Men's Abortion Rights.

[Southwind17]

There was no oxymoron in my statement.

I consider that anything determined on the basis of arbitrariness^dict cannot also be said to have been determined objectively^dict. In fact, I consider the two to be essentially contradictory - hence an oxymoron.

 

[Ziggurat]

Rights are something we make up and only exists because our society agrees they exist. Problem with all the definitions people come up with that seek to say there is an objective clear none-arbitary line that makes a developing baby/fetus/zygote have human rights is that they are kidding themselves that there is some mysterious bright line/point where something become human, it's the "now human minus 1 day" v "now human plus 1 day". There is no such line, all such lines are what we use as a practical necessity so we can police abortion.

If you don’t police abortion, then you’re just policing infanticide (assuming you don’t allow that). Saying the line is arbitrary isn’t much of a strike against it, since the only way to not have an arbitrary line is to have no line at all. And good luck trying to argue for that position.

 

[Ziggurat]

There's the problem right there, and probably the best oxymoron I've see for some time!

I don’t think it is. A line may be arbitrary in that where it is drawn was picked arbitrarily, but it may be simultaneously objective in the sense that, once the line is picked, which side of the line any particular thing is on may be determined objectively.

 

[psionl0]

No I didn't, I said that we recognise conception as when a human being begins, and we recognise birth as when human rights begin.

So strawman it is. You ignored "(deserving of human rights)" in my post to make a statement about something different entirely.

 

[sphenisc]

No I didn't, I said that we recognise conception as when a human being begins, and we recognise birth as when human rights begin.

In which case they're not human rights, they're birth rights.

 

[Darat]

I consider that anything determined on the basis of arbitrariness^dict cannot also be said to have been determined objectively^dict. In fact, I consider the two to be essentially contradictory - hence an oxymoron.

Of course it can. For example a tennis court has an arbitrarily decided size and we mark that with lines. We can objectively tell when a ball goes outside those arbitrarily decided lines. We do this all the time.

 

[Darat]

If you don’t police abortion, then you’re just policing infanticide (assuming you don’t allow that). Saying the line is arbitrary isn’t much of a strike against it, since the only way to not have an arbitrary line is to have no line at all. And good luck trying to argue for that position.

Which is way I think we should use a line that we can actually objectively measure rather than one we can't.

 

[Darat]

So strawman it is. You ignored "(deserving of human rights)" in my post to make a statement about something different entirely.

Nope.

 

[Darat]

In which case they're not human rights, they're birth rights.

What's the difference you are trying to illustrate?

 

[sphenisc]

What's the difference you are trying to illustrate?

That human rights are assigned to all beings that we regard as human, birth rights to those which have been born.

 

[Darat]

That human rights are assigned to all beings that we regard as human, birth rights to those which have been born.

Sorry but still can't see the point you are trying to illustrate. What difference does it make if we call them birth or human rights?

 

[Southwind17]

I don’t think it is. A line may be arbitrary in that where it is drawn was picked arbitrarily, but it may be simultaneously objective in the sense that, once the line is picked, which side of the line any particular thing is on may be determined objectively.

Well if that objectivity was a factor in drawing the line then it wasn't arbitrary. If it wasn't a factor, and just happens fortuitously to afford that objectivity, then so be it, but that's not Darat's position - on the contrary.

 

[Southwind17]

Of course it can. For example a tennis court has an arbitrarily decided size and we mark that with lines. We can objectively tell when a ball goes outside those arbitrarily decided lines. We do this all the time.

You're conflating two entirely different things there - the arbitrary determination of the court line positions and the objective rules of the game.

The objective rule governing when a ball is deemed to have landed out of play pays no regard to arbitrary determination of where the lines are, but only where the ball lands in relation to the lines. The lines could have been determined arbitrarily in any position, but the objective rule would be the same. Flipping this around, the arbitrary determination of the position of the lines pays no regard to the objective rule governing when a ball is deemed to have landed out.

In contrast, you've drawn your abortion line with regard to the 'rules' - is the baby in or out! That's not an arbitrary determination.

Do you see the difference now?

 

[Southwind17]

Which is way I think we should use a line that we can actually objectively measure rather than one we can't.

"Objectively measure" meaning what, exactly? I think you mean a line that determines a status - born and un-born. I'm sorry, but that's not an arbitrary line. And neither, or course, is the line that determines the status as between pregnant and not pregnant, i.e. conception, but arguably all lines in between are arbitrary. They're all of the potential lines, however, that you seek to avoid.

 

[Southwind17]

Sorry but still can't see the point you are trying to illustrate. What difference does it make if we call them birth or human rights?

It's not what we call them that matters - it's when they're conferred.

 

[Darat]

Well if that objectivity was a factor in drawing the line then it wasn't arbitrary. If it wasn't a factor, and just happens fortuitously to afford that objectivity, then so be it, but that's not Darat's position - on the contrary.

Absolutely wrong. My position is that if you support abortion, you are going to have to set an arbitrary line. An example already suggested to be used in this thread is "quickening" as the point after it starts that you can no longer abort the baby, yet quickening can't be objectively defined, for some combinations of woman and baby it can start weeks before it does for another. My arbitrary line has the advantage that there is an objective test that would work I. E. Has the baby been born, if so you can't abort.

 

[Darat]

You're conflating two entirely different things there - the arbitrary determination of the court line positions and the objective rules of the game.

The objective rule governing when a ball is deemed to have landed out of play pays no regard to arbitrary determination of where the lines are, but only where the ball lands in relation to the lines. The lines could have been determined arbitrarily in any position, but the objective rule would be the same. Flipping this around, the arbitrary determination of the position of the lines pays no regard to the objective rule governing when a ball is deemed to have landed out.

In contrast, you've drawn your abortion line with regard to the 'rules' - is the baby in or out! That's not an arbitrary determination.

Do you see the difference now?

I've maintained all along that I've chosen a line that we can objectively determine has been passed.

 

[Darat]

It's not what we call them that matters - it's when they're conferred.

And?

 

[Southwind17]

Absolutely wrong. My position is that if you support abortion, you are going to have to set an arbitrary line. An example already suggested to be used in this thread is "quickening" as the point after it starts that you can no longer abort the baby, yet quickening can't be objectively defined, for some combinations of woman and baby it can start weeks before it does for another. My arbitrary line has the advantage that there is an objective test that would work I. E. Has the baby been born, if so you can't abort.

That's not arbitrary - how many more times ...???

 

[Southwind17]

I've maintained all along that I've chosen a line that we can objectively determine has been passed.

No you haven't - you're trying to restate what you wrote now in different terms. To be exact you wrote this ...

In what way? Seems a very clear and quite objective arbitrary line to me.

It's the claimed arbitrariness that's out of place - not the objectivity. But this is just becoming a debate over language now. I understand your position, but your insistence that you're correct on ancillary matters needed checking.

I believe were done now.

And?

And what? I'm just trying to clarify matters. It's not for me to lead a debate on the conferring of rights to humans - I'll leave that to you, if that's what you're seeking.