|
Comments:
jes - 2004-09-02 13:32:09
carl, I think you begged the question. the issue surrounding abortion is wether or not a fetus is IN FACT worthy of protection of such a principle. if we could agree that it was, there would be no debate, as the rights of the unborn child would necessairly be protected under the constitution. but you have read all about my problems with that. : ) also, though we may not all be able to agree on what happiness is, most of us can agree on what it is not. Anarchy. no protection from the state. Hobbes talks about this, saying that any government is preferable to no government at all.
-------------------------------
jes - 2004-09-02 13:36:09
at least, that's what I think. but dont go by what i say. I am wrong at least once a day. : )
-------------------------------
hotcarl - 2004-09-02 14:01:25
Jes, "worthy of protection" is irrelievant in the Infringement and Responsibility Principle. The principle itself is based on the idea that all things and all people are given the one right, the right to pursue happiness.
-------------------------------
jes - 2004-09-02 14:13:55
no, it is very relevant. is a fetus developed enough to be able to be called a human? (ie, worthy of protection of the state). if it is, then duh you are right. but that is the whole debate.
-------------------------------
jes - 2004-09-02 14:15:56
that is, you can't say, a fetus is worthy of the protection of the state because it is a human, and all humans are worthy of the protection of the state, thus a fetus is worthy of the protection of the state. you have to show that a fetus is (has) the ability to be called a human. if it is not, (i do not think it is at, say,2 months) then your policy does not apply.
-------------------------------
hotcarl - 2004-09-02 14:17:38
But see, that is where you are losing site of the IRP and looking solely at the arguement itself. You have to completely step back and look at it independently. When you do that, you know letting a pregnancy take its course results in a human being. Its not like a turd floating around, turds don't grow into people, though that would be totally awesome if they did. If you the IRP was just IP then you could make that arguement, thats why the R is such an integral part. It forces the participants to take responsibility for their actions.
-------------------------------
jes - 2004-09-02 14:17:57
also, all things? I think this is a bad word to use, as plants, cows and cancer easily fall into that cagigory. you may not want to extend that right to all things.
-------------------------------
jes - 2004-09-02 14:18:12
uhhh, catigory, rather
-------------------------------
jes - 2004-09-02 14:19:39
I think that may result in a human being does not necessairly mean that the cells developing a three days have the same protections I have.
-------------------------------
jes - 2004-09-02 14:19:53
how do you feel about invetrofertilization?
-------------------------------
jes - 2004-09-02 14:22:58
and you are not required to let anything take its course because what you have may result in a human being unless the state can justly require you to. how do you justify that, if the fetus = human. again, the entire question at hand
-------------------------------
hotcarl - 2004-09-02 14:26:09
I agree all things is too broad, it ignores the natural circle of life, food, shelter, etc..
As for invetro or however it is spelled, I am not sure what you mean. I don't really see how manual creation of a child is much different than a scientific one. It all comes down to the IRP, inveitro hurts no one and should the mother get impergnated with 20 kids, well she would have to live with the responsibility of her decision.
-------------------------------
jes - 2004-09-02 14:28:41
my invetrofertilization example was to show you that there are situations where a woman and a man put their eggs and sperm on a dish. those cells qualify as babies. lots die. how would you deal with that problem? naturally, if a woman got pregnant with them, the issue is irrelivant. and why doesnt the IRP extend to victims of rape and incest? it wasn't the fetus's fault its mom was raped?
-------------------------------
jes - 2004-09-02 14:29:42
god, carl, i love this debate already. and it juuuuuuust got started.
-------------------------------
hotcarl - 2004-09-02 14:31:40
Lets further look at abortion through the IRP. What about cases of rape? The mother is not responsible for the conflicting infringements. In this case a third party is, the rapist. Since he could not carry the fetus, his responsibility will be inforced in other means, jail, etc. Since the Mother in this case bears no direct responsibility, you could not force her to bring the child to term. Her right to pursue happiness wins out. In the example in the entry, the right of the child wins out because of the mother's responsibility. It all comes down to the determing factor of responsibility whenever conflicting infringements collide.
-------------------------------
jes - 2004-09-02 15:04:22
so its ok for a woman to kill a person if she doesn't want it? if you are going to grant that a fetus is worthy of the protection of the state, you can't say its ok for the person who kills it to get off scott free. you are gonna have a rough time saying that a person is able to persue their right to happiness in one case and not in another. if both are human, you cannot qualify it.
-------------------------------
hotcarl - 2004-09-02 16:12:30
See, again you confuse what the current debate is with what the IRP says about the debate. There is no need for convincing, we have defined a strict set of rules in order to judge and compare the justness of the law. x = a + b, if you will. J = I + R. A law is just if the action it is against infringes on the rights of others and the perpetrator has responsibility.
-------------------------------
hotcarl - 2004-09-02 16:13:42
conversly, a law is unjust if there is no infringement or no responsibility.
-------------------------------
jes - 2004-09-02 16:24:14
right, so while a woman has no responsibility in the case of pregnancy by rape, she does in the case of choosing to get an abortion, as she could opt not to. or am I totally missing the point. also, what is justice. when a law prohibits another persons infringment on your rights to persue a happy life? thats the harm principle, isn't it?
-------------------------------
hotcarl - 2004-09-02 16:48:18
She has responsibility in the instance when she "chose" to willfully engage in intercourse that resulted in the conseption of a child. That is the responsibility she bears, not in the choice of abortion or not. Responsibility solely lies in the source action.
-------------------------------
jes - 2004-09-02 19:02:13
well, how far back are you suggesting an action is relevant. It seems that immediate action is what we should look at. That is, she did take action in aborting a child. I don't see how you can award a person status of being worthy of the protection of the state (fetus) on the one hand, and say they are not fully entitled to them on the other. either they are, or they are not. and if we are factoring in intent to get pregnant, what about instances where a woman has had her tubes tied, but she gets pregnant anyway. do we blame the doctor? what if she was out jogging late at night, essentially asking to get raped. did she not have a responsibility then to take care of herself? Why is the act of rape the only one that is relevant if its the actual abortion that killed the fetus.
-------------------------------
hotcarl - 2004-09-03 16:55:18
There is a legal term known as causation or actus reus. "To establish causation it is necessary to firstly ask if the defendant in fact was the cause of the specified consequence of the offence. One way is to ask 'But for what the defendant did would the consequences have occurred?'" I gave but only two examples to depict the results of IRP in similar but different circumstances. These examples are not meant to restrict, but to expand. Let us look at the tubes tied example you put forth where it would fall in whether or not an abortion would be just. We have already defined the Infringement conflict in abortion between that of the fetus and that of the mother. Where does the Responsibility exist? Did the Doctor's operation cause the pregnancy or did the voluntary action of intercorse result in the pregnancy. How about the example you put forth about the women in the rape case having dressed provacotively or goes jogging after dark. Does the clothes she wears result in pregnancy? How about the jogging, does her act of jogging after dark result in pregnancy? You pointed out the simularties of the Harm Principle. Not only does HP not account for conflicting harm, but it leaves all actions not involving ones self to be able to be deemed harmful by law. This would make an action of gay marriage, that does not directly infringe anyones right to pursue happiness. Also remember the key is the right ot pursue happiness, not the right to happiness. No one is garaunteed happiness.
-------------------------------
jes - 2004-09-04 10:45:55
carl, ok, I understand the distinciton between the act of rape and jogging late at night. However, what I don't understand is this. rape would yeild the the pregnancy. directly. so the rapist should have to pay for the pain of her suffering being pregnant. but rape should not = a free ticked to kill a baby IF the state has said that a fetus does infact qualify for the rights of the born. while the rapist was directly responsible for the baby's life, the MOTHER would be directly responsible for its death. that is why I am pushing for the idea that the state should say wether or not a fetus is in fact granted those rights in the first place. if the state does NOT think so, (like it does now) why should they protect its right to life even in the case there is not a rape. It seems you fall back to the old problem, first showing a fetus is worthy of such protection. perhaps I am being dense though. break it down into baby language if I still don't get it.
-------------------------------
add your comment:
back to the entry - Diaryland
|