[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[The New California Republic]

I was meaning it's a morally relevant factor in the situation as a whole.

Recall that our discussion has to do with what is, and is not, a person. Not the situation as a while.

I was broadening it because it is absolutely relevant to the discussion as a whole, since the discussion is about abortion after all, not strictly only about personhood in total isolation.

Abortion is not "punishment", it is not being classed as such, so I'm not quite sure where you are getting that from.

Perhaps punishment is the wrong word. Nevertheless, I take it as axiomatic that no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property save on account of some misconduct - eg, attempted rape, assault, home Invasion. But it is impossible for an involuntary act to constitute misconduct. Ergo, if the fetus is a person, then her involuntary actions are insufficient justification for any action that would deprive her of her life.

See how it all comes back around to whether or not the fetus is a person?

It doesn't really, as people don't have the right to use the body of another against their will, so the personhood aspect is ultimately irrelevant, unless you are implicitly wanting to give the fetus a right that no other person has...?

Also, note that even if an act is involuntary it is still possible to act against them, it is no barrier to acting. Consider for example a person who is not compos mentis and is using the body of another against the other's will, the act is involuntary, but if the only way to stop what is happening from continuing is for the latter to kill the former, then that is justified. The only alternative would be to let the situation continue.

[Limonovshchina]

I define a person as of now a born member of homo sapiens sapiens. It's a clear, concise, practical and inclusive definition for a person which is still connected to reality and does not depend on faculties I'd prefer which not all people arguably share or how 'typical' I think a human is.

And you exclude artificial intelligences, alien species, and unborn members of your own species because...?

Former and medial do not exist to our knowledge as of now and the latter for reasons I already mentioned.

People without the capacity to exercise reason would be excluded from your definition

Having humanity, those without the capacity to exercise reason would still be "of a rational nature." "Having the capacity to exercise reason" and "having a rational nature" are different things.

Not really.

which would necessarily have to degrade the mother exercising their will over said fetus. A mother, who is more of a person than a fetus is.

I don't see how setting limits on a person's ability to dispose of their own children is in any way degrading.

Sounds like a you problem.

Also a minor detail, you define person as an object, which was probably a mistake on your part, but still.

Nope. People are objects. An object is just a thing that has its own existence - as opposed to a property, which shares in the existence of another thing.

Alright, so let me correct you. People are subjects, not objects.

[Rifts Earth]

Recall that our discussion has to do with what is, and is not, a person. Not the situation as a while.

I was broadening it because it is absolutely relevant to the discussion as a whole, since the discussion is about abortion after all, not strictly only about personhood in total isolation.

I will only accept this broadening of the topic if you concede that the fetus is a person.

Perhaps punishment is the wrong word. Nevertheless, I take it as axiomatic that no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property save on account of some misconduct - eg, attempted rape, assault, home Invasion. But it is impossible for an involuntary act to constitute misconduct. Ergo, if the fetus is a person, then her involuntary actions are insufficient justification for any action that would deprive her of her life.

See how it all comes back around to whether or not the fetus is a person?

It doesn't really, as people don't have the right to use the body of another against their will, so the personhood aspect is ultimately irrelevant, unless you are implicitly wanting to give the fetus a right that no other person has...?

In general, people have a right to live in a place where they can survive. If the fetus is a person, then she has the right to continue to live where she can survive. At this present time, the sets "places where she can survive" and "her mother's womb" are coextensive.

Also, note that even if an act is involuntary it is still possible to act against them, it is no barrier to acting. Consider for example a person who is not compos mentis and is using the body of another against the other's will, the act is involuntary, but if the only way to stop what is happening from continuing is for the latter to kill the former, then that is justified. The only alternative would be to let the situation continue.

I guess I just don't see the analogy. Sure, the man may not understand what he's doing, but he's still choosing to do it.

[Spirit of Hope]

I was broadening it because it is absolutely relevant to the discussion as a whole, since the discussion is about abortion after all, not strictly only about personhood in total isolation.

I will only accept this broadening of the topic if you concede that the fetus is a person.

Fetus isn't a person until the third trimester, doesn't have the brain structure to be a person until then.

It doesn't really, as people don't have the right to use the body of another against their will, so the personhood aspect is ultimately irrelevant, unless you are implicitly wanting to give the fetus a right that no other person has...?

In general, people have a right to live in a place where they can survive. If the fetus is a person, then she has the right to continue to live where she can survive. At this present time, the sets "places where she can survive" and "her mother's womb" are coextensive.

1) I don't think I've ever seen "a right to live in a place where they can survive" before. Please explain where you derive this right from.

2) A person does not get to take away other peoples rights, they must have a justification to take away a persons right. That justification must be in keeping with the level of demand they are asking. Since demanding a woman go through with pregnancy is demanding they face the possibility of death, a high likelihood of surgery, and basically inevitable hospitalization you have to have a high justification. Plus turning them into a slave. I have not seen that justification presented.

[The New California Republic]

I was broadening it because it is absolutely relevant to the discussion as a whole, since the discussion is about abortion after all, not strictly only about personhood in total isolation.

I will only accept this broadening of the topic if you concede that the fetus is a person.

It doesn't require your acceptance whatsoever, as it's not broadening it at all, it's bringing the discussion back completely to the topic of the thread, which I am entirely justified in doing. If you want to exclusively have a personhood discussion then you will need to create a new thread for that, as it doesn't belong here.

It doesn't really, as people don't have the right to use the body of another against their will, so the personhood aspect is ultimately irrelevant, unless you are implicitly wanting to give the fetus a right that no other person has...?

In general, people have a right to live in a place where they can survive. If the fetus is a person, then she has the right to continue to live where she can survive. At this present time, the sets "places where she can survive" and "her mother's womb" are coextensive.

Nope, that reduces the woman to merely being a "place" rather than a person in her own right, so no, your argument just doesn't hold.

Also, note that even if an act is involuntary it is still possible to act against them, it is no barrier to acting. Consider for example a person who is not compos mentis and is using the body of another against the other's will, the act is involuntary, but if the only way to stop what is happening from continuing is for the latter to kill the former, then that is justified. The only alternative would be to let the situation continue.

I guess I just don't see the analogy. Sure, the man may not understand what he's doing, but he's still choosing to do it.

It's pretty simple to understand and clearly directly relevant to what you are talking about. And no, someone who is not compos mentis is incapable of making choices as such, as shown in law involving cases where someone is not compos mentis and thus not liable under the law, so there is no choice involved, and as such it is involuntary. So long story short: it is possible to act against someone/something that is involuntarily doing something, such as for example violating one's bodily sovereignty, that may include the fetus.

[Rifts Earth]

And you exclude artificial intelligences, alien species, and unborn members of your own species because...?

Former and medial do not exist to our knowledge as of now and the latter for reasons I already mentioned.

I suppose I expect the definition of a natural kind to be based entirely on intrinsic, rather than extrinsic, properties, and to be sufficiently general so as to include as yet unencountered entities.

Having humanity, those without the capacity to exercise reason would still be "of a rational nature." "Having the capacity to exercise reason" and "having a rational nature" are different things.

Not really.

"Having the capacity to exercise reason" is a matter of being able to exercise a certain faculty.

"Having a rational natire" is a matter of belonging to a certain natural kind.

How are these the same?

I don't see how setting limits on a person's ability to dispose of their own children is in any way degrading.

Sounds like a you problem.

Well, unless you can answer these sorts of questions, I will continue to do everything in my power to make it the mother's problem.

Nope. People are objects. An object is just a thing that has its own existence - as opposed to a property, which shares in the existence of another thing.

Alright, so let me correct you. People are subjects, not objects.

Does a subject not have its own existence?

[Rifts Earth]

I will only accept this broadening of the topic if you concede that the fetus is a person.

It doesn't require your acceptance whatsoever, as it's not broadening it at all, it's bringing the discussion back completely to the topic of the thread, which I am entirely justified in doing. If you want to exclusively have a personhood discussion then you will need to create a new thread for that, as it doesn't belong here.

What the hell are you talking about? There's no point in having a discussion about the situation as a whole unless we agree on what the situation is.

In general, people have a right to live in a place where they can survive. If the fetus is a person, then she has the right to continue to live where she can survive. At this present time, the sets "places where she can survive" and "her mother's womb" are coextensive.

Nope, that reduces the woman to merely being a "place" rather than a person in her own right, so no, your argument just doesn't hold.

Ah, so you're saying that a woman is reducible to her uterus?

There is more to a woman than her womb, but the womb is still a place.

I guess I just don't see the analogy. Sure, the man may not understand what he's doing, but he's still choosing to do it.

It's pretty simple to understand and clearly directly relevant to what you are talking about. And no, someone who is not compos mentis is incapable of making choices as such, as shown in law involving cases where someone is not compos mentis and thus not liable under the law, so there is no choice involved, and as such it is involuntary. So long story short: it is possible to act against someone/something that is involuntarily doing something, such as for example violating one's bodily sovereignty, that may include the fetus.

You seem to think that the law is relevant here. It's not.

Someone can make a choice without being liable under the law.

So even though he isn't liable for the choice, he still made the choice, and thus violence is justified.

[Limonovshchina]

Not really.

"Having the capacity to exercise reason" is a matter of being able to exercise a certain faculty.

"Having a rational natire" is a matter of belonging to a certain natural kind.

How are these the same?

They are by definition, otherwise the latter would not really mean anything in the real world.

Sounds like a you problem.

Well, unless you can answer these sorts of questions, I will continue to do everything in my power to make it the mother's problem.

I'm flattered by you implying that the fate of pregnant women is in my hands, but I doubt me 'answering your questions' would stop you anyway.

Alright, so let me correct you. People are subjects, not objects.

Does a subject not have its own existence?

Wrong question. You need to read more philosophy, if you do not know what a subject is.

[Rifts Earth]

"Having the capacity to exercise reason" is a matter of being able to exercise a certain faculty.

"Having a rational natire" is a matter of belonging to a certain natural kind.

How are these the same?

They are by definition, otherwise the latter would not really mean anything in the real world.

Alright, let's come at this from a different angle.

Can we agree that cats are of a four-legged nature? Ie, it is in some sense natural for a cat to have four legs?

Well, unless you can answer these sorts of questions, I will continue to do everything in my power to make it the mother's problem.

I'm flattered by you implying that the fate of pregnant women is in my hands, but I doubt me 'answering your questions' would stop you anyway.

If you could convince me that the fetus is not a person, I would cease to support the pro-life cause.

Does a subject not have its own existence?

Wrong question. You need to read more philosophy, if you do not know what a subject is.

I understand that I'm using an idiosyncratic definition of the word "object." I'm trying to find a good translation of the Latin "substantia" into modern English, and there isn't one.

In point of fact, it is precisely philosophical investigation that led me to the definition of person that I use. The exact words are "naturae rationabilis individua substantia."

[The New California Republic]

It doesn't require your acceptance whatsoever, as it's not broadening it at all, it's bringing the discussion back completely to the topic of the thread, which I am entirely justified in doing. If you want to exclusively have a personhood discussion then you will need to create a new thread for that, as it doesn't belong here.

What the hell are you talking about? There's no point in having a discussion about the situation as a whole unless we agree on what the situation is.

Well that's news to me and to everyone else here, as there have been several abortion threads where discussion has been managed perfectly fine without agreement on the personhood aspect being a prerequisite, so fuck knows why you are trying to make it one now.

Nope, that reduces the woman to merely being a "place" rather than a person in her own right, so no, your argument just doesn't hold.

Ah, so you're saying that a woman is reducible to her uterus?

There is more to a woman than her womb, but the womb is still a place.

It's you that was reducing her to mere place in that example to the exclusion of everything else, not me.

It's pretty simple to understand and clearly directly relevant to what you are talking about. And no, someone who is not compos mentis is incapable of making choices as such, as shown in law involving cases where someone is not compos mentis and thus not liable under the law, so there is no choice involved, and as such it is involuntary. So long story short: it is possible to act against someone/something that is involuntarily doing something, such as for example violating one's bodily sovereignty, that may include the fetus.

You seem to think that the law is relevant here. It's not.

Of course the law is relevant to abortion and discussing whether someone can act against another who isn't choosing to do something.

Someone can make a choice without being liable under the law.

It's generally considered, even outside the law, that someone who is not compos mentis is incapable of making decisions.

So even though he isn't liable for the choice, he still made the choice, and thus violence is justified.

No, there was no choice made, a person who is not compos mentis is incapable of choice.

[Limonovshchina]

They are by definition, otherwise the latter would not really mean anything in the real world.

Alright, let's come at this from a different angle.

Can we agree that cats are of a four-legged nature? Ie, it is in some sense natural for a cat to have four legs?

No, because there are cats of a three-legged nature or otherwise of a nature other than a four-legged nature. Are they not cats?

I'm flattered by you implying that the fate of pregnant women is in my hands, but I doubt me 'answering your questions' would stop you anyway.

If you could convince me that the fetus is not a person, I would cease to support the pro-life cause.

Haha, good joke buddy. I'm sure you would.

[Rifts Earth]

What the hell are you talking about? There's no point in having a discussion about the situation as a whole unless we agree on what the situation is.

Well that's news to me and to everyone else here, as there have been several abortion threads where discussion has been managed perfectly fine without agreement on the personhood aspect being a prerequisite, so fuck knows why you are trying to make it one now.

Perhaps because the entirety of my case depends on the answer to the question "is the fetus a person?" and I view everything else as Tankie Obsfuscation?

Ah, so you're saying that a woman is reducible to her uterus?

There is more to a woman than her womb, but the womb is still a place.

It's you that was reducing her to mere place in that example to the exclusion of everything else, not me.

My exact words:

In general, people have a right to live in a place where they can survive. If the fetus is a person, then she has the right to continue to live where she can survive. At this present time, the sets "places where she can survive" and "her mother's womb" are coextensive.

Show me where I reduced a woman to her womb. All I did was point out that the only place the fetus can survive is inside of her mother's womb (which is true).

You seem to think that the law is relevant here. It's not.

Of course the law is relevant to abortion and discussing whether someone can act against another who isn't choosing to do something.

I don't see why something that changes depending on where you are and when you live, and is often times demonstrably out of sync with the principles of justice, should have any relevance to our discussion.

Someone can make a choice without being liable under the law.

It's generally considered, even outside the law, that someone who is not compos mentis is incapable of making decisions.

What is "generally considered" has nothing to do with what is ontologically occurring. A choice isn't some kind of social construct, it is the fixing of the will upon a definite goal. In the case of someone who is non compos mentis, he clearly has a will (otherwise the man would do nothing), and it is clearly fixed upon a definite goal (in this case, a woman). Ergo, a choice was made, regardless of what the government says.

[Rifts Earth]

Alright, let's come at this from a different angle.

Can we agree that cats are of a four-legged nature? Ie, it is in some sense natural for a cat to have four legs?

No, because there are cats of a three-legged nature or otherwise of a nature other than a four-legged nature. Are they not cats?

So whatever a thing happens to be, that is its nature to you?

If you could convince me that the fetus is not a person, I would cease to support the pro-life cause.

Haha, good joke buddy. I'm sure you would.

What do you mean? What would be the point of being pro-life if I didn't believe that the fetus is morally relevant?

[Necroghastia]

If you could convince me that the fetus is not a person, I would cease to support the pro-life cause.

Prove the fetus is a person.

[The New California Republic]

Well that's news to me and to everyone else here, as there have been several abortion threads where discussion has been managed perfectly fine without agreement on the personhood aspect being a prerequisite, so fuck knows why you are trying to make it one now.

Perhaps because the entirety of my case depends on the answer to the question "is the fetus a person?" and I view everything else as Tankie Obsfuscation?

I'm going to repeat what you said earlier as it is pertinent here: "What the hell are you talking about?"

It's you that was reducing her to mere place in that example to the exclusion of everything else, not me.

My exact words:

In general, people have a right to live in a place where they can survive. If the fetus is a person, then she has the right to continue to live where she can survive. At this present time, the sets "places where she can survive" and "her mother's womb" are coextensive.

Show me where I reduced a woman to her womb. All I did was point out that the only place the fetus can survive is inside of her mother's womb (which is true).

You based the entirety of your judgement on the concept of place rather than her as a person, therefore you reduced her to a place.

Of course the law is relevant to abortion and discussing whether someone can act against another who isn't choosing to do something.

I don't see why something that changes depending on where you are and when you live, and is often times demonstrably out of sync with the principles of justice, should have any relevance to our discussion.

Well that's entirely on you then, but the law is demonstrably relevant here.

It's generally considered, even outside the law, that someone who is not compos mentis is incapable of making decisions.

What is "generally considered" has nothing to do with what is ontologically occurring. A choice isn't some kind of social construct, it is the fixing of the will upon a definite goal. In the case of someone who is non compos mentis, he clearly has a will (otherwise the man would do nothing), and it is clearly fixed upon a definite goal (in this case, a woman). Ergo, a choice was made, regardless of what the government says.

Nope, a person who is not compos mentis is incapable of choice, and therefore the example is equivalent, in showing that people can act against someone/something that is not choosing to do whatever specific thing in question it is that they are doing. And it has nothing to do with the government outside the realm of the law, it's a pretty basic dictionary definition that you are fighting against:

compos mentis
adjective
UK /ˌkɒm.pɒs ˈmen.tɪs/ US /ˌkɑːm.pəs ˈmen.t̬əs/

able to think clearly and be in control of and responsible for your actions

Thus, someone who is not compos mentis is incapable of choice.

[Limonovshchina]

No, because there are cats of a three-legged nature or otherwise of a nature other than a four-legged nature. Are they not cats?

So whatever a thing happens to be, that is its nature to you?

Sure, why not.

Haha, good joke buddy. I'm sure you would.

What do you mean? What would be the point of being pro-life if I didn't believe that the fetus is morally relevant?

To fish responses by being deliberately contrarian on an issue which you'd know through observation that a consensus de facto exists and by philosophizing endlessly about inconsequential, meaningless things to keep on fishing for responses just for the sake of being contrarian. Many such cases! Of course, you could also actually believe in what you advocate, which I don't really believe to be the case but the end result would be the same regardless. People aren't convinced away from their opinions by ways of internet discussion.

[Saiwania]

It looks like SCOTUS is fixing to overturn Roe v. Wade in June of next year. It's going to be pretty interesting if this happens. I don't see most Democrats standing for this. It is like the Left's sacred cow like Guns are to the Right.

[San Lumen]

It looks like SCOTUS is fixing to overturn Roe v. Wade in June of next year. It's going to be pretty interesting if this happens. I don't see most Democrats standing for this. It is like the Left's sacred cow like Guns are to the Right.

Fixing? Its not going to be interesting it will be horrible. It would turn off so many women to the Republicans it could possibly save the House and Senate for Republicans and maybe even a few governors. Put politics aside the amount of suffering and pain it would cause is too depressing to think about.

[Saiwania]

Fixing? Its not going to be interesting it will be horrible. It would turn off so many women to the Republicans it could possibly save the House and Senate for Republicans and maybe even a few governors. Put politics aside the amount of suffering and pain it would cause is too depressing to think about.

That is what makes it more interesting from my perspective. The US is probably going to become even more ungovernable unless a loophole or law of some sort is quickly passed in spite of certain Republican's wishes to outlaw abortion. There are women in conservative families that aren't or won't be ready to bear children either or don't want to. They'll find a way to get that abortion if it isn't within the US or where they live.

Lets face it, abortion is an issue because at least some women are in favor of outlawing it. This isn't a 100% male imposed project to want to control women's bodies. Just that it is the next effect if most of politics have men in positions of power/authority.

[Great Algerstonia]

Ban abortion so that the USA can collapse because I hate this dumb country

[San Lumen]

Fixing? Its not going to be interesting it will be horrible. It would turn off so many women to the Republicans it could possibly save the House and Senate for Republicans and maybe even a few governors. Put politics aside the amount of suffering and pain it would cause is too depressing to think about.

That is what makes it more interesting from my perspective. The US is probably going to become even more ungovernable unless a loophole or law of some sort is quickly passed in spite of certain Republican's wishes to outlaw abortion. There are women in conservative families that aren't or won't be ready to bear children either or don't want to. They'll find a way to get that abortion if it isn't within the US or where they live.

Lets face it, abortion is an issue because at least some women are in favor of outlawing it. This isn't a 100% male imposed project to want to control women's bodies. Just that it is the next effect if most of politics have men in positions of power/authority.

Nothing is interesting about it. It would be horrible. Nothing about it would be good.

[Saiwania]

Nothing is interesting about it. It would be horrible. Nothing about it would be good.

I like seeing the chaos and unrest it could possibly forment. Its crucial that ways to undermine or defeat democracy in favor of a new order be realized. I don't believe abortion alone will be enough, but it is a stepping stone to a coup. We just need the strongman/leader to rally behind.

[San Lumen]

Nothing is interesting about it. It would be horrible. Nothing about it would be good.

I like seeing the chaos and unrest it could possibly forment. Its crucial that ways to undermine or defeat democracy in favor of a new order be realized. I don't believe abortion alone will be enough, but it is a stepping stone to a coup. We just need the strongman/leader to rally behind.

What? Are you barking mad?

[Fauzjhia]

Nothing is interesting about it. It would be horrible. Nothing about it would be good.

I like seeing the chaos and unrest it could possibly forment. Its crucial that ways to undermine or defeat democracy in favor of a new order be realized. I don't believe abortion alone will be enough, but it is a stepping stone to a coup. We just need the strongman/leader to rally behind.

the USA, turning their back on abortion, will have effect on that right in other countries.
what's the point of signing a treaty when a major partner do not respect their engagements ?

I fail to see anything positive coming from overturning Roe vs Wade

[Great Algerstonia]

Nothing is interesting about it. It would be horrible. Nothing about it would be good.

I like seeing the chaos and unrest it could possibly forment. Its crucial that ways to undermine or defeat democracy in favor of a new order be realized. I don't believe abortion alone will be enough, but it is a stepping stone to a coup. We just need the strongman/leader to rally behind.

Nancy Pelosi is our strongwoman!