Welcome to Gaia! ::

Amen, case closed, hole in one, ace in the hole, royal flush, K.O., home run, in short:

PWNED.

The desire of a convenient child-free life is indeed a materialistic. More money for you. More time for you. Just more.

Of course, then comes along those who so bravely say: "But being selfish isn't wrong!"

And people wonder why there is strife in the world...

Again, they are not arguing that it is okay, because "the fetus is not really human if it is a child of rape," but rather are arguing that emotional damage of that level could conceivably be as bad as serious danger to the mother's life.

I disagree with them, but that's a whole other thing, and I think that they are more Pro-Life then they are Pro-Choice.

Who says that published philosophy is argued against and critiqued? In fact, I should think that my personal philosophy is critiqued by more people then many published philosophies; Granted, they aren't by accredited doctors. But they are still examined and picked apart by all sorts of people.

I mean, I really don't think that Plato or Aristotle were critiqued very much. Probably their students argued with them, and refined their points. But one of them (I can't remember which) ended up being thrown in jail and put to death because of his philosophies; I seriously doubt that philosophies of the sort that get you beheaded would be looked at in a serious way by most "accredited" philosophers.

As I said, I'm not that person. I've spent upwards of a year debating on Gaia against all sorts of Pro-Choicers, and I've, through that time, refined my opinion on the subject, and my philosophical views, and such things. I truly believe that my philosophy is much more refined then many people who get published today.

Talon-Chan - So let me get this straight. You arent neccesarily saying that "personal" philosophies should be disregarded but it is understandable right? Are you suggesting that to be taken seriously then we should simply quote "respectable" philosophers and not actually expand on their ideas to create our own? The very fact that they HAVE been critiqued for ages goes to show that quoting them would be of no good use. Their ideas have already been run through and discussed. There still is no solution for either sides. There are still aspects of pro-life and pro-choice that have yet to be discussed and arguments and stances that have yet to meet each other. Individual philosophies are key to the progress of an issue. Simply having a quote war (IE well Hegel said this! - well so Kant said this!! - well so Neitzche said this!!!) doesnt led to anything productive because it has already been done. Of course it is important to take into account these philosphers ideas, but to discredit someones original idea simply because it hasnt been A)published and B)critique is absurd.

In regards to pro-lifers giving into the exception of rape, you cannot simply blanket them with "its a weak argument if you look at it" so easily. The key difference between rape and consensual sex is the consent obviously. The consent to sex is the consent to all that it implies - emotionally, mentally, and physically. Its like jumping off a cliff. You may not give open consent to be smashed up on the way down, and you only give open consent to the pleasure of the free fall, but by the very action of jumping off the cliff you give consent to all obvious and direct consequences. The same is with sex. (This does not clinch the pro-life stance by any means - the argument still lies in the personhood, but it sets up how a pro-lifer can be okay with abortion based on rape.)

Giving consent to the risk of pregnancy (however high based on what kind of contraceptive if any) consents to the actual pregnancy should it occur. Giving consent does not prohibit forced removal of the fetus if it is in fact lacking of any personhood, but it does waive the argument of "right to privacy." The reason why I bring this up is because abortion cases are often defended based on the "violinsit" analogy.

The analogy goes something like this. You wake up one day and you find that you are lying captive in a hospital bed attached to a man via your kidneys. Your captors explain that the man you are attached to is dying of kidney failure and needs to borrow your kidneys for a time while he waits for a transplant. To further complicate the issue, the man is the most famous violinist of all time! They explain to you that you are duty bound to stay connected to this man to keep him alive.

Of course nobody would agree with the captors, saying that it is too bad that the man would die, but we cannot live our life in forced servitude to the other members of society because where do we draw the line exactly? This analogy is flawed in its application to all abortion based on what I was saying in the begining, that consenting sex, even if unwillingly, invites the pregnancy. It however is alot more on target when in discussing a rape victim. In the case of rape you never consented to the creation of the fetus, openly or not. In no form did you consent. How can society hold you responsible to a life that you are in no way are obligated? To make it less obscure, imagine that the violinist is just a baby. Although it makes the analogy even sadder, you are still not obligated to this baby, in spite of the babies obvious right to personhood.

Essentially the pro-life movement can have exceptions for rape because society cannot hold people responsible for actions they have not commited, even if at the sacrifice of an innocent human life with personhood. However, pro-lifers can be against abortion based on the premise that sex intrinsically consents to the pregnancy (consents to be the kidney donor for 9 months if you will) and abortion would be destruction of a life that you consented to help and carry. Pregnancy is even more complicated because to make the analogy complete you would have to understand that you notn only consented to carry and birth the fetus through consentual sex, but you placed the fetus in the position to even need such help. So really, consenting sex would be that not only did you agree and sign a contract to be the kidney donor, but you are also the reason why the violinist has such a problem. Lets say you pushed him off the cliff because you enjoy to watch someone fall long distances, and his injury was kidney damage and you then agreed to help him. And all of a sudden, when he has no other options, you cut the plug and run. Except even here we need to fine tune it because abortion is not simpely cutting the plug - it is the forced destruction of the fetus prior to the "cut." So at the end of your pushing him off the cliff and promise to help him, you stand up one day and shoot him in his bed, then cut yourself free and walk away.

Now do you see why you can be pro-life but make exceptions for the case of rape?

Now Im not saying that I do, but I definitely woudlnt begrudge a woman who did such a thing at this stage because there is alot to the issue that I need to mull over before I start casting judgement on this particular issue. But it is defintely understandable and arguable to be pro-life with the exception of rape.

I usually cant read those long posts, but this time, I did. Thank you, Penguin Spoon, for a great post.

Penguin. I've read J.J. Thomson's "A defense of Abortion" where you get your violinist story. If you continued reading beyond the first example that outlines rape you would understand that she does not argue "consent" and that her examples have very little to do with consent but rather with what having a "right to life" entails and if that right to life is enough to justify forbidding abortion. You cite her work out of context if you wish to support abortions for rape victims because of bodily integrity (which is what she does argue) but not anyone else.

Thomson uses the example of a violinist in a rape circumstance to solidify the notion of bodily integrity, not consent. Later in her piece she justifies why consent to a risk is not acceptable for granting or establishing an obligation to negate bodily integrity (From the end of section four: "Someone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furnityre, or with sealed windows and doors. But this won't do -- for by the same token anyone can avoid a pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a reliable army"). To say Thomson's example justifies rape abortions because of consent is to do Ms. Thomson's word a horrible injustice because it misrepresents that she does, in fact, argue otherwise (that consent is not the issue, bodily rights versus right to life are the issue).

JJ Thompson's examples have very little to nothing to do with consent. She argues all possible cases of abortion from consenting to non-consenting to health exceptions... every single one argues for what a right to life would obligate another to do. You might as well be quoting Descartes to argue for the existence of innate ideas, or Hume to argue causation is a real thing, or Aquinas to demonstrate that God doesn't exist.

The whole thing is online somewhere, and I'll gladly find it if you like (I'm assuming, since you know the analogy, you've probably read the whole thing). And if I cannot find it online, since I Have a hardcopy I'll type it up u.u;;

And, since debating really isn't permitted here, if you'd like I'll argue the rape exception with you via PM and why JJ's argument is insufficient.

Yeah, it's ridiculous. Ok, I may have used the wrong term, saying "not alive" when I meant "not active". But I think it kind of goes for the same thing about viruses.

Not even saying that when a pro-choice-guy came to back up my facts, they all believed. *sigh*

Talon, if you're going to hide behind the no-debating rule, please don't make extremely biased statements as if they are facts and everyone who doesn't believe you is crazy, it'll only provoke defense from people.