|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Abortion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
bretheweb Inactive Member |
//You haven’t explained yourself. If you think your going to get away with this crap, dream on. To comprehend, I have to have been given a comprehensible answer. Indulge me, summarise it here.//
ROFL Lordy I do so hate lazy people. //Do you really think what you write should be immediately accepted by your readers, & those that fail to do so have a comprehension problem?//Ask Mr Pamboli. He doesnt seem to have the same difficulty you do. //Brett, if you can’t, then don’t. Don’t even reply.//Not cant, Mark, but rather won't bother to play your little game. //So indulge me, summarise your answers in the next post, taking into consideration my concerns with your original claims that birth & independence are not good criteria for determining when a human can/cannot be terminated. Since I’m so dense & haven’t comprehended.//A man's gotta know his limitations Mark. Its good that you've identified yours. Go do your own work. And as entertaining as you are Mark, your posts are becoming less and less substantive, so I'll leave you to your merry way.Let me know when you actually have something to say. brett ------------------Faith in a delusional belief does not make that belief not delusional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
[In case it wasn't clear, this was addressed to the thread in general, not to anyone in particular. Not yet, anyway. --Percy]
Please follow the guidelines. I've never tested the "suspension of posting privileges" feature, but it's not surprising that this topic could be my first opportunity! One aspect of debate not expressly covered in the guidelines is evasion. That's because I find it extremely difficult to define. At Yahoo a few months ago we had a contributor who politely (indeed, much more politey than his opponents) acknowledged everyone's concerns, then said he would continue to hold his views. He did this over and over and over again. People requested that he attempt to address the contradictions, but he would merely acknowledge them, state his belief that they would in time be resolved, then restate his beliefs. This went on for a long time. I finally had to intervene. Anyway, even though evasion isn't an explicit part of the guidelines, it is there in spirit. Please follow the guidelines. Thanks! --Percy [This message has been edited by Percipient, 02-25-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7577 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote: This will be counter-intuitive to most people I suspect: it certainly is to me. Of course, that doesn’t mean it’s incorrect. Are you saying that humanity (human-being-ness I think you call it) is simply a set of a properties of a life-form, one of which must be having hom.sap. dna, and the others such things as self-awareness, communication etc. I suspect (but I won’t put words in your mouth) that you might say yes — and follow Singer’s line that the DNA is the least interesting bit, so we can extend rights and status to other life-forms exhibiting the other properties. Am I close?
[b] [QUOTE]But given that all I'm talking about is an indicator of awareness of self as distinct from others, its not terribly complicated.From a stictly logistical perspective, how is this determined if the infant is blind, deaf, mentally retarded, etc. [/b][/QUOTE] But if self-awareness is the criteria, are the anaesthetized, the sleeping, the drugged or the extremely drunk temporarily not human? I believe some Islamic philosophers have come close to taking such a view of drunkenness. Can one be temporarily non-human if temporarily not self-aware?
[b] [QUOTE]What i'm wondering is what makes people so uncomfortable about the idea that newborns aren’t human beings yet? [/b][/QUOTE] Experience for one thing — an overwhelming conviction that what is in the cradle is fully human in every moral sense. Now you may want evidence to support that, but actually none is needed if what we are talking about is legal status — because the law isn’t a science, but more akin to a pragmatic balance of the aspirations of a society. Your argument seems to be a version of the old shades of grey allusion. At one extreme we have the obviously non-human — let’s say white — and at the other, the obviously human - black. And you are saying that the newborn is actually a shade of grey? I am not opposed to philosophical definitions which challenge our way of thinking — indeed I welcome them, but when one works towards a definition, the outcome or implication of which, is directly contrary to the ordinary usage of a word, then this is a sign of something wrong. I have no doubt that in the ordinary usage of the word, a newborn baby is human. Indeed, fully human. If so, what could be going wrong in the argument? One possibility might be that in fact, DNA is the only necessary property of a human being. But all DNA is different, and this line of argument only pushes the argument into which set of properties of DNA are required for one to be human and we start all over again. Another, more likely possibility, is that in fact your argument is sound in logic, but because we are dealing with graduated properties, the logic has been blurred beyond the point where ordinary language draws the line. In other words you are not defining human beings, but have ended up defining a subset of human beings to which you want to narrow the definition. But language doesn’t work like that, and human thought, predicated on language doesn’t work like that. And human law, built on human thought and language cannot work like that. Here’s a little example. Let’s say we are trying to define visibility: If the paper is white and the ink is black, then the writing is visible.If the paper is white and the ink is white, then the writing is not visible. One could apply this to shades of gray ink working in either direction, but at some point one either comes up against a conclusion that something is visible which, while logical, is actually at odds with the usual definition of visible. The warning bells go off — have we chosen the right way to define visibility? It certainly works at the extremes, but the concept itself is something beyond the defining statements. In this case, we have not included concepts such as descriptions of the senses. In the case of your newborn human argument, the warning bells are sounding (and you are aware of them sounding for others if not for you) though there is no flaw in the logic. I suspect you have not chosen the right way to define human. There may be something beyond the defining statements.
[b] [QUOTE]
//And in practical terms, I don't think we know enough about the structural relation of the CC, or any brain structure and aspects of consciousness to support this argument fully even given an acceptable definition.//I hate to disagree here, but in fact we do know enough to support this definition... which is why I came to this conclusion. [/b][/QUOTE] Well, let’s just disagree — though my comments weren’t casual. This isn’t the forum for a discussion on the nature of consciousness..
[b] [QUOTE]
But the reality of the situation is that the earliest a preemie can be saved like that is 22 - 24 weeks LMP, with any likelihood of survival that is, and that less than 1% of all abortions are done after 21 weeks LMP and the overwhelming majority of those are on wanted pregnancies that simply will not survive or endanger the woman. There is no theoretical developmental difference, but the reality of it is that abortions done after 21 weeks LMP are done on fetuses with conditions incompatible with life.Also, I do not consider birth an arbitrary distinction. [/b][/QUOTE] Absolutely — the situation is as you report it in the US and the UK. Your second point is slightly blurred. If the pregnancy is wanted, and the child is delivered prematurely - however perilously — with the intention of saving it, then from the moment of removal from its mother’s body it has a range of rights equivalent to other humans. If the intention when removing the fetus is not so save it (however rare these cases may be), then a different range of rights apply. But the rights are assigned on the basis of a third party intention, not on any intrinsic claim to right the fetus may itself have. Thus, my reference to the Nazi mayor of Vienna. In no way, was I trying to dredge up some sort of guilt by association. It was simply an example of a life or death decision in which the right to live or die depended on the attitude of another, not on any intrinsic rights granted.
[b] [QUOTE]
Why would anyone else but the woman involved be the one to make the decision? You'll have to come up with some compelling argument for anything else.[/b][/QUOTE] If you do not consider there is another human being involved there is no argument to eb deduced from other laws protecting humans. However, there is still room for a law which graduates the rights of the fetus and the mother inversely as the fetus develops towards recognizable humanity. I see no moral difficulty with restricting the rights of the mother in this way..
[b] [QUOTE]
Why/how is the biological aspect a graduated property?[/b][/QUOTE] You’ll see above that I consider hom. sap. DNA to be binary property in that it defines the species, but that even this is not without difficulties.
[b] [QUOTE]
Did you peruse the Roe V Wade decision notes I posted the link to? [/b][/QUOTE] Yes I had read them before. A very interesting decision — one that needs revisited by the law quite regularly because, as you say, societies change. Is there a mechanism for this in the US? I’m Scottish and don’t know.
[b] [QUOTE]Ok, but why does this relationship, which can only pertain to women, "allow" the government the right to limit it? [/b][/QUOTE] I’m always puzzled by this line of argument. It reminds of when I was a surly teenager — how could the mere biological accident of my birth allow the courts to force me to attend school?
[b] [QUOTE]//And this relationship is complex biologically, emotionally and philosophically - and correspondingly complex legally.//Hmmm... I dont follow that it is complex legally by its nature. The "complexity" must be attached to it from outside sources. Thats like saying because grapes are juicy and green and sweet, migrant workers are typically illegal aliens. [/b][/QUOTE] Well, I wasn’t constructing a syllogism so I don’t think your example follows. The law protects and frequently interferes with our biological and emotional lives. It does so in a framework of ethics that is the partly the realm of philosophy. As abortion is a complex issue in these areas, it is no surprise that the law should also be complex — or even if simple in statement, complex in implication, application and effect.
[b] [QUOTE]
//I'm sorry - I had intended to write "elective abortion is not acceptable."//An MD explained to me that the word "elective" is often misunderstood by laypeople. It means, basically, "not an emergency procedure". [/b][/QUOTE] I meant elective in a common enough sense — chosen. Though I see that in the US it is generally used in a quasi-technical sense by educators, doctors etc. Sorry for any confusion.
[b] [QUOTE]
Because while most Pro Lifers respect the idea of physical danger being an acceptable rationale for abortion, few accept emotional/psychological suffering.[/b][/QUOTE] You’ll guess I mean extreme mental suffering.
[b] [QUOTE]
it should not have the right to make a surgical procedure illegal based almost exclusively on one groups religious beliefs.[/b][/QUOTE] Absolutely. You’ll perhaps see that my position is essentially humanist — influenced by my religious views, but not referring to them for authority. Good discussion, by the way. Strange we should be having it in a topic in danger of being as flammable as a hell full of creationists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
bretheweb Inactive Member |
//Are you saying that humanity (human-being-ness I think you call it) is simply a set of a properties of a life-form, one of which must be having hom.sap. dna, and the others such things as self-awareness, communication etc.//
Yep. //I suspect (but I won’t put words in your mouth) that you might say yes — and follow Singer’s line that the DNA is the least interesting bit, so we can extend rights and status to other life-forms exhibiting the other properties. Am I close?//That is in fact Singers rationale. I'm not so convinced... call me homo sap-centric if you must, but the idea of sharing legal rights with a Great Dane isnt terribly appealing. //But if self-awareness is the criteria, are the anaesthetized, the sleeping, the drugged or the extremely drunk temporarily not human?//No, because one would presume that they demonstrated self-awareness at some prior point in their existance. If they never had... an anencephalatic neonate who is anaesthetized, sleeping, drugged, etc., then no, they are not human beings in the sense that I am describing. These links are to pictures of fetuses aborted because they had conditions that were not compatible with life.I provide these to clarify the condition that I am referring to. Be warned, these are very disturbing photos. http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/PRENATAL/PREN013.html http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/PRENATAL/PREN014.html http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/PRENATAL/PREN012.html http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/PRENATAL/PREN019.html http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/PRENATAL/PREN035.html //I believe some Islamic philosophers have come close to taking such a view of drunkenness. Can one be temporarily non-human if temporarily not self-aware?//From my perspective, no. One can be permamently rendered "unself-aware" and therefore no longer a human being, but since the basis for self-awareness is the activity of the cerebral cortex, it would require its destruction. //Experience for one thing — an overwhelming conviction that what is in the cradle is fully human in every moral sense.//But conviction based on what, exactly? Mind you, I agree fully, but for the sake of this discussion could you flesh this out? //Now you may want evidence to support that, but actually none is needed if what we are talking about is legal status — because the law isn’t a science, but more akin to a pragmatic balance of the aspirations of a society.//Exactly. As I pointed out earlier, birth is used to endow legal personhood exactly because it is not science... it is just about as pragmatic as you can get. "See the live baby... the live baby is a legal person." A complete no-brainer. //Your argument seems to be a version of the old shades of grey allusion.//If it is, I assure it it is entirely coincidental. //At one extreme we have the obviously non-human — let’s say white — and at the other, the obviously human - black. And you are saying that the newborn is actually a shade of grey?//I'm saying that a newborn, by virtue of its "unwritten upon" cerebral cortex, cannot demonstrate self-awareness, and wont be able to for several months. Again, your mileage may vary. This is no justification for anything... merely a demonstration of why I think that prenates cannot be said to embody "human being-ness". //I am not opposed to philosophical definitions which challenge our way of thinking — indeed I welcome them, but when one works towards a definition, the outcome or implication of which, is directly contrary to the ordinary usage of a word, then this is a sign of something wrong. I have no doubt that in the ordinary usage of the word, a newborn baby is human. Indeed, fully human. If so, what could be going wrong in the argument?//My belief is that something as intrinsically valuable as a newborn, survival of the species and all that, cant but be viewed as "one of us" even when it doesnt fit that criteria. It *should* fit that criteria... see its little toes and its little hands, and its little dimples! And our laws protect it so that it can reach that criteria... but by its very nature, it simply cannot until it grows a bit. //One possibility might be that in fact, DNA is the only necessary property of a human being.//Have you ever sung the "Every sperm is sacred" song from Monty Pythons "The Meaning of Life"? http://www.wilken.freeserve.co.uk/Montypython/Songs/song15.htm It works best if bellowed. DNA might be the only necessary property of a human being, except then we'd be calling that kidney I had removed a human being. //But all DNA is different, and this line of argument only pushes the argument into which set of properties of DNA are required for one to be human and we start all over again.//Yea. Which is why I agree with Singer about DNA being moot. //Another, more likely possibility, is that in fact your argument is sound in logic, but because we are dealing with graduated properties, the logic has been blurred beyond the point where ordinary language draws the line.//I quite agree that ordinary English makes this difficult... but I'm not really trying to use logic as the only tool to demonstrate this. I'm trying to stick with observable evidence as the basis for approaching this within a logical framework. //In other words you are not defining human beings, but have ended up defining a subset of human beings to which you want to narrow the definition.//But then what is the definition of "human being" if DNA is not to be used as a criteria? Or was my dearly departed kidney really a "human being" as well? //But language doesn’t work like that, and human thought, predicated on language doesn’t work like that. And human law, built on human thought and language cannot work like that.//Yea... maybe. But I'd be careful about building it up like that. Human thought, language and law are rarely so easily bounded that one can say that something "cannot work like that". //Here’s a little example. Let’s say we are trying to define visibility:If the paper is white and the ink is black, then the writing is visible. If the paper is white and the ink is white, then the writing is not visible.// Assuming perfect vision, and perfect shades of white and black, I cant disagree. //One could apply this to shades of gray ink working in either direction, but at some point one either comes up against a conclusion that something is visible which, while logical, is actually at odds with the usual definition of visible. The warning bells go off — have we chosen the right way to define visibility?//Call me dense, but I'm not sure if I follow. Are you saying that there is a "shade of gray" so close to white as to be "invisible" but by its very definition, "not white", should be visible? //It certainly works at the extremes, but the concept itself is something beyond the defining statements. In this case, we have not included concepts such as descriptions of the senses.//Oh man, I so do suck at these sorts of puzzles and such. I never get the "right" answer. //In the case of your newborn human argument, the warning bells are sounding (and you are aware of them sounding for others if not for you) though there is no flaw in the logic.//The warning bell I hear voiced most often is that because I am defining a newborn as not fitting the definition of "human being" that this somehow makes it "ok" to kill it or commit some otherwise heinous crime against it simply because it isnt labeled a "human being". And from the perspective of a horribly suffering, dying newborn, I can easily be convinced that its parents *should* be able to make that decision... but certainly few, if any, others. //I suspect you have not chosen the right way to define human. There may be something beyond the defining statements.//I'm open to suggestion. I dont claim to have addressed *all* the possibilities, but rather, the ones most typcially voiced by Pro-Lifers. //Well, let’s just disagree — though my comments weren’t casual.//And honestly, I wasnt treating them as such. Its just that everywhere I've read neuroscience is telling me that this is so. I'm completely open to other valid sources if you have them. //This isn’t the forum for a discussion on the nature of consciousness.//Not even in the Coffee House? //Absolutely — the situation is as you report it in the US and the UK. Your second point is slightly blurred. If the pregnancy is wanted, and the child is delivered prematurely - however perilously — with the intention of saving it, then from the moment of removal from its mother’s body it has a range of rights equivalent to other humans.//Hmm... yes. So long as it is able to draw breath(which actually meets the legal criteria for a live birth). //If the intention when removing the fetus is not so save it (however rare these cases may be), then a different range of rights apply.//No, not really. If removal of a living fetus results in a live birth, then that child has all the rights you or I would, regardless of the intent to abort it. However, in no instance is an abortion procedure performed whereby a living fetus is removed from the womans body. The typical procedure for post 21 week abortions is the Dilation and Extraction (D&X), a lesser used procedure the Intact Dilation and Extraction (ID&E) and Labor Induction. In all of these procedures fetal demise occurs in utero. //But the rights are assigned on the basis of a third party intention, not on any intrinsic claim to right the fetus may itself have.//As I've pointed out above, it is not an equal comparison. There are cases where women with terminal fetuses will have labor induced so that they might hold their baby as it dies. Another woman, in the exact same circumstances, might opt for an abortion. //Thus, my reference to the Nazi mayor of Vienna. In no way, was I trying to dredge up some sort of guilt by association.//Gotcha. Sorry... too many references to Hitler has made me touchy about such comparisons. //It was simply an example of a life or death decision in which the right to live or die depended on the attitude of another, not on any intrinsic rights granted.//Except that this isnt the case, as I pointed out. //If you do not consider there is another human being involved there is no argument to eb deduced from other laws protecting humans. However, there is still room for a law which graduates the rights of the fetus and the mother inversely as the fetus develops towards recognizable humanity.//Which is sort of what exists in the US today. Except, of course, if the womans life is in danger or the fetus is terminal. As I pointed out before... the vast majority of abortions, 99%, take place before *any* argument for fetal personhood can be applied... and the ones that happen after 21 weeks are for medical reasons. So what would be the point? Let me put it another way... if every woman in the US received free birth control, free pregnancy tests and free abortions for the first 16 weeks of a pregnancy and anything after that was completely and totally illegal except for dire physical emergency's, I'd be less apt to fight this fight. //I see no moral difficulty with restricting the rights of the mother in this way.//Ah, but I do. //You’ll see above that I consider hom. sap. DNA to be binary property in that it defines the species, but that even this is not without difficulties.//Gotcha, thanks for elucidating. //Yes I had read them before. A very interesting decision — one that needs revisited by the law quite regularly because, as you say, societies change. Is there a mechanism for this in the US? I’m Scottish and don’t know.//Yes, but unfortunately it doesnt involve whacking politicians on the heads with mallets. Not that this stops US ProLifers from trying mind you. //I’m always puzzled by this line of argument. It reminds of when I was a surly teenager — how could the mere biological accident of my birth allow the courts to force me to attend school?//Ah, but since *all* teenagers are forced, not just the white male ones, its a bit more fair, dont you think? Same thing. //The law protects and frequently interferes with our biological and emotional lives.//True... but typically only to protect its constituents. Unfair laws are those which are biased against one group or the other... The Jim Crow laws of the deep South, here in the US are a perfect example. The only reason they existed was to keep African-Americans from being full citizens. //I meant elective in a common enough sense — chosen.//Gotcha. //You’ll guess I mean extreme mental suffering.//Extreme by who's definition? Who will be paying for a psychological test to determine who might or is suffering extreme mental anguish? //Absolutely. You’ll perhaps see that my position is essentially humanist — influenced by my religious views, but not referring to them for authority.//And I appreciate your position. American Pro-Lifers tend to begin and end their position with their religion. //Good discussion, by the way.//Thanks, same here. A refreshing change, I might add. //Strange we should be having it in a topic in danger of being as flammable as a hell full of creationists.//LOL The christian hell will be full of my friends and people I respect so its not shock for me. So which religious belief do you subscribe to? brett ------------------Faith in a delusional belief does not make that belief not delusional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
leekim Inactive Member |
The key question to the debate on abortion is when one feels life begins. I think we can all agree on the premise that human life is sacred and every "civilized" nation has rules that punish and disallow the crime of murder. I personally feel that a human life begins at the moment of conception (ie sperm / egg) and therefore all life must be protected at and following this state of being. In order to be consistent and to not be intellectually dishonset one cannot say that rape, a genetic defect, etc. negates the aforementioned principle and therefore people can perform an abortion under those limitied scenarios. If you believe that life begins at a certain point in time, then that life must be protected regardless of the manner in which it came into existence (ie rape, consenual sex between a married couple, boyfriend / girlfriend, etc) because all human life (at least within the United States) is entitled to the basic rights and protections afforded by the Constitution and the laws of the States contained therein. Although it is a difficult point to determine for some, once one determines when "life begins" the other factors surrounding the "abortion debate" become trivial to me. Many renowed scientists and Doctors have given complete support to the principle that life begins at the moment of conception (and many are devout atheists) and they are ,therefore, strongly opposed to abortion in any form. Although I am "religious", one can certainly analyze this debate completely outside the realm of religious principles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
bretheweb Inactive Member |
Howdy Lee,
//The key question to the debate on abortion is when one feels life begins.// Not for me. The key issue in this debate is about the governments attempted removal of a womans reproductive rights. From a philosphical perspective almost any valid argument could be made from any point whatsoever.Life is a contiuum over 2 billion years old of which we humans are but one aspect of. All Life, ie., every sperm and every ova, is sacred. Life begins at conception. Life begins at implantation. Life begins at first heartbeat. Life begins at viability. Life begins at birth. Life begins at 40. Take your pick. //I think we can all agree on the premise that human life is sacred...//I think that in a hypothetically perfect world we would like to believe that all human life is sacred, certainly. //...and every "civilized" nation has rules that punish and disallow the crime of murder.//Ah, but who defines "civilized"? It seems to me that cultures who value justice and fairness tend to have such laws, yes. But here in the US we allow state sanctioned homicide. So where does that put us on the "civilized" scale? //I personally feel that a human life begins at the moment of conception (ie sperm / egg) and therefore all life must be protected at and following this state of being.//Ok. "Protected" how exactly? As I pointed out to Mr. Pamboli, less than 20% of all *fertilized* eggs, ie., "human life" as you define it, never make it to birth. Who do we hold responsible? If the US experienced an 80% mortality rate of newborns the outcry to find out "who is responsible" would be tremendous so please dont tell me it would just be "natures fault". If we are to endow a fertilized egg with the same rights as a neonate, then what mechanism do you propose to ensure a greater than 20% survival rate? //In order to be consistent and to not be intellectually dishonset one cannot say that rape, a genetic defect, etc. negates the aforementioned principle and therefore people can perform an abortion under those limitied scenarios.//I quite agree. The only issue with that position is that you'll have a difficult time convincing half the population that for the duration of their pregnancies their rights are reduced to zero. People tend not to like having their rights taken away from them so I cant imagine any politician actively espousing this position in an attempt to pass such a law. //If you believe that life begins at a certain point in time, then that life must be protected regardless of the manner in which it came into existence (ie rape, consenual sex between a married couple, boyfriend / girlfriend, etc) because all human life (at least within the United States) is entitled to the basic rights and protections afforded by the Constitution and the laws of the States contained therein.//Except, of course, that according to current US Constitutional law, that protection begins at birth. Unfortunately for the stance as the one you are presenting, the burden of justifying the removal of rights of pregnant women to "protect" these new citizens is far to heavy to be compelling. //Although it is a difficult point to determine for some, once one determines when "life begins" the other factors surrounding the "abortion debate" become trivial to me.//It is unfortunate that you dont want to recognize the importance of the individual liberties of women intrinsic to this issue. //Many renowed scientists and Doctors have given complete support to the principle that life begins at the moment of conception (and many are devout atheists) and they are ,therefore, strongly opposed to abortion in any form.//The logical fallacy "appeal to authority" isnt terribly compelling, because I can simply this around and say the exact opposite. //Although I am "religious", one can certainly analyze this debate completely outside the realm of religious principles.//One could, but unfortunately the primary movers and shakers behind the Pro Life movement are unabashedly religious in their primary motivation for their cause. brett ------------------Faith in a delusional belief does not make that belief not delusional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: I think you mean ever not never here bud.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
bretheweb Inactive Member |
//I think you mean ever not never here bud.....//
Hmmm... you sure? "less than 20% of all *fertilized* eggs never make it to birth." "less than 20% of all *fertilized* eggs ever make it to birth." "less than 20% of all *fertilized* eggs make it to birth." I think I should just leave out both.lol brett ------------------Faith in a delusional belief does not make that belief not delusional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 1),2), and 3) mean... 1)all but some fraction (less than 20%) make it to birth.... 2)Only some fraction (less than 20%) make it to birth... 3)Only some fraction (less than 20%) make it to birth... So yes you meant ever not never.... and yes 3) is probably a better idea....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
leekim Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bretheweb:
[B]Howdy Lee, //The key question to the debate on abortion is when one feels life begins.// Not for me. The key issue in this debate is about the governments attempted removal of a womans reproductive rights. -----But one never gets to the issue of a woman's "reproductive rights" if you determine that life begins at the time of conception. Any rights a woman has are trumped by the "life" inside of her (the only time a woman should have a "choice" are in those very limited circumstances where a mother's life is at significant risk). If one determines that a "life" is truly inside her corpus at the moment of conception, than "reproductive rights" becomes a moot issue. From a philosphical perspective almost any valid argument could be made from any point whatsoever.Life is a contiuum over 2 billion years old of which we humans are but one aspect of. All Life, ie., every sperm and every ova, is sacred. Life begins at conception. Life begins at implantation. Life begins at first heartbeat. Life begins at viability. Life begins at birth. Life begins at 40. Take your pick. ----Please make an attempt to be intellectually honest as the beggining of a human life form is not a matter of "philosophy". Certainly we can differ as to when we feel life begins but "life begins at 40", I hope, was done purely for humerous effect. //I think we can all agree on the premise that human life is sacred...//I think that in a hypothetically perfect world we would like to believe that all human life is sacred, certainly. //...and every "civilized" nation has rules that punish and disallow the crime of murder.//Ah, but who defines "civilized"? It seems to me that cultures who value justice and fairness tend to have such laws, yes. But here in the US we allow state sanctioned homicide. So where does that put us on the "civilized" scale? ------I'll concede that the allowance of the death penalty (although distinguishable from abortion) is contrary to the maxim that all life is sacred. I am personally against the death penalty but the allowance of the death penalty within the United States does not negate the fact that abortion is murder if one deems that life begins at the moment of conception (it's the old addage of "two wrongs don't make a right" to be overly simplistic) //I personally feel that a human life begins at the moment of conception (ie sperm / egg) and therefore all life must be protected at and following this state of being.//Ok. "Protected" how exactly? As I pointed out to Mr. Pamboli, less than 20% of all *fertilized* eggs, ie., "human life" as you define it, never make it to birth. Who do we hold responsible? If the US experienced an 80% mortality rate of newborns the outcry to find out "who is responsible" would be tremendous so please dont tell me it would just be "natures fault". If we are to endow a fertilized egg with the same rights as a neonate, then what mechanism do you propose to ensure a greater than 20% survival rate? ------Although your point is well taken it deviates from the issue at hand, namely when life begins? The fact that a fertilized egg, or human in my humble opinion, has a low level of "survival", does not negate the fact that it is a human life. Science is not my specialty so I do not know the fundamental reason(s) as to why fertilized eggs only have a 20% survival rate (assuming your information is correct) but it is a problem that should be researched. //In order to be consistent and to not be intellectually dishonset one cannot say that rape, a genetic defect, etc. negates the aforementioned principle and therefore people can perform an abortion under those limitied scenarios.//I quite agree. The only issue with that position is that you'll have a difficult time convincing half the population that for the duration of their pregnancies their rights are reduced to zero. People tend not to like having their rights taken away from them so I cant imagine any politician actively espousing this position in an attempt to pass such a law. -----Although you bring up a valid point regarding the "political aspect" of my position, the difficulty of Congress and / or society accepting my position does not enhance or detract from its validity. //If you believe that life begins at a certain point in time, then that life must be protected regardless of the manner in which it came into existence (ie rape, consenual sex between a married couple, boyfriend / girlfriend, etc) because all human life (at least within the United States) is entitled to the basic rights and protections afforded by the Constitution and the laws of the States contained therein.//Except, of course, that according to current US Constitutional law, that protection begins at birth. Unfortunately for the stance as the one you are presenting, the burden of justifying the removal of rights of pregnant women to "protect" these new citizens is far to heavy to be compelling. ------It is more than compelling if you determine that a human life is within that mother. You allude here to the standard of strict scrutiny (compelling), and the governemnt certainly has a compelling governemntal interest in protecting the lives of its citizens (again assuming you accept my position that at conception life begins) even against the interests of their own mother. The Constitution does not mention the concept of "birth" in any way whatsoever, rather that is the Constitution as interpreted through the Supreme Court which, as we all know, is subject to change. Certainly you cannot make the valid arguement that the Framers of our Constitution envisioned a society where a woman would be able to terminate her own pregnancy at her own discretion for any reason and were in support of same. Any constitutional scholar who is intellectually honest will concede that Roe v. Wade is an extremely weak decision and the Court refused to answer the very question that began my post "when does life begin?", (read the case) the critical issue to this debate. //Although it is a difficult point to determine for some, once one determines when "life begins" the other factors surrounding the "abortion debate" become trivial to me.//It is unfortunate that you dont want to recognize the importance of the individual liberties of women intrinsic to this issue. ----Again this not a debate about "woman's rights" and I am not trying to negate them. But, once one determines that an individual human life exists at the time a fertilized egg is within that mother, her rights become subjected to that other human life. //Many renowed scientists and Doctors have given complete support to the principle that life begins at the moment of conception (and many are devout atheists) and they are ,therefore, strongly opposed to abortion in any form.//The logical fallacy "appeal to authority" isnt terribly compelling, because I can simply this around and say the exact opposite. ------Your point is well taken. //Although I am "religious", one can certainly analyze this debate completely outside the realm of religious principles.//One could, but unfortunately the primary movers and shakers behind the Pro Life movement are unabashedly religious in their primary motivation for their cause. ------Of course Pro-Lifers are the moving force but that has no bearing upon the points I raise and the issues at hand. I have not once brought up religious principles in my discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
bretheweb Inactive Member |
//But one never gets to the issue of a woman's "reproductive rights" if you determine that life begins at the time of conception.//
Thats a hoot. Where exaclty does a fertilized egg reside, Newark? //Any rights a woman has are trumped by the "life" inside of her (the only time a woman should have a "choice" are in those very limited circumstances where a mother's life is at significant risk).//Sorry, Lee, but rights dont work like that. This is why even Death Row inmates still have rights. At best what you have is a complicated dance of who's rights take precedence during any given time. Not unlike what exists now. Its not an "either/or" situation. //If one determines that a "life" is truly inside her corpus at the moment of conception, than "reproductive rights" becomes a moot issue.//Sorry, but you're wrong. Even assuming that the US government altered the Constitution in such a way, the rights of the woman are not suddenly rendered moot. //Please make an attempt to be intellectually honest as the beggining of a human life form is not a matter of "philosophy".//Ah, but most certainly it is, Lee. For several reasons. There is not "point" of conception. It is a process that takes many, many hours. And the only thing "created" at conception that doesnt exist prior is a unique set of DNA. DNA does not equal "life". If it did, a removed kidney would suddenly become "a human being". //Certainly we can differ as to when we feel life begins but "life begins at 40", I hope, was done purely for humerous effect.//Yes and no. As I pointed out, any valid philosophical argument can be made for any point in time. And from a philosophical perspective '40' is perfectly acceptable. //I'll concede that the allowance of the death penalty (although distinguishable from abortion) is contrary to the maxim that all life is sacred.//You'd be amazed at those who dont see the contradiction. //I am personally against the death penalty but the allowance of the death penalty within the United States does not negate the fact that abortion is murder if one deems that life begins at the moment of conception (it's the old addage of "two wrongs don't make a right" to be overly simplistic)//Absolutely correct... *if* ones deems it so. However, let me point out, that to expand the definition of legal personhood back to conception will require a requsite expansion of juridisprudence. Making such a change would, IMO, unduly burden out current legal system to no real benefit to anyone except lawyers. //Although your point is well taken it deviates from the issue at hand, namely when life begins?//No, Lee, it deviated from your attempt to frame the issue as such. I dont agree with that particular characterization and whenever I hear someone espouse this perspective what I inevitably encounter is a lack of forethought relevent to responsibility for the reality of the situation. Namely, 80% of fertilized eggs do not reach birth. Now who is responsible, how will that responsibility be determined and what punishment shall they receive? //The fact that a fertilized egg, or human in my humble opinion, has a low level of "survival", does not negate the fact that it is a human life.