RE: Contradictory Dogma (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

SinergyNstrumpet -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 11:11:40 AM)




quote:

Declaring that you keep your head off in the delusional clouds of idealism doesn't change the contradiction of saying that an individual woman should be free to end the life of an inconvenient person but for the state to do the same is wrong.


You did not really address my point, predictable.

julia



DomKen -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 11:11:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

      Yeah, I'd like the whole incense and peppermints and marmalades skies, John Lennon, Louis Armstrong bit myself, Julia.  It doesn't exist.  Declaring that you keep your head off in the delusional clouds of idealism doesn't change the contradiction of saying that an individual woman should be free to end the life of an inconvenient person but for the state to do the same is wrong.

But you're defining what makes a person in such a way as to make a fetus a person. I, and many others, don't see a fetus as yet a person.

Taking your premise to the logical conclusion every egg and sperm is a person so is male masturbation mass murder?



xBullx -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 11:13:02 AM)

-fast reply-

I'm always in favor of life............................. But the order of natural might differ from that opinion.

I'm mostly in favor of personal liberty, now just ponder deeply on that.

I think to much money and fuss is wasted on the death penalty. If you have been convisted of the most serious of offenses you should be enslaved to hard labor until nature takes you on its own. I see no reason that we shouldn't benefit economically on this. Of course that would be just to cruel.[8|]

Bull




Real_Trouble -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 11:14:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

    If having and using the death penalty makes the US uncivilized, no better than those we kill, why is easy access to abortion clinics any different?

    I'm genuinely curious here.  I'm in favor of the death penalty more often than it is used, and I think the right side won the abortion battle in the 70's.  I don't get how people oppose one and support the other.


To take a brief stab at several issues here:

1 - Part of the question is when you define the beginning of life; if you believe life begins at conception, then I would argue that abortion is very clearly killing a human being.  If you believe life begins at some other point, such as the beginning of significant brain activity external to the stem, then you have a pretty decent window in which you can terminate what is, essentially, a parasite.

Therefore, anti-death penalty and pro-abortion prior to the "beginning of life" are potentially wholly compatible views.

2 - Some of the opposition to the death penalty comes from a question about whether the government, specifically, should have the power of life and death over citizens; the issue comes down to judicial fairness and government abuse (frequently, executing the mentally retarded in Texas is used as an example of how this may not be "working as intended").  For people who do not trust the government to do anything other than attempt to oppress people and/or screw up and be inefficient, taking the death penalty away from the government but allowing individuals the option to make a localized rational choice about their own reproductive status might well be a logically consistent viewpoint.

3 - Not everyone takes the view that social policy must be wholly morally consistent in an overarching sense at all times; if someone argues from another paradigm, such as a bottom-up localized utilitarian viewpoint, you might be surprised at some of the results if you are used to arguing from a top-down philosophical perspective.

Edit: I was going to comment on the government authority vs. personal liberty balance, but I see a few people beat me to it.



kittinSol -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 11:16:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Declaring that you keep your head off in the delusional clouds of idealism doesn't change the contradiction of saying that an individual woman should be free to end the life of an inconvenient person but for the state to do the same is wrong.
     


Well, as the Supreme Court itself has decided that the word person does not include the unborn, I don't see where the contradiction lies.

quote:



In his majority opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote that the privacy right affirmed in Griswold "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." Moreover, the opinion stated that the word "person," as described in the 14th Amendment's due process clause guaranteeing life and liberty, "does not include the unborn."



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5029934



Level -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 11:16:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SinergyNstrumpet


That is the difference to me, with abortion it is a private choice I have naught to do with between a woman and her doctor. With execution, I am in on it, it makes me the murderer.
julia


But, in supporting a woman's right, isn't a person becoming involved? Enough people publicly support abortion rights, and the state listens, and enacts and protects the abortion rights.



Real_Trouble -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 11:22:02 AM)

quote:

But, in supporting a woman's right, isn't a person becoming involved? Enough people publicly support abortion rights, and the state listens, and enacts and protects the abortion rights.


This depends what you mean by involvement.

In this case, an individual would be involved so far as to say "the individual who's problem this is should make their own decision".  That is, of course, involvement; you are involved enough to say you don't think you should be further involved.

In the opposite case, an individual would be involved so far as to say "the individual who's problem this is should have to do what I/we have decided for them".  That is, of course, involvement as well.  

However, I would argue one is significantly more intrusive than the other from a personal liberty standpoint.  There is a qualitative difference.  Preserving liberty is almost always a group decision, but it is a group decision not to make a group decision. 

Edit - inability to format.



kittinSol -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 11:22:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

But, in supporting a woman's right, isn't a person becoming involved? Enough people publicly support abortion rights, and the state listens, and enacts and protects the abortion rights.



Many also argue against choice, more vociferously so (see: clinic bombings, intimidation of women by piqueting the clinics, etcetera).



SinergyNstrumpet -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 11:29:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

quote:

ORIGINAL: SinergyNstrumpet


That is the difference to me, with abortion it is a private choice I have naught to do with between a woman and her doctor. With execution, I am in on it, it makes me the murderer.
julia


But, in supporting a woman's right, isn't a person becoming involved? Enough people publicly support abortion rights, and the state listens, and enacts and protects the abortion rights.


Either a person has control over their bodily functions or they do not.

I have said this before, a fetus can be seen to be symbiotic or parasitic... depending on your point of view. No one demands that we feed the homeless with our bodies, the baby is dependent on the woman for survival. If the woman does not want the lifeform within her to live "rent free", I do believe it is her choice. Now if we can come up with a way to get the fetus to live in a bottle without the support of a womb, then I do not see a problem with sustaining those lives that way.

I am not of the opinion that a fetus is not a person, it is a person. It is a living person. It is also a person that is living off another. We do not force people to feed and house others, that is forbidden by the constitution when it came to "quartering soldiers". So I do not see abortion as anything but eviction of a lifeform that the mother sees as parasitic.

Cold and clinical, but it is how I see it.



julia



kittinSol -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 11:38:31 AM)

Abortion is sometimes necessary; execution never is. Abortion can save a woman's life; execution will never make a wrong right.



TheHeretic -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 11:39:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

But you're defining what makes a person in such a way as to make a fetus a person. I, and many others, don't see a fetus as yet a person.

Taking your premise to the logical conclusion every egg and sperm is a person so is male masturbation mass murder?



      We are certainly talking about something under development, Ken, but we are also talking about a procedure than can be performed on viable beings.

      And that isn't the logical conclusion, it's the exaggeration to the ridiculous.  Why are you having so much trouble grasping that I support both abortion rights and the death penalty?  Your need to assign me a position you are more comfortable arguing against isn't helpful.



TheHeretic -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 11:47:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SinergyNstrumpet

I am not of the opinion that a fetus is not a person, it is a person. It is a living person. It is also a person that is living off another. We do not force people to feed and house others, that is forbidden by the constitution when it came to "quartering soldiers". So I do not see abortion as anything but eviction of a lifeform that the mother sees as parasitic.

Cold and clinical, but it is how I see it.



julia




          So based on this, I would have every right to shoot a hypothetical sofa-surfing, waste of skin brother-in-law who moves in?  But then the state would have no equal right to terminate me, and would have to assume complete responsibility to feed and house me?

      Crumple that argument up and throw it away, Julia.



SinergyNstrumpet -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 11:53:33 AM)

quote:

So based on this, I would have every right to shoot a hypothetical sofa-surfing, waste of skin brother-in-law who moves in?


No, but you do have the right to tell him to leave, and if he dies as a result of you denying him shelter that is not murder

quote:

But then the state would have no equal right to terminate me, and would have to assume complete responsibility to feed and house me?


While this argument may seem comparable to mine at first blush, it really isn't. You are not advocating that people be set loose and forced to fend for themselves instead of being a burden to the state. You are advocating killing them instead. Now if you have an island to send those convicted and sentenced to death, well that seems comparable.

If we take your view to its logical conclusion, we should give the death penalty for petty crimes and just close the jails altogether... since no one really wants to pay for housing a criminal... hell, we will just do away with courts and trials too.



julia



TheHeretic -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 12:07:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SinergyNstrumpet


If we take your view to its logical conclusion, we should give the death penalty for petty crimes and just close the jails altogether... since no one really wants to pay for housing a criminal... hell, we will just do away with courts and trials too.



julia




       No, Julia.  What you are trying to assign to me is your own justification of abortion taken to it's logical extreme.  Not even a good try.



SinergyNstrumpet -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 12:16:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: SinergyNstrumpet


If we take your view to its logical conclusion, we should give the death penalty for petty crimes and just close the jails altogether... since no one really wants to pay for housing a criminal... hell, we will just do away with courts and trials too.



julia




      No, Julia.  What you are trying to assign to me is your own justification of abortion taken to it's logical extreme.  Not even a good try.


No, I was actually making an argument against the death penalty there[;)]

julia



DomKen -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 12:27:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
     And that isn't the logical conclusion, it's the exaggeration to the ridiculous.  Why are you having so much trouble grasping that I support both abortion rights and the death penalty?  Your need to assign me a position you are more comfortable arguing against isn't helpful.

You made an argument I responded. I don't know what your complaining about. I certainly made no claim beyond responding to your defining a fetus as a person.



Zensee -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 12:54:33 PM)

Abortion and the death penalty are two separate issues and there is no moral or ethical or legal argument compelling a link between any particular opinion held about either.


To break it down -

Pro-choice / fetus is human - you believe the right of the mother supersedes the right of the fetus. Nothing there to compel a pro or anti death penalty stance.

Pro-choice / fetus is object - you believe there is no issue of human rights applicable to the fetus. Still no reason to be pro or anti death penalty there.

Anti-choice / fetus is human - fetus is a helpless victim. Still no reason there to force either a pro or anti death penalty stance.

The matter of the death penalty is how you think adult criminals should be dealt with. The abortion debate is about whether you think it is a crime or not. Apples and oranges.


Z.






TheHeretic -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 12:59:51 PM)

       That isn't how I read it, Ken.  You seemed to be reducing my position to some "every sperm is sacred" sort of nonsense.  I'm of the already mentioned school of thought that life and person-hood come in along with upper brain activity and state of development.  Refusing to acknowledge viability until birth would be one way to rationalize the contradiction.

      Of course, it is quite possible to support or oppose either these practices on different sets of grounds than the specific moralities of the right to kill.  My question is geared towards who say it is wrong for the state to kill a convict, but abortions well into the third trimester are just fine.

     



Termyn8or -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 1:58:38 PM)

Someone said cold and clinical ? To me it was too warm and too fuzzy.

Sit down, clear your mind. Forget the rest of the thread for now and hear me out.

People who rape and murder are defective, and should be excised from the planet as we cut cancerous tumors from the human body.

But we can't trust the government. The state of Texas had to go to the supreme court to defend it's right to execute an innocent Man. They fought it all the way up the ladder and the evidence exonerating him was solid, but since it had not been presented in a timely fashion, Texas won and they executed him, knowing he was innocent. How many guesses do you want as to who the governor was who refused to commute the sentence or pardon this innocent Man ? Hint : You see him on TV alot.

Now you see the problem with that, on to abortion. Abortion is murder plain and simple. The fetus is the property of two people not one. My view is that it would be good to determine paternity before birth and ask the father "You want this ?" at the very least. But current medical technology I think does not allow for that. Every fetus deserves a chance, but if nobody is going to take the responsibility and raise a family, that's not a very good chance. I said it, ABORTION IS MURDER, but I am all for it. Everyone who wants to make abortion illegal should be the ones forced to retrieve dead babies from dumpsters, and should be required to adopt at least ten kids. And that means college tuition and everything, no help from the government. Try that.

These things are called necessary evils. Evil ? Yes. Necessary ? Yes.

It is a contradiction, but this is the world in which we live.

T



DomKen -> RE: Contradictory Dogma (3/16/2008 1:59:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

      That isn't how I read it, Ken.  You seemed to be reducing my position to some "every sperm is sacred" sort of nonsense.  I'm of the already mentioned school of thought that life and person-hood come in along with upper brain activity and state of development.  Refusing to acknowledge viability until birth would be one way to rationalize the contradiction.

     Of course, it is quite possible to support or oppose either these practices on different sets of grounds than the specific moralities of the right to kill.  My question is geared towards who say it is wrong for the state to kill a convict, but abortions well into the third trimester are just fine.

No. You said
quote:

the contradiction of saying that an individual woman should be free to end the life of an inconvenient person but for the state to do the same is wrong.

I pointed out the absolute fallacy of equating a non viable fetus to a legal person. You have now tried to take umbrage. You're never going to get any sort of apology or retraction from me for responding to what you actually wrote.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625