|
On June 18 2013 12:10 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 11:24 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 10:47 codonbyte wrote:On June 18 2013 09:45 CallMeLukas wrote:On June 18 2013 08:41 codonbyte wrote:
A fetus on the other hand is physically bound to the woman who is carrying it and therefore doesn't have the same rights as a child outside the womb. So a difference in environment is what grants rights? If not, then where do you draw the line between "abortion is ok" and "abortion is murder?" Following your argument, abortion should be ok right up until birth. Actually, by my argument abortion would not be legal right up until birth because there is a period of time before birth where the fetus would be able to survive outside the womb, and hence abortion would only be legal up until that point, not right up until birth. What's so great about surviving outside the womb? Doesn't it depend upon our own technology? If so, doesn't that suggest that your standard for human life changes as human technology changes, meaning it is a pointless and arbitrary definition for life? If we reach the technology capable of providing a single cell to full human maturity, are all of the hypocrites here going to suddenly accept the premise that life begins at conception, since that is when it can survive outside the womb? Obviously not... It's all complete bullshit, I'm sorry to say. You people have absolutely no reasoning behind your lines drawn in the sand, you just want a line drawn in the sand, period. Just be honest with yourselves and say that you support abortion because it is convenient, but cannot justify it from a moral perspective. It is perfectly fine to say "I reject morality if it is inconvenient," since that is what the majority of human beings do anyway. Morality is meaningless. As I stated before, it is all evolved emotions, and emotions are not absolutes. No. You are guilty of a reductio ad absurdum. While there are a number of different periods in which ethicists argue that abortion can be ethical, they depend largely on what makes a human being human. Being a zygote does not make it human (at least imho). When does a foetus stop being a clump of cells and start being a human? Ethicists are unclear. My own feeling is that it is somewhere between the first brain activity and birth. Brain activity is a precondition for consciousness, but is clearly not a sufficient precondition (plenty of animals with a brain are not considered conscious). Because we don't know, using "viability outside the uterus" is a fairly decent proxy (and also coincided decently with when higher brain function starts).
Umm, reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid form of argument, so I have no idea where you get the idea that someone can be "guilty" of it. And no, "viability outside the uterus" is a horrible proxy for determining life, for the reasons I've already listed. The simple truth is that there is no truth, there is no objective, outside of human thinking definition for what makes a human. It is simply whatever we decide or define it to be. Normally people will define moral concepts around what they feel emotionally. Some people feel absolutely nothing for a "clump of cells," while others feel an empathetic connection to it because it has the potential of a grown human being. Neither side is objectively right or wrong, but either way it is absurd to randomly draw the line at surviving on it's own. This isn't about morality, it is about refuting arguments that are patently absurd.
|
On June 18 2013 13:11 datcirclejerk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 12:10 Acrofales wrote:On June 18 2013 11:24 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 10:47 codonbyte wrote:On June 18 2013 09:45 CallMeLukas wrote:On June 18 2013 08:41 codonbyte wrote:
A fetus on the other hand is physically bound to the woman who is carrying it and therefore doesn't have the same rights as a child outside the womb. So a difference in environment is what grants rights? If not, then where do you draw the line between "abortion is ok" and "abortion is murder?" Following your argument, abortion should be ok right up until birth. Actually, by my argument abortion would not be legal right up until birth because there is a period of time before birth where the fetus would be able to survive outside the womb, and hence abortion would only be legal up until that point, not right up until birth. What's so great about surviving outside the womb? Doesn't it depend upon our own technology? If so, doesn't that suggest that your standard for human life changes as human technology changes, meaning it is a pointless and arbitrary definition for life? If we reach the technology capable of providing a single cell to full human maturity, are all of the hypocrites here going to suddenly accept the premise that life begins at conception, since that is when it can survive outside the womb? Obviously not... It's all complete bullshit, I'm sorry to say. You people have absolutely no reasoning behind your lines drawn in the sand, you just want a line drawn in the sand, period. Just be honest with yourselves and say that you support abortion because it is convenient, but cannot justify it from a moral perspective. It is perfectly fine to say "I reject morality if it is inconvenient," since that is what the majority of human beings do anyway. Morality is meaningless. As I stated before, it is all evolved emotions, and emotions are not absolutes. No. You are guilty of a reductio ad absurdum. While there are a number of different periods in which ethicists argue that abortion can be ethical, they depend largely on what makes a human being human. Being a zygote does not make it human (at least imho). When does a foetus stop being a clump of cells and start being a human? Ethicists are unclear. My own feeling is that it is somewhere between the first brain activity and birth. Brain activity is a precondition for consciousness, but is clearly not a sufficient precondition (plenty of animals with a brain are not considered conscious). Because we don't know, using "viability outside the uterus" is a fairly decent proxy (and also coincided decently with when higher brain function starts). Umm, reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid form of argument, so I have no idea where you get the idea that someone can be "guilty" of it. And no, "viability outside the uterus" is a horrible proxy for determining life, for the reasons I've already listed. The simple truth is that there is no truth, there is no objective, outside of human thinking definition for what makes a human. It is simply whatever we decide or define it to be. Normally people will define moral concepts around what they feel emotionally. Some people feel absolutely nothing for a "clump of cells," while others feel an empathetic connection to it because it has the potential of a grown human being. Neither side is objectively right or wrong, but either way it is absurd to randomly draw the line at surviving on it's own. This isn't about morality, it is about refuting arguments that are patently absurd.
Okay, fine. You were guilty of raising the straw man argument in order to be able to reduce to absurdity the argument that stated nothing of the kind.
As for your latter point, there is no MORALITY outside of human thinking (unless you believe in god and morality stemming from him/her/it). The only species who questions the ethics of their actions are humans, so yes, it is up to humans to decide whether, and when, abortion is ethical.
You stating that pondering the question from this viewpoint is absurd, when it clearly isn't, is absurd. The fact that there is no objective right or wrong doesn't mean the question is unponderable.
|
On June 18 2013 13:17 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 13:11 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 12:10 Acrofales wrote:On June 18 2013 11:24 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 10:47 codonbyte wrote:On June 18 2013 09:45 CallMeLukas wrote:On June 18 2013 08:41 codonbyte wrote:
A fetus on the other hand is physically bound to the woman who is carrying it and therefore doesn't have the same rights as a child outside the womb. So a difference in environment is what grants rights? If not, then where do you draw the line between "abortion is ok" and "abortion is murder?" Following your argument, abortion should be ok right up until birth. Actually, by my argument abortion would not be legal right up until birth because there is a period of time before birth where the fetus would be able to survive outside the womb, and hence abortion would only be legal up until that point, not right up until birth. What's so great about surviving outside the womb? Doesn't it depend upon our own technology? If so, doesn't that suggest that your standard for human life changes as human technology changes, meaning it is a pointless and arbitrary definition for life? If we reach the technology capable of providing a single cell to full human maturity, are all of the hypocrites here going to suddenly accept the premise that life begins at conception, since that is when it can survive outside the womb? Obviously not... It's all complete bullshit, I'm sorry to say. You people have absolutely no reasoning behind your lines drawn in the sand, you just want a line drawn in the sand, period. Just be honest with yourselves and say that you support abortion because it is convenient, but cannot justify it from a moral perspective. It is perfectly fine to say "I reject morality if it is inconvenient," since that is what the majority of human beings do anyway. Morality is meaningless. As I stated before, it is all evolved emotions, and emotions are not absolutes. No. You are guilty of a reductio ad absurdum. While there are a number of different periods in which ethicists argue that abortion can be ethical, they depend largely on what makes a human being human. Being a zygote does not make it human (at least imho). When does a foetus stop being a clump of cells and start being a human? Ethicists are unclear. My own feeling is that it is somewhere between the first brain activity and birth. Brain activity is a precondition for consciousness, but is clearly not a sufficient precondition (plenty of animals with a brain are not considered conscious). Because we don't know, using "viability outside the uterus" is a fairly decent proxy (and also coincided decently with when higher brain function starts). Umm, reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid form of argument, so I have no idea where you get the idea that someone can be "guilty" of it. And no, "viability outside the uterus" is a horrible proxy for determining life, for the reasons I've already listed. The simple truth is that there is no truth, there is no objective, outside of human thinking definition for what makes a human. It is simply whatever we decide or define it to be. Normally people will define moral concepts around what they feel emotionally. Some people feel absolutely nothing for a "clump of cells," while others feel an empathetic connection to it because it has the potential of a grown human being. Neither side is objectively right or wrong, but either way it is absurd to randomly draw the line at surviving on it's own. This isn't about morality, it is about refuting arguments that are patently absurd. Okay, fine. You were guilty of raising the straw man argument in order to be able to reduce to absurdity the argument that stated nothing of the kind. As for your latter point, there is no MORALITY outside of human thinking (unless you believe in god and morality stemming from him/her/it). The only species who questions the ethics of their actions are humans, so yes, it is up to humans to decide whether, and when, abortion is ethical. You stating that pondering the question from this viewpoint is absurd, when it clearly isn't, is absurd. The fact that there is no objective right or wrong doesn't mean the question is unponderable.
You think animals have no morality? Of course they do. You think chimpanzees and apes don't feel empathy for eachother, and have to grapple that empathy with their own reptilian R-complex which desires aggression and violence? Ponderable doesn't really matter, since morality is essentially based upon evolved mammalian empathetic emotions, and nothing more. Just because there is no objective standard for invented human morality does not mean there is no basis for the empathy that that invented morality is based upon.
|
On June 18 2013 12:15 sunprince wrote:
If there was an adult human hooked up to your body so that they could survive, would you be ethically required to stay connected for their sake? My position is no, your bodily autonomy trumps their survival. While it might be admirable for you to sustain them at cost to yourself, you are certainly well within your right to choose not to do so.
When we apply that to abortion, it doesn't matter if the fetus if human. Even if it was, the woman's right to bodily autonomy means that she is allowed to disconnect herself from it, even if this would result in the fetus's death. What matters more to this perspective is whether the fetus can survive, because at that point it is no longer necessary to kill the fetus after removing it from the woman's body.
You're describing a parasitic relationship. Carrying a fetus is not parasitic. The fetus is living in an environment biologically engineered to contain it. It is not invasive at all. Of course having a child causes inconveniences and even hardships in life such as in finances and emotions, but neither of those make the fetus parasitic. It has become an inconvenience. Nobody's denying the stress caused by pregnancy, but I don't see how stress trumps life.
|
On June 18 2013 13:23 CallMeLukas wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 12:15 sunprince wrote:
If there was an adult human hooked up to your body so that they could survive, would you be ethically required to stay connected for their sake? My position is no, your bodily autonomy trumps their survival. While it might be admirable for you to sustain them at cost to yourself, you are certainly well within your right to choose not to do so.
When we apply that to abortion, it doesn't matter if the fetus if human. Even if it was, the woman's right to bodily autonomy means that she is allowed to disconnect herself from it, even if this would result in the fetus's death. What matters more to this perspective is whether the fetus can survive, because at that point it is no longer necessary to kill the fetus after removing it from the woman's body. You're describing a parasitic relationship. Carrying a fetus is not parasitic. The fetus is living in an environment biologically engineered to contain it. It is not invasive at all. Of course having a child causes inconveniences and even hardships in life such as in finances and emotions, but neither of those make the fetus parasitic. It has become an inconvenience. Nobody's denying the stress caused by pregnancy, but I don't see how stress trumps life.
par·a·site
/ˈparəˌsīt/
Noun
An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
The only part that would be debatable is the bolded.
|
On June 18 2013 13:23 datcirclejerk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 13:17 Acrofales wrote:On June 18 2013 13:11 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 12:10 Acrofales wrote:On June 18 2013 11:24 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 10:47 codonbyte wrote:On June 18 2013 09:45 CallMeLukas wrote:On June 18 2013 08:41 codonbyte wrote:
A fetus on the other hand is physically bound to the woman who is carrying it and therefore doesn't have the same rights as a child outside the womb. So a difference in environment is what grants rights? If not, then where do you draw the line between "abortion is ok" and "abortion is murder?" Following your argument, abortion should be ok right up until birth. Actually, by my argument abortion would not be legal right up until birth because there is a period of time before birth where the fetus would be able to survive outside the womb, and hence abortion would only be legal up until that point, not right up until birth. What's so great about surviving outside the womb? Doesn't it depend upon our own technology? If so, doesn't that suggest that your standard for human life changes as human technology changes, meaning it is a pointless and arbitrary definition for life? If we reach the technology capable of providing a single cell to full human maturity, are all of the hypocrites here going to suddenly accept the premise that life begins at conception, since that is when it can survive outside the womb? Obviously not... It's all complete bullshit, I'm sorry to say. You people have absolutely no reasoning behind your lines drawn in the sand, you just want a line drawn in the sand, period. Just be honest with yourselves and say that you support abortion because it is convenient, but cannot justify it from a moral perspective. It is perfectly fine to say "I reject morality if it is inconvenient," since that is what the majority of human beings do anyway. Morality is meaningless. As I stated before, it is all evolved emotions, and emotions are not absolutes. No. You are guilty of a reductio ad absurdum. While there are a number of different periods in which ethicists argue that abortion can be ethical, they depend largely on what makes a human being human. Being a zygote does not make it human (at least imho). When does a foetus stop being a clump of cells and start being a human? Ethicists are unclear. My own feeling is that it is somewhere between the first brain activity and birth. Brain activity is a precondition for consciousness, but is clearly not a sufficient precondition (plenty of animals with a brain are not considered conscious). Because we don't know, using "viability outside the uterus" is a fairly decent proxy (and also coincided decently with when higher brain function starts). Umm, reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid form of argument, so I have no idea where you get the idea that someone can be "guilty" of it. And no, "viability outside the uterus" is a horrible proxy for determining life, for the reasons I've already listed. The simple truth is that there is no truth, there is no objective, outside of human thinking definition for what makes a human. It is simply whatever we decide or define it to be. Normally people will define moral concepts around what they feel emotionally. Some people feel absolutely nothing for a "clump of cells," while others feel an empathetic connection to it because it has the potential of a grown human being. Neither side is objectively right or wrong, but either way it is absurd to randomly draw the line at surviving on it's own. This isn't about morality, it is about refuting arguments that are patently absurd. Okay, fine. You were guilty of raising the straw man argument in order to be able to reduce to absurdity the argument that stated nothing of the kind. As for your latter point, there is no MORALITY outside of human thinking (unless you believe in god and morality stemming from him/her/it). The only species who questions the ethics of their actions are humans, so yes, it is up to humans to decide whether, and when, abortion is ethical. You stating that pondering the question from this viewpoint is absurd, when it clearly isn't, is absurd. The fact that there is no objective right or wrong doesn't mean the question is unponderable. You think animals have no morality? Of course they do. You think chimpanzees and apes don't feel empathy for eachother, and have to grapple that empathy with their own reptilian R-complex which desires aggression and violence? Ponderable doesn't really matter, since morality is essentially based upon evolved mammalian empathetic emotions, and nothing more. Just because there is no objective standard for invented human morality does not mean there is no basis for the empathy that that invented morality is based upon.
Just as there is no ape consciousness, there is no ape morality. That apes can encounter problems of an ethical nature and resolve them in a certain manner goes a good way to show the evolutionary basis of morality. It doesn't mean they are conscious about making a moral decision, which is the whole point of the discussion here.
You're clearly just arguing for the sake of arguing. You say
You people have absolutely no reasoning behind your lines drawn in the sand, you just want a line drawn in the sand, period. Just be honest with yourselves and say that you support abortion because it is convenient, but cannot justify it from a moral perspective.
When there clearly is a moral perspective, and it is incredibly important. Abortion is never just "convenient". Imho it is an important question whether you are removing a clump of cells or killing a human being. It is equally important to ask whether even the removal of a clump of cells is justified, given that it will turn into a human being. And finally it might even be justified to kill a human being in some circumstances. There are many different perspectives, and while you can argue that none of them are objectively right (probably due to the lack of there being an objective right in the first place), they are worth considering, rather than dismissing out of hand.
|
On June 18 2013 13:35 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 13:23 CallMeLukas wrote:On June 18 2013 12:15 sunprince wrote:
If there was an adult human hooked up to your body so that they could survive, would you be ethically required to stay connected for their sake? My position is no, your bodily autonomy trumps their survival. While it might be admirable for you to sustain them at cost to yourself, you are certainly well within your right to choose not to do so.
When we apply that to abortion, it doesn't matter if the fetus if human. Even if it was, the woman's right to bodily autonomy means that she is allowed to disconnect herself from it, even if this would result in the fetus's death. What matters more to this perspective is whether the fetus can survive, because at that point it is no longer necessary to kill the fetus after removing it from the woman's body. You're describing a parasitic relationship. Carrying a fetus is not parasitic. The fetus is living in an environment biologically engineered to contain it. It is not invasive at all. Of course having a child causes inconveniences and even hardships in life such as in finances and emotions, but neither of those make the fetus parasitic. It has become an inconvenience. Nobody's denying the stress caused by pregnancy, but I don't see how stress trumps life. par·a·site /ˈparəˌsīt/ Noun An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.The only part that would be debatable is the bolded.
Not sure how you got your definition, but I've always understood the definition to be:
an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasite
Also, parasites give nothing back to the host. A fetus is supporting the survival of the species, so it sounds mutualistic to me.
|
On June 18 2013 08:38 Quotidian wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 01:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 18 2013 00:53 Quotidian wrote:On June 17 2013 22:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 17 2013 19:02 sunprince wrote:On June 17 2013 12:56 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 17 2013 12:45 ZackAttack wrote:On June 17 2013 12:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 17 2013 11:57 ZackAttack wrote:On June 17 2013 11:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
I generally agree with this part. As a conservative, and a Christian, I am usually shocked to find other conservatives, and especially other Christians, supporting abortion for any case in any scenario (other than real physical danger to the mother). It is 100% logically inconsistent with their other views.
[quote]
I don't agree with this as much. I think people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to protect human life and the rights of the unborn, but they don't want to follow through with it when things get rough. It's not about punishing women for having sex for most of them, it's about them not appearing to be "mean" or sexist. And there is a little bit of the "it's not okay for them, but if it happened to me, I would abort" syndrome going on.
At the end of the day, the main problem is that people hold beliefs that demand a regulation of behavior and call for sacrifices. People have a hard time holding beliefs like that, so they quibble and they hedge, all so that they can have the moral satisfaction of holding a strong belief without having the discomfort of actually following through with it. When are people going to realize that their personal religious beliefs are not a good reason to support any law? If you think something is wrong because it's a sin then you should just let them go to hell, or wherever you think they go. What is a good reason then? Personal political beliefs? Personal beliefs concerning ethics? Or is it better to support law with no reason whatsoever? It is all well and good to single out religion as if it's some kind of loathsome and nauseating disorder that should have no influence or bearing on a person's politics or public life, but that's a bit intolerant wouldn't you say? Personal religious beliefs inform our conscience and for some are very deeply held convictions that we see as literally being a matter of life and death. If I could be offered one good reason why my most deeply held and important beliefs should not, in any way, affect my political beliefs, than perhaps I would rethink my positions. The topic of discussion isn't really about religion, so I can't go too into it... but suffice it to say that religious belief is a perfectly legitimate reason to support or oppose a law or policy. No, religious belief is not a good reason to support a law. Neither is any of those things. A god reason to support a law would be a logical reason that you can argue would have a positive impact on society. Laws are not a way for people to make other people make the same decisions as they would in every situation. And if I am of the opinion that my religious beliefs being enshrined into law will result in a positive impact on society? Then back that up with evidence, and then we can have a rational discourse on the topic. Well, that's a little unfair. Thus far, no one else has been pressed to provide evidence that the result of their political positions will result in a positive impact on society. It's not fair to hold my reasons to a different standard. the entire field of sociology wants a word with you. First of all, guys, let's stop the Bible discussion. No one in this thread has provided any evidence that their political opinions will benefit society. you're the one who brought up your religion in this matter, so it's completely fair to attack it for the bunk that it is. Again, if you're christian and you think your god has a problem with children dying, you haven't read the bible (or looked at the world around you)
I never brought it up as an argument for the position, I just used it as clarification... so no, I didn't bring it up and arguing whether my religion is true or not has absolutely no bearing on the topic of the OP...
there is plenty of readily available information on the societal benefits of legal abortion. The number of deaths from women having dangerous, illegal abortions is the obvious one. Because women won't stop having abortions even if they're deemed illegal. Then there's things like this Show nested quote +• Compared to states that support women’s health, those states that oppose safe and legal abortion spend
far less money per child on a range of services such as foster care, education, welfare, and the adoption of
children who have physical and mental disabilities (Schroedel, 2000).
• The states that have the strongest laws against safe and legal abortion are also the states in which women
suffer from lower levels of education and higher levels of poverty, as well as from a lower ratio of female-to-male
earnings. They also have a lower percentage of women in the legislature and fewer mandates requiring
insurance providers to cover minimum hospital stays after childbirth (Schroedel, 2000)
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/Medical_Social_Benefits_Abortion.pdf
Yeah, still not buying it. The first reason is unproven (that women, in general, won't stop having abortions), the second is coincidental (and arguably not a net societal benefit), and the third is a case of correlation being mistaken for causation.
|
On June 18 2013 07:33 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 22:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 17 2013 19:02 sunprince wrote:On June 17 2013 12:56 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 17 2013 12:45 ZackAttack wrote:On June 17 2013 12:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 17 2013 11:57 ZackAttack wrote:On June 17 2013 11:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 17 2013 05:40 shinosai wrote:
I think that banning abortion just for rape/incest victims is logically inconsistent for anyone who is pro-life. If you actually believe the fetus is a human being, then the fact that it's from a rape isn't the baby's fault. If you go on to talk about the emotional well being of the mother, then you're pretty clearly going into pro-choice territory. So, how can the pro-life conservative actually hold these two beliefs? I generally agree with this part. As a conservative, and a Christian, I am usually shocked to find other conservatives, and especially other Christians, supporting abortion for any case in any scenario (other than real physical danger to the mother). It is 100% logically inconsistent with their other views. Well, the only possibility I can think of is that they are blaming women for having sex. Basically, if a woman gets pregnant, "that's the consequence of her actions." But if she got raped, well, obviously she couldn't help it. I don't agree with this as much. I think people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to protect human life and the rights of the unborn, but they don't want to follow through with it when things get rough. It's not about punishing women for having sex for most of them, it's about them not appearing to be "mean" or sexist. And there is a little bit of the "it's not okay for them, but if it happened to me, I would abort" syndrome going on. At the end of the day, the main problem is that people hold beliefs that demand a regulation of behavior and call for sacrifices. People have a hard time holding beliefs like that, so they quibble and they hedge, all so that they can have the moral satisfaction of holding a strong belief without having the discomfort of actually following through with it. When are people going to realize that their personal religious beliefs are not a good reason to support any law? If you think something is wrong because it's a sin then you should just let them go to hell, or wherever you think they go. What is a good reason then? Personal political beliefs? Personal beliefs concerning ethics? Or is it better to support law with no reason whatsoever? It is all well and good to single out religion as if it's some kind of loathsome and nauseating disorder that should have no influence or bearing on a person's politics or public life, but that's a bit intolerant wouldn't you say? Personal religious beliefs inform our conscience and for some are very deeply held convictions that we see as literally being a matter of life and death. If I could be offered one good reason why my most deeply held and important beliefs should not, in any way, affect my political beliefs, than perhaps I would rethink my positions. The topic of discussion isn't really about religion, so I can't go too into it... but suffice it to say that religious belief is a perfectly legitimate reason to support or oppose a law or policy. No, religious belief is not a good reason to support a law. Neither is any of those things. A god reason to support a law would be a logical reason that you can argue would have a positive impact on society. Laws are not a way for people to make other people make the same decisions as they would in every situation. And if I am of the opinion that my religious beliefs being enshrined into law will result in a positive impact on society? Then back that up with evidence, and then we can have a rational discourse on the topic. Well, that's a little unfair. Thus far, no one else has been pressed to provide evidence that the result of their political positions will result in a positive impact on society. It's not fair to hold my reasons to a different standard. Define "no one else". While I acknowledge that many people do express unsupported opinions and political positions, those of us who are better versed in critical thinking and rational discourse (which appears to be at least a substantial number of people here on TL) tend to back up our arguments with evidence and logic.
I already defined "no one else". No one in this thread was demanded to show how their position benefits society except for me. Whether they willingly did so (none did as far as I could tell) is different than it being demanded of them.
|
On June 18 2013 12:40 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 10:39 sunprince wrote:On June 18 2013 10:11 Acrofales wrote:On June 18 2013 10:04 sunprince wrote:On June 18 2013 08:15 koreasilver wrote:
What does it matter what some conservatives might think if they're conceptually broken? Aside from that, biblical precedence isn't clear on the issues of abortion as such either, and although it is clear that it considers incest abhorrent, there is nothing that suggests that a child born of incest is to be considered lesser as a human being. We only begin to see clear opposition to abortion as such as a distinct problem apart from sexuality with the early church. Personally I've never actually heard or read any conservative Christian offer such a comical opinion like that a life born from incest is a "sinful abomination" as if the orthodoxy doesn't teach that all humans are sinful and are always born in sin regardless of whether or not conception took place within or out of wedlock (Augustine). It's comical to a degree that I find it more likely that you're just setting up a scarecrow than that you're actually reiterating a position that "religious conservatives" take. But given that I spend little time with religious conservatives and with Americans much less so, maybe it's a possibility. But regardless such a position is incoherent not just conceptually but within the framework of Christian orthodoxy and should readily be dismissed by everyone because it's inane. It matters so that we understand what their assumptions and line of reasoning is, so that we might more easily debunk them. On June 18 2013 08:15 koreasilver wrote:
As for the first paragraph, any East Asian that has lived in/with/through our Confucian motherlands would understand that completely. One doesn't even need to go that far - one could go through the arduous task of opening up a history book (or wikipedia) and looking at the pre-Christian West with the Greeks and the Romans and see the oppression of women easily enough. It is not as if the modern secularist is all so suddenly equitable to all gender and sex either. There are plenty of nonreligious misogynists now and there always has been. Blaming the churches for everything is a very peculiar eurocentric ethnocentrism that doesn't have any ground in historical reality. That's not an argument for the historical oppression of women. You simply repeated your claim that they were oppressed in East Asia, Greek, and Roman society, without actually giving any explanation for how or why you think they were oppressed. The supposed historical oppression of women is one of those modern myths that ignores the reality of history, which much more accurately reflects class-based oppression where everyone outside of the apex, male and female, were oppressed by both the males and females of that apex. Huh? Sure there were classes, but women were categorically not allowed positions of power. Whether you look at ancient Greece (Sparta was an exception) or Rome, women had no place in government (except as the wife, or mother, of someone). Power was strongly linked to the military (once again, with the exception of Sparta), which was a 100% male organization. Trying to argue that women had an equal position in society in the antiquities just means you need to reread your history books. EDIT: to make it very clear, I neither know, nor care what you two are arguing about and it is clearly widely offtopic. Just correcting a factual mistake here. Nowhere did I argue that women had an equal position in society. My argument is that women were not historically "oppressed". Women were heavily protected and along with that had limited rights and responsibilities, but this does not equate to "oppression". This treatment is similar to how we treat children (and no one would argue that we "oppress" children), but it is not similar to how slaves were treated in more recent history (an actual example of oppression). In your examples of ancient Greece and Rome, it is rather obvious that while both male and female slaves were actually oppressed, the female members of the ruling class were not oppressed, despite not being true equals. Uhm. But women aren't children. Oppression basically just means extreme injustice. And treating adults as perpetual children (even legally) can very much be seen as oppression. You're just arguing degrees. To the point where someone could easily argue that yes, women were historically oppressed.
Being treated differently does not equate to being treated unjustly. For example, women in most Western societies are not subject to being drafted, another form of treating them as children, yet no one would argue this is unjust against women. You must advance evidence to support the argument that this differential treatment, is in fact unjust, as opposed to simply different or even privileged treatment.
The fact that women have generally had more comfortable lives, longer lifespans, and were twice as likely to pass on their genes as men, all throughout history, suggests that this differential treatment was in fact beneficial. The fact that women willingly played along with it (including perpetuating such things as male disposability) means that they were happy with it (unless you take the deeply misogynistic view that women were too incompetent to do anything about it).
Calling the lives of the privileged,pampered women at the top of society "oppressed" is a huge slap in the face to slaves, conscripts, and untouchables that actually made up the oppressed bottom of societies.
|
On June 18 2013 12:53 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 12:15 sunprince wrote:On June 18 2013 12:10 Acrofales wrote:On June 18 2013 11:24 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 10:47 codonbyte wrote:On June 18 2013 09:45 CallMeLukas wrote:On June 18 2013 08:41 codonbyte wrote:
A fetus on the other hand is physically bound to the woman who is carrying it and therefore doesn't have the same rights as a child outside the womb. So a difference in environment is what grants rights? If not, then where do you draw the line between "abortion is ok" and "abortion is murder?" Following your argument, abortion should be ok right up until birth. Actually, by my argument abortion would not be legal right up until birth because there is a period of time before birth where the fetus would be able to survive outside the womb, and hence abortion would only be legal up until that point, not right up until birth. What's so great about surviving outside the womb? Doesn't it depend upon our own technology? If so, doesn't that suggest that your standard for human life changes as human technology changes, meaning it is a pointless and arbitrary definition for life? If we reach the technology capable of providing a single cell to full human maturity, are all of the hypocrites here going to suddenly accept the premise that life begins at conception, since that is when it can survive outside the womb? Obviously not... It's all complete bullshit, I'm sorry to say. You people have absolutely no reasoning behind your lines drawn in the sand, you just want a line drawn in the sand, period. Just be honest with yourselves and say that you support abortion because it is convenient, but cannot justify it from a moral perspective. It is perfectly fine to say "I reject morality if it is inconvenient," since that is what the majority of human beings do anyway. Morality is meaningless. As I stated before, it is all evolved emotions, and emotions are not absolutes. No. You are guilty of a reductio ad absurdum. While there are a number of different periods in which ethicists argue that abortion can be ethical, they depend largely on what makes a human being human. Being a zygote does not make it human (at least imho). When does a foetus stop being a clump of cells and start being a human? Ethicists are unclear. My own feeling is that it is somewhere between the first brain activity and birth. Brain activity is a precondition for consciousness, but is clearly not a sufficient precondition (plenty of animals with a brain are not considered conscious). Because we don't know, using "viability outside the uterus" is a fairly decent proxy (and also coincided decently with when higher brain function starts). I have a different take on this: it doesn't matter when the fetus starts being human. Take the following thought experiment: If there was an adult human hooked up to your body so that they could survive, would you be ethically required to stay connected for their sake? My position is no, your bodily autonomy trumps their survival. While it might be admirable for you to sustain them at cost to yourself, you are certainly well within your right to choose not to do so. When we apply that to abortion, it doesn't matter if the fetus if human. Even if it was, the woman's right to bodily autonomy means that she is allowed to disconnect herself from it, even if this would result in the fetus's death. What matters more to this perspective is whether the fetus can survive, because at that point it is no longer necessary to kill the fetus after removing it from the woman's body. But in that case you run into trouble of culpability. If you were to hook someone up to your body, knowing full well they will need to stay hooked up for the next 9 months, after which they will be dependent on you for a further 16 years (give or take)... and then after 2 months you decide you made a stupid mistake, or you were drunk when hooking up, etc. I am not sure that bodily autonomy trumps the rights of that "person" you have connected to yourself. Of course, this circles back to the OP: in the case of rape you are forcibly hooked up to that human being, which makes the whole situation completely fucked up of course. But the analogy might be getting a bit stretched. I just want to use it to show that it clearly is important when you consider the foetus as a human being. Clearly you are in your rights to remove a leech, regardless of if you knew all of that stuff about how it would depend on you for the next 17 years before you willingly connected it (although there might be some radical animal rights activists who argue that you're not).
I don't buy the culpability argument. Consenting to sex (if consent was even present, since it is not in rape cases) is not consent to pregnancy. Otherwise, you would be arguing that abortions are okay in the event that all birth control precautions are reasonably taken (since pregnancy is then unintentional, taking away culpability), but not okay otherwise. I don't see anyone making that argument, since social conservatives are opposed to abortion regardless of such culpability.
On June 18 2013 13:23 CallMeLukas wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 12:15 sunprince wrote:
If there was an adult human hooked up to your body so that they could survive, would you be ethically required to stay connected for their sake? My position is no, your bodily autonomy trumps their survival. While it might be admirable for you to sustain them at cost to yourself, you are certainly well within your right to choose not to do so.
When we apply that to abortion, it doesn't matter if the fetus if human. Even if it was, the woman's right to bodily autonomy means that she is allowed to disconnect herself from it, even if this would result in the fetus's death. What matters more to this perspective is whether the fetus can survive, because at that point it is no longer necessary to kill the fetus after removing it from the woman's body. You're describing a parasitic relationship. Carrying a fetus is not parasitic. The fetus is living in an environment biologically engineered to contain it. It is not invasive at all. Of course having a child causes inconveniences and even hardships in life such as in finances and emotions, but neither of those make the fetus parasitic. It has become an inconvenience. Nobody's denying the stress caused by pregnancy, but I don't see how stress trumps life.
By that logic, let's take all of your money, except what you need to live comfortably, and spend it on humanitarian causes. After all, losing that money is merely an inconvenience or a stress, which doesn't trump life.
|
On June 18 2013 14:43 sunprince wrote:
By that logic, let's take all of your money, except what you need to live comfortably, and spend it on humanitarian causes. After all, losing that money is merely an inconvenience or a stress, which doesn't trump life.
Joke is on you, I have no money! Ah ha!
No but really, if there were immediate life-saving humanitarian causes with absolutely no corruption or motives other than purely saving lives and furthering the well being of the human race, then fine, take my money. Everyone else's money would have to be taken too (if not, why am I singled out?). Who knows what would happen with all that funding? Maybe we'll all live happily ever after. Perhaps the world could use such a humbling and uniting goal.
|
On June 18 2013 15:43 CallMeLukas wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 14:43 sunprince wrote:
By that logic, let's take all of your money, except what you need to live comfortably, and spend it on humanitarian causes. After all, losing that money is merely an inconvenience or a stress, which doesn't trump life. Joke is on you, I have no money! Ah ha! No but really, if there were immediate life-saving humanitarian causes with absolutely no corruption or motives other than purely saving lives and furthering the well being of the human race, then fine, take my money. Everyone else's money would have to be taken too (if not, why am I singled out?). Who knows what would happen with all that funding? Maybe we'll all live happily ever after. Perhaps the world could use such a humbling and uniting goal.
You do understand my point, though?
In our mode of political philosophy, freedoms such as bodily autonomy are more important than sustaining someone else's life. Simply put, people are not required to give up their bodily autonomy in order to help someone else.
|
On June 18 2013 17:52 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 15:43 CallMeLukas wrote:On June 18 2013 14:43 sunprince wrote:
By that logic, let's take all of your money, except what you need to live comfortably, and spend it on humanitarian causes. After all, losing that money is merely an inconvenience or a stress, which doesn't trump life. Joke is on you, I have no money! Ah ha! No but really, if there were immediate life-saving humanitarian causes with absolutely no corruption or motives other than purely saving lives and furthering the well being of the human race, then fine, take my money. Everyone else's money would have to be taken too (if not, why am I singled out?). Who knows what would happen with all that funding? Maybe we'll all live happily ever after. Perhaps the world could use such a humbling and uniting goal. You do understand my point, though? In our mode of political philosophy, freedoms such as bodily autonomy are more important than sustaining someone else's life. Simply put, people are not required to give up their bodily autonomy in order to help someone else.
Yes they are, it's called pregnancy past X weeks, though sure, you're not forced to give up your organs for transplant or anything else like that.
|
I feel like the only ones who should have a say on abortion cases are the mother and the father (when it's a conscenting couple) ; but ultimately the mother should decide in all cases.
I can't possibly understand any logical reason that might push someone to decide for someone else what's good for them when it concerns something with their own body or what's in it as long as you are in your right mind and not completely paralyzed/incapacitated
So whatever the reason for abortion; as long as it's the mother own decision, free of pressures, it should be fine.
I can't wait for all those religious barriers to be crushed by fair laws in the future.
People should try to get some perspective; there's a foetus growing inside your own body and who's feeding on you; at this point who's anyone else to tell you what to do with him? As long as only you can take care of him, it's logical that only you can decide about his fate.
Anyway it's still a step in the right direction.
Edit: the bold parts are edited to please the funny word picking dude that seems to like to argue on unimportant points witth ridiculous exemples... you'll probably recognize him quite quickly Oo
|
On June 18 2013 18:34 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 17:52 sunprince wrote:On June 18 2013 15:43 CallMeLukas wrote:On June 18 2013 14:43 sunprince wrote:
By that logic, let's take all of your money, except what you need to live comfortably, and spend it on humanitarian causes. After all, losing that money is merely an inconvenience or a stress, which doesn't trump life. Joke is on you, I have no money! Ah ha! No but really, if there were immediate life-saving humanitarian causes with absolutely no corruption or motives other than purely saving lives and furthering the well being of the human race, then fine, take my money. Everyone else's money would have to be taken too (if not, why am I singled out?). Who knows what would happen with all that funding? Maybe we'll all live happily ever after. Perhaps the world could use such a humbling and uniting goal. You do understand my point, though? In our mode of political philosophy, freedoms such as bodily autonomy are more important than sustaining someone else's life. Simply put, people are not required to give up their bodily autonomy in order to help someone else. Yes they are, it's called pregnancy past X weeks, though sure, you're not forced to give up your organs for transplant or anything else like that.
The idea is that generally speaking, the right to abortion is supported by our notions of freedom and bodily autonomy.
|
On June 18 2013 13:11 datcirclejerk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 12:10 Acrofales wrote:On June 18 2013 11:24 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 10:47 codonbyte wrote:On June 18 2013 09:45 CallMeLukas wrote:On June 18 2013 08:41 codonbyte wrote:
A fetus on the other hand is physically bound to the woman who is carrying it and therefore doesn't have the same rights as a child outside the womb. So a difference in environment is what grants rights? If not, then where do you draw the line between "abortion is ok" and "abortion is murder?" Following your argument, abortion should be ok right up until birth. Actually, by my argument abortion would not be legal right up until birth because there is a period of time before birth where the fetus would be able to survive outside the womb, and hence abortion would only be legal up until that point, not right up until birth. What's so great about surviving outside the womb? Doesn't it depend upon our own technology? If so, doesn't that suggest that your standard for human life changes as human technology changes, meaning it is a pointless and arbitrary definition for life? If we reach the technology capable of providing a single cell to full human maturity, are all of the hypocrites here going to suddenly accept the premise that life begins at conception, since that is when it can survive outside the womb? Obviously not... It's all complete bullshit, I'm sorry to say. You people have absolutely no reasoning behind your lines drawn in the sand, you just want a line drawn in the sand, period. Just be honest with yourselves and say that you support abortion because it is convenient, but cannot justify it from a moral perspective. It is perfectly fine to say "I reject morality if it is inconvenient," since that is what the majority of human beings do anyway. Morality is meaningless. As I stated before, it is all evolved emotions, and emotions are not absolutes. No. You are guilty of a reductio ad absurdum. While there are a number of different periods in which ethicists argue that abortion can be ethical, they depend largely on what makes a human being human. Being a zygote does not make it human (at least imho). When does a foetus stop being a clump of cells and start being a human? Ethicists are unclear. My own feeling is that it is somewhere between the first brain activity and birth. Brain activity is a precondition for consciousness, but is clearly not a sufficient precondition (plenty of animals with a brain are not considered conscious). Because we don't know, using "viability outside the uterus" is a fairly decent proxy (and also coincided decently with when higher brain function starts). Umm, reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid form of argument, so I have no idea where you get the idea that someone can be "guilty" of it. And no, "viability outside the uterus" is a horrible proxy for determining life, for the reasons I've already listed. The simple truth is that there is no truth, there is no objective, outside of human thinking definition for what makes a human. It is simply whatever we decide or define it to be. Normally people will define moral concepts around what they feel emotionally. Some people feel absolutely nothing for a "clump of cells," while others feel an empathetic connection to it because it has the potential of a grown human being. Neither side is objectively right or wrong, but either way it is absurd to randomly draw the line at surviving on it's own. This isn't about morality, it is about refuting arguments that are patently absurd.
No offense, but you really seem to be he worst kind of relativist to me (relativist out of convenience). Take any chair and remove a single atom. Is it still a chair? Most people would probably say yes. Now successively take all matter away atom per atom at what point does the remaining atoms stop being a chair?
If the fact that there might be no "objectively correct answer" to this question leads you to conclude that "there are no chairs" or that "there are no relevant differences between chairs and tables, then I am afraid you have nothing of substance to add to this or any kind of concrete discussion other than "it's all relative"!
In the real world we understand that ontology is no simple binary matter (it is or it is not), but that doesn't mean the drawn conclusions are "arbitrary". Try to answer me this: at what exact point does a human being die? Is there even a correct answer? Now what do you conclude with regard to the relevance between being alive and dead? "There is none" or "It's merely up to human definition"?
|
On June 18 2013 13:37 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 13:23 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 13:17 Acrofales wrote:On June 18 2013 13:11 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 12:10 Acrofales wrote:On June 18 2013 11:24 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 10:47 codonbyte wrote:On June 18 2013 09:45 CallMeLukas wrote:On June 18 2013 08:41 codonbyte wrote:
A fetus on the other hand is physically bound to the woman who is carrying it and therefore doesn't have the same rights as a child outside the womb. So a difference in environment is what grants rights? If not, then where do you draw the line between "abortion is ok" and "abortion is murder?" Following your argument, abortion should be ok right up until birth. Actually, by my argument abortion would not be legal right up until birth because there is a period of time before birth where the fetus would be able to survive outside the womb, and hence abortion would only be legal up until that point, not right up until birth. What's so great about surviving outside the womb? Doesn't it depend upon our own technology? If so, doesn't that suggest that your standard for human life changes as human technology changes, meaning it is a pointless and arbitrary definition for life? If we reach the technology capable of providing a single cell to full human maturity, are all of the hypocrites here going to suddenly accept the premise that life begins at conception, since that is when it can survive outside the womb? Obviously not... It's all complete bullshit, I'm sorry to say. You people have absolutely no reasoning behind your lines drawn in the sand, you just want a line drawn in the sand, period. Just be honest with yourselves and say that you support abortion because it is convenient, but cannot justify it from a moral perspective. It is perfectly fine to say "I reject morality if it is inconvenient," since that is what the majority of human beings do anyway. Morality is meaningless. As I stated before, it is all evolved emotions, and emotions are not absolutes. No. You are guilty of a reductio ad absurdum. While there are a number of different periods in which ethicists argue that abortion can be ethical, they depend largely on what makes a human being human. Being a zygote does not make it human (at least imho). When does a foetus stop being a clump of cells and start being a human? Ethicists are unclear. My own feeling is that it is somewhere between the first brain activity and birth. Brain activity is a precondition for consciousness, but is clearly not a sufficient precondition (plenty of animals with a brain are not considered conscious). Because we don't know, using "viability outside the uterus" is a fairly decent proxy (and also coincided decently with when higher brain function starts). Umm, reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid form of argument, so I have no idea where you get the idea that someone can be "guilty" of it. And no, "viability outside the uterus" is a horrible proxy for determining life, for the reasons I've already listed. The simple truth is that there is no truth, there is no objective, outside of human thinking definition for what makes a human. It is simply whatever we decide or define it to be. Normally people will define moral concepts around what they feel emotionally. Some people feel absolutely nothing for a "clump of cells," while others feel an empathetic connection to it because it has the potential of a grown human being. Neither side is objectively right or wrong, but either way it is absurd to randomly draw the line at surviving on it's own. This isn't about morality, it is about refuting arguments that are patently absurd. Okay, fine. You were guilty of raising the straw man argument in order to be able to reduce to absurdity the argument that stated nothing of the kind. As for your latter point, there is no MORALITY outside of human thinking (unless you believe in god and morality stemming from him/her/it). The only species who questions the ethics of their actions are humans, so yes, it is up to humans to decide whether, and when, abortion is ethical. You stating that pondering the question from this viewpoint is absurd, when it clearly isn't, is absurd. The fact that there is no objective right or wrong doesn't mean the question is unponderable. You think animals have no morality? Of course they do. You think chimpanzees and apes don't feel empathy for eachother, and have to grapple that empathy with their own reptilian R-complex which desires aggression and violence? Ponderable doesn't really matter, since morality is essentially based upon evolved mammalian empathetic emotions, and nothing more. Just because there is no objective standard for invented human morality does not mean there is no basis for the empathy that that invented morality is based upon. Just as there is no ape consciousness, there is no ape morality. That apes can encounter problems of an ethical nature and resolve them in a certain manner goes a good way to show the evolutionary basis of morality. It doesn't mean they are conscious about making a moral decision, which is the whole point of the discussion here. You're clearly just arguing for the sake of arguing. You say Show nested quote +You people have absolutely no reasoning behind your lines drawn in the sand, you just want a line drawn in the sand, period. Just be honest with yourselves and say that you support abortion because it is convenient, but cannot justify it from a moral perspective. When there clearly is a moral perspective, and it is incredibly important. Abortion is never just "convenient". Imho it is an important question whether you are removing a clump of cells or killing a human being. It is equally important to ask whether even the removal of a clump of cells is justified, given that it will turn into a human being. And finally it might even be justified to kill a human being in some circumstances. There are many different perspectives, and while you can argue that none of them are objectively right (probably due to the lack of there being an objective right in the first place), they are worth considering, rather than dismissing out of hand.
If you think there is no ape consciousness you are claiming something that is rather unlikely, any evidence for such a strong claim, as apes (and even much "lower" animals) show every sign of consciousness we can think of.
|
On June 18 2013 14:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 08:38 Quotidian wrote:On June 18 2013 01:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 18 2013 00:53 Quotidian wrote:On June 17 2013 22:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 17 2013 19:02 sunprince wrote:On June 17 2013 12:56 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 17 2013 12:45 ZackAttack wrote:On June 17 2013 12:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 17 2013 11:57 ZackAttack wrote:
[quote]
When are people going to realize that their personal religious beliefs are not a good reason to support any law? If you think something is wrong because it's a sin then you should just let them go to hell, or wherever you think they go.
What is a good reason then? Personal political beliefs? Personal beliefs concerning ethics? Or is it better to support law with no reason whatsoever? It is all well and good to single out religion as if it's some kind of loathsome and nauseating disorder that should have no influence or bearing on a person's politics or public life, but that's a bit intolerant wouldn't you say? Personal religious beliefs inform our conscience and for some are very deeply held convictions that we see as literally being a matter of life and death. If I could be offered one good reason why my most deeply held and important beliefs should not, in any way, affect my political beliefs, than perhaps I would rethink my positions. The topic of discussion isn't really about religion, so I can't go too into it... but suffice it to say that religious belief is a perfectly legitimate reason to support or oppose a law or policy. No, religious belief is not a good reason to support a law. Neither is any of those things. A god reason to support a law would be a logical reason that you can argue would have a positive impact on society. Laws are not a way for people to make other people make the same decisions as they would in every situation. And if I am of the opinion that my religious beliefs being enshrined into law will result in a positive impact on society? Then back that up with evidence, and then we can have a rational discourse on the topic. Well, that's a little unfair. Thus far, no one else has been pressed to provide evidence that the result of their political positions will result in a positive impact on society. It's not fair to hold my reasons to a different standard. the entire field of sociology wants a word with you. First of all, guys, let's stop the Bible discussion. No one in this thread has provided any evidence that their political opinions will benefit society. you're the one who brought up your religion in this matter, so it's completely fair to attack it for the bunk that it is. Again, if you're christian and you think your god has a problem with children dying, you haven't read the bible (or looked at the world around you) I never brought it up as an argument for the position, I just used it as clarification... so no, I didn't bring it up and arguing whether my religion is true or not has absolutely no bearing on the topic of the OP... Show nested quote +there is plenty of readily available information on the societal benefits of legal abortion. The number of deaths from women having dangerous, illegal abortions is the obvious one. Because women won't stop having abortions even if they're deemed illegal. Then there's things like this • Compared to states that support women’s health, those states that oppose safe and legal abortion spend
far less money per child on a range of services such as foster care, education, welfare, and the adoption of
children who have physical and mental disabilities (Schroedel, 2000).
• The states that have the strongest laws against safe and legal abortion are also the states in which women
suffer from lower levels of education and higher levels of poverty, as well as from a lower ratio of female-to-male
earnings. They also have a lower percentage of women in the legislature and fewer mandates requiring
insurance providers to cover minimum hospital stays after childbirth (Schroedel, 2000)
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/Medical_Social_Benefits_Abortion.pdf Yeah, still not buying it. The first reason is unproven (that women, in general, won't stop having abortions), the second is coincidental (and arguably not a net societal benefit), and the third is a case of correlation being mistaken for causation.
How is the first reason unproven. There is ample historical data on that.
|
On June 18 2013 13:37 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 13:23 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 13:17 Acrofales wrote:On June 18 2013 13:11 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 12:10 Acrofales wrote:On June 18 2013 11:24 datcirclejerk wrote:On June 18 2013 10:47 codonbyte wrote:On June 18 2013 09:45 CallMeLukas wrote:On June 18 2013 08:41 codonbyte wrote:
A fetus on the other hand is physically bound to the woman who is carrying it and therefore doesn't have the same rights as a child outside the womb. So a difference in environment is what grants rights? If not, then where do you draw the line between "abortion is ok" and "abortion is murder?" Following your argument, abortion should be ok right up until birth. Actually, by my argument abortion would not be legal right up until birth because there is a period of time before birth where the fetus would be able to survive outside the womb, and hence abortion would only be legal up until that point, not right up until birth. What's so great about surviving outside the womb? Doesn't it depend upon our own technology? If so, doesn't that suggest that your standard for human life changes as human technology changes, meaning it is a pointless and arbitrary definition for life? If we reach the technology capable of providing a single cell to full human maturity, are all of the hypocrites here going to suddenly accept the premise that life begins at conception, since that is when it can survive outside the womb? Obviously not... It's all complete bullshit, I'm sorry to say. You people have absolutely no reasoning behind your lines drawn in the sand, you just want a line drawn in the sand, period. Just be honest with yourselves and say that you support abortion because it is convenient, but cannot justify it from a moral perspective. It is perfectly fine to say "I reject morality if it is inconvenient," since that is what the majority of human beings do anyway. Morality is meaningless. As I stated before, it is all evolved emotions, and emotions are not absolutes. No. You are guilty of a reductio ad absurdum. While there are a number of different periods in which ethicists argue that abortion can be ethical, they depend largely on what makes a human being human. Being a zygote does not make it human (at least imho). When does a foetus stop being a clump of cells and start being a human? Ethicists are unclear. My own feeling is that it is somewhere between the first brain activity and birth. Brain activity is a precondition for consciousness, but is clearly not a sufficient precondition (plenty of animals with a brain are not considered conscious). Because we don't know, using "viability outside the uterus" is a fairly decent proxy (and also coincided decently with when higher brain function starts). Umm, reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid form of argument, so I have no idea where you get the idea that someone can be "guilty" of it. And no, "viability outside the uterus" is a horrible proxy for determining life, for the reasons I've already listed. The simple truth is that there is no truth, there is no objective, outside of human thinking definition for what makes a human. It is simply whatever we decide or define it to be. Normally people will define moral concepts around what they feel emotionally. Some people feel absolutely nothing for a "clump of cells," while others feel an empathetic connection to it because it has the potential of a grown human being. Neither side is objectively right or wrong, but either way it is absurd to randomly draw the line at surviving on it's own. This isn't about morality, it is about refuting arguments that are patently absurd. Okay, fine. You were guilty of raising the straw man argument in order to be able to reduce to absurdity the argument that stated nothing of the kind. As for your latter point, there is no MORALITY outside of human thinking (unless you believe in god and morality stemming from him/her/it). The only species who questions the ethics of their actions are humans, so yes, it is up to humans to decide whether, and when, abortion is ethical. You stating that pondering the question from this viewpoint is absurd, when it clearly isn't, is absurd. The fact that there is no objective right or wrong doesn't mean the question is unponderable. You think animals have no morality? Of course they do. You think chimpanzees and apes don't feel empathy for eachother, and have to grapple that empathy with their own reptilian R-complex which desires aggression and violence? Ponderable doesn't really matter, since morality is essentially based upon evolved mammalian empathetic emotions, and nothing more. Just because there is no objective standard for invented human morality does not mean there is no basis for the empathy that that invented morality is based upon. Just as there is no ape consciousness
lol what? Guess humans aren't conscious then..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
