|
On June 18 2013 18:53 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 18:34 Reason wrote: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.
Up until X weeks yes, after which these notions are disregarded in favour of the life of the unborn. Two sides to that coin is all I'm saying.
On June 18 2013 18:40 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
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.
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.
The baby might be 1 day away from birth? 2 days? 3 days?
Sorry to blow your mind there.
edit: More simply, when another life is involved.
|
On June 18 2013 20:01 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 18:53 sunprince wrote:On June 18 2013 18:34 Reason wrote: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. Up until X weeks yes, after which these notions are disregarded in favour of the life of the unborn. Two sides to that coin is all I'm saying. Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 18:40 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
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.
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. The baby might be 1 day away from birth? 2 days? 3 days? Sorry to blow your mind there. edit: More simply, when another life is involved.
how many people do you really think are having abortions 1-3 days before due date?
|
On June 18 2013 19:42 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 13:37 Acrofales wrote: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 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.
Actually I am claiming something that is fairly well accepted in philosophy. Humans are the only truly conscious animals. Of course, the question is: what, exactly, is consciousness and how do we decide whether something is conscious or not. Consciousness, however, is also not a single quality, but rather a scale from not conscious to fully conscious (where we simply put ourselves at the top, because we know of nothing that is more conscious than human beings).
Where you draw the line between "conscious" and "not conscious" depends on what you value about consciousness, but the only beings that show ALL characteristics that are associated with consciousness (such as self-expression, which apes only do in a very limited form) and it has been argued that they aren't self-conscious at a human level, although bonobos, at least, seem to have a higher social awareness than humans, scoring significantly better on tests of predicting group behaviour.
Now can we get back ontopic? The only reason we're discussing this is to discuss morality, which you claimed was a non-factor in the decision about abortion, which is a patently absurd claim to make.
|
On June 18 2013 20:22 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 19:42 mcc wrote:On June 18 2013 13:37 Acrofales wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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. Actually I am claiming something that is fairly well accepted in philosophy. Humans are the only truly conscious animals. Of course, the question is: what, exactly, is consciousness and how do we decide whether something is conscious or not. Consciousness, however, is also not a single quality, but rather a scale from not conscious to fully conscious (where we simply put ourselves at the top, because we know of nothing that is more conscious than human beings). Where you draw the line between "conscious" and "not conscious" depends on what you value about consciousness, but the only beings that show ALL characteristics that are associated with consciousness (such as self-expression, which apes only do in a very limited form) and it has been argued that they aren't self-conscious at a human level, although bonobos, at least, seem to have a higher social awareness than humans, scoring significantly better on tests of predicting group behaviour. Now can we get back ontopic? The only reason we're discussing this is to discuss morality, which you claimed was a non-factor in the decision about abortion, which is a patently absurd claim to make.
Your description is correct and consciousness is continuous scale, but that of course means that your absolute assertion was kind of off. Of course that also means that also humans differ in levels of consciousness, which one of the humans are truly conscious and which ones are not ? Saying that humans are the only truly conscious animals is of course nonsense. They are just more conscious in some aspects than other animals. Quite often they are not even more conscious in any significant level compared to animals. As for what is accepted in philosophy I do not really care.
As for the topic, I claimed no such thing.
|
On June 18 2013 20:22 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 19:42 mcc wrote:On June 18 2013 13:37 Acrofales wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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. Actually I am claiming something that is fairly well accepted in philosophy. Humans are the only truly conscious animals. Of course, the question is: what, exactly, is consciousness and how do we decide whether something is conscious or not. Consciousness, however, is also not a single quality, but rather a scale from not conscious to fully conscious (where we simply put ourselves at the top, because we know of nothing that is more conscious than human beings). Where you draw the line between "conscious" and "not conscious" depends on what you value about consciousness, but the only beings that show ALL characteristics that are associated with consciousness (such as self-expression, which apes only do in a very limited form) and it has been argued that they aren't self-conscious at a human level, although bonobos, at least, seem to have a higher social awareness than humans, scoring significantly better on tests of predicting group behaviour. Now can we get back ontopic? The only reason we're discussing this is to discuss morality, which you claimed was a non-factor in the decision about abortion, which is a patently absurd claim to make.
a lot of the philosophy that claims that animals have no consciousness is based on Descartes and his claim that humans are the only animal with a "non-physical mind." Basically, it's a ridiculous notion that the mind exists somehow separate from the physical apparatus of the brain.. its all bullshit and not supported by science at all. In fact, science hasn't been able to define consciousness yet, so maybe it's not actually a valid term to use about how our brains function, and should be thrown out along with terms like "soul" or "god"
|
On June 18 2013 20:20 Quotidian wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 20:01 Reason wrote:On June 18 2013 18:53 sunprince wrote:On June 18 2013 18:34 Reason wrote: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. Up until X weeks yes, after which these notions are disregarded in favour of the life of the unborn. Two sides to that coin is all I'm saying. On June 18 2013 18:40 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
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.
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. The baby might be 1 day away from birth? 2 days? 3 days? Sorry to blow your mind there. edit: More simply, when another life is involved. how many people do you really think are having abortions 1-3 days before due date?
Nobody has an abortion 1-3 days before the due date, do you know why? They're not allowed to.
I assume you quoting me and asking this question is either an attempt to disagree with me or somehow disprove what I'm saying so why don't you pay closer attention to what I've written?
The guy said he 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.
My response, phrased differently now for your personal benefit, is that one possible logical reason is that you're very heavily pregnant and it's a little late to decide that you don't want to have a baby, so just give birth to it and if you don't want it then don't worry you can still give it up for adoption.
Considering the thread topic, I thought that would suffice, but since both of you have trouble understanding such simple concepts allow me to list a few others for you:
You are incapable of communicating your wishes e.g. paralyzed, comatose etc
You are not judged capable of making such important decisions e.g severe mental problems
There ya go.
|
On June 18 2013 18:53 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 18:34 Reason wrote: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.
This led me to read a lot about "bad samaritan" laws that exist in some US states. The whole idea is that an "omission" or failure to act constitutes something called an actus reus (guilty act), but that this only applies when the law imposes a duty to act in certain situations; such as not stopping your vehicle and assisting someone if you get in an accident.
Generally speaking it looks like people don't have any legal duty to act to prevent harm to others though. I think the main difference between the two examples is that in abortion you would be doing direct harm to the fetus or baby if you decided to abort after 20 weeks, but in the case of humanitarian causes, there generally doesn't appear to be any direct causal harm if you don't give money (in the sense that X will die if you don't donate $20). In many cases you could just call it aid.
You would have to have a situation in which it is obvious that your lack of help led to someone's death to be liable. Here's how American law professor Mike Dorf put it: (Link)
As a matter of everyday morality, the act/omission distinction enables us to live what we regard as at least minimally virtuous lives without giving away everything we have beyond what's needed to subsist, to those less fortunate than ourselves. I.e., we understand ourselves as obligated not to harm others but with a few special exceptions, we do not regard ourselves as under a duty to aid others.
|
On June 18 2013 20:56 Quotidian wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 20:22 Acrofales wrote:On June 18 2013 19:42 mcc wrote:On June 18 2013 13:37 Acrofales wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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. Actually I am claiming something that is fairly well accepted in philosophy. Humans are the only truly conscious animals. Of course, the question is: what, exactly, is consciousness and how do we decide whether something is conscious or not. Consciousness, however, is also not a single quality, but rather a scale from not conscious to fully conscious (where we simply put ourselves at the top, because we know of nothing that is more conscious than human beings). Where you draw the line between "conscious" and "not conscious" depends on what you value about consciousness, but the only beings that show ALL characteristics that are associated with consciousness (such as self-expression, which apes only do in a very limited form) and it has been argued that they aren't self-conscious at a human level, although bonobos, at least, seem to have a higher social awareness than humans, scoring significantly better on tests of predicting group behaviour. Now can we get back ontopic? The only reason we're discussing this is to discuss morality, which you claimed was a non-factor in the decision about abortion, which is a patently absurd claim to make. a lot of the philosophy that claims that animals have no consciousness is based on Descartes and his claim that humans are the only animal with a "non-physical mind." Basically, it's a ridiculous notion that the mind exists somehow separate from the physical apparatus of the brain.. its all bullshit and not supported by science at all. In fact, science hasn't been able to define consciousness yet, so maybe it's not actually a valid term to use about how our brains function, and should be thrown out along with terms like "soul" or "god"
The latter part may very well be the case, but I take offence to you calling me a Cartesian dualist, when I firmly base my ideas of mind and consciousness on ideas proposed by Dawkins, Dennett, Hofstadter, Damasio and other very firm believers of the emergent mind.
As I said, consciousness is gradual. I would say a chimp is definitely more conscious than a dog, which in turn is more conscious than a mosquito. However, ALL of the characteristics that we associate with consciousness are present in only one being that we know of: humans.
|
I don't think the idea of consciousness should really be applied to animals and beings other than humans. As far as I know, the definition of consciousness was reworked to be able to include only humans and partially exclude other animals.
|
I think the issue is pretty simple. There are no hard and fast rules for when a fetus becomes viable-Roe v Wade determined that the interim point is around 28 weeks, albeit the fetus would need external aid to live. However, one can simply defer to the opinion of the doctor taking care of the woman. If the fetus is viable according to the doctor, an abortion should not be performed.
There are some minor problems with this, but it's probably the simplest and least controversial way of dealing with the "matter". I put that in quotes because the "definition of life" controversy really has only been espoused and pushed forth by conservatives.
|
On June 19 2013 00:08 wherebugsgo wrote:
I think the issue is pretty simple. There are no hard and fast rules for when a fetus becomes viable-Roe v Wade determined that the interim point is around 28 weeks, albeit the fetus would need external aid to live. However, one can simply defer to the opinion of the doctor taking care of the woman. If the fetus is viable according to the doctor, an abortion should not be performed.
There are some minor problems with this, but it's probably the simplest and least controversial way of dealing with the "matter". I put that in quotes because the "definition of life" controversy really has only been espoused and pushed forth by conservatives.
That's a really roundabout way of saying "there should be no exceptions or late term abortions because of rape/incest but, on a related issue, I do think the 20 week legal limit could be universally made a little less rigid".
You haven't actually addressed the "matter" of rape/incest exceptions.
|
On June 18 2013 23:59 Dark_Chill wrote:
I don't think the idea of consciousness should really be applied to animals and beings other than humans. As far as I know, the definition of consciousness was reworked to be able to include only humans and partially exclude other animals.
Could you elaborate a bit on why you think so? I mean if traits that were once thought to be vital or indicative of consciousness are found in other animals as well, why would there be a need to "rework" the concept rather then concluding that said animals possess some form of consciousness too!?
|
On June 18 2013 10:39 sunprince wrote:
Women [...] had limited rights [...] but this does not equate to "oppression".
I was surprised to see something so stupid till i noticed it was sunprince that wrote it.
Yes throughout the global history of the planet women had limited rights and that does mean they were oppressed.
|
On June 18 2013 23:33 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 20:56 Quotidian wrote:On June 18 2013 20:22 Acrofales wrote:On June 18 2013 19:42 mcc wrote:On June 18 2013 13:37 Acrofales wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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. Actually I am claiming something that is fairly well accepted in philosophy. Humans are the only truly conscious animals. Of course, the question is: what, exactly, is consciousness and how do we decide whether something is conscious or not. Consciousness, however, is also not a single quality, but rather a scale from not conscious to fully conscious (where we simply put ourselves at the top, because we know of nothing that is more conscious than human beings). Where you draw the line between "conscious" and "not conscious" depends on what you value about consciousness, but the only beings that show ALL characteristics that are associated with consciousness (such as self-expression, which apes only do in a very limited form) and it has been argued that they aren't self-conscious at a human level, although bonobos, at least, seem to have a higher social awareness than humans, scoring significantly better on tests of predicting group behaviour. Now can we get back ontopic? The only reason we're discussing this is to discuss morality, which you claimed was a non-factor in the decision about abortion, which is a patently absurd claim to make. a lot of the philosophy that claims that animals have no consciousness is based on Descartes and his claim that humans are the only animal with a "non-physical mind." Basically, it's a ridiculous notion that the mind exists somehow separate from the physical apparatus of the brain.. its all bullshit and not supported by science at all. In fact, science hasn't been able to define consciousness yet, so maybe it's not actually a valid term to use about how our brains function, and should be thrown out along with terms like "soul" or "god" The latter part may very well be the case, but I take offence to you calling me a Cartesian dualist, when I firmly base my ideas of mind and consciousness on ideas proposed by Dawkins, Dennett, Hofstadter, Damasio and other very firm believers of the emergent mind. As I said, consciousness is gradual. I would say a chimp is definitely more conscious than a dog, which in turn is more conscious than a mosquito. However, ALL of the characteristics that we associate with consciousness are present in only one being that we know of: humans.
You named only one : "self-expression" and even than you conceded that it is present in animals although in limited form. So what are these characteristics that are present in humans and not in other animals.
|
On June 18 2013 14:43 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 12:53 Acrofales wrote: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.
That's about as sensible as going to Vegas and claiming you never consented to losing money, just to gambling. By having unprotected sex, you KNOW that there's a chance you will get pregnant, or impregnate the girl, so as not to be gender-specfic (not to mention the risk of getting AIDS, chlamydia, herpes, etc. which is another discussion entirely).
By disregarding that risk (for whatever reason), you are responsible for the outcome. If you afterwards realize that you were incredibly stupid, but are now pregnant (or your wife, girlfriend, one-night stand, prostitute, whatever), then you are responsible for this. It wasn't forced on you, it was a risk you knowingly took.
Of course, as long as what is being aborted cannot (sensibly) be called a human being, what you are doing is removing an unwanted clump of cells from your body. I see no ethical objections to that, and I would argue that a woman is entirely within her right to do this regardless of how that clump of cells got there (whether due to stupidity, an accident, rape, or any other reason for ending up pregnant). But it really is important to be able to decide what a human being is, when a foetus becomes a human being, etc.
|
On June 19 2013 00:39 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 10:39 sunprince wrote:
Women [...] had limited rights [...] but this does not equate to "oppression". I was surprised to see something so stupid till i noticed it was sunprince that wrote it. Yes throughout the global history of the planet women had limited rights and that does mean they were oppressed.
Limited rights does not equate to "oppression". Children in the modern world have limited rights (along with limited responsibilities), but no reasonable person would argue that we "oppress" children. Oppression is much better suited to describe differential treatment such as racial discrimination, not merely differential treatment of any sort.
Historically, women were simply treated similarly to the way we treat children today, with limited rights but also limited responsibilities, and a great emphasis on protecting and coddling them.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 19 2013 01:55 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 00:39 ComaDose wrote:On June 18 2013 10:39 sunprince wrote:
Women [...] had limited rights [...] but this does not equate to "oppression". I was surprised to see something so stupid till i noticed it was sunprince that wrote it. Yes throughout the global history of the planet women had limited rights and that does mean they were oppressed. Limited rights does not equate to oppression. Children in the modern world have limited rights (along with limited responsibilities), but no reasonable person would argue that we oppress children. Oppression is much better suited to describe differential treatment such as racial discrimination, not merely differential treatment of any sort. Historically, women were simply treated similarly to the way we treat children today, with limited rights but also limited responsibilities, and a great emphasis on protecting and coddling them.
And if a woman wanted to do 'man' things with the inherent rights/responsibilities involved, what then?
|
On June 19 2013 01:55 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 00:39 ComaDose wrote:On June 18 2013 10:39 sunprince wrote:
Women [...] had limited rights [...] but this does not equate to "oppression". I was surprised to see something so stupid till i noticed it was sunprince that wrote it. Yes throughout the global history of the planet women had limited rights and that does mean they were oppressed. Limited rights does not equate to "oppression". Children in the modern world have limited rights (along with limited responsibilities), but no reasonable person would argue that we "oppress" children. Oppression is much better suited to describe differential treatment such as racial discrimination, not merely differential treatment of any sort. Historically, women were simply treated similarly to the way we treat children today, with limited rights but also limited responsibilities, and a great emphasis on protecting and coddling them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression
Read up. Your definition of oppression is utterly ridiculous.Let me emphasize the relevant part: "Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner"
Just because we supposedly "coddled" women (which, by the way, is a massive generalization and fails to acknowledge the fact that we "protected" them in the same way that we protect golden treasure; you know, as objects) doesn't mean that we didn't oppress them, because such coddling doesn't make our denial of rights for women any more just. Limiting the rights of children isn't oppressive because children are children and therefore we have a good, sensible reason to limit their rights, and do so in their own best interests.
Please tell me you're not going to argue that we denied women rights for their own good.
|
On June 19 2013 01:17 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 14:43 sunprince wrote:On June 18 2013 12:53 Acrofales wrote: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. That's about as sensible as going to Vegas and claiming you never consented to losing money, just to gambling. By having unprotected sex, you KNOW that there's a chance you will get pregnant, or impregnate the girl, so as not to be gender-specfic (not to mention the risk of getting AIDS, chlamydia, herpes, etc. which is another discussion entirely). By disregarding that risk (for whatever reason), you are responsible for the outcome. If you afterwards realize that you were incredibly stupid, but are now pregnant (or your wife, girlfriend, one-night stand, prostitute, whatever), then you are responsible for this. It wasn't forced on you, it was a risk you knowingly took. Of course, as long as what is being aborted cannot (sensibly) be called a human being, what you are doing is removing an unwanted clump of cells from your body. I see no ethical objections to that, and I would argue that a woman is entirely within her right to do this regardless of how that clump of cells got there (whether due to stupidity, an accident, rape, or any other reason for ending up pregnant). But it really is important to be able to decide what a human being is, when a foetus becomes a human being, etc.
That's like saying that consenting to eat a restaurant means that you are consenting to possibly get a food-borne illness. Doesn't fly. There's a difference between an unmitigated risk such as gambling in Vegas, and a minimal risk once you've taken all proper precautions. Generally, most reasonable people would conclude that you are responsible for gambling losses, but not responsible for catching a food-borne illness from a restaurant.
|
On June 19 2013 01:56 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 01:55 sunprince wrote:On June 19 2013 00:39 ComaDose wrote:On June 18 2013 10:39 sunprince wrote:
Women [...] had limited rights [...] but this does not equate to "oppression". I was surprised to see something so stupid till i noticed it was sunprince that wrote it. Yes throughout the global history of the planet women had limited rights and that does mean they were oppressed. Limited rights does not equate to oppression. Children in the modern world have limited rights (along with limited responsibilities), but no reasonable person would argue that we oppress children. Oppression is much better suited to describe differential treatment such as racial discrimination, not merely differential treatment of any sort. Historically, women were simply treated similarly to the way we treat children today, with limited rights but also limited responsibilities, and a great emphasis on protecting and coddling them. And if a woman wanted to do 'man' things with the inherent rights/responsibilities involved, what then?
Depending on the society, they could, but few chose to. Historically, there have been women rulers and the like. We also have records of more recent times, like the Renaissance, that indicate that (a few) women were members of trade guilds. It's just that throughout nearly all of history, it has been preferable to be a homemaker rather than a breadwinner, especially since being a breadwinner for nearly all of human history typically entailed great mortality risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
