Active Users:368 Time:14/09/2026 11:09:54 PM
Yet you don't, you jump the gun here too Isaac Send a noteboard - 24/08/2012 04:37:02 AM
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
Reply to message
Rape - British left wing politician takes on American right wing politician in stupidest comment off - 22/08/2012 11:03:50 PM 1194 Views
Galloway - I'll always remember him for being a Cat to be honest. - 22/08/2012 11:14:58 PM 793 Views
Erm... what on earth is that? - 22/08/2012 11:19:13 PM 582 Views
Celebrity Big Brother in the UK - 22/08/2012 11:22:17 PM 665 Views
People who support abortion only for rape are the most retarded in the whole debate - 23/08/2012 01:05:17 AM 743 Views
Bullshit - 23/08/2012 05:01:24 AM 638 Views
That's an interesting variation with some legitimacy, though not compelling, to me anyway - 23/08/2012 07:25:50 AM 675 Views
That is a dangerous line of logic. - 23/08/2012 09:26:25 PM 964 Views
Okay, that really wasn't connected to my comments - 24/08/2012 02:39:21 AM 596 Views
Sure it was, but we can do it your way. - 24/08/2012 04:10:37 AM 662 Views
Yet you don't, you jump the gun here too - 24/08/2012 04:37:02 AM 702 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 780 Views
Disliking the conclusion doesn't invalidate the logic, and stop veering out of the debate boundary - 24/08/2012 06:43:43 AM 699 Views
No, the logics invalidity does that, though you do not seem to like its conclusion either. - 24/08/2012 07:48:21 AM 898 Views
I'm not even sure what that means - 25/08/2012 12:38:56 AM 594 Views
The logic is invalid because invalid, however either of us feels about where it leads. - 25/08/2012 10:37:34 PM 679 Views
Okay, we're done here - 26/08/2012 05:36:28 AM 654 Views
Quotes are not my opinion. - 26/08/2012 06:37:19 AM 601 Views
You'd really benefit from post-secondary education. - 26/08/2012 12:14:02 PM 745 Views
Haven't you and Joel had about the same amount of post-secondary education, actually? - 27/08/2012 01:31:43 AM 736 Views
T^T - 27/08/2012 04:39:33 AM 662 Views
Is that the emoticon for perky titties? *NM* - 27/08/2012 11:07:06 PM 334 Views
He is an absolute berk. *NM* - 23/08/2012 01:08:58 AM 523 Views
To be honest, I think people MIGHT be overreacting to both comments. - 23/08/2012 01:33:54 AM 764 Views
Really? *NM* - 23/08/2012 06:33:46 AM 393 Views
Yeah. - 23/08/2012 06:40:05 AM 666 Views
I expect it is more of a "stating the obvious" response. - 23/08/2012 02:01:18 PM 659 Views
Heh, I didn't think so. - 23/08/2012 05:44:55 PM 704 Views
I said Akins comments needed MORE context. - 23/08/2012 08:50:09 PM 808 Views
Yes, I saw that. - 23/08/2012 10:28:50 PM 609 Views
Re: Yes, I saw that. - 23/08/2012 11:04:40 PM 683 Views
Re: Yes, I saw that. - 23/08/2012 11:08:46 PM 616 Views
Science sometimes produces shocking discoveries. - 23/08/2012 11:28:47 PM 656 Views
And sometimes one doctor with an agenda pulls "facts" out of the air - 23/08/2012 11:37:37 PM 684 Views
No argument there. - 23/08/2012 11:46:01 PM 691 Views
This - 23/08/2012 08:50:43 PM 692 Views
Okay. I misunderstood. Sorry. *NM* - 23/08/2012 09:58:20 PM 359 Views
Eh - 23/08/2012 10:37:15 PM 637 Views
Well, I didn't take it that way. - 23/08/2012 10:42:01 PM 765 Views
Good - 24/08/2012 02:20:27 AM 715 Views
Ah, I can understand if that is the case. - 23/08/2012 07:46:38 PM 693 Views
I read it the same way Jen did - 23/08/2012 08:49:16 PM 656 Views
Why? - 23/08/2012 08:51:59 PM 675 Views
See your reply here - the bit before the comma then the bit after it. - 23/08/2012 09:06:20 PM 680 Views
You can see where there's room for doubt in that though, surely. - 23/08/2012 09:20:19 PM 630 Views
I accept there are exceptions under some circumstances - but they are exceptions, not the rule. - 23/08/2012 09:44:36 PM 660 Views
Well, I have to clarify... - 23/08/2012 10:28:13 PM 633 Views
Re: Well, I have to clarify... - 23/08/2012 10:50:59 PM 617 Views
Re: Well, I have to clarify... - 23/08/2012 11:15:50 PM 603 Views
Re: Well, I have to clarify... - 23/08/2012 11:28:56 PM 703 Views
couple things - 24/08/2012 01:57:04 AM 598 Views
Re: couple things - 24/08/2012 02:26:23 PM 665 Views
Re: couple things - 24/08/2012 02:45:38 PM 588 Views
Re: couple things - 25/08/2012 12:11:03 AM 654 Views
You may be talking about Galloway and not Assange, but Galloway was talking about Assange. - 24/08/2012 06:28:00 PM 633 Views
Ew. - 24/08/2012 06:56:27 PM 641 Views
Yes, that about covers it. - 24/08/2012 07:42:13 PM 616 Views
Yes, I was talking about Galoway and what he said - 25/08/2012 12:15:15 AM 784 Views
Re: Well, I have to clarify... - 23/08/2012 11:34:51 PM 706 Views
I can - 23/08/2012 11:05:05 PM 570 Views
I gotta say I am with Paul - 24/08/2012 12:27:44 AM 675 Views
Hm. - 24/08/2012 02:08:33 AM 588 Views
OK - 23/08/2012 09:35:35 PM 625 Views
Bullshit. - 23/08/2012 10:00:54 PM 588 Views
Re: Bullshit. - 23/08/2012 10:52:02 PM 777 Views
To start again then Joel - 23/08/2012 11:14:07 PM 607 Views
My mistake then, sorry. - 23/08/2012 11:32:34 PM 648 Views
Agreeing without agreeing. - 23/08/2012 12:24:10 PM 726 Views
I have gotten used to you being right for the wrong reasons. - 23/08/2012 07:42:32 PM 622 Views
Yes - 23/08/2012 06:34:38 AM 763 Views
Indeed - 23/08/2012 08:47:40 PM 604 Views
I don't know about Galloway but Akin is being made to pay for his commnets - 23/08/2012 04:37:12 PM 697 Views
Um, I'm not sure about that last bit - 23/08/2012 10:43:15 PM 630 Views
this issue has been discussed none stop for two days and this almost never mentioned - 24/08/2012 12:28:25 PM 619 Views
well, that is where I'm confused. - 24/08/2012 07:03:16 PM 647 Views
Maybe I watch to much CNN - 24/08/2012 07:30:23 PM 587 Views
Yeah, I'm curious about that last point as well. - 24/08/2012 02:53:43 AM 668 Views
McCaskills campaign ran ads during the GOP primary calling Akin the "most conservative" candidate. - 24/08/2012 03:33:18 AM 816 Views
Interesting. - 24/08/2012 04:49:51 AM 605 Views
no it isn't kinda true - 24/08/2012 12:50:53 PM 631 Views

Reply to Message