Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-09-2014, 02:41 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(16-09-2014 02:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(16-09-2014 01:16 PM)cjlr Wrote:  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.

Then why do you keep providing your opinion and criticising others'?

(16-09-2014 02:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

Yes. Subjective judgements.

Understandings of "dangerous" or "stable" are not universal.

(16-09-2014 02:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

Do you draw a distinction between abortion and infanticide? If yes, why? If no, what is your age limit?

If we allow "people" to be killed, society will "devolve" (or "become a mess") - that is your premise. Okay; sure. But you haven't defined "people". Nor "devolve".

... 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, 05:12 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(16-09-2014 02:41 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-09-2014 02:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It's not about what I think or what I like.

Then why do you keep providing your opinion and criticising others'?
It's about context.
I have an opinion on things, but when implementing law, I want law to be largely independant of my opinions, independant of the prime minister/president's opinion on things.
I want law to be based on something more substantial. i.e. a defined purpose for government and law. If that defined purpose is to make society safe and stable then laws need to be justified against that standard.
I am open to a better standard than "make society safe and stable".
But from my perspective, where is the incentive for me to support such a standard?
If you want to include a "protection of all people" clause to that standard then how are we as a collective to define "person"? Catholics have their opinion, Chas has his. Do they fight over it? Does it become a majority numbers game?
If we open up legislation to a numbers game then what is to stop gay marriage being outlawed? What is to stop polygamy being outlawed? What is to stop heavy metal music being outlawed?
Don't we need some kind of standard that makes laws less arbitrary, less aligned with opinions of individuals or majority and more tied into something real and measurable, such as impact on society? We don't need government to be another Mum. We don't need to be told how to behave. We are adults and are capable of making choices.
What I struggle to see in this "person" argument is the link to me. Why is an unborn any of my business? What is my incentive to interfere in the lives of others?

(16-09-2014 02:41 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-09-2014 02:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

Yes. Subjective judgements.

Understandings of "dangerous" or "stable" are not universal.
Sure, we can document a clear definition of "danger" and "stable" as it pertains to society.
But if we have this definition and purpose clearly defined and also tied into the impact on society, the impact on me living within society, then don't you think it makes it difficult for a government to then justify a law against things such as gay marriage?
Sure they can put a case forth and suggest that god will get angry and destroy the country/state. But then they need to come up will some evidence to that effect.
Maybe they put a case forth and suggest that a child needs a mum and a dad, but again that can be countered by evidence on how well kids have done with a solo parent or with same gender parents.
They could cite the "sanctity of marriage" argument but they would need to tie that into the safety of society somehow.
Do you see how this approach forces the government to justify the laws to a higher standard than simply "because we don't like abortions, that is murdering people and that is not OK!"

(16-09-2014 02:41 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-09-2014 02:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

Do you draw a distinction between abortion and infanticide? If yes, why? If no, what is your age limit?
The problem with this question is that you are again asking me for my opinion.
The question should instead tie back into the purpose of government and law.
i.e.
1. Does abortion make society unsafe and unstable?
2. Does infanticide make society unsafe and unstable?
Clearly for early term abortion society functions quite safetly and is stable. There are many countries which have survived peacefully for a long time allowing abortion.

With regards to infanticide, I don't know what the answer is. A case would need to be build on its merits and its problems. There have been instances in past civilisations where this was allowed, but most of those civilisations have changed. Why did they change? Did society become unstable? There is a society in the amazon that currently practices this. What conflict and violence does this parctice cause within that society?

(16-09-2014 02:41 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If we allow "people" to be killed, society will "devolve" (or "become a mess") - that is your premise. Okay; sure. But you haven't defined "people". Nor "devolve".
Sure, I was being lax with my language.
What do you think will happen if there are no laws against murder?
Could this make society unsafe for you?
If your have a car crash and kill some guy's wife, what is to stop him coming over to your place and killing your wife in return? Then you and your mates will go after this person, then he and his mates will go after you.

We don't have these complications with abortion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2014, 05:38 PM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2014 12:45 AM by Stevil.)
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(16-09-2014 02:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Let us say that "person" denotes certain legal status, including protection of life. Do you grant this?
No I don't grant this.
Here you are starting off with laws.
Let's say we are in a new society and are just forming a new government and laws.

First step is to define the purpose of government.
Once we have done that then how do we determine the need for a legal definition of person?
Once we have done that then how do we determine the boundaries on what a person is or isn't?

Where do we get this "protection of life" from? What underlies this?

(16-09-2014 02:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Let us say that a healthy adult possesses such status. Do you grant this?
No I don't grant this. Don't see why a healthy adult possesses a "protection of life" status. What if this healthy adult is a mass murderer or mass rapist and presents an ongoing danger to society?

(16-09-2014 02:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Let us say that individual sperm and egg cells do not possess such status. Do you grant this?
No, I'm vague on what we mean by "person".
If we equate "person" with living human then I'll agree that a sperm and an egg is not a living human. This does not mean though that these things do or do not have a "protection of life" status on them. Why is it that we are protecting life?

(16-09-2014 02:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  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 haven't establised a legal need to define a person and we haven't established a need to protect the life of all persons.
I am all for abortion and I am all for euthanasia, I support death penalty, I support self defence.

(16-09-2014 02:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  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.
I would like to make the justification less arbitrary.
I don't want my neighbor looking over the fence and criticising me and getting the police to interfere in my life. Neighbor needs to mind their own business.

(16-09-2014 02:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  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.
I don't accept that persons are special and should be protected. I don't accept that it is my place to arbitrarily label something a person and then take it upon myself to interfere forcibly in others.
How is Chas argument any different to that of Catholics?
They say a fertilised egg is a person, and that it should be protected.


(16-09-2014 02:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  As ought to be plainly evident, that is not circular reasoning.

I remain unable to comprehend how you reached the conclusion that it is.
It is circular reasoning because Chas appeals to "person" as his reason why we can't kill the unborn. He defines it as a person because he doesn't want it killed.

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Question: Why do you want to protect it?
Answer: because it is a person.

Question: Why is do you label it as a person?
Answer: Because I want to protect it.

Question: Why do you want to protect it?
Answer: Because it is a person.

Question: Why do you label it as a person?
...

A never ending circle.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2014, 08:17 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(11-09-2014 07:21 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  I will be granting that both the new born and unborn baby have a right to life even though its unsubstantiated. It works either way.

BUT, does the newborn have a right to life at the expense of the mothers body? No matter what the situation and length of time without her consent?

If not, then you have to conclude that the unborn baby doesn't either.
----------------------------------
Premise 1: An unborn baby is equal to a new born baby

Premise 2: A newborn baby does not have the right to use the mothers body to keep it alive no matter what and no matter how long IF the mother does not want it to. This means that if it needs an organ or something from the mothers body, it does not have the right to do so. Even in cases of breast milk, the mother is NOT obliged to feed the baby.
Premise 3: An unborn baby is equal to an newborn baby

Conclusion: Therefore, an unborn baby cannot use the mothers body without her consent, even in cases of pregnancy.

---------------------------------
Consent is to sex is not consent to pregnancy, and consent to pregnancy IS NOT consent to remaining pregnant.

The issue isn't if killing babies is wrong, the argument is "is it a baby?"

I don't support violence in any form, so this would be included, but that's just my opinion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2014, 09:34 PM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2014 12:44 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(16-09-2014 05:26 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-09-2014 03:12 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Quick question for those who are arguing against a woman's right to her own body: Do you approve of, or disapprove of, postmortem organ donation?

I don't see anyone making that argument. Consider

It's a thought experiment.

Postmortem organ donation is almost universally approved of, even if not everyone signs up for it. I've yet to see someone argue against the principle of donating your own organs after you die, if at all possible. Knowing this, it leads to an interesting paradox.

When you sign up to become an organ donor (typically when you get your first driver's license here in the United States), you are giving other people consent to take your organs after you die. Likewise if you do not consent, nobody can take your organs against your wishes, no matter how much someone else might need them. Your bodily autonomy is respected, regardless of your decision, even after you are dead; regardless of how critical they might be to saving someone else's life.

So the question to ask next is: Why do anti-choice advocates not grant pregnant women as much bodily autonomy as a corpse?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
17-09-2014, 03:44 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(16-09-2014 05:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(16-09-2014 02:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Let us say that "person" denotes certain legal status, including protection of life. Do you grant this?
No I don't grant this.
Here you are starting off with laws.
Let's say we are in a new society and are just forming a new government and laws.

First step is to define the purpose of government.
Once we have done that then how do we determine the need for a legal definition of person?
Once we have done that then how do we determine the boundaries on what a person is or isn't?

Where do we get this "protection of life" from? What underlies this?

(16-09-2014 02:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Let us say that a healthy adult possesses such status. Do you grant this?
No I don't grant this. Don't see why a healthy adult possesses a "protection of life" status. What if this healthy adult is a mass murderer or mass rapist and presents an ongoing danger to society?

(16-09-2014 02:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Let us say that individual sperm and egg cells do not possess such status. Do you grant this?
No, I'm vague on what we mean by "person".
If we equate "person" with living human then I'll agree that a sperm and an egg is not a living human. This does not mean though that these things do or do not have a "protection of life" status on them. Why is it that we are protecting life?

(16-09-2014 02:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  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 haven't establised a legal need to define a person and we haven't established a need to protect the life of all persons.
I am all for abortion and I am all for euthanasia, I support death penalty, I support self defence.

(16-09-2014 02:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  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.
I would like to make the justification less arbitrary.
I don't want my neighbor looking over the fence and criticising me and getting the police to interfere in my life. Neighbor needs to mind their own business.

(16-09-2014 02:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  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.
I don't accept that persons are special and should be protected. I don't accept that it is my place to arbitrarily label something a person and then take it upon myself to interfere forcibly in others.
How is Chas argument any different to that of Catholics?
They say a fertilised egg is a person, and that it should be protected.


(16-09-2014 02:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  As ought to be plainly evident, that is not circular reasoning.

I remain unable to comprehend how you reached the conclusion that it is.
It is circular reasoning because Chas appeals to "person" as his reason why we can't kill the unborn. He defines it as a person because he doesn't want it killed.

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Question: Why do you want to protect it?
Answer: because it is a person.

Question: Why is do you label it as a person?
Answer: Because I want to protect it.

Question: Why do you want to protect it?
Answer: Because it is a person.

Question: Why do you label it as a person?
...

A never ending circle.

Except that's not in anyway the argument you clod...

Why do we label it as a person? Is not "to protect it" it's because it's a physically independent being with a presumed sentient mind that has a central nervous system that feels sensation to interacts with its environment.

Why do we deem these qualities as critical? Idk, we are biased maybe, or because we deem that self aware conscious life is of a position to experience and enjoy life at as full a potential as we deem for all life to have... now why do we value life at all? That one I can't answer, but I'm not seeing whats circular about the actual rationales to the argument that shouldn't be hard to see by anyone.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2014, 04:41 AM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2014 04:55 AM by Stevil.)
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(17-09-2014 03:44 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Why do we label it as a person? Is not "to protect it" it's because ...
The case that Chas (and now cljr) have put forth is that "person" is a legal term for the purpose of protection.

The extra stuff that you have added is not the case that Chas or cljr have made.

A better case, and one that is not circular would include what you have said.
1. We deem a physically independent human with a presumed sentient mind that has a central nervous system that feels sensation to interacts with its environment as being special and worthy of protection.
2. We ascribe the legal label of "person" to that definition to recognise the special nature of this.
3. We build laws to offer legal measures of protection towards this "person" and to provide the legal means to apply force and coercion towards that ends.

But simply stating that "late term abortion should be illegal because it is a person" is a circular argument.

I have issues with item 1 but at least it is much more transparent and debatable than the rubbish circular argument presented thus far.
To say that I should assume what is meant by "person" is disingenuous because as we know (as has been stated many times in this thread by multiple people), many people have differing opinions to this arbitrarily ascribed label.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2014, 08:25 AM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2014 09:23 AM by cjlr.)
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(17-09-2014 04:41 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(17-09-2014 03:44 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Why do we label it as a person? Is not "to protect it" it's because ...
The case that Chas (and now cljr) have put forth is that "person" is a legal term for the purpose of protection.

The extra stuff that you have added is not the case that Chas or cljr have made.

A better case, and one that is not circular would include what you have said.
1. We deem a physically independent human with a presumed sentient mind that has a central nervous system that feels sensation to interacts with its environment as being special and worthy of protection.
2. We ascribe the legal label of "person" to that definition to recognise the special nature of this.
3. We build laws to offer legal measures of protection towards this "person" and to provide the legal means to apply force and coercion towards that ends.

But simply stating that "late term abortion should be illegal because it is a person" is a circular argument.

Is is not circular.

Keep fuckin' the dead horse, though, bro.

(17-09-2014 04:41 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I have issues with item 1 but at least it is much more transparent and debatable than the rubbish circular argument presented thus far.
To say that I should assume what is meant by "person" is disingenuous because as we know (as has been stated many times in this thread by multiple people), many people have differing opinions to this arbitrarily ascribed label.

That's not what anyone has said.

The law in fact does have a single consistent definition of "person" in any given jurisdiction. You may well disagree with it. It exists nonetheless.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
17-09-2014, 08:50 AM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2014 09:23 AM by cjlr.)
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(16-09-2014 05:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(16-09-2014 02:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Let us say that "person" denotes certain legal status, including protection of life. Do you grant this?
No I don't grant this.

I did not realize you were going to make this so tedious.

Incidentally, that is already the legal reality on every country on Earth...

(16-09-2014 05:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Here you are starting off with laws.
Let's say we are in a new society and are just forming a new government and laws.

First step is to define the purpose of government.
Once we have done that then how do we determine the need for a legal definition of person?
Once we have done that then how do we determine the boundaries on what a person is or isn't?

Where do we get this "protection of life" from? What underlies this?

It does not strike me as necessary that I should explain to you how a society that does not safeguard its members is unsustainable. Since you already stated as much.

(16-09-2014 05:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(16-09-2014 02:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Let us say that a healthy adult possesses such status. Do you grant this?
No I don't grant this. Don't see why a healthy adult possesses a "protection of life" status. What if this healthy adult is a mass murderer or mass rapist and presents an ongoing danger to society?

Taking as a premise that lives of a society's members are to be protected, a mass murderer is, trivially, not following such an agreement. I leave it to your imagination how such a contradiction might be resolved.

(16-09-2014 05:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(16-09-2014 02:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Let us say that individual sperm and egg cells do not possess such status. Do you grant this?
No, I'm vague on what we mean by "person".

I just gave you a definition.

If you have an alternative, I invite you to share it.

(16-09-2014 05:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If we equate "person" with living human then I'll agree that a sperm and an egg is not a living human. This does not mean though that these things do or do not have a "protection of life" status on them. Why is it that we are protecting life?

There is no "objective" reason to do so. Is that what you're half-assedly driving at?

I happen to rather enjoy a safe and secure life, however.

You, out of self-interest, support protection for yourself and those like you (correct me if I am wrong on this point). If so, then - necessarily - at some point a living human becomes sufficiently like you that you consider its protection in your interest as well.

You have, necessarily, some criteria for forming that distinction.

(16-09-2014 05:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(16-09-2014 02:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  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 haven't establised a legal need to define a person and we haven't established a need to protect the life of all persons.
I am all for abortion and I am all for euthanasia, I support death penalty, I support self defence.

You've been given answers. I don't see what restatement would accomplish.

(16-09-2014 05:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(16-09-2014 02:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  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.
I would like to make the justification less arbitrary.

And here you are implicitly accepting such a distinction.

(16-09-2014 05:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I don't want my neighbor looking over the fence and criticising me and getting the police to interfere in my life. Neighbor needs to mind their own business.

To be facetious and repeat your own objections to you, what if your neighbour notices that you are a serial rapist and mass murderer? Is that his business?

(16-09-2014 05:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(16-09-2014 02:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  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.
I don't accept that persons are special and should be protected.

Do you accept that a functioning society requires a certain level of personal security for the majority of its members in order to exist?

Do you accept that - assuming you value your own continuity of existence - it is in your interest that a functioning society protects you?

(16-09-2014 05:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I don't accept that it is my place to arbitrarily label something a person and then take it upon myself to interfere forcibly in others.

So what?

(16-09-2014 05:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  How is Chas argument any different to that of Catholics?
They say a fertilised egg is a person, and that it should be protected.

Chas does not say a fertilised egg is a person, so that right there seems like a good start.

(16-09-2014 05:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(16-09-2014 02:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  As ought to be plainly evident, that is not circular reasoning.

I remain unable to comprehend how you reached the conclusion that it is.
It is circular reasoning because Chas appeals to "person" as his reason why we can't kill the unborn. He defines it as a person because he doesn't want it killed.

That is not even remotely what he said.

But, uh, you keep on keeping on with that.

(16-09-2014 05:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Question: Why do you want to protect it?
Answer: because it is a person.

Question: Why is do you label it as a person?
Answer: Because I want to protect it.

Question: Why do you want to protect it?
Answer: Because it is a person.

Question: Why do you label it as a person?
...

A never ending circle.

Suffice to say no, that is not even remotely reflective of what any others in the thread have said.

edited for rudeness

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
17-09-2014, 08:50 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(16-09-2014 05:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(16-09-2014 02:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Let us say that "person" denotes certain legal status, including protection of life. Do you grant this?
No I don't grant this.

Then you are at odds with the law and with society. Your argument fails at step 1.

Quote:Here you are starting off with laws.

Because that is, in fact, the discussion.

Quote:Let's say we are in a new society and are just forming a new government and laws.

But we're not. We are working within the context of an existing society with existing laws.

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: