The Abortion Debate (continued) (2 Viewers)

[Not-That-Bright]

Whether or not killing a foetus is murder is, most likely, up to you.

Well I think murder is the wrong word, I'd rather say 'unjust'. Yes, whether it is unjust is in the end, up to you. But I think you should go through your thinking to come to exactly why you think it is unjust to see if perhaps the reason why you think it is unjust can be responded to adequately and if not why that response wasn't adequate.

 

[kami]

It seems that it depends on how you demonstrate what life is human. You suggested that even in the early stages, the feotus displays none of the properties that sets humans apart from other species. I would question this however. Just because many physical characteristics are not in place does not make the life form any less human. For that matter what are the attributes that set humans aside from other life? From the moment of conception human DNA is present and because of this I find it hard to suggest that we are not dealing with human life from even that point.

If your stance is that our humanity is defined by our DNA and instead of our behaviour, awareness or physical attributes then every shred of tissue derived from a human body has those rights.

Also, from a religious standpoint, the core separation from human and animal is our identity(ie our soul/mind) - if you want to disregard the factor of identity and base it solely on DNA then I would think(I'm not into theology so feel free to correct me) you are stripping away the jewish/christian justification for the pro-life argument.

I very strongly recommend reading http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/P...02/thomson.htm for an analysis of the 'right to life' argument.

While I am pro-choice (though not neccesarily pro-abortion), I don't really think those arguments are appropriate to the 'right to life' argument. From where I am sitting (and I freely admit I could be mistaken), they seem to better describe an argument about whether the foetus has a 'right to the mother's body' which is similar but different. In addition I also think some of the examples are unsatisfactory:

• The entire violinist example can only be equated to a forced pregnancy where one would be entirely convalescent during said pregnancy - the majority of pregnancies don't put anywhere near that degree of strain on the mother and the majority are not rapes.
• The example where the burglar enters is also flawed, a person who has willing intercourse is undertaking an act with risks they are fully aware of(presuming basic education) and is choosing to enter into such an activity anyway. The person who is being burglarised is having something done to them that they have taken precautions to stop - the burglar would have had to actively negate any safeguards of the property.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I don't really think those arguments are appropriate to the 'right to life' argument. From where I am sitting (and I freely admit I could be mistaken), they seem to better describe an argument about whether the foetus has a 'right to the mother's body' which is similar but different.

It challenges the entire question of what a right to life means, coming to the conclusion that it is more likely a right to not be killed unjustly.

The entire violinist example can only be equated to a forced pregnancy

Not true. As I believe is explained in the article the fetus forces its self on the mother, it's not as if the mother chooses the fetus. To say that she chose to be pregnant I think you first need to better deal with the burgular analogy.

where one would be entirely convalescent during said pregnancy - the majority of pregnancies don't put anywhere near that degree of strain on the mother

I agree. But the right to life argument doesn't seem to really focus on how much pain the mother goes through, as the article explains. It could be 10 years or 1 month from the right to life argument it follows that the mother must stay pregnant.

The example where the burglar enters is also flawed, a person who has willing intercourse is undertaking an act with risks they are fully aware of(presuming basic education)

Yes just as a person whom leaves their window open is fully aware of the risk that burglars may enter her house.

and is choosing to enter into such an activity anyway.

As is a person whom opens a window.

The person who is being burglarised is having something done to them that they have taken precautions to stop - the burglar would have had to actively negate any safeguards of the property.

No that's the second example. With the first the woman leaves a window open, with the second she puts up bars on her windows. This is just like contraceptives, in Australia I believe it is 50% of women whom have abortions claim to have used a contraceptive. From this we then come to what I said above;

I'm really interested to see what BradCube has to say about contraception with reguards to the mother's body granting the fetus the right to exist inside there. I think most people will come to the conclusion at the very least that in cases where contraceptives have been used, abortion should be fine.

IMO then there is another practical problem, if you accept that but still disagree with abortion in other circumstances - how do you know whether a contraceptive has been used? To me it then seems that the main focus should be on getting the message out there for people to use contraceptives, something I would strongly support.

 

[BradCube]

That's a bit silly imo. Did you read the full article? Perhaps you missed some of it.If a burgular breaks into a womans house, even tho she has put in place locks/bars on her windows to attempt to prevent them from getting in, if he gets in anyway, does that mean she allowed him access into her home? I doubt anyone would say yes, so I think it's then fair for you to at least conceed perhaps that in the case of a woman whom has used contraceptive abortion would be ok.

If we are going to use an example exaggerated in this way we must continue following this logic to the conclusion. If the burglar breaks into a woman’s house even when she has prevented to keep them out she hasn't allowed the burglar so much but hasn't prevented him completely. However the biggest flaw in this analogy is that, if continued, we would then be suggesting that since she has
tried to prevent the burglar, if he then breaks in, she then has the right to murder him (Of course again making the assumption that from conception we have human life). I doubt how many would agree to this arrangement either. Especially the burglar since he was forced without choice to break into the house.

Another possible conclusion of your logic is that if a womans body accepts a mans penis (i.e. doesn't reject it) that man has a right to keep his penis in her, this doesn't seem right does it?

Of course the man doesn't have the right to do this. I think my original comment has been taken slightly out of context. In your example you are referencing to the woman as a whole, her consciousness and her ability to make her own decisions. In my example I was only referring to the physical properties of her body. In this context only would your example be logical, since by accepting the penis the body has given it the right. Body only keep in mind. If this was not the case, then it would be impossible for the woman’s body to ever give the right to this occurrence.

It seems slightly flawed also to be talking about "rights" when only in reference to body parts. The reason it made sense in my previous example was the fact that it was in reference to human life. So, on that basis, I can understand why my explanation may not seem to make much sense since the concept of "rights" doesn't seem to apply when applied only to dealing with the physical.

So what you're saying brad, is that even if a woman is raped or has her lifethreatened she still cannot have an abortion? The article explains quite simply why that is wrong and I don't really see an objection from you about the article on this matter. Perhaps you should re-read the section on when a mothers life is at steak and cut a quote from it with your objections to that logic below.

I would say exactly that. However not in practical law terms as I know that it would never happen, so I would not try to change laws in this regard. However, if we are arguing from strictly a moral point of view, then if it is murder to stop life at any point from the moment of conception, then this does not
change when she is raped and has her life threatened.

Some people seem to have thought that these are not further premises which must be added if the conclusion is to be reached, but that they follow from the very fact that an innocent person has a right to life. But this seems to me to be a mistake, and perhaps the simplest way to show this is to bring out that while we must certainly grant that innocent persons have a right to life, the theses in (1) through (4) are all false. Take (2), for example. If directly killing an innocent person is murder, and thus is impermissible, then the mother's directly killing the innocent person inside her is murder, and thus is impermissible. But it cannot seriously be thought to be murder if the mother performs an abortion on herself to save her life. It cannot seriously be said that she must refrain, that she must sit passively by and wait for her death. Let us look again at the case of you and the violinist There you are, in bed with the violinist, and the director of the hospital says to you, "It's all most distressing, and I deeply sympathize, but you see this is putting an additional strain on your kidneys, and you'll be dead within the month. But you have to stay where you are all the same. because unplugging you would be directly killing an innocent violinist, and that's murder, and that's impermissible." If anything in the world is true, it is that you do not commit murder, you do not do
what is impermissible, if you reach around to your back and unplug yourself from that violinist to save your life.

This extract states a few times "That it could not be seriously said/thought" that the mother could be accused of murder if she was the one to perform the abortion. I would however argue that she could. By disconnecting herself willingly from the violinist, she is knowingly depriving him of life, thereby killing/murdering him. So I would suggest that it still is in fact murder.

Should she willingly sit by then and wait to die? If it were times before scientific discovery has allowed, then she would have to. Does the fact that we are now able to disconnect ourselves from the violinist make it anymore correct or right to do so? Certainly the violinist has not been the cause of this event and depriving him of life simply because we now can does not seem an appropriate solution to me - even when the mothers life is threatened also. So to answer, yes, if it were me that was able to have a child, I would wait to see what happens.

Put the blame and punishment on the cause of the occurrence and not the result. This is the way law works for everything else. Lets use a burglar example again. If a someone were to steal millions of dollars from a bank, but were then later caught once they had spent all of the money how would they be punished? Certainly it would not be logical to burn everything he had purchased as punishment? Of course not, the burglar would be dealt with on a separate basis and the money would be given back to the bank in whatever way possible.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

If we are going to use an example exaggerated in this way we must continue following this logic to the conclusion. If the burglar breaks into a woman’s house even when she has prevented to keep them out she hasn't allowed the burglar so much but hasn't prevented him completely.

In the first example the woman has put down her defences to get some fresh air, i.e. she has opened up the window. There was no attempt to prevent him comming in, she didn't want him in but she also wanted the window open and simply failed to put in place precautions - that in no way makes it her fault.

However the biggest flaw in this analogy is that, if continued, we would then be suggesting that since she has tried to prevent the burglar, if he then breaks in, she then has the right to murder him (Of course again making the assumption that from conception we have human life).

Must have missed this in the article also. She quite clearly explains that ensuring the death of the fetus is not something that need/should be done, mainly it is the removal of the fetus from the woman that must be ensured. However, removing a fetus (unlike removing a burgular) is very hard to do without killing the fetus and can often hurt the woman, so in many cases it cannot be done.

Of course the man doesn't have the right to do this. I think my original comment has been taken slightly out of context. In your example you are referencing to the woman as a whole, her consciousness and her ability to make her own decisions. In my example I was only referring to the physical properties of her body. In this context only would your example be logical, since by accepting the penis the body has given it the right. Body only keep in mind. If this was not the case, then it would be impossible for the woman’s body to ever give the right to this occurrence.

It seems slightly flawed also to be talking about "rights" when only in reference to body parts. The reason it made sense in my previous example was the fact that it was in reference to human life. So, on that basis, I can understand why my explanation may not seem to make much sense since the concept of "rights" doesn't seem to apply when applied only to dealing with the physical.

Yes I think the article explains that people often forget that the woman is not a 'house' but is in fact a person. Glad you could see your error tho.

This extract states a few times "That it could not be seriously said/thought" that the mother could be accused of murder if she was the one to perform the abortion. I would however argue that she could. By disconnecting herself willingly from the violinist, she is knowingly depriving him of life, thereby killing/murdering him. So I would suggest that it still is in fact murder.

I'll get back to this when I can actually read the article, I'm on a shitty Mac atm.

Ok I found what you're talking about.

The most familiar argument here is the following. We are told that performing the abortion would he directly killings the child, whereas doing nothing would not be killing the mother, but only letting her die. Moreover, in killing the child, one would be killing an innocent person, for the child has committed no crime, and is not aiming at his mother's death. And then there are a variety of ways in which this might be continued. (1) But as directly killing an innocent person is always and absolutely impermissible, an abortion may not be performed. Or, (2) as directly killing an innocent person is murder, and murder is always and absolutely impermissible, an abortion may not be performed. Or, (3) as one's duty to refrain from directly killing an innocent person is more stringent than one's duty to keep a person from dying, an abortion may not be performed. Or, (4) if one's only options are directly killing an innocent person or letting a person die, one must prefer letting the person die, and thus an abortion may not be performed.

Some people seem to have thought that these are not further premises which must be added if the conclusion is to be reached, but that they follow from the very fact that an innocent person has a right to life. But this seems to me to be a mistake, and perhaps the simplest way to show this is to bring out that while we must certainly grant that innocent persons have a right to life, the theses in (1) through (4) are all false. Take (2), for example. If directly killing an innocent person is murder, and thus is impermissible, then the mother's directly killing the innocent person inside her is murder, and thus is impermissible. But it cannot seriously be thought to be murder if the mother performs an abortion on herself to save her life. It cannot seriously be said that she must refrain, that she must sit passively by and wait for her death. Let us look again at the case of you and the violinist There you are, in bed with the violinist, and the director of the hospital says to you, "It's all most distressing, and I deeply sympathize, but you see this is putting an additional strain on your kidneys, and you'll be dead within the month. But you have to stay where you are all the same. because unplugging you would be directly killing an innocent violinist, and that's murder, and that's impermissible." If anything in the world is true, it is that you do not commit murder, you do not do what is impermissible, if you reach around to your back and unplug yourself from that violinist to save your life.

Ok, so you want to call it murder... well it seems this article takes murder to mean 'impermissable killing' - So why you've explained to me why you think she's comitted murder just because she's knowingly deprived someone of life, I don't know. What you have to explain here is really why it is that it is impermissable for her to choose her life over the violinists? Especially when I'm pretty sure the death of the mother will often lead to the death of the fetus also.

Should she willingly sit by then and wait to die? If it were times before scientific discovery has allowed, then she would have to. Does the fact that we are now able to disconnect ourselves from the violinist make it anymore correct or right to do so? Certainly the violinist has not been the cause of this event and depriving him of life simply because we now can does not seem an appropriate solution to me - even when the mothers life is threatened also. So to answer, yes, if it were me that was able to have a child, I would wait to see what happens.

Fine, but that's your decision, if you want to be nice you can do that - as the article explained... But personally, I'd rather not die

Put the blame and punishment on the cause of the occurrence and not the result.

What is the cause of the occurence? [Insert burgular analogy here again].
It is quite a stretch to say that you have contributed to the occurrence to saying you are to take full responsibility for the occurance. It is also doesn't seem to follow just because you perhaps knowingly caused the creation of a fetus thus giving it the right to begin 'using' your body, that you've given it the right to be there for the entire length of the pregnancy.

This is the way law works for everything else.

Unfortunately there is no 'punishment' aspect to abortion, the purpose is not to punish in any way - it is to do the mothers' wishes and remove the fetus from her body.

 

[BradCube]

If your stance is that our humanity is defined by our DNA and instead of our behaviour, awareness or physical attributes then every shred of tissue derived from a human body has those rights.

What makes us human is a very interesting issue and one I investigated in an assignment a short while ago. I ended up conlcuding that it is logically impossible to define us as anything different or indifferent from other life forms other than the physcial attributes we pertain to.

The difference in your example is that usually tissue derived from the human body is not living and does not have the ability to gain conciousness. Extending this matter, I would like to question when anyone actually does gain conciousness. My earliest memories are at about 2 and a half. Did I have my own conciousness before this, or was I merely a collection of cells with the abilty to gain conciousness in the future. Unless we can pin point a moment for every child in this regard then I would find it hard to seperate a few cells near the point of conception to the millions present at birth.

Also, from a religious standpoint, the core separation from human and animal is our identity(ie our soul/mind) - if you want to disregard the factor of identity and base it solely on DNA then I would think(I'm not into theology so feel free to correct me) you are stripping away the jewish/christian justification for the pro-life argument.

I do not want to disregard the factor of identity, but am instead choosing to construct an argument without it. Just like the above, it seems that it is impossible to logically prove whether we do or do not have a soul, so I am personally refraining from using that as any basis for argument. This of course does not mean that I do not believe in the existance of a soul, I quite well do, but it seems pointless for me to use this in any form of reasoning.

I am of the belief that christianity should have suitable and logical reasoning other then that of "just because". If there is an omnipontent God then surely there is basis for the conclusions made.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I would like to question when anyone actually does gain conciousness.

I would find it hard to seperate a few cells near the point of conception to the millions present at birth.

There is alot of research into this, look it up, try to go for referenced/peer reviewed articles from respectable journals. Just because you find it hard does not mean that it is an impossible feat or at least that it is not impossible to get a rough approximation by when the characteristics of what we would call consciousness start to appear.

 

[BradCube]

In the first example the woman has put down her defences to get some fresh air, i.e. she has opened up the window. There was no attempt to prevent him comming in, she didn't want him in but she also wanted the window open and simply failed to put in place precautions - that in no way makes it her fault.

It makes it partly her fault since she was half the cause in forcing the burglar into her house in the first place by choosing to have sex. (Just realising how rediculous analogy would appear if no-one knew what we were talking about )

Must have missed this in the article also. She quite clearly explains that ensuring the death of the fetus is not something that need/should be done, mainly it is the removal of the fetus from the woman that must be ensured. However, removing a fetus (unlike removing a burgular) is very hard to do without killing the fetus and can often hurt the woman, so in many cases it cannot be done.

I would have to conlcude then that she is knowingly killing the fetus by removing it at that point in time. I would also keep in mind that the burglar will remove itself after nine months also.

Oh and by the way, I thought that was just your example since I had not read all of the article, sorry.

Yes I think the article explains that people often forget that the woman is not a 'house' but is in fact a person. Glad you could see your error tho.

I think my point still stands, but the words used are not fitting for the context of the example.

Ok I found what you're talking about.



Ok, so you want to call it murder... well it seems this article takes murder to mean 'impermissable killing' so I don't why you've explained to me why you think she's comitted murder just because she's knowingly deprived someone of life I don't know. What you have to explain here is really why it is that it is impermissable for her to choose her life over the violinists? Especially when I'm pretty sure the death of the mother will often lead to the death of the fetus also.

I am saying that it is imperrmissable to choose her life over the featus because by doing so she is knowingly and willingfully killing the featus.

I am defining it as murder because it seems to be the closest thing to a dictionary definition (from dictionary.com):

"The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."

Of course we are again making the assumption that it is human at this stage and thereby would be unlawful.

The death of the mother does not usually mean the death of the featus because in most cases (although I am not 100% sure) it is usually in the last stages of pregnancy that the mother dies - ie giving birth. Could someone clarify this issue though because I am really not sure.

Fine, but that's your decision, if you want to be nice you can do that - as the article explained... But personally, I'd rather not die

I guess it comes down to whether you would rather murder someone or give your life for them instead. This is why it seems that it would be impossible to reflect these views in law.

Unfortunately there is no 'punishment' aspect to abortion, the purpose is not to punish in any way - it is to do the mothers' wishes and remove the fetus from her body.

There is very much a punishment aspect to abortion in my opinion. The featus is punished for coming into existance, since it was undesired, by being destroyed.

What is the cause of the occurence? [Insert burgular analogy here again].
It is quite a stretch to say that you have contributed to the occurrence to saying you are to take full responsibility for the occurance. It is also doesn't seem to follow just because you perhaps knowingly caused the creation of a fetus thus giving it the right to begin 'using' your body, that you've given it the right to be there for the entire length of the pregnancy.

The cause of the event is not the burglur but is that which forces the burglur to be there. In this case, it is the male and female that have engaged in sexual intercourse that are the cause of this event. If it was in the case of rape, then the cause would be on the male rapping the female since it is impossible for her to prevent the occurance 100%.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It make it partly her fault since she was half the cause in forcing the burglar into her house in the first place by choosing to have sex.

Er yes... I don't disagree except maybe with 'half'. How does it put you at ultimate fault just because you were one of the causes of the result? If the woman didn't leave her window open then there was absolutely no way the burgular could get in, does that mean that by doing so she is ultimately at fault? No.

I would have to conlcude then that she is knowingly killing the fetus by removing it at that point in time.

Well yes I know that, but is it just... that is the question that we're dealing with.

I am saying that it is imperrmissable to choose her life over the featus because by doing so she is knowingly and willingfully killing the featus.

We are aware that she is willingly killing the fetus... The problem for you is to explain why it is that it is impermissable for her to choose her life over the fetus.

You just haven't answered my question.

i.e.
Me: Why is it impermissable for her to kill the fetus to save her life?
You: Because it kills the fetus.

"The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."

Notice the word unlawful? That's what impermissable means, this is a moral question however so we don't use the word 'unlawful killing' because law doesn't necessarily mean moral.

Of course we are again making the assumption that it is human at this stage and thereby would be unlawful.

Fine, if you really want to use murder in exchange go ahead but it seems quite silly given my above reasons.

I guess it comes down to whether you would rather murder someone or give your life for them instead. This is why it seems that it would be impossible to reflect these views in law.

Well no. The way you reflect it in law is to give people choice. You have the choice to have the baby or you can not, depending on your moral stance/etc.

There is very much a punishment aspect to abortion in my opinion.

The purpose of abortion is not the punish even if in your opinion the final result is to punish. The purpose of the law is (over simplistically) to punish. That's why you analogy is wrong.

I think my point still stands, but the words used are not fitting for the context of the example.

Which point do you think stands?

 

[kami]

Not true. As I believe is explained in the article the fetus forces its self on the mother, it's not as if the mother chooses the fetus.

If you are referring to the violinist, the article states that the patient is kidnapped and forced to sustain a foreign entity - which is a violation and thus equatable to rape.

If you are referring to this segment...

But it might be argued that there are other ways one can have acquired a right to the use of another person's body than by having been invited to use it by that person. Suppose a woman voluntarily indulges in intercourse, knowing of the chance it will issue in pregnancy, and then she does become pregnant; is she not in part responsible for the presence, in fact the very existence, of the unborn person inside? No doubt she did not invite it in. But doesn't her partial responsibility for its being there itself give it a right to the use of her body? If so, then her aborting it would be more like the boys taking away the chocolates, and less like your unplugging yourself from the violinist--doing so would be depriving it of what it does have a right to, and thus would be doing it an injustice.

The article itself dissassociates the violinist example from the case of voluntary intercourse. Which leaves involuntary intercourse and thus a forced pregnancy.

Yes just as a person whom leaves their window open is fully aware of the risk that burglars may enter her house.


No that's the second example. With the first the woman leaves a window open, with the second she puts up bars on her windows. This is just like contraceptives, in Australia I believe it is 50% of women whom have abortions claim to have used a contraceptive. From this we then come to what I said above

Should a person spontaneously open their window, and at some unspecified and unrelated time has past and someone takes advantage of this, then they are undoubtedly trespassing regardless of how risky the neighbourhood and how foolish the resident for opening the window in that neighbourhood.

Should a person open their window when they are aware that at that moment someone wishes to get in through that window, it is difficult to see it as other than invitation for entry - not unlike someone knocking on a door and it then being opened by the resident.

Also, someone in a house has a reasonable expectation that their territory should not be justly invaded, a couple who have sex do not have a just expectation that no pregnancy should occur as no contraceptive is 100%

I ended up conlcuding that it is logically impossible to define us as anything different or indifferent from other life forms other than the physcial attributes we pertain to.

Which brings me full circle to my vegetarian comment.

The difference in your example is that usually tissue derived from the human body is not living and does not have the ability to gain conciousness.

Should a sperm combine with an ovum then it may gain consciousness, so it can be argued they have that potential also - with the assistance of a mother's body of course.

I am of the belief that christianity should have suitable and logical reasoning other then that of "just because".

Thats not a very common stance among the christains I have met - you have my respect for that.

 

[BradCube]

Er yes... I don't disagree except maybe with 'half'. How does it put you at ultimate fault just because you were one of the causes of the result? If the woman didn't leave her window open then there was absolutely no way the burgular could get in, does that mean that by doing so she is ultimately at fault? No.

I didn't say that she was ultimatley at fault, I said she was partly at fault (or half if sex is agreeable by both partners). Did I miss something?

Well yes I know that, but is it just... that is the question that we're dealing with.

My apologies, I thought you were asking why it was murder not why it was imperrmissble. I actually re-read your post after and I was like duhh brad. So in answer to your question I feel the reasons outlined in the article suffice:

(1) But as directly killing an innocent person is always and absolutely impermissible, an abortion may not be performed. Or, (2) as directly killing an innocent person is murder, and murder is always and absolutely impermissible, an abortion may not be performed. Or, (3) as one's duty to refrain from directly killing an innocent person is more stringent than one's duty to keep a person from dying, an abortion may not be performed. Or, (4) if one's only options are directly killing an innocent person or letting a person die, one must prefer letting the person die, and thus an abortion may not be performed.

As I outlined before, the reasons it then outlines to rebut these point I do not agree with.

Well no. The way you reflect it in law is to give people choice. You have the choice to have the baby or you can not, depending on your moral stance/etc.

Yes, your right, and this is exactly what I meant when I said that I don't think that laws could ever be fitting in putting my moral argument forward. ie - it will never be possible to force a law that does not allow abortions.

The purpose of abortion is not the punish even if in your opinion the final result is to punish. The purpose of the law is (over simplistically) to punish. That's why you analogy is wrong.

Again, I think I have mucked up the wording. Punishment is not the correct word. Negetive effect may be more appropriate. So rather then me saying that the punishment is placed on the child, it would be more fitting to say that if abortion is performed the fetus is negetively effected unfairly.

I'll be back in a while to continue this discussion.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The article itself dissassociates the violinist example from the case of voluntary intercourse. Which leaves involuntary intercourse and thus a forced pregnancy.

Ar ok fine then, sorry about that, but what's your problem there? The violinist example was used to demonstrate the problem with the other two but was not sufficient for the last one.

Should a person open their window when they are aware that at that moment someone wishes to get in through that window it is difficult to see it as other than invitation for entry - not unlike someone knocking on a door and it then being opened by the resident.

The problem here is that you've created a situation where there is some form of interaction between the person inside the house and the one outside that wishes to get in. In the case of the fetus/mother there is no interaction between them, it is merely an open door and then the fetus comes in. Even when the woman may know it is right there and that by opening the door she is creating the chance for the fetus to come in, that does not mean that she's inviting it in. She is inviting something else in (in the real world, a penis) the fact that this leaves her vulnerable to the fetus also entering her does not mean that she allowed it to happen.

However, if that is not satisfactory for you, it still does not follow that because you knowingly allowed something entry and limited use of say your home, that they're allowed to stay there for as long as they want.

Also, someone in a house has a reasonable expectation that their territory should not be justly invaded, a couple who have sex do not have a just expectation that no pregnancy should occur as no contraceptive is 100%

It is not reasonable to expect that you will never be invaded (I don't understand why you used the word justly?). Neither is any security 100%, but if you've put the measures in place to try to prevent a result it seems quite wrong to claim that when that result does indeed happen that you gave it the right to happen. What you're saying here is that even if you've installed the very best security system available to you, if a burglar gets in - it's your fault.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

So in answer to your question I feel the reasons outlined in the article suffice:

... But that just brings us around full circle. I am challenging it and then asking you to explain why that challenge is not just then you just repeat it?

 

[The Brucemaster]

Also, someone in a house has a reasonable expectation that their territory should not be justly invaded, a couple who have sex do not have a just expectation that no pregnancy should occur as no contraceptive is 100%

This argument makes absolutely no sense. You are saying that in the situation of a burglary, a person has a reasonable expectation that they will not be burgled and thus are not repsonsible for that burglary.
Then you turn around and say that a woman who falls pregnant SHOULD be responsible because contraceptive's do not provide ABSOLUTE protection from impregnation.

These two points are contradictory.

 

[BradCube]

... But that just brings us around full circle. I am challenging it and then asking you to explain why that challenge is not just then you just repeat it?

So, what you're asking me is how murder is more imperrmisable then the mother simply dying?

Or in other words, why I agree with those 4 statements put forward in the article?

If it is I will have to get back to you because I am about to go out for the night, but I thought it was worth while clearing up the question before I get started again.

 

[kami]

Ar ok fine then, sorry about that, but what's your problem there? The violinist example was used to demonstrate the problem with the other two but was not sufficient for the last one.

My issue with it, is that I don't think it is an appropriate example when Thompson refers to it multiple times throughout her essay as the basis of logic as why a woman should/should have the right to 'unplug' - points 1,3,4,5,6 and7 out of 8 points are all equated with the violinist example. The essay itself accepts that voluntary intercourse bestows responsibility and also that voluntary intercourse is not relatable to the violinist example, so I find the violinist example unsatisfactory unless you want to argue only about pregnancies resulting from rape rather than using that example for abortion itself.

However, if that is not satisfactory for you, it still does not follow that because you knowingly allowed something entry and limited use of say your home, that they're allowed to stay there for as long as they want.

If you allow them limited entry while knowing they can and will stay as long as they want should you do this, then more responsibility is reflected upon the 'resident' than originally implied in the essay.

It is not reasonable to expect that you will never be invaded (I don't understand why you used the word justly?). Neither is any security 100%, but if you've put the measures in place to try to prevent a result it seems quite wrong to claim that when that result does indeed happen that you gave it the right to happen.

The reason I used 'should' and 'just' is that as a society it is established both morally and legally that one person should not (as opposed to cannot) enter someone's territory uninvited. With pregnancy it is not a something where someone else has to decide to break with the process - it is the natural eventuation of a process so you cannot claim this pregnancy does not belong in the same fashion as the burglar, you can only claim that you wish it were not there (for whatever reason).

 

[Not-That-Bright]

My issue with it, is that I don't think it is an appropriate example when Thompson refers to it multiple times throughout her essay as the basis of logic as why a woman should/should have the right to 'unplug' - points 1,3,4,5,6 and7 out of 8 points are all equated with the violinist example.

It's not the basis of the logic, it's just an analogy to help people understand... with the last one the analogy doesn't work and she acknowledges that.

so I find the violinist example unsatisfactory unless you want to argue only about pregnancies resulting from rape rather than using that example for abortion itself.

I said fine, forget the violinist example for that part in other words, but you need to go through all those examples to understand the logic of the last one anyway. The essay is more than just the violinist example.

If you allow them limited entry while knowing they can and will stay as long as they want should you do this, then more responsibility is reflected upon the 'resident' than originally implied in the essay.

But other than that you have no problem with the logic? Fine, it wasn't in the essay... I just came up with that one myself.

The reason I used 'should' and 'just' is that as a society it is established both morally and legally that one person should not (as opposed to cannot) enter someone's territory uninvited. With pregnancy it is not a something where someone else has to decide to break with the process - it is the natural eventuation of a process so you cannot claim this pregnancy does not belong in the same fashion as the burglar, you can only claim that you wish it were not there (for whatever reason).

I'm not quite understanding, but this is what i've gathered so far;

- It is established in society that you should not enter someone's territory without permission.
- With pregnancy the fetus does not decide whether to enter her territory.

??? Perhaps that is it?

If so, I don't see the relevance.

 

[kami]

I'm not quite understanding, but this is what i've gathered so far;

- It is established in society that you should not enter someone's territory without permission.
- With pregnancy the fetus does not decide whether to enter her territory.

??? Perhaps that is it?

If so, I don't see the relevance.

It isn't established that it is wrong for the foetus to be there, merely unfortunate as opposed to a person trespassing which is. Part of the reason her argument is set up on this point is that another being is committing a wrong against you and that it is not your duty to endure it, even if you had some impact on aiding the wrong committed. As pregnancy is not a 'wrong' or a 'violation' in a consensual situation between two adults it makes it an innapropriate analogy to base an argument on. The whole point of this being, which I said in my original post regarding this essay:

In addition I also think some of the examples are unsatisfactory

i.e. Regardless of my stance, the arguments and analogies she sets forth don't satisfy my viewpoint - and I outlined some of my reasons for thinking so, which I thought may be pertinent since you responded to something I said with that essay.

This argument makes absolutely no sense. You are saying that in the situation of a burglary, a person has a reasonable expectation that they will not be burgled and thus are not repsonsible for that burglary.

No, I'm saying someone who resides within their property has a reasonable expectation that someone should not (as opposed to 'will not') break in.

Then you turn around and say that a woman who falls pregnant SHOULD be responsible because contraceptive's do not provide ABSOLUTE protection from impregnation.

What I say is that there is a difference between permissions granted and burden of responsibility held between the two acts and that its enough of a difference that I don't believe the analogy is satisfactory.

 

[*Minka*]

Saying that you have top keep a pregnancy despite contraception use is like saying it is your fault if you are in a road accient because you were travelling and therefore asked for the accident despite reasonable precautions as travelling within speed limits and using a seatbealt.

It makes no sense.

 

[BradCube]

Which brings me full circle to my vegetarian comment.

Notice that in my conclusion that I made I stated that it is logically impossible to define us as anything different or indifferent from other life forms other than the physcial attributes we pertain to.

So in other words while I believe that I cannot logically prove that human is any more then biological matter, the opposite also rings true in that I cannot prove that it isn't anything more then biological matter.

It is for this reason that I don't think the vegetarian comment sits so well, since we must first have proof that we are nothing more then matter or that other living organisms have the same level of right to existance.

Should a sperm combine with an ovum then it may gain consciousness, so it can be argued they have that potential also - with the assistance of a mother's body of course.

But until this happens we do not have the potential for human life. As a single entity a sperm or egg is no more human then an acorn is a tree (which is another flawed analogy in the essay). It is only once both the egg and sperm are brought together that we have the potential for human life.