Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-09-2014, 09:25 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(21-09-2014 08:33 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(20-09-2014 02:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

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

Nah, he merely didn't understand them. Drinking Beverage

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
21-09-2014, 11:49 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(16-09-2014 12:39 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 09:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your position is incoherent.

You allow that a fetus at any stage is a person.
You agree that killing persons is bad for society.
You don't value human life except insofar as it affects you.
You claim there is no such thing as rights.
You claim it is more important to not use force on the woman.
To clarify my position
The definition of a "person" is arbitrary and irrelevant.
I don't hold human life to an almost "sacred" standard.
I consider things my business when they impact me or my loved ones.
I claim there is no such thing as rights.
I claim that I have no personal incentive to use force on the woman thus I have no incentive to give my government and police the obligation to use force on the woman.

(15-09-2014 09:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  Why not use force? It violates her rights? But people have no rights.
I have no personal incentive to use force on the woman. If I allow my government to use force on people when there is no incentive to do so, then what is to stop government using force on me willynilly without meaningful justification? I don't want to set a precedent. I don't want to give government a blank cheque to exert force whenever it pleases them.

(15-09-2014 09:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  The fetus is a person. Killing persons is bad for society. Not using force against the woman is a higher value than not killing a person?
This is not my terminology. "person" is meaningless, "bad" is meaningless. I don't judge value on things unless it impacts me because otherwise I am meddling in other people's business. What incentive do I have to stick my nose into other people's business?
(15-09-2014 09:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are either a sociopath or a libertarian - it's hard to tell the difference.
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 am trying to avoid forcing my own opinions onto others. 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.
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.
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.

The definition of" person" is the crux of the matter.

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2014, 01:32 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(21-09-2014 07:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(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.
Defining a "person" is arbitrary and unnecessary.

All we need to do is recognise the consequences of our actions on society and on ourselves.

If a woman having an abortion has no consequences on society and no consequences on me then it is not any of my business to interfere. Therefore it's her choice not my government's.

If you go down the "person" path then you have no argument against the Catholic position. They define a "person" from the moment of conception. How do you counter that other than to simply assert "it's not a person". It becomes a you say, they say thing. Both of your philosophies are that of idealism and interference based on your idealism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2014, 01:35 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(21-09-2014 01:32 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(21-09-2014 07:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  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.
Defining a "person" is arbitrary and unnecessary.

All we need to do is recognise the consequences of our actions on society and on ourselves.

If a woman having an abortion has no consequences on society and no consequences on me then it is not any of my business to interfere. Therefore it's her choice not my government's.

Once again, you entirely miss the point. This is about determining the law in the real world, not in your fantasy land.

Quote:If you go down the "person" path then you have no argument against the Catholic position. They define a "person" from the moment of conception. How do you counter that other than to simply assert "it's not a person". It becomes a you say, they say thing. Both of your philosophies are that of idealism and interference based on your idealism.

Once again, you entirely miss the point. This is about reasoned discussion, not your toy political philosophy.

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
21-09-2014, 01:52 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(21-09-2014 01:32 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If a woman having an abortion has no consequences on society and no consequences on me then it is not any of my business to interfere. Therefore it's her choice not my government's.

That's true enough but not applicable for obvious reasons. If everyone thought as you do there'd be no discussion.

Wish everyone agreed with this one paragraph you made.

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
21-09-2014, 07:35 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(21-09-2014 11:49 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  The definition of" person" is the crux of the matter.

I've been doing some research into this idea of personhood.
Two things I am after.
1. What is it? where are it's boundaries?
2. How does this motivate me to intervene in the affairs of others?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_o...personhood
Quote:Traditionally, the concept of personhood has entailed the concept of soul, a metaphysical concept referring to a non-corporeal or extra-corporeal dimension of human being. However, in the "modern" world, the concepts of subjectivity and intersubjectivity, personhood, mind, and self have come to encompass a number of aspects of human being previously considered the domain of the "soul".With regards to the beginning of human personhood, one historical question has been: when does the soul enter the body? In modern terms, the question could be put instead: at what point does the developing individual develop personhood or selfhood?

Related issues attached to the question of the beginning of human personhood include both the legal status, bodily integrity, and subjectivity of mothers[4] and the philosophical concept of "natality" (i.e. "the distinctively human capacity to initiate a new beginning", which a new human life embodies).
I think given the above it comes as no suprise that that we get this.
Quote:In 1973, Harry Blackmun wrote the court opinion for Roe v. Wade, saying "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate."

When attempting to make "personhood" scientific some people attempt to conflate it with a specific biological stage. Thinking that this means their stance on "personhood" is scientific. However there are many biological markers that could be used to arbitrarily attach this label.
Quote: - fertilization, the fusing of the gametes to form a zygote
- implantation, the start of pregnancy, occurring about a week after fertilization
- segmentation, after twinning is no longer possible.
- when the heart begins to beat
- neuromaturation, when the central nervous system of fetus is neurobiologically "mature"
* "brain birth" concepts (compare with brain death):
^ at the first appearance of brain waves in lower brain (brain stem) - 6–8 weeks of gestation (paralleling "whole brain death")
^ at the first appearance of brain waves in higher brain (cerebral cortex) - 22–24 weeks of gestation (paralleling "higher brain death")
- the time of fetal movement, or "quickening"
- when the fetus is first capable of feeling pain
- when it can be established that the fetus is capable of cognition, or neonatal perception
- fetal viability
- birth
- post-birth development stages
But this label doesn't really address the question on why I should care?
For example, if a pro choice advocate has their heart set on the point at the "first appearance of brain waves in higher brain" but a religous focused government sets the "person" label at "fertilization, the fusing of the gametes to form a zygote". This pro-choice advocate won't all of a sudden be compelled to interfere in the actions of a mother having an early term abortion. The government's placement of the label has no impact on the opinion of the pro-choicer.

Myself, I am not interested in the "person" label. I am not interested in arbitrarily picking a developmental stage and then forcing others to comply to the pick that I made.
I have no ideology that I want to force onto others. I recognise that others are living their lives and making their own choices. My question is "why should I interfere?". Why should I selfishly tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body and her unborn?
My position is, "unless it impacts me, then it is none of my business".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2014, 03:38 AM (This post was last modified: 22-09-2014 03:43 AM by Chas.)
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(21-09-2014 07:35 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I have no ideology that I want to force onto others. I recognise that others are living their lives and making their own choices. My question is "why should I interfere?". Why should I selfishly tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body and her unborn?

You have just shown your unexamined assumption. You have tacitly defined an unborn fetus as a non-person, unworthy of protection.

Quote:My position is, "unless it impacts me, then it is none of my business".

Yes, you have already established that you're a selfish prick - no need to keep repeating it.

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
22-09-2014, 12:54 PM (This post was last modified: 22-09-2014 12:59 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(22-09-2014 03:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  You have just shown your unexamined assumption. You have tacitly defined an unborn fetus as a non-person, unworthy of protection.
No, I haven't done that, but nice try.

Google "False dichotomy"
It is not either a person or a not person. The person label is irrelevant.

(22-09-2014 03:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:My position is, "unless it impacts me, then it is none of my business".

Yes, you have already established that you're a selfish prick - no need to keep repeating it.
Selfishness would be having an ideology and seeking to force your own ideology onto others. Like say, you claiming that the woman's unborn is a "person" and then you supporting law to force her into not having an abortion.

My own position on the other hand is saying that it is her business, that she knows best, not me. I have no interest in controlling her. That's not selfishness, it's tolerance and acceptance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2014, 01:05 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(22-09-2014 12:54 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It is not either a person or a not person. The person label is irrelevant.

For the sake of a consistent and impartial legal system it must be either a person or not a person. The label is the entire point of this tedious discussion.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2014, 01:30 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(22-09-2014 01:05 PM)cjlr Wrote:  For the sake of a consistent and impartial legal system it must be either a person or not a person. The label is the entire point of this tedious discussion.
No

The point of the discussion is to consider if we or government should interfere in the act of a mother having an abortion. And if we should interfere then at what stage and why at that stage.

We cannot appeal to "it's a person" because that is circular logic. We must appeal to something else.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: