Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and she is making a choice, getting it aborted. if the people that are so opposed to that dont like it, they can step up with $$$ and pay for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni
Read my previous post in this thread that explains why only someone with the intelligence of cucumber thinks that is a valid argument.
Actually, it's a perfectly valid argument, and one that should appeal to our free-marketeer friends everywhere, as it invokes the ideas of Nobel Prize-winning economist Ronald Coase, a Chicago School cohort of Milton Friedman, and a man whose writings form much of the basis for the laissez-faire, free-market capitalism that has had such (some would say, unfortunate) influence in this country since the days of Ronald Reagan.
In this case, we have Group-A whose moral sensibilities are offended by abortion, and Group-B whose moral sensibilities are not offended by abortion. The difference arises from contrasting views over the nature of a human fetus, the two groups have tried to negotiate consensus over those contrasting views, but have failed miserably in that attempt, leaving society with two more or less permanent camps of competing and exclusive views.
This is not unlike the situation of a factory on one side of a lake freely pumping toxic pollution into it on the one hand, and numerous villagers on the other side of the lake who derive their entire livelihood from fishing in it on the other. Pollution is the central issue here, and the two sides have competing and exclusive views of it.
Under Coase's Theorem, the latter dispute should in effect be resolved by marketizing it. Depending on the relative dollar amounts involved, some solution to the pollution problem will be arrived at that falls somewhere between the factory paying the fisherman for the market value of their lost catch, and the fishermen paying to have pollution control equipment installed at the factory.
In the instant case, it is being proposed that the differences between Group-A and Group-B might be marketized, and a representative of Group-B has offered that the group might be willing to forego abortions should Group-A be willing to absorb the entire cost of raising the resultant children. As these costs are variously estimated at between $250K and $450K through the age of eighteen, and as there are some 1.2 million abortions per year undergone by members of Group-B, it will merely be necessary for Group-A to fork over some $300 to $540 billion per year in order to make the problem go away.
This is not an unreasonable proposal. Rather than ridiculing it, Dr. Coase might say, it is perhaps the case that Group-A should be drafting up some sort of response to it.
Note that in this analysis the two comparison examples of ex-wife killing and child-drowning must fall by the wayside in that there is no group whose moral sensibilities are not offended by either of these actions. There can be no negotiation between two groups unless at least two groups exist.
Note that in this analysis the two comparison examples of ex-wife killing and child-drowning must fall by the wayside in that there is no group whose moral sensibilities are not offended by either of these actions. There can be no negotiation between two groups unless at least two groups exist.
So something is wrong is determined by how many people are offended by it?
So if there was a vote held and 51% of the population said they believed abortion is murder, would your views be shifted?
Besides, I'm sure there would be a number of people who wouldn't be too worked up if the kids drowned in the tub were retarded. Hey, you can use the cost factor and a pro-eugenics argument.
Oh, and your argument is retarded as well. You mention several things that have dick all to do with the abortion debate. Mentioning Milton Friedman's economic theories has nothing to do with the abortion debate as well. It's the liberal version of when conservative make the "Liberals are opposed to executing murderers, but believe it is a mother's right to kill her unborn children" argument. The only thing you have shown is that both sides are never short of people who are incapable of using logic. Maybe you and crystalblue can form a debating club where people mention irrelevant facts and use arguments that make no sense. I'm thinking it should be called "The Red Herrings".
Last edited by Frank_Carbonni; 02-09-2008 at 04:30 AM..
Reason: Typos
No one under the age of 35 can occupy the office of President. This is stated in the US Constitution. Hence, anyone who is under the age of 35 does not have the Constitutional right to be President. He or she therefore has not yet been vested with all of his or her Constitutional rights.
Please provide the paragraph in the COTUS that states that every naturalized citizen over 35 has a right to be POTUS. You can't because it's not there, only the requirements to RUN for the office. If we all had the right, each of us could demand our turn regardless of the electoral college votes.
Quote:
Small words do not come from large minds.
At times its a requirement because of the audience. William F. Buckley Jr. did a disservice to his movement, IMO, by displaying his oratory abilities when simple common words would have sufficed. But many would rather make their weak arguments seem valid by following the adage ""If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, ......". Thesauruses are cheap and easy to use and can be very effective on the easily impressed. However, logic, reason, and facts are more effective to more thoughtful people, my desired audience.
Quote:
The integrity of a woman's body (and that of a man) is protected by law at all times.
More of the same, inaccurate, "you know what".
Quote:
To the extent that a woman carries a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus within her and with the intent of continuing to do so, that entity shares in that protection. This has been the case under systems of law stretching back over many centuries. Most of these have recognized the concept also that as the process of gestation reaches its latter stages, a woman may come to have an enhanced duty to her fetus, and that society (in this country, the state) may begin to assert an interest in assuring that such enhanced duty is appropriately recognized. There is, however, no case law, no statute law, and no common law establishing that a fetus itself has any rights of its own prior to being born alive. At that point, it acquires on its own account a starter set of basic rights under law, the remainder resting with the parents or guardians and/or with the state. Through a gradual process of surrender, those reserved rights enure to a child as it matures, vesting in nearly all cases by the time it reaches the age of majority. It is all process. There is no 'exact point'. To ask the question at all is to misundertstand the subject of it.
Most of this is irrelevant and more of the same. If we were to follow most of historic systems of law, women and minorities would simply be the property of their masculine master. Fortunately we have evolved to where we have become a bit more discriminating in determining who is deserving of protection from the majority, thus the Bill of Rights.
So, in your statement, "At that point, it acquires on its own account a starter set of basic rights under law," you don't really mean a point, but some arbitrary time to be decided by those who fail the intellectual honesty test?
Read my previous post in this thread that explains why only someone with the intelligence of cucumber thinks that is a valid argument.
Good point Frank. You were much more eloquent in your explanation than mine previously. Many just want to ignore it because it displays the weakness in their long-held positions.
Please provide the paragraph in the COTUS that states that every naturalized citizen over 35 has a right to be POTUS. You can't because it's not there, only the requirements to RUN for the office. If we all had the right, each of us could demand our turn regardless of the electoral college votes.
Everyone has the right to be a major-league baseball player. For one last time, no one who is not 35 years of age has the right to be President of the United States because the Constitution specifically denies that right to anyone until that time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
At times its a requirement because of the audience.
I'm sorry that you have so completely misunderstood the meaning of the comment Small words do not come from large minds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
William F. Buckley Jr. did a disservice to his movement, IMO, by displaying his oratory abilities when simple common words would have sufficed. But many would rather make their weak arguments seem valid by following the adage ""If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, ......". Thesauruses are cheap and easy to use and can be very effective on the easily impressed.
A thesaurus is not necessary when a reasonable vocabulary will do. I again apologize if you find my arguments to be too well or convincingly stated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
However, logic, reason, and facts are more effective to more thoughtful people, my desired audience.
If you were such a fan of logic, reason, and facts, it might be expected that your posts would contain a few more examples of them. One, for instance, would often be a good number to start with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
More of the same, inaccurate, "you know what".
The integrity of one's physical person is one of the central principles of the law. It would seem that we might add this to the list of disciplines in which you operate at a comparative disadvantage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
Most of this is irrelevant and more of the same.
Isn't this the same insightful argument you came up with just above? It may be inconvenient to your beliefs that they do not now have and have never had support from within this or any society or legal system stretching back over many centuries, but that is nevertheless the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
If we were to follow most of historic systems of law, women and minorities would simply be the property of their masculine master. Fortunately we have evolved to where we have become a bit more discriminating in determining who is deserving of protection from the majority, thus the Bill of Rights.
None of which contains any embodiment of, or even reference to, a concept of fetal personhood, and the last of which would be a document whose bases you would intend to undermine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
So, in your statement, "At that point, it acquires on its own account a starter set of basic rights under law," you don't really mean a point, but some arbitrary time to be decided by those who fail the intellectual honesty test?
You are in no position to be grading intellectual honesty tests. The referenced statement is descriptive. If you disagree with the description, please feel free to provide particulars. Meanwhile, you continue to ignore the fact of process. There is no such thing as 5-4-3-2-1-person. There are no bright lines. There are no magical moments. Everything is a matter of degree, where degree is defined by distance so far travelled within the process. It is unfortunate that your chosen belief system comports so poorly with the facts. There is, however, an obvious remedy for that.
It's the liberal version of when conservative make the "Liberals are opposed to executing murderers, but believe it is a mother's right to kill her unborn children" argument. The only thing you have shown is that both sides are never short of people who are incapable of using logic.
It is conservatives who want less or no goverment control.
I believe liberals want goverment control over such things as big business screwing the average person(such as dumping mercury into our water supplies,etc
I do not want goverment control over my personal decsions.
If the goverment forces non abortion then it should take some responsibility to provide for alternatives, period.
These abortion discussions never go anywhere and never change anyone's mind because a person's position on abortion is based on a great many other, more fundamental parts of their philosophy. Whenever I get involved in one of these debates, I first start off by trying to drag my opponent into an "existence of God" debate because that's where you really have to go in order to make any progress towards convincing someone or towards getting them to question their convictions. Might as well just cut the BS and get right down to the fundamentals of the issue.
The advocate of legal abortion needs to convince the Christian that he is wrong and that his belief system is irrational and that he should choose an atheist philosophy and the Christian needs to convince the atheist to believe in a God-being that magically breathes a soul into the embryo at the time of conception. Good luck with all of that.
I'm not sure that the shelves would really be cleared if we suddenly carried 1.2 million extra unwanted pregnancies per year to term and then put the issue of all those up for grabs.
You also have to wonder how many people would really be available to adopt children every year because presumably, some of the people who want to adopt children this year also wanted to adopt children last year, so the amount of new people who want to adopt children every year (and thus the number of newborns that would be adopted each year) might be much lower than the number of people who would currently like to adopt.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
