Obama and Abortion

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I guess you don't think people deliberately fail to do something.

No, people do, and what Imran said was that the law currently does not punish such deliberate failure; ie, if you see a blind man about to walk into a pit full of starving dingos, you are under no legal obligation to warn him unless you're a cop.

But abortion is not a deliberate failure of this nature, it is an active attempt to terminate the pregnancy. It is more akin to poking the blind guy with a stick so that he falls into the pit, which in my understanding IS considered criminal where simply standing by is not. What you said would only have a bearing on Imran's point if you were talking about, say, refusing to undergo a medical treatment to ensure the child's survival. Even that would be iffy IMO, as I believe the law doesn't look kindly on parents who allow their kids to die. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd hope you could argue that being a parent to the other party creates some degree of obligation. And of course the whole situation is complicated by the unique circumstances of pregnancy which make analogy with other legal precedents difficult and yadda yadda yadda.

My point is, what you said is a complete non sequitur that had nothing to do with what you were responding to. Why Imran didn't call you on it, I don't know.

[Elok]

Originally posted by GePap
What are you going on about, and what line of arguement have you been following? I wasn't talking about passing laws, I was stating my belief that women should have a bigger say on the abortion debate given that it affects them far more viscerally than it will ever affect men.

And what's the point of a debate if it doesn't result in a law/absence thereof? Or something with the force of law? I suppose I assumed that you were speaking of something consequential.

That and the side arguments about the non-existance of absolute morality and then that brief debate on what creates sexism.

Neither of which I was following.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What makes you say that? There are people who reject the whole notion of objective morality, who would say that saying abortion is immoral is no different then saying anything else can in fact be immoral.

What makes you think that saying abortion is immoral is any different then any other moral statement?

I'm not talking about people's theories about morality. I'm suggesting that there is a tenedecy for people in a society to have similar moral belief, and those beliefs tend to be consistant in nature. Outlawing abortion doesn't seem to be consistant with other common moral beliefs in the US.

You mean Roe? It wasn't ratified by a constitutional amendment, so what makes you think that a majority of the people have supported Roe at any point in time?

The majority wants some form of restriction on abortion, which Roe does not provide. Roe permits abortions through all nine months.

I was refering to the law in general. People didn't generally agree with the law before Roe either.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok
My point is, what you said is a complete non sequitur that had nothing to do with what you were responding to. Why Imran didn't call you on it, I don't know.

Dude, the best that you have is the difference between an action and an inaction. In case you didn't know people are legally responsible for certain inactions, such as properly caring for their children, stoping at red lights etc...

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Dude, the best that you have is the difference between an action and an inaction. In case you didn't know people are legally responsible for certain inactions, such as properly caring for their children,

Which I remarked on as an argument AGAINST extending what he said to abortion, as it's hard to make the woman a non-responsible bystander for her kid.

stoping at red lights etc...

How is that an inaction? If you fail to press the brake, yes, but that's just a byproduct of the way cars work and of momentum. It's really just one aspect of the larger action of driving a car. The car, as something expected to be under your control, is considered something of an extension of yourself. There's a responsibility there (just like there's a responsibility to others if you happen to be a cop) distinct from just sitting there and letting what would have happened happen. The car wouldn't be at the red light in the first place if you weren't behind the wheel with the key turned in the ignition. It's certainly not comparable to letting somebody else's cat die or however this started.

So what exactly are you trying to argue here? It seems to me that what he was saying hinged on the action in question being deliberate, active. In context, the difference between action and inaction is quite crucial. Imran, correct me if I'm wrong.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok
Which I remarked on as an argument AGAINST extending what he said to abortion, as it's hard to make the woman a non-responsible bystander for her kid.

No it's not. If it were then it would be just as hard to make the person non-responsible who saved the cat instead of the person. Actually, I think the person who saved the cat is more responsible, that is if saving the person would not have presented any risk to them.

How is that an inaction? If you fail to press the brake, yes, but that's just a byproduct of the way cars work and of momentum. It's really just one aspect of the larger action of driving a car. The car, as something expected to be under your control, is considered something of an extension of yourself. There's a responsibility there (just like there's a responsibility to others if you happen to be a cop) distinct from just sitting there and letting what would have happened happen. The car wouldn't be at the red light in the first place if you weren't behind the wheel with the key turned in the ignition. It's certainly not comparable to letting somebody else's cat die or however this started.

Good point. Is it an inaction or an action? What's the real difference. I say there is no significant difference.

And we are talking about letting a person die who is in a burning building. Imran said there is no legal responsibility to save the person regardless of the risk involved. That's when you jumped in.

I'm not saying not saving him is the same as killing him, but terminating a pregnancy isn't murder either since the mother is not responsible for supporting life that she never agreed to support.

So what exactly are you trying to argue here? It seems to me that what he was saying hinged on the action in question being deliberate, active. In context, the difference between action and inaction is quite crucial. Imran, correct me if I'm wrong.

I'll just repeat myself I guess. People are not held responsible for saving people from danger, but pro-lifers want to hold women responsible for giving birth when they get pregnant. Why should the women be responsible for the life? I don't think we disagree there. You are saying that she can't take an action to terminate the pregancy. And I'm saying that action in this case isn't significantly different from the inaction in the first case. It still results in death in both cases, and people will call someone responsible in both cases.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by GePap


Women don't "commit" pregnancy. They become pregnant. sorry if you are unable to see the clear difference in that.

Unless raped a woman decides to have unprotected sex. Seriously why do USAians have such a hard time realizing that effective, safe and easy to use contraception is a fact of life.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Fine. What if the women uses protection?

Then its ok to abort before the third trimester, in any circumstances. After that the lesser evil is for her to give birth and give the baby up for adoption.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Kidicious



I'm thinking that the pregnancy is an accident caused by the sex. But the women isn't negligent because she took precautions and wasn't reckless.

The biological function of sex is to make babies kid.

Everytime a woman is ovulating and she has sex and dosen't get pregnant it is either because the male is incompatible or because the system failed.


Unprotected sex = making babies
Protected sex = fun

Why do people have such a hard time grasping the realities of the modern world?

[Kidlicious]

You must have been on heavy medication when you posted those.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You must have been on heavy medication when you posted those.

I was but that doesn't make them any less true.

[Kidlicious]

Only if the person reading them is also on the same medication.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Elok
My point is, what you said is a complete non sequitur that had nothing to do with what you were responding to. Why Imran didn't call you on it, I don't know.

I welcome the threadjack to talk about law in the abstract as abortion is an issue that doesn't really interest me all that much in the specifics .

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Only if the person reading them is also on the same medication.

Painmeds are common.


Also, what don't you agree with?

The use of contraception? That sex is meant to create babies and that the only reason its fun is because anyone who didn't find making babies fun was weeded out be evolution?


Now if you believed in god I would see why you would have a problem with contraception and evolution...

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by GePap
And you think the power of thought will somehow wash away these fundamental human traits that we evolved with?

No, but the power of thought will help us to see when traits are related and when they are not. Categorization does have its uses.

Well, I don't. I fully acknowledge the basic and obvious physiologial differences between male and female members of the human species. I also know enough about them to understand when they matter, and when they don't. I would hope to live in a society that shared this knowledge.

There certainly are obvious differences between the sexes, and acknowledging them when it serves a useful purpose is clearly beneficial.

For example, if a human being goes into a doctor's office and describes symptoms commonly associated with pregnancy, the doctor should be able to rule out that diagnosis if, say, the human being possesses a Y chromosome.

Years and years of observation and study have taught us that human beings possessing the Y chromosome cannot become pregnant due to the physiological changes they undergo in utero.

To point out differences between sexes in other situations, however, is not useful and sometimes even harmful.

"Man, so I was on the highway yesterday, and I was stuck behind this woman who was going like thirty while doing her makeup. Ugh."

In relating this story, pointing out that the bad driver was a woman does nothing except to perpetuate the idea that women are bad drivers. Examples like this happen all the time and they are, in the long run and in a very small way, harmful.

You wish to defer to women when it concerns moral decisions regarding abortion. Now, I say that there is a perfectly good reason to acknowledge differences between sexes when it serves a functional purpose.

So, in my ideal world, if years and years of observation and study revealed that human beings possessing two X chromosomes somehow had better and more valuable opinions with regards to the issue of abortion, then I would certainly support your assertion to defer to women.

However, as far as I know, no such study has ever been conducted and we have no reason to believe that their opinions contain any more utility than the opinions of any other kind of human being. So, as far as I'm concerned, deferring to them is just another example of pointing out their sex when it serves no purpose, which only perpetuates the existence of sexism in society.