Posted on 11/13/2001 12:12:13 PM PST by fod
One of the things that argues for your point of view, in my opinion, is that to the best of my knowledge there is no historical secular equivalent to Mother Teresa or Damien the Leper. My point being that the development of the better part of man, via secular inducements, doesn't seem to be as efficacious as it does with God centered inducements.
Perhaps you are right; I'm not faithful or smart enough to know for sure. I'm going to sign off for now because it's getting late here in upstate NY, but I'd like to say thanks for the feedback before I do.
That's a poor excuse for a counterargument. I wouldn't want to give the impression that pro-life libertarianism was unable to do any better than that.
Anybody have a REAL counterargument?
If X voluntarily commits an act that results in harm to Y, X may have an obligation toward Y---but only the obligation to restore Y to the status Y had before X's act. In the case of woman X's sex act leading to zygote/embryo/fetus Y's need for maternal bodily resources, Y's status before X's act was nonexistence; so at most the pregnant woman owes the z/e/f a return to nonexistence, which abortion provides.
First off the bat, let me say that I think that analogies are a poor way to justify an argument, primarily because an analogy can be made to fit the argument perfectly logically, depending on the view of the person making the analogy. Then you have a stalemate. However, since we are dealing in analogies in this case I will continue with the theme for the moment. My first reaction to the argument that you posted was that, to borrow a phrase from Donald Rumsfeld I think, the author has started with an illogical statement, then proceeded perfectly logically to an illogical conclusion, for many different reasons.
Firstly, in this case, the argument goes that if X does harm voluntarily to Y, X`s obligation to Y is to restore him to the status he had before. This is clearly flawed. If I am a Doctor of Medicine, and I stab you in the stomach, then I provide you with appropriate medical treatment so that you recover fully, can I walk away a free man? No, of course not. I may go to jail or have to pay you damages. However, clever as it may be, that analogy isn`t even close to being truly relevant to this argument.
Secondly, the argument contends that X has voluntarily committed harm to Y. If X voluntarily got pregnant, she would obviously want to have the baby, so the whole idea of the act being voluntary is nonsense. X, in this case obviously became pregnant involuntarily. Then the argument transforms into something else entirely. Namely, if something happens accidentally, does anyone bear responsibility for the accident, in this case, X getting pregnant? Our society is full of examples of people bearing responsibility for accidents that have occurred because of something they did. If I accidentally run you over with my car, with absolutely zero intent of causing you harm, I am still responsible for the act and I will probably have to take measures to see that you are compensated. To use a simple example, if I accidentally let go of a shopping trolley in the carpark at the supermarket and it hits your car, scratching it, I have a responsibility to see that your car is fixed. I didn`t let go of the trolley on purpose, but I wasn`t holding on to it tightly enough, so it is still my fault. There are a couple more clever analogies, but they still don`t really mean that much. So what does?
This is what I see as the crux of the argument. X voluntarily commits an act that results in harm to Y, is what the argument says. This is my question, and I think this is what you should ask the people who make the aforementioned argument to you. Where is the harm? There is none. Creating a life is not doing harm, it is a miracle (or biology, depending on your point of view)! The whole argument is completely illogical. X hasn`t harmed Y, X has given Y life! Two completely seperate things, of which there can be no comparison.
The argument is so flawed and full of holes it is not really even worth considering. In short, it is bullsh*t. I hope you find this helpful MrLeRoy. Watch out for the next pro-choice argument, which will probably go something liek this: If X accidentally commits an act that leads to Y being created, but Y needs supplements from X in order to live..........
Firstly, in this case, the argument goes that if X does harm voluntarily to Y, X`s obligation to Y is to restore him to the status he had before. This is clearly flawed. If I am a Doctor of Medicine, and I stab you in the stomach, then I provide you with appropriate medical treatment so that you recover fully, can I walk away a free man? No, of course not. I may go to jail or have to pay you damages.
The counter to that would be that the stabbing doctor acted with malice, whereas no woman's sex act can reasonably be called an act of malice toward the unborn-to-maybe-be (nor even an act of negligence, so long as contraception was used). In cases where neither malice nor negligence applies, I think it's reasonable to argue that nothing more than restoration can be required.
Secondly, the argument contends that X has voluntarily committed harm to Y. If X voluntarily got pregnant,
Apparently I wasn't clear; the act in question was the sex---which, as you say, can lead to accidental pregnancy, bring us to ...
if something happens accidentally, does anyone bear responsibility for the accident, in this case, X getting pregnant? Our society is full of examples of people bearing responsibility for accidents that have occurred because of something they did. If I accidentally run you over with my car, with absolutely zero intent of causing you harm, I am still responsible for the act and I will probably have to take measures to see that you are compensated.
But can the required compensation be anything beyond restoring the harmed party's status before the act---which in the case of sex-causing-pregnancy is nonexistence?
Where is the harm? There is none. Creating a life is not doing harm, it is a miracle (or biology, depending on your point of view)! The whole argument is completely illogical. X hasn`t harmed Y, X has given Y life!
My bad; I should have said "endangerment" rather than "harm." The zygote/embryo/fetus has been placed in danger of dying without his mother's bodily resources.
It seems to me personally that all other arguments aside, the key pro-life argument is that it is wrong to take a human life (exceptional circumstances withstanding), which any reasonable person can agree to. Until pro-lifers can provide irrefutable, concrete evidence (is there any?) that what exists at the moment of conception is a human life, there will always be pro-choicers.
Thank you MrLeRoy, I have found your comments about abortion most insightful and useful to me. If I think of anymore rebuttal, I will let you know! :-)
Well, my morals work for me and yours work for you.
I can trust myself to do the right thing, and I can trust you to do the right thing.
But there have been cases where secular authority has gotten more power over the lives of individuals and states than is healthy and has created horrific machines of death.
But also we must recognize that religous authorities have created the same things (witness the perversions of Islam as of late)
So what is the answer?
IMO, we must ensure that the "authorities" whether secular, religious or otherwise do not gain the type of power that causes death and mayhem, and tramples on the rights of others.
You say that you do not wish to recognize the moral authority of those who do not share your faith, but guess what?
I don't want or need your religious based moral authority to live my life.
And I don't wish to foist mine on you.
"rape/incest" is more accurately described as a successful wedge-issue for life opponents. This is because it shifts focus from the true victim (child) to the mother. An adversarial relationship between mother and child is also embedded in the argument by identifying the child as something OTHER than a 'wanted' child, and therefore assigns it to the 'other' category of human identification.
The reason, IMO, that we find some lifers and fence-riders accepting such exceptions is not the primary issue of "is it wrong or not", but rather in "what to do about it." Most people are just plain hesitant to criminalize a victimized woman.
Thus the wedge is created and principle is defeated by expediency and people's natural desire to avoid such discomfort. We then see the wedge used to justify the unbridled infanticide destroying child, mother, and country simultaneously.
You are right, you did not use those exact words, forgive me for extrapolating
Of course your 'morals work for you,' you hear what you want to hear.
Likewise
Anybody have a counterargument?"
It's a bad argument because conception is not a harmful act to the baby. The mother's sex act did not cause harm to the baby. So, there is no obilgation to return the baby to nonexistence. Returning the baby to nonexistence would of course be harmful.
JWinNC
Personally I think it's the old guard who are keeping the LP from adopting a fully pro-life plank, not the majority of the rank and file of the party.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.