Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Abortion vs. Slavery

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 4:21:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I made a satire thread about this once (which may have been very offensive to those who didn't recognize I was trolling, I admit). However, now I'd like to discuss this in an intellectually honest manner.
Note: If I am "wolfpacked", I will likely ignore most of the responses and focus on a single responder instead.

First of all, a question:
To those who believe that abortion is not an immoral behavior, and that the killing of an individual who is already born is, what significant differences exist in these two cases that make one justified but not the other?
I'd like to hear some input before I continue.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 4:54:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 4:21:28 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I made a satire thread about this once (which may have been very offensive to those who didn't recognize I was trolling, I admit). However, now I'd like to discuss this in an intellectually honest manner.
Note: If I am "wolfpacked", I will likely ignore most of the responses and focus on a single responder instead.

First of all, a question:
To those who believe that abortion is not an immoral behavior, and that the killing of an individual who is already born is, what significant differences exist in these two cases that make one justified but not the other?
I'd like to hear some input before I continue.

At the core of alot of anti abortion/forced birthism arguments is a moral equivalence assumption. Would you regard killing a 5 year old child as murder ? yes ? then you should also view abortion as murder as the argument goes.

So this works both ways, you want justification for the difference I want justification why should we regard them as the same.

I don't believe that the fact that something is "human" like a 3 day embryo should be regard as the same morally value wise as a 5 year old child and to act on that equivalency leads to absurdities for example..........

"Take the scenario of a burning house, the roof of which is about to cave in. In one room, there is a canister of 100 embryos which are perfectly viable, and will remain so as long as they are immediately removed from the house and returned to cold storage. In the other room is an eight year old girl. There is only time to rescue either the canister or the girl, not both.

I submit that all non-sociopaths would elect to save the girl. Anti-abortion rights (hereafter AAR) partisans can justify this however they'd like, but the fact would remain that even they value post-birth humans more than pre-birth humans. This is not to say they don't greatly value pre-birth humans; but if they valued them in the same way that they valued post-birth humans, then the choice between allowing one moral harm or 100 equivalent moral harms should not even trigger hesitation in the AAR advocate."

http://www.debate.org...
"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
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 5:10:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 4:54:48 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:21:28 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I made a satire thread about this once (which may have been very offensive to those who didn't recognize I was trolling, I admit). However, now I'd like to discuss this in an intellectually honest manner.
Note: If I am "wolfpacked", I will likely ignore most of the responses and focus on a single responder instead.

First of all, a question:
To those who believe that abortion is not an immoral behavior, and that the killing of an individual who is already born is, what significant differences exist in these two cases that make one justified but not the other?
I'd like to hear some input before I continue.

At the core of alot of anti abortion/forced birthism arguments is a moral equivalence assumption. Would you regard killing a 5 year old child as murder ? yes ? then you should also view abortion as murder as the argument goes.

So this works both ways, you want justification for the difference I want justification why should we regard them as the same.

I don't believe that the fact that something is "human" like a 3 day embryo should be regard as the same morally value wise as a 5 year old child and to act on that equivalency leads to absurdities for example..........

"Take the scenario of a burning house, the roof of which is about to cave in. In one room, there is a canister of 100 embryos which are perfectly viable, and will remain so as long as they are immediately removed from the house and returned to cold storage. In the other room is an eight year old girl. There is only time to rescue either the canister or the girl, not both.

I submit that all non-sociopaths would elect to save the girl. Anti-abortion rights (hereafter AAR) partisans can justify this however they'd like, but the fact would remain that even they value post-birth humans more than pre-birth humans. This is not to say they don't greatly value pre-birth humans; but if they valued them in the same way that they valued post-birth humans, then the choice between allowing one moral harm or 100 equivalent moral harms should not even trigger hesitation in the AAR advocate."

http://www.debate.org...

So in your opinion, the reason is that embryos are not human? Please be more specific as to how human beings are special.
(P.S. I might choose to save the embryos.)
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 5:22:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 5:10:32 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:54:48 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:21:28 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I made a satire thread about this once (which may have been very offensive to those who didn't recognize I was trolling, I admit). However, now I'd like to discuss this in an intellectually honest manner.
Note: If I am "wolfpacked", I will likely ignore most of the responses and focus on a single responder instead.

First of all, a question:
To those who believe that abortion is not an immoral behavior, and that the killing of an individual who is already born is, what significant differences exist in these two cases that make one justified but not the other?
I'd like to hear some input before I continue.

At the core of alot of anti abortion/forced birthism arguments is a moral equivalence assumption. Would you regard killing a 5 year old child as murder ? yes ? then you should also view abortion as murder as the argument goes.

So this works both ways, you want justification for the difference I want justification why should we regard them as the same.

I don't believe that the fact that something is "human" like a 3 day embryo should be regard as the same morally value wise as a 5 year old child and to act on that equivalency leads to absurdities for example..........

"Take the scenario of a burning house, the roof of which is about to cave in. In one room, there is a canister of 100 embryos which are perfectly viable, and will remain so as long as they are immediately removed from the house and returned to cold storage. In the other room is an eight year old girl. There is only time to rescue either the canister or the girl, not both.

I submit that all non-sociopaths would elect to save the girl. Anti-abortion rights (hereafter AAR) partisans can justify this however they'd like, but the fact would remain that even they value post-birth humans more than pre-birth humans. This is not to say they don't greatly value pre-birth humans; but if they valued them in the same way that they valued post-birth humans, then the choice between allowing one moral harm or 100 equivalent moral harms should not even trigger hesitation in the AAR advocate."

http://www.debate.org...

So in your opinion, the reason is that embryos are not human? Please be more specific as to how human beings are special.
(P.S. I might choose to save the embryos.)

I have no idea what so ever how you came to that conclusion. I think you need to read it again.

I don't dispute that human embryos are human.
"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
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 5:24:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 5:22:29 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:10:32 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:54:48 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:21:28 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I made a satire thread about this once (which may have been very offensive to those who didn't recognize I was trolling, I admit). However, now I'd like to discuss this in an intellectually honest manner.
Note: If I am "wolfpacked", I will likely ignore most of the responses and focus on a single responder instead.

First of all, a question:
To those who believe that abortion is not an immoral behavior, and that the killing of an individual who is already born is, what significant differences exist in these two cases that make one justified but not the other?
I'd like to hear some input before I continue.

At the core of alot of anti abortion/forced birthism arguments is a moral equivalence assumption. Would you regard killing a 5 year old child as murder ? yes ? then you should also view abortion as murder as the argument goes.

So this works both ways, you want justification for the difference I want justification why should we regard them as the same.

I don't believe that the fact that something is "human" like a 3 day embryo should be regard as the same morally value wise as a 5 year old child and to act on that equivalency leads to absurdities for example..........

"Take the scenario of a burning house, the roof of which is about to cave in. In one room, there is a canister of 100 embryos which are perfectly viable, and will remain so as long as they are immediately removed from the house and returned to cold storage. In the other room is an eight year old girl. There is only time to rescue either the canister or the girl, not both.

I submit that all non-sociopaths would elect to save the girl. Anti-abortion rights (hereafter AAR) partisans can justify this however they'd like, but the fact would remain that even they value post-birth humans more than pre-birth humans. This is not to say they don't greatly value pre-birth humans; but if they valued them in the same way that they valued post-birth humans, then the choice between allowing one moral harm or 100 equivalent moral harms should not even trigger hesitation in the AAR advocate."

http://www.debate.org...

So in your opinion, the reason is that embryos are not human? Please be more specific as to how human beings are special.
(P.S. I might choose to save the embryos.)

I have no idea what so ever how you came to that conclusion. I think you need to read it again.

I don't dispute that human embryos are human.

Ah. Okay. But why is it different? Please answer the question? After all, they are both members of the "Homo Sapiens" species.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 5:39:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 5:24:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:22:29 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:10:32 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:54:48 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:21:28 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I made a satire thread about this once (which may have been very offensive to those who didn't recognize I was trolling, I admit). However, now I'd like to discuss this in an intellectually honest manner.
Note: If I am "wolfpacked", I will likely ignore most of the responses and focus on a single responder instead.

First of all, a question:
To those who believe that abortion is not an immoral behavior, and that the killing of an individual who is already born is, what significant differences exist in these two cases that make one justified but not the other?
I'd like to hear some input before I continue.

At the core of alot of anti abortion/forced birthism arguments is a moral equivalence assumption. Would you regard killing a 5 year old child as murder ? yes ? then you should also view abortion as murder as the argument goes.

So this works both ways, you want justification for the difference I want justification why should we regard them as the same.

I don't believe that the fact that something is "human" like a 3 day embryo should be regard as the same morally value wise as a 5 year old child and to act on that equivalency leads to absurdities for example..........

"Take the scenario of a burning house, the roof of which is about to cave in. In one room, there is a canister of 100 embryos which are perfectly viable, and will remain so as long as they are immediately removed from the house and returned to cold storage. In the other room is an eight year old girl. There is only time to rescue either the canister or the girl, not both.

I submit that all non-sociopaths would elect to save the girl. Anti-abortion rights (hereafter AAR) partisans can justify this however they'd like, but the fact would remain that even they value post-birth humans more than pre-birth humans. This is not to say they don't greatly value pre-birth humans; but if they valued them in the same way that they valued post-birth humans, then the choice between allowing one moral harm or 100 equivalent moral harms should not even trigger hesitation in the AAR advocate."

http://www.debate.org...

So in your opinion, the reason is that embryos are not human? Please be more specific as to how human beings are special.
(P.S. I might choose to save the embryos.)

I have no idea what so ever how you came to that conclusion. I think you need to read it again.

I don't dispute that human embryos are human.

Ah. Okay. But why is it different? Please answer the question? After all, they are both members of the "Homo Sapiens" species.

But that isn't your real question why are they different. Your real question is why do some people agree that killing a 5 year old child is murder but killing a 3 day human embryo is not ?, the answer is cause we don't believe they are equal in moral/value terms.(well that is one argument, the other main one is probably about bodily autonomy)

I gave a thought experiment to help with the justification of that and the absurdity it leads to if you operate on that moral/value equivalence assumption.
"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
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 6:46:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 5:39:24 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:24:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:22:29 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:10:32 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:54:48 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:21:28 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I made a satire thread about this once (which may have been very offensive to those who didn't recognize I was trolling, I admit). However, now I'd like to discuss this in an intellectually honest manner.
Note: If I am "wolfpacked", I will likely ignore most of the responses and focus on a single responder instead.

First of all, a question:
To those who believe that abortion is not an immoral behavior, and that the killing of an individual who is already born is, what significant differences exist in these two cases that make one justified but not the other?
I'd like to hear some input before I continue.

At the core of alot of anti abortion/forced birthism arguments is a moral equivalence assumption. Would you regard killing a 5 year old child as murder ? yes ? then you should also view abortion as murder as the argument goes.

So this works both ways, you want justification for the difference I want justification why should we regard them as the same.

I don't believe that the fact that something is "human" like a 3 day embryo should be regard as the same morally value wise as a 5 year old child and to act on that equivalency leads to absurdities for example..........

"Take the scenario of a burning house, the roof of which is about to cave in. In one room, there is a canister of 100 embryos which are perfectly viable, and will remain so as long as they are immediately removed from the house and returned to cold storage. In the other room is an eight year old girl. There is only time to rescue either the canister or the girl, not both.

I submit that all non-sociopaths would elect to save the girl. Anti-abortion rights (hereafter AAR) partisans can justify this however they'd like, but the fact would remain that even they value post-birth humans more than pre-birth humans. This is not to say they don't greatly value pre-birth humans; but if they valued them in the same way that they valued post-birth humans, then the choice between allowing one moral harm or 100 equivalent moral harms should not even trigger hesitation in the AAR advocate."

http://www.debate.org...

So in your opinion, the reason is that embryos are not human? Please be more specific as to how human beings are special.
(P.S. I might choose to save the embryos.)

I have no idea what so ever how you came to that conclusion. I think you need to read it again.

I don't dispute that human embryos are human.

Ah. Okay. But why is it different? Please answer the question? After all, they are both members of the "Homo Sapiens" species.

But that isn't your real question why are they different. Your real question is why do some people agree that killing a 5 year old child is murder but killing a 3 day human embryo is not ?, the answer is cause we don't believe they are equal in moral/value terms.(well that is one argument, the other main one is probably about bodily autonomy)

I gave a thought experiment to help with the justification of that and the absurdity it leads to if you operate on that moral/value equivalence assumption.

So the reason is that they are not "morally equivalent". They thought experiment you portrayed involved people's emotions. One reason somebody might be more willing to save the child is because in their mind the child is more "real" a person. But this means little, as that's just a person's feelings.

Anyway, this conversation left me somewhat confused. I'll cite a few things:

-The fetus's lack of development
-The fetus's inability to feel pain
-The fetus's lack of sentience
-The fetus's dependence on its mother
-That it's "obvious" just by looking at a fetus and looking at a child that the child has a greater right to exist

These are some reasons, correct?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 6:57:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 6:46:52 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:39:24 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:24:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:22:29 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/27/2015 5:10:32 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:54:48 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:21:28 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I made a satire thread about this once (which may have been very offensive to those who didn't recognize I was trolling, I admit). However, now I'd like to discuss this in an intellectually honest manner.
Note: If I am "wolfpacked", I will likely ignore most of the responses and focus on a single responder instead.

First of all, a question:
To those who believe that abortion is not an immoral behavior, and that the killing of an individual who is already born is, what significant differences exist in these two cases that make one justified but not the other?
I'd like to hear some input before I continue.

At the core of alot of anti abortion/forced birthism arguments is a moral equivalence assumption. Would you regard killing a 5 year old child as murder ? yes ? then you should also view abortion as murder as the argument goes.

So this works both ways, you want justification for the difference I want justification why should we regard them as the same.

I don't believe that the fact that something is "human" like a 3 day embryo should be regard as the same morally value wise as a 5 year old child and to act on that equivalency leads to absurdities for example..........

"Take the scenario of a burning house, the roof of which is about to cave in. In one room, there is a canister of 100 embryos which are perfectly viable, and will remain so as long as they are immediately removed from the house and returned to cold storage. In the other room is an eight year old girl. There is only time to rescue either the canister or the girl, not both.

I submit that all non-sociopaths would elect to save the girl. Anti-abortion rights (hereafter AAR) partisans can justify this however they'd like, but the fact would remain that even they value post-birth humans more than pre-birth humans. This is not to say they don't greatly value pre-birth humans; but if they valued them in the same way that they valued post-birth humans, then the choice between allowing one moral harm or 100 equivalent moral harms should not even trigger hesitation in the AAR advocate."

http://www.debate.org...

So in your opinion, the reason is that embryos are not human? Please be more specific as to how human beings are special.
(P.S. I might choose to save the embryos.)

I have no idea what so ever how you came to that conclusion. I think you need to read it again.

I don't dispute that human embryos are human.

Ah. Okay. But why is it different? Please answer the question? After all, they are both members of the "Homo Sapiens" species.

But that isn't your real question why are they different. Your real question is why do some people agree that killing a 5 year old child is murder but killing a 3 day human embryo is not ?, the answer is cause we don't believe they are equal in moral/value terms.(well that is one argument, the other main one is probably about bodily autonomy)

I gave a thought experiment to help with the justification of that and the absurdity it leads to if you operate on that moral/value equivalence assumption.

So the reason is that they are not "morally equivalent". They thought experiment you portrayed involved people's emotions. One reason somebody might be more willing to save the child is because in their mind the child is more "real" a person. But this means little, as that's just a person's feelings.

The purpose of that thought experiment is to show you where your moral intuitions take you. So something has to give either your moral intuitions are wrong or your reasoning is wrong.

I think it's the reasoning is wrong, I think the moral equivalence assumption is what is probably wrong not the moral intuition.


Anyway, this conversation left me somewhat confused. I'll cite a few things:

-The fetus's lack of development
-The fetus's inability to feel pain
-The fetus's lack of sentience
-The fetus's dependence on its mother
-That it's "obvious" just by looking at a fetus and looking at a child that the child has a greater right to exist

These are some reasons, correct?

For some people yes some of those things come into play and how they are used in arguments.

But when you think about it, so do you, you don't really care to much when a fly is killed why not ?

If your answer is well because it is not "human" I reject that as if a certain biological make up of something grants it's more value. On the surface it just a form of specieism and there is also counter argument about intelligent alien life forms and how they miss out on such moral value if we use that line of reasoning.

Once again in my view showing that kind of reasoning as untenable.

But that's the whole point of debate now isn't it, digging deeper, looking at the hidden unsupported assumptions that are needed to make an argument work.
"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
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 7:09:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 4:21:28 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
First of all, a question:
To those who believe that abortion is not an immoral behavior, and that the killing of an individual who is already born is, what significant differences exist in these two cases that make one justified but not the other?
I'd like to hear some input before I continue.

1. the embryos in question are certainly human, but not necessarily persons. Personhood is more of a philosophical concept that includes measures of consciousness. Fetuses (in the first trimester especially) are not necessarily or even usually considered "persons" according to certain standards; these standards consider levels of consciousness a prerequisite for determining the right to life. This is why living animals do not have the right to life (even though many are in fact very conscious). Pigs are smarter than 2 year old toddlers for example yet we kill them.

http://people.wku.edu...

2. I strongly believe in the right to bodily autonomy, and liberty free from the force of others. We cannot force others to use their body against their will, even if someone else will benefit from their labor. To suggest otherwise would essentially qualify them as slaves, or impede upon the value of freedom and individual rights. If I need a kidney transplant in order to live, and you are a match, I cannot force you to donate one of your kidneys to save my life even if it will not kill you. Similarly, you cannot force a woman to donate her body and house a fetus (plus birth it) and put her body/life at great risk against her will... even if it will not kill her, and it is necessary to save the life of another. We cannot force someone to donate blood or otherwise sacrifice their body in an invasive way; abortion seems like a similar standard.
President of DDO
mrsatan
Posts: 417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 7:14:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 4:21:28 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I made a satire thread about this once (which may have been very offensive to those who didn't recognize I was trolling, I admit). However, now I'd like to discuss this in an intellectually honest manner.
Note: If I am "wolfpacked", I will likely ignore most of the responses and focus on a single responder instead.

First of all, a question:
To those who believe that abortion is not an immoral behavior, and that the killing of an individual who is already born is, what significant differences exist in these two cases that make one justified but not the other?
I'd like to hear some input before I continue.

I don't believe abortion is immoral, as long as it takes place before the has brain activity. Simply put, my argument would be as follows.

1) It is not immoral to kill that which has no awareness of its own existence.
2) No thing can be aware of its own existence without an active brain.
Therefore, it is not immoral to kill a fetus that has no brain activity.

One might attempt to take this further and say brain activity does not necessarily mean something is self aware, to which I would agree. But this is, so far as I know, indeterminable, and so I would say we should err on the side of caution and not allow abortions after brain activity is present.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 7:16:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 7:14:05 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:21:28 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I made a satire thread about this once (which may have been very offensive to those who didn't recognize I was trolling, I admit). However, now I'd like to discuss this in an intellectually honest manner.
Note: If I am "wolfpacked", I will likely ignore most of the responses and focus on a single responder instead.

First of all, a question:
To those who believe that abortion is not an immoral behavior, and that the killing of an individual who is already born is, what significant differences exist in these two cases that make one justified but not the other?
I'd like to hear some input before I continue.

I don't believe abortion is immoral, as long as it takes place before the has brain activity. Simply put, my argument would be as follows.

1) It is not immoral to kill that which has no awareness of its own existence.
2) No thing can be aware of its own existence without an active brain.
Therefore, it is not immoral to kill a fetus that has no brain activity.

One might attempt to take this further and say brain activity does not necessarily mean something is self aware, to which I would agree. But this is, so far as I know, indeterminable, and so I would say we should err on the side of caution and not allow abortions after brain activity is present.

So you think it should be legal for me to walk into the hospital and shoot the patients who are in a coma? After all, they have no brain activity
mrsatan
Posts: 417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 7:26:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 7:16:13 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 1/27/2015 7:14:05 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 1/27/2015 4:21:28 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I made a satire thread about this once (which may have been very offensive to those who didn't recognize I was trolling, I admit). However, now I'd like to discuss this in an intellectually honest manner.
Note: If I am "wolfpacked", I will likely ignore most of the responses and focus on a single responder instead.

First of all, a question:
To those who believe that abortion is not an immoral behavior, and that the killing of an individual who is already born is, what significant differences exist in these two cases that make one justified but not the other?
I'd like to hear some input before I continue.

I don't believe abortion is immoral, as long as it takes place before the has brain activity. Simply put, my argument would be as follows.

1) It is not immoral to kill that which has no awareness of its own existence.
2) No thing can be aware of its own existence without an active brain.
Therefore, it is not immoral to kill a fetus that has no brain activity.

One might attempt to take this further and say brain activity does not necessarily mean something is self aware, to which I would agree. But this is, so far as I know, indeterminable, and so I would say we should err on the side of caution and not allow abortions after brain activity is present.

So you think it should be legal for me to walk into the hospital and shoot the patients who are in a coma? After all, they have no brain activity

Should I? Comatose patients aren't brain dead...
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 7:43:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 7:16:13 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
So you think it should be legal for me to walk into the hospital and shoot the patients who are in a coma? After all, they have no brain activity

I think that's a problematic scenario, but yes I think it should be legal to kill them (though your question wasn't directed at me).
President of DDO
SirCrona
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 9:19:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 4:21:28 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I made a satire thread about this once (which may have been very offensive to those who didn't recognize I was trolling, I admit). However, now I'd like to discuss this in an intellectually honest manner.
Note: If I am "wolfpacked", I will likely ignore most of the responses and focus on a single responder instead.

First of all, a question:
To those who believe that abortion is not an immoral behavior, and that the killing of an individual who is already born is, what significant differences exist in these two cases that make one justified but not the other?
I'd like to hear some input before I continue.

My logic is that abortion is to prevent birth. It is permissible because natal infants have very few thoughts since their brains are just barely developed. The reason that killing a newborn is different from abortion is that the newborn, although very different mentally than befire birth, has already been born so if you are unable or unwilling to raise it you can put it into foster care.
Delivery is an experience that few are equipped to handle. It's like passing an oversized kidney stone times two.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 4:21:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Okay, it's time for me to release my full argument.

Commonly cited justifications are that fetuses are:
1. Not well enough developed
2. Leeching off the mother
3. Not sentient
4. Not able to feel pain
5. Trespassing upon the mother's "property" (her body)
6. Not entitled to a chance at life just for being part of the species "Homo Sapiens"

Okay, so let's say it's the year 1860 in the South (United States). You've got yourself a slave. You're contemplating killing him, because he's refusing to work. Here's some justifications you might make:

1. My slave doesn't know how to read or write. He can only say a few words, and the fact that monkeys can learn sign language doesn't give them a right to life. He lives more like an animal than a human.
2. If I shot him in the head, he wouldn't feel pain.
3. My property, my choice.
4. While he's not being productive to me he's using up my food supplies. If I auctioned him off or called the authorities, by the time I got around to handling the situation, he would've used up my resources. I have every right to prevent somebody from using up my resources.
5. Just because he's a human doesn't mean he has an automatic right to life.
6. I really don't think he's as developed as a White man.

Anybody wanna bite?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 4:29:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 4:21:03 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Okay, it's time for me to release my full argument.

Commonly cited justifications are that fetuses are:
1. Not well enough developed
2. Leeching off the mother
3. Not sentient
4. Not able to feel pain
5. Trespassing upon the mother's "property" (her body)
6. Not entitled to a chance at life just for being part of the species "Homo Sapiens"

Okay, so let's say it's the year 1860 in the South (United States). You've got yourself a slave. You're contemplating killing him, because he's refusing to work. Here's some justifications you might make:

1. My slave doesn't know how to read or write. He can only say a few words, and the fact that monkeys can learn sign language doesn't give them a right to life. He lives more like an animal than a human.
2. If I shot him in the head, he wouldn't feel pain.
3. My property, my choice.
4. While he's not being productive to me he's using up my food supplies. If I auctioned him off or called the authorities, by the time I got around to handling the situation, he would've used up my resources. I have every right to prevent somebody from using up my resources.
5. Just because he's a human doesn't mean he has an automatic right to life.
6. I really don't think he's as developed as a White man.

Anybody wanna bite?

I think even in 1860 they would have known not to use most of those arguments lol
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 4:54:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 4:29:16 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 1/28/2015 4:21:03 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Okay, it's time for me to release my full argument.

Commonly cited justifications are that fetuses are:
1. Not well enough developed
2. Leeching off the mother
3. Not sentient
4. Not able to feel pain
5. Trespassing upon the mother's "property" (her body)
6. Not entitled to a chance at life just for being part of the species "Homo Sapiens"

Okay, so let's say it's the year 1860 in the South (United States). You've got yourself a slave. You're contemplating killing him, because he's refusing to work. Here's some justifications you might make:

1. My slave doesn't know how to read or write. He can only say a few words, and the fact that monkeys can learn sign language doesn't give them a right to life. He lives more like an animal than a human.
2. If I shot him in the head, he wouldn't feel pain.
3. My property, my choice.
4. While he's not being productive to me he's using up my food supplies. If I auctioned him off or called the authorities, by the time I got around to handling the situation, he would've used up my resources. I have every right to prevent somebody from using up my resources.
5. Just because he's a human doesn't mean he has an automatic right to life.
6. I really don't think he's as developed as a White man.

Anybody wanna bite?

I think even in 1860 they would have known not to use most of those arguments lol

Oh?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
mrsatan
Posts: 417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 11:19:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 4:21:03 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Okay, it's time for me to release my full argument.

Commonly cited justifications are that fetuses are:
1. Not well enough developed
2. Leeching off the mother
3. Not sentient
4. Not able to feel pain
5. Trespassing upon the mother's "property" (her body)
6. Not entitled to a chance at life just for being part of the species "Homo Sapiens"

Okay, so let's say it's the year 1860 in the South (United States). You've got yourself a slave. You're contemplating killing him, because he's refusing to work. Here's some justifications you might make:

1. My slave doesn't know how to read or write. He can only say a few words, and the fact that monkeys can learn sign language doesn't give them a right to life. He lives more like an animal than a human.
2. If I shot him in the head, he wouldn't feel pain.
3. My property, my choice.
4. While he's not being productive to me he's using up my food supplies. If I auctioned him off or called the authorities, by the time I got around to handling the situation, he would've used up my resources. I have every right to prevent somebody from using up my resources.
5. Just because he's a human doesn't mean he has an automatic right to life.
6. I really don't think he's as developed as a White man.

Anybody wanna bite?

Your "full argument" seems rather lacking to me. It would be much easier to follow if your suggested defenses of slavery were numbered to match the defenses of abortion that they are meant to parallel.

More importantly, none of those parallels seem to have any relation to sentience, which is what my argument in defense of abortion (albeit time-restrained) is closest to.

If you truly believe that there are no significant differences between abortion and slavery, then I would ask that you inform me how my argument defends slavery.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 11:34:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 4:29:16 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 1/28/2015 4:21:03 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Okay, it's time for me to release my full argument.

Commonly cited justifications are that fetuses are:
1. Not well enough developed
2. Leeching off the mother
3. Not sentient
4. Not able to feel pain
5. Trespassing upon the mother's "property" (her body)
6. Not entitled to a chance at life just for being part of the species "Homo Sapiens"

Okay, so let's say it's the year 1860 in the South (United States). You've got yourself a slave. You're contemplating killing him, because he's refusing to work. Here's some justifications you might make:

1. My slave doesn't know how to read or write. He can only say a few words, and the fact that monkeys can learn sign language doesn't give them a right to life. He lives more like an animal than a human.
2. If I shot him in the head, he wouldn't feel pain.
3. My property, my choice.
4. While he's not being productive to me he's using up my food supplies. If I auctioned him off or called the authorities, by the time I got around to handling the situation, he would've used up my resources. I have every right to prevent somebody from using up my resources.
5. Just because he's a human doesn't mean he has an automatic right to life.
6. I really don't think he's as developed as a White man.

Anybody wanna bite?

I think even in 1860 they would have known not to use most of those arguments lol

You should compare the United States Supreme Court's comments in the Dredd Scott case and their comments in Roe v Wade then.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
BDPershing
Posts: 75
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 3:02:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 4:21:28 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I made a satire thread about this once (which may have been very offensive to those who didn't recognize I was trolling, I admit). However, now I'd like to discuss this in an intellectually honest manner.
Note: If I am "wolfpacked", I will likely ignore most of the responses and focus on a single responder instead.

First of all, a question:
To those who believe that abortion is not an immoral behavior, and that the killing of an individual who is already born is, what significant differences exist in these two cases that make one justified but not the other?
I'd like to hear some input before I continue.

The moment a fetus exists the consenting mother makes him/her a person giving them most legal rights regulated by the parents with restrictions on the parent from killing this person and the welfare of the child while living. From conception to birth however lays a being that at first doesn't even resemble a human. it was something like around week 8 when a "human being" could be viewed. But is it a person? The qualities that describe what a person is arrive over time individually, making this being only a person when it is completed (33rd week). That is why most pro lifers/ anti abortioners only claim the human being part while its inside the womb, though some use this word for it shows up in law as being legally a person, which I would argue not, Problem with this is, "What if we did?". What if we did classify a fetus as a person, what comes with such a label? Well the protection from murder that most pro lifers argue about would have to be concluded. But what most do not realize is that the moment the term "person" touches and entwines with a fetus a few double standards and conclusions will have to be addressed.

1. Women have no right to a abortion, and the fetus has not right to be aborted.
2. due to personhood being established from development onward, we must conclude the protections of personhood applies without age restrictions.
3. Current parenting procedures commonly accepted infringe on the persons rights.

This brings up my 2 most important arguments
-silent child slavery.
- women are 3rd class citizens

I call it silent child slavery for even though by definition it is slavery it is ignored and avoided.

I declare women to be 3rd class citizens for their rights have to be voided for at least 9 months while this child/fetus grows. Making the the structure of righthood being,
-Other Persons rights
-Child(s) rights
-Women rights

https://www.youtube.com...
http://www.debate.org...