Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-09-2014, 06:13 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(22-09-2014 05:47 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(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.

Indeed; your ideology of self-interest. Shall we be tediously pedantic? Should I have said your opinions? Your belief system? Your social heuristic?

You wish, by force, to prevent her from doing something she may wish to do. It is immaterial for the moment why you wish to do so, as indeed her own motivation is immaterial.

You keep on keeping on about "forcing one's beliefs on others" as if that were a meaningful phrase. It is not. Any group of more than one human being will have differences of opinion, and any group of more than one human being possessing will have to use "force" to back communal decisions, or else fall back to pure anarchy.

This would, of course, be avoidable, if everyone always agreed about everything. But that's going full Lumi.

(22-09-2014 05:47 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(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.

I disagree. But substitute "facile" if you wish.

(22-09-2014 05:47 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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?

That has literally nothing to do with abortion, but I'm generous, so I'll follow you down the rabbit hole.

Since you already admitted that "impact on society" is inherently subjective and in fact depends on the society in question...

... 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, 08:05 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(22-09-2014 06:13 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(22-09-2014 05:47 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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?
That has literally nothing to do with abortion, but I'm generous, so I'll follow you down the rabbit hole.

Since you already admitted that "impact on society" is inherently subjective and in fact depends on the society in question...
I'm using this example for thesake of consistency.
Tieing justification for law into something more concrete such as safety, it gives us a point of reference which allows for debate.
For example
If a Christian Government were to attempt to outlaw gay marriage, they can't appeal to rights, they can't appeal to the sanctity of marriage they can't appeal to the immorality of gay marriage.
They would have to build a case as to the dangerous impact of gay marriage on society. They would have to try and prove how gay marriage will endanger society member's lives or take away their freedoms.

Same thing in the abortion debate, government would have to build a case as to how society would become dangerous for you or me if women are allowed to abort their unborn.

Same thing for prostitution. Need to build a case, how society would become dangerous...
Same for polygomy, same for stem cell research...

I don't see how the "person" vs "not person" approach allows for reasoned debate. I don't see how this approach can convince me that I ought to intervene in the affairs of the pregnant woman.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2014, 09:15 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(22-09-2014 08:05 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I don't see how the "person" vs "not person" approach allows for reasoned debate. I don't see how this approach can convince me that I ought to intervene in the affairs of the pregnant woman.

Because the killing of a person is more important than 'intervening' to pretty much everyone here but you.

So, since the point of the discussion is to come up with where we should draw some lines, the fact that you can't understand it is not compelling.

Your position seems to be that the abortion is none of your business and is ok up to the moment of birth. Great, thanks for your opinion.
The rest of us see it in more nuanced terms and are not accepting your argument from a simplistic political 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
22-09-2014, 11:52 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(22-09-2014 09:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  Because the killing of a person is more important than 'intervening' to pretty much everyone here but you.
Circular again and non sequitur again.
"person" is merely a label.
If the Catholics are in charge they label it a "person" from the moment of conception.
That will not all of a sudden change your own opinion Chas. That will not make you want to intervene from the point of conception. There is some reason other than the "person" label that is compelling you to convene, to use force on the pregnant woman to get her to conform with your own opinion.
I would like to know what that reason is.

It suits no-one's purpose to say "It's obvious that we as a society don't want adults and children being indiscriminately killed, let's label adults and children as "persons" and by the way I am also uncomfortable with late term unborn so let's label that as a "person", but I am ok with early term abortion so lets call that a "non person".
Really this approach is looking at your desired answer and manipulating the facts to suit your own opinion. Then trudging off, feeling all self righteous and justified and forcing others to comply.

(22-09-2014 09:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your position seems to be that the abortion is none of your business and is ok up to the moment of birth. Great, thanks for your opinion.
That's not my opinion. I have not placed my bets on the moment of birth. What I have done is laid down the criteria for when I would be compelled to interfere. That moment, is when it does become my business.
I am no interested if forcing my opinion or ideals onto other people. I will however use force when I must, in order to protect myself or my loved ones.
(22-09-2014 09:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  The rest of us see it in more nuanced terms and are not accepting your argument from a simplistic political ideology.
I would love for you to articulate the nuances and the reason why you are interfering. What business is it of yours? "Person" is just a label, surely there is more to it than that for you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2014, 09:16 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(22-09-2014 11:52 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(22-09-2014 09:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  Because the killing of a person is more important than 'intervening' to pretty much everyone here but you.
Circular again and non sequitur again.
"person" is merely a label.
If the Catholics are in charge they label it a "person" from the moment of conception.
That will not all of a sudden change your own opinion Chas. That will not make you want to intervene from the point of conception. There is some reason other than the "person" label that is compelling you to convene, to use force on the pregnant woman to get her to conform with your own opinion.
I would like to know what that reason is.

It suits no-one's purpose to say "It's obvious that we as a society don't want adults and children being indiscriminately killed, let's label adults and children as "persons" and by the way I am also uncomfortable with late term unborn so let's label that as a "person", but I am ok with early term abortion so lets call that a "non person".
Really this approach is looking at your desired answer and manipulating the facts to suit your own opinion. Then trudging off, feeling all self righteous and justified and forcing others to comply.

(22-09-2014 09:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your position seems to be that the abortion is none of your business and is ok up to the moment of birth. Great, thanks for your opinion.
That's not my opinion. I have not placed my bets on the moment of birth. What I have done is laid down the criteria for when I would be compelled to interfere. That moment, is when it does become my business.
I am no interested if forcing my opinion or ideals onto other people. I will however use force when I must, in order to protect myself or my loved ones.
(22-09-2014 09:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  The rest of us see it in more nuanced terms and are not accepting your argument from a simplistic political ideology.
I would love for you to articulate the nuances and the reason why you are interfering. What business is it of yours? "Person" is just a label, surely there is more to it than that for you.

'Person' is not just a label. Your argument is idiotic and has nothing to do with what the adults are talking about.

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
23-09-2014, 12:01 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(21-09-2014 11:49 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  
(16-09-2014 12:39 AM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

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.

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?
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.
I think so also. It is not really a question medicine can answer either. They can tell us when the developing fetus can survive outside the womb, but that is different that deciding when it has value and should be protected, considered a person. I do not think there will ever be a consensus on that question.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes wazzel's post
23-09-2014, 12:59 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(23-09-2014 09:16 AM)Chas Wrote:  'Person' is not just a label.
Would be great if you could define what person means to you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2014, 01:06 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(22-09-2014 06:13 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You keep on keeping on about "forcing one's beliefs on others" as if that were a meaningful phrase. It is not. Any group of more than one human being will have differences of opinion, and any group of more than one human being possessing will have to use "force" to back communal decisions, or else fall back to pure anarchy.

This would, of course, be avoidable, if everyone always agreed about everything. But that's going full Lumi.
Try the word "tolerance".

Now, let's say we have a society which values tolerance rather than control.
This leads to diversity, because people are not going around judging each other, not looking to justify controlling each other. Instead they mind their own business.

Randy down the road frequents a brothel. Julie is his favorite prostitute.
Joan, who is Randy's neighbor, knows that Randy goes to a brothel. She doesn't like the idea of people selling their bodies for sex, but she tolerates it because she knows it is none of her business to interfere.

CJLR, do you think this society should get together and have a vote for whether prostitution should be made illegal or do you think people should be tolerant when things have no impact on them?

In the case of abortion, who do you think is best placed to make an informed decision? The pregnant woman whose life will be affected the most or Chas who doesn't know this woman, does not know her situation, is not impacted by her decision.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2014, 01:07 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(23-09-2014 12:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(23-09-2014 09:16 AM)Chas Wrote:  'Person' is not just a label.
Would be great if you could define what person means to you.

Wouldn't it be great if you could explain how your insistence that it is not justified to
use force on another person makes any fucking sense at all if 'person' is just a label.

A person is a human being regarded as an individual.

Without there being persons, not only does your argument fall apart, but your entire philosophy is rendered meaningless.

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
23-09-2014, 01:26 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(23-09-2014 01:06 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(22-09-2014 06:13 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You keep on keeping on about "forcing one's beliefs on others" as if that were a meaningful phrase. It is not. Any group of more than one human being will have differences of opinion, and any group of more than one human being possessing will have to use "force" to back communal decisions, or else fall back to pure anarchy.

This would, of course, be avoidable, if everyone always agreed about everything. But that's going full Lumi.
Try the word "tolerance".

Indeed. A subjective matter, dependent on time and place.

I grant that you think it's the most reasonable opinion, but don't worry, I think that about all of my opinions too.

(23-09-2014 01:06 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Now, let's say we have a society which values tolerance rather than control.
This leads to diversity, because people are not going around judging each other, not looking to justify controlling each other. Instead they mind their own business.

Does this fantasy hypothetical mean anything?

If I create an example in which A equals A, and conclude from it that within the example A equals A, I do not see that as a helpful exercise.

(23-09-2014 01:06 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Randy down the road frequents a brothel. Julie is his favorite prostitute.
Joan, who is Randy's neighbor, knows that Randy goes to a brothel. She doesn't like the idea of people selling their bodies for sex, but she tolerates it because she knows it is none of her business to interfere.

CJLR, do you think this society should get together and have a vote for whether prostitution should be made illegal or do you think people should be tolerant when things have no impact on them?

That it is trivial to find an example where you and I might agree is not relevant. There are a great many ways in which societies have decided on their laws. A great variety of laws on prostitution have existed throughout history and around the world.

Are you going somewhere with this?

(23-09-2014 01:06 PM)Stevil Wrote:  In the case of abortion, who do you think is best placed to make an informed decision? The pregnant woman whose life will be affected the most or Chas who doesn't know this woman, does not know her situation, is not impacted by her decision.

Ah, so you were building up to a bizarre straw man. Again.

What you think about who is affected by whom is precisely as important as any other single individual's opinion. It is literally impossible to satisfy everyone's opinion all the time, as I literally just told you. If your opinion were the basis for law, you would be, necessarily and inevitably, forcing that opinion on others. That you think your opinion is better than theirs is hardly the point.

Surely the woman is most able to make an informed decision as to whether her newborn child should be killed? How does that affect you?

You earlier half-claimed that such an act might affect you insofar as others' reaction to it would be disruptive. That's no less than admission that yes, this is all wholly subjective. Whether or not the deed "affects you" is then dependent on the aggregate opinion of others in the same society.

At which point we have the same problem of induction we've had all along.

Cue you admitting you have no answer of your own to the question, adhering to an impossible standard for finding one, and completely mischaracterising the answer Chas offers.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: