| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Francis" |
| Date: |
22 Sep 2004 09:48:13 AM |
| Object: |
Why is abortion ok? |
I'm curious as to why people agree with abortion at all?
What are the main justifications of it?
I ask these questions as I'd like to gain the viewpoint of those who do
agree with it, in the hopes of having a fuller opinion on it myself.
Regards,
Francis
.
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
29 Sep 2004 06:48:57 PM |
|
|
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:415b3eca.18021360@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:36:42 -0400, "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@nono_comcast.net> wrote:
Mr. Sebree's words to mean "always justifiable" and "no
restrictions". Again, I could be wrong (and hope that I am). If I am
wrong, then you can clear it up. Again assuming the fetus is a person,
when
is abortion not justifiable? What are the restrictions?
When the pregnancy can be terminated without fetal demise. DUH!!!
OK. Then, your claim is:
Even when the fetus has the moral and legal status of a person, abortion is
always justified as a matter of self defense except when the pregnancy can
be terminated without killing the fetus.
Do I have that correct?
Assuming I do, then it must be (I hope) your position that if the fetus is a
person, all pre-viability abortions are justified in self defense. Given
that new understanding of your positon, it is still true that 0 Supreme
Court justices agree with you (see below).
I handled your objection that the appellant's case was not based upon
self
defense below and even with that fact noted, still conclude that The
Court's
ruling logically implies they reject the claim that all abortions are
justified in self defense.
You have already proven that your interpretations and logic are
faulty. No one argued before the court that "all abortions are
justified in self defense."
As I said, I handled that objection. You never addressed my argument. I
repeat the argument here, changing it slightly to accomodate the new
understanding of your position, and (hopefully) to make it clearer:
Consider these definitions:
A = all pre-viability abortions are justified in self defense
B = the Texas statute (which outlawed abortions, including pre-viability) at
issue in Roe is valid
C = the fetus is a person
Quoting from Roe:
'The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within
the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. [...] If this
suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course,
collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed
specifically by the Amendment.'
Given those set of facts, these are true statements:
1) The Court ruled "if C then B" [based on the quoted section above from
Roe]
2) "if B then not A" [trivially obvious]
1) together with 2) implies that The Court ruled "if C then not A". That
is, "if the fetus is a person, all pre-viability abortions are *not*
justified in self defense." That is of course, the opposite conclusion of
your claim that "if the fetus is a person, all pre-viability abortions are
justified in self defense."
Thus, even though the Court did not explicitly rule on the self-defense
argument, they did implicitly as shown above.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
29 Sep 2004 09:35:41 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:48:57 -0400, "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@nono_comcast.net> wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:415b3eca.18021360@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:36:42 -0400, "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@nono_comcast.net> wrote:
Mr. Sebree's words to mean "always justifiable" and "no
restrictions". Again, I could be wrong (and hope that I am). If I am
wrong, then you can clear it up. Again assuming the fetus is a person,
when
is abortion not justifiable? What are the restrictions?
When the pregnancy can be terminated without fetal demise. DUH!!!
OK. Then, your claim is:
Even when the fetus has the moral and legal status of a person, abortion is
always justified as a matter of self defense except when the pregnancy can
be terminated without killing the fetus.
Do I have that correct?
No, I have never made any such claim.
Assuming I do, then it must be (I hope) your position that if the fetus is a
person, all pre-viability abortions are justified in self defense.
That is not my position. I have never tried to justify abortion. I
am looking for justification to ban abortion.
All I have done in this thread is to try point out errors of fact.
One such fact is California Penal Code 197:
"Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of
the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person....."
As Mark pointed out, a pregnancy is a great bodily harm, and thus
abortion is justified even if you consider the embryo/fetus to be a
person. I do not, and thus I do not make any claim as to abortion
being justified on the basis of self-defense.
Given
that new understanding of your positon, it is still true that 0 Supreme
Court justices agree with you (see below).
*SIGH* You can quit posting this ***** as the ***** of
self-defense was not brought before the court and thus the court did
not agree or disagree with what was not placed before it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
30 Sep 2004 08:00:28 AM |
|
|
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<415b6cd4.29807413@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:48:57 -0400, "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@nono_comcast.net> wrote:
"Paul Anderson" < > wrote in message
news:415b3eca.18021360@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:36:42 -0400, "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@nono_comcast.net> wrote:
Again assuming the fetus is a person, when
is abortion not justifiable? What are the restrictions?
When the pregnancy can be terminated without fetal demise. DUH!!!
OK. Then, your claim is:
Even when the fetus has the moral and legal status of a person, abortion is
always justified as a matter of self defense except when the pregnancy can
be terminated without killing the fetus.
Do I have that correct?
No, I have never made any such claim.
Assuming I do, then it must be (I hope) your position that if the fetus is a
person, all pre-viability abortions are justified in self defense.
That is not my position. I have never tried to justify abortion. I
am looking for justification to ban abortion.
All I have done in this thread is to try point out errors of fact.
One such fact is California Penal Code 197:
"Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of
the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person....."
As Mark pointed out, a pregnancy is a great bodily harm, and thus
abortion is justified even if you consider the embryo/fetus to be a
person. I do not, and thus I do not make any claim as to abortion
being justified on the basis of self-defense.
At this point, we are quibbling over semantics. "resisting great
bodily harm" is an act of "self defense". Or maybe not in your view.
Nonetheless, isn't it your view that:
Even if the fetus is a person, abortion is always justified as a
matter of resisting great bodily harm except when the pregnancy can be
terminated without killing the fetus.
and
Even if the fetus is a person, all pre-viability abortions are
justified as a matter of resisting great bodily harm.
Given
that new understanding of your positon, it is still true that 0 Supreme
Court justices agree with you (see below).
*SIGH* You can quit posting this ***** as the ***** of
self-defense was not brought before the court and thus the court did
not agree or disagree with what was not placed before it.
Nice snipping job there of my argument. Maybe this time you can
actually counter my actual argument. Repeating, it is not required
that The Court hear the self-defense (or resisting great bodily harm)
argument in order to conclude that they implicitly rejected it:
Consider these definitions:
A = all pre-viability abortions are justified in self defense
B = the Texas statute (which outlawed abortions, including
pre-viability) at issue in Roe is valid
C = the fetus is a person
Quoting from Roe:
'The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person"
within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. [...] If
this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of
course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be
guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.'
Given those set of facts, these are true statements:
1) The Court ruled "if C then B" [based on the quoted section above
from Roe]
2) "if B then not A" [trivially obvious]
1) together with 2) implies that The Court ruled "if C then not A".
That is, "if the fetus is a person, all pre-viability abortions are
*not* justified in self defense." That is of course, the opposite
conclusion of your claim that "if the fetus is a person, all
pre-viability abortions are justified in self defense."
Thus, even though the Court did not explicitly rule on the
self-defense argument, they did implicitly as shown above.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
30 Sep 2004 10:34:54 AM |
|
|
On 30 Sep 2004 06:00:28 -0700, (Josh Rosenbluth)
wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<415b6cd4.29807413@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:48:57 -0400, "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@nono_comcast.net> wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:415b3eca.18021360@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:36:42 -0400, "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@nono_comcast.net> wrote:
Again assuming the fetus is a person, when
is abortion not justifiable? What are the restrictions?
When the pregnancy can be terminated without fetal demise. DUH!!!
OK. Then, your claim is:
Even when the fetus has the moral and legal status of a person, abortion is
always justified as a matter of self defense except when the pregnancy can
be terminated without killing the fetus.
Do I have that correct?
No, I have never made any such claim.
Assuming I do, then it must be (I hope) your position that if the fetus is a
person, all pre-viability abortions are justified in self defense.
That is not my position. I have never tried to justify abortion. I
am looking for justification to ban abortion.
All I have done in this thread is to try point out errors of fact.
One such fact is California Penal Code 197:
"Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of
the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person....."
As Mark pointed out, a pregnancy is a great bodily harm, and thus
abortion is justified even if you consider the embryo/fetus to be a
person. I do not, and thus I do not make any claim as to abortion
being justified on the basis of self-defense.
At this point, we are quibbling over semantics. "resisting great
bodily harm" is an act of "self defense". Or maybe not in your view.
Nonetheless, isn't it your view that:
Even if the fetus is a person, abortion is always justified as a
matter of resisting great bodily harm except when the pregnancy can be
terminated without killing the fetus.
No.
and
Even if the fetus is a person, all pre-viability abortions are
justified as a matter of resisting great bodily harm.
No.
Given
that new understanding of your positon, it is still true that 0 Supreme
Court justices agree with you (see below).
*SIGH* You can quit posting this ***** as the ***** of
self-defense was not brought before the court and thus the court did
not agree or disagree with what was not placed before it.
Nice snipping job there of my argument. Maybe this time you can
actually counter my actual argument. Repeating, it is not required
that The Court hear the self-defense (or resisting great bodily harm)
argument in order to conclude that they implicitly rejected it:
This is a false statement. Thus your argument is rejected.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
28 Sep 2004 04:49:00 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:37:21 -0400, "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@nono_comcast.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
<vPydnQTEkZD-U8XcRVn-hA@comcast.com> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:afihl09t0cqv39b4nrehsp69cs2jcq0m0r@4ax.com...
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 17:46:09 -0400, "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@nono_comcast.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
<Mq2dnWTw06W_F8XcRVn-qQ@comcast.com> wrote:
You can't legally use lethal force on a teenager who threatens your
health,
but not your life.
Wrong.
Really? So, I can kill someone who persistently blows smoke in my face and
refuses to stop?
Josh Rosenbluth
No. That is not endangering your health, and the circumstances would
make a lot of difference.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Ledford" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
28 Sep 2004 05:48:46 AM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
[....]
Really? So, I can kill someone who persistently blows smoke in my face and
refuses to stop?
No. That is not endangering your health,
[....]
let me guess, you work for a tobacco corporation and you
were one of the steadfast who testified before congress?
right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
28 Sep 2004 09:50:25 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 06:48:46 -0400, Jim Ledford <jimled@bellsouth.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <4159418E.7BEC6877@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
Attila wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
[....]
Really? So, I can kill someone who persistently blows smoke in my face and
refuses to stop?
No. That is not endangering your health,
[....]
let me guess, you work for a tobacco corporation and you
were one of the steadfast who testified before congress?
right?
Wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
27 Sep 2004 10:27:09 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:37:21 -0400, "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@nono_comcast.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote ...
Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@nono_comcast.net> wrote:
Re-insert what "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote :
And a person is allowed to defend themselves from assault by any
reasonable means available, up to and including killing the assailant
if that is what it takes to stop the assault.
You can't legally use lethal force on a teenager who threatens your
health, but not your life.
Wrong.
Really? So, I can kill someone who persistently blows smoke in my face and
refuses to stop?
Can you stop someone from blowing smoke in your face without killing
them? Yes.
Can you prematurely terminate a pregnacny without the demise of the
embryo/fetus?
.
|
|
|
| User: "erin" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
07 Oct 2004 04:44:12 PM |
|
|
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<4158cfa6.48819826@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:37:21 -0400, "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@nono_comcast.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote ...
Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@nono_comcast.net> wrote:
Re-insert what "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote :
And a person is allowed to defend themselves from assault by any
reasonable means available, up to and including killing the assailant
if that is what it takes to stop the assault.
You can't legally use lethal force on a teenager who threatens your
health, but not your life.
Wrong.
Really? So, I can kill someone who persistently blows smoke in my face and
refuses to stop?
Can you stop someone from blowing smoke in your face without killing
them? Yes.
Can you prematurely terminate a pregnacny without the demise of the
embryo/fetus?
False premise, totally disproportional. The first question would have
to be, "If you could only stop someone from blowing smoke in your face
by doing something that destroyed them, could you do that?"
Cheers,
Erin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
28 Sep 2004 12:10:27 PM |
|
|
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<4158cfa6.48819826@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:37:21 -0400, "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@nono_comcast.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote ...
Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@nono_comcast.net> wrote:
Re-insert what "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote :
And a person is allowed to defend themselves from assault by any
reasonable means available, up to and including killing the assailant
if that is what it takes to stop the assault.
You can't legally use lethal force on a teenager who threatens your
health, but not your life.
Wrong.
Really? So, I can kill someone who persistently blows smoke in my face and
refuses to stop?
Can you stop someone from blowing smoke in your face without killing
them? Yes.
Can you prematurely terminate a pregnacny without the demise of the
embryo/fetus?
Nope. But, so what?
It was argued here that abortion was permissible, under the assumption
a fetus is legally and morally the equivalent of a teenager and the
woman's life is not at risk, because lethal force can be used against
a teenager who harms you but does not threaten your life. Since you
cannot use lethal force against a teenager who harms you but does not
threaten your life, that line of argument does not hold.
Your additional, factual claim that you cannot terminate a pregnancy
without killing the fetus, does not make the case that abortion is
permissible under the assumption a fetus is legally and morally the
equivalent of a teenager and the woman's life is not at risk.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
28 Sep 2004 12:28:44 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson)
"Josh Rosenbluth"
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote ...
Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@nono_comcast.net> wrote:
And a person is allowed to defend themselves from assault by any
reasonable means available, up to and including killing the assailant
if that is what it takes to stop the assault.
You can't legally use lethal force on a teenager who threatens your
health, but not your life.
Wrong.
Really? So, I can kill someone who persistently blows smoke in my face and
refuses to stop?
Can you stop someone from blowing smoke in your face without killing
them? Yes.
Can you prematurely terminate a pregnacny without the demise of the
embryo/fetus?
Nope. But, so what?
It was argued here that abortion was permissible, under the assumption
a fetus is legally and morally the equivalent of a teenager and the
woman's life is not at risk, because lethal force can be used against
a teenager who harms you but does not threaten your life. Since you
cannot use lethal force against a teenager who harms you but does not
threaten your life, that line of argument does not hold.
You may use the minimum force needed to end the assault. In the case
of pregnancy that's an abortion.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
28 Sep 2004 04:38:13 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cjc70b$9hg$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote:
It was argued here that abortion was permissible, under the assumption
a fetus is legally and morally the equivalent of a teenager and the
woman's life is not at risk, because lethal force can be used against
a teenager who harms you but does not threaten your life. Since you
cannot use lethal force against a teenager who harms you but does not
threaten your life, that line of argument does not hold.
You may use the minimum force needed to end the assault. In the case
of pregnancy that's an abortion.
It is not established that when the minimum force is lethal, you can use it
turn back a non-lethal threat. And again, a grand total of 0 Supreme Court
justices agree with you.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
28 Sep 2004 05:42:38 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:38:13 -0400, "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@nono_comcast.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
<jeCdnUbFX_1bRMTcRVn-ow@comcast.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cjc70b$9hg$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote:
It was argued here that abortion was permissible, under the assumption
a fetus is legally and morally the equivalent of a teenager and the
woman's life is not at risk, because lethal force can be used against
a teenager who harms you but does not threaten your life. Since you
cannot use lethal force against a teenager who harms you but does not
threaten your life, that line of argument does not hold.
You may use the minimum force needed to end the assault. In the case
of pregnancy that's an abortion.
It is not established that when the minimum force is lethal, you can use it
turn back a non-lethal threat. And again, a grand total of 0 Supreme Court
justices agree with you.
Josh Rosenbluth
I know of a gun shop owner who stayed in his shop overnight due to a
rash of store breakins in his area. The next morning the body count
was one teenager dead and three in critical condition in a hospital
and one local hero for ending a rash of burglaries.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
28 Sep 2004 05:51:05 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:b1qjl0dvr3mc5ncjj2lnqne4ojt5ps69jc@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:38:13 -0400, "Josh Rosenbluth"
<jrosenbluth@nono_comcast.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
<jeCdnUbFX_1bRMTcRVn-ow@comcast.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cjc70b$9hg$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote:
It was argued here that abortion was permissible, under the assumption
a fetus is legally and morally the equivalent of a teenager and the
woman's life is not at risk, because lethal force can be used against
a teenager who harms you but does not threaten your life. Since you
cannot use lethal force against a teenager who harms you but does not
threaten your life, that line of argument does not hold.
You may use the minimum force needed to end the assault. In the case
of pregnancy that's an abortion.
It is not established that when the minimum force is lethal, you can use
it
turn back a non-lethal threat. And again, a grand total of 0 Supreme
Court
justices agree with you.
I know of a gun shop owner who stayed in his shop overnight due to a
rash of store breakins in his area. The next morning the body count
was one teenager dead and three in critical condition in a hospital
and one local hero for ending a rash of burglaries.
So what?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "erin" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
07 Oct 2004 04:45:31 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<cjc70b$9hg$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson)
"Josh Rosenbluth"
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote ...
Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@nono_comcast.net> wrote:
And a person is allowed to defend themselves from assault by any
reasonable means available, up to and including killing the assailant
if that is what it takes to stop the assault.
You can't legally use lethal force on a teenager who threatens your
health, but not your life.
Wrong.
Really? So, I can kill someone who persistently blows smoke in my face and
refuses to stop?
Can you stop someone from blowing smoke in your face without killing
them? Yes.
Can you prematurely terminate a pregnacny without the demise of the
embryo/fetus?
Nope. But, so what?
It was argued here that abortion was permissible, under the assumption
a fetus is legally and morally the equivalent of a teenager and the
woman's life is not at risk, because lethal force can be used against
a teenager who harms you but does not threaten your life. Since you
cannot use lethal force against a teenager who harms you but does not
threaten your life, that line of argument does not hold.
You may use the minimum force needed to end the assault. In the case
of pregnancy that's an abortion.
In some cases, it would be a C-Section. And if the force could avoid
destruction of the living being, wouldn't that be preferred?
Cheers,
Erin
.
|
|
|
| User: "webgiant" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
11 Oct 2004 05:21:52 PM |
|
|
On 2004-10-07, erin <putmyspamhereaite@yahoo.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson)
"Josh Rosenbluth"
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote ...
Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@nono_comcast.net> wrote:
And a person is allowed to defend themselves
from assault by any reasonable means available,
up to and including killing the assailant
if that is what it takes to stop the assault.
You can't legally use lethal force on a teenager
who threatens your health, but not your life.
Wrong.
Really? So, I can kill someone who
persistently blows smoke in my face
and refuses to stop?
Can you stop someone from blowing smoke
in your face without killing them? Yes.
Can you prematurely terminate a pregnacny
without the demise of the embryo/fetus?
Nope. But, so what?
It was argued here that abortion was permissible,
under the assumption a fetus is legally and morally
the equivalent of a teenager and the woman's life
is not at risk, because lethal force can be used
against a teenager who harms you but does not
threaten your life. Since you cannot use lethal
force against a teenager who harms you but does
not threaten your life, that line of argument does
not hold.
Of course it holds. You may use the minimum force
necessary to end the assault. Having your life
threatened is not a necessary element. Example:
someone attacks you with a baseball bat. Chances are
you won't die from the assault. Yet self-defense laws
allow you to kill your assailant if that is the only
way to end the assault.
You may use the minimum force needed to end the
assault. In the case of pregnancy that's an
abortion.
In some cases, it would be a C-Section.
The assault starts at implantation. The accurate
phrase would be "in less than 1% of cases, acting in
self-defense would denote a C-section."
And if the force could avoid destruction of the
living being, wouldn't that be preferred?
Here's a hint: doctors, when faced with a late-term
pregnancy and a woman who wants to end it *now*, will
almost always perform a live birth instead of an
abortion.
This happens not because of some inherent "anti-abortion"
element in the medical profession. It happens because
most doctors have not performed many late-term abortions,
but they have performed many late-term childbirths. So
they go with the procedure they are most comfortable with.
However, the main point is that all pregnancies are the
fetus assaulting the pregnant woman. From the perspective
of self-defense laws, the pregnancy is an assault on the
pregnant woman from implantation onwards, and ending the
assault as soon as possible is in line with all
self-defense laws.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
11 Oct 2004 05:36:06 PM |
|
|
"webgiant" <webgiant@max.com> wrote in message
news:4IDad.112005$nA6.30246@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
On 2004-10-07, erin <putmyspamhereaite@yahoo.com> wrote:
However, the main point is that all pregnancies are the
fetus assaulting the pregnant woman. From the perspective
of self-defense laws, the pregnancy is an assault on the
pregnant woman from implantation onwards, and ending the
assault as soon as possible is in line with all
self-defense laws.
Is it your view that all abortions, at any stage of the pregnancy, are
prima-facie justified in self defense even when the fetus is assumed to have
the moral standing of a teenager?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "erin" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
13 Oct 2004 11:53:21 AM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@nono_comcast.net> wrote in message news:<FP6dnYO0E_9Fl_bcRVn-hA@comcast.com>...
"webgiant" <webgiant@max.com> wrote in message
news:4IDad.112005$nA6.30246@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
On 2004-10-07, erin <putmyspamhereaite@yahoo.com> wrote:
However, the main point is that all pregnancies are the
fetus assaulting the pregnant woman. From the perspective
of self-defense laws, the pregnancy is an assault on the
pregnant woman from implantation onwards, and ending the
assault as soon as possible is in line with all
self-defense laws.
Is it your view that all abortions, at any stage of the pregnancy, are
prima-facie justified in self defense even when the fetus is assumed to have
the moral standing of a teenager?
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh is much better at expressing himself (than I) but this idea of
self defense would have to be applied on behalf of the expectant
mother, because sometimes (a) she doesn't know she's pregnant until
late in the pregnancy and (b) she may not perceive the 'attack' as
such. So if you firmly believe the fetus is an attacker, would you
not have a moral obligation to have all expectant mothers either
sterilised or subject to compulsory abortions? Certainly, the
expectant mothers who don't know they're pregnant need to saved from
the attack, and any expectant mother who doesn't consider pregnancy an
attack ought to be relieved of her right to self-determination.
Another point -- the baseball bat analogy involves a perceived threat.
In fact, the person rushing you with the baseball bat may only intend
to tickle your armpit with the bat. But if you perceive a threat, and
a jury of your peers agree with your perception, you could be
acquitted of charges of homicide in your lethal defense. Or no
charges would be filed. The jury would not be able to know the
"attacker's" true intentions, or see into the future to gauge malice
of intent, actual damage, etc. *So* If a mother doesn't know she's
pregnant until, say, the third trimester -- does her failure to
perceive a threat mediate on her entitlement to a response of lethal
defense (against the fetus)?
And in a general sense, should a mother's *consenting* to the fetus'
attack mediate on her entitlement to response of lethal defense?
Analogously, since a corporate polluter might be causing an attack on
my respiratory system, should I be entitled to terminate the CEO?
If McDonald's hamburgers are closing my arteries and attacking my
well-being, should I be entitled to terminate the local franchisee?
Or does my consenting to the ingestion of such food mediate on my
entitlement to self-defense (against the franchisee)?
-Erin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
13 Oct 2004 09:37:14 PM |
|
|
erin <putmyspamhereaite@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@nono_comcast.net> wrote in message news:<FP6dnYO0E_9Fl_bcRVn-hA@comcast.com>...
"webgiant" <webgiant@max.com> wrote in message
news:4IDad.112005$nA6.30246@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
On 2004-10-07, erin <putmyspamhereaite@yahoo.com> wrote:
However, the main point is that all pregnancies are the
fetus assaulting the pregnant woman. From the perspective
of self-defense laws, the pregnancy is an assault on the
pregnant woman from implantation onwards, and ending the
assault as soon as possible is in line with all
self-defense laws.
Is it your view that all abortions, at any stage of the pregnancy, are
prima-facie justified in self defense even when the fetus is assumed to have
the moral standing of a teenager?
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh is much better at expressing himself (than I) but this idea of
self defense would have to be applied on behalf of the expectant
mother, because sometimes (a) she doesn't know she's pregnant until
late in the pregnancy and (b) she may not perceive the 'attack' as
such. So if you firmly believe the fetus is an attacker, would you
not have a moral obligation to have all expectant mothers either
sterilised or subject to compulsory abortions?
What a bizarre notion. It's akin to the "all men are rapists" idea.
Again we see the mindset that women need to be "protected".
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "erin" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
14 Oct 2004 12:04:43 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<ckkoop$aqe$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
erin <putmyspamhereaite@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@nono_comcast.net> wrote in message news:<FP6dnYO0E_9Fl_bcRVn-hA@comcast.com>...
"webgiant" <webgiant@max.com> wrote in message
news:4IDad.112005$nA6.30246@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
On 2004-10-07, erin <putmyspamhereaite@yahoo.com> wrote:
However, the main point is that all pregnancies are the
fetus assaulting the pregnant woman. From the perspective
of self-defense laws, the pregnancy is an assault on the
pregnant woman from implantation onwards, and ending the
assault as soon as possible is in line with all
self-defense laws.
Is it your view that all abortions, at any stage of the pregnancy, are
prima-facie justified in self defense even when the fetus is assumed to have
the moral standing of a teenager?
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh is much better at expressing himself (than I) but this idea of
self defense would have to be applied on behalf of the expectant
mother, because sometimes (a) she doesn't know she's pregnant until
late in the pregnancy and (b) she may not perceive the 'attack' as
such. So if you firmly believe the fetus is an attacker, would you
not have a moral obligation to have all expectant mothers either
sterilised or subject to compulsory abortions?
What a bizarre notion. It's akin to the "all men are rapists" idea.
Bizarre observation. It's a question arisen from the "all fetuses are
savae foes and monsters" idea.
Again we see the mindset that women need to be "protected".
Bizarre notion. Women -- as human beings -- are protected. We're
considering the contention that human fetuses are victims of
discrimination, based on size and age.
Cheers,
Erin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
14 Oct 2004 11:20:45 PM |
|
|
erin <putmyspamhereaite@yahoo.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Josh is much better at expressing himself (than I) but this idea of
self defense would have to be applied on behalf of the expectant
mother, because sometimes (a) she doesn't know she's pregnant until
late in the pregnancy and (b) she may not perceive the 'attack' as
such. So if you firmly believe the fetus is an attacker, would you
not have a moral obligation to have all expectant mothers either
sterilised or subject to compulsory abortions?
What a bizarre notion. It's akin to the "all men are rapists" idea.
Bizarre observation. It's a question arisen from the "all fetuses are
savae foes and monsters" idea.
An idea which is yours.
Again we see the mindset that women need to be "protected".
Bizarre notion. Women -- as human beings -- are protected. We're
considering the contention that human fetuses are victims of
discrimination, based on size and age.
They're not. Nobody has any right to live in someone's body and cause
them harm.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "erin" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
15 Oct 2004 03:51:05 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<cknj6t$cmp$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
erin <putmyspamhereaite@yahoo.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer)
Josh is much better at expressing himself (than I) but this idea of
self defense would have to be applied on behalf of the expectant
mother, because sometimes (a) she doesn't know she's pregnant until
late in the pregnancy and (b) she may not perceive the 'attack' as
such. So if you firmly believe the fetus is an attacker, would you
not have a moral obligation to have all expectant mothers either
sterilised or subject to compulsory abortions?
What a bizarre notion. It's akin to the "all men are rapists" idea.
Bizarre observation. It's a question arisen from the "all fetuses are
savae foes and monsters" idea.
An idea which is yours.
Again we see the mindset that women need to be "protected".
Bizarre notion. Women -- as human beings -- are protected. We're
considering the contention that human fetuses are victims of
discrimination, based on size and age.
They're not. Nobody has any right to live in someone's body and cause
them harm.
Unless a man or woman is clinically diagnosed as mentally retarded,
he/she provides de facto consent to conception, when engaging in the
primary mode of conception. It's a "risk" everyone takes when doing
what the body does to reproduce. If I don't want to acquire bovine
spongiform encephalopathy, I don't eat ground cow.
You say "Nobody has any right to live in someone's body and cause them
harm." That implies that a fetus is somebody. Which implies that
abortion is murder.
Finally, several posts have gone by without your employment of the
terms "slavemaster" or "a***hole" in the stead of good reason. I
wonder if you might grant me one request, this weekend: Could you go
kindly give me some of that old fashioned vitriole?
Cheers,
Erin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
15 Oct 2004 08:25:23 PM |
|
|
On 15 Oct 2004 13:51:05 -0700, (erin)
wrote:
....
Unless a man or woman is clinically diagnosed as mentally retarded,
he/she provides de facto consent to conception, when engaging in the
primary mode of conception. ....
Legal cite, or is this just your personal bias?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "webgiant" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
16 Oct 2004 05:06:11 AM |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to talk.abortion.]
On 2004-10-15, erin <putmyspamhereaite@yahoo.com> wrote:
Unless a man or woman is clinically diagnosed as
mentally retarded, he/she provides de facto consent
to conception, when engaging in the primary mode of
conception. It's a "risk" everyone takes when doing
what the body does to reproduce.
Your logic implies that the usual result of conception
is childbirth. Even leaving out abortion, nearly all
conceptions are simply discarded in a menstrual
period, miscarriage, or stillbirth. If we took the
actual result of most conceptions, consent to sex is
the same as consent to *ending the pregnancy*, not
consent to continuing the pregnancy.
But if we assume for the moment, against the facts, that
childbirth is the usual end result of conception, it
then follows that *all abortions* must be banned, since
the same logic states that anyone not mentally retarded
provides de facto consent to *dying in childbirth*.
After all, if consenting to sex means consenting to
conception, a very rare consequence of sex, then obviously
consenting to sex means consenting to dying in childbirth,
another very rare consequence of sex.
If I don't want to acquire bovine spongiform
encephalopathy, I don't eat ground cow.
And if you don't want to die in childbirth, don't have
sex. According to your reasoning, of course.
The fact is that we allow everyone in the world to be
responsible while avoiding the consequences of risky
actions. Most Western medicine in the world today is
reactive medicine, not preventative: allowing people to
avoid the consequences of their actions in a responsible
way.
Don't want to bleed to death in a car accident?
Don't drive.
Don't want to get hit by a car and break your neck?
Don't walk.
Don't want to trip on the floor and bash in your skull?
Don't get out of bed.
Your reasoning is a justification for inertia: don't
take risks, because when you do take risks you are
providing de facto consent to their consequences,
even to the consequences which happen less than 1%
of the time.
You say "Nobody has any right to live in someone's body
and cause them harm." That implies that a fetus is
somebody.
No, *you* keep claiming that the fetus is somebody, which
is why responses have to be phrased in words you might
understand.
Strictly speaking the fetus is an it, with no rights to
live in someone's body and cause them harm.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
15 Oct 2004 11:44:49 PM |
|
|
erin <putmyspamhereaite@yahoo.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<cknj6t$cmp$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
erin <putmyspamhereaite@yahoo.com> wrote:
Again we see the mindset that women need to be "protected".
Bizarre notion. Women -- as human beings -- are protected. We're
considering the contention that human fetuses are victims of
discrimination, based on size and age.
They're not. Nobody has any right to live in someone's body and cause
them harm.
Unless a man or woman is clinically diagnosed as mentally retarded,
he/she provides de facto consent to conception, when engaging in the
primary mode of conception.
That is, of course, an outright lie. A woman who does NOT want to be
pregnant and who wants an abortion is obviously NOT consenting to
either remain pregnant or to give birth.
It's a "risk" everyone takes when doing
Sex isn't a crime, prude, and doesn't merit punishment.
Deal with the facts and stop lying.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "erin" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
13 Oct 2004 12:13:31 PM |
|
|
webgiant <webgiant@max.com> wrote in message news:<4IDad.112005$nA6.30246@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
On 2004-10-07, erin <putmyspamhereaite@yahoo.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson)
"Josh Rosenbluth"
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote ...
Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@nono_comcast.net> wrote:
And a person is allowed to defend themselves
from assault by any reasonable means available,
up to and including killing the assailant
if that is what it takes to stop the assault.
You can't legally use lethal force on a teenager
who threatens your health, but not your life.
Wrong.
Really? So, I can kill someone who
persistently blows smoke in my face
and refuses to stop?
Can you stop someone from blowing smoke
in your face without killing them? Yes.
Can you prematurely terminate a pregnacny
without the demise of the embryo/fetus?
Nope. But, so what?
It was argued here that abortion was permissible,
under the assumption a fetus is legally and morally
the equivalent of a teenager and the woman's life
is not at risk, because lethal force can be used
against a teenager who harms you but does not
threaten your life. Since you cannot use lethal
force against a teenager who harms you but does
not threaten your life, that line of argument does
not hold.
Of course it holds. You may use the minimum force
necessary to end the assault. Having your life
threatened is not a necessary element. Example:
someone attacks you with a baseball bat. Chances are
you won't die from the assault. Yet self-defense laws
allow you to kill your assailant if that is the only
way to end the assault.
You may use the minimum force needed to end the
assault. In the case of pregnancy that's an
abortion.
In some cases, it would be a C-Section.
The assault starts at implantation. The accurate
phrase would be "in less than 1% of cases, acting in
self-defense would denote a C-section."
1. The human fetus does everything by nature, by design, its actions
are the only actions that ensure its chance of surival.
2. The human adult who assaults another adult does so out of
irrational thinking, going against the design of society, and its
actions are not required to ensure its chance of survival.
Did you ever apologise to your mum for assaulting her? Do you feel
you ought to be punished, even incarcerated, for your actions?
Cheers,
Erin
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
13 Oct 2004 04:15:55 PM |
|
|
On 13 Oct 2004 10:13:31 -0700, (erin) in
alt.abortion with message-id
<731e9da0.0410130913.5ebfec6d@posting.google.com> wrote:
The assault starts at implantation. The accurate
phrase would be "in less than 1% of cases, acting in
self-defense would denote a C-section."
1. The human fetus does everything by nature, by design, its actions
are the only actions that ensure its chance of surival.
Irrelevant. The end effect on the woman is the same.
2. The human adult who assaults another adult does so out of
irrational thinking, going against the design of society, and its
actions are not required to ensure its chance of survival.
However, this individual can still be stopped if it's actions are
injuring a person. No matter why the action is taken.
Did you ever apologise to your mum for assaulting her? Do you feel
you ought to be punished, even incarcerated, for your actions?
No, because it would appear that since birth occurred it was the
decision of the woman to allow this. Except in my case I was born
before R v W so she had no choice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Ledford" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
16 Oct 2004 05:58:19 AM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
[....]
Did you ever apologise to your mum for assaulting her? Do you feel
you ought to be punished, even incarcerated, for your actions?
No, because it would appear that since birth occurred it was the
decision of the woman to allow this. Except in my case I was born
before R v W so she had no choice.
if your mother had turned to Jesus she would have
never said things to you that caused you to feel
unwanted. Jesus is love and all about love.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
16 Oct 2004 06:36:17 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 06:58:19 -0400, Jim Ledford <jimled@bellsouth.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <4170FECB.CD7F706@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
Attila wrote:
[....]
Did you ever apologise to your mum for assaulting her? Do you feel
you ought to be punished, even incarcerated, for your actions?
No, because it would appear that since birth occurred it was the
decision of the woman to allow this. Except in my case I was born
before R v W so she had no choice.
if your mother had turned to Jesus she would have
never said things to you that caused you to feel
unwanted.
Who said my mother made me feel unwanted? Quite the contrary, in
fact.
I simply said that I was born before the freedom of choice was
available. In fact, my daughter was born before this was available.
Abortion, of course, was always quietly available to anyone who really
wanted one. A safe doctor performed abortion that was covered by
medical insurance, in fact.
Jesus is love and all about love.
Prove that after you prove any such person actually existed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "webgiant" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is abortion *NOT* ok? |
16 Oct 2004 05:19:15 AM |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to talk.abortion.]
On 2004-10-13,
erin <putmyspamhereaite@yahoo.com> wrote:
webgiant
<webgiant@max.com> wrote:
erin
<putmyspamhereaite@yahoo.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
[snip!]
You may use the minimum force needed to end the
assault. In the case of pregnancy that's an
abortion.
In some cases, it would be a C-Section.
The assault starts at implantation. The accurate
phrase would be "in less than 1% of cases, acting in
self-defense would denote a C-section."
1. The human fetus does everything by nature, by
design, its actions are the only actions that
ensure its chance of surival.
Which doesn't change the fact that it has to assault
and batter the woman to survive, even drugging her
(suppressing her immune system) in order to survive.
There's a rabid dog running through the streets. Its
actions are entirely controlled by nature, and it does
not control its own actions anymore. Do you [a] shoot
the dog even though it is not mauling and killing people
of its own accord, or [b] allow the dog to continue to
kill because it is just a part of nature?
The fact is that the zygote, embryo, and fetus are all
non-sentient, but at the same time they are causing harm
to the pregnant woman in a way which the woman had no
real control in its inception.
[irrelevant blather snipped]
Did you ever apologise to your mum for assaulting
her?
Of course not. The fetus hadn't turned into me yet.
Do you feel you ought to be punished, even
incarcerated, for your actions?
Do you feel that people in the midst of a grand mal
seizure should be incarcerated for punching someone
trying to hold them down? I don't, yet if their
actions while having the seizure were going to cause
the death of another, and lethal force was the only
option to prevent another's death, then killing them
would be the rational thing to do.
A mentally retarded man is playing "Cops and Robbers"
with you, only somehow he has found a *real gun.*
He's going to shoot *you*, possibly *killing you*.
You can kill the mentally retarded man, even though
he isn't *intentionally* doing anything wrong, and
prevent the attack, or you can allow the attack to
continue and suffer a loss of blood, limb, and/or life.
Naturally, some women seem to enjoy the experience of
pregnancy for other reasons. Like sadomasochism, the
government has no business stepping in and telling women
what they can or cannot do for fun.
Some women would take the chance that the mentally
retarded man was a lousy shot. Others wouldn't.
The government has no business making the decision
to *not shoot* the *mandatory* decision.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
