|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 16 2015 13:09 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2015 12:41 kwizach wrote:On May 16 2015 10:09 Nyxisto wrote:
My point is mainly that the pro-Choice people don't hold a genuine moral conviction, they oppose the pro-life crowd because they are right-wingers and so they naturally have to take the opposite position of whatever it is they think. Did you seriously just write that? People who are pro-choice hold that position because they simply went for "the opposite position" of the right-wing's pro-life stance? That has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on these forums, and that's saying a lot. And it's not only profoundly ignorant, it's incredibly insulting. Care to give a reason why? How exactly is it not blatantly inconsistent to have a strong pro-life stance in regards to almost any topic but wave the question of abortion off as reactionary nonsense?
There is absolutely nothing "blatantly inconsistent" about defending women's rights to make decisions about their own bodies, including when it comes to determining the fate of a group of cells within them that has barely had a few weeks to develop and that we don't consider to be a person. That you think the only reason the people who are pro-choice hold that position is because they simply took the position opposite to that of the right-wingers is just so profoundly dumb I'm almost speechless.
|
Except that in my first post on this I made clear that I'm not talking about people who have to make the decision for medical reasons, rape or anything that would impact the life of the mother in a similar way, but as many people have pointed out these do not make up the majority of abortions and in some countries it's so prevalent that is has practically become a form of birth control.
|
On May 17 2015 01:03 Nyxisto wrote:
Except that in my first post on this I made blatantly clear that I'm not talking about people who have to make the decision for medical reasons, rape or anything that would impact the life of the mother in a similar way, but as many people have pointed out these do not make up the majority of abortions and in some countries it's so prevalent that is has practically become a form of birth control.
the reason for the abortion has still 0, zero, nada, null impact if the aborted life is fully human and protected the same way a tried criminal is.
the difference is real, so different moral approaches can be applicable
you disputed that there is any single difference between a nonconcious non feeling cell lump with no sensory capability and experience, and a grown experienced living human.
|
I said that the line between conciousness and non-conciousness is so incredibly blurry (which it is, because no one has figured out exactly where that starts or what exactly it means) that settling on some soft line like 'sensory experience' is very questionable. As technology has moved forward we have constantly moved the line back from birth to 23 weeks. What if we figure out in 10 years that it's really more like 12 weeks? When it comes to matters of human life people are usually in favour of strong regulations than weak ones for good reasons.
|
On May 17 2015 01:03 Nyxisto wrote:
Except that in my first post on this I made clear that I'm not talking about people who have to make the decision for medical reasons, rape or anything that would impact the life of the mother in a similar way, but as many people have pointed out these do not make up the majority of abortions and in some countries it's so prevalent that is has practically become a form of birth control.
What are you talking about man? He didn't say anything about rape. There is no except.
I think of abortion like killing a dog. Yes, it's sad. No, it's nothing like killing a fully sentient human being.
|
On May 17 2015 01:14 Nyxisto wrote:
I said that the line between conciousness and non-conciousness is so incredibly blurry (which it is, because no one has figured out exactly where that starts or what exactly it means) that settling on some soft line like 'sensory experience' is very questionable. As technology has moved forward we have constantly moved the line back from birth to 23 weeks. What if we figure out in 10 years that it's really more like 12 weeks? When it comes to matters of human life people are usually in favour of strong regulations than weak ones for good reasons.
the struggle to find the boundary and define it still does not remove the difference.
there will never be a discovery that a 2 cell stage will be considered concious and sensory developed.
|
"Sensation" is not the line you have to worry about. Subjective human experience is.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
third person recognition of consciousness/life is ineliminably vague because of the way these concepts coem to us prior to any sort of reflection. there are extremes that are clear, and a middle that is vague. this situation is not going to change.
the better strategy of establishing ethics in this area is to do away with basing fetal rights on objective features of the thing. rather, view it as a matter of human development with realistic constraints imposed by parents ability and situation.
the other pole in this tug, that of parent interests, is better defined but also not considered when one adopts a deontic sanctity of life view for the other pole.
|
On May 17 2015 01:03 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2015 00:28 kwizach wrote:On May 16 2015 13:09 Nyxisto wrote:On May 16 2015 12:41 kwizach wrote:On May 16 2015 10:09 Nyxisto wrote:
My point is mainly that the pro-Choice people don't hold a genuine moral conviction, they oppose the pro-life crowd because they are right-wingers and so they naturally have to take the opposite position of whatever it is they think. Did you seriously just write that? People who are pro-choice hold that position because they simply went for "the opposite position" of the right-wing's pro-life stance? That has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on these forums, and that's saying a lot. And it's not only profoundly ignorant, it's incredibly insulting. Care to give a reason why? How exactly is it not blatantly inconsistent to have a strong pro-life stance in regards to almost any topic but wave the question of abortion off as reactionary nonsense? There is absolutely nothing "blatantly inconsistent" about defending women's rights to make decisions about their own bodies, including when it comes to determining the fate of a group of cells within them that has barely had a few weeks to develop and that we don't consider to be a person. That you think the only reason the people who are pro-choice hold that position is because they simply took the position opposite to that of the right-wingers is just so profoundly dumb I'm almost speechless. Except that in my first post on this I made clear that I'm not talking about people who have to make the decision for medical reasons, rape or anything that would impact the life of the mother in a similar way, but as many people have pointed out these do not make up the majority of abortions and in some countries it's so prevalent that is has practically become a form of birth control.
What does this have to do with my post? I'm talking about abortions in general.
|
On May 17 2015 01:03 Nyxisto wrote:
Except that in my first post on this I made clear that I'm not talking about people who have to make the decision for medical reasons, rape or anything that would impact the life of the mother in a similar way, but as many people have pointed out these do not make up the majority of abortions and in some countries it's so prevalent that is has practically become a form of birth control.
Abortion is birth control in countries where contraception is illegal or difficult to obtain. Further strengthening the point that the abortion discussion should be focused on birth control and what to do when it fails.
This other stuff is pretty pointless at the moment.
|
United States43854 Posts
Hypothetical. If you were able to predict, with reasonable accuracy, the type of life that a given egg and sperm combination would have based on knowns about the status, income, lifestyle etc of the parents would it be morally necessary to combine them? As in you, as the potential parent, get a video showing approximately what he'd look like at birth, what he'd look like in the school uniform of the school he'd most likely go to, what you'd watch with him, teach him, all that stuff.
If you'd be able to see and understand the life which, through inaction, would never exist and all you had to do was say the word, can you morally not say it?
|
The pro life focus should be based on trying to lower the amount of abortions done instead of a quasi crusade against the very idea of it.
|
On May 17 2015 02:59 KwarK wrote:
Hypothetical. If you were able to predict, with reasonable accuracy, the type of life that a given egg and sperm combination would have based on knowns about the status, income, lifestyle etc of the parents would it be morally necessary to combine them? As in you, as the potential parent, get a video showing approximately what he'd look like at birth, what he'd look like in the school uniform of the school he'd most likely go to, what you'd watch with him, teach him, all that stuff.
If you'd be able to see and understand the life which, through inaction, would never exist and all you had to do was say the word, can you morally not say it?
Yes.
unless I'm misunderstanding; it's somewhat hard to parse the last sentence.
|
Yes, obviously you can not say it. No one thinks that it is a moral imperative to fill the world with as much life as possible.
|
On May 17 2015 03:08 Sermokala wrote:
The pro life focus should be based on trying to lower the amount of abortions done instead of a quasi crusade against the very idea of it.
Exactly, as such, the discussion should be about birth control first, then after that what to do when it fails. Trying to establish a date when abortion is wrong is like trying to nail raindrop to the wall and wasting everyone's time, energy,and patience.
|
Well as a species we would die out if no one reproduces so you could say we have some kind of collective moral obligation that this does not happen in a way but that's really just a somewhat obscure thought experiment. The abortion debate in the end isn't about potential life but about something that is already sufficient to become person, so I don't think that's really comparable.
|
Canada11477 Posts
I would not all mind if the societal focus shifted from abortion to birth control. There's all sorts of neat pre-conception birth control. It would be by province by province, but I don't think birth control is covered under our public healthcare, but I would gladly have it included, thereby causing me to partially pay for it, if it meant less abortions.
edit.
Looking around a little- it seems that private health insurance includes some forms of contraceptives, but the big companies have a pretty limited range of options.
|
On May 17 2015 03:25 Falling wrote:
I would not all mind if the societal focus shifted from abortion to birth control. There's all sorts of neat pre-conception birth control. It would be by province by province, but I don't think birth control is covered under our public healthcare, but I would gladly have it included, thereby causing me to partially pay for it, if it meant less abortions.
edit.
Looking around a little- it seems that private health insurance includes some forms of contraceptives, but the big companies have a pretty limited range of options.
I strongly agree. Abortions are morally very difficult and are also physically taxing, just like Plan B, and contraceptives are to me an obvious and easy alternative. I find it ridiculous when conservative voices push for:
A) Abstinence-only education
B) Reduced access to birth control, because apparently that encourages sex
C) Reduced access to abortions, because more unwanted pregnancies TOTALLY won't happen with A) and B)
|
On May 17 2015 03:11 Nyxisto wrote:
Well as a species we would die out if no one reproduces so you could say we have some kind of collective moral obligation that this does not happen in a way but that's really just a somewhat obscure thought experiment. The abortion debate in the end isn't about potential life but about something that is already sufficient to become person, so I don't think that's really comparable.
A fetus is not sufficient to become a person. Neither is a 12-month old, for that matter.
And just to be crystal clear here, nyx, the point I am trying to make is that your position is incoherent. It's a combination of magical thinking, essentialism, and confused science.
|
I'm looking forward to seeing what the middle ground conservative alternative is to something like what I suggested earlier. I took intros advice about focusing on the majority cases but it doesn't seem to be helping yet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
