Abortion - My own thoughts - such as they are

[tzor]

The law is pretty clear that bunches of cells don't have legal standing, but I assume you're being facetious.

It is? Or do you mean court decisions. Dread Scott also involved rights and legal standing also. By the way ... LAW CAN BE CHANGED.

[PLAYER57832]

The law is pretty clear that bunches of cells don't have legal standing, but I assume you're being facetious.

It is? Or do you mean court decisions. Dread Scott also involved rights and legal standing also. By the way ... LAW CAN BE CHANGED.

Actually, it is a religious position, not a matter of science or truly of law. All the law really says is that because there is a scientific grey area, and because we have the fundamental concept of basic freedom of conscience, this is an area up to individuals.

and yes.. court decisions can be changed. In this case, its actually irrelevant because despite all the debates over right or wrong, the anti-abortion movement is succeeding in making abortions technically legal, but unavailable, in more and more places.

and for greekdog--- That is not rhetoric, it is reality.

[mrswdk]

You are still trying to somehow tie this to an "investment" by "the state"... but we have already proven this to be an invalid argument. Even if valid, no state has (to my knowledge) ever adopted this position.

It's called the social contract.

Furthermore, if "the state" is the entity "invested" in the life of the child, then it should be "the state" deciding if the life is worth continuing or terminating. Not the parent.

There is an argument that in some cases the state should have a say.

Furthermore, your above statement is not necessarily true. What if I am independently wealth? I raise my kid on a private island or estate, I hire private teachers, and I pay for all healthcare and food. The "state" has made no investment whatsoever. Now at age 18, I decide that my child is a "disappointment", and therefore want to preserve my estate and future investments for my other kids... also being raised in a similar manner. Since I am the one making "the investment" would I then be the one who has the "right" to decide if this person lives or dies?

By your math I would.

Well yes. This is a totally different case, and so in the case of an individual raised entirely by the efforts of a private individual then the same rules would not apply.

NO ONE can provide a compelling reason to kill a healthy defenseless child. If you don't want the baby, turn it over to the state for adoption.

Would you also apply this logic to a 1 or 2 month-old fetus?

In any case, we're not talking about finding justification for killing another being. We're talking about what the state ought or ought not to permit.

[mrswdk]

With infanticide you have not said a parent/mother would need a "reason".

You said only infanticide would be fine.

So the reason is "because I feel like it"???

There could be a variety of reasons. I imagine that the vast majority of parents who kill their offspring do not do so on a whim just because there was nothing on TV that day.

In any case, the reason is not relevant. What is relevant is the outcome. What is the effect of killing the child? That is the question we need to answer.

NO. The reason is the only relevant question. The outcome is really impossible to determine. The child could grow up to be the next Hitler, or she could grow up to find the cure for cancer. There's no way to can determine the long term outcome. The short term outcome can vary. What if the mother wants to kill the baby, but the father wants to keep it? What about vice versa? What if both parents want to kill the baby, but there's line of couples ready to adopt the baby?

I don't think the 'other people might want to adopt it' question is relevant. If I buy a Ferrari and throw it in a lake then that's up to me, it matters not that there are people out there who would gladly take it off my hands and keep it for themselves.

Re the point about parents who are divided over whether to kill or not: Maybe best would be the one who wants the baby/child to stay alive takes on sole legal responsibility for it.

If you argue the effect is all that matters... what is the effect of killing some 16yo? Not much of one. Kids are killed every day and life goes on, the world still turns, and there's no real effect from the "State's" point of view. Does it matter if the 16yo was a well educated, high IQ individual... versus an uneducated drug addict? By your math it would likely be OK to kill an uneducated drug addict, as that person is likely to continue to be a "burden" on society; whereas a well educated 16yo with good prospects is likely to go on to college and be a "contributing" member of society.

If those are the only factors we take into account then yes.

[mrswdk]

What if the state did not invest a significant amount in the child? Would you change your argument to apply to "society" (or perhaps, as a smaller unit, the family)?

In what sense?

Does increased population, on its own, result in an increased benefit to the state (or society or the family)? For example, I suspect in medieval Europe (and depending on the hereditary rules), there was an effort to make more offspring rather than less.

No idea.

Separate question - I don't live in China and have been there for a total of 10 days in my life, so I don't want to say something I'm unqualified to say, but did the Chinese government or Chinese people put a premium on male children?

Chinese society does, yes. A son is traditionally expected to look after his parents in their old age, whereas a daughter is traditionally expected to marry into her husband's family and put more effort into helping him with his parents than caring for hers. So yeah, that's why in rural areas you get quite a few cases of parents killing female babies because they want a son but can't just keep trying for one due to family planning laws.

Does increased population among the wealthy (or intelligent or learned or physically superior) result in an increased benefit to the state? Could the state provide disincentives for the poor (or stupid or physically inferior) to reproduce or provide incentives for the wealth (etc.) to reproduce?

They could do, but I'm not entirely sure there'd be much benefit in doing so.

[mrswdk]

All lives matter, but on this topic, it has become about choices and who has the right to choose, the gov't or the mother?

Only for mrswdk.

The rest of us believe that all lives matter.

How was the hamburger you had for lunch?

That cow's life mattered a great deal to me.
If it never lived, it would not have been able to provide me so much joy when I ate it.

What if I killed my baby to eat in a sandwich then?

[tzor]

Actually, it is a religious position, not a matter of science or truly of law. All the law really says is that because there is a scientific grey area, and because we have the fundamental concept of basic freedom of conscience, this is an area up to individuals.

No, actually it is a matter of LAW and of CASE LAW (which is not the same thing). The law does not say anything. The courts have determined that since the courts have not said anything that it then defaults to the individual. There are a number of proposed amendments that can change constitutional law, therefore making prior constitutional case law invalid.

[jimboston]

Furthermore, your above statement is not necessarily true. What if I am independently wealth? I raise my kid on a private island or estate, I hire private teachers, and I pay for all healthcare and food. The "state" has made no investment whatsoever. Now at age 18, I decide that my child is a "disappointment", and therefore want to preserve my estate and future investments for my other kids... also being raised in a similar manner. Since I am the one making "the investment" would I then be the one who has the "right" to decide if this person lives or dies?

By your math I would.

Well yes. This is a totally different case, and so in the case of an individual raised entirely by the efforts of a private individual then the same rules would not apply.

Can everyone please read this?

So basically mrswdk is proposing a world in which the rich make all the rules. mrswdk isn't saying this is the world we already live in... that is an argument that might be made reasonably. This is an argument that mrswdk this SHOULD be.

So now mrswdk let's define what we mean by "raise entirely by the efforts of a private individual".

My family income is definitely in the Top 10% of Income Earners in the US. By any measure the amount I pay in taxes is greater than the value of benefits I receive. Just do the math, if I'm earning in the Top 10%... I'm probably in the Top 5% of Tax-Payers since something like 30% of US Adults pay no taxes. You can factor in public education... I receive no benefits there since I went to private schools and my children go to private schools. I called the Fire Dept. once for a medical emergency. I have never called the Police, though I realize I benefit generally by their existence. I do use public roads, but in addition to my Income Tax I also pay plenty in Gas Tax. By any measure I provide a "Net Positive" to the public coffers. So I should be able to legally terminate my own children, right?

Since I provide a Net Positive... I guess I should also get to decide the fates of those people who are a Net Drain???

Maybe those who are a Net Drain should get no vote?

[jimboston]

With infanticide you have not said a parent/mother would need a "reason".

You said only infanticide would be fine.

So the reason is "because I feel like it"???

There could be a variety of reasons. I imagine that the vast majority of parents who kill their offspring do not do so on a whim just because there was nothing on TV that day.

In any case, the reason is not relevant. What is relevant is the outcome. What is the effect of killing the child? That is the question we need to answer.

NO. The reason is the only relevant question. The outcome is really impossible to determine. The child could grow up to be the next Hitler, or she could grow up to find the cure for cancer. There's no way to can determine the long term outcome. The short term outcome can vary. What if the mother wants to kill the baby, but the father wants to keep it? What about vice versa? What if both parents want to kill the baby, but there's line of couples ready to adopt the baby?

I don't think the 'other people might want to adopt it' question is relevant. If I buy a Ferrari and throw it in a lake then that's up to me, it matters not that there are people out there who would gladly take it off my hands and keep it for themselves.

Re the point about parents who are divided over whether to kill or not: Maybe best would be the one who wants the baby/child to stay alive takes on sole legal responsibility for it.

If someone wants to adopt it... that may not be a factor. That was only one point. You ignored all the others.

[jimboston]

If you argue the effect is all that matters... what is the effect of killing some 16yo? Not much of one. Kids are killed every day and life goes on, the world still turns, and there's no real effect from the "State's" point of view. Does it matter if the 16yo was a well educated, high IQ individual... versus an uneducated drug addict? By your math it would likely be OK to kill an uneducated drug addict, as that person is likely to continue to be a "burden" on society; whereas a well educated 16yo with good prospects is likely to go on to college and be a "contributing" member of society.

If those are the only factors we take into account then yes.

So you are now taking the position that "the State" should reduce population of "undesirables"?
Just go out and cull the population?

You say "if those are the only factors we take into account"... what other factors?
Either someone provides a positive to society or is a drain? I'm not talking about financial positive, there are lots of low-income people who work hard and provide value to society. There are artists and creative people who aren't rich, but who add to society. Then there are those who most would say are a "drain". Drug addicts, bums, rapists, other criminals. By your math we should just kill them all.

Sure to be safe we'd give some leeway, err on the side of caution... but even being 'conservative' with our judgements we'd certainly be able to end the lives of many degenerates. No?

[tzor]

My family income is definitely in the Top 10% of Income Earners in the US. By any measure the amount I pay in taxes is greater than the value of benefits I receive. Just do the math, if I'm earning in the Top 10%... I'm probably in the Top 5% of Tax-Payers since something like 30% of US Adults pay no taxes. You can factor in public education... I receive no benefits there since I went to private schools and my children go to private schools. I called the Fire Dept. once for a medical emergency. I have never called the Police, though I realize I benefit generally by their existence. I do use public roads, but in addition to my Income Tax I also pay plenty in Gas Tax. By any measure I provide a "Net Positive" to the public coffers. So I should be able to legally terminate my own children, right?

There is a really odd quirk in that mrswdk sounds at times very austro-libertarian when it comes to private property rights, with the odd addition that the state also has those rights as well.

So, let's break this down into more complex matters. Your children have rights. You have custodial rights on your children. You therefore have a fiduciary duty to act in your children's best interest. Since "terminating" your children are not in the best interest of your children, your fiduciary duty prohibits you from such action. (Yes I know, the notion of "duties" is alien to austro-libertarian thinking.)

This would be the same if it were the state, only it would be the state who has the fiduciary duty. It is not a question of what you want to do, but what you want to do to further the best interest of those children.

Maybe those who are a Net Drain should get no vote?

Back in the revolution days, it was common to restrict the right to vote to landowners; people who had a vested interest in the economy because they were tied to the land. The notion that one could restrict suffrage to only those people who pay net taxes is not as insane as it might appear. The notion that people who don't pay taxes could always vote for people to give them more money has led to the downfall of many a republic. In the same manner, there is actually a argument to be made for the idea of Robert Anson Heinlein who wrote about a world where only veterans were given the right to vote. Combining the former in a lower house and the latter in an upper house isn't as far fetched as it might sound, and that's from someone who has NEVER served in the military.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

Falsely attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler but more likely from Alexis de Tocqueville.

[jimboston]

All lives matter, but on this topic, it has become about choices and who has the right to choose, the gov't or the mother?

Only for mrswdk.

The rest of us believe that all lives matter.

How was the hamburger you had for lunch?

That cow's life mattered a great deal to me.
If it never lived, it would not have been able to provide me so much joy when I ate it.

What if I killed my baby to eat in a sandwich then?

If you want to equate human life with animal livestock life... feel free to do so.
It doesn't make you a bad person... OH WAIT, it actually does!

Sure, some ultra-vegan animal rights nutjobs want to preserve and protect animals... and think eating meat is wrong.
They are entitled to feel that way, but they better not get between me and my ribeye.

NO ONE (except you I guess) has ever suggested that neither life (a child's life or a cow's) is worth preserving.
I've never heard anyone equate a fetus with a pork chop.

You whine when people ignore your "great insights", and insult you personally.
You seek that treatment when you make comments like this one.

[jimboston]

blah, blah, blah...

You understand that I am not taking those positions... right?

I'm simply extrapolating mrswdk's comments to their logical conclusions.

Your responses are side-tracks that really don't apply to the dumb ideas mrswdk is arguing and I'm refuting.

Why I'm bothering to respond to mrswsk is another question entirely.

[Metsfanmax]

Sure, some ultra-vegan animal rights nutjobs want to preserve and protect animals... and think eating meat is wrong.
They are entitled to feel that way, but they better not get between me and my ribeye.

I don't think I'm an ultra-vegan animal rights nutjob, or maybe I am, but yeah, eating meat is wrong. And if I had my way, it would be considered a serious crime for you to eat your ribeye. You don't get a personal right to slaughter sentient beings and feast on their corpses just because you don't personally care that they're sentient. That's not how rights work. Unfortunately, the law hasn't caught up to that yet -- but it will, and sooner than most people realize.

[tzor]

And if I had my way, it would be considered a serious crime for you to eat your ribeye. You don't get a personal right to slaughter sentient beings and feast on their corpses just because you don't personally care that they're sentient.

What you need is this ...

The quadruped Dish of the Day is an Ameglian Major Cow, a ruminant specifically bred to not only have the desire to be eaten, but to be capable of saying so quite clearly and distinctly. When asked if he would like to see the Dish of the Day, Zaphod replies, "We'll meet the meat." The Major Cow's quite vocal and emphatic desire to be consumed by Milliways' patrons is the most revolting thing that Arthur Dent has ever heard, and the Dish is nonplussed by a queasy Arthur's subsequent order of a green salad, since it knows "many vegetables that are very clear" on the point of not wanting to be eaten — which was part of the reason for the creation of the Ameglian Major Cow in the first place. After Zaphod orders four rare steaks, the Dish announces that it is nipping off to the kitchen to shoot itself. Though it states, "I'll be very humane," this does not comfort Arthur at all.

[MagnusGreeol]

- I don't believe this topic on abortion should be overtaken by meat eaters, abortion and meat eaters shouldn't even be in the same ball game. More people in the world eat meat than kill their kids, meat eaters are common, kid killers aren't. This thread isn't even about abortion anymore, its turned into " Who should have the right to kill children?? That's whats so screwed up, its not about abortion rights anymore, its about the right to kill children???? Where are we people??? Tell me I'm either on Candid camera and yas got me, OR I've stepped into bizzaro world???

\MGM/♎

[jgordon1111]

And if I had my way, it would be considered a serious crime for you to eat your ribeye. You don't get a personal right to slaughter sentient beings and feast on their corpses just because you don't personally care that they're sentient.

What you need is this ...

The quadruped Dish of the Day is an Ameglian Major Cow, a ruminant specifically bred to not only have the desire to be eaten, but to be capable of saying so quite clearly and distinctly. When asked if he would like to see the Dish of the Day, Zaphod replies, "We'll meet the meat." The Major Cow's quite vocal and emphatic desire to be consumed by Milliways' patrons is the most revolting thing that Arthur Dent has ever heard, and the Dish is nonplussed by a queasy Arthur's subsequent order of a green salad, since it knows "many vegetables that are very clear" on the point of not wanting to be eaten — which was part of the reason for the creation of the Ameglian Major Cow in the first place. After Zaphod orders four rare steaks, the Dish announces that it is nipping off to the kitchen to shoot itself. Though it states, "I'll be very humane," this does not comfort Arthur at all.

Oh hell this one actually made me laugh, on a serious note, Mets not sure if your being serious about being a vegan, if you are it is your (choice)
Tzor your follow up cracked me up, cow shoots itself.

[Symmetry]

- I don't believe this topic on abortion should be overtaken by meat eaters, abortion and meat eaters shouldn't even be in the same ball game. More people in the world eat meat than kill their kids, meat eaters are common, kid killers aren't. This thread isn't even about abortion anymore, its turned into " Who should have the right to kill children?? That's whats so screwed up, its not about abortion rights anymore, its about the right to kill children???? Where are we people??? Tell me I'm either on Candid camera and yas got me, OR I've stepped into bizzaro world???

\MGM/♎

Sadly, anti-choicers rapidly descend into arguments that abortion is murder. From that point in, their arguments get shredded, and increasingly disingenuous, and mockery follows.

[PLAYER57832]

Actually, it is a religious position, not a matter of science or truly of law. All the law really says is that because there is a scientific grey area, and because we have the fundamental concept of basic freedom of conscience, this is an area up to individuals.

No, actually it is a matter of LAW and of CASE LAW (which is not the same thing). The law does not say anything. The courts have determined that since the courts have not said anything that it then defaults to the individual. There are a number of proposed amendments that can change constitutional law, therefore making prior constitutional case law id.

I do know the difference between law and case law, but also don't think you have described the situation correctly. That is for the attorneys to figure out, anyway.

In the case of abortion, Roe vs Wade said specifically that this is a privacy issue, not just that they had not ruling on the issue. Laws put forward by states to ban abortions within the first trimester were therefore struck down based on that ruling. That specific point was set because of scientific evidence. Abortions conducted in later terms come under slightly different jurisdictions, is what I am given to understand. However, I am definitely not an attorney and as I said, the technicality is sort of moot. The basic point is that abortion is not allowed because of a legislative act, but because of judicial ruling.

[PLAYER57832]

Sure, some ultra-vegan animal rights nutjobs want to preserve and protect animals... and think eating meat is wrong.
They are entitled to feel that way, but they better not get between me and my ribeye.

I don't think I'm an ultra-vegan animal rights nutjob, or maybe I am, but yeah, eating meat is wrong. And if I had my way, it would be considered a serious crime for you to eat your ribeye. You don't get a personal right to slaughter sentient beings and feast on their corpses just because you don't personally care that they're sentient. That's not how rights work. Unfortunately, the law hasn't caught up to that yet -- but it will, and sooner than most people realize.

Actually, the law has nothing to do with this. Cows are not sentient, by definition. And, let me ask you this. Which kills in a more human way? A traditional (read not factory farm) farmer raising beef for sale and product or the new "eco-friendly" solar powered housing development? Chances are are more animals are killed, and not just the individuals, but the entire progeny line , the entire community, sometimes the entire population are killed by new developments. Farming done traditionally means working with nature (to some extent), treating animals well, caring for them.

You can argue you don't consume animal products, don't use animal products, but I put forward that what it takes to grow leather in most locations is less harmful than producing cotton. Taking oil to make polyester and plastics is far, far more destructive on many fronts than animal production... and the animals and plants lost from the oil platforms, refineries, and production factories are far more significant and permanent than the simple renewable losses in proper farming. And, though you often here things like "it takes less acreage to grow grain than animals", the reason humans began using animals for food was that they are portable and can digest foods over a large swath of area, areas not suitable to long term farming.

Or.. to put it another way, it was hunters that created the wonderful wildlife refuge system here in the US, its farmers that have preserved most of the small microhabitat sections and unique areas bought by the nature conservancies. (National Parks are a tad different, they are living museums)

[thegreekdog]

Apology accepted here.

The apology was not directed at you. My post was supporting your post indicating that the unborn don't have standing. I know, I know, you automatically assume that as soon as I post I'm taking aim at you; that's because you're self-absorbed.

It was an apology for a response you made to my post, I know you don't like apologising to me directly. Ego te absolvo.

For an English person, you have a lot of trouble reading and understanding the English language.

[thegreekdog]

What if the state did not invest a significant amount in the child? Would you change your argument to apply to "society" (or perhaps, as a smaller unit, the family)?

In what sense?

Does increased population, on its own, result in an increased benefit to the state (or society or the family)? For example, I suspect in medieval Europe (and depending on the hereditary rules), there was an effort to make more offspring rather than less.

No idea.

Separate question - I don't live in China and have been there for a total of 10 days in my life, so I don't want to say something I'm unqualified to say, but did the Chinese government or Chinese people put a premium on male children?

Chinese society does, yes. A son is traditionally expected to look after his parents in their old age, whereas a daughter is traditionally expected to marry into her husband's family and put more effort into helping him with his parents than caring for hers. So yeah, that's why in rural areas you get quite a few cases of parents killing female babies because they want a son but can't just keep trying for one due to family planning laws.

Does increased population among the wealthy (or intelligent or learned or physically superior) result in an increased benefit to the state? Could the state provide disincentives for the poor (or stupid or physically inferior) to reproduce or provide incentives for the wealth (etc.) to reproduce?

They could do, but I'm not entirely sure there'd be much benefit in doing so.

Aw, you're no fun. You're basing your argument for abortion on state costs and then refuse to discuss anything having to do with state costs. I'm not even trying to get into a debate about whether abortion is murder. I just want to talk about whether it makes a difference to your point of view if certain other things were factual. Would your views change if we only aborted poor people's babies? Would your views change if the state didn't have to invest a significant (or any) money?

[Metsfanmax]

Actually, the law has nothing to do with this. Cows are not sentient, by definition.

You seem to be quite confused about the definitions both of "sentient" and of "self-aware." Please educate yourself on what these terms mean before continuing in this discussion.

And, let me ask you this. Which kills in a more human way? A traditional (read not factory farm) farmer raising beef for sale and product or the new "eco-friendly" solar powered housing development? Chances are are more animals are killed, and not just the individuals, but the entire progeny line , the entire community, sometimes the entire population are killed by new developments. Farming done traditionally means working with nature (to some extent), treating animals well, caring for them.

We can get utilitarian if you like, but you haven't thought it through very carefully. Other than the initial ethical harm of killing the initial population, if there is one, I don't have an a priori problem with things like eliminating populations or even entire species (aside from their potential effects from the perspective of biodiversity loss). To me, what counts is suffering. And there's a lot of suffering of animals in the wild. By reducing the amount of land there is for wildlife, I think that on balance we could very well be doing a net good thing in terms of reducing suffering in the long run.

Of course, I am not certain of this analysis; it's very complicated. The point is, no one is, including you. On the other hand, I can at least stop engaging in the harms I am certain I am engaging in, and then as society becomes more educated on the harms of various agricultural and industrial practices, work to stop engaging in the harms we then recognize we are engaging in.

Or.. to put it another way, it was hunters that created the wonderful wildlife refuge system here in the US, its farmers that have preserved most of the small microhabitat sections and unique areas bought by the nature conservancies. (National Parks are a tad different, they are living museums)

Why are those things wonderful? Because it feels good to humans that we did it, or because it's actually good for the wildlife living there?

[mrswdk]

So basically mrswdk is proposing a world in which the rich make all the rules. mrswdk isn't saying this is the world we already live in... that is an argument that might be made reasonably. This is an argument that mrswdk this SHOULD be.

Am I? You need to stop extrapolating, dude.

Since I provide a Net Positive... I guess I should also get to decide the fates of those people who are a Net Drain???

No.