Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-09-2014, 04:38 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(13-09-2014 01:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(13-09-2014 08:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  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?

The taking of a human life is the ultimate in human rights violation. We need to determine when a fetus is a human being - why is this a difficult concept for you?

Quote: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.

In a democracy it is the compelling argument.

Quote: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.

It doesn't matter that some people think it's a sin; their theology doesn't trump the gays' rights.

Quote:
(13-09-2014 08:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  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:  Nope. Not until it has a brain.
Where are the facts behind this assertion?
Define human, define living?

You seem to be missing the point that that is precisely what I am trying to do here.

Quote:
(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.

Again, I have not used the word 'sacred' nor even implied it. I don't know where you came up with that.

Quote:Because if you have that stance then abortion is wrong. Even just after conception. The pro-lifers win.

Nope. You have assumed a definition of human life; I have not. It is what we are trying to define here.

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, 05:04 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(13-09-2014 04:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-09-2014 01:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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?

The taking of a human life is the ultimate in human rights violation. We need to determine when a fetus is a human being - why is this a difficult concept for you?
Right here you are suggesting that human life is sacred.
There are many religious folk whom also think human life is sacred, therefore they think abortion, euthanasia and suicide are wrong.

I think they are more consistent than you given a starting belief that human life is sacred.

The issue I have with arbitrarily defining something as a "human being" is that you are working backwards.
Your stance is that early abortion is fine but late term abortion is bad so you are then motivated to define an early term unborn as not human and a late term unborn as human. Conveniently you conflate this label with the point of viability. Just so that you can consider your position to be based on scientific fact.

As medicine improves we might be able to make younger and younger unborns viable. Does this shift the defining moment of "human being" to an earlier age?

(13-09-2014 04:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote: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.

In a democracy it is the compelling argument.
It might be compelling for you, but not for me.
I don't accept majority rules. If the majority are hetrosexual, and the majority don't like gay marriage, I don't accept that as a compelling reason to interfere in the lives of gay people.
If the majority of people think prostitution is bad, i don't accept that as a reason to make prostitution illegal.
If the majority of people think that polygamy is bad, I don't accept that as a reason to make polygamy illegal.
I am not gay, I am not into prostitution and I am not interested in having multiple wives, but I don't take it upon myself to make these things illegal for other people. It's simply none of my business to interfere in these things that don't impact me. Same thing goes for abortion (early or late), it's not my business to interfere. It's the mother's choice, she doesn't need my blessing, my acceptance or my permission. It's none of my business and I refuse to support a majority rules system.

(13-09-2014 04:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote: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.

It doesn't matter that some people think it's a sin; their theology doesn't trump the gays' rights.
You are not being consistent are you?
If the majority of people think that gay marriage is wrong then...

(13-09-2014 04:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:It's a valid question. You are deflecting here, in an attempt to avoid coming up with an intelligent answer.

Where are the facts behind this assertion?
Define human, define living?

You seem to be missing the point that that is precisely what I am trying to do here.
But you are using circular logic and are employing a sacredness of human life apriori.

(13-09-2014 04:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  Again, I have not used the word 'sacred' nor even implied it. I don't know where you came up with that.
Because you are arguing for protection of human rights, but then you are saying that rights are defined by the majority, but then you are saying, it doesn't matter what the majority think because gays have rights and humans (viable unborn) have rights that are independent of the majority opinion.
I find your position very confusing.

(13-09-2014 04:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:Because if you have that stance then abortion is wrong. Even just after conception. The pro-lifers win.

Nope. You have assumed a definition of human life; I have not. It is what we are trying to define here.
We don't need to define human life, we don't need to tie it into a point of viability.
You say human life begins at viability.
Many religious folk (as well as science, as well as me) says that human life begins at conception.
How do we resolve this dispute?

Then once we have resolved the dispute we then come to the question of why is it even relevant as to when human life begins?
How does that give you the power over the pregnant woman and her choices when she has to live with the baby and you don't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2014, 05:14 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(13-09-2014 04:21 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  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?
I haven't avoided anything.

I accept that putting a label of "person" or "personhood" onto certain stage in the fetal development is arbitrary.

I define a human being as any stage in the human development.
a single celled human zygote, a human fetus, a human new born, a human infant, a human toddler, a human adolescant, a human adult, these are all human beings.

An egg, a sperm are not.

But this is irrelevant.
How does this make the choice yours or the government's rather than the mother's?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2014, 05:23 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(13-09-2014 05:14 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(13-09-2014 04:21 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  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?
I haven't avoided anything.

I accept that putting a label of "person" or "personhood" onto certain stage in the fetal development is arbitrary.

I define a human being as any stage in the human development.
a single celled human zygote, a human fetus, a human new born, a human infant, a human toddler, a human adolescant, a human adult, these are all human beings.

An egg, a sperm are not.

But this is irrelevant.
How does this make the choice yours or the government's rather than the mother's?

Hmm, if you used a rational explanation that devised WHY, that would mean making the point.

Why does an egg or sperm not qualify but the moment after they combine it does? Where is an actual rationale to this? Why does that matter and what makes that significant? These are things you actual have to answer to conclude a reason, otherwise you're just making an assertion that it is the case. Some odd cases come up when you conclude the instantaneously fertilized Eggs are human at that point. It alters what is considered sensical since nearly half of those cases, the egg doesn't attach to the uterual wall and no medical defined pregnancy occurs.

It's relevant in determining what to abort is a legal choice of the adult human.

"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
13-09-2014, 05:36 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(13-09-2014 05:23 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Why does an egg or sperm not qualify but the moment after they combine it does?
An egg cannot be a human because it does not have the full set of human DNA. Same for a sperm.

(13-09-2014 05:23 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It alters what is considered sensical since nearly half of those cases, the egg doesn't attach to the uterual wall and no medical defined pregnancy occurs.
What does it matter that many fertilised eggs don't develop and naturally abort?
Many human beings are naturally aborted, so what?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2014, 05:54 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(13-09-2014 05:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(13-09-2014 05:23 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Why does an egg or sperm not qualify but the moment after they combine it does?
An egg cannot be a human because it does not have the full set of human DNA. Same for a sperm.

(13-09-2014 05:23 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It alters what is considered sensical since nearly half of those cases, the egg doesn't attach to the uterual wall and no medical defined pregnancy occurs.
What does it matter that many fertilised eggs don't develop and naturally abort?
Many human beings are naturally aborted, so what?

I could accept that for why not an egg or sperm. But to overall make the claim the zygote is a human, I'm not seeing a distinction that's necessary for it on terms of considering it something capable of sentient life.

It matters when you read some of the laws attempted to be put in place by pro life politicians that may make it illegal to have a naturally aborted fetus due to a lack of understanding and lack of agreed to situations.

"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
13-09-2014, 07:42 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(13-09-2014 05:04 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(13-09-2014 04:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  The taking of a human life is the ultimate in human rights violation. We need to determine when a fetus is a human being - why is this a difficult concept for you?
Right here you are suggesting that human life is sacred.

The fuck I am. Taking someone's life violates him as a person.

Quote:There are many religious folk whom also think human life is sacred, therefore they think abortion, euthanasia and suicide are wrong.

I think they are more consistent than you given a starting belief that human life is sacred.

More consistent in what? You are making less and less sense.

Quote:The issue I have with arbitrarily defining something as a "human being" is that you are working backwards.
Your stance is that early abortion is fine but late term abortion is bad so you are then motivated to define an early term unborn as not human and a late term unborn as human. Conveniently you conflate this label with the point of viability. Just so that you can consider your position to be based on scientific fact.

Nope, didn't say that. You have a reading comprehension problem.

Quote:As medicine improves we might be able to make younger and younger unborns viable. Does this shift the defining moment of "human being" to an earlier age?

It could; it would be a change in the fact set, therefore it could modify the conclusion.

Quote:
(13-09-2014 04:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  In a democracy it is the compelling argument.
It might be compelling for you, but not for me.
I don't accept majority rules. If the majority are hetrosexual, and the majority don't like gay marriage, I don't accept that as a compelling reason to interfere in the lives of gay people.
If the majority of people think prostitution is bad, i don't accept that as a reason to make prostitution illegal.
If the majority of people think that polygamy is bad, I don't accept that as a reason to make polygamy illegal.
I am not gay, I am not into prostitution and I am not interested in having multiple wives, but I don't take it upon myself to make these things illegal for other people. It's simply none of my business to interfere in these things that don't impact me. Same thing goes for abortion (early or late), it's not my business to interfere. It's the mother's choice, she doesn't need my blessing, my acceptance or my permission. It's none of my business and I refuse to support a majority rules system.

Oh, goody, I see we're back to libertarian la-la land.

Quote:
(13-09-2014 04:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  It doesn't matter that some people think it's a sin; their theology doesn't trump the gays' rights.
You are not being consistent are you?
If the majority of people think that gay marriage is wrong then...

You missed the part about rights. In a democracy there are laws and rights are defined.

Quote:
(13-09-2014 04:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  You seem to be missing the point that that is precisely what I am trying to do here.
But you are using circular logic and are employing a sacredness of human life apriori.

Please show me where I did that.

Quote:
(13-09-2014 04:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  Again, I have not used the word 'sacred' nor even implied it. I don't know where you came up with that.
Because you are arguing for protection of human rights, but then you are saying that rights are defined by the majority, but then you are saying, it doesn't matter what the majority think because gays have rights and humans (viable unborn) have rights that are independent of the majority opinion.
I find your position very confusing.

No, that's why there is a Constitution and a Supreme Court - to protect defined rights against precisely that kind of tyranny of the majority.

Quote:
(13-09-2014 04:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  Nope. You have assumed a definition of human life; I have not. It is what we are trying to define here.
We don't need to define human life, we don't need to tie it into a point of viability.
You say human life begins at viability.
Many religious folk (as well as science, as well as me) says that human life begins at conception.
How do we resolve this dispute?

Please note that I did not say that. I said it is an evidence-based position; I suggested it as one reasonable position.

You are asserting that a single cell is a human being. Do you care to defend that position?

Quote:Then once we have resolved the dispute we then come to the question of why is it even relevant as to when human life begins?
How does that give you the power over the pregnant woman and her choices when she has to live with the baby and you don't.

Because the baby is a person and persons have rights defined in the law.

So defining 'person' is still the crux of the matter.

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, 07:50 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(13-09-2014 05:54 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I could accept that for why not an egg or sperm. But to overall make the claim the zygote is a human, I'm not seeing a distinction that's necessary for it on terms of considering it something capable of sentient life.
It's not a dog, it's not an elephant, it's not a rock and it's not a tree. It is clearly human.

(13-09-2014 05:54 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It matters when you read some of the laws attempted to be put in place by pro life politicians that may make it illegal to have a naturally aborted fetus due to a lack of understanding and lack of agreed to situations.
I am not coming at this from a political or symantic perspective.
I'm coming at this from philosophical, logical and scientific viewpoint.

What is the compelling reason for an atheist, third party to interfere in the choice of the mother?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2014, 07:55 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(13-09-2014 07:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(13-09-2014 05:54 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I could accept that for why not an egg or sperm. But to overall make the claim the zygote is a human, I'm not seeing a distinction that's necessary for it on terms of considering it something capable of sentient life.
It's not a dog, it's not an elephant, it's not a rock and it's not a tree. It is clearly human.

(13-09-2014 05:54 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It matters when you read some of the laws attempted to be put in place by pro life politicians that may make it illegal to have a naturally aborted fetus due to a lack of understanding and lack of agreed to situations.
I am not coming at this from a political or symantic perspective.
I'm coming at this from philosophical, logical and scientific viewpoint.

What is the compelling reason for an atheist, third party to interfere in the choice of the mother?

No, you are coming at this from a dogmatic viewpoint.

Let's hear your reasoned, logical, scientific justification of a single cell being a human being.

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, 08:02 PM (This post was last modified: 13-09-2014 11:20 PM by Adrianime.)
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
Human tissue+human cells does not equal Human being IMO. But I can see what you are saying stevil. There won't be a universally accepted definition for when a potential person becomes a person because the line will be arbitrary based on what the person who is drawing it values/prioritizes. Human tissue, potential, viability, brain activity, developed nervous system. Take your pick, but you'll never get everybody to agree with you.

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adrianime's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: