abortion

Originally posted by no1marauder
KJ:
Your attempting to claim it is sciences job to assign worth


Apparently then you can't read or write.

I missed that one!

Sorry, you are right I put that on you, I am in the wrong there.
I did say to you, again, sorry!

Now, do you mind showing me where I said what you claimed
I wanted to take away the rights of women? If you cannot I'd
say we both screwed up.
Kelly

Originally posted by no1marauder
Please stop responding to my posts if you don't favor criminal laws against abortion. I have repeatedly told you that is all I'm interested in. Parrot your moral assertions to someone else. And stop your crying!

You claimed I did, that I was in favor of crimminal laws against
abortion, so show me where I said this.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You claimed I did, that I was in favor of crimminal laws against
abortion, so show me where I said this.
Kelly

IF YOU DON'T FAVOR CRIMINAL LAWS AGAINST ABORTION, STOP RESPONDING TO MY POSTS! My discussion with Halitose and others presumes that since they believe that a fetus is a human being, it has basic fundamental rights like other human beings including, at a minimum, the right not to be "killed". Since you keep insisting that a fetus is a human being, logically you would have to support such laws, too, unless you don't believe in fundamental rights for any human beings. So, since you now are saying you don't believe in criminal laws against abortion (or are you? Why don't you state your position on criminal laws against abortion if you insist on responding to my posts) I must assume you either A) Don't believe that any human beings have fundamental rights; or B) Are being illogical. Which is it?

Originally posted by no1marauder
IF YOU DON'T FAVOR CRIMINAL LAWS AGAINST ABORTION, STOP RESPONDING TO MY POSTS! My discussion with Halitose and others presumes that since they believe that a fetus is a human being, it has basic fundamental rights like other human beings including, at a minimum, the right not to be "killed". Since you keep insisting that a fetus is a human being, lo ...[text shortened]... t believe that any human beings have fundamental rights; or B) Are being illogical. Which is it?

I'm sorry, you already accused me of saying I was against the
fundamental rights of women. I assumed you had something
I said to back that up. You have been responding to my posts,
and I will continue to respond to yours; if you like or not has
nothing to do with how or why I respond. I suggest you simply
get over yourself, you are not that important that I cannot respond
to anything you say simply because you tell me to. I did say I
was sorry for attaching you to something you did not say or imply,
I guess with all the times you have accussed me saying things
you were bound to get something right once in awhile.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm sorry, you already accused me of saying I was against the
fundamental rights of women. I assumed you had something
I said to back that up. You have been responding to my posts,
and I will continue to respond to yours; if you like or not has
nothing to do with how or why I respond. I suggest you simply
get over yourself, you are not that important ...[text shortened]... you have accussed me saying things
you were bound to get something right once in awhile.
Kelly

As usual, you absolutely refuse to discuss points raised by others or answer direct questions regarding your beliefs. You use more words to say nothing than anybody I've ever met. Please respond to the points in my last post.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Why merely "extreme negligence"? What about reckless behavior? What about not caring if the fetus-human "died" as a result of her behavior? The last could arguably be "depraved indifference" murder, which is second-degree murder in NY. Why should a fetus-human being's death be considered different from the death of any other human being?

Extreme negligence was howardgee's example. I did not rule out other forms of harm done by the mother to the fetus.

If the legal system recognizes the fetus as human, then its death should not be treated differently from the death of another human. However, not all deaths entail a legally culpable party. For example, there are miscarriages where the mother is not at fault, or miscarriages due to unavoidable accidents.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, not in a legal sense. Please re-read my post.

In this case, I believe the legal system has not made the most logical choice.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
In this case, I believe the legal system has not made the most logical choice.

So the carrying case (i.e. pregnant woman) could be criminally liable not merely for miscarriages but for any defects assuming any of the degrees of culpability under the criminal law. (i.e. gross negligence, recklessness, depraved indifference, intent). How about for behavior that entailed such a risk, but the condition did not occur? In law, this is also leads to criminal liability. Therefore, to go back to the examples I gave earlier, woman who did not eat right or exercise regularly or get certain prenatal tests or any of a myriad of other things that increase risk to the fetus-human, should be subject to the criminal law (endangering the welfare of a child for instance) under the new "fetus is a human being" legal theory. Correct? Do you really think that this would apply in only a small number of cases?

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
In this case, I believe the legal system has not made the most logical choice.

I believe the legal system has made the only possible choice, in a society based on fundamental rights under Natural Law theory. As I am attempting to show, a contrary choice would deprive a pregnant woman of her right to self-autonomy in toto without her consent.

Originally posted by no1marauder
IF YOU DON'T FAVOR CRIMINAL LAWS AGAINST ABORTION, STOP RESPONDING TO MY POSTS! My discussion with Halitose and others presumes that since they believe that a fetus is a human being, it has basic fundamental rights like other human beings including, at a minimum, the right not to be "killed". Since you keep insisting that a fetus is a human being, lo ...[text shortened]... t believe that any human beings have fundamental rights; or B) Are being illogical. Which is it?

No, I do not logically have to support anything of the sort. As I have
have pointed out, which you have chosen to ignore, laws do not
stop anything. Rights given by man, or taken away by man, do not
give value to the life within the woman. It is a matter of heart, your
attempt to pin me with the desire to control with the use of law, is
how you appear to want to operate, not how I desire to. Which I
believe you fail to see yet accuse me of nonetheless.

Would you change your tune and support anti abortion law if that
were to occur, because it would be the law of the land? Do you
think it is fundamental to human rights that all women have the
right to choose no matter what the law says?

If it is simply a fundamental right in spite of the law of man, than you
too have created something of a value you are holding others to. Your
complaints about personhood as being something people make up is
only different as to the nature of what you think everyone should
recognize as a common good or right, the only difference between
your fundamental right of choice and personhood, is the verbiage
under discussion. You acknowledge a women's right to pick, and
choose what it is they do with their bodies, because…; others claim
pre-born lives may or should have rights at different stages of life,
because… Both are playing with what you both think are universal
truths as if simply saying them makes them both true.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, I do not logically have to support anything of the sort. As I have
have pointed out, which you have chosen to ignore, laws do not
stop anything. Rights given by man, or taken away by man, do not
give value to the life within the woman. It is a matter of heart, your
attempt to pin me with the desire to control with the use of law, is
how you appear ...[text shortened]... what you both think are universal
truths as if simply saying them makes them both true.
Kelly

More blowhardery. I have explained my political philosophy which is line with this Nation's Founders in this thread http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=32771. Read it and try to understand it.

The short version is that I believe people have fundamental rights that must be respected by others because that is our nature. Laws which violate people's fundamental rights are unjust and void and need not be obeyed. Countries which enact such laws are tyrannies and their governments should be overthrown, by revolution if need be, and replaced by governments which respect Man's fundamental rights. The only purpose of government and laws is to protect and enhance our fundamental rights.

Got it? The rest of your post is your usual tripe and refusal to clearly state your position. Please directly answer the questions I asked of you and clearly delinate your position for or against criminal laws against abortion. Please also state whether you disagree with me and this country's founders that human beings have inalienable, fundamental rights. Please just say something that makes any sense.

Originally posted by no1marauder
So the carrying case (i.e. pregnant woman) could be criminally liable not merely for miscarriages but for any defects assuming any of the degrees of culpability under the criminal law. (i.e. gross negligence, recklessness, depraved indifference, intent). How about for behavior that entailed such a risk, but the condition did not occur? In law, this is al ...[text shortened]... egal theory. Correct? Do you really think that this would apply in only a small number of cases?

I don't see a precedent for this type of hysterical over-criminalization of even the slightest of neglectful/harmful behaviors by parents towards their children. For example, we aren't hauling parents to jail because they refuse to vaccinate their children, even though there is a risk of illness or even death from disease. If we agree that the current laws are not too intrusive on the parents' right to raise their child as they wish, then why would we fear those same rights being applied to a fetus, if they were deemed human beings by the state?

Originally posted by no1marauder
More blowhardery. I have explained my political philosophy which is line with this Nation's Founders in this thread http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=32771. Read it and try to understand it.

The short version is that I believe people have fundamental rights that must be respected by others because that is our nature. Laws ...[text shortened]... man beings have inalienable, fundamental rights. Please just say something that makes any sense.

In short you believe people have fundamental rights, and you believe
you have the right to say when they are worthy of being called 'people'
too, which is no different other than the spelling of 'personhood', the
same results for the same reasons, just different words being used
in the justification of the abortions.
Kelly

Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]Nemesio: I am also very interested in figuring out a proper criterion for personhood (in terms of both necessary and sufficient conditions). I have been doing some research on the matter, and if you allow me some time over the next week or so, I will offer up for discussion some of the main criteria that have been proposed before in the literature.
...[text shortened]... quest for a philosophically and scientifically based theory about the personhood of the zygote.[/b]

Those weren't my words, but LemonJello's.

Nemesio

Ivanhoe:

Where is your definition of individual that you said was coming?

Nemesio