Abortion...

[Euphrates]

*sniffs* I feel so ignored... :(
Sorry. I thought you asked for an objective way to determine what rights are real and which are imaginary. I provided that as best as I could. Do you need something else?

[LifeMaiden]

Okay let's get this thread back on track here. Somewhere I got totally lost in this discussion and am going back to read everything carefully later on. Wow, looks like a lot went on. I was gone for most of the day LOL training at the gym and then I get back and go on this thread...I was like, whoa!!

I even forgot what my own points were LOL. You guys, I'm no moderator here and am a relatively new member, but if you have something more personal to say than what is the subject at hand, it probably would be best to PM them than attacking them on this thread. We're here to discuss the obvious, the two groups being of course, pro-choice and pro-life.

PrinceoftheWest let me look through some past posts and try to reinterate my points and questions.


Now, one of my earlier statements was made of a comparison between two things. Pro-choice advocates don't truly address the moral heart of the issue and they'll most likely use three major arguments in their fight to keep abortion legal. ( Keeping Roe vs Wade around rather than wanting to fight for a reversal as pro-lifers would like). The arguments I have disseminated carefully in my own personal thoughts, and also did a little research online. Primarily:

1. Pro-choice advocates believe that abortion is an issue of the right to PRIVACY. " Keep the government out of/off of my body. " The right to abortion has been a CENTRAL key in many political debates and keeps the debate extremely polarized amongst Democrats, Republicans/ and Liberals/Conservatives. Many women support the right to 'choose' whether to have an abortion because it means they have complete control over their reproductive system and are not SUBJECT to what is considered the PATRIARCHY over a woman's sexuality and rights to her own body.

Spinning off a bit on this argument would be the idealogy that MEN have controlled women's bodies throughout much of history. Men and the church ( primarily male again) dictated through societal mores how a woman should behave...motherhood and being a wife were all a woman had to hope to be in the past. Women of the past felt saddled down with bearing so many children without the benefits of birth control. We know now this is not the case any longer, but this deeply colors one aspect of the pro-choice view.

Many pro-choice women today will say that if the right to choose an abortion is taken away, then it means they are no longer in control of their bodies, and once again, the government ( i.e., male-dominated) will tell them what to do.


2. Here's where my comparison came in when it comes to the argument that abortion rights are about the rights to privacy issue. In other words, since a woman owns her womb, she can therefore do what she wants to whatever is inside it without the interference of those who believe otherwise morally.

I compared this and ask pro-lifers if you consider my comparison to be an appropriate argument against this so called PRIVACY ISSUE:

If privacy is the issue, then pro-lifers would say a woman seeking an abortion or getting one done and using the privacy issue as an argument for abortion would be akin to living in a house. Technically we live private lives inside our homes which is no one else's 'business.' But let's say a person decides to kill someone in their home. At that point, privacy is no longer an issue since an immoral act of murder has been committed.



3. Pro-Choicers say the issue of morals is a personal one. Not everyone believes life begins at conception. If this is true, then why should someone who shares a different viewpoint get to dictate what a woman does with her unborn embryo? If she doesn't believe it's a truly human life or human being at certain given time, ( say 5-8 weeks which is when most abortions are performed, with the next majority being 10-16 weeks) then why is it immoral for HER to have an abortion? In other words, just because it is 'wrong' for someone else, why should it be 'wrong' for another person?

Pro-lifers claim they are not telling others what to do, but pro-choice advocates would say that is exactly what they are doing...setting one moral standard for everyone rather than everyone being selective about their own.


Okay, there.

[Ephinie]

Yay, someone is here!I don't think you give enough credit to people in other societies. There is no right to have male offspring because if there were, people could say that nature is violating their rights. And I think rights are grounded in nature.

How about this: rights are grounded in nature, so imaginary rights are rights that can be violated by nature.If imaginary rights are rights that are grounded in nature, then why is the woman's right to choose what happens to her body NOT an imaginary right? Pregnancy is the natural result of what happens when people have sexual relations. So why could we not say that her "right to autonomy" is being violated by nature? If we use nature as the basis for what rights are real and what are imagined, do we not have to conclude that the right to abort an unwanted pregnancy is an imagined right?That seems like an objective standard that doesn't rely on common sense.Yes, that does seem like an objective standard that does not rely on common sense. But if we do use that standard, it seems to me that we would have to conclude that the right to have an abortion is an imagined right.You're right, inkspot. Abortion is a unique case. In philosophy, we can make arguments that parallel unique cases by using counterfactuals. But people mostly mock counterfactuals around here, so you'll just have to accept that abortion is special.Personally, I cannot "just accept" that abortion is a unique case. Since we have now established an objective standard for deciding between real and imagined rights, and by that standard abortion seems to be an imagined right, I need to know WHY abortion is a special case. The mother's right to autonomy is full. The baby's right to life is lessened by its dependent status. The right to life always wins if it is full, I guess.So again it is, why is abortion a special case? What specifically about an unwanted pregnancy makes the mother's right to autonomy full? Especially since a pregnancy is natural, so there is some question about whether the right to autonomy in this case is real or imagined?Because you made a choice to do something that involved giving up your right to not crawl around and stuff. This is almost like saying that I ate a three month old bologna sandwich and now I am running to the bathroom every five minutes, but this violates my right not to subject my body to anything I don't want it subjected to. I made a choice to eat the sandwich, knowing that I'd probably get sick, and now I have to live with the consequences of my decision.So if you eat a three month old bolonga sandwich, then it is silly to say your right to not subject your body to anything you don't want it subjected to is being violated, because you made the choice to eat the sandwich. You knew it was old. So why can you say your right to autonomy is being violated by a pregnancy? You made the choice to have sex; and that is the natural result of that choice, just as illness is the natural result of eating spoiled food.But we have agree that abortion is ok if the mother's life is in danger. And most of us, it seems, agree that abortion might be ok in the case of rape. These are innocent people, but we do not think it is always wrong to kill them. Right? And think about strategic bombing. If we know that Iran is going to attack us with nukes in the morning, most of us would say that it is ok to bomb the nuke silos at night even though there are a couple innocent security guards who would die. My point is that we are not using the standard that is is wrong to kill an innocent person. In most cases, yes. But standards are meant to be applied all the time to every case, which we have agreed is unreasonable.I think that we agreed it is okay if the mother's life is in danger, because the right of the baby to life is in conflict of the right of the mother to life. So we are dealing with two identical rights, and we do what can save the most number of people. Unfortunate, but necessary. And I think that no one agreed abortion might be okay in the case of rape, only conceded that none of us want to judge someone who has gone through something so traumatic. That sounds, to me, more like the issue was tabled rather than agreed upon that it might be okay.
Again, we have already determined that sometimes it is ok to kill innocent people. Do you really think that our morality means nothing now?Did we determine that it is okay to kill innocent people, or did we concede that sometimes it might be necessary to save a greater number of other innocent lives? Killing an innocent person is never OKAY, but I do think we can agree that it may, in some cases, be unavoidable. I do not see why it would be unavoidable in the case of abortion for any reason other than that two people will die (the mother and the child) rather than just one (the child) if the life of the mother is in danger.

[Euphrates]

Pregnancy is the natural result of what happens when people have sexual relations. So why could we not say that her "right to autonomy" is being violated by nature?
First, with pregnancy, nature didn't do any violating. Just like nature doesn't do any violating when someone jumps off a building and dies.
If we use nature as the basis for what rights are real and what are imagined, do we not have to conclude that the right to abort an unwanted pregnancy is an imagined right?
No. How can the "right to abort an unwanted pregnancy" be violated by nature?

Most of the rest of what you said relies on abortion being an imaginary right, which it is not. There's no way, that I can think of, for nature to violate the right to have an abortion.

I need to know WHY abortion is a special case.
Because there are no other cases in real life where the dependent is plugged into the depended-upon for their survival (and there is a conflict of rights).

What specifically about an unwanted pregnancy makes the mother's right to autonomy full?
Eh, the mother's right to autonomy is full because there are no circumstances mitigating that right. There's nothing about an unwanted pregnancy that makes that right full. I don't think anyone said that.

So why can you say your right to autonomy is being violated by a pregnancy? You made the choice to have sex; and that is the natural result of that choice, just as illness is the natural result of eating spoiled food.
I can decide to put the bologna sandwich in my mouth, chew it up some, and spit it out without ever intending on eating it. Just like people have sex all the time without meaning to reproduce. If I am chewing the sandwich and someone scares me, and I swallow it on accident... I didn't choose to swallow the sandwich and I didn't want to get sick. Just like accidents happen during sex and unwanted pregnancies result. But if you have sex to reproduce, then you have given up your claim to autonomy for the pregnancy.

Did we determine that it is okay to kill innocent people, or did we concede that sometimes it might be necessary to save a greater number of other innocent lives?
Necessary? No. In the case of a mother who will die if she gives birth, the group consensus (I guess) was that abortion is ok. This isn't saving a greater number, and this isn't necessary. We determined that it is acceptable/permissible/ok to kill the innocent baby in these cases (which are rare, but important).

Killing an innocent person is never OKAY, but I do think we can agree that it may, in some cases, be unavoidable.
What do you think about my strategic bombing argument? Do you think it would be ok to do that? It is certainly avoidable, but it saves the most lives.

[LifeMaiden]

ooo, Abortion. the worst thing ya can do to a baby.... :(

Well yes, that is a central argument of the pro-life movement. But let us add more substance to the argument.

[LifeMaiden]

[QUOTE=Euphrates]Wow. I don't want to get sucked back into a mud-slinging contest, but this thread is full of ad hom attacks, rudeness, snideness, and mean attitudes. And to be very honest with you all, most of it is coming from the pro-life side. Being pro-life, I am very discouraged by the representation here. And I want people to know that we're not all mean and cocky; some of us are respectful and reasonable.[QUOTE=Euphrates]


I'm probably one of the most pro-choice ( if not primarily the only one LOL) here on this thread. I feel that since everyone here feels very passionately about their stance on abortion, of course, it will get very hot in here as it will in a frying pan LOL. But I haven't seen grease being slung from the pan. The responses garnered from POTW were primarily in response to OJ I believe.

Those with a pro-life view are not always represented accurately and soundly in the media. Unfortunately their voices are not always heard above the din and the shouts of the pro-choice movement, so I don't mind having pro-life believers come across strongly at times here. Abortion is a very emotional and sensitive issue for everyone on both sides of the debate. And what, if anything, are we here on this thread for? To present our sides of this debate with respect for each other's differences.

[Ephinie]

No. How can the "right to abort an unwanted pregnancy" be violated by nature?

Most of the rest of what you said relies on abortion being an imaginary right, which it is not. There's no way, that I can think of, for nature to violate the right to have an abortion. Okay, okay, okay... I think this skips a step here. We are saying that the reason we have a right to abort an unwanted pregnancy is BECAUSE we have a right to autonomy with our own bodies. By this line of thinking, nature has violated the right to autonomy by virture of the fact that the pregnancy happened in the first place. So if nature has violated this right to autonomy in the first place, then it is an imagined right, based on the definition that a real right is a right that nature cannot violate. So if we don't have the right to control our own bodies, then the right to abort a pregnancy does not logically follow either.Because there are no other cases in real life where the dependent is plugged into the depended-upon for their survival (and there is a conflict of rights).This makes sense. Yet I still do not see how even a weakened right to life could be considered less important than a stronger right to control our bodies.Eh, the mother's right to autonomy is full because there are no circumstances mitigating that right. There's nothing about an unwanted pregnancy that makes that right full. I don't think anyone said that.I think the wording here is a little confusing. The first sentence I get, but are you saying in the second sentence that there is nothing about an unwanted pregnancy that makes the child's right to life full?I can decide to put the bologna sandwich in my mouth, chew it up some, and spit it out without ever intending on eating it. Just like people have sex all the time without meaning to reproduce. If I am chewing the sandwich and someone scares me, and I swallow it on accident... I didn't choose to swallow the sandwich and I didn't want to get sick. Just like accidents happen during sex and unwanted pregnancies result. But if you have sex to reproduce, then you have given up your claim to autonomy for the pregnancy.I find this a bit dubious because, suppose you never intended to swallow the sandwich? You STILL chose to put it in your mouth in the first place. So you still could not complain about your right to not be sick, because it was still the naturally resulting consequence of an action that you chose to take... even if the action did go further than you originally intended.Necessary? No. In the case of a mother who will die if she gives birth, the group consensus (I guess) was that abortion is ok. This isn't saving a greater number, and this isn't necessary. We determined that it is acceptable/permissible/ok to kill the innocent baby in these cases (which are rare, but important). It is still saving a greater number of people. You save the life of the mother, as opposed to losing both the mother and the child. Saving one person is a greater number than saving zero people. And when I say that it is never "okay" to kill an innocent life, what I mean exactly is not that it is never, reluctantly, permissible... but that we understand it is a grave, terrible decision that must sometimes be made. Sometimes we are put into a position where we have to choose between one life and another life. All we can do is save as many people as we possibly can, but killing that one innocent life is still not okay. I guess my real problem is the context in which the word "okay" is being used here. The reason is because that word just SOUNDs too light-hearted for such a serious consideration. Semantics, I know. But it still bothers me.What do you think about my strategic bombing argument? Do you think it would be ok to do that? It is certainly avoidable, but it saves the most lives.It is avoidable, yes. However, the people making the decision to bomb the place are doing so out of an obligation to protect a greater number of lives. So it is a necessary action. No, it is not okay to kill two innocent bystanders; but it would be even more not okay to fail in your obligation to protect the lives that have been entrusted to you. Also, if those security guards are guarding the missile, that would seem to indicate that they are on the side of those which are causing the threat. They are aiding the threat, and therefore, it could be argued that they really are not innocent lives at all.

[Specter]

Euphrates: This is a warning for you.. Please do not single people out, and slander people that are on your side. You are hurting people when you do that. What I will do, if you continue, is disallow you to access this area. You'll be able to see it when you're logged out, but not when you're logged in. This is your ONE chance, and because I'll have to go in and make that change myself, the change is permanent.

[inkspot]

He's cool, Paul. We're all playing nice in here now.
:)
Thanks!

Ephinie, I think you have answered Euphrates arguments very well,

IceMaiden, I did try to answer your queries above, in a previous post:

In other words, what this argument boiled down to was " What do you care what I do with my body and why should I allow your religious beliefs to interfere with my personal beliefs? Just because it's wrong for you does not make it wrong for me."

Pro-lifers, I'd like you to comment on that remark as well as this one:


" Pro-lifers have decided that just because it's wrong for THEM to have an abortion, it's wrong for EVERYONE ELSE. They don't understand that everyone doesn't think like them or share the same beliefs about when life begins" A quote from a magazine.

We would say, it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks about when life begins, if, in fact, it does begin at conception. If it were possible to decide laws based on what we thought of what we were doing, then we could murder anyone we thought was less than human ... does that make any sense? As long as I believe the person I kill is less than human, then you cannot fault me for killing him -- just because it would be murder for you, doesn't make it murder for me. Our thoughts on our victim cannot come into play when it comes to criminality.

Making abortion illegal would set back women's rights *that feminists have won* to the Victorian Times, when women were not allowed to decide how many children they wanted or take control of their bodies and reproductive systems.

As important as these rights are, they are founded in America on the concepts of "all are created equal." If we undermine this very strong foundation by declaring babies are not equal, are not even human, then we are eroding the very foundation upon which all our other rights as women, and Americans rest. You cannot protect the rights of one group by taking away the rights of another, or the laws ultimately mean nothing.


If the child had a choice in the matter and could speak plainly, how do pro-lifers know that child would choose to be born and to live? (especially if the mother did drugs, or the child was predicted to be born with some debiliating disease or severe physical handicap)?

By the same token, how do we know they wouldn't? Being that we can't know, isn't it better to err on the side of life?

[Parthian King]

I'm going to make a couple of observations on some of Ice Maiden's remarks that Inkspot has already addressed, though from a different angle.

Making abortion illegal would set back women's rights *that feminists have won* to the Victorian Times, when women were not allowed to decide how many children they wanted or take control of their bodies and reproductive systems.
Note, however, that as POTW has pointed out, it was feminists like Susan B. Anthony who, emerging from the Victorian era, saw the innate destructiveness of abortion for the feminine. It was they who were the motor that helped put the brakes on abortion in the U.S. To "go back to Victorian Times" in terms of abortion is to stay where we are now.

I recognize, however, that Ice Maiden is appealing to a deeper principle--that of personal rights (however expressed). This is voiced by implication in her statement concerning the hypothetical position of the unborn child towards life:


If the child had a choice in the matter and could speak plainly, how do pro-lifers know that child would choose to be born and to live? (especially if the mother did drugs, or the child was predicted to be born with some debiliating disease or severe physical handicap)?

The correct retort from the hip is that given by Inkspot, of course. We cannot put someone to death on the conjecture that, given greatly contrary circumstances (in my view, the world as it is is certainly contrary enough) they might not choose life. We have to let them live to let them make that choice.

But I want to speak to the deeper issue, the one that makes the abortion debate a clash of premises more than a clash of reasonings. Any argument proceeds from premises, some of them a priori assumptions. It goes without saying that the premises offered by the other side may be rejected--that is why we speak of opposing worldviews. But in my view it is far better to recognize and dwell on those differences, and attempt to effect paradigm shift in the other based on personal convictions, than to chase down the rabbit trails of reasonings that can never meet each other. At very least it needs to be recognized as something going on.

My point is illustrated by the recent exchange with Euphrates over the defintion of the term "right." It is obvious that he means something very different than what I mean by that term. OJ and Ice Maiden similarly use the term to indicate innate, individual personal empowerment, especially over against all comers.

Now, I am not saying that these people are not Christians or even theists. But I will say that "right" in this sense is foreign to biblical theology and to the corresponding Judeo-Christian worldview. (I recognize that many will immediately object, citing pluralism, secularism, etc. But I prefaced this discussion with a word about conflicting worldviews, remember? And secularism, pluralism, post-modernism, and all those other isms are also worldviews; nobody gets to watch the melee from the crow's nest.) Since at this point I explain to clarify a definition of terms as I and other pro-lifers use them, rather than to try and convince, please bear with me for the moment.

The biblical idea of "rights" is grounded in imago dei--the image of God in every human being. In other words, it has to do with God's gift of humanity to humanity. It starts with God and ends with God. The idea of rights meaning "I get to do with myself what I want" correspondingly does not enter the equation. And why not? Because at the end of the day, you are not your own. Your life is not only a gift, it is a responsibility. You are a steward over it and all that comes with it (including and especially procreative ability, which begets others who bear imago dei)--not it's owner. As Lewis himself has pointed out, you cannot determine the day of your birth, add a minute to your day, decide what sex, color, ethnicity, or geographical location you are born into, and apart from inflicting great pain upon yourself contrary to nature, you cannot change those things or determine the day of your death. This does not mean that reasonable self-determination (i.e., participation in those things that do not violate the sanctity of imago dei in yourself or others) is out of the question. In fact, imago dei empowers us towards that self-determination (again, Lewis, speaking as Screwtape, addresses these matters by referring to the things which humans can do all day long with which God has no problem at all). But when it comes to absolute questions, particularly those dealing with life and death (and this element is crucial to include in any illustration or parallel; sour bologna sandwiches won't do), God and God alone decides. Hence "right" for a Christian has to do with the liberating lordship of God Almighty, submission to which (says Lewis) makes us more free, more human, and more ourselves. Based upon this understanding of rights (for example), the real issue to be addressed in the hypothetical about asking a child if it would be born is whether it is up to that child to make the decision at all, even if it could speak.The Christian would say, "The fact that the child lives means God has spoken--and once God has spoken, there's nothing for us to say except, 'Amen Lord, true and just are your judgments'."

I personally believe that much of the difficulty in the discussion has to do with this very conflict of definitions. We can say all we want that God should stay out of it. But the reality is that (especially for those who are Christians--the majority here I would tender) the biblical worldview and its understanding of the value placed upon human beings pervades our every thought. For us, God cannot be left out of any discussion about abortion because our fundamental starting point (whether spoken or unspoken) is that human beings are made in God's image. This is why we are continually digging our heels in about setting up a sliding scale for values placed on human beings according to their circumstance--the weight of God's image shatters such scales asunder. This position is anathema to secularists, who place the individual at the center of all things, and above all supreme lord of itself. "Right" for the secular is the linchpin of its most sacred mottos of atheistic self-determination. So when we speak of "rights," and pro-choicers of various stripes speak of "rights," we are as ships passing in the night, whose passengers shout at each other in the fog. We are working from conflicting premises.

[inkspot]

I agree with what PK is saying. Rights mean different things to people coming at them from different world views.

I will add: the abortion issue seems to me to be of a piece with a pervasive culture of death which has come to fore in these days -- there is a growing lobby demanding the right to die, the right to have someone help you die, and with abortion, the right to kill.

This is again a clash of worldviews, as exemplified in IM's question:
If the child had a choice in the matter and could speak plainly, how do pro-lifers know that child would choose to be born and to live? (especially if the mother did drugs, or the child was predicted to be born with some debiliating disease or severe physical handicap)?
Not that IM is pro-death or anything like that, but the question can be used to illustrate this worldview which seems to think death is better than life, or life is not worth lliving. It assumes that given there will be conflict and struggle in life, death is just as acceptable an alternative, and perhaps a better one.

This worldview which places no value on life, which asserts death is just as valid a choice, is the opposite of the Christian worldview, which as PK has pointed out, cherishes all human life because we believe each life carries a spark of the divine life, the image of God. In our worldview, life is always better than death, because God breathed His divine life into us. Even a life of suffering may exalt God and show His Spirit alive in the suffering soul ...

It is no wonder that such a pro-life (in every sense) worldview can find no common ground with a pro-death one. (Not that I am saying anyone here is pro-death, but I am saying abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide and the like are all propelled by a culture of death which says, in some cases, death is better than life -- and that we are obligated to help people choose death, or choose it for them.)

This is just an acknowledgment of why it is so horrifying for some of us on the pro-life side when someone on the pro-abortion side says babies are humans but must be killed anyway. It is a concept very foreign to us that anyone would want to kill a baby they acknowledged as a human being, for something as nebulous as the "right to autonomy" or what have you.

[Euphrates]

Euphrates: This is a warning for you.. Please do not single people out, and slander people that are on your side. You are hurting people when you do that. What I will do, if you continue, is disallow you to access this area. You'll be able to see it when you're logged out, but not when you're logged in. This is your ONE chance, and because I'll have to go in and make that change myself, the change is permanent.
I'd like to answer everyone because there are some good things being said and I have good answers, but this post by Specter is beyond amazing. I'm done with trying to understand what goes on around here.

My advice: don't oppose the people in power.

[inkspot]

I'd like to answer everyone because there are some good things being said and I have good answers, but this post by Specter is beyond amazing. I'm done with trying to understand what goes on around here.

My advice: don't oppose the people in power.


No, don't go away mad. Paul was just a step behind, it's okay. You are welcome to answer. Anyway, I'm on of the people in power (I guess, I'm a mod), and I don't think you have to quit. We're all square now.

Euphrates, your inbox is full, so I could not PM you. Seriously, whatever happened in the thread in the past (I don't know cuz i was offline) it isn't happening now. We are all squared away, and there's no reason for you to quit. As long as we all don't launch any personal attacks on each other, we're good to go.

[Specter]

I'd like to answer everyone because there are some good things being said and I have good answers, but this post by Specter is beyond amazing. I'm done with trying to understand what goes on around here.

My advice: don't oppose the people in power.
I apologize.. I was a step behind, and the issue had been resolved. Please accept my utmost apologies for this. My internet connection dropped at about midnight last night, when I wrote that. When I woke up this morning, the connection was back up, so I clicked "Submit Reply." I was obviously way behind.

[LifeMaiden]

Okay so we're all good now :)

[inkspot]

Thanks, Paul -- I didn't mean you were a step behind, exactly, just that we had already moved on from that little unpleasantness. Specter is always, of course, a step ahead of everyone else, as he is our chief.
:)

[MrBeaver]

I'm a liberal and I agree that, yes, it is the equivalent of murder, although maybe not quite to that extent. But I still think that a woman should have the choice whether or not she wants to have a baby. If I were put in this position, I would not have an abortion. I think that people need to be safe about birth control. As for sex outside of marriage in the first place, I don't think that's anybody else's business.

Flame me now.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Okay so we're all good nowOne certainly hopes so.

To pick up a train of thought which will hopefully illuminate some things for us all: there has been a lot of back-and-forthing about rights in this thread: "weakened" rights, innate rights, imaginary rights, conflicts of rights. I'd like to propose a simple question to explore:

Where do rights come from?

Since as IceMaiden so well summed up in post #502 (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showpost.php?p=348799&postcount=502), this boils down to a conflict of rights: the "right to privacy" of the pregnant woman vs. the "right to life" of the being in the womb. All the other arguments ("innocent babies", "Oppressive patriarchy", "government intervention", etc.) are marshalled around this pivotal qustion. That being the case, is it worth looking at where we understand rights as coming from? Might that at least help us to at least frame our discussion with more focus, if not actually come to agreement on some points?

So where to rights come from? What is their wellspring? And how to morals play in?

It seems clear to me, and to Lewis as well, that morality is there to safeguard rights. That's what morals do - protect rights. Think about it: I should not steal because my neighbor has a right to keep his property. I should honor my mother and father because they have a right to be respected for what they have done for me. These examples are easy.

Where it gets more difficult to see the connection between morals and rights is when the line of connection gets long and a little abstract. I shouldn't covet? What's wrong with coveting? Well, coveting breeds dissatisfaction, and not only can dissatisfaction eventually lead me to other moral transgressions, but it also makes me a bitter and thankless person. I shouldn't take the girl up the road for a tumble in the hay? What's wrong with a little fun? Well, first it endangers the rights of the child we may be creating (who has a right to a stable, loving family with both parents present), but it also affects how I view the girl up the road. I have a harder time viewing her as a precious, valuable person in her own right and not a toy for my pleasure.

My point is this: take any moral law at all, and you'll be able to trace it back to some right that needs protection. It may take a bit of thinking, but it's there. And, as Lewis so lucidly demonstrates in the opening chapters of Mere Christianity (as well as the appendix to Abolition of Man), all men in all cultures have recognized the same basic core of morality - which means they've all recognized the same basic rights of man. (As Lewis also observes, history has been one long story of men violating that basic core of morality, and hence one another's rights - but exploring that would take us too far afield.)

The reason I'm making such hay of this connection between rights and morality is that in the past century or so, it has become quite vogue in the West to say that morals are relative - that they're constructed by people within cultures, and can be reworked by people in cultures to suit their fancy. Lewis puts a great big stake through the heart of this idea in Mere Christianity, so I won't go into it here, but the connection I want to make is that it seems to me that some people steeped in this type of thinking have taken the "relative morals" bit just a step further and are applying it to rights.

What do I mean? Well, in Parthian King's post #510 (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showpost.php?p=348971&postcount=510), he eloquently lays out the Judeo-Christian understanding of the basis for rights: Jews and Christians believe that God has told men that they are not common beasts, but that each one bears the image of God and is thus infinitely valuable. This value is the basis of every man's rights.

But what if someone doesn't believe in the Judeo-Christian revelation? Where does that leave them? The modern response to the idea of man bearing the image of God might be something like, "Well, that's very well for you, but I don't believe God said that - in fact, I may not even believe there is a God." If that's the case, what is the foundation for any rights? On what basis does anyone say, "all men have rights?" Even the authors of the Declaration of Independence, which was formed out of the thinking of the Enlightenment which was by no means Christian, appealed to the Creator as the basis for human rights: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

So I guess that's the question I'd like to toss out there for discussion: where do rights come from? It doesn't make much sense to hack back and forth about weak rights vs. strong rights when we haven't an understanding of where rights come from. And if one doesn't acknowledge something like the image of God in each man, then what is the basis for the discussion of rights? Do we say that each society or culture makes up their own? If so, how could we condemn another culture for violating our definition of rights?

Thoughts? Input?

[inkspot]

LOL ... I will now refer you to the Mere Christianity reading group Thread, stickied at the top of this Forum ... Jack Lewis already said anything I could say here, a lot better. :)

[LifeMaiden]

Do you honestly think, however, that reversing Roe Vs. Wade will truly cut down on the number of abortions? POTW pointed out clearly in one of his posts that another pervasive attitude of pro-choicers is that " Well even if you make it illegal it's going to happen anyways." And while we know it's true it's against the law to beat your wife among many other crimes, which 'still happen anyways,'...interestingly, if one looks at the demographics of where abortion clinics are located and how many are in each state, as it is, many of the conservative states in the Midwest and the Bible Belt have very few abortion clinics. I remember Kentucky had ONE for the whole state.

There must be dozens of them in California, Oregon and Washington ( California I am pretty sure would always keep it legal if Roe vs Wade were reversed as would a handful of others) . I am not using the premise that ' well if we make it illegal it'll happen anyways' as an argument, but we also know that unfortunately, the numbers of abortion may not seriously be hampered or diminished.


POTW mentioned that pro-choicers and those who want abortion to be legal overexaggerated the number of 'back alley deaths' which is probably true, because I do know older women who, when abortion was clearly illegal ( before Roe vs Wade) had safe abortions from medical doctors in clinics, offices and hospitals, and certainly didn't 'die' from it. I read a statistic where in 1968, over 600,000 abortions were performed by doctors, and probably very few of those ended in the woman having complications or dying from it.

So perhaps what I am saying is...are pro-lifers then advocating a reversal of Roe Vs Wade as a symbolic and moral way to declare abortion a terrible and inhumane act of taking a life, while also acknowledging that many abortions will still continue to be performed in those states which continue to keep it legal?

More staggering statistics: In 1992 when I was in college, one of my professors was very clearly pro-life. ( US history teacher). He mentioned that since Roe vs Wade and up til 1992, over 22 million abortions were performed. 22 million!!!

[LifeMaiden]

LOL ... I will now refer you to the Mere Christianity reading group Thread, stickied at the top of this Forum ... Jack Lewis already said anything I could say here, a lot better. :)


I was so mad when I went to both Borders and Barnes and Noble. They didn't have Mere Christianity. I have to order it from Amazon.com and or go to a Christian bookstore here.

[inkspot]

are pro-lifers then advocating a reversal of Roe Vs Wade as a symbolic and moral way to declare abortion a terrible and inhumane act of taking a life, while also acknowledging that many abortions will still continue to be performed in those states which continue to keep it legal?
In the same way laws against child abuse are a moral way to declare that harming or killing a child is a terrible and inhumane act, while acknowledging that many people will still continue to abuse their children.

Yes, the laws have a moral framework by which we can judge a society: the intent of this law would be at least to give lip service to the idea that it is wrong to take a human life. But the law would also have an impact on the number of children lost to abortion; it would not be merely a symbolic law, because it would close down abortion clinics, and doctors, if they continued to provide them, would know they were breaking the law and would be stopped if they were discovered.

I don't know if the 600,000 a year figure was accurate before Roe v. Wade, but according to the Guttmacher Institute, in 2002 about 1.3 million abortions toook place in the USA, and if the information at Physicians-for-life-dot-org is correct, this is a huge jump from the pre-Roe days:

Cates and Rochat (1976), utilizing a lower estimate of 30 maternal deaths per 100,000 illegal abortions, state that there were only about 130,000 illegal abortions in 1972, one year before Roe v. Wade, when legal abortion was available only in a few larger cities.

Two surveys asking women about their experience with abortion also indicate that the “1 million illegal abortions per year” estimate is much too high. Analyzing the combined results from these polls, Henshaw and Martire (1982) note: “Most of the abortions obtained by women under age 35 would have occurred after abortion was legalized nationally, while the majority of abortions obtained by women over 35 would have been illegal.”

Four percent of the older women and 14% of the younger women reported having had abortions, an increase of 350% in abortions after legalization. Allowing for underreporting of illegal abortions, Henshaw and Martire (1982) estimate that 4 million women over age 35 and alive at that time had an illegal abortion. Hence, the “1 million illegal abortions per year” claim is much too high, since it would have produced the 4 million figure in just 4 to 6 years, allowing for repeat abortions, and would have resulted in a much higher total than 4 million women.

Finally, the most comprehensive study done suggests that the best estimate of the total number of abortions (legal + illegal) occurring in 1966, before any laws changed, is about 125,000 (McKnight 1992 – 124,342). Since permissive laws began to be passed in 1967, therefore, induced abortions have increased 10 to 12 fold. The idea that prior to Roe v. Wade thousands of women died each year from illegal abortions is a myth.

I know the quote is a little difficult to follow, but basically using several studies and statistics formulas based on what information we do have, and allowing that illegal abortions were mostly unreported back before Roe, they still have a figure of less than 200K illegal abortions per year prior to Roe.

And now over a million a year. Making the procedure legal across the board in the USA has increased the tragedy at least five fold. Making it illegal has the potential to reduce it at least that much, wouldn't you think? It's not just a symbolic law; it would have life-saving consequences.

[Parthian King]

Exactly, Ink. The other factor is the "law=morally sanctioned" mentality running about. Without any other compass, many, many people see the law of the land as a direct reflection of what is morally acceptable (see overjoyed's first post). As incredible as it may sound, people actually say, "If it's legal, that means it cannot be immoral." To pass a law banning abortion, even a limited law, would make a statement about right and wrong just like, say, child pornography laws do.

[overjoyed]

Without any other compass, many, many people see the law of the land as a direct reflection of what is morally acceptable (see overjoyed's first post).after all that has happened, i hope you are not suggesting that i do not have a moral compass other than the law. if it sounds like i am repeating myself, i am. there are ways to determine right and wrong that have nothing to do with law, and i have not used the law to determine the morality of some action.

prima facie, it looks like there is a lot of talking going on. i say things and you say things and he says things and she says things, but are we really having a discussion? i'm tempted to say no. the question was asked, some time ago, about where rights come from and how to tell if rights are real. that question was answered. euphrates said that rights are grounded in nature, and that is a very common position among modern ethicists. he also gave conditions for a right to be real.

the response was to say that we mean "rights" differently. the christian worldview is that rights come from god and how he made us. so tell me, how are we to objectively determine what rights are real and what rights are imaginary according to the christian view of rights? we are all talking about rights--both sides. you cannot argue against the pro-choice side by saying that there is no objective way to determine rights and then give a view of rights in which there is no objective way to determine rights.

i gave an argument for abortion being an acceptable option. that argument came down to the claim that there is no objective way to determine what rights are real and what rights are imaginary. then euphrates gave an explanation of rights with an objective way to determine real rights that follows. then you disagreed with that explanation of rights and proceed to give a different explanation that does not include what you were so concerned about previously--and objective way to determine rights.

so, according to the christian worldview of rights, is there a right to have a male child--even though god can make a person sterile? is there a right to die, even though god has brought people to heaven without dying? is there a right to do whatever you want, even though god commands that we do not do certain things? is there a right to life, even though god commanded the isrealites to kill people? how do you determine such rights objectively? what is your criteria? how do you know who has these rights, objectively?

forgive me if i sound like i am "harping", but there are many people here questioning my position while defending each other. this makes it so that i have to answer a lot of questions (most of which can be answered through a closer reading of what i have already said) and am usually on the defensive. there have been many claims and arguments that i have answered, and they all get kicked to the curb in favor of the newest claim thrown at me. it is quite frustrating to be making such progress only to get pounded by different things without anyone admiting that my argument was good or admiting that they were wrong about that thing specifically. so imagine my happiness when (with the help of euphrates) we get to a fully cached argument and a theory of rights that is very strong! i was thrilled, especially since it happened in the middle of a bunch of fighting (from everyone). now that things have calmed and we are back on track, the response to the whole argument is "we mean different things." very disappointing, especially when you have not even met the demands that you placed on my argument.

[LifeMaiden]

In the same way laws against child abuse are a moral way to declare that harming or killing a child is a terrible and inhumane act, while acknowledging that many people will still continue to abuse their children.

Yes, the laws have a moral framework by which we can judge a society: the intent of this law would be at least to give lip service to the idea that it is wrong to take a human life. But the law would also have an impact on the number of children lost to abortion; it would not be merely a symbolic law, because it would close down abortion clinics, and doctors, if they continued to provide them, would know they were breaking the law and would be stopped if they were discovered.

I don't know if the 600,000 a year figure was accurate before Roe v. Wade, but according to the Guttmacher Institute, in 2002 about 1.3 million abortions toook place in the USA, and if the information at Physicians-for-life-dot-org is correct, this is a huge jump from the pre-Roe days:


I know the quote is a little difficult to follow, but basically using several studies and statistics formulas based on what information we do have, and allowing that illegal abortions were mostly unreported back before Roe, they still have a figure of less than 200K illegal abortions per year prior to Roe.

And now over a million a year. Making the procedure legal across the board in the USA has increased the tragedy at least five fold. Making it illegal has the potential to reduce it at least that much, wouldn't you think? It's not just a symbolic law; it would have life-saving consequences.


Very interesting as that is a very different set of quotes and statistics than I got long ago. Women definitely did die giving themselves abortions, that in itself is not a myth, though I believe the numbers are exaggerated by the pro-choice side. I've seen photos of women who tried to induce their own abortions and it is gruesome sight, any more than photos of aborted fetuses.

If the number of abortions are reduced by the reversal of Roe Vs Wade it may be due to increased use and much more careful use of birth control. But women would still flock to the states where it is kept legal.

[Parthian King]

i'm troubled by the amount of sin-murder talk that i've read here. abortion is not murder b/c it is not against the law.--Post 337
i have not used the law to determine the morality of some action.--Post 524
OJ, I simply have a difficult time reconciling these two statements, unless the latter is a recantation of the first. If it is, I welcome it. I was, in fact, making an observation, not a hostile accusation. You are not the first I have run into that makes such an argument, and not only about abortion but about many things in today’s society. There are people who argue that pornography such as Playboy is perfectly moral (not only because it involves “consenting adults,” but because it is legal), while child pornography is not (because there are laws against it). As POTW has pointed out, both are immoral because they objectify and demean human beings made in the image of God—a stand that has nothing to do with their legality. My point is/was simply that people do in fact look to the law (to one degree or another) to help determine their own morality, and if your first statement does not reflect this, I don’t know what it does reflect.

As for your statement about us not having a discussion, see my statement about people with different definitions of rights being like ships passing in the fog. Perhaps you and I agree on something after all. But as far a Euphrates’ success in establishing anything whatsoever, I think you ought to go back to the drawing board, OJ. He contradicted himself as a matter of course and never established the standard by which nature and common sense should be interpreted. The fact that nobody could exactly figure out where he stood on the issue being debated is rather telling (you yourself should probably be unsettled by the fact that he claimed to be pro-life).

As far as the “real” vs. “imagined” rights issue, I’ll let POTW handle that, since he posed the question. But I will answer this much: Those categories are red herrings in the Christian worldview. I’m not sure where they come into the discussion at all even without God in the picture. They appear to be “imagined” categories as far as I am concerned.

so, according to the christian worldview of rights, is there a right to have a male child--even though god can make a person sterile? is there a right to die, even though god has brought people to heaven without dying? is there a right to do whatever you want, even though god commands that we do not do certain things? is there a right to life, even though god commanded the isrealites to kill people? how do you determine such rights objectively? what is your criteria? how do you know who has these rights, objectively?

This I will answer. In relation to absolute questions that relate directly to God’s sovereignty, human beings have no rights. Their place is to joyfully submit. If God would have me have all girls, all boys, no children, or ten children, I say “Amen.” If God takes my life young, or old, or comes to take me from this earth before my body reverts to dust, I say “Amen.” There is certainly not the right to do whatever we want, which was the gist of my argument. And as for God’s commands to fight and kill in certain Old Testament passages, I will answer your question with a question: Will you really parallel the purposes of Almighty God, about which He owes no mortal any explanation at all (though in His merciful condescension often gives it anyway) with the decision of a couple of 17-year olds who got pregnant and now don’t want to be inconvenienced with the consequences of their own actions?

The issue, OJ, is not “objectivity,” because there is no such thing. As I said, no one gets to watch the fight from the crow’s nest; we are in the scrap, swinging away and entertaining presuppositions. The issue is truth. Objectivity is a chimera.

I am sorry for your frustration. But y’know, you signed onto a C.S. Lewis website. And we Lewis fans have a tendency to be a lot like him (or at least we aim to be): Intellectual, conservative, debate-loving Christians who don’t have a lot of use for specious arguments. It should not surprise you that you feel outnumbered—it’s sort of the nature of the place you chose to come to. For my part, I can say that you don’t seem to answer the questions put to you, but keep insisting that abortion is its own realm, while refusing to see where your conclusions take things. But that’s just me. I’ll let others speak where they may about your most recent assertions.

[LifeMaiden]

"Abortion is not murder because it's not against the law"


Well, I have to disagree with that argument. Let's take that statement away from the abortion argument for a second here and try to apply it to other aspects of society. Just because something isn't against the law doesn't mean it's okay to do it.

Going back to the statistics posted by the physicians for life site, how do we know, on both sides, that these so-called 'medical' statistics are even true? Each side will try to argue something using 'medical' finds. In 1992 when I did my abortion debate, I wish I could go back through my old papers and find the source I used to quote that 600,000 abortions occured in 1968. Pro-choicers could also just as easily overexaggerate those facts just as pro-life doctors could underexaggerate the number of women who died from abortions or the actual number of abortions being performed when it was illegal.

Just as some of those pregnancy crisis centers in Kentucky used medical scare tactics and had data on paper to 'show' that women got cancer from abortions ( breast and uterine cancer) and that abortion 'punctured the uterus in almost all cases of abortion", or " if you have one abortion you might never be able to have children again..." to 'scare' the women off from having abortions, how were these women to really believe those medical 'facts' given to them at this clinic were true? Pro-life physicians even tried to state that breast cancer was linked to abortion and was discovered to be unfounded and untrue probably by those who support pro-choice. How can we seperate the truth from untruths in the medical world?

[Parthian King]

It's tough, Ice Maiden. If the 20th century taught us anything, it was that the positivism of the late 19th century (i.e., that humankind was progressing by leaps and bounds, largely due the actions of people wearing white lab coats) proved nightmarishly flawed. Those white coats brought us some good things, true. But they also brought us atomic warfare and drug-resistant strains of desease. Those folks in white lab coats are no more objective than we plebs on the street.

The abortion debate is passionate. There's a lot at stake (like civilization--even for those who favor it). My dad used to say, "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure." Statistics can be used in very, er, imaginative ways. And when the stakes are so high, sooner or later there will be folks who say that the ends justify the means when it comes to telling their side of the story and convincing others.

This is why I try to come from the perspective of trying to find what truth is, and then argue for action (either at a personal level or a national one) based on that. That truth about what happens in an abortion--to child, mother, and father, as well as the rest of society--applies in the case of one abortion as well as with many. Obviously, the harvest will be the more bitter with the horrendous numbers we are racking up, as you yourself have intimated.

[overjoyed]

OJ, I simply have a difficult time reconciling these two statements, unless the latter is a recantation of the first. If it is, I welcome it. I was, in fact, making an observation, not a hostile accusation. murder--abortion--murder--abortion--we can talk about those two things without talking about the morality of each. i talked about them as legal issues, as opposed to moral issues. first, i tell you one way that abortion is not always "murder". this does not determine the morality of abortion. that is another issue. it just says that abortion is not murder. the morality of abortion is separate and i am dealing with it without appeal to laws. why do i keep responding to these "observations" when a closer reading would solve everything?

My point is/was simply that people do in fact look to the law (to one degree or another) to help determine their own morality, and if your first statement does not reflect this, I don’t know what it does reflect.my first statement is not about morality. look at it again. do you see me say "good" or "bad" or "wrong" or "right" (as opposed to wrong)? no. please try reading things that i say more charitably. you are adding things into what i say.

As for your statement about us not having a discussion, see my statement about people with different definitions of rights being like ships passing in the fog. Perhaps you and I agree on something after all. my point was that i am the only one doing the answering. when i ask questions, they get tabled or answered with questions. and it's not that we have different definitions of rights, as i now understand your definition, because the christian worldview (as you claim) doesn't believe we have any rights.

He contradicted himself as a matter of course and never established the standard by which nature and common sense should be interpreted. The fact that nobody could exactly figure out where he stood on the issue being debated is rather telling i was getting lost in the mess of the odd questions and strange interpretations of what i had said before euphrates posted. in my eyes, he clarified things and gave my argument what it needed to be complete. if he contradicted himself, i'm sure it is just like you cannot see how my two statements before can be reconciled. he abandoned the idea of common sense and adopted objective conditions. it is a shame he was run-out.

In relation to absolute questions that relate directly to God’s sovereignty, human beings have no rights. so there is no right to life? there are no rights at all? and when someone has an abortion, it is bad because the baby was in the image of god? so why is it ok to kill a convicted murderer who is in the image of god? why did god require some people to kill others who are also in the image of god? and please, do not answer my questions with another question. if you don't know, just say it.

The issue, OJ, is not “objectivity,” because there is no such thing. As I said, no one gets to watch the fight from the crow’s nest; we are in the scrap, swinging away and entertaining presuppositions. The issue is truth. Objectivity is a chimera.then why was it the pro-life side that was asking so intently that there be some objective standard for rights? if it is a chimera, why was it so important before?

For my part, I can say that you don’t seem to answer the questions put to you, but keep insisting that abortion is its own realm, while refusing to see where your conclusions take things.i don't answer questions? that's not true. it's different if you don't understand the answers. i fully accept the conclusions of my argument. but usually the things you want me to accept are not from my argument.

[Parthian King]

OJ, I'll address the first couple of tit for tats, both to respond to them and to illustrate where I and others feel that you are on things and how you reason (including to some extent IM, who is a pro-choicer who disagrees with your statement as well):

There is no way to read (closely or not) "i'm troubled by the amount of sin-murder talk that i've read here. abortion is not murder b/c it is not against the law" without determining that you are saying anything other than abortion's legality prevents us from calling it murder or sin. It is what you said. This is why POTW calls your arguments sophistry--a use of language in a willy-nilly fashion with no responsiblity for the inevitable fallout simply because you want to reach a desired point. I did not make this statement, using a hyphenation to connect murder with sin (sin being by definiton a moral judgment). You did. If you want to recant it, that's great. It's easy, just say, "Just because abortion's legal doesn't mean it's not sin, and doesn't mean it's not murder; I did not mean that, and I take it back if you'll allow me to." For my part, I allow you to. But you cannot make statements like this (and others) then get angry because they keep popping back up in the discussion. Take responsibility for what you say. Then the discussion can move forward.

For you to keep on like this, refusing to see the meaning in your very own statements, does indeed make one ask (to quote you) "are we really having a discussion?" With you, I am equally tempted to conclude that we are not.

EDIT: OK, I'll have to handle this one, too:

In relation to absolute questions that relate directly to God’s sovereignty, human beings have no rights.

so there is no right to life? there are no rights at all? and when someone has an abortion, it is bad because the baby was in the image of god? so why is it ok to kill a convicted murderer who is in the image of god? why did god require some people to kill others who are also in the image of god? and please, do not answer my questions with another question. if you don't know, just say it.

Did I say there is no right to life at all? I said "In relation to absolute questions that relate directly to God’s sovereignty, human beings have no rights," that's all I said, and I stand by it. God is the one who determines the right to death and life. If God determines that one should live (most commonly evidenced by the reality that they are in fact alive), then no mortal may say, "you shall die" to that one, just as if God says, "you shall die" to someone, no one has the right to say "let this one live." The point is that for the Christian (which was what the question concerned) it is God and God alone who makes the call. As for those who are put to death by man at the command of God (i.e., in a war in the Old Testament), that is, as I said (before, and again just now) God's call. Who are you to question God? Are they not His creatures, made of His hand? That is my very point--God calls the shots. The baby in the womb is His creation--if it is stillborn, ultimately that is His call. If it breathes still, then don't kill it--it is His child. God makes the call. The human being's "right to life" is strengthened by the fact that it is grounded in God's granting of that life--not weakened as you suggest that I am saying.

As for capital punishment for murderers, that in itself has to do with imago dei. Genesis 9:6 says "“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." The one who murders has forfeited their God-given right to live because they have usurped God's authority over life and death, and God here delegates the authority to human society to exercise capital punishment upon such criminals--not in violation of imago dei, but because of it. (This, of course, is to answer OJ's question; it is not a commentary on how just modern societies are in carrying this ideal out.) Thus the biblical stand on capital punishment for murder is based upon God's sovereignty over human life and is in no way anomalous to it.

Since you don't like questions for questions, I'll say it outright: There is no comparision, no parallel, no equivalency between mortal humans who for their own sinful reasons want to kill their unborn child, and Almighty God, Creator of all, Author of life, and Judge of the souls of all people. If He chooses life or death for us, it is His place--and only His place. If we do it based upon our selfish, fallen morality, it is a perversion that will bring death.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

OJ, we seem to be back in the morass of questions about rights. I've got a simple question for you: where do you think rights come from? You've said that you contend that both mothers and unborn children have rights. What is the source of those rights?

I asked this question at more length in my post #518 (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showpost.php?p=349524&postcount=518), but perhaps the question got lost in the explanation.

So please: what's your answer. I'm not interested in what you think of somebody else's view of rights, or how you think other people are hypocritical about their view of rights, I'm interested in your definition.

Where do you think human rights come from?

[inkspot]

OJ, I know you think Euphrates answered this when he said real rights come from nature -- like it's an "imagined" right to say "I have the right to fly into the center of the sun!" because you can't do that.

But Euphrates went away before asnwering PK's question about whether he hadn't mixed up "rights" with "possibilities." He defined anything possible in nature as a real right, and anything impossible as an imaginary right, but that doesn't make sense, that's just a definition of what can and can't be done; he wasn't saying anything about rights, he was just defining right as coming from the laws of physics. Is this what you believe?

If not, then perhaps you could tell us where rights come from.

Previously in this Thread, we had decided Christians would not use their faith as a reason to be against (or for) abortion, recognizing that not all people here are Christians. I don't mind if we now discard that rule and move into a discussion of the faith, but I wonder if it needs to move to another Thread? One about morality/rights/ethics in general, rather than abortion specifically?

We can start a new Thread or resurrect an old one on such a topic if we want to, and leave this one for an abortion-specific discussion.

OJ, I am sorry if you feel that your questions have been sidestepped.

I myself had intended several questions for you (or anyone who had the answers) in this post #494:
http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showpost.php?p=348543&postcount=494

I did not see your specific response, so if you would like to take a look and explain those to me again, I will attempt to understand and dialog without getting sidetracked.

Let me say I agree with PK: as far as my rights go, they come from God, and are in his hands. I see no right for me to have any particular thing except as God has given me such a right. For which rights humans have in relation to one another, I consult the Scriptures and find many important rules for how to treat other people, and these rules help define our rights. Not surprisingly, the right to an abortion is not mentioned.

So in a way, yes, rights are a moot point to the Christian, as they all proceed from God, and what He wants for me is what I want. But rights are also very real, in that God has assigned them to us ... so there are "real" rights which Christians believe in. hence the entire "right to life" debate. We just believe these rights come from God.

[Parthian King]

Previously in this Thread, we had decided Christians would not use their faith as a reason to be against (or for) abortion, recognizing that not all people here are Christians. I don't mind if we now discard that rule and move into a discussion of the faith, but I wonder if it needs to move to another Thread?

Inkspot, I really do agree with this. And it was never my intention to push the debate onto those grounds. In my post (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showpost.php?p=348971&postcount=510) discussing the Christian worldview of rights, I attempt to make the disclaimer that I was not trying to convince from that position, only explain what it was and its pervasiveness in the midset of the Christians participating in the discussion (and therefore the unavoidable nature of theism vs. secularism that is plaguing our definitions of terms). When OJ asked for further explanation, I obliged.

I believe that if OJ answers POTW's question directly, the discussion will proceed within the bounds that you have expressed as most desirable.

[overjoyed]

Where do you think human rights come from?sorry, i thought i made it clear that i agree with euphrates about this. rights come from nature. and i agree with his objective standard for rights.

I believe that if OJ answers POTW's question directly, the discussion will proceed within the bounds that you have expressed as most desirable.let's hope so.

there are rights. even under the worldview that parthian king offers, god grants rights and people can forfeit rights. well, how do we tell if someone has a right? how do we tell if a right is real? if there is no objective way to determine which rights exist, then there is no way to have any discussion of rights at all because people can simply create their own rights to fit their situations. my view is that rights come from nature, and a real right is something that nature cannot violate. the only other view of objectivity is that it is a chimera--and from the same side that insisted on having an objective way to determine rights in the first place.

a dialogue--act 1--
me: is there a right to life, even though god commanded the isrealites to kill people?
pk: Will you really parallel the purposes of Almighty God, about which He owes no mortal any explanation at all (though in His merciful condescension often gives it anyway) with the decision of a couple of 17-year olds who got pregnant and now don’t want to be inconvenienced with the consequences of their own actions?
me: why did god require some people to kill others who are also in the image of god? and please, do not answer my questions with another question.
pk: There is no comparision, no parallel, no equivalency between mortal humans who for their own sinful reasons want to kill their unborn child, and Almighty God, Creator of all, Author of life, and Judge of the souls of all people. If He chooses life or death for us, it is His place--and only His place. If we do it based upon our selfish, fallen morality, it is a perversion that will bring death.
ink: Previously in this Thread, we had decided Christians would not use their faith as a reason to be against (or for) abortion, recognizing that not all people here are Christians.
pk: I really do agree with this. And it was never my intention to push the debate onto those grounds.

my point is that your entire argument is based on and cannot be separated from your religious views. the image of god. author of life. "Who are you to question God?" you can't filter faith out of your argument. i'm using rights and objectivity and you are using faith and god.

inkspot, post 494, you had four questions. the first, about the need for an objective standard, was answered with the objective standardin post 496. the second, about weakening rights, was also answered in post 496, but i can give it a shot. the case of the violinist is meant to provide a case other than abortion where someone's right to live can be a threat to someone else's rights. the granny and the murderer were threats to the right to live, but the baby is a threat to another right--the right to autonomy. the third, about why rights aren't violated after birth, was directly answered in post 496. the fourth, never asked a question, but was addressed (well) in post 496. like i said--euphrates was helpful. i was overwhelmed and he did a lot of work for me.

about "sin-murder", this is ridiculous. read the post like this: i'm...about the amount of murder talk that is happening. abortion isn't murder because it isn't against the law. i'm also...about the amount of sin talk that is happening. ok? i didn't say, nor did i ever mean to say, that the law is a good way to determine morality. i have denied that multiple times. it was you who kept telling me that i thought law was important.

even in the bible, rights are mentioned. the rights of the firstborn. the rights of the poor. the rights of an apostle. inheritance rights. what are these rights and how are we to tell who has them? how can we operate in the world if we do not know which rights people have? if god grants the rights, then only he knows who has rights and which rights they have. how can we say "you are wrong" if we do not know that god has granted them that right?

last thing--i said previously that it was frustrating to be the constant target of questions that never seemed to end. and that it is also frustrating when i give good answers and show arguments to be wrong, but no one ever admits that their arguments were wrong. also when i ask questions that get side-stepped in favor of a new question thrown at me. so i'd like to end with a few reminders:
"do you see me say "good" or "bad" or "wrong" or "right" (as opposed to wrong)? no."
"then why was it the pro-life side that was asking so intently that there be some objective standard for rights? if it is a chimera, why was it so important before?"

[Parthian King]

my point is that your entire argument is based on and cannot be separated from your religious views. the image of god. author of life. "Who are you to question God?" you can't filter faith out of your argument. i'm using rights and objectivity and you are using faith and god.

You and I agree, OJ, that we as Christians are using faith in God as a part of our argument, or at very least it indelibly forms that which motivates us. That was my very point--I argued it before you did (in fact, that's why I brought it up at all--not to convince by it, but to point out its realities).

Where I--and any honest atheist along with me--would disagree is that you operate with any amount of "objectivity" at all. As I have said to another, you cannot both a plaintiff and an arbiter be. You are a mortal, you have a stake in the game (apparently a very passionately held, personally grounded stake), and you have just as many presuppositions about values, humanity, society, and yes, religion and God as we do. Even if they are convictions that stand diametrically opposite to ours as Christians, they are nevertheless held the same way and function the same way within your life, i.e., coloring your views on essentially every life issue. Call them "values" if you will, or "morals," but they are there, and a failure to recognize that you hold them (and hold them most dear at that) would be one of the first things to disqualify you from any serious conceptual debate. Now, you may say, "My sense of values, my worldview currently is the dominant one that carries the day in our culture, so I will argue from that position." That may very well be true--and you could attempt that strategy. I would even consider that worthy of the challenge (at least it carries some transparent self-knowledge to it). But to say, in effect, "I have no worldview. I am above worldviews. I am objective." Well, that's the chimera I was talking about. The question is, what do your presuppositions consist of? And I believe that very soon POTW will be at your service to address your answers to his questions.

And as a point of clarification...

i'm troubled by the amount of sin-murder talk that i've read here. abortion is not murder b/c it is not against the law.

about "sin-murder", this is ridiculous. read the post like this: i'm...about the amount of murder talk that is happening. abortion isn't murder because it isn't against the law.

In other words, "read what I wrote without reading all that I wrote (especially the part about 'sin')." 'Nuf said, OJ. I'll take it as a recantation and call it even.

[overjoyed]

You and I agree, OJ, that we as Christians are using faith in God as a part of our argument i'm saying that faith is your argument, not part of your argument. if we were able to filter out the faith/religion from your argument there would be nothing left.

Where I--and any honest atheist along with me--would disagree is that you operate with any amount of "objectivity" at all. how is "a right is a real right if it cannot be violated by nature" not objective? and if it is not objective, it is subjective. but the standard is not subjective because anyone can plug any right into the standard to see if it is real. it is objective because it is based on observable phenomena.

whatever i personally believe is beside the point because my argument is not something that believes things. my argument is not based on the existence of rights. this is in contrast to your argument which is inseparable from beliefs and religion (as you and i both agree). the difference is that i believe some things and they have played a role in the creation of my argument, but my argument does not depend on my beliefs. this should be clear because one of the central points in my argument was provided by someone else, and it shaped my belief.

But to say, in effect, "I have no worldview. I am above worldviews. I am objective." Well, that's the chimera I was talking about. if that is the chimera you were talking about, then it was not in reference to anything i said. i said that we need objective standards such as the one euphrates provided, and you said that objectivity is a chimera. i have never even implied that i am personally objective, or that i have no worldview, or that i am above worldviews. this is absurd and needs to stop. i have only said that the standard provided by euphrates which i agree with is an objective standard--and should be provided by everyone who wants to talk about any rights.

In other words, "read what I wrote without reading all that I wrote (especially the part about 'sin')." 'Nuf said, OJ. I'll take it as a recantation and call it even.this actually made me laugh to myself. you quoted everything but the last (and most important) sentence in order to make this snarky remark. and, may i remind you that-- "do you see me say "good" or "bad" or "wrong" or "right" (as opposed to wrong)? no." let it go.

[LifeMaiden]

It's tough, Ice Maiden. If the 20th century taught us anything, it was that the positivism of the late 19th century (i.e., that humankind was progressing by leaps and bounds, largely due the actions of people wearing white lab coats) proved nightmarishly flawed. Those white coats brought us some good things, true. But they also brought us atomic warfare and drug-resistant strains of desease. Those folks in white lab coats are no more objective than we plebs on the street.

The abortion debate is passionate. There's a lot at stake (like civilization--even for those who favor it). My dad used to say, "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure." Statistics can be used in very, er, imaginative ways. And when the stakes are so high, sooner or later there will be folks who say that the ends justify the means when it comes to telling their side of the story and convincing others.

This is why I try to come from the perspective of trying to find what truth is, and then argue for action (either at a personal level or a national one) based on that. That truth about what happens in an abortion--to child, mother, and father, as well as the rest of society--applies in the case of one abortion as well as with many. Obviously, the harvest will be the more bitter with the horrendous numbers we are racking up, as you yourself have intimated.


Well, I definitely think that both sides can agree that since it has become legal, because of the access to clinics ( really, whether you live in a state which has one clinic or fifty isn't the issue I suppose), there have been MANY, MANY more abortions performed. I don't think that my old professor was exaggerating. If one million abortions are performed each year since Roe Vs Wade, and these are numbers I think everyone here can trust, since pro-choicers will not, or do not, deny the number of abortions performed each year, then that means about 30 million lives.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

sorry, i thought i made it clear that i agree with euphrates about this. rights come from nature. and i agree with his objective standard for rights.Okay, this is a start. But what, exactly, does "from nature" mean? And how can this guide our use of morality, which is there to safeguard rights?

For instance, you contend that though the unborn have rights, they are "weakened" with respect to the mother's rights, so if there is a "conflict of rights", the unborn loses not only the contest but her life.

On the other hand, you contend that, in the case of bucket babies, there is no "conflict of rights", and therefore to drown a child being born is immoral.

Clearly, your contention hinges on the idea that there is a "conflict of rights" in one case, but not in the other? What aspect of "nature" sheds light on this "conflict of rights"? What's "natural" about one but "unnatural" about the other?

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Well, I definitely think that both sides can agree that since it has become legal, because of the access to clinics ( really, whether you live in a state which has one clinic or fifty isn't the issue I suppose), there have been MANY, MANY more abortions performed. I don't think that my old professor was exaggerating. If one million abortions are performed each year since Roe Vs Wade, and these are numbers I think everyone here can trust, since pro-choicers will not, or do not, deny the number of abortions performed each year, then that means about 30 million lives.ACtually, the numbers vary between 1.3 and 1.6 million per year. That's from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, by the way, the "research" arm of Planned Parenthood, the largest for-profit abortion operation in the nation. The total abortions in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton now top 47 million, and that's not counting the abortions that took place in those states which legalized the practice before 1973.

[LifeMaiden]

POTW,

In one of your posts, you mentioned that abortion would not be part of an enlightened society. ( or rather, allowed in an enlightened society). What are some things in your opinion that constitute a truly enlightened society? Would you define some of the countries in the world in which abortion is illegal, such as Ireland and the Phillipines, as enlightened countries?


IM

[inkspot]

How is "a right is a real right if it cannot be violated by nature" not objective?

i have only said that the standard provided by euphrates which i agree with is an objective standard--and should be provided by everyone who wants to talk about any rights.
Ephinie answered this one back when: the right to autonomy was indeed violated by nature when the woman became pregnant. She did not want to have a baby, she had sex with no intention of making a baby, and yet nature planted a baby. So, the "right to autonomy" can indeed be violated by nature. Thus, the one right upon which you are basing your argument, and the one right which you say is stronger than the baby's "weakened' right to llive, has already been shown to be an imaginary right.

Euphrates argument that rights come from nature was flawed. He merely pointed out that nature limits us from doing some things, and concluded that those things it is impossible to do, we have no right to do. This is not an objective standard of what makes a legal right, this is a description of how the physical world works.

So, if you could be a little more specific/objective about where this right to autonomy comes from, or if you like, how to tell the difference between real rights and imaginary ones.

Next, you said Euphrates had answered my questions from post 494, but in fact, his answers were not comprehensive. I had asked, why does the right not to have done anything to my body I don't want done applied only to my womb, and not to the rest of me once the child is born. His answer:
You're right, inkspot. Abortion is a unique case. ... you'll just have to accept that abortion is special. The mother's right to autonomy is full. The baby's right to life is lessened by its dependent status. The right to life always wins if it is full, I guess.
He has merely said: it's different because it's different, and the baby's right to life is weakened because the baby's right to life is weakened. What I was asking was: why does the right to life (a pretty strong one!) give way to the mother's right to autonomy only while the baby is in the womb, when in fact any person with an unweildy dependent has lots of things happen to her body which she does not want to happen. (And for that matter, nature violates my right to have only what I want done to it evey day.)

Perhaps you think his further bizarre argument suffices:This is almost like saying that I ate a three month old bologna sandwich and now I am running to the bathroom every five minutes, but this violates my right not to subject my body to anything I don't want it subjected to. I made a choice to eat the sandwich, knowing that I'd probably get sick, and now I have to live with the consequences of my decision.
But surely this applies to the moment of conception: you made the choice at that point to get pregnant (that's what sex is for, even though it may not be what you wanted, but you knew full well it was a possibility). So this argument cannot apply only to abortion, it must apply to the consensual sex: you made the choice to do it, so you cannot now claim autonomy. Wouldn't you say?

Autonomy doesn't apply after the baby is born because it is separated from your body. After the birth, the baby is not interfering with your autonomy. And yet if I do not provide care for the child, and it dies, I am the one responsible! The moment the child draws breath in the world, I am to be punished if it doesn't thrive, so how has the bond been broken? This is a deceptive argument. The child is the mother's responsibility, and if she doesn't use her body to care for it, she will go to jail.

I had also asked how we, as a society, could not agree it was wrong to kill innocent people. You said Euphrates asnwered this:
If we know that Iran is going to attack us with nukes in the morning, most of us would say that it is ok to bomb the nuke silos at night even though there are a couple innocent security guards who would die. My point is that we are not using the standard that is is wrong to kill an innocent person. In most cases, yes. But standards are meant to be applied all the time to every case, which we have agreed is unreasonable. But Ephinie handled this one, too: in some cases, a choice has to be made to save the most lives possible (such as when the child's life endangers the mother), and in this case, the tragic termination of pregnacy is performed so at least one person can be saved from the mess. The same applies in the case of the security guards: to save the most llives possible, they are sacrificed. But the emphasis is on saving lives, not on ending life. How is abortion for the sake of convenience (or autonomy) anything but the taking of an innocent llife when there could have been two living people?

[overjoyed]

"from nature" = resulting from (or grounded in) the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized. this guides us by giving a way of determining what rights are real (as opposed to: they are real when i believe they are).

with abortion, we have two claimed rights conflicting. one is the mother's right to autonomy. to determine if this is a real right we plug it into the standards for a real right—a real right cannot be violated by nature. nature, as the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized, cannot violate a person's right to be self-determined/autonomous. therefore, the right is real. the other right is the baby's right to live. to determine if this is a real right we plug it into the standards for a real right—a real right cannot be violated by nature. nature, as the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized, cannot violate a person's right to live (as previously discussed). therefore, the right is real. so we have two rights. are they conflicting? the mother's right to autonomy says that she can decide what happens to her body, and since the baby is doing things to her body, she can choose to make it stop by having an abortion. but this action would violate the baby's right to life, because an abortion would end the baby's life. so, if the mother wishes to have an abortion, there is a conflict of rights. so now we have to weigh these rights to determine which is stronger. since all rights are grounded in nature, and all humans (being of the same nature) have all the same rights. therefore, two full rights cannot outweigh each other because they have equal weight. so one right must be weaker than the other right. the nature of the unborn baby is (in part) that it is alive, but only in a dependent state. that is to say, it does not have a full right to life because it would naturally die on its own. in contrast, the mother has a full right to autonomy because she is completely autonomous on her own. therefore, the mother's right is stronger than the baby's right and she has the option of aborting the baby if she chooses.

with "bucket babies", the conflict that existed in the abortion scenario no longer exists. during the pregnancy, the baby is doing all sorts of things to the mother's body. kicking, punching, taking nutrients, etc. and during pregnancy, the unborn baby is a part of the mother by nature because one of the essential characteristics of being an unborn baby is being attached to the mother. after the baby is born, it is not essential that the baby be attached anymore. there is no conflict anymore because the baby is no longer a threat to the mother's autonomy. the mother's right to autonomy says that she can decide what happens to her body, and since the baby is not doing things to her body by its nature anymore, there is no more conflict.

now that I have answered your questions, do you think you could answer my questions—the questions i asked before you?

the right to autonomy was indeed violated by nature when the woman became pregnant.nature did not do the violating. nature did not bring the conflict of rights. the mother was not just standing there and nature came and violated her autonomy. she did something or something was done to her by another person. the result of that action violated her autonomy. if you decide to jump off a building with no intention of dying and you die, it is not nature that violated a right.

He merely pointed out that nature limits us from doing some things, and concluded that those things it is impossible to do, we have no right to do. i don't think this is right. he showed how we cannot have a right to do the impossible, but it was more than that. he also showed that people do not have a real right to have a male child, because nature can violate that right. i think it reaches further than you admit. and, like i said, the standard is objective because it is not subjective--and it tells us how to find real rights--something i have not heard from anyone else (even you, who demanded an objective standard).

What I was asking was: why does the right to life (a pretty strong one!) give way to the mother's right to autonomy only while the baby is in the womb, when in fact any person with an unweildy dependent has lots of things happen to her body which she does not want to happen.hopefully i answered this earlier in my post. but euphrates did answer this directly in post 496, but his answer was not what you quoted. he quoted you and responded below the quote essentially saying "you use your autonomy to do all that".

And yet if I do not provide care for the child, and it dies, I am the one responsible! The moment the child draws breath in the world, I am to be punished if it doesn't thrive, so how has the bond been broken? This is a deceptive argument. The child is the mother's responsibility, and if she doesn't use her body to care for it, she will go to jail. as should be clear from my earlier explanation, there's not more autonomy-life conflict after the birth--at least not a conflict that can only be solved by violating a right. for example, after the birth, if you decide that you do not want to care for the baby anymore, you can file for adoption and give it to a loving family. but once you make the decision to have the baby, and once it is separated from you, there are responsibilities that you have toward the child that require you to care for it. if you don't want the responsibilities, adoption is an option where the responsibilities are given to other people.

But the emphasis is on saving lives, not on ending life.emphasis or not, there is still and innocent life taken. and you have determined that taking some innocent lives is ok because it is sometimes necessary or for the good of more people. "But once you start attaching riders to something as simple as "don't kill innocent people," I can't see that the morality means anything at all." is this not a rider--an exception to "don't kill innocent people", inkspot? isn't "unless it's going to save more people" a rider?

[onlymystory]

as someone fairly new to the discussion, would you mind posting just your questions? I'd love to post some thoughts but from what I can tell you want some questions answered. So if you could post just the questions I'd appreciate it. I don't want to jump ahead of anyone by skipping the current point of debate.

[overjoyed]

as someone fairly new to the discussion, would you mind posting just your questions? sure but they are questions about some particular things and are being asked of certain people (of which you might not be one).

"how can we operate in the world if we do not know which rights people have?"
"if god grants the rights, then only he knows who has rights and which rights they have. how can we say "you are wrong" if we do not know that god has granted them that right?"
"how is "a right is a real right if it cannot be violated by nature" not objective?"
"so tell me, how are we to objectively determine what rights are real and what rights are imaginary according to the christian view of rights?"

and here's a couple new ones: if you believe that rights exist, is it important to have an objective standard by which we can know what rights are real? and, is it important to have an objective way to weigh rights when they are in conflict?

[PrinceOfTheWest]

"from nature" = resulting from (or grounded in) the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized. this guides us by giving a way of determining what rights are real (as opposed to: they are real when i believe they are).By which something is recognized? By who? How? And in what matter recognized? Measured with a thermometer? Acknowledged by vote?

one is the mother's right to autonomy. to determine if this is a real right we plug it into the standards for a real right—a real right cannot be violated by nature. nature, as the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized, cannot violate a person's right to be self-determined/autonomous.Where on earth do you draw this conclusion from? If nature is any guide - buy which one must mean at least the basic human functions of food, clothing, and shelter, then the last thing anyone would be is "autonomous"! That's why humans band together - to provide mutual support so that they won't die! From the dawn of time people have been giving up their "right to be self-determined/autonomous" in order to form societies with others in order to survive and protect themselves! There have been people in cultures, such as the Old Scots, who provided members the opportunity to be self-determined and autonomous - it was known as "casting out", and it was done to incorrigable troublemakers. They were exiled to the hills, solo, to practice their self-determined autonomy - and were usually dead very shortly thereafter.

If "nature" is any guide at all, human have no "right to autonomy". If they band together in societies, thereby sacrificing total individualism to accommodate each other and reap the benefits of cooperation, then they might be able to simply survive. But this "right to autonomy" is found nowhere in nature.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

In one of your posts, you mentioned that abortion would not be part of an enlightened society. ( or rather, allowed in an enlightened society). What are some things in your opinion that constitute a truly enlightened society? Would you define some of the countries in the world in which abortion is illegal, such as Ireland and the Phillipines, as enlightened countries?This is a superb question, and goes to the heart of the debate.

Author and motivational speaker Steven Covey puts it well when he speaks of the "bigger Yes". He points out that if any of us are going to say "no" to something, particularly something good and desireable, its because we have a bigger "yes" within us that is what we're affirming even as we say "no" to the other good. An athelete who says "no" to the warm sheets and soft bed is doing so because he has a bigger "yes" to another good: the edge that the morning training brings. If I say "no" to pursuing a further relationship with the pretty young thing flirting with me at the party it's because I have a bigger "yes" within me to the integrity of my relationship with my wife and the integrity of my family. His point is that just having a "no" isn't good enough. You have to have a greater "yes" which you're striving for.

So if I'm going to say that we should be saying "no" to abortion on demand, then what's the "yes" behind it? If I understand your question correctly, that's what you'd like to hear. A culture that truly offered a "yes" to stand behind the "no" to abortion would be one where sexuality was reserved for an environment where each child was valued, welcomed, and provided for. The only proven structure that offers this is permanent monogamous marriage. This means the culture would also have to say "yes" to another pivotal thing: keeping promises. Once vows were made, they would have to be kept regardless of personal convenience.

Of course, families are very intimate environments. Much good can be done there, but that means much harm can also be done, including abuse and violence. The culture would have to give a firm "no" to that sort of behaviour, so the "yes" would have to be to self-control, valuing all people no matter how weak or burdensome they were, and an ethos of the stronger protecting the weaker instead of exploiting, abusing, or neglecting them. Nobody would raise violent hands against another, but certainly no man would ever raise a violent hand against a woman or child.

It goes without saying that people's basic rights would be protected, but a truly enlightened culture would go beyond that - people would honor one another as a matter of course. People would not only respect one another's property, they would do things like return items that were lost. People would not only not spread lies about one another, they would protect people's good names. In particular those not able to speak for themselves would find all around them people who would speak up for them, to insure they were fully part of this culture.

I understand that from your question, you were guessing that I'd offer another country's laws as an example. Sorry if I answered more "deeply" than you expected, but that's the only answer. If we're going to say "no" to abortion, we have to know what we're saying "yes" to. Furthermore, since abortion is a result of several violations of Tao, there is going to need to be more than one "yes". It isn't enough just to say, "you can't have abortions", you have to be able to say, "this is what you need to be doing instead".

Notice something here: very little of this framework could be legislated. A culture can pass a law to ban abortions, but it can't pass a law to force parents to cherish their children. It can pass a law that can force a man to pay child support, but it can't legislate a way to make him provide what children need from their fathers: protection, encouragement, and a deep sense of self-worth. Cultural attitudes and mores could accomplish a bit more, but even those can usually reach no further than visible actions. These changes need to be made individually and at the heart level - Tao needs to be internalized and used as a guide for all behaviour.

This is the point at which the cynics emerge from the woodwork to sneer, "This is rank utopianism! Sure, it would be great if everyone behaved themselves and made nice all the time, but this is the real world we live in! We have to come up with solutions that work for the reality we have to deal with rather than the one we'd like to have." Being a student of Tao, I am no utopian. I know full well that men fall short of these ideals routinely. But that does not mean that we should not understand the ideals, seek to internalize them ourselves, and urge others to as well. To settle for anything less would be folly.

What if automotive engineers thought like the cynics? What if automotive engineers said, "we know that if we ship maintenance guidelines with these cars, people are going to ignore them. They're going to forget to change the oil and not replace the filters and rarely swap out the spark plugs - so why bother?" What chance would we have? So they ship the maintenance guidelines, knowing that many will ignore them yet wanting to provide the way for people to keep their cars running, if only they will attend to what they are told. So it is with Tao - it is the most routinely ignored guideline in history, yet there it stands, calling us to proper behaviour. (Lewis writes about this with much greater clarity in the first chapters of Mere Christianity.)

Besides, the cynics aren't right. They sneer at utopianism, pointing out that utopian experiments have failed miserably, but what they don't mention is that the experiments that have failed have been the ones that have turned their backs on Tao. The big utopian experiments of the last three centuries, from the "liberty, equality, fraternity" of Revolutionary France through facism, socialism, and communism have all been attempts to turn from Tao and build societies based on romantic and idealized views of human nature. No student of Tao makes such mistakes. People will violate Tao, but the solution is not to discard Tao, or to violate it further. It is to return to Tao and strive to walk it again.

Men can change society for the better. In England at the turn of the 19th century, one man decided that his nation should not tolerate the slave trade. His name was William Wilberforce, and at the time he began his crusade, the slave trade was an unquestioned part of the British economy. Major moneyed interests had a lot at stake, and the city of Liverpool was a major center of slave shipping. Buy by appealing to Tao, and persevering, he began a movement that ended up not only halting the slave trade in all British possessions, but causing England to use her powerful Navy to halt all high seas shipments of slaves. He died before it was all enacted, but he made the change. He didn't listen to those who said, "But slavery has been with us throughout history! It's even in the Bible! You have to deal with the world as it is, William, not the world as you'd like it to be!" William had a giant "yes" within him - a society that respected all humans regardless of race. That's why he was able to say "no" so firmly and consistently to the injustice of slavery.

If we're going to resolve the issue of abortion, we can't just say "no" to it. We have to envision and reach for the "yes" that we want instead. It's already there, within our sight. The question is whether we will choose the deeper, longer lasting good of saying "yes" to keeping vows and cherishing children over the lesser, more immediately gratifying good of sexual irresponsibility.

[overjoyed]

By which something is recognized? By who? How? And in what matter recognized? Measured with a thermometer? Acknowledged by vote? here i am again--answering all the questions. and there you are--asking the questions and answering none of mine. these questions are irrelevant. by whomever has the capacity to recognize. however the ability to recognize works. stick to the issue. it's time to answer my questions.

Where on earth do you draw this conclusion from? If nature is any guide - buy which one must mean at least the basic human functions of food, clothing, and shelter...this is not the definition of nature that i gave.

That's why humans band together - to provide mutual support so that they won't die! From the dawn of time people have been giving up their "right to be self-determined/autonomous" in order to form societies with others in order to survive and protect themselves! so societies cannot consist of autonomous individuals? why? people who are cooperating do not need to have given up their rights to be self-determined. and from the "dawn of time" people have been using their autonomy to make their own decisions in order to survive. autonomy is not the same as banishment. and "casting out" violates autonomy because it determines something against the will of the individual and prevents them from returning.

But this "right to autonomy" is found nowhere in nature.since rights are grounded in the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized, it is clear that autonomy is natural in all humans. a human without autonomy/self-determination is not a human, but a robot. and according to the objective standard for rights, the right to autonomy is a real right.

really--it's time for my questions to be answered. we're all trying to find out what's the deal with abortion. is it always ok, and why? is it never ok, and why? when is abortion ok, and when is it wrong, and why? i have given my position. i have given my explanation and justification. i have answered critical questions. where is another position? where is its justification and explanation? where are the answers to critical questions?

[LifeMaiden]

The cynicism that appears to be rampant in many societies is in ways the cause of the moral decay, at least that's what it appears to me. " Well we don't live in a perfect world...well it's not reality...well, who cares, what can I do about it..." if more individuals would strive to make the world and society a better place, the closer we would be to enlightenment. I found myself echoing the sentiments of cynicism many, many times, even to this very day.


But then I found myself thinking, more and more often, which prompted me to action and not just complaint....since SO MANY people appear to have a cynical view of the world, nothing is ever accomplished by that view. The goodness of people seems to be bought out in times of great catastrophe and disaster. We see outpourings of humanity when other humans become victims. Why is it that we cannot demonstrate this same humanity in the same numbers and enthusiasm in every day life rather than when something horrible happens?

One of my reasonings was, well I'll just donate money to my favorite charities when I die ( since I have no children and no one 'person' I'd want to leave my things to)...so I don't have to 'volunteer' or whatever. But money is weak in the face of speaking out and volunteering, all of which don't require money. I do donate though :D to my favorite causes.



This goes off a bit on another topic other than abortion, but it could be used as a comparison in a way. Remember the Kitty Genovese case in New York City, where this young woman was raped and murdered before people's eyes, none of whom attempted to stop the rape and murder, none of whom called the police or 911, none who did a single thing. Their reasoning was, " Why should I get involved? Why should I care? " They may have acted out of fear as well...but to me, true courage doesn't mean you don't feel afraid...it means you ACT OUT and SPEAK OUT even when you ARE afraid. To me, the reason why certain evils exist are because people allow it to exist, without attempting to stop it or fight it.

In the example of Kitty Genovese, here was a life taken before people's eyes, and no one did anything about it. As a pro-lifer, could you say that if our society continues to allow abortion to be legal, this is similiar to being a viewer who did nothing to stop the killing of an innocent woman? In other words, people will say, " Well you can't stop abortion so at least make it legal..." and thus, this is akin to saying, " Well, I can't do anything about that person Kitty Genovese being raped and murdered so I might as well let it happen anyways.."

[Ephinie]

"from nature" = resulting from (or grounded in) the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized. this guides us by giving a way of determining what rights are real (as opposed to: they are real when i believe they are).I made a few posts, using this definition of rights as the standard, in which I made a pretty good case against abortion. Euphrates answered me, but I never saw what you had to say about my positions.

with abortion, we have two claimed rights conflicting. one is the mother's right to autonomy. to determine if this is a real right we plug it into the standards for a real right—a real right cannot be violated by nature. nature, as the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized, cannot violate a person's right to be self-determined/autonomous. therefore, the right is real.Becoming pregnant is a natural process. Therefore... EITHER becoming pregnant does not violate one's right to autonomy with their own bodies, OR nature has violated that right, making it an imagined right rather than a real right. In either case, abortion would then then be wrong. In the first case, abortion would be wrong because it would be violating the child's right to live while there was no violation to the right to autonomy. So there would be no conflict in rights, because the right to autonomy would still be in tact and whole. In the second case, abortion would be wrong because there still would be no conflict of rights. This would be the case because the right to autonomy would be an imagined right rather than a real right.the other right is the baby's right to live. to determine if this is a real right we plug it into the standards for a real right—a real right cannot be violated by nature. nature, as the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized, cannot violate a person's right to live (as previously discussed). therefore, the right is real. so we have two rights. are they conflicting?We ONLY find ourselves with two conflicting rights if we allow that becoming pregnant in the first place violates a woman's autonomy. However, we cannot allow that if we say that a real right is something that nature cannot violate. the mother's right to autonomy says that she can decide what happens to her body, and since the baby is doing things to her body, she can choose to make it stop by having an abortion.Again, the same thing... if a right is something that cannot be violated by nature, then the mother has no right to autonomy in this sense. Why? Because she is now pregnant, something that nature did to her body through a choice that she made. I would say that a mother's right to autonomy is whether to have sex or not to have sex. But once she is pregnant, nature did it to her. So that state of being cannot violate her autonomy. Having an abortion, on the other hand, is an unnatural means of ending a natural biological process. So one could easily say that the mother is violating the child's natural right to be there by using an unnatural method. but this action would violate the baby's right to life, because an abortion would end the baby's life. so, if the mother wishes to have an abortion, there is a conflict of rights. so now we have to weigh these rights to determine which is stronger. since all rights are grounded in nature, and all humans (being of the same nature) have all the same rights. therefore, two full rights cannot outweigh each other because they have equal weight. so one right must be weaker than the other right. the nature of the unborn baby is (in part) that it is alive, but only in a dependent state. that is to say, it does not have a full right to life because it would naturally die on its own. in contrast, the mother has a full right to autonomy because she is completely autonomous on her own. therefore, the mother's right is stronger than the baby's right and she has the option of aborting the baby if she chooses.Assuming for a moment that the child has a weakened right to live weighed against a mother's strong right to autonomy... How in the blazes can one think even for a moment that the weakest right to life could possibly weigh less than the strongest right to autonomy? The right to be alive is the strongest right there is. Why? Well, nature gave us that right. Therefore, only nature should be able to take that right away. Nature may have given us the right to autonomy as well, but only in the sense that once we are born, we are seperate organisms. Nature does not govern our behavior or society, and the simple fact is that the very definition of autonomy varies depending what culture one resides in.

When one weighs two right against each other, one cannot use degrees in regard to two seperate rights. So you cannot say a weak right to life vs. a strong right to autonomy. It has to be a right to life vs. a right to autonomy. The only place and time in which it is useful to put degrees on rights is when they are the same right. Example: in the case of a pregnancy that endangers the life of the mother. The child's right to life is weaker than the mother's because there is no way to ensure that sacrificing the mother would save the child. The child cannot yet survive without the mother, but the mother can survive without the child. They pick the person who has the best chance of surviving, and therefore the greater degree of right to life. This, of course, is cold-hearted and cruel all the same... but it is what must be done. We, as mortal human creatures cannot see the future or all the implications surrounding it. We just have to do our best.

With the right to autonomy: a dependent child has a weakened right to autonomy versus an independent adult. As adults, we have the right to eat what want (provided we can pay for it), wear our hair the way we want to, wear what we want, have sexual relations with whom we please, and the list goes on. A dependent child has none of these. Their right to autonomy in these areas is weakened by their dependent status. They cannot survive on their own, and so their right to autonomy, to a large degree, is overshadowed by their parents and/or caretakers.

So the actual question behind everything I've said in this section is this: Why do you think that any degree of a right to life can be overshadowed by even the strongest right to autonomy that exists?now that I have answered your questions, do you think you could answer my questions—the questions i asked before you?If you had any questions for me, specifically, would you mind restating them? I'm afraid I got lost in all the muddle...nature did not do the violating. nature did not bring the conflict of rights. the mother was not just standing there and nature came and violated her autonomy. she did something or something was done to her by another person. the result of that action violated her autonomy. if you decide to jump off a building with no intention of dying and you die, it is not nature that violated a right.This is really getting into semantics here, and I do not honestly understand how this bit fits in with the rest of your argument. If a woman has sex, and then becomes pregnant, are you saying she did it to herself? If that is the case, then she STILL does not have the right to have an abortion, because she essentially violated her own right to autonomy. And if you violate your own right, it is not really a violation of rights. However, the child still maintains its right to life. To end that life through abortion would be doing so by unnatural means. Also, if you decide to jump off a building with no intention of dying, you still, in no way, have a right to not die due to the consequences of your action. Nature cannot violate your rights, or else it would not be a right. So no, nature did not violate your right to not die from a jump. It just so happened that the right never existed in the first place.i don't think this is right. he showed how we cannot have a right to do the impossible, but it was more than that. he also showed that people do not have a real right to have a male child, because nature can violate that right. i think it reaches further than you admit. and, like i said, the standard is objective because it is not subjective--and it tells us how to find real rights--something i have not heard from anyone else (even you, who demanded an objective standard).Apparently, we do not have the right to not become pregnant either, because nature can violate that right.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

IceMaiden, it's an interesting speculation as to whether cynicism causes moral decay or rises up out of it, but the point is probably moot - both seem to be true.

The answer you give is classic Tao - "of course there will be failings and shortcomings. I will even fail. But that does not mean I should not pick myself up and return to Tao as quickly as I can, and do my best to walk it even if I know I will fall off again very shortly. why make a bad situation worse? Why give in and let evil win?" In some other post you mention that one of the ways you seek to walk out this conviction is in seemingly little ways such as caring for animals and picking up litter that isn't yours. These are not little ways, but concrete expressions of hope - tangible ways of expressing your conviction that goodness matters, even in minor things. As you put it so well, this is action, not just complaint.

Though the Kitty Genovese case is a bit tangential, it has some disturbing parallels. As you point out, there was a measure of cynicism in the non-response of those who heard her plight ("This sort of thing happens all the time - what difference can I make?"), and certainly a measure of fear. Another thing is that in the big, impersonal city, she wasn't known to anyone who heard her. There was a sense that she wasn't a person to them - she was just a detached voice, a difficult problem with no easy solution.

This is an attitude that should sound as an alarm bell to any society that seeks justice for all its members. The first step in any cultural pattern of oppression and abuse is the relegation of some of the members to secondary or sub-human status. Sometimes this can be an informal pattern, such as those who heard Kitty's plight, and sometimes it can be a formal, systemic thing like slavery. Once this step is taken, it is very easy to turn a blind eye to the abuse. That's what happened with slavery in America: though the country was founded with the noble ideal of "all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness", there was an entire race considered "not men" - so they didn't get the right to liberty. Once it was entrenched, it was easy to hide behind that rationalization, and also to take the cynic's attitude: "I'm just one person - what can I do?"

This is why Harriet Stowe's novel Uncle Tom's Cabin was so effective in awakening the nation to the brutality of slavery, so much so that Abe Lincoln credited her with helping start the Civil War. We all know the situation was far more complex, but there's no question that Stowe's fiction personalized the slaves and their plight in a way that no lecture or pamphlet every had. It awakened people from their cynicism and helped them realize that they could improve their society. It didn't negate the difficulties (which are still with us), but it made them hope that things could truly be better.

I continue to hope the same thing.

[overjoyed]

Euphrates answered me, but I never saw what you had to say about my positions.he and i are in agreement as far as i can tell. your questions and concerns have been answered, i think.

Becoming pregnant is a natural process. once pregnant, the process is natural. but becoming pregnant is not something nature does--it is something humans do.

I would say that a mother's right to autonomy is whether to have sex or not to have sex. But once she is pregnant, nature did it to her.so nature made her pregnant? it looks to me like the couple made her pregnant and then nature took over the process from there. if i leap from a cliff, nature does not kill me--i kill myself. anyway, i am using a different definition of nature.

With the right to autonomy: a dependent child has a weakened right to autonomy versus an independent adult. this is not something i said, but i think i agree. it seems like we do things to children against their will, which would violate autonomy. but didn't you say that the right to autonomy was not real?

Why do you think that any degree of a right to life can be overshadowed by even the strongest right to autonomy that exists?you think that some rights are more powerful than other rights in any degree, i think that's what you said. and you think that any degree of the right to life is more powerful than any degree of the right to autonomy. i think that all rights are equal when they are full. in that, i have a fully cached explanation of all rights. you, though, need to explain your hierarchy of rights and justify why some are intrinsically more powerful than others.

If a woman has sex, and then becomes pregnant, are you saying she did it to herself? If that is the case, then she STILL does not have the right to have an abortion, because she essentially violated her own right to autonomy. And if you violate your own right, it is not really a violation of rights. you cannot violate your own rights. you can forfeit rights. you can waive rights. basically, in what you said, you have shown than a woman who gets herself pregnant did not violate her own rights. she can waive the right to autonomy by trying to get pregnant. but if she has sex for pleasure and takes precautions to ensure that she does not get pregnant and an accident happens and she gets pregnant, she has not waived rights or violated rights or forfeited rights.

Apparently, we do not have the right to not become pregnant either, because nature can violate that right.ok. there is no right to get pregnant. men can't do it. some women can't do it.

[echoscot]

i have spent several hours perusing this thread. I just wanted to make some thoughts known.

IceMaiden --Thank you so much for your brave honesty and thoughtfulness. Thank you for not screaming and leaving, but carefully reading and responding to these thoughts.

i believe also that one of the other people who left the thread at the cut, may have also experienced the trauma of abortion and was responding in defensiveness to it.

I am a Christian and very pro-life. I believe there is a certain case for abortion, (The life of the mother is in danger). I would be emotionally hard put with the other hard cases, but especially in rape cases. An Atlanta center did some research on Rapes and out of 300,000 cases studied, not one resulted in a pregnancy. The trauma tends to shut down the womans system. That is not to say that it doesn't happen. But it is extremely rare.

Roe V Wade was based on the story that "Roe" had been raped and Wade county Texas denied her an abortion. After becoming a Christian, "Roe" told the world that she was not raped. She became pregnant from her boyfriend, but didn't want the child. She was contacted by two women from the Abortion Rights movement and used as the vehicle to propel the famous court case. She has since applied to have the decision overturned because it was based on a lie. The Supreme Court would not hear it, and said the essence of it remained intact. Their opinion, which is what dictates Constitutional Law in the US is that "Life begins at Birth"

An interesting case:

When I lived in Florida, a newspaper story ran about a nest of swan eggs that had been destroyed. They were looking for the culprit. As a protected species this was considered a 3rd degree felony. Eventually, a teenage, down-syndrome girl was discovered as the culprit. She was acquitted of the charges, but not until after it was explained to her that she had killed Baby Swans. How sad to me that the unborn swans have more protection than unborn humans..... :(

Scot

[Ephinie]

Just sayin'... IceMaiden and POTW, very interesting dialogue.

[LifeMaiden]

I think what most pro-choice adherents won't admit is that they don't have a moral basis for their argument. Pro-lifers' position is strictly from the moral point that abortion is wrong because it takes the life of a fetus, and life is defined for Christians and pro-lifers as having started at conception. Yet, ironically, upon my own personal discovery in looking at my old biology text, despite what the abortion clinicians said to me, ( it's 'just a blob', etc) I was greatly dismayed to find that a fetus only a few weeks old has all the organs and limbs formed.

So that was what made it hardest for me was that despite all these years of my own denial " It isn't a baby, it isn't a life, it's just a ball of cells..." up until very recently, as many of you know...was just seeing that even at 6-7 weeks, that little embryo looked like a little baby. That was originally my way of defending my own abortion, was that since it didn't "really look like a baby" how could it therefore possibly be one? But then I also mentioned that upon getting up off the operating table, my first thought was, I just killed my child.

And so, for the most part, pro-choice people clearly use other means of defining their arguments other than the moral ones, although of course, the issue of rights to privacy, to control one's own body, and using women's rights are things that are used in their arguments.

I have a question to ask and that is what was that movie THE SILENT SCREAM? Where can one view this? Was this a pro-life movie? The only videos and stuff I saw of course at the clinic was showing what the procedure entailed, and of course, since it was shown at the clinic right before you had the procedure, it was meant to be neutral and showed abortion as basically the right thing to do...'you made the right choice.'

[Ephinie]

I think what most pro-choice adherents won't admit is that they don't have a moral basis for their argument. Pro-lifers' position is strictly from the moral point that abortion is wrong because it takes the life of a fetus, and life is defined for Christians and pro-lifers as having started at conception. Yet, ironically, upon my own personal discovery in looking at my old biology text, despite what the abortion clinicians said to me, ( it's 'just a blob', etc) I was greatly dismayed to find that a fetus only a few weeks old has all the organs and limbs formed.Yet while the pro-choice lobby does not seem to have a moral basis for their argument, they are also very effective in dissuading the conversation away from morality. If a pro-lifer says that abortion is morally wrong, the pro-choice can come back with a statement about relative values and how what's right for one may not be right for another. Also, it is easier to be accused of hypocrisy when one takes the moral high ground. To me, all of those tactics seem very shallow and easily seen through. However, it seems that they work on a large number of people.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I have a question to ask and that is what was that movie THE SILENT SCREAM? Where can one view this? Was this a pro-life movie? IceMaiden, you can find an online copy of the video at http://www.silentscream.org/video1.htm. It's been broken into several files which you can download (the site works best with Internet Explorer - my FireFox choked a bit on it.) You'll need Quicktime to view it, but you probably have that. You can also order a VHS or DVD copy at http://www.amport.com/abortion-procedure.html (this is a pro-life resource site.)

The video is intended as a medical information documentary, narrated by Dr. Bernard Nathanson. Dr. Nathanson was one of the founders of the National Abortion Rights Action League*, and ran a series of abortion clinics in New York for many years. Based on evidence he gleaned from some of the newer technologies he was using, he came to the conviction that the unborn was, in fact, human and fully worthy of protection. This change was not based on any theistic considerations; Dr. Nathanson is ethnically Jewish but a professed atheist, both at the time of his change of heart and at the time of this video. The narration is based on scientific knowledge. The video speaks for itself.


-----------------------
*They now prefer to be called "NARAL Pro-Choice America". Then again, we prefer to be called "pro-life", but are consistently called "anti-abortion.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Gee, it's hard to know where to bite into the whale that OJ's last posts have presented, but I'll give it a try. Let me begin by dispelling an illusion: OJ, you have "answered" nothing. Your vague and contradictory ramblings haven't even answered the questions put to you, much less offered the basis for a moral framework suitable for deciding life and death matters. You are building much of your case on this "real" vs. "imagined" rights argument, and for a defintion of "real" rights you offer this:

"from nature" = resulting from (or grounded in) the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized. this guides us by giving a way of determining what rights are realI'm sure this impressed you mightily when you wrote it, but it's jibberish - it means nothing. When I offered you an opportunity to clarify:
By which something is recognized? By who? How? And in what matter recognized?You gave this answer:

these questions are irrelevant. by whomever has the capacity to recognize. however the ability to recognize works.Irrelevant? This nonsensical combination of meaningless definition followed by a even more vague response wouldn't fly on an elementary school playground, much less when discussing issues that involve the death of beings whom you freely admit are human. Trying to untangle this convoluted verbage, the best I can make of it is, "Those who can recognize these real rights will know them when they see them, but those who can't are just wrong." There is no reference to any authority, no establishment of an objective standard that could be consistently and universally applied, no appeal to anything other than the opinions and preferences of the party using it. In short, this is an ideal framework for anyone who wants to rationalize anything they want to do - anything at all.

But I intend to follow that train no further, because I reject the entire premise of the argument. This whole business about "real" rights vs. "imagined" rights was introduced in this thread by Euphrates as an attempt to establish a heirarchy of rights. I'm pretty widely read in philosophy, and I've never seen anything like this in any discussion of social ethics. From what I can tell, he invented it right here, and it doesn't go very far. Even the initial examples were weak, and there was no follow-through that provided any serious basis even for the distinction, much less the valuation, of "real" vs. "imagined" rights. You can keep trying to wrap this tattered cloth around yourself, OJ, but it doesn't mean you're answering anyone about anything.

I'm beginning to see that the issue here isn't so much ignorance of philosophy as ignorance of history and sociology. The real "rights conflict" throughout history has not been between "real" and "imagined" rights, or even "individual" vs. "societal" rights, but between two ethical systems.

The first system is as simple as it is brutal: those who have the strength to impose their will on others have the right to do so. Those who are imposed upon have no rights, except to submit to having their will crushed by the stronger party. This system is known by many names: Might makes Right, Dominion of the Strong, the Law of the Fist. It is the basis for all oppression and indignity in human history.

The second system is what Lewis referred to as Tao. This has also been with us throughout human history. This is the idea that Right stands independent of Might, and should guide it. This is what tells us that the weaker are to be protected by the stronger, and that every human has rights that should never be transgressed without grave cause - most especially the right not to have their life taken from them. Tao has been codified in everything from the Analects of Confucius to the Egyptian Book of the Dead to the American Declaration of Independence. It is Tao that stipulates that if a member of society does have her rights weakened, that it is the responsibility of those around her - particularly those in power over her - to safeguard those rights and exercise them to her benefit.

The ethical struggle throughout history has been between the Law of the Fist and Tao. Lewis writes lucidly about this, particularly in Mere Christianity, Abolition of Man, and That Hideous Strength. Tao particularly warns against letting the Law of the Fist in the door, because once you start abridging one person's rights, that mentality starts taking over everywhere.

And that, overjoyed, is what you are espousing: the Law of the Fist. Behind all your flowery wording and convoluted sophistry, your stand boils down to this: the woman has the power to execute the unborn child, and therefore she has the right. Might makes Right - the Law of the Fist. This is what we pro-lifers are standing against. Just because someone has power does not mean they should exercise that power - they should look to consistent, objective standards like Tao to guide them.

This is why we keep appealing to other historical instances such as slavery and the Holocaust for comparison: those were other instances where the Law of the Fist was allowed into the ethical system with dire consequences. (This was also the basis of Susan B. Anthony's pro-life appeals: she pointed out that women were trying to escape the Law of the Fist themselves, so how could they turn around and use it against the children in their womb?) Any time the Law of the Fist is allowed in, it begins to dominate ethical considerations and influence behavior. Do you remember some of the justifications offered for abortion as a social policy? That reducing "unwanted pregnancies" would reduce domestic violence and child abuse? Stands to reason, right - "every child a wanted child"? But both domestic violence and child abuse have skyrocketed since the early 1970s. The sociologists are mystified, but Tao explains it well: once you admit the Law of the Fist into your ethical system for any reason, it starts taking over.

Based on your prior posts, OJ, I've no illusions that you're going to follow this or concede anything. I know that it's temporarily comfortable to live in an ethical framework that says, "I can see the justification for my position, so it doesn't matter if nobody else can see it." The problem is, it eventually turns in your hand, usually when you want someone else to do something difficult on your behalf, such as keep their word, or watch out for your rights. Suddenly they're seeing all sorts of reasons that they aren't obligated to do so, and it doesn't matter that you can't see those reasons or understand why they apply in this case. You can cling to your rationalizations, but you should start praying now that when you find yourself in a condition of "weakened" rights - as you will - that you fall into the hands of someone who follows Tao, and not someone who adheres to your ethical framework.

[Elf Of The Grey Havens]

*Cheers* :-D

[overjoyed]

when i came to this discussion, i saw a large group of people talking about why abortion is so horribly wrong. this is a subject that makes people very passionate because it speaks to somethng about them that is fundamental. when i decided to make a reply, i knew that i would not be convincing many people for that very reason--it is foundational to people's beliefs. some people can be so passionate about something that they fail to see what is really there--even though it is staring them in the face. some of these people will hear an argument but their passions take over so they get it all wrong and don't understand. others are willing to listen to new ideas and they can understand arguments accurately.

there's nothing really bad about being passionate like that, but it isn't helpful. it is hard to have a decent conversation with someone who often lets their passions control the discussion. sometimes a passionate person will act rude because they are so passionatly convinced you are wrong that they get tired and upset. this latest post by princeofthewest is the paradigm example of rudeness, that i believe is due to passion. i commend your passion, princeofthewest, but the rudeness is unnecessary and spiteful. the line between attacking my arguments and attacking me is blurry, but i think you have crossed the line. more of that will cause me to leave tdl and seriously taint the line of reasoning you are proposing. please stop.

i have seen many charges thrown at me in this discussion. one of them is that my argument is contradictory. when i ask for someone to show me the contradictions, there is no response. if there are contradictions, they should be easily found. "you said p, then you said not-p". but bare charges mean very little--no, they mean nothing. if there is a contradiction, show me with my own words so that passions don't cause confusion anymore.

i have also seen more than enough "this is what you believe" charges. i have said what i believe, so if you think you know what i believe--quote me. i have rejected that might makes right and other "beliefs" that have been charged to me. people also charge that examples are weak, but offer no explanation or counter-examples that could show the weakness. charges mean nothing. someone once told me that i must have the respect to read everyone's posts before i contribute to the discussion. that's a good idea.

though passionate, the most recent post from princeofthewest is full of mistakes and falsifications. the first deals with the definition. you say i was defining "real", but i was defining "from nature", like you asked. and even though you thought it was jibberish, it came from the dictionary definition of nature. don't let your passions fool you. your follow-up to that asked questions lacking any relevance. who recognizes rights? anyone--everyone--whomever. real rights are recognized through the objective standard--like i have said many times. i had already answered all this.

the objective standard. what's wrong with it? it is easy to charge that it is flawed, but can you show me? there have been other people who understand the standard and try to form arguments against it, though i think they are unsuccessful, i have yet to see you (princeofthewest) offer an actual argument against it (though parthian king seemed to think you would). charges are worthless and only serve to confuse and hurt people.

then you group my argument where it doesn't belong and insist that i am in the wrong "worldview" (as parthian king would call it). first, i am not arguing that might makes right. i have already said that there are many cases where the mother cannot morally abort the fetus. your charge ignores that. your charge also does not give an explanation as to why "your" side is right. basically you have said "there are two sides: evil and good--oj is on the evil side--boo!" like i said before, passionate, but rude and not helpful.

i have also said this many times before, but for some convenient reason it keeps getting ignored. why will you not answer my questions? i hope everyone that reads this can see that i have given my full position and am answering questions all over the place. i have defended my argument and have tried my best to ignore no one. who else has given their position and justified it? it is much easier to tear down a wall than it is to build one up. i have built my wall, repaired it, defended it, and watched passionate people vandalize it. by hiding your wall, you show it to be weak. by not answering my questions you show your position to be vulnerable and my questions lethal. my hope is that this inspires someone to build a wall and answer my questions.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

OJ, the problem is that your posts make sense to you, but they don't make sense to anyone else. For instance, you're basing so much on these rights "from nature" that are so "grounded in essential characteristics by which something is recognized" (whatever that means). You contend that a woman's right to totally control everything within her body is one such right. Pro-lifers claim that a person's right not to have their life taken from them without grave cause is an even greater right. You offer no yardstick or standard by which to decide which of those rights is greater, so you resort to the Law of the Fist.

Until that issue is settled, other questions are secondary.

[LifeMaiden]

IceMaiden, you can find an online copy of the video at http://www.silentscream.org/video1.htm. It's been broken into several files which you can download (the site works best with Internet Explorer - my FireFox choked a bit on it.) You'll need Quicktime to view it, but you probably have that. You can also order a VHS or DVD copy at http://www.amport.com/abortion-procedure.html (this is a pro-life resource site.)

The video is intended as a medical information documentary, narrated by Dr. Bernard Nathanson. Dr. Nathanson was one of the founders of the National Abortion Rights Action League*, and ran a series of abortion clinics in New York for many years. Based on evidence he gleaned from some of the newer technologies he was using, he came to the conviction that the unborn was, in fact, human and fully worthy of protection. This change was not based on any theistic considerations; Dr. Nathanson is ethnically Jewish but a professed atheist, both at the time of his change of heart and at the time of this video. The narration is based on scientific knowledge. The video speaks for itself.


-----------------------
*They now prefer to be called "NARAL Pro-Choice America". Then again, we prefer to be called "pro-life", but are consistently called "anti-abortion.


You're kidding!!!! ( I say that only facetiously) So this was a pro-choice doctor who has now become pro-life? He used to run an abortion clinic??!! I'm going to have to go there and check this out. I guess even the most diehard pro-choicers can have a change of heart as I seem to be having here.

In some odd way, I think that speaking from experience of having had abortions, a person can convince someone not to do it and honestly say, " I had the terrible trauma of going through this, so I'm going to advise you not to do it.." as I am trying to tell my young friend at the beauty salon I go to. I'm concerned about her because she isn't in the best of health with a weak heart and was told she should not have children. But then, she may be facing equal risks if she goes under anesthesia for an abortion, and then she won't even have a baby, but just horrible memories of a physically traumatic event.




Let me go and address a few other things. I can relate to and see the parallels of the abortion debate as compared to the slavery debate ( pro-lifers and anti-slavery movement in conjunction with a moral argument that both are wrong)...but my unease lies in this, POTW...the fact that even though slavery was outlawed, and people came to see it as inherently immoral and wrong, very little was done to protect those freed blacks from the wrath of Southerners and racist Northerners who saw them as a threat. If you are to compare slavery and abortion morally, then my concern would be...pro-lifers, like the anti-slavery activists, would also need to address the aftermath of what might happen in the event that Roe vs Wade is overturned. Like those freed blacks who found death at the hands of the Klan, found themselves held back in virtual slavery of a sort by Jim Crow laws and segregation, can we also say then that if abortion is made illegal, there will also be an aftermath to deal with?

[LifeMaiden]

when i came to this discussion, i saw a large group of people talking about why abortion is so horribly wrong. this is a subject that makes people very passionate because it speaks to somethng about them that is fundamental. when i decided to make a reply, i knew that i would not be convincing many people for that very reason--it is foundational to people's beliefs. some people can be so passionate about something that they fail to see what is really there--even though it is staring them in the face. some of these people will hear an argument but their passions take over so they get it all wrong and don't understand. others are willing to listen to new ideas and they can understand arguments accurately.

there's nothing really bad about being passionate like that, but it isn't helpful. it is hard to have a decent conversation with someone who often lets their passions control the discussion. sometimes a passionate person will act rude because they are so passionatly convinced you are wrong that they get tired and upset. this latest post by princeofthewest is the paradigm example of rudeness, that i believe is due to passion. i commend your passion, princeofthewest, but the rudeness is unnecessary and spiteful. the line between attacking my arguments and attacking me is blurry, but i think you have crossed the line. more of that will cause me to leave tdl and seriously taint the line of reasoning you are proposing. please stop.

i have seen many charges thrown at me in this discussion. one of them is that my argument is contradictory. when i ask for someone to show me the contradictions, there is no response. if there are contradictions, they should be easily found. "you said p, then you said not-p". but bare charges mean very little--no, they mean nothing. if there is a contradiction, show me with my own words so that passions don't cause confusion anymore.

i have also seen more than enough "this is what you believe" charges. i have said what i believe, so if you think you know what i believe--quote me. i have rejected that might makes right and other "beliefs" that have been charged to me. people also charge that examples are weak, but offer no explanation or counter-examples that could show the weakness. charges mean nothing. someone once told me that i must have the respect to read everyone's posts before i contribute to the discussion. that's a good idea.

though passionate, the most recent post from princeofthewest is full of mistakes and falsifications. the first deals with the definition. you say i was defining "real", but i was defining "from nature", like you asked. and even though you thought it was jibberish, it came from the dictionary definition of nature. don't let your passions fool you. your follow-up to that asked questions lacking any relevance. who recognizes rights? anyone--everyone--whomever. real rights are recognized through the objective standard--like i have said many times. i had already answered all this.

the objective standard. what's wrong with it? it is easy to charge that it is flawed, but can you show me? there have been other people who understand the standard and try to form arguments against it, though i think they are unsuccessful, i have yet to see you (princeofthewest) offer an actual argument against it (though parthian king seemed to think you would). charges are worthless and only serve to confuse and hurt people.

then you group my argument where it doesn't belong and insist that i am in the wrong "worldview" (as parthian king would call it). first, i am not arguing that might makes right. i have already said that there are many cases where the mother cannot morally abort the fetus. your charge ignores that. your charge also does not give an explanation as to why "your" side is right. basically you have said "there are two sides: evil and good--oj is on the evil side--boo!" like i said before, passionate, but rude and not helpful.

i have also said this many times before, but for some convenient reason it keeps getting ignored. why will you not answer my questions? i hope everyone that reads this can see that i have given my full position and am answering questions all over the place. i have defended my argument and have tried my best to ignore no one. who else has given their position and justified it? it is much easier to tear down a wall than it is to build one up. i have built my wall, repaired it, defended it, and watched passionate people vandalize it. by hiding your wall, you show it to be weak. by not answering my questions you show your position to be vulnerable and my questions lethal. my hope is that this inspires someone to build a wall and answer my questions.


Overjoyed,

I have to admit to you honestly, and please don't get offended by this but I did get lost in many of the arguments going back and forth...I am not really sure what you are trying to say. It could be more helpful to myself and others if you listed with numbers what the central themes of your argument is. I started to get confused a while back.

IM

[Ephinie]

some people can be so passionate about something that they fail to see what is really there--even though it is staring them in the face. some of these people will hear an argument but their passions take over so they get it all wrong and don't understand.I think that this statement very accurately describes yourself in this particular debate.
there's nothing really bad about being passionate like that, but it isn't helpful. it is hard to have a decent conversation with someone who often lets their passions control the discussion. sometimes a passionate person will act rude because they are so passionatly convinced you are wrong that they get tired and upset. this latest post by princeofthewest is the paradigm example of rudeness, that i believe is due to passion. i commend your passion, princeofthewest, but the rudeness is unnecessary and spiteful. the line between attacking my arguments and attacking me is blurry, but i think you have crossed the line. more of that will cause me to leave tdl and seriously taint the line of reasoning you are proposing. please stop.I can understand that you may feel personally attacked, given the fact that you are the one who POTW is addressing, but I honestly have not seen anything particularly rude or spiteful coming from him thus far. Bear in mind that saying, "You are wrong," is not a rude or spiteful statement. He has been telling you why his position is that you are wrong, which is also not rude or spiteful. I would define rude as name-calling, patronizing, belittling, or using foul language. He has not done any of that.i have seen many charges thrown at me in this discussion. one of them is that my argument is contradictory. when i ask for someone to show me the contradictions, there is no response. if there are contradictions, they should be easily found. "you said p, then you said not-p". but bare charges mean very little--no, they mean nothing. if there is a contradiction, show me with my own words so that passions don't cause confusion anymore.Using your definition of rights vs. imagined rights, I showed how your argument does not make logical sense. I have also answered all of your questions except for the one about what makes me think some rights are on a higher level than others. The only reason I have not answered that is because it is irrelevant to my refutation of your argument. That was a question I asked you, why do you think any degree of a right to life can be weaker than any degree of a right to autonomy? But the actual point of my argument was that if a real right is something that nature cannot violate, then becoming pregnant does not in any way violate a woman's right to autonomy. And since there is no violation of rights, then there is no right to take a human life through abortion because no right are in conflict. For some reason, you seem to think that pregnancy is not a natural process. How anyone could think this is beyond me, but there you have it.i have also seen more than enough "this is what you believe" charges. i have said what i believe, so if you think you know what i believe--quote me. i have rejected that might makes right and other "beliefs" that have been charged to me.The problem we are having here is that some things that you have posted in your arguments seem to reflect a point of view that is diametrically opposite to what you have SAID that you believe.though passionate, the most recent post from princeofthewest is full of mistakes and falsifications. the first deals with the definition. you say i was defining "real", but i was defining "from nature", like you asked.A "real" right was first defined as being "from nature." Hence, if you are defining what "from nature" meant, in that context, they are one and the same. If a real right is derived from nature, it is then asked what is defined as being from nature, then it follows that one could easily see the definition of "from nature" as also being the basis from which a real right is drawn. So there was no falsification in that instance.who recognizes rights? anyone--everyone--whomever. real rights are recognized through the objective standard--like i have said many times. i had already answered all this.Which is what got us into this quagmire in the first place. It is plain that everyone has a different idea of what a right is, and that is why it was asked what a good definition for a real right is. But, as we can obviously see... using the definition that a real right is something that nature cannot violate gets us nowhere either. All it does is plunge us into another argument about whether or not pregnancy is a natural process. And really all it takes to determine that pregnancy is a natural process is to open up any biology text book and read the part about the human reproductive system. i have also said this many times before, but for some convenient reason it keeps getting ignored. why will you not answer my questions?Just because you do not like (or, in your case I would venture to say that you do not understand) the answers people are giving does not mean that your questions are not being answered. Maybe you should be asking people to give you more simplified answers instead of saying that you haven't gotten answers. Post back what you don't understand and say, "I do not understand how this is supposed to answer my question. Can you please rephrase in a more simplified manner?" i hope everyone that reads this can see that i have given my full position and am answering questions all over the place. i have defended my argument and have tried my best to ignore no one. who else has given their position and justified it? it is much easier to tear down a wall than it is to build one up. i have built my wall, repaired it, defended it, and watched passionate people vandalize it. by hiding your wall, you show it to be weak. by not answering my questions you show your position to be vulnerable and my questions lethal. my hope is that this inspires someone to build a wall and answer my questions.I think almost everyone except for myself has given their full position and justified it. I haven't said conclusively at all what I personally believe, because all of what I have been posting has been aimed at debating with you according to your own definitions and reasonable logic. But reason and logic are only useful if the other person is able to follow them.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Let me go and address a few other things. I can relate to and see the parallels of the abortion debate as compared to the slavery debate ( pro-lifers and anti-slavery movement in conjunction with a moral argument that both are wrong)...but my unease lies in this, POTW...the fact that even though slavery was outlawed, and people came to see it as inherently immoral and wrong, very little was done to protect those freed blacks from the wrath of Southerners and racist Northerners who saw them as a threat. If you are to compare slavery and abortion morally, then my concern would be...pro-lifers, like the anti-slavery activists, would also need to address the aftermath of what might happen in the event that Roe vs Wade is overturned. Like those freed blacks who found death at the hands of the Klan, found themselves held back in virtual slavery of a sort by Jim Crow laws and segregation, can we also say then that if abortion is made illegal, there will also be an aftermath to deal with?D**n right, IceMaiden! That is the very challenge to the pro-life movement and to the culture in general: if we're going to say "no" to abortion, then what are we going to say "yes" to? And how are we going to say it? If we don't have that answer, then we will find ourselves in a very similar position to American culture vis a vis the freed slaves. Arguably, the freed slaves went from bad to worse - they were stripped of even the minimal social protections provided by slavery, and had those replaced with nothing but a titular freedom.

Let me try to illustrate my view by analogy. It's a weak analogy, because it's not good to compare pregnancy (a natural condition) to a wound (an unnatural condition), but for the sake of argument let's consider that the social conditions of an unexpected pregnancy can be traumatizing in a way similar to a wound.

If a person comes to you with a severe wound, you need to attend to it. A poor way of attending to it would be to simply put a Band-Aid on it and say, "there - that's all better". Not only does that not deal with the problem adequately, it can cause worse problems of its own (e.g. by sealing infectants into the wound), and it can give the false impression that the problem is solved.

Clearly, what is called for is dealing with the wound properly. It should be cleaned well. It may call for stiches. Antiseptics should be used, clean bandages applied, and a regimen of care prescribed. If the wound is severe enough to damage nerves or tendons, therapy may be needed. Some of this may be painful, especially the stitches or therapy. The Band-Aid may look easier, but we know that in this case, it's too easy - it doesn't address the problem.

But a truly deep treatment would go even further. You would ask, "How did you get this wound? What were the circumstances?" Then you would go examine the original causes of the wound (e.g. a broken fencepost on a playground) and eliminate those.

By comparison, a true pro-life response must go deep. We pro-lifers contend that abortion is a Band-Aid - it doesn't solve anything, and it can make the problem worse. But it isn't enough to say, "No Band-Aids!" and walk away, leaving the wound. We need to clean the wound properly and bandage it. This means offering life-affirming options, such as pre-natal support, marriage counseling, adoption services, and practical support for single mothers.

For instance, in my town after a meeting of our Right to Life chapter, a couple of attendees said to each other, "We've got to do more than this. If we're going to tell women not to have abortions, we've got to help them choose better options." They founded a pregnancy care center that is still in operation today and is supported by many area churches. People have had to learn that responding to sin by turning their backs and saying, "they deserve what they get" is not a Christian response. We all sin and we all deserve what we get - but Christ didn't leave us there, so neither should we leave others. People have had to open their hearts, homes, and pocketbooks to girls who sinned - and they've learned the meaning of compassion by doing so. I know pastors who've had to revisit their sermonal playbooks. They used to say, "Don't stray from the Law of God!", and while they still say that, they now find themselves also saying, "If you do stray from the Law of God, please come back, and we'll help you do it!" This is comparable to learning to bandage the wound properly, and institute a regimen of care.

But being truly pro-life goes even deeper - we have to look at the cause of the wound, and try to eliminate that. As I've said in earlier posts, many pro-lifers (at least, those who think) contend that abortion is only a symptom of a deeper problem: the entire culture straying from Tao (or the Law of God, as my minister friends would put it.) Men not keeping their word, women feeling like they have to use their bodies to prove their value, families not protected - the list goes on and on, and one result is circumstances where abortion seems like the only option.

Dealing with this is much more difficult, because it means taking on the direction of an entire culture, and trying to get people to examine fundamental attitudes. Speaking as a man, I'd encourage men to step up to their responsibilities, to keep their given word and to fulfill their obligations. I'd try to get them to see that a life filled with nothing but expensive toys and fast entertainment is not worthy of a man. I'd hope to communicate that the ideal of devoting your life to loving one woman and raising children is not stifling and suffocating, but the very fulfillment of what a man is intended to be. I could go on and on, but I'm trying to get the idea across: debating about how to treat the wound is spinning our wheels unless we go out there and fix the broken fencepost.

For me as a pro-lifer, it is very illuminating being part of these forum discussions, particularly those where these precious young girls speak of their depression and urges to self mutilation. I've actually wept while responding to some of those posts, because my feeble words are so inadequate to convey what I'd like to say. I long to be able to enfold them in a huge hug and whisper to them how precious, how totally beautiful they are. I'd like to take them out and get their hair done just right and their nails manicured, and buy them a beautiful dress and a tiara, and then stand them in front of a mirror and say, "See this? This is how beautiful you are! God sees you like that, I see you like that, and every man should see you like that! Above all, you should see you like that! Every hour of every day! That's the real you!" I long to take every young man and hold up the images of Peter and Aragorn, that they might see what true manhood is - self-sacrifice from the heart that protects the weak and treats everyone with honor.

That's my vision for the real answer, the deep "yes" that I want to offer when I say "no" to abortion. It's a tall order, and I won't see it realized in my lifetime, but that's what I'm shooting for.

(sorry for the lengthy post :o)

[Sunrise]

Ok, I've been out of the loop for a while, because for a while there I was too confused to give a coherent response. I've been reading with interest, though. All this "rights" talk has been....erm....mentally challenging, attempting to wrap my mind around what it is OJ has been trying to say. Currently I only have this to respond:


once pregnant, the process is natural. but becoming pregnant is not something nature does--it is something humans do.

Really?! Gosh. I'll have to explain to my friends struggling with infertility that they must not be doing something correctly, since apparently pregnancy is all up to them, not nature.

so nature made her pregnant? it looks to me like the couple made her pregnant and then nature took over the process from there.

No, the couple had sex. You've already admitted that people have sex for reasons other than wanting to get pregnant. In fact, I think the fact that a woman can take every precaution against pregnancy (barring abstinence) and STILL get pregnant is a pretty clear indication that nature is violating her autonomy by getting her pregnant.

Come to think of it, nature can violate autonomy in a million different ways. We contract illnesses through no will of our own, after all. If I get a brain tumor, is nature violating my autonomy? I didn't choose for it to happen to my body; I did nothing to cause it; therefore it must be a violation.

If our rights are based on what is not violated by nature, then none of us have a right to life at all. Nature violates that one daily, since we all die, most of us without grave cause.

Therefore I propose that the whole premise of our rights being based on what is allowed, not violated, by nature, is completely fallacious.

The entire idea of rights was either ordained by God, or is a man-made ideal. Nature has nothing to do with it.

[inkspot]

to determine if this is a real right we plug it into the standards for a real right—a real right cannot be violated by nature. nature, as the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized, cannot violate a person's right to be self-determined/autonomous.
Of course it can and does, as Ephinie has pointed out, and as Sunrise just did, very well: illness violates our body all the time, and it is caused by (proceeding from) nature. So as Ephinie and Sunrise have concluded:
Either this right to autonomy is not based in nature (as nature is violating it all the time), or there is no right to autonomy.

since all rights are grounded in nature, and all humans (being of the same nature) have all the same rights. therefore, two full rights cannot outweigh each other because they have equal weight. so one right must be weaker than the other right. the nature of the unborn baby is (in part) that it is alive, but only in a dependent state. that is to say, it does not have a full right to life because it would naturally die on its own. in contrast, the mother has a full right to autonomy because she is completely autonomous on her own. therefore, the mother's right is stronger than the baby's right and she has the option of aborting the baby if she chooses.
What makes any right stronger than even a "weakened" right to life? Ephinie has asked this, and I am curious, too. Even a "fully formed" right to autonomy (which we have not yet even proved exists) would seem of less import than even a "weakened" right to life.

with "bucket babies", the conflict that existed in the abortion scenario no longer exists. during the pregnancy, the baby is doing all sorts of things to the mother's body. kicking, punching, taking nutrients, etc. and during pregnancy, the unborn baby is a part of the mother by nature because one of the essential characteristics of being an unborn baby is being attached to the mother.
So the moment a baby draws a breath in the world, this is the moment he has a fully formed right to life and cannot be killed with impunity? Thirty seconds before that, he can still be killed for the crimes of kicking, punching and taking nutrients from mom -- but 1 second afterward, he has a fully formed right to life? No, by your reasoning, he does not, because he still is in a "dependent state." If someone doesn't look after him, he will die. Since he has such a weakened right to life, why should anyone look after him? After all, if he starts nursing, he will be taking nutrients from mom's body again! Can you see why people are having a hard time swallowing this argument? There is no difference between a nine months baby in the womb and a newborn -- except he is breathing the air. Why is one fair game for death and one to be allowed to live? Because the one inside the womb is a threat to mom's "autonomy"? Surely autonomy is not a more "real" right than the right to llife?

Okay, I think Ephinie, Sunrise and others have responded to the rest of your post responding to me. Let me see if I can answer your questions:

how can we operate in the world if we do not know which rights people have?
We cannot, this is why we rely on the Bill of Rights,etc. in the USA, and why other civilizations have codified such lists since the beginning of writing.
if god grants the rights, then only he knows who has rights and which rights they have. how can we say "you are wrong" if we do not know that god has granted them that right?
God gave us Scriptures, but also it seems He placed the basics of right and wrong in the hearts of humans, which is why you find very similar rules for fairplay among civilizations distanced by miles and years. CS lewis had a lot to say on this subject.
how is "a right is a real right if it cannot be violated by nature" not objective?"
This has been answered by Ephinie and Sunrise in regards to autonomy, nature violates it all the time. In the rest of the "rights defined by nature" argument, it is more of defining what is or isn't possible in nature, not what we do or don't have a right to do. Nature doesn't allow certain things, like it won't let me fly, but that doesn't mean I don't have a "right" to fly, or that I do have one ... It's nothing to do with rights.
so tell me, how are we to objectively determine what rights are real and what rights are imaginary according to the christian view of rights?"
To my knowledge, Christians don't believe there are any "imaginary" rights. We define the rights of humans based upon what God has revealed in Scripture. His Word gives us a picture of a God who values life, from the very creation when He breathed life into Adam and Eve, to the 10 Commandments where a prominent one was "Thou Shalt Not Kill," to the ministry of Jesus who sometimes raised people from the dead ... God's Word reveals a right to life, and a prohibition on taking life. Some see conditions on this: it's okay to take a llife in warfare, or in delf defense, others see no conditions and are complete pacificists in every circumstance. But all are agreed, the emphasis in the Bible is upon life and its goodness, and eschews delivering death except in remarkable circumstances, of which pregancy is not one.

Does this answer your questions?

[Sunrise]

Also, since you asked to be shown where you have contradicted yourself, OJ, I can give you one small example right off the bat.

You claimed recently not to be interested in laws but in ethics. Yet this is a shifting from some of your earlier posts, in which you continually held up the "law" in the following manner:


and the law only recognizes protection for the born baby.


A point which is entirely untrue, by the way. We have many laws that protect unborn babies. If a pregnant woman is attacked so that her baby dies, her attacker can be charged with murder, even if the woman survives. In some states, pregnant women who abuse illegal drugs or alcohol can actually be jailed for endangering the health of their unborn children. Such laws recognize the right to life of the child even above the mother's autonomy (after all, it's her decision to take drugs and drink, right?), and are only ignored in the case of abortion.

It's rather a moot point now since you have eschewed the law argument in favor of nitpicking "rights", but I just thought I'd mention it.

Also, in the same spirit in which you thanked PotW for dropping his "apples to oranges" argument (in which you seem to be the only person who couldn't see the parallels), I thank you for dropping your ridiculous claim that abortion is sometimes nothing more than "letting a baby die".

[inkspot]

being truly pro-life goes even deeper - we have to look at the cause of the wound, and try to eliminate that. As I've said in earlier posts, many pro-lifers (at least, those who think) contend that abortion is only a symptom of a deeper problem: the entire culture straying from Tao (or the Law of God, as my minister friends would put it.) Men not keeping their word, women feeling like they have to use their bodies to prove their value, families not protected - the list goes on and on, and one result is circumstances where abortion seems like the only option.

Dealing with this is much more difficult, because it means taking on the direction of an entire culture, and trying to get people to examine fundamental attitudes. Speaking as a man, I'd encourage men to step up to their responsibilities, to keep their given word and to fulfill their obligations. I'd try to get them to see that a life filled with nothing but expensive toys and fast entertainment is not worthy of a man. I'd hope to communicate that the ideal of devoting your life to loving one woman and raising children is not stifling and suffocating, but the very fulfillment of what a man is intended to be. I could go on and on, but I'm trying to get the idea across: debating about how to treat the wound is spinning our wheels unless we go out there and fix the broken fencepost.
Hear! Hear!
This is the true bottom line of the abortion debate: how to fix not just the immediate problem (saving the pre-born baby) but fixing the underlying causes of such a crisis. This is why Christians, in particular, are so involved in pro-life activity and crisis pregnancy centers: because we see the epidemic of unwanted babies as a symptom of the disease of our culture.

As PoTW pointed out in a previous post: abortion did not in fact give us a society where every child is wanted. It gave us a society where an unwanted child could be killed, but the rates of child abuse and domestic abuse continued to rise, and the terrible after-effects of choosing death for the child are not addressed, so Mum is left with a terrible shock to deal with -- and meanwhile the thing that got her into the situation of being pregnant with a baby she doesn't want or can't afford or is at odds with the father ... that situation is still un-addressed. (And for the man, it is equallly unaddressed. He may or may not feel the pain of losing the child, but he is living the pain of having no permanent attachment to his lovers, a reflection of his search for something to gratify his soul which cannot be found no matter how desperately he seeks it ...)


Only the immediate "symptom" is dealt with in abortion. Christians would deal with the whole epidemic of a society gone wrong, of people whose harmony with their Creator and their fellow creatures has been horribly interrrupted. We would see each person -- man and woman -- restored to harmony through Christ and set on the authentic path to a world where "every child is wanted" where every child is loved, where every woman is wanted and loved, every man wanted and loved.

But for the purposes of this Thread, we have decided on one issue, and if we also try not to infuse our faith into the argument, this is just a tangent.

[echoscot]

Many people need prayer.

OJ --I have read through some of the statements here. I honestly believe no one is attacking you but simply trying to understand your position. Thank you for having the courage to post in this "Passionate" debate. It can be difficult and emotional for both sides.

IceMaiden -- It is truly amazing to see you go through a rationalization process and try to reason things out. Never, ever stop doing that. Always seek the truth.

Prince and others -- I enjoy your debates and discussions. You have given me quite a list of resources to investigate and use in further debate. Prayerfully and lovingly.

Thank you

[overjoyed]

OJ, the problem is that your posts make sense to you, but they don't make sense to anyone else. i don't think you speak for "everyone else". since you posted this, ephinie, sunrise, and inkspot all made coherent arguments against what i have said. how could this happen if no one understood my posts? it couldn't.

(whatever that means). it is in the dictionary as part of the definition of nature. i'm sorry if you do not understand what it means, but the dictionary is not jibberish or incoherent.

(Pro-lifers claim that a person's right not to have their life taken from them without grave cause is an even greater right. You offer no yardstick or standard by which to decide which of those rights is greater, so you resort to the Law of the Fist. um, no to the law of the fist (like I already explained). and i have said that all rights are equal when they are full. there are no "greater" rights. but there are some situations that weaken rights. for example, if you have a right to do x, but can't do it on your own, then you have a weaker right to do x than someone who can do x on her own.

icemaiden, i'm sorry about the argument getting clouded. this is mostly due to three things: the nature of philosophy, the complicated nature of ethics, and the various objections that i have been dealing with. the longest part in post 542 summarizes my argument as it relates to abortion.

I think that this statement very accurately describes yourself in this particular debate.so you think my passion is making me get--what wrong, exactly? i am getting my own argument wrong?

I honestly have not seen anything particularly rude or spiteful coming from him thus far. Bear in mind that saying, "You are wrong," is not a rude or spiteful statement.i honestly do not expect you to see it, because you are passionate about this. if someone were to tell you that "you are wrong" every time you said anything, would it not be rude? and when you are right and show that you are right, people say nothing--but say you are wrong about something else. how is it not belittleing to constantly put someone down for being "wrong"?

I showed how your argument does not make logical sense.where? did i reply?

I have also answered all of your questions i have just looked through the last few pages of this discussion and i have not seen these answers. is objectivity important? how is the objective standard not objective? etc.

But the actual point of my argument was that if a real right is something that nature cannot violate, then becoming pregnant does not in any way violate a woman's right to autonomy. and like i have said before, nature does not make a woman pregnant. if a woman decides that she wants to have a child, has sex, and then gets pregnant--it is not a violation of her autonomy. i already said this. and i agree that the pregnancy is a natural process, but getting pregnant is not something nature does--it is something people do to themselves and each other. i already said this.

The problem we are having here is that some things that you have posted in your arguments seem to reflect a point of view that is diametrically opposite to what you have SAID that you believe.because passion clouds your ability to see what i am saying. passion takes what i have said and distorts it to make it seem like something else. if i have really said something contradictory--show me.

A "real" right was first defined as being "from nature." someone asked what grounds rights and the answer was that rights are grounded in nature or "from nature". what makes it "real" is the objective standard.

Maybe you should be asking people to give you more simplified answers instead of saying that you haven't gotten answers. or maybe you could point me in the direction of your answers.

I haven't said conclusively at all what I personally believe, because all of what I have been posting has been aimed at debating with you according to your own definitions and reasonable logic. But reason and logic are only useful if the other person is able to follow them.here's that nasty "illogical" charge again. my point is that you haven't said what you believe. that means you haven't given a full position and you haven't justified anything. why is my wall being attacked from people who do not have their own walls by which their own ammunition might be equally destructive? like parthian king says, no one is arguing from a tower (above the melee).

since apparently pregnancy is all up to them, not nature.i hope you don't think that they could just lay in bed and nature would get the woman pregnant. getting pregnant is a human effort. the process of pregnancy is natural.

I think the fact that a woman can take every precaution against pregnancy (barring abstinence) and STILL get pregnant is a pretty clear indication that nature is violating her autonomy by getting her pregnant.this is probably the best argument i have seen so far. a woman takes precautions to not get pregnant and then engages in an act that commonly causes pregnancy--i guess this is like a skier who puts on jackets and pads and takes other precautionary measure to ensure that she doesn't get hurt and then takes a lift to the top of a mountain and skis down the ice and snow. if the woman gets pregnant despite the precautions, has nature violated her right to autonomy? if the woman skiing falls and gets injured, has nature violated her autonomy? i think the answer in both cases is "no". there are two answers. first, i can't blame nature for a choice i made, even if i was trying to be careful. in a sense, i am waiving rights by engaging in the activity--like waiving rights when i jump off the cliff. second, the violation was not natural--meaning there was human error like a faulty contraceptive device or something. so if i am a helmet tester and i ride a bicycle over a ledge to test the helmet, and my helmet falls apart because it was made poorly and i die--nature did not kill me, the faulty helmet killed me.

depending on which view you take, you will come to different conclusions. the first option would lead you to think that abortion is not ok even if the woman took precautions to not get pregnant. the second option tells you that abortion is ok if the woman took precautions to not get pregnant.

Come to think of it, nature can violate autonomy in a million different ways. We contract illnesses through no will of our own, after all. If I get a brain tumor, is nature violating my autonomy? another good argument (which explains the bandwagon effect). we get sick through no will of our own. we also get old through no will of our own. our muscles ache despite our will. we die through no will of our own. such as the example of the right to life, the right to autonomy does not mean that nothing can happen to you without your consent. gah! wind, you stop violating my autonomy! the right to autonomy is a right of self-determination. a brain tumor does not violate this right because it is only a lump of cells like millions of other lumps of cells in your body. you don't want it there, but that doesn't mean there is a violation of autonomy. i don't want the waves in my hair either. with a brain tumor, you can still decide what happens to your body. surgery. chemotherapy. whatever you decide is best. maybe there's nothing you can do about it, but nature is not forcing you to do something--that would be a violation of autonomy. you should look back to my explanation of the right to live and why nature doesn't violate it when we die.

What makes any right stronger than even a "weakened" right to life? Ephinie has asked this, and I am curious, too. i have answered this before, but here's the quick version: all rights are intrisically equal, so any full right is stronger than any weakened right. i have no hierarchy of rights. all rights (in themselves) are equal and every human has all of them.

[overjoyed]

Also, since you asked to be shown where you have contradicted yourself, OJ, I can give you one small example right off the bat.

You claimed recently not to be interested in laws but in ethics. Yet this is a shifting from some of your earlier posts, in which you continually held up the "law" in the following manner:and the law only recognizes protection for the born baby.hmmm, not a contradiction. first, it has nothing to do with my argument--so even if it is a shift in reasoning, it is not important. second, people were talking about laws and laws and laws and (though i am interested in morals independent of laws) i thought i would point out that the laws they were talking about provided protection only to born babies, not the unborn. i made a statement about "law" in general, but only meant to talk about the laws other people were talking about. i was too general, you're right. but you're wrong in thinking it is a contradiction. i can mention law without being interested. 99% of what i have said is independent of law. not a contradiction--but honestly, thank you for trying. it is 1000x better than charges alone.

It's rather a moot point now since you have eschewed the law argument in favor of nitpicking "rights", but I just thought I'd mention it.oh, so i haven't been that interested in or focused on laws. interesting. i agree.

Also, in the same spirit in which you thanked PotW for dropping his "apples to oranges" argument (in which you seem to be the only person who couldn't see the parallels), I thank you for dropping your ridiculous claim that abortion is sometimes nothing more than "letting a baby die".hmmm, no. in post 400 i gave two examples of abortion "letting the baby die" as opposed to killing. only one was argued against, that i saw--scraping. the other was "plan b" and it was dropped by everyone else. i didn't drop the argument, i won it.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

OJ, a good part of the confusion here has to do with a conflict of presuppositions. Presuppostions, sometimes called a priori assumptions, are the unquestioned starting points of discussions. They are the agreed-upon foundation from which the discussion proceeds, and are usually very general - things like, "If we assume there is such a thing as right and wrong..." or "If we grant that words have meaning...", and then things proceed from there.

The problem in this discussion is that you are presuming things that nobody is granting. That's why you think people aren't answering you - we're not granting your presuppositions. Here's what you're presuming:




people have rights granted by nature
among these rights is the right to autonomy and self determination
some people have weakened rights, based on their ability to function
people with stronger rights have the right to exercise those rights over people with weakened rights
a pregnant woman's right to autonomy and self determination is stronger than her unborn child's right to not have her life taken from her without grave cause, and therefore
a woman is morally justified in taking her child's life
Your arguments and answers are all presuming that these are true. These points are precisely what we are contending. Here's the pro-life point of view:

Nature does not grant rights, unless you're willing to admit the existence of a Creator God who endows rights (as the Declaration of Independence states). If you consider "nature" to be a mindless mechanism, then it can no more endow rights than a soda machine can.
There is no unrestricted right to autonomy and self-determination. If you want unfettered right to autonomy and self-determination, go be a hermit. The minute you have to interact with other humans, your rights have to start yielding as part of the give and take of human interaction. This is Philo 101 stuff - my right to act freely is restricted by the need to respect other's rights. My right to swing my fist stops where my neighbor's nose begins.
If a person has "weakened" rights, then without exception those rights are expected to be exercised by a responsible agent on behalf of the person with weakened rights and to their benefit. Whether you're talking about minor children, disabled adults, aging parents, or simply absent relatives, a person in a position of weakened rights is never to be exploited. To do so is at least immoral and often criminal.
Nothing, nowhere abridges any human's right not to have her life taken from her without grave cause - not even being within the mother's body. Every right, including the right to self-determination and autonomy, must move aside for a person's right not to have her life taken from her without grave cause.
So the problem is presuppositional. You're presuming that first set of points, and those are precisely what we're not willing to grant. You may not be convinced by our points, but be assured we aren't going to be convinced by yours. Continuing to argue as if we're granting those points will be a (continuing) exercise in frustration for you.

By the way, you didn't "win" anything when it came to the discussion of whether abortion kills the child or lets it die. Nobody "wins" with abortion - the child always loses first, and then the abortive woman. All you did was display your ignorance of abortion techniques and how they kill. Here are the methods of abortion:


Vacuum aspiration: a strong vacuum tube is inserted into the womb. The suction tears the baby into tiny pieces which are then sucked out.
Dilation & curettage (D&C): a loop-shaped knife is inserted into the womb and pulled back and forth, chopping the unborn child into small pieces, which are expelled from the womb.
Dilation & Evacuation (D&E): guided by ultrasound, the abortionist reaches into the womb with forceps and tears the unborn child limb from limb, pulling the pieces out an laying them on a cloth to examine after the procedure (you have to make certain you get her all)
Dilation & Extraction (D&X, or partial birth): the abortionist reaches into the womb and pulls the child most of the way out of the womb, all but the head. Then he takes a scissors and punches a hole in the base of the skull, into which he inserts a vacuum tube to suck her brains out. Her head collapses and she's withdrawn the rest of the way.
So you can see that there is no abortion technique that merely removes the child from the source of support she receives from her mother and lets her simply die on her own. In every case, the abortion procedure itself executes the child, and she doesn't leave the womb alive - in fact, she doesn't leave in one piece. It may be a comforting illusion for you to pretend that abortion is some benign act that just lets the baby die, but it isn't so.

There is one abortion technique where the baby leaves the mother's body intact. I'm sure it has a medical name, but where it is practiced it is simply known as "The Shot". It was invented in China as a way to deal with women who escaped that country's forced abortion and sterilization policies and brought an unapproved child to term. The abortionist waits until the baby is crowning (i.e. her head is just coming out of the birth canal). Then he sticks a large hypodermic needle into the baby's fontanel (soft spot) and injects a massive dose of formaldehyde into the baby's brain, instantly killing her. Of course, I'm sure you won't find that morally objectionable, because the baby had weakened rights by virtue of the fact that she was still within her mother's body. The rest of us find it barbaric.

[LifeMaiden]

Well imagine living in a country with such draconian laws as China. I heard from a friend there that while they don't cart you out of the house and force you to have an abortion, your government subsidies will be drastically reduced if you have more than one child, even in remote villages. And of course, in Asia, especially in China, there is a huge emphasis on having a son rather than a daughter. Did you know that in some areas, because women, upon finding out the sex of their unborn baby, was a female, would have abortions until they finally found out they were carrying a son? That same friend of mine chose not to have children, but SHE had a friend who had TEN abortions ( ten girls in a row, can you believe it?) until she finally got the son she wanted.

I wish with all my heart this wasn't so.

In a copy of the women's fashion magazine MARIE CLAIRE, approximately a year ago, there was an article featuring the shortage of females in certain areas and provinces of China, particularly in the Southern areas. In this article, there was a large photo depicting a dead baby girl, born only some hours ago, lying in the middle of the street. She was wrapped in a pink blanket, and just thrown there, abandoned, by whomever gave birth to her. Orphanages are full of baby girls, whose mothers didn't want ( or had no access to, abortions or adoptions) and left them there. Not so far off is it from drowning baby girls in a river?

The baby girl lay there for a while ( there was a hidden camera showing this) when a man got off his bicycle, looked at the baby girl, and threw her in the trash can. Just like that. Disposable.

Would pro-lifers say there is little difference then, between the disregard for this human life, throwing away a 9 month old baby versus having an abortion ( throwing away a fetus)?


In my dreadful abortion experiences, the suction method was used every time, the most common method for under 8 weeks. I'm not sure it tears up the fetus but then, with something as powerful and forceful as the vacuum they use...one can only imagine.

Well, all I can see in my mind was this glass jar, and the vacuum sucks out the tiny fetus during the procedure...which ends up in this small, gauze-like baggie in the inside of the jar while all the blood ends up in the jar itself ( sort of like a morbid sieve). And there was A LOT OF BLOOD. That was why initially I fainted and fell down on the operating room floor the first time. They had to put me in a wheelchair to get me out of there. And of course, fifteen minutes later after being handed a cup of soda and some crackers, they told me to call in case of complications. Along with a couple of anti-bleeding prescriptions and a sanitary pad. That was it.


I even asked the doctor at the time ," Well, what happened to that embryo?" And he said, " Well it's in one piece but as it is it's nothing more than a blastula, a blob of cells." The nurses and clinicians were removing bottle after bottle that day, since 80 abortions were performed ( approximately).

Notice this is the same term the clinicians used when I asked them, before the procedure, does this look like a baby? Does it have a beating heart?

" No it's just like a ball of snot, a blob of cells."





If a person thinks baby girls are treated any better in some places in China, think again.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Indeed, China is terrible - and the tragedy is, they're cutting their own throat. International pressure may have reduced the incidence of tossing pregnant women onto wagons (though that happened in the mid to late 1980s, when their program was introduced), but there are 1000 ways of a society pressuring women. Finances is one of them.

This is the bitterest irony of all: that the impact of easy abortion, supposedly introduced for the benefit of women, has fallen on women most harshly. A chilling study by the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (www.dcaf.ch (http://www.dcaf.ch)) estimates that over 200,000,000 women are "demographically missing" due to factors such as wife abuse, honor killings, and sex-selective abortions. A conservative estimate puts the victims of sex-selective abortions as 60,000,000 - more than four times the number lost in the Holocuast. (The full report can be found here (http://www.dcaf.ch/women/bp_women_ex_sum.pdf)) One silver lining to this pitch-black cloud is that some of the families just don't have the heart to murder their babies, so they "benignly abandon" them - not pitched in a street, but placed in a park or somewhere they'll be found. Ministries are springing up to place these children in adoptive homes, and my neice is one of them :). But these are only a small number; far too many are lost.

This is one reason why Tao warns so firmly against allowing The Law of The Fist into your moral framework, because once it's there, the Strong will quickly seize every opportunity to lord it over the Weak.

Yes, pro-lifers would say that that birth is an arbitrary line that makes no difference to the worth of the child - she is full human with full rights before and after birth. Even at a practical level, a baby who's two weeks before due date is essentially full term and could survive as a normal baby even at that stage. For that matter, a baby two weeks after birth is nearly as helpless and dependent as a fetus - she just gets her oxygen and nutrition through different channels.

I still mourn for you and for your children when I hear of your experiences, IceMaiden. I'm tremendously grateful that you can still love and care - far too women let such experiences hammer their souls into blocks of cold iron. I continue to pray for you, and all the victims of this tragedy.

[Lunayleen]

I'll have to agree with Prince of the West. Your post doesn't make any sense at all.

[inkspot]

if someone were to tell you that "you are wrong" every time you said anything, would it not be rude? and when you are right and show that you are right, people say nothing--but say you are wrong about something else. how is it not belittleing to constantly put someone down for being "wrong"?
This is the nature of debate (not the belittling, but that's a matter of personal style and as long as we belittle the argument and not the person, we're allowing everyone pretty much freedom of expression here). I just don't think some of the debaters here have found an argument of yours to be 'right' in their minds yet, and so of course, they have continued to say 'wrong.' It's tough, I know, to be one of the few defending abortion with so many pro-lifers here. You're to be commended for your bravery!

Next, OJ, PoTW has said it clearly: it is the very foundations of your argument which we cannot accept, so until you can convince us it is sometimes right to kill a defenseless person, you will be frustrated here. Also, you asked over and over for someone to answer your questions! And you listed them -- and I answered them in my last but one, in the order you stated them, and you had no reply to me. :(

and i have said that all rights are equal when they are full. there are no "greater" rights. but there are some situations that weaken rights. for example, if you have a right to do x, but can't do it on your own, then you have a weaker right to do x than someone who can do x on her own.
You are relying on semantics to carry your argument here: you are saying there are no greater or lesser rights, only "weakened' or "full" ones, but it amounts to the same thing. In your example, if there is a right to freedom of speech, but I've had a stroke and can neither speak nor write, you would say my right to freedom of speech is "weakened." But is it? No! I still have as great a right to speak my mind as the person beside me! I just don't have the ability to do so. It isn't my right to expression which has been weakened, it is my ability to express myself. If you then are defining the strength of rights by the strength of the person's ability to exercise his rights, you are, indeed, espousing "might makes right" and what PoTW has called the "Law of the Fist." This is something Christians (and many civilized nations) reject.

you think that some rights are more powerful than other rights in any degree, i think that's what you said. and you think that any degree of the right to life is more powerful than any degree of the right to autonomy. i think that all rights are equal when they are full. in that, i have a fully cached explanation of all rights. you, though, need to explain your hierarchy of rights and justify why some are intrinsically more powerful than others.
We think the right to life is the most powerful, because it is the one upon which all other rights are based. Once you killl a person, he gets no more chance to exercise any rights. It is the most important one, because without it, there is no reason for any other. As a comparison, the foundation is the most important feature of your house, because without it, your house won't stand. So you would never, for any reason, build a house without starting with the foundation. So, right to life is the foundation of all other rights, simply because if you are not alive, you do not get to use your rights. I would never try to claim there were any other rights if there was no right to life. This is an objective standard for why the right to life is the most critical one to us. Your standard of "weakened" and "full" rights is a sliding scale and much less objective, as we will see...

and like i have said before, nature does not make a woman pregnant. if a woman decides that she wants to have a child, has sex, and then gets pregnant--it is not a violation of her autonomy...

...you cannot violate your own rights. you can forfeit rights. you can waive rights. basically, in what you said, you have shown than a woman who gets herself pregnant did not violate her own rights. she can waive the right to autonomy by trying to get pregnant. but if she has sex for pleasure and takes precautions to ensure that she does not get pregnant and an accident happens and she gets pregnant, she has not waived rights or violated rights or forfeited rights.
Again, here your idea that saying a right is something "which cannot be violated by nature" is taking a beating, because you are not in fact basing the rights on the semi-objective idea of nature, but upon the intent of the person exercising the rights. You say you cannot violate your own rights, so if you get pregnant while trying to get pregnant, you have not violated your own right to autonomy, but if you get pregnant while just messing around for fun, you autonomy has been violated. OK, so what if I get pregnant while trying to get pregnant (forfeiting my right to autonomy), then decide I don't want to be pregnant. I have no "right" to an abortion anymore? If this is truly what you think, and you believe a baby is a human with a right to life as you have said, then you should be regulating abortions like crazy and only allowing them to people who can prove they did not in fact want a baby when they had sex! You should be making sure that no one's "forfeited" right to autonomy is triumphing over anyone's "weakened" right to life -- for surely a forfeited right is less powerful than even a weakened right? That is, and this is no attack on you, but upon your logic here, outlandish. ;)

Don't you see that all the squirming to give abortion some kind of moral footing (rights granted by "nature") is setting you up in some kind of no-man's land of ethics-morality-rights where you are deciding whose rights are better, stronger faster than others?

the right to autonomy is a right of self-determination. a brain tumor does not violate this right because it is only a lump of cells like millions of other lumps of cells in your body. you don't want it there, but that doesn't mean there is a violation of autonomy.
Then what, again, is the right to autonomy? I understood you and others to define it as the right not to have done to your body anything you don't want done to it. And I unerstood you to say, this right is granted by nature, which means it is something which nature cannot violate. You here admit the lump of cells destroying your brain is something you do not want, and I will add, something for which you did not 'forfeit" your right to autonomy in hopes of receiving, so how again is this not a violation of your autonomy by nature, which would prove the right to autonomy is not granted by nature (as it has violated it)?

That's all my questions for now, and if you go back a couple posts, you will see my list of answers to yours. I am trying to be clear here. And courteous. :D

[LifeMaiden]

I'll have to agree with Prince of the West. Your post doesn't make any sense at all.


Which post? You mean OJ's?


POTW: I also read where in certain provinces where the female shortage is bad, men have now resorted to KIDNAPPING women from other villages and selling them as wives to men looking to marry. Now how bitterly ironic is that?

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I've heard of that as well. Tragically, the shortage of available women is also feeding the international traffic in sex slavery. I've read that families in southeast Asia in particular can't let their daughters wander alone or they'll be snatched and sold to the brothels and "pleasure resorts" of Thailand and other spots.

I was reading a tragic article - do you know that an estimated 300,000 prostitutes will be imported into Germany (where prostitution is legal) for the World Cup finals? I wonder how many will be coming willingly. I realize that this is off topic, but in a bitter way the whole matter is interconnected. The fruit of "sexual liberation" has been hardest of all on women, from abortion to sex slavery to being cast aside with incurable diseases by the age of 20. What my grandfather told my father is as true as ever: marriage is an institution for the protection of women and children.

Men! Return to Tao!

[overjoyed]

This is the nature of debate (not the belittling, but that's a matter of personal style and as long as we belittle the argument and not the person, we're allowing everyone pretty much freedom of expression here). I just don't think some of the debaters here have found an argument of yours to be 'right' in their minds yet, and so of course, they have continued to say 'wrong.' It's tough, I know, to be one of the few defending abortion with so many pro-lifers here. You're to be commended for your bravery!argumentation is the nature of debate. if someone's personal style is to constantly belittle someone for their arguments, that is rude and that is belittleing. i just hope people reading this have the wisdom to see such rudeness as what it truly is: empty.

Next, OJ, PoTW has said it clearly: it is the very foundations of your argument which we cannot accept, so until you can convince us it is sometimes right to kill a defenseless person, you will be frustrated here. i have made an argument. that argument contains premises. i have argued for those premises and people have objected to those premises. that is the way argumentation works. if i say "p" and then i make arguments that support "p", it is not intelligible for someone to object by saying "not-p, because that's what i believe". such objections only assert beliefs.

presuppositions are things assumed in order to make an argument, but i have argued for my premises--i have not simply assumed things to be true (other than the fact that rights exist). this is how arguments work. all princeofthewest pointed out was that he disagrees with me on a foundational level, but there was no argument for why i am wrong and he is right. his post is an appeal to intuitions--saying "it is clear that you are wrong and we disagree with you". anyone "well read" in philosophy knows that objections based on intuitions/beliefs alone are question begging.

You are relying on semantics to carry your argument here: you are saying there are no greater or lesser rights, only "weakened' or "full" ones, but it amounts to the same thing. no, it doesn't. all rights, in themselves, are equal. that means there are no rights that are intrisically more powerful that other rights. this is not just semantics. some of you want to say that i have a hierarchy of rights where the right to life is not at the top. this is not true. the right to life is equal in strength to the right to autonomy when both are full.

If you then are defining the strength of rights by the strength of the person's ability to exercise his rights, you are, indeed, espousing "might makes right" and what PoTW has called the "Law of the Fist." This is something Christians (and many civilized nations) reject.it doesn't always have to do with ability. murderers waive certain rights, and those rights are extremely weak in them but not because of an inability. the unborn baby can be weakening the mother's right to autonomy, but she has the ability to be fully autonomous. anyway, this isn't "might makes right" b/c i have explained that weakened rights only matter when they come into conflict with other rights. i can't walk around killing people because they are weaker than me and i have the ability. but even if i was espousing the law of the fist (which i am not), saying that certain people reject it is not an objection.


We think the right to life is the most powerful, because it is the one upon which all other rights are based. this is an argument for establishing a hierarchy of rights. i think this is wrong because if someone waives her right to life by leaping from a cliff, on her way down, she still has the right to not be shot by a sniper (which would violate her autonomy). and if someone forfeits her right to life by pulling a gun on police officers, she still has the right not to be shot in the legs and arms and tortured before the police decide to execute her. did you notice what happened here? you made an argument and my objection was not "i am unwilling to grant you this presupposition".

OK, so what if I get pregnant while trying to get pregnant (forfeiting my right to autonomy), then decide I don't want to be pregnant. I have no "right" to an abortion anymore? right. but i'm not proposing what we should do about it (regulations, etc). i'm just giving a theory of ethics. abortion in this case would be wrong. there's nothing wrong with my logic, but i think you are expecting me to think of some practical way to make all the bad abortions stop. i'm thinking of what is good and bad for people to do; not what kinds of mechanisms can be installed for governmental enforcement of morals.

last thing, princeofthewest said that i am ignorant of the different types of abortion. this is wrong. in fact, when he gives a list of the different methods, he forgets the one that i argued was letting the baby die: plan b. convenient.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

last thing, princeofthewest said that i am ignorant of the different types of abortion. this is wrong. in fact, when he gives a list of the different methods, he forgets the one that i argued was letting the baby die: plan b. convenient.Okay, OJ, enlighten me: just what form of abortion is performed by "letting the baby die"?

[Ephinie]

We think the right to life is the most powerful, because it is the one upon which all other rights are based. Once you killl a person, he gets no more chance to exercise any rights. It is the most important one, because without it, there is no reason for any other. As a comparison, the foundation is the most important feature of your house, because without it, your house won't stand. So you would never, for any reason, build a house without starting with the foundation. So, right to life is the foundation of all other rights, simply because if you are not alive, you do not get to use your rights. I would never try to claim there were any other rights if there was no right to life. This is an objective standard for why the right to life is the most critical one to us. Your standard of "weakened" and "full" rights is a sliding scale and much less objective, as we will see...Yeah... what she said.

[inkspot]

Thanks, E!

OJ, perhaps you and I read PoTW's post on suppositions with a different understanding. Let me try to show you what I thought was being said:

Your argument: people have rights granted by nature (which you have defended as best you can, and which you have never made a strong enough case for to convince me.
The Pro-life response: Nature does not grant rights, unless you're willing to admit the existence of a Creator God who endows rights (as the Declaration of Independence states). If you consider "nature" to be a mindless mechanism, then it can no more endow rights than a soda machine can.
You have asked again and again, "But how can you define rights if you say they come from God?" And I have, in my last several, showed you how, and proven how much more objective it is than your idea of "weakened" and "full rights." So your supposition that nature gives you right has not yet been proven.


Your argument: among these rights granted by nature is the right to autonomy and self determination
The pro-life response: There is no unrestricted right to autonomy and self-determination. The moment you choose to live in a society, you know your behavior and your rights must in some circumstances be infringed upon/altered because that is the nature of living together in a society. If you don't allow this alteration, you are quickly rejected by the society or jailed or what have you.
You have indeed argued this is not the case, but the argument is shaky, for all the evidence of what a society is and means revolves around the very idea that we cannot all the time act on our own impulses and for our own interests or else the society falls into chaos. Self-determination is therefore an ideal, but not a right given by nature. Nature, in fact, steps in to thwart our self-determination and autonomy all the time.

your argument: some people have weakened rights, based on their ability to function, and people with stronger rights have the right to exercise those rights over people with weakened rights
The pro-life response: If a person has "weakened" rights, then without exception those rights are expected to be exercised by a responsible agent on behalf of the person with weakened rights and to their benefit. Whether you're talking about minor children, disabled adults, aging parents, or simply absent relatives, a person in a position of weakened rights is never to be exploited. To do so is at least immoral and often criminal.
But let me say: my example before as it concerns freedom of speech makes it probable that when you say a "weakened right," what you are really referring to is a "weakened ability to exercise the right," for society's purpose has been to keep the right as strongly exercised as possible on behalf of the person with the weakened inability to exercise the right. You do not take advantage of someone with a weakened ability to exercise his rights; that is considered heartless, cruel, mean, wrong, evil ... surely you can agree to that?

Your argument: a pregnant woman's right to autonomy and self determination is stronger than her unborn child's right to not have her life taken from her without grave cause, and therefore
a woman is morally justified in taking her child's life.
The pro-life response: nothing, nowhere abridges any human's right not to have her life taken from her without grave cause - not even being within the mother's body. Every right, including the right to self-determination and autonomy, must move aside for a person's right not to have her life taken from her without grave cause.
You say that we argue this is true simply because this is what we believe -- we could argue that we would believe this only because it were true -- but in my last post I made it clear why we believe the right to life has pre-eminence, as it is the one right necessary for all others to flow. If you want to say this gives us a hierarchy of rights, good, it does, because we believe this is the right which trumps all others.

Now, I think this answers your assertion that we are just telling you what we believe without anything to back up our beliefs, because clearly, PoTW, Ephinie, Sunrise and I have given you plenty of logic for each argument/presupposition. In this area, you have tried as best you can to give us logical and objective reasons for what you believe, and we likewise have given you ours.

anyway, this isn't "might makes right" b/c i have explained that weakened rights only matter when they come into conflict with other rights. i can't walk around killing people because they are weaker than me and i have the ability. but even if i was espousing the law of the fist (which i am not), saying that certain people reject it is not an objection.
Saying certain people reject it is not an objection to it? Listen to yourself. If I am to be allowed NO moral footing (thousands of years of the rule of law, let's say, which defined the law of the fist as WRONG) then how can we have a debate about ethics at all? There are, even between you and me, some areas, surely, where we can say a thing is right, and another thing is wrong? And surely we do not have to re-invent the wheel, go back to the dawn of time, and define good and evil before we can make the statement that the idea of "MIGHT MAKES RIGHT" is wrong? Because if you cannot even agree with me that the idea of the stronger having the right to destroy the weaker is WRONG, then we really have nothing to say to one another, because we live on two different planets. But surely I am misunderstanding you, here. :o

As to the first assertion of that quote, that you are saying it is not the Law of the Fist because "weakened rights only matter when they come into conflict with other rights," what does that matter? My whole point in my previous was: by insisting there is sometimes a right to kill for convenience (or as you will have it, autonomy), you have opened yourself up to the no-man's land of having to judge when and where and who it is okay to kill for convenience. You have created a "weakened" class of people who are there to be killed with impunity. No matter what you say about the circumstances in which "might makes right," the principle is the same.

but i'm not proposing what we should do about it (regulations, etc). i'm just giving a theory of ethics. abortion in this case would be wrong. there's nothing wrong with my logic, but i think you are expecting me to think of some practical way to make all the bad abortions stop. i'm thinking of what is good and bad for people to do; not what kinds of mechanisms can be installed for governmental enforcement of morals.
This is the difference between us. While you say you fully believe the pre-born baby is a human with all the human rights, yet you are content for him to be killed because this is just a theory of ethics, many pro-lifers really believe the pre-born baby is a being made in the image of God, and so they cannot be content to see him killed. They insist, if you believe a baby is human, you have to protect him, and then they go about doing all they can to give the unwanted babies a safe haven and enlighten the moms who are carrying unwanted babies as to their options.

Does regarding this as an exercise excuse you from responsibility if you really believe babies are human and some are being killed by mums who meant to get pregnant (thus forfeiting their right to autonomy) and have now decided they don't want to be pregnant? I cannot think how it does, if this is what you really believe. But perhaps this is not what you believe.

As to whether I am here trying to concern myself with "mechanisms" that "can be installed for governmental enforcement of morals," do you not think this is everyone's responsibility in our society? Law in and of itself is the enforcement of morality, and I do not think you would be very happy or safe if all laws were repealed.

And as for whether or not there is anything wrong with your logic, I clearly think that there is, but it goes back much further than the last question, it goes all the way back to where you say rights come from: you have not yet proven that rights proceed from nature and are things which "cannot be violated by nature." Until you have proven that, your logic about some abortions being "bad" and others not, is going to be suspect.

[overjoyed]

Okay, OJ, enlighten me: just what form of abortion is performed by "letting the baby die"?you must be kidding. plan b. this should not be enlightening since i have stated it multiple times.

inkspot, i see you giving a lot of "pro-life responses", but where is the pro-life argument? as far as i can tell, there is only one argument being discussed here--my argument. someone give a pro-life argument that is more than just responses.

We cannot, this is why we rely on the Bill of Rights,etc. in the USA, and why other civilizations have codified such lists since the beginning of writing.what makes the bill of rights objective? we see its subjective nature b/c other civilizations (as you point out) have different lists of rights. these rights are rights granted to us by the government, but not a complete list of rights. as a brief aside, the bill of rights was influenced by enlightenment era philosophies about natural rights.

God gave us Scriptures, but also it seems He placed the basics of right and wrong in the hearts of humansif we are going by heart-alone, there are vast differences in morals. some find it morally reprehensible to eat other humans, but others do not. some find abortion wrong, while others do not. this is the "heart" of subjectivity, when i recall you asking for objectivity earlier. and do you think god had every right written down in scriptures? i can only find vague references to rights in the bible--and it certainly does not talk about things like the bill of rights. how do we know which rights god grants to which people?

This has been answered by Ephinie and Sunrise in regards to autonomy, nature violates it all the time. In the rest of the "rights defined by nature" argument, it is more of defining what is or isn't possible in nature, not what we do or don't have a right to do. Nature doesn't allow certain things, like it won't let me fly, but that doesn't mean I don't have a "right" to fly, or that I do have one ... It's nothing to do with rights.i have explained how nature does not violate autonomy. and i have also explained how rights are not just about what is possible. while it is clearly true that we do not have rights to do the impossible, those "rights" are only part of the list of imaginary rights. i have already explained this. multiple times. the discussion that follows will present (again) one imaginary right that has nothing to do with ability.

To my knowledge, Christians don't believe there are any "imaginary" rights. so, for example, it was argued earlier that some people say they have a right to have a male child. my argument is that this is only an imaginary right (which means it is not a right at all). if there are no imaginary rights, do christians believe that this right exists? my argument gives a way to tell that this is not a real right. does yours?

is there only a right to life in scripture? is the bill of rights, then, in violation of scripture?

[PrinceOfTheWest]

you must be kidding. plan b. this should not be enlightening since i have stated it multiple times.I'm not kidding. How does "plan b" work? What does the abortionist do or not do?

[Sunrise]

Wait, I found it. Back on page 40. Sorry, OJ, this thread is so long and we've covered so much ground, we'd all forgotten what you meant by "plan b."

another type of abortion called "plan b" just prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus and lets the baby die. .

So this would be like the morning-after pill, then, I take it.

[the freak sisters]

I agree with NO ABORTION!!!

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Wait, I found it. Back on page 40. Sorry, OJ, this thread is so long and we've covered so much ground, we'd all forgotten what you meant by "plan b."

So this would be like the morning-after pill, then, I take it.Oh, right - now I remember. That would be like my putting overjoyed on a ship I was respsonsible for provisioning and neglecting to put any food aboard. That way, once she was at sea and starved to death, I wouldn't be responsible because I hadn't done anything.

[echoscot]

Oh, right - now I remember. That would be like my putting overjoyed on a ship I was respsonsible for provisioning and neglecting to put any food aboard. That way, once she was at sea and starved to death, I wouldn't be responsible because I hadn't done anything.


A little harsh on OJ there, but a good analogy I think. This is such a difficult topic, dealing with life and death, but you make many strong arguments POTW.

[overjoyed]

Oh, right - now I remember. That would be like my putting overjoyed on a ship I was respsonsible for provisioning and neglecting to put any food aboard. That way, once she was at sea and starved to death, I wouldn't be responsible because I hadn't done anything.no, it would be like not feeding a person that is starving. that is letting the person die, not killing. (before you attack me, i'm not suggesting that it is ok to not feed a starving person. i am only drawing the distinction between killing and letting die.) but, since this point is not important to my argument, i'll leave it alone now.

Your argument: people have rights granted by nature (which you have defended as best you can, and which you have never made a strong enough case for to convince me.rights exist. those rights are grounded in nature. by saying that rights are "granted" by nature, you make it sound as if nature should therefore be able to do things like "grant" and "deny" that rational beings do. nature is not a being that does things like "granting". look back at my definition of nature as the grounding of rights. calling it "granting" is your only link to the "pro-life response". and, no, you have not given me a complete account of rights that is more objective than mine. how, again, is my standard for rights subjective?

There is no unrestricted right to autonomy and self-determination. if this means that there is no right to do whatever you want or no right to have nothing unwanted happen to you, then i agree (again). but even in a society, nature does not thwart autonomy--if anything violates autonomy, it is the society/government. my argument is not "shaky" only b/c you disagree.

your argument: some people have weakened rights, based on their ability to function, and people with stronger rights have the right to exercise those rights over people with weakened rights... if the rights are conflicting. yes.
The pro-life response: If a person has "weakened" rights, then without exception those rights are expected to be exercised by a responsible agent on behalf of the person with weakened rights and to their benefit. why is that? so if a woman was raped and became pregnant as a result, and she did not want to keep the child (there is a conflict of rights), you are saying that she has the responsibility to protect the baby while it violates her autonomy? what about the rapist? while he is violating her right to autonomy he has a weakened (waived) right to autonomy b/c she is justified in fighting back. so is she required to protect his weakened right while he violates hers? or could the "responsible agent" be a third party advocate? in that case, the agent would see the conflict of rights and make a responsible determination that there is a stronger right being violated and the only solution is abortion.

You do not take advantage of someone with a weakened ability to exercise his rights; that is considered heartless, cruel, mean, wrong, evil ... surely you can agree to that?taking advantage of the weak is wrong--but if the "weak" person is violating someone else's rights, there is no "taking advantage". stopping the violation of rights is justified, even if that requires actions taken against a "weak" person.

Saying certain people reject it is not an objection to it? Listen to yourself. correct. saying "look at all these people that think i am right" is not an argument. ethics isn't about finding out who has more people on their side. ethics is about finding out what is right, and we do that through argumentation. you want me to grant you moral authority because people agree with you, but i am unwilling to concede anything because some people for some reason (or not) at some time thought something was wrong. large groups of people can be wrong. you do not have greater moral footing than i do.

Because if you cannot even agree with me that the idea of the stronger having the right to destroy the weaker is WRONG, then we really have nothing to say to one another, because we live on two different planets. i'm not saying that "might makes right" is anything but wrong. you do a nice job of showing that "might makes right" means that the strong have the right to destroy the weak. i understand this as a sort of survival of the fittest system where only the strong survive. is this correct, or am i misunderstanding?

And as for whether or not there is anything wrong with your logic, I clearly think that there is, but it goes back much further than the last question, it goes all the way back to where you say rights come from: you have not yet proven that rights proceed from nature and are things which "cannot be violated by nature." Until you have proven that, your logic about some abortions being "bad" and others not, is going to be suspect.this is not a question about my logic--you just do not agree with me. i say rights come from nature b/c all the rights that i think are real are natural to us. you say that rights come from god b/c god gives us rights--this is question begging which is a flaw in logic. i am not required to "prove" where rights come from for my logic to be valid. and i am not requiring you to do the same. why you argue that i have to "prove it" and you don't baffles me. and yes, i have shown that real rights cannot be violated by nature. if you are going to question my logic, show my argument to be invalid. for example, if my argument was:
if a, then b
b is true
therefore, a
you could show this to be invalid logic. but if my argument is:
if a, then b
a is true
therefore, b
you cannot show it to be invalid by saying "a is false". if "a" really is false, then you can make arguments to show that my argument is not sound, but this does not address the validity of the logic.

the funny thing is that i am the only one (as far as i can tell) who has given a logical argument for or against abortion. you can question my logic only because my argument is set-up in that way. give me a pro-life argument so we can see its logical structure.

[LifeMaiden]

I've heard of that as well. Tragically, the shortage of available women is also feeding the international traffic in sex slavery. I've read that families in southeast Asia in particular can't let their daughters wander alone or they'll be snatched and sold to the brothels and "pleasure resorts" of Thailand and other spots.

I was reading a tragic article - do you know that an estimated 300,000 prostitutes will be imported into Germany (where prostitution is legal) for the World Cup finals? I wonder how many will be coming willingly. I realize that this is off topic, but in a bitter way the whole matter is interconnected. The fruit of "sexual liberation" has been hardest of all on women, from abortion to sex slavery to being cast aside with incurable diseases by the age of 20. What my grandfather told my father is as true as ever: marriage is an institution for the protection of women and children.

Men! Return to Tao!


Most women in prostitution in the US at least are there by choice. But when I hear about 'imported' I begin to think that many of those women are Eastern European or from Africa. I don't oppose prostitution as a viable trade ( living here in Nevada where it is legally run in the brothels for example) or other trades in the sex industry as long as the woman has made her own decision to do that. I was an exotic dancer for a while I first began starting out as a fitness trainer and competitor. Okay I can't believe I just said that but I did. :D


Okay so let me get back to the issue of slavery and abortion as comparative subjects. I had forgotten to add a few points to that discussion. As I had stated earlier, anti-slavery activists were not always anti-racist. While they opposed slavery morally, they also were not always for equality, and many offered very little solutions once slavery ended. To me, ending slavery so suddenly did not offer blacks enough options once they were free. Even Confederates such as Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson believed in the GRADUAL emancipation of slaves and educating them. Since it was illegal for slaves to read and write, once they were free, they found themselves with very little skills to help them advance out of their miserable states of former servitude.

Abraham Lincoln and many Northerners, ( it's a grave mistake to believe that the North was not racist or were uniform in their anti slavery sentiment. Just take a look at the New York Draft Riots of 1863 was a great example to see how hatred of blacks in the North helped to keep them 'enslaved' in many ways by racism and discrimination, so that ghettos formed primarily in the North, with extreme pockets of poverty for blacks), for example, were not the great emancipators that they appeared to be. Lincoln was also openly racist and was under pressure to put into writing and law the Emancipation Proclaimation, which did NOT free slaves in those border states whose votes he depended on..such as Kentucky, his home state, and the deeply divided state of Tennessee. West Virginia was formed in 1863 and while did not tolerate slavery, primarily because of its mountaineous terrain was not suitable for large plantations or farms...was equally intolerant of freed blacks. Blacks found themselves lynched and at the mercy of angry whites in most states in the North where slavery did not exist.


After slavery ended, the North and the anti-slavery activists quickly forgot about their 'black brethren' and left them to the mercy of the Klan and segregation, poverty, and so forth. The Freedman's Bureau was overwhelmed with blacks who were newly freed and seeking jobs and education. The sudden emancipation of slavery did not eradicate nor solve or offer solutions for those freed blacks.

If abortion were suddenly made illegal, then pro-lifers would also have to take the reins and continue to assist those people who do not have the proper education when it comes to birth control. In other words, to me, you can't just say OKAY LET'S MAKE ABORTION ILLEGAL AND THAT WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF ABORTION. We know that many people who are impoverished may have 'access' to birth control as it is widely available, but we also know that there is a lot of ignorance when it comes to using this birth control. Immigrants who don't speak English might not even know about some methods.

Many women for examle who choose to KEEP their children are the ones who end up on welfare and placing a heavy tax burden on citizens. Are pro-lifers in particular willing to shoulder that burden? I've heard a few pro-lifers in my classes in college complain about the welfare mothers, yet these same welfare mothers are the ones who chose not to have an abortion and chose to keep their kids. How fair is it that we condemn the women who choose to keep their children and not 'get rid of them' through abortion or have the proper instruction and knowledge of using birth control?

I see it all the time with women of ALL races, who seem to be the poorest and yet have the most children. If birth control were indeed the only solution then why are these women, who cannot afford to have children, choosing to have kids they cannot care for properly? And how are pro-lifers prepared to deal with those women and children who live below the poverty level as a result of being pro-life by keeping their kids?

[LifeMaiden]

Okay, OJ, enlighten me: just what form of abortion is performed by "letting the baby die"?


I'm a little confused here again. When we're talking about letting a baby die, are we talking about neglecting an infant by not feeding it or taking care of it, or 'letting a baby die' as in getting aborted?



I have another very personal story to share with everyone here, something I haven't talked about to many. But I figure, what better way to share than with a group of people whose insights have deeply moved me to reconsider my views , one of the staunchest of pro-choicers?


I've always thought the ironic thing about legalized abortion was that in the past, single motherhood was deeply frowned upon and bought great shame to a family if a woman had a child out of wedlock. These days, no one blinks an eye about it. So if a woman didn't want an abortion and decided to keep her child now, it wouldn't be a big deal morally in most people's eyes. As the greater sin would be to have an abortion.


In my mother's day and age, very, very few women could have a child and not be shamed by the double standard we have for women...i.e., think Scarlet Letter...no one ever truly condemns the man for leaving or getting a woman pregnant. My mother at a young age became involved with a caucasian gentleman who convinced her he was going to marry her, although she later found out he was married and had a wife and children in another state. In my mom's day, having a child who was mixed race was especially shameful, and she was Asian ( her parents were from Japan) so she couldn't go home to face them, although later on, they forgave her without thinking twice once she told them. But shame is a HUGE thing in Asian families...you would not dream of dishonoring the family by having a child out of wedlock or having a mixed race baby.


My mother had some options, as she could have gotten an abortion, and not a back alley one, because there was a doctor she worked for who offered to perform it, and had done so before several times in his office. But she went to a home for 'unwed mothers' ( I love that term) and instead, stayed there with Catholic nuns and other pregnant unwed women until she delivered a baby boy exactly nine months later. My mother recalled that she did not want to get too attached to the baby, because she knew she had to give it up, and all she remembered was that it had very dark hair and screamed a lot.
She was told by these nuns ( they had a great attitude back then) that her baby would have a hard time getting adopted because it was a mixed breed child. But I am positive, as my mother is, that child went to live in a happy home. Today he would be almost 50 years old. The home where my mother stayed is long gone. I have no desire to look up this half-brother or disturb his serenity, because the family that adopted him is his true family.

[overjoyed]

I'm a little confused here again. When we're talking about letting a baby die, are we talking about neglecting an infant by not feeding it or taking care of it, or 'letting a baby die' as in getting aborted?plan b prevents the unborn baby from implanting into the uterus. that makes it so that the unborn baby is not fed and dies (is aborted). the type of scraping i was talking about is similar, but used after implantation. the baby implants into the uterine wall and then the entire uterine wall is scraped off by the doctor (and the baby is part of that) and dies by not being fed. but the only kind of scraping everyone else wanted to talk about was when babies are torn apart.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

That's the only kind of scraping there is. There is no scraping that leaves the baby intact - all of them cut the baby to pieces.

Even if it did leave the baby intact, removing any dependent being from its sole source of support and letting it die is still active murder. An equivalent example would be cutting a diabetic off from an insulin supply. You aren't doing anything but "letting him die", but it's still active murder.

[LifeMaiden]

That's the only kind of scraping there is. There is no scraping that leaves the baby intact - all of them cut the baby to pieces.

Even if it did leave the baby intact, removing any dependent being from its sole source of support and letting it die is still active murder. An equivalent example would be cutting a diabetic off from an insulin supply. You aren't doing anything but "letting him die", but it's still active murder.


Not sure if you discussed your views on this, POTW, but how do you feel about the morning after pill? I have to be honest...I'm not even sure how that pill works!!

[overjoyed]

That's the only kind of scraping there is. There is no scraping that leaves the baby intact - all of them cut the baby to pieces.

Even if it did leave the baby intact, removing any dependent being from its sole source of support and letting it die is still active murder. An equivalent example would be cutting a diabetic off from an insulin supply. You aren't doing anything but "letting him die", but it's still active murder.it seems like you are denying that there is a distinction between killing and letting die. are you? if not, what do you think the difference is between the two? i suggest reading "killing, letting die, and withdrawing aid" by jeff mcmahan (ethics, vol. 103, no. 2 (january, 1993) pp. 250-279).

[inkspot]

OJ, I am saying uncle.

You have ignored, for obvious reasons:
We think the right to life is the most powerful, because it is the one upon which all other rights are based. Once you killl a person, he gets no more chance to exercise any rights. It is the most important one, because without it, there is no reason for any other. As a comparison, the foundation is the most important feature of your house, because without it, your house won't stand. So you would never, for any reason, build a house without starting with the foundation. So, right to life is the foundation of all other rights, simply because if you are not alive, you do not get to use your rights. I would never try to claim there were any other rights if there was no right to life. This is an objective standard for why the right to life is the most critical one to us. Your standard of "weakened" and "full" rights is a sliding scale and much less objective, as we will see...
And offer no support for your assertion that a "full" right to autonomy is more important than the "weakest" right to life.

You have ignored, for obvious reasons:
You are relying on semantics to carry your argument here: you are saying there are no greater or lesser rights, only "weakened' or "full" ones, but it amounts to the same thing. In your example, if there is a right to freedom of speech, but I've had a stroke and can neither speak nor write, you would say my right to freedom of speech is "weakened." But is it? No! I still have as great a right to speak my mind as the person beside me! I just don't have the ability to do so. It isn't my right to expression which has been weakened, it is my ability to express myself. If you then are defining the strength of rights by the strength of the person's ability to exercise his rights, you are, indeed, espousing "might makes right." and
by insisting there is sometimes a right to kill for convenience (or as you will have it, autonomy), you have opened yourself up to the no-man's land of having to judge when and where and who it is okay to kill for convenience. You have created a "weakened" class of people who are there to be killed with impunity. No matter what you say about the circumstances in which "might makes right," the principle is the same.

You have failed to adequately make sense of this, for obvious reasons:
Again, here your idea that saying a right is something "which cannot be violated by nature" is taking a beating, because you are not in fact basing the rights on the semi-objective idea of nature, but upon the intent of the person exercising the rights. You say you cannot violate your own rights, so if you get pregnant while trying to get pregnant, you have not violated your own right to autonomy, but if you get pregnant while just messing around for fun, you autonomy has been violated.
This idea of rights grounded in nature is clearly untenable, and yet you cling to it for dear llife. Nature is the last entity to give anyone rights! Nature is the last force which will alllow anyone but herself rights. nature kicks our sorry human butts all over the place, and you say it gives us rights? Further, the nightmare scenario outlined above is somehow logical to you? The whole purpose of sex is procreation, so I would say when you have it, you have "forfeited" your "right to autonomy."

You have danced around the illness issue, for obvious reasons:
Then what, again, is the right to autonomy? I understood you and others to define it as the right not to have done to your body anything you don't want done to it. And I unerstood you to say, this right is granted by nature, which means it is something which nature cannot violate. You here admit the lump of cells destroying your brain is something you do not want, and I will add, something for which you did not 'forfeit" your right to autonomy in hopes of receiving, so how again is this not a violation of your autonomy by nature, which would prove the right to autonomy is not granted by nature (as it has violated it)?
Somehow you say the brain tumor is not a violation of your right to autonomy, although it is there in your body and you don't want it. Of course you have to ignore this argument if you are going to insist nature gives you some rights.

you ask:
if we are going by heart-alone, there are vast differences in morals. some find it morally reprehensible to eat other humans, but others do not. some find abortion wrong, while others do not. this is the "heart" of subjectivity, when i recall you asking for objectivity earlier. and do you think god had every right written down in scriptures? i can only find vague references to rights in the bible--and it certainly does not talk about things like the bill of rights. how do we know which rights god grants to which people?
But if you will look into the sociological research (CS Lewis' Abolition of Man would be a good place to start) you will see that morals have not varied much from society to society. Those that espoused eating people or enslaving people usually did not think of the ones they ate or enslaved as human. This is why I was so shocked that you could support abortion while believing the pre-born baby was human! The idea of killing defenseless and innocent "humans" has been rejected by almost all societies.

God did not, for a fact, write anything about rights, because of course, the Scriptures testify to His values and it is clear, as I mentioned before, He appears to value life very highly. If you think the "rights" espoused by God cannot be codified by man (when we have Scriptures to work with) how on earth do you think the supposed "rights" granted by nature can ever be codified? Especially when nature is so harsh and cruel as to kill wantonly? An idea of any rights grounded in nature is very subjective, for nature gives us the back of her hand all too often.

Sunrise, Ephinie and I have again and again shown you how nature violates autonomy, and you simply deny it.

I have told you again and again, rights come from the hand of God, and you simply refuse to believe this is an onbjective standard.

PoTW and I have shown again and again how your idea of "weakened rights" is nothing but a dressing-up of the idea of "might makes right," with the stronger have the right to kill the weaker, and you say no it's not -- it only happens when right are in conflict.

I am understanding you very well, but your arguments are simply not convincing. It is fruitless to continue.

You can say you "won" the argument because you made me tired of going back and forth over the same issues again and again, how's that? Congratulations. :D

[PrinceOfTheWest]

it seems like you are denying that there is a distinction between killing and letting die. are you? What I am denying is that it has any bearing on the argument. All surgical abortion techniques dismember and kill the unborn child before she is removed from the womb. None remove her intact from the womb so she can be "let die". Surgical abortion kills and dismembers the children before they leave the mother's body.

As Inkspot points out, you're arguing in circles. You claim that the "real" rights of the mother's autonomy and self-expression trump the "weakened" right of the child's right not to have her life taken from her without grave cause. When we point out that in what are considered enlightened cultures, nothing trumps anyone's right not to have their life taken from them without grave cause, and you skitter off on distractions like the question above.

You seem to lack the historical perspective that would tell you that the radical individualism which you set up as the summum bonum is actually a relatively recent development in Western history, dating from the Romantic period (which Lewis contended was the important watershed in modern Western civilization, even moreso than the "Enlightenment".) It has happened in history before, where cultures have done away with a balanced view of individual vs. communal rights and given themselves over to radical individualism (i.e. rights without responsibilities). There aren't many cultures have done that, and we don't have much record about what happens to them because they've all collapsed so quickly after making that change that little remains but the obituaries.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that we should obey Tao because it will preserve our civilization. I'm saying we should obey Tao because it is right - and a side effect of following the right may be the preservation of our civilization. But whether or no, keep this in mind: people who come to the point of being willing to sacrifice the life of another to their own unfettered autonomy and self-expression ultimately fall under the power of people who are willing to sacrifice the life of another to their own unfettered autonomy and self-expression.

[Sunrise]

it seems like you are denying that there is a distinction between killing and letting die. are you?

Nobody has denied that there is a distinction. What we deny is that an abortion can be classified in the latter category.

Let's use one of your prior examples. You compared the "scraping" abortion to a doctor on a battlefield withdrawing oxygen from a dying soldier. On the surface, they seem similar - in both cases, the person is removed from the special aid it requires to continue to live.

On further consideration, however, the two scenarios are revealed to be polar opposites in intent and procedure. Examine them in relative terms:


The soldier is dying.
The life support being used is an artificial means of postponing the inevitable.
Letting nature take its course involves removing this artificial means.
The soldier, left to himself, is allowed to die.

Now, let's compare that with the unborn baby, shall we?

The baby is not dying, but developing.
The life support being used is a natural biological means of supporting the inevitable.
Letting nature take its course involves leaving the baby and its environment alone to continue its development.
To interfere with this process via abortion introduces an artificial means that interrupts nature, rather than "letting" it do anything.
The baby, left to herself, will develop to term. (Barring a miscarraige.)


Is this a clear enough distinction?

[overjoyed]

You have ignored, for obvious reasons:We think the right to life is the most powerful, because it is the one upon which all other rights are based.no i have not ignored it.
i think this is wrong because if someone waives her right to life by leaping from a cliff, on her way down, she still has the right to not be shot by a sniper (which would violate her autonomy). and if someone forfeits her right to life by pulling a gun on police officers, she still has the right not to be shot in the legs and arms and tortured before the police decide to execute her. if anything is being ignored, it is my response.

And offer no support for your assertion that a "full" right to autonomy is more important than the "weakest" right to life.this is also not true.
all rights, in themselves, are equal. that means there are no rights that are intrisically more powerful that other rights.my "rights are equal" argument is much clearer than any "some rights are more important" argument i have seen. which rights? how much more important are they? there are a bunch of crayons in the crayon box and they all have different colors, but the crayons are all equally important in themselves.

You have ignored, for obvious reasons:You are relying on semantics to carry your argument here: you are saying there are no greater or lesser rights, only "weakened' or "full" ones, but it amounts to the same thing.no i have not.
no, it doesn't. all rights, in themselves, are equal. that means there are no rights that are intrisically more powerful than other rights. this is not just semantics. greater rights and lesser rights would establish a hierarchy, which i do not. again, if anything is being ignored, it is my response.
and [you have ignored]:You have created a "weakened" class of people who are there to be killed with impunity. No matter what you say about the circumstances in which "might makes right," the principle is the same.i'm not sure how many times i need to answer this. there are circumstances where we think it is ok to kill people with impunity--but this is not "might makes right". it is ok to kill murderers. it is ok to kill in self-defense. it is ok (maybe) to kill in strategic bombing situations. it is ok to kill if it is necessary to justly solve a conflict of rights. it's not that might makes right b/c an elderly disabled person on life-support (who has weakened rights) has the right to defend herself against a young healthy attacker even if that means she has to kill him.


You have failed to adequately make sense of this, for obvious reasons:Again, here your idea that saying a right is something "which cannot be violated by nature" is taking a beating, because you are not in fact basing the rights on the semi-objective idea of nature, but upon the intent of the person exercising the rights. i'm sorry if my explanation is not adequate enough for you. rights are grounded in nature, and we can tell if a right is real by seeing if it cannot be violated by nature. i'm not basing rights on intent, but i am putting rights into contexts where they can be understood.

Nature is the last entity to give anyone rights! Nature is the last force which will alllow anyone but herself rights. nature kicks our sorry human butts all over the place, and you say it gives us rights? the "nature" that rights are grounded in is different from the "nature" that you are talking about. when i was asked to define "from nature" i gave a definition of nature that was "the characteristics by which a thing is recognized". this is (again) not something that "gives" rights, but something that we can look at to see what rights we have. but you have ignored this, for obvious reasons.



You have danced around the illness issue, for obvious reasons:You here admit the lump of cells destroying your brain is something you do not want, and I will add, something for which you did not 'forfeit" your right to autonomy in hopes of receiving, so how again is this not a violation of your autonomy by nature, which would prove the right to autonomy is not granted by nature (as it has violated it)?it is not dancing. but here it is again, for your enjoyment.
with a brain tumor, you can still decide what happens to your body. surgery. chemotherapy. whatever you decide is best. maybe there's nothing you can do about it, but nature is not forcing you to do something--that would be a violation of autonomy.

Of course you have to ignore this argument if you are going to insist nature gives you some rights.you throw the "ignore" word at me a lot here. and each time, you are wrong. i spent considerable time about this issue in post 570--so i doubt it is right to say that i "ignored" it.

The idea of killing defenseless and innocent "humans" has been rejected by almost all societies.and there's the thing--almost all societies agree on something that you think is necessarily true. you don't want to admit that there are cultural differences when it comes to rights. the inuit often send their elderly and infants to die on icebergs. they think it is morally ok. your standard for rights is subjective--and you admit it indirectly over and over again.

God did not, for a fact, write anything about rights, because of course, the Scriptures testify to His values scripture says a lot that many people disagree on. reasonable disagreements do not happen where something is objectively stated and clear.

An idea of any rights grounded in nature is very subjective, for nature gives us the back of her hand all too often.again, you are ignoring that my definition of nature (the one that grounds right) is different from "nature" as in "the natural world".

Sunrise, Ephinie and I have again and again shown you how nature violates autonomy, and you simply deny it.no, i simply make arguments that show your objections to be wrong.

I have told you again and again, rights come from the hand of God, and you simply refuse to believe this is an onbjective standard.no, i have argued that it is not objective. just b/c you cannot convince me by saying "you ignore" a lot, does not mean that my justifications for not believing you do not exist.

PoTW and I have shown again and again how your idea of "weakened rights" is nothing but a dressing-up of the idea of "might makes right," with the stronger have the right to kill the weaker, and you say no it's not -- it only happens when right are in conflict.my arguement is significantly different from "might makes right" because (as you generously pointed out) weaknesses are only acknowledged when there is a conflict of rights and the "weak" (as in physically weak) can have stronger rights than the "strong" (as in physically strong). this opposes "might makes right".

I am understanding you very well, but your arguments are simply not convincing. It is fruitless to continue.i have already said that i never expected to convince people. but "so you'd might as well stop trying" is a quitter's mentality. if you want to stop discussing abortion, that's fine and i understand considering that your argumentation has moved you nowhere.

You can say you "won" the argument because you made me tired of going back and forth over the same issues again and again, how's that? Congratulations. :Dfine, but now i'd like to discuss your argument against abortion. i built my wall. i defended my wall. you got tired of attacking, so are you leaving, or is it not my chance to attack your wall? will you build a wall (make an argument) please?

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Not sure if you discussed your views on this, POTW, but how do you feel about the morning after pill? I have to be honest...I'm not even sure how that pill works!!The morning after pill works by hormonally modifying the uterine lining to make it inhospitable to the fertilized egg implanting.

Since humans have full human rights from conception to natural death, I oppose the morning after pill as something a civilized society with knowledge of how reproduction works would reject.

Incidentally, IceMaiden, you should try adding That Hideous Strength to that growing reading list of yours. Lewis raises many fascinating - and chilling - issues in that one. Of course, it makes more sense if you read the first two books in the trilogy: Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra.

[Wendygirljp]

Inkspot - I notice how easy you are to attack, claiming you have the facts and others have nothing. Most interesting.

You said,
"God did not, for a fact, write anything about rights, because of course, the Scriptures testify to His values and it is clear, as I mentioned before, He appears to value life very highly."

For a fact? How do you define fact? Do you have something empirical about God writing or not? Do you have any empirical evidence for even the existence of God? Is not even the aspect of God a faith-based belief?

Be careful what you shovel out, for you may get it back, many times over.

You remind me of the extremist who says "I'm right for me, so it must be right for everyone." What's next? Your religious belief is the ONLY right way? Your medical beliefs are the ONLY right medicine? Your politics are the ONLY political views acceptable for all?

You are a good example of those who chase others away. Little to no respect for others' perspectives.

Later, kid.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Gee, where have we heard this refrain before?

[Wendygirljp]

Do tell! :))

[Sunrise]

Inkspot - I notice how easy you are to attack, claiming you have the facts and others have nothing. Most interesting.

You said,
"God did not, for a fact, write anything about rights, because of course, the Scriptures testify to His values and it is clear, as I mentioned before, He appears to value life very highly."

For a fact? How do you define fact? Do you have something empirical about God writing or not? Do you have any empirical evidence for even the existence of God? Is not even the aspect of God a faith-based belief?

Be careful what you shovel out, for you may get it back, many times over.

You remind me of the extremist who says "I'm right for me, so it must be right for everyone." What's next? Your religious belief is the ONLY right way? Your medical beliefs are the ONLY right medicine? Your politics are the ONLY political views acceptable for all?

You are a good example of those who chase others away. Little to no respect for others' perspectives.

Later, kid.

Wendygirljp, you display your ignorance. Inkspot is possibly the kindest and most forbearing person on this thread, and has always shown respect for other people's perspectives, even those that have been shown to be patently ludicrous over the course of many, MANY postings. Unless you are willing to go back over this thread and educate yourself on the conversation thus far, dropping this kind of bomb late in the game doesn't add anything to the discussion. You've made a lot of assumptions based on one post without any context for them. If once you've gone through the thread, you have anything valid to add to it, I'm sure we will all be happy to entertain and debate your perspective. Otherwise, you are in the same camp with the kids who show up and post "Yeah! Abortion suxxxs and should be illegal!" and then disappear.

Sorry if this seems inflammatory. I feel a need to stick up for Inky, and I don't share her patience level. :mad:

[Wendygirljp]

Obviously, we do not see things in the same way.

Personally, I have no opinion on abortion, as I do not have ALL of the information on the subject. There has been no evidence as to whether or not the issue of the fetus is even what one would classify as human or not. I do not know. Nobody knows for certain. Therefore, I cannot judge whether abortion is right or wrong.

I do know, however, that it influences people in many ways. For some, it is a relief of the future of endless suffering. For others, it is an emotional burden for the rest of their lives.

As for inkspot, I do know that this person seems to have a propensity for attacking, claiming fact, when, as stated earlier, only faith-based belief is involved, or opinion is evident without fact. And, if this offends you, I am sorry you do not see this.

Inflammatory? Maybe, but I do not see it as that. You are expressing yourself in how you feel. Good for you. My only question would be, however, "Are you reading into what may not be there?"

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Before this deteriorates into people making comments about what they like or don't about other people's posting styles, I'd like to bring the thread back to topic, which is the moral issue of abortion.

Wendygirljp, it is both wise and courteous to read more of a thread before you jump in and throwing around judgments and accusations about other participants. You are like a person who barges into a lengthy conversation and starts badgering one participant when you have no knowledge of what proceeded the immediate exchange. This is even ruder in this context because the exchange is there for your reading, if you were to take the trouble to do so.

[Wendygirljp]

Sorry, but I had looked over past postings.

[echoscot]

The morning after pill works by hormonally modifying the uterine lining to make it inhospitable to the fertilized egg implanting.

Since humans have full human rights from conception to natural death, I oppose the morning after pill as something a civilized society with knowledge of how reproduction works would reject.

Incidentally, IceMaiden, you should try adding That Hideous Strength to that growing reading list of yours. Lewis raises many fascinating - and chilling - issues in that one. Of course, it makes more sense if you read the first two books in the trilogy: Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra.


Icemaiden, be aware that although these are good books, they are very difficult reads. At least I found them to be so.....

[echoscot]

Sorry, but I had looked over past postings.


I have to disagree with you, this thread takes hours to get through. I know, because I did it. If you had read it you would have seen countless links to empirical evidence in support of both Inkspot and POTW's arguments.

You would have also read the numerous times that ground rules were laid for discussing this particular topic.

Your original post just completely disregards every one of them.

You might, for example, go back to the link for the Doctor who is an atheist and founded NARAL. He has a lot of non-religious statements to make. Perhaps POTW would be kind enough to find and repost this link. It is difficult to trace back through the thread.

[overjoyed]

Wendygirljp, it is both wise and courteous to read more of a thread before you jump in and throwing around judgments and accusations about other participants. You are like a person who barges into a lengthy conversation and starts badgering one participant when you have no knowledge of what proceeded the immediate exchange. This is even ruder in this context because the exchange is there for your reading, if you were to take the trouble to do so.you said almost the same exact thing to me when i entered this discussion. you were wrong then, and it looks like you are wrong again. it is rude to assume the worst of people, such as assuming they aren't caught-up on the discussion simply b/c they are new or b/c you disagree with them. it would be wise to not make assumptions, especially ones that you have been wrong about before.

inkspot did claim facts in her argument about things that are based entirely on faith/beliefs. and there was an agreement not to argue by appeal to faith/beliefs. but inkspot was replying to my question about how rights work and are known if they come from god.

[inkspot]

Thanks Sunrise, EchoScot and overjoyed! and everyone for your defense of me. :) It makes me feel good to know I am, at least some of the time, displaying the qualities of the One I serve. I broke my nose on Wendy Girl in the Da Vinci Thread, so she has had an unpleasant first impression of me! Sorry, Wendy! Please do not let me drive you away. If you can get past my icy coolness and rapier like wit, you may find a nice person in there somewhere. :)

I do claim riights come from God, this portion of my argument here is based on faith. But disregarding my faith, I still think there is a valid argument that the right to life is greater than any real or imagined right to autonomy or privacy beacuse the right to life is necessary before you can have any other rights. Dead men need no rights, as it were. This seems logical whether you believe in God or not.

In defense of my Prince, I wil say Wendy's entry into the discussion did make it seem as if she had not read the entire Thread. If she had, she would have seen that way back when there was an embargo on discussing our faith, all my arguments had another basis -- it was only recently in the discussion of the origins of rights that we set that embargo aside. So, no wonder he asked her to read the Thread, it appeared to me and others that she had not.

IM, I had a reply to the throw-away issue we had raised a page or two back, about prostitution. You said you thought most prostitutes in the USA had chosen that profession, and that may indeed be. I do know, however, human trafficking is alive and welll in the USA and abroad. Many women and girls are illegally imported into the country and forced into prostitution -- they may have come here willingly in hopes of working at honest jobs, but they are duped and then forced into sexual slavery.

There is help for anyone in this position. Shared Hope International is but one organization which helps liberate those who have been enslaved here, in Asia, the Caribbean and elsewhere. And PoTW, you may be interested to know, in the coming months, Shared Hope is launching a men's program called Defenders which encourages men to step up and protect women and chilldren; something I know is dear to you.
:)

[overjoyed]

You compared the "scraping" abortion to a doctor on a battlefield withdrawing oxygen from a dying soldier. On the surface, they seem similar - in both cases, the person is removed from the special aid it requires to continue to live.

On further consideration, however, the two scenarios are revealed to be polar opposites in intent and procedure. Examine them in relative terms:


The soldier is dying.
The life support being used is an artificial means of postponing the inevitable.
Letting nature take its course involves removing this artificial means.
The soldier, left to himself, is allowed to die.

Now, let's compare that with the unborn baby, shall we?

The baby is not dying, but developing.
The life support being used is a natural biological means of supporting the inevitable.
Letting nature take its course involves leaving the baby and its environment alone to continue its development.
To interfere with this process via abortion introduces an artificial means that interrupts nature, rather than "letting" it do anything.
The baby, left to herself, will develop to term. (Barring a miscarraige.)


Is this a clear enough distinction?it is commonly held in scholarly circles that everything alive is in the process of dying. b/c something with life cannot be getting more alive. an unborn baby is no different. the baby is only being kept alive by the mother--just like the soldier is only being kept alive by the doctor. life-support of any kind is a means of postponing the inevitable. the baby will do nothing but die without the mother (nature alone cannot save the baby or keep it alive). the two cases are morally analogous.

I still think there is a valid argument that the right to life is greater than any real or imagined right to autonomy or privacy beacuse the right to life is necessary before you can have any other rights.i agree that life is necessary for other rights to exist--but i do not agree that the right to life is a necessary condition for other rights to exist in a person. i have shown how someone can give up their right to life but still have other rights. if you are correct, and the right to life is necessary for all other rights to exist, when do we get those other rights? i think we get all our rights at the same time, but you are saying that we need to have one of them first.

[unleavened]

it is commonly held in scholarly circles that everything alive is in the process of dying. b/c something with life cannot be getting more alive. an unborn baby is no different. the baby is only being kept alive by the mother--just like the soldier is only being kept alive by the doctor. life-support of any kind is a means of postponing the inevitable. the baby will do nothing but die without the mother (nature alone cannot save the baby or keep it alive). the two cases are morally analogous.
So you would not agree that the mother's 'life support' for the child is natures means of keeping the baby alive? Emphasis one NATURE'S means.
It is perfectly natural for the baby to be supported by the mom. Is it not? Yes, the baby would die w/o the mother, but it would be unnatural to remove it from the mother's support. Leaving the baby attached to the mother is letting nature take its course. However for the soldier, taking him off a man-made life support would be letting nature run its course. So you see, the two cases are not morally analogous b/c one inturrupts nature's natural course (pregancy) while the other lets it flow on by.
While it is true that b/c of our circumstances death is the end to man's earthly life, think shorter term. The natural end to pregnancy is birth.
I don't know if this answer completely satisfies you. Let me know if I missed any point of your arguement.

[overjoyed]

So you would not agree that the mother's 'life support' for the child is natures means of keeping the baby alive? Emphasis one NATURE'S means.the mother provides the means for the baby to stay alive. that is natural. it is also perfectly natural for people in a society to take steps in order to preserve life, like the doctor. with pregnancy, nature's course is the development of the baby to term. with the wounded soldier, nature's course is healing the body. but i think you get it--this is pretty contentious and i'm not staking anything on it being correct. the problem with arguing about this is that we haven't given conditions or definitions for "killing" and "letting die".

[echoscot]

the mother provides the means for the baby to stay alive. that is natural. it is also perfectly natural for people in a society to take steps in order to preserve life, like the doctor. with pregnancy, nature's course is the development of the baby to term. with the wounded soldier, nature's course is healing the body. but i think you get it--this is pretty contentious and i'm not staking anything on it being correct. the problem with arguing about this is that we haven't given conditions or definitions for "killing" and "letting die".


Actually I see a difference in providing nurture so one can grow and develop as different from life support to prevent from dying. They both have life but are in different stages. Being dependent on a Doctor or a life support machine, at least to my way of thinking, though similar in some repects is still a starkly different thing. The womb is a place of protection and nourishment for early growth. The soldier is only being kept from dying.

That is just my opinion, but it affects my view of abortion.

[overjoyed]

That is just my opinion, but it affects my view of abortion.and i respect your opinion. do you also think that plan b kills the baby by not letting it implant into the womb? if so, what is the difference between killing and letting die?

[LifeMaiden]

Wow I just came back to this thread now ;)

There are many, many posts to go through in this thread so it's easy to immediately jump in and start arguing, but it's important to respect each other's opinions and not take things personally to start attacking others for their beliefs. I'm sort of the lone pro-choicer here as you all know but I'm glad that I can make myself heard :)


If we go back to POTW's slavery and abortion comparison argument, as we know, it isn't enough to simply make something that is considered immoral illegal immediately without knowing and expecting there will be ramifications. I stated that despite slavery being abolished, there were deeply entrenched racist views of black Americans and many ways to keep them 'virtually' enslaved in many states, not just in the old Confederacy and slave states, but in many Midwestern and Northern states. The anti-slavery people simply did not have the resources or necessarily the willingness to cover all their bases. Most blacks remained illiterate after they became freed esp in the South.

So my point is, if we make abortion illegal and do so suddenly, ( even Confederate leaders Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson believed in a gradual emancipation and education of the slaves) then what would be some of the immediate consequences in addition to a reduced number of abortions being performed?

[LifeMaiden]

Actually I see a difference in providing nurture so one can grow and develop as different from life support to prevent from dying. They both have life but are in different stages. Being dependent on a Doctor or a life support machine, at least to my way of thinking, though similar in some repects is still a starkly different thing. The womb is a place of protection and nourishment for early growth. The soldier is only being kept from dying.

That is just my opinion, but it affects my view of abortion.


To me life support isn't an act of God...those are MACHINES keeping a person alive. And that would be a whole seperate topic, the idea of life support. I know that I wouldn't want to see my parents in a coma on some machine for a long time...they've already stipulated in their will that if either of them is to end up on life support for a long period of time, that I should end that life support. The quality of life is what counts, not keeping a person 'alive' with machines and just 'existing.'

I got off track, sorry. :D

[LifeMaiden]

adopting is not bad but putting a child in adoption is bad.The people who adopt are some who cant have kids.


But if kids weren't put up for adoption people would have no way of adopting them. I think what always kills me about thinking about my personal experiences with abortion is that there are women and men who struggle with all their heart and soul to have children, and cannot, despite expensive fertility treatments. And there are plenty of charlatan doctors out there with snake oil treatments if you know what I mean, willing to take advantage of desperate couples.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Giving a child up for adoption can be one of the most noble and selfless acts a woman can do. It means recognizing the baby's needs for a complete, loving home outweigh her desires for the joys that a baby can provide. It also means that she's having compassion on some family who aches to love a child but hasn't been able to have one.

Being a guy, I didn't understand much of this until 1) I got married and had children of my own, which opened my eyes to see just how much a child means to a woman, especially one she's carried under her own heart, and 2) how agonizing it can be for a family to long and long and long for children yet not be able to have them. Adoption can be a loving, self-sacrificing choice that can redeem a very difficult situation.

[echoscot]

To me life support isn't an act of God...those are MACHINES keeping a person alive. And that would be a whole seperate topic, the idea of life support. I know that I wouldn't want to see my parents in a coma on some machine for a long time...they've already stipulated in their will that if either of them is to end up on life support for a long period of time, that I should end that life support. The quality of life is what counts, not keeping a person 'alive' with machines and just 'existing.'

I got off track, sorry. :D

I totally understand your position on that it is a tough one. Just so you are aware, I was attempting to make a differentiation in OJ's analogy, because I believe she sees them as the same thing. The mother's womb and a life support system or even just medicine. ;P

[inkspot]

You remind me of the extremist who says "I'm right for me, so it must be right for everyone." What's next? Your religious belief is the ONLY right way? Your medical beliefs are the ONLY right medicine? Your politics are the ONLY political views acceptable for all?
I hope I didn't chase WendyGirl away, because I wanted to also remind her: the laws of the USA and western Europe were indeed predicated on religious belief, as the framers used their faith and the 10 Commandments as a guide. So if you enjoy the safety, freedom and rights you have in the First World today, you can thank the "extremists" who put their belief systems into action to make governments and laws which protect the defenseless.

Okay, back to the debate ...
:)

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Actually, one doesn't have to reach to religion to find a simple, practical, workable ethical yardstick by which everyone can measure their actions. There's one that's found in every significant moral system throughout history. The phrasing varies slightly, but the heart is the same. I'll quote the version found in the Analects of Confucius, Book 15 v 24: Zigong asked, "Is there one expression that can be acted upon until the end of one's days?"
The Master replied, "There is shu (i.e. reciprocity): do not impose on others what you yourself do not want."
Ames-Rosemont translation

There, in a nutshell, is a moral guideline that always works. How would I want to be treated? Then I should treat others that way. Is there a way I would not want to be treated? Then I should avoid dealing with others in that manner.

This simple yet oft-overlooked moral yardstick swiftly cuts through the rhetoric and vagueness and unerringly points out the path that should be followed. Even if one were to grant the possiblity of another's rights - even the right to life - being "weakened", that still offers no guidelines as to what should be done with that weakness. Tao guides us: consider if you were the one in the "weakened" state, and another had power over you. How would you want that person to exercise that power? To abuse, exploit, or even kill you? Or to show compassion, to protect you even if it cost that person dearly? The answer is obvious, and thus the path you should take if you happen to be the person in power is also obvious.

[echoscot]

Actually, one doesn't have to reach to religion to find a simple, practical, workable ethical yardstick by which everyone can measure their actions. There's one that's found in every significant moral system throughout history. The phrasing varies slightly, but the heart is the same. I'll quote the version found in the Analects of Confucius, Book 15 v 24: Zigong asked, "Is there one expression that can be acted upon until the end of one's days?"
The Master replied, "There is shu (i.e. reciprocity): do not impose on others what you yourself do not want."
Ames-Rosemont translation

There, in a nutshell, is a moral guideline that always works. How would I want to be treated? Then I should treat others that way. Is there a way I would not want to be treated? Then I should avoid dealing with others in that manner.

This simple yet oft-overlooked moral yardstick swiftly cuts through the rhetoric and vagueness and unerringly points out the path that should be followed. Even if one were to grant the possiblity of another's rights - even the right to life - being "weakened", that still offers no guidelines as to what should be done with that weakness. Tao guides us: consider if you were the one in the "weakened" state, and another had power over you. How would you want that person to exercise that power? To abuse, exploit, or even kill you? Or to show compassion, to protect you even if it cost that person dearly? The answer is obvious, and thus the path you should take if you happen to be the person in power is also obvious.

Very interesting. You seem to be very well read in various philosophical thoughts. :cool:

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Comes of being a student of Lewis - now he was well read!

[echoscot]

and i respect your opinion. do you also think that plan b kills the baby by not letting it implant into the womb? if so, what is the difference between killing and letting die?


Let me attempt to respond to the second question first. To my way of thinking, killing and letting die are very different. "Killing" occurs when a person would live if an interference had not occured. Very sterile statement, I know: Examples-- Marie Antoinette would have continued to live if the guillotine had not interfered (killed) her. During the Ethiopian crisis many years ago, several of them would not have died had their government not interferred with their food supply. JFK would not have died had a gunman (or gunmen depending on the theory you hold to) not interferred (Killed) him. A tumor or cancer kills a person, we say because it is the cause of cessation of life. "Letting die" is when a person would not live without interference of some kind. Now I know this raises other ethical debates which I am not about to get into, especially having lived in Florida a couple of years ago. But let me cite some examples: Even basic treatments, If a person is bitten by a rattlesnake and his friend does not get him to an emergency room, he has "let die" The snake killed him, but the friend did not interfere with the process to prevent the death from occuring. A person on a life support system would die if not for the artificial interference. Death is inevitable to all of us, it is true. But letting die is "not interferring to prevent death". Killing is "Causing death"

Now to answer the first question. To the best of my understanding, plan b is an attempt to prevent the fetus from dropping. Please correct me if I am wrong. This seems to me to be an interference to cause death, because without the interference, the fetus would have dropped and most likely lived. So this is not "letting die" this is killing. If the fetus dies without artificial interference, ie a natural miscarriage, then we would say "it was let to die". If we do something artificial to cause death, we have killed it. To my mind set, something artificial has been done to cause death.

Again, my views. I could be way off on this, like in the rings of Saturn or something. But I offer it for you to digest. :rolleyes:

[Sunrise]

Well said, echoscot. This was the distinction I was trying to make earlier in comparing the dying soldier vs. the developing baby. In one circumstance we have artificial means that postpone death. In the other we have artificial means that cause it.

I just had to laugh at the statement that from a scholarly point of view, we are all "dying". While it may be true in a sense, if we were to apply that logic indiscriminately, there'd be no reason to treat any illness. Why interfere with a natural process?

Regarding the morning-after pill and its effects, I think there is some debate even on the pro-life side about this one, although not much. The crux of this particular issue really does become "when does life begin" - there are those who contend that since a pregnancy is not viable (and not even detectable) until implantation, the baby cannot be considered alive. Others who hold the "life at conception" view, which I daresay are the majority of pro-lifers, would argue that depriving the zygote (or blastocyst, or whatever it is at that point) of its right to implant is, in effect, deliberately killing the child.

It's rather a dicey issue, one that I personally feel falls into the gray category that says if we are going to err, we should err on the side of life.

[LifeMaiden]

Like the severe repercussions for black Americans that occurred after slavery ended, what repercussions do you see for women concerning the abortion issue if abortion were to be made illegal?

[LifeMaiden]

there was once a mother who found out she had cancer when she was pregant. she was told she could take treatments that would kill the baby or not take the treatments, have the baby and eventuallly die.

she didnt take the treatment.

she's the mother if a friend of mine. if she didnt give her life for him i wouldnt know my encouraging friend today.

throws things into perspective doesnt it? :o

Well, I have a very good friend whose mother decided at the very last minute not to have an abortion, and I'm really glad she didn't either, because my friend wouldn't be here!! :D

[PrinceOfTheWest]

To keep the parallel, the question would be, "what would be the repercussion on the children who would have otherwise been killed before abortion was banned." It was blacks who were oppressed by slavery and ill-served by the putative "solution"; it is the unborn who are primarily victimized by abortion (which is not to say there are not other victims).

I tried to address this in an earlier post (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showpost.php?p=356127&postcount=564), but perhaps my response got lost in the sauce. The problem is not simple and so the answer will not be, either.

One aspect to the solution will be the restoration of balance to the issue of individual vs. communal rights. In our post-Romantic age, the attitude pendulum has swung far too much in the direction of individual rights without considering consequences for other individuals and society as a whole. (see Lewis' We Have No Right to Happiness in his collection God in the Dock for a superb treatment of this.) The weakest in our midst are reaping the bitter harvest of this as people walk away from commitments and their sworn word to pursue "fulfillment". Granted, in some past ages and other cultures the pendulum has swung too far the other way, with the individual expected to subduct all personality to the demands of society, but that should not blind us to the need to balance the two. If we are wise, we will seek a constructive middle course.

Let me give you a specific example which actually makes reference to an earlier post (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showpost.php?p=359104&postcount=591) of yours: the one regarding your mother and her son (your half-brother) who she gave up for adoption. You make a good point when you say this:In my mother's day and age, very, very few women could have a child and not be shamed by the double standard we have for women...i.e., think Scarlet Letter...no one ever truly condemns the man for leaving or getting a woman pregnant.But what that describes is a malfuntioning of shame. When it is in balance, it can serve a good purpose. Let me give you an example.

The purpose of shame is to act as a deterrent. Ideally it will only be invoked to help people avoid getting into situations for which there is no easy way out. The more grave the circumstances, the higher the deterrent "fence" should be to warn people away from "ever going there". When I was a young boy, my father (a true Christian Southern gentleman of the old school) gave me a superb practical lesson using shame. I was speaking to him one time of an actor who played a gruff policeman on a television show I liked. I asked my dad what he thought of this character, and after hemming and hawing a bit, he admitted that he didn't think much of the actor. Astonished, I asked why, at which point he lowered his voice almost to a whisper and told that he'd read that the man had been arrested and charged with beating his wife.

My father's attitude spoke volumes to me. By his demeanor, my father communicated directly to my heart what no amount of video seminars ever could: that a man raising violent hands against a woman was the most shameful of shameful behavior, and polite men didn't countenance it in any way. They didn't speak too loudly of this shameful activity, they did not associate with men who did such things, and they certainly certainly didn't even think of doing such a thing themselves. My father was so disturbed by any association with such a man that he refused to watch his television show. You know what? I eventually lost my taste for that actor and stopped watching his show. You see, my father had no double standard. He made clear to us from boyhood that we were expected to uphold at least as high a standard for things like sexual purity as we expected of our brides. We were not to be the kind of men who slept around, or beat our wives, or abandoned our children, or did any other shameful thing.

Nice anecdote, but what's the point? The point is this: when shame is working properly and in a balanced manner, it serves as a social protectant. The scoundrel who took advantage of your mother might have thought twice before doing so if he knew that he'd be shunned at work and kicked off the bowling team if word got around that he was cheating on his wife. In our individualistic, post-Romantic world, we often see shame as the problem itself, and think the solution is to get rid of the shame. We can look around us and see the results of that. Even in your allusion to the Scarlet Letter - was the problem the shame that Hester was put through? Or was the problem that Rev. Dimmesdale was shameless, and took advantage of her, then was even more shameless by not owning up to his deed?

My father (who I wish you could meet) would be a superb guide to Tao for the culture. He is a man of strong morals, but also a man of deep compassion and understanding for those who fall. If he were allowed to lay down the "cultural rules", it would look like this:




No man would ever take advantage of anyone weaker in any way
Every man would keep his word no matter how difficult it got
No man would indulge in any self-serving behavior that damaged another, no matter how indirectly
Men who violated these codes would be given chances to reform, but if they were obstinate, they would be ostracized.
Sounds strict - but how would he act if and when somebody fell? I know that because it happened to me often.

He would insure the party took responsiblity for their act, but would also offer assistance to help them get out of any mess they'd gotten themselves in.
He would strongly advise them to violate no more rules in the process - a messy situation brought about by sin would not be made better by sinning again
He would educate the party in what the right path was, and would walk alongside for a while to help him learn it.
Ultimately he would forgive the party and put the matter behind him.
Gee, wouldn't it be nice if society could work like that? Ultimately, that's the only answer. There aren't any quick fixes to the kind of problems that abortion supposedly fixes - not even abortion. The problems only get worse. We need to go beyond dressing the wound and go back to the source.

[LifeMaiden]

Your father does indeed sound like anold school Southern gentlemen, but the problem I have with some old school beliefs are the way these beliefs deal with women and people of color. In the South, the society is very patriarchal, and they weren't exactly known for their enlightened views about people of color OR women. There was a reason why very few women's colleges existed in the South at one time, and why most of those schools were more like finishing schools rather than formal. higher education schools like those in New England.

I have several problems with the way some Southern gentlemen think. I was married to one briefly. He tended to adhere to ideas I thought were repulsive.

Oneof them is chivalry. It's one thing to put a woman on a pedestal and treat her as a lady, but the problem arises when a woman chooses or unknowingly acts in an 'unladylike way.' Let's look at what happens when a prostitute or a stripper is killed. A prostitute's murder is often seen as a NONHUMAN murder, and that's exactly what the police put in their reports sometimes... NHI, meaning no human involved. Does it mean because this woman chose a dangerous, risky profession that she 'deserved' to die, and therefore isn't given the same chivalrous treatment as a lady who worked a more respectable profession?


Shame seems to be heaped unfairly on women rather than men in many ways.
Hear me out. I am coming from the position where I've worked, while I was training to become a fitness professional, as a dancer in an upscale gentlemen's club where women often had to wonder and worry after work if they were going to be assaulted. There were cases of rape. Would an old school Southern gentleman as your father say that because these women were in a profession that was altogether questionable morally, that therefore, the same morals would not apply to them because they were not 'ladies'?

If shame is to act as a deterrent to malignant behavior, then should I then deserve to feel ashamed for my choice of profession, and have to bear the brunt of society's disapproval? How is working as a dancer or a legal prostitute so malignant that a woman 'deserves' the shame that is inflicted upon her by society? ( legal as in the way it functions here in Nevada). Brothels here pay heavy taxes to the counties they exist in, and those taxes pay for many salaries in those countries. So it's a little hypocritical to heap shame on the women who work as legal prostitutes while reaping the benefits of their work in those respective counties.


It's true about the malfunctioning of shame, but we also know and acknowledge that there are double standards when it comes to women...a woman who sleeps around is accused of being a slut, while a man who does so is almost applauded and celebrated. There's even a song today where a guy goes off and names dozens of women he has been with. Shame exists to put women in their place...such as berating a woman for not behaving a certain way. We have all kinds of words to call women who do not fit the ladylike image...skank, whore, slut, you name it. How can one correct this malfunctioning of shame in society? If my mother had chosen to the child, she would have been faced with prejudice wherever she went...her bravery and courageousness as it was to choose to go to that home for 'UNWED MOTHERS" for example, was seen as a badge of that misplaced shame. Why did she have to go to a home for 'unwed mothers,' as opposed to a home for SELFLESS WOMEN who heroically chose to give up their children for adoption rather than opt for the even more shameful act of an illegal abortion?


Society as we know it can be intolerably racist AND misogynist. The emphasis should be on the eradicating of SHAMEFUL acts against women because we know we live in a society that does not always treat them as equals or worthy of respect.



Let's take the discussion back to what constitutes an ideal enlightened society. Dismally and ironically, what always irked me about the US is that here, abortion is legal, and abortion in other liberal countries such as Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, and France has come to encompass those countries' liberal views on women. Sweden, for example, along with Denmark and New Zealand, were among the first countries to have women as country leaders, with 50% or more of women holding office in politics. Here, in the US, we fall to a dismal 17th place in the developed world when it comes to women's health and equality issues. What accounts for this country never having a woman president, having very few women senators, and still paying women less than men, when there are countries like Sweden where women are indeed equal to men in all respects? Are we that backwards?


This is one of the arguments that pro-choicers have also used in wanting to keep abortion legal. To them, an enlightened country is one in which women exercise control over their 'own bodies' and have the right to choose how many kids to have or not to have. Is the need to protect the life of the unborn greater than the repercussions that will follow if abortion is made illegal? Even though slavery was eradicated, it came a terrible cost to the blacks who were freed. If blacks died as a result of being suddenly free in a society that no longer tolerated slavery but tolerated the lynchings and the discrimination against them, then by that same token, if women who died having illegal abortions, how would society be able to tolerate their deaths?

[echoscot]

icemaiden, you made so many assertions in your last post it is difficult to know where to begin.

I completely understand your feelings about the hypocrisy of chivalry. But please be careful in generalizations. Those statements do not apply to all southern men. The aftermath of the Civil War, or Reconstruction as historians call it, was a difficult and terrible time. Many public lynchings occured as well as other scare tactics. However to apply that in generalization to everyone in the country is not a fair statement. Even some former slaveowners protested the treatment and hid their former slaves, becoming now their protectors instead of masters from the cruelty of their neighbors. A lot of freedmen died, both white and black, trying to make peace. So please don't belittle that period with generalizations. Although I will agree with you it was horrible. And we still have some work to do.

When it comes to asserting how to end abortion, if at all, I as a pro-life person see the need for an end to it. Though I am at a loss as to the foresight of the difficulties that may impose. Just as those who sought to end slavery were caught unawares by the tragic aftermath. Yet, that did not deter them or make them apologize for having done so. I realize the process has to be thought through very carefully.

A history professor once told me that once you set something loose, it is a lot harder to reign in than if you had not set it loose in the first place.

One interesting note I must make, the whole world, it seems is so quick to point at the southern US and talk about the evils of slavery. A few facts, of the nearly 2.5 millions slaves shipped to the americas, only 4% came to the US, more than 60% went the the West Indies and Brazil. Brazil didn't even end slavery until around 1891. And many of the African Nations that started it still practice it today. I AM NOT JUSTIFYING SLAVERY. Just a perspective point. :cool:

[inkspot]

Thanks, Scot, good points. A few responses to IM ...

The "aftermath" of ending abortion might be:

* Women killed in illegal abortions. The numbers of those who were killed prior to Roe v. Wade in illegal abortions are hard to gauge (because of course, not all were reported). What we can count on is that it will be nothing near the 1.3 million per year we are now losing to legal abortion.

* Illegal abortions still performed by doctors in safe conditions, but no abortion clinics where the main offering is abortion. This, while clandestine, would result in fewer deaths of desperate women, and certain deaths of children -- but again, far fewer than 1.3 million per year.

* More live births to unfit mothers and women who aren't able to provide for babies. It is to be devoutly hoped that, deprived of the abortion alternative, these moms will bravely do as your mom did, IM, and give the babyies up for adoption. The crisis pregnancy centers will be there, to help arrange adoptions or help the moms get training and equipment to keep their babies.

* Another hopeful outcome would be that the fathers of these unwanted children would step up, if abortion were not an option, and perhaps there would be workable marriages to provide a stable future for the children. These are the kind of thing churches and individual believers would like to see happening. And surely if abortion were outlawed, they would be among the first to come forward (of course many have already come forward through the CPC concept) to help provide for the unwanted children.

* More llive births to women (and men) who can afford to care for provide for children but find it inconvenient to do so. Again, it is to be hoped these folks will find within themselves and with the help of the community the strength to keep and raise the baby. And again, it is probable churches would do all they could to help prepare these parents for their new responsibilities.

I don't know why China instituted their one child policy, I guess because there were too many Chinese. But we aren't there yet; there aren't too many Americans, Scandinavians or Europeans ... and yet we are terminating pregnancies as if there is no room for any more babies and no need for them. The aftermath of saving them will not be in any way catastrophic.

As for your thoughts on feminism and shame, IM, that is perhaps a subject for another Thread. Perhaps one on Utopia and its various features?

[PrinceOfTheWest]

One of the challenges of dealing with a fallen world is dealing properly with people who fall short of an ideal. One response is to just say, "well, that ideal failed, so let's settle for lower standards!" Another would be to say, "No, the ideal is good - we humans are the problem. Let's keep striving for that goal no matter how often we fall!"

You're certainly right about the fact that men who've professed chivalry have failed that ideal, but that does not make the ideal invalid. No man who understood and sought to uphold true chivalry would consider the murder of a woman a "nonhuman" murder. All people are to be honored, all people are to protected. Nobody, especially a woman, "deserves" to die, and all women are to be treated with respect and dignity. My father would not differentiate between the treatment of any woman regardless of her profession, because in his eyes all women were ladies.

Again, your response to shame reflects an imbalanced view of shame - which may be your experience. In my starry-eyed ideal society, where all follow Tao, there would be no shame for people in professions like exotic dancers or prostitutes because there wouldn't be any - men would be too ashamed to frequent them. Likewise, there would be no double standard because men would be too ashamed to sleep around - any persuit of women would be with the intent of honorable, lifelong marriage.

Scoffing yet? I wouldn't be surprised if you are. No, I'm not an addle-headed fool. I may not have seen society at its very worst, but I've seen some pretty bad stuff. I understand that this goal is practically impossible. For that matter, my father failed his own ideals, as have I failed the ones he passed along. But does that mean I throw in the towel and just drop them? Or do I pick myself up and aim for those stars again? I know full well that men have beat their wives since Eden and will until the world ends. But am I ever going to say, "Heck, guys, I know you're going to do it, so don't hit too hard"? No, I'm going to keep holding up the ideal of never laying a violent hand on a woman - or anyone, for that matter, but especially on a woman. Ideals are worth striving for, even if we know that we'll fall short. Sometimes the ones we fall short of most often are the ones we should strive for the most.

As always, your closing questions are thought-provoking, and raise a host of good questions. But let me ask this: with the benefit of hindsight, knowing how poorly handled the liberation of the slaves was, and how much suffering was in store for them - was freeing them still the right thing to do? Of course it was. And of course, it could have been handled better. I'm hoping we'll learn from that experience when considering righting the terrible injustice of abortion - I know I already have.

[LifeMaiden]

LOL No I am not scoffing...you know I greatly respect your intellectual and insightful views on many subjects here on this forum.


EchoScot, if you reread my post, you will see that I did not state ALL Southern men had patriachal views. But you cannot deny either that the South has always remained a conservative area of the country and not known for its liberal views on women's rights. Most Southern women even opposed the suffrage movement.

We also cannot deny that as a society as a WHOLE we unfairly heap shame upon women who choose a certain profession and special vitriol seems to be reserved for women who are in those industries. It's as if they should expect to be the objects of scorn. But maybe I should start a thread about that elsewhere. Perhaps in an enlightened society, men would be taught not to value a woman by 'paying' to see her as an object. Because essentially when it's pared down to the basics, those sex industry professions are about women being objectified more so than say, models or women on game tv shows hocking prizes.


I'm also a Civil War enthusiast and my area of expertise and interest has always been the Confederacy. I stated clearly that Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson, among some other Southerners ( in a previous post) also were FOR the gradual emancipation and education of slaves. I say GRADUAL because the slaves who were freed were so unprepared for their lives of freedom when slavery ended, and while there were agencies like the Freedman's Bureau, there were far too many former slaves who were unable to access those agencies, or threatened with death if they did. There were many differing points of view in the South on slavery, and we certainly can't forget the deeply divided states of Tennessee and Kentucky as well as Missouri. But being anti slave didn't mean anti racist either. It is one thing to say 'free the slaves' but many of these same people. including the Gettysburg hero and four-term Maine governor Colonel Chamberlain simply were unable to see blacks as equal to whites despite his views on slavery.



To me, it isn't enough to say simply, make abortion illegal and then not have more solutions to assist the women or INCREASE those options. Yes, there are options available such as pregnancy crisis centers and so forth, but there needs to be more of that. Because of the pro-choice majority, you simply do not hear of these options.

There needs to especially education of the impoverished because they are the ones who often do not know much about birth control. Many poor women choose to keep their children when they cannot afford it, placing a burden on the already stressed out welfare system. If you oppose abortion, you should also be aware that your tax dollars are going to support those women who did not have abortions and who have kids they cannot support financially. I've heard more than a few pro-lifers in my classes in college complain about welfare moms when these are the same women who have chosen not to have abortions!

Yes, birth control is readily available, but there needs to be an emphasis on USING it. If, for example, you oppose condom commercials, then how are some people to get educated on using birth control to prevent abortions? Not everyone's parents talk or discuss birth control . And it starts at home, in my opinion, if you want to prevent abortion. Talking and discussing things concerning birth control or abstinence openly at home without shame or embarassment is very important.



I think where I am coming from is...this country is full of terrible ironies. We are the most developed nation but we have the highest abortion rates. What accounts for this in a country that also has easy access to birth control? In countries like Sweden, where women have equal rights to men on every level, abortion would NEVER be illegal because they would consider that a complete setback to equality for women. I have this friend from France who could not comprehend that RU 486 was illegal in the US, for example.

[LifeMaiden]

One of the challenges of dealing with a fallen world is dealing properly with people who fall short of an ideal. One response is to just say, "well, that ideal failed, so let's settle for lower standards!" Another would be to say, "No, the ideal is good - we humans are the problem. Let's keep striving for that goal no matter how often we fall!"

You're certainly right about the fact that men who've professed chivalry have failed that ideal, but that does not make the ideal invalid. No man who understood and sought to uphold true chivalry would consider the murder of a woman a "nonhuman" murder. All people are to be honored, all people are to protected. Nobody, especially a woman, "deserves" to die, and all women are to be treated with respect and dignity. My father would not differentiate between the treatment of any woman regardless of her profession, because in his eyes all women were ladies.

Again, your response to shame reflects an imbalanced view of shame - which may be your experience. In my starry-eyed ideal society, where all follow Tao, there would be no shame for people in professions like exotic dancers or prostitutes because there wouldn't be any - men would be too ashamed to frequent them. Likewise, there would be no double standard because men would be too ashamed to sleep around - any persuit of women would be with the intent of honorable, lifelong marriage.

Scoffing yet? I wouldn't be surprised if you are. No, I'm not an addle-headed fool. I may not have seen society at its very worst, but I've seen some pretty bad stuff. I understand that this goal is practically impossible. For that matter, my father failed his own ideals, as have I failed the ones he passed along. But does that mean I throw in the towel and just drop them? Or do I pick myself up and aim for those stars again? I know full well that men have beat their wives since Eden and will until the world ends. But am I ever going to say, "Heck, guys, I know you're going to do it, so don't hit too hard"? No, I'm going to keep holding up the ideal of never laying a violent hand on a woman - or anyone, for that matter, but especially on a woman. Ideals are worth striving for, even if we know that we'll fall short. Sometimes the ones we fall short of most often are the ones we should strive for the most.

As always, your closing questions are thought-provoking, and raise a host of good questions. But let me ask this: with the benefit of hindsight, knowing how poorly handled the liberation of the slaves was, and how much suffering was in store for them - was freeing them still the right thing to do? Of course it was. And of course, it could have been handled better. I'm hoping we'll learn from that experience when considering righting the terrible injustice of abortion - I know I already have.



I was just formulating in my head a response to your statement there :)that freeing the slaves did indeed FREE them, and I think there was to be expected many setbacks, as adjustment to something as monumental as freed blacks would not be easy for many Americans. But despite the setbacks, yes, blacks were free to pursue a life outside of forced servitude, and if slavery were not made illegal, they would not even have the opportunity to pursue their goals and dreams.


To answer an earlier question, China instituted the one child law because of the overpopulation problem but I think it was just a huge control mechanism devised by the Communists there for their totalitarian views. For example, they would not cart you off to have a forced abortion if you had more than one child, but they would severely limit your government benefits and subsidies. Here's an example where abortion, in that society which revers sons far more than daughters, has had devastating consequences for women!!


I thought about something concurring with my views of enlightened societies and abortion. The countries where abortion are illegal also have some of the highest domestic violence and poverty rates. So essentially, if one is to argue that in a ideally enlightened society, abortion should not be legal, how would you see a society such as Sweden, where abortion IS legal, and their society is truly one where women are valued as equals to men? How is abortion detrimental to that society?

[echoscot]

LOL No I am not scoffing...you know I greatly respect your intellectual and insightful views on many subjects here on this forum.


EchoScot, if you reread my post, you will see that I did not state ALL Southern men had patriachal views. But you cannot deny either that the South has always remained a conservative area of the country and not known for its liberal views on women's rights. Most Southern women even opposed the suffrage movement.

We also cannot deny that as a society as a WHOLE we unfairly heap shame upon women who choose a certain profession and special vitriol seems to be reserved for women who are in those industries. It's as if they should expect to be the objects of scorn. But maybe I should start a thread about that elsewhere. Perhaps in an enlightened society, men would be taught not to value a woman by 'paying' to see her as an object. Because essentially when it's pared down to the basics, those sex industry professions are about women being objectified more so than say, models or women on game tv shows hocking prizes.


I'm also a Civil War enthusiast and my area of expertise and interest has always been the Confederacy. I stated clearly that Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson, among some other Southerners ( in a previous post) also were FOR the gradual emancipation and education of slaves. I say GRADUAL because the slaves who were freed were so unprepared for their lives of freedom when slavery ended, and while there were agencies like the Freedman's Bureau, there were far too many former slaves who were unable to access those agencies, or threatened with death if they did. There were many differing points of view in the South on slavery, and we certainly can't forget the deeply divided states of Tennessee and Kentucky as well as Missouri. But being anti slave didn't mean anti racist either. It is one thing to say 'free the slaves' but many of these same people. including the Gettysburg hero and four-term Maine governor Colonel Chamberlain simply were unable to see blacks as equal to whites despite his views on slavery.



To me, it isn't enough to say simply, make abortion illegal and then not have more solutions to assist the women or INCREASE those options. Yes, there are options available such as pregnancy crisis centers and so forth, but there needs to be more of that. Because of the pro-choice majority, you simply do not hear of these options.

There needs to especially education of the impoverished because they are the ones who often do not know much about birth control. Many poor women choose to keep their children when they cannot afford it, placing a burden on the already stressed out welfare system. If you oppose abortion, you should also be aware that your tax dollars are going to support those women who did not have abortions and who have kids they cannot support financially. I've heard more than a few pro-lifers in my classes in college complain about welfare moms when these are the same women who have chosen not to have abortions!

Yes, birth control is readily available, but there needs to be an emphasis on USING it. If, for example, you oppose condom commercials, then how are some people to get educated on using birth control to prevent abortions? Not everyone's parents talk or discuss birth control . And it starts at home, in my opinion, if you want to prevent abortion. Talking and discussing things concerning birth control or abstinence openly at home without shame or embarassment is very important.



I think where I am coming from is...this country is full of terrible ironies. We are the most developed nation but we have the highest abortion rates. What accounts for this in a country that also has easy access to birth control? In countries like Sweden, where women have equal rights to men on every level, abortion would NEVER be illegal because they would consider that a complete setback to equality for women. I have this friend from France who could not comprehend that RU 486 was illegal in the US, for example.


I apologize if you thought I was being harsh. Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier post, I got the idea you were making a generalized statement.

As to the issue of women for pay. I steered clear of that for two reasons, I thought it would be off topic and requires a carefully thought out response. I certainly understand your feelings there and have some insight, though limited on some solutions. However, that is for another thread. My second reason is that my knowledge of that is limited and I wanted to carefully pray about a response to that. Because it can be a loaded topic, just like abortion.

Certainly you make some good points about the south, they are very thoughtful. I also appreciate your comments about women's rights. I am not sure I fully understand the concept of current suffrage so I am open to learning what you might have to say on that.

My closing comment was not directed at you or anyone, so please don't read it that way. Those are just some facts I learned recently in a history class, and thought it was a good opportunity to regurgitate them for thought since the topic was at hand. ;)

[LifeMaiden]

I'm much more conscious these days of tempering my former very-opinioned self so that I don't offend anyone, consciously or unconsciously. With a topic as heated as abortion it's hard not to get emotional about it, especially as a woman.

In terms of my comment about enlightened societies and countries, my question was pretty general, but I've always wondered why the countries with the most liberal views towards women, again, such as Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand, and France and Canada ( liberal meaning that these countries have a much higher percentage of women holding public office, leadership roles, and have pretty much closed the wage gap between the genders) have legalized abortion and it is not really questioned there. In France RU 486 is legal. For the most part, Sweden's women would never dream of making abortion illegal. Women in some of those countries, especially in Scandinavia, have maternity leave for up to 3 years, and their employers must keep their jobs open for them when they return.


There are many gaps and inconsistencies in countries such as the US. We should be up there with the other countries in terms of health and equality for women, but the US ranks 17th, right above a third world country, the country of Costa Rica. We have the highest teen pregnancy rate and one of the highest abortion rates. What accounts for such disaparity in a developed nation such as ours?


This is one reason I also believe pro-choice adherents believe the central focus of the abortion debate is about 'women's rights' ( avoiding moral issues such as the fact that the unborn embryo is a life) seems to be politically-motivated fodder. Liberal=pro-abortion, conservative=pro-life. I certainly cannot speak for every liberal or conservative, but that is the way the abortion debate seems to be polarized. You don't meet many liberal Democrats who will be against it.

Despite the argument that a powerful and well-known historical suffragist Susan B Anthony was pro-life, we know most suffragists/feminists after her and today are not.

Although here's the big irony of being a feminist and being pro-choice...this dawned on me. If one was truly a feminist as a woman, then she should by that token protect the lives of all women, even the unborn ones.

[echoscot]

Although here's the big irony of being a feminist and being pro-choice...this dawned on me. If one was truly a feminist as a woman, then she should by that token protect the lives of all women, even the unborn ones.


WOW, what an incredible statement. Just think a few months ago, you would never have said something like this.

That thought of love and protection that you just expressed moved my heart.

Thank you.

[~Grateful * Surrender~]

Ice Madden,
I agree with everything you just stated. It is important that we look at all the facts of abortion before saying that it is either good or bad. I am pro-life all the way and I in no way condone or support the practice of abortion. I believe in the freedom of choice, because I have lived in places where you could not voice your opinion about anything without the fear of getting shot. However we must draw a line somewhere as to how far we as a nation are willing to take this freedom…will we idly stand by and watch the murder of millions for the sake of woman’s rights?

"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

When will we as a country stand and draw a concrete line for morality and a code of principles that we are willing to live by? How many more are going to have to die before we, the women, raise our voices and say that we have had enough death in the sake of our rights?
These are the questions that we must face and when we can answer them and be completely honest with ourselves, our answer will determine how far we have fallen and if it is repairable or not.

A life is a life if it is a breathing 20 year old or a baby still housed in the womb of its mother…if this is true then abortion is simply a fancy word for leagal murder.

[LifeMaiden]

WOW, what an incredible statement. Just think a few months ago, you would never have said something like this.

That thought of love and protection that you just expressed moved my heart.

Thank you.

A few months ago I was in denial about the callousness of my own experiences with abortion because that was the only way I chose to deal with something that horrible. I think women who have gone through with abortion, especially multiple ones, must tell themselves something that might sound hard and cold because it's one way you can shut off your emotions from dealing with it daily. But not one day goes by that I don't forget or regret those decisions.

Long ago in one of my posts I had mentioned that Japan had these strange little 'cemetaries' where women could put up little monuments in honor of the children they forfeited during abortion. Japan also has one of the highest abortion rates in the world, for a developed nation and a modern one. The women go there and light these incense sticks and burn candles to make sure the spirits of the children find their way to the after life ( in Buddhism or the Shinto faith I think). I had put these little statues on this desk in the hallway of my house, but a lot of times I'd go by them and ignore them as if they weren't there, so I didn't have to remind myself of WHY they were there.


Today I had come to the thought of the ultimate feminist being one who protects the rights of unborn females because it just made sense...I mean, if you can't protect or consider the life inside you as being a potential woman, then it's pretty self-defeating to say you stand for women's equal rights if the unborn have 'none'. I was on this women's lib kick today LOL for some reason about equality and then I realized how ironic that must have sounded in many aspects.

[inkspot]

My first experience with common, multiple abortions (I have led a sheltered life) was in Russia, just before and just after the fall of the Iron Curtain. In Russia, it was not uncommon for a young woman to have multipled abortions, or for an older woman to have a few children and also have had multiple abortions. Women were also considered equal to men and expected to work just as hard, or harder.

To me, the situation was tragic. The ladies had equality, for all the good it did them, but all it meant was they could be as overworked and underpaid as the men, and yet they could not drift off into an alcoholic haze as the men did, because they usually had one or two children to care for also. This, I do not think, is a good view of equality between the sexes. At least, the equality is there, but women carrying an economy and society in despair and hopelessness because the men have emotionally checked out, this is bad. (At this time in Russia, btw, prostitution was also considered a good career option -- it ranked 8th in a survey of young schoolgirls.) I guess the gals were liberated, but they weren't happy.

And none of this can be associated with Christianity, for it was all but non-existent. Things may have changed in the past few years, I have not been back since probably 1999.

As for the idea of preparing for an onslaught of children who cannot be afforded by the women who will be forced to keep them ... we have that situation now, for many poor moms do have children and keep them, and many women seeking abortions could in fact afford the children if they remained in relationship with the father and/or practiced economy and re-directed their spending habits.

It all boils down to this same idea ... if people practiced personal responsibilty to begin with, they would require neither an abortion or a subsidy. This is where Christians are failing our society, for we are not getting enough people grounded in the philosophy of following Christ, which would naturally flow into an atmosphere of personal responsibility, and communal responsibility for one another. The First Century church was a real example: they held all things in common and all provided for each other. We are far from their example today. :(

[Sunrise]

It all boils down to this same idea ... if people practiced personal responsibilty to begin with, they would require neither an abortion or a subsidy. This is where Christians are failing our society, for we are not getting enough people grounded in the philosophy of following Christ, which would naturally flow into an atmosphere of personal responsibility, and communal responsibility for one another. The First Century church was a real example: they held all things in common and all provided for each other. We are far from their example today. :(

An excellent point, and this is what PotW has been pushing, I think.

The "welfare moms" generally come from a socio-economic-culture group in which it has become not only common, but "the norm" for a young woman to have multiple children from multiple fathers by the time she is in her early twenties. (I'm generalizing, of course, but we all know this is rampant.) The solution is not that she should have aborted her children; it's far more complicated than that, and it involves a change of societal attitudes from the ground up.

IceMaiden's bringing up the "shame" concept is apropos. There has, indeed, been a double standard held up between women and men and our expectations of the sexuality of each. However, the sexual revolution and the women's lib movement did no one any favors by their solution to the problem, which was, in essence, to tell women that it was now acceptable to sink to man's level. The point in addressing promiscuity should not have been to totally remove shame from the equation, but rather to remember the old adage, "it takes two to tango," and place equal, if not greater responsibility, upon the men involved.

So to get back to the "welfare moms" issue, Inkspot is right - most of them would not be dependant on society if they had gone about things the right way in the first place - i.e. finished their education, married, and then had children. And as PotW has continually pointed out, the burden of change is upon the MEN. The young men in these cultures need to be taught to be responsible for themselves, to be encouraged and aided to make something of their own lives rather than having the belief in their "victimhood" pandered to, and to respect and cherish the women around them rather than treating them as sexual objects for immediate gratification. Instead of all this, the young people in these cultures (actually, across the board, but it hits these kids the hardest) are fed a constant diet of propaganda through the media, entertainment, and their society which says it is not only okay, but desirable, especially for young men, to be promiscuous, irresponsible, and free-wheeling. (Was it you, IM, that brought up that song - it's Mambo#5, right? They play it at my gym over the intercom - it drives me nuts.)

Essentially, we're talking about a return to the nuclear family as the building block of society - and this would require a shift in worldviews which would be, indeed, miraculous, given the current political system, where certain parties stake their vote count on keeping members of this socioeconomic class wallowing in their discontent. (Ow, is my conservative bias showing? ;) )

You've hit a nail on the head, IM, with the realization that a true feminist would stick up for the unborn females, too. After all, abortion assures that some 750,000 females each year do not have control over their bodies.

[inkspot]

As an interesting (and silly) sidellight: one conservative politician introduced legislation which would make it illegal, in the future when we have isloated the homosexual gene, for a woman to abort her baby because it had the gene (because this would be bigotry based on sexual orientation) -- he rather cleverly paired gay rights with pro-life!

It was just a dumb way to draw attention to the pro-life cause, but it's true: baby girls deserve our protection, as do baby boys, so feminists ought to be pro-life, expecially as regards the girls. Or the little gay guys. :)

Good call IM & Sunrise.

[Isabel Moseley]

well i think abortion is ridiculus it is simply murdering babies :mad:

[inkspot]

well i think abortion is ridiculus it is simply murdering babies :mad:
Thank you, Isabel, and welcome to the discussion. I ike your avi. I'm a HUGE Ariel fan myself, actually, a fan of all mermaids.

Now, to have a serious part in the discussion, you have to bring some reasoning to your post, otherwise, it doesn't tell us much. If you look back over the Thread, you will see people who have something meaningful to bring to the debate usually post their logic and reason to back up their position. If you would give that a try, it would be helpful.

[echoscot]

As an interesting (and silly) sidellight: one conservative politician introduced legislation which would make it illegal, in the future when we have isloated the homosexual gene, for a woman to abort her baby because it had the gene (because this would be bigotry based on sexual orientation) -- he rather cleverly paired gay rights with pro-life!

It was just a dumb way to draw attention to the pro-life cause, but it's true: baby girls deserve our protection, as do baby boys, so feminists ought to be pro-life, expecially as regards the girls. Or the little gay guys. :)

Good call IM & Sunrise.


You make me laugh sometimes :D

[LifeMaiden]

Isabel, I think all pro-lifers believe that abortion is the taking of unborn lives.


Inkspot, I also led a very sheltered life growing up in a Bay Area California suburb. My family was traditional and nuclear...Dad worked. Mom stayed home ( later got a part-time job when I was older) but for the most part my upbringing was pretty ordinary. Despite all my liberal leanings, I still believe in the traditional family. Did you know that historically when the family unit no longer exists in that traditional sense, societies begin an inevitable decline and then collapse? There was a gentleman speaking on one of the news channels a while back about the collapse of nuclear families. Today women have children without husbands, or go to 'banks' ( you know which kind LOL) to pick out the 'father' of their child.

While I respect the women who make decisions to have their children on their own, I can't say I agree with it either. I don't think it's always healthy for someone to grow up without a father. Of course there are many exceptions to the rule. but for me, I don't know what I would do if I didn't have both my mom and my dad. I also think there's something really 'cold' about just selecting the person you want as the father of your baby...it's sort brings to mind some vague Brave New World kind of thing. I just wouldn't choose that route myself if I wanted children.

[Catalyst]

I was raised by my mother in the bay area. My father lived in the East bay, and I would see him everyonce in a while, nothing really consistant, but enough to where we at least a modest section of me in the family photo album. I, never knowing what it was like to have both parents in the home, never felt particularly deprived of anything. I knew I was loved, I had a circle of friends who were like me, or, to some of your guy's views, had it "worse" than me. I went to school, I had Kwanzaa celebrations, I went on easter egg hunts, trick-or-treating... all that cute stuff. Now, I'm not going to paint a picture of Nostalgia either, sometimes it was hard for my mom support us with one pay check in the household. But Through it all I always knew where I was going to sleep. The thing that I had that some of my neighbors didn't have was a world view. Not all households had both parents, not all households were in houses, some were in apartments, some in missions. I had appreciation.

Now when my relationship with my father began to develop in my late teens, Irealized that he could have helped me deal with boys a bit better. His inconsistancy set the stage of what I continue to expect from men today. And thats what I'm working on now.

All in all there will be things that a child must undo from their childhood that has "messed them up" no matter how many parents they had. From the parents who never said "I love you" to those who smothered their children too much. I don't think that adding a man to the equation will solve our problems per say, I believe that people need to take parenting more seriously. Starting off with offing the idea of "I want to have my children early so I can party with them"

[LifeMaiden]

An interesting study would also be to compare humanitarian issues in certain countries with their respect to legalized ( or not legalized) abortion. China is but one example of a country that is oddly traditional in its desire of seeing sons as vital and more important than women, but the Communist theory is that women are equal to men ( in the workplace, etc)...in THEORY. Yet, because of the deeply entrenched views that sons are more important than daughters, there is now a severe shortage of women in many areas, due to that when many women find out their child will be a girl, they have an abortion or throw the baby away once its born.


The same could also be looked at in Russia with respect to the former Communist regime, and in places like Vietnam and Cambodia. Also, the other irony is that in countries where abortion is illegal and the Catholic Church is very powerful in many aspects of people's culture and lives, what affect has the illegality of abortion had on the population? Sadly, in countries that are overpopulated, there's a terrible need for birth control and not a lot of it.

[LifeMaiden]

I was raised by my mother in the bay area. My father lived in the East bay, and I would see him everyonce in a while, nothing really consistant, but enough to where we at least a modest section of me in the family photo album. I, never knowing what it was like to have both parents in the home, never felt particularly deprived of anything. I knew I was loved, I had a circle of friends who were like me, or, to some of your guy's views, had it "worse" than me. I went to school, I had Kwanzaa celebrations, I went on easter egg hunts, trick-or-treating... all that cute stuff. Now, I'm not going to paint a picture of Nostalgia either, sometimes it was hard for my mom support us with one pay check in the household. But Through it all I always knew where I was going to sleep. The thing that I had that some of my neighbors didn't have was a world view. Not all households had both parents, not all households were in houses, some were in apartments, some in missions. I had appreciation.

Now when my relationship with my father began to develop in my late teens, Irealized that he could have helped me deal with boys a bit better. His inconsistancy set the stage of what I continue to expect from men today. And thats what I'm working on now.

All in all there will be things that a child must undo from their childhood that has "messed them up" no matter how many parents they had. From the parents who never said "I love you" to those who smothered their children too much. I don't think that adding a man to the equation will solve our problems per say, I believe that people need to take parenting more seriously. Starting off with offing the idea of "I want to have my children early so I can party with them"


I hope you did not take it the wrong way what I was saying about single parenting. Many moms become single as a result of their husbands or boyfriends' deaths, divorcing, or abandonment. For myself, I wouldn't have kids without a husband. But in no way did I mean disrespect to the hardworking single moms out there, or those who chose to have children on their own.

From what you say about Kwanzaa I am assuming you are African American :). I went to school for a couple years in Oakland at Mills College before transferring to state university because I couldn't stand the narrow views many of the women there held. I hung out in Fremont, San Leandro, and of course Oak Town!

[Sunrise]

I hope you did not take it the wrong way what I was saying about single parenting. Many moms become single as a result of their husbands or boyfriends' deaths, divorcing, or abandonment. For myself, I wouldn't have kids without a husband. But in no way did I mean disrespect to the hardworking single moms out there, or those who chose to have children on their own.


Ditto this, catalyst, and welcome to the thread. I'm also from a single-parent home - my father died when I was seven weeks old and my mom did it all herself until my early teens. She had plenty of back-up help from her family, and that's what helped us to make it. I think we can all agree that single-parent families can be perfectly happy and successful families - but I do believe it isn't an ideal situation, for any of the family members. As you yourself realize, having a dad more involved would have made it easier for you to relate to men - there are probably a lot of other emotional adjustments you had to make without realizing you were making them (I know this was the case for me - and I didn't have the added confusion of wondering why dad didn't live with us).

Reality never measures up to our ideals. But I don't think the solution is to drop those ideals altogether.

[The Valiant]

I think everyone should be given a chance to live.

[LifeMaiden]

This thread has gotten awfully quiet LOL....where is our raging debates... :D

[echoscot]

This thread has gotten awfully quiet LOL....where is our raging debates... :D


Fear not, I am sure the fires will be stoked again oh seeking one....LOL

All you have to do is post something in big letters that is basically a flame post like "All abortion is wrong." And then give no explanation, or the counter, "All pro-lifers are relgious fanatics" Which one should we use?

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Apologies, my lady - I, for one, am temporarily away from my home on business and out of my usual schedule. I'll be back tonight and hope to engage the question of what would a pro-life culture offer instead of abortion.

[Parthian King]

OK, how 'bout this...I was reading in an encyclopedia of early Christian beliefs (David Bercot, 1998) that abortion was universally condemned as murder by early church fathers. This testimony was widely sustained by multiple witnesses (i.e., writings) and spread across several centuries. "Exposing" children (i.e., leaving them to die by exposure and starvation/thirst) or aborting them either by drinking toxins (yes, even then they had such things) or by physical trauma was considered as bad as murder by early Christians. Thus this passage from the Didache (DEE-da-kay), an essential teaching texts of the early Church written sometime between 100 and 150 AD:

The Lord's Teaching to the Heathen by the Twelve Apostles:

1 There are two ways, one of life and one of death; and between the two ways there is a great difference.

2 Now, this is the way of life:…

The second commandment of the Teaching: "Do not murder; do not commit adultery"; do not corrupt boys; do not fornicate; "do not steal"; do not practice magic; do not go in for sorcery; do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant. "Do not covet your neighbor's property; do not commit perjury; do not bear false witness"; do not slander; do not bear grudges. Do not be double-minded or double-tongued, for a double tongue is "a deadly snare." Your words shall not be dishonest or hollow, but substantiated by action. Do not be greedy or extortionate or hypocritical or malicious or arrogant. Do not plot against your neighbor. Do not hate anybody; but reprove some, pray for others, and still others love more than your own life.

Note how this passage was thrown in with other "sins of the age," making it as timelessly relevant then as now. It is not canon (i.e., inspired Scripture), but it was critically important as a handbook for faith and practice in the early Church, and it does (especially considering the many other similar comments in other writings) shed light on what early Christians in the generation immediately following the apostolic age believed regarding abortion (and other practices being discussed elsewhere on this forum).

If anyone is interested in the full list, Bercot's book can be purchased through amazon.com for less than $10 (in which abortion is simply one of many other listings).

[inkspot]

Hey y'all, computer troubles kept me offline much longer than I anticipated for the weekend.

PK, I was wondering what the early church fathers said, if anything, on the subject, as one of my history professors (at a Christian college!) said abortion was used as birth control in pre-Civil War USA and no one thought a thing about it. He seemed to think opposition to abortion was a modern deviation among Christians.

I think maybe we've all said all we had to say ... we think abortion is a terrible tragedy because it takes the life of a human person. :(

If anyone has any new reasons why abortion might be a good idea, maybe we can debate some more ...

[Parthian King]

Ink, I think you know what I think about "Christian" colleges--the only things that are Christian in this world are people (including that very human group of people called the Church). You story is precisely why I chafe at the idea of a "Christian college"!

POTW can speak to this better than I, but I think your professor was half right to some degree, viz., that pre-Civil war Americans used abortion much more loosely than we would think. If that is shocking to us, let us consider a few things: I think we have bought into our own evangelical propaganda about "the good old days" a little too much, thinking America before our time was pristine and godly, and only recently has it turned its back on all that wonderful morality. The historical reality is much more complex. There is no denying that the fabric of American society in previous centuries has been much more connected witht eh Judeo-Christian ethic than it is now. But on the other hand, United States has never been a "Christian country" (see my comments above). Yes, Christians were there at the signing of the Declaration of Independence. But so were Enlightenment Deists, atheistic humanists, and greedy men who wanted independence from Britian for no other reason than sheer rebellion. (I am not suggesting America give up its sovereignty, or that God has not used what has happened; I am simply referring to the nature of those involved.) There was a lot of philosophical thinking and motivations floating around that had nothing to do with Christianity. Add to that the innate Protestant disconnect from Catholic roots (and hence a reverence for the early Church fathers) and gross ignorance of medical realities, as well as a society that had readily cheapened other human life through slavery, and presto--abortion isn't so big a deal. It has to do with a particular combination of historical factors.

But now, we reject slavery, we have advanced by leaps and bounds medically (Civil War surgeons would see pus seaping from dressed wounds and took it as a good sign that things were shaping up well for the patient), and (on this point anyway) conservative Protestants and Catholics largely agree and see the need to link arms on the issue.

You professor's comments were either ideologically driven or made in ignorance about the stance of the early Church. (There is, of course, the outside chance that he considers American Christianity the measure of all, thus out of hand discarding the testimony of the fathers, but this is doubtful.) There was no wavering and no ambiguity concerning what early Christians thought about abortion--they called it murder. The question is whether we feel we have outgrown such "archaic" judgements, or if we think, perchance, these men who walked in the livign memory of Christ and His apostles may have something to teach us.

[LifeMaiden]

Studying that period of history extensively, your profession might not be totally wrong about abortion being used as birth control. but I would also argue that other less harmful and invasive birth control methods were alive and well, and they included many other methods, most of which are very similiar to today's methods ( barrier methods such as using sea sponges, douching, herbal pills, etc. and even condoms although those were rare. Interestingly enough in England at the time of the Civil War and Edwardian times, there were condom tins that had a picture of Prince Albert on the front, and he was one of the royals that actually was as Victorian and prude as they made them in that day. I saw this tin in a history museum LOL.


During one of my semester long projects, in our Civil War history class, we were each given one month to choose out of the Civil War during any given time period between 1861-1865. We had to write a long paper that described as many of the events and happenings in that particular month, not just things related to the Civil War, but things like factory production, fashion, plays and operas that were going on, etc.

One of the things I researched was sexuality in that month just to throw something unusual into my paper. I came across surprising findings, and it's true that today we might be under the misconception that people then were especially prim and proper. And I do not know just how 'accurate' this data was, because I can't imagine how they got the data, but one of the stats posted in this statistical history survery of July 1861 was that several thousand abortions occurred in New York City. There was a listing in this old newspaper and in a FASHION newsletter/magazine for women at the time for pseudo-birth control pills, herbal concoctions to prevent pregnancy, and even some doctors listed who would perform abortions. So much for the fact that in Victorian Era they didn't have sex before marriage. I'm sure not every bride was a virgin either.

Some of the birth control methods were hilarious, and many came from France. There was also small ( very tiny print) articles on abortion inducing herbs such as ERGOT and PENNYROYAL. Those have LONG been used to induce miscarriage.

My paper turned out to be 100 pages long, and I put a lot of research into it, including photocopies of some of the newspaper articles and everything. I still have this paper saved, because it was a milestone for that class, and the professor was a notoriously hard grader, known for giving only a few perfect scores for this project he required of all his Civil War students during his long tenure. But I did get it...100 points out of 100 points. He even asked to keep a copy of that paper. It was one of my proudest achievements in school.


I was under the impression that most of the Founding Fathers were DEISTS, not necessarily 'Christians' as I define Christian. And that there is a clear seperation between Church and State. But that's a whole different topic on its own.


There's a small museum here in a town called Virginia City which is about a half hour from where I live. The museum is actually a brothel museum and used to be the small home of a prostitute there named Julia Bullette, who became known as that typical hooker with a heart of gold during the silver mining boom. In this museum, they had grotesque doctor's instruments ( don't ask me why they kept this there, maybe because the prostitutes back then had to depend on abortions to keep their livelihood) that were used to perform abortions then. The surgical kit in fact on display was specifically USED for abortion, and included long, slender things that looked like....knitting needles, a uterus scraper, and some other dangerously wicked items.

But aside from the vacuum method, I don't see much of a difference in the brutality of the physical aspect of abortion then and today.










I chose July 1861. During my extensive research ( and this was before the internet really came into play, since it was the year 1991) on microfilm and books that had long lists of data from that month and year July 1861,

[LifeMaiden]

Fear not, I am sure the fires will be stoked again oh seeking one....LOL

All you have to do is post something in big letters that is basically a flame post like "All abortion is wrong." And then give no explanation, or the counter, "All pro-lifers are relgious fanatics" Which one should we use?

ALL PRO LIFERS ARE RELIGIOUS FANATICS. Yeah, LOL, I like that one.

Maybe a discussion is in order of why abortion has been used as such flammable political fodder and why pro-choice is usually seen as a liberal/Democrat view versus pro-life being a more conservative and Republican approach. While not EVERY pro-lifer or pro-choicer is in those respective groups, usually, that's the way the debate has remained polarized into those political camps.

You don't have to be religious to be against abortion that's for sure.

[overjoyed]

If anyone has any new reasons why abortion might be a good idea, maybe we can debate some more ...i gave an argument and the opposition to that argument boiled down to "we believe you are wrong". the same will happen with any other argument or idea about why abortion is ok--if arguments against it are unsuccessful it will end with appeal to a belief/intuition.

[inkspot]

i gave an argument and the opposition to that argument boiled down to "we believe you are wrong". the same will happen with any other argument or idea about why abortion is ok--if arguments against it are unsuccessful it will end with appeal to a belief/intuition.
So sorry you feel that way. If you re-read, you will see I and some others did our dead-level best with logic and reason, and eventually we were all just saying the same things over and over again as you did not accept our logic.

Inky: your reasoning is that A=B, and the facts show that B=C, so in effect, you are saying C.

OJ: you say I'm saying C, but I am not saying C, so please stop putting words in my mouth! I am saying merely A=B, you are the one saying that I am saying C!

Inky: yes but clearly B=C and since you are saying A=B, then we can conclude you are saying C.

OJ: I am not saying C! I am only saying A=B!

Inky: Okay, but ... :p

I am sure it was as frustrating for me as it was for you, and I doubt anyone else enjoyed it either. Sorry if you feel a different argument would not be received and discussed logically. It think it would. :)

[LifeMaiden]

Hmm this thread is getting HOT again ;)

[Parthian King]

I was under the impression that most of the Founding Fathers were DEISTS, not necessarily 'Christians' as I define Christian.

True, for the most part. Jefferson and Franklin were Deists. But Washington had a more orthodox Christian confession, and John Adams was a fervent Christian, founder of the American Bible Society. As history usually is, it was complex. We need to be careful about quoting only those things that are convenient for us and our argument.

My point, of course, will never be "America was good and Christian then, we've strayed, so let's go back." To when? To when we had slavery? To when civil rights were a sham? It's better to point to truths rather than phases of history. This world and human society is fallen, and no time has ever embodied a utopian moral ideal, even if there were some aspects of former society that were not as decadent as we are today (which I would certainly argue is true).

I appealed to the Christian fathers to debunk the idea anyone might have been entertaining that there is silence from the earliest days of the Church concerning this matter, and the debate/posture among modern Christians is something of a fabrication or modern philosophical construct. The truth, in fact, is that Christians not only universally abhorred abortion (along with all other forms of infanticide) from the very inception of the Church, but this aversion was one of their defining characteristics among the pagans (Christians, in fact, adopted babies they found that had been cast out for exposure, not only to save them from death but to keep others from snatching them and raising them as slaves or prostitutes). The fact that Christians today (like those of this forum) are digging in their heels on the matter and argue, declare, reason, and rehearse simply means they stand in the same traditions that their forefathers did.

[echoscot]

Just one point, however. Initially in our country there were very few laws restriciting abortion and it was practiced. The first laws against it were the results of feminists in the infancy of the feminist movement. Women like Susan B. Anthony pushed for stronger abortion laws, because she felt that abortion was counterproductive to the purposes of the feminist cause.

Inidividuals still spoke out against it, but just as in slavery, the movements to stop it didn't really find roots until the second great awakening of the early 19th century. The abolitionist, feminist movements started then on Christian priniciple and moral actually.

[LifeMaiden]

Yes, and rethinking my own feminist views made me come to the conclusion that if I'm truly a feminist and a believer in equal rights for women, then I need to extend that to include the rights of unborn women, those potential female lives in the womb.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

IM, that's actually true feminism. You might be interested in a group called Feminists for Life (http://www.feministsforlife.org/). I remember being at a pro-life conference where the founder stood up and greeted us all as "my fellow feminists". She then proceeded to point out that feminisim from its outset has always stood up for the downtrodden and weak. In fact, the early feminists gave the cause "a rest" for a few decades in America in the 1800s because they deemed the cause of abolition to be more pressing. They also were driving forces behind the abolishment of child labor, the establishment of universal schooling, and the drive to establish a living wage so that employers could not exploit women and children in the workforce. In other words, feminism at its core has always been a voice against the Law of the Fist - the idea that anyone who has the might (physical, political, financial, whatever) to oppress the weaker has the right to do it. In that regard, true feminism has been the conscience of the culture for over a century now.

I think you'd like FFL, for they also point out the importance of addressing options. If we pro-lifers are going to say "No" to abortion, then what are we going to say "Yes" to? What options are we going to offer? They're a great "yes-group" who dares to tackle the difficult questions and press for real change, not Band-Aids.

[everlasting_love]

but there's no need to kill off something that hasn't even sinned ONCE.
Babys are born with sin

[everlasting_love]

I do agree that abortion is very bad,and that people shouldn't do that.

[echoscot]

Babys are born with sin


That's is actually a debatable point, Narnia. The doctrine of original sin does not necessarily mean that sin has occured, but that we are born with the propensity to sin. Many denominations believe that until a person reaches a certain age, they are not accountable for their actions. A baby certainly isn't, and the Bible makes quite clear that Christ, through God the Father, recognizes the innocence of children.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

The fellow who first formalized the idea of original sin, St. Augustine, defined it as a lack of saving grace, restored through the work of the Holy Spirit through the Sacrament of Baptism (however that looks). It is quite different from actual sin, which is willful and knowledgeable disobedience to the known will of God, usually expressed through His laws. A newborn lacks saving grace, but has committed no actual sin and will not be able to for a while.

In any event, the point is moot to the question of abortion. We humans are not allowed to take the life of another just because the other is a sinner. (What a mess it would be if we were!) Even conditions where life might be legitimately taken (e.g. capital punishment, just war, self defense, etc.) are very special circumstances and even then are hotly debated. The issue of what kind of sin children are born with is irrelevant to the discussion of abortion. They are innocent of any action that would deserve death, just as the victims of the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers (sinners all) were innocent of any action that deserved their deaths.

[inkspot]

Did anyone have a thought why pro-life seems to be a "Republican" stance and pro-choice largely identified with the Democratic party?

No one will be surprised to learn I am an "independent" so my views don't count. But it seems to me, the states divided in the last election pretty much along the lines of church-goer and non-church-goer, with nominal church-goers siding with the non-church-goers. The church-goers tended to vote for the man they believed was a Christian, the Republican.

So, since many people of faith feel abortion is taking a life, it makes sense the majority of pro-lifers might vote along with the other church-goers -- on this issue. And then it also makes sense pro-life would have come under the Republican umbrella, because the GOP is not entirely brain-dead and would want to get the church-goers voting with them as a powerful voting bloc ... so it's a mystery why with a Republican administration, we have not yet been able to outlaw even the hideous partial-birth abortion. :(

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Of course, nothing is so simple. There's a strong pro-abortion wing of the Republican party and a hitherto-silenced-but-finding-their-voice faction within the Democratic party (this, of course, is U.S. politics.)

But the problem isn't with the executive administration or even the Congress. The problem is with the judiciary. In the U.S., especially on this issue, the judiciary feels that it has the right to overrule the clear will of the people. In the issue of partial birth abortion, which even pro-abortion lawmakers have described as "inches short of infanticide", over 80% of U.S. citizens want it banned. When the procedure is explained in full, along with the fact that the American Medical Association says it is never medically justified - the percentage comes near 100%. Two federal laws and several state laws have been passed banning it, yet the Federal judiciary keeps striking down the bans. Unelected, unaccountable judges think they know better than the citizens of the country.

So that's why America continues to have the most liberal abortion laws on the planet. Any woman for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy can kill her child - all thanks to our judges. That's why it's so important to vote for the proper presidential and gubernatorial candidates - they're the ones who make the judicial appointments.

[LifeMaiden]

I may be uninformed about late term abortion laws, POTW. Since I haven't done a lot of research on that topic since college, I thought it was illegal to have late-term abortions. What is considered late term...beyond six months and up to nine?? I wonder if it matters 'what reason' a woman has for having an abortion performed so late. As I recall many of the women at the clinic were 16 weeks ( four MONTHS) pregnant and terminating their pregnancies. I found that repulsive even at my most daunting pro-choice stage of thought.

[LifeMaiden]

Did anyone have a thought why pro-life seems to be a "Republican" stance and pro-choice largely identified with the Democratic party?

No one will be surprised to learn I am an "independent" so my views don't count. But it seems to me, the states divided in the last election pretty much along the lines of church-goer and non-church-goer, with nominal church-goers siding with the non-church-goers. The church-goers tended to vote for the man they believed was a Christian, the Republican.

So, since many people of faith feel abortion is taking a life, it makes sense the majority of pro-lifers might vote along with the other church-goers -- on this issue. And then it also makes sense pro-life would have come under the Republican umbrella, because the GOP is not entirely brain-dead and would want to get the church-goers voting with them as a powerful voting bloc ... so it's a mystery why with a Republican administration, we have not yet been able to outlaw even the hideous partial-birth abortion. :(

What makes me distrust politicans, even the apparently pro-life ones such as George Bush Sr AND Jr, is that I don't really think in their hearts they truly believe they're pro-life. After Bush Sr's presidency was up, he and his wife later came on television to say that they were not as pro-life as people believed. So it's clear that many politicians say one thing and do another...imagine that...to get votes for their cause. The Bushes have always been backed by conservatives and powerful groups such as the Christian Coalition. As I mentioned before, George Bush Sr's mother ( or grandmother) was one of the birth control pioneers of her time and also one of the founders of Planned Parenthood.

In a women's magazine article I read before Bush Dubya became president, the interview was with Laura Bush, and the interviewer, of course, strongly came across as pro choice and asked Mrs. Bush if she was against legal abortion. Mrs. Bush seemed very, very hesitant to alienate the largely pro choice and liberal readers of this magazine because it has such a huge circulation. She didn't even come out and say she was pro-life. She sort of dodged the issue. My feeling is if you're pro life, regardless of your audience, you should strongly state your opinion and how you feel about abortion!!

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I may be uninformed about late term abortion laws, POTW. Since I haven't done a lot of research on that topic since college, I thought it was illegal to have late-term abortions. What is considered late term...beyond six months and up to nine?? I wonder if it matters 'what reason' a woman has for having an abortion performed so late. As I recall many of the women at the clinic were 16 weeks ( four MONTHS) pregnant and terminating their pregnancies. I found that repulsive even at my most daunting pro-choice stage of thought.Here's the deal on this: most media coverage of abortion decisions focuses on Roe vs. Wade, which ruled that states had no right to regulate abortion in any way in the "first trimester", could impose some limitations in the second, and even more in the third (this is the greatly simplified version.)

What is never discussed is the companion decision to Roe, which was released on the same day: Doe vs. Bolton. This also was a decision that pertained to abortion, and in it the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could not restrict abortion at any time in pregnancy if the mother's "health" was at stake.

Hmm - sounds reasonable, right? Except the Court was very broad with their definition of "health" - and were careful to write it right into the decision. Here's the exact text from Doe vs. Bolton:". . the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs . . ." 410 US 179 IV C
Did you catch that? "Emotional" and "psychological" factors are considered sufficient health justification to warrant an abortion. If a mother feels that having a baby will stress her out, she can get an abortion up until her due date. I'm not using hyperbole - this is the written law of the land. I don't know of any women who have sought abortions that late, but I know of abortionists who specialize in third trimester abortions - one of them was the medical genius who invented the barbaric D&X procedure. As long as Doe vs. Bolton stands, no state can in any way restrict abortion if the mother decrees it is for her "health" - as that decision defines "health".

[LifeMaiden]

That's fascinating!

I believe I did hear about Doe vs Bolton ( very vaguely) but that's something you're not going to hear about in the pro-choice arena I was involved with. It has been stated before in the thread but I do think most pro-choice adherents don't think that it's moral to have a late term abortion, and most states oppose that as well. There was something I just thought about concerning another friend of mine whom I lost contact with. She had gotten pregnant at the age of 16 and the father of her child didn't want anything to do with her. She in fact was more concerned about being unmarried than about the life of her child, and even at SEVEN MONTHS she considered getting an abortion because she didn't 'want the child to not have a father'. I guess even that excuse could be considered emotional or psychological stress.


However, my friend's mother was a Seventh Day Adventist and strongly opposed to abortion for any reason, so she convinced her daughter to have the baby. Eventually, my friend met and married a wonderful man a few years later, though she was still young at 19, and had two more children.


The inconsistency however of the pro-choice movement is to believe that it's okay to have an abortion before a certain time period but ' not when it's late term.' But they never fought to have late term abortions made illegal either.

[overjoyed]

Inky: your reasoning is that A=B, and the facts show that B=C, so in effect, you are saying C.

OJ: you say I'm saying C, but I am not saying C, so please stop putting words in my mouth! I am saying merely A=B, you are the one saying that I am saying C!

Inky: yes but clearly B=C and since you are saying A=B, then we can conclude you are saying C.

OJ: I am not saying C! I am only saying A=B!

Inky: Okay, but ... :p it is very convenient for you to say that i said "a=b" and that it is obvious that "b=c" so we can conclude that "a=c". btw, concluding that "c" from "a=b" and "b=c" is not a valid conclusion. you say things like "oj says that a=b" and when i ask you to show me where i said that, you cannot. later on, you repeat the charge. and when you "summarize" the disagreement, you say that i admit to saying "a=b". i would ask you to show me where i said anything like that, but i already know the answer.

if i said something of the form "a=b" and if i agreed that "b=c", then i guarantee you will never find me denying that "a=c". inkspot, you might be able to understand my perspective better by looking at post 599 on page 60 of this discussion. you falsely accused me of many things; i showed those accusations to be false--and you didn't even bother acknowledging that you were wrong and you never took back the accusations.

[inkspot]

Apologies, I was just playing with you about how silly our debate had become!
:)

In your mind, you showed how the "accusations" were false," in my mind, you just ignored logic and said, "They're false!" See, as long as we don't even agree on what's logical, which seemed to be the case in our last go-round, we can't really have a meaningful dialog.

But the pretend-dialog I wrote up there was only a joke -- I think I look as silly in it as anyone!

If you have more arguments you'd like to try, or if you'd just like to re-state your old one and see if anyone can be a better foil for you, please go right ahead, I shall stand aside as I am not able to dialog with you in your accustomed style. :o

[overjoyed]

In your mind, you showed how the "accusations" were false," in my mind, you just ignored logic and said, "They're false!" no, you accused me of ignoring you "for obvious reasons" (implying that i had nothing to say). i showed you where i had discussed the things you said i had ignored. read post 599 on page 60. it remains a clear example of me being falsely accused and no one caring or taking responsibility for being wrong. if you are going to accuse me of ignoring you, the least you can do is take back the accusations when they were clearly wrong. but that's not how it works around here.

[Parthian King]

OJ, that you would find offense in Inkspot, the least offensive and most gentle and courteous member of this forum, who apologizes when she shouldn't, well, that speaks volumes to the rest of us.

Now, we're all awaiting your response, and I've given you enough here to quote me at least four or five times in your efforts to tear me apart (just promise me you'll use the word "snarky," because I think it's a really neat word :)).

[overjoyed]

OJ, that you would find offense in Inkspot, the least offensive and most gentle and courteous member of this forum, who apologizes when she shouldn't, well, that speaks volumes to the rest of us.i agree. but i'm not offended. i think everyone would agree that when someone is falsely accused of something, the accused is owed some apology by the accuser and a recanting of the accusation. this at least seems to be the christian thing to do.

Now, we're all awaiting your response, and I've given you enough here to quote me at least four or five times in your efforts to tear me apartmy response to what? i gave you an argument. you gave me a belief. you want me to respond to your belief? here is my response: ok, that's what you believe, but what you need is an argument for why you believe that. also, i am not trying to tear people apart and your idea that i am is (i think) what psychologists often call "projecting". if someone can show me how your belief of rights is somehow objective, maybe the discussion can continue.

[inkspot]

LOL, whatever I accused you of, I am sorry, OJ! I didn't even know what accusations you were talking about in your previous, mea culpa.
:)

Now, again, please launch your new support for abortion, or re-state your old one, I and I wil stand aside, as I am not in your league, it seems, in this debate.

How's that?

Thanks, PK. Your esteem means the world to me!
:)

[Parthian King]

ROFL. OJ, only two quotes?! You're slipping...(and you didn't use "snarky" :(!)

the christian thing to do
Remember, early Christians uniformly rejected abortion as murder....

Ink, you've earned all the esteem you get, and a lot you don't get.

[Yahtzee]

i have a problem with abortion it seems just wrong i mean what theyre doing is naturally wrongbut what realy starts the fire is the wat that they kill the babies,one way is they make the woman have the baby pre-maturally then they throw it in a bucket put the lid on it and just let it rot. its kinda sick that somone has enough free time to think of ways like that to kill babies i mean some of their ways r just wrong

[overjoyed]

a dialogue (act 2)

pro-choice: some rights are real and others are just made-up.
pro-life: how can we know which are real?
pro-choice: it's common sense, i guess.
pro-life: common sense!? that's subjective! you need an objective standard of rights or we can't have this discussion!
pro-choice: ok, real rights cannot be violated by nature.
pro-life: well we disagree because we believe you are wrong.
pro-choice: that's not an argument, but ok, what is your standard for rights?
pro-life: rights are granted by god, and rights are revealed through scripture.
pro-choice: but that's a subjective standard because people can agree with that, but disagree about what rights are real.
pro-life: no, it's objective because almost everyone agrees.
pro-choice: but not everyone agrees, which makes it subjective. where is your objectivity?

inkspot, i'm glad we can finally agree that you falsely accused me. we're square now, as long as you don't do it again.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

pro-choice: ok, real rights cannot be violated by nature.There you go again, OJ, with the core argument that you keep hiding behind but have never defined. What is a right that "cannot be violated by nature"? The only example you have given is "self determination and autonomy", which is utterly ludicrous . Nature grants no self-determination or autonomy. You strand a person alone in a wilderness, just him and nature, and you've probably got a dead man in a week. Strand two people, maybe they have a chance - but then they have to start giving up rights to one another. The first right each has to yield is the right to kill the other person. Strand more people, and you might have even more of a chance, but then more rights have to be given up in order to live in a community.

Unless a community is ruled by the Law of the Fist, then one of the first rights communities recognize is the claim that the weak have on the strong for protection. This is a universal moral code that Lewis documents well in his works. When someone is in a state of weakened rights, it is a moral obligation of those around him to protect him even more, to safeguard him because of his state of weakened rights.

Yet here you come with your imaginary "rights that cannot be violated by nature", claiming that one of them is a woman's right to autonomy and that it is so strong that it overrides the child's right not to have her life taken without grave cause. This, you claim, is based on the fact that the child's rights, though existant, are "weakened" by her dependent status. I have defied you time and time again to come up with even one other example where it is considered morally acceptable for a person in a position of power over another to even maltreat the weaker party, much less kill them. You keep fleeing this question like it was the Ghost of Jacob Marley, crying over your shoulder how unfairly you are being treated and how mean everyone is being to you and how you're "winning" and we're "losing".

This is not simply a debate. 4000 innocent children died in the United States alone today because of specious arguments like yours. 4000 more will die tomorrow, and 4000 the day after that. The tragic thing is that you yourself have admitted these are humans with rights, even though for some reason you're placing other people's convenience over their lives. 4000 people a day - and all you seem to be worried about is whether you're being properly understood.

Your beliefs - and make no mistake, that's exactly what they are - your beliefs are killing that many innocent people. As I've mentioned before, it's only a matter of time before other's beliefs kill you - and your sophistry won't help then, because then they'll have the power and you'll have the weakened rights.

[echoscot]

Wow, that's about all I can say to that. POTW, I have never seen you get so on your soapbox. I had to keep from responding to OJ's comments because I was afraid of the things I might say in anger that I would later regret. I really am trying to be more gracious.

However, you have concisely expressed the most of the very concerns I have with her position. I have been so confused with this natural rights and autonomy argument. I have read all her posts several times, and maybe I am missing something but it sounds like a circular argument that tries to define itself. I am also a bit confused as to the accusation ink made. I thought for the most part, he was simply trying to get clarification.

I don't know, but I think you had a good response anyway. Very gracious of you, Ink, to bow out without trying to get the last word. I don't think I would have been as successful as you.

[Parthian King]

inkspot, i'm glad we can finally agree that you falsely accused me. we're square now, as long as you don't do it again.

OJ, you're too much.

[Ephinie]

a dialogue (act 2)

pro-choice: some rights are real and others are just made-up.
pro-life: how can we know which are real?
pro-choice: it's common sense, i guess.
pro-life: common sense!? that's subjective! you need an objective standard of rights or we can't have this discussion!
pro-choice: ok, real rights cannot be violated by nature.
pro-life: well we disagree because we believe you are wrong.
Okay, that's crap, because that's not what happened. You gave the definition for real rights being something that cannot be violated by nature. Then, I and a few others showed you how, according to that definition, abortion is still wrong. You then redirected the conversation by asking us why we thought the right to life was a higher right than any others, and then a bunch of other stuff happened after that.

But AT NO TIME did we refute your definition of real rights simply by saying that we BELIEVED you were wrong. We used your own definition to show that abortion is wrong by that definition.

[LifeMaiden]

i have a problem with abortion it seems just wrong i mean what theyre doing is naturally wrongbut what realy starts the fire is the wat that they kill the babies,one way is they make the woman have the baby pre-maturally then they throw it in a bucket put the lid on it and just let it rot. its kinda sick that somone has enough free time to think of ways like that to kill babies i mean some of their ways r just wrong

Make the woman have the baby prematurely? That's not what happens in abortion. I've been through the process more than once, unfortunately. I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say here. Abortion isn't 'making a woman have a premature baby'...it's when a woman goes to a doctor who uses methods to kill the unborn. They don't throw it in a bucket although it can be safely said the probably throw the remains in the trash which are marked as biohazardous. A doctor doesn't have 'free time to think of ways to kill babies'...an OB GYN is someone who is trained to perform abortion by one of several methods, either vacuum aspiration, the most common, or by D and C, which is when a fetus more than 12 weeks old is taken forcefully from the uterus by forceps.

[LifeMaiden]

Wow, that's about all I can say to that. POTW, I have never seen you get so on your soapbox. I had to keep from responding to OJ's comments because I was afraid of the things I might say in anger that I would later regret. I really am trying to be more gracious.

However, you have concisely expressed the most of the very concerns I have with her position. I have been so confused with this natural rights and autonomy argument. I have read all her posts several times, and maybe I am missing something but it sounds like a circular argument that tries to define itself. I am also a bit confused as to the accusation ink made. I thought for the most part, he was simply trying to get clarification.

I don't know, but I think you had a good response anyway. Very gracious of you, Ink, to bow out without trying to get the last word. I don't think I would have been as successful as you.


Well, I think we can all agree that in the abortion debate it isn't about getting the last word, but getting your views to be heard. :D

[inkspot]

For the record, Inky is a girl, a lady even. Thanks, Scot. (The accusation I leveled at OJ was that she ignored certain aspects of the pro-life argument, for obvious reasons.)
And for the record, Inky loved this line:
You keep fleeing this question like it was the Ghost of Jacob Marley
Carry on y'all.

[Arien]

I read an interview last week with a young girl (17) who had taken an abortion. At first she wanted to do it, but then she wouldn´t and at last she decided to do it, and her friends said that she should. The childs father didn´t wan´t her to do it but she still did it. After the abortion she regretted it and she still do, and this was half a year ago.
During the pregnancy she didn´t tell her mom and she didn´t intend to do it, but her mom found the hospital bill. Her mom was angry at her for not telling and for the abortion.

[inkspot]

Thanks for sharing Arien, and welcome to the discussion.

It's a very tough situation, this is something we all agree on. A young girl who is not married and not ready for children is in a real pickle faced with an unwanted pregnancy. But I am not ready to accede that the grief caused by the abortion will be better in the long run either than giving the baby up for adoption or re-arranging her life to provide for a child, either by marrying the baby's father or some other means. Both those options result in new life, which is a positive change, whereas the abortion results in death for the baby and trauma for the mom.

[overjoyed]

Okay, that's crap, because that's not what happened. it was summary. it's not exactly what happened, but pretty representative. of course, some of you gave objections and i argued against those objections. but it finally came down to a simple appeal to belief.

But AT NO TIME did we refute your definition of real rights simply by saying that we BELIEVED you were wrong.when the pro-life objections weren't holding water anymore, the result was to make appeals like "we believe god gives rights and that means you are wrong" and "we just don't agree and you can't convince us". let me show you. it is the very foundations of your argument which we cannot accept I have told you again and again, rights come from the hand of God, and you simply refuse to believe...I'm saying we should obey Tao because it is rightpro-lifers really believe the pre-born baby is a being made in the image of God God is the one who determines the right to death and life.I consult the Scriptures and find many important rules for how to treat other people, and these rules help define our rights. Not surprisingly, the right to an abortion is not mentioned.these are appeals to belief. appeals to belief are not arguments. there were arguments made and argued against, but it boiled down to these sorts of beliefs. but that is not the main point of the dialogue--the main point is that the pro-life side demanded an objective standard and failed to meet their own demand when it was requested of them.

There you go again, OJ, with the core argument that you keep hiding behind but have never defined. What is a right that "cannot be violated by nature"? The only example you have given is "self determination and autonomy", which is utterly ludicrous .you need another definition? of which word? "violate"? "nature"? "by"? i'm sure you can find those definitions in a dictionary. as to your assertion that i have only given one example of such a right--please don't waste my time. read the discussion. read my posts. many examples have been given. just because you would like to ignore those examples, does not mean they do not exist.

Your beliefs - and make no mistake, that's exactly what they are - your beliefs are killing that many innocent people. As I've mentioned before, it's only a matter of time before other's beliefs kill youand do you believe that the death penalty is ok? how about war? you don't hear me spouting about how your beliefs kill thousands of people every single day. you don't hear me preaching about how it's only a matter of time before others' beliefs kill you. soap boxes are fun to play with, but they don't add any meaning. you still have not made a coherent argument for the pro-life side, and your arguments against me simply continue to be empty lectures of what you believe with a lot of false assertions and straw men.

maybe the next act in my dialogue will be that time when you asked me for a definition, and i gave you one from the dictionary, and you called it "jibberish" because you didn't get it.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

you need another definition? of which word? "violate"? "nature"? "by"? i'm sure you can find those definitions in a dictionary.No, just one definition will do. The one you've never provided. And yes, "nature" and "violate" can be found in the dictionary, but not "right that cannot be violated by nature". That's found nowhere in the dictionary, nor in any philosophical work. It was invented on this thread, by you, to justify barbarism. So again, you've stomped your feet and howled, and not provided the definition for the phrase that you use as the basis for your entire argument.

And, of course, you've again refused to provide a reason why the killing of an unborn child by her mother should be the sole exception to the moral standard that those with weakened rights are entitled to additional protection, especially from those in power over them. Your claim that the woman's right to autonomy and self-determination overrides the child's right not to have her life taken from her without grave cause still stands alone, unsupported, without any grounding other than your own beliefs.

So, you're still striking out, OJ. Keep at it, you may get some wood on the ball sooner or later, even if by accident.

[overjoyed]

This message has been deleted by PrinceOfTheWest. Reason: It was cramping my style

[echoscot]

OJ you are truly dizzying in your logic. Perhaps I am missing something.

1. I couldn't find where POTW called a dictionary definition jibberish. I read where he thought the argument you gave was jibberish, but not the defintions for the words.

2. Just because English words are used in a sentence does not make their meaning imminently clear. The context and useage of various terms, in addition to their dictionary definitions, are very important. That is why there are many debates about the meaning of many documents that are written quite clearly in English. What may be clear to one person is not necessarily clear to another. The interpretation one gives to a phrase or sentence is also not the same used by another. That is why it is important that you clarify your statement. You only gave one example, that I could find, and it also was a bit vague to me.

3. Beliefs are very important in determining position, however, in addition to the many and varied quotes that were listed above, many other points, which for some reason you missed, were made that you have yet to answer or refute. Most of those were clearly belief assertions, yet I saw examples of other assertions that were not based solely on belief, but fact. The positioning of rights and determination of who wins was stated quite clearly by POTW about 2 pages ago with out making reference to "I believe".

4. Many times you quote someone then say, "That's not true" or some other one sentence response. That was an opportunity to clarify, yet you don't do it. You just go on to refute again without explanation as to why the statement(s) is/are untrue or innaccurate.

5. I can understand why this has gotten frustrating for you. However it has equally become frustrating for others reading this and the ones on the other side of the debate. This whole thread is written out for anyone to follow, I spent several hours going through the whole thing when I initially entered it. I have kept up pretty well with it. I cannot find good verification for your arguments:

You responded to POTW's claim that you made up this "rights" argument yourself by saying, "I did not." Well...... where did you get it, then? I can't find that anywhere. Multiple posters have left an assertion that they wanted clarification on this "rights" argument and you just used the argument to define itself. POTW and others gave several examples of how nature violates our rights all the time, nothing religious in those examples given. You never explained how what you were saying was different from the examples given. It also becomes very fuzzy to me where you define nature as starting and stopping and man's interference beginning.

Earlier posts also made it clear that the real issue is not "rights" but whether the fetus is a human life or not. You failed to discount that argument. It's all written record here. I just simply have to say that you have not given a good argument for all of your saying that you have. I am a little frustrated because you seem well educated and fairly literate, yet you are having a hard time examining from the other point of view and then making a concise argument for it. It seems you are having a hard time just making your own view clear, let alone make an argument for it. Yes, I am venting a bit, because I am frustrated. Please do not take this as a personal slam, I don't even know you personally to like or dislike you. I just want to understand where you are coming from because I don't.

[Parthian King]

Now, I'm not sure how to say this without being accused as downright uncharitable, but I'm just going to have to run that risk. The best I can do is to say that spite is not my intention.

Here goes: OJ is operating within her own realm of reality (I assume OJ is female). God only knows what series of events have placed her there. There is no reasoning, no discussing, no explaining anything to her or unraveling any logic in her words. There has been zero progress in the discussion with OJ regarding this issue because she measures everything by a standard recognizable only to herself. Her hostile ravings (and that is precisely what they are) do not begin to approach the type of exchange that is necessary for progress or rational civilized discussion. Whether she is reasoned with, cajoled, humored, joked with, chided, rebuked, questioned, appealed to, pleaded with, or confronted, her response is the same. Truly, the exchanges I have witnessed in this thread, and to some extent have participated in, resemble to a fair degree those described by Lewis between the characters Ransom and Weston in his book Perelandra. For those who have read it, you must know I have nothing but pity for the Weston I perceive here. But I also see that to reason with such a person is largely a waste of time. Something other than reason lies behind OJ's words.

Mods, if I have been out of line, my apologies. OJ has nothing but my gravest pity.

[overjoyed]

This message has been deleted by PrinceOfTheWest. Reason: I felt like it

[PrinceOfTheWest]

In the opinion of many members, these posts are going in circles. Therefore, I'm going to try an experiment to see if we can make some progress. Fortunately, the environment of this forum provides a perfect lab for this experiment, so this should be straightforward.

Everyone may or may not know that this forum is completely maintained and paid for by Paul (Specter) out of his own pocket. He not only administers but completely owns everything about the site. Thus, according to OJ's defintions, he has unlimited rights granted by the very nature of the forum. He could turn the whole thing off tomorrow, and it wouldn't violate any of our rights. He could go through and delete every odd-numbered post, or he could edit every post to include an advertising link, and he wouldn't be violating anyone's rights. The rights granted him by the nature of the forum are absolute. We are all here by his sufferance, and his is the first and last word regarding everything that goes on here. He answers to no government agency, board of directors, advisory panel, and least of all to us members. He is in the most literal sense a dictator, and any restrictions on his behaviour are ones that he has imposed on himself.

To assist him in administering the forum, he appoints others and gives them certain powers. These are the moderators, and they have many of the same powers Specter does. We can delete threads, edit posts, ban users, see things that ordinary members can't, and a few other things. Again, according to OJ's definition, we also have certain rights granted us by the nature of the forum environment. There are no written guidelines regarding the use of these powers - for instance, I didn't have to sign any agreements or even check a box on an online form - we're just granted these powers without explicit restriction. Specter can take them away again if he wishes (that's one of the rights granted him by the nature of the forum environment), but other than that, we're accountable to nobody.

The rest of you members, now, have simple ordinary rights. You can view threads, edit your own posts, etc. By OJ's definition, your rights are weakened in respect to the rights of the moderators and Specter. Again, this is by the nature of the forum environment.

According to OJ's definitions, it is morally acceptable for someone with stronger rights granted by nature to exercise those rights over one whose rights are weaker. Her Exhibit A is abortion - she claims that since the mother's right to autonomy and self-determination is a "right that cannot be violated by nature", and therefore stronger than the "weakened" rights of the unborn child, that no other moral consideration can hinder the mother's exercise of that power to extinguish the unborn child's life.

Since we've got a clear equivalent situation here in the forum, I decided to try out OJ's moral argument - on herself. Since the nature of the forum environment has granted me certain powers, and since OJ's powers in particular are weakened with respect to mine, according to her own logic it is morally acceptable in this context for me to exercise those powers unconstrained by other moral considerations. In particular, if I wish to exercise my right to autonomy and self-determination, I can use my greater powers granted by the nature of the forum to do so. As it happens, I desire the autonomy to browse this thread without having to wade through a bunch of ranting and circular arguments, so I went ahead and deleted a couple of OJ's posts. Since they're all pretty much the same, I chose the most recent two, though I could have chosen any of them.

I'll admit that it was tough to do this. According to my own moral code, this feels like an exercise in raw power - the Law of the Fist. But I'm trying to learn here, and stretch my boundaries, so I'm trying on OJ's moral code for a while. Thus, when I clicked the button to execute the deletion, it was comforting to know that OJ herself had provided me the reassurance that what I was doing was morally acceptable. Her rights were weakened by her ordinary member status, my power to do the deletions was something granted me by the nature of the environment, and I wanted to exercise a little autonomy and self-determination. It was a clear case of conflict of rights. This is why I'm certain that though other forum members may question my actions, OJ will be the first one to see them for what they are: an exercise in naturally granted powers over someone with naturally weakened rights. In particular, when she offers this argument for abortion:
the basic theory is that there are rights, and sometimes they conflict, and the way to determine which right "wins" the conflict is to find out which right is stronger.I am very much reassured that she, above all, will understand my actions.

[LifeMaiden]

Now we should try to move to a political spectrum concerning abortion...what accounts for party divisions about abortion? Let's face it, you're not going to find very many Democrats or liberals pro-life, and conversely, not many conservatives will be pro-choice. Why the political alignment, and why must abortion be used as fodder in politics and an important key when people vote for a certain politician, especially for president?

[Ephinie]

Going along with IceMaiden's line of thinking...

Does anyone know at what point the respective party lines took their stance on abortion? In other words, when did the Democrats and the Rebuplicans each adopt pro-choice/pro-life as their official positions?

[Parthian King]

Let me take a stab at this question, if I may. As usual, POTW will know more than I about the origin of the matter, but I feel fairly confident that I can speak to what can probably be called the turning point or "setting" (as in, solidifying) of the current alignments as they are.

However one wants to see how things were in the late 60s and into the 70s, it shouldn't be news to many that the Democratic Party was to be identified with social liberalism. I say this in the broader sense, not pejoratively as many would think, since the civil rights movement (a very good thing) found many friends and sympathizers there. But as with nearly everything, there is a pendulum swing, and conservatives (even those who praised civil rights advances) saw excesses they didn't like, especially regarding the politics of sexuality and family order. The 1980 presidential election was something of a watershed in that the country swung heavily towards the right. I personally think there is an over interpretation of what this meant (right or wrong, many voters simply saw in Ronald Reagan a better leader than they did in Jimmy Carter). In any case, part of Reagan's victory was based upon the alignment of the so-called Religious Right with his platform. Thus began the 80s.

To understand what was really going on, you have to understand the theology of the Religious Right at that time, and to some extent even to this day. (This is tough for me, because many would consider me a member of the Religious Right, though on some points I have serious problems with some of its views, as I will explain.) Two very different personalities embody the time: Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Though theologically distinct on many points (Robertson being a Charismatic, while Falwell is a Baptist), they shared (and share) commonality in their view of eschatology. That is, they see the Christian's role vis-a-vis the end of all things in much the same way. Theirs is commonly known as "Dominion Theology," the view that Christians must actively and politically "perfect" the earth in preparation for Christ's return (some also call this Postmillenialism, but I think some who would never claim to be Postmillenialists are still functionally Dominion thinkers). The upshot of this posture is that they take a very active role in politics, viewing such activity (and this is key) as not only permissible and beneficial, but fundamentally essential for the bringing about of God's plan in the earth. (In the U.S., this has its roots in the national doctrine of Manifest Destiny, and before that to concepts of the U.S. as Promised Land used by the first pligrims/settlers, but that's another study.)

So the top thinkers of the Religious Right wanted to make the world safe for Jesus' return. But first they needed to get the U.S. in order. Ah, but before they could do that, they needed a party. Checking the lay of the land, they saw that the best candidate would be the conservative Republican Party--not the socially liberal Democratic Party. To this day, there are Republicans that resent the evangelicals as usurpers and "squatters" in what was their territory. But the evangelicals and conservative Catholics in increasing numbers (many who never were "Dominion" thinkers in the pure form) were/are too big a voting block to ignore. And since abhorrence of abortion is part of their thinking, that increasingly became an identifying and defining characteristic of the Republican Party. So for the last 25 years or so, that has been the political climate.

A few final observations: I think Dominion Theology is really, really off base. I think Christians in politics is a great idea, but Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. We should get into politics and vote as salt and light, not as kings. In order to be successful, salt and light need only be faithful and true to themselves in Christ; kings, in contrast, need to win by this world's standards to be successful. That is a dangerous criterion. Yet just because Dominion theology is off doesn't mean other, broader aspects of the Christian worldview held by these folks is wrong (such as care for the poor, morality, and fostering a community of faith).

Next, as POTW has observed, there have been pro-life Democrats in the mold of true humanistic and socially liberal (i.e., liberating) thinkers like Martin Luther King, Jr., who see abortion as an attack on the civil rights of both the unborn and the often ignorant and vulnerable women who bear them. They also (rightly, in my view) identify the abortion industry as an example of destructive big business at its worst. Conversely, there are Republicans who are tired of evangelicals, think them a political loadstone, and classify any attempt to regulate abortion as an infringement upon personal rights and an expansion of government. Simply put, if a few key personalities would have been different at key times, it may have been that pro-lifers were all flaming Democrats--but that is conjecture.

I should note that it would be a mistake to say that all pro-life Republicans in high places (i.e., the Oval Office) take their position cynically just to get votes. In the end, God is judge of all that. I should also note that voting for a party or even a candidate is also a mixed bag and in some respect always the lesser of two evils (since all human beings and human systems are inherently fallen and sinful). I confess, I vote for the best pro-life candidate I can identify almost as a matter of course. But that does not mean I back everything going there (such as, for example, support of the tabacco lobby) and it does not mean that I support the religio-political agenda of Dominion theologians whose views and actions have helped precipitate the current climate.

Finally, I believe that in one sense the whole thing is a house of cards. Again, POTW wil speak to this, but I'm not sure how much longer the Republican Party will hold this as their platform. I believe that Christians will soon find no home for themselves but in the Church, and that might be in hiding. We have to operate with what we have as stewards over it. But we should build on the Rock of Christ.

[inkspot]

Very reasonable and thoughtful, PK. Well said.

Now because OJ cannot be with us today, let me tell PoTW she would probably say, if she could, that her weakened right to post did not come into conflict with his full right to do his mod duties and because there was no conflict, he had no right to delete her posts.

From what I can understand of this argument, the only time a weakened right to life conflicts with a full right to autonomy is in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, and then only if the mother had sex with absolutely no intention of making a baby.

How's that. OJ? I did understand you. I just wasn't convinced by you. :D

[Parthian King]

From what I can understand of this argument, the only time a weakened right to life conflicts with a full right to autonomy is in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, and then only if the mother had sex with absolutely no intention of making a baby.

Hhmm. I think she would expand that, Ink. I think she would say (or rather, wouldn't deny) that a mother has the right to abort in any case that the pregnancy became undesirable to her. In other words, she may have had sexual relations specifically to get pregnant, but if the conditions changed thereafter (such as the affection of a lover), she would have the right to abort. Wouldn't you think that this would be her reasoning?

Of course, OJ wanted the strength that comes with appealing to general principle, but chafed when that principle was otherwise applied (and revealed as monstrous). Inkspot, you are absolutely correct in your application (and italicizing for emphasis) of the word "only." But if a principle cannot be applied in other settings and only works in one very narrow one, then by definition it isn't a principle. It is fiat--a circular argument that amounts to saying, "This is so because it is, and it is because it is so."

That, I believe, was the Prince's point in doing and saying what he did.

[inkspot]

Hhmm. I think she would expand that, Ink. I think she would say (or rather, wouldn't deny) that a mother has the right to abort in any case that the pregnancy became undesirable to her. In other words, she may have had sexual relations specifically to get pregnant, but if the conditions changed thereafter (such as the affection of a lover), she would have the right to abort. Wouldn't you think that this would be her reasoning?
No, I asked her about that. She said the woman who intended to get pregnant had forfeited her right to autonomy and had no right to an abortion. I asked her then why she wasn't out campaigning for a way to protect specifically those children whose mothers had forfeited their right to autonomy, and she said cuz I was asking her to come up with a solution, and she was just making a statement, not trying to give political solutions.

I agree with your conclusion that the conflicting rights/autonomy contstruct is a fiat, not a principle, but I felt OJ would like people to note: it is only when weakened right to life conflicts with full right to autonomy that killing the innocent party is correct.
:)

[Parthian King]

No, I asked her about that. She said the woman who intended to get pregnant had forfeited her right to autonomy and had no right to an abortion. I asked her then why she wasn't out campaigning for a way to protect specifically those children whose mothers had forfeited their right to autonomy, and she said cuz I was asking her to come up with a solution, and she was just making a statement, not trying to give political solutions.

I agree with your conclusion that the conflicting rights/autonomy construct is a fiat, not a principle, but I felt OJ would like people to note: it is only when weakened right to life conflicts with full right to autonomy that killing the innocent party is correct. :)

Fascinating. I stand corrected on OJ's position. But at the same time, in practice (which is what counts for that little human being in the womb) it is impossible to separate the two. If anything, this distinction makes OJ's position even more arbitrary, since the value of the child is simutaneously affirmed and undermined--entirely by the murky motives and intentions of the woman involved (i.e., "Well, I sort of intended to get pregnant, I mean, I thought I wanted to because I thought he really loved me, but really it was just a fling--say 30-70"). How are such things measured?

[LifeMaiden]

Going along with IceMaiden's line of thinking...

Does anyone know at what point the respective party lines took their stance on abortion? In other words, when did the Democrats and the Rebuplicans each adopt pro-choice/pro-life as their official positions?


On a side note concerning abortion and politics:

One reason that I left Mills College, one of the oldest women's colleges in the US other than Mount Holyoke was because I found that many of the women there fell into two distinct groups...the radical feminists ( and it's not a stereotype, because many of them were lesbians. Because many of them had been deeply prejudiced against growing up for being gay, it seemed as if to me they turned their anger on just about everything and anything, even women like myself who liked to put on makeup and not walk into class wearing my bedroom slippers and butchered hair. )

The other group were a group of pseudo-feminists. There was NO pro-life group on this campus. You would have thought that at a WOMEN'S college, there would at least be some women who were pro-life, and believed it was possible to BE a feminist and protect unborn females. But no. It was plainly clear to me that if a woman was to exist at this school she'd better be pro-choice all the way around. It was at this school in fact that I discovered sadly some of the women were racist. I went to a Catholic high school where everyone got along and it truly didn't matter whether you were black or white. Most of the students there came from priveleged backgrounds anyways, and color of skin was not an issue.

The feminists at this college would not even HEAR about a pro-life view. I got involved with pro-choice marches, and screamed at marches with signs and stuff, but I always asked myself, what the heck am I doing here? This was before I even had an abortion. And as many of you know, even when I was having that horrible experience, not even the pro-choice side of me could keep me from thinking I had just killed my child.

There were some women Republicans, of course, at the school, but you weren't going to find any conservative ones against abortion. Later on when I went on to state university after leaving that private college, there was of course a pro-life group. It just seemed as though as a woman, you 'had' to be pro-choice or people would think you were 'against women's rights.'



Am I missing something here? Did Overjoyed get banned? Or should I not ask?

[inkspot]

IM, OJ is not banned. PoTW just deleted some of her posts in a kind of practical demonstration of how he thought her theory worked: her weakened right to post conficted with his full right to moderate, so he started deleting her posts.

I went to a Christian college, so I never came across the kind of students you describe. I was sort of the feminist at my school, and all the Baptists thought I was cute and sweet and funny with my bright ideas. I guess this is the difference in colleges!

I do think the political sides of both groups have made abortion a hot-button issue. If as a Christian you say you're not against abortion in every circumstance, the Christian Republicans are shocked and amazed. If you are a feminist and say you are pro-life, the feminist Democrats are appalled.

I think by calling it reproductive rights and pairing it with a "woman's right to choose" what happens to her body, the pro-abortion side has convinced many people that abortion is an issue of women's rights, and if you oppose it, then you must be for chastity belts, arranged marriages, and women as property.

This is the problem with political parties -- or a political solution -- you support one thing you like in the platform, such as a woman's right to equal pay for equal work, and you are saddled with the rest of the platform: a woman's right to an abortion.

[LifeMaiden]

Definitely abortion should not be a 'political' issue ( although it probably always will be) and that's what has polarized the two sides for ages...but a moral and ethical issue, just like 'murder in the first degree'...if you know what I mean. I think a lot of pro-choice people regard someone who has been strongly pro choice all her life as a hypocrite. If I stood up at my old college and said, " I had abortions but now I think it's wrong..." they would probably lynch me.

[overjoyed]

As it happens, I desire the autonomy to browse this thread without having to wade through a bunch of ranting and circular arguments, so I went ahead and deleted a couple of OJ's posts. Since they're all pretty much the same, I chose the most recent two, though I could have chosen any of them.your power to edit and delete posts is given to you by specter--not the nature of the forum. you have granted that i have a right to post and contribute to discussions around here. but i do not see where you have a right to arbitrarily delete posts. if you don't have the right to delete posts because you "feel like it", then there is no conflict of rights. in that case, all you have done is violate my right to contribute/post.

if you are going to say that this forum has a "nature", on a closer look, it seems that both your right to browse this thread without having to wade through a bunch of unwanted stuff is an imaginary right because it is violated by the public nature of this forum all the time. the nature of the forum is that people have a right to post even if you don't want to read what they have to say.

i would also say that the rights that exist in this forum are weaker than the rights we all have as human beings. my right as a human being to communicate (in this case by posting) is stronger than your right as a moderator on a website to not read unwanted stuff. and even if we stipulate that your right to not read unwanted stuff is a real right (which it's not), the conflict of your right-as-a-moderator and my right-as-a-human weighs heavily in my favor.

I felt OJ would like people to note: it is only when weakened right to life conflicts with full right to autonomy that killing the innocent party is correct.
:)yes, thank you.

[Parthian King]

If I stood up at my old college and said, "I had abortions but now I think it's wrong..." they would probably lynch me.

Indeed they would--much quicker than they would one who had never been pro-choice. You are now a very dangerous person, Ice Maiden, very dangerous indeed.

(Um, is it just me or have two recent frequenters of this thread gotten their usernames mixed up? ;))

[echoscot]

I think I wil need dramamine to read anyomore of OJ's posts. My head was spinning about who's rights were what by the time that was done. I do think Ink got a central theme of her posts correct. I remember reading that.

But a baby's right to life surely would rate as a very strong and high right, as a human being. I believe that was her argument as to why Prince shouldn't have deleted her posts. Her right as a human being to communicate and what not.

Just a thought.

[overjoyed]

I think I wil need dramamine to read anyomore of OJ's posts.i'm sorry if it was dizzying for you. again, the basic argument is that there are rights, and sometimes they conflict, and the way to determine which right "wins" the conflict is to find out which right is stronger. that, alone, should not leave you dizzy. to argue against this, some people tried using arguments where a crazy right was in conflict with a reasonable right. so the distinction between real rights and imaginary rights was born to stop these crazy examples. real rights can't be violated by nature. ok. are you dizzy now? i hope not. this is not complicated.

princeofthewest tried to use my argument in justification for deleting my posts. the problem is that he asserted that he has a right to "browse this thread without having to wade through a bunch of ranting and circular arguments". this should all be clear so far. if he is using my argument, then he must justify why this right that he claims to have is a real right and not just imaginary. i am arguing that the right he claims to have is imaginary, like the right to do whatever you want. it is imaginary, by my own argument, because it gets violated by the nature of the forum all the time. that is the first reason why princeofthewest was unjustified and wrong when he deleted my posts.

the second reason he is wrong and unjustified in deleting my posts is that his rights as a moderator on this forum are generally weaker than my rights as a human being. he says that i have a right to post and he has a stronger right to delete those posts--and those rights are granted by the nature of the forum and the forum's owner. the problem is that he is limiting the scope of rights to the rights this forum gives us--but there are other rights we have as human beings. the rights we have as human beings are stronger than the rights we have as members of this internet forum. would anyone disagree with this? princeofthewest used his rights as a moderator (the right to delete posts) to violate my right as a human being (the right to communicate--and various other rights). his right to delete posts is not stronger than my right to not be censored and my right to communicate and my right to be treated fairly.

the third reason he was unjustified is that my posts do not conflict with his so-called right to not wade through unwanted stuff. there is no conflict at all (even if we stipulate that his right is real) because he is not forced to wade through sections where he knows i post. in other words, i post a lot of stuff that pinceofthewest does not like, and he knows where i post those things--yet he chooses to wade through them. by his choice, he waives his right to not wade through unwanted stuff. i have never forced anyone to read or wade through my posts. and i'm not sneaking around posting things in odd places so that he will have to wade through them. no one is forcing him to read what i write. therefore, there is no conflict.

in summary, there are three reasons why princeofthewest was wrong to delete my posts based on my argument. first, he claims that there is a conflict of rights, but the right he claims to be exercising is imaginary. second, even if his right is real, it is still weaker than my rights as a human being b/c his right is limited to this forum. third, even if his right it real, there is not conflict b/c he chooses to wade through my arguments.

princeofthewest deleting my posts is not an example of justified action according to my argument. it's just an example of someone not understanding correctly. i just hope people see that princeofthewest was wrong, and i hope to get my deleted posts back because they contained a lot of spent time and effort (including specific references to when he called the dictionary's definition "jibberish").

[LifeMaiden]

Indeed they would--much quicker than they would one who had never been pro-choice. You are now a very dangerous person, Ice Maiden, very dangerous indeed.

(Um, is it just me or have two recent frequenters of this thread gotten their usernames mixed up? ;))

Usernames mixed up? LOL :confused:

I wonder just how many pro-lifers have had experiences with abortion. I surely can't be the first or the last.

Dangerous yeah...I like that word :D

[PrinceOfTheWest]

By no means are you the first, and sadly not the last. There's a whole group called Silent No More (http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/), which offers women a chance to grieve and understand their experience with others who've gone through the same thing.

[overjoyed]

i have given three arguments as to why princeofthewest was not justified in deleting my posts. there have been zero responses.

i am told that there are parts of my argument that need clarification. for me to clarify, i need to repeat what i have already said--but in a different way.

i am also told that it was ok to delete my posts because they were just me repeating what i already said, but in a different way. so is clarifying bad?

also, has anyone asked me a question that i have not answered? it was suggested that i am ignoring people--is this true? if you think i have ignored you, please tell me what you said that you think i ignored.

princeofthewest tried to use my argument against me in his "experiment". the problem is that he strayed from my argument in at least three serious ways. instead of using my argument correctly, he applied the law of the fist and used his power to justify his action. he is not using my argument. he is using the law of the fist--the same law that he spent a lot of time arguing against. and as long as my posts remain deleted, he continues to use this law of the fist. and as long as the people in charge of this forum justify their actions based on power alone (e.g. specter can do whatever he wants because he owns this forum), they are using the law of the fist.

[Parthian King]

Would that you would lament as long, OJ, for the children who die as a result of your kind of obtuse logic as you do for your precious lost posts.

[overjoyed]

Would that you would lament as long, OJ, for the children who die as a result of your kind of obtuse logic as you do for your precious lost posts.lofty statements from the ivory tower don't explain anything. and insults against my intelligence will get you nowhere.

three arguments. zero responses. why have my posts not been restored?

[Of Mice and Narnia]

Call me simple minded if you wish but I remember reading something David Cooper once said in interpretating scripture. "Where plain sense makes common sense seek no other sense."

Might I then say in this debate(using Cooper's logic), human beings only produce human beings. Isn't that plain sense? And isn't common sense then that arbitrary abortion kills innocent human beings?

And someone has a "right" to do that?

[Parthian King]

why have my posts not been restored?

"A voice is heard in Ramah,
Lamentation and bitter weeping.
Rachel is weeping for her children;
She refuses to be comforted for her children,
Because they are no more.”
(Jeremiah 31:15).

[echoscot]

i'm sorry if it was dizzying for you. again, the basic argument is that there are rights, and sometimes they conflict, and the way to determine which right "wins" the conflict is to find out which right is stronger. that, alone, should not leave you dizzy. to argue against this, some people tried using arguments where a crazy right was in conflict with a reasonable right. so the distinction between real rights and imaginary rights was born to stop these crazy examples. real rights can't be violated by nature. ok. are you dizzy now? i hope not. this is not complicated.

Okay, thank you for clarifying the concept. However in practice it still seems arbitrary as to who has the stronger right. It seems that you define rights based on your perspective not an objective viewpoint. As an example, POTW stated his right and by nature of the board and its construct, regardless of who gave it to him, it is stronger than yours. His conflict is a matter of perception, you believe your right to be heard is more important, he believes his right not to allow "circular arguments" is more important. That seems to me to be one of the flaws in the logic. If I missed this please let me know.


princeofthewest tried to use my argument in justification for deleting my posts. the problem is that he asserted that he has a right to "browse this thread without having to wade through a bunch of ranting and circular arguments". this should all be clear so far. if he is using my argument, then he must justify why this right that he claims to have is a real right and not just imaginary.

Which he already did.

i am arguing that the right he claims to have is imaginary, like the right to do whatever you want. it is imaginary, by my own argument, because it gets violated by the nature of the forum all the time. that is the first reason why princeofthewest was unjustified and wrong when he deleted my posts.

This is where it starts to get fuzzy again. Who decides what the nature of something is? Who decides what rights are arbitrary and real?

the second reason he is wrong and unjustified in deleting my posts is that his rights as a moderator on this forum are generally weaker than my rights as a human being.

Ah. Again, on what basis did you come to the determination of this. The rights of the nature of the forum state quite clearly that as a moderator he has the right to delete posts at his discretion. A right you clearly do not have.

he says that i have a right to post and he has a stronger right to delete those posts--and those rights are granted by the nature of the forum and the forum's owner. the problem is that he is limiting the scope of rights to the rights this forum gives us--but there are other rights we have as human beings. the rights we have as human beings are stronger than the rights we have as members of this internet forum. would anyone disagree with this? princeofthewest used his rights as a moderator (the right to delete posts) to violate my right as a human being (the right to communicate--and various other rights). his right to delete posts is not stronger than my right to not be censored and my right to communicate and my right to be treated fairly.

Posting on a forum is not a right, but a privilege that is granted at the whim of the owner of the forum. Right to free speech is a Constitutional right granted to protect people from government prosecution for expressing contrary opinions, not necessarily a right as a human being. 200 years ago this was a brand new concept, people take it for granted now. Many governements still do not acknowledge anything like this as a right, if you live in the US you are truly blessed to have such a luxury. You are not under governemnt prosecution for your convictions. It certainly is not a natural right, because there are many instances where "nature" as such, on the larger scale, has denied people the ability to communicate and violated their right to do so, through various deficiencies and handicaps, to the point of death where their "right" to comminicate is permanently ended.

the third reason he was unjustified is that my posts do not conflict with his so-called right to not wade through unwanted stuff. there is no conflict at all (even if we stipulate that his right is real) because he is not forced to wade through sections where he knows i post. in other words, i post a lot of stuff that pinceofthewest does not like, and he knows where i post those things--yet he chooses to wade through them. by his choice, he waives his right to not wade through unwanted stuff. i have never forced anyone to read or wade through my posts. and i'm not sneaking around posting things in odd places so that he will have to wade through them. no one is forcing him to read what i write. therefore, there is no conflict.

Two points on this one, it is still arbitrary in deciding who's rights are stronger or real. Both Prince, albeit deliberately to make his point, and you because your only appeal is to "nature", however defined and make no mistakes there are many definitions, depending on context of that word.

Second, I would agree that you have not forced him to wade through your posts or tricked him into reading them. It could be argued, however, that by posting at all, you are limiting his freedom to view the board at will because he will inevitably come across one of your posts. That is a conflict. Who's right is stronger, though, is the debateable issue.

in summary, there are three reasons why princeofthewest was wrong to delete my posts based on my argument. first, he claims that there is a conflict of rights, but the right he claims to be exercising is imaginary. second, even if his right is real, it is still weaker than my rights as a human being b/c his right is limited to this forum. third, even if his right it real, there is not conflict b/c he chooses to wade through my arguments.

That was a great summary of your points :) Your English teacher would be proud! :D

princeofthewest deleting my posts is not an example of justified action according to my argument. it's just an example of someone not understanding correctly. i just hope people see that princeofthewest was wrong, and i hope to get my deleted posts back because they contained a lot of spent time and effort (including specific references to when he called the dictionary's definition "jibberish").

I know what you mean, I was hoping you would have answered some of my questions in an earlier post, and it does look like you put tremendous effort into this. If he doesn't, at least clarify for me why this philosophy is not unique to you. I can't find anywhere your sources or reasoning for this philosophy.

Thank you for responding to my post. I am sorry it took so long to get back, I am in a busy summer semester at school with about 18 hours of class. So that must be my priority.

[arwenelizabeth]

Okay, Overjoyed, you've said that you gave three arguments why POTW was wrong in deleting your posts, and have received zero answers. I'll bite. I'm fairly new to the forum but I've read back over the posts in question, so I think I'm qualified to answer the question.

First of all, you say that he was unjustified because, using your own terminology, his claimed right to browse the thread without having to read your arguments is "imaginary":

princeofthewest tried to use my argument in justification for deleting my posts. the problem is that he asserted that he has a right to "browse this thread without having to wade through a bunch of ranting and circular arguments". this should all be clear so far. if he is using my argument, then he must justify why this right that he claims to have is a real right and not just imaginary. i am arguing that the right he claims to have is imaginary, like the right to do whatever you want. it is imaginary, by my own argument, because it gets violated by the nature of the forum all the time. that is the first reason why princeofthewest was unjustified and wrong when he deleted my posts.
However, as I see it, he did in fact justify his right in his original post: it comes from his nature as a moderator, granted to him by the "dictator" of the thread, Specter. It is a real right because of the nature of the forum: because Specter is the total owner of the forum, no one has any rights within it unless they are granted by him. As a moderator, POTW has the right to delete others' posts because Specter has granted it to him. You, as a regular member, do not have that right.

If it is POTW's right to "browse this thread without having to wade through a bunch of ranting and circular arguments" that you are protesting, you are right in a sense. He is claiming a right to do, pretty much, whatever he wants. However, as I read your abortion arguments, you actually do support the right "to do whatever one wants" as a real right, as long as the person exercising that right is not infringing on any stronger rights in doing so. The all-prevailing "right to autonomy" that you want to grant the mother in an abortion is, as far as I can see, nothing other than a right to do whatever one wants - a right that you are willing to grant her because her unborn child's rights are "weakened" as you put it. Therefore, even though you call the "right to do whatever you want" an "imaginary" one, you yourself have defended it on numerous occasions - and indeed it is the cornerstone of your argument.

Your second reason is given here:
the second reason he is wrong and unjustified in deleting my posts is that his rights as a moderator on this forum are generally weaker than my rights as a human being. he says that i have a right to post and he has a stronger right to delete those posts--and those rights are granted by the nature of the forum and the forum's owner. the problem is that he is limiting the scope of rights to the rights this forum gives us--but there are other rights we have as human beings. the rights we have as human beings are stronger than the rights we have as members of this internet forum. would anyone disagree with this? princeofthewest used his rights as a moderator (the right to delete posts) to violate my right as a human being (the right to communicate--and various other rights). his right to delete posts is not stronger than my right to not be censored and my right to communicate and my right to be treated fairly.

I think this one is fairly easy to refute, and POTW did it himself with his original post. He was careful to clarify that in deleting your posts, he was operating in his role as a moderator of the forum, within the nature of the forum itself. You say that you have a right as a human being to communicate and not be censored, but in the context of the forum environment that is actually not true. Since Specter, as it has been pointed out, is the sole owner of the forum, you have no right at all to express yourself within it except as he grants you that right. He has granted it to you, kindly, by allowing you to sign up. But unfortunately for you, he also happens to have granted POTW, as a moderator rather than a simple member of the forum, a certain power over you. You cannot argue that he does not have that power; he has already wielded it. You can, of course, rant all you want that he has wielded it unjustly, but the argument that he wields it unjustly sounds strikingly similar to the argument made by others here that a mother wields her power over her unborn child unjustly when she chooses to kill him. Eerie....

Your third reason:
the third reason he was unjustified is that my posts do not conflict with his so-called right to not wade through unwanted stuff. there is no conflict at all (even if we stipulate that his right is real) because he is not forced to wade through sections where he knows i post. in other words, i post a lot of stuff that pinceofthewest does not like, and he knows where i post those things--yet he chooses to wade through them. by his choice, he waives his right to not wade through unwanted stuff. i have never forced anyone to read or wade through my posts. and i'm not sneaking around posting things in odd places so that he will have to wade through them. no one is forcing him to read what i write. therefore, there is no conflict.
I mean this most charitably, but you are really reaching here. I'm tempted to give POTW credit for clairvoyance, because his original wording anticipates this argument so well. He never said that he was forced to read your posts; he said that he was forced to wade through them. Assuming he is an active participant on this thread (and as far as I can see, he was that for quite a while before you even joined the forum) he will be forced to scroll through your posts in order to read the arguments of others. That's just the nature of the way the text shows up on the page. In addition, one could make the argument that POTW as a moderator has an actual responsibility to read posts in order to make sure they are fit for the forum, and if he finds yours "ranting and circular" it would certainly be easiest for him to delete them as soon as you post them. And, as long as Specter allows him to be a moderator of the forum, he's got the right - and the power - to do that if he wishes.

You, of course, think it's wrong of him. But then, he thinks abortion is wrong - and your justification of abortion is parallel to his justification of his deleting your posts. Go figure.

[Parthian King]

In addition, one could make the argument that POTW as a moderator has an actual responsibility to read posts in order to make sure they are fit for the forum, and if he finds yours "ranting and circular" it would certainly be easiest for him to delete them as soon as you post them.

WAIT, WAIT! Are you actually suggesting, AE, that there is some mitigating relationship between rights and responsibility? That the moral obligation to do something unpleasant and inconvenient (and only that obligation) may be weightier than our desire to live life as we would wish?

Revolutionary...

Oh, and welcome to the forum, evenstar.

[Saruman]

Excellent thoughts from arwenelizabeth and very apropros, if I may join in briefly (and very briefly at that). Regarding the particular discussion surrounding "rights," I think if every human being has this "right" to "autonomy," then should we not concede that the right for a man to rape a woman is equally as critical and important as the right for a woman to have an abortion? After all, the man has lustful thoughts and feelings in his heart, so why should he be denied something that will be to his benefit (as he regards it), for his personal satisfaction? If what has been presented here, this idea that all men have the right to do whatsoever they desire, is correct, then by this logic murder, rape, incest, abortion, infanticide, genocide, homicide bombings, and every other thing of that ilk, therefore must become "okay." Do you seek to draw the line only when you feel and believe there needs to be a limit?

I believe there is a God in heaven to whom we all will give an account and answer for our lives. Not one stone will be left unturned. We are responsible for the things we do in this life, no matter what we choose to believe or how we choose to feel. Our beliefs and feelings will not outweigh reality in the end.

[overjoyed]

finally, some thoughtful posts. thank you.
It seems that you define rights based on your perspective not an objective viewpoint. no viewpoints are objective. i think rights are grounded in nature, b/c that best explains what rights we have. you may disagree, but how is your viewpoint objective?
As an example, POTW stated his right and by nature of the board and its construct, regardless of who gave it to him, it is stronger than yours. His conflict is a matter of perception, you believe your right to be heard is more important, he believes his right not to allow "circular arguments" is more important. i have granted that he has stronger rights in this forum than i do. but stronger rights do not justify actions in themselves--there must be an actual conflict of rights. he "believes" he has a right to not wade through unwanted arguments, but he never justified this as a real right. remember, he is basing his actions off of my argument. according to my argument, rights that can be violated by nature are imaginary. conflicts of imaginary rights don't matter because they don't exist. a conflict is not a matter of perception--it is a real thing.

Which he already did.where? i said that his right is imaginary because the nature of the forum is such that people post unwanted arguments all the time. where did he argue that his right to not wade through unwanted stuff is real?

Who decides what the nature of something is? Who decides what rights are arbitrary and real?i defined nature earlier. maybe it was deleted. real rights are determined by the standard i have repeated many times: real rights cannot be violated by nature.

Ah. Again, on what basis did you come to the determination of this. The rights of the nature of the forum state quite clearly that as a moderator he has the right to delete posts at his discretion. A right you clearly do not have.he is limiting the scope of rights to this forum, and i am saying that there are other rights at play that he is not considering. a full right given to him by specter for use in this forum only is still weaker than a right given to me by nature for use everywhere.

Posting on a forum is not a right, but a privilege that is granted at the whim of the owner of the forum. rights include privileges. but anyway, i am still granted the privilege to post by the owner. oh, and i never mentioned a right to free speech.

Two points on this one, it is still arbitrary in deciding who's rights are stronger or real. Both Prince, albeit deliberately to make his point, and you because your only appeal is to "nature", however defined and make no mistakes there are many definitions, depending on context of that word.this point does not make sense to me. whatever rights there are and however powerful they are--there is not conflict of rights in this case.

Second, I would agree that you have not forced him to wade through your posts or tricked him into reading them. It could be argued, however, that by posting at all, you are limiting his freedom to view the board at will because he will inevitably come across one of your posts. That is a conflict. oh, that's not a conflict. if he chooses to venture onto the discussion where i am posting, then he has chosen to wade through my posts. and i am not limiting his freedom to browse the forum. he is free to look at my posts and wade through them if he wants. but if he doesn't want to, then he shouldn't.

I know what you mean, I was hoping you would have answered some of my questions in an earlier post, and it does look like you put tremendous effort into this. If he doesn't, at least clarify for me why this philosophy is not unique to you. I can't find anywhere your sources or reasoning for this philosophy.you should read some stuff about natural rights. i think this theory is unique to me, but that does not make it wrong.

However, as I see it, he did in fact justify his right in his original post: it comes from his nature as a moderator, granted to him by the "dictator" of the thread, Specter. It is a real right because of the nature of the forum: because Specter is the total owner of the forum, no one has any rights within it unless they are granted by him. As a moderator, POTW has the right to delete others' posts because Specter has granted it to him. You, as a regular member, do not have that right.thank you for the contribution. the right in question is not the right to delete posts. the right in question is his right to not wade through unwanted stuff, which you obviously understand.

If it is POTW's right to "browse this thread without having to wade through a bunch of ranting and circular arguments" that you are protesting, you are right in a sense. He is claiming a right to do, pretty much, whatever he wants. However, as I read your abortion arguments, you actually do support the right "to do whatever one wants" as a real right, as long as the person exercising that right is not infringing on any stronger rights in doing so. yikes. the right to do whatever you want is the paradigm example of an imaginary right. it says things like "you have the right to fly to the moon on wings of wax" and stuff like that. the right to autonomy is very different because it is only a right to be able to determine what happens to your body. in other words, you have the right to not be stabbed because it would violate your autonomy. with the right to do whatever you want, there is no protection from being stabbed as long as it does not prevent you from doing what you want. there are very very different rights on a very basic level. (i have even argued that abortion is not always ok, which would be a violation of the right to do whatever you want, if the mother wanted an abortion)

You say that you have a right as a human being to communicate and not be censored, but in the context of the forum environment that is actually not true. i had no idea that my rights as a human being can be justly violated by logging onto the internet and entering this forum. what if specter granted the moderators the right to send viruses to anyone they wish? i think i have a right to not be sent computer viruses. if princeofthewest sends me a virus and it ruins my computer and i have to spend a lot of money to buy another, is that ok? someone once said that your right to hit me ends where my nose begins. do whatever you want in this forum, but as soon as you do something that has effects outside of the forum--it's another story.

You cannot argue that he does not have that power; he has already wielded it. You can, of course, rant all you want that he has wielded it unjustly, but the argument that he wields it unjustly sounds strikingly similar to the argument made by others here that a mother wields her power over her unborn child unjustly when she chooses to kill him. this is the first post i have read from you, and i have no ill feeling toward you, but it is uncalled-for to say that i am "ranting". i have never argued that he does not have the power to delete my posts. but his right to do that is weaker than my right to control my words.

if i violated a rule, then you could simply say that i have waived my right to the things i have written and deleting things is justified. the problem is that i have not broken any rules. i am fully within the regulations of this forum.

He never said that he was forced to read your posts; he said that he was forced to wade through them. Assuming he is an active participant on this thread (and as far as I can see, he was that for quite a while before you even joined the forum) he will be forced to scroll through your posts in order to read the arguments of others. he is not forced to do anything. he chooses to click on this discussion and he chooses to go to the last page and he chooses to wade through the posts. he is not forced to do any of this. he's not forced to read things or wade through things. he's not even forced to get on the internet. these are all choices he makes and then claims that there is a conflict--even though he chose to be in that conflict.

That's just the nature of the way the text shows up on the page. In addition, one could make the argument that POTW as a moderator has an actual responsibility to read posts in order to make sure they are fit for the forumah, but he's not talking about reading posts--he is talking about wading through posts (you told me that). and he is not responsible for wading through all the posts in this forum. inkspot is around here a lot and curumo and other moderators. princeofthewest is free to browse discussions of his choice.

You, of course, think it's wrong of him. But then, he thinks abortion is wrong - and your justification of abortion is parallel to his justification of his deleting your posts. Go figure.sorry, but he uses the law of the fist to justify deleting my posts--he does not use anything parallel to my argument. you have admitted that his right to not wade through unwanted stuff is not real. that means there is no conflict of rights and no justification for deleting my posts.

[overjoyed]

I think if every human being has this "right" to "autonomy," then should we not concede that the right for a man to rape a woman is equally as critical and important as the right for a woman to have an abortion? After all, the man has lustful thoughts and feelings in his heart, so why should he be denied something that will be to his benefit (as he regards it), for his personal satisfaction? what does the right to autonomy (self-determination) have to do with rape? what does this have to do with anything?

If what has been presented here, this idea that all men have the right to do whatsoever they desire, is correct, then by this logic murder, rape, incest, abortion, infanticide, genocide, homicide bombings, and every other thing of that ilk, therefore must become "okay." Do you seek to draw the line only when you feel and believe there needs to be a limit?no one said that there is a right to do whatsoever they desire.

[arwenelizabeth]

Aaaaaand, Overjoyed, practically as soon as I've engaged you in argument I'm already sorry that I did. I'm also not surprised that you found so few takers before, if that's the way you to respond to all reasoning.

I'm not going to respond to everything you said in your response to me; it would take forever and be pointless, so I'll let other readers judge for themselves on those counts.

However, I do want to take issue with something you're doing (and I've seen you do it in other posts as well) here: taking words or phrases and giving them the definitions of your choice, then holding to those definitions in spite of all logic to the contrary.

I said that the "right to autonomy" which you keep claiming is, in fact, the same thing as a "right to do whatever you want" that you apparently think is imaginary. You asserted that it is not so, and gave a random example of something you think is an imaginary right: the right to fly to the moon on wings of wax.

Now I'm kind of upset. How dare you take away my right to fly to the moon on wings of wax? Are you saying that, simply because you think such a thing is impossible, my right to do it is not real? I beg to differ: I have a perfect right to fly to the moon on wings of wax if I wish; it is simply that I first have the challenge of figuring out how to do that. Two hundred years ago it was impossible to travel from the East Coast to the West Coast in a day, but does that mean the people who were living then had no right to do it? No, they had a perfect right, just as we do today; they only had no means of doing it, which is an entirely different thing.

Look just at the words for a moment. You say "autonomy" means "self-determination." Fine, all true. Now try to explain what that means to a five-year-old. You've got to put it more simply, so "the right to autonomy" becomes "the right to make choices for oneself" or "the right to control one's own life." Now, you can argue until you're blue in the face that it is not the same thing as "the right to do what one wants" but I am confident that most people will see that the equivalency of the terms is self-evident.

Now, it seems to me that my right to fly to the moon on wings of wax, which you call "imaginary" falls firmly into the category of my right to self-determination as you have defined it. Other people might think it stupid for me to attempt such a thing, since it is clearly impossible with current technologies (perhaps it will always be impossible, but no need to stomp on my dreams by saying so) but if you will take away my right to attempt it then you are taking away my right to choose for myself, my right of "self-determination" or "autonomy," if you will.

QED.

[arwenelizabeth]

WAIT, WAIT! Are you actually suggesting, AE, that there is some mitigating relationship between rights and responsibility? That the moral obligation to do something unpleasant and inconvenient (and only that obligation) may be weightier than our desire to live life as we would wish?

Revolutionary...

Ah, Parthian King, that's the crux of it in regard to abortion, isn't it? Our society at large would like to pretend that there is no connection between the "right" to engage in the sexual behavior of one's choosing and the responsibility to deal with the effects of that behavior. But there is a connection, of course, and it's designed by nature herself, and it's not going away anytime soon.

As far as I can see, that's one of the big problems that the abortion lobby keeps running into: the fact that, because he has not received enough indoctrination to the contrary, average Joe America will insist upon believing that a mother has at least some responsibilities toward an unborn child who was conceived as a natural result of actions she took. He believes it because, despite all arguments to the contrary, it is self-evident, just as the reality of the contents of the womb is self-evident to a toddler who looks at an ultrasound picture and says "baby!"

Real obligation must always be weightier than the "right" to do as wish, otherwise all moral structure breaks down. Without responsibility, there can never be a "should," because the argument to the contrary ("I don't want to") would always be conclusive. It is not; therefore it follows that responsibility must, at least sometimes, have the claim.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

(Sorry for taking so long to get back to this thread - I was somewhat preoccupied yesterday :D)

Ladies and Gentlemen, the defense rests.

My experiment has succeeded beautifully. From the result, the hollow hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of the pro-abortion position is plainly obvious. The mage Confucius has again been vindicated, as has C.S. Lewis and so many others.

My experiment has again served to prove that the simplest and most direct test of a moral system remains shu (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showpost.php?p=360480&postcount=623) (reciprocity). Words and arguments can be spun all sorts of ways, but the acid test of any moral framework is to apply it to it's proponent. The resulting reaction is the true indicator of how well the proponent really believes in the framework. In OJ's case, if you can make it past the elaborate and convoluted rationalizations, her response tells the true story. Her indignation and sense of affront, and her claim that she has been unjustly treated, belie her words. When her own standard is applied to her, she's the one who screams the loudest.

OJ contends that my actions in deleting her posts are a very different moral situation than the slaughter of an unborn child by abortion. I agree with her on two points - they differ in type and in scale. The difference in type is clear. On one hand, you have the deletion of a few hundred words representing a couple of hour's work that will be read by no more than a handful of people. On the other hand, you have the murder of a human being. Surely these two actions differ so much in type that it's almost not even worth comparing them. But the point of simililarity was that both were arbitrary exercises of power over a weaker party, and I think the example serves that purpose. The other difference is in scale. All I did was remove a couple of posts. In the forum environment, an action more equivalent to the killing of an unborn child would have been to ban OJ - to completely remove her without consideration for any of her rights and without appeal. Again, I couldn't quite break out of my native moral framework to take a step that extreme (yet), but since the post deletion was a small-scale "silencing", I thought it a trivial but apt comparison to the utter and irreversable silencing of the voice of an unborn child when she is killed.

Of course, OJ vehemently contends that the comparison is illegitimate because my rights as a moderator are imaginary and thus weaker than her rights to express herself, and that my rights are not granted by the nature of the forum, etc., etc. Herein lies the advantage of vague and ambiguous moral frameworks: they can mean whatever you want them to mean whenever you want to justify an action. This advantage has been exploited by every tyrant, thug, and playground bully since time began. OJ has based her entire argument on this "real rights granted by nature" vs. "weakened rights because of a dependent condition" differentiation. But notice that if you just swap around a few word, it can be used to justify any treatment of one human by another. Behold how flexible this framework can be:

"My rights are stronger because

{they are granted by nature | I belong to the master race | I was born into the right family | I am the property owner | I am the head of the household | I'm a moderator | ... }

and your rights are weaker because

{you're dependent on me | you belong to an inferior race | you have no pedigree | You're only 3/5 of a person | you are a member of my household | you're just a member | ... }

and therefore I can take away your right to life, liberty, expression, or the pursuit of happiness when I wish to do so."

I realize that OJ has repeatedly contended that these other examples are far different than abortion for many reasons - e.g. there's no conflict of rights, the rights aren't granted by nature, whatever. What she's clearly unaware of is that throughout history, exactly this argument has been used by tyrants in the exact same manner. From their point of view, it was a perfectly applicable argument, and it served their purposes beautifully. They are untroubled by the fine differentiations which OJ has repeatedly failed to make clear - it makes sense to them, and they do it. For that matter, as I pondered those post deletions, I did my best to try to grasp the difference between a real and imagined right, what was granted by the nature of the forum, whether there was a true conflict of rights, etc. Alas, the distinction escaped me, and I was at an impasse. Fortunately, OJ herself handed me the edge with which I could cut the Gordian knot. In her words:
the basic theory is that there are rights, and sometimes they conflict, and the way to determine which right "wins" the conflict is to find out which right is stronger. that's the theory. it is pretty clear. all the other arguments i have made were in support of this theory and what i see as its consequences.How beautifully this enabled me to solve my dilemma! My right as a moderator was stronger than her right as a member - violá!. Of course, I realize that she contends that there was no conflict of rights, but I just didn't see it that way, and since her framework didn't provide any guidelines for resolving the dilemma except the one she suggested, that's what I used.

I'm certain OJ wishes I would have turned to shu in this case, and asked myself "Would I want someone just arbitrarily deleting my posts?" But I was trying on her moral framework, as far as I could understand it, so I set my natural inclinations aside. I admit that I could only bring myself to try it on her, since other participants acknowledged the validity of shu, while she was claiming an exception to shu in the case of the unbor