@Ogion
"You're still relying on the punishment for sex argument for women only."
once again, i could care less about sex, i care about what it creates: another life.
"That doesn't have anything to do with the interests at stake in any way."
elaborate
"One doesn't have a larger life or liberty interest as a function of how your interests arose."
one doesn't have... interest in... what? one doesn't have to care about life or liberty as much as how my interests arose? Sorry I really can't see what you're trying to say, but: the government has to determine whether or not rights are being violated, and whether or not the violation of rights of the mother and of the fetus are acceptable for either party.
"It isn't a particularly compelling argument."
I'm still not sure what your last sentence even meant... so i agree?
"The only aspect is your trying to attach culpability to sex, which you will recall is what I said was motivating the anti-choice movement in the first place."
not all sex, just the creation of life. more than just that, creation of a life that is entirely dependent upon you for survival.
"You're simply proving me right here that this isn't about a fetus it's about punishing people for sex"
once again, if you practice safe sex, no problem! Fund sex ed? sure! free birth control: i'll even concede that.
it's once you create a life, i have problems.
"and you are holding the woman uniquely culpable while men has no culpability."
no BIOLOGICAL culpability. and this is true, though as I said before, you're not allowed to abandon a woman who is pregnant, without paying alimony (my opinion). even if she gets an abortion later - the father should still help and provide for her while she is carrying.
"Again, that demonstrates that you're argument about culpability is a smokescreen."
ok... i feel like i've made my point more clear. other than that one sentence a few lines back i couldn't understand, do you see how i'm not simply trying to punish people for sex, rather i'm sayings it's not unreasonable to hold people responsible if they consensually create a life, which is sure to die without their support (biologically the mother's support, though the father is still responsible for helping the mother).
"I understand you don't understand criminal law well (you'd mostly have to be a lawyer) but there is intent to conduct acts and intent to kill. In the case of felony miser all you need is to have intended to say rob a bank and if someone does, you're guilty of murder based on that intent."
wait... so you intend to rob a bank, but somebody else does it? do you give them your plans? do you assist them? I'm confused by your metaphor, if you could elaborate on this more clearly i'd appreciate it
"Here, the man intended to engage in sex and as a result someone died. We can certainly attach culpability on that same notion of we thought that reasonable"
ugh this is painful to try to work out.
1.
the man had sex with a woman, and they created a child.
2.
complications arose in the pregnancy - i support pro-choice for abortions here.
3.
an abortion couldn't be done quick enough, and the mother died in a situation in which if she were not pregnant, she could have lived.
4.
the father is culpable because he helped create the child
is this the line of logic? and if not, can you add what i'm missing? because for me it's fairly simple, the father and mother did something consensual, for which they both agreed and knew the risks.
the risks turned bad, and the mother died.
Imagine your doctor prescribes you amantadine, to help with the flu. now there are some risks, but it's a fairly common prescription. then while you're driving home you get hit by another car, and your heart is failing. once your heart fails you can be put on bypass to they can try to repair your heart, but then your body loses the ability to process the amantadine. thus, you won't be able to survive.
so, was the doctor right to prescribe amantadine? is he culpable? what if he gave you a nasal spray, but it had been your lungs that had complications?
he intended to give you risk, yes, but you both agreed that the benefits outweighed those risks. if this is against the law, and the doctor is culpable or murder: no doctor would ever prescribe drugs again.
"The point is that it isn't reasonable to attach culpability to sex since there isn't a rational basis for doing so. Sex isn't inherently dangerous or negative the way, say, felonies are."
i'm not saying sex, i'm just saying pregnancy that occurred as a result of sex. take a day after pill, the first two weeks i'm fine with abortions for restated mentions in this thread.
but after that point, you've got a life that is 100% dependent on you: you could have prevented this, you could have made it so that this life wouldn't die without you, but instead you allowed this to occur.
"Your sea horse analogy is very different because you don't have the state bodily intruding on people's liberty. You'd still have reproductive Liberty interests but not bodily autonomy interests. Still, can the state force men to be sperm donors? "
it wasn't an analogy, it was a question. i'm not forcing people to have sex, i'm not forcing people NOT to have sex. i'm saying after the sex is done, and a few weeks have gone by, you have a human life, that needs to be considered. you still haven't answered my question.
"Also, another fundamental point. In the case of even a parent with minor children we don't require people to engage in Risk of bodily harm to rescue a person."
yes, but this isn't rescue. you have created a life, that is 100% dependent on you.
if you are a mother and you put your children in a house, and you set the house on fire: you've placed a life in risk. this was your choice, the child didn't get a say in the matter. it is threatening the child's life. now since you have put your child in this state where he is about to die as a direct result of your actions, should you HAVE to rescue him? if not, it's likely prison is on the cards.
however, this metaphor is NOT perfect. we are still trying to determine, at what point does a child in the womb, have the same rights as a child outside the womb?
"You are here putting a HIGHER burden on a woman"
no, biology is.
"to serve the interests of something that isn't even a sentient viable conscious person."
sentient: fine, let's say, for now, all non-sentient children in the womb should die. how about the sentient ones?
viable: so it only has rights once it's viable? argument of convenience.
conscious: neither are newborns
person: that's what we are arguing here
"In the rescue laws, the balance of risk to even a parent relative to a person means no duty arises, yet you're suggesting that where the woman's interests are clearly greater and the fetuses' interests are far less, we create a duty."
how is it LESS of an interest for a fetus, to STAY ALIVE. that's a basic interest of... LIFE!!!
"You answer to why those are different is because there has been sex. That doesn't hold any water."
there has been sex, which they KNEW could create a life that was threatened. it's not like "i had sex, and now as a separate issue there is a life that is leeching off of me"
your sex CAUSED the life, it caused the life to be in this dependent state. you have made a creature, that will die without you: and then you say it's fine to kill it. i'm sorry if you can't even see a LITTLE conflicting of moral principle there.
"And James, reading more closely would do you well. I said that "ownership" isn't the right term, but excusable as an analogy since you're not a lawyer."
that's fine, then explain to me what rights she should hold over this creature living inside of her
"What the woman has is a liberty interest in controlling her own body and her own reproduction and avoiding harm and risk of death."
and what if there is no prescient risk of harm or death? you get to control anything inside your own body, simply because it's inside your own body? your body, and therefore anything inside of it is your to do with as you please? furthermore, you do not control reproduction. you either assist, or you destroy. the zygote is going to be doing the rest of the work, it's either abort, or keep. should you have the right to control another life?
"That liberty interest also includes the right to decide to reproduce and undertake those risks."
nobody is saying you don't have the right to reproduce. i'm saying that once you have reproduced, and there is another organism you are helping to grow and develop, your "right to reproduce" is done. now another organism is here, you have reproduced. the question is, when is it that too much of your energy/resources are being delegated to that other organism?
"Forcing her either to carry a pregnancy and give birth against her will or to terminate her pregnancy against her will involves the same denial of her liberty interests."
ok! i see - but what about the liberty interests of the offspring? if it has any, then we must reconsider that statement.
"You're seeking to commandeer her bodily to perform a service for you without compensation. That's pretty much the definition of slavery. Just to be clear."
and saying "it's my bodily rights, anything in it is subject to my will" is pretty slavery-esque when you replace the word "bodily" with "property." in fact, we have possibly MORE liberties endowed with property than we do with our bodies. if i beat and torture someone on my land so that they cannot possibly hope to recover without my help, my resources, my time, and moving them is for the time impossible: i do not have the right to kill them
which draws back to the ACTUAL line of query which you always sidestep: does the fetus in the womb have rights of mankind, and if so, at what point does it obtain these rights.
"@james, also, you're falling back on the "a fetus is a person" argument, which is pretty weak as well."
um... no, if we do accept a fetus is fully a person, you can't say "you're inconveniencing me, time to die."
"Even if she has rights over the pregnancy, that isn't owning a person. not even remotely close."
damnit Ogion, your rationale for why "a fetus is a person" is a bad argument, is because according to you "a fetus isn't a person." Draw a circle on a piece of paper and send it to me. we'd be getting as much done here.
"We're getting to the point, where you're engaging in repeatedly weak arguments. Not sure what the purpose is here."
number 1: learn to write in coherent sentences. if i can't understand you, we can't have a conversation.
number 2: why does the mother have more rights than the fetus?
does the fetus have NO rights? if you believe that, then THAT is what i WANT to discuss . right now we're on two entirely different wavelengths, you're saying that it doesn't have rights and the rights of the woman trump it, i'm saying that it does have some rights, though it's not entirely clear whether or not the rights of the woman trump it IN ALL CASES
American Free Speech
)
)
)
)
)