11-year-old Gang-Rape Victim: Should She Be Able To Legally Abort?

[Traditio]

Likewise, a law stating that public proselytizing for Christianity is a crime punishable by law.

Could I simply dismiss your concerns against such by claiming "You disapprove of anti-Christianity laws because they are anti-Christianity laws." ?

That depends. Am I objecting to such laws because they prohibit proselytization, and provide no further reasons for why this is bad? Then yes, my objections would amount to: "I disapprove of anti-Christianity laws because they are anti-Christianity laws." Which is, of course, utterly useless.

What you literally told me was: "I disapprove of anti-abortion laws because they infringe the woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy [which is, of course, what an anti-abortion law is; "infringing the personal choice of someone to do x" is literally what an anti-x law is...that's pretty much the definition of an anti-x law]."

The only time in which it's acceptable to say: "I disapprove of x because it is x" is if the wrongness of x is so painfully obvious that it shouldn't even require argumentation.

Example: "You shouldn't kick babies because they are babies. You are not supposed to kick those!"

Note, I haven't provided an argument because I don't feel as though one is necessary. You have to be morally stupid to think that kicking a baby is OK.

Of course, you may say that something similar applies in the case of anti-abortion laws. But I'll tell you that, if we look at history as a whole, it's actually modern liberals who appear morally stupid. Find me respected philosophers and theologians asserting that abortion, gay marriage, or any of this other liberal social nonsense is acceptable prior to the 1800s.

3. She has a constitutional right to privacy; the liberty to make such a choice free from state interference.

And more liberal buzzwords. You know what you are really telling me when you talk like that? "I cannot think for myself. I let liberal talking heads on the media do all of my thinking for me."

By definition, quip, if there is an anti-x law, then you cannot appeal to a right to privacy or the liberty to make a choice free from state interference as an objection to that law. Such a law, by its very existence, makes the claim that no such liberty exists. By appealing to these "rights," unless you provide further argumentation, you are simply saying: "I disagree with anti-x laws."

Not to mention, of course, that a "right to privacy" is nice and vague. Which is, of course, why liberals love it so much. It's vague to the point of being meaningless; that means that they can make it say whatever they want.

At any rate, quip, let us note that the initial point was your claim that the State would be forcing the girl to give birth. At this point, the discussion has shifted to a "right" to commit abortion. Presumably, of course, because, at this point, you realize how silly it is to claim that someone can be "forced" to give birth.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

The "Child" should be allowed to come to full term then, adopted out
to a loving family! Society mustn't take their "judgment" out on an
innocent Baby!

 

[Traditio]

Then by established law...it doesn't - case closed...right?

1. Different forms of law.

2. Ex hypothesi, if there's an anti-abortion law, you cannot appeal to established law in defense of your position, can you?

Give me a non-emotional response to the fact that the law doesn't not grant the unborn equal right-to-life protection as those protecting it's mother.

Because of the ontological status of the unborn child. I posted an [albeit belated] response to you in the other thread.

 

[Town Heretic]

...Give me a non-emotional response to the fact that the law doesn't not grant the unborn equal right-to-life protection as those protecting it's mother.

The valuation is arbitrary and insufficient as an argument from reason or law. All we can agree upon collectively is that at some point you are a creature of vested right and dignity and that once vested you may not be deprived of it without a fairly egregious violation of the compact set to preserve it among us.

Okay, looking back across my line of being tell me where that right, inarguably vested in me now, is divided from me...and your answer must be definitive and objectively demonstrable as the truth, else we run the risk of taking that which we agree we are not entitled to take.

It's the best argument for protecting life from conception. Not because you know that's the point at which right and humanity/dignity attaches, but because we lack the ability to objectively state/find the point and lacking that must be compelled to protect what could be the right against which we may not impose our will absent a violation that isn't present.

Or, we protect life at every point because it is the default, the only sure way of defending right at any point it might exist and existing be inviolate absent a condition that cannot exist in the unborn.

 

[RevTestament]

The valuation is arbitrary and insufficient as an argument from reason or law. All we can agree upon collectively is that at some point you are a creature of vested right and dignity and that once vested you may not be deprived of it without a fairly egregious violation of the compact set to preserve it among us.

Okay, looking back across my line of being tell me where that right, inarguably vested in me now, is divided from me...and your answer must be definitive and objectively demonstrable as the truth, else we run the risk of taking that which we agree we are not entitled to take.

It's the best argument for protecting life from conception. Not because you know that's the point at which right and humanity/dignity attaches, but because we lack the ability to objectively state/find the point and lacking that must be compelled to protect what could be the right against which we may not impose our will absent a violation that isn't present.

Or, we protect life at every point because it is the default, the only sure way of defending right at any point it might exist and existing be inviolate absent a condition that cannot exist in the unborn.

And I believe sometimes the mother's "right to life" might come into question. What if the mother is a sole parent and supporter of children and the pregnancy is a genuine threat to her life?
Or as is the case here an ongoing pregnancy may endanger the mental health of the mother?
In most cases I am "pro-life" for the reasons you state, but sometimes more than one life comes into the balance...

 

[Town Heretic]

And I believe sometimes the mother's "right to life" might come into question. What if the mother is a sole parent and supporter of children and the pregnancy is a genuine threat to her life?

Or as is the case here an ongoing pregnancy may endanger the mental health of the mother? In most cases I am "pro-life" for the reasons you state, but sometimes more than one life comes into the balance...

Mother's life, an extremely rare occurrence, could be argued under self defense and under a balancing, where both might be lost. Otherwise I think that legally and rationally I've made a fairly set case as to why we are obligated to protect at every point regardless of where we believe right vests.

 

[Traditio]

Mother's life, an extremely rare occurrence, could be argued under self defense and under a balancing, where both might be lost. Otherwise I think that legally and rationally I've made a fairly set case as to why we are obligated to protect at every point regardless of where we believe right vests.

No, it couldn't. The mother, in that case, would still be intentionally killing an innocent person.

 

[Town Heretic]

No, it couldn't.

Sure it could.

The mother, in that case, would still be intentionally killing an innocent person.

Right. That happens in self defense cases all the time, relative to the occurrence/necessity.

But again, that's a statistical rarity and really doesn't impact my argument/rule.

 

[Traditio]

Sure it could.


Right. That happens in self defense cases all the time, relative to the occurrence/necessity.

But again, that's a statistical rarity and really doesn't impact my argument/rule.

A baby somehow finds his way to the controls of heavy machinery. He's about to start playing with the controls. If he does, an adult, B, might be crushed by the heavy machinery.

I'm too far away to stop the baby, but I have a rifle.

Can I shoot the baby "in self defense"?

And note, even here, the disanalogy between the two cases:

The unborn child isn't doing anything to put the woman in danger. He's just hanging out.

I don't think "self defense" really applies.

 

[quip]

The valuation is arbitrary and insufficient as an argument from reason or law. All we can agree upon collectively is that at some point you are a creature of vested right and dignity and that once vested you may not be deprived of it without a fairly egregious violation of the compact set to preserve it among us.

Okay, looking back across my line of being tell me where that right, inarguably vested in me now, is divided from me...and your answer must be definitive and objectively demonstrable as the truth, else we run the risk of taking that which we agree we are not entitled to take.

It's the best argument for protecting life from conception. Not because you know that's the point at which right and humanity/dignity attaches, but because we lack the ability to objectively state/find the point and lacking that must be compelled to protect what could be the right against which we may not impose our will absent a violation that isn't present.

I could easily employ this lack of objectivity as a precursor to abortion...more so, by offering a rational, definitive and legal commencement of rights at birth. All the while, no violation of rights to the woman in question.

Or, we protect life at every point because it is the default, the only sure way of defending right at any point it might exist and existing be inviolate absent a condition that cannot exist in the unborn.

That's a mere declaration not an achievable goal...simply because we don't (protect life under every circumstance); we can't ...nor is it necessarily in our overall best interest to maintain this ideology, as such.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I'm not hiding behind anything. I'll reiterate: The circumstances are such that a pregnant woman is not allowed personal autonomy TO COMMIT HOMOCIDE by way of state sanction....the result, birthing a child against her will.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Town Heretic]

I could easily employ this lack of objectivity as a precursor to abortion...more so, by offering a rational, definitive and legal commencement of rights at birth.

An arbitrary point that can't satisfy. That's the problem. We all agree that I possess rights, foundational to them is the right to be, and that absent an abrogation of the compact I cannot be denied them or my life. That's established at law. But there isn't the same agreement and no objective standard that can supply us with when that right, looking back across my chronological line of being, fails. Absent that we must be compelled to protect at every point what we agree cannot be denied absent an offense that hasn't been offered.

That's a mere declaration not an achievable goal.

It's nothing of the sort. It's an argument rooted in law and following it rationally. What you've done there is mere declaration. Find a fault in the points. They're clear enough.

 

[Town Heretic]

A baby somehow finds his way to the controls of heavy machinery. He's about to start playing with the controls. If he does, an adult, B, might be crushed by the heavy machinery.

I'm too far away to stop the baby, but I have a rifle.

Can I shoot the baby "in self defense"?

An argument from absurdity isn't really an argument. It's only the appearance of one, a dressing up of a principle in garments that mostly prove it to be an illusion.

The unborn child isn't doing anything to put the woman in danger. He's just hanging out.

That the act of carrying the child places the mother's life in real and dire jeopardy is sufficient to begin a discussion of self defense.

I don't think "self defense" really applies.

Well, speaking from the law you'd be wrong.

 

[quip]

An arbitrary point that can't satisfy. That's the problem. We all agree that I possess rights, foundational to them is the right to be, and that absent an abrogation of the compact I cannot be denied them or my life. That's established at law. But there isn't the same agreement and no objective standard that can supply us with when that right, looking back across my chronological line of being, fails. Absent that we must be compelled to protect at every point what we agree cannot be denied absent an offense that hasn't been offered.

Rights are not abstruse magical endowments, the application of such is purely arbitrary (currently unambiguous and consistent), though what you propose is merely blue sky pining. You've presumed a general, defacto "protection of life" premise sans any rational argumentation as to why or how this descriptively incorporates the unborn. Quite being prescriptive and give me some solid points in lieu of strongly held assertion.

It's nothing of the sort. It's an argument rooted in law and following it rationally. What you've done there is mere declaration. Find a fault in the points. They're clear enough.

Supra

 

[Granite]

EDIT: Sooooooooooooooo that conversation with Rusha went into the abyss. Bummer.

 

[Town Heretic]

Rights are not abstruse magical endowments,

Is that your way of attempting to taint the notion of inherent right? Else, this compact was founded on the notion that "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That's our mission statement. Now whether or not you subscribe to it my argument stands, but it's worth noting. Lastly, I don't think there's anything particularly obscure about noting that the right to life itself, to being and the protection of that is the logical cornerstone for every other right, is the right that must among rights be guarded zealously for that reason.

the application of such is purely arbitrary (currently unambiguous and consistent), though what you propose is merely blue sky pining. You've presumed a general, defacto "protection of life" premise sans any rational argumentation as to why or how this descriptively incorporates the unborn.

That's not true, quip. The whole argument is made to that point. What throws you, I suspect, is that I've addressed it by moving backwards from the inarguable right to establish the nature of any particular attempt to divest right, to note the arbitrary nature of that effort and the reasonable rejection in response to it.

Quite being prescriptive and give me some solid points in lieu of strongly held assertion.

Well, law is prescriptive, but I've given you reason rooted in the actual law and what it is founded upon.

1. Here I stand with full rights inarguably vested and with the full protections of the compact.

2. Among those rights the right to the possession of my life is fundamental and cannot be abridged at law absent a fairly egregious violation of the compact that protects it.

3. There exists along my line of being no point of divestment that is a reflection of this justification and that would not then represent a violation of my right to exist, or murder.

4. My rights may not be arbitrarily interrupted. We call the arbitrary interruption of that right to exist murder, be it murder by the individual or by a mob.

5. There may exist a standard, objectively true, that establishes and denies right along a chain of being, but we do not demonstrably possess it and failing to possess it, beyond the violation of our own established principle (set out above) we risk then doing what we have agreed we have no actual right to do, deny right without justification and to then commit murder and we violate our obligation at law and in principle to protect and defend life and right.

 

[quip]

Is that your way of attempting to taint the notion of inherent right? Else, this compact was founded on the notion that "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That's our mission statement. Now whether or not you subscribe to it my argument stands, but it's worth noting. Lastly, I don't think there's anything particularly obscure about noting that the right to life itself, to being and the protection of that is the logical cornerstone for every other right, is the right that must among rights be guarded zealously for that reason.


That's not true, quip. The whole argument is made to that point. What throws you, I suspect, is that I've addressed it by moving backwards from the inarguable right to establish the nature of any particular attempt to divest right, to note the arbitrary nature of that effort and the reasonable rejection in response to it.


Well, law is prescriptive, but I've given you reason rooted in the actual law and what it is founded upon.

1. Here I stand with full rights inarguably vested and with the full protections of the compact.

2. Among those rights the right to the possession of my life is fundamental and cannot be abridged at law absent a fairly egregious violation of the compact that protects it.

3. There exists along my line of being no point of divestment that is a reflection of this justification and that would not then represent a violation of my right to exist, or murder.

4. My rights may not be arbitrarily interrupted. We call the arbitrary interruption of that right to exist murder, be it murder by the individual or by a mob.

5. There may exist a standard, objectively true, that establishes and denies right along a chain of being, but we do not demonstrably possess it and failing to possess it, beyond the violation of our own established principle (set out above) we risk then doing what we have agreed we have no actual right to do, deny right without justification and to then commit murder and we violate our obligation at law and in principle to protect and defend life and right.

This is all fine and well as a standard, yet it defies (completely ignores) the specific physical and legal circumstances surrounding abortion. Rights have been defended with the cost of life, conversely you cannot be forced to preserve or sustain another's life via a relinquishment of your own in part or whole.

You'll have to do better than idealized and patriotic, soap-box proclaiming in order to convince millions that that the right-to-life, as endowed by you to the unborn, circumvents such circumstances.

 

[Town Heretic]

I DO love the way you folk pick and choose the sound-bites.

I was only noting a problem with your logic applied particularly. You weren't speaking to the unusual, statistically abnormal case of a ten year old becoming impregnated. You weren't even speaking to the rule/average. Here's what you actually wrote and what I responded to:

It is not murder. Nothing you say will make it so. God has given to the governments of the world the authority to make laws; under those laws, in most countries, abortion especially for rape is not murder.

So by your reasoning Germany's genocidal streak, being instituted in law, was something Christians should not think of as murder? Should they have resisted the state or facilitated the program?

And to address the other point:

Further, if you cannot tell the difference between abortion and genocide then nothing I say will help.

Not sure where that came from, but anyone can distinguish. Genocide is far more discriminate than the larger slaughter of abortion. And when it happens it tends to be condemned and resisted.

 

[Town Heretic]

This is all fine and well as a standard, yet it defies (completely ignores) the specific physical and legal circumstances surrounding abortion.

Good, at least we've settled the mistaken notion of my not having a standard or one set out as a rational argument, not a mere declaration. Not sure what you mean about ignoring the physical and legal circumstances. What do you have in mind, Roe? I'm not making an argument about Roe, if that's what you're speaking to. I'm making a non religious, purely rational/ethical objection.

Rights have been defended with the cost of life, conversely you cannot be forced to preserve or sustain another's life via a relinquishment of your own in part or whole.

By the former I suppose you mean the draft, whereby people are put in jeopardy by extraordinary necessity and not with the end in mind being their death, but the preservation of the compact. The latter goes to self defense, which I've recognized in relation to an immediate imperilment of the life of the mother (see: my argument with Trad on the point).

You'll have to do better than idealized and patriotic, soap-box proclaiming

I did better and I've answered your objections. Now try meeting the argument instead of this sort of actual declarative rhetorical soap-box straddling.

in order to convince millions that that the right-to-life, as endowed by you to the unborn, circumvents such circumstances.

I appreciate your conflating my person with reason but no. Rather, regardless of whether I think an individual is a person at conception, or with first breath or by any arbitrary valuation, my argument compels me to recognize the nature of that and the obligation to refrain from violating what I have no right to. Or, it's the catch all that preserves the most important of any right against a warrantless abrogation.

 

[quip]

I appreciate your conflating my person with reason but no. Rather, regardless of whether I think an individual is a person at conception, or with first breath or by any arbitrary valuation, my argument compels me to recognize the nature of that and the obligation to refrain from violating what I have no right to. Or, it's the catch all that preserves the most important of any right against a warrantless abrogation.

While that's an admirable personal standard.... You've yet to objectively establish a universal "obligation to refrain.." nor specify how the abortion scenario amounts to a "unwarranted abrogation".