Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-09-2014, 10:06 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(17-09-2014 07:47 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(17-09-2014 03:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  You have already stipulated that killing people is destabilizing to society. Are you retracting that?
Depends what you mean by "people".
Adults killing adults willy nilly will cause destabilisation.
Mother's killing their own fetus doesn't cause destabilisation.

I an unclear if mother's killing her own 7 month old unborn would cause destabilisation, I think it would probably not.

That only brings us back to the same ol' shit, stevil.

A fetus eventually becomes an adult. There is necessarily a point at which that individual's death becomes destabilising.

You steadfastly refuse to say when you think that point is, so you're hardly in a position to criticise others for throwing their best comprises out there.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2014, 10:11 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(17-09-2014 01:19 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(17-09-2014 09:16 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I suggest, however, that you will find no society which condones murder.
This is circular.
The term murder means killing that is against the law.
If the society has created the law then this means it doesn't condone.

Weeping spaghetti monster, but you're making this tedious.

I shall indulge you: by "murder" I took the shorthand to be plain; it was evidently not. I was suggesting by that statement that all societies find it necessary to establish sufficient protection for sufficient of their members so as to continue to exist. That is not a statement as to what those standards are, simply that they exist, as even you have not been so asinine as to deny here.

(17-09-2014 01:19 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(17-09-2014 09:16 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Once again: if we are in agreement that at some point another human life is no longer socially permissible to terminate, the following arises.

Does there need to be a line drawn between the two for the purposes of the law? Yes.

Can there be a consistent, non-arbitrary distinction drawn between the two? I do not think so.

And yet we have to come up with one somehow.
I have already articulated a much less arbitrary point than what you guys have presented.

You have not.

(17-09-2014 01:19 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The point where it becomes unsafe for society, the point where much conflict and danger arises. This way there is a clear tie in to my own interests. I am not merely sticking my nose into someone else's business.

That is a possible heuristic, yes. It seems a defensible one. It is nonetheless inherently subjective.

(17-09-2014 01:19 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I haven't started off with my end point, only a definition of it. We could use this definition to debate exactly where that point is with regards to human development of the unborn, (or born)

Chas offered you just such a possible criterion, and you proceeded to mischaracterise for dozens of posts.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
17-09-2014, 10:34 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(17-09-2014 03:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(17-09-2014 08:50 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Incidentally, that is already the legal reality on every country on Earth...
It's beside the point what law currently is and it is beside the point what law is in various countries.
We are discussing what laws should be imposed. There is no benefit to appealing to current law as the reason why a law should be imposed.

I rather think there is, and it perplexes me that you apparently do not see why.

Existing laws did not come into existence out of nothing. They are what they are for reasons. Considering those reasons is therefore of a great deal of relevance, as they represent potential courses of action regarding the very same points the thread has addressed...

(17-09-2014 03:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(17-09-2014 08:50 AM)cjlr Wrote:  It does not strike me as necessary that I should explain to you how a society that does not safeguard its members is unsustainable.
But this is the crucial piece to the puzzle. This is the very reason law is necessary and that use of force is justifiable against society members.
It doesn't benefit open discussion to wave our hands at this and just say "It does not strike me as necessary that I should explain".

I did not find it necessary because you had literally already agreed with the statement. I was under the impression that we could move on from there.

I did not think it would be productive to tell you things you already know. Was I wrong?

(17-09-2014 03:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The very reason we allow abortion in the first place is because it is sustainable. If it wasn't sustainable then we would need a law against it.

If we are arguing at what point should we not allow abortion we need to appeal to this. Our arguments need to show that society could likely become unstable if abortion is allowed after such and such a point.

I invite you to consider the following:
If abortion is sustainable, then terminating a life is at some point sustainable.
If terminating a life is at some point sustainable, then it must also be sustainable for that life at some incremental later point, such that no significant difference in the life exists.
If no significant difference exists from one incremental interval to the next, then terminating a life is sustainable at any point.
Terminating a life is not sustainable at any point.

What's wrong with this induction?

(17-09-2014 03:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  But no-one has made this case so far.

I guess that's true, if you ignore the people who did give answers.

Not that you've given one.

(17-09-2014 03:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The people that are saying at the point of brain development in the unborn is the point where we draw the line, they haven't even attempted to show how society would become unstable.

I shall reiterate the point I have explained to your deaf ears several times now:
There is no empirical fixed point at which such a distinction can be made.

Do you think there is? What is it? Do you agree that there isn't? Then what standard do you propose using?

After all, the law requires such a distinction be be made regardless.

Do you disagree with the offered criteria? Why? If you accept that there must be a criterion (you do), and you cannot offer an alternative, on what grounds are you objecting?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
18-09-2014, 12:54 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(17-09-2014 10:06 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You steadfastly refuse to say when you think that point is, so you're hardly in a position to criticise others for throwing their best comprises out there.
I'm not refusing to say anything. I'm putting all my cards on the table.
I say the point when I will intervene is when those actions impact me.

If a mother aborts her unborn then society seems to keep ticking, safe and sound. So it's not my business to interfere.
I am unclear on when society would start to get dangerous. I think it is up for debate. I do know the answer.

I'm not criticising people for putting their best compromises out there, I'm actually trying to understand them. If they appeal to circular logic e.g. its a person therefore it must be protected, then that doesn't make sense to me, so I ask them to clarify.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2014, 01:26 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(17-09-2014 10:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(17-09-2014 01:19 PM)Stevil Wrote:  This is circular.
The term murder means killing that is against the law.
If the society has created the law then this means it doesn't condone.
I shall indulge you: by "murder" I took the shorthand to be plain; it was evidently not. I was suggesting by that statement that all societies find it necessary to establish sufficient protection for sufficient of their members so as to continue to exist. That is not a statement as to what those standards are, simply that they exist, as even you have not been so asinine as to deny here.
What you are attempting to do is conflate.
You want me to boldly claim that murder is wrong, then you are going to tell me that killing a late term unborn is murder.
A Catholic would say aborting an early term unborn is murder.

Yes, society does have a need for laws against killing humans in certain circumstances. However in other circumstances killing humans presents no threat to society. e.g. abortions, euthanasia, death penalty, self defence.



(17-09-2014 10:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(17-09-2014 01:19 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The point where it becomes unsafe for society, the point where much conflict and danger arises. This way there is a clear tie in to my own interests. I am not merely sticking my nose into someone else's business.

That is a possible heuristic, yes. It seems a defensible one. It is nonetheless inherently subjective.
It provides a foundation from where debates can be focused on.

(17-09-2014 10:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(17-09-2014 01:19 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I haven't started off with my end point, only a definition of it. We could use this definition to debate exactly where that point is with regards to human development of the unborn, (or born)

Chas offered you just such a possible criterion, and you proceeded to mischaracterise for dozens of posts.
I have not mischaracterised Chas's points.
Chas has stated that he would like law to stop a pregnant woman in late term having an abortion.
I have highlighted that supporting law is supporting violence.
Police will be obligated to use force on the pregnant woman. This is the consequence of law.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2014, 01:37 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(17-09-2014 10:34 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Do you think there is? What is it? Do you agree that there isn't? Then what standard do you propose using?
The point at which society will become violent and dangerous rather than the point at which I personally dislike the situation.

(17-09-2014 10:34 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Do you disagree with the offered criteria? Why? If you accept that there must be a criterion (you do), and you cannot offer an alternative, on what grounds are you objecting?
I have been trying to understand why Chas has picked his point.

I have offered what criteria I have for a point. Because I have a criteria, and because this criteria directly relates to my own safety, then my criteria isn't entirely arbitrary.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2014, 03:22 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(17-09-2014 08:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-09-2014 09:34 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.

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

The anti-abortion advocates (if that is what you actually mean) by and large believe that the fetus is a person from fertilized egg on. They are advocating protection for that 'person'.

I don't know if there are any actual pro-choice advocates who support a woman's right to abortion right up to the point of birth, but that sounds like what you are advocating.

I'm pro-choice, whether that choice be to abort the pregnancy or keep it. I support comprehensive sex education, women's health services, and a robust social safety net; as they are the best way to reduce the number of abortions (because they are the best things we can do to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies). As for where we draw the legal line in the sand as far as what constitutes a legal abortion within a certain gestation time is up for discussion, but access to the option should be a fundamental and protected right for women. So I always find it fun to contrast something as mundane as organ transplants and donors, and the amount of respect and legal protection people have over their bodies after they are dead; and comparing that to how little protection and control a living pregnant woman has over her own body in many circumstances.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2014, 04:38 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(17-09-2014 10:34 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Do you disagree with the offered criteria? Why? If you accept that there must be a criterion (you do), and you cannot offer an alternative, on what grounds are you objecting?
The grounds I have been objecting to is that I don't feel the argument has been sufficiently laid out. I object to the language that has been used. In particular I don't like use of terms such as "person" or "rights" as justification for laws because that is circular.

Of course there is a conflict of interest going on.
On the one hand we have Big government imposing on the individual. In this case imposing on the pregnant woman. Trying to justify use of force against her.
In my view we need to keep government imposition to a minimum because we don't want to be arbitrarily controlled by government. We don't want them to use violence or threat of violence against us.

On the other hand we have Big government trying to ensure a safe and stable society. In order to achieve this government needs to use violence or threat of violence against us.

With regards to the abortion debate the situation is that a pregnant woman wants to kill her unborn.

The questions are:
Is it necessary for government to interfere by use of force?
What is my incentive to support government to interfere?
Would women killing her unborn (abortion) make society unsafe?

I think the answers are quite clear, especially in the first months of pregnancy. Woman are having abortions and society is functioning safely. Thus there is no need for government to interfere.

On the other end of the scale, can a mother kill her two year olds? It seems to me that other people will fight her. The father, the grand parents, uncles, aunties, cousins etc. Because they have seen the kid and probably grown attached to it. So to avoid this conflict we probably do need the government to intervene.

So where are the clear boundaries and where are the grey areas?
I think most modernised societies are too far away from accepting infanticide so after birth would be a clear boundary for them. Some more primitive societies which don't have the benefits of ultrasound and other pre-birth tests could we be accepting of infanticide. It really depends on the culture and mindset of the people and their likely reaction to such a thing.

Focussing on modernised society, I would say it has been proven that upto 20 weeks society will not riot or get into violent conflict. So government do not need to interfere.
The question is, how far could we push it until society does riot or get violent?
Another question is, do we need to push it to the limit? Most reasons people abort are: that they are not in a relationship, that they are too young, that they don't have the money, that the kid has some medical issue and the parents don't want offspring that are heavily dependant forever.
It does seem that most of these situations could be dealt with in early term pregnancy. Given medical advances i.e. ultrasound, DNA testing etc, many birth issues can be picked up early.
But there are issues if saying no to a woman, saying her preganancy is too old to be aborted. Here the government is interfering and using force to do so.

There is an issue with killing a viable unborn in that it takes extra effort to kill it after it has been removed from the womb. But we shouldn't kid ourselves, the purpose of abortion is almost always because the mother wants to kill it, not because she wants it removed from her womb.

There is also the case where a baby is damaged during birth. i.e. starved of oxygen and then becomes heavily dependant for the rest of its life. In this case I think it may make sense to put down the baby Gasp

Anyway, I haven't decided on a definitive point. Just laying my cards out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2014, 07:48 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(18-09-2014 01:26 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I have not mischaracterised Chas's points.
Chas has stated that he would like law to stop a pregnant woman in late term having an abortion.

No, I haven't. You have yet again mischaracterized my argument.

Quote:I have highlighted that supporting law is supporting violence.
Police will be obligated to use force on the pregnant woman. This is the consequence of law.

You have no basis for being opposed to 'violence' against people since you believe neither in rights nor protection of persons by society.

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
18-09-2014, 07:59 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(18-09-2014 04:38 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(17-09-2014 10:34 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Do you disagree with the offered criteria? Why? If you accept that there must be a criterion (you do), and you cannot offer an alternative, on what grounds are you objecting?
The grounds I have been objecting to is that I don't feel the argument has been sufficiently laid out. I object to the language that has been used. In particular I don't like use of terms such as "person" or "rights" as justification for laws because that is circular.

Of course there is a conflict of interest going on.
On the one hand we have Big government imposing on the individual. In this case imposing on the pregnant woman. Trying to justify use of force against her.
In my view we need to keep government imposition to a minimum because we don't want to be arbitrarily controlled by government. We don't want them to use violence or threat of violence against us.

On the other hand we have Big government trying to ensure a safe and stable society. In order to achieve this government needs to use violence or threat of violence against us.

With regards to the abortion debate the situation is that a pregnant woman wants to kill her unborn.

The questions are:
Is it necessary for government to interfere by use of force?
What is my incentive to support government to interfere?
Would women killing her unborn (abortion) make society unsafe?

I think the answers are quite clear, especially in the first months of pregnancy. Woman are having abortions and society is functioning safely. Thus there is no need for government to interfere.

On the other end of the scale, can a mother kill her two year olds? It seems to me that other people will fight her. The father, the grand parents, uncles, aunties, cousins etc. Because they have seen the kid and probably grown attached to it. So to avoid this conflict we probably do need the government to intervene.

So where are the clear boundaries and where are the grey areas?
I think most modernised societies are too far away from accepting infanticide so after birth would be a clear boundary for them. Some more primitive societies which don't have the benefits of ultrasound and other pre-birth tests could we be accepting of infanticide. It really depends on the culture and mindset of the people and their likely reaction to such a thing.

Focussing on modernised society, I would say it has been proven that upto 20 weeks society will not riot or get into violent conflict. So government do not need to interfere.
The question is, how far could we push it until society does riot or get violent?
Another question is, do we need to push it to the limit? Most reasons people abort are: that they are not in a relationship, that they are too young, that they don't have the money, that the kid has some medical issue and the parents don't want offspring that are heavily dependant forever.
It does seem that most of these situations could be dealt with in early term pregnancy. Given medical advances i.e. ultrasound, DNA testing etc, many birth issues can be picked up early.

Up to this point, you have contributed some rational points.

Quote:But there are issues if saying no to a woman, saying her preganancy is too old to be aborted. Here the government is interfering and using force to do so.

Here is where society has determined there is a person and that person has as much right to life as the woman.

Government is the tool of society. Your reification and subsequent demonization of government blocks you from thinking through the argument.

Quote:There is an issue with killing a viable unborn in that it takes extra effort to kill it after it has been removed from the womb. But we shouldn't kid ourselves, the purpose of abortion is almost always because the mother wants to kill it, not because she wants it removed from her womb.

You're talking through your ass, and if you don't get thoroughly reamed by some women here I will be very surprised.

Quote:There is also the case where a baby is damaged during birth. i.e. starved of oxygen and then becomes heavily dependant for the rest of its life. In this case I think it may make sense to put down the baby Gasp

Anyway, I haven't decided on a definitive point. Just laying my cards out.

That is a separate discussion.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: