Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-09-2014, 09:05 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(12-09-2014 08:19 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  So, if its a equal to a 2 year old baby, can a baby then use its mothers body without her consent? For example, if a baby needs to use the mothers body to live for say‚Ķ 9 months? Is the mother obligated to give up her body? If not, why? If the 2 year old baby is equal to the baby in the womb, why does the baby in the womb get to use the body for 9 months but the 2 year old doesn't? You would be granting SPECIAL rights to the unborn baby.
There are a few issues with this approach to the argument.

1. Mothers aren't having abortions because they are worried an unborn is using their womb without their permission. They are having an abortion because they want the unborn to be dead. They don't want it. They don't want to look after it, they don't want to adopt it, they don't want to give birth to it. It's not a matter of squatter's rights.
2. It's a trade off, a human life vs being pregnant for a few months. A power company cannot simply cut off electricity to a hospital whom hasn't paid the power bills knowing that people's lives are dependent on the electricity. A power company would need to take steps to give notice, to ensure that those people's lives are no longer at stake before pulling the electricity.
3. "rights" are imaginary. If you are talking about legal rights then that is something else. If you claim that the unborn doesn't have the legal rights then someone will need to deliver the notice to the unborn letting it know that it is in breach of the law. The case would need to be made in court and an eviction notice given. This may take a few months but eventually they can then either give the new born a fine or lock it up. LOL.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2014, 09:06 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(12-09-2014 08:55 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 08:40 PM)Sam Wrote:  By threat of extreme violence...
So you are no different to those people that bomb abortion clinics? Killing doctors, nurses, administrators, pregnant woman, all because you disagree with them on something.

Surely you knew that was sarcastic...

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2014, 01:01 AM (This post was last modified: 13-09-2014 01:05 AM by Stevil.)
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(12-09-2014 09:06 PM)Sam Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 08:55 PM)Stevil Wrote:  So you are no different to those people that bomb abortion clinics? Killing doctors, nurses, administrators, pregnant woman, all because you disagree with them on something.

Surely you knew that was sarcastic...
My names not Shirley!

Nope, couldn't tell. I don't know you so I don't know your position.

If you are not going to use violence (a.k.a. police force) to force adherence to not performing late term abortion then what measures would you take?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2014, 08:58 AM (This post was last modified: 13-09-2014 09:15 AM by Chas.)
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(12-09-2014 06:24 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 04:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  It hinges on the rights of the baby. The mother's rights cannot trump the rights of another human being.
Who is the authority on what is a right and what is not a right?

The discussion is about legislating, so it is about what is collectively determined to be right.

Quote:Who authoritatively decides whether a mother's rights can or cannot trump that of another human being?

Ok, now you've spiraled off into libertarian woo-woo land.

Quote:A fetus is a human being. It is living, it is human. It is a human fetus.

Nope. Not until it has a brain.

Quote:
(12-09-2014 04:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is nothing magic about being born - it is viability that defines it.
There is nothing magic about being viable, nor is there anything magic about being a human being. There is nothing magic about developing a nervous system.

Why do you take it as your responsibility to stop a woman from having a late term abortion?
Why are you so aggressive about your stance?

(12-09-2014 04:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  It is my view based on facts and a rational argument. You have neither. Drinking Beverage
I don't see the point of this vacuous statement.
You have not demonstrated that your label of human being vs non human being correlates with the point that an unborn becomes viable and you have not shown that a viable unborn is sacred. You certainly haven't show why the fate of this unborn is your own business and gives you the obligation to interfere in the mothers business.
You have not shown any facts contrary to my position and you have not shown how my position of "not interfering in the affairs of the mother" is irrational.

Where did I say anything about sacred?

Your reply is absurd. If you don't value human life, then any talk of the mother's rights is meaningless.

If you don't value human life, then you have nothing to contribute to this 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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
13-09-2014, 09:06 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(12-09-2014 06:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 03:02 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Personhood is granted by law. It's a legal concept.
And thus people saying "Late term abortion should be illegal because it is a person" are making circular claims and thus not adding any value to a discussion.

You have not demonstrated that it is circular. Try again. 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
13-09-2014, 01:46 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(13-09-2014 09:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 06:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  And thus people saying "Late term abortion should be illegal because it is a person" are making circular claims and thus not adding any value to a discussion.

You have not demonstrated that it is circular. Try again. Drinking Beverage
Really, you can't see?

If person is a legally defined term and you say killing something should be illegal because it is a person then there is a clear circle.
Q: Why did you define it as a person?
A: Because you wanted to provide legal grounds for protection.

Q: Why do you say it we can't kill it?
A: Because you define it as a person.

Clearly circular. This argument offers nothing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2014, 01:59 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(13-09-2014 08:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 06:24 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Who is the authority on what is a right and what is not a right?

The discussion is about legislating, so it is about what is collectively determined to be right.
The thing is this argument is circular.
When you say "It hinges on the rights of the baby. The mother's rights cannot trump the rights of another human being."
Are you talking about the already established law? So you are saying the law should be the way it is because that is already the way it is?

Or are you saying, it should be this way because this is what the majority of people want?
This is not a very compelling argument.
As atheists, most of us would argue that gay marriage should be allowed because it harms no-one, regardless of whether the majority of people consider gay marriage to be a sin.

(13-09-2014 08:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:Who authoritatively decides whether a mother's rights can or cannot trump that of another human being?

Ok, now you've spiraled off into libertarian woo-woo land.
It's a valid question. You are deflecting here, in an attempt to avoid coming up with an intelligent answer.

(13-09-2014 08:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:A fetus is a human being. It is living, it is human. It is a human fetus.

Nope. Not until it has a brain.
Where are the facts behind this assertion?
Define human, define living?


(13-09-2014 08:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  Where did I say anything about sacred?

Your reply is absurd. If you don't value human life, then any talk of the mother's rights is meaningless.
Yes, correct, the talk of "rights" beyond legal context is meaningless.
If we are to define law, we need to justify it some other way. Like maybe, the safety of society.

(13-09-2014 08:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  If you don't value human life, then you have nothing to contribute to this discussion.
This is not true. I'm trying to take the wooo out of this discussion. Remove the believe that human life is sacred. Because if you have that stance then abortion is wrong. Even just after conception. The pro-lifers win.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2014, 03:32 PM (This post was last modified: 13-09-2014 03:44 PM by Chas.)
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(13-09-2014 01:46 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(13-09-2014 09:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  You have not demonstrated that it is circular. Try again. Drinking Beverage
Really, you can't see?

If person is a legally defined term and you say killing something should be illegal because it is a person then there is a clear circle.
Q: Why did you define it as a person?
A: Because you wanted to provide legal grounds for protection.

Q: Why do you say it we can't kill it?
A: Because you define it as a person.

Clearly circular. This argument offers nothing.

Except that's not my argument, that's your strawman.


Let me try again to lay this out.

The major (only?) objection to abortion is that it is killing a person.

We need to define 'person'.

Is one cell a person? No, there is no good reason to think so.

Is a baby just born a person? Yes, that is an accepted condition to pretty much everyone, and that baby is legally a person in most societies.

The question is where in the process does a fetus become a person?

One extreme is conception (one cell), the other is birth. However, there are two points between those that are more rational and supported by fact - formation of a brain, and viability.

The entire argument hinges on the definition of 'person'.

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
13-09-2014, 04:21 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(13-09-2014 01:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  This is not true. I'm trying to take the wooo out of this discussion. Remove the believe that human life is sacred. Because if you have that stance then abortion is wrong. Even just after conception. The pro-lifers win.

Why does that mean Pro Lifers win? Based on what accepted position?

You just seem to be avoiding that there's an arbitrary distinction made in the discussion. You've said a fetus is a human being... based on what? That's not close to universally accepted. It's just an arbitration distinction you and others have made. Why does, just after conception mark the becoming of a human fetus? What about that isn't simply arbitrary?

"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
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
13-09-2014, 04:28 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(12-09-2014 07:25 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 04:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  Actually, I do believe it should be legislated.
Do you think some magic happens at birth? Before modern science and medicine, the moment of birth was a rational point to bestow personhood. However, viability is now a rational point to do that.

Is it ethical for a woman to abort at 8 months, 29 days? 8 months, 28 days? 8 months, 27 days? No? Then when?
If, however, your answer is yes, go drink battery acid. Drinking Beverage
What I personally think is irrelevant to what should be legislated in a situation like this that is far from concrete. I would be uncomfortable from an ethical standpoint if a woman I had sex with wanted an abortion during the last 3 months. But that's me. Your question about when it's ethical actually illustrates the point I previously made. The exact time of personhood can't be stated. We can pick 6 months, but maybe it's really 6 months and 1 day or 5 months and 30 days. Or maybe it's different for each woman or baby. There is too much disagreement over exactly when that is, ranging from conception to just before birth. When a law is to be implemented that applies to everyone, especially when it involves a person's body and human life, I think there should be overwhelming agreement about what's right.

But we have to pick a point.

I am trying to have an evidence-based discussion and attempting to get some rational bounds on the problem.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: