Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Abortion and personal choice

Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 2:10:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://indieregister.com...

Thought this was an interesting article that questions whether of not being pro-choice is compatible with government intervention against harmful activities. It arose out of a FB conversation about someone who was ticketed for not wearing a bicycle helmet:

Commenter: "but I would have given him a ticket for wreckless riding AND failure to wear a bike helmet.

Me: shouldn"t it be his choice as to whether or not he wants to wear a helmet. If he wants to take the personal responsibilty for his own actions that will not harm anyone"
Me: no victim"no crime


Commenter: Ah, William, the socialist in me believes he doesn"t have the right to wrecklessly risk injury to himself (that"s GOT to hurt) not to mention the public property he was using for target practice! I know" It"s supposed to be funny" and IS! Just sayin", that"s all!

Me: I may be opening a can of worms that is completely off topic"lol"but are you pro-choice or pro-life? (not getting into an abortion debate")

Commenter: Pro-choice, of course" I think pro-lifers care far too much about the well being of zygotes and not enough about how to feed and care for human beings.
Me: So"if a woman who doesn"t belive in abortion, but would die if she didn"t have one, should be forced to have one?

Commenter: William, I thought you didn"t want to debate? The choice to bring a fetus to term, even at the cost of the mother"s life, should be the mother"s decision" and no one elses. It is a personal matter.

Me: I was using it as context. ok"so"if she decided to attempt to carry to term, even with potentially fatal complications, wouldn"t that be her right to wrecklessly injure herself? Just as someone choosing to not wear a helmet would be a risk of potentially fatal complications.
Me: just sayin

Commenter: Her choice to bring a fetus to term, even at the risk to her own health or life does not make it to the same moral discussion as your biker recklessly endangering his own life; The mother is at least attempting to save A life. Her intention is not to kill either life.
Me: But that risk of both lives could still be there. I"m sure someone on a bike doesn"t have a deathwish either. My point is there is too much of a Nanny State in this country, where government officals on all levels (local, state, federal) who think they know what"s best for everyone else and pass laws to keep everyone "safe" no matter what restraints it puts on individual liberty.

Commenter: Yes" but when that biker gets brain damage it costs us ALL money to treat him for the rest of his life. It is not a victimless crime.


Thoughts?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 2:48:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 2:10:12 AM, Noumena wrote:
http://indieregister.com...

Thought this was an interesting article that questions whether of not being pro-choice is compatible with government intervention against harmful activities. It arose out of a FB conversation about someone who was ticketed for not wearing a bicycle helmet:

Commenter: "but I would have given him a ticket for wreckless riding AND failure to wear a bike helmet.

Me: shouldn"t it be his choice as to whether or not he wants to wear a helmet. If he wants to take the personal responsibilty for his own actions that will not harm anyone"
Me: no victim"no crime


Commenter: Ah, William, the socialist in me believes he doesn"t have the right to wrecklessly risk injury to himself (that"s GOT to hurt) not to mention the public property he was using for target practice! I know" It"s supposed to be funny" and IS! Just sayin", that"s all!

Me: I may be opening a can of worms that is completely off topic"lol"but are you pro-choice or pro-life? (not getting into an abortion debate")

Commenter: Pro-choice, of course" I think pro-lifers care far too much about the well being of zygotes and not enough about how to feed and care for human beings.
Me: So"if a woman who doesn"t belive in abortion, but would die if she didn"t have one, should be forced to have one?

Commenter: William, I thought you didn"t want to debate? The choice to bring a fetus to term, even at the cost of the mother"s life, should be the mother"s decision" and no one elses. It is a personal matter.

Me: I was using it as context. ok"so"if she decided to attempt to carry to term, even with potentially fatal complications, wouldn"t that be her right to wrecklessly injure herself? Just as someone choosing to not wear a helmet would be a risk of potentially fatal complications.
Me: just sayin

Commenter: Her choice to bring a fetus to term, even at the risk to her own health or life does not make it to the same moral discussion as your biker recklessly endangering his own life; The mother is at least attempting to save A life. Her intention is not to kill either life.
Me: But that risk of both lives could still be there. I"m sure someone on a bike doesn"t have a deathwish either. My point is there is too much of a Nanny State in this country, where government officals on all levels (local, state, federal) who think they know what"s best for everyone else and pass laws to keep everyone "safe" no matter what restraints it puts on individual liberty.

Commenter: Yes" but when that biker gets brain damage it costs us ALL money to treat him for the rest of his life. It is not a victimless crime.


Thoughts?

I agree with your sentiments? It's not much of a thought, I suppose, in that it's unlikely to foster debate to say "yup!". But it's a thought.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 3:19:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think it reasonable to make such connections between unrelated things. Consider the specific consequences and don't worry about carrying principles over a broad array of topics.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 3:31:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 3:19:33 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I don't think it reasonable to make such connections between unrelated things. Consider the specific consequences and don't worry about carrying principles over a broad array of topics.


Wait, what?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 3:42:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 3:31:35 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/3/2013 3:19:33 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I don't think it reasonable to make such connections between unrelated things. Consider the specific consequences and don't worry about carrying principles over a broad array of topics.


Wait, what?

Principles are practical and arbitrary abstractions to build proper recourse over areas of implicit similarities relating to similarly abstracted goals. They should be applied and revised for their separately observable consequences and not dictated under the compulsion of some perverted sense of duty to consistency.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 4:01:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 3:42:36 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/3/2013 3:31:35 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/3/2013 3:19:33 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I don't think it reasonable to make such connections between unrelated things. Consider the specific consequences and don't worry about carrying principles over a broad array of topics.


Wait, what?

Principles are practical and arbitrary abstractions to build proper recourse over areas of implicit similarities relating to similarly abstracted goals. They should be applied and revised for their separately observable consequences and not dictated under the compulsion of some perverted sense of duty to consistency.

But....I like consistency :/
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 4:08:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 3:42:36 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/3/2013 3:31:35 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/3/2013 3:19:33 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I don't think it reasonable to make such connections between unrelated things. Consider the specific consequences and don't worry about carrying principles over a broad array of topics.


Wait, what?

Principles are practical and arbitrary abstractions to build proper recourse over areas of implicit similarities relating to similarly abstracted goals. They should be applied and revised for their separately observable consequences and not dictated under the compulsion of some perverted sense of duty to consistency.

I disagree. First that principles are arbitrary...if they follow from a framework, the framework choice may be, but the nested principle isn't. Second, I don't reference practicality in my principles. Third, the whole point of this was explicit similarities in the concept of bodily sovereignty. Fourth, consistency is the method by which we avoid hypocrisy.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 4:08:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 4:01:38 AM, Noumena wrote:
But....I like consistency :/

Consistency is great. We couldn't do much without it. The problem is that it only exists within the imaginary boundaries we draw for it. You can't have it everywhere. It's not that you're inconsistent in broad-view. It's just that such matters consistency becomes perfectly meaningless.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 4:15:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 4:08:16 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I disagree. First that principles are arbitrary...if they follow from a framework, the framework choice may be, but the nested principle isn't. Second, I don't reference practicality in my principles. Third, the whole point of this was explicit similarities in the concept of bodily sovereignty. Fourth, consistency is the method by which we avoid hypocrisy.

Well, the whole principles thing is a bit of a tangent now. I'll just say it's turtles all the way down.

As for bodily sovereignty, the OP actually hints at the fact that no such thing exists. Unless you live absolutely alone, everything that happens to you also effects everyone else.

Personally, I think bodily sovereignty is a great policy to implement. But, as a concept to try and draw logical conclusions from, it falls victim to the ever pervasive fact that nothing makes sense if you think about it too deeply.

My problem here is that we come to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 5:34:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If someone is doing the right thing from right intentions, they are morally upstanding.

If someone is doing the right thing from wrong intentions, then while they are not morally upstanding, then they ought to be allowed to commit the act anyway, as it will benefit others as a result.

If someone is doing the wrong thing from right intentions (abortion scenario), then we ought to tread very carefully, as we can always be wrong on this issue. It is extremely debatable here whether someone ought to be prohibited from committing an action. It becomes a balancing act of how 'wrong' the thing is, compared to how 'wrong' it is to prevent a rational person from acting in a way that you think is erroneous. After all, it is you who could be wrong.

And finally, if someone is doing something wrong for wrong reasons (mad biker), then there is no reason to allow them to cause harm. There is a lack of decent justiification for their action.

Now, there's one or two large (but not damning, I would say) flaws with this matrix, but it highlights the issue of how valuable reasoned personal choice would be in this situation.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 1:21:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 5:34:25 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
If someone is doing the right thing from right intentions, they are morally upstanding.

If someone is doing the right thing from wrong intentions, then while they are not morally upstanding, then they ought to be allowed to commit the act anyway, as it will benefit others as a result.

If someone is doing the wrong thing from right intentions (abortion scenario), then we ought to tread very carefully, as we can always be wrong on this issue. It is extremely debatable here whether someone ought to be prohibited from committing an action. It becomes a balancing act of how 'wrong' the thing is, compared to how 'wrong' it is to prevent a rational person from acting in a way that you think is erroneous. After all, it is you who could be wrong.

And finally, if someone is doing something wrong for wrong reasons (mad biker), then there is no reason to allow them to cause harm. There is a lack of decent justiification for their action.

But that argument indicates that the reasons someone does something with their own body must be sufficient to someone else. I reject that. I leads to the same things being applied to women wanting abortions..."Nope, that's not a good enough reason, lady, look like you're carrying to term".


Now, there's one or two large (but not damning, I would say) flaws with this matrix, but it highlights the issue of how valuable reasoned personal choice would be in this situation.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!