Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-15-2018 11:20 PM
267 online now:
(267 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,321 Year: 15,144/29,783 Month: 1,088/1,502 Week: 86/492 Day: 49/37 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2122
23
2425
...
30Next
Author Topic:   Evangelical Switch from Pro-choice to Anti-abortion
jar
Member
Posts: 30920
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 331 of 441 (837817)
08-09-2018 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Faith
08-09-2018 2:41 PM


try to stop lying Faith
Faith writes:

Oh right, what can I be thinking? Murder has always been an elective procedure in civilized nations.

Yet another example of the utter dishonesty of the ProLife Cult of Ignorance.

I said nothing about murder nor is abortion murder.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Faith, posted 08-09-2018 2:41 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15398
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 332 of 441 (837818)
08-09-2018 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by Faith
08-09-2018 3:21 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Faith writes:

Not interested in the semantics of the issue.


Don't care if you're interested. If you keep making the same mistake, I'm going to keep calling you on it.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Faith, posted 08-09-2018 3:21 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6178
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 333 of 441 (837828)
08-09-2018 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by jar
08-09-2018 2:28 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Jar writes:

What we are saying is that it is irrelevant whether or not we think having an abortion is justified for the reasons given; what is relevant is whether the mother, possibly the father, and the medical staff that are dealing with that particular instance think it is justified.

I'm really confused. First off you say that the matter is none of our business (confusing society generally with us as individuals) and that it's up to the mother to do what she sees fit. Neither you nor Percy will deliberate on the consequences of that which is the possibility of very late term abortion.

Now you're saying that the father and the medical staff also have a say. The medical staff also have to work within the law, they can't simply do as the mother requests. Are you saying that is wrong?

The law also gives the unborn baby rights too. Usually it's the right not to be electively killed after a date decided by a jurisdiction based on medical advice. In the UK it's 24 weeks. Am I right in thinking that you would give the unborn child no rights at all?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by jar, posted 08-09-2018 2:28 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by jar, posted 08-09-2018 5:48 PM Tangle has responded
 Message 336 by Percy, posted 08-09-2018 6:37 PM Tangle has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30920
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 334 of 441 (837830)
08-09-2018 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by Tangle
08-09-2018 4:51 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:

I'm really confused. First off you say that the matter is none of our business (confusing society generally with us as individuals) and that it's up to the mother to do what she sees fit. Neither you nor Percy will deliberate on the consequences of that which is the possibility of very late term abortion.

You're confused because you have never learned how to read. Both Percy and I have answered that question; we do not know or have any opinion because it is the mother, possibly the father and the medical staff involved in that particular even that have the information and should make the decision.

Tangle writes:

Now you're saying that the father and the medical staff also have a say. The medical staff also have to work within the law, they can't simply do as the mother requests. Are you saying that is wrong?

The law also gives the unborn baby rights too. Usually it's the right not to be electively killed after a date decided by a jurisdiction based on medical advice. In the UK it's 24 weeks. Am I right in thinking that you would give the unborn child no rights at all?

Sorry Charlie but I have been saying all along that others should have input into the decision.

I am not the person with either the authority or capability of conferring rights on others.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Tangle, posted 08-09-2018 4:51 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by Tangle, posted 08-09-2018 6:08 PM jar has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6178
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 335 of 441 (837833)
08-09-2018 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by jar
08-09-2018 5:48 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Jar writes:

I am not the person with either the authority or capability of conferring rights on others.

You're not being asked to confer rights, you're being asked for your opinion.

And you *are* the person telling us that: “what is relevant is whether the mother, possibly the father, and the medical staff that are dealing with that particular instance think it is justified.”

You're not saying 'leave me out of this I haven't got an opinion', or that it's up to the mother, you're actually saying that the way it works now is the way you think it should be - because what you describe is actually the way it works now. (Though I don't think fathers are allowed a veto, in the West at least and medics work within laws that confer rights to the child too.)


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by jar, posted 08-09-2018 5:48 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by jar, posted 08-09-2018 6:50 PM Tangle has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17736
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 336 of 441 (837834)
08-09-2018 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by Tangle
08-09-2018 4:51 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:

Neither you nor Percy will deliberate on the consequences of that which is the possibility of very late term abortion.

I don't think either Jar or I thought that was the topic. I thought you were expressing the point of view that termination of a pregnancy is a continuum of increasing harm from conception to birth, and we were disagreeing.

According to Wikipedia the harm principle holds that people's actions should only be limited by their ability to harm other people. Does the harm principle apply to a zygote? A blastocyst? An embryo? A fetus? Are any of these a person?

I found a strong but less nuanced statement of your position at J.S. Mill and the Pro-Life Cause that I shall quote because I believe it contains the same flaw:

quote:
But this principle [the Harm Principle] amply supports the idea that the law should protect the unborn from abortion precisely insofar as abortion harms the unborn. All that is required to make this case is to show that unborn beings in a human womb really are human beings, as developmental biology reveals, and that the Harm Principle should be considered to extend to the protection of all human beings.

The flaw that I see is that I don't think developmental biology really shows that "unborn beings in a human womb really are human beings"? His whole argument hinges on that being true. Is, for example, a zygote a human being? The Wikipedia article on human beings helpfully reminds us:

quote:
The zygote divides inside the female's uterus to become an embryo, which over a period of 38 weeks (9 months) of gestation becomes a fetus. After this span of time, the fully grown fetus is birthed from the woman's body and breathes independently as an infant for the first time. At this point, most modern cultures recognize the baby as a person entitled to the full protection of the law, though some jurisdictions extend various levels of personhood earlier to human fetuses while they remain in the uterus.

So some jurisdictions extend some level of personhood to the fetuses, some don't. Of those that do, undoubtedly the level of personhood extended and the degree of development to which it extends varies.

That is, there is no consensus. The position any culture or legal system takes is based upon feelings that obviously vary widely, not facts.

So another way of asking your question is, "When should full rights of personhood be extended?" I think that at a minimum the right to life should be extended after birth. Prior to birth I do not know.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Tangle, posted 08-09-2018 4:51 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by Tangle, posted 08-10-2018 2:44 AM Percy has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30920
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 337 of 441 (837836)
08-09-2018 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Tangle
08-09-2018 6:08 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Learn to read what YOU write too.

Tangle writes:

The law also gives the unborn baby rights too. Usually it's the right not to be electively killed after a date decided by a jurisdiction based on medical advice. In the UK it's 24 weeks. Am I right in thinking that you would give the unborn child no rights at all?

and now:

Tangle writes:

You're not being asked to confer rights, you're being asked for your opinion.

You really need to slow down and learn a few basics about reading and responding.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Tangle, posted 08-09-2018 6:08 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by Tangle, posted 08-10-2018 2:50 AM jar has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6178
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 338 of 441 (837854)
08-10-2018 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by Percy
08-09-2018 6:37 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Percy writes:

So another way of asking your question is, "When should full rights of personhood be extended?" I think that at a minimum the right to life should be extended after birth. Prior to birth I do not know.

'Personhood' is a concept I find difficult to make much use of.

“the quality or condition of being an individual person.”

The distinction you are making is that the baby is alive outside of the woman but inside the woman it's not - or at least you don't know. This, being outside the woman is presumably your understanding of 'personhood' and 'living'.

I asked you whether the baby - because it is now a fully developed human baby - is 'alive' the moment before birth. You say you don't know. I say that is observably absurd. The only way the baby is different at the moment before birth is that it is still dependent on the mother for its food supply, waste management and oxygen. Artificially removed from the mother the baby would behave exactly like a newborn baby.

Is it the fact that the mother is providing the life support the thing that doesn't make it alive or a person? If so does the mother have the right to remove the life support of a premature baby? Does the baby only become a person at full term? If not, why not?

All modern western societies give the unborn rights, and I expect others do too. Why do you think they do that?

And btw, harm does not extend only to 'persons'; smashing a window is a harm, kicking a dog is a harm. Killing a baby just before birth without medical necessity is a serious crime that would likely result in imprisonment. Why would that be if it was not a harm?

I find it difficult to even imagine that the baby just before term is not alive and a person. But if I take your position of 'not knowing' shouldn't we at least use the precautionary principle and assume that it is? Would that help you out?

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Percy, posted 08-09-2018 6:37 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by Percy, posted 08-10-2018 9:43 AM Tangle has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6178
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 339 of 441 (837855)
08-10-2018 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by jar
08-09-2018 6:50 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Jar, I know you think all these equivocations and insults are very, very clever, but it actually comes over as petulance and childishness and isn't helping the debate.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by jar, posted 08-09-2018 6:50 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by jar, posted 08-10-2018 6:44 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30920
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 340 of 441 (837858)
08-10-2018 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 339 by Tangle
08-10-2018 2:50 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle, I know you think all these equivocations and insults are very, very clever, but it actually comes over as petulance and childishness and isn't helping the debate.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Tangle, posted 08-10-2018 2:50 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by Faith, posted 08-10-2018 7:00 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 29820
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 341 of 441 (837859)
08-10-2018 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 340 by jar
08-10-2018 6:44 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Wow, a new low yet.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by jar, posted 08-10-2018 6:44 AM jar has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17736
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(4)
Message 342 of 441 (837877)
08-10-2018 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 338 by Tangle
08-10-2018 2:44 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:

Percy writes:

So another way of asking your question is, "When should full rights of personhood be extended?" I think that at a minimum the right to life should be extended after birth. Prior to birth I do not know.


'Personhood' is a concept I find difficult to make much use of.

“the quality or condition of being an individual person.”

Actually I think it is more useful than "alive" because you were intermingling two different senses of the word alive. There is the sense in which a living organism is alive, and there is the sense in which an individual cell of a living organism is alive, such as a liver, kidney or sperm cell. Fetal development is particularly vulnerable to this confusion since the eventual baby begins as a zygote (a single cell) and ends at birth with billions of cells. The concept of a continuum of development fits well, but not so much your concept of a continuum of increasing harm with termination, especially because of the severe inconsistency of denying any possibility of harm to cells that preceded the zygote, such as sperm and egg and the creatures responsible for their formation.

For example, when an 18-year old man is killed, is it just the man who is killed or is it also the children he would undoubtedly have had, and later the grandchildren? If that seems silly to you then it might be because of your determination to consider the zygote/bastocyst/embryo/fetus in isolation independent of all else. But not everyone sees the world as so neatly compartmentalized.

Framing the argument a certain way and then channeling your efforts into badgering other people to squint through your lens and see things your way has the obvious drawbacks you've experienced thus far. I understand the points you're trying to make, and I'm fine with you having your point of view and am not trying to convince you to change it, but I don't see things your way because your position is not backed by facts but by feelings and by noting that many others share your feelings. As I've pointed out several times, majorities have felt wrong before and will feel wrong again. The "50 million Frenchmen can't be wrong" argument is a common fallacy.

There's another important factor not heretofore mentioned, and that's the effort and attention societies pay to the child once born. It is not matched by the effort and attention paid to the unborn. Once a child comes into this world they are largely subject to the whims of the parents, for example:

Babies should have checkups at 1 week, and then every month thereafter. Are there any laws requiring this and government agencies responsible for tracking this? No. How can we justify invasively infringing upon the rights of the woman prior to birth while doing virtually nothing to guarantee the health and welfare of the baby after birth? Yes, there's child services, but their understaffing and ineffectiveness is amply illustrated by the number of cases that slip through their fingers, such as SUV carrying family appears to have been intentionally driven off California cliff, tragedy exposes flaws in welfare system. Headlines about failures in child service agencies appear all the time.

So I don't know when the zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus becomes sufficiently "alive" to begin to be extended some of the rights of personhood, in particular the right to life, but I do strongly feel that the concern expressed by so many for the unborn is misplaced. It would be better placed on the born.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Tangle, posted 08-10-2018 2:44 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Tangle, posted 08-10-2018 11:53 AM Percy has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6178
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 343 of 441 (837884)
08-10-2018 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 342 by Percy
08-10-2018 9:43 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Percy writes:

Actually I think it is more useful than "alive" because you were intermingling two different senses of the word alive. etc

You've just said all the same stuff all over again in a slightly different way and completely avoided answering any of the questions I asked you.

You seems overly concerned about a time when the foetus does not exist, while refusing to think about when it is a fully formed baby about to born. There is no equivalence here. All this stuff about grandfathers is irrelevant, we're only factually concerned about abortion and life, nothing else. There can not be life, in the ways that we're meaning - human life - unless and until the cells from two individuals fuse. All actions before that are irrelevant and reduce the argument to the absurd.

Can you address the points I raised?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Percy, posted 08-10-2018 9:43 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by NoNukes, posted 08-10-2018 12:31 PM Tangle has responded
 Message 349 by Percy, posted 08-10-2018 9:19 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 344 of 441 (837890)
08-10-2018 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by Tangle
08-10-2018 11:53 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Can you address the points I raised?

Nobody can do so to your satisfaction. The issue here is that you are conflating things that are just your opinion with fact, and are insisting that we accept those things. That won't work. If you want some movement, you are going to have to use persuasion, rather than your current tact of trying to tell us that your conclusions are inescapable. Nobody here accepts your principle that there is a scale of harm that begins at conception and increases thereafter. We accept that you sincerely believe that, but I and others do not adopt your standard. I've spent some time explaining why I don't, as has Percy. At this point, Percy at least seems patient enough to respond to what is the same assertions from you over and over.

Until you do something about that impasse, you should not have any expectation that your comments are going to move the discussion forward. We disagree, and you know exactly why that is.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Tangle, posted 08-10-2018 11:53 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by Tangle, posted 08-10-2018 2:17 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6178
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 345 of 441 (837891)
08-10-2018 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by NoNukes
08-10-2018 12:31 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Percy writes:

Until you do something about that impasse, you should not have any expectation that your comments are going to move the discussion forward. We disagree, and you know exactly why that is.

I'm trying to do that by getting someone to explain this to me. Ie forget conception, forget continuums of harm, just answer me this

Tangle writes:

The distinction you are making is that the baby is alive outside of the woman but inside the woman it's not - or at least you don't know. This, being outside the woman is presumably your understanding of 'personhood' and 'living'.

I asked you whether the baby - because it is now a fully developed human baby - is 'alive' the moment before birth. You say you don't know. I say that is observably absurd. The only way the baby is different at the moment before birth is that it is still dependent on the mother for its food supply, waste management and oxygen. Artificially removed from the mother the baby would behave exactly like a newborn baby.

Is it the fact that the mother is providing the life support the thing that doesn't make it alive or a person? If so does the mother have the right to remove the life support of a premature baby? Does the baby only become a person at full term? If not, why not?

All modern western societies give the unborn rights, and I expect others do too. Why do you think they do that?

And btw, harm does not extend only to 'persons'; smashing a window is a harm, kicking a dog is a harm. Killing a baby just before birth without medical necessity is a serious crime that would likely result in imprisonment. Why would that be if it was not a harm?

I find it difficult to even imagine that the baby just before term is not alive and a person. But if I take your position of 'not knowing' shouldn't we at least use the precautionary principle and assume that it is? Would that help you out?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by NoNukes, posted 08-10-2018 12:31 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by NoNukes, posted 08-10-2018 5:52 PM Tangle has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2122
23
2425
...
30Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018