Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4
Legal abortion comes to Latin America
Topic Started: Apr 24 2007, 09:04 AM (1,062 Views)
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
kenny
Apr 24 2007, 05:57 PM
TomK
Apr 24 2007, 01:55 PM
kenny
Apr 24 2007, 05:54 PM

You are a monster.

I am.

OK, I'm out of here.

You can't handle logic?
Later.


Had to pick up my my kid.

kenny--you have a lot going for you--but logic :lol: , OK.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Dewey
Apr 24 2007, 10:09 PM
Quote:
 
Non-existent, never-were people aren't missed.


Oh really? Would you care to explain that to me, my wife, and the countless others who have agonized over a lost pregnancy? I pray that you never have a firsthand opportunity to realize how horrendously inaccurate that comment is.

Well it's a bit semantic, i mean you can't really miss what you never had can you? Isn't that a kind of acute disappointment...

well ok fine i'll modify my remark: Only an infinitely small fraction of never-weres are missed.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Moonbat
Apr 24 2007, 07:03 PM
Dewey
Apr 24 2007, 10:09 PM
Quote:
 
Non-existent, never-were people aren't missed.


Oh really? Would you care to explain that to me, my wife, and the countless others who have agonized over a lost pregnancy? I pray that you never have a firsthand opportunity to realize how horrendously inaccurate that comment is.

Well it's a bit semantic, i mean you can't really miss what you never had can you? Isn't that a kind of acute disappointment...

well ok fine i'll modify my remark: Only an infinitely small fraction of never-weres are missed.

How do you explain the similar myth making of so many distaff cultures through the world?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Apr 24 2007, 02:53 PM
Right and at fertilisation a magic soul of humanness gets spiritually woven into the proteins, phospholipids, nucelic acids, and sugars

:rolleyes:

You and Jeff keep throwing around the term "magic" without defining it.

Regardless, you have to admit that a fertilized egg is something entirely unique that an unfertilized egg and a spermatazoan that never unite never can be. And that fertilized egg of human material can ONLY be a human being. *That* clump of proteins, phospholipids, nucelic acids, and sugars is significantly and essentially different from a jar of proteins, phospholipids, nucelic acids, and sugars sitting on your shelf.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
So?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
kenny
Apr 24 2007, 05:04 PM
So?

:shrug:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
kenny
Apr 24 2007, 03:23 PM
If a woman doesn't want to have a baby she should not be forced by the government or the church to have it.

You guys whine about women being forced to cover their heads?
A piece of cloth ain't nothing compared to forcing motherhood on the unwilling.
I think this is an important step in a very repressed part of the world.

Don't look now, kenny, but the fastest growing religion in South America is the Muslim faith.

I think we all know their stance on abortion....
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
ivorythumper
Apr 24 2007, 11:53 PM
Moonbat
Apr 24 2007, 02:53 PM
Right and at fertilisation a magic soul of humanness gets spiritually woven into the proteins, phospholipids, nucelic acids, and sugars

:rolleyes:

You and Jeff keep throwing around the term "magic" without defining it.

Regardless, you have to admit that a fertilized egg is something entirely unique that an unfertilized egg and a spermatazoan that never unite never can be. And that fertilized egg of human material can ONLY be a human being. *That* clump of proteins, phospholipids, nucelic acids, and sugars is significantly and essentially different from a jar of proteins, phospholipids, nucelic acids, and sugars sitting on your shelf.

Quote:
 

Regardless, you have to admit that a fertilized egg is something entirely unique that an unfertilized egg and a spermatazoan that never unite never can be. And that fertilized egg of human material can ONLY be a human being. *That* clump of proteins, phospholipids, nucelic acids, and sugars is significantly and essentially different from a jar of proteins, phospholipids, nucelic acids, and sugars sitting on your shelf.


Magic is whatever it is you think is missing from physics.

Most things are "entirely unique" so that qualifier is of little use. Any given unfertilised egg could hypothetically unite with any spermatozoan, potentially then any given pair could develop into a person. Likewise a fertilised egg can also potentially develop into a person (it's slightly further along than a sperm an egg, but is vast amount of development yet to come).

When you say a fertilised egg is a human "being", what do you mean?

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Apr 25 2007, 01:30 AM
ivorythumper
Apr 24 2007, 11:53 PM
Moonbat
Apr 24 2007, 02:53 PM
Right and at fertilisation a magic soul of humanness gets spiritually woven into the proteins, phospholipids, nucelic acids, and sugars

:rolleyes:

You and Jeff keep throwing around the term "magic" without defining it.

Regardless, you have to admit that a fertilized egg is something entirely unique that an unfertilized egg and a spermatazoan that never unite never can be. And that fertilized egg of human material can ONLY be a human being. *That* clump of proteins, phospholipids, nucelic acids, and sugars is significantly and essentially different from a jar of proteins, phospholipids, nucelic acids, and sugars sitting on your shelf.

Quote:
 

Regardless, you have to admit that a fertilized egg is something entirely unique that an unfertilized egg and a spermatazoan that never unite never can be. And that fertilized egg of human material can ONLY be a human being. *That* clump of proteins, phospholipids, nucelic acids, and sugars is significantly and essentially different from a jar of proteins, phospholipids, nucelic acids, and sugars sitting on your shelf.


Magic is whatever it is you think is missing from physics.

Most things are "entirely unique" so that qualifier is of little use. Any given unfertilised egg could hypothetically unite with any spermatozoan, potentially then any given pair could develop into a person. Likewise a fertilised egg can also potentially develop into a person (it's slightly further along than a sperm an egg, but is vast amount of development yet to come).

When you say a fertilised egg is a human "being", what do you mean?

It is a being of human material and nature -- and left unmolested will normally and naturally continue to develop into a born human being, a child, an adolescent and an adult. You cannot say that about the jar of proteins, phospholipids, nucelic acids, and sugars sitting on your shelf.

And no, most things are not "entirely unique" in the sense that human beings are, except in your dry analytical consideration.

As for qualifiers that are of little use, your definition of magic certainly fits that.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

It is a being of human material and nature -- and left unmolested will normally and naturally continue to develop into a born human being, a child, an adolescent and an adult. You cannot say that about the jar of proteins, phospholipids, nucelic acids, and sugars sitting on your shelf.


A sperm and egg are of "human material and nature", as for "left unmolested will normally and naturally.." such statements lack coherence.

Everything occurs "naturally" for nature is all that there is. Statistical norms don't seem to hold much relevence to the ontological status of a particular single cell, for they are determined by things other than the particular single cell.

There are millions of different processes that must occur for the cell to develop into a thinking feeling person, if they do not happen the cell does not develop. The potential person does not become a real person.

There are millions of different processes that must occur for a particular sperm/egg pair to develop into a thinking feeling person, if they do not happen the sperm/egg pair does not develop. The potential person does not become a real person.

Quote:
 

And no, most things are not "entirely unique" in the sense that human beings are, except in your dry analytical consideration.


Most things are unique, one cell is not the same as another cell. Saying something is "entirely" unique is a nonsense, either something is unique or it is not. If one wants to talk about a measure of the difference between two objects that's fine, one can talk about relative differences but of course that won't help you define fertilisation as a philosophically significant point.

Quote:
 

As for qualifiers that are of little use, your definition of magic certainly fits that.


Says the man who doesn't believe in "materialism".
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
kenny
Apr 24 2007, 05:23 PM
If a woman doesn't want to have a baby she should not be forced by the government or the church to have it.

You guys whine about women being forced to cover their heads?
A piece of cloth ain't nothing compared to forcing motherhood on the unwilling.
I think this is an important step in a very repressed part of the world.

The government does not force women to have children, as it has no control over conception. That is where the real control lies, not in killing the result thereof.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Jolly
Apr 24 2007, 07:38 PM
...the fastest growing religion in South America is the Muslim faith.

I think we all know their stance on abortion....

Not true. Baha'i is ahead of Islam there.


"From Table 1-4 the continent "Latin America" that we observe that while Muslims (1.99) are growing faster than Christians (1.63), they make up only 1/3 of 1% (.3%) of the population, whereas Christians are 92 % of the population. The down trend in Christianity conversion is mainly defects from Catholics to non-religious. It must be troubling for Muslims to know that although they are growing faster than Christians, Baha’is are growing much faster than Muslims at a rate of 2.87! In the Latin American continent, Christians make up 93% of the population. Although tiny Islam is fastest growing faster than Christianity, it is the Baha’is, who take the prize for fastest growing the Latin America."

source: http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-fastest-growing.htm
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Apr 25 2007, 02:51 AM
Quote:
 

It is a being of human material and nature -- and left unmolested will normally and naturally continue to develop into a born human being, a child, an adolescent and an adult. You cannot say that about the jar of proteins, phospholipids, nucelic acids, and sugars sitting on your shelf.


A sperm and egg are of "human material and nature", as for "left unmolested will normally and naturally.." such statements lack coherence.

Everything occurs "naturally" for nature is all that there is. Statistical norms don't seem to hold much relevence to the ontological status of a particular single cell, for they are determined by things other than the particular single cell.

There are millions of different processes that must occur for the cell to develop into a thinking feeling person, if they do not happen the cell does not develop. The potential person does not become a real person.

There are millions of different processes that must occur for a particular sperm/egg pair to develop into a thinking feeling person, if they do not happen the sperm/egg pair does not develop. The potential person does not become a real person.

Nothing incoherent about it, Moonie. Don't abort and the preborn human being *will continue to develop* into a born human being. It will develop its INNATE faculties for rational thought and volition (or whatever those electrochemical process are that we impute to soulless biomachines), just as it will develop capacities for generation.

You keep up this Orwellian doublespeak of "person" as if that is morally significant, when that is a purely subjective standard for deciding which human beings are liable to destruction.

The fact that there are zillions of chemical reactions going on for full consciousness, volition and intellection to happen does not in any way make it so that at any point once the zygote is established it is not both a human being and a human person in a various stages of observable development.

The steady and safest moral position -- whether from natural law or utilitarianism -- is to a priori assume that all human beings are also human persons. And regardless of what words we use to categorize people, their humanity is what grounds their dignity and rights. Carrots don't have rights, but they as well share proteins, phospholipids, nucelic acids, and sugars. Carrots do not share the same common nature as do all human beings. Therefore no sane person speaks of vegetables having rights.

Both sentiency and cognition develop at different stages in the course of human development, as do respiration and generation and ambulation and volition and bowel control and verbal communication and lots of other faculties that are entirely innate to the human being. None of these other purely chemical processes are commonly considered grounds for ascribing human rights, or lacking them giving grounds for enslavement, destruction, abuse, scientific experimentation, or other violations of human dignity, so I am not inclined to think that your entirely subjective standard of sentiency or "personhood" has any moral foundation either.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 

And no, most things are not "entirely unique" in the sense that human beings are, except in your dry analytical consideration.


Most things are unique, one cell is not the same as another cell. Saying something is "entirely" unique is a nonsense, either something is unique or it is not. If one wants to talk about a measure of the difference between two objects that's fine, one can talk about relative differences but of course that won't help you define fertilisation as a philosophically significant point.


It is both silly and unproductive to call it nonsense since in the context of the sentence, the unicity of an individual human being has a significant meaning from talking about the unicity of a fleck of white paint on a white painted wall. If you want to devolve into semantic arguments, I really do have better things to do than get involved in your dry analysis of matter.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 

As for qualifiers that are of little use, your definition of magic certainly fits that.


Says the man who doesn't believe in "materialism".

Not at all. There are many ways of considering "magic" -- anthropologically, development of consciousness theory -- Gebser or Wilbur -- spiritualistism, etc.

Your definition: "Magic is whatever it is you think is missing from physics" does not take into account the possibilities of connatural knowledge that is conventionally called "magic consciousness" but which would not be opposed to a purely material explanation. Hence your definition is of little use.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Nothing incoherent about it, Moonie. Don't abort and the preborn human being *will continue to develop* into a born human being. It will develop its INNATE faculties for rational thought and volition (or whatever those electrochemical process are that we impute to soulless biomachines), just as it will develop capacities for generation.


The argument fails.

First it's not true that it *will continue to develop* into a born human being, develop thought, etc. if an abortion is not carried out, a certain percentage won't. Some will terminate because the mother dies or is injured, some terminate for other reasons relating to hormone levels or a specific gene present in the foetus.

What you can claim is that if an abortion is not performed there is a certain chance a thinking feeling human will emerge. _However_ precisely the same argument can be made against contraception, if contraception was not present then there is a certain chance that a thinking feeling human will eventually emerge.

And indeed one need not stop there, if two people are considering having a child, and then you speak to them, and convince tthem that it wouldn't benefit them or the child at this point in their lives, then that intervention is of precisely the same kind. Again we have a situation where had you not intervened there is a certain chance that a thinking feeling human will eventually emerge.

In every instant, in every action, a zillion such events occur, a zillion hypothetical future people go from never-weres to never-will-bes.

Quote:
 

You keep up this Orwellian doublespeak of "person" as if that is morally significant, when that is a purely subjective standard for deciding which human beings are liable to destruction.


The usage of person is a simplification but i can quite happily explain _precisely_ what is it is that i think is ethically significant in terms of the nature of experience. You on the other hand when asked to define a "being" responded with "a being".

Quote:
 

The fact that there are zillions of chemical reactions going on for full consciousness, volition and intellection to happen does not in any way make it so that at any point once the zygote is established it is not both a human being and a human person in a various stages of observable development.


What is the significance of the zygote formation? Why is fertilisation significant? What do you _mean_ when you say "it is a being"? Why isn't it "a being" a fempto second before? At what point does it become a "being" is it when the outer phospholipid bilayer of the sperm touches the egg? Is it when the phosopholipid bilayer of the egg reforms after engulfing the sperm? Is it after the genetic material rearranges? Is it after the first division? The second? And why that point? What critera are you using? Why are those criterea significant? Why does spacial arrangement (which the invariable answer i get) matter - why does it matter whether the system is split into two spatially localised components or not? Why are the skin cells on my jumper not "beings" too? What criterea are you using?

Quote:
 

The steady and safest moral position -- whether from natural law or utilitarianism -- is to a priori assume that all human beings are also human persons. And regardless of what words we use to categorize people, their humanity is what grounds their dignity and rights. Carrots don't have rights, but they as well share proteins, phospholipids, nucelic acids, and sugars. Carrots do not share the same common nature as do all human beings. Therefore no sane person speaks of vegetables having rights.


Utilitarians care about maximising happiness or perhaps better maximising the quality of life function of the universe. This arbitrary "being" stuff is of no philosophical consequence.

Dignity and rights are constructs (well rights are, dignity is a state of mind). They are usefull because they benefit us, they benefit minds, they make the world a better place for minds, they increase the quality of experience for conscious observers.

The reasons carrots are not ethically significant is because they are not conscious (as far as one can make out). There is nothing significant about humans other than the nature of their experience, if aliens turned up that were unlike us in many ways but who also had complex internal experiences, then they would be as ethically significant as we are. If it is possible for something to be hurt, and to be happy then that thing is of ethical significance.

Quote:
 

Both sentiency and cognition develop at different stages in the course of human development, as do respiration and generation and ambulation and volition and bowel control and verbal communication and lots of other faculties that are entirely innate to the human being. None of these other purely chemical processes are commonly considered grounds for ascribing human rights, or lacking them giving grounds for enslavement, destruction, abuse, scientific experimentation, or other violations of human dignity, so I am not inclined to think that your entirely subjective standard of sentiency or "personhood" has any moral foundation either.


Personhood is a simplfication what matters is experience, consciousnes, personhood is a cut off point imposed by pragmatic necessity. I'm quite happy to consider arguments about where it should be defined about the consequences of differring points about whether a more nuanced approach should be used, and the consequences of that etc. etc.

Quote:
 

It is both silly and unproductive to call it nonsense since in the context of the sentence, the unicity of an individual human being has a significant meaning from talking about the unicity of a fleck of white paint on a white painted wall. If you want to devolve into semantic arguments, I really do have better things to do than get involved in your dry analysis of matter.


I haven't the feintest idea what you're talking about. Either something is unique or it's not. One can talk about relative differences if you like, of course to be robust we'd need to specify the measure you using to define difference- genetic simalirty? Morphology? Chemical composition? Ability to perform x function, etc. etc. It will make no difference though, the arguments still won't work.

Quote:
 

Not at all. There are many ways of considering "magic" -- anthropologically, development of consciousness theory -- Gebser or Wilbur -- spiritualistism, etc.

Your definition: "Magic is whatever it is you think is missing from physics" does not take into account the possibilities of connatural knowledge that is conventionally called "magic consciousness" but which would not be opposed to a purely material explanation. Hence your definition is of little use.


I simply mean the dualistic stuff, like conscious is not specified by states of the brain but somehow interacts with the brain without being made of matter, violating laws of physics left right and center. That's what i mean by magic.

As for connatural knowledge, i don't know what that refers to so i can't comment.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Apr 25 2007, 11:25 AM
Quote:
 

Nothing incoherent about it, Moonie. Don't abort and the preborn human being *will continue to develop* into a born human being. It will develop its INNATE faculties for rational thought and volition (or whatever those electrochemical process are that we impute to soulless biomachines), just as it will develop capacities for generation.


The argument fails.

First it's not true that it *will continue to develop* into a born human being, develop thought, etc. if an abortion is not carried out, a certain percentage won't. Some will terminate because the mother dies or is injured, some terminate for other reasons relating to hormone levels or a specific gene present in the foetus.

What you can claim is that if an abortion is not performed there is a certain chance will go on to become thinking feeling humans.

No it does not fail. What you are missing is that we are discussing morality, and morality has to do with human actions. Abortion is a human action that deliberately destroys the human being and prevents further development from occuring.

Infanticide does the same thing, as does killing a prepubescent human being. Infanticide prevents the sentient human being from developing full cognition. Killing a prepubescent prevents the self conscioues human being from developing generative faculties. Killing an adolescent prevents that generative human being from developing fully into homo economicus.

You are willing to draw some arbitrary line between intrinsic human value and ascribed human value. I am unwilling to make such arbitrary valuation on human life.

I am arguing from a continuum of human development, and at each stage the human being has full moral import.

You are arguing that at each stage the human being has only moral import analogous to its faculties -- at presentiency it has the moral value of a carrot. That is essentially Singer's argument, yet he balked when his mother suffered dementia.

Quote:
 


_However_ precisely the same argument can be made against contraception, if contraception was not present then there is a certain chance that a thinking feeling human will eventually emerge.

That is complete nonsense and bad biology. A moral argument can be made against contraception, but it has nothing to do with abortion. The human being is already existing at conception -- it is a discrete and genetically separate individual thing that has its own life force, trajectory, and potentialities. A random ovum and sperm do not have these, and unless fertilization occurs have a very short shelf life. They are not self sustaining (given the proper environment and sustenance) as a human being is. There is no moral equivalency between the sperm/egg and the conceived human being.

Quote:
 


And indeed one need not stop there, if two people are considering having a child, and then you speak to them, and convince tthem that it wouldn't benefit them or the child at this point in their lives, then that intervention is of precisely the same kind. Again we have a situation where had you not intervened there is a certain chance that  a thinking feeling human will eventually emerge.

again, there is a massive and significant difference between actions on a human being that *IS*, and some hypothetical human being that is not and may never exist. Morality deals with the reality of what is, not what may or may not be.

Quote:
 


Quote:
 

You keep up this Orwellian doublespeak of "person" as if that is morally significant, when that is a purely subjective standard for deciding which human beings are liable to destruction.


The usage of person is a simplification but i can quite happily explain _precisely_ what is it is that i think is ethically significant in terms of the nature of experience. You on the other hand when asked to define a "being" responded with "a being".

No, I did not. A being is a thing that exists. We call human beings things that exist that share common characteristics of humanity.

The rest of us seem to have no trouble sorting these things out intuitively, as is evinced by the fact that sane people don't talk to doorknobs or carrots.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 

The fact that there are zillions of chemical reactions going on for full consciousness, volition and intellection to happen does not in any way make it so that at any point once the zygote is established it is not both a human being and a human person in a various stages of observable development.


What is the significance of the zygote formation? Why is fertilisation significant? What do you _mean_ when you say "it is a being"? Why isn't it "a being" a fempto second before? At what point does it become a "being" is it when the outer phospholipid bilayer of the sperm touches the egg? Is it when the phosopholipid bilayer of the egg reforms after engulfing the sperm? Is it after the genetic material rearranges? Is it after the first division? The second? And why that point? What critera are you using? Why are those criterea significant? Why does spacial arrangement (which the invariable answer i get) matter - why does it matter whether the system is split into two spatially localised components or not? Why are the skin cells on my jumper not "beings" too? What criterea are you using?

Which is precisely why I look at things as a continuum for moral considerations.



Quote:
 
Quote:
 

The steady and safest moral position -- whether from natural law or utilitarianism -- is to a priori assume that all human beings are also human persons. And regardless of what words we use to categorize people, their humanity is what grounds their dignity and rights. Carrots don't have rights, but they as well share proteins, phospholipids, nucelic acids, and sugars. Carrots do not share the same common nature as do all human beings. Therefore no sane person speaks of vegetables having rights.


Utilitarians care about maximising happiness or perhaps better maximising the quality of life function of the universe. This arbitrary "being" stuff is of no philosophical consequence.


Of course it is significant. A non being -- something that has no existence -- has no moral import. A being of other nature -- a carrot for instance -- has no moral import. A dog has no moral import.

You of course want to do away with ontology, but you cannot live your life as if ontology was not an important consideration for your own actions. You do not (presumably) talk to door knobs or have sex with goldfish or hire carrots as lab assistants.
Quote:
 

Dignity and rights are constructs (well rights are, dignity is a state of mind). They are usefull because they benefit us, they benefit minds, they make the world a better place for minds, they increase the quality of experience for conscious observers.


If dignity can be arbitrarily assigned it can be arbitrarily dismissed.
Quote:
 



The reasons carrots are not ethically significant is because they are not conscious (as far as one can make out). There is nothing significant about humans other than the nature of their experience, if aliens turned up that were unlike us in many ways but who also had complex internal experiences, then they would be as ethically significant as we are. If it is possible for something to be hurt, and to be happy then that thing is of ethical significance.


I don't think so. The reasons carrots are not ethically significant is because by their very nature they can never have self awareness, feelings, hopes, relationships, etc. Human beings by their very nature are capable of these things, and those abilities are INNATE to the human being. At various stages in human development the various faculties wax and wane, but they are not ever applied extrinsically.

As for your comment about aliens, it is similar to Aristotle's observation that if a horse could talk it would be a person. OK.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 

Both sentiency and cognition develop at different stages in the course of human development, as do respiration and generation and ambulation and volition and bowel control and verbal communication and lots of other faculties that are entirely innate to the human being. None of these other purely chemical processes are commonly considered grounds for ascribing human rights, or lacking them giving grounds for enslavement, destruction, abuse, scientific experimentation, or other violations of human dignity, so I am not inclined to think that your entirely subjective standard of sentiency or "personhood" has any moral foundation either.


Personhood is a simplfication what matters is experience, consciousnes, personhood is a cut off point imposed by pragmatic necessity. I'm quite happy to consider arguments about where it should be defined about the consequences of differring points about whether a more nuanced approach should be used, and the consequences of that etc. etc.


And I refuse to enter into a discussion of "personhood" insofar it is intended to determine pragmatically at what point a human being can be killed with impunity, and at what point a human being cannot be killed with impunity. Once self awareness goes -- dementia, for instance -- there are many who would advocate the destruction of these human beings. I will not withhold my judgment that such actions are horrific and babaric, even if defensible under your construct of personhood in utilitarianism.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

No it does not fail. What you are missing is that we are discussing morality, and morality has to do with human actions. Abortion is a human action that deliberately destroys the human being and prevents further development from occuring.

Infanticide does the same thing, as does killing a prepubescent human being. Infanticide prevents the sentient human being from developing full cognition. Killing a prepubescent prevents the self conscioues human being from developing generative faculties. Killing an adolescent prevents that generative human being from developing fully into homo economicus.

You are willing to draw some arbitrary line between intrinsic human value and ascribed human value. I am unwilling to make such arbitrary valuation on human life.

I am arguing from a continuum of human development, and at each stage the human being has full moral import.

You are arguing that at each stage the human being has only moral import analogous to its faculties -- at presentiency it has the moral value of a carrot. That is essentially Singer's argument, yet he balked when his mother suffered dementia


Morality has do with human actions.. ok fine abortion or not abortion or shaking hands, or anything we do is a human action. Using contraception is a human action, talking to your best friend out of not having a baby at age 18 also a human action.

Morality is not however necessarily dependent on your definition of "human beings" - whatever the juice that definition is. Since almost anyone will consider torturing an animal immoral since it hurts the animal, most people will reject your argument.

I don't see why i should consider fertilisation significant, you say it's the start of the "being" what do you mean by the "being"? You're drawing line at fertilisation, you're saying something mystically significant comes at that point. Nothing, nothing, nothing, *TADA* Human being appears. What do you mean by "human being" and why is that definition significant?

I'm not drawing any arbitrary lines at all. Not philosophically. Not in terms of the fundamentals of ethics. Only in terms of law, or in terms of decisions do i draw lines, i do so because i'm forced to.

Singer's argument seems interesting. I mean one must atleast consider it, for suppose, just suppose babies are not conscious, suppose they are actually just like little robots. Then surely that would mean infanticide really would be of no consequence. Of course irrespective of whether that were true, we would still object to it, we would still find it impossibly abhorant because evolution fashions us with a massive protection urge towards babies for obvious evolutionary reaosns. (there is a very interesting video of a robot that looks like its in pain, you press a button and it's face contorts horribly, and when you study people's response to the robot they find it abhorant they try and stop people pressing the button, so this shows i think that we can indeed be fooled).

I don't really care about "fully functioning" etc. atleast not in and of itself, i care only about increasing the quality of experience and it seems to me that babies are infact conscious i mean they behave like conscious agents the areas of their brain that light up when they are hurt corresponds to the same areas that light up when we get hurt, they make similar kinds of sounds etc. etc.

What i think it does show however is that our treatment animals, will mark us out as heinous our descendents, they will look on us as monstrous in precisely the same way we look upon our ancestors who were racist or thought women should be burned with their husbands corpse as monstrous etc. etc.

Quote:
 

You are arguing that at each stage the human being has only moral import analogous to its faculties -- at presentiency it has the moral value of a carrot. That is essentially Singer's argument, yet he balked when his mother suffered dementia.


All that is ethically significant is the net quality of experience, nothing else matters your definition of human "being" starting at fertilisation is philosophically arbitary.

The avoidance of suffering is precisely what matters, the maximisaiton of the quality of life of all minds, that's what matters. That's a real property, it actually exists, it's not merely the taxonomic lines we draw to help us simplify the world.

Quote:
 

That is complete nonsense and bad biology. A moral argument can be made against contraception, but it has nothing to do with abortion. The human being is already existing at conception -- it is a discrete and genetically separate individual thing that has its own life force, trajectory, and potentialities. A random ovum and sperm do not have these, and unless fertilization occurs have a very short shelf life. They are not self sustaining (given the proper environment and sustenance) as a human being is. There is no moral equivalency between the sperm/egg and the conceived human being


You still haven't understood. Using what criterea do you claim that a human "being" already exists at conception. I reject the significance of your definition.

If we want to choose a string of letters and to represent the system that is defined as the collection of sperm at the point of ejaculation and the fertilsed egg, and call that system the "spetus" we are free to do so. _No one_ can tell us we're wrong because we are not doing anything, we are not saying _anything_ about the world, all we are doing is defining terms.

One can define another string the "fetus" defined by a specific set of cells that have a specific set of characteristics. We make up words, we invent language. We use it to map regions of the physical world. Then by creating patterns with the words, relationships between them we model the real world.

But we can use which ever words we like. Which ever mappings we like. What matters is the information inside them, what matters is that the way we link them together, the pattern we make, that that matches the pattern in the world. If you think your definition, if you think the bit of the physical world mapped by your string is philosophically more significant that the bits of the world mapped by _any other definition_ then you need a reason. You need to be able to defend that. And you are totally, and utterly unable to do so.

You need to be able to say something about the system itself, about the real world, you need to be able to say something about the properties of the fertilised egg. But of course you can't - nothing you say about that set of atoms, cannot be said of the spetus or of many other scenarios. That is the point of my contraception example of talking to the friend. You cannot say "oh a property of that set of atoms is that it can develop into this thinking feeling thing" because _the same thing_ can be said of systems defined prior to fertilisation.

Quote:
 

No, I did not. A being is a thing that exists. We call human beings things that exist that share common characteristics of humanity.

The rest of us seem to have no trouble sorting these things out intuitively, as is evinced by the fact that sane people don't talk to doorknobs or carrots.


Again you haven't understood. Clearly the spetus does exist. The system defined as the set of sperm and eggs, exists. There is a set of sperm and egg. Yet you don't want call that a "being", why? What is the criterea? Why is it you want to call the set of atoms in a fertilised egg a "being" but not the set of atoms in the spetus? Why is it you want to call me a "being" but not my skin cells? Why am i not a collection of "beings" since i am a collection of cells? Why isn't the population of England not a "being" - i mean it's a collection of humans. What about a pseudoplasmodium is that a "being"?

The definition of words is up to us. The answer to those questions doesn't matter, what matters is the relevence of the answer to those questions to ethical considerations.

Reality is fixed, there is a real world, it has a real nature/properties/characteristics but the way we choose to divide that world up in terms of language, that is up to us. The regions we choose to map into words, we are free to choose those. Your system of ethics doesn't work simply by changing language that means the thing you care about is not something that exists, it is not out there, it is merely an artifact of the way you look at the world.

The answer to this accusation is to be able to point to a unique property of your mapping, something about your definition that makes it better in the context you want to use than any other mapping. And of course that is precisely what you cannot do.

Quote:
 

Which is precisely why I look at things as a continuum for moral considerations.


You don't think things are a continuum you think that a massively sharp line that starts bang at fertilisation. If there is no line, if fertilsation is no more significant that copulation, is more significant than talking about having a child, etc. etc. then what the juice is the anti abortion stuff about?

Quote:
 

Of course it is significant. A non being -- something that has no existence -- has no moral import. A being of other nature -- a carrot for instance -- has no moral import. A dog has no moral import.

You of course want to do away with ontology, but you cannot live your life as if ontology was not an important consideration for your own actions. You do not (presumably) talk to door knobs or have sex with goldfish or hire carrots as lab assistants.


Non-beings have no existence. So a crystal of salt for instance. Salt exists, so salt must be a "being" then according to you? That definition seems pretty useless since it applies to everything.

A being of "other" nature has no moral signifiance? Well your concept of nature is weird and mystical, because nature is simply a set of properties. But aside from that you don't think animals are of any ethical significance? So torturing an ape stabbing it, electric shocking it, that is not wrong? Even though it feels pain, even though it hurts, it's not wrong? It's not something for ethical consideration? No way man.

This ontology thing is bizzarre, i don't talk to door knobs, but whether i decided to refer to the thing that is used to open the door as part of the door or whether i give it name of it's own. Or whether i define is as two things left_door_knob_part and right_door_knob_part makes no difference whatsoever. The reason i don't talk to is because the reality, the real world that those words refer to doesn't have the properties that i implicit assume whenever i do speak to something.

Quote:
 

I don't think so. The reasons carrots are not ethically significant is because by their very nature they can never have self awareness, feelings, hopes, relationships, etc. Human beings by their very nature are capable of these things, and those abilities are INNATE to the human being. At various stages in human development the various faculties wax and wane, but they are not ever applied extrinsically.

As for your comment about aliens, it is similar to Aristotle's observation that if a horse could talk it would be a person. OK.


What do you mean when you say "by their very nature" what nature are you referring to - their properties? When i look at a carrot, i look at a bit of the world a collection of atoms interacting in a certain fashion that interact with other collections atoms in a certain way. That's it. Now it seems that the particular sets of atoms i'm referring to, the bits of the world mapped by the word "carrot" do not have attached to them experiences etc. etc. That's it. The same is true of a spetus or a fertilsed egg, it's not true of child or (i think) a baby.

Regarding the aliens, ok so the aliens turn up they have weird tenticals, and strange habits and they're thinking seems completely different to us. No ethical significance then. Fine, so now lets change the scenario the aliens turn up they have hands and fingers not tentacles and they think analogously to us, indeed they look just like us. The only differnce is they don't have a finger nail on their little finger. Ethically significant?

Quote:
 

And I refuse to enter into a discussion of "personhood" insofar it is intended to determine pragmatically at what point a human being can be killed with impunity, and at what point a human being cannot be killed with impunity. Once self awareness goes -- dementia, for instance -- there are many who would advocate the destruction of these human beings. I will not withhold my judgment that such actions are horrific and babaric, even if defensible under your construct of personhood in utilitarianism.


I reject the significance of your definition (that you haven't even specifed so far) of "human being". If there is a body, that is alive but has no mind, as far as i'm concerned that is not different to a brick, or a culture of cells in a petri-dish. If you build a body using various cells, but missing a brain, it wouldn't be ethically significant would it? and yet it would be identical to what was a person who's brain has been destroyed. Now i'll grant you it's not a straightforward issue it's a horribly grey area, because whilst there are some ridiculously obvious cases like Schiavo most of the time there is no such clarity. Ultimately one seeks to be compassionate as compassionate as one can be to all minds that exist. That's it.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Man, where's Ex-PFC Wintergreen when you really need him?

^_^
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp

Posted Image

:wub:

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Apr 25 2007, 02:51 PM
Quote:
 

No it does not fail. What you are missing is that we are discussing morality, and morality has to do with human actions. Abortion is a human action that deliberately destroys the human being and prevents further development from occurring.

Infanticide does the same thing, as does killing a prepubescent human being. Infanticide prevents the sentient human being from developing full cognition. Killing a prepubescent prevents the self conscious human being from developing generative faculties. Killing an adolescent prevents that generative human being from developing fully into homo economicus.

You are willing to draw some arbitrary line between intrinsic human value and ascribed human value. I am unwilling to make such arbitrary valuation on human life.

I am arguing from a continuum of human development, and at each stage the human being has full moral import.

You are arguing that at each stage the human being has only moral import analogous to its faculties -- at presentiency it has the moral value of a carrot. That is essentially Singer's argument, yet he balked when his mother suffered dementia


Morality has do with human actions.. ok fine abortion or not abortion or shaking hands, or anything we do is a human action.

I am sure you are being intentionally obtuse, at least I hope so. There are many human actions that are entirely morally neutral. I really didn't think such obvious things need to be said, but evidently they do. You make for a very laborious interlocutor.

Quote:
 
Using contraception is a human action, talking to your best friend out of not having a baby at age 18 also a human action.

So? it would seem that the circumstances of the friend's life play a key role in that discussion. Married or not, emotionally healthy or not. Again, I said before that the question of contraception is not the same question as abortion despite the fact that you keep trying to drag the conversation on to those grounds.

Quote:
 

Morality is not however necessarily dependent on your definition of "human beings" - whatever the juice that definition is.

well, Moonie, if you are dense to the general meaning of "human being" then I doubt we can ever go anywhere. Since you are not able to comprehend the notion of a discrete individual that innately shares common characteristics with all others of the set "human", perhaps we should stop here.

Quote:
 
Since almost anyone will consider torturing an animal immoral since it hurts the animal, most people will reject your argument.

Some argue against animal torture because it hurts "us", not the animal. You perhaps would not distinguish between killing and eating a chicken, or killing and eating a carrot, from killing and eating your grandmother. Many of us would. Once one acknowledges a moral distinction between these acts, it becomes obvious that since killing is a more serious and permanent action than torture, if one can kill and eat a dog then torture is sort of straining a gnat and swallowing a camel. Of course, if you allow for killing and eating your grandmother, then these would be morally equivalent actions.

Quote:
 


I don't see why i should consider fertilisation significant, you say it's the start of the "being" what do you mean by the "being"? You're drawing line at fertilisation, you're saying something mystically significant comes at that point.

No, I am not saying something "mystically significant" comes into being, I am saying a human comes into being.

Quote:
 
Nothing, nothing, nothing, *TADA* Human being appears. What do you mean by "human being" and why is that definition significant?
Wrong.
Sperm + egg = TADA human being. It is nonsense to say nothing nothing nothing. Again, you make for a very boring interlocutor when such basic things need to be explained.

Quote:
 


I'm not drawing any arbitrary lines at all. Not philosophically. Not in terms of the fundamentals of ethics. Only in terms of law, or in terms of decisions do i draw lines, i do so because i'm forced to.

You have not separated ethics from philosophy, have you? Even your utilitarianism is philosophy. And yes, your lines are completely arbitrary -- but for you that is all they can be since there are no true definitions or entirely objective systems for understanding reality, they are all ultimately contingent on the electrochemical processes of the Moonbat biomachine. So it would help if you quit making declarative statements that have no meaning beyond the universe of discourse that is existentially conscribed by the neurons firing in your brain.
Quote:
 


Singer's argument seems interesting. I mean one must atleast consider it, for suppose, just suppose babies are not conscious, suppose they are actually just like little robots. Then surely that would mean infanticide really would be of no consequence. Of course irrespective of whether that were true, we would still object to it, we would still find it impossibly abhorant because evolution fashions us with a massive protection urge towards babies for obvious evolutionary reaosns.

You are of course assuming that conclusion.

Quote:
 


I don't really care about "fully functioning" etc. atleast not in and of itself, i care only about increasing the quality of experience and it seems to me that babies are infact conscious i mean they behave like conscious agents the areas of their brain that light up when they are hurt corresponds to the same areas that light up when we get hurt, they make similar kinds of sounds etc. etc.

It is clear from embryology that at some point after the spinal cord develops that the baby foetus is capable of sensing pain, responding to music, movement, etc. Even brain activity similar to dream state is recordable. Yet your system accords the foetus no moral import. Other than aesthetic, what is the problem with aborting and eating the foetus? Why the TADA once they are ex utero?

Quote:
 


What i think it does show however is that our treatment animals, will mark us out as heinous our descendents, they will look on us as monstrous in precisely the same way we look upon our ancestors who were racist or thought women should be burned with their husbands corpse as monstrous etc. etc.

And some day those descendents will be judged as monstrous for eating vegetables. Not a very convincing argument.

Quote:
 


Quote:
 

You are arguing that at each stage the human being has only moral import analogous to its faculties -- at presentiency it has the moral value of a carrot. That is essentially Singer's argument, yet he balked when his mother suffered dementia.


All that is ethically significant is the net quality of experience, nothing else matters your definition of human "being" starting at fertilisation is philosophically arbitary.

No, because at that point something observable does happen to unify into a new separate and discrete entity that is measurably more than the "spetus" (a very problematic construct if I understand what you are hoping to argue).

Quote:
 


The avoidance of suffering is precisely what matters, the maximisaiton of the quality of life of all minds, that's what matters. That's a real property, it actually exists, it's not merely the taxonomic lines we draw to help us simplify the world.
Yes, and the property is fully innate in the zygote, just as the capacity for generation and ambulation and volition is. Which is why we can safely call the zygote a human being. Your jar of chemicals on the shelf does not have the capacity innate, which is why we don't call your jar of chemicals a "human". Seems so incredibly obvious to me, I can only wonder why not to you.


Quote:
 

Quote:
 

That is complete nonsense and bad biology. A moral argument can be made against contraception, but it has nothing to do with abortion. The human being is already existing at conception -- it is a discrete and genetically separate individual thing that has its own life force, trajectory, and potentialities. A random ovum and sperm do not have these, and unless fertilization occurs have a very short shelf life. They are not self sustaining (given the proper environment and sustenance) as a human being is. There is no moral equivalency between the sperm/egg and the conceived human being


You still haven't understood. Using what criterea do you claim that a human "being" already exists at conception. I reject the significance of your definition.
OK, as I said above, if you cannot even accept common definitions for what determines a human being from a jar of chemicals on your shelf, there is little point in continuing.


Quote:
 


If we want to choose a string of letters and to represent the system that is defined as the collection of sperm at the point of ejaculation and the fertilsed egg, and call that system the "spetus" we are free to do so. _No one_ can tell us we're wrong because we are not doing anything, we are not saying _anything_ about the world, all we are doing is defining terms.

The problem with that "spetus" as a morally significant (or equally insignificant) entity is that the spetus is not an "entity" -- it is separate parts, separate entities, and has no necessary interrelationship, whereas a conceptus does. You are really grasping at straws here, Moonie.

Quote:
 

One can define another string the "fetus" defined by a specific set of cells that have a specific set of characteristics. We make up words, we invent language. We use it to map regions of the physical world. Then by creating patterns with the words, relationships between them we model the real world.
It does not matter what we call it. All that concerns me is that you and I are looking at the same thing, and you are unwilling or unable to determine that it is a discrete individual substance of human material and a human nature. You can logic chop all you want as to what "nature", "human", "being" etc are. Again, I am not interested in explaining common parlance, philosophical terms, and basic embryology to a guy who seems otherwise intelligent enough to not belabour conversations.


Quote:
 

But we can use which ever words we like. Which ever mappings we like. What matters is the information inside them, what matters is that the way we link them together, the pattern we make, that that matches the pattern in the world. If you think your definition, if you think the bit of the physical world mapped by your string is philosophically more significant that the bits of the world mapped by _any other definition_ then you need a reason. You need to be able to defend that. And you are totally, and utterly unable to do so.
I have given you very precise reasons over and over again. Your diversion into spetus is specious. There is no necessary connection, there is no common activity, there is no principle of identity (just calling it so does not make it so), between a random egg and a random sperm. There is a necessary connection, and common activity, and observable interrelationships, and a principle of identity with a fertilized egg.

That is the very basis of embryology and fetology. It might surprise you, but those scientists are actually looking at a "thing", and that thing has "being" since it exists, and the scientists who study that being group it under "human biology". I fail to see any reason for not considering the zygote to be a human being.

Quote:
 

You need to be able to say something about the system itself, about the real world, you need to be able to say something about the properties of the fertilised egg. But of course you can't - nothing you say about that set of atoms, cannot be said of the spetus or of many other scenarios. That is the point of my contraception example of talking to the friend. You cannot say "oh a property of that set of atoms is that it can develop into this thinking feeling thing" because _the same thing_ can be said of systems defined prior to fertilisation.

Of course I did. I've already pointed out that the foetus is a discrete observable entity, that you cannot claim of the spetus. I've also point out the observable characteristics that differentiate it from those same chemicals in a jar sitting on your shelf. It is not a question of "systems" as you are now trying to drag the conversation onto those grounds, but a question of "being" -- an existent and discrete entity.

Not my problem if you are not able to comprehend that.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 

No, I did not. A being is a thing that exists. We call human beings things that exist that share common characteristics of humanity.

The rest of us seem to have no trouble sorting these things out intuitively, as is evinced by the fact that sane people don't talk to doorknobs or carrots.


Again you haven't understood. Clearly the spetus does exist. The system defined as the set of sperm and eggs, exists. There is a set of sperm and egg. Yet you don't want call that a "being", why? What is the criterea? Why is it you want to call the set of atoms in a fertilised egg a "being" but not the set of atoms in the spetus? Why is it you want to call me a "being" but not my skin cells? Why am i not a collection of "beings" since i am a collection of cells? Why isn't the population of England not a "being" - i mean it's a collection of humans. What about a pseudoplasmodium is that a "being"?


Answered above.


Quote:
 


The definition of words is up to us. The answer to those questions doesn't matter, what matters is the relevence of the answer to those questions to ethical considerations.

Reality is fixed, there is a real world, it has a real nature/properties/characteristics but the way we choose to divide that world up in terms of language, that is up to us. The regions we choose to map into words, we are free to choose those. Your system of ethics doesn't work simply by changing language that means the thing you care about is not something that exists, it is not out there, it is merely an artifact of the way you look at the world.

Your worldview is much more susceptible to that. You try to create a new "being" out of a "spetus" that lacks any coherence. It is you who change the language so that you can destroy with impunity a human being because it does not meet your arbitrary definition of "personhood".

Quote:
 

The answer to this accusation is to be able to point to a unique property of your mapping, something about your definition that makes it better in the context you want to use than any other mapping. And of course that is precisely what you cannot do.

Quote:
 

Which is precisely why I look at things as a continuum for moral considerations.


You don't think things are a continuum you think that a massively sharp line that starts bang at fertilisation. If there is no line, if fertilsation is no more significant that copulation, is more significant than talking about having a child, etc. etc. then what the juice is the anti abortion stuff about?
Since I don't accept your "ifs", and you don't comprehend that there is indeed a massive and observable difference between a zygote and a separate egg and sperm, or between any of those things and the same chemicals sitting in a jar on your shelf, then there is little common ground on which to proceed.


Quote:
 

Quote:
 

Of course it is significant. A non being -- something that has no existence -- has no moral import. A being of other nature -- a carrot for instance -- has no moral import. A dog has no moral import.

You of course want to do away with ontology, but you cannot live your life as if ontology was not an important consideration for your own actions. You do not (presumably) talk to door knobs or have sex with goldfish or hire carrots as lab assistants.



Non-beings have no existence. So a crystal of salt for instance. Salt exists, so salt must be a "being" then according to you? That definition seems pretty useless since it applies to everything.

OK, I will refrain from using the term "human being" and simply say that the fetus is a human. It is in a particular stage of development. It is always immoral to kill a(n innocent) human.

Let's not muddy things up with "being". Abortion kills humans. Full stop.
Quote:
 

A being of "other" nature has no moral signifiance? Well your concept of nature is weird and mystical, because nature is simply a set of properties. But aside from that you don't think animals are of any ethical significance? So torturing an ape stabbing it, electric shocking it, that is not wrong? Even though it feels pain, even though it hurts, it's not wrong? It's not something for ethical consideration? No way man.


If you can kill and eat a cow, and wear its hide on your feet, you can do anything you damn well please. I am against animal abuse because it cheapens life in general and is a disservice to our humanity. But do I think that crushing a monkey skull for improving medical practices of close headed injuries is wrong? No. Would crushing a Jew's skull for improving medical practices of close headed injuries be wrong? Yes.

The foetus certainly feels pain once the neurological system is developed. Yet you would have us morally free to salt poison, dice and slice, remove its head from the birth canal and stab it in the back of the neck with scissors (partial birth abortion)?

*That* is not something for ethical consideration?

No way man.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
...remove its head from the birth canal and stab it in the back of the neck with scissors (partial birth abortion)?


Well at least being in a hospital, that's infinitely more humane that using a rusty hanger in a back alley. Just as in real estate, it's all about location, location, location - right?
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Dewey
Apr 26 2007, 07:17 AM
Quote:
 
...remove its head from the birth canal and stab it in the back of the neck with scissors (partial birth abortion)?


Well at least being in a hospital, that's infinitely more humane that using a rusty hanger in a back alley. Just as in real estate, it's all about location, location, location - right?

I would say that the use of cliches regarding rusty coat hangers and those of partial birth abortions are both tactics designed to quash serious debate on regulated legal early-term and mid-term abortion.

Funny how both sides do the same thing, isn't it?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Not in the same way. The hanger scare story is used to argue for the right to perform any abortion, regardless of reason. The partial birth abortion ban, while those who abhor it may or may not oppose abortions of other types or times, argues against performing this one specific appalling type of abortion.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Dewey
Apr 26 2007, 09:11 AM
Not in the same way. The hanger scare story is used to argue for the right to perform any abortion, regardless of reason. The partial birth abortion ban, while those who abhor it may or may not oppose abortions of other types or times, argues against performing this one specific appalling type of abortion.

...even when the life of the mother is in danger.

I don't really know much about partial birth abortions, I honestly find the whole abortion topic so massively depressing that after reading a couple of posts I tend to just close my eyes and walk away. Are there are a lot of these performed? I'd been under the impression from what some people had written that there use was actually rather rare, much like the use of rusty coathangers in the good old days.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
They are relatively rare, but they are not performed only in the event that the mother's life is in danger - which is why all the uproar over the issue would seem to be baffling, unless the opposition is actually arguing to bolster something other than what its ban actually proposes.

Opponents seem to feel duty-bound to oppose any limits on abortion out of a hysterical interpretation of the "slippery slope." I would wager that if someone introduced legislation in Congress today that proposed banning any abortion performed by a doctor using a wire hanger, there would be a subset of the population, largely congruent with the "anti-partial-birth-abortion-ban" crowd, who would start marching in the streets protesting the outrageous stripping away of a woman's "right to choose," and that this legislation was the harbinger of taking us back to the dark ages.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
John D'Oh
Apr 26 2007, 06:01 AM
Dewey
Apr 26 2007, 07:17 AM
Quote:
 
...remove its head from the birth canal and stab it in the back of the neck with scissors (partial birth abortion)?


Well at least being in a hospital, that's infinitely more humane that using a rusty hanger in a back alley. Just as in real estate, it's all about location, location, location - right?

I would say that the use of cliches regarding rusty coat hangers and those of partial birth abortions are both tactics designed to quash serious debate on regulated legal early-term and mid-term abortion.

Funny how both sides do the same thing, isn't it?

No John, both sides are not doing the same thing. Partial birth abortion is precisely that technique. As it is defined by US Code:

Quote:
 
An abortion in which the person performing the abortion, deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus. (18 U.S. Code 1531)


That is not a scare tactic rhetoric, John, it is a grim reality that pro abortionist are so rabid about the woman's absolute right at all stages to kill her preborn child that they reflexively supported and advocated a medical technique that the AMA acknowledges bore no relevance to any measure needed to advance the health of any woman.

The point of my bringing it up is that Moonie and Jeff seem rather inconsistent in that they claim their ethics is based on minimizing pain of sentient beings, yet they allow the most grotesque of painful techniques as long as that sentient being is still in the womb. As Dewey notes above in a different context, "location, location, location!"
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4