Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-09-2014, 04:27 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(14-09-2014 03:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-09-2014 03:22 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.
We are trying to avoid circular reasoning here.
We are coming up with a reasoning why abortion should be allowed in a governed society.
If you use the law in your reasoning and from that deduce that this is why the law should be then you are being circular.
(14-09-2014 03:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote: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.
Then you are being circular.
(14-09-2014 03:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  You must abide by the rules of society or suffer the consequences.
Exactly, but we are jumping the gun here. We are trying to define what the law should be and why it should be that way. I disagree with a majority rules approach.
(14-09-2014 03:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote: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.
I feel that I have answered your question. Maybe you could offer more clarity on why my answer does not address what you are looking for.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2014, 04:31 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
It's sort of like, if you are forced into a room and trip up, only to be linked up to a comatose patient (not realistic, only an analogy).
If you disconnect, the patient dies.
Is it okay to disconnect yourself? No. It isn't always the highest moral choice. Should one be forced to stay attached? Absolutely not.
And hat is only if we assume gta the foetus has the rights of a normal person, which I shall agree with Matt Dillahunty, is stupid.

If somebody points out a fallacy, and you call fallacy fallacy, that doesn't mean you are right. That just means you committed the very fallacy you accused your opponent of.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2014, 04:48 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(14-09-2014 04:21 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(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.

Once again you mistakenly cast my argument as about sacredness or morality.
How many times do you need to be told it's not?

Protection of individual life for the benefit to society is precisely my argument. How do you not see that?

And you claim a single cell is a person, yet you don't extend the protection of the law to it.

Could you possibly be more inconsistent?

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, 05:01 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(14-09-2014 04:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  Once again you mistakenly cast my argument as about sacredness or morality.
How many times do you need to be told it's not?

And protection of individual life is precisely my argument.

How do you not see that?
Perhaps I am over stretching on the word "sacred"
I don't mean that something is divine or holy. I mean that something is being valued to such a degree that it is being protected and honoured beyond personal impact.
e.g. a woman aborting a late term unborn does not impact you, but you feel you must interfere because you hold the life of the unborn to such a degree that you feel it a crime for someone to threaten that life.

(14-09-2014 04:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  And you claim a single cell is a person, yet you don't extend the protection of the law to it.

Could you possibly be more inconsistent?
I am being consistent. I don't feel that it is the purpose of government to protect, honour and revere all persons.
I have no incentive to classify any particular stage of the human lifecycle as a "person". It's arbitrary, irrelevant and a non issue for me.

But it does make me confused when someone does make this claim.
Both you and Catholics claim that a person is to be protected by law and both you and the Catholics claim a certain stage in the human lifecycle. It just happens that you pick different stages from each other.
Neither of you can back up your claims with anything substantial and neither of you can support why a "person" is to be protected by law where-as why a "non person" isn't to be protected by law.
At least with the Catholic stance there isn't even a single cell prior to their definition of "person". I can't argue with them on why they don't consider prior it being a person. But I can argue that with you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2014, 05:23 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(14-09-2014 05:01 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(14-09-2014 04:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  Once again you mistakenly cast my argument as about sacredness or morality.
How many times do you need to be told it's not?

And protection of individual life is precisely my argument.

How do you not see that?
Perhaps I am over stretching on the word "sacred"
I don't mean that something is divine or holy. I mean that something is being valued to such a degree that it is being protected and honoured beyond personal impact.
e.g. a woman aborting a late term unborn does not impact you, but you feel you must interfere because you hold the life of the unborn to such a degree that you feel it a crime for someone to threaten that life.

You are certainly misapplying in this discussion.
I am talking about the law, not morality.

Quote:
(14-09-2014 04:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  And you claim a single cell is a person, yet you don't extend the protection of the law to it.

Could you possibly be more inconsistent?
I am being consistent. I don't feel that it is the purpose of government to protect, honour and revere all persons.
I have no incentive to classify any particular stage of the human lifecycle as a "person". It's arbitrary, irrelevant and a non issue for me.

But it does make me confused when someone does make this claim.
Both you and Catholics claim that a person is to be protected by law and both you and the Catholics claim a certain stage in the human lifecycle. It just happens that you pick different stages from each other.
Neither of you can back up your claims with anything substantial and neither of you can support why a "person" is to be protected by law where-as why a "non person" isn't to be protected by law.
At least with the Catholic stance there isn't even a single cell prior to their definition of "person". I can't argue with them on why they don't consider prior it being a person. But I can argue that with you.

No, the Catholics pick an unreasonable point, one that no society has ever chosen as defining a person.

So, do you think it should be illegal to kill a new-born? Isn't that arbitrary compared to the day before? Or the day before that?

Where do you draw the line?

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, 05:59 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(14-09-2014 05:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are certainly misapplying in this discussion.
I am talking about the law, not morality.
What is the basis of your law?
- Your opinion?
- Your leader's opinion?
- The majority opinion?
What is the purpose of law?
- To force society members to conform to an individual's opinion?
- To force society members to conform to the majority opinion?

Why are certain actions/activities deemed as punishable offenses within society?
Is it because these things endanger society? Endanger members of society? or is it because these things are immoral?

(14-09-2014 05:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, the Catholics pick an unreasonable point, one that no society has ever chosen as defining a person.
I think their definition of a person is reasonable.
I cannot reason why an unborn goes from non person to person simply due to a day or two's difference of nervous system development.
(14-09-2014 05:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  So, do you think it should be illegal to kill a new-born? Isn't that arbitrary compared to the day before? Or the day before that?

Where do you draw the line?
I draw the line once it impacts me. I am interested in me.
Once it makes society unstable and unsafe for me then it becomes my business.
I refuse to sanction the police to use physical force on a pregnant woman merely because I dislike the idea of her killing her own unborn. It impacts her life, not mine. She is uniquely positioned to make the best choice, it is not my place to interfere, it is not the government's place to interfere.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2014, 10:59 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
Im not sure if my point has gotten across but I will try again

-For the sake of argument, we call the unborn "thing" a human, at any stage.

-I also grant this baby (I'm just going to call it a baby for simplicity) a right to life.

A right to life is not a right not to be killed, its a right not to be killed unjustly.

-Humans do not have the right to live at the expense of somebody else's body without there consent. And even with consent, you can still step away. No matter what. No matter how long. Would we consider them selfish for doing so? Some might.

-If this is the case, then a fetus who has the right to life and is equal to us also does not have the right to life at the expense of someone else's body without there consent.

Now, some might say "thats just like saying one of the conjoined twins can kill the other". No. They both equal claim to the body since they both had it "first".

We DO NOT have to argue the 1st premise in this thread. We are (for the sake of argument) pretending the first premise is true and trying to show that abortion is permissible at times.

“Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.

-Christopher Hitchens
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2014, 11:14 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
Also, as for the "does the mothers right to her body tramp the babes right to live" question.

This video series does a great job at looking at this whole issue.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHah6TtYm1Q

“Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.

-Christopher Hitchens
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2014, 05:25 AM (This post was last modified: 15-09-2014 05:33 AM by Chas.)
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(14-09-2014 05:59 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(14-09-2014 05:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are certainly misapplying in this discussion.
I am talking about the law, not morality.
What is the basis of your law?
- Your opinion?
- Your leader's opinion?
- The majority opinion?
What is the purpose of law?
- To force society members to conform to an individual's opinion?
- To force society members to conform to the majority opinion?

Why are certain actions/activities deemed as punishable offenses within society?
Is it because these things endanger society? Endanger members of society? or is it because these things are immoral?

(14-09-2014 05:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, the Catholics pick an unreasonable point, one that no society has ever chosen as defining a person.
I think their definition of a person is reasonable.
I cannot reason why an unborn goes from non person to person simply due to a day or two's difference of nervous system development.

No, it's not "a day or two's difference", it's six+ months.
You have still not given an argument as to how a single cell is a person.

You still haven't answered these questions:
Is it OK for a woman to kill her new-born?
Is it OK for a woman to abort at 8 months, 29 days? 8 months, 28 days? 8 months, 27 days? No? Then when?


Quote:
(14-09-2014 05:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  So, do you think it should be illegal to kill a new-born? Isn't that arbitrary compared to the day before? Or the day before that?

Where do you draw the line?
I draw the line once it impacts me. I am interested in me.

Since whether a woman has an abortion or not doesn't affect you, then you should just stay out of it entirely.

Your position is glaringly inconsistent.
Quote:Once it makes society unstable and unsafe for me then it becomes my business.
I refuse to sanction the police to use physical force on a pregnant woman merely because I dislike the idea of her killing her own unborn. It impacts her life, not mine. She is uniquely positioned to make the best choice, it is not my place to interfere, it is not the government's place to interfere.

What is your basis for objecting to others preventing a woman's aborting an eight-month old fetus?
That it violates her rights? But you said we don't have rights. What is it that you object to?
Whatever that is, it applies to every person. That is why the central question is "when is the fetus a person?"

You have agreed that allowing the killing of persons makes society unstable and dangerous, so the question needs an answer in law.

Pro tip: In a democracy, the police derive their authority from the government, the government derives its authority from the people.
So drop the libertarian bullshit language if you want to have a coherent 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
15-09-2014, 05:35 AM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(14-09-2014 10:59 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  Im not sure if my point has gotten across but I will try again

-For the sake of argument, we call the unborn "thing" a human, at any stage.

-I also grant this baby (I'm just going to call it a baby for simplicity) a right to life.

A right to life is not a right not to be killed, its a right not to be killed unjustly.

-Humans do not have the right to live at the expense of somebody else's body without there consent. And even with consent, you can still step away. No matter what. No matter how long. Would we consider them selfish for doing so? Some might.

-If this is the case, then a fetus who has the right to life and is equal to us also does not have the right to life at the expense of someone else's body without there consent.

Now, some might say "thats just like saying one of the conjoined twins can kill the other". No. They both equal claim to the body since they both had it "first".

We DO NOT have to argue the 1st premise in this thread. We are (for the sake of argument) pretending the first premise is true and trying to show that abortion is permissible at times.

I don't agree with your premises - they are far too simplistic.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: