Lounge of Tomorrow - View Single Post

Alex · 10-31-2005, 04:10 PM

Put another way, conflating what I see as two issues is the same logic that results in laws requiring people to wear helmets and seatbelts. Or laws that outlaw smoking, or laws that limit personal choices due the costs those choices can cause to others (i.e., since if you don't wear a helmet it increases the chances that you'll end up in ICU on the public's dime, we collectively gain the right to force you to wear a helmet or face punishment).

I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that on most such issues, you would take the position that either this is the cross to bear when allowing personal freedoms. Besides, you didn't ask for a logical argument that you would agree with, just a logical argument. Disagreements with my initial axiom does not render the resulting points illogical.

Your point would not argue that the father should be required to approve an abortion but rather that the father should be more easily able to sever parental responsibility for a child. That is not an abortion issue but rather simple social poilcy.

You have not shown how being financially impacted by the absense of abortion gives a right to prohibit the abortion (it is kind of like saying "since you not wearing a motorcycle helmet could cost me money, I have the right to require that you not wear a motorcycle helmet). If this financial burden creates a right to involvement in abortion decisions, at most it would give the right to require an abortion (that is, a right to avoid enburdenment, but not a right to be enburdened).

So, in conclusion gentleman of the jury, I think I have given a logical argument for why abortion decisions can ultimately reside solely with the woman without simultaneously diminishing the male responsibility for support. In response I think you have given a logical argument for why either family responsibility should be weakened (alloweing easier severance of paternal responsibility) or male projenitors should be able to force abortion on unwilling women.

Arguing that there exists a fetal right to life that trumps a woman's right to bodily control is yet another separate argument, which also has no bearing on the father's burden to support. It is also an argument at the point of axiom and axioms can not be proven within the framework of the argument but only assumed to establish a framework. In other words, there is no way to empiricly prove when a fetus gains rights that trump other rights, we each have to decide where we will assume that line is (conception, first trimester, second trimester, birth, weaning, proof of lack of serious defect, etc.). Rational people can easily reach different conclusions.

And that is why the legality of abortion should not be a judicial matter, but a legislative one (and that is why Roe v. Wade was wrong, not because of the conclusion it reached but because it wasn't a conclusion that the judiciary should be reaching).

So long winded I am today.

10-31-2005, 04:10 PM	#65
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Put another way, conflating what I see as two issues is the same logic that results in laws requiring people to wear helmets and seatbelts. Or laws that outlaw smoking, or laws that limit personal choices due the costs those choices can cause to others (i.e., since if you don't wear a helmet it increases the chances that you'll end up in ICU on the public's dime, we collectively gain the right to force you to wear a helmet or face punishment). I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that on most such issues, you would take the position that either this is the cross to bear when allowing personal freedoms. Besides, you didn't ask for a logical argument that you would agree with, just a logical argument. Disagreements with my initial axiom does not render the resulting points illogical. Your point would not argue that the father should be required to approve an abortion but rather that the father should be more easily able to sever parental responsibility for a child. That is not an abortion issue but rather simple social poilcy. You have not shown how being financially impacted by the absense of abortion gives a right to prohibit the abortion (it is kind of like saying "since you not wearing a motorcycle helmet could cost me money, I have the right to require that you not wear a motorcycle helmet). If this financial burden creates a right to involvement in abortion decisions, at most it would give the right to require an abortion (that is, a right to avoid enburdenment, but not a right to be enburdened). So, in conclusion gentleman of the jury, I think I have given a logical argument for why abortion decisions can ultimately reside solely with the woman without simultaneously diminishing the male responsibility for support. In response I think you have given a logical argument for why either family responsibility should be weakened (alloweing easier severance of paternal responsibility) or male projenitors should be able to force abortion on unwilling women. Arguing that there exists a fetal right to life that trumps a woman's right to bodily control is yet another separate argument, which also has no bearing on the father's burden to support. It is also an argument at the point of axiom and axioms can not be proven within the framework of the argument but only assumed to establish a framework. In other words, there is no way to empiricly prove when a fetus gains rights that trump other rights, we each have to decide where we will assume that line is (conception, first trimester, second trimester, birth, weaning, proof of lack of serious defect, etc.). Rational people can easily reach different conclusions. And that is why the legality of abortion should not be a judicial matter, but a legislative one (and that is why Roe v. Wade was wrong, not because of the conclusion it reached but because it wasn't a conclusion that the judiciary should be reaching). So long winded I am today.
	Submit to Quotes