Bush Declares National Sanctity of Life Day

[DanS]

There's no excuses for him or her, and the society and state should hold them to their responsibilities. If they don't have enough dough for them to go to school, and they need to work instead, then that's their problem. I wish it were different, but that's the choice they made. As you say, that's reality.

It sounds like you need to change French law on paternity and welfare. Not come to us with a sob story.

[Jules]

Spiffor,

I actually think that obiwan's point of view is rooted in his belief that human life begins at conception. Hence sexual activity, whether contraception is used or not, has the potential to result in the creation of human life even in a "meaningless" sex act devoid of love or trust. obiwan is urging couples to take that into consideration before engaging in "meaningless" sex and then accept responsiblity for the consequences (i.e., the creation of human life).

[Spiffor]

DanS :
I agree it was her choice, since she had the opportunity to abort. By telling this story, I just wanted to show what the life of a lone mother is (and I'm sure it isn't better in the US, since welfare is even lower there).
I agree she has no excuse, because she had been able to abort for many weeks. But, by this story, I simply wanted to say you cannot force a woman to accept this kind of fate. Not in a civilized and developed country.

Edit : Jules :
And I'm saying it is asking way too much to 2003 people. I'm a student, and all my colleague do have sex with their partners, even if none of them want kids (both boys and girls).
Having people think of the possible life whenever they have sex is impossible for now, and will happen only if the world knows a major moral shift like it had known for the last 40 years (and even before this shift, many kids were born simply because passerbys wanted to have a good time, many mothers were abandoned with unwanted kids)

[DanS]

Yes, and in a civilized country like the US, she would not have to accept this fate, whether she keeps the child or aborts. The man is obligated to provide a good deal of support. In fact, he is obligated to reimburse the government for the welfare payments it has made to the mother.

[Spiffor]

DanS :
You've made me curious. I suppose there is some kind of system when the guy doesn't have the money ?

[Jules]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Edit : Jules :
And I'm saying it is asking way too much to 2003 people. I'm a student, and all my colleague do have sex with their partners, even if none of them want kids (both boys and girls).
Having people think of the possible life whenever they have sex is impossible for now, and will happen only if the world knows a major moral shift like it had known for the last 40 years (and even before this shift, many kids were born simply because passerbys wanted to have a good time, many mothers were abandoned with unwanted kids)

I agree with you that a major cultural shift is needed, which is why although I'm pro-life I don't believe a blanket ban on abortion will solve anything. I think President Bush's stance on abortion and National Sanctity of Life Day is utterly hypocritical so long as he continues to promote Middle East war and free trade/globalization, which has the potential to destroy (and already has destroyed) many more lives than abortion has.

[DanS]

It depends on the state, but a mathematical guideline is used to calculate how much he owes. If he doesn't pay...

His wages are garnished up to ~50% or 60% of his income. Liens are put on any property he may have that could be liquidated to pay the support. His driver's license can be revoked. His noncompliance will be reported to the credit agencies. He can even be thrown in jail for a short time in some states.

IOW, his ass better be getting a job.

[DanS]

I almost forgot. His passport can also be revoked, if he doesn't pay up.

[Spiffor]

Wow, I didn't know this. Thanks for teaching me

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Jules
(and already has destroyed) many more lives than abortion has.

ha ha ha ha

Jon Miller

[Az]

I think that the system is flawed.

[Ben Kenobi]

Willem-

The bond between parent and child, especially the mother, is so strong that some people can't even concieve of abandoning a child.

If the bond is so strong, why should we allow abortion?
Surely the bond begins before the child is born.

I get the impression that you are young, probably still living with your parents.

So what? Young people are not qualified to debate?

Along with her drinking, there would probably have been a good chance of some sort of birth defect. How much would the child have suffered then?

So to avoid suffering, we kill the child? Maybe the child would have enjoyed her life? Personhood has nothing to do with disability.


Jack-

How many abortions are done as a result of rape?

A small clump of undifferentiated cells feels no pain or emotion and cannot be tortured.

Most abortions are done between 8-13 weeks, when the child can feel pain. Do you have any sources to verify that most abortions because of rape occur earlier than 8 weeks?

"For rape victims, torturing them is MORE dangerous."

Source?
Abortion has many complications that need to be factored into your decision, that I don't think you acknowledge.

In this scenario, the torturers are John Ashcroft and George W. Bush.

How so? Isn't the rapist responsible for the torture? Without the rapist you have no pregnancy. If abortions were no longer legal, it makes no sense to say that more women will be raped.

We don't blame the victim of the rape. We don't blame an innocent unborn child for the rape.

Jules:

I think President Bush's stance on abortion and National Sanctity of Life Day is utterly hypocritical so long as he continues to promote Middle East war and free trade/globalization, which has the potential to destroy (and already has destroyed) many more lives than abortion has."

Assuming the unborn children count, then abortion has killed close to 40 million just in the US and Canada alone, since the 1968 abortion law was repealed in Canada. Worldwide estimates range at about 883,445,000 to 705,000,000 depending on estimates of underreporting, since 1939.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...wrjp334sd.html

The vast majority were performed in the PRC and the former Soviet Union. The current rate is approximately 1,594,000 per month, more that the populaton of Latvia.

This compares with a growth rate of 6,600,000 per month, according to the UN world population data sheet. Roughly 1 out of every 5 pregnancies worldwide are now aborted.

How many have died from war in the same period?
The reaper laughs.

[Ben Kenobi]

Cyclotron

The use of my property, however small or unobtrusive the use, is still prohibited without my direct or implied consent.

Not according to tort law. My example showed how the right to life can insist upon a limited and temporary property burden.

I'm discussing morality that is generally considered universal.

Universal? That the unborn child is a human person as Thompson assumes? I thought you were arguing for personal morality.

Rape would be the man forcing his way into the house and staying there,

How can the unborn child force itself into the womb?

I see nothing wrong with doctors providing and getting compensated for a legal procedure.

Even if the unborn child is a person? Why should they get paid to kill people? This is one of the differences between unplugging the violinist and an abortion. Even in the case of rape you have a third party aborting the baby. Nowhere does your argument say that it is legal for a third person to unhook the violinist from you, and to get paid specifically for doing so.

For the other problems, re-read one of my earlier posts. The woman is not bedridden, the woman does not suffer severe disability as in the case of your example.

He seems to imagine sex as a deep mark of trust and love between 2 individuals, and that meaningless or semi-meaningless sex doesn't exist (or shouldn't exist).

Spiffor, shouldn't exist. World of difference between the ideal and the reality. I'm arguing an ideal, what people should strive towards, rather than a narrative detailing events of 2003. I'm not THAT naive.

"And I'm saying it is asking way too much to 2003 people. "

We are the hollow men, the stuffed men,
Headpiece filled with straw, alas!
Our dried voices when,
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats feet on broken glass
In our dry cellar.

-The Hollow Men by TS Eliot.

I agree with you that a major cultural shift is needed, which is why although I'm pro-life I don't believe a blanket ban on abortion will solve anything.

Agreed
We need a major culture shift.

However, with a change in law, some who would have abortions otherwise would be discouraged and some lives will be saved.

This is a very good prudential question Jules- lots of room for debate on how to best change the culture.

[Jules]

Yes, I'll admit that I BAMed a bit there, but the actual statistics were not essential to my point. That being if human life is indeed sacrosanct as President Bush believes, then all human life must be defended, not just unborn human life. This is our nation's highest law, referred to in the Preamble of the Constitution as the principle of the General Welfare.

EDIT: those were rather staggering numbers you cited incidentally.

[Cyclotron]

Obiwan,

First of all, let me address the size of the obligation.

Let's think hypothetically: There is a man who is dying, and a single drop of my blood will keep him from dying. Nothing else will keep him from death. The procedure would be painless, and I certainly won't miss one drop of blood. The choice to give the blood, even though it costs me next to nothing to do, is still my choice. I have no more obligation to save that man than I do to remain hooked up on dialysis to a violinist the rest of my life.

Next, let me address your Tort example.

I think I'm not being very clear in my response to your tort case: Let's say,

the house = womb
the guy coming out of the blizzard = fetus
the person in the house = mother
the blizzard = death, or nonexistence before conception
neighbor = a doctor

Alright? So, the person in the house lets the stranger in, willingly letting him in. The person feeds the stranger and provides for his safety. Later, the woman wants to get rid of the stranger, but lacking the physical ability to do so calls her neighbor, who comes over and kicks the stranger out of the house, thus killing him.

Analagous to this: The mother lets the baby in her womb, willingly so. The mother provides for the child. Later, the woman decides she does not want the baby, but unable to get rid of it herself calls a doctor who comes over and gets rid of the baby, thus killing him.

Agreed? That is a normal pregnancy and abortion. What is key is that the person inside made a willing choice to let the stranger in the house.

Now, let's use a reverse example, but this time with rape (and one more character):

other man outside = the rapist

A man outside bangs down the door and shoves the stranger inside the house, then leaves. The stranger, now in the house and out of the storm, decides to help himself to the food in the house. The woman wants to get rid of this intruder, but lacking the physical ability to do so calls her neighbor, who comes over and kicks the stranger out of the house, thus killing him.

Which is analagous to this: A rapist forces his way into the womb, putting a baby inside the woman, and leaves. The baby begins to take the mother's resources. When the woman discovers she is pregnant, she calls the doctor who gets rid of the baby for her since she lacks the ability to do so herself. The doctor aborts the baby, thus killing him.

One big difference between these examples:

In the first example, a normal pregnancy, the mother willingly and knowingly admitted the stranger, and in so doing accepted responsibility for his well being. That is why the court ruled the way it did in the tort case: The people in the house accepted responsibility for the stranger by letting him in.

In the second example, a rape, the mother never willingly accepted the stranger, and because of this never accepted responsibility for his well being. Kicking him out would in fact be very legal; the man was trespassing and the woman had every right to remove him since she never accepted an obligation for his safety in the first place.

The conclusion is that the lawfulness of abortion depends on whether or not the mother accepted the responsibility for the child's well being. Acceptance is implicit when the mother chooses to have sex or conceive. When the mother is raped, however, there is absolutely no acceptance given, so the child never becomes the responsiblity of the mother and the mother is thus not responsible for the well being, or therefore life, of the child.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ok- you've abandoned the concert violinist, and you are expanding the tort case to a thought experiment.

Uncharted waters.

A couple of wrinkles to add to your thought experiment to increase the analogy to abortion.

Change the man to a young child, or even a baby, someone upon whom the mother has a substantial physical advantage. Have the rapist bar the door as he leaves, preventing easy removal of the child.

The woman could force the door, but not without risk of injury, since she lacks the proper tools to open the door.

She then calls her neighbour to force the door open, using a wrench. The neighbour then tosses the child out into the snow. The mother pays the neighbour for his trouble and for the use of the wrench.

Given these changes, does the mother still have a right to remove the non-threatening child from her house, even though he entered without consent, and ate from her refrigerator?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Ok- you've abandoned the concert violinist, and you are expanding the tort case to a thought experiment.

Well, not abandoned it, but I decided to meet your example head on.

Change the man to a young child, or even a baby, someone upon whom the mother has a substantial physical advantage. Have the rapist bar the door as he leaves, preventing easy removal of the child.

I'm not sure that these are meaningful changes. It doesn't matter what the physical development of the intruder is, or whether the obstruction is the barred door or the physical power of the intruder. The point is still that there is a human being in the house against the will of the owner, and the owner requires the assistance of the neighbor to excise him.

Given these changes, does the mother still have a right to remove the non-threatening child from her house, even though he entered without consent, and ate from her refrigerator?

Yes. I never made the inference that the child/stranger was actually harmful to the mother; the threat posed by the intruder is meaningless to the question of obligation. So, therefore, no matter what the actual threat posed by the intruder, the mother has the right to remove him from her house, even if that leads to his death.

[Ben Kenobi]

It doesn't matter what the physical development of the intruder is, or whether the obstruction is the barred door or the physical power of the intruder.

Two points here:

First, you are correct that the physical development of the intruder is not pertinent, however, the risk to the mother is important. I have been arguing for my exception clause, that if the mother's life is in danger, abortion is justified, as it is better to save one life then to allow two to die. If the intruder is a physical threat to the life of the mother, this example would fall under my exception clause. However, if the intruder is not a threat, then the clause cannot apply.

Secondly,

The barred door more accurately represents the fact that the unborn child does not bar the mother from killing him herself, perhaps with a coathanger. The key point here is not without risk of injury to herself, and that to pay the neighbour reduces this risk.

"and the owner requires the assistance of the neighbor to excise him."

Beware of euphemisms such as 'excise.' Would the lawyer defending the child call the actions of the neighbour an excision, or perhaps an extraction of uterine tissue?

Cyclotron, do you believe that an unborn child is a person, no different from the mother in this regard?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by obiwan18
First, you are correct that the physical development of the intruder is not pertinent, however, the risk to the mother is important. I have been arguing for my exception clause, that if the mother's life is in danger, abortion is justified, as it is better to save one life then to allow two to die. If the intruder is a physical threat to the life of the mother, this example would fall under my exception clause. However, if the intruder is not a threat, then the clause cannot apply.

I would disagree that risk to the mother is even an issue in this case. I am discussing obligation; the obligation of the mother to keep the child does not change whether the baby poses a threat or not. The person in the house has equal right to throw the intruder out whether he is a 250 pound ex-con or a 90 year old man in a wheelchair. The obligation the mother has to that person is still the same: none.

The barred door more accurately represents the fact that the unborn child does not bar the mother from killing him herself, perhaps with a coathanger. The key point here is not without risk of injury to herself, and that to pay the neighbour reduces this risk.

Fair enough. We'll say that, whether the door is barred or not, the mother could possibly get rid of the intruder but she is more likely to succeed and less likely to hurt herself by calling in help.

Beware of euphemisms such as 'excise.' Would the lawyer defending the child call the actions of the neighbour an excision, or perhaps an extraction of uterine tissue?

I wasn't aware the word had strong inorganic connotations, but I'll refrain from using that word if you like.

Cyclotron, do you believe that an unborn child is a person, no different from the mother in this regard?

My arguments given thus far, from the violinist to your legal case, would all seem to indicate that I do. If the child was not a person, all my arguments would be spurious because the child would not have a right to life anyway. All my arguments have been centered around how the right of one to their body/preperty supercedes another's right to life, which of course necessitates that the child have a right to life in the first place.

[Ben Kenobi]

The person in the house has equal right to throw the intruder out whether he is a 250 pound ex-con or a 90 year old man in a wheelchair.

-Cyclotron

Normally, this would be the case. However, in this example, throwing the person out of the house, into the blizzard will result in the death of that person. Extra consideration must be taken due to the violation of the right to life. Only the threat to the mother's life can justify action taken to remove the intruder. A 250 pound man with a knife would justify such actions, while a young child would not.

How would your weaker conception of the right to life constrain the behavior of the mother? Why should the mother sacrifice her own property just because a condom failed?

I ask you this:
If an unborn could defend itself, would we have abortion, why or why not?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by obiwan18

-Cyclotron

Normally, this would be the case. However, in this example, throwing the person out of the house, into the blizzard will result in the death of that person. Extra consideration must be taken due to the violation of the right to life. Only the threat to the mother's life can justify action taken to remove the intruder. A 250 pound man with a knife would justify such actions, while a young child would not.

If the intruder is expelled, that is only returning the stranger to the place he was in before the break-in. It's not actively killing anybody. Besides, I would think that only the mother can evaluate threat to the mother.

How would your weaker conception of the right to life constrain the behavior of the mother? Why should the mother sacrifice her own property just because a condom failed?

Keep in mind I am only talking about rape. Nothing I have said pertains to consensual sex.

I ask you this:
If an unborn could defend itself, would we have abortion, why or why not?

I don't think it matters. Assuming abortion was still possible, I don't see any reason why anything would change.

[Ben Kenobi]

Besides, I would think that only the mother can evaluate threat to the mother.

Cyclotron, even if it's a child? If the mother said a young child was a threat, this would be adequate justification for killing the child?

If the intruder is expelled, that is only returning the stranger to the place he was in before the break-in. It's not actively killing anybody.

No. We agreed that throwing them into the snow results in the person's death. That's the whole reason why the person is justified to minimal property demands.

All pregnancies have a small fatality risk. Does this mean that all mothers have a credible defense for aborting their child?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Cyclotron, even if it's a child? If the mother said a young child was a threat, this would be adequate justification for killing the child?

The "adequate justification" is that the child is an intruder into the woman's body, not a guest. I don't think the threat posed matters, but I also don't think you are in a position to evaluate that threat (unless you specifically mean a threat to the life of the mother).

No. We agreed that throwing them into the snow results in the person's death. That's the whole reason why the person is justified to minimal property demands.

It results in the person's death, but it isn't an illegal killing. I am entitled to throw out intruders in my house, outside weather be damned.

All pregnancies have a small fatality risk. Does this mean that all mothers have a credible defense for aborting their child?

No. Mothers who have consensual sex are acknowleging and accepting the risk by inference. Women who are raped do have that credible defense.

[Ben Kenobi]

The "adequate justification" is that the child is an intruder into the woman's body,

-Cyclotron

Intruder:

1 : to thrust oneself in without invitation, permission, or welcome

Who is thrusting oneself in the mother?
The rapist.

How can the unborn child thrust itself into the womb? It begins its life in the womb, the unborn child has no other home.

By all means shove the intruder out the door.
Punish the rapist for his intrusion, his crime.
But don't throw the innocent baby out too.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Jack-

How many abortions are done as a result of rape?

The number is irrelevant. SOME are, and those are the ones we're discussing.

But the same arguments also apply to a lesser extent to abortions resulting from contraceptive failure. The woman is not to blame: she took every reasonable precaution but was unlucky, just as a woman who gets raped despite carrying a can of Mace is unlucky.

A small clump of undifferentiated cells feels no pain or emotion and cannot be tortured.

Most abortions are done between 8-13 weeks, when the child can feel pain. Do you have any sources to verify that most abortions because of rape occur earlier than 8 weeks?

Most post-rape abortions would (obviously) be done as soon as possible. But, at 8-13 weeks, there is no "child" that can "feel pain": merely a fetus with a semi-functioning nervous system that can produce reflex responses. You need sentience to truly "feel pain".

"For rape victims, torturing them is MORE dangerous."

Source?
Abortion has many complications that need to be factored into your decision, that I don't think you acknowledge.

Are you serious?

17% of all those medically diagnosed with depression kill themselves: that's why Prozac is a life-saving drug. You don't think a woman forced to act as a rapist's incubator would at least be somewhat depressed?

Yes, torturing them is MORE dangerous. That's why they are absolutely desperate to get an abortion!

In this scenario, the torturers are John Ashcroft and George W. Bush.

How so? Isn't the rapist responsible for the torture? Without the rapist you have no pregnancy. If abortions were no longer legal, it makes no sense to say that more women will be raped.

No, the rapist is not directly responsible for the torture. He played his part in the chain of events, yes, but it was not his decision to inflict ongoing torture. If abortions were no longer legal, it makes perfect sense to say that more women will be TORTURED: that far more human suffering will result. Due to the number of women that such legislation would affect, Ashcroft and Bush would be responsible for causing far more suffering than any single rapist.

We don't blame the victim of the rape. We don't blame an innocent unborn child for the rape.

Double standard!

I am obviously not blaming the "innocent unborn child". If you accuse me of blaming the "child", then I can accuse you of blaming the rape victim, because of your willingness to torture her.

The big difference is that I am not advocating real human suffering. You apparently wish real people to suffer.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Intruder:

1 : to thrust oneself in without invitation, permission, or welcome

I wasn't aware intruder was a verb. The definition I am using is "someone who intrudes on the privacy or property of another without permission," which is more of a synonym for "trespasser," another wor di have used.

How can the unborn child thrust itself into the womb? It begins its life in the womb, the unborn child has no other home.

I didn't imply that the child forced itself in. A trespasser is one who trespasses, whether he did on pupose or not. All that is important is that he is an uninvited guest; and is trespassing on property without the permission of the owner.

By all means shove the intruder out the door.
Punish the rapist for his intrusion, his crime.
But don't throw the innocent baby out too.

The rapist has already left; he is no longer intruding. The intruder, however, is still present and must be immediately removed, which in this case results in the destruction of the intruder.

[Proteus_MST]

Maybe the correct analogy would be a trespasser who breaks into a womans House and leaves another Person (a child for example) in it before he disappears again.

Of course it doesn´t alter the fact, that this person is unwanted and uninvited and, just in this moment eats Aunt Marthas Strawberry Jam, which you actually wanted to spare for the next breakfast.

[Proteus_MST]

Maybe the correct analogy would be a trespasser who breaks into a womans House and leaves another Person (a child for example) in it before he disappears again.

Of course it doesn´t alter the fact, that this person is unwanted and uninvited and, just in this moment eats Aunt Marthas Strawberry Jam, which you actually wanted to spare for the next breakfast.

[Proteus_MST]

Oooops
please delete one of those Posts, Mods

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Maybe the correct analogy would be a trespasser who breaks into a womans House and leaves another Person (a child for example) in it before he disappears again.

That is the exact analogy I used.