Thanks, guys for the comments on my last post. As usual, they were very helpful. I am once again using a post to respond to the comments of the previous post (particularly Burnyourtires). I like this style of response, as it keeps the ongoing conversation very visible. Also, I'd like to define a term I'll be using for the sake of this discussion. I'll use "Human life" to include moral agency, though I recognize that these are not interchangeable. That is a deeper discussion beyond the scope of this post.
In my last post, I stated as a point of common ground that Americans believe life to be foremost among human rights, regardless of their political party. Burnyourtires wants to know "Where did [I] get this"? I get this from the the Declaration of independencee (Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), and the UN Charter . What rights do we have if not the right to life? If you don't think life is the foremost among human rights, Burnyourtires, then I suggest you are not as mainstream as you think. Are there any moderated Democrats or human rights organizations out there that don't prioritize life over other rights? In the aftermath of genocides in Rwanda, did human rights groups lament the loss of religious freedom, free speech, or same sex marriage? No, the outrage was that these humans were robbed of their most precious right. For without the right to live, there are no other rights. Try practicing free speech after rigor mortis sets in, it's a bitch!
What are inalienable human rights? Let's start with the word " inalienable": incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another. Okay now,the word "right": something to which one has a just claim. Life is an inalienable human right. Without inalienablility, our rights are granted at the whims of people, which would be okay if good people always had the power. As we know, that is seldom the case. Without inalienability of rights, even democratic forms of government are nothing more than mob rule.
If a fetus is a human life, then it's rights are inalienable as are the rest of ours. This is not rationalization or speculation, it is simple logic. A plus B equals C. If (A) a fetus is a human life , plus (B), life is an inalienable human right, then that equals (C) a fetus has the inalienable right to life. If a fetus is not a human life, then this exercise of logic no longer applies to a fetus. Therefore, I must restate that the question comes down to whether or not a fetus is a human life with the status of moral agency.
Burnyourtires said that the point of this argument is "keeping the government out of our lives". First of all, the point of the last post was whether Democrats are the party of abortion. That's the only topic I took up in that post, and I think I made a pretty good argument as to how they are. You can't refute an argument by changing the terms of the argument. Burnyourtires still has not made an argument that the Democrats are not the party of abortion. If he means to use the words "keeping government out of our lives" to stand in for being pro choice, I think that's pretty misleading. The government interferes in our lives in a number of ways, some of which come from the Left. Let's try to be specific.
Besides, when you say "Keep the government out of our lives" whose lives do you mean? Here is your bias. You mean keep the govn't out of some of our lives, the lives you choose, which are non-fetus. You ask that the government find that others have the right to kill a fetus. If I were a fetus, and I could talk, I'd call that a pretty big interference in my life! The only way that is not a bias is if a fetus is not a human life. So which is it, burnyourtires, life or not life?
This brings us to another facet of our discussion. Who gets to decide whether a fetus is a life? Who gets to decide what a human life is? Should the government interfere in one's right to determine who has the status of a human life? Do you think you have the right to make the determination? I think government rightly interfered when slavers and bigots determined that other races were not human, as a rationale to deny them their rights. I say rationale, because they rationalized rather than use reason to determine the personhood of, for example, Blacks and Jews, in order to satisfy their own needs. They started with the outcome they needed, then picked the facts they needed to support it. I don't do that. I start with facts and reason, and let them determine the outcome. I don't start with the outcome that abortion on demand needs to exist or not exist. I used reason to guide me and have ended with this conclusion: a fetus appears to be a human life. It has its own human DNA. It's level of development or ablilty are irrelevant to me, because those are not factors I would use to judge someone outside the womb. It's capacity for thought or the experience of pain also are irrelevant to me for the same reason.
Since I believe life to be the greatest of our inalienable rights (for which I'd gladly accept the usually pejorative term "radical right winger"), and I have found no reasonable exclusion for fetal humans, I must protect their right to life.
If all humans don't have inalienable rights, then no humans do. Rights that are given by humans can be revoked by humans.
P.S. Overturning Roe v Wade wouldn't outlaw abortion. Abortion would revert back to being a state decision.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Pardon me. In regards to "right to life" I equated the right for a fetus to live as your argument for right to life as that was the topic at hand. I see now that you meant literally the right to live as is defined in the D of I.
"If a fetus is a human life, then it's rights are inalienable as are the rest of ours. This is not rationalization or speculation, it is simple logic. A plus B equals C. If (A) a fetus is a human life , plus (B), life is an inalienable human right, then that equals (C) a fetus has the inalienable right to life. If a fetus is not a human life, then this exercise of logic no longer applies to a fetus. Therefore, I must restate that the question comes down to whether or not a fetus is a human life with the status of moral agency." Nice Point.
"You can't refute an argument by changing the terms of the argument."
You'll have to show me what you mean because I made a point in my post not to change the subject from "dems are the party of abortion." I don't believe that is a valid statement latebloomer.
You're taking up the "is a fetus a life" argument. It is you who is changing the subject.
http://www.abortionisprolife.com/faq.htm
It doesn't matter what you or I or this link or any other link says. The courts (at this point) say abortion is legal therefore rebuting any argument you have as meaningless. If the neo-cons and their big doners (churchs) have their way they will re-write one's right to have an abortion. Dems, although as guilty as reps for bowing to big money and lobbiests (another topic for discussion) do believe in one's freedom to choice to have an abortion. Right or wrong, it doesn't matter. What matters is not letting government decide for us what one does with their body.
It is the right wing that has labeled the dems the party of abortion. This is as fair as labeling reporklicans "deficit spenders." Which one is true.
I can't say it any clearer than this. It doesn't matter what you or I think about abortion. It is the inaleinable right of a woman to do with her body what ever she pleases. It's not our right or the courts right or the churches right to take that away from her.
Reporklicans want do dictate to a person many things; among these are a womans right to have an abortion. Does that mean reps are the party of fascists and dictatorts, deciding for americans what laws will be enforced without acknowleding the wishes of the people. Democrats believe in the right of an American to choose whether or not they want to bring a pregnancy to term. If you want to label the dems as the party of abortion, than so be it. Just like you chose to think you made a good argument in your last post, I chose to be called the party of choice.
Don't you see? This is the real world, not some sterile think-tank. Women are gonna have abortions whether they are legal or not and regardless of what you or I think. Another reason for legalized abortion is to have a clean, safe place for a woman to have one. (I'm leaving out dark back street references here:)
So much is vague in the abortion argument but the fact is, I believe a person has the inaleinable right to chose whether or not they have one.
Before RvW came into law, abortions were illegal in all the states. What makes you think this will not happen again.
This is a very strange argument. First, you start off by confusing moral agency with human life. Second, the projection of yourself onto a zygote or fetus is completely irrelevant. Third, the desire to overlook developmental stages doesn't change the fact that they occur. If potentiality is equivalent to actuality, then your argument becomes pointless.
best of luck,
stephen
Late bloomer, I went back and re-read the your post before this one and I wish to make another comment. You stated in your most receint post I wasn't specific, and tried to change to subject in my response to your post titled the "party of abortion." You state in the most receient post "Burnyourtires said that the point of this argument is "keeping the government out of our lives. First of all, the point of the last post was whether Democrats are the party of abortion. That's the only topic I took up in that post, and I think I made a pretty good argument as to how they are. You can't refute an argument by changing the terms of the argument." First of all, the point of the last post was whether Democrats are the party of abortion. I don't understand how you can't see what I mean by "keeping government out of our lives." It is true when you say pro-choice people usually align themselves with the democratic party. Many of them are for and many are against abortion. Their reason for chosing the dems are we dems believe in "keeping government our of the lives of Americans," as I said before. That IS the argument. We want to make our own choice regarding abortion and not be told by some lobbyist or church group who bought a senator we can no longer have control over our bodies.
In addition, please see further than the reps label system. If there are two things reps are good at it is labeling people and blasting anyone who doesn't totally agree with their point of views.
You said "If he means to use the words "keeping government out of our lives" to stand in for being pro choice, I think that's pretty misleading."
I mean "keeping government out of our lives" to stand for keeping the will of the government out of the lives of americans and leaving decisions such as abortion the each private citizen. It's like the old television argument. "If you don't like what's on television, don't watch it." If you don't like abortions, don't have one, but don't tell me I can't. I don't think that is misleading at all.
Actually, It is you who refuted the argument by changing the terms. Not only did you go into whether or not a fetus is a life in your last post, but in your most receint post you WAY deep into defining a fetus. As per your own definition, one must stay with the topic at hand and the topic at hand was the dems are the party of abortion. Don't get me wrong, I personally don't mind your argument, I just don't like being attacked for something when not only was I not at the murder site, but you yourself had the smoking gun.
Dems are not the party of abortion. No one party is. I know reps don't like the word nuance, but this issue is full of it. Abortions don't pick a party, they pick a circumstance. I have a feeling that many of the hard line conservative trying to write legislation regarding abortion have someone in their family who has had to make a tuff choice. Dems believe you have a right to make that choice and government has the right to shut the hell up:)
Post a Comment