A thought about our significance

[carpedm9587]

If "the state" impregnated her against her will, you might actually have a case.

It doesn't matter, IMO. People make decisions and change their minds all the time and in many ways. When a crime is committed, the state can justifiably restrict freedom (if it is a just response to the crime). But I cannot think of another situation where a person's choice gives the state the right to then dictate what they can or cannot do with their body for the next 3/4 of a year. In all other circumstances, the individual has choices. What makes this unique is the existence of one person within another person. It's unparalleled in law - and largely ignored by both sides of the dispute. As I noted before - pro-life people generally ignore the woman in favor of the child, while pro-choice people do exactly the reverse.

I will do neither.

[Cow Poke]

It doesn't matter, IMO. People make decisions and change their minds all the time and in many ways.

Having unprotected sex is not the same as getting a puppy.

[carpedm9587]

Having unprotected sex is not the same as getting a puppy.

On THAT we agree!

See - common ground is always possible...

[mikewhitney]

As I noted before - pro-life people generally ignore the woman in favor of the child, while pro-choice people do exactly the reverse.

I will do neither.

You assume too much when you think that pro-choice favors the woman.
You have to forget the scarring on many women that happens later when they want but can't have children or when they regret the abortion.
You have to forget the eugenics/racism interests that favor reducing the population of 'minorities'
Then there is the use of these women as pawns for political power by promoting abortions among them.

Is this the way to favor the women's interests?

[mikewhitney]

Having unprotected sex is not the same as getting a puppy.

Whew! Does that means I can get a puppy now?

[Cow Poke]

Whew! Does that means I can get a puppy now?

You can. And many places from whence you can get a puppy have a return policy.

[QuantaFille]

I'm not sure what you mean by "OK," but if you're asking if either act is moral, I would say the former is morally neutral, the latter is not. The difference (for me) lies in the ability of the latter to experience pain, whereas the former cannot. If the toaster was equipped with intelligence that gave it the ability to experience pain, the moral equation (for me) would change.

Bingo. Stars don't feel physical or emotional pain, therefore I don't care if they die. There's only one star whose death I care about and that's ours, but not for its own sake. I care about it because the death of our sun necessarily means the death of all life on earth. We are more important than stars because we think and we feel and we suffer and experience things in ways stars never can. If I saw my neighbour outside beating up a toaster, I'd think "what an odd neighbour" but I wouldn't stop the beating. If I saw my neighbour outside beating an animal or a child, I would stop it. The animal or child is more important than an inanimate object.

I would say that part of my reason is this: our ability to think means we can intentionally affect change in our surroundings. Stars change their surroundings too, to an extent, but not with intent the way we can. Not even animals have as much of a capacity to intentionally change things as we have.
Here's a convoluted illustration: If you have two things in peril, one animate and the other inanimate, and two things (also one animate and one inanimate) nearby in a position to save only one of them, the one with importance is the one with the capacity to save one of the subjects in peril, and this being will choose to save the animate being at the expense of the inanimate object in peril. Meanwhile, the inanimate object who is standing by will continue to neither contribute to the rescue nor... do anything, actually. I hope that makes sense.

Just because there are more stars than anything else in the universe doesn't necessarily mean we are insignificant. For all we know, God could have said to himself during creation, "Y'know what would look cool?" and then decorated the sky for us.

[carpedm9587]

You assume too much when you think that pro-choice favors the woman.
You have to forget the scarring on many women that happens later when they want but can't have children or when they regret the abortion.

So the state should step in so that the woman cannot make a choice she might regret?

You have to forget the eugenics/racism interests that favor reducing the population of 'minorities'

Umm.. I am aware of no such agenda in the pro-choice community.

Then there is the use of these women as pawns for political power by promoting abortions among them.

Sorry - but I don't subscribe to these conspiracy theories. One could equally say that the right uses infants as pawns for political power. The whole notion seems ridiculous to me.

Is this the way to favor the women's interests?

The point was that the left ignores the child (not even acknowledging it is a life) to preserve the choice of the woman - subjugating life to freedom. The right ignores the autnonomy and rights of the woman to preserve the life of the child - subjugating freedom to life.

I find neither position tenable.

[carpedm9587]

Whew! Does that means I can get a puppy now?

No.

But you CAN have unprotected sex...

[carpedm9587]

Bingo. Stars don't feel physical or emotional pain, therefore I don't care if they die. There's only one star whose death I care about and that's ours, but not for its own sake. I care about it because the death of our sun necessarily means the death of all life on earth. We are more important than stars because we think and we feel and we suffer and experience things in ways stars never can. If I saw my neighbour outside beating up a toaster, I'd think "what an odd neighbour" but I wouldn't stop the beating. If I saw my neighbour outside beating an animal or a child, I would stop it. The animal or child is more important than an inanimate object.

But you are necessarily measuring these things from a human perspective, essentially maintaining the human egocentrism. To us, we are the most important thing in the universe. To the universe, we just are. And to god...? Apparently he/she/it is narrowly focused on humanity, which fits perfectly with... human egocentrism.

I would say that part of my reason is this: our ability to think means we can intentionally affect change in our surroundings. Stars change their surroundings too, to an extent, but not with intent the way we can. Not even animals have as much of a capacity to intentionally change things as we have.
Here's a convoluted illustration: If you have two things in peril, one animate and the other inanimate, and two things (also one animate and one inanimate) nearby in a position to save only one of them, the one with importance is the one with the capacity to save one of the subjects in peril, and this being will choose to save the animate being at the expense of the inanimate object in peril. Meanwhile, the inanimate object who is standing by will continue to neither contribute to the rescue nor... do anything, actually. I hope that makes sense.

So, by your measure...if a scenario were ever to develop where allowing a single person to die would preserve an entire galaxy, the human person should be saved and the galaxy forfeited because the person is sentient and the galaxy is not? And there is no sense in you, whatsoever, that this smacks of arrogance and egocentrism?

Just because there are more stars than anything else in the universe doesn't necessarily mean we are insignificant. For all we know, God could have said to himself during creation, "Y'know what would look cool?" and then decorated the sky for us.

Wow. So the purpose of all existence is humanity, and everything else is for our benefit? And then you wonder why I find there is a certain degree of arrogance and humancentrism to religions?

[mikewhitney]

No.

But you CAN have unprotected sex...

I'm sorry. But you haven't risen to sufficient status to determine morality.

[carpedm9587]

I'm sorry. But you haven't risen to sufficient status to determine morality.

Certainly not beyond my own...

[Cow Poke]

The right ignores the autnonomy and rights of the woman to preserve the life of the child - subjugating freedom to life.

I always try to ignore autnonomy, cause I don't know what it is. But let's think about this....

When the woman terminates (or causes or allows to be terminated) the child, she destroys his/her life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - the oft cited inalienable rights.

If the woman does NOT terminate the child, the woman may suffer temporary 'liberty' to some degree, but does not give up life or pursuit of happiness, and the child still has life, and has the opportunity to experience liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Without life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness don't exist.

[carpedm9587]

I always try to ignore autnonomy, cause I don't know what it is. But let's think about this....

When the woman terminates (or causes or allows to be terminated) the child, she destroys his/her life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - the oft cited inalienable rights.

If the woman does NOT terminate the child, the woman may suffer temporary 'liberty' to some degree, but does not give up life or pursuit of happiness, and the child still has life, and has the opportunity to experience liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Without life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness don't exist.

Yes...it doesn't. But you are essentially making my point. The right values life over liberty. The left values liberty and does not see it as a trade at all because they do not recognize the unborn child as a human life. I see it as a trade because I do. But a human being has autonomy - and to forcefully sacrifice that autonomy is not something I can do. Neither can I forcefully sacrifice life. That is why the abortion discussion creates a dilemma that can ONLY be solved by creating a context where that choice need not be made.

[Cow Poke]

Yes...it doesn't. But you are essentially making my point.

Nope. Did not.

The right values life over liberty.

Because it's a fact that liberty without life is absolutely useless.

The left values liberty and does not see it as a trade at all because they do not recognize the unborn child as a human life.

You mean the same left that pitches a hissy about "client deniers", but they deny what science can clearly prove - if it's not "human life" in the womb, what is it?

I see it as a trade because I do. But a human being has autonomy - and to forcefully sacrifice that autonomy is not something I can do.

This is word vomit.

Neither can I forcefully sacrifice life. That is why the abortion discussion creates a dilemma that can ONLY be solved by creating a context where that choice need not be made.

You just don't have the courage to admit that life clearly outranks a temporary PARTIAL restriction on "liberty".

The pregnant woman can still do many things - it's not like her life comes to a complete stop for 9 months --- that's just downright goofy.

It's a TEMPORARY PARTIAL restriction resulting from (the vast majority of the time) a decision she made.