What is Your Thinking On Abortion ?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-03-2014, 01:00 PM
RE: What is Your Thinking On Abortion ?
Stevil appears to be one of the most honest and open-minded people here. Other people are making all kinds of assumptions and repeating the same useless pro-choice arguments I have seen countless times. Sometimes it is nice to see someone say something new even if I disagree with it.

My current project is explaining why many things in this world are irrelevant to me.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2014, 01:06 PM
RE: What is Your Thinking On Abortion ?
(31-03-2014 12:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If the person's stance is that it is a socially harmful phenomenon then it is debatable.
However if they take the stance that gay marriage is immoral and is not up for debate then we cannot reason with them.

That's setting up an oddly dichotomous view... Other people's morals exist whether you approve of them or not. And while the moral premises are in part founded on statistically variable hardwiring, it is also true that at some level all beliefs are debatable.

If someone says something isn't open to debate all that really means is they don't want to debate it.

(31-03-2014 12:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I propose that all things that are to be regulated ought to be debatable.

Who has ever said otherwise?

(31-03-2014 12:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  A government saying we will outlaw X because I said so and thus it is not debatable is not a government that I want.

Yeah, that's called a dictatorship. I don't think very many besides the dictator are exactly fans...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
31-03-2014, 01:10 PM
RE: What is Your Thinking On Abortion ?
(31-03-2014 01:00 PM)chandlerklebs Wrote:  Stevil appears to be one of the most honest and open-minded people here. Other people are making all kinds of assumptions and repeating the same useless pro-choice arguments I have seen countless times. Sometimes it is nice to see someone say something new even if I disagree with it.

As opposed to your assumptions and useless pro-life arguments?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2014, 01:28 PM
RE: What is Your Thinking On Abortion ?
(31-03-2014 01:06 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(31-03-2014 12:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If the person's stance is that it is a socially harmful phenomenon then it is debatable.
However if they take the stance that gay marriage is immoral and is not up for debate then we cannot reason with them.

That's setting up an oddly dichotomous view... Other people's morals exist whether you approve of them or not. And while the moral premises are in part founded on statistically variable hardwiring, it is also true that at some level all beliefs are debatable.

If someone says something isn't open to debate all that really means is they don't want to debate it.
I understand people have moral beliefs, I have no problems with that. I do struggle with the logic of people stating that morality is subjective but then wanting to have their own morality enforced via law.

(31-03-2014 01:06 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(31-03-2014 12:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I propose that all things that are to be regulated ought to be debatable.

Who has ever said otherwise?
Some people have seemed to get upset and angry towards me when I stated that infanticide is debatable.


(31-03-2014 01:06 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(31-03-2014 12:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  A government saying we will outlaw X because I said so and thus it is not debatable is not a government that I want.

Yeah, that's called a dictatorship. I don't think very many besides the dictator are exactly fans...
This situation is still happening in the democratic world, with prostitution being illegal, with polygamy being illegal and some places with gay marriage being illegal. None of these things make society dangerous, so why do some goverments oppose them?

With regards to the abortion debate I don't feel it has been sufficiently resolved. The reasoning that people give doesn't make sense to me.
Oh but its not a person, Oh its not Human, Oh its not alive. I have issues with the reasoning that is given by both the pro-choice and the pro-life groups. It makes it very hard to workout exactly what should be the cut-off point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2014, 01:32 PM
RE: What is Your Thinking On Abortion ?
(31-03-2014 01:00 PM)chandlerklebs Wrote:  Stevil appears to be one of the most honest and open-minded people here. Other people are making all kinds of assumptions and repeating the same useless pro-choice arguments I have seen countless times. Sometimes it is nice to see someone say something new even if I disagree with it.

I have no problem with new or different or wtf ever, regardless of my agreement. I have a problem with any asshat who says killing babies is up for debate. GTFO

Swing with me a while, we can listen to the birds call, we can keep each other warm.
Swing with me forever, we can count up every flower, we can weather every storm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Losty's post
31-03-2014, 01:58 PM
RE: What is Your Thinking On Abortion ?
(31-03-2014 01:32 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  
(31-03-2014 01:00 PM)chandlerklebs Wrote:  Stevil appears to be one of the most honest and open-minded people here. Other people are making all kinds of assumptions and repeating the same useless pro-choice arguments I have seen countless times. Sometimes it is nice to see someone say something new even if I disagree with it.

I have no problem with new or different or wtf ever, regardless of my agreement. I have a problem with any asshat who says killing babies is up for debate. GTFO

Even worse, he says that there is nothing wrong wIth murder or rape except that he personally doesn't find it attractive. There has to be a more reasonable middle ground between absurd notions of that sort and moral absolutes.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Pickup_shonuff's post
31-03-2014, 02:32 PM
RE: What is Your Thinking On Abortion ?
(31-03-2014 01:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I understand people have moral beliefs, I have no problems with that. I do struggle with the logic of people stating that morality is subjective but then wanting to have their own morality enforced via law.

The logic is elementary should you hold such views. That's the thing with subjective viewpoints: nothing says you have to understand them.

If an act - any act - causes societal harm (that this is a hilariously broad term is not immediately relevant) then it follows that restricting that act forestalls societal harm.

Since laws - any laws - are a combination of pro and con by definition (as a restriction against freedom of action and an implied coercive measure) the question is then whether the harm done by enforcement is lesser or greater than the societal harm thereby forestalled.

It's pretty simple, really.

(31-03-2014 01:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Some people have seemed to get upset and angry towards me when I stated that infanticide is debatable.

And any more or less democratic society is unstable if not incoherent if it attempts to maintain laws a large supermajority oppose (like, y'know, murder and such).

In a theoretical sense anything is debatable. Certainly something like infanticide, which was widely practiced historically, obviously had justifications; people did it, and people do things for reasons. The validity of such is the debate.

But an emotive topic can be broached with a little more tact.
Wink

(31-03-2014 01:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  This situation is still happening in the democratic world, with prostitution being illegal, with polygamy being illegal and some places with gay marriage being illegal. None of these things make society dangerous, so why do some goverments oppose them?

According to you none of those things make society dangerous.

According to the people who drafted those laws, they do. QED.

That's what I meant earlier. The reason those laws exist is not "lol shits and giggles".

(31-03-2014 01:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  With regards to the abortion debate I don't feel it has been sufficiently resolved. The reasoning that people give doesn't make sense to me.
Oh but its not a person, Oh its not Human, Oh its not alive. I have issues with the reasoning that is given by both the pro-choice and the pro-life groups. It makes it very hard to workout exactly what should be the cut-off point.

That it's a hard problem doesn't preclude it from being the most important consideration for a lot of people...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
31-03-2014, 02:40 PM
RE: What is Your Thinking On Abortion ?
(31-03-2014 12:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(31-03-2014 12:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  The debate has happened in every culture.
There is at least one culture that I know of that allows infanticide.

Did I say the outcome was the same in every culture?

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
31-03-2014, 03:42 PM
RE: What is Your Thinking On Abortion ?
(31-03-2014 02:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If an act - any act - causes societal harm (that this is a hilariously broad term is not immediately relevant) then it follows that restricting that act forestalls societal harm.
Yes, and that would be the point of debate.
To discuss what those harms would be, to explore them (hypothetically) to see if we can derive some conclusions.
It's a bit scary to just go down the path of "Let's give it a go and see what happens" for some things. So we need to take a guess at it, but at least that allows people to discuss and reason and list pros and cons and to separate fact from belief.
I like discussions even if the topic might be emotively horrid.
(31-03-2014 02:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And any more or less democratic society is unstable if not incoherent if it attempts to maintain laws a large supermajority oppose (like, y'know, murder and such).
Thus discussion needs to be held.
If people are going to react violently (in mass) to allowing infanticide, then it would make society unstable and unsafe thus we would need government to outlaw it.
It does make me wonder what the thought was at the time when they went from abortion is illegal to abortion is legal. How did they assess whether society would erupt into violence or not?
Same could be said of allowing women to drive in Saudi Arabia. If government allows it then what will happen? Will there be mass violence? In this circumstance it might be conceivable that their needs to be a mindset change, a culture change before women are given the legal right to drive.
(31-03-2014 02:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  In a theoretical sense anything is debatable. Certainly something like infanticide, which was widely practiced historically, obviously had justifications; people did it, and people do things for reasons. The validity of such is the debate.

But an emotive topic can be broached with a little more tact.
Tact is not my strong suit.
(31-03-2014 02:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  According to you none of those things make society dangerous.
According to the people who drafted those laws, they do. QED.
I don't agree with the assumptions you have made regarding the reasoning behind the law.
But anyway, if people's reasoning is with regards to "things make society dangerous" then it allows for considered and respectful discussion.
But when people merely refer to morality (e.g. we can't allow it because it is immoral) then that does not allow for considered and respectful discussion.
With regards to abortion debate, when people appeal to "personhood" it does not lead to considered and respectful discussion.

(31-03-2014 02:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That it's a hard problem doesn't preclude it from being the most important consideration for a lot of people...
I think abortion is an important topic for discussion. I do think it is a hard topic to discuss because people often get emotional about it. I just don't think most people spend much time listening and considering the key points of both sides of the argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2014, 04:00 PM
RE: What is Your Thinking On Abortion ?
(31-03-2014 03:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(31-03-2014 02:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And any more or less democratic society is unstable if not incoherent if it attempts to maintain laws a large supermajority oppose (like, y'know, murder and such).
Thus discussion needs to be held.
If people are going to react violently (in mass) to allowing infanticide, then it would make society unstable and unsafe thus we would need government to outlaw it.
It does make me wonder what the thought was at the time when they went from abortion is illegal to abortion is legal. How did they assess whether society would erupt into violence or not?
Same could be said of allowing women to drive in Saudi Arabia. If government allows it then what will happen? Will there be mass violence? In this circumstance it might be conceivable that their needs to be a mindset change, a culture change before women are given the legal right to drive.

You're still not really seeing other viewpoints...

"[E]rupt into violence" is not the only possible criteria for social cohesion.

A strongly puritan (as in derived from bases of purity/corruption) moral framework does not operate the way you do and are assuming others do.

You cannot challenge a deontological precept by arguing to utilitarian consequences.

(31-03-2014 03:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(31-03-2014 02:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  According to you none of those things make society dangerous.
According to the people who drafted those laws, they do. QED.
I don't agree with the assumptions you have made regarding the reasoning behind the law.

Those laws exist because people, when formulating them, thought they were socially damaging moral ills. That's not an assumption. That's as explicitly stated for such topics as prostitution and marital laws.

Laws exist for reasons regardless. If you wish to argue all such proponents are hypocritical in claiming the above, I guess that's an option, but then what possible motive remains?

(31-03-2014 03:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  But anyway, if people's reasoning is with regards to "things make society dangerous" then it allows for considered and respectful discussion.
But when people merely refer to morality (e.g. we can't allow it because it is immoral) then that does not allow for considered and respectful discussion.

Eh? Of course it still does.

Even if a moral position is not held for rational reasons it is still amenable to change based on personal experience.

But, inevitably, the fact is that people have different foundations for their moral reasoning. These are subject to innate statistical variation among human populations. Reciprocity, purity, and authority being the main signifiers. On some things there will never be agreement. That doesn't invalidate discussion - it can't, in a democratic society.

That you are a selfish utilitarian doesn't mean that for things to be discussed means they have to be discussed as per your paradigm...

(31-03-2014 03:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  With regards to abortion debate, when people appeal to "personhood" it does not lead to considered and respectful discussion.

Nah, that's just up to the people involved.

If killing cells (or, say, animals) is permissible and killing humans is not (or at least not under such conditions) then the difference between a human and a group of cells is fundamental.

That is the standard lots of people use.

(31-03-2014 03:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(31-03-2014 02:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That it's a hard problem doesn't preclude it from being the most important consideration for a lot of people...
I think abortion is an important topic for discussion. I do think it is a hard topic to discuss because people often get emotional about it. I just don't think most people spend much time listening and considering the key points of both sides of the argument.

I was specifically referring to determining "personhood", as you had just prior.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: