On Mar 6, 5:51 am, Attila <
wrote:> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 07:51:36 -0800 (PST), M_P
rocketmail.com> in
> alt.abortion with message-id
> d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
> wrote:>>On Mar 4, 5:23 pm, Attila <
wrote:>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 10:25:24 -0800 (PST), M_P
rocketmail.com> in
>>> alt.abortion with message-id
>>> <30566c1c-e1d4-4f2c-a908-c8068581a...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
>>> wrote:>>>>On Mar 4, 4:36 am, Attila <
wrote:>>>>> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 07:22:54 -0800 (PST), M_P
rocketmail.com> in
>>>>> alt.abortion with message-id>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>On Mar 1, 4:42 am, Attila <
wrote:>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:27:11 -0800 (PST), M_P
rocketmail.com> in
>>>>>>> alt.abortion with message-id
>>>>>>> <483c80ae-143a-48d8-8375-1e8e4e83b...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:>>>>>>>>On Feb 29, 3:30 am, Attila <
wrote:>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:18:24 -0800 (PST), M_P
rocketmail.com> in
>>>>>>>>> alt.abortion with message-id>>>>>>>>
34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On Feb 28, 4:30 am, Attila <
wrote:>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:01:54 -0800 (PST), M_P
rocketmail.com> in
>>>>>>>>>>> alt.abortion with message-id>>>>>>>>
i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Feb 27, 6:24 am, Attila <
wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:49:22 -0800 (PST), M_P
rocketmail.com> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> alt.abortion with message-id
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <2d56364c-4570-49ac-b8f5-b09c3b35a...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Feb 26, 2:23 pm, Mark Sebree
infionline.net> wrote:>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody is butchered in an abortion.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>An unborn person is butchered in an abortion:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In defining what is a person---a holder of rights such as the right to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>not be killed
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly where can such a right be found?
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>In our nature as free-willed reasoning individuals who are thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>capable of formulating and pursuing our own ends, and therefore may
>>>>>>>>>>>>not properly be used as a means to another's ends e.g. by their
>>>>>>>>>>>>killing us.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is one of the more useless answers in all the lame presentations
>>>>>>>>>>> I have seen. Exactly who enforces this whateveritis,
>
>>>>>>>>>>Where did I say it was necessarily enforced?
>
>>>>>>>>> If it is not enforced I (and everyone else) can simply ignore it. Is
>>>>>>>>> that a true statement?
>
>>>>>>>>Yes.
>
>>>>>>>>> If it can be universally ignored why even consider it's existence?
>
>>>>>>>>Because it's the sort of thing many people take into consideration
>>>>>>>>when deciding what SHOULD be enforced by law.
>
>>>>>>> And everyone should give me ten dollars. That is as valid as your
>>>>>>> comment.
>
>>>>>>The people who consider ethics when deciding what should be enforced
>>>>>>by law will see me as having the better of the argument; you can have
>>>>>>the rest.
>
>>>>> But I still don't see anything specific. Just vague generalizations.
>
>>>>Basic principles are by their nature general.
>
>>> The usual meaningless response.
>
>>Right back at ya.
>
>>>>> If any such right exists it must be found somewhere.
>
>>>>As I said, it's found in our nature as free-willed reasoning
>>>>individuals.
>
>>> Meaningless.
>
>>Sad that basic ethical principles have no meaning to you.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> and what are the
>>>>>>>>>>> details of it operation?
>
>>>>>>>>>>What "operation"?
>
>>>>>>>>> How it works. Exactly what is included and what is not included? How
>>>>>>>>> is it applied?
>
>>>>>>>>One way it's applied is by passing laws against killing persons.
>
>>>>>>> But now you are talking about laws which define lawful and unlawful
>>>>>>> killing. If there is a right not to be killed that means there are no
>>>>>>> circumstances under which someone can be killed.
>
>>>>>>False; there is a general right not to be forcibly confined (hence
>>>>>>laws against kidnapping), but one can revoke that right by breaking a
>>>>>>law and wind up justly imprisoned.
>
>>>>> Oh? A right not to be forcibly confined? I agree there are laws
>>>>> involving forcible confinement and the circumstances involved but
>>>>> where is such a right to be found?
>
>>>>> Directly under that elusive right to life?
>
>>>>The general rights to not be killed and not be confined each follow
>>>>from our nature as free-willed reasoning individuals.
>
>>> More jabberwocky.
>
>>Sad that basic ethical principles have no meaning to you.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> What are the penalties for ignoring it?
>
>>>>>>>>>>Where did I say there were necessarily any penalties?
>
>>>>>>>>> If there is no enforcement of what use is it?
>
>>>>>>>>See above.
>
>>>>>>> Incomplete and useless answer.
>
>>>>>>I'm happy to let readers make up their own minds.
>
>>>>> As am I. Your deficiency is obvious.
>
>>>>The people who consider ethics when deciding what should be enforced
>>>>by law will see me as having the better of the argument; you can have
>>>>the rest.
>
>>> Do you really think anyone bothers with ethics in a real world
>>> situation involving the passage of laws?
>
>>I know so.
>
>>> How do you like that ivory tower?
>
>>Beats the sewer you seem to prefer.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>---the only reasonable alternative to blatant species-ism
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is to START WITH the position that reasoning free-willed individuality
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(such as is possessed by adult humans) is unique in its ethical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>significance, and thus that all who possess reasoning free-willed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>individuality are persons.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. None of that is involved with being a person.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Says who?
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Society and it's laws.
>
>>>>>>>>>>That the law currently says so is blindingly obvious ... that
>>>>>>>>>>"society" does is much less so, unless you want to defend the dubious
>>>>>>>>>>position that all laws are in accord with the will of society (which
>>>>>>>>>>would include e.g. tax breaks for big corporations).
>
>>>>>>>>> The purpose of law is to reflect the will of society. While one may
>>>>>>>>> or may not change faster than the other in general they will be in
>>>>>>>>> agreement.
>
>>>>>>>>In general, but not always.
>
>>>>>>> The laws involved with being a person are generations old.
>
>>>>>>Anti-abortion laws were on the books in many states until 1972, when
>>>>>>they were struck down not by voters (society) but by the Supreme
>>>>>>Court.
>
>>>>> SCOUS is an integral part of society.
>
>>>>Significant but far from "integral."
>
>>> It is in the US.
>
>>Because you say so?
>
> No, it is inherent in the structure, whether you admit it or not.
If you're trying to convince anyone beside yourself, you'll need to
provide an actual reason to believe your claim.
>>> As integral as any other part of the government.
>
>>No, weaker by design than the other branches.
>
> Nonsense. Each branch has it's own function and is not subservient to
> any other branch. By design.
Straw man ... "weaker" is not "subservient."
>>>>> History of abortion [...]
>
>>>>Did you have a point?
>
>>> I made it. You clipped it.
>
>>> There have been many laws both supporting and opposing abortion
>>> throughout history.
>
>>How is that relevant to anything I've said?
>
> You implies anti-abortion laws were something that were both standard
> and normal before RvW. That is not so,
In the US, all but a few states restricted abortion more than RvW
allowed.
>>>>>>>>> A fetus is not a person.
>
>>>>>>>>Only according to current legal definition. I'm addressing what
>>>>>>>>society should believe and therefore enact in law.
>
>>>>>>> And I disagree. The currant status works quite well and has for
>>>>>>> hundreds of years. It does not need changing.
>
>>>>>>Slavery arguably "worked" for everybody except the slaves.
>
>>>>> Yes, it did. There are arguments which support this institution,
>>>>> which has existed in some form in every civilization in the past.
>
>>>>So had you been a contemporary of the U.S. abolitionists you might
>>>>have argued that "The current status works quite well and has for
>>>>hundreds of years. It does not need changing"?
>
>>> Not really. Since slavery is an economic condition, and cheap slave
>>> labor was rapidly being replaced with machine labor all that would
>>> have been necessary would be to sit back and do nothing. Slavery
>>> would have become too expensive relatively quickly.
>
>>> It was the Industrial Revolution that ended slavery, not laws or wars.
>>> Aside from sex slaves, everywhere.
>
>>None of that answers the question. Were you hoping nobody would notice
>>that?
>
> Yes, it does. The conditions under which slavery worked were
> themselves changing. No change in it's status was necessary, just as
> no war was necessary. It's death certificate was written when the
> first machine replaced human labor. Slavery as an institution was
> doomed.
So you would have said "It does not need changing." The part of the
question you still haven't answered is whether you would also have
said "The current status works quite well and has for hundreds of
years."
> The remainder of your comments require no response.
Coward.
