Abortion

[cmotherofpirl]

My point is that we don't base our laws on morals per se, just the moral not to infringe on other people's rights. Therefore, like I said, he should have been arguing the biology of the fact and not what he said. If he established the biology as fact, then he could use what the other things he was saying about rape/murder.

THis is where you are wrong. THere is no law that says we are not to infringe on other peoples rights. THat is a myth.

ALL laws infringe on somebodys right to do something.

THats why the cannibal in Germany is in jail.

Without rules we are simply animals.

[cmotherofpirl]

I realize that laws are based on morality. I understand that this must be the case. But my question is not really should the law be based this way, my question is should we make laws based on what we believe personally or what we believe is democratic.

Let me explain a little more. If the majority of the people were wanting to ban football in the morning, that would be unconstitutional and therefore not right because we are not basing the action on the constitution. We are basing law more on our specific morals and not the fundamental moral to not infringe on others rights as much as possible.

I suppose in a far fetched case you may argue against me that some people don't think blacks are people and therefore can rape and kill them. But then you are just being difficult since this obviously isn't the case. Maybe you think I'm being difficult, but this is less obvious than black people so I can *understand* to a degree if someone doesn't agree with me that it is a baby and maybe it should be their decision.

Using the logic that we can make any law we want would allow for the football blunder. And I would be arguing against it too, even if I believed in it personally.

Using what Ironmonk's logic: We have an animal named Bob. We aren't sure if Bob is a mammal or an amphibean. But we know that all amphibeans must live in trees (so to speak). It's disputed whether or not Bob is an amphibean, yet Ironmonk believes that it is, therefore he believes that he must live in the trees. If we aren't sure, why would we force people to think that Bob must live in a tree? (when in fact he could be a mammal) Ironmonk decided to prove that Bob was an amphibean by using the logic that Frank who is definitly does, lives in a tree. Bob is the uncertain, Frank is the certain. If Ironmonk proved that Bob was an anphibean, then he could make the argument that he must live in the trees. You see what I mean?

My point is that we don't base our laws on morals per se, just the moral not to infringe on other people's rights. Therefore, like I said, he should have been arguing the biology of the fact and not what he said. If he established the biology as fact, then he could use what the other things he was saying about rape/murder.. otherwise he's missing the whole premise of my question.

All laws are based on somebody's belief.

The idea that we cannot infringe on somebodys rights is a myth.

Thats why the cannibal in Germany is in jail.

It is a fact that a baby is a human being before it is born. Not liking this fact does not change it. Disagreeing with this fact doesn't change it, it only says that the person who makes this claim has issues with logic.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Disagreeing with this fact doesn't change it, it only says that the person who makes this claim has issues with logic.

Perhaps you are right. But using what Ironmonk said is not logical because he didn't answer the biology which was the whole premise of my question before using his analogy.

Anyway, again just to make myself clear, our laws are made to not infringe on peoples laws.. again **as long what they do doesn't infringe on other people**

ALL laws infringe on somebodys right to do something.

THats why the cannibal in Germany is in jail.

In this case the German is infringing on the person he ate. I challene you to find a law that claims to do as you say.

As I said, if Ironmonk proved that babies were human first, (or at least made the statment that they are regardless of the premise of my question) then he could use the argument comparing them to humans and rapists because thene he'd have someone infringing on someone else.

Edited February 3, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[foundsheep]

This makes me think of a double standard case happening here in California.

The peterson case. She was pregant when Murdered, so now he is charged with two murders.

[dairygirl4u2c]

This makes me think of a double standard case happening here in California

I have heard of these cases. And the way the laws are, it's a double standard. If it were the way I am hypothesizing, the mother would have the right to choose whether or not she thought her baby was human and therefore press charges.

But like you said, as of now, it is a double standard.

[cmotherofpirl]

In this case the German is infringing on the person he ate. I challene you to find a law that claims to do as you say.

ALL laws infringe on somebodys elses right.

A stop sign infringes on your right to plow thru an intersection.

Laws against burglars infringe on the burglarers right to break into your house.

THe laws against drunk drinking infringe on your right to drive when drunk.

THe laws against anything infringe on somebody elses right.

THat is what a law is, an agreement to curb some activity that everybody may reasonably live together with some assurance of safety, and a consequence if you break that law.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Ironmonk decided to prove that Bob was an amphibean by using the logic that Frank who is definitly does, lives in a tree. Bob is the uncertain, Frank is the certain. If Ironmonk proved that Bob was an anphibean, then he could make the argument that he must live in the trees.

Just to clarify. Even if Ironmonk at least tried to say that Bob was so much like Frank that we should assume he is an amphibean first, and then said we should say he lives in trees, that would be more logical/understandable. But the way it is (the basis of my question) is that people don't agree that he's an anphibean yet Ironmonk is insisting that he is and that he must be treated as if he lives in trees. It's like in science some people think things and others don't agree, all based on the same data, so it's left open.

But anyway, laws do infringe.. but only for people that are damaging other people.

A stop sign infringes on your right to plow thru an intersection.

Laws against burglars infringe on the burglarers right to break into your house.

THe laws against drunk drinking infringe on your right to drive when drunk.

The stop sign law, the burglary law, the drunk driving law.... these are to prevent someone from hurting another person or their property.

I can understand that you would argue that the baby is so much a human that it is without question. **I just don't agree that all laws infringe on people (as you say)**. Therefore am not sure if we should make this a law if everybody doesn't agree that it is a person. The only thing you should be saying to me is insisting that it is obvious it is a person. Or finding a law.. or a situation the law creates.. that infringes on people, remembering what I have said about damaging other people.

I will try to think of a better situation to contradict myself... hmm..

I suppose creating property rights of land prevents other people from using it. I suppose this is a case which contradicts my stance. Though incidentally I don't really agree with it! And think constitutionally it should be as Norway is.. only cultivaed/habited land is non usable to the public. Does this contradict my stance, what do you all think? I suppose it might, but that still doesn't detract from basic question because I don't agree with the land policy either.

Edited February 3, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[PedroX]

Dairy girl,

you said:

In this case the German is infringing on the person he ate. I challene you to find a law that claims to do as you say.

The truth is that the victim volunteered to be eaten. He answered a web ad, and got his desire (to be eaten by the German dude). However, the state still stepped in and awarded punishment. Because the state has a vested interest in protecting the public good. In the case of abortion, the state has sacrificed the public good (not murdering people) for a private invention (mother's "right to choose").

You also said:

But anyway, laws do infringe.. but only for people that are damaging other people

How about tax law? School attendance law? Drug laws? Prostitution laws? Zoning laws? Speed limits on the highways? Motor cylce helmet laws?

All of these laws infinge on our liberty, but are not neccessary "for people that are damaging other people". We (in a democracy) make a contract with our government. We give up liberties in exchange for benefits.

Just some food for thought.

peace...

[ironmonk]

dairy,

That is not my logic.

Re-read what I posted.

You can't compare racism to abortion.

Only in the last 30 or so years has abortion be accepted by SOME people.

It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with not killing another human.

Abortion is not a right. The constitution gives a right to privacy and a few ignorant judges pushing their own agenda claim that the right to privacy protects someone from being charged with murder.

If I kept you from eating, drinking, and breathing, am I doing something wrong?

You say "yes, it's against the law"

I say "Why?"

Looking at nature, the natural law of the strong will survive says that I can kill you if I want.

What right has the government to keep me from the natural right to kill as I please?

The government is pushing their morals on me by taking away my right to kill.

...that is the same principle with abortion.

If you are for abortion; then you are not Catholic or even Christian. Every Catholic/Christian has an obligation to be pro-life.

There are facts in this world. One fact is that there is a God, and His Son is Jesus. This is not my belief, this is as real as the sun that rises in the morning.

Likewise, 2 + 2 = 4, if someone believes that 2 + 2 = 9, that does not make it true. It will always be 4, even if the other person does not know it. Those of us that do know it, and know that if society takes the path of the error, then our children will suffer, and we all will suffer. We must stick to the path of truth. If someone states that 2 + 2 = 9, then yes, we do have a right say that 2 + 2 = 4 and keep them from teaching their error to others.

Now, it is up to you to show that we don't have a right to correct error and murder.

Our way is thousands of years old. Yours in new, are you wiser than millions of people from the past?

Also ask yourself, what right have you to take away the right of natural selection from someone who wants to kill you to better themselves?

-ironmonk

[dairygirl4u2c]

Here is what I said:

What do we say to people that say we can't prove that it's a human? They would think that we're imposing our religion. Of course we impose our "religion" in murder etc., but in abortion we can't prove a deed is being harmed to someone else. That's pretty much the basis for all law, damage to others. And if all we use to say that it is murder is majority vote, how isn't that imposing our religion? I think this is what one of the Justices used as his reason to ratify the legality of abortion.

Here is the first thing you said to me:

Abortion has been wrong for thousands of years.

We are to keep people from killing.

Along your logic, murder of anyone and rape should be ok.... why are we impossing our religion when we say don't rape, or don't murder?

We do not kill because of inconvienance.

What about killing your grandparent that is now a burden because you have to take care of them, and cannot give them up for adobtion?

If murder is wrong, if rape is wrong, then abortion is wrong.

That undermines my whole question.

You can't compare racism to abortion.

I still don't agree with the way Ironmonk has presented the case, at least at first. I don't think you can *necessarily* insist that the law must be pro-life. I still think the way you presented the argument, you are insisting that I am illogical for saying that it is understandable that some people think Bob is an amphibean and that we shouldn't compel everyone to act as if he were. That is a pretty direct analogy. You insist that we all should follow the belief that the baby is human instead of considering my question that maybe the mother should decide.

The only thing you should be arguing is the biology (and then what you said) or arguing what PedroX is arguing. That is a fairly convincing argument, but still do not agree.

Also ask yourself, what right have you to take away the right of natural selection from someone who wants to kill you to better themselves?

I am a human and everyone agrees with that. Unless you or someone wanted to argue that theoretically someone might not think I am human? At least my arguing for abortion rights is more understandable than someone who says that they can think I am not a human. I think my humaness is enough of a fact for the basis of the law. But perhaps you'd insist someone who thinks I am not human is being violated. Fine, we're taking away their rights.

I suppose you win the argument at this point, because you are as admit about the baby's humanness as you are of born Joe Blow's, and we make it a law that we can't think he's not human. Just like I don't think that it's understandable for you to think that, you'd argue it's not understandable for me to think someone who doesn't think the baby is human is understandable. But as far as understanding goes, I think saying Joe Blow is not human is much less understandable than someone who'd think that the the baby is not human right after conception.

So let me go on.

We do have these norms, I admit it! I do not agree with the helmet law or that cannabil law. In these cases and in the abortion case, my point still remains why are we removing the liberty for the individual to decide and leaving it up to the majority, when the country was founded on the moral of leaving freedom and morals up to the individual as much as possible. (as long as it doesn't interfere with other's freedom or morals) So why not extend them to abortion you'd say? Perhaps we could, but that still doesn't mean we should. Just like if I and the majority of the people insisted that we can't play football in the morning because we think it's distasteful, you'd be preaching the Constitution and doing what I am doing now.

Do you agree that people should have to wear helmets if they don't want? I'd assume you don't, who knows maybe you do. Just like I agree abortion is wrong, I also believe Jesus is the Christ. But would you argue that if the majority of the people think we should make it a law to go to church since it is fact, they should go? I would be willing to bet that you would think that they should have the freedom to choose since we can't really *prove* it.

So why do I choose abortion and not say taxes? Because you can leave if you don't agree with our system. Yes, you could also leave if you don't agree with abortion. But things like taxes are a common necessity or common good, why encroach on a questionable necessity or good that could be left up to the individual, like helmet wearing, doing things because of Jesus etc?

Do you agree that if the majority of the people think the mother should decide, that that is the way it should be? It's not the way it should be with a capital S, but the way the country has decided and should be for them?

And just so you know, I *do* understand that you are so adament that the baby is human that you'd insist that we should not consider giving the freedom to choose to the mother, but do you at least understand what I am saying? I kind of wonder if you do, because if you did, you would see that telling me I am illogical for wondering about that choice is not logical.

Edited February 3, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[p0lar_bear]

dairygirl,

You want us to prove that the unborn child is a person, right? Isn't that kind of like proving Joe Smith is a person? I mean, the child has his own (human) dna, he processes nutrients, he has his own blood type (distinct from the mother's), he has his own heartbeat, brainwaves, etc. Personally, I think it's a foregone conclusion that the child is, in fact, a living human being. A blob of tissue that is part of the woman would have none of those characteristics. In fact, the only thing that has those characteristics is a human being. All human beings are, by nature, persons. Therefore, the unborn child is a human person.

What I really wanted to comment on though is your take on the law. In a way you are right, there are certain laws that are rather arbitrary and subject to a democratic decision (at least in democratic countries). However, not all laws are simply to keep order (e.g. traffic laws) or to protect people (e.g. speed limits); some laws exist because they are part of the natural moral law.

You see, there are some things that are simply non-negotiable. Intentionally taking the life of an innocent person is wrong, period. Just like a democratic vote saying the sky is pink with purple polka dots cannot change the fact that it is blue, a democratic vote approving of murder does not mean murder is OK.

The natural moral law actually has little to do with religion (i.e. it is not a religious law like not eating meat on Friday). It is applicable to everyone every where.

The fact that abortion is wrong is not a religious truth; it's part of the natural moral law. We don't need divine revelation to know that killing an innocent person is wrong or to recognize that an unborn child is in fact a person. Therefore, having a law recognizing that abortion is wrong is not pushing ones religious beliefs on someone else, it is putting down into civil law that which has always been part of the natural moral law.

To use your "Bob" example, if Bob looks like a lizard, is cold-blooded like a lizard, has skin like a lizard, eats like a lizard, and has a lizard's dna, then Bod is a lizard. If the majority of people vote that Bob is a furry rabbit, that doesn't make Bob a furry rabbit, it makes the people wrong.

Does that make sense?

Edited February 3, 2004 by p0lar_bear

[PaxChristi7]

Well, to the best of my understanding, the true abortion debate isn't about questioning the law, it is about defining the human person. If a fetus is a human person there does not have to be a new law made to protect it because a law of this nature already exists on the books: murder. The United States already affirms that for one human being to take another human being's life is a punishable offense. Thus, the ultimate question is, like I said, whether or not that at the moment of conception there exists a human person. Liberals like to trip us up with the issue of "rights" but that's ultimately just avioded the problem at hand.

In regards to defining the fetus as a human person, the common argument against is that it is part of the woman's body. If it is merely a part of the woman's body it is not, nor could it be logically, its own entity and thus under the rightful jurisdiction of that person. But we can use science to disprove this theory. According to science, the identity of a human person rests in his or her DNA, or genetic code. In fact, this is so relied upon that a court of law uses this as evidence of a person's presence in a given place. Every cell within a person's body possesses the exact same DNA and thus is part of a single "person." The fetus, however, at the moment of conception, has a completely different DNA arrangement then that of the mother. Thus, according to science, the cell within the mother's body is not her own and is, by definition, at the very least, the beginnings of another, distinct human person.

But I could be wrong :-)

[dairygirl4u2c]

You want us to prove that the unborn child is a person, right? Isn't that kind of like proving Joe Smith is a person?

Yes you are right. That is why I conceded in my last post about that. But what I still would insist on is that thinking the combined egg and sperm initially after fertilization is not human is much more understandable and therefore realistic to believe than Joe Blow not being human. This IS a judgement call, again that's why I concede that point. But since it is a judgement call, I see no reason why the mother can't decide.

if Bob looks like a lizard, is cold-blooded like a lizard, has skin like a lizard, eats like a lizard, and has a lizard's dna, then Bod is a lizard. If the majority of people vote that Bob is a furry rabbit, that doesn't make Bob a furry rabbit, it makes the people wrong

You are right in that it doesn't make him a rabbit if he's really a lizard, but that shouldn't take away the perogative of the scientists to withhold their stance and even claim otherwise, and, to make it more realistic, maybe not a rabbit but not a lizard either.

Thus, the ultimate question is, like I said, whether or not that at the moment of conception there exists a human person. Liberals like to trip us up with the issue of "rights" but that's ultimately just avioded the problem at hand.

You are right. They are avoiding the question at hand. If they're taking my stance, it's because they don't feel anyone should decide the question at hand except the mother.

But I could be wrong :-)

Thanx for sharing, same with me. This is the only attitude that will get us anywhere. This is also the reason I would agree with the Justice that it'd be wrong for us to speculate on the issue and decide for everyone.

Edited February 3, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[cmotherofpirl]

Yes you are right. That is why I conceded in my last post about that. But what I still would insist on is that thinking the combined egg and sperm initially after fertilization is not human is much more understandable and therefore realistic to believe than Joe Blow not being human. This IS a judgement call, again that's why I concede that point. But since it is a judgement call, I see no reason why the mother can't decide.

This is where you go wrong.

A sperm and egg combine to form a new human being. THis is not debatable, but scientific fact. It is not a judgement call.

One person does not have the right to decide if another person is human.

That was how the Nazis justified the holocaust.

[p0lar_bear]

Yes you are right. That is why I conceded in my last post about that. But what I still would insist on is that thinking the combined egg and sperm initially after fertilization is not human is much more understandable and therefore realistic to believe than Joe Blow not being human. This IS a judgement call, again that's why I concede that point. But since it is a judgement call, I see no reason why the mother can't decide.

I don't think that it is understandable or realistic to think that a person is not a person just because they are still in the womb. I think it is obvious that something that has all the qualities of a person is, in fact, a person. It is not a judgment call or a matter of interpretation. A person is a person and there is nothing morally significant about a trip down the birth canal.

Remember, it wasn't that long ago that the personhood of black people and women was considered debateable and a judgement call.

The fact that the woman is called a mother demonstrates that people recognize that she is carrying something that is not just herself, and it certainly isn't a lizard or a furry rabbit.

You are right in that it doesn't make him a rabbit if he's really a lizard, but that shouldn't take away the perogative of the scientists to withhold their stance and even claim otherwise, and, to make it more realistic, maybe not a rabbit but not a lizard either.

If Bob has all the qualities that make a lizard a lizard, he is a lizard. Scientists can't change this. They can change what they call lizards or what they call this particular kind of lizard, but that does not make him other than that he is. If a scientist wants to prove that Bob is something other than a lizard, he has to somehow refute all the evidence pointing to the fact that he is. No one can do this with a baby simply because it has not been born yet.

Edited February 3, 2004 by p0lar_bear