Total Posts:100|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abortion cut-off point.

Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 4:48:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Assuming you're pro-choice, when do you think abortion is no longer morally permissible? Do you think it's permissible through all 9 months of pregnancy or is there a certain point during the pregnancy when it's no longer justified?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 6:19:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 4:48:04 AM, Dookieman wrote:
Assuming you're pro-choice, when do you think abortion is no longer morally permissible? Do you think it's permissible through all 9 months of pregnancy or is there a certain point during the pregnancy when it's no longer justified?

I think the pro life/anti choice shut your legs you whore position has more ammunition on it's side when your dealing with pregnancy where there are factors of pain and or consciousnesses at play.

I could live with a legal restriction to abortion at some later stage in pregnancy where those factors are at play, but only on the condition before that point the woman does have a choice to end the pregnancy.

But that won't fly for most anti choicers, their position is from the moment of conception all abortions (maybe life at risk exemption) is off the table. NO CHOICE.

They literally want "person hood" given to a few cells, they literally want a few cells to be seen as moral equivalent to a 5 year old child.

This results in the claim ergo an abortion of a few cells in the equivalent to killing a 5 year old child.

It would be hilarious if it wasn't for bullsh*t women are forced to put up with.

It's easy to be pro life when you think of yourself as some one who is just trying to save babies from being murdered in the tummy. But if you still support forced pregnancy against the womans will when it isn't the imagined baby but rather a few cells in early pregnancy what this shows is that its not really about saving babies, that's just an excuse there is something else that drives some one to not even grant a woman any choice from the moment of conception.

Ill let you ponder on that for a while........but careful if you dig to deeply you may not like what you find.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 7:05:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Birth
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 7:09:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I note IC does not actually specify a cut off point so dodged the issue somewhat. I am generally 'pro-choice', but I am of the opinion that there should be cut-off point for elective abortions (ie other cases where the mother's life is endangered by the pregnancy, rape etc).

We know from experience of premature birth that a foetus is viable remarkably early - at 26 weeks or even much less. That such early births need a lot of support is not really relevant as many full term births also need similar support - normal babies are hardl self-sufficient. An absolute limit of 28 weeks seems reasonable, possibly with the need to obtain a court order for 22-28 weeks. I would of course revise those numbers (probably downwards) in light of expert advice!

That does mean some women giving birth to babies they don't want and those babies are then at risk of not receiving proper parental care. That is a pragmatic issue that is relevant to public policy which has to consider the social and money costs of unwanted (hence neglected or abandoned) babies as opposed to merely unwanted pregnancies, but the costs of unwanted children are not neccessarily relevant to the morality of when - if ever - it right to end a human life.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 9:58:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 6:19:19 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/4/2015 4:48:04 AM, Dookieman wrote:
Assuming you're pro-choice, when do you think abortion is no longer morally permissible? Do you think it's permissible through all 9 months of pregnancy or is there a certain point during the pregnancy when it's no longer justified?

I think the pro life/anti choice shut your legs you whore position

Um.. What?

has more ammunition on it's side when your dealing with pregnancy where there are factors of pain and or consciousnesses at play.

I could live with a legal restriction to abortion at some later stage in pregnancy where those factors are at play, but only on the condition before that point the woman does have a choice to end the pregnancy.

But that won't fly for most anti choicers, their position is from the moment of conception all abortions (maybe life at risk exemption) is off the table. NO CHOICE.

Yes, just like there is no choice to kill any other human being.


They literally want "person hood" given to a few cells, they literally want a few cells to be seen as moral equivalent to a 5 year old child.

All human beings are just complex 'clumps of cells', at what point does a clump of cells become a clump of cells that it is immoral to kill?

A five year old is a clump of cells as well, albeit larger and more complex, so killing a five year old painlessly is morally equivalent to killing a foetus. A foetus and a five year old are the same being just at different developmental stages, the substance of the five year old is present in the foetus, so if it is wrong to kill a five year old it is wrong to kill a foetus.


This results in the claim ergo an abortion of a few cells in the equivalent to killing a 5 year old child.

It would be hilarious if it wasn't for bullsh*t women are forced to put up with.


It's easy to be pro life when you think of yourself as some one who is just trying to save babies from being murdered in the tummy. But if you still support forced pregnancy against the womans will when it isn't the imagined baby but rather a few cells in early pregnancy what this shows is that its not really about saving babies, that's just an excuse there is something else that drives some one to not even grant a woman any choice from the moment of conception.

There in no substantial difference between a baby and a foetus. They are both human beings that have future interests.


Ill let you ponder on that for a while........but careful if you dig to deeply you may not like what you find.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 10:54:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 9:58:41 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/4/2015 6:19:19 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/4/2015 4:48:04 AM, Dookieman wrote:
Assuming you're pro-choice, when do you think abortion is no longer morally permissible? Do you think it's permissible through all 9 months of pregnancy or is there a certain point during the pregnancy when it's no longer justified?

I think the pro life/anti choice shut your legs you whore position

Um.. What?

has more ammunition on it's side when your dealing with pregnancy where there are factors of pain and or consciousnesses at play.

I could live with a legal restriction to abortion at some later stage in pregnancy where those factors are at play, but only on the condition before that point the woman does have a choice to end the pregnancy.

But that won't fly for most anti choicers, their position is from the moment of conception all abortions (maybe life at risk exemption) is off the table. NO CHOICE.

Yes, just like there is no choice to kill any other human being.

Oh please, unless you are an absolute pacificist you would have all sorts of exemptions to the thou shalt not kill rule.

Yes people draw the line differently on kill vs murder, but don't lie to yourself, you yourself if pushed know damm well there is a point where you would support killing not just of some cells, but even of thinking, feeling, sentient creatures including fellow human beings.

Any wars you support ? Iraq? Vietnam ? dropping the A bomb on japan ?

All I ask is if your not an absolute pacficist I don't have to hear these bullsh*t absolute claims about how it's wrong to kill humans when you yourself if really pushed don't believe that ok ?



They literally want "person hood" given to a few cells, they literally want a few cells to be seen as moral equivalent to a 5 year old child.

All human beings are just complex 'clumps of cells', at what point does a clump of cells become a clump of cells that it is immoral to kill?

That's a very good question, when is it ok to kill a clump of cells and when is it not ?

What are the moral relevant factors we should consider ?

What are the moral irrelevant factors we should not ?


A five year old is a clump of cells as well, albeit larger and more complex, so killing a five year old painlessly is morally equivalent to killing a foetus. A foetus and a five year old are the same being just at different developmental stages, the substance of the five year old is present in the foetus, so if it is wrong to kill a five year old it is wrong to kill a foetus.

Your a naughty boy philo. Just because something is true of A and A shares something with B doesn't mean therefore what is true of A is true of B.

The substance of something something star, something something carbon, something something other stuff therefore to destroy that is the same as killing a 5 year old.

Lots of things can be claimed to be of the same substance.



This results in the claim ergo an abortion of a few cells in the equivalent to killing a 5 year old child.

It would be hilarious if it wasn't for bullsh*t women are forced to put up with.


It's easy to be pro life when you think of yourself as some one who is just trying to save babies from being murdered in the tummy. But if you still support forced pregnancy against the womans will when it isn't the imagined baby but rather a few cells in early pregnancy what this shows is that its not really about saving babies, that's just an excuse there is something else that drives some one to not even grant a woman any choice from the moment of conception.

There in no substantial difference between a baby and a foetus. They are both human beings that have future interests.

That could be the case, but I think there is a substantial difference between say a rock and a 5 year old child. I bet you do too.

I think there is a substantial difference between a human cell and a 5 year old child, i bet you do too.

I think there is a substantial difference between a 3 day human embryo and a 5 year old child...................I think this where we will disagree on the substantial difference issue.

"A three-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. The human embryos that are destroyed in stem-cell research do not have brains, or even neurons. "

Some people say to kill that is the same as killing a 5 year old child ? at least in as far as moral equivalence goes.

Well sure people can say that, people can also say that masturbation is the equivalent of causing a holocaust (think of all the potential lives that have been lost !!!), but you know I might want to ask for justification for such claims and if those justifications are not forth coming or don't stand up to my objections I might have to call them bullsh*tters and mock their "logic" and their pretensions about how this is about saving babies as opposed to keeping women in check.



Ill let you ponder on that for a while........but careful if you dig to deeply you may not like what you find.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 11:47:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 9:58:41 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/4/2015 6:19:19 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/4/2015 4:48:04 AM, Dookieman wrote:
Assuming you're pro-choice, when do you think abortion is no longer morally permissible? Do you think it's permissible through all 9 months of pregnancy or is there a certain point during the pregnancy when it's no longer justified?

I think the pro life/anti choice shut your legs you whore position

Um.. What?

has more ammunition on it's side when your dealing with pregnancy where there are factors of pain and or consciousnesses at play.

I could live with a legal restriction to abortion at some later stage in pregnancy where those factors are at play, but only on the condition before that point the woman does have a choice to end the pregnancy.

But that won't fly for most anti choicers, their position is from the moment of conception all abortions (maybe life at risk exemption) is off the table. NO CHOICE.

Yes, just like there is no choice to kill any other human being.


They literally want "person hood" given to a few cells, they literally want a few cells to be seen as moral equivalent to a 5 year old child.

All human beings are just complex 'clumps of cells', at what point does a clump of cells become a clump of cells that it is immoral to kill?

A five year old is a clump of cells as well, albeit larger and more complex, so killing a five year old painlessly is morally equivalent to killing a foetus. A foetus and a five year old are the same being just at different developmental stages, the substance of the five year old is present in the foetus, so if it is wrong to kill a five year old it is wrong to kill a foetus.


This results in the claim ergo an abortion of a few cells in the equivalent to killing a 5 year old child.

It would be hilarious if it wasn't for bullsh*t women are forced to put up with.


It's easy to be pro life when you think of yourself as some one who is just trying to save babies from being murdered in the tummy. But if you still support forced pregnancy against the womans will when it isn't the imagined baby but rather a few cells in early pregnancy what this shows is that its not really about saving babies, that's just an excuse there is something else that drives some one to not even grant a woman any choice from the moment of conception.

There in no substantial difference between a baby and a foetus. They are both human beings that have future interests.


Ill let you ponder on that for a while........but careful if you dig to deeply you may not like what you find.

Don't feed the troll.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 12:05:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 11:47:16 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/4/2015 9:58:41 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/4/2015 6:19:19 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/4/2015 4:48:04 AM, Dookieman wrote:
Assuming you're pro-choice, when do you think abortion is no longer morally permissible? Do you think it's permissible through all 9 months of pregnancy or is there a certain point during the pregnancy when it's no longer justified?

I think the pro life/anti choice shut your legs you whore position

Um.. What?

has more ammunition on it's side when your dealing with pregnancy where there are factors of pain and or consciousnesses at play.

I could live with a legal restriction to abortion at some later stage in pregnancy where those factors are at play, but only on the condition before that point the woman does have a choice to end the pregnancy.

But that won't fly for most anti choicers, their position is from the moment of conception all abortions (maybe life at risk exemption) is off the table. NO CHOICE.

Yes, just like there is no choice to kill any other human being.


They literally want "person hood" given to a few cells, they literally want a few cells to be seen as moral equivalent to a 5 year old child.

All human beings are just complex 'clumps of cells', at what point does a clump of cells become a clump of cells that it is immoral to kill?

A five year old is a clump of cells as well, albeit larger and more complex, so killing a five year old painlessly is morally equivalent to killing a foetus. A foetus and a five year old are the same being just at different developmental stages, the substance of the five year old is present in the foetus, so if it is wrong to kill a five year old it is wrong to kill a foetus.


This results in the claim ergo an abortion of a few cells in the equivalent to killing a 5 year old child.

It would be hilarious if it wasn't for bullsh*t women are forced to put up with.


It's easy to be pro life when you think of yourself as some one who is just trying to save babies from being murdered in the tummy. But if you still support forced pregnancy against the womans will when it isn't the imagined baby but rather a few cells in early pregnancy what this shows is that its not really about saving babies, that's just an excuse there is something else that drives some one to not even grant a woman any choice from the moment of conception.

There in no substantial difference between a baby and a foetus. They are both human beings that have future interests.


Ill let you ponder on that for a while........but careful if you dig to deeply you may not like what you find.

Don't feed the troll.

I'd expect a higher standard from you. You disappoint me.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 2:53:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 10:54:34 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/4/2015 9:58:41 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/4/2015 6:19:19 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

I think the pro life/anti choice shut your legs you whore position

Um.. What?

has more ammunition on it's side when your dealing with pregnancy where there are factors of pain and or consciousnesses at play.

I could live with a legal restriction to abortion at some later stage in pregnancy where those factors are at play, but only on the condition before that point the woman does have a choice to end the pregnancy.

But that won't fly for most anti choicers, their position is from the moment of conception all abortions (maybe life at risk exemption) is off the table. NO CHOICE.

Yes, just like there is no choice to kill any other human being.

Oh please, unless you are an absolute pacificist you would have all sorts of exemptions to the thou shalt not kill rule.

Yes people draw the line differently on kill vs murder, but don't lie to yourself, you yourself if pushed know damm well there is a point where you would support killing not just of some cells, but even of thinking, feeling, sentient creatures including fellow human beings.

Any wars you support ? Iraq? Vietnam ? dropping the A bomb on japan ?

All I ask is if your not an absolute pacficist I don't have to hear these bullsh*t absolute claims about how it's wrong to kill humans when you yourself if really pushed don't believe that ok ?

I don't support war unless it is either defending against aggression (hence not contravening the NAP) or to prevent an even greater evil, such as the holocaust. But no, I don't support either Iraq, Vietnam or the atomic bombings.



They literally want "person hood" given to a few cells, they literally want a few cells to be seen as moral equivalent to a 5 year old child.

All human beings are just complex 'clumps of cells', at what point does a clump of cells become a clump of cells that it is immoral to kill?

That's a very good question, when is it ok to kill a clump of cells and when is it not ?

What are the moral relevant factors we should consider ?

What are the moral irrelevant factors we should not ?

Well, it is pretty axiomatic that killing the average born human is wrong, but then we must ask why it is wrong to kill people.

The best explanation is that killing deprives people of their future life. This is demonstrated by how mourners often say 'he had so much to live for!' or why the deaths of young people are considered more tragic than the deaths of elderly people.

Under this understanding, it is wrong to kill a foetus because it deprives it of its future life. Even if it is just a few cells at the present time, if it is killed its future life will be destroyed.



A five year old is a clump of cells as well, albeit larger and more complex, so killing a five year old painlessly is morally equivalent to killing a foetus. A foetus and a five year old are the same being just at different developmental stages, the substance of the five year old is present in the foetus, so if it is wrong to kill a five year old it is wrong to kill a foetus.

Your a naughty boy philo. Just because something is true of A and A shares something with B doesn't mean therefore what is true of A is true of B.

I don't think I made that fallacy, all I am saying is that there is a continuous developmental spectrum between the foetus and the five year old, during which the substance remains constant. So if it is wrong to kill a five year old, we have no reason to kill a foetus because there is no non-arbitrary point on the developmental scale between a five year old and a foetus at which a non-person becomes a person.


The substance of something something star, something something carbon, something something other stuff therefore to destroy that is the same as killing a 5 year old.

Lots of things can be claimed to be of the same substance.

A substance is that which maintains its identity over time through change. A ten year old changes through puberty until age 21, but because the substance is constant, the 21 year old is the same being as the 10 year old. Likewise, a foetus changes to become a five year old, but the substance stays the same.





This results in the claim ergo an abortion of a few cells in the equivalent to killing a 5 year old child.

It would be hilarious if it wasn't for bullsh*t women are forced to put up with.


It's easy to be pro life when you think of yourself as some one who is just trying to save babies from being murdered in the tummy. But if you still support forced pregnancy against the womans will when it isn't the imagined baby but rather a few cells in early pregnancy what this shows is that its not really about saving babies, that's just an excuse there is something else that drives some one to not even grant a woman any choice from the moment of conception.

There in no substantial difference between a baby and a foetus. They are both human beings that have future interests.

That could be the case, but I think there is a substantial difference between say a rock and a 5 year old child. I bet you do too.

Yes, but that is about rocks, not foetuses. I was never a rock, yet I was a foetus. My substance was present back when I was a foetus.


I think there is a substantial difference between a human cell and a 5 year old child, i bet you do too.

When I say there isn't a 'substantial' difference, I don't mean that there isn't a big difference between a foetus and a five year old - there obviously is. But there is no *substantial* difference because the substance of a person remains constant as one develops from a foetus into a five year old.


I think there is a substantial difference between a 3 day human embryo and a 5 year old child...................I think this where we will disagree on the substantial difference issue.

"A three-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. The human embryos that are destroyed in stem-cell research do not have brains, or even neurons. "

Nevertheless, it is still a human being that is deprived of its future life. Since this is why killing is wrong, it follows that it is wrong to kill a foetus despite it being so small and undeveloped.


Some people say to kill that is the same as killing a 5 year old child ? at least in as far as moral equivalence goes.

That's because killing is wrong because it denies a future life. A foetus is being deprived of its future life just as much (even perhaps more) as a five year old.


Well sure people can say that, people can also say that masturbation is the equivalent of causing a holocaust (think of all the potential lives that have been lost !!!),

We have no obligations to potential people, because they don't exist. In order for an act to be wrong, there must be an actual victim. Gamete-combinations are only potential beings, they don't yet exist.

but you know I might want to ask for justification for such claims and if those justifications are not forth coming or don't stand up to my objections I might have to call them bullsh*tters and mock their "logic" and their pretensions about how this is about saving babies as opposed to keeping women in check.

Do you seriously think people are pro-life in order to oppress women? In that case, I guess then all the female pro-lifers are self-hating wannabe men.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 5:06:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 7:05:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Birth

Birth is the most arbitrary cut off point a pro-choice person could possibly choose. You are literally determining whether a human being lives or dies based on its location. This isn't about the moral value of the fetus, this is about the fetus' dependency on the mother. Now if the fetus is not a person while it is dependent on the mother, then it does not make sense that it become a person once it is no longer dependent (seeing as the dependency is only an accidental property associated with the fetus). Your position only makes sense if the fetus has moral value while in the womb, but these moral rights are trumped by the woman's right to choose. To this I would respond that the right to life is more important than any other rights, and that women who risk getting pregnant by having sex have an obligation to not have an abortion since the life of the fetus is the result of the choice of the mother. You could also argue that human beings posess different degrees of moral worth based on their stage of life, but that would seem to ultimately imply the permissability of infanticide, which would make the cut off date at birth become arbitrary.
Nolite Timere
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 5:46:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 5:06:57 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/4/2015 7:05:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Birth

Birth is the most arbitrary cut off point a pro-choice person could possibly choose. You are literally determining whether a human being lives or dies based on its location. This isn't about the moral value of the fetus, this is about the fetus' dependency on the mother. Now if the fetus is not a person while it is dependent on the mother, then it does not make sense that it become a person once it is no longer dependent (seeing as the dependency is only an accidental property associated with the fetus). Your position only makes sense if the fetus has moral value while in the womb, but these moral rights are trumped by the woman's right to choose. To this I would respond that the right to life is more important than any other rights, and that women who risk getting pregnant by having sex have an obligation to not have an abortion since the life of the fetus is the result of the choice of the mother. You could also argue that human beings posess different degrees of moral worth based on their stage of life, but that would seem to ultimately imply the permissability of infanticide, which would make the cut off date at birth become arbitrary.

I literally was just about to say the same thing. I should also add that birth is a process and not instantaneous. So, the question then becomes when during the time of birth does the human organism have a right not to be destroyed? The location of the individual doesn't at all seem relevant to its moral status.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 5:49:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
When it can feel pain.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 6:04:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 5:49:00 PM, n7 wrote:
When it can feel pain.

What if the fetus could be killed painlessly? If it could be it seems like it would be permissible to destroy it. Also, what about adult humans that lack the ability to feel pain? Do such humans not a right to life?
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 6:07:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 6:04:02 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/4/2015 5:49:00 PM, n7 wrote:
When it can feel pain.

What if the fetus could be killed painlessly? If it could be it seems like it would be permissible to destroy it. Also, what about adult humans that lack the ability to feel pain? Do such humans not a right to life?

It can feel pain as in being conscious. I've heard that pain is the first thing it becomes aware of. Since that is the mark of sentience, then I'd say that's the cut off point.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 6:12:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 6:07:37 PM, n7 wrote:
At 8/4/2015 6:04:02 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/4/2015 5:49:00 PM, n7 wrote:
When it can feel pain.

What if the fetus could be killed painlessly? If it could be it seems like it would be permissible to destroy it. Also, what about adult humans that lack the ability to feel pain? Do such humans not a right to life?

It can feel pain as in being conscious. I've heard that pain is the first thing it becomes aware of. Since that is the mark of sentience, then I'd say that's the cut off point.

Right, so it's sentientence that grants the right to life. But why should that be the standard? Again, what if a human organism had most of the characteristics of personhood like rationality, self-consciousness ect. but was unable to experience pain? It seems crazy to suggest that such a human would not have a right to life.
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 6:19:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 4:48:04 AM, Dookieman wrote:
Assuming you're pro-choice, when do you think abortion is no longer morally permissible? Do you think it's permissible through all 9 months of pregnancy or is there a certain point during the pregnancy when it's no longer justified?

Not sure, but right now I'm thinking at fetal viability.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 6:20:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 5:06:57 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/4/2015 7:05:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Birth

Birth is the most arbitrary cut off point a pro-choice person could possibly choose. You are literally determining whether a human being lives or dies based on its location. This isn't about the moral value of the fetus, this is about the fetus' dependency on the mother. Now if the fetus is not a person while it is dependent on the mother, then it does not make sense that it become a person once it is no longer dependent (seeing as the dependency is only an accidental property associated with the fetus). Your position only makes sense if the fetus has moral value while in the womb, but these moral rights are trumped by the woman's right to choose. To this I would respond that the right to life is more important than any other rights, and that women who risk getting pregnant by having sex have an obligation to not have an abortion since the life of the fetus is the result of the choice of the mother. You could also argue that human beings posess different degrees of moral worth based on their stage of life, but that would seem to ultimately imply the permissability of infanticide, which would make the cut off date at birth become arbitrary.

You are basing your reasoning off of the assumption that the right to life is some objective thing which human beings possess. That's not the stance that I hold. Rights are a construct, something that we made up to describe and understand the social contract which formed historically. Once the baby is born, another person can adopt it without further inconveniencing the mother. It has some value to someone, seeing how much people pay for infant adoptions, so killing it is an irrational waste. Because of the fact that:

1. The infant has value

2. The mother can willfully divorce herself from the child

Treating the infant as if it has the right to life is acceptable, because that delusion isn't harming anyone. Extending the social contract to the infant is zero-sum.

Treating the infant as if it has the right to life when that infringes upon the right of the mother to control her own body IS a harmful delusion, because it strips one person of their actual rights under the social contract in order to grant imaginary rights to a fetus.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 6:21:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 6:12:40 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/4/2015 6:07:37 PM, n7 wrote:
At 8/4/2015 6:04:02 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/4/2015 5:49:00 PM, n7 wrote:
When it can feel pain.

What if the fetus could be killed painlessly? If it could be it seems like it would be permissible to destroy it. Also, what about adult humans that lack the ability to feel pain? Do such humans not a right to life?

It can feel pain as in being conscious. I've heard that pain is the first thing it becomes aware of. Since that is the mark of sentience, then I'd say that's the cut off point.

Right, so it's sentientence that grants the right to life. But why should that be the standard? Again, what if a human organism had most of the characteristics of personhood like rationality, self-consciousness ect. but was unable to experience pain? It seems crazy to suggest that such a human would not have a right to life.

It would, but I am speaking in current nomological terms not in metaphysical modal terms. In order for it to develop rationality, it would have to pass the mark of being able to process pain. Even if it turns out that as an adult it cannot feel pain, the safe bet would be for the cut off point to be when it has all necessary functions to feel pain.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 6:25:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 6:20:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Treating the infant as if it has the right to life when that infringes upon the right of the mother to control her own body IS a harmful delusion, because it strips one person of their actual rights under the social contract in order to grant imaginary rights to a fetus.

To extrapolate here, the social contract is an actual way of describing how society functions on its most basic level. The underlying assumptions which are accepted by members are 'you don't kill me, I won't kill you, and we let this guy who is allowed to kill people solve our problems.' Obviously, being able to understand and abide by these concepts is a prerequisite to being included in the contract. This is why the mother has 'actual rights': they're grounded in her membership in a society. The infant/fetus, unable to accept this contract, can only be granted rights as a courtesy. With the infant, the courtesy is justified. With the fetus, it is not, because it necessitates the abrogation of the woman's rights under the social contract.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 6:29:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 6:19:15 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 8/4/2015 4:48:04 AM, Dookieman wrote:
Assuming you're pro-choice, when do you think abortion is no longer morally permissible? Do you think it's permissible through all 9 months of pregnancy or is there a certain point during the pregnancy when it's no longer justified?

Not sure, but right now I'm thinking at fetal viability.

There is no interesting change in the nature of the fetus at viability. So, it's hard to see why that grants a human organism the right not to be destroyed. Also, viability is not a set in stone point. It gets earlier and earlier as our technology advances. Imagine a woman is 25 weeks pregnant living in the U.S. Given our state of technology, her offspring could most likely survive if she were to give birth. But suppose she decides to travel to an underdeveloped country where the technology is not advanced at all. Does her offspring lose its right to live when she goes to this other country because it's not longer viable? Believing the right to life is relative in this way is unsatisfactory.
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 6:43:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 6:20:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/4/2015 5:06:57 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/4/2015 7:05:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Birth

Birth is the most arbitrary cut off point a pro-choice person could possibly choose. You are literally determining whether a human being lives or dies based on its location. This isn't about the moral value of the fetus, this is about the fetus' dependency on the mother. Now if the fetus is not a person while it is dependent on the mother, then it does not make sense that it become a person once it is no longer dependent (seeing as the dependency is only an accidental property associated with the fetus). Your position only makes sense if the fetus has moral value while in the womb, but these moral rights are trumped by the woman's right to choose. To this I would respond that the right to life is more important than any other rights, and that women who risk getting pregnant by having sex have an obligation to not have an abortion since the life of the fetus is the result of the choice of the mother. You could also argue that human beings posess different degrees of moral worth based on their stage of life, but that would seem to ultimately imply the permissability of infanticide, which would make the cut off date at birth become arbitrary.

You are basing your reasoning off of the assumption that the right to life is some objective thing which human beings possess. That's not the stance that I hold. Rights are a construct, something that we made up to describe and understand the social contract which formed historically. Once the baby is born, another person can adopt it without further inconveniencing the mother. It has some value to someone, seeing how much people pay for infant adoptions, so killing it is an irrational waste. Because of the fact that:

1. The infant has value

2. The mother can willfully divorce herself from the child

Treating the infant as if it has the right to life is acceptable, because that delusion isn't harming anyone. Extending the social contract to the infant is zero-sum.

Treating the infant as if it has the right to life when that infringes upon the right of the mother to control her own body IS a harmful delusion, because it strips one person of their actual rights under the social contract in order to grant imaginary rights to a fetus.

What if the mother would not want to adopt it out? Suppose she doesn't like the idea of someone else raising her offspring. If she finds it inconvenient like being pregnant, do you think it would be permissible to destroy it? You claim that killing infants would be an irrational waste since many people pay for infant adoptions, but that same line of reasoning could be applied to fetuses. There are many people who want children so it would be an irrational waste to kill fetuses since it would be wanted by others when it's born.
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 6:51:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 6:21:07 PM, n7 wrote:
At 8/4/2015 6:12:40 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/4/2015 6:07:37 PM, n7 wrote:
At 8/4/2015 6:04:02 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/4/2015 5:49:00 PM, n7 wrote:
When it can feel pain.

What if the fetus could be killed painlessly? If it could be it seems like it would be permissible to destroy it. Also, what about adult humans that lack the ability to feel pain? Do such humans not a right to life?

It can feel pain as in being conscious. I've heard that pain is the first thing it becomes aware of. Since that is the mark of sentience, then I'd say that's the cut off point.

Right, so it's sentientence that grants the right to life. But why should that be the standard? Again, what if a human organism had most of the characteristics of personhood like rationality, self-consciousness ect. but was unable to experience pain? It seems crazy to suggest that such a human would not have a right to life.

It would, but I am speaking in current nomological terms not in metaphysical modal terms. In order for it to develop rationality, it would have to pass the mark of being able to process pain. Even if it turns out that as an adult it cannot feel pain, the safe bet would be for the cut off point to be when it has all necessary functions to feel pain.

I'm not sure it's necessarily true that in order to develop rationality you would have to pass the mark of being able to process pain. One can imagine rationality developing but the ability to feel pain not. But again, what about painless killing? Would that be morally okay?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 6:55:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 4:48:04 AM, Dookieman wrote:
Assuming you're pro-choice, when do you think abortion is no longer morally permissible? Do you think it's permissible through all 9 months of pregnancy or is there a certain point during the pregnancy when it's no longer justified?

I'm still pro postnatal-abortion.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 6:55:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 6:51:53 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/4/2015 6:21:07 PM, n7 wrote:
At 8/4/2015 6:12:40 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/4/2015 6:07:37 PM, n7 wrote:
At 8/4/2015 6:04:02 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/4/2015 5:49:00 PM, n7 wrote:
When it can feel pain.

What if the fetus could be killed painlessly? If it could be it seems like it would be permissible to destroy it. Also, what about adult humans that lack the ability to feel pain? Do such humans not a right to life?

It can feel pain as in being conscious. I've heard that pain is the first thing it becomes aware of. Since that is the mark of sentience, then I'd say that's the cut off point.

Right, so it's sentientence that grants the right to life. But why should that be the standard? Again, what if a human organism had most of the characteristics of personhood like rationality, self-consciousness ect. but was unable to experience pain? It seems crazy to suggest that such a human would not have a right to life.

It would, but I am speaking in current nomological terms not in metaphysical modal terms. In order for it to develop rationality, it would have to pass the mark of being able to process pain. Even if it turns out that as an adult it cannot feel pain, the safe bet would be for the cut off point to be when it has all necessary functions to feel pain.

I'm not sure it's necessarily true that in order to develop rationality you would have to pass the mark of being able to process pain. One can imagine rationality developing but the ability to feel pain not. But again, what about painless killing? Would that be morally okay?

I'm not saying it is necessarily true, just true in our actual world. If the fetus can processes pain, then it has intentionality. Then, I wouldn't think that would be morally okay.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 7:15:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 6:43:12 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/4/2015 6:20:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/4/2015 5:06:57 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/4/2015 7:05:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Birth

Birth is the most arbitrary cut off point a pro-choice person could possibly choose. You are literally determining whether a human being lives or dies based on its location. This isn't about the moral value of the fetus, this is about the fetus' dependency on the mother. Now if the fetus is not a person while it is dependent on the mother, then it does not make sense that it become a person once it is no longer dependent (seeing as the dependency is only an accidental property associated with the fetus). Your position only makes sense if the fetus has moral value while in the womb, but these moral rights are trumped by the woman's right to choose. To this I would respond that the right to life is more important than any other rights, and that women who risk getting pregnant by having sex have an obligation to not have an abortion since the life of the fetus is the result of the choice of the mother. You could also argue that human beings posess different degrees of moral worth based on their stage of life, but that would seem to ultimately imply the permissability of infanticide, which would make the cut off date at birth become arbitrary.

You are basing your reasoning off of the assumption that the right to life is some objective thing which human beings possess. That's not the stance that I hold. Rights are a construct, something that we made up to describe and understand the social contract which formed historically. Once the baby is born, another person can adopt it without further inconveniencing the mother. It has some value to someone, seeing how much people pay for infant adoptions, so killing it is an irrational waste. Because of the fact that:

1. The infant has value

2. The mother can willfully divorce herself from the child

Treating the infant as if it has the right to life is acceptable, because that delusion isn't harming anyone. Extending the social contract to the infant is zero-sum.

Treating the infant as if it has the right to life when that infringes upon the right of the mother to control her own body IS a harmful delusion, because it strips one person of their actual rights under the social contract in order to grant imaginary rights to a fetus.

What if the mother would not want to adopt it out? Suppose she doesn't like the idea of someone else raising her offspring. If she finds it inconvenient like being pregnant, do you think it would be permissible to destroy it? You claim that killing infants would be an irrational waste since many people pay for infant adoptions, but that same line of reasoning could be applied to fetuses. There are many people who want children so it would be an irrational waste to kill fetuses since it would be wanted by others when it's born.

But there is a cost to the mother to give birth to the baby, whereas once the baby has been born any cost is paid. At this point, the mother can either raise the child, or she can relinquish rights to it. If she does not want to raise it, then her wishes are moot at that point; I don't see why society as a whole should give them any consideration. She doesn't own the baby, only her own body.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 7:34:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 6:55:31 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/4/2015 4:48:04 AM, Dookieman wrote:
Assuming you're pro-choice, when do you think abortion is no longer morally permissible? Do you think it's permissible through all 9 months of pregnancy or is there a certain point during the pregnancy when it's no longer justified?

I'm still pro postnatal-abortion.

58th trimester abortions are the easiest to do.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 7:36:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 7:34:30 PM, n7 wrote:
At 8/4/2015 6:55:31 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/4/2015 4:48:04 AM, Dookieman wrote:
Assuming you're pro-choice, when do you think abortion is no longer morally permissible? Do you think it's permissible through all 9 months of pregnancy or is there a certain point during the pregnancy when it's no longer justified?

I'm still pro postnatal-abortion.

58th trimester abortions are the easiest to do.

You might need quite a big coat hanger though....
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 8:06:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 7:15:09 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/4/2015 6:43:12 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/4/2015 6:20:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/4/2015 5:06:57 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/4/2015 7:05:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Birth

Birth is the most arbitrary cut off point a pro-choice person could possibly choose. You are literally determining whether a human being lives or dies based on its location. This isn't about the moral value of the fetus, this is about the fetus' dependency on the mother. Now if the fetus is not a person while it is dependent on the mother, then it does not make sense that it become a person once it is no longer dependent (seeing as the dependency is only an accidental property associated with the fetus). Your position only makes sense if the fetus has moral value while in the womb, but these moral rights are trumped by the woman's right to choose. To this I would respond that the right to life is more important than any other rights, and that women who risk getting pregnant by having sex have an obligation to not have an abortion since the life of the fetus is the result of the choice of the mother. You could also argue that human beings posess different degrees of moral worth based on their stage of life, but that would seem to ultimately imply the permissability of infanticide, which would make the cut off date at birth become arbitrary.

You are basing your reasoning off of the assumption that the right to life is some objective thing which human beings possess. That's not the stance that I hold. Rights are a construct, something that we made up to describe and understand the social contract which formed historically. Once the baby is born, another person can adopt it without further inconveniencing the mother. It has some value to someone, seeing how much people pay for infant adoptions, so killing it is an irrational waste. Because of the fact that:

1. The infant has value

2. The mother can willfully divorce herself from the child

Treating the infant as if it has the right to life is acceptable, because that delusion isn't harming anyone. Extending the social contract to the infant is zero-sum.

Treating the infant as if it has the right to life when that infringes upon the right of the mother to control her own body IS a harmful delusion, because it strips one person of their actual rights under the social contract in order to grant imaginary rights to a fetus.

What if the mother would not want to adopt it out? Suppose she doesn't like the idea of someone else raising her offspring. If she finds it inconvenient like being pregnant, do you think it would be permissible to destroy it? You claim that killing infants would be an irrational waste since many people pay for infant adoptions, but that same line of reasoning could be applied to fetuses. There are many people who want children so it would be an irrational waste to kill fetuses since it would be wanted by others when it's born.

But there is a cost to the mother to give birth to the baby, whereas once the baby has been born any cost is paid. At this point, the mother can either raise the child, or she can relinquish rights to it. If she does not want to raise it, then her wishes are moot at that point; I don't see why society as a whole should give them any consideration. She doesn't own the baby, only her own body.

I disagree with your claim that cost is paid once the human organism is born. Not only might she not like the idea of someone else raising her offspring, she might also not like the idea that it might try to establish a relationship with her later on in life. Your argument still leads to the conclusion that if it's wrong to kill infants, it's also wrong to kill fetuses.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 8:15:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 8:06:10 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/4/2015 7:15:09 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/4/2015 6:43:12 PM, Dookieman wrote:
What if the mother would not want to adopt it out? Suppose she doesn't like the idea of someone else raising her offspring. If she finds it inconvenient like being pregnant, do you think it would be permissible to destroy it? You claim that killing infants would be an irrational waste since many people pay for infant adoptions, but that same line of reasoning could be applied to fetuses. There are many people who want children so it would be an irrational waste to kill fetuses since it would be wanted by others when it's born.

But there is a cost to the mother to give birth to the baby, whereas once the baby has been born any cost is paid. At this point, the mother can either raise the child, or she can relinquish rights to it. If she does not want to raise it, then her wishes are moot at that point; I don't see why society as a whole should give them any consideration. She doesn't own the baby, only her own body.

I disagree with your claim that cost is paid once the human organism is born. Not only might she not like the idea of someone else raising her offspring, she might also not like the idea that it might try to establish a relationship with her later on in life. Your argument still leads to the conclusion that if it's wrong to kill infants, it's also wrong to kill fetuses.

So? Who cares about her mothers feelings about the baby as long as her rights under the social contract are intact (she hasn't been denied sovereignty over her own body). She doesn't have a right to not be contacted by anyone; I can't say 'oh, we should confiscate the children of Jehovah's Witnesses because they may one day knock on my door if brought up by their parents'. Do you think that a parent owns their children? Because that's the only condition under which the killing would be justified, and I think that it's an absurd condition to adopt. Once children are born, and society begins investing in them because they are of value, the parents are there as caretakers by the grace of society. If they jeopardize the investment of society into the child by harming it, then guess what? No kid for them.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -