Abortion///cont.

[quip]

Nothing in that connects to a refutation of my argument. Those are the dots and that's the nature of my answer.

Quite to the contrary:

On closer examination your position demands it. A newly combined egg and sperm are being lobbied as falling under the umbrella of "right-to-life". By comparison you employed your son (among others) as obvious demonstration to such right and asserting that the sperm/egg co-mixture assumes (as per human life in general) the same right your son enjoys. The implications are obvious...you're claiming no difference between your son and the sperm/egg i.e. A=A; they both identify under the rubric of "life". I've simply posited facts and example challenging this broad assertion on equal grounds.

 

[patrick jane]

Quite to the contrary:

On closer examination your position demands it. A newly combined egg and sperm are being lobbied as falling under the umbrella of "right-to-life". By comparison you employed your son (among others) as obvious demonstration to such right and asserting that the sperm/egg co-mixture assumes (as per human life in general) the same right your son enjoys. The implications are obvious...you're claiming no difference between your son and the sperm/egg i.e. A=A; they both identify under the rubric of "life". I've simply posited facts and example challenging this broad assertion on equal grounds.

I see what you're saying, we'll see what Town Man says

 

[ok doser]

let's start with basics

would you agree with the following statement?

at conception, a new, genetically unique human life is created

 

[Town Heretic]

Quite to the contrary:

On closer examination your position demands it. A newly combined egg and sperm are being lobbied as falling under the umbrella of "right-to-life".

It's the point of beginning for a new entity, one containing as it does everything necessary to continue down that chronological pathway to the inarguable fruition of you or me. Nothing with that potential exists before the point. The question then becomes at what point along the chronological line of being will/should/must right exist?

By comparison you employed your son (among others) as obvious demonstration to such right and asserting that the sperm/egg co-mixture assumes (as per human life in general) the same right your son enjoys.

Rather, what I've stated is that the moment of conception is the beginning point where the vestment of right is as arguable as not. Every point up until birth is similarly situated. The argument follows the implications of that in relation to the foundation of the compact involving right.

So I don't attempt to answer on the point of whether the act of conception establishes right or whether it's breath, or brainwaves, or heartbeat, or the ability to exist independent of the mother, etc. None of those positions self-evidently establish right. My catch-all is necessitated by the potential for the right in each moment beginning with conception and the understanding that we have no right to abrogate that right wherever it exists absent fairly grotesque violations of the compact that are impossible for the unborn to have accomplished, excepting the mother also has a right to her life and to defend it against a direct threat posed by the unborn's presence under certain and rare circumstance.

The implications are obvious...you're claiming no difference between your son and the sperm/egg i.e. A=A; they both identify under the rubric of "life".

No difference in the one aspect that controls what we can or can't do to either.

 

[quip]

It's the point of beginning for a new entity, one containing as it does everything necessary to continue down that chronological pathway to the inarguable fruition of you or me. Nothing with that potential exists before the point. The question then becomes at what point along the chronological line of being will/should/must right exist?

Rather, what I've stated is that the moment of conception is the beginning point where the vestment of right is as arguable as not. Every point up until birth is similarly situated. The argument follows the implications of that in relation to the foundation of the compact involving right.

You're speaking strictly of potential; a current reality as of yet establishing practical consideration within the entirety of our system of rights. Rationally speaking, "potential life" (in regard to establishing right) only speaks from potentiality...such may reasonably confer the basic potentiality for the application of its associated right.

So I don't attempt to answer on the point of whether the act of conception establishes right or whether it's breath, or brainwaves, or heartbeat, or the ability to exist independent of the mother, etc. None of those positions self-evidently establish right. My catch-all is necessitated by the potential for the right in each moment beginning with conception and the understanding that we have no right to abrogate that right wherever it exists absent fairly grotesque violations of the compact that are impossible for the unborn to have accomplished, excepting the mother also has a right to her life and to defend it against a direct threat posed by the unborn's presence under certain and rare circumstance.

We cannot abrogate a right as of yet established nor establish such right as precursor and premise to the contention itself. Thus, in the spirit of thorough examination and rational discourse we must "attempt" to answer those points noted above.

 

[Town Heretic]

You're speaking strictly of potential;

Of two sorts in one sense. But the potential that matters exists at every point along that line of being. The potential that right is present and that we then have no right to abrogate it.

We cannot abrogate a right as of yet established

We cannot abrogate a right that is as likely present as not. That's the rub and problem for anyone who desires to allow the taking of that life.

 

[quip]

We cannot abrogate a right that is as likely present as not. That's the rub and problem for anyone who desires to allow the taking of that life.

That works either direction.


You truncated a critical point:
"We cannot abrogate a right[,] as of yet established nor establish such right as precursor and premise to the contention itself."

"Thus, in the spirit of thorough examination and rational discourse we must "attempt" to answer those points noted [prior]."

 

[Town Heretic]

That works either direction.

It doesn't, reasonably. We are not establishing the right, but protecting against the potential of its violation. That may lead to a defacto status of right, but no assertion of the absolute presence of that right can be or is being made. The argument is simply that it is, so far as can be determined objectively, as likely as not and that being the case we cannot proceed without a risk to a right we have no right to abrogate.

 

[quip]

It doesn't, reasonably. We are not establishing the right, but protecting against the potential of its violation.

Then you've no violation to speak of. You must - at the very least - presume such right..or your left propping an non-establised risk.

That may lead to a defacto status of right, but no assertion of the absolute presence of that right can be or is being made.

Precisely. (In short) That's what Px and I have been expressing.

The argument is simply that it is, so far as can be determined objectively, as likely as not and that being the case we cannot proceed without a risk to a right we have no right to abrogate.

Again, we cannot abrogate a right....where it's risks have yet to be ascertained nor established.

 

[Town Heretic]

Then you've no violation to speak of.

Rather, we will or won't have and have no way to determine it, should we allow the act. Or, there's only one course by which we risk doing a thing we are not entitled to do and creating a harm that we cannot offer redress for.

Precisely. (In short) That's what Px and I have been expressing.

The defacto is a given, but it's not in the nature of the claim. That is, if you believe that life begins at conception, happy day for you, but it's not actually being established in the claim.

Again, we cannot abrogate a right....where it's risks have yet to be ascertained nor established.

The risk is established without question if the right is present. That's the problem and the answer is that we don't know and it may well be. And so we refrain, the only way to prevent a harm we are not entitled to.

 

[quip]

The risk is established without question if the right is present. That's the problem and the answer is that we don't know and it may well be. And so we refrain, the only way to prevent a harm we are not entitled to.

This is exactly where your argument commences. It ignores the preamble and goes straight for singing fat-lady. The problem is that this is a personal view, not one that lends itself to objective discourse.

 

[Town Heretic]

This is exactly where your argument commences. It ignores the preamble and goes straight for singing fat-lady. The problem is that this is a personal view, not one that lends itself to objective discourse.

I simply don't agree that's an objectively fair assessment. Anything beyond the borders of the argument reduces discourse to declarations and appraisals of different subjective valuations.

 

[kmoney]

So I don't attempt to answer on the point of whether the act of conception establishes right or whether it's breath, or brainwaves, or heartbeat, or the ability to exist independent of the mother, etc. None of those positions self-evidently establish right. My catch-all is necessitated by the potential for the right in each moment beginning with conception and the understanding that we have no right to abrogate that right wherever it exists absent fairly grotesque violations of the compact that are impossible for the unborn to have accomplished, excepting the mother also has a right to her life and to defend it against a direct threat posed by the unborn's presence under certain and rare circumstance.

At what point does it cease to be only a potential for the right?

 

[Town Heretic]

At what point does it cease to be only a potential for the right?

I don't know that there's an objective answer. If right isn't ours to endow or create, only an obligation to protect, then I argue that we simply cannot advocate a law that has at its foundation as distinct a possibility in serving a violation of right as actual right.

What I'm suggesting isn't that we must assume the harm, but only acknowledge the present potential and that potential should stay our hand, lest we do that which we are not entitled to accomplish.

 

[patrick jane]

And so we refrain, the only way to prevent a harm we are not entitled to.

Problem is, PP is entitled still

 

[kmoney]

I don't know that there's an objective answer. If right isn't ours to endow or create, only an obligation to protect, then I argue that we simply cannot advocate a law that has at its foundation as distinct a possibility in serving a violation of right as actual right.

What I'm suggesting isn't that we must assume the harm, but only acknowledge the present potential and that potential should stay our hand, lest we do that which we are not entitled to accomplish.

And if right is ours to create?

 

[Town Heretic]

And if right is ours to create?

Then right is nothing more or less than whatever power dictates.

 

[Nick M]

On closer examination your position demands it. A newly combined egg and sperm are being lobbied as falling under the umbrella of "right-to-life". By comparison you employed your son (among others) as obvious demonstration to such right and asserting that the sperm/egg co-mixture assumes (as per human life in general) the same right your son enjoys.

Do you think a 2 year old toddler and a 27 year old adult have the same rights and responsibilities?

Is it ok for the parents to kill the 2 year old? Yes or no.

Is the 2 year old responsible for preparing his own meals? Yes or no.

2 simple questions and I will engage you if you answer honestly. You don't have to expound yet, we will get to it.

 

[kmoney]

Then right is nothing more or less than whatever power dictates.

You say your position doesn't assume harm, but would you say it assumes that there is harm at some point along the line?

 

[Town Heretic]

You say your position doesn't assume harm, but would you say it assumes that there is harm at some point along the line?

It can't assert or assume anything beyond the potential for it in each moment... That potential for harm is not increased or decreased as an operation of logic by moving further along the line of chronological being.