Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-09-2014, 12:02 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(16-09-2014 09:04 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 04:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  However, that still overrides the woman's choice.
How so?

She just wants an abortion, but the procedure required would be induced labor or a c-section to meet your criteria.

That's not what she wants.

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
16-09-2014, 12:20 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(16-09-2014 05:24 AM)Chas Wrote:  When the fetus becomes a person is the central point of the issue.
No.

Appealing to when a fetus becomes a "person" is circular.
You are calling for it to be a person because you don't want it to be aborted.
You are then saying that the unborn (after a certain stage) is to be protected because it is a person.

This is circular logic.

If the real crux of your argument is that once it develops a nervous system then it can feel pain then this is what your argument should focus on. We could argue the merits of the pain argument. Look for ways to perform an abortion that are painless for the unborn, assess whether abortion is more painful than abortion for the unborn.

We cannot argue the merits of the person argument because the "person" label is arbitrary. A Catholic labels it a person at conception, you label it a person at nervous system development. There is no way to resolve this dispute.

Then there is the non sequitur. I fail to see why this label of "person" makes the concern of abortion my concern rather than the pregnant woman's concern.
It certainly doesn't inspire me to hand a gun to the police and get them to point it at her and forcibly stop her from having an abortion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2014, 12:53 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(16-09-2014 12:39 AM)Stevil Wrote:  There is really no point in trying to focus on me. My emotions, my wants and dislikes don't come into it. I am trying to come up with a system which is consistent and objective and independent of the wants and desires and emotions and beliefs of the individual.

I'm not sure I see how human society can be "objective", nor how it can be independent of any individual's wants, desires, emotions, and beliefs...

(16-09-2014 12:39 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I am trying to avoid forcing my own opinions onto others.

That's not a choice you have, outside pure anarchy.

(16-09-2014 12:39 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I certainly can't justify myself using force on others when they are doing things that don't impact me. It is beside the point whether I agree with what they are doing. It is beside the point whether what they are doing invokes an emotional response in me. My emotional response is my problem not theirs.

What counts as "impacting you"? We can conclude that an emotional reaction does not count, based on the above...

Your proposed criterion is as arbitrary as any other, no matter how it's defined.

(16-09-2014 12:39 AM)Stevil Wrote:  In some Arab states the men force women to hide themselves under sheets because the men get sexually excited about the sight of a woman. They are making their own emotional response the problem of the woman. I see it as the man's problem, not the woman's.

So what?

I once petted a llama, which is not only equally relevant but more interesting, because it involved me.

(16-09-2014 12:39 AM)Stevil Wrote:  It's interesting though.
I'm the one promoting refrain from instigating violence against a pregnant woman. You are the one promoting use of violence against a pregnant woman in support of your own ideology and it is you who accuses me of being a sociopath.

Every rule is implicitly violent, or else unenforceable. Yours just as much as anyone else's.

If I may presume, I would wager that you are in favour of some social mechanism for preventing one healthy adult human from killing another healty adult human? On the grounds of self-interest - since if there were no way to prevent it, it might affect you?

Do you then say that if a killing does not affect you - ie, a fetus, which we can say for the sake of argument is alive - it's permissible?

Which leads back to the same question: what constitutes impacting you?

And likewise: as an opinion, whatever your answer will be placed on a statistical distribution. Some will have narrower standards; some will have broader standards. For a society to function, the line has to be drawn somewhere.

"Given a difference of opinion regarding societal permissiveness, I have a more permissive standard, so I win" is not much of an argument.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
16-09-2014, 01:00 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(16-09-2014 12:20 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(16-09-2014 05:24 AM)Chas Wrote:  When the fetus becomes a person is the central point of the issue.
No.

Appealing to when a fetus becomes a "person" is circular.
You are calling for it to be a person because you don't want it to be aborted.
You are then saying that the unborn (after a certain stage) is to be protected because it is a person.

This is circular logic.

No, it isn't.

The premise "a person should not be killed" does not arise from the fact that a fetus becomes a person at some point. Thus it is not circular.

(16-09-2014 12:20 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If the real crux of your argument is that once it develops a nervous system then it can feel pain then this is what your argument should focus on. We could argue the merits of the pain argument. Look for ways to perform an abortion that are painless for the unborn, assess whether abortion is more painful than abortion for the unborn.

That is not his argument.

(16-09-2014 12:20 PM)Stevil Wrote:  We cannot argue the merits of the person argument because the "person" label is arbitrary. A Catholic labels it a person at conception, you label it a person at nervous system development. There is no way to resolve this dispute.

By that, er, "logic", there is no possible way to resolve any difference of opinion ever, and all discussions are pointless.

(16-09-2014 12:20 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Then there is the non sequitur. I fail to see why this label of "person" makes the concern of abortion my concern rather than the pregnant woman's concern.
It certainly doesn't inspire me to hand a gun to the police and get them to point it at her and forcibly stop her from having an abortion.

Because at some point between conception and death of old age at 93* you find it in your own self-interest to define and prevent murder. You're evidently forming a distinction somehow.

*hypothetically

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
16-09-2014, 01:05 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(16-09-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And likewise: as an opinion, whatever your answer will be placed on a statistical distribution. Some will have narrower standards; some will have broader standards. For a society to function, the line has to be drawn somewhere.

"Given a difference of opinion regarding societal permissiveness, I have a more permissive standard, so I win" is not much of an argument.
As the governing body it is easy to make rules and force people to comply.

Let's say I don't like eating a brussel sprout. I could easily make it illegal for anyone to eat or grow these things.

But how do I justify this law?
"I don't like" isn't justified enough.
But if we allow humans to go around killing any other humans then society becomes dangerous and unstable.

I couldn't justify making a law against homosexual sex, because it doesn't make society dangerous and unstable.

I couldn't justify making a law against abortion, because it doesn't make society dangerous and unstable.

Whether I like something, or whether I think something is emotionally repugnant or whether I think something is immoral is irrelevant.

For the grey areas we can debate if something will make society dangerous and unstable. We could debate prostitution, drugs, polygamy, we could debate late term abortion on these terms.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2014, 01:16 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(16-09-2014 01:05 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(16-09-2014 12:53 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And likewise: as an opinion, whatever your answer will be placed on a statistical distribution. Some will have narrower standards; some will have broader standards. For a society to function, the line has to be drawn somewhere.

"Given a difference of opinion regarding societal permissiveness, I have a more permissive standard, so I win" is not much of an argument.
As the governing body it is easy to make rules and force people to comply.

I rather thought it took the confidence of a sufficient part of the relevant legislature(s) and approval by the relevant constitutional court(s)? There are plenty of unenforceable laws on the books regardless.

(16-09-2014 01:05 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Let's say I don't like eating a brussel sprout. I could easily make it illegal for anyone to eat or grow these things.

Is your Anti-Sprout Party in a position to win very many elections any time soon? Unless you're Kim Jong Un it takes a bit more than a whim to change national policy.

(16-09-2014 01:05 PM)Stevil Wrote:  But how do I justify this law?
"I don't like" isn't justified enough.
But if we allow humans to go around killing any other humans then society becomes dangerous and unstable.

Indeed.

That was the point Chas made.

(16-09-2014 01:05 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I couldn't justify making a law against homosexual sex, because it doesn't make society dangerous and unstable.

I couldn't justify making a law against abortion, because it doesn't make society dangerous and unstable.

Notwithstanding that there are evidently those who think so.

I mean, your opinion is all well and good, but it is "just" an opinion.

(16-09-2014 01:05 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Whether I like something, or whether I think something is emotionally repugnant or whether I think something is immoral is irrelevant.

Complying with aggregate opinion is literally the point of democracy.

(16-09-2014 01:05 PM)Stevil Wrote:  For the grey areas we can debate if something will make society dangerous and unstable. We could debate prostitution, drugs, polygamy, we could debate late term abortion on these terms.

Indeed.

Which gets back to the same old question: at some point you do not think killing (eg of a fetus) has an affect (either on you, or on broader society). At some point you do think killing (eg of an adult) has an affect (either on you, or on broader society).

How do you draw the distinction? And how do you propose the legal system draw the distinction?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
16-09-2014, 02:15 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(16-09-2014 01:16 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-09-2014 01:05 PM)Stevil Wrote:  For the grey areas we can debate if something will make society dangerous and unstable. We could debate prostitution, drugs, polygamy, we could debate late term abortion on these terms.

Indeed.

Which gets back to the same old question: at some point you do not think killing (eg of a fetus) has an affect (either on you, or on broader society). At some point you do think killing (eg of an adult) has an affect (either on you, or on broader society).

How do you draw the distinction? And how do you propose the legal system draw the distinction?


It's not about what I think or what I like.
I would need to present a case for how society will devolve, become dangerous and unstable.
The opposition would need to present a case for how society will be able to continue functioning safely and stably without that law.

Then a judgement can be made against that standard.

Quite clearly we have seen in many societies that allowing abortion hasn't caused society to devolve. Same thing for gay marriage, same thing for prostitution...

If we allow people to go around killing each other though then society will become a mess.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2014, 02:17 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(16-09-2014 01:00 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-09-2014 12:20 PM)Stevil Wrote:  No.

Appealing to when a fetus becomes a "person" is circular.
You are calling for it to be a person because you don't want it to be aborted.
You are then saying that the unborn (after a certain stage) is to be protected because it is a person.

This is circular logic.

No, it isn't.

The premise "a person should not be killed" does not arise from the fact that a fetus becomes a person at some point. Thus it is not circular.
It is circular logic.
There is no fact that a fetus becomes a "person".
As Chas even admitted "person" is a legal term.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2014, 02:29 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(16-09-2014 02:17 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(16-09-2014 01:00 PM)cjlr Wrote:  No, it isn't.

The premise "a person should not be killed" does not arise from the fact that a fetus becomes a person at some point. Thus it is not circular.
It is circular logic.
There is no fact that a fetus becomes a "person".
As Chas even admitted "person" is a legal term.

That it is a legal term is irrelevant.
(so what? what else could it be?)

Let us say that "person" denotes certain legal status, including protection of life. Do you grant this?

Let us say that a healthy adult possesses such status. Do you grant this?

Let us say that individual sperm and egg cells do not possess such status. Do you grant this?

There is then necessarily a means by which this legal status is conferred or recognised, according to some accepted criterion or criteria. Do you grant this?

We note once again that any possible distinction is, in a sense, "arbitrary", which is of course inevitable given human beings and their varying opinions.

What Chas has said, and you apparently don't (want?) to acknowledge, is that that line still needs to be drawn somewhere in order for the legal system to be coherent.

As ought to be plainly evident, that is not circular reasoning.

I remain unable to comprehend how you reached the conclusion that it is.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
16-09-2014, 02:36 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(16-09-2014 02:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-09-2014 02:17 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It is circular logic.
There is no fact that a fetus becomes a "person".
As Chas even admitted "person" is a legal term.

That it is a legal term is irrelevant.
(so what? what else could it be?)

Let us say that "person" denotes certain legal status, including protection of life. Do you grant this?

Let us say that a healthy adult possesses such status. Do you grant this?

Let us say that individual sperm and egg cells do not possess such status. Do you grant this?

There is then necessarily a means by which this legal status is conferred or recognised, according to some accepted criterion or criteria. Do you grant this?

We note once again that any possible distinction is, in a sense, "arbitrary", which is of course inevitable given human beings and their varying opinions.

What Chas has said, and you apparently don't (want?) to acknowledge, is that that line still needs to be drawn somewhere in order for the legal system to be coherent.

As ought to be plainly evident, that is not circular reasoning.

I remain unable to comprehend how you reached the conclusion that it is.

Because he lacks critical thinking skills, possibly by being blinded by his toy philosophy - libertarianism.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: