The Glade 4.0

No argument was lost. You didn't even deal with the earlier point I made about sex not being a contract with the as-yet-unconceived. (Such a contract is impossible.)

As for appeal to popularity, we're discussing politics -- that's what they are.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Because it has nothing to do with a contract. It's a consequence for an action. Such as, if I eat enough fattening foods, I may actually gain weight. I have no contract with the food. It just is. And then no one else is responsible for that weight gain other than me. Only problem in this case is the life of an unborn child is at stake. And if I deal with the fact that we err on the side of caution and assume the unborn fetus has rights, then it would equivalent to murder to terminate said fetus unless it also infringes on the right of life of the mother (which I classify under self-defense). Everyone first has a right to life for themselves before another.

We're trying to deal with this issue in a logical manner which is why I used your hyperbole. If we use logic and get away from the political aspects, an appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy.

Well - you have the right to live, but do you have the right to live off another?

And so we should ban dieting and excersize for the obese?

You could also argue that someone coming into your home to warm up is a very possible consequence of leaving the door unlocked. Does that mean you cannot kick them out?

Also, let's assume you did invite someone into your home. Can you not revoke that invitation at any time and turn them out? It is, after all, your home.

This is the core of a rights-based philosophy - your rights only extend so far, until they begin infringing upon mine. You do not have a right to live off another person without their permission.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Wow, you're really stretching that one.

No, of course not. But a fetus isn't involved. Some consequences are reversible, some aren't. Live with them and deal if they aren't. For instance, emphysema isn't reversible. In fact, it's a denegerative disease. It just is. That's the consequence for smoking sometimes. I don't care if you want to smoke, eat, or have lots of sex. Just deal with the consequences of the actions.

It's the same argument. The "Pregnancy is a consequence of sex" argument is an irrelevant red herring that says nothing about whether or not people have a right to attempt to remove that consequence after the fact. Broken Bones can be a consequence of playing sports. Does that mean we shouldn't allow someone to set a broken bone or put the limb in a cast if they broke a bone while playing football? Of course not. The "consequence" argument has no bearing on this, because there are treatments for that consequence.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Pregnancy is a completely reversible consequence, unless one artificially imposes limitations to prevent reversing it.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

None of your examples involve harming another individual. So no - they are not the same argument.

We're going in circles here. Because it involves another human. You're essentially arguing right to "convienence" should trump a right to life, if you agree to my assumption. Since you probably don't agree to my assumption about erring on the side of life, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I am completely within my rights to turn a guest out of my home for any reason, even if I KNOW that doing so is going to kill them. The moment I rescind my invitation, they have no right to be there.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

That's certainly your most compelling argument. But I disagree with the analogy. It would be more akin to hiring a hitman (abortion doctor) to knock off your guest (the fetus) and then telling them to get out of your house so they can go to their doom. That would be illegal.

There is some truth to this, which is why i advocate inducing labor at all stages of the pregnancy rather than traditional "abortions." However, at a certain point one needs to be practical. If it's long before "viability," there is ultimately no difference between the two methods.

(Note that the "morning after pill" is just a refusal to let your guest even get a seat at the table.)

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

This argument falls apart Talya. I'm as pro choice as it gets, but you cannot turn away your own child out of your house knowing it will kill them. Its Child Abandonment.


Lets also differentiate "Life" from "Alive" furthermore "Life" is not the defining characteristic of what makes something murder. Killing a cow is not murder. Killing a deer is not murder. Nor for that matter, is scrubbing skin cells off your arm. All of these cause the death of living cells, but that isnt the issue.
The question is it killing a PERSON. Personhood requires sentience and sapience.

There are legal ways to abandon a child. Thousands of newborns are given up for adoption every single year, without the mother even holding them. However, when we sign the forms at the hospital and take the child as our own, we have legally engaged in a contract of custodianship.

This is again why I use "viability" as the dividing line. If the child might survive birth now, given proper care, terminating it in utero should be murder just as much as shooting the premature baby in the ICU would be murder. The method of incubation doesn't matter.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Sapience is often defined as wisdom, or the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgment- human level or higher intelligence. Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive.

So I could kill a person in a coma and not be charged with murder?
So I could kill a person in a vegatitive state and not be charged with murder?

Seems like a good definition if you'd like to start a eugenics program.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Yeah. See, while I agree with TheRiov in spirit (nobody can tell me that a lump of cells has a right to life without me laughing at them), the problem becomes one of definition. One could make a very convincing argument that a 2 month old child is not sapient at all. Want to make killing them legal? Obviously not.

Legal definitions need hard legal and logical reasons for their existence. We cannot go on "feelings" or the mythical "common sense." There is no scientific definition of "PERSONS." There was a time when women were not considered "PERSONS" under Canadian law. Personhood is just an arbitrary legality. Without an ironclad way to define and measure it, I'm fine with pushing it all the way back to conception. This doesn't change abortion much, though.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

No one has the right to kill another innocent human because they find that human inconvient for their current lifestyle.



Your entire position is based on your traditional emotional reaction to the statement "(nobody can tell me that a lump of cells has a right to life without me laughing at them)". You are a lump of cells. I am a lump of cells. Every human is a lump of cells. You're using a term to dehumanize the target so you can continue to support a position which you've long held.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Right - persons is subjective and we aren't talking legality we are talking morality. So two great reasons to not try to insert "personhood" into the argument.

Thanks.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Not at all. I'm using a rights-based argument to say it doesn't matter if they are persons. I have a right to rescind an invitation into my private property at any time, and kick someone out, regardless of the consequences to them. My body is my private property. I have no legal or moral obligation to let someone else live off of it.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Kind of beside the point, but that's not exactly true. The law recognizes a necessity excuse in that kind of situation, so even though the person would technically still be trespassing if they refused to leave, their crime would be legally excused (i.e. they would have the legal right to stay). Also, for the analogy to work with abortion, the danger to your guest upon leaving would have to be the result of your having invited them inside in the first place, in which case, you are legally responsible for protecting them from that harm.

None of that changes the underlying disagreement about abortion, of course, but I find the trespassing analogy gets used a lot in these conversations, and it really just doesn't work.

What about squatters rights?

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Your invitation was for the period of gestation. A known risk to the action of consenting to sex. Since you consented to that 9 month risk - its all yours if it comes to be - enjoy.

Honestly its horribly pathetic that a person who normally understands and accepts that individuals should take responsibility for their actions attempts such obvious cop outs on this issue.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

How do you feel about abortion in the event of rape? (ie no invitation)

There is no moral outcome as all possibilities (for our current level of technology) involve the infringement of rights. There should be no law made enforcing any outcome in this situation.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville