Jump to content

Terryl Givens Weighs in on Ethics of Abortion


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said:

No.

1. If you didn't write it, you need to cite your source as requested multiple times.

2. It is a strawman because it is not generally used to argue for abortion rights. So apparently you've effectively only set up an argument that you think you can tear down. 

For instance, the property framework that you described is not used for the Roe v Wade ruling, which in essence is more about privacy.

Edited by Meadowchik
Link to post
25 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It is a strawman because it is not generally used to argue for abortion rights.

I was not aware that audience ignorance or novelty determines whether something is a strawman fallacy.  I am still not aware of it, in fact.

Edited by Jared Livesey
Link to post
3 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said:

I was not aware that audience ignorance or novelty determines whether something is a strawman fallacy.  I am still not aware of it, in fact.

CFR that it is generally used then.

Link to post
17 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said:

CFR that I claimed "it is generally used."

 

23 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said:

I was not aware that audience ignorance or novelty determines whether something is a strawman fallacy.  I am still not aware of it, in fact.

If you're not implying then that it is not a strawman because you think it is generally used, then what did you mean? 

 

Link to post
1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

If you're not implying then that it is not a strawman because you think it is generally used, then what did you mean? 

I meant that I was then, even as I am now whilst typing these words, unaware that novel arguments are, by sole virtue of their novelty, strawmen arguments.

Link to post
38 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said:

I meant that I was then, even as I am now whilst typing these words, unaware that novel arguments are, by sole virtue of their novelty, strawmen arguments.

I did not say it was a strawman because it was new.

I said you misrepresented the case for abortion rights, then discredited it by saying it also supports slavery.

That said, you did later say, "It is my position that if it is agreed that humans own their bodies as defined in my post, then unlimited abortion and slavery follow ineluctably."

So to get back on track, I disagree with both points. I do not agree with your definition of ownership of a human fetus. I certainly don't think women need to own a fetus to be able to refuse to keep them in her body. She owns her body, and essentially that's all that is needed for the argument. Her body is hers, and the right of a human fetus to life, if it exists, does not extend to the right to use another person's body to live.

But even if a woman owns what is inside her body, that does not mean she owns a human being who does not live in her body. 

In other words, your arguments fail internally in at least two ways.

Furthermore, like I've already said, the foremost weakness is that fails to address the already existing compelling arguments for a female's bodily autonomy where pregnancy is concerned. Listen to the arguments favouring choice if you want to be more persuasive.

 

 

Edited by Meadowchik
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I did not say it was a strawman because it was new.

For reference, this is what you said.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

It is a strawman because it is not generally used to argue for abortion rights.

Please help me to understand your meaning then.  If you did not mean to say that novel arguments, by sole virtue of their novelty, are strawman arguments, then did you mean to say unpopular arguments, by sole virtue of their unpopularity, are strawman arguments?

If you did not mean to imply that novel or unpopular arguments are, by sole virtue of their novelty or unpopularity, strawman arguments, what precisely did you mean?

Thanks in advance for clearing that up.

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said:

For reference, this is what you said.

Please help me to understand your meaning then.  If you did not mean to say that novel arguments, by sole virtue of their novelty, are strawman arguments, then did you mean to say unpopular arguments, by sole virtue of their unpopularity, are strawman arguments?

If you did not mean to imply that novel or unpopular arguments are, by sole virtue of their novelty or unpopularity, strawman arguments, what precisely did you mean?

Thanks in advance for clearing that up.

Essentially you misrepresented the moral reasons supporting abortion rights. You constructed a poorly representative argument that you then discredited. Such is a strawman by definition, new or old, popular or unpopular. 

My apologies if I wasn't clearer initially. I do suggest that you look up the arguments supporting abortion rights so that you can better understand the problem human beings are facing.

Link to post
33 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

But even if a woman owns what is inside her body, that does not mean she owns a human being who does not live in her body. 

It is trivially true that a specific female may possibly not own a specific human outside of her body.  The argument, fortunately, does not entail such a claim.

Edited by Jared Livesey
Link to post
26 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

She owns her body, and essentially that's all that is needed for the argument.

I suggest, once again, that any divergence between observed practice and the implications of the argument provided in my post stem from misidentifying the owners of the properties in question.

Link to post
19 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

You constructed a poorly representative argument that you then discredited.

Ah, I think I begin to see the problem you believe you are solving, but it's not a problem I am concerned with.  It seems slavery is too high a price to pay for logical consistency with respect to abortion.  After all, you have agreed that a woman does, in fact, own her body - upon what self-consistent principle do you deny her the right to sell her body, and another to buy it?  And if you do deny her the right to sell her body, or the right of another to purchase it, are you not the owner of the woman?

Link to post
33 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said:

It is trivially true that a female may possibly not own a specific human outside of her body.  The argument, fortunately, does not entail such a claim.

I said "But even if a woman owns what is inside her body, that does not means she owns a human being who does not live in her body." And that does extend, by the way, no specifically not having ownership of the human who was once in her body.

From your post:

IMG_20201101_170930.jpg

Edited by Meadowchik
Link to post

 

13 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said:

Ah, I think I begin to see the problem you believe you are solving, but it's not a problem I am concerned with.  It seems slavery is too high a price to pay for logical consistency with respect to abortion. 

No, you are simply forcing your own personal definition of property into the argument in order to produce the counterpoint of slavery. 

Edited by Meadowchik
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
34 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

 

No, you are simply forcing your own personal definition of property into the argument in order to produce the counterpoint of slavery. 

Fair enough.  

If you own your body, can you sell property rights over your body?  Can you sell things that were once in your body, such as blood, organs, or foreign material?

If you own your body and cannot do those things, what is preventing you from doing so?

Edited by Jared Livesey
Link to post
10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I agree that it should be rare, but I disagree that only women are responsible for birth control. Men need to be just as responsible for their sperm reaching an egg as a woman is for it happening. 

Disagree. Women need to protect themselves. I tell my kids that if they are going to have sex before marriage to never trust the other people with birth control. Always use two forms. I teach them to wait until marriage, but things happen and there is no need to bring an innocent baby into the world like that

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, cherryTreez said:

Disagree. Women need to protect themselves. I tell my kids that if they are going to have sex before marriage to never trust the other people with birth control. Always use two forms. I teach them to wait until marriage, but things happen and there is no need to bring an innocent baby into the world like that

Men need to protect themselves as well

The ideal is that both would take full responsibility. 
 

The reality is that the woman carries more burden.  And the consequences of abortion are much, much heavier on the women.  Men sometimes aren’t even aware it occurs, probably much of the time.

Child support is not easy to get in all cases.  If women don’t want to be in a position where they are questioning if they should have a child or not, they need to take full responsibility...but that in no way should stop them from insisting the man take responsibility as well. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
14 hours ago, Jared Livesey said:

Fair enough.  

If you own your body, can you sell property rights over your body?  Can you sell things that were once in your body, such as blood, organs, or foreign material?

If you own your body and cannot do those things, what is preventing you from doing so?

Bodily autonomy does not work like property laws do.

 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Jared Livesey said:

How and why?

I'm sure there are many reasons why, and some might even diverge, but here's is one reason for you: a person cannot themselves as their own property in the conventional sense because property requires a proprietor, which by definition is able to part from its property or obtain more property. The how is evident in the fact that laws are increasingly more cautious in the areas approaching bodily commodification. The abolition of slavery is an obvious example, but there are relatively novel areas like surrogacy where governments are being cautious in the attempt to avoid bodily commodification. 

Link to post
27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

a person cannot themselves as their own property in the conventional sense because property requires a proprietor, which by definition is able to part from its property or obtain more property.

In the terms under discussion, bodies are resources which can be monopolized by threats or force.  Thus they may indeed be property, and hence owned.

27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The how is evident in the fact that laws are increasingly more cautious in the areas approaching bodily commodification.

That is because the government owns your body, in the terms under discussion.  Laws and enforcement thereof are the threats and the force by which your body is monopolized by its true owners.

Edited by Jared Livesey
Link to post

It is to be noted that one need not "agree" with the schema proffered in my post.  It is not an attempt at persuasion - it is a de-rhetorized (value-neutral) description of our practices with respect to resources.

If one does not have power to do what I asked if you had power to do it is only because one is not the owner of one's body in the terms under discussion - another entity owns it.

Edited by Jared Livesey
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...