Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abortion

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2010 5:42:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I recently read the God Delusion, and though I am not in full agreement with Dawkins on everything he says there were certain points in which it was he was reading my mind. One such section was his brief discussion of abortion. I have always known that my position on abortion was not entirely logical, and seeing in print the same arguments and counter-arguments as I have had in my head was a little strange.

My current position is a moderate pro-lifer. I am opposed to abortion unless,
1: The mother is in danger, be it physical from serious pregnancy complications or psychological from perhaps having raped and the resulting depression this may bring.
2: The prospective child would have no quality of life.
3: The abortion occurs prior to the foetus developing the most basic of sentience, such as the capacity to feel pain.

As I've known, and as Dawkins points out the last one does smack of humanocentric hyprocrisey and should result in me being a vegitarian.

I know a popular view of the matter on this site is that a foetus is merely a parasite until acknowledge or valued as something. I can't quite accept that, taken to its logical conclusion so too is any child that is unable to generate an income for it's parents or owners.

At what point should I regard a foetus as merely a jumble of cells, or a parasite... at what point should I recognise it's humanity and it's rights?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2010 7:39:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/18/2010 6:24:35 PM, jharry wrote:
At the moment of conception. My opinion. :)

Well that does certainly avoid complicated handwringing. But the thing is you don't accord rights to a sperm cell, or an ovum, a just fertilised ovum is not much different is it? Should that be accorded full rights? Why?

What of IVF and stem cell research?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2010 9:24:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/18/2010 5:42:05 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
My current position is a moderate pro-lifer. I am opposed to abortion unless,
1: The mother is in danger, be it physical from serious pregnancy complications or psychological from perhaps having raped and the resulting depression this may bring.
2: The prospective child would have no quality of life.
3: The abortion occurs prior to the foetus developing the most basic of sentience, such as the capacity to feel pain.

As I've known, and as Dawkins points out the last one does smack of humanocentric hyprocrisey and should result in me being a vegitarian.

I'm not quite sure I understand. That seems to assume that you value human life only to the same extent as common livestock. Unless of course you don't consider the fetus to be human at that point, which brings us to your next question.

I know a popular view of the matter on this site is that a foetus is merely a parasite until acknowledge or valued as something. I can't quite accept that, taken to its logical conclusion so too is any child that is unable to generate an income for it's parents or owners.

At what point should I regard a foetus as merely a jumble of cells, or a parasite... at what point should I recognise it's humanity and it's rights?

Everybody draws their own arbitrary line... but it's just that, arbitrary. The honest answer is that I have no idea when the fetus can truly be considered a human life. Some people say birth, but I don't for one second believe that an hour long procedure suddenly makes the fetus inherently more valuable when the only thing that has really changed is its surroundings. Others say it's when the life adds some measurable value to society, but like you said, if we take that to its logical conclusion then infanticide becomes acceptable, and I'd like to see someone reason that one out. What I'm now left with is at some point during the pregnancy. My arbitrary line hasn't been firmly drawn and I'm not entirely convinced that it should be an "all or nothing" deal, where either the fetus is considered fully human or not. I'd like to think that even a potential life from the moment of conception has some inherent worth. I haven't really thought all that much about it so I'll just stop here before I start to confuse myself as much as I've probably confused you by now.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2010 9:44:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
First off, CN, there is no such thing as a "moderate pro-lifer." Pro-lifers are like our friend here who believe conception marks the point of true personhood, at which time you might as well be putting a gun to your neighbor's head as take a morning after pill in thier minds. Christian morality has never ceased to make me laugh, except for when I stop laughing and realize they are controlling my life and they are really the ones who are laughing.

To answer your question, a fetus becomes a person when it is born. This is problematic because birth is a relatively insignificant step in strict terms of internal physical development (perhaps that could be worded better). To overcome this problem I have searched high and low for an explanation, and I have come to the conclusion that we are concentrating too much on the baby.

I recently had a baby on Sept. 21st. Perhaps if I was a more simple-minded chap I would have become a pro-lifer out of sheer awe at the process, but thankfully I am battle-hardened from thousands of hours of debating the subject on DDO. I ask myself: "what would happen if this baby suddenly died?" There certainly would be one less person in the room, and it makes little sense to say she wasn't a person a few weeks ago since she is nearly biologically identical to her state immediately pre-birth. My long-winded answer to your question, therefore, is that "personhood" is more complex than a single individual. No man is an island. If my baby suddenly died, she would be morally and emotionally unaffected. It would be my girlfriend and I who would bear the burdon. We have a huge emotional vested interest in her life, and although she's not really a person in her own right, she is a person because of our love for her. She is a person because of the connection we share - personhood is dependent upon relationship. A person on a desert island still needed to be born and reared, so there is no sense trying to test my logic in that regard.

My explanation, though biologically unsatisfying, is versatile enough to grant personhood to a young fetus. If the mother and/or father love the fetus and are counting on its survival, the fetus is a person in its own right. Babies do not raise themselves; if there is no one to stand up and take responsibility for the life of the fetus then it is forfeited, and why not? Would you have wanted to be born into a world that didn't want you, with no one for you to count on?

Christians' insistence on birth at any cost is therefore simple-minded. It is logically offensive to say a microscopic bundle of cells is just as much of a person as you are, even if it is morally and biologically convenient to draw the line there.
no comment
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2010 10:18:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/18/2010 9:44:51 PM, Caramel wrote:
To answer your question, a fetus becomes a person when it is born. This is problematic because birth is a relatively insignificant step in strict terms of internal physical development (perhaps that could be worded better). To overcome this problem I have searched high and low for an explanation, and I have come to the conclusion that we are concentrating too much on the baby.

That doesn't make sense. You explain later on that personhood is only conferred on individuals who are valued by other individuals, hence, the stage of development is irrelevant. Whether it's a single celled zygote or a 3 month old infant has no necessary correlation to question of whether or not it's valued.

I recently had a baby on Sept. 21st. Perhaps if I was a more simple-minded chap I would have become a pro-lifer out of sheer awe at the process, but thankfully I am battle-hardened from thousands of hours of debating the subject on DDO. I ask myself: "what would happen if this baby suddenly died?" There certainly would be one less person in the room, and it makes little sense to say she wasn't a person a few weeks ago since she is nearly biologically identical to her state immediately pre-birth. My long-winded answer to your question, therefore, is that "personhood" is more complex than a single individual. No man is an island. If my baby suddenly died, she would be morally and emotionally unaffected. It would be my girlfriend and I who would bear the burdon. We have a huge emotional vested interest in her life, and although she's not really a person in her own right, she is a person because of our love for her. She is a person because of the connection we share - personhood is dependent upon relationship.

Cool, so rights don't exist when contemplating man qua man? Tell me, if personhood, setting aside for a moment the separate issue of when it begins, doesn't carry inherent value, how do you suddenly (magically) derive value by adding additional persons into the picture? 0+0 is still 0, mate.

That creates an additional problem: torture. Is it okay to put a baby in a microwave? Sure it'll die eventually, but until then, it will undergo incredible physical pain. Suppose no additional persons are emotionally impacted by this event. Is it still wrong?

My explanation, though biologically unsatisfying, is versatile enough to grant personhood to a young fetus. If the mother and/or father love the fetus and are counting on its survival, the fetus is a person in its own right.

What if someone else besides the parents values the fetus? What if the mother doesn't but the father does? I think that's a terrible pro-life argument, but I'm only pointing it out to highlight how ridiculous your criteria for assigning rights are.

Babies do not raise themselves; if there is no one to stand up and take responsibility for the life of the fetus then it is forfeited, and why not? Would you have wanted to be born into a world that didn't want you, with no one for you to count on?

That's another terrible argument. You at least owe me the option to decide that for myself. If I'm born into the world and decide at some point that I'm not digging it, I'm free to jump of a building any time I want.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2010 10:58:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
... viability?

though if no one is willing to pay the medical bills for the premature baby in the hospital it might be more humane to just kill it outright rather than allowing it to live knowing that theres no one to assume responsibility for it.

can you construe carrying a child to viability as an acceptance of responsibility for it?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 3:56:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
A child is alive from the point of conception. You can't say that something isn't alive due to its stage of development. That's absurd. A fetus *becomes* a child, which becomes an adult, there are no maybes. They are all manifestations of the same thing.

Abortion, in my opinion, is synonymous with euthanasia. I find that conclusions based on perspectives of them both seem to align for most people.

But, *is* a woman responsible for her unborn child's life?

Well, it's not illegal for pregnant women to smoke, just inadvisable. Selflessness isn't a part of the contemporary human psyche; most people don't develop the maturity to embrace or apply it.

So, it depends on your existential and moral perspectives.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 7:22:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/18/2010 9:24:25 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
At 10/18/2010 5:42:05 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
My current position is a moderate pro-lifer. I am opposed to abortion unless,
1: The mother is in danger, be it physical from serious pregnancy complications or psychological from perhaps having raped and the resulting depression this may bring.
2: The prospective child would have no quality of life.
3: The abortion occurs prior to the foetus developing the most basic of sentience, such as the capacity to feel pain.

As I've known, and as Dawkins points out the last one does smack of humanocentric hyprocrisey and should result in me being a vegitarian.

I'm not quite sure I understand. That seems to assume that you value human life only to the same extent as common livestock. Unless of course you don't consider the fetus to be human at that point, which brings us to your next question.

If I object to the termination of a foetus because it may feel some brief pain on what basis do I justify the consumption of industrially farmed meat?

I know a popular view of the matter on this site is that a foetus is merely a parasite until acknowledge or valued as something. I can't quite accept that, taken to its logical conclusion so too is any child that is unable to generate an income for it's parents or owners.

At what point should I regard a foetus as merely a jumble of cells, or a parasite... at what point should I recognise it's humanity and it's rights?

Everybody draws their own arbitrary line... but it's just that, arbitrary. The honest answer is that I have no idea when the fetus can truly be considered a human life. Some people say birth, but I don't for one second believe that an hour long procedure suddenly makes the fetus inherently more valuable when the only thing that has really changed is its surroundings. Others say it's when the life adds some measurable value to society, but like you said, if we take that to its logical conclusion then infanticide becomes acceptable, and I'd like to see someone reason that one out. What I'm now left with is at some point during the pregnancy. My arbitrary line hasn't been firmly drawn and I'm not entirely convinced that it should be an "all or nothing" deal, where either the fetus is considered fully human or not. I'd like to think that even a potential life from the moment of conception has some inherent worth. I haven't really thought all that much about it so I'll just stop here before I start to confuse myself as much as I've probably confused you by now.

I think we are at the same point.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 7:58:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Without trying to be rude to anyone here, it seems no one can offer me a satisfying logical opinion on abortion.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 8:00:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/19/2010 7:58:28 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Without trying to be rude to anyone here, it seems no one can offer me a satisfying logical opinion on abortion.

http://www.debate.org...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 11:17:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/18/2010 5:42:05 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I recently read the God Delusion, and though I am not in full agreement with Dawkins on everything he says there were certain points in which it was he was reading my mind. One such section was his brief discussion of abortion. I have always known that my position on abortion was not entirely logical, and seeing in print the same arguments and counter-arguments as I have had in my head was a little strange.

My current position is a moderate pro-lifer. I am opposed to abortion unless,
1: The mother is in danger, be it physical from serious pregnancy complications or psychological from perhaps having raped and the resulting depression this may bring.
2: The prospective child would have no quality of life.
3: The abortion occurs prior to the foetus developing the most basic of sentience, such as the capacity to feel pain.

As I've known, and as Dawkins points out the last one does smack of humanocentric hyprocrisey and should result in me being a vegitarian.

I know a popular view of the matter on this site is that a foetus is merely a parasite until acknowledge or valued as something. I can't quite accept that, taken to its logical conclusion so too is any child that is unable to generate an income for it's parents or owners.

At what point should I regard a foetus as merely a jumble of cells, or a parasite... at what point should I recognise it's humanity and it's rights?

I think that abortion is wrong, but I also believe in giving people freedom to choose.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 3:51:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/18/2010 10:18:05 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/18/2010 9:44:51 PM, Caramel wrote:
To answer your question, a fetus becomes a person when it is born. This is problematic because birth is a relatively insignificant step in strict terms of internal physical development (perhaps that could be worded better). To overcome this problem I have searched high and low for an explanation, and I have come to the conclusion that we are concentrating too much on the baby.

That doesn't make sense. You explain later on that personhood is only conferred on individuals who are valued by other individuals, hence, the stage of development is irrelevant. Whether it's a single celled zygote or a 3 month old infant has no necessary correlation to question of whether or not it's valued.

Actually, you're right, I did contradict myself, I'm just so used to arguing with pro-lifers about unwanted fetuses that I forgot I sharpened my answer. Disregard my first couple of sentences and it should come together (at least) consistently.

I recently had a baby on Sept. 21st. Perhaps if I was a more simple-minded chap I would have become a pro-lifer out of sheer awe at the process, but thankfully I am battle-hardened from thousands of hours of debating the subject on DDO. I ask myself: "what would happen if this baby suddenly died?" There certainly would be one less person in the room, and it makes little sense to say she wasn't a person a few weeks ago since she is nearly biologically identical to her state immediately pre-birth. My long-winded answer to your question, therefore, is that "personhood" is more complex than a single individual. No man is an island. If my baby suddenly died, she would be morally and emotionally unaffected. It would be my girlfriend and I who would bear the burdon. We have a huge emotional vested interest in her life, and although she's not really a person in her own right, she is a person because of our love for her. She is a person because of the connection we share - personhood is dependent upon relationship.

Cool, so rights don't exist when contemplating man qua man?

Somewhat implied, but remember that there is no qua man, whatever that means. A man is
- concieved by a man and a woman
- carried by a woman with great effort for 9 months
- birthed (an incredibly involved process for the mother)
- reared by at least one parent for several years

So there never is a man who stands only for himself. He may want to or believe he does, and there are a few libertarians I know who probably believe they do, but they don't. Humanity, then, is inherently networked. Independence is perhaps the most foolish goal (or perceived state for oneself) of all - we can't even create a small virus in the lab, so why would someone feel they are independent of collective life even in the slightest?

Take this point a step further. In the strictest definition of all for life, we are areas of densely concentrated order. As we grow (say, old enough to be birthed), we acquire more order and if our life is lost so is that order. So, it is the lost order which is going to be a heavy change to the order of its surrounding systems (surrounding individuals who care for the person, biological community that interacts with the person) - even on a desert island. Think of it as mathematical spiritualism if you will. "We are all connected" - but without the metaphysical aspects of the issue.

Tell me, if personhood, setting aside for a moment the separate issue of when it begins, doesn't carry inherent value, how do you suddenly (magically) derive value by adding additional persons into the picture? 0+0 is still 0, mate.

Now that ("personhood... doesn't carry inherent value") is something I don't believe I implied. I am debating the essence of personhood, not its value, and you can be assured I always carry a full $150,000 value for any person ($100,000 for libertarians).

That creates an additional problem: torture. Is it okay to put a baby in a microwave?

Yes.

I'm kidding I just wanted to see the look on your face.

Sure it'll die eventually, but until then, it will undergo incredible physical pain. Suppose no additional persons are emotionally impacted by this event. Is it still wrong?

I will challenge your assertion that it is possible for no emotional impact. If you think about it, what is a situation in which there wouldn't be an invested emotional interest in the baby? Someone had to rear the child and even if they had only the most vile intentions I don't think it is biologically possible for a woman to rear and birth a child out of hate, only to want to torture it later on. If that woman died immediately after birth, she would still have an emotional investment in the child's life. Furthermore, any humans the child encounters in its short life will build an emotional investment.

I would also question how fully an infant can experience greif compared to you or I, however I will assume for the time being that it experiences it fully.

My explanation, though biologically unsatisfying, is versatile enough to grant personhood to a young fetus. If the mother and/or father love the fetus and are counting on its survival, the fetus is a person in its own right.

What if someone else besides the parents values the fetus? What if the mother doesn't but the father does? I think that's a terrible pro-life argument, but I'm only pointing it out to highlight how ridiculous your criteria for assigning rights are.

If the woman wants to abort and the father loves the child we have a sticky situation. Both parties are automatically at fault for starting into this situation, of course, so my personal answer would be that the mother ought to carry the baby to term. I don't think that diminishes mother's rights, it only equalizes it with mens (as opposed to flat-out bans on abortion which only value mens). The opposite situtation is interesting as well - what if the man doesn't want it and the woman carries it? Well no one is going to question her, of course, so in short, any "tie" goes to the baby (personified by the loving parent).

Babies do not raise themselves; if there is no one to stand up and take responsibility for the life of the fetus then it is forfeited, and why not? Would you have wanted to be born into a world that didn't want you, with no one for you to count on?

That's another terrible argument. You at least owe me the option to decide that for myself. If I'm born into the world and decide at some point that I'm not digging it, I'm free to jump of a building any time I want.

Completely ridiculous. A baby is utterly dependent on the parents and if the parents have no wish to rear the baby then it is not reared. The independence you are describing takes many years and by that time there no longer exists a moral dilemma. You, for example, may not even be old enough to fend for yourself yet as most teenagers still take significant amounts of resources from their parents to rear.
no comment
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 6:59:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/18/2010 10:58:24 PM, belle wrote:
... viability?

though if no one is willing to pay the medical bills for the premature baby in the hospital it might be more humane to just kill it outright rather than allowing it to live knowing that theres no one to assume responsibility for it.

can you construe carrying a child to viability as an acceptance of responsibility for it?

That's Kleptin's stance...
no comment
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 7:02:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/18/2010 6:24:35 PM, jharry wrote:
At the moment of conception. My opinion. :)

DA BIBLE SEZ YER WRONG.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 7:05:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Even if a human is 'alive' as a fetus, the women is not really 'killing' the fetus, just allowing the fetus to die. There's a difference. If I stab someone, that's killing. If someone is starving and I refuse to buy him or her food its allowing someone to die. By removing the fetus from the mother your just depriving it of nutrients that would allow it to live.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 7:12:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm pro-choice, but against late term abortion.
In otherwords as soon as the abortion becomes a difficult, risky procedure it is late term. Typically this is roughly twenty-one weeks into the forty weeks of human pregnancy.
Personally, if my partner became pregnant and we(she) decided to have an abortion, I would suggest to her that she does it as soon as possible for her own health and peace-of-mind.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 7:30:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/19/2010 7:05:37 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Even if a human is 'alive' as a fetus, the women is not really 'killing' the fetus, just allowing the fetus to die. There's a difference. If I stab someone, that's killing. If someone is starving and I refuse to buy him or her food its allowing someone to die. By removing the fetus from the mother your just depriving it of nutrients that would allow it to live.

I don't understand your example. Doesn't the intentional removal of a fetus take some effort compared to ignoring a homeless person who needs food? When you abort a fetus, you're taking the initiative to put it in a situation where it will be deprived of nutrients. Passing a random person who needs food doesn't seem to be a good match because (unless I'm misunderstanding something) you're not taking the initiative to put them there. You truly are just a spectator who didn't actually cause them to be in that situation. I don't think that you can place them both on the same level of involvement.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 8:53:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/19/2010 7:30:24 PM, Denote wrote:
At 10/19/2010 7:05:37 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Even if a human is 'alive' as a fetus, the women is not really 'killing' the fetus, just allowing the fetus to die. There's a difference. If I stab someone, that's killing. If someone is starving and I refuse to buy him or her food its allowing someone to die. By removing the fetus from the mother your just depriving it of nutrients that would allow it to live.

I don't understand your example. Doesn't the intentional removal of a fetus take some effort compared to ignoring a homeless person who needs food? When you abort a fetus, you're taking the initiative to put it in a situation where it will be deprived of nutrients. Passing a random person who needs food doesn't seem to be a good match because (unless I'm misunderstanding something) you're not taking the initiative to put them there. You truly are just a spectator who didn't actually cause them to be in that situation. I don't think that you can place them both on the same level of involvement.

I actually never really thought of it that way. My thought process was that the mother is providing a service to the fetus, providing nutrients. The mother receives both pain and can not do certain activities due to the pregnancy. She has to endure morning sickness, increased cost for food, etc. Essentially, an abortion allows the mother to stop her service. Just like nobody is required to give blood, even though it can save many lives. But you are right, an abortion is essential taking an initiative to cause someone death and not providing a life saving service.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 9:01:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The Supreme Court example used by Bader-Ginsburg is similar to this. She says it's like a person demanding to keep you plugged into a life-support machine so they can live... If you pull the plug and walk out, indirectly causing them death, you are not a murderor. The case involved is Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which you can find a summary for at oyez.org - but reading the whole case is much more satisfying. Roe v. Wade is good too but it is over-rated in its importance and doesn't have as good moral arguments.
no comment
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 12:57:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/19/2010 7:58:28 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Without trying to be rude to anyone here, it seems no one can offer me a satisfying logical opinion on abortion.

What are you looking for?

I don't see any difference between abortion and euthanasia and civilization currently doesn't consider a woman wholly responsible for an unborn child. Therefore, by current social standards, abortion is perfectly acceptable.

A child is a child from the point of conception no matter how you look at it, whether that child is inside of outside of your body. In terms of difficulty, you could almost say that rearing a child is more difficult than carrying one, given that most of what's required to keep that child alive and developing is taken care of by regular self-maintenance. Once that child is born, you have to feed and protect that child separate of yourself. It's no different than conjoined siblings--because one may be dependent on the other does not make it right for the less dependent on the make a judgement call on his or her sibling's life.

Whether you're helping someone die or you're outright killing them, you are still killing someone. The question is whether killing that person is right.

I mean, when you have an abortion, it's not as though you're taking a fetus out of a woman's body in the same exact state that it was in before you removed it. It's not as though the fetus simply stops developing, but remains in the same exact physiological state. That fetus will *die.* That means you are *killing* it.

The reason why it's so difficult to accept that a fetus is a child and abortion is murder in contemporary society is because Western thought is greatly influenced by existentialism and life is considered a resource that has no value, and thus no definition, unless it is contributing in some way to society. Therefore, in the same way that some people believe that homeless people, criminals, and migrants should not have rights or access to social welfare, people feel about unborn children. In fact, people felt the same way about women and children not even a century ago, and going back even further, anyone who wasn't of a certain ethnicity.

So. What is it that you're looking for? Incontrovertible proof that a fetus is the same as an adult? They are not; neither are children. Proof that a fetus is alive? It is. It is not alive in the same way that sperm is, which remains sperm its entire life, or a ovum, which likewise remains an ovum. It begins as a zygote, which is certainly alive and continues to develop into an adult human being unless it dies.

Pretty straightforward logic.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 7:51:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 12:57:45 AM, Ren wrote:
At 10/19/2010 7:58:28 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Without trying to be rude to anyone here, it seems no one can offer me a satisfying logical opinion on abortion.

What are you looking for?

I don't see any difference between abortion and euthanasia and civilization currently doesn't consider a woman wholly responsible for an unborn child. Therefore, by current social standards, abortion is perfectly acceptable.

I am looking for some consistent piece of moral logic on the matter. There is a world of difference between abortion and euthanasia, I am not even talking about social standards... ultimately everything will go the way of consumer convenience.

A child is a child from the point of conception no matter how you look at it, whether that child is inside of outside of your body. In terms of difficulty, you could almost say that rearing a child is more difficult than carrying one, given that most of what's required to keep that child alive and developing is taken care of by regular self-maintenance. Once that child is born, you have to feed and protect that child separate of yourself. It's no different than conjoined siblings--because one may be dependent on the other does not make it right for the less dependent on the make a judgement call on his or her sibling's life.

Whether you're helping someone die or you're outright killing them, you are still killing someone. The question is whether killing that person is right.

I mean, when you have an abortion, it's not as though you're taking a fetus out of a woman's body in the same exact state that it was in before you removed it. It's not as though the fetus simply stops developing, but remains in the same exact physiological state. That fetus will *die.* That means you are *killing* it.

The reason why it's so difficult to accept that a fetus is a child and abortion is murder in contemporary society is because Western thought is greatly influenced by existentialism and life is considered a resource that has no value, and thus no definition, unless it is contributing in some way to society. Therefore, in the same way that some people believe that homeless people, criminals, and migrants should not have rights or access to social welfare, people feel about unborn children. In fact, people felt the same way about women and children not even a century ago, and going back even further, anyone who wasn't of a certain ethnicity.


Somewhat sweeping generalisations!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 8:12:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 7:51:51 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

I am looking for some consistent piece of moral logic on the matter. There is a world of difference between abortion and euthanasia, I am not even talking about social standards... ultimately everything will go the way of consumer convenience.

Clarify the bolded portion?

Give me some differences between abortion and euthanasia, particularly in terms of moral arguments.

Give me, oh... three.

Somewhat sweeping generalisations!

Funny, au contrarian.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 8:28:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 8:12:09 AM, Ren wrote:
At 10/20/2010 7:51:51 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

I am looking for some consistent piece of moral logic on the matter. There is a world of difference between abortion and euthanasia, I am not even talking about social standards... ultimately everything will go the way of consumer convenience.

Clarify the bolded portion?

The abortion argument was not won because of any moral argument. It was won because there was an irresistable market demand for a process that ended a very inconvenient state.


Give me some differences between abortion and euthanasia, particularly in terms of moral arguments.

Give me, oh... three.

Tell you what, I will give you one.

A foetus is terminated without it's consent. A euthanised person is terminated with their consent. It makes a world of difference.


Somewhat sweeping generalisations!

Funny, au contrarian.

yea...
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 8:52:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 8:28:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Clarify the bolded portion?

The abortion argument was not won because of any moral argument. It was won because there was an irresistable market demand for a process that ended a very inconvenient state.

That sounds subjective. Do you have evidence of this claim?

Either way, I was approaching more the cause of the "consumer demand." This is a democracy, after all. Technically, consumer demand should determine everything.

Give me some differences between abortion and euthanasia, particularly in terms of moral arguments.

Give me, oh... three.

Tell you what, I will give you one.

A foetus is terminated without it's consent. A euthanised person is terminated with their consent. It makes a world of difference.

That's not entirely true. There are definitely cases of euthanasia that involve no consent on the part of the person being euthanized. It just so happens that a fetus is terminally unable to give consent due to its stage in development. That does not belie its potential as a form of euthanasia. So, unfortunately, your example isn't valid.

Somewhat sweeping generalisations!

Funny, au contrarian.

yea...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 9:14:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 8:52:13 AM, Ren wrote:
At 10/20/2010 8:28:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Clarify the bolded portion?

The abortion argument was not won because of any moral argument. It was won because there was an irresistable market demand for a process that ended a very inconvenient state.

That sounds subjective. Do you have evidence of this claim?

Well do you have evidence of a moral argument that paved the way open for abortion?

Either way, I was approaching more the cause of the "consumer demand." This is a democracy, after all. Technically, consumer demand should determine everything.

It does and ultimately will. But I just to find a clear logical treatment of the subject.


Give me some differences between abortion and euthanasia, particularly in terms of moral arguments.

Give me, oh... three.

Tell you what, I will give you one.

A foetus is terminated without it's consent. A euthanised person is terminated with their consent. It makes a world of difference.

That's not entirely true. There are definitely cases of euthanasia that involve no consent on the part of the person being euthanized.

Actually I guess you are right. I made the mistake of going with my first assumed scenario, in any case there so many other examples.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 9:32:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 9:14:32 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Well do you have evidence of a moral argument that paved the way open for abortion?

Why would I? It isn't an assertion I made and the absence of one argument does not validate the other.

Either way, I was approaching more the cause of the "consumer demand." This is a democracy, after all. Technically, consumer demand should determine everything.

It does and ultimately will. But I just to find a clear logical treatment of the subject.

I'm assuming that you're saying that you want a dialogue on the subject based on something other than common demand.

Well, there's a cause for that common demand. Start there. I gave you some support for my perspectives behind it.

Actually I guess you are right. I made the mistake of going with my first assumed scenario, in any case there so many other examples.

Examples of what? If they're relevant, then you should be able to provide them and more than one.

Give me some differences between abortion and euthanasia, particularly in terms of moral arguments.

Give me, oh... three.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 11:38:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm also a pro-lifer and mostly based on the fact that by consenting to sex you're also consenting to the risks involved, which include pregnancy. Abortion is not a form of birth control so just like with anything else, you take a risk you'll have to live with the consequences. If you don't want a child then use protection and/or birth control. If those two methods somehow fail then put the child up for adoption. :)

Like C_N, I do approve of abortion under certain circumstances such as rape, the mother's life being in danger, and possibly in situations where the child would be born a vegetable due to developmental defects occuring within the womb.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 12:41:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 11:38:05 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm also a pro-lifer and mostly based on the fact that by consenting to sex you're also consenting to the risks involved, which include pregnancy. Abortion is not a form of birth control so just like with anything else, you take a risk you'll have to live with the consequences. If you don't want a child then use protection and/or birth control. If those two methods somehow fail then put the child up for adoption. :)

Like C_N, I do approve of abortion under certain circumstances such as rape, the mother's life being in danger, and possibly in situations where the child would be born a vegetable due to developmental defects occuring within the womb.

You are NOT a pro-lifer. Sorry to burst your bubble.
no comment