Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-09-2014, 08:32 AM (This post was last modified: 18-09-2014 08:40 AM by cjlr.)
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(18-09-2014 01:26 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(17-09-2014 10:11 PM)cjlr Wrote:  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.

Nope. Once again I fail to see where you've drawn such a conclusion.

(18-09-2014 01:26 AM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

What a Catholic would say is immaterial, but red herrings are always fun.

(18-09-2014 01:26 AM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

How many times do I need to say this?

You acknowledged - repeatedly - that there are two classes of individuals: those whose deaths affect you (and society in general), and those whose deaths do not.

The issue is defining the legal boundary between the two. Opinions vary. You've completely mischaracterised the answers others have given, and your own answer has been entirely unexplored.

(18-09-2014 01:26 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I have not mischaracterised Chas's points.

Perhaps. Perhaps you've simply failed to understand him.
(going on and on about how "circular" something non-circular is would suggest as much)

(18-09-2014 01:26 AM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

Indeed. What puzzles me is that you say that as though it were a meaningful observation. All laws are implicit use of force. The sun also rises. So freaking what?

... 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, 08:37 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(18-09-2014 01:37 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(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.

And you lack any possible data to make such an argument.

I do not think it is possible to externally justify such a claim (including yours) to the imaginary standard you espouse. I think such a criterion is impossible to quantify.

(18-09-2014 01:37 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?
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.

Sure. And your perception of what constitutes "relation to your own safety" is an inherently subjective - "arbitrary", if you like - matter.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2014, 08:56 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.

Yes, ignoring other people's meanings and supplying your own tends to confuse their ideas.

(18-09-2014 04:38 AM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

That's not saying anything much - it avoids the problematic middle ground that is the whole point of contention. That's the point. It's trivial to establish a continuum at which the ends have clear values. The boundary is the case of interest.

(18-09-2014 04:38 AM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

Thus it's "arbitrary" after all. Good to know.

Is then the "culture and mindset" of a nation of Catholics sufficient for them to justify a law outlawing all abortions?

(18-09-2014 04:38 AM)Stevil Wrote:  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 are issues if saying no to a woman, saying her child is too old to be killed. Here the government is interfering and using force to do so.
(hint: if "the government" ever does anything it is "interfering" and "using force to do so")

Do you see how that's a meaningless "judgement"?

(18-09-2014 04:38 AM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

I'm pretty sure killing a day-old newborn is not very hard work. It's probably easier than one at 35 weeks in the womb; better access.
(citation needed, as it were)

(18-09-2014 04:38 AM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

So what? Her motives are necessarily irrelevant to you, based on your stated criteria. Her motives have no affect on you one way or the other.

(18-09-2014 04:38 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Anyway, I haven't decided on a definitive point. Just laying my cards out.

Okay.

Since you're hardly going to get large-scale experiments and controls ("who wants to participate in our desert island infanticide study?"), by what possible means can anyone test answers against your purported standard?

... 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, 09:20 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(17-09-2014 02:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  OK, good - you see the argument I am making.

And, thank you, this post is precisely the kind of constructive discussion that I believe is necessary. Thumbsup

I don't know what the right point is, but my opinion is that it is no earlier than the formation of nervous system & brain (~ 6 months), nor later than viability (~7½ months.
Maybe that's an argument for three degrees of rules: no restrictions on abortion up through 6 months, some restrictions between there and ~7½ months, more restrictions (pretty much the life of the mother) after that.

I don't think there is a slippery slope once the rules are defined, however experience dictates that there will be a strong effort to make draconian rules about exceptions; your concern is well-grounded.
Personally, I think the key to personhood is having at least a reasonable chance of being able to live independently from the mother. So I guess that would be viability. There were earlier posts in which you were also discussing pain as an issue - and I agree that's an important consideration - so I think abortion methods prior to viability and after development of the nervous system and brain would need to be ones that don't cause pain to the fetus. If that's not possible, then perhaps 6 months would be the better legal demarcation. That would be for the majority of cases, but of course there would be the exceptions for threats to the mother's life after that point.

I'm not sure what the purpose would be for three degrees of rules. In my mind, the woman should have plenty of time prior to 6 or 7 months to have an abortion. So only a new circumstance would justify having an abortion after the legal line of demarcation. I can't think of anything except a threat to the mother's life that would not have been foreseeable prior to that point. So, unless you have other situations in mind that I haven't thought about, I only see the need for rules before the line and rules after.

Thanks to you too for giving me a new perspective on this subject.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2014, 09:55 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(18-09-2014 09:20 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(17-09-2014 02:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  OK, good - you see the argument I am making.

And, thank you, this post is precisely the kind of constructive discussion that I believe is necessary. Thumbsup

I don't know what the right point is, but my opinion is that it is no earlier than the formation of nervous system & brain (~ 6 months), nor later than viability (~7½ months.
Maybe that's an argument for three degrees of rules: no restrictions on abortion up through 6 months, some restrictions between there and ~7½ months, more restrictions (pretty much the life of the mother) after that.

I don't think there is a slippery slope once the rules are defined, however experience dictates that there will be a strong effort to make draconian rules about exceptions; your concern is well-grounded.
Personally, I think the key to personhood is having at least a reasonable chance of being able to live independently from the mother. So I guess that would be viability. There were earlier posts in which you were also discussing pain as an issue - and I agree that's an important consideration - so I think abortion methods prior to viability and after development of the nervous system and brain would need to be ones that don't cause pain to the fetus. If that's not possible, then perhaps 6 months would be the better legal demarcation. That would be for the majority of cases, but of course there would be the exceptions for threats to the mother's life after that point.

I'm not sure what the purpose would be for three degrees of rules. In my mind, the woman should have plenty of time prior to 6 or 7 months to have an abortion. So only a new circumstance would justify having an abortion after the legal line of demarcation. I can't think of anything except a threat to the mother's life that would not have been foreseeable prior to that point. So, unless you have other situations in mind that I haven't thought about, I only see the need for rules before the line and rules after.

Thanks to you too for giving me a new perspective on this subject.

I wasn't advocating a particular point; I was exploring what was reasonable.
The whole argument is predicated on the assumption that we have no right to interfere with a woman's choice until there is another person directly affected.


I suggested there might be cause for three degrees because a fetus with a brain and nervous system is qualitatively different than one without, even if not viable.

My actual view is that the time between a full brain/nervous system and viability is very problematic. Reasonable arguments can be made for different conclusions.

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, 10:24 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(18-09-2014 09:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  I wasn't advocating a particular point; I was exploring what was reasonable.
The whole argument is predicated on the assumption that we have no right to interfere with a woman's choice until there is another person directly affected.
Yes, I understood both of those points, but thanks for making sure.

(18-09-2014 09:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  I suggested there might be cause for three degrees because a fetus with a brain and nervous system is qualitatively different than one without, even if not viable.
I understood this too, and you may be correct about the need for three degrees. But my point was that, while I see the three degrees in terms of fetal development, I don't see how this would translate into 3 degrees in terms of legislative action. If there is to be legislative differences between before and after nervous system/brain development, I don't see what would be legislatively different for the "after" period that is before viability and then the time after viability. I realize this is still up for discussion so I was asking if you had any thoughts about what might be the legislative differences in the 3 degrees (as opposed to 2 degrees - the 2 degrees being before and after just one of those 2 points).

(18-09-2014 09:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  My actual view is that the time between a full brain/nervous system and viability is very problematic. Reasonable arguments can be made for different conclusions.
I agree with this.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2014, 10:50 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(18-09-2014 10:24 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(18-09-2014 09:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  I suggested there might be cause for three degrees because a fetus with a brain and nervous system is qualitatively different than one without, even if not viable.
I understood this too, and you may be correct about the need for three degrees. But my point was that, while I see the three degrees in terms of fetal development, I don't see how this would translate into 3 degrees in terms of legislative action. If there is to be legislative differences between before and after nervous system/brain development, I don't see what would be legislatively different for the "after" period that is before viability and then the time after viability. I realize this is still up for discussion so I was asking if you had any thoughts about what might be the legislative differences in the 3 degrees (as opposed to 2 degrees - the 2 degrees being before and after just one of those 2 points).

I believe I suggested one difference between 2nd and 3rd degree was that once viability was [established/recognized/assumed/legislated] that abortion might only be allowed to save the mother's life, while there might be less restriction in the 2nd stage, like risk to the mother's health.

I don't have a well thought out set of proposed rules except no restrictions in early pregnancy and possibly only to save the life of the mother after viability.

I'd like to hear others' ideas, like maybe some women's views. Consider

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, 11:01 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(18-09-2014 10:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-09-2014 10:24 AM)Impulse Wrote:  I understood this too, and you may be correct about the need for three degrees. But my point was that, while I see the three degrees in terms of fetal development, I don't see how this would translate into 3 degrees in terms of legislative action. If there is to be legislative differences between before and after nervous system/brain development, I don't see what would be legislatively different for the "after" period that is before viability and then the time after viability. I realize this is still up for discussion so I was asking if you had any thoughts about what might be the legislative differences in the 3 degrees (as opposed to 2 degrees - the 2 degrees being before and after just one of those 2 points).

I believe I suggested one difference between 2nd and 3rd degree was that once viability was [established/recognized/assumed/legislated] that abortion might only be allowed to save the mother's life, while there might be less restriction in the 2nd stage, like risk to the mother's health.

I don't have a well thought out set of proposed rules except no restrictions in early pregnancy and possibly only to save the life of the mother after viability.

I'd like to hear others' ideas, like maybe some women's views. Consider

IIRC some tests for debilitating birth defects cannot happen before the 6th month mark. The kind that equate to no standard of living at all (not downs syndrome but like born without a brain level stuff) and should give pause to anyone who receives such a diagnosis.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
18-09-2014, 11:08 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(18-09-2014 11:01 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(18-09-2014 10:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  I believe I suggested one difference between 2nd and 3rd degree was that once viability was [established/recognized/assumed/legislated] that abortion might only be allowed to save the mother's life, while there might be less restriction in the 2nd stage, like risk to the mother's health.

I don't have a well thought out set of proposed rules except no restrictions in early pregnancy and possibly only to save the life of the mother after viability.

I'd like to hear others' ideas, like maybe some women's views. Consider

IIRC some tests for debilitating birth defects cannot happen before the 6th month mark. The kind that equate to no standard of living at all (not downs syndrome but like born without a brain level stuff) and should give pause to anyone who receives such a diagnosis.

OK, good points.

I was tempted to say I'm down with that, but that would be tasteless, so I won't.

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
18-09-2014, 11:26 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(18-09-2014 10:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  I believe I suggested one difference between 2nd and 3rd degree was that once viability was [established/recognized/assumed/legislated] that abortion might only be allowed to save the mother's life, while there might be less restriction in the 2nd stage, like risk to the mother's health.
Risk to life vs. health - good point.

(18-09-2014 11:01 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  IIRC some tests for debilitating birth defects cannot happen before the 6th month mark. The kind that equate to no standard of living at all (not downs syndrome but like born without a brain level stuff) and should give pause to anyone who receives such a diagnosis.
This is a good point as well.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: