Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-09-2014, 12:17 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(23-09-2014 01:26 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-09-2014 01:06 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Try the word "tolerance".

Indeed. A subjective matter, dependent on time and place.

I grant that you think it's the most reasonable opinion, but don't worry, I think that about all of my opinions too.

(23-09-2014 01:06 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Now, let's say we have a society which values tolerance rather than control.
This leads to diversity, because people are not going around judging each other, not looking to justify controlling each other. Instead they mind their own business.

Does this fantasy hypothetical mean anything?

If I create an example in which A equals A, and conclude from it that within the example A equals A, I do not see that as a helpful exercise.

(23-09-2014 01:06 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Randy down the road frequents a brothel. Julie is his favorite prostitute.
Joan, who is Randy's neighbor, knows that Randy goes to a brothel. She doesn't like the idea of people selling their bodies for sex, but she tolerates it because she knows it is none of her business to interfere.

CJLR, do you think this society should get together and have a vote for whether prostitution should be made illegal or do you think people should be tolerant when things have no impact on them?

That it is trivial to find an example where you and I might agree is not relevant. There are a great many ways in which societies have decided on their laws. A great variety of laws on prostitution have existed throughout history and around the world.

Are you going somewhere with this?

(23-09-2014 01:06 PM)Stevil Wrote:  In the case of abortion, who do you think is best placed to make an informed decision? The pregnant woman whose life will be affected the most or Chas who doesn't know this woman, does not know her situation, is not impacted by her decision.

Ah, so you were building up to a bizarre straw man. Again.

What you think about who is affected by whom is precisely as important as any other single individual's opinion. It is literally impossible to satisfy everyone's opinion all the time, as I literally just told you. If your opinion were the basis for law, you would be, necessarily and inevitably, forcing that opinion on others. That you think your opinion is better than theirs is hardly the point.

Surely the woman is most able to make an informed decision as to whether her newborn child should be killed? How does that affect you?

You earlier half-claimed that such an act might affect you insofar as others' reaction to it would be disruptive. That's no less than admission that yes, this is all wholly subjective. Whether or not the deed "affects you" is then dependent on the aggregate opinion of others in the same society.

At which point we have the same problem of induction we've had all along.

Cue you admitting you have no answer of your own to the question, adhering to an impossible standard for finding one, and completely mischaracterising the answer Chas offers.
Wow....cjlr. .. that was just an exceptional post!
Damn!!!

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2014, 12:59 PM (This post was last modified: 24-09-2014 01:04 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(23-09-2014 01:26 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-09-2014 01:06 PM)Stevil Wrote:  CJLR, do you think this society should get together and have a vote for whether prostitution should be made illegal or do you think people should be tolerant when things have no impact on them?

That it is trivial to find an example where you and I might agree is not relevant. There are a great many ways in which societies have decided on their laws. A great variety of laws on prostitution have existed throughout history and around the world.

Are you going somewhere with this?
Yes I am going somewhere with this.

Before we start presenting our ideas of at what stage an abortion should be made illegal, don't you think it is important to agree on a purpose of government? Law and law enforcement is a tool at the government's disposal in support of this purpose.

If you don't define the purpose and if you don't insist on law being justified based on this purpose then you are giving the government the power to implement whatever law they choose, at will.

The risk to yourself in doing this is that government can oppress you on a whim. So, by my reckoning, it is in your own best interests to insist on a purpose for government and to insist laws are justified towards that purpose.

If we are looking for law to be based on something more than a whim, we can set what might be considered as reasonable criteria. If we don't think that we personally are going to be the man or woman in charge, and if we think that we personally aren't always going to be the majority then how can we set a purpose protects us both from the dangers of an ungoverned society as well as the dangers of a powerful government? Wouldn't it be wise to come up with a reasonably well defined purpose for government that provides for diversity and freedom of choice but also allows the government to excerpt control via force only when absolutely necessary?

My suggestion is to base it on the safety and stability of society. My suggestion of "force only when absolutely necessary" means that the law is only justified if not having that law will threaten the safety and stability of society. I have a personal interest in the safety and stability of society because an unsafe one presents a risk to my life. I have a personal interest in laws being justified to this ends becasue I want to be safe and free.
My opinion presented here is tied into my own vested interest in being able to survive freely. this is not trivial and it is not arbitrary.
(23-09-2014 01:26 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-09-2014 01:06 PM)Stevil Wrote:  In the case of abortion, who do you think is best placed to make an informed decision? The pregnant woman whose life will be affected the most or Chas who doesn't know this woman, does not know her situation, is not impacted by her decision.

Ah, so you were building up to a bizarre straw man. Again.

What you think about who is affected by whom is precisely as important as any other single individual's opinion. It is literally impossible to satisfy everyone's opinion all the time, as I literally just told you. If your opinion were the basis for law, you would be, necessarily and inevitably, forcing that opinion on others. That you think your opinion is better than theirs is hardly the point.
Not a strawman, and you have avoided the question.
I have shown why I might not want to outlaw late term abortion. I have tied this into my own personal interest for my survival and my freedom. At no point have I stated whether I like or dislike the idea of late term abortion. At no point have I suggested to use force on someone merely because of my own likes and dislikes. If my own survival and freedom are at stake then I am compelled to act.
It would be great if you would answer the question. Whom do you think is best placed to make the informed decision? The pregnant woman or Chas?
You can elaborate if you wish? You can take this opportunity to show me how the abortion of this unborn impacts Chas to such a degree that it might compel Chas to use force against this woman.
(23-09-2014 01:26 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You earlier half-claimed that such an act might affect you insofar as others' reaction to it would be disruptive. That's no less than admission that yes, this is all wholly subjective. Whether or not the deed "affects you" is then dependent on the aggregate opinion of others in the same society.
It's more than just an opinion on a whim. It is an opportunity for both sides to lay down their argument for and against. It is a debatable situation. Evidence can be brought forth. e.g. abortion has been allowed in the following countries for x amount of years and it has not brought with it violence or threat of violence. Society has been accepting and peaceful to this action.
(23-09-2014 01:26 PM)cjlr Wrote:  At which point we have the same problem of induction we've had all along.

Cue you admitting you have no answer of your own to the question, adhering to an impossible standard for finding one, and completely mischaracterising the answer Chas offers.
It's not an impossible standard.
Personally I feel no compulsion to incite violence against a woman wanting to have an abortion (be it early term or late term). Personally I see no reason to hold human live as almost sacred. Personally I struggle to see how anyone who does see life as almost sacred can then add on the exceptions for early term abortion, euthanasia and possibly death penalty.
I have no incentive to force an ideal on to others. I am interested in my own safety and freedom and the safety and freedom of my loved ones. When that is threatened then I am compelled to act.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2014, 01:30 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(24-09-2014 12:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(23-09-2014 01:26 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That it is trivial to find an example where you and I might agree is not relevant. There are a great many ways in which societies have decided on their laws. A great variety of laws on prostitution have existed throughout history and around the world.

Are you going somewhere with this?
Yes I am going somewhere with this.

Could you go there faster?

(24-09-2014 12:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Before we start presenting our ideas of at what stage an abortion should be made illegal, don't you think it is important to agree on a purpose of government? Law and law enforcement is a tool at the government's disposal in support of this purpose.

If you don't define the purpose and if you don't insist on law being justified based on this purpose then you are giving the government the power to implement whatever law they choose, at will.

Why this insistence on reifying "government"?

Notwithstanding that this whole discussion has already been predicated on a shared understanding of the role of government re: abortion...

Remember when I said I felt it unnecessary to tell you things you'd already said?

(24-09-2014 12:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The risk to yourself in doing this is that government can oppress you on a whim. So, by my reckoning, it is in your own best interests to insist on a purpose for government and to insist laws are justified towards that purpose.

Reification. Again.

(24-09-2014 12:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If we are looking for law to be based on something more than a whim, we can set what might be considered as reasonable criteria. If we don't think that we personally are going to be the man or woman in charge, and if we think that we personally aren't always going to be the majority then how can we set a purpose protects us both from the dangers of an ungoverned society as well as the dangers of a powerful government? Wouldn't it be wise to come up with a reasonably well defined purpose for government that provides for diversity and freedom of choice but also allows the government to excerpt control via force only when absolutely necessary?

That's such placidly boilerplate rhetoric it's meaningless.

I know of nobody who advocates more "government control via force" than is necessary.

However:
People disagree as to what constitutes "necessary". This is inevitable. People are different. Would you agree?

(24-09-2014 12:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  My suggestion is to base it on the safety and stability of society. My suggestion of "force only when absolutely necessary" means that the law is only justified if not having that law will threaten the safety and stability of society. I have a personal interest in the safety and stability of society because an unsafe one presents a risk to my life. I have a personal interest in laws being justified to this ends becasue I want to be safe and free.

Find me someone who disagrees with this statement of principle.

It's okay; I'll wait.

(24-09-2014 12:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  My opinion presented here is tied into my own vested interest in being able to survive freely. this is not trivial and it is not arbitrary.

That that is what you wish is no less "arbitrary" than any other human desire. I'd further say it's trivially true that the large majority of humans are in favour of their own continued survival and of those they associate with...

(24-09-2014 12:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(23-09-2014 01:26 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Ah, so you were building up to a bizarre straw man. Again.

What you think about who is affected by whom is precisely as important as any other single individual's opinion. It is literally impossible to satisfy everyone's opinion all the time, as I literally just told you. If your opinion were the basis for law, you would be, necessarily and inevitably, forcing that opinion on others. That you think your opinion is better than theirs is hardly the point.
Not a strawman, and you have avoided the question.
I have shown why I might not want to outlaw late term abortion. I have tied this into my own personal interest for my survival and my freedom. At no point have I stated whether I like or dislike the idea of late term abortion.

Okay, then.

Not that I used the word "like" at any point in the preceding paragraph.

I nonetheless feel that it would generally be understood, in such a context, "I like X" is an acceptable gloss for "I want X, because reasons"...

(24-09-2014 12:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  At no point have I suggested to use force on someone merely because of my own likes and dislikes. If my own survival and freedom are at stake then I am compelled to act.

How delightfully equivocal.

What you think constitutes your survival and freedom is most assuredly not how everyone else would define their survival and freedom. Variation inevitably exists. So there's that.

(24-09-2014 12:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It would be great if you would answer the question. Whom do you think is best placed to make the informed decision?

I reject that question as irrelevant.

Communal law cannot be based on the opinions and decisions - however "informed" - of specific individuals.

I repeat my question to you. Is not a new mother best informed as to whether newborn infanticide is justified or acceptable?

(24-09-2014 12:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The pregnant woman or Chas?

What Chas actually said was that a communal standard needs to exist for the sake of a coherent legal system, and that that standard must be enforceable for all members of society - anything less is anarchy. Furthermore, the existence of a legal definition (any legal definition) will inevitably be contrary to the opinion of some individuals.
(incidentally, that's also what I said. many, many times over)

In that light the question is facetious at best.

(24-09-2014 12:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You can elaborate if you wish? You can take this opportunity to show me how the abortion of this unborn impacts Chas to such a degree that it might compel Chas to use force against this woman.

See above.

(24-09-2014 12:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(23-09-2014 01:26 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You earlier half-claimed that such an act might affect you insofar as others' reaction to it would be disruptive. That's no less than admission that yes, this is all wholly subjective. Whether or not the deed "affects you" is then dependent on the aggregate opinion of others in the same society.
It's more than just an opinion on a whim. It is an opportunity for both sides to lay down their argument for and against. It is a debatable situation. Evidence can be brought forth. e.g. abortion has been allowed in the following countries for x amount of years and it has not brought with it violence or threat of violence. Society has been accepting and peaceful to this action.

Question: is it possible for multiple answers to lead to "accepting and peaceful society"?

There is no statistically meaningful difference between "abortion up to 30 weeks" and "abortion up to 32 weeks".
(if you can provide one, I'd be very interested)

You appear to be fundamentally blind to the entire problem here.

You superficially grant it, but all of your responses implicitly ignore it.

(24-09-2014 12:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(23-09-2014 01:26 PM)cjlr Wrote:  At which point we have the same problem of induction we've had all along.

Cue you admitting you have no answer of your own to the question, adhering to an impossible standard for finding one, and completely mischaracterising the answer Chas offers.
It's not an impossible standard.

I disagree.

(24-09-2014 12:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Personally I feel no compulsion to incite violence against a woman wanting to have an abortion (be it early term or late term).

What about a newborn?

What about an infant six weeks old? Six months? A child of six years?

Where do you draw the line? After all, we both know that you do grant such a distinction.

I invite you (again) to consider that others will (inevitably) draw that line differently. You suggest it's somehow "arbitrary" for a legal system to be based on aggregate opinion - but you suggest it's somehow possible for everybody to agree by following your subjective criteria...

(24-09-2014 12:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Personally I see no reason to hold human live as almost sacred. Personally I struggle to see how anyone who does see life as almost sacred can then add on the exceptions for early term abortion, euthanasia and possibly death penalty.

Has anyone in this thread even come close to invoking "sacred"?

There's quite a whiff of straw about that, stevil...

(24-09-2014 12:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I have no incentive to force an ideal on to others. I am interesting in my own safety and freedom and the safety and freedom of my loved ones. When that is threatened then I am compelled to act.

Indeed - and your acting is forcing your views on others, provided we assume that at some point there will be disagreement between you and others. I take that as a given - I suggest that disagreement is inevitable between any individuals and within any society. Do you disagree?

It is extremely puzzling to me how consistently you fail to understand this.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
24-09-2014, 04:42 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
Look, dude, go start your own thread about government because this one isn't about that.

This thread is about how to move closer to a reasonable resolution to the abortion debate in the society and the government and the legal system we have.

You won't be able to see that until you take your head out of your ass can see past your libertard cant.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2014, 06:28 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Why this insistence on reifying "government"?

Notwithstanding that this whole discussion has already been predicated on a shared understanding of the role of government re: abortion...
I don't think it benefits anyone to avoid clarifying what we mean by our own understanding of the role of government.
I certainly don't think that my ideas of the government's purpose is aligned with yours.
By my ideas there needs to be a reason for government to interfere in the actions of society members and that reason needs to be tied into safety and stability of society.
Given this there is no need to assume "persons" need to be protected.
Some here are stating that "persons" need to be protected, but those that are saying this are outright refusing to articulate why and how this may compele me to agree with them.
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(24-09-2014 12:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The risk to yourself in doing this is that government can oppress you on a whim. So, by my reckoning, it is in your own best interests to insist on a purpose for government and to insist laws are justified towards that purpose.

Reification. Again.
I don't understand your objection.
Are you not concerned about government oppressing you on a whim?
What ability do you have to address this concern?
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I know of nobody who advocates more "government control via force" than is necessary.
It depends on the purpose of government, doesn't it?
If purpose of government is to provide a safe and stable society then the following are examples of government control via force more than is necessary:
Laws against gay marriage
Laws against polygomy
Laws against prostitution
Laws against heresy
laws against women drivers
laws against abortion
laws forcing women to wait 72 hours before an abortion...
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  People disagree as to what constitutes "necessary". This is inevitable. People are different. Would you agree?
Yes, which is why it is important to define the purpose of government.
Once we define the purpose then we can judge whether use of force complies with that purpose.
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(24-09-2014 12:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  My suggestion is to base it on the safety and stability of society. My suggestion of "force only when absolutely necessary" means that the law is only justified if not having that law will threaten the safety and stability of society. I have a personal interest in the safety and stability of society because an unsafe one presents a risk to my life. I have a personal interest in laws being justified to this ends becasue I want to be safe and free.

Find me someone who disagrees with this statement of principle.
If you agree with my statement then I'd like to hear your argument as to why late term abortion presents a risk to your own life or your own freedom.
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(24-09-2014 12:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  My opinion presented here is tied into my own vested interest in being able to survive freely. this is not trivial and it is not arbitrary.

That that is what you wish is no less "arbitrary" than any other human desire. I'd further say it's trivially true that the large majority of humans are in favour of their own continued survival and of those they associate with...
Cool, so agan, explain to me how a late term abortion jeapordizes your own continued survival?
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Not that I used the word "like" at any point in the preceding paragraph.

I nonetheless feel that it would generally be understood, in such a context, "I like X" is an acceptable gloss for "I want X, because reasons"...
I'd like to know what those because reasons are for you. Do you care to articulate or would you rather leave me guessing?
We are talking about late term abortion here. What are the reasons that you are opposed to it, to such a degree that you would give police the obligation to use force?
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  What you think constitutes your survival and freedom is most assuredly not how everyone else would define their survival and freedom. Variation inevitably exists. So there's that.
I have not assumed what your reasons are. I have merely expressed my own. I'd be very keen to hear yours. Also I'd be keen to see how you tie that into your position on "late term abortion"
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(24-09-2014 12:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It would be great if you would answer the question. Whom do you think is best placed to make the informed decision?

I reject that question as irrelevant.
Again avoiding the very question which is the topic of the OP. Why is it so difficult for you to present your own case?
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I repeat my question to you. Is not a new mother best informed as to whether newborn infanticide is justified or acceptable?
My answer again is what it has always been.
If this results in a danger to society then it becomes government's place to interfere, if it does not present a danger to society then it is not government's concern.
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  What Chas actually said was that a communal standard needs to exist for the sake of a coherent legal system, and that that standard must be enforceable for all members of society - anything less is anarchy. Furthermore, the existence of a legal definition (any legal definition) will inevitably be contrary to the opinion of some individuals.
(incidentally, that's also what I said. many, many times over)

In that light the question is facetious at best.
Chas has been arguing that at a specific point the unborn becomes a "person". He has been arguing that it then requires protection.
This means that at that point, Chas deems it his decision and not the woman's.
Beside "person" merely being a label, I'd like to know why Chas or anyone else feel that the woman's choice is no longer relevant, why do they deem their own opinion more appropriate than the woman's and why are they willing to use force on the woman to make her conform to their own opinion?
These are just questions, don't take them as a personal insult to yourself.
Why are you and others reluctant to answer these questions?
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(24-09-2014 12:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You can elaborate if you wish? You can take this opportunity to show me how the abortion of this unborn impacts Chas to such a degree that it might compel Chas to use force against this woman.

See above.
This is again a non answer.
I cannot see what compels Chas or yourself to interfere.
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Question: is it possible for multiple answers to lead to "accepting and peaceful society"?
Sure, that's why the necessity to provide evidence and to debate the issue. I am only providing parameters, I am not providing the final answer.
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  There is no statistically meaningful difference between "abortion up to 30 weeks" and "abortion up to 32 weeks".
(if you can provide one, I'd be very interested)
This is why I consider the "person" label to be not useful. It is alive and human right from conception.
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You appear to be fundamentally blind to the entire problem here.
Would be great for you to clarify your position.
Why do you deem it your place to interfere when a woman wants a late term abortion?
Why are you willing to use force on her?

(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(24-09-2014 12:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Personally I feel no compulsion to incite violence against a woman wanting to have an abortion (be it early term or late term).

What about a newborn?
It becomes my problem when society becomes unsafe. At some point fights and retaliation etc will become common place. It is not for me to decide what that point is. It is a matter of reasoned discovery.

(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I invite you (again) to consider that others will (inevitably) draw that line differently. You suggest it's somehow "arbitrary" for a legal system to be based on aggregate opinion - but you suggest it's somehow possible for everybody to agree by following your subjective criteria...
I am arguing against my view that there seems to be no link to the event of the abortion and yourself. What is the link? Why does her business become your business?

(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Has anyone in this thread even come close to invoking "sacred"?
This is my guess on why you deem it your business to interfere?
I am hoping you can clarify and show me why you deem it your business. If a "person" is not treated as near sacred, then shouldn't you be unconcerned if a "person" is aborted?

(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Indeed - and your acting is forcing your views on others, provided we assume that at some point there will be disagreement between you and others. I take that as a given - I suggest that disagreement is inevitable between any individuals and within any society. Do you disagree?

It is extremely puzzling to me how consistently you fail to understand this.
I am tieing my acting into a necessity to act. I am compelled to act when I have to, when my safety is threatened.
This is the key differentiator.
When I think that my own safety and freedom is threatened then I act, forcibly to protect myself.

What I am trying to understand regarding your position (possibly Chas' position). Do you guys think that your own safety is threatened by a woman having a late term abortion?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2014, 01:55 PM (This post was last modified: 26-09-2014 02:11 PM by cjlr.)
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(24-09-2014 06:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Why this insistence on reifying "government"?

Notwithstanding that this whole discussion has already been predicated on a shared understanding of the role of government re: abortion...
I don't think it benefits anyone to avoid clarifying what we mean by our own understanding of the role of government.
I certainly don't think that my ideas of the government's purpose is aligned with yours.
By my ideas there needs to be a reason for government to interfere in the actions of society members and that reason needs to be tied into safety and stability of society.
Given this there is no need to assume "persons" need to be protected.
Some here are stating that "persons" need to be protected, but those that are saying this are outright refusing to articulate why and how this may compele me to agree with them.

(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Reification. Again.
I don't understand your objection.

"Government" is not some abstracted monolith removed from the rest of society.

(24-09-2014 06:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Are you not concerned about government oppressing you on a whim?

That you say "government" instead of even "your government" belies that same reification.

But as it happens: no. Are you? That's veering far more towards outright paranoia than I'd've credited.

I can of course imagine scenarios in which that presents a possibility; what I can imagine is entirely irrelevant.

(24-09-2014 06:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  What ability do you have to address this concern?

Voting, activism, the constitution, tradition, civil disobedience, heck - armed resistance...

You know; the usual suspects.

(24-09-2014 06:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I know of nobody who advocates more "government control via force" than is necessary.
It depends on the purpose of government, doesn't it?
If purpose of government is to provide a safe and stable society then the following are examples of government control via force more than is necessary:
Laws against gay marriage
Laws against polygomy
Laws against prostitution
Laws against heresy
laws against women drivers
laws against abortion
laws forcing women to wait 72 hours before an abortion...

Congratulations on totally missing the point. Like, by light-years.

I refuse to believe that you don't know this, but in any case:
Those advocating such laws do not think they are unnecessary.

You don't see such laws as necessary for your purposes. Others self-evidently disagree. This is because they are different people. As such they have different opinions.

While I'm sure you think your own opinions are more valid, rest assured that everyone else does too.

(24-09-2014 06:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  People disagree as to what constitutes "necessary". This is inevitable. People are different. Would you agree?
Yes, which is why it is important to define the purpose of government.
Once we define the purpose then we can judge whether use of force complies with that purpose.

That is still a fundamentally subjective matter.

Which is the whole point I've been making to your deaf ears.

I mean, sure, I certainly grant that if we all agreed then we'd all agree, but I don't see how that matters.

(24-09-2014 06:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Find me someone who disagrees with this statement of principle.
If you agree with my statement then I'd like to hear your argument as to why late term abortion presents a risk to your own life or your own freedom.

"NO U" isn't particularly helpful.

I have already elaborated on my position at some length. To the tune of thousands of words in this very thread.

(24-09-2014 06:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That that is what you wish is no less "arbitrary" than any other human desire. I'd further say it's trivially true that the large majority of humans are in favour of their own continued survival and of those they associate with...
Cool, so agan, explain to me how a late term abortion jeapordizes your own continued survival?

Oh good, more facetious digression.

I'm not sure why I bother reiterating myself, since you apparently not just do not but cannot grasp the basics of what I'm trying to present, but here goes:
You believe that killing some (most?) adults is somehow against your own interest.
You also believe that killing an unborn fetus is not against your interest.
At some point you thus draw a distinction.
You are unable to articulate how and why you draw that distinction.
Requiring, for the purposes of a coherent legal system, a clear distinction, you have continually re-asserted a useless standard.

But wait! There's more! Allow me to continue reiterating things I have already said:
I believe - as you seem to - that there exist end cases where a judgement is simple (or at least, agreed-upon by the large majority of people, which is as much as can be asked for given human variability).
I believe that there exists a middle ground where judgement is difficult.
I do not see any obvious means of drawing a distinction.

Given, then, the clear need for an empirical, statistically reliable distinction - and lacking any external, objective means of defining one - I believe that we (where "we" is any given legal jurisdiction with the appropriate competency; I know how you love pedantry) must nonetheless create a distinction somehow.

Further, I believe that any distinction - given, once again, inevitable differences of opinion in any statistically significant population sample - will result in "using force" against those who "disagree", because such is trivially inevitable so long as law codes are uniform across society.
(thus to object on such grounds seems incoherent)

(24-09-2014 06:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Not that I used the word "like" at any point in the preceding paragraph.

I nonetheless feel that it would generally be understood, in such a context, "I like X" is an acceptable gloss for "I want X, because reasons"...
I'd like to know what those because reasons are for you. Do you care to articulate or would you rather leave me guessing?
We are talking about late term abortion here. What are the reasons that you are opposed to it, to such a degree that you would give police the obligation to use force?

(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  What you think constitutes your survival and freedom is most assuredly not how everyone else would define their survival and freedom. Variation inevitably exists. So there's that.
I have not assumed what your reasons are. I have merely expressed my own. I'd be very keen to hear yours. Also I'd be keen to see how you tie that into your position on "late term abortion"

You are doing a fantastic job of ignoring what I've already explained multiple times.

Since you've ignored my previous answers, I'll make up a new one for you - but I don't think you'll like it much. I present for your consideration: feels. Just feels, that's all.

You've got yours, I've got mine. Let's say I feel that the death and/or suffering of anything sufficiently like me impacts me negatively. Let's say I feel that any fetus over 200 days old (to be nice and "arbitrary") provokes that feeling.
(We call that empathy; you apparently lack it.)

How do you respond? Is my opinion "wrong"? Is my brain chemistry "wrong"?

(24-09-2014 06:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I reject that question as irrelevant.
Again avoiding the very question which is the topic of the OP. Why is it so difficult for you to present your own case?

Who said anything about difficult?

I was interested in exploring what I found to be gaps in your own statements and uncharitable misrepresentation of others' points.

Instead we got this dance. Which is growing ever more tedious...

(24-09-2014 06:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I repeat my question to you. Is not a new mother best informed as to whether newborn infanticide is justified or acceptable?
My answer again is what it has always been.
If this results in a danger to society then it becomes government's place to interfere, if it does not present a danger to society then it is not government's concern.

That that's a vacuous non-answer doesn't seem to bother you.

So be it. This is never going to get anywhere, is it?

(24-09-2014 06:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  What Chas actually said was that a communal standard needs to exist for the sake of a coherent legal system, and that that standard must be enforceable for all members of society - anything less is anarchy. Furthermore, the existence of a legal definition (any legal definition) will inevitably be contrary to the opinion of some individuals.
(incidentally, that's also what I said. many, many times over)

In that light the question is facetious at best.
Chas has been arguing that at a specific point the unborn becomes a "person". He has been arguing that it then requires protection.
This means that at that point, Chas deems it his decision and not the woman's.

Insofar as a distinction must be made and any distinction will mean "interfering" (using - gasp - "force"!) with those who inevitably disagree.
(this is, of course, presuming you find the rule of law a desirable thing)

But tell me something I havent' explained to you multiple times over.

(24-09-2014 06:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Beside "person" merely being a label, I'd like to know why Chas or anyone else feel that the woman's choice is no longer relevant, why do they deem their own opinion more appropriate than the woman's and why are they willing to use force on the woman to make her conform to their own opinion?
These are just questions, don't take them as a personal insult to yourself.
Why are you and others reluctant to answer these questions?

I'm reluctant to answer again because I have. Already. Multiple times. In this very thread. Which you have comprehensively ignored.

In other words - see above. Repeatedly. Indeed, see elsewhere in this very post.

I certainly don't see anything you've said as a personal insult, but I do find it baffling that you apparently haven't listened to anything I've said.

(24-09-2014 06:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  See above.
This is again a non answer.
I cannot see what compels Chas or yourself to interfere.

You consider yourself compelled to interefere under certain circumstances.

I invite you to begin your examination there. There are quite a few posts in this very thread which might help on your search.

(24-09-2014 06:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Question: is it possible for multiple answers to lead to "accepting and peaceful society"?
Sure, that's why the necessity to provide evidence and to debate the issue. I am only providing parameters, I am not providing the final answer.

That admission obviates your entire runaround objection, though.

If it is possible for multiple answers to be equivalent under your provided heuristic, then your provided heuristic does not help in coming to a single answer.

Any given legal system requires a single answer.

(24-09-2014 06:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  There is no statistically meaningful difference between "abortion up to 30 weeks" and "abortion up to 32 weeks".
(if you can provide one, I'd be very interested)
This is why I consider the "person" label to be not useful. It is alive and human right from conception.

Uh, bud? You agreed, upthread, that it was possible and indeed necessary for the legal distinction (or: the label) to exist.

Remember?

(24-09-2014 06:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You appear to be fundamentally blind to the entire problem here.
Would be great for you to clarify your position.
Why do you deem it your place to interfere when a woman wants a late term abortion?
Why are you willing to use force on her?

Are you under the impression that that question matters?

I can be facile too:
Because I find it in my own interest.

You may recognize that as the exact same reason that you are willing to "use force" on others when they disagree with you.
(or as the reason any society ever does anything)

(24-09-2014 06:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  What about a newborn?
It becomes my problem when society becomes unsafe. At some point fights and retaliation etc will become common place. It is not for me to decide what that point is. It is a matter of reasoned discovery.

I reject your presupposition here that "reasoned discovery" will admit of a single empirically verifiable point of distinction.
(as did you, literally just a few paragraphs ago)

So then what?

(24-09-2014 06:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I invite you (again) to consider that others will (inevitably) draw that line differently. You suggest it's somehow "arbitrary" for a legal system to be based on aggregate opinion - but you suggest it's somehow possible for everybody to agree by following your subjective criteria...
I am arguing against my view that there seems to be no link to the event of the abortion and yourself. What is the link? Why does her business become your business?

Why does it become your business after childbirth?

I asked you first, you know...

(24-09-2014 06:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Has anyone in this thread even come close to invoking "sacred"?
This is my guess on why you deem it your business to interfere?

Such a guess would seem to ignore the many responses you've received, but I suppose that's your prerogative.

(24-09-2014 06:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I am hoping you can clarify and show me why you deem it your business. If a "person" is not treated as near sacred, then shouldn't you be unconcerned if a "person" is aborted?

You persist in imputing connotations no one else is using.

I've clarified numerous times. Perhaps I'm being unfair in putting that on you - maybe I'm the one failing at clarifying. But that would not seem to explain why you and you alone, of those reading along, still require that clarification...

(24-09-2014 06:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-09-2014 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Indeed - and your acting is forcing your views on others, provided we assume that at some point there will be disagreement between you and others. I take that as a given - I suggest that disagreement is inevitable between any individuals and within any society. Do you disagree?

It is extremely puzzling to me how consistently you fail to understand this.
I am tieing my acting into a necessity to act.

Excellent! I repeat my request that you find me a single person who is not.
(by their own standards, naturally)

It's okay; I'll wait.

(24-09-2014 06:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I am compelled to act when I have to, when my safety is threatened.
This is the key differentiator.
When I think that my own safety and freedom is threatened then I act, forcibly to protect myself.

Aw, heck, why not repeat myself once more for old time's sake?

The key words there are "when I think". Other people think differently. Do you grant this?

As such - even by the same weak "standard" - they will come to different conclusions given the same scenarios. Do you grant this?

And not least of all, remember that you couldn't articulate why killing a late-term fetus does not affect you but killing a newborn infant does. Indeed, it would seem asinine in the extreme to demand of others what you have not explained yourself...

(24-09-2014 06:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  What I am trying to understand regarding your position (possibly Chas' position). Do you guys think that your own safety is threatened by a woman having a late term abortion?

I have not given a position. You should know that.

But unlike you, I understood Chas's position. I shall reiterate it once more: he finds, as I do, that your standard is very much wanting. He goes one step farther than I do in proposing a different one, for the sake of having one, which I remind you is necessary for a coherent legal system.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
26-09-2014, 02:27 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(26-09-2014 01:55 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Those advocating such laws do not think they are unnecessary.

You don't see such laws as necessary for your purposes. Others self-evidently disagree. This is because they are different people. As such they have different opinions.
What you seem to be missing is that this is not merely about opinions.
It's about necessity and about tieing in the impact on me.

i.e. someone attacks me, I am forced to defend myself. I am not merely expressing my opinion on the attacker. I am not merely trying to force the attacker to live as I would like them to live.

I have no choice but to defend myself.

On the other hand if a woman has an abortion, I can easily ignore her actions.
I cannot easily ignore someone that is attacking me. Do you see the difference or are you still confussed on this?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2014, 02:31 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(26-09-2014 02:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-09-2014 01:55 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Those advocating such laws do not think they are unnecessary.

You don't see such laws as necessary for your purposes. Others self-evidently disagree. This is because they are different people. As such they have different opinions.
What you seem to be missing is that this is not merely about opinions.
It's about necessity and about tieing in the impact on me.

i.e. someone attacks me, I am forced to defend myself. I am not merely expressing my opinion on the attacker. I am not merely trying to force the attacker to live as I would like them to live.

I have no choice but to defend myself.

On the other hand if a woman has an abortion, I can easily ignore her actions.
I cannot easily ignore someone that is attacking me. Do you see the difference or are you still confussed on this?

What you seem to be missing is that what one considers to affect one's self is itself necessarily a subjective matter.

Which you yourself almost admitted earlier (in that whether an act affected you was contingent on others' response to it).

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2014, 02:34 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(26-09-2014 02:31 PM)cjlr Wrote:  What you seem to be missing is that what one considers to affect them is itself necessarily a subjective matter.

Which you yourself almost admitted earlier (in that whether an act affected you was contingent on others' response to it).
If a significant amount of society members respond violently then society becomes unsafe for me. It always ties into this. My actions are in response to a necessity for me in order to survive.

I'm not merely wanting to force an ideal on people simply because I don't like what they are doing.

It's about necessity for my own survival.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2014, 02:40 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(26-09-2014 02:34 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-09-2014 02:31 PM)cjlr Wrote:  What you seem to be missing is that what one considers to affect them is itself necessarily a subjective matter.

Which you yourself almost admitted earlier (in that whether an act affected you was contingent on others' response to it).
If a significant amount of society members respond violently then society becomes unsafe for me. It always ties into this. My actions are in response to a necessity for me in order to survive.

I'm not merely wanting to force an ideal on people simply because I don't like what they are doing.

It's about necessity for my own survival.

Indeed.

You have your opinions, and others have theirs.

What you think impacts your own survival/safety/etc is by no means even a remotely objective standard. As is true for everyone.

If you don't accept use of the word "like" in the sense of "I do not like when others' actions (in my view) negatively impact me and I choose to act to counter those actions"... That's nice, I guess?

Again, I'd remind you that that's not even a word I used. You brought it up, not me.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: