No. So far, no one has been able to provide a legitimate, objective source of that authority. As far as I can tell, your, and others, belief in that authority is simply a matter of faith.
Good morning, Ms Hastings. Ironically, I've heard pro-lifers use the same rationale. Let us not argue about that point, however. Allowing local voting bodies to decide this issue is just a preference I have. So rather than debating that, I would prefer that you read over the conversation I had with Giftedone and comment on that. Seth
If I don't have the authority to punish my neighbor for smoking crack, and if you don't either, then how can we delegate said authority, which we don't have in the first place, to a third party?
The question here is not whether or not you have authority on a personal basis. The question is whether the Gov'ts use of power on this particular question is legitimate on the basis of the founding principles. According to the founding principles you personally do not have the authority to punish. The principle is that if you can get 2/3rds or more of society to agree with you - that consensus can give Gov't some authority the power to punish. I am just outlining the principles that the founders put in place. Whether or not one agrees with these principles is a different question. In general the power of Gov't was to be limited to acts of direct harm - one person on another (with respect to life liberty and pursuit of happiness/ essential liberty) that is the basis of the social contract - construct by which we the people authorize Gov't power. There is a mechanism however by which this contract can be changed to include other things - such a change was not to be taken lightly - hence the overwhelming majority requirement as opposed to "simple majority/simple majority mandate" which was referred to as "tyranny of the Majority" in both classical liberalism and republicanism. What you are suggesting is that there should be no such allowance.
I know, I know, no one seems to want to address my last two questions....they probably think since it's "only women" that it's OK....and of course, righties never look ahead to any consequences as long as they have instant gratification. FoxHastings said: ↑ So if some counties or states wanted to further this abuse of everyone's right to their own body we could have slave states and slave counties ? Afterall, if one group ( pregnant women) lose the right to their own bodies how/why/where will it stop? Who's next?"""""" BTW, I have never heard an Anti-Choicer use that rationale. They seem to think it's fine if women are no more than slaves.
I'm not personally arguing this, but one of the arguments is that it would in some cases be emotionally more difficult for a woman to deal with continuing a pregnancy and giving birth if she perceived a connection between that and the traumatic experience that happened to her, and that it helps prevent rape genes from being added into the genepool. But in any case, rape alone isn't adequate argument by itself to justify abortion, it's just one of the arguments that could, potentially, added on to all the other arguments be enough to tip the scales. So while I'm not saying rape justifies abortion, I'm saying that those who believe that aren't necessarily being inconsistent.
It seems that in order to delegate authority one must have said authority in the first place. One can't delegate what one doesn't have.
How does a group of people lift something that one person can not? Do you walk to work or take your lunch ? There is no such thing as an agreement between one individual. A contract requires at least two. How can two people acquire the ability to authorize a contract when one does not ?
Ms FoxHastings, Pro-lifers are not necessarily in total agreement with each other. You have some who are opposed to all abortions at any stage of pregnancy. The large majority agree that if the pregnancy has problems that threaten the life of the mother, then the pregnancy should be allowed to be ended. Many think that the harm done to a woman if she is forced to give birth to the child of her rapist is to great to justify that outcome, and again, the pregnancy should be allowed to be ended. And then you have those like myself and the poster Giftedone who seem to fall in the middle ground. I do not wish to speak for him, but I do think that an unborn child reaches a point of development before it is born where its life should be respected. At that point in its development is where a middle-ground pro-lifer will argue that the baby also has a right to its own body that is equal to the mother's. It's not that a pregnant woman loses any rights to her own body that she's always had. It's that there are two people involved who should have equal status - the mother and the baby. The baby is dependent upon the mother, and it is inside of her, and it possesses her DNA, but it is not her body. That body inside her is not hers, it is the body of another person - her child's body. Now if a woman does not get an early abortion, and the child is in the 7th or 8th month, and for whatever reason, the mother no longer wants to give birth to it, under present law, she may find a physician who may legally abort it. But, to some of us, by that advanced stage of development, that fetus should have been granted the respect for his or her life that a baby receives under the law after birth. By that stage of development, most babies are viable outside of the womb. And so from that perspective, if we can kill unwanted, inconvenient children in this matter, using similar verbiage as you, "If one group (unborn children) lose the right to their own bodies, where will it stop? Who's next?" So yes, maybe you have never heard that rationale from pro-lifers, but I have. Both pro-choicers and pro-lifers agree that society does have an interest in protecting human life. Both agree that society has the right to pass laws that deal with the treatment of others and that deal with the protection of the innocent. The difference between the two sides is when that human life begins. Slavery has nothing to do with it. We have had these friendly little chats before, and so I do not seek to convince you, nor do I hold any illusions that my words may be persuasive to you. Regards, Seth
They each lift a portion of the load. Yes Because a contract is when two parties make offers and each accepts the other's offer. Also note that a contract is strictly an agreement between the two parties. It doesn't involve any third parties. But the question remains: If I have no authority to punish my neighbor for smoking crack, and you also have no such authority, then how do the two of us together has any such authority.
, Yes, pregnancy and child birth can be traumatic for lots of women, even those who weren't raped.....but the raped women are the only ones who get sympathy? No one has answered the question: What is the difference between an abortion due to rape and an abortion due to consensual sex: I answered, the answer is NONE. BOTH end what Anti-Choicers call a "precious life" WHY is one less precious than another??????? "Rape genepool"" !! WTF! There is no such thing! HOW would rape tip the scales and which way......that sentence didn't make any sense... The argument for abortion rights is that women have a right to their own bodies just like everyone else. Good! Because it doesn't NEED to. YES, they are. IF an exception is made for abortion due to rape the Anti-Choicers are clearly saying ALL "life" is NOT "precious" ….and clearly show they just want to punish women who had consensual sex.
I personally do not have an issue with my neighbor smoking crack. That is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not society as a whole has the ability/authority to give some authority the power to punish. The social contract is an agreement between many parties not just two. It is an agreement between "we the people" and some authority. The agreement states that the authority is to be given the power to punish ... not the individual. The individual has no such authority. Reality is (unfortunate or not) that society - at some point - decided to punish violators of certain codes of conduct. Classical Liberalism - the principles on which this nation was founded - envisioned a society with no law. People naturally tended towards groups. This was for social reasons but also for protection - Strength in numbers. Codes of conduct developed. It does not do you much good if you are protected from outsiders if you are not protected from within the group. It does not do you much good to have codes of conduct if there is no consequence for violation of those codes of conduct. The people then agreed to give some authority power to punish. Groups that did this thrived and groups that did not - did not. "United we stand - divided we fall". Groups that ensured some level of safety for its members - from both internal and external threat - did better than those that did not. "Survival of the fittest". The people then decided to give some authority the power to punish violators of certain codes of conduct. This was juxtaposed to the idea that "no man wants to be ruled over by another. The power was then to be very limited .. only to acts of direct harm - one person on another (Murder, Rape, Theft and so on) This is one of the earliest formulations of the golden rule. "If you do not kill me and my family - I will not kill you and yours" This is the basis of the social contract. If you do not want someone killing you and your family - you then have a "moral obligation" not to kill others. It does no good to make such a contract if there is no consequence for violators. Some authority has to be given the power to punish. There are many ways to do this - If you do not like what the founders came up with then suggest something better. The idea of the founders is that "we the people" give power to punish to some authority. Would you rather that authority come from somewhere else ? "divine right/God" bloodline or just might is right ? Gone are the days when it is realistically possible for one to go out and set up your own society outside of some civil authority. We are then left with the problem of how to best limit the power of that authority. What do you suggest ?
It has PROTECTION after 24 weeks. it doesn't need respect, just protection which it has. It IS her body...the fetus doesn't own it, the Big Government doesn't own it and you don't own it...she owns it. There are not two people involved, a fetus is not a person until birth. It cannot and should not have more rights than you and I and the woman it's in. It HAS that protection....why do Anti's argue with no ammunition. Most abortions are done before 18 weeks. NO SANE woman "enjoys" 8 months of pregnancy just for the "fun" of having an abortion. Did you REALLY think women do that!!!! OK, IF the fetus is granted the same rights we all have (MORE according to you) then with those rights comes RESTRICTIONS. We ALL have them. We cannot use another's body to sustain our life....so neither could the fetus. We all have the right to stop other's harming us without our consent.....and so do pregnant women. Fetuses are not born so have no rights and I just explained why they shouldn't . Anti-Choicers want to take away rights from legal BORN person's...women in particular although I'm sure they wouldn't want to be forced to give up their heart/liver/blood for anyone else.. Human life began thousands and thousands of years ago. The End. To say that a fetus is "life" so it should destroy all the rights of the woman it's in, making her a slave, is just wrong. EVERYTHING to do with making an American citizen "less than" another American citizen....which is what Anti-Choicers want to do. Of course they're not persuasive.....I still believe ALL people, legal BORN citizens, should have the same rights. And I know I can't persuade you that women are people/Americans/citizens, too.
Society is simply another term for a group of individuals. No individual has the legitimate authority to punish someone for smoking crack, therefore society (i.e. all the individuals) has no such right.
Thanks for ignoring the content of my post - the questions therein and repeating your premise ad nauseum as if repetition of a premise somehow makes that premise true.
Ah, the questions. I'm sorry I overlooked them. "The idea of the founders is that "we the people" give power to punish to some authority. Would you rather that authority come from somewhere else ?" I would rather nobody have the authority to punish someone for smoking crack. "We are then left with the problem of how to best limit the power of that authority. What do you suggest ?" Eliminate any organization that has the authority to initiate violence against peaceful people.
There is no social contract. The point is if you do not have the right to delegate the punishment, the group can not rightfully punish. Let's take an examples. Smoking crack: this action is not an agress to my person, so I have no right to punish another for it. Thus, I can not delegate others to punish on my behalf. Robery: if I am robbed, this is an agress against my person, so I have a right to punish another for it.Thus, I can delegate others to punish on my behalf.
