Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-09-2014, 08:10 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(13-09-2014 07:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-09-2014 07:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

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.
It has human dna and is alive.

Let's hear your arguments for 1. a fetus not being a human being and 2. for a "human being" being your justification to interfere in a woman's choice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2014, 08:12 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(13-09-2014 08:02 PM)Adrianime Wrote:  But I can see what you are saying stevil. There won't be a universally accepted definition for when a potential person become 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.
Exactly.

There is no way to resolve the dispute:
Catholics think personhood begins at conception
Chas thinks personhood begins at brain activity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2014, 07:13 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(13-09-2014 08:10 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(13-09-2014 07:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.
It has human dna and is alive.

Let's hear your arguments for 1. a fetus not being a human being and 2. for a "human being" being your justification to interfere in a woman's choice.

  1. I didn't say that.
    What I said was that a reasonable position is that a fetus is not a person until it has a brain.
  2. A woman's right does not extend to killing a person.
    This is why defining 'person' is necessary to the debate.

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
14-09-2014, 07:16 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(13-09-2014 08:12 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(13-09-2014 08:02 PM)Adrianime Wrote:  But I can see what you are saying stevil. There won't be a universally accepted definition for when a potential person become 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.
Exactly.

There is no way to resolve the dispute:
Catholics think personhood begins at conception
Chas thinks personhood begins at brain activity.

Of course there is a way to resolve the dispute: education.

It is not just Catholics that believe that, and not all Catholics believe that.

Once again, I suggest that that is a rational position to take - more rational than at conception.

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
14-09-2014, 12:57 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(14-09-2014 07:16 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-09-2014 08:12 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Exactly.

There is no way to resolve the dispute:
Catholics think personhood begins at conception
Chas thinks personhood begins at brain activity.

Of course there is a way to resolve the dispute: education.

It is not just Catholics that believe that, and not all Catholics believe that.

Once again, I suggest that that is a rational position to take - more rational than at conception.
But all you are doing is asserting and asserting.
You assert that your position is rational.
You assert that a person comes into being once the brain develops.
You assert that education resolves the issue, but it is vacuous.

You can assert until you are blue in the face, but it doesn't resolve the issue. You aren't actually making any case here beyond making assertions.

1. a person is not sacred. It is not your business to be the definer and defender of persons. I will take the mother's side over your own interference in her business any time.

2. There is no reason to think that a person comes into existence once brain develops rather than once the two haploid genomes fuse to form one diploid nucleus.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2014, 02:44 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(14-09-2014 12:57 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(14-09-2014 07:16 AM)Chas Wrote:  Of course there is a way to resolve the dispute: education.

It is not just Catholics that believe that, and not all Catholics believe that.

Once again, I suggest that that is a rational position to take - more rational than at conception.
But all you are doing is asserting and asserting.
You assert that your position is rational.
You assert that a person comes into being once the brain develops.
You assert that education resolves the issue, but it is vacuous.

You can assert until you are blue in the face, but it doesn't resolve the issue. You aren't actually making any case here beyond making assertions.

I am not asserting that they are so, I am offering argument for those being reasonable positions to take.

Quote:1. a person is not sacred.

OK, dickhead, for at least the third time: I never said sacred.

Quote:It is not your business to be the definer and defender of persons. I will take the mother's side over your own interference in her business any time.

Sorry, this is just stupid.
We, as a society, have already determined that taking a life is not OK.
If someone tries to kill another, you won't intervene?

Quote:2. There is no reason to think that a person comes into existence once brain develops rather than once the two haploid genomes fuse to form one diploid nucleus.

Yes, there is. It is less rational to think a single cell is more of a person than a fetus with a nervous system and a brain.

Any cell in your body could be cloned to make another human. Does that make you multiple people? Consider

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
14-09-2014, 03:22 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(14-09-2014 02:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  I am not asserting that they are so, I am offering argument for those being reasonable positions to take.
You have asserted that your own position is the rational position. But you have not offered anything to distinguish why your position is more rational that the opposing claim that personhood begins at conception.

(14-09-2014 02:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  OK, dickhead, for at least the third time: I never said sacred.
But you are treating it as if it is something sacred. You are asserting that once the nervous system develops then we have no rights to kill it.
(14-09-2014 02:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:It is not your business to be the definer and defender of persons. I will take the mother's side over your own interference in her business any time.

Sorry, this is just stupid.
We, as a society, have already determined that taking a life is not OK.
If someone tries to kill another, you won't intervene?
I am not a society. I am an individual. I am OK with abortion (killing of human life), I am OK with euthanasia (killing of human life), I am OK with death penalty (killing of human life).
I don't consider human life to be sacred. I don't consider it to be my place to force my beliefs onto others.
(14-09-2014 02:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:2. There is no reason to think that a person comes into existence once brain develops rather than once the two haploid genomes fuse to form one diploid nucleus.

Yes, there is. It is less rational to think a single cell is more of a person than a fetus with a nervous system and a brain.

Any cell in your body could be cloned to make another human. Does that make you multiple people? Consider
Once I have been cloned then yes I would be a separate person from my clone.
A woman is a separate entity from her fetus because they have separate DNA.
All my cells have the same DNA and they work together mostly in harmony as a single functioning life form.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2014, 03:30 PM (This post was last modified: 14-09-2014 03:41 PM by Chas.)
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(14-09-2014 03:22 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I don't consider human life to be sacred. I don't consider it to be my place to force my beliefs onto others.

So, it's OK for me to kill you? Consider

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
14-09-2014, 03:40 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(14-09-2014 03:22 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(14-09-2014 02:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  I am not asserting that they are so, I am offering argument for those being reasonable positions to take.
You have asserted that your own position is the rational position. But you have not offered anything to distinguish why your position is more rational that the opposing claim that personhood begins at conception.

Nowhere ever has a single cell been legally a person. So, there's that.

Quote:
(14-09-2014 02:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  OK, dickhead, for at least the third time: I never said sacred.
But you are treating it as if it is something sacred. You are asserting that once the nervous system develops then we have no rights to kill it.

No, I am treating it legally.

Quote:
(14-09-2014 02:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  Sorry, this is just stupid.
We, as a society, have already determined that taking a life is not OK.
If someone tries to kill another, you won't intervene?
I am not a society. I am an individual. I am OK with abortion (killing of human life), I am OK with euthanasia (killing of human life), I am OK with death penalty (killing of human life).
I don't consider human life to be sacred. I don't consider it to be my place to force my beliefs onto others.

You must abide by the rules of society or suffer the consequences.

Quote:
(14-09-2014 02:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yes, there is. It is less rational to think a single cell is more of a person than a fetus with a nervous system and a brain.

Any cell in your body could be cloned to make another human. Does that make you multiple people? Consider
Once I have been cloned then yes I would be a separate person from my clone.
A woman is a separate entity from her fetus because they have separate DNA.
All my cells have the same DNA and they work together mostly in harmony as a single functioning life form.

Non-answer. Try again.

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
14-09-2014, 04:21 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(14-09-2014 03:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  So, it's OK for me to kill you? Consider
Now this is a valid critique of my position.
The slippery slope problem. If we violate the "sanctity", "sacredness" of human life in order to allow for abortion (euthanasia and death penalty) then how do we justify laws against murder of other individuals?
In my position, I don't consider morals or moral sense to be something that a governing body can use because beliefs are individual, if you can't objectively and clearly resolve positions without appealing to beliefs then you aren't governing rationally or inclusively. This means that a question of "So, it's OK for ..." is an irrelevant question.
But I instead base my "purpose of government" on an expectation that government are to create and maintain a functioning society rather than a moral one. I think most people deem it imorral to cheat on your partner but most people aren't keen to have government make infidelity a legally punishable crime. So I think there is an understanding that it isn't government's place to force us to be moral.
How I distinguish the difference between abortion and killing a post born person is that when an abortion occurs, there is no conflict, no instability to society. Hence no impact on me or my loved ones.
However when killings of post born occur then there is much conflict, much disruption to society.
1. It means my own life is at risk because there are no safety nets protecting me from being killed.
2. there are no protections for my loved ones.
3. during these acts of killing, bystanders can be killed. This is a risk to me and my loved ones.
4. allowing killings, means that gangs will form, vendettas will form, society will be a dangerous place to live.

So I am motivated to support a society against killing born people but I have no motive with regards to unborns.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: