ATS Street View: 11: Abortion and Racism in New York City

reply to post by Gorman91

Fact is simple. Justice is restoration of things before event x. In some cases, murder is the only solution for justice.

Crime on innocents can never be solution for justice. You cannot find any example in law when crime on innocents in order to restore things before then event x is allowed. Because it is NOT.

And your need to divert to non-related fields in order to keep the debate going for the sake of keeping the debate going is pathetic.

Criminal law is not nonŕelated. Its the most relevant field that can exist.

reply to post by Maslo


To put it simple, the mother has precedents. No difference between a person in a vegetative state being unplugged by the guardian's will. Your life is in the hands of your caretakers, and their right judgement is in to if you go on or not. Sometimes Justice means pulling the plug.

And in the end, like it or not, that's just the way it is.

reply to post by Gorman91

To put it simple, the mother has precedents. No difference between a person in a vegetative state being unplugged by the guardian's will. Your life is in the hands of your caretakers, and their right judgement is in to if you go on or not. Sometimes Justice means pulling the plug.

This is the classic pro-choice "dependence on the mother" argument - as long as the fetus is dependent on the mother for survival, she has a right to kill it.
But there is simply no difference in this dependence between fetus from consentual sex and fetus from rape, which is the disinction you were trying to justify. You cannot make any distinction between normal and rape abortion on the grounds of dependence on the mother, since they are both equally dependent.

And in the end, like it or not, that's just the way it is.

I can say the same about current abortion status-quo.

reply to post by Maslo


Yes I can differentiate. I just did.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Maslo

 

Yes I can differentiate. I just did.

You cannot justify killing of rape fetuses on the grounds of dependence on the mother, without doing the same for other fetuses (because they are EQUALLY dependent). Not even talking about that it again violates basic human rights of the fetuses, you claim they posess from conception (human rights do not allow killing on the grounds of dependence on others. So if fetuses can be killed because of it, they cannot have human rights).

reply to post by Maslo


Choice stolen, Choice restored. Justice.

reply to post by Gorman91


Crime on innocents can NEVER be solution for justice. You cannot find any example in law when crime on innocents in order to restore things before event x is allowed. Because it is NOT. It is never justice to kill innocent human for crime he did not cause, even if it leads to restoration of things before the crime. Otherwise stealing from your innocent neighbour after being victim of a robbery, to restore things, would be justice. It is not.

reply to post by Maslo


This is true. SO then why not ban abortion?

reply to post by Gorman91

This is true. SO then why not ban abortion?

Yes, why not ban all abortions? YOU are advocating abortion in case of rape here. I am not.

Of course, my true opinion is human fetuses do not have human rights, so I have no problem with abortion, up to a limit (for any reason). But you are saying fetuses should be protected by human rights, so I am just showing you how this notion inevitably leads to even abortion in case of rape not being allowed.

reply to post by Maslo


But you assume I would be against it being banned. I would not. i would merely be willing to accept the contradiction of letting rape victims do what they want with the unborn child. Tis a far better contradiction than letting anyone kill their kid in the first trimester.

reply to post by Gorman91

But you assume I would be against it being banned. I would not. i would merely be willing to accept the contradiction of letting rape victims do what they want with the unborn child.

Abortion in case of rape would be banned, but rape victims doing it would be free to do so (so in fact it would not be banned at all...) What?

Explain to me what legislation concerning abortion in case of rape you support. Either it is banned by law or it is not, there is no other option.

reply to post by Maslo


Oh my. It seems you do not understand that a person can support a way of governing even if they results of that system allow things they do not agree with.

Perhaps some more research on your part is needed.

reply to post by Gorman91

Oh my. It seems you do not understand that a person can support a way of governing even if they results of that system allow things they do not agree with.

If I understand this correctly, you are saying abortion in case of rape should be legal by law.

Again, this can be only accomplished if fetuses created from rape would not have human rights, otherwise it would be illegal murder. So now you are choosing option number 2, thus autmatically invalidating 1.:

1. all embryos and fetuses have full human rights.
2. embryos and fetuses can be legally murdered if they were conceived during rape

That means one thing (fetus, conceived from consentual sex) is treated fundamentally differently than other qualitativelly exactly identical thing (fetus, just conceived during rape). Its the same absurd logic like granting aryan people human rights and not graning jews human rights. No, its even more absurd, since there is at least some systematic difference between aryans and jews (whether this difference could justify different human right status is the racist debate then), but embryos from rape and consentual sex are exactly IDENTICAL humans in all qualities.

reply to post by Maslo


Welcome to the contradiction that is abortion. Congratulations, you're learning.

There is only one choice of two. You either accept the lesser contradiction, or you ban it all together.

Sorry, personhood is total shat. Don't even bother adding that straw in.

Fact is a bowl made during a murder scene is just the same as a bowl made at a normal bowl factory. But the murder scene one is treated fundamentally different, despite being the same. This is fact. This is truth. Like it or not, it's a contradiction that is legal. Like many others. It is not invalid because you say it is. It is not wrong because you say it is. Understand that you are not the law. And the absolute and understand justice. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

reply to post by Gorman91

Welcome to the contradiction that is abortion. Congratulations, you're learning.
There is only one choice of two. You either accept the lesser contradiction, or you ban it all together.

Abortion is not a contradiction if you use my law to deal with it. YOU are making a stance that contradicts itself. You have two perfectly internally consistent options that do not result in ANY logical contadiction to choose from:
1. ban all abortions, even in cases of rape, all embryos have human rights from conception
2. allow all abortions (up to some decided limit), for whatever reason, ALL embryos until that limit do not have any human rights, after it, ALL have them

Instead, you prefer to choose the ONLY illogical option available - allow abortions in case of rape, but ban abortions of THE SAME fetuses in other cases. Some fetuses have universal human rights, some dont, even if they are all IDENTICAL in all present qualities.

Fact is a bowl made during a murder scene is just the same as a bowl made at a normal bowl factory. But the murder scene one is treated fundamentally different, despite being the same.

Its not. Its still treated as a bowl, at a murder scene. If there were universal bowl rights, it would have to apply or not apply to all bowls of the same quality, or be renamed to conditional bowl rights.

reply to post by Maslo


Ah yes, IF I us you're law. Ye,s because denying rights to one whole group is sooo good right? That's a contradiction young one. A grander one than I.

Nah, I think mine is perfectly logical. it still follows through the law of the land of the rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The fetus from rape is different. it was formed by violating rights.


You see in all your bouncing around from topic to topic, you have yet to find a way to get through that. Something made by violating rights has no right to exist.

And we were not talking about bowls present, we were talking about bowls being made. hmmm.

Originally posted by ucantcme
To me the only people who are racist are the ones who bring up racism in the first place. I dont get why some people dont understand that we are all people no mater the color of our skin. The abortion thing is a choice. I myself would never do it but i dont judge those who do as it is their personal choice. Not everyone has the same morals and we should all accept that we are different and have different opinions. Why would we all want to be the same? You would never meet any intresting or exciting people if we all had the same thoughts and opinions. The world would be dull. Just my opinions!!

edit on 8-3-2011 by ucantcme because: (no reason given)

I'll have to disagree with you on what you said in the first sentence. Speaking out against racism does not make you racist. Although, what I can't stand is when some people are so anti-racist, they're across the reverse discrimination border-line. Like how it happened with African Americans and women. When a woman hits a man, it's being a bitch, if a man hits a woman, it's domestic violence. In most cases, a black person would be way more offended to be called a 'n-word' then a white person would be to be called a cracker. On my stance of abortion, I agree with it, but only under extreme circumstances, like if a 12 years old girl gets raped. I definitely don't agree with abortion for minor reasons. If you created that child, you should be responsible for it. If you just CAN'T take care of him/her, put them in foster care. Some people would say that a child wouldn't want to have a life like that, but go ask a child in an orphanage if they'd rather not be alive at all. I guarantee most times they'd have picked life. A big pro-abortion support they use is women's rights. Tell me this, what of the child's rights? Saying that the child isn't alive until it's born is just bull. Preposterous. Abortion, also, is in no way painless to the child. The movie, The Silent Scream, has proof of how painful it is. In my opinion, abortion is 3rd degree murder.

reply to post by Maslo

Abortion is not a contradiction if you use my law to deal with it. YOU are making a stance that contradicts itself. You have two perfectly internally consistent options that do not result in ANY logical contadiction to choose from:
1. ban all abortions, even in cases of rape, all embryos have human rights from conception
2. allow all abortions (up to some decided limit), for whatever reason, ALL embryos until that limit do not have any human rights, after it, ALL have them

As usual Maslo, your logic is excellent. While I don't always agree with your positions, I respect that you have the courage to lay it out, even if in doing so, it will bother the average person.

SO, in this example, I'm guessing from the typical majority schizophrenic posts on this issue, it would be Number Two that might stick in the average craw. Obviously, the first one is the most consistent "pro-life" stance, and one can agree or disagree with the statement.

But as for the second one...A "decided limit", for "whatever reason"...While I can totally see the logic, I think that in putting it so starkly, one might tremble at how perhaps "arbitrary" such limits and reasons could become. Indeed, as they have become over the decades since the legalization of abortion.

And yet, anyone who has looked at this history knows that these limits weren't necessarily "arbitrary". There were reasons proposed, and since the issue was essentially philosophical, the courts had to aim more for practicality. And a fair amount of politics factored in too, I suppose.

I know someone will be here shortly to scold me and say that "science" is on their side, but from my point of view, something like "personhood" (and rights that go with it) is out of the realm of science. I suppose advancements can be made, but I would have a hard time thinking that science will resolve the matter. It can shed light on the issue, it can perhaps help with the limits, and reasons you mention, but I can't see how it can ever do much more than that.

SO, since the issue is primarily philosophical, I think you have made your case. When it comes to law, a declaration must (and does) come into play, and frankly, whether that fiat is arbitrary or not, is quite beside the point.

I used the word schizophrenic, and yet I wonder how many posters on this thread consider that their positions are exactly that. Perhaps if I feel up to it, I'll count the number of posts who use the term "child", or "baby", and then go on to support reasons for their termination!

As for the rape issue, I'll pass on that for now, as I see you have been in a heated debate with Gorman91.

I appreciate you shining the light of logic on the topic, and pointing out the inconsistencies. Regardless of a person's position on the matter, I think they could benefit from at least maintaining internal consistency with the things they (supposedly) believe.

JR

I mentioned earlier about the number of posts that contained the classic schizophrenic posture when it comes to this issue, that is, those who consider abortion acceptable (for whatever reasons), and yet use the terms "child", "baby", etc.

I sort of had the impression that perhaps a lot of people fell into that category.

Maybe I was wrong. I just counted up 34 unique posters on this thread, and only FIVE were of this illogical sort.

I think the reason I thought there must have been more people like this is because several of these five people account for so many more posts. In other words, they're louder.

I wonder if they're trying to convince themselves somehow?

JR