Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-09-2014, 06:20 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(11-09-2014 07:21 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  Conclusion: Therefore, an unborn baby cannot use the mothers body without her consent, even in cases of pregnancy.

I don't know what the argument's about. I totally agree with this.

However, I would rather hear it said that a woman is the master of her body Big Grin. This is simpler.

"If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story." Orson Welles
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2014, 11:57 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(13-09-2014 04:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  But we have to pick a point.
No we don't.

(13-09-2014 04:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  I am trying to have an evidence-based discussion and attempting to get some rational bounds on the problem.
Whatever you choose will have some measure of arbitrariness. For example, 6 months? Then what about 1 day less or 1 day more? Let's say we legislate that 6 months is where we draw the line. What about the mother who reaches 6 months and 1 day in the pregnancy and only then discovers there is a threat to her life due to the pregnancy? Consider That 1 day should make a life and death (for the mother) difference?

Because the exact beginning of personhood is too open to interpretation and differences of opinion, there can be no satisfactory line drawn.

My suggestion is to define personhood as the moment that a fetus/baby can be removed from the mother's womb and survive on its own and actually does so. It should be able to survive under normal birth conditions, not special machines that replace the mother's function. Then and only then is it a full person.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2014, 12:15 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(15-09-2014 11:57 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(13-09-2014 04:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  But we have to pick a point.
No we don't.

Yeah, we do. We must have a legal definition to base the rest on.

Quote:
(13-09-2014 04:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  I am trying to have an evidence-based discussion and attempting to get some rational bounds on the problem.
Whatever you choose will have some measure of arbitrariness. For example, 6 months? Then what about 1 day less or 1 day more? Let's say we legislate that 6 months is where we draw the line. What about the mother who reaches 6 months and 1 day in the pregnancy and only then discovers there is a threat to her life due to the pregnancy? Consider That 1 day should make a life and death (for the mother) difference?

I don't disagree at all. Picking a precise point is going to be arbitrary in the same way that age of majority is.

Quote:Because the exact beginning of personhood is too open to interpretation and differences of opinion, there can be no satisfactory line drawn.

Here I disagree. The line will be as (un)satisfactory as the age of majority, or the legal limit for drunk driving, or any other continuous variable for which we need a legal definition.

Quote:My suggestion is to define personhood as the moment that a fetus/baby can be removed from the mother's womb and survive on its own and actually does so. It should be able to survive under normal birth conditions, not special machines that replace the mother's function. Then and only then is it a full person.

I don't disagree. I have suggested two points that are not entirely arbitrary and are supported by reasoned argument; formation of nervous system/brain and viability.

Before there is a brain and nervous system, the fetus cannot feel pain. Therefore, there is no cruelty involved.

Before viability, one can argue that it is not an independent organism and that the mother's rights take precedence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
15-09-2014, 12:23 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(15-09-2014 12:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't disagree at all. Picking a precise point is going to be arbitrary in the same way that age of majority is.

...

Here I disagree. The line will be as (un)satisfactory as the age of majority, or the legal limit for drunk driving, or any other continuous variable for which we need a legal definition.

Your ideas are intriguing to me, I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2014, 12:48 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(15-09-2014 12:23 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 12:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't disagree at all. Picking a precise point is going to be arbitrary in the same way that age of majority is.

...

Here I disagree. The line will be as (un)satisfactory as the age of majority, or the legal limit for drunk driving, or any other continuous variable for which we need a legal definition.

Your ideas are intriguing to me, I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

I am disagreeing with his conclusion: "there can be no satisfactory line drawn."
The line has to be drawn, satisfactory or not. Every drawn line is a compromise,
and as one wit has remarked "The mark of a good compromise is that no one is happy."

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2014, 12:50 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
The first one is the issue for everyone. But this is just in the case if its completely human. It should make it more difficult for us to argue. Many pro-lifers are against abortion even in cases of rape.

I say its faulty. The babes body DOES NOT tramp the mothers right to her body.


The point of this argument is that you that the pro lifers lose either way. Whether its a human or NOT.

“Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.

-Christopher Hitchens
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2014, 12:57 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(15-09-2014 12:50 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  The first one is the issue for everyone. But this is just in the case if its completely human. It should make it more difficult for us to argue. Many pro-lifers are against abortion even in cases of rape.

I say its faulty. The babes body DOES NOT tramp the mothers right to her body.


The point of this argument is that you that the pro lifers lose either way. Whether its a human or NOT.

Then I will ask you the same questions that no one has answered yet:

Is it OK for a woman to kill her new-born baby?
No? Then is it OK to abort the fetus at 8 months, 29 days?
No? Then is it OK to abort the fetus at 8 months, 28 days?
No? Then is it OK to abort the fetus at 8 months, 27 days?
etc.
OK, when and why is it OK?

When is the fetus a person with rights?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
15-09-2014, 01:02 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(14-09-2014 04:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(14-09-2014 03:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  Nowhere ever has a single cell been legally a person. So, there's that.
We are trying to avoid circular reasoning here.
We are coming up with a reasoning why abortion should be allowed in a governed society.
If you use the law in your reasoning and from that deduce that this is why the law should be then you are being circular.

Are you really this fucking dense?
I will state, yet again, that the argument is to determine what the law should be.

Quote:
(14-09-2014 03:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, I am treating it legally.
Then you are being circular.

No, you are being fucking dense.

Quote:
(14-09-2014 03:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  You must abide by the rules of society or suffer the consequences.
Exactly, but we are jumping the gun here. We are trying to define what the law should be and why it should be that way. I disagree with a majority rules approach.

Go find an island with no people on it and move there.

Quote:
(14-09-2014 03:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  Non-answer. Try again.
I feel that I have answered your question. Maybe you could offer more clarity on why my answer does not address what you are looking for.

You didn't answer a simple yes/no question.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
15-09-2014, 01:55 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(15-09-2014 05:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, it's not "a day or two's difference", it's six+ months.
Um, think about it Chas rather than doing what you are doing.

You have said that there is a point where the unborn becomes viable.
Think 2 days before that point, then re-address the question.

(15-09-2014 05:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  You have still not given an argument as to how a single cell is a person.
I have answered this but I'll do it again for your sake.
1 the distinction of personhood is arbitrary hence irrelevant.
2. since there is no real point of non person vs person, I go along with the point of conception because before that there is no complete human DNA hence no living human but after that there is hence living human = person.

(15-09-2014 05:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  You still haven't answered these questions:
Is it OK for a woman to kill her new-born?
Is it OK for a woman to abort at 8 months, 29 days? 8 months, 28 days? 8 months, 27 days? No? Then when?
I've also already answered this. But I'll try and spell it out differently, hopefully you are able to understand this time.

Whether I am OK with something is irrelevant. If it is not my business then my opinion does not matter and certainly I cannot justify forcing my opinion onto others. It is not my place to interfere in other people's business.

It becomes my business once my life is threatened or once society becomes safe for me to live within it.
I don't know exactly at what stage of an unborn or newly born does society become unsafe for me when people kill it. I am not working from a perspective on defining an end goal and then stacking the cards so that it results in my predefined end goal.

(15-09-2014 05:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  [quote]
I draw the line once it impacts me. I am interested in me.

Since whether a woman has an abortion or not doesn't affect you, then you should just stay out of it entirely.

Your position is glaringly inconsistent.
[quote]
There are no inconsistencies in my position.
I can see the danger in having a government with too much power. It's the slippery slope argument again. Once you let the government make arbitrary decisions such as to force women to have babies, or force prostituted out of their means of income, or force a dying person to endure months of agony then this gives the government too much control. They feel they can make whatever rules pleases them based on their opinions rather than based on the safety of society. This is a threat to me. I don't want government arbitrarily controlling me.


(15-09-2014 05:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  What is your basis for objecting to others preventing a woman's aborting an eight-month old fetus?
That it violates her rights? But you said we don't have rights. What is it that you object to?
Because aggression on a pregnant woman causes conflict within society. It potentially threatens my wife, my daughters. It potentially causes feuds and riots. I don't want to get caught in the conflict. I don't want to have to own a gun for protection.

(15-09-2014 05:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  Whatever that is, it applies to every person. That is why the central question is "when is the fetus a person?"
This conflict doesn't happen when a woman chooses to have an abortion. Society is safe and stable when a mother kills her unborn.

(15-09-2014 05:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  You have agreed that allowing the killing of persons makes society unstable and dangerous, so the question needs an answer in law.
This is disengenuous because I have never said that the label of "person" is important. The killing of an unborn (be it labelled as a "person" or "not person") has virtually no impact on the safety of society.

(15-09-2014 05:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  Pro tip: In a democracy, the police derive their authority from the government, the government derives its authority from the people.
This is untrue, once in power the government mostly make decisions without the requirement of consent from the public.
I disagree with a majority rules system and recognise that most democracies don't look to force majority opinion onto everyone, instead they look to support the multi-culturally diverse population.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2014, 03:12 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(15-09-2014 12:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yeah, we do. We must have a legal definition to base the rest on.
No. We can choose to let the pregnant woman decide. No legal line needed.

(15-09-2014 12:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't disagree at all. Picking a precise point is going to be arbitrary in the same way that age of majority is.
...except for the huge difference that we are dealing with life and death potentially with abortion - nothing nearly as critical is set by defining age of majority. So precision is not nearly as important there.

(15-09-2014 12:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  Here I disagree. The line will be as (un)satisfactory as the age of majority, or the legal limit for drunk driving, or any other continuous variable for which we need a legal definition.
See my reply above.

(15-09-2014 12:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't disagree. I have suggested two points that are not entirely arbitrary and are supported by reasoned argument; formation of nervous system/brain and viability.

Before there is a brain and nervous system, the fetus cannot feel pain. Therefore, there is no cruelty involved.

Before viability, one can argue that it is not an independent organism and that the mother's rights take precedence.
I think you may have missed a key part of what I was suggesting (bolded here):
"My suggestion is to define personhood as the moment that a fetus/baby can be removed from the mother's womb and survive on its own and actually does so. It should be able to survive under normal birth conditions, not special machines that replace the mother's function. Then and only then is it a full person."

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: