Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-09-2014, 01:32 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(22-09-2014 01:30 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(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.

It's been explained to you many times how no one is doing that.

But, feel free to argue against things nobody is advocating, I guess...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
22-09-2014, 01:35 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(22-09-2014 01:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It's been explained to you many times how no one is doing that.

But, feel free to argue against things nobody is advocating, I guess...
What are you appealing to then? I'd be interested to hear.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2014, 01:43 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(22-09-2014 01:35 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(22-09-2014 01:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It's been explained to you many times how no one is doing that.

But, feel free to argue against things nobody is advocating, I guess...
What are you appealing to then? I'd be interested to hear.

I have not given forth on any particular criterion. I have pointed out that I find yours lacking, and I have endeavoured to correct what seemed serious mischaracterisations of what Chas said...

Do you not agree that the crux of the matter is a sampling problem? That whatever one's standard, we might say that even granting clear endpoints the continuum transition is going to be a hard boundary problem?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
22-09-2014, 01:45 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(21-09-2014 07:35 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

If you recognise the concept of "murder" to be valid then you very much are.

Birth is no less an arbitrary developmental stage than any other.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2014, 04:47 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(22-09-2014 01:45 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If you recognise the concept of "murder" to be valid then you very much are.

Birth is no less an arbitrary developmental stage than any other.
I am not appealing to murder or personhood or a develpmental marker as any reason behind why we should have any specific laws. I have highlighted why I think this appeal would be flawed.
Whether, in my opinion, conception, or brain development or birth is special or not is beside the point.
My position is that if it doesn't impact me then it is not my business to interfere.
By impact, I mean does it add risk to my life, my freedoms?
What I am looking for is a direct correlation between the event of a woman having an abortion and risks to my own life or freedoms.
If there is no correlation then I don't see why it would be my business to interfere. I have no interested in forcing an ideology onto this woman.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2014, 04:58 PM (This post was last modified: 22-09-2014 05:07 PM by cjlr.)
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(22-09-2014 04:47 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(22-09-2014 01:45 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If you recognise the concept of "murder" to be valid then you very much are.

Birth is no less an arbitrary developmental stage than any other.
I am not appealing to murder or personhood or a develpmental marker as any reason behind why we should have any specific laws. I have highlighted why I think this appeal would be flawed.
Whether, in my opinion, conception, or brain development or birth is special or not is beside the point.
My position is that if it doesn't impact me then it is not my business to interfere.

My use of "murder" was in reference to your belief that there are in fact people whose killing would affect you. It has been made plain repeatedly that use of such terms as "person" was not in the sense you suggest here.

Lastly and as previously established, you are necessarily appealing to some external standard in determining whether an act affects you, if indeed you are judging it to do so or not.

(22-09-2014 04:47 PM)Stevil Wrote:  By impact, I mean does it add risk to my life, my freedoms?

I am well aware of that.

Those are subjective concerns. Thus the problem in moving from individual opinions to legal opinions.

(22-09-2014 04:47 PM)Stevil Wrote:  What I am looking for is a direct correlation between the event of a woman having an abortion and risks to my own life or freedoms.
If there is no correlation then I don't see why it would be my business to interfere. I have no interested in forcing an ideology onto this woman.

By saying a woman can't kill her husband and child you're forcing your ideology onto this woman. By having any rule ever you are forcing your ideology onto another. Such trite reductivism does not seem to me to be of much use.

I reiterate one more time:
I do not think that there exists any quantifiable, repeatable means of judging whether the act (post-conception, during the third trimester, immediately post-natal, fourth birthday, whatever) "affects you", and certainly not of clearly discretising the matter. This is a continuum problem.

It is wholly pointless to appeal to a standard which does not exist. Do you think there exists such a standard?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
22-09-2014, 05:36 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(22-09-2014 01:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(22-09-2014 01:35 PM)Stevil Wrote:  What are you appealing to then? I'd be interested to hear.
Do you not agree that the crux of the matter is a sampling problem? That whatever one's standard, we might say that even granting clear endpoints the continuum transition is going to be a hard boundary problem?
With the approach of appeal to person/rights etc
The problem as I see it is that the critereon is fundamentally flawed.
1. It offers no ability to objectively define any boundaries, not even broad ones.
2. If person/rights are a legal construct then the reasoning of law based on this criteria is circular.
3. If person/rights are not a legal construct then the definition is ambiguous and the usefulness is not apparent.
4. There seems to be no physical link between the impact of the event and the motives of the third party to propose outlawing the event.

With the approach of personal safety and freedom
1. It does offer boundaries. Quite clearly, if adults are allowed to indiscriminately kill other adults in society then society becomes unsafe for all (including me because I am an adult). If adults are allowed to kill children then society becomes unsafe for all (including me because adults will be compelled to fight). If pregnant women kill their early term unborn then society functions without further violence (hence no danger to me). The exact point is not clear (it sits within a range), but there are some boundaries where this can be applied.
2. The physical link between the event and the third party is that of the impact on the third party's life and freedom.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2014, 05:47 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(22-09-2014 04:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  By saying a woman can't kill her husband and child you're forcing your ideology onto this woman.
This is incorrect.
The reasoning is important when trying to assess whether this is an ideology or not.
If I think in an ideal world a woman shouldn't kill her husband then this is an ideology.
But this is not the case with me. I don't care if a woman kills her husband.
...unless of course that presents a danger to myself. So, in my self interest I need to support laws against such things because they endanger my own life.
The fetus is no different. I will only interfere if the action/event impacts me.
(22-09-2014 04:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Such trite reductivism does not seem to me to be of much use.
It's not trite.
It's an approach which can be used to ensure a conforming government have boundaries in which they can operate.
For example, gay marriage does not endanger the lives of society members, it does not make society dangerous. So how can the government justify (by this standard) a law to outlaw gay marriage?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2014, 05:58 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(22-09-2014 05:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(22-09-2014 01:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Do you not agree that the crux of the matter is a sampling problem? That whatever one's standard, we might say that even granting clear endpoints the continuum transition is going to be a hard boundary problem?
With the approach of appeal to person/rights etc

Define this "appeal to person/rights etc".

If it's still the same ol' strawman you've been flogging, I seriously question its relevance.

(22-09-2014 05:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The problem as I see it is that the critereon is fundamentally flawed.
1. It offers no ability to objectively define any boundaries, not even broad ones.
2. If person/rights are a legal construct then the reasoning of law based on this criteria is circular.
3. If person/rights are not a legal construct then the definition is ambiguous and the usefulness is not apparent.
4. There seems to be no physical link between the impact of the event and the motives of the third party to propose outlawing the event.

Have you read the last hundred posts?

Because, sure, I can trivially grant that that strawman is vague and circular... but who gives a shit what a strawman says?

(22-09-2014 05:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  With the approach of personal safety and freedom
1. It does offer boundaries. Quite clearly, if adults are allowed to indiscriminately kill other adults in society then society becomes unsafe for all (including me because I am an adult). If adults are allowed to kill children then society becomes unsafe for all (including me because adults will be compelled to fight). If pregnant women kill their early term unborn then society functions without further violence (hence no danger to me). The exact point is not clear (it sits within a range), but there are some boundaries where this can be applied.
2. The physical link between the event and the third party is that of the impact on the third party's life and freedom.

That's as much a revelation as that the sun also rises.

As you say, early enough in the pregnancy it is "quite clear", and far enough after birth it is "quite clear".

The middle ground is literally the whole problem, and has been all along.

Given the existence of this middle ground (which you have now repeatedly affirmed), you therefore, necessarily, grant that there is no objective distinction within that middle ground. You know, since it wouldn't be a middle ground otherwise.

So I put it to you once again: what then? Your espoused standard is incapable of providing an answer, and you acknowledge as such. What, then, do you think? What is a reasonable compromise, and on what grounds is it reasonable?

Do note that this is just what everyone else has been saying. I remain quite confused by what you think you're arguing against, as it does not seem to be anything anyone has said here.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2014, 06:08 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(22-09-2014 05:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(22-09-2014 01:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Do you not agree that the crux of the matter is a sampling problem? That whatever one's standard, we might say that even granting clear endpoints the continuum transition is going to be a hard boundary problem?
With the approach of appeal to person/rights etc
The problem as I see it is that the critereon is fundamentally flawed.
1. It offers no ability to objectively define any boundaries, not even broad ones.
2. If person/rights are a legal construct then the reasoning of law based on this criteria is circular.
3. If person/rights are not a legal construct then the definition is ambiguous and the usefulness is not apparent.
4. There seems to be no physical link between the impact of the event and the motives of the third party to propose outlawing the event.

With the approach of personal safety and freedom
1. It does offer boundaries. Quite clearly, if adults are allowed to indiscriminately kill other adults in society then society becomes unsafe for all (including me because I am an adult). If adults are allowed to kill children then society becomes unsafe for all (including me because adults will be compelled to fight). If pregnant women kill their early term unborn then society functions without further violence (hence no danger to me). The exact point is not clear (it sits within a range), but there are some boundaries where this can be applied.
2. The physical link between the event and the third party is that of the impact on the third party's life and freedom.

Except that has virtually nothing to do with the discussion as we are not talking about early term abortion or debating the basis of the legal system.
You carry on with that, but the rest of us will have an actual constructive discussion that is based in reality.

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: