| 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: |
| Legal abortion comes to Latin America | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 24 2007, 09:04 AM (1,061 Views) | |
| ivorythumper | Apr 26 2007, 09:13 AM Post #51 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
no doubt. :rolleyes: |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Apr 26 2007, 09:34 AM Post #52 |
|
MAMIL
|
After listening to this reported on Commie PBS, I was under the impression that the intent was to ban partial birth abortion even in the event that the mothers life was in danger. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Apr 26 2007, 09:45 AM Post #53 |
|
Finally
|
Posting for informational content, not because I necessarily agree or disagree. From this week's New England Journal of Medicine, an editorial: On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court signaled a significant change in abortion jurisprudence. It held in Gonzales v. Carhart that a federal statute outlawing the use of "partial-birth abortion" is constitutional, even though many members of the medical community believe that the procedure should be available when it is the safest option for terminating a pregnancy. No exception was made for protecting a woman's health; only a threat to a woman's life would excuse the use of the procedure. Absent that excuse, a physician who knowingly performs an intact dilation and extraction (D&X) is subject to 2 years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000, and monetary damages for psychological injury to the husband or parents of the pregnant woman. later.. A so-called partial-birth abortion, or D&X, involves dilating the cervix, partially extracting the fetus, puncturing the skull while it remains in the uterus, and removing the brain tissue through suction, thus allowing for easy removal of the otherwise intact fetus through the birth canal. In cases in which the procedure is performed, it is usually done late in the second trimester of pregnancy, though in some cases it is used during the third trimester. D&X procedures are rare; in 2000, only 2200 were performed by 31 providers, accounting for 0.17% of all abortions in the United States that year. The more common abortion procedures are suction curettage (used in the first trimester) and dilation and evacuation (D&E), which is the most common procedure in the second trimester. D&E requires dismembering the fetus within the uterus, which poses risks of uterine damage or perforation from surgical instruments and sharp remnants of fetal bone. later.. But the greatest uncertainty of all concerns the continued viability of any right to abortion in all but imminently life-threatening situations. The federal statute makes no distinction between pre-viability and post-viability abortions and bans the D&X procedure in both situations, even in cases in which physicians believe that the alternatives are more dangerous to a woman's health. The prospect that a woman's health might be endangered by limiting access to D&X procedures is deemed insufficient to qualify as an "undue burden." Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart endorses this conclusion, stating that it is "legitimate" because "a fetus is a living organism within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb" and that "choosing not to prohibit [a brutal and inhumane procedure] will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life." And thus the balance of interests shifts, with women's health no longer paramount but rather societal morality and the state's interest in life even before the point of viability outside the womb. For Justice Ginsburg, this vote signals an end to support for the central premises of Roe v. Wade: "In candor, the Act, and the Court's defense of it, cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court — and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives." |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 26 2007, 09:46 AM Post #54 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
I know what you mean, but i also know that what you mean is a statistical model, that the definition involves a degree of projection. That's why you can't define it, because it's just refers to statistically defined map.
Some would argue against animal torture because it hurts us? What ever those people are smoking, i want some of it. As for your equivalence between grandmothers and carrots heaven knows where you get that from. As far i can see if one wants an objective kind of ethics, a non-arbitrary one then the net effect on all conscious observers is the only basis which can be found. Since people who are tortured often beg to die that would seem to argue against the notion that death is worse. We all die, whether or not death is worse than torture for a given individual might be approached by considering whether the positive experiences after the torture are deemed to outweigh the torture itself. If not i suppose the person be better off dieing. However one must also factor in other influences the effect loved ones etc. etc.
Defining an individual human how?
You still haven't understood what i'm saying.
Assuming what conclusion? That evolution has fashioned with a hardwired response to babies? Seems pretty clear cut.
My system does infact accord the foetus "moral import", in the sense that the foetus experiences, i care about the net quality of experience. In terms aborting then eating the foetus vs. just aborting the foetus, bar asthetics there is no difference at all.
Only if we discover vegetables feel, but that seems unlikely, whereas animals do infact feel.
Your answer is merely to repeadly assert this "entity" thing which absolutely identical to your previous "being" thing, why does fertilisation matter because then it becomes a being, then it becomes an entity. But that's completely arbitrary, reality doesn't care what words we use to describe it. If we wanted to we could _equally say_ that a spetus evolves into a fertilised egg, and then fertilised egg evolves into a zooccyte, etc. etc. All that matters is that the information contained in the description matches reality. (The description is infact still not very good because we're massively glossing over all the different process that are included in this "evolve" term.) This discrete thing is clearly just an arbitrary perspective, for if i want i can claim that the fertilsed egg is not a discrete thing at all, rather it is a collection of billions upon billions of molecules. That's not discrete at all. I mean you could define some spacial distribution function and then you could say look there are much more localised, the molecules of a fertilised egg are much closer to one another than the moelcules of a spetus, but so what? Why is that significant?
Fully innate? What is that supposed to mean? Meaningless. In the properties of a zygote there is no suffering, there is not the faculty for suffering there is a set of atoms that are vibrating in a certain pattern. If a large number of chemical operations are performed on that pattern of interacting atoms then after a number of months a system who's properties includes the thing we call experience emerges.
I accept the definitions, but they are just definitions they are just words. One can say the same thing, capture the same information with different definitions. If you can say something about the world using a certain set of definitions not another, even though both are informatically complete, both cover all the information that exists. Then the thing you are saying is not a property of the world is something you are projecting.
What do you mean when you say an "entity"? And what do you mean by "necesssary inter-relationship" necessary for what? If you define a system to include x,y and z, then x y and z are necessary for the system to exist. An entity is what we say (usually though not always, based upon intuitive evolution statastical algorithims) it is. A cell is "separate parts" in the sense that one could describe it at a given point time in terms of atoms. The atoms themselves do not need any of the other atoms in the cell to "exist". The key to grasp Ivory is that i'm saying that the concepts you use here that you speak of as if they are part of the world are just part of your head, are just maps of neurones. This "entity" stuff is not a property of the world. It's property of you. It's a projection. If it's not a projection it can't be dependent on one particular set of definitions. If I can describe all that atoms and interactions, all the pattern using a different set of definition _i must be able to reach the same conclusion_ but i can't in this case, because what you consider significant is just the map in your head. I can talk quite happily about the reality that you are referring when you talk of fertilsed eggs, if what you mean by an "entity" is merely a certain spacial distribution then ok, but immediately then you can see the immediately obvious question of "why does that matter?"
Discrete individual substance - it's made of spacially and temporally discrete atoms. You'd be hard pressed to find many examples more heterogenous than a cell. I'm quite happy to look at a cell and ask what the properties are, and i'm quite happy to look at a spetus and ask what the properties, i'm quite happy to look at any region of reality, defining that region however one likes. What i'm not happy to do is pretend the viewing window that i'm defining, is the same kind of thing as what i'm seeing through the window.
Oh yea very precise, what's a human "being"? A being that is human? What's a being? A entity. What's an entity? A being possibly? Yea the precision is astounding.
What do you mean by discrete? A spetus is an observable "entity". If you mean a specific spacial distribution function. Ok that's a reasonable definition. Now why does that matter? Why are you define ethics based on spatial distribution functions?
There is just reality, it has properties, it can be described. Taxonomy is up to us, if you want to call something a "being" nature does not care.
One can distinguish zygotes from unfertilised sperm and eggs, and one can distinguish the the point when the zygote has divided from the point before division, and make vast numbers of subsequent distinguishments.
I can set out the characteristics that seperate any point in chemical space from any other point, any collection of atoms (and that is all i mean by "system) from any other collection of atoms. Easy. If you want to use discrete you going to have give me a definition. And then you're going to have to explain why that definition is important in the context of ethics.
What do mean by human? Do you simply mean a certain set of sequences of DNA? For then my skin cells are human. Many of them die. Why are they less important than the fertilised egg? There is a set of chemical opertations which will turn them into a twin of me. Why don't they matter?
You don't really understand my position at all Ivory. Infact my position is somewhat more tentative than appears because i actually know the problems with the position and there problems atleast intuitively there are. It's just that there is no alternative, not if you're trying to get some kind of objective ethics. Your ethics is entirely subjective because you just take 5 axioms, of common behaviour and then call them good and then analyse everything form that stand point (actually you don't do that at all, but that's the idea anyway). But one could just choose some other 5 axioms. What metacriterea do you use to decide which observations of human behaviour to take as axioms? And why bother with having human behaviour as axiom forming in the first place? The only option is to say "well that's intuitive" but then you are right back at square one because if someone finds something else intuitive you have no way of arguing they are incorrect, you are complete screwed, ethics becomes subjective again. See that's why i take the ultra Ulitarian perspective and i ask about what is really there because i want to avoid that, i want to take something non-arbitrary. If one doesn't mind being arbitrary then there's no issue. If one doesn't mind saying i think humans are important because i do, and one accepts that this is necessarily subjective then ok. But if one ones to try and find an objective concept of ethics, that doesn't work. The problem with speciesism is that it looks arbitrary in the same way racism was. Claws vs. hands :shrug:, skin colouration intelligence :shrug:.
|
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Apr 26 2007, 09:58 AM Post #55 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
The balance of interests has shifted, but not in the way the writer would portary it. Medical science has redefined "viable" in much earlier terms than just a couple of decades ago. We are now enmeshed in a time when we routinely violate the principle of "first, do no harm" when it pertains to the viability of the fetus. One makes a much weaker argument for abortion, when one has to destroy a life capable of living outside of the womb for the conveniance of the mother. The "partial-birth" procedure is most likely a first step, as the legal system further reviews the rights of those not yet born...if you can charge a man with murder for the traumatic death of a child in-utero, then that child possesses inalienable rights. IMO, the only successful arguments for abortion will concentrate on the first trimester, or just after, when the procedure poses less risk to the patient and the viability of the fetus is non-existent. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 26 2007, 10:11 AM Post #56 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
According to the AMA there is no medical advantage to partial birth abortion -- the opposition to the ban is an ideological opposition that shows the moral bankruptcy of the whole pro abortion position.
Furthermore, the AMA notes that late term abortion generally not be done, and that the fetus not be sacrificed if at all possible to save the life of the baby.
However, the politics continue -- the AMA will not use the term "Partial Birth Abortion" since they claim
Bizarre, since "medical terms" are common convention. It seems they are submitting to the pressure from the probort lobby and using new language that while is arguably technical only hides the grotesque reality of the procedure. The probort lobby wants to move away from that language since they realize that it is a losing cause. And the AMA is all too willing to accommodate them. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Apr 26 2007, 10:13 AM Post #57 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
Me too. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Apr 26 2007, 10:24 AM Post #58 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
No you don't, you quit. These two are just making stuff up for the sake of polemics. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that what they're arguing over is unresolvable. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 26 2007, 10:34 AM Post #59 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Moonie: I well understand your position, and it seems that you have a deeply bifurcated consciousness. You are free to consider the human as a statistically mapped cluster of molecules. I suspect that your analytical reality (at least as you present it) has no real bearing on your experiential reality. As I noted above, I will not labour commonly held definitions as to what "being", "entity", "nature", "humanity" etc are. Your systemic approach to spetus is just silly. It is like saying that the petrol in the tank at the petrol station is causative to running your motor, when unless that petrol is actually injected into the cylinder and ignited your car does not run. In denying that the fertilized egg is a distinct entity and is a proper subject of scientific inquiry in itself-- and I will not labor these things with you -- you are also denying that your engine is a distinct entity but can only be understood in terms of the whole system of production -- from the molecular production of fossil fuels to the refining process to the distribution system to the consumer purchase to the process of tanking up to the actual ignition. So much for auto mechanics and embryologists -- in your system they are not valid specializations. As far as I can tell, you are not really interested in the question of the human at all, but rather in justifying the destruction of certain humans that do not satisfy your criteria for existence. Whenever anyone has to go to the lengths that you do to allow for the destruction of human life and to attempt to justify it on "ethical" grounds, the notion of Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate immediately comes to mind that you are way overreaching the simple and solid moral position that innocent human life ought always be protected in whatever state of development or existence. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 26 2007, 10:42 AM Post #60 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
So you really think that the human cannot be defined and that objective ethical considerations of human activity cannot be conscribed? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Apr 26 2007, 10:56 AM Post #61 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Where did I say that? I said you and Moonbat were just making things up to fuel your polemic. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 26 2007, 11:06 AM Post #62 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
What five other axioms would you propose? You seem willing to disregard the whole notion that what is good is considered in respect of the nature of the being. It is good for cows to eat only grass, it is not good for humans to eat only grass. Yet you deny "human nature" or "bovine nature" as a valid system for consideration of what is "good". Again, you just can't get away from ontology as much as you think it bizarre. The "metacriteria" is that which promotes the good of the being. (Again, I will not belabour commonly understood words with you). Procreation, self survival, sociality, knowledge of the world outside of the self, procurement of goods that allow for health and happiness -- what is wrong with these criteria? They seem entirely essential to human existence and natural, normative, and salutary to the human condition. As for laying a foundation for moral and ethical consideration, the axioms don't create the context, they define it (not necessarily exclusively or sufficiently, but necessarily). These axioms are not imposed extrinsically, but are constrained by our nature: no human can fail to be bound by them -- we must by our nature pursue goods, seek to know the truth, be inclined to live in society and survive and procreate. Your criteria (avoidance of pain, pursuit of pleasure) is a problematically limited version of "pursue the good" (and avoid evil). As such, it does not take into account a whole host of other considerations that are necessary to create a well ordered society -- and that is the very purpose of law, to promote the common good for all humans. So tell me what is your view of the purpose of the state, the role of law, the proper consideraton for whether a law is "valid" (you can define that as you will or suggest an alternative word), and what other five self evident axioms that better describe common human activity that you would propose to replace classical natural law theory. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 26 2007, 11:08 AM Post #63 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
What have I made up? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Apr 26 2007, 11:11 AM Post #64 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
More like, 'What have I not made up?'. And now you're arguing with me. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 26 2007, 11:16 AM Post #65 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Asking a question = arguing? Not my problem. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Apr 26 2007, 11:17 AM Post #66 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
No, it is your problem. You created an ethical dilemma out of nothing. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 26 2007, 11:19 AM Post #67 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
You are being obscure. I have no ethical dilemma, nor have I created any. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Apr 26 2007, 11:22 AM Post #68 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
So you admit then that you are in denial of making things up to fuel the polemic? |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 26 2007, 11:29 AM Post #69 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Have you stopped beating your wife? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Apr 26 2007, 11:33 AM Post #70 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
That's an uncalled for and unscupulous ad hominem. I have never beat anyone, any animal or any vegetable in my life. Why, it's beneath my human dignity to continue this |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Apr 26 2007, 11:35 AM Post #71 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
At anything? :lol: :lol: :lol: |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 26 2007, 11:35 AM Post #72 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Don't worry, that response to stimuli in the AC biomachine will pass. :lol: |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Apr 26 2007, 11:37 AM Post #73 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
|
|
"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 | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 26 2007, 11:44 AM Post #74 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
I think much of it is resolveable, i mean much of it is infact resolved.That our intuitive concepts of the world are basically wrong is already beyond established. The nature of ethics is not resolved, i will grant you that, but i think we are converging to a solution (not me and IT, but in terms of a long term view of social evolution etc.) |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Apr 26 2007, 12:03 PM Post #75 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Sorry Moonbat, but my intuition tells me that there is no exclusively rational solution at all so long as there remains the duality as to whether humanity is intrinsically good or intrinsically evil. As Hermann Hesse wrote in Magister Ludi when describing faith and doubt, the two go together as do inhaling and exhaling. |
![]() |
|
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |







intelligence :shrug:.




12:33 AM Jul 11