Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-09-2014, 03:00 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(26-09-2014 01:55 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You believe that killing some (most?) adults is somehow against your own interest.
It's not about what I believe.
I've stated this before, and I'll state it again.
If we allow adults to kill adults indescriminately then my own life is at risk. I am an adult and it is possible to kill me. For my own survival I need laws to protect me from being killed indiscriminately. I am sure you can understand my own self interest in this.


(26-09-2014 01:55 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You also believe that killing an unborn fetus is not against your interest.
Yes, evidenced by the fact that millions of unborns are being killed and society remains safe and stable. I am in no danger here.

(26-09-2014 01:55 PM)cjlr Wrote:  At some point you thus draw a distinction.
You are unable to articulate how and why you draw that distinction.
Well, actually I've drawn that distinction many times, articulated it ad nauseum.
Can you guess where that distinction is?
Hint. think survival, think me.

(26-09-2014 01:55 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Requiring, for the purposes of a coherent legal system, a clear distinction, you have continually re-asserted a useless standard.
My standard of safe and stable society is not useless, but anyway, you are entitled to your own opinion.

(26-09-2014 01:55 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I believe - as you seem to - that there exist end cases where a judgement is simple (or at least, agreed-upon by the large majority of people, which is as much as can be asked for given human variability).

I believe that there exists a middle ground where judgement is difficult.
I do not see any obvious means of drawing a distinction.
What do you mean by "judgement"? Are you talking moral judgment or judgement as to whether certain actions endanger your own life and freedom.
The difference is important.

(26-09-2014 01:55 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Further, I believe that any distinction - given, once again, inevitable differences of opinion in any statistically significant population sample - will result in "using force" against those who "disagree", because such is trivially inevitable so long as law codes are uniform across society.
I disagree with this.
We don't need to become violent on all our differences.
Typically we only become violent on matters that are really important. Ones that are worth risking our well being in a fight.
If someone is trying to kill you then it is worth responding violently.
If someone is trying to steal your stuff then it is sometimes worth responding violently.

Government and police are merely an extension of yourself.

Law enforcement is an act of violence.

My questions are:
Is it worth it to you to act violently against a pregnant woman?
If the police and legal system weren't in place would you take it upon yourself to act violently on this woman? Would you be willing to risk your own health in a struggle to prevent this event?

For me the answers are no.
With regards to abortion, I feel no desire to act violently on the woman as I do not feel that I am in any danger that is worth the risk of this violence.

For people that answer yes, I would like to know why they take the violent approach?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2014, 03:04 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(26-09-2014 02:40 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(26-09-2014 02:34 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It's about necessity for my own survival.

Indeed.

You have your opinions, and others have theirs.

What you think impacts your own survival/safety/etc is by no means even a remotely objective standard. As is true for everyone.
I'd be keen to hear their argument on how a woman killing her own unborn threatens their own survival. Maybe they bring up something I haven't considered. Maybe it switches me to support laws against late term abortion. I'm open minded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2014, 07:35 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(26-09-2014 03:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-09-2014 01:55 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You believe that killing some (most?) adults is somehow against your own interest.
It's not about what I believe.
I've stated this before, and I'll state it again.
If we allow adults to kill adults indescriminately then my own life is at risk. I am an adult and it is possible to kill me. For my own survival I need laws to protect me from being killed indiscriminately. I am sure you can understand my own self interest in this.

If we allow adults to kill children indiscriminately then your own life when you were a child was at risk. You were a child and it was possible for someone to kill you. For your own survival, you need laws to protect children from being killed indiscriminately. I am not sure you can understand the inductive nature of the argument.

At what point does the protection begin? You have avoided this question the entire thread. It is the whole point of the discussion.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
27-09-2014, 01:30 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(27-09-2014 07:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  If we allow adults to kill children indiscriminately then your own life when you were a child was at risk. You were a child and it was possible for someone to kill you. For your own survival, you need laws to protect children from being killed indiscriminately. I am not sure you can understand the inductive nature of the argument.

At what point does the protection begin? You have avoided this question the entire thread. It is the whole point of the discussion.
I need laws to protect adults from indiscriminately killing children because I have two children. I don't want them killed. I would risk my life to save them. I would use violence to save my children. Government is an extension of myself.

I would not risk my own life to stop a pregnant woman having an abortion. I would not use violence on her. I do not support government using force/violence to stop her having an abortion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2014, 08:07 PM (This post was last modified: 27-09-2014 08:10 PM by Chas.)
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(27-09-2014 01:30 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(27-09-2014 07:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  If we allow adults to kill children indiscriminately then your own life when you were a child was at risk. You were a child and it was possible for someone to kill you. For your own survival, you need laws to protect children from being killed indiscriminately. I am not sure you can understand the inductive nature of the argument.

At what point does the protection begin? You have avoided this question the entire thread. It is the whole point of the discussion.
I need laws to protect adults from indiscriminately killing children because I have two children. I don't want them killed. I would risk my life to save them. I would use violence to save my children. Government is an extension of myself.

I would not risk my own life to stop a pregnant woman having an abortion. I would not use violence on her. I do not support government using force/violence to stop her having an abortion.

You have utterly missed that which has been described multiple times by multiple people.

You are either incapable of doing so because of your ideology or because you are stupid. Or both. 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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-09-2014, 05:40 AM (This post was last modified: 28-09-2014 05:44 AM by quip.)
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(24-09-2014 06:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  What I am trying to understand regarding your position (possibly Chas' position). Do you guys think that your own safety is threatened by a woman having a late term abortion?

I don't understand your insistence that "threatened safety" (lack thereof) as the defacto argument against laws proscribing abortion. Could there be legal objections to abortion based upon moral/humanistic objection?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2014, 10:16 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(28-09-2014 05:40 AM)quip Wrote:  I don't understand your insistence that "threatened safety" (lack thereof) as the defacto argument against laws proscribing abortion. Could there be legal objections to abortion based upon moral/humanistic objection?
What I am trying to do is ensure that there is a strong link between the person looking to impose law and the action that they are outlawing.

It's so easy to set rules, to support laws and forget about the impact of that. Having government and police force creates an abstraction layer between yourself and the implications of implementing those laws.

There is nothing trivial about law. Police become obligated to enforce those laws. They can politely remind someone of the law, but if that someone continues then the police are obligated to use force to stop them.

When people appeal on moral grounds with regards to the basis for law, then either they are suggesting that moral truths exist and are objective or they are suggesting that morality is subjective and it is their own personal moral beliefs that they want to force onto others.
For example one person might deem it immoral to eat meat. If they are in power they might deem it justified to create laws to stop others from eating meat. This type of situation happens today, there are many countries which outlaw gay marriage because they think gay marriage is immoral. Other perceived immoral things could be (polygomy, prostitution, euthanasia, stem cell research etc).
So if you support laws based on moral grounds the question becomes "Whose moral beliefs are you going to force onto others?"
Some people might say "Let's put it to a vote" But this leads to a majority rules situation. e.g. in a highly Christian or Islamic country then people might go to jail for being gay.
The way that I see around this issue is to demand that the strong link be based on safety and stability of society. After all, the government was created to support a functional society, that is their purpose.
Sure it creates scenarios where those in power may not like "allowing" people to do certain things such as late term abortion. The people in power my feel that late term abortion is akin to murder. But this standard also protects the people from too much government control. I feel it provides for a diverse and tolerant society.
Late term abortions are not very likely to happen anyways, and there are other means with regards to convincing people not to have them rather than using police force.
I always think of law and police as an extension of myself. Would I be willing to get violent (and risk my own well being) in order to enforce a law? If not then it seems that law is unnecessary. this standard, I feel provides people with a debating point with regards to law. If we don't have this law then will society become unsafe? If you believe it will become unsafe then talk me through it, convince me that for my own safety I need to support the use of violence to enforce this law.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2014, 12:53 AM (This post was last modified: 29-09-2014 01:08 AM by quip.)
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(28-09-2014 10:16 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(28-09-2014 05:40 AM)quip Wrote:  I don't understand your insistence that "threatened safety" (lack thereof) as the defacto argument against laws proscribing abortion. Could there be legal objections to abortion based upon moral/humanistic objection?
What I am trying to do is ensure that there is a strong link between the person looking to impose law and the action that they are outlawing.

The way that I see around this issue is to demand that the strong link be based on safety and stability of society. After all, the government was created to support a functional society, that is their purpose.

The problem with brute logic being exclusively applied to issues such as abortion -- as seems to be the case here -- is that the visceral complexities pertinent to the issue remain wholly unaddressed.

Safe and stable societies, as you put it, are predicated upon strongly held convictions defending and sustaining human life, as such, societies collectively adjudicate the quality and value thereof (both tacitly and by the force of law). "Human Life" evokes strong intuitions regarding suffering, the attenuation of suffering and society's duty to eliminate its unjust cessation. Abortion, specifically late-term abortion, strongly implicate such intuitions as vigorously germane to the debate.....all the while developing that "strong link" you suggested prior.

I realize that this 'link' does not represent an immediate nor tactual threat to said person yet, it does pose an ideological threat to the implied principles of human value and limited suffering.

This could apply to all stages of abortion though I'm of the opinion that early term abortions do not entail suffering. Moreover, ostensible human form and sentient functionality remain non-existent to rudimentary at this incipient stage thus, at such early stages in development -- again, my opinion -- the womans right to choose supercede any specious objections regarding human value.

Nonetheless, as nearer pregnancy flourishes toward its fruition so to the fetus reflects humanity writ large, its capacity to suffer and relative value.... strengthening that opposing 'link' between person and action. A link in which I'm quite sure many individuals value to such a degree as to risk violence, prosecution and... perhaps even their own lives in an effort to defend.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2014, 12:33 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(29-09-2014 12:53 AM)quip Wrote:  I realize that this 'link' does not represent an immediate nor tactual threat to said person yet,
This is the crux of it.

(29-09-2014 12:53 AM)quip Wrote:  it does pose an ideological threat to the implied principles of human value and limited suffering.
Yes, if some third party interferes then they are doing it not based on personal impact but on some ideological principles. In my system this would make the interference unjustified.
And would offer protection for many other members of society against a government seeking to force their own ideology onto society members.

(29-09-2014 12:53 AM)quip Wrote:  This could apply to all stages of abortion though I'm of the opinion that early term abortions do not entail suffering.
Yes, if we take human life to be somewhat of a sacred and respected thing then we must deny even early term abortion. But of course it is convenient to have some form of abortion. To be able to kill off defective offspring e.g. unborn detected to have Down syndrome or spina bifida or other..., or even to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy.
If a third party is worried about suffering of the unborn, then this may be addressed by assessing the suffering of abortion vs the suffering of being born. Or perhaps the application of pain relief during the process of abortion.

(29-09-2014 12:53 AM)quip Wrote:  Moreover, ostensible human form and sentient functionality remain non-existent to rudimentary at this incipient stage thus, at such early stages in development -- again, my opinion -- the womans right to choose supercede any specious objections regarding human value.
The human species are a sentient species. Our fetus (with unique viable DNA) will likely develop and have a significant life if not aborted. How does getting to it before it has had the time to "wake up" make it any less valuable as a sentient being?


(29-09-2014 12:53 AM)quip Wrote:  Nonetheless, as nearer pregnancy flourishes toward its fruition so to the fetus reflects humanity writ large, its capacity to suffer and relative value.... strengthening that opposing 'link' between person and action. A link in which I'm quite sure many individuals value to such a degree as to risk violence, prosecution and... perhaps even their own lives in an effort to defend.
Yes, if this is the case then laws would be required for the safety of society.

I personally wouldn't get violent over this ideology. I'm a peaceful man and use violence as a last resort. When my life or the lives of my loved ones are threatened then I must get violent, But I won't get violent in order to interfere in this woman's affairs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2014, 01:40 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
23 pages. ... Too much to read it all. So I'll put in my opinion here to be ignored. Big Grin

Personhood begins at brain formation. Why? Look at the other end. When death occurs, all the rights and freedoms accorded to a 'person' cease to hold sway. The dead cannot own property, collect money, and so on (their estate, as controlled by living beings can, but that's different). In most jurisdictions, death means 'brain death'. Since 'brain death' is the end of personhood, it would seem sensible that brain function is the measure by which personhood is determined, and thus prior to brain formation there is no 'personhood' in a fetus.

Children do have extraordinary rights, and should. If you walk into your home and there is someone there you don't want around, you have the legal right to kick them out unless they're your child. As a species and a society we require children to continue ourselves. In some senses, children are not 'people'. They have limited rights and freedoms, but also gain certain protections in exchange. One of those protections is supposed to be from harm endangering the possibility of growing up into a healthy adult. Abuse, yes, but also abandonment. Early on, before cognitive awareness, we permit an escape clause for this, orphanages. This is because we have noted that 'unwanted' children have a high incidence of abuse and orphanages were an attempt to prevent murders.

So abortion makes ethical sense up until the brain is formed, but not after. At least this seems logical to me. Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes OddGamer's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: