You didn't even touch the arguments and in fact distort the things I said. Again, the logic line goes off the initial assumption that rape exceptions are permitted which requires one to cede that fetus=human.
Actually, such exceptions only require a fetus MAY be human. That uncertainty exists but, IMHO, justifies leaving the judgement call with the person it affects.
In which moral system does possibility of humanity transfer judgment to a single individual that isn't the possible-human in question where consultation with others is permitted by time and circumstance?
Busitng out the Simpsons references... If I hear a voice from the bottom of a well but don't know if it's Bart's 2-way radio or little Timmy, I am very much not permitted by any reasonable ethic in making a decision that it is a radio and dismissing it out of hand, I mostly certainly do not get to drop a grenade down there, I am morally required to bring others in on the decision and we must establish that it is a radio very, very firmly before abandoning the well.
So baby steps, lets walk through this, stay on topic with your reply please. If fetus does not equal human then no justification is needed for an abortion, thus no need for a rape exception. Discussing a rape exception requires one to assume there is a need for one, hence fetus=human or no exception needed... if so then:
1) If fetus = human then one can not end the life without justification.
Agree or disagree?
Agreed. I followed your logic, and responded to it; just not with agreement.
First, the burden you reference is not solely psychological: Parenthood creates two-decade finanical burdens of feeding, clothing, housing, providing healthcare for and often educating a child. That is burdensome without impairing decision making, and thus obviates the remaining discussion. However....
Rebuttal: Adoption, remarks complete
Even were the burden purely psychological you made it an invalid Catch 22: Any burden justifying abortion renders women incompetent to consent, and no less burden can justify it. Having cause denies cause; cute, but false. Many situations cause great stress without removing legal competence to respond (in medical decisions concerning oneself or family, often.) Claiming women with just cause for abortion are "not of sound mind where the decision is being made" is gross overstatement.
I acknowledge it's a Catch-22, hence my irritation with you. I am not making light of Roland's argument but pointing out the tragic paradox of the situation. I could not in good faith aid someone whose reason I had good cause to doubt by following their planned action. I would have to evaluate it and justify it myself, I could not simply concede the decision to them then assist them in carrying it out. I could make a case that others could make the decision yea or nay for them, or that we could not blame someone who did it on their own. What I can't do is make a case for assisting someone in carrying out a decision they alone are considered allowed to make when I have every reason to believe the justification for that decision is itself cause to question their competence to make the decision.
Following from assertions abortion is motivated by psychological burdens making women unfit to decide on it, you concluded abortion doctors retain unburdened objective rationality, and are thus legally accountable. You completely ignored the role of the doctors primary concern (their patients interests,) assuming the only motive is an "irrational" persons (your word, not mine) request. Therefore, you concluded, doctors have no "legal or ethical protection" for peforming abortion.
I said no such thing. I said the obvious, that the situation does not necessarily effect the doctor's soundness of mind. I have no cause to believe any non-friend or non-relative will be significantly inclined to be irrational specifically because of the circumstances.
*IF* we assumed that a fetus was or most likely was human, *then* a doctor would not be justified in ending their life, actually pretty much period unless it was a situation of triage. Again, ethical conundrum. If the fetus is a person then the doctor, as a doctor, can do no harm, but regardless the doctor has no business making life-ending decisions without a medical emergency on the say so of someone who is not only not the life to be ended but is also claiming justification to end the life from the mental trauma they will/are experiencing and presumably are operating already under extreme mental trauma from the rape.
Yes, it's a Catch-22... that's the point.
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
Rape - British left wing politician takes on American right wing politician in stupidest comment off
22/08/2012 11:03:50 PM
- 1056 Views
Galloway - I'll always remember him for being a Cat to be honest.
22/08/2012 11:14:58 PM
- 627 Views
That is second on my list of things I remember about him, probably down to third now.
22/08/2012 11:21:17 PM
- 548 Views
People who support abortion only for rape are the most retarded in the whole debate
23/08/2012 01:05:17 AM
- 597 Views
Bullshit
23/08/2012 05:01:24 AM
- 502 Views
That's an interesting variation with some legitimacy, though not compelling, to me anyway
23/08/2012 07:25:50 AM
- 521 Views
That is a dangerous line of logic.
23/08/2012 09:26:25 PM
- 752 Views
Okay, that really wasn't connected to my comments
24/08/2012 02:39:21 AM
- 454 Views
Sure it was, but we can do it your way.
24/08/2012 04:10:37 AM
- 523 Views
Yet you don't, you jump the gun here too
24/08/2012 04:37:02 AM
- 538 Views
I was trying to cut to the chase; like I say, I followed your logic: I just disliked where it led.
24/08/2012 06:10:40 AM
- 619 Views
Disliking the conclusion doesn't invalidate the logic, and stop veering out of the debate boundary
24/08/2012 06:43:43 AM
- 572 Views
No, the logics invalidity does that, though you do not seem to like its conclusion either.
24/08/2012 07:48:21 AM
- 733 Views
I'm not even sure what that means
25/08/2012 12:38:56 AM
- 465 Views
The logic is invalid because invalid, however either of us feels about where it leads.
25/08/2012 10:37:34 PM
- 527 Views
Okay, we're done here
26/08/2012 05:36:28 AM
- 497 Views
Quotes are not my opinion.
26/08/2012 06:37:19 AM
- 470 Views
You'd really benefit from post-secondary education.
26/08/2012 12:14:02 PM
- 560 Views
Further post-secondary education, you mean; probably so, though not for the reasons you stated.
26/08/2012 08:20:45 PM
- 516 Views
Haven't you and Joel had about the same amount of post-secondary education, actually?
27/08/2012 01:31:43 AM
- 587 Views
It has nothing to do with consequences or responsibility. It's about life & privacy. Period
23/08/2012 12:04:55 PM
- 622 Views
To be honest, I think people MIGHT be overreacting to both comments.
23/08/2012 01:33:54 AM
- 580 Views
Really? *NM*
23/08/2012 06:33:46 AM
- 329 Views
Yeah.
23/08/2012 06:40:05 AM
- 527 Views
I expect it is more of a "stating the obvious" response.
23/08/2012 02:01:18 PM
- 522 Views
Heh, I didn't think so.
23/08/2012 05:44:55 PM
- 567 Views
I said Akins comments needed MORE context.
23/08/2012 08:50:09 PM
- 655 Views
Yes, I saw that.
23/08/2012 10:28:50 PM
- 475 Views
Re: Yes, I saw that.
23/08/2012 11:04:40 PM
- 503 Views
Re: Yes, I saw that.
23/08/2012 11:08:46 PM
- 480 Views
Science sometimes produces shocking discoveries.
23/08/2012 11:28:47 PM
- 504 Views
And sometimes one doctor with an agenda pulls "facts" out of the air
23/08/2012 11:37:37 PM
- 547 Views
This
23/08/2012 08:50:43 PM
- 551 Views
Eh
23/08/2012 10:37:15 PM
- 494 Views
I read it the same way Jen did
23/08/2012 08:49:16 PM
- 463 Views
Why?
23/08/2012 08:51:59 PM
- 541 Views
See your reply here - the bit before the comma then the bit after it.
23/08/2012 09:06:20 PM
- 531 Views
You can see where there's room for doubt in that though, surely.
23/08/2012 09:20:19 PM
- 505 Views
I accept there are exceptions under some circumstances - but they are exceptions, not the rule.
23/08/2012 09:44:36 PM
- 516 Views
Well, I have to clarify...
23/08/2012 10:28:13 PM
- 489 Views
Re: Well, I have to clarify...
23/08/2012 10:50:59 PM
- 456 Views
Re: Well, I have to clarify...
23/08/2012 11:15:50 PM
- 461 Views
Re: Well, I have to clarify...
23/08/2012 11:28:56 PM
- 560 Views
couple things
24/08/2012 01:57:04 AM
- 467 Views
Re: couple things
24/08/2012 02:26:23 PM
- 500 Views
You may be talking about Galloway and not Assange, but Galloway was talking about Assange.
24/08/2012 06:28:00 PM
- 474 Views
I can
23/08/2012 11:05:05 PM
- 436 Views
OK
23/08/2012 09:35:35 PM
- 479 Views
Bullshit.
23/08/2012 10:00:54 PM
- 448 Views
Re: Bullshit.
23/08/2012 10:52:02 PM
- 640 Views
I don't know about Galloway but Akin is being made to pay for his commnets
23/08/2012 04:37:12 PM
- 556 Views
Um, I'm not sure about that last bit
23/08/2012 10:43:15 PM
- 476 Views
this issue has been discussed none stop for two days and this almost never mentioned
24/08/2012 12:28:25 PM
- 475 Views
Yeah, I'm curious about that last point as well.
24/08/2012 02:53:43 AM
- 528 Views
McCaskills campaign ran ads during the GOP primary calling Akin the "most conservative" candidate.
24/08/2012 03:33:18 AM
- 675 Views
Interesting.
24/08/2012 04:49:51 AM
- 466 Views
Yeah, that about covers it; personally, I am developing a grudging respect for Akin.
24/08/2012 06:30:43 AM
- 522 Views
no it isn't kinda true
24/08/2012 12:50:53 PM
- 445 Views
The MO GOP voters who nominated him for being "most conservative" think it is.
25/08/2012 10:52:02 PM
- 480 Views