Is Ron Paul the only GOP candidate that will legalize gay marriage?

[East]

I believe smokers have a right to smoke themselves to death. That does not mean I believe they have a right to do it in a confined space where others will be harmed by it, particularly where they have not entered that space for the purpose of inhaling someone else's smoke. I certainly believe that people have a civic duty (not merely a right) to stop people harming others. If you think it is acceptable for someone to stand idly by when they believe that one person is killing another, then that it your opinion. It is not one that I share or respect.

I dont' need you to respect my POV but thanks for letting me know!:biggrin:.

[fredv3b]

There is something to the fact that someone willing to arbitrarily limit the rights of one group is quite likely to turn around and arbitrarily limit the rights of another. However, depending on your views abortion may not fall under that category.

Pip, Please could you explain why you believe it's more arbitrary to believe that a foetus has rights than to believe that it does not? Or, why it's more arbitrary for a foetus's rights to trump it's mother's rights than vica versa?

[Wintereis]

Pip, Please could you explain why you believe it's more arbitrary to believe that a foetus has rights than to believe that it does not? Or, why it's more arbitrary for a foetus's rights to trump it's mother's rights than vica versa?

I cannot speak for Pip, but your discussion gets to the very point why I refuse to choose sides on the topic of abortion. I think I have used this quote before on here, but here it is again: "The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.. John Stuart Mill. I use this as my personal moral compass.

The problem is, with the subject of abortion, you have two "potentially" living people, one entirely dependent upon the body of the other for their own life. So, you "potentially" have two conflicting and equal rights. The reason why I use potentially is because it entirely depends on ones definition of a living individual: What is life? :confused: Frankly, I do not feel that I can answer that question nor have i ever seen any adequate answer from any other source. For that reason, I do not chose sides on this subject.

[OrphanPip]

Pip, Please could you explain why you believe it's more arbitrary to believe that a foetus has rights than to believe that it does not? Or, why it's more arbitrary for a foetus's rights to trump it's mother's rights than vica versa?

I don't believe an unconscious collection of cells constitutes a human being, nor that potential human beings are morally relevant persons capable of being harmed.

Unless you believe it is always wrong to kill anything that is alive, from bacteria to weeds to a carrot at supper, then you'd have to determine what exactly makes humans morally relevant. If you say it is the genetic natural quality of humans, this relies on either a tautology that assumes the a priori value of humans arbitrarily (a la Christianity) or on speciesism (human beings are better than other living things because I am a human being). Neither position is really defensible beyond being popular prejudices.

What most of us will turn to is that humans have a greater awareness of their being, and that it is consciousness that is the relevant distinguishing factor that makes us different from a trout (if we even accept that human life has value greater than other life). Certainly, we extend this to animals as well, most of us think it is probably more wrong to kill a chimp than to kill a pigeon, or that it is more wrong to kill a dog than it is to kill a carrot. If it is consciousness that makes human life meaningful, a first trimester embryo does not think.

What distinguishes plants from animals? A major differences is the capacity to feel pain. Most people will agree that it is wrong to harm animals by causing them arbitrary pain (we tolerate it plenty in the food industry though). However, a first trimester embryo does not feel pain either, so it can't be harmed in that way.

What we are left with is that a fetus has a potential to be a human being. Many would say that conception is the point where potential is established. However, I would ask if we developed the technology to make an unfertilized egg develop into a human being, would then every egg in every mother in existence then be morally relevant and need to be protected? I don't think so. Nor is it wrong to say the potential life of that specific fetus began with the specific sperm and eggs that conceived it, so we can extend potentiality exponentially to absurd levels. In another thought experiment, if we had a magic hat that when put on a dog's head made them as smart as an adult human, would it suddenly become wrong to kill any dog because they all have the potential of being thinking persons? Potential strikes as an intuitive argument, but it is a troubling concept. Does it make sense that it is wrong to kill something which may possibly be a morally relevant being in the future? This seems as arbitrary as saying it is wrong to kill the brain dead because they used to be a morally relevant person. The same argument from potential can be applied backwards to sperm and egg. Maybe potential should matter, but why should a maybe and an if trump a definitely morally relevant being in the person of the mother.

Moreover, the likelihood of a conceived embryo to progress to a human being is less than 50% without intervention (and that is in a world with modern medical technology), for women over 45, 75% of pregnancies will end in miscarriage. Can we really say killing a first-trimester embryo is killing a potential human being when it is already highly unlikely to survive. Do we make a practice of policing anything else that happens with such overwhelming frequency?

As to the competition between fetal and maternal rights, if you even accept the fetus has any sort of rights: philosopher Judith Thomson makes a far better case than I could.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil1...homson.htm

And this is without getting into the utilitarian argument that abortion has been shown to limit systemic poverty, helps protect the rights of women who are oppressed in society through the imposition of the unpaid labour of child rearing, improves maternal health conditions, and improves the general health and welfare of children in society. Moreover, women will seek abortions no matter what, whether they are illegal or not, and when they are illegal it often ends badly for them.

[fredv3b]

Pip,

Thank you for your reply. I would be more grateful if you would answer my question. I did not challenge your support for abortion. I challenged your assertion that those who oppose abortion are being arbitrary.

I don't believe an unconscious collection of cells constitutes a human being, nor that potential human beings are morally relevant persons capable of being harmed.

I agree. Do you believe it is wrong to kill a new born baby? (It certainly isn't conscious in the way that you or I are.) If you believe that it is wrong, do you believe that killing it an hour before birth is wrong? Or an hour before that and so on? If you believe that it isn't wrong, what about an hour later on so on? Where do you draw the line? But far more importantly please explain why the line you draw isn't arbitrary.

If you believe that a pregant woman's right to liberty over her own body should simply over-ride whatever right to life the foetus would have should it be born at that point in gestation, please explain why that is less arbitrary than believing that the foetus's right to life should take precidence?

[Wintereis]

Pip, you have several good points when it pertains to the fetus prior to quickening and when it pertains to the social utility provided by allowing for the procedure. Though, I think I personally would say that an abortion performed after quickening certainly changes the dynamic. By the way, the way I used potential is very different from the way you are using it. My usage was to indicate the varying views of what we define life as, not the potential for life or what could occur within that life.

[OrphanPip]

I agree. Do you believe it is wrong to kill a new born baby? (It certainly isn't conscious in the way that you or I are.) If you believe that it is wrong, do you believe that killing it an hour before birth is wrong? Or an hour before that and so on? If you believe that it isn't wrong, what about an hour later on so on? Where do you draw the line? But far more importantly please explain why the line you draw isn't arbitrary.

If you believe that a pregant woman's right to liberty over her own body should simply over-ride whatever right to life the foetus would have should it be born at that point in gestation, please explain why that is less arbitrary than believing that the foetus's right to life should take precidence?

We need to bring in several more points to answer these questions.

To begin with we have to consider the deontologial legalistic ethics of our society, which grants rights to beings once they are recognized as human. From a practical standpoint, I support the extension of these rights to reasonable limits, I don't think it harms any clearly relevant persons to extend rights to a newborn, where as it does cause harm to extend the rights to a fetus.

I have to cut this short but I'll be back.

Edit: OK, I'm back home now.

To begin with the first part. Peter Singer has raised the point that an adult chimp is certainly more conscious and intelligent than a newborn human, so why do we allow experimentation on chimps and not newborns. And it may be true that a newborn is conscious enough that it would be wrong to kill them, or more controversially, as Singer has proposed, there may be nothing in and of itself wrong about killing a newborn (excluding how this effects other human beings). However, I don't think that question itself needs to be answered to consider when we should consider it wrong or right to kill a fetus. There is a point when a fetus is clearly not sentient, and it is clearly not capable of being removed from the mother and living. There is no infringement on the rights of the mother's body in removing an 8 month unborn child and placing it in an incubator. I don't think there is ever any basis for forcing a mother to carry a child to term. However, for practical purposes, and since we tend to live in society where we have to live with differing opinions, the first trimester is a useful marker because it will separate a clear point when a non-sentient being is killed rather than a moderately sentient being.

To go back to the work of Judith Thomson, a mother who chooses to bring a child to term is doing something good, but that doesn't mean choosing not to is wrong. It would be good for me to send 50% of the money I make to Africa, but there is no obligation for me to do this. We can all be attributed with causing death indirectly through certain inaction.

Drawing a line here isn't arbitrary, because we do not have perfect knowledge we can not know the exact moment. Thus, we are left with making a judgment, and the first trimester is a reasonable one because at this point we can be sure that the fetus is not sentient, does not feel pain, and that it isn't very likely to survive to term anyway. This is a matter of practical application of the ethical issues rather than an arbitrary decision of when a fetus is morally relevant and when it is not. I don't particularly think that a 6 month or even a newborn is fully morally relevant like an adult human, but I don't think it causes harm to recognize and treat them as if they were. To declare a fetus as a human being and fully morally relevant from conception makes no sense.

The second part is addressed in Thomson's article. There is no reason to conclude that any of us has a commitment to be used for saving the life of another. I don't have to give a kidney to any dying medical patient who requests one, so why would a mother be obligated to be used as a vessel for a fetus? That is of course if one even accepts that an unborn child counts as a morally relevant being.

One shouldn't have to demonstrate a negative if the positive hasn't been attempted.

[fredv3b]

Thanks for the reply.

I don't think it harms any clearly relevant persons to extend rights to a newborn, where as it does cause harm to extend the rights to a fetus.

So the mother's rights should over-ride those of the fetus? At any stage of gestation?

I don't think there is ever any basis for forcing a mother to carry a child to term.

Slightly off-topic but what right of the mother is compromised by forcing her to remain pregnant for just a little longer before giving birth?

Drawing a line here isn't arbitrary, because we do not have perfect knowledge we can not know the exact moment.

So basically you are saying that someone who comes to a significantly different conclusion than you must be being arbitrary, despite very imperfect knowledge? Is that right?

I don't have to give a kidney to any dying medical patient who requests one, so why would a mother be obligated to be used as a vessel for a fetus?

Not giving away a kidney is an inaction. Abortion is a positive action where a mother seeks the assistance of others to kill the fetus. What harm does it do a woman to remain pregnant?

[Maelstrom]

Unfortunately, what a current or future president claims he can or will do is not an indication of what will happen.

The Houses of Senates and Representatives both have to pass anything of that nature, and even though many of those individuals have been outed even though they were against it in the past does not mean that the future holds any certainty.

Also, the Americans who vote have a say.

America, unfortunately, is absolutely retarded. They did vote for Bush into a second term.

[OrphanPip]

So the mother's rights should over-ride those of the fetus? At any stage of gestation?

The fetus has no rights, it is not a morally relevant person. Let's turn this around, tell me why a fetus should have rights? What makes it special, what makes it a person?

Slightly off-topic but what right of the mother is compromised by forcing her to remain pregnant for just a little longer before giving birth?

The right to the autonomous use of her body.

So basically you are saying that someone who comes to a significantly different conclusion than you must be being arbitrary, despite very imperfect knowledge? Is that right?

No, and nowhere have I said anything of the sort. I have gone to great length to demonstrate several reasons why assuming the moral value of a fetus is problematic. We have imperfect knowledge, but we do not have the inability to identify extremes. Nature throws fuzzy areas at us, I can't say at what wavelength red light becomes orange, but there are certainly (for the non-colour blind at least) wavelengths of light which are definitely red and definitely orange. So, just because there is a point where a fetus becomes a person, and we can not be sure of where that point is, it does not follow that there are not several points along that development where we can be sure the fetus is not a person. Of course, we have to begin with a workable definition of a person to apply to the fetus. I have argued for pain and consciousness as values that defer moral relevancy on living things, both things a fetus lacks. I have addressed why notions of it being special for just being human rely on either superstition or mere prejudice.

You have done nothing at all to demonstrate why the fetus should be morally relevant.

Not giving away a kidney is an inaction. Abortion is a positive action where a mother seeks the assistance of others to kill the fetus. What harm does it do a woman to remain pregnant?

Apart from the numerous medical conditions. The right to the autonomous use of her body, not to be forced by society to be a vessel for others, reduced mobility, and the fact that having to give up a child once it is born is far more difficult than removing the fetus. Moreover, our society will certainly expect someone to take care of the babies. If we were to eliminate abortions in the developed world we would be tripling the number of children in the foster care programs. Then there is the socio-economic effects of withholding abortions which tend towards keeping women in low-income positions and leaving women stuck as a single parents, because it is far easier for men to skip out on a pregnancy. The legalization of abortion in the US saw a marked increase in the position of women in society, showing that forcing birth really does have an effect on the lives of women.

Not to mention the women who die from unsafe abortions when the practice is illegal, which accounts for 13% of maternal deaths worldwide (according to the WHO).

And, again, I repeat, on what grounds does the fetus have rights?