I've made the assumption that if not published in a peer-reviewed journal, a source is worthless and then use this false claim as your platform. I never even spoke to validity. :roll:

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

I am arguing the existence of natural rights, absolutely, and that they extend to the unborn, absolutely.

But what YOU are attempting is first to attach my argument to a dependence on John Locke and that due to that fallacious argument on your part, that I must then also accept the opinion of a 17th Century philosopher on when life begins. You are wrong on both counts.

So if not a Locketarian theory or perspective, where do natural rights come from? Where is any legal instrument that actually declares that it is employing "natural rights" to evaluate actions and ensure that appropriate prosecutions are implemented. How are they enforced?

 

[FutureIncoming]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

I like how you make the false claim that I've made the assumption ...

NOT WHAT I SAID --reread it carefully. I did not specify a particular "who" who made that assumption. You were responding to a situation in which that assumption had already been made by someone else.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Which, because of the reasons I already cited -- it will not be of any assistance. It's useless.

AND THERE IS ANOTHER BALD CLAIM, UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. Tsk, tsk! When politicians as ideologically distorted as President Trump think Fox News is a reliable source, others can choose other sources that might or might not be any better, so long as the result supports their already-existing agenda. IN THE END, an actually-useless argument must be faulty. And you have still failed to point out any specific and valid flaws in either the Facts or the Logic of that argument.

You do appear to like patting yourself on the back -- that's all well and fine, but no one else is joining in.

IRRELEVANT --at least partly because they are not joining your side, either, offering to point out any errors in the argument. It doesn't bother me at all that most folks might not be interested in a pro-choice argument that MIGHT be extended to promote late-term abortions --the argument is still entirely valid for early-term pregnancies. Almost no unborn human can survive without its placenta --just cut the umbilical cord and watch it die in maybe 10 minutes (unless it manages to exit the womb first). The placenta is as vital an organ as the heart, for every unborn human, up until birth. Just because the placenta is external to the fetal body, instead in internal like the heart, makes no difference at all in terms of essentiality.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

AND THERE IS ANOTHER BALD CLAIM, UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. Tsk, tsk! When politicians as ideologically distorted as President Trump think Fox News is a reliable source, others can choose other sources that might or might not be any better, so long as the result supports their already-existing agenda. IN THE END, an actually-useless argument must be faulty. And you have still failed to point out any specific and valid flaws in either the Facts or the Logic of that argument.

How did you possibly make the leap from talking about your placenta theory not being of any use to Trump and Fox News?

Fascinating.

Also, I'm not sure what a "bald claim" is but I backed up my opinion using survey's of the reasons women have historically chosen for aborting. That's better evidence than anything you've presented to date. At least the survey's in question were conducted in a scientific manner. You're just assuming your theory is beneficial because you want it to be beneficial. That's like saying the Bible is real because the Bible says so. Circular reasoning.

IRRELEVANT --at least partly because they are not joining your side, either, offering to point out any errors in the argument. It doesn't bother me at all that most folks might not be interested in a pro-choice argument that MIGHT be extended to promote late-term abortions --the argument is still entirely valid for early-term pregnancies. Almost no unborn human can survive without its placenta --just cut the umbilical cord and watch it die in maybe 10 minutes (unless it manages to exit the womb first). The placenta is as vital an organ as the heart, for every unborn human, up until birth. Just because the placenta is external to the fetal body, instead in internal like the heart, makes no difference at all in terms of essentiality.

The prochoicers that post here -- and from what I've been able to ascertain -- are very similar in opinion to the national prochoice movement. They do not "promote late-term abortions," as you say. And, in fact, they do not use similar reasoning for earlier abortions. I fully support early abortions, but never, ever, would I use your placenta argument. It's just too far out in left field. Abortion is an emotional issue. It's decided on an emotional level and the anti-choice movement is the one that uses ambiguous medical data in an attempt to stop abortions.

Then, you come along and hype your own fanciful theory to "promote late-term abortions" (your words) and, for some odd reason, you think it has validity. Despite being shown that no woman - ever - has cited a reason even close to your theory to justify abortion, you seem to think your theory is good.

But, your placenta theory is just one part of your failed ideology. You say things like the fetus is "attacking" or "assaulting" the woman. You make it sound as if pregnancy is far from natural.

Your ideology is too far out to discuss, because to do so, other posters have to assume that your theories are acceptable, which they aren't. You link to blogs - your own blog - as if that means something, and then you're confused when no one accepts your personal opinions as fact.

It would be like me wanting to discuss what type of cheese the moon is made of, and when told the moon isn't made of cheese -- I cite a nursery rhyme saying it is.

That's exactly the intellectual level of your placenta theory. When I told you how to find reputable citations, you even argued about that.

If you were my student -- you'd get a big, fat "F" on your assignment.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

THANK YOU FOR THE POINTS YOU RAISED. The main problem that lead to your post, though, was the assumption that just because something had not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, it was automatically worthless. I invite you to think about Isaac Newton's "Principia" BEFORE it was published, because mere publication did not-at-all change the validity of the arguments presented in that document. And the same can be said for any other "seminal paper" you care to specify, BEFORE it was published. Publication does not affect validity! And so fake journals are bad because they contain invalid-though-published papers --AGAIN, publication does not affect validity.

And all peer-review does (when effective), is point out invalidities BEFORE publication. Provided any exist to be found. In a Debate, the peers are the participants in the Debate; it is up to them to find invalidities in the arguments of the opposition. If Side A of the Debatethe one side insists that Side B side must allow 3rd-parties to find invalidities in Side B's arguments, then why is Side A participating in the Debate in the first place? They want others to do their work for them!

Scholarly peer-review and high school debate are not similar at all.

The first is a method used to weed-out pseudoscience and the latter is just a method of arguing a topic. In fact, in debate, the participants should be able to argue both sides of a topic, while scholarly peer-review focuses solely on proving a single theory or methodology, and then presenting your evidence to experts in the field for corroboration.

Denouncing the peer-review process is a practice in anti-science and anti-intellectual thought.

If you want someone to consider your theory -- do the work. Get a degree in medical research and then write-up your theory and see if other experts agree. Until then, you cannot reasonably ask anyone to consider your theory as having any kind of validity.

But, don't expect us to accept your theory just because you presented it -- and then backed it up by linking to your own blog. That's not how it works.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

So if not a Locketarian theory or perspective, where do natural rights come from? Where is any legal instrument that actually declares that it is employing "natural rights" to evaluate actions and ensure that appropriate prosecutions are implemented. How are they enforced?

I'm not understanding your question. Do you think natural rights came from Locke? The whole point of natural rights is that they come from the same place as the laws of physics. Protecting someone's rights is not the same thing as creating someone's rights. A right can exist even if the engine of government chooses to act against that right. The fact that it is a natural and inalienable right is why the actions of that government are deemed wrong, or amoral, depending on how you choose to word it. The whole idea of natural rights is that the natural state of your life would be that you are left to pursue those rights unhindered until such time that your pursuits interfere with the same rights of others. You have the right to own property, but not a right to someone else's property, etc.

So these rights are not enforced, they are protected. People don't have their right to life "enforced", the state provides protection against others taking your life.

My slavery example is the perfect illustration of an opposite and unnatural state. The government in a slave state does not protect the freedom of the individual, it promotes the removal of freedom from an individual because it doesn't see freedom as a natural right (generally the position of a communist state) or it chooses to dehumanize a group of people in order to pretend that natural rights don't extend to them (the position of most slave states).

Another way to explain natural rights would be the analogy of the shipwrecked man. A shipwrecked man is absent the rule of government and in his natural state, away from the constructs of civilization. What that man would naturally do on that desert island would constitute natural rights, those things that he would naturally pursue absent compulsion by government. The point of government to the US founding fathers, and to those who understand the good inherent in natural rights, is to establish a government whose goal is to promote the good of civilization -- the comforts that the shipwrecked man would no doubt miss in his time on the island -- while still getting out of his way and allowing him to be as free as he would be in that natural state on the island.

 

[minnie616]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

I'm not understanding your question. Do you think natural rights came from Locke? The whole point of natural rights is that they come from the same place as the laws of physics. Protecting someone's rights is not the same thing as creating someone's rights. A right can exist even if the engine of government chooses to act against that right. The fact that it is a natural and inalienable right is why the actions of that government are deemed wrong, or amoral, depending on how you choose to word it. The whole idea of natural rights is that the natural state of your life would be that you are left to pursue those rights unhindered until such time that your pursuits interfere with the same rights of others. You have the right to own property, but not a right to someone else's property, etc.

So these rights are not enforced, they are protected. People don't have their right to life "enforced", the state provides protection against others taking your life.

My slavery example is the perfect illustration of an opposite and unnatural state. The government in a slave state does not protect the freedom of the individual, it promotes the removal of freedom from an individual because it doesn't see freedom as a natural right (generally the position of a communist state) or it chooses to dehumanize a group of people in order to pretend that natural rights don't extend to them (the position of most slave states).

Another way to explain natural rights would be the analogy of the shipwrecked man. A shipwrecked man is absent the rule of government and in his natural state, away from the constructs of civilization. What that man would naturally do on that desert island would constitute natural rights, those things that he would naturally pursue absent compulsion by government. The point of government to the US founding fathers, and to those who understand the good inherent in natural rights, is to establish a government whose goal is to promote the good of civilization -- the comforts that the shipwrecked man would no doubt miss in his time on the island -- while still getting out of his way and allowing him to be as free as he would be in that natural state on the island.

Equal rights to freedom ( if there are natural rights to be recognized) belong to the born.

There is no way give the unborn and women equal rights.

If a pregnant woman wants her freedom from an early unwanted pregnancy and government forces the woman to remain pregnant against her will , the government has taken away her freedom and enforced her into slavery.

Held to a fate against her will.
Deprived of the right to get out of the situation.
Unable to refuse the work involved.
Receiving no compensation.
That's the very essence of slavery.

Author: Kent Pitman

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Equal rights to freedom ( if there are natural rights to be recognized) belong to the born.

There is no way give the unborn and women equal rights.

If a pregnant woman wants her freedom from an early unwanted pregnancy and government forces the woman to remain pregnant against her will , the government has taken away her freedom and enforced her into slavery.



Author: Kent Pitman

*sigh* The argument, as it has been the last 32 million times you have made it is a begging the question fallacy. There is no doubt an imposition put on a pregnant woman, the point of contention is that her imposition is transient while the death of the child is permanent. The ONLY WAY you reach the position that her transient state of imposition takes precedent over the life of the unborn child is by determining that the life of the unborn child is of less value than the life of a born child... and even then the only way you can rationally arrive at that point is by assuming that the right to life either doesn't exist outside government determination (Removable Mind's position) or that the unborn are not human beings (dehumanization).

I find that the argument of the mother's rights over the right to life of the unborn also is generally dubious given that most pro-abortion people I debate with are not willing to limit abortion only to the cases where the pregnancy was the result of rape, where it can be logically and consistently argued that the act of impregnation was not performed willingly.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

But nature is fun that way, if you end up being the guy that pushes past the women and children to get on the life raft you will eventually find that the list of women willing to procreate with you is limited or non-existent so nature will deselect you for breeding either way.

You do know men can trick women into breeding with them by playing the game right? Tons of men kill their wife and kids and tons of deadbeat men sitting in jail are fathers.

 

[minnie616]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

*sigh* The argument, as it has been the last 32 million times you have made it is a begging the question fallacy. There is no doubt an imposition put on a pregnant woman, the point of contention is that her imposition is transient while the death of the child is permanent. The ONLY WAY you reach the position that her transient state of imposition takes precedent over the life of the unborn child is by determining that the life of the unborn child is of less value than the life of a born child... and even then the only way you can rationally arrive at that point is by assuming that the right to life either doesn't exist outside government determination (Removable Mind's position) or that the unborn are not human beings (dehumanization).

I find that the argument of the mother's rights over the right to life of the unborn also is generally dubious given that most pro-abortion people I debate with are not willing to limit abortion only to the cases where the pregnancy was the result of rape, where it can be logically and consistently argued that the act of impregnation was not performed willingly.

Pregnancy may cause death for the woman.
There is nothing transient about irreparable damage to major bodiliy function caused by pregnancy/childbirth.

Like rape impregnancy is not willingly when birth control was used.

Using birth control means the woman/couple do not/did not want a pregnancy.



From IRCRC:

Reproductive and family formation decisions are voluntary and based on individual moral judgement and religious beliefs
Access to safe, non-judgmental, voluntary birth control and back-up measures, including abortion



PREVENTABLE HEALTH PROBLEMS

US maternal and newborn mortality rank of 40th in the world despite spending by far the most on health care
the fivefold increased risk of unintended pregnancy in the woman who is having financial difficulties
the decreased birth weight and decreased maternal health caused closely spaced pregnancies and high fertility
the lack of access to IUDs because of high up-front costs that could be solved by no-co-pay birth control, a very cost effective policy for public health
the preventable suffering and harm of unintended pregnancy, abortion, unwanted children and childhood poverty that could be prevented easily and cheaply by health care reform
the high correlation of birth control sabotage with domestic abuse
the increased likelihood of becoming a victim of violence and murder when a woman becomes pregnant
the wrongful increase in the maternal risk and cost of delayed abortion due to ill-advised mandated waiting periods
the delay and burden of travel caused by insufficient numbers of abortion providers
the suffering and mortality that could be prevented by access to therapeutic abortion for women who seek it for severe congenital abnormality and co-existing disease
the illegal and unsafe abortions that result from persecution and criminalization of abortion providers
the gaps in provision of emergency contraception for victims of rape that occur especially in Catholic emergency rooms and in the military
the detrimental public health policy enacted by politicians who exploit social controversies to create wedge issues

HEALTH | IRCRC

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Pregnancy may cause death for the woman.

Indeed it might, which is why I support abortion when the pregnancy when it is determined that bringing the child to term presents a sever risk to the mother's life.

BUt then riding the metro also subjects a woman to the risk of murder, but we don't condone she shoot anyone on the train with her just to be safe.

There is nothing transient about irreparable damage to major bodiliy function caused by pregnancy/childbirth.

Indeed. Which would mean something if you weren't using the potential for harm to the woman to justify the killing of another person.

Like rape impregnancy is not willingly when birth control was used.

Birth control is a gamble and always will be. Hell, even ABORTION isn't 100% effective. Do you support the killing of babies that are born on accident during an abortion?

Using birth control means the woman/couple do not/did not want a pregnancy.

It means that the woman/couple were willing to take a gamble.

From IRCRC:

Why should I care what the IRCRC thinks? Can you use any of those excuses to murder a child that was born to a mother than didn't want it? Of course not... so WHY do you think it is an effective argument? Simple: You have dehumanized the unborn child.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

You do know men can trick women into breeding with them by playing the game right?

LOL! Do these women not know the birds and the bees?

Tons of men kill their wife and kids and tons of deadbeat men sitting in jail are fathers.

... and?

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Do you think natural rights came from Locke? The whole point of natural rights is that they come from the same place as the laws of physics. Protecting someone's rights is not the same thing as creating someone's rights. A right can exist even if the engine of government chooses to act against that right. The fact that it is a natural and inalienable right is why the actions of that government are deemed wrong, or amoral, depending on how you choose to word it. The whole idea of natural rights is that the natural state of your life would be that you are left to pursue those rights unhindered until such time that your pursuits interfere with the same rights of others. You have the right to own property, but not a right to someone else's property, etc.

So these rights are not enforced, they are protected. People don't have their right to life "enforced", the state provides protection against others taking your life.

My slavery example is the perfect illustration of an opposite and unnatural state. The government in a slave state does not protect the freedom of the individual, it promotes the removal of freedom from an individual because it doesn't see freedom as a natural right ~snip~ or it chooses to dehumanize a group of people in order to pretend that natural rights don't extend to them (the position of most slave states).

Another way to explain natural rights would be the analogy of the shipwrecked man. A shipwrecked man is absent the rule of government and in his natural state, away from the constructs of civilization. What that man would naturally do on that desert island would constitute natural rights, those things that he would naturally pursue absent compulsion by government. The point of government to the US founding fathers, and to those who understand the good inherent in natural rights, is to establish a government whose goal is to promote the good of civilization -- the comforts that the shipwrecked man would no doubt miss in his time on the island -- while still getting out of his way and allowing him to be as free as he would be in that natural state on the island.

I've heard dozens of "natural rights" arguments. There's just so many holes in every single argument that I've read, including yours. And who says that slavery is an unnatural state? Globally, slavery exists today more than any other time in history. And yes, slavery of various forms exists right here in the good old USA.

The shipwrecked man will do as he pleases as he can't impose his will over others because they don't exist in his new domain. So living in that state of being, in relationship to rights of any kind, created in the mind of the shipwrecked man, are benign, impotent, and meaningless.

Now add a dozen people with the shipwrecked man who see their individual rights differently than their fellow ship mates. Individuals aren't worlds unto themselves who live in a bubble and who go about their daily tasks or endeavors without interacting with others doing the same. Eventually one of the members will declare that they own the most prime portion of the island, which has the most resources. What do you think will happen? One of those individuals will declare that they have better survival skills than the others and are willing to share them or a price, whatever that might be. And once these skills are disseminated, the teacher isn't so valuable anymore. Quite possibly expendable.

You obviously are a wee bit disconnected with human nature in how each individual perceives and exercises his or her "rights" without government or with documented rights defined by an authority - doesn't prevent another from deciding someone elses pursuits of life has no intrinsic value to them and violate other persons - at will.

Rights such as "the right to life", the right to own property, the right to liberty - as found in the 5th and 14th Amendments aren't a natural right. Because when you read these thoroughly, you'll see that each of these rights, which were created by our government, are preceded with the following: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of..." and ended with "Due Process of law".

When governments promote the good for civilizations - they possess the power to design and implement methods to achieve the good of civilization, which history tells us that once governments acquires such power, "effectively delivering" the good of civilization is, more often than not, a contradiction of best interests, or that governments take advantage of people, including infringing on their rights despite any device governments create to give the tools to citizens to protect themselves from governments.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

*sigh* The argument, as it has been the last 32 million times you have made it is a begging the question fallacy. There is no doubt an imposition put on a pregnant woman, the point of contention is that her imposition is transient while the death of the child is permanent. The ONLY WAY you reach the position that her transient state of imposition takes precedent over the life of the unborn child is by determining that the life of the unborn child is of less value than the life of a born child... and even then the only way you can rationally arrive at that point is by assuming that the right to life either doesn't exist outside government determination (Removable Mind's position) or that the unborn are not human beings (dehumanization).

I find that the argument of the mother's rights over the right to life of the unborn also is generally dubious given that most pro-abortion people I debate with are not willing to limit abortion only to the cases where the pregnancy was the result of rape, where it can be logically and consistently argued that the act of impregnation was not performed willingly.

How can equal rights be given to the yet to be born without probably dozens being created, which will ultimately infringe on the born?

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

LOL! Do these women not know the birds and the bees?



... and?

Do men not know the birds and bees? Think of all of the monks and priest who pledge celibacy. So why can't all men do the same?

Otherwise you're simply suggesting that women aren't entitled to engage in and enjoy sex the same as men, who don't bear the burden of getting pregnant.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

I've heard dozens of "natural rights" arguments. There's just so many holes in every single argument that I've read, including yours. And who says that slavery is an unnatural state? Globally, slavery exists today more than any other time in history. And yes, slavery of various forms exists right here in the good old USA.

Maybe you need a refresher on the meaning of the word natural versus artificial?

The shipwrecked man will do as he pleases as he can't impose his will over others because they don't exist in his new domain. So living in that state of being, in relationship to rights of any kind, created in the mind of the shipwrecked man, are benign, impotent, and meaningless.

YOu are purposely missing the point, it seems. What the man does are natural rights, not because he deems it or even considers them, they are natural rights because it is what we instinctively do to preserve and better our lives.

Now add a dozen people with the shipwrecked man who see their individual rights differently than their fellow ship mates. Individuals aren't worlds unto themselves who live in a bubble and who go about their daily tasks or endeavors without interacting with others doing the same. Eventually one of the members will declare that they own the most prime portion of the island, which has the most resources. What do you think will happen? One of those individuals will declare that they have better survival skills than the others and are willing to share them or a price, whatever that might be. And once these skills are disseminated, the teacher isn't so valuable anymore. Quite possibly expendable.

You are making my point and don't seem to grasp that you are. The mans rights are what he was doing to preserve and better his life absent the influence of the other people. The dozen people who show up and decide to infringe on his rights are in the wrong, and I have to believe you know this. It brings me back to the point of slavery where I assume you aren't a monster and you believe that slavery is wrong.

You obviously are a wee bit disconnected with human nature in how each individual perceives and exercises his or her "rights" without government or with documented rights defined by an authority - doesn't prevent another from deciding someone elses pursuits of life has no intrinsic value to them and violate other persons - at will.

Nope, I am perfectly in tune with human nature. THat brings the existence of natural rights and the US constitution back in to the argument. The crafters of the Constitution understood the tendency of man to infringe on the rights of others, so the US Constitution was crafted to create a government that protected the right of the individual from the will of others, and establish that these rights can only be infringed through due process. In short, the US Government was established that it could only infringe on your rights so long as it could be proven in court that you would be expected to infringe on the rights of others.

Rights such as "the right to life", the right to own property, the right to liberty - as found in the 5th and 14th Amendments aren't a natural right. Because when you read these thoroughly, you'll see that each of these rights, which were created by our government, are preceded with the following: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of..." and ended with "Due Process of law".

Right, as I said, the US government was designed on the idea that good government would only infringe on the rights of the citizens when it could be shown that the citizen in question has infringed on the rights of others.

When governments promote the good for civilizations - they possess the power to design and implement methods to achieve the good of civilization, which history tells us that once governments acquires such power, "effectively delivering" the good of civilization is, more often than not, a contradiction of best interests, or that governments take advantage of people, including infringing on their rights despite any device governments create to give the tools to citizens to protect themselves from governments.

And you continue to prove my point. The reason you can make a value judgement on the actions of government in the name of civilization is because natural rights exist for the individual that you know, but won't admit, are and were infringed by that government. By your actual argument you could never reach that conclusion as the right of the individual would be established by the government and not through logical, uniformly applicable deduction.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Do men not know the birds and bees? Think of all of the monks and priest who pledge celibacy. So why can't all men do the same?

Men are held legally responsible for pregnancies they help create

Otherwise you're simply suggesting that women aren't entitled to engage in and enjoy sex the same as men, who don't bear the burden of getting pregnant.

I'm not "suggesting" anything and entitlement has nothing to do with it. The added burden on women from sexual intercourse is a simple fact of biology.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

How can equal rights be given to the yet to be born without probably dozens being created, which will ultimately infringe on the born?

You will have to offer more than a "probably" argument first, also we tend to see the right to life as paramount over other rights... which is logical since death is a universal denial all rights forever. This is why we don't execute people for stealing.

 

[soylentgreen]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

*sigh* The argument, as it has been the last 32 million times you have made it is a begging the question fallacy. There is no doubt an imposition put on a pregnant woman, the point of contention is that her imposition is transient while the death of the child is permanent. The ONLY WAY you reach the position that her transient state of imposition takes precedent over the life of the unborn child is by determining that the life of the unborn child is of less value than the life of a born child... and even then the only way you can rationally arrive at that point is by assuming that the right to life either doesn't exist outside government determination (Removable Mind's position) or that the unborn are not human beings (dehumanization).

I find that the argument of the mother's rights over the right to life of the unborn also is generally dubious given that most pro-abortion people I debate with are not willing to limit abortion only to the cases where the pregnancy was the result of rape, where it can be logically and consistently argued that the act of impregnation was not performed willingly.

The obvious fallacy in your arguement is the arbitrary position of life that you have created. At what point is life not involved in this? Are an egg and sperm dead things before they meet for your position of life begins at conception?

The other fallacy you have here is that you wish to limit the process of abortion to rape only. Please explain why life is important except in cases of rape?

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

The obvious fallacy in your arguement is the arbitrary position of life that you have created. At what point is life not involved in this? Are an egg and sperm dead things before they meet for your position of life begins at conception?

The other fallacy you have here is that you wish to limit the process of abortion to rape only. Please explain why life is important except in cases of rape?

Biology has established 7 characteristics of life that establish when something is alive. Neither the sperm, or egg, or individual human cells have all 7 characters while after fertilization all 7 characteristics are present.

Life beginning at conception is not a hotly contested scientific topic, you already lost.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Maybe you need a refresher on the meaning of the word natural versus artificial?



YOu are purposely missing the point, it seems. What the man does are natural rights, not because he deems it or even considers them, they are natural rights because it is what we instinctively do to preserve and better our lives.



You are making my point and don't seem to grasp that you are. The mans rights are what he was doing to preserve and better his life absent the influence of the other people. The dozen people who show up and decide to infringe on his rights are in the wrong, and I have to believe you know this. It brings me back to the point of slavery where I assume you aren't a monster and you believe that slavery is wrong.



Nope, I am perfectly in tune with human nature. THat brings the existence of natural rights and the US constitution back in to the argument. The crafters of the Constitution understood the tendency of man to infringe on the rights of others, so the US Constitution was crafted to create a government that protected the right of the individual from the will of others, and establish that these rights can only be infringed through due process. In short, the US Government was established that it could only infringe on your rights so long as it could be proven in court that you would be expected to infringe on the rights of others.



Right, as I said, the US government was designed on the idea that good government would only infringe on the rights of the citizens when it could be shown that the citizen in question has infringed on the rights of others.



And you continue to prove my point. The reason you can make a value judgement on the actions of government in the name of civilization is because natural rights exist for the individual that you know, but won't admit, are and were infringed by that government. By your actual argument you could never reach that conclusion as the right of the individual would be established by the government and not through logical, uniformly applicable deduction.

The vast majority of your post has no true relationship to natural rights. Don't kid yourself, nothing I'm posted is helping you make you points about your fantasy called "natural rights". It's not remotely related to the laws of physics. There's nothing unalienable about rights.

Your shipwreck example was a shipwreck.