Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-09-2014, 12:15 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
Check this series out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHah6TtYm1Q

“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
18-09-2014, 01:00 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(18-09-2014 07:59 AM)Chas Wrote:  
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.
Rights and "person" are legal terms. This criticism is circular.
The questions is "why does society want to protect the late term unborn?
You can't simply claim "because it is a person".
They are putting that label on it because they want it protected.
"person" is just a label.
What is the underlying reason why they want it protected?

(18-09-2014 07:59 AM)Chas Wrote:  
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.
If I am incorrect, I would be interested to hear it.
I am a parent myself, and thoughts went through our minds when tests were being done, if it has issues we may abort. We would be aborting because we don't want to spend our lives looking after a largely dependant unhealthy child. At no point did we think "how dare this unborn occupy the wife's womb without her permission"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2014, 01:25 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(18-09-2014 01:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(18-09-2014 07:59 AM)Chas Wrote:  Here is where society has determined there is a person and that person has as much right to life as the woman.
Rights and "person" are legal terms. This criticism is circular.
The questions is "why does society want to protect the late term unborn?
You can't simply claim "because it is a person".
They are putting that label on it because they want it protected.
"person" is just a label.
What is the underlying reason why they want it protected?

'Person' is not just a label, there is an underlying reality which you fail to grasp.

Quote:
(18-09-2014 07:59 AM)Chas Wrote:  You're talking through your ass, and if you don't get thoroughly reamed by some women here I will be very surprised.
If I am incorrect, I would be interested to hear it.
I am a parent myself, and thoughts went through our minds when tests were being done, if it has issues we may abort. We would be aborting because we don't want to spend our lives looking after a largely dependant unhealthy child. At no point did we think "how dare this unborn occupy the wife's womb without her permission"

I'll leave that to those who actually face the decision.

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
19-09-2014, 01:19 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(18-09-2014 01:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-09-2014 01:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Rights and "person" are legal terms. This criticism is circular.
The questions is "why does society want to protect the late term unborn?
You can't simply claim "because it is a person".
They are putting that label on it because they want it protected.
"person" is just a label.
What is the underlying reason why they want it protected?

'Person' is not just a label, there is an underlying reality which you fail to grasp.
You have been unable to articulate what that underlying reality is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2014, 06:54 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(19-09-2014 01:19 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(18-09-2014 01:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  'Person' is not just a label, there is an underlying reality which you fail to grasp.
You have been unable to articulate what that underlying reality is.

I have offered not only reasons, but an inductive procedure to determine it.

You have entirely failed to respond to that and continue to cavil about definitions.

You have not responded to why you feel that not 'using force' is the summum bonum of human interaction, overriding all other factors.

Try responding with some substance instead of your childish bullshit.

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
20-09-2014, 02:39 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(19-09-2014 06:54 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-09-2014 01:19 AM)Stevil Wrote:  You have been unable to articulate what that underlying reality is.

I have offered not only reasons, but an inductive procedure to determine it.

You have entirely failed to respond to that and continue to cavil about definitions.
Your claim has been that a "person" is a legal definition, that a "person" should not be harmed (according to law).
You have made an assertion that once an unborn develops a nervous system or becomes viable then it goes from not person to person.
You claim that since you have labeled it as a person then it should be protected by law.

I have highlighted and explained why this is circular logic.

You have now claimed that a "person" is not only a legal definition but is an underlying reality, but you are unable to explain why you think this to be true.

Catholics consider a human to be a person from the moment of conception, I accept that the conception is what forms the full DNA code, it also includes the epigenetic imprinting from parent to offspring. From that moment the human is alive, and growing. If it's DNA is valid it has a reasonable chance of developing a nervous system, being born and living a life (it's just a matter of time) unless aborted.

But this distinction of personhood is by the by. It does not answer the question of why I should care to such a degree that I would interfere in the choices of the mother. That I would be compelled to support the police in using force against her.

I don't buy into the idealism that you seem to be presenting, that I ought to care because it is a "person". This is circular logic because "person" is a legal term, and it is a non sequitur because there is no link with regards to the fate of this unborn and any impact on my own life, or with regards to the safety of society.

I am not an idealist, I do not hold "personhood" to an almost sacred status. I need a logical and rational reason to be compelled to interfere and to givie my government the go ahead to interfere.

Your appeal of personhood and asserting it is an underlying reality does not compel me. I am not nodding my head, I am instead asking more questions? What is a person, why have you labelled it a person at this stage of development? Why should I care about your own labeling system, why is it more reasonable than the Catholic labeling system? I can't see that the answer is an underlying reality, you can't seem to explain why you claimed this.

(19-09-2014 06:54 AM)Chas Wrote:  You have not responded to why you feel that not 'using force' is the summum bonum of human interaction, overriding all other factors.
My position is this.
In order to use force and support a government representative in using force against society members (potential against me) I require a compelling reason.

I want to survive and I want to be free.

The danger in allowing government to use force is that it puts my survival and freedom at risk. Adults killing adults and stealing stuff also puts my survival and freedom at risk. I accept that the risks to me reduce if the governing body uses force to prevent killings and theft. I recognise that mother's killing their early term unborn does not create risk towards my safety and freedom, so I don't support government to use force.

My position is reasoned, articulated, avoids circular logic and avoids non sequiturs.
My position is not a position of idealism, but it is a position of self interest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2014, 04:45 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(20-09-2014 02:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-09-2014 06:54 AM)Chas Wrote:  I have offered not only reasons, but an inductive procedure to determine it.

You have entirely failed to respond to that and continue to cavil about definitions.
Your claim has been that a "person" is a legal definition, that a "person" should not be harmed (according to law).
You have made an assertion that once an unborn develops a nervous system or becomes viable then it goes from not person to person.
You claim that since you have labeled it as a person then it should be protected by law.

I have highlighted and explained why this is circular logic.

Unless I missed you do another whole circular logic demonstration, you haven't done that. All I saw you was focus on the circular element claim that saying a person is protected because we want to protect persons is circular... but not touch on the aspect of developing a nervous system.

The reason that actually has value in this case is based on what we currently value via society and by laws in certain areas. We aren't opposed to killing life or ending life in general, it wouldn't be possible to not do so. There are certain types of life we deem more valuable than other types of life. That would be sentient or more intelligent, as we deem, individual species. We generally don't like the idea of harming those species over others. Why, because of a perception of experiencing the reality around them. The point of a human cluster of cells begins having a system to perceive reality around it by sensation-nervous systems developing- is a point of something we don't want to harm. That is why there is a distinction.

"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
20-09-2014, 05:22 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(20-09-2014 04:45 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  ... but not touch on the aspect of developing a nervous system.

The reason that actually has value in this case is based on what we currently value via society and by laws in certain areas. We aren't opposed to killing life or ending life in general, it wouldn't be possible to not do so. There are certain types of life we deem more valuable than other types of life. That would be sentient or more intelligent, as we deem, individual species. We generally don't like the idea of harming those species over others. Why, because of a perception of experiencing the reality around them. The point of a human cluster of cells begins having a system to perceive reality around it by sensation-nervous systems developing- is a point of something we don't want to harm. That is why there is a distinction.
This is a fair enough comment.

I hear you when you say that you "...don't like the idea of harming those species over others."
And I also have similar personal feelings. I do value a dolphin more than a cow probably because a dolphin is playful and appears more intelligent.

...But, how does that justify me to use force against other people in support of my "likes" and "don't likes"?

I don't like pop music but I'm not about to try and make that illegal for other people. I don't like prostitution, I don't like parents forcing religion onto infants and toddlers, I don't like halal slaughter of animals, but I am not about to force others into my way of thinking.

I need valid justification, I need to tie that into my own business. It's not merely about my likes and dislikes. I am not an idealist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2014, 07:13 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(20-09-2014 02:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  My position is reasoned, articulated, avoids circular logic and avoids non sequiturs.
My position is not a position of idealism, but it is a position of self interest.

Your position is selfish, ignorant, and shallow. It's not all about you. It is about society and the dangers of allowing the unrestrained killing of persons.

You do not define what a person is, so not using force against another person is without any basis.
Until you define person, you have a free-floating ideology.

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
21-09-2014, 08:33 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(20-09-2014 02:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-09-2014 06:54 AM)Chas Wrote:  I have offered not only reasons, but an inductive procedure to determine it.

You have entirely failed to respond to that and continue to cavil about definitions.
Your claim has been that a "person" is a legal definition, that a "person" should not be harmed (according to law).
You have made an assertion that once an unborn develops a nervous system or becomes viable then it goes from not person to person.
You claim that since you have labeled it as a person then it should be protected by law.

I have highlighted and explained why this is circular logic.

You have now claimed that a "person" is not only a legal definition but is an underlying reality, but you are unable to explain why you think this to be true.

Catholics consider a human to be a person from the moment of conception, I accept that the conception is what forms the full DNA code, it also includes the epigenetic imprinting from parent to offspring. From that moment the human is alive, and growing. If it's DNA is valid it has a reasonable chance of developing a nervous system, being born and living a life (it's just a matter of time) unless aborted.

But this distinction of personhood is by the by. It does not answer the question of why I should care to such a degree that I would interfere in the choices of the mother. That I would be compelled to support the police in using force against her.

I don't buy into the idealism that you seem to be presenting, that I ought to care because it is a "person". This is circular logic because "person" is a legal term, and it is a non sequitur because there is no link with regards to the fate of this unborn and any impact on my own life, or with regards to the safety of society.

I am not an idealist, I do not hold "personhood" to an almost sacred status. I need a logical and rational reason to be compelled to interfere and to givie my government the go ahead to interfere.

Your appeal of personhood and asserting it is an underlying reality does not compel me. I am not nodding my head, I am instead asking more questions? What is a person, why have you labelled it a person at this stage of development? Why should I care about your own labeling system, why is it more reasonable than the Catholic labeling system? I can't see that the answer is an underlying reality, you can't seem to explain why you claimed this.

(19-09-2014 06:54 AM)Chas Wrote:  You have not responded to why you feel that not 'using force' is the summum bonum of human interaction, overriding all other factors.
My position is this.
In order to use force and support a government representative in using force against society members (potential against me) I require a compelling reason.

I want to survive and I want to be free.

The danger in allowing government to use force is that it puts my survival and freedom at risk. Adults killing adults and stealing stuff also puts my survival and freedom at risk. I accept that the risks to me reduce if the governing body uses force to prevent killings and theft. I recognise that mother's killing their early term unborn does not create risk towards my safety and freedom, so I don't support government to use force.

My position is reasoned, articulated, avoids circular logic and avoids non sequiturs.
My position is not a position of idealism, but it is a position of self interest.

It's like you've ignored the last hundred posts.

Consider

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: