Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[T-hawk]

Yeah, that's it. It's one correlation of many and impossible to conclusively separate, but it seems perfectly plausible. To establish the self-interest, just observing the correlation is enough, I don't have to demonstrate any causation or mechanism.

[Japper007]

Hell if you are just going by self-interest T-Hawk, we could also say that aborting fetuses is a 100% better solution to climate change than all the others that have been tried, can't produce CO2 if you never existed in the first place. Also helps keep down overpopulation and pollution.

[MJW (ya that one)]

There was a gap before Roe v. Wade and the tide was turning. Because of this there were several states that legalized abortion and some did not. The states that legalized abortion beat the one's that didn't (including the pervious crime rate).

[Bacchus]

Also helps keep down overpopulation and pollution.

Not a small amount of forefront progressive thinkers in the 60s and 70s said just that.

[ShadowHM]

You presume that my decision to engage in sexual activity must include an acceptance that I will carry any resulting fetus to term.   Why would that be so?  

No such specific presumption is required. Much like a man's decision to engage in sexual activity doesn't need to include any acceptance of paying support in case of conception; in fact his acceptance or non-acceptance is entirely irrelevant to the matter. All that is required is that conception is a reasonably foreseen potential consequence of a voluntarily chosen action. There is then a general liability for such consequences, at least for sane people. If you will the action, you will the consequences; the parent is liable for the child, because it was the parent's will that the child, and all its needs, exist.

Just for clarity, are you arguing that fathers have no duty to pay support or otherwise provide for their offspring, at least not simply by virtue of being fathers? How do you see the responsibility of men being established? Do they need to make a declaration, or sign a contract before sex to be held liable for the consequences of it?

Also, where did you see anything about my feelings on abortion, much less passionate feelings? All I said was that your specific premise didn't entail your conclusion. Doesn't mean that the conclusion is invalid, and, talking of personal views, I'm not sure that it is. Situation of an unwanted pregnancy is a tragic one, and I commiserate with the women caught in it, especially knowing that such pregnancies are frequently just the peak of a series of other injustices. But I also don't see the distinction between abortion and infanticide as being remotely clear, and I certainly can't support the latter, no matter the misery of the perpetrator.

As for what right we have to impose our beliefs about justice on each other? That's definitionally what requirements of justice are -- such requirements that we can reasonably demand of others that they follow them, and punish those who don't. Of course, you can make a case that no such requirements exist, it's all self-interest and brute force, but that's a different discussion, and I think few people here besides T-Hawk subscribe to such a view.

To take the analogy further, my decision to go for a drive down the freeway, or take a hike on the Bruce Trail, should include the 'reasonably foreseen potential consequence' that I might be injured.  But I have no right to do anything about the consequence of that injury?
 
As I did state, if it can't live outside my body, then I get to decide.  That's how I define when 'life' begins for that fetus.  It isn't when I have sex, which is implicit in your argument above.  There has to be a line drawn in the sand and that's it.  If you or anyone else wants to draw it at conception for yourself, you have the right to do so.  But for purposes of my legal rights, you cannot impose any other definition on me.   Please realize that 'justice' is always a matter of choosing what weight to give differing rights. 

And, as to your other question:  personally, I believe that if the male concerned did take the reasonable precaution of using a condom (his only verifiable method of birth control) with his willing partner, then it certainly is unfair to expect him to pay child support for the next 18 years when/if that still results in a pregnancy that his partner insists on taking to term (i.e., giving birth).

[Bacchus]

To take the analogy further, my decision to go for a drive down the freeway, or take a hike on the Bruce Trail, should include the 'reasonably foreseen potential consequence' that I might be injured. But I have no right to do anything about the consequence of that injury?

Of course you can do whatever you want about it, but you are liable for whatever you do, for example for whatever treatment you get (unless someone, i.e. an inssirer has previously accepted that liability for themselves). You cannot use your injury as justification for theft of medicine, for example. In abortion you are asking the child to be liable for your discomfort, and you are forcing them to pay with their life. There are various ways out of that, I.e. saying that the fetus is not a person, and so there is no injury or liability, but you earlier explicitly said that you are not making a determination about personhood. But now you are:

That's how I define when 'life' begins for that fetus.

Which is fine, but it's a completely different argument. You are making a very clear determination, and in fact you are insisting that such a determination must be made, 'there has to be a line in the sand'. This is exactly what mackoti is talking about -- you want to clearly rate fetuses as non-persons, and you want freedom to do whatever you will to them. You are saying that, beyond that line in the sand, there are no rights, besides the woman's, to be weighed and balanced, anything in that direction is an imposition of an arbitrary subjective belief. Or I'm misunderstanding your rhetoric about lines in the sand, life, and impositions.

I should make clear, I am not saying that you are wrong about non-personhood of fetuses, I don't know whether that question even has an answer. But I am saying that you are obfuscating your premises somewhat, maybe even from yourself. I do share mackoti's concern about a demand for a clear line demarcating humans from non-humans, he is quite right that the entire drive to have a clear line is a very totalitarian notion. But I do appreciate that, in the West, and especially in the US, that depersonifying rhetoric has served to prop up a liberating, rather than an opressive movement. But don't be surprised that to a person who had very close interactions with a totalitarian state that rhetoric sets off all sorts of alarm bells, just as 'pro-life' rhetoric sets off alarm bells for you.

Edit: re father's obligations -- that's consistent, and makes your position clearer to me. I disagree with it, but that's a different matter. To clarify, I would say that unless the woman (or, indeed, anyone else) explicitly agreed to bear all risk from potential failure of contraception, there is no reason why the full liability should be allocated to the mother or the public.

[ipecac]

That's how I define when 'life' begins for that fetus.

'My body my choice', but you define the fetus out of life and personhood to justify destroying his body.

The simple fact is that parenthood carries responsibilities, which is why there are parental neglect laws.

[AdrienIer]

The simple fact is that parenthood carries responsibilities, which is why there are parental neglect laws.

Parenthood begins the moment you decide to bring a child to life, whether as a choice or by deciding to carry the accidental embryo to its term. The fact that an accidental embryo appeared doesn't make you a parent, and therefore doesn't give you any responsability.

[Commodore]

In other news, sucks to be this guy:

[ipecac]

Parenthood begins the moment you decide to bring a child to life, whether as a choice or by deciding to carry the accidental embryo to its term. The fact that an accidental embryo appeared doesn't make you a parent, and therefore doesn't give you any responsability.

No, when life begins is not something you get to decide, because that is a biological fact outside your control. Parenthood begins when the child is alive, and not when you decide whether to kill your child or not.