Parental Consent for Tanning

[hadespussercats]

There's a sub-theme in this thread that relates directly to this discussion Cunt once started a long time ago: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=322

It's about whether men should be able to abdicate parental responsibility. It never got that much discussion, but I always found the argument put forward fascinating.

I think there was another thread where the issue was discussed in extreme depth. Seth and I were involved, and Seth was on the "yes" side, and I was on the "no" side of that equation. I can't find the thread offhand, though...

And I was in the middle. Here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... ion+rights

[Coito ergo sum]

There's a sub-theme in this thread that relates directly to this discussion Cunt once started a long time ago: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=322

It's about whether men should be able to abdicate parental responsibility. It never got that much discussion, but I always found the argument put forward fascinating.

I think there was another thread where the issue was discussed in extreme depth. Seth and I were involved, and Seth was on the "yes" side, and I was on the "no" side of that equation. I can't find the thread offhand, though...

And I was in the middle. Here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... ion+rights

I'd like you in the middle, but maybe with Bella on the other side...not Seth...

[hadespussercats]

[Coito ergo sum]

[hadespussercats]

I just don't think there would be space for me in between all the point-by-point quoting.

[Coito ergo sum]

I just don't think there would be space for me in between all the point-by-point quoting.

You may have missed my lewd suggestion.

[hadespussercats]

Whaaaat?

[Coito ergo sum]

Whaaaat?

I suggested you me and Bella have a threesome, here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1133383

Geez....

[hadespussercats]

Whaaaat?

I suggested you me and Bella have a threesome, here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1133383

Geez....

Wait-- I have to ask my parents.

[Coito ergo sum]

Whaaaat?

I suggested you me and Bella have a threesome, here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1133383

Geez....

Wait-- I have to ask my parents.

Just tell you're dad I'll make sure you're in bed before 11. He'll be fine with it.

[Seth]

All right, clearly we've reached the point where we'll just go round and round. Particularly considering this:

Only if you presume as a given that the fetus is not a person at any time prior to birth.

I have said several times now I do think the fetus is a person prior to birth. I maintain that a woman is also a person, with a right to control her body and rid it of inhabitants she doesn't want. Those inhabitants may be peaople, as in a baby. Doesn't matter. The woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps the baby'r right to live off the woman's body.

So how exactly does that work ethically. If a woman's bodily autonomy trumps the right of the baby to live "off the woman's body" before birth, does not her autonomy continue in the same way after birth, and therefore doesn't the woman's bodily autonomy then trump the child's life interests after birth as well? Would that not absolve her of her duty to care for the child after birth? How is that justifiable? I see an ethical inconsistency here.

Why should a woman's bodily autonomy prevail after the point in gestation where the fetus becomes a person endowed with rights? Given that the consequences to the woman are usually a few more weeks of gestation and discomfort, and the consequence to the fetus is death, what is your ethical argument that the woman's rights should prevail in such a case?

[Seth]

This was a big assumption you made in your response to my presentation:

Well, as I said, like any individual right, the exercise of the right to abortion is subject to reasonable regulation in the public interest. Knowing full well that you will likely maintain that a fetus is not a "person" and therefore has no rights to be respected or considered in such decisions, I want to point out that "personhood" is not, so far, subject to an objective scientific definition. Instead, it's a moral, ethical and social determination made by a particular society based on the dominant mores and beliefs of the culture involved, and that accordingly the state's interest in protecting the rights of the fetus grows along with fetal development.

While I do think there are points in the course of fetal development where it would be difficult to argue for full personhood, I do actually think the fetus is a baby long before it is born. I experienced a connection to my son long before he was born, thought of him as a person, saw images of him acting like a baby. If I'd lost the pregnancy at eight months I would have mourned it as the loss of a child.

To chime in on the issue of personhood -- it's not really the issue, IMHO.

1. Even persons can be killed if the law allows, and there are many instances when the law does allow. So, personhood does not result in abortions ipso facto being unlawful.

Correct, but in every case where society has what is considered to be a legitimate right to kill a person there is a reason for that based in a substantial need to do so. In the case of criminals, it's because they have done some heinous act that justifies killing them, in the case of soldiers it's because the greater good of the society demands their sacrifice (both in broad terms, of course), but the question is what has a fetus done to deserve being killed? Normally, it's presence in the womb is uncomfortable and delivery may be painful, but neither is permanently harmful or deadly to the mother. Yes, there are abnormal circumstances in which the choice is the life of the fetus or the life of the mother, but let's not let that rare circumstance be the metric for public policy regarding abortion, let's deal with that when the issue arises.

2. Even nonperson are protected from harm where the law specifies. One can't just go shoot one's neighbors dog, and the neighbor nowadays can't generally go shoot his own dog. And, even property is protected from harm by the law. Personhood is not required.

That is a property issue. You can shoot your neighbor's dog if it's attacking you or your livestock (and I have done so), and there are no legal consequences for shooting your own dog in most places. But if you wrongfully shoot your neighbor's dog, the best he can do is sue you for damages to his property. It's hardly the same thing.

So, I think what we're dealing with here is the extent of a woman's right to unrestricted control of this decision, and the interest of the state in protecting whatever it is that is in the womb.

Yes, exactly.

The issue of "my body, my choice" is a nice catch-phrase, but is inadequate to completely decide the issue, because there are many instances where one's choices of what to do with one's own body is limited.

The balance struck in Roe v Wade seems pretty reasonable, albeit imperfect from an absolute, bright-line perspective.

I agree.

[Coito ergo sum]

This was a big assumption you made in your response to my presentation:

Well, as I said, like any individual right, the exercise of the right to abortion is subject to reasonable regulation in the public interest. Knowing full well that you will likely maintain that a fetus is not a "person" and therefore has no rights to be respected or considered in such decisions, I want to point out that "personhood" is not, so far, subject to an objective scientific definition. Instead, it's a moral, ethical and social determination made by a particular society based on the dominant mores and beliefs of the culture involved, and that accordingly the state's interest in protecting the rights of the fetus grows along with fetal development.

While I do think there are points in the course of fetal development where it would be difficult to argue for full personhood, I do actually think the fetus is a baby long before it is born. I experienced a connection to my son long before he was born, thought of him as a person, saw images of him acting like a baby. If I'd lost the pregnancy at eight months I would have mourned it as the loss of a child.

To chime in on the issue of personhood -- it's not really the issue, IMHO.

1. Even persons can be killed if the law allows, and there are many instances when the law does allow. So, personhood does not result in abortions ipso facto being unlawful.

Correct, but in every case where society has what is considered to be a legitimate right to kill a person there is a reason for that based in a substantial need to do so. In the case of criminals, it's because they have done some heinous act that justifies killing them, in the case of soldiers it's because the greater good of the society demands their sacrifice (both in broad terms, of course), but the question is what has a fetus done to deserve being killed? Normally, it's presence in the womb is uncomfortable and delivery may be painful, but neither is permanently harmful or deadly to the mother.

Well, at an early stage the fetus is just a bunch of cells, not materially different in character to other cells in the body. At that particular stage it would seem not unreasonable to treat them like other cells, which can be removed at will, without any reason.

Yes, there are abnormal circumstances in which the choice is the life of the fetus or the life of the mother, but let's not let that rare circumstance be the metric for public policy regarding abortion, let's deal with that when the issue arises.

We don't have to, but let's not let the future dictate the present. And, before the fetus gets along in development, it is not about a threat at all, generally speaking. If, however, a threat to the mother arises at any point in time during the pregnancy, and it's medically necessary to sacrifice the fetus to save the mother, then the decision to save the mother ought to prevail.

2. Even nonperson are protected from harm where the law specifies. One can't just go shoot one's neighbors dog, and the neighbor nowadays can't generally go shoot his own dog. And, even property is protected from harm by the law. Personhood is not required.

That is a property issue. You can shoot your neighbor's dog if it's attacking you or your livestock (and I have done so), and there are no legal consequences for shooting your own dog in most places. But if you wrongfully shoot your neighbor's dog, the best he can do is sue you for damages to his property. It's hardly the same thing.

Even non-persons are protected from harm where the law specifies. That's the point.

So, I think what we're dealing with here is the extent of a woman's right to unrestricted control of this decision, and the interest of the state in protecting whatever it is that is in the womb.

Yes, exactly.

The issue of "my body, my choice" is a nice catch-phrase, but is inadequate to completely decide the issue, because there are many instances where one's choices of what to do with one's own body is limited.

The balance struck in Roe v Wade seems pretty reasonable, albeit imperfect from an absolute, bright-line perspective.

I agree.

Huh. I thought you previously argued otherwise. However, I must've misunderstood, or you were arguing some hypothetical thing.

[Svartalf]

Whaaaat?

I suggested you me and Bella have a threesome, here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1133383

Geez....

Wait-- I have to ask my parents.

You know that at your age, it's no lojnger nromal for you to have your dad tan your backside?

[Seth]

This was a big assumption you made in your response to my presentation:

Well, as I said, like any individual right, the exercise of the right to abortion is subject to reasonable regulation in the public interest. Knowing full well that you will likely maintain that a fetus is not a "person" and therefore has no rights to be respected or considered in such decisions, I want to point out that "personhood" is not, so far, subject to an objective scientific definition. Instead, it's a moral, ethical and social determination made by a particular society based on the dominant mores and beliefs of the culture involved, and that accordingly the state's interest in protecting the rights of the fetus grows along with fetal development.

While I do think there are points in the course of fetal development where it would be difficult to argue for full personhood, I do actually think the fetus is a baby long before it is born. I experienced a connection to my son long before he was born, thought of him as a person, saw images of him acting like a baby. If I'd lost the pregnancy at eight months I would have mourned it as the loss of a child.

To chime in on the issue of personhood -- it's not really the issue, IMHO.

1. Even persons can be killed if the law allows, and there are many instances when the law does allow. So, personhood does not result in abortions ipso facto being unlawful.

Correct, but in every case where society has what is considered to be a legitimate right to kill a person there is a reason for that based in a substantial need to do so. In the case of criminals, it's because they have done some heinous act that justifies killing them, in the case of soldiers it's because the greater good of the society demands their sacrifice (both in broad terms, of course), but the question is what has a fetus done to deserve being killed? Normally, it's presence in the womb is uncomfortable and delivery may be painful, but neither is permanently harmful or deadly to the mother.

Well, at an early stage the fetus is just a bunch of cells, not materially different in character to other cells in the body. At that particular stage it would seem not unreasonable to treat them like other cells, which can be removed at will, without any reason.

That's a rational argument. But as I have pointed out, "personhood" is not a scientific determination, it's a political and social determination, so there is no real impediment to society declaring "personhood" at the zygote stage, is there?

Yes, there are abnormal circumstances in which the choice is the life of the fetus or the life of the mother, but let's not let that rare circumstance be the metric for public policy regarding abortion, let's deal with that when the issue arises.

We don't have to, but let's not let the future dictate the present. And, before the fetus gets along in development, it is not about a threat at all, generally speaking. If, however, a threat to the mother arises at any point in time during the pregnancy, and it's medically necessary to sacrifice the fetus to save the mother, then the decision to save the mother ought to prevail.

In this, I agree. I would add the proviso however that if the fetus is viable, then perhaps there is a duty to try to save both the mother and the fetus.

2. Even nonperson are protected from harm where the law specifies. One can't just go shoot one's neighbors dog, and the neighbor nowadays can't generally go shoot his own dog. And, even property is protected from harm by the law. Personhood is not required.

That is a property issue. You can shoot your neighbor's dog if it's attacking you or your livestock (and I have done so), and there are no legal consequences for shooting your own dog in most places. But if you wrongfully shoot your neighbor's dog, the best he can do is sue you for damages to his property. It's hardly the same thing.

Even non-persons are protected from harm where the law specifies. That's the point.

Any object or creature may be legally protected from the deliberate acts of a person that would harm it if it's in the best interests of society to bar such injury. The ESA is sufficient proof of that.

So, I think what we're dealing with here is the extent of a woman's right to unrestricted control of this decision, and the interest of the state in protecting whatever it is that is in the womb.

Yes, exactly.

The issue of "my body, my choice" is a nice catch-phrase, but is inadequate to completely decide the issue, because there are many instances where one's choices of what to do with one's own body is limited.

The balance struck in Roe v Wade seems pretty reasonable, albeit imperfect from an absolute, bright-line perspective.

I agree.

Huh. I thought you previously argued otherwise. However, I must've misunderstood, or you were arguing some hypothetical thing.

Most likely I was arguing an extreme point of view as a method of encouraging critical analysis and debate of the opposing opinion. This issue is so commonly polarized that many bald assertions are presented as arguments, so I often take an extreme opposite position in order to stimulate debate. What I actually believe may be something entirely else.