Arguing About Abortion

[Rau]

As a parent of 3, we do it because we want to. It’s in perfect accordance with bodily autonomy.

Pregnancy and child rearing MUST be solely the dominion of the willing.

The issue is about those who don’t want it - what may they do to escape? You declare autonomy so important that one may take immediate action to remove/eliminate the “problem”, happily denying the (unborn) children any right not have their bodies abused.

You are really just putting a stock-standard pro-abortion opinion, but seeking to pretend it has a special legitimacy attributed to “bodily autonomy”.

 

[Hume]

Perhaps you should consider the notion that the market place is only as ethical as the humans that comprise it.

In a debt market with someone like, say, Donald Trump who’s modus operandi is to try and figure out how to not pay debt holders, bring on the regulations.

Because, understand, the main goal of market participants is not to maximize ethics, it’s to maximize utility, in this case being represented by money

 

[Hume]

Strong market efficiency assumes that assets are correctly priced ergo profitable arbitrage is only possible by using coercive methods or insider information.

 

[Hume]

Not at all.

I’m just correctly stating that a mother’s bodily concerns outweighs that of the fetus so long as it uses her body to exist. She doesn’t owe this.

As soon as you invent a way to end pregnancy without killing the fetus, I’d be all for banning abortion.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I’m just correctly stating that a mother’s bodily concerns outweighs that of the fetus so long as it uses her body to exist. She doesn’t owe this.

Not necessarily. Most abortion have nothing to do with risks anyways and unless there is reason to think some harm will occur then there is not sufficient justification for abortion.

 

[HarryStotle]

Nonsense. I’ve told you, individually, for at least the 7th or 8th time now that libertas is the default state and that we can and do come together as collectives to restrain it for the commonly agreed upon good.

Yes, you keep “telling” us that but your warrant for insisting that it is the “default” state is pure presumption. You propose it as the starting point — I would assume — because you can’t justify it as your starting point.

So being “told” or asserting something isn’t exactly the same thing as providing proper justification for the rest of us to accept it.

 

[HarryStotle]

Strong market efficiency assumes that assets are correctly priced ergo profitable arbitrage is only possible by using coercive methods or insider information.

Pure assertion.

 

[HarryStotle]

Perhaps you should consider the notion that the market place is only as ethical as the humans that comprise it.

Which is why, just as in the case of traffic laws, direction from the outset is required.

In the case of markets that direction comes in the form of just laws that oversee the markets in terms of fairness, honesty, and the like.

It might also be asserted that the market place is only as ethical as the laws that oversee it.

As to your presumption that human beings may not be very ethical, it should be pointed out that when eBay started out, it was widely believed that escrow services would be required to insure honesty and fair dealing, but those were quickly abandoned as inefficient when buyers and sellers were found to be far more trustworthy than first assumed.

Human beings tend to be as honest and trustworthy as they perceive the culture around them is honest and trustworthy.

When I was growing up in the late 1950s and early 1960s no one locked their houses or vehicles because there was a general sense that most everyone in the community was trustworthy and would look out for each other. The few who were prone to theft or criminal behaviour were monitored by the large majority who viewed safety and trust as far more valuable.

As society has degenerated and trust eroded, that is no longer the case. So “as ethical as the humans that comprise it” is not set in stone.

 

[Rau]

I’m just correctly stating that a mother’s bodily concerns outweighs that of the fetus so long as it uses her body to exist. She doesn’t owe this.

What you State is an opinion - a personal judgement, resting on your view of the rights of a mother’s offspring to grow older vs the rights of a mother to cease to be pregnant in short order. Logically, you ought to view the burden of raising children - for those deciding it is not for them - just the same.

As soon as you invent a way to end pregnancy without killing the fetus, I’d be all for banning abortion.

I have, it’s called ‘wait a while and pursue adoption’. Just as the parents of born children may do. No need for killing in either scenario.

 

[Stephen168]

The pro-abortion position:

First Principle:
Liberty is not for all human beings.

From first principles we can say:
If a woman doesn’t elect pregnancy, she has a right to homicide.
Pregnancy is not an elective procedure.
Therefore she has a right to homicide.

 

[Hume]

What you State is an opinion - a personal judgement, resting on your view of the rights of a mother’s offspring to grow older vs the rights of a mother to cease to be pregnant in short order. Logically, you ought to view the burden of raising children - for those deciding it is not for them - just the same.

Again, the notion that mom comes first just isn’t up for debate.

If she doesn’t want to have kids, if she doesn’t want to expose her body to the perils of pregnancy, no one has the right to force her to do that.

I have, it’s called ‘wait a while and pursue adoption’. Just as the parents of born children may do. No need for killing in either scenario.

So the way to avoid the perils of pregnancy is to… undergo the perils of pregnancy?

I think you may have missed the point…

The pro-abortion position:

First Principle:
Liberty is not for all human beings.

From first principles we can say:
If a woman doesn’t elect pregnancy, she has a right to homicide.
Pregnancy is not an elective procedure.
Therefore she has a right to homicide.

It’s fascinating - if I deliberately misrepresent you, I get a 3 day ban. If you do it to me, it’s fine and dandy…

To the point, liberty is for every human being. However, as the fetus is not bodily separate from it’s mother, it’s concerns - while extant - are fully, 100% completely and utterly overshadowed by the concerns of the mother.

To make it a little more soft-pitch, imagine a fetus’s supposed right to life as a state law. It exists, it’s on the books.

But a person’s right to control what goes on with their own bodies is a federal law. So when we have a conflict between the two (which is more and more rare now, thanks to birth control), the higher federal law prevails.

Simple enough?

 

[Hume]

Hume:

I’m just correctly stating that a mother’s bodily concerns outweighs that of the fetus so long as it uses her body to exist. She doesn’t owe this.

Not necessarily. Most abortion have nothing to do with risks anyways…

They all do. Every abortion is done out of fear.

and unless there is reason to think some harm will occur then there is not sufficient justification for abortion.

Sure, we see those harms manifest every single day. As the woman is in the driver’s seat for what serves as “sufficient justification” for taking bodily action on her own body, we can do as she chooses.

She need not appeal to you or me or our gods.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Strong market efficiency assumes that assets are correctly priced ergo profitable arbitrage is only possible by using coercive methods or insider information.

Pure assertion.

Nope. Pure education.

Yes, you keep “telling” us that but your warrant for insisting that it is the “default” state is pure presumption.

And again, for probably the 7th or 8th time, if you’d like to argue that the “undefined” in the moral undefined - the null - is something other than a lack of rules, take your shot.

Morally, a lack of rules is “liberty”. I can defend it pretty easily with a thesaurus and dictionary.

Which is why, just as in the case of traffic laws, direction from the outset is required.

We have traffic laws because we, as the collective, decided to make them. No “direction” necessary.

As to your presumption that human beings may not be very ethical, it should be pointed out that when eBay started out, it was widely believed that escrow services would be required to insure honesty and fair dealing, but those were quickly abandoned as inefficient when buyers and sellers were found to be far more trustworthy than first assumed.

The reason dishonesty didn’t kill Ebay was because Paypal - a service where you can instantly pay for your purchases with your bank card over the web - arose with it.

Every seller started requiring Paypal to complete the transaction.

The period where you could buy something on Ebay and most sellers were willing to wait for your check to come in the mail lasted about 5 seconds. And more to my point, virtually 0% were going to ship your item before your check both showed up and cleared.

Big swing-and-a-miss there Harry…

As society has degenerated and trust eroded, that is no longer the case. So “as ethical as the humans that comprise it” is not set in stone.

Ah yes, the lament for the “Good Ole Days”.

We’ve been reading about those since writing became sophisticated enough to express it…

 

[o_mlly]

Strong market efficiency assumes that assets are correctly priced ergo profitable arbitrage is only possible by using coercive methods or insider information.

The conditional is invalid, therefore, your consequent is meaningless.

The capital asset pricing model is based on predictions of future returns discounted by an assumed interest rate. Investors who make different (and more accurate) assumptions on future earnings and the appropriate discount rate thrive without insider information or coercion.

Yes, if your conditional were true then no arbitrage would be possible with or without coercion or insider info. But that is not very instructive.

 

[Hume]

Ok, two thoughts…

In the beginning I’m wrong and in the end I’m right, which is confusing.

Second, in a market with strong efficiency, the current price reflects all knowable information.

Barring illicit methods of trade, you only get price swings by literally unforeseeable events. So gambling.

 

[o_mlly]

Ok, two thoughts…

In the beginning I’m wrong and in the end I’m right, which is confusing.

No. In the beginning your claim was, at best, misleading. Coercion and insider trading cannot make money in a market that is efficient. Efficient means the asset pricing is error free. If so, then there is no spread upon which to arbitrage. The assumption of an efficient market is, of course, invalid.

Second, in a market with strong efficiency, the current price reflects all knowable information.

Barring illicit methods of trade, you only get price swings by literally unforeseeable events. So gambling.

Even illicit methods of trade cannot make more money than others in an efficient market. That the point.

Gambling introduces risks not already existing. Investors must park their money somewhere. It’s risky to have money. Smart investors look for market inefficiencies. They always exist.

 

[Stephen168]

First Principle:
Liberty is not for all human beings.

Hume:

Ethics don’t exist for individuals.

Hume:

The only way to proceed is to make a rational argument for the addition of an ethical rule. If enough people buy it, we’ll codify it into a law.

Hume:

But a person’s right to control what goes on with their own bodies is a federal law. So when we have a conflict between the two (which is more and more rare now, thanks to birth control), the higher federal law prevails.

First Principle can be voided by the consent of the people.

VanitasVanitatum:

Abortion is illegal in other countries so that’s not correct.

Hume:

It just makes those countries wrong.

Except when the mighty object to the will of the people.
Therefore the First Principle of pro-abortion stands
Liberty is not for all human beings.

 

[goout]

The proabortion position Hume proposes is demonstrably not a rational one. It has no backing from science of any type, nor from any appeal to human rights.

The argument for bodily autonomy in the case of abortion is a farce. Bodily autonomy can be used as justification for some actions.

That’s the main objection I have to the use of “bodily autonomy” in justifying killing innocent human beings. It’s a nonsensical argument. And so, dishonesty and chaos will reign from 'arguments" that have no substance.

Would be more respectable to simply embrace your appeal to naked power as it is, along with all the hideous ramifications that flow from it.
That at least is respectable as an honest pleading, even if it is demonstrably immoral.

 

[Hume]

No. In the beginning your claim was, at best, misleading. Coercion and insider trading cannot make money in a market that is efficient. Efficient means the asset pricing is error free. If so, then there is no spread upon which to arbitrage.

Coercion cannot exist when markets are correctly priced?

Coercion is not a market force. “Sell me X and a Y discount or I’ll tell your wife about Z”.

I’ll just dismiss the rest as handwaving…

The assumption of an efficient market is, of course, invalid.

Could not agree more. there are those who treat markets with an almost religious sanctity and it makes very little sense to me…

Even illicit methods of trade cannot make more money than others in an efficient market. That the point.

Again, you’re just missing the point deliberately because you’ve decided you want an adversarial relationship with me.

In an efficient market, you have to use non-market forces to obtain an advantageous trade. Soft-pitch example given above.

Gambling introduces risks not already existing.

No, the odds of infinitesimally unlikely catastrophe are already part of the unsystematic component of any particular industry’s risk premium.

You sound like you may have gone to business school, but your degree wasn’t in finance.

Investors must park their money somewhere. It’s risky to have money. Smart investors look for market inefficiencies. They always exist.

We agree!

 

[Hume]

First Principle can be voided by the consent of the people.

It’s not voided, it’s amended.

As I told a fella earlier on, you’re trying to convince people to surrender control over their bodies, in a democracy, no less.

Best of luck. According to Pew, both Dems (90+%) and Reps (34+%) are increasingly open to a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body when pregnant.

Except when the mighty object to the will of the people.

We then have a conflict. The classic small percentage of “haves” versus the masses of “have nots”. Older than written history.