Abortion arguments

[Lex]

I agree that abstinence and educated decision making are key. You can't legislate medical procedures either. Again--it all comes back around too freedom of choice. I am not saying that there are any easy answers. It's complex.

 

[GottaBigOne]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KidBrown &#064; Nov 3 2005, 01&#58;00 AM) [post=357732]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>
It&#39;s very hard for someone like me to chime in on this issue because I&#39;m never going to become pregnant. Plus, I won&#39;t have to go through the emotional and physical stress associated with carrying a baby. However, I find the rate of abortion to be disgusting in this country. There is no way this many women should be getting pregnant by accident if they used proper protection. The odds of an unplanned pregnancy when a man properly uses a condom and a woman is on birth control are virtually nil. I use condoms with spermicide, my girlfriend is on birth control and uses spermicidal foam as well. Explain to me a possible scenario where she will become pregnant, I don&#39;t see how it&#39;s really possible. Gee, the time it takes to make sure that our sex life is safe might take two minutes tops.

It makes me sick to my stomach when I have friends that have abortions. The most common scenarios I&#39;ve heard is "I was drunk" or "the condom broke". Great excuses for killing a baby.......

I simply love it when women say "I have a right to do whatever I want with my body". Oh yeah? Umm, you can&#39;t prostitute yourself in most of the U.S. so that&#39;s one area where you can&#39;t choose. You can&#39;t inject drugs into your body either, so there&#39;s another example of women not being able to choose. A woman can&#39;t fight in the front lines of a war, example number three. Trying to kill yourself? Sorry, that&#39;s illegal too.

I cannot say that in cases of rape or incest that abortion should be illegal. But most cases of abortion must be caused by simple negligence. People should have to live with their mistakes, why should a potential life be snuffed out because it&#39;s not easy for a woman to carry a baby for nine months? That&#39;s what you deal with when you don&#39;t take the two fucking minutes to protect yourself. The main issue that bothers me is the adoption system in this country. I feel that many more women would put their kids up for adoption if the process weren&#39;t so screwed up.
[/b][/quote]

The examples you cited aren&#39;t examples that women don&#39;t have the right to prostitute, or take drugs, or fight in the front lines, those examples are examples of their right to do that being violated by federal law. Why shouldn&#39;t people be allowed to sell their body for money, or do drugs, or kill themselves? Is it because they belong to the state? are they slaves? do they not own their own life????


Dilznick, explain to me someone not dealing with the natrual consequences of unprotected sex is a violotion of a third party&#39;s rights????

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne


Dilznick, explain to me someone not dealing with the natrual consequences of unprotected sex is a violotion of a third party&#39;s rights????

I think I addressed that in this thread.

Go back to the first page and read from the beginning.

 

[GottaBigOne]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr. Dilznick &#064; Oct 23 2005, 03&#58;34 PM) [post=354525]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by DC_DEEP
It&#39;s been too long since I read anything by Ms Rand, so I can&#39;t really comment with knowledge. One phrase that struck me, though, in your link was this:

"The principle here is: any right that contradicts the right of another cannot be a right, as rights form an integrated whole."

As evidenced by other threads on this forum, this one will stir up much ire, anger, and animosity, especially among those who have no grasp of "Philosophy and Logic 101" and those who mistakenly want to retain personal rights and freedoms, but deny them to others.

It all depends. If it&#39;s because you believe it&#39;s a human life, then you can&#39;t believe it&#39;s a woman&#39;s right to infringe on the right to life of another human being just because it resides inside her. There is so much gray area involving this topic, I can&#39;t believe some of the pro-choicers here don&#39;t comprehend the other side of the argument.
[/b][/quote]
tHE FETUS DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO ITS LIFE BECAUSE ITS LIFE IS NOT ITS OWN AT THIS POINT, IT CAN&#39;T SUSTAIN ITS OWN LIFE, ITS LIFE IS DEPENDANT ON THE WISHES OF ANOTHER. ABORTION IS NOT THE KILLING OF A HUMAN LIFE, IT IS SIMPLY NOT AGREEING TO CONTINUE THE EXISTENCE OF THAT WHICH CANT CONTINUE ITS OWN EXISTENCE. A FETUS DOESN&#39;T SIMPLY RESIDE INSIDE HER, IT LIVES OFF OF HER. IT IS NOT A SEPERATE HUMAN BEING BECAUSE IT CAN NOT FUNCTION ON ITS OWN, IF THE WOMAN CHOOSES TO SUSTAIN ITS LIFE THEN GOOD, BUT IT IS NOT ITS RIGHT TO BE SUSTAINED. BY ITS NATURE, IT HAS NO RIGHT TO ITS LIFE BECAUSE IT HAS NO MEANS OF SELFSUSTAINING IT. A DOG DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DRIVE A CAR BECAUSE IT HAS NO MEANS IN WHICH TO DRIVE A CAR. I DO NOT MEAN TO SAY THAT IT IS PREGNANCY IS UNNATURAL, I DO NOT USE THE TERM NATURE IN THAT WAY. BY NATURE I MEAN THE WAY IN WHICH IT IS EQUIPPED TO DEAL WITH REALITY. A FETUSES NATURE IS THAT IT IS DEPENDANT ON THE MOTHER&#39;S BODY, ON THE MOTHER&#39;S CHOICES FOR HER OWN LIFE. IF SHE DECIDED TO KILL HERSELF BEFORE GIVING BIRTH IT WOULDN&#39;T BE AN INFRINGEMENT ON THE FETUS&#39; RIGHTS, BECAUSE THE FETUS IS AT THE WHIM, BY ITS NATURE, OF THE WOMAN.

I used caps in this post because I accedientally hit the key, and didn&#39;t feel like re-writing all of that.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne


tHE FETUS DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO ITS LIFE BECAUSE ITS LIFE IS NOT ITS OWN AT THIS POINT, IT CAN&#39;T SUSTAIN ITS OWN LIFE, ITS LIFE IS DEPENDANT ON THE WISHES OF ANOTHER.

Because? It&#39;s understood that you feel this, but it isn&#39;t obviously true.

You believe we can attain complete objectivity? Then why is your argument filled with logical jumps?

 

[GottaBigOne]

Listen dick:

I said its life is not its own, then gave evidence to back it up. It can&#39;t sustain its life on its own, so its life is not its own. If thats what your argument is with then adress that, not the fucking word "because" asshole.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne

Listen dick:

I said its life is not its own, then gave evidence to back it up. It can&#39;t sustain its life on its own, so its life is not its own. If thats what your argument is with then adress that, not the fucking word "because" asshole.

The word "because" implies a causal relationship. And like I said, this isn&#39;t obviously true.

Address that.

 

[Freddie53]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr. Dilznick &#064; Nov 4 2005, 10&#58;02 AM) [post=358190]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by GottaBigOne


tHE FETUS DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO ITS LIFE BECAUSE ITS LIFE IS NOT ITS OWN AT THIS POINT, IT CAN&#39;T SUSTAIN ITS OWN LIFE, ITS LIFE IS DEPENDANT ON THE WISHES OF ANOTHER.

Because? It&#39;s understood that you feel this, but it isn&#39;t obviously true.

You believe we can attain complete objectivity? Then why is your argument filled with logical jumps?
[/b][/quote]
GOTTABIGONE:

Listen dick:

I said its life is not its own, then gave evidence to back it up. It can&#39;t sustain its life on its own, so its life is not its own. If thats what your argument is with then adress that, not the fucking word "because" asshole

FREDDIE:

We can rewrite this without the word "because"

"The fetus does not have a right its life. It life is not it own. It can&#39;t sustain it own life. It&#39;s is life is dependant on the wishes of another."

I am getting tired of all the objective philosophy crap when it comes to abortion. The woman who is pregant couldn&#39;t give a rat&#39;s ass about Miss Ryan and what she said or didn&#39;t say. The pregnant woman has two choices: carry the baby to term or abort it. It is that simple. Our government has two chocies: Make it illegal to abort a baby or not make it illegal to abort a baby.

I believe that according ot the Constitution women have that right to abort a fetus. I know some disagree. As religious as I am, religion is not an issue here, nor is morality. Legality of abortion and whether it is consittutional or not are the only issues on the table. The rest is stuff on the side line that really isn&#39;t revelent to this situation.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Dilznick: you piss me off because you simply state that it isn&#39;t obviously true, but don&#39;t explain how its not true. Educate me.


Freddie: objective philosophy is not "what ms. Rand says. The arguments stand on their own and attacking Rand does nothing. The philosophy inherent in the comstitution has many ties with Objectivism, Rand prequenty applauds the us constitution as being the most moral government idea. besides, this is a discussion on morality. To say that if the constitution says so then it is ito commit the fallacy from authority. The constitution at one time defined black people and 3/5 of a human, get my point??

i think the gist of out argument Dilznick is that we disagree on whether or not a fetus has the right to be carried to term. I do not think you will ever understand my view, nor I yours, so I suggest we stop, i&#39;m tired of this, it gets us nowhere.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

I&#39;m saying that everyone should be able to understand both sides. Almost everyone cares about being able to make their own choices, and almost everyone cares about preserving innocent life. It all comes down to when you believe human life begins. And reasonable people can differ on that definition. There shouldn&#39;t be so much goddamn acrimony over the issue, if people on both sides would just stop with this notion that the other side is "evil," "wrong," etc.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne

Dilznick: you piss me off because you simply state that it isn&#39;t obviously true, but don&#39;t explain how its not true. Educate me.

It may or may not be true (if you believe we can attain complete objectivity), but you&#39;re not going to be able to prove that it is (or isn&#39;t). It&#39;s something the philosopher David Hume argued centuries go: we cannot determine an "ought" from an "is." That is, a moral judgment, in a strict logical sense will never follow from statements of fact or "truth."

 

[GottaBigOne]

Value.
If we can figure out what our ultimate value "is" then we can figure out what "ought" to be done to attain that value.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Value.
If we can figure out what our ultimate value "is" then we can figure out what "ought" to be done to attain that value.

Ethics is "if" "then" ought" not "is" "ought"

 

[madame_zora]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr. Dilznick &#064; Nov 6 2005, 06&#58;45 AM) [post=358528]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>
I&#39;m saying that everyone should be able to understand both sides. Almost everyone cares about being able to make their own choices, and almost everyone cares about preserving innocent life. It all comes down to when you believe human life begins. And reasonable people can differ on that definition. There shouldn&#39;t be so much goddamn acrimony over the issue, if people on both sides would just stop with this notion that the other side is "evil," "wrong," etc.
[/b][/quote]


Well, as always lately, there wouldn&#39;t be so much acrimony if there wasn&#39;t a growing movement (too similar to that of the bowels) of psycho-christians trying to push their personal opinions onto everyone else and have them introduced into legislation.

Neither the Constitution nor the Bible address the issue of abortion AT ALL, so any personal opinion that has come along after is just that- a personal opinion. If someone honestly believes that abortion is murder, then don&#39;t fucking do it&#33; Other than that, anyone who tries to insert their religious or philosophical views into MY life is both evil and wrong, etc. Please add "stupid" to the list.

I will NOT be graciously forfeitting civil rights that women fought hard for just so I can appear to YOU as more polite&#33; You must be joking, right? As I&#39;ve said many times, if men carried babies, this discussion would not be happening. I&#39;d love to see a man suffer the consequences of morning sickness, stretch marks, weight gain, time lost from work, energy drain for seven months, swelling, soreness, and the potential loss of sex for a given time when they&#39;re too fat and weird looking to be fuckable, all to nuture a formerly non-existant life because of condom failure&#33; Give me a fucking break. The right to choose whether or not to sustain a life is what gives women the right to be more than cum receptacles.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Madam, you&#39;re being you&#39;re polite self, whats gives&#33;??

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by madame_zora+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madame_zora)</div><div class='quotemain'>
Neither the Constitution nor the Bible address the issue of abortion AT ALL, so any personal opinion that has come along after is just that- a personal opinion.[/b]

Yeah, I know.

The Constitution can be amended, though. Earlier this year "Jane Roe" (of Roe v. Wade) was talking about how they&#39;re trying to re-open the case because she now believes abortion is wrong or something. And the lawyer was saying with the advances in technology (3D sonograms or some shit, and evidence of post-abortion "negative effects" on women) that weren&#39;t available at the time of the case they could get it opened again. If it does get overturned, I don&#39;t think Ohioans would support it being restricted in their state. Lest you forget - we live in a democracy.


<!--QuoteBegin-GottaBigOne

Value.
If we can figure out what our ultimate value "is" then we can figure out what "ought" to be done to attain that value.[/quote]
"If" being the operative word here. You believe questions of value can be answered by logic alone. If this were true, you would be able to prove it. And you can&#39;t.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Ethics is "if" "then" ought" not "is" "ought"[/b][/quote]
Ethics is NOT "if ... then," retard.

Descriptive Ethics deal with what the population actually believes to be right and wrong. Normative Ethics deal with what the population *should* believe to be right and wrong.

Ethical sentences use words such as "good," "bad," "right," "wrong," "moral," "immoral," and so on. Here are some examples:

Descriptive Ethics:

* "Most Americans think that racism is wrong."



Normative Ethics

* "Sally is a good person."
* "One ought not to break the law."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_ethics

 

[GottaBigOne]

What do you mean by value? WHen you ask what is of value you must first ask of value to whom? The ultimate value of man is his life, life is his ultimate value. If we must value our lives, then we ought to try to attain those things which are conducive to life. If we don&#39;t then we are pursuing death, yes "anti-life".

In order to illustrate this point: I&#39;m not that good at it I will repost something found on another forum I frequent. (Yes, there not my words, but that does not mean i am appealing to authority, it means that it better explains my point than I can do for myself, it seems)


"
So let&#39;s start with values. In the broadest sense, a value is something an entity acts to gain or keep. A value isn&#39;t a primary -- it&#39;s not given directly in perception. There aren&#39;t entities called "values." To grasp that something is a value, we have to see it as a value to something for something. This is what Rand means when she says that the concept &#39;Value&#39; " "presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what?" (VOS 16). She is saying that for us to see something as a value, we have to see it as something an entity is acting to achieve, and moreover, we have to see the achievement of that thing as making a difference to the entity.

You can validate this point rather easily. Think of anything it makes sense to call a value: money, food, sex, whatever. The reason you can understand those things as values is because you can see that whether or not the entity acting to gain them actually gains them makes some difference to that entity. This is what Ayn Rand means when she says the concept &#39;Value&#39; "presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative" (VOS 16). An "alternative" means "a difference."

So what does it mean to say that the achievement of some goal (or failure to achieve that goal) makes a difference to the acting entity? Let&#39;s take the value "money." What difference does it make to a man if he gets money? Well, if he doesn&#39;t get money, he can&#39;t buy food. So what? What does it matter to him whether or not he gets food? What difference does it make to him?

Do you see the pattern that&#39;s developing? To grasp that something is a value, we have to see it as the means to obtaining some higher value. But there&#39;s a problem: if something is a value only if it is the means to obtaining some higher value, then don&#39;t we have an infinite regress (or, more precisely, an ultimate progress?)? Doesn&#39;t there have to be some ultimate value to which all other values are a means, and which is not itself a means to any higher value? The answer, of course, is yes.

"Without an ultimate goal or end, there can be no lesser goals or means: a series of means going off into an infinite progression toward a nonexistent end is a metaphysical and epistemological impossbility. It is only an ultimate goal, an end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible" (VOS 17-18).

To sum up, then, in order for there to be such things as values, there must be some ultimate value: a value to which all lesser values are a means, and which itself is not a means to any higher value. Is there such a thing?

Let&#39;s go back to our previous example. We can see that money is a value because, among other things, if I don&#39;t have money, I can&#39;t buy food. So what? What difference does it make to me whether or not I get food? Well, if I don&#39;t food, I will no longer be alive. So what? What difference does it make to me whether or not I&#39;m alive?

Obviously, it makes every difference to me whether or not I&#39;m alive. If I&#39;m not alive, there is no me. Or, to put it another way, for any other value, whether or not I achieve it determines what state I&#39;m in...but whether or not I&#39;m alive determines whether I&#39;m in any state at all. "Alive or dead" is different from every other alternative: it is a fundamental alternative. It is the only fundamental alternative. All other alternatives exist only in light of the basic alternative of life or death.

Life, therefore, meets the criteria of an ultimate value. All lesser values are a means to it, and it is not a means to any higher value. "It is only the concept &#39;Life&#39; that makes the concept of &#39;Value&#39; possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil" (VOS 16)."

 

[Freddie53]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GottaBigOne &#064; Nov 6 2005, 01&#58;27 AM) [post=358524]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>
Dilznick: you piss me off because you simply state that it isn&#39;t obviously true, but don&#39;t explain how its not true. Educate me.


Freddie: objective philosophy is not "what ms. Rand says. The arguments stand on their own and attacking Rand does nothing. The philosophy inherent in the comstitution has many ties with Objectivism, Rand prequenty applauds the us constitution as being the most moral government idea. besides, this is a discussion on morality. To say that if the constitution says so then it is ito commit the fallacy from authority. The constitution at one time defined black people and 3/5 of a human, get my point??

i think the gist of out argument Dilznick is that we disagree on whether or not a fetus has the right to be carried to term. I do not think you will ever understand my view, nor I yours, so I suggest we stop, i&#39;m tired of this, it gets us nowhere.
[/b][/quote]

Goottabigone:

I really don&#39;t know what to say.. I thought we were on the same page on this. That last paragraph directed at me really stung, "I do not think you will ever understand my veiw nor I yours, so I sugest we stop, I&#39;m tired of this, it gets us nowhere." Somehow apparently I rank below Dr. Dilsnick. You are at least willing to discuss this with him.

I wasn&#39;t attacking Ms. Rand. My point was that what she thinks or doesn&#39;t think can&#39;t and won&#39;t be used by the Supreme Court. I very well might agree with everything the woman says. I said in an earlier post, I really am very ignorant of her and what she wrote. I am personally neither pro or against the woman. I don&#39;t know enough to say eigher way. At this point it will be a consituttional issue. Right or wrong.

But I will honor your request and discuss this no further with you. Sorry you feel this way. It really hit me like a ton of bricks. I wasn&#39;t expecting this at all. I really enjoyed our previous posts. Best of luck to you. If you change your mind. Let me know.

Freddie

 

[madame_zora]

Freddie, in the last paragraph he went back to addressing Dilznick, the typo that says "out" should say "our"- he wasn&#39;t talking to you there, bro.

 

[GottaBigOne]

yes freddie, that last part was directed at Dr. Dilnick, not you bro. I thought you&#39;d have more faith in me as well then to automatically assume i would do that to you. You&#39;re one of the people i most respect on this board, and I get nothing but enjoyment from our discussions. I&#39;m sorry about the typo, as you have probably noticed most of my posts are fraught with them as I have gotten a new keyboard and am still getting used it, i type without looking at the screen, and my fingers sometimes move quicker than my train of thought. I&#39;m actually pretty offended that you think i would do that to you. You are not below dilznick in my book, don&#39;t ever think you are.

I&#39;m sorry for the misunderstanding, i will try to be more lcear about who i am addressing in future posts.