//And I quite agree since that wasnt my point. What I want to know, is who is responsible for all those deaths? Again, if an 80% mortality rate for newborns existed, there would be little doubt that extreme action would be taken to determine the reason. It isnt unreasonable to ask that they same action be taken for those newly endowed fertilized eggs. //Science is not my specialty so I do not know the fundamental reason(s) as to why fertilized eggs only have a 20% survival rate (assuming your information is correct) but it is a problem that should be researched.//Its a variety of reasons... anything from fundamenal genetic incompatibility with life to inappropriate behaviour from the woman, ie., smoking, drinking, heavy exercise to disease. //Although you bring up a valid point regarding the "political aspect" of my position, the difficulty of Congress and / or society accepting my position does not enhance or detract from its validity.//From a philosophical perspective, I quite agree. However, since to be "effective" this would have to be implemented by law, I see no way to get around it. Short of some form of dictatorship, that is. //It is more than compelling if you determine that a human life is within that mother.//No, actually, not really. Because in the end you are simply refusing to address the issue of the womans rights. A pregnancy does not take place in a moral/ethical/physical vacuum. //You allude here to the standard of strict scrutiny (compelling), and the governemnt certainly has a compelling governemntal interest in protecting the lives of its citizens (again assuming you accept my position that at conception life begins) even against the interests of their own mother.//The key phrase there is *citizens*, of course. And I adamantly agree with that concept. As the Roe V Wade decision pointed out, the Justices were unwilling to set up a conflict between the intersts of the woman and that of her fetus... except after a point, late into a pregnancy, when it was moot. And as our elected representatives have demonstrated, none want to touch this with a 100 foot pole. //The Constitution does not mention the concept of "birth" in any way whatsoever, rather that is the Constitution as interpreted through the Supreme Court which, as we all know, is subject to change.//Au contraire. Amendment XIV: 1. All persons *born* or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. And as a side note, the construction of our government, with three branches, was such that changes to the Constitution and its interpretation are an intrinsic to it. //Certainly you cannot make the valid arguement that the Framers of our Constitution envisioned a society where a woman would be able to terminate her own pregnancy at her own discretion for any reason and were in support of same.//Why not? "Womens issues" were not exactly on the forefront of the minds of the menfolk of the time. Laws governing abortion in the Colonies were haphazard at best and constituted no sweeping, generalized view. It wasnt until the advent of the nascent science of Medicine that competing Doctors, men, got laws passed to allow them to replace Midwives as the authority if choice for women. And regardless of what our Forefathers thought of the issue when the country was created, the fact of the matter is that right now, given the interpretation of the Constitution and its Ammendments that enables our current *liberal* individual liberties, such a notion is properly in line with such interpretation. //Any constitutional scholar who is intellectually honest will concede that Roe v. Wade is an extremely weak decision and the Court refused to answer the very question that began my post "when does life begin?", (read the case) the critical issue to this debate.//I quite agree. The Roe decision is a compromise at best. It should have simply determined that the state had no business in a womans reproductive decisions, at all, and left it at that. It isnt within the SCOTUS's pervue to decide when life begins.This is explained the the Roe decision. That falls squarely into the lap of Congress... which is why it will never happen.Congress is unwilling to actually tackle an issue until it becomes monsterously obvious that it is something the US people want. Example: Congress finally addresses election funding reform after polls determine 75% of the US wants changes to occur. //Again this not a debate about "woman's rights" and I am not trying to negate them.//Lee, this issue can *ONLY* be about womens rights. Until inexpensive artificial wombs are the norm, a woman will always be needed as a recepticle for a zef. //But, once one determines that an individual human life exists at the time a fertilized egg is within that mother, her rights become subjected to that other human life.//No. As I explained above. And since there is no precedence for this you'll absolutely have to do a better job of making your argument more compelling. //Your point is well taken.//Thank you for understanding that. Some people get very defensive when the weaknesses of their argument are pointed out to them. //Of course Pro-Lifers are the moving force but that has no bearing upon the points I raise and the issues at hand.//I quite agree... from a philosophical perspective, the religious affliation of the "Pro-Life" perspective isnt relevent. However, there is absolutely no denying that the movement is dominated by those who justify it with their religious beliefs. //I have not once brought up religious principles in my discussion.//And as with Mister Pampoli, I appreciate that. brett ------------------Faith in a delusional belief does not make that belief not delusional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
leekim Inactive Member |
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I disagree that the key question is when life begins. I think the key question is what rights does the state have to control a woman's body. Did you know that most fertilized eggs do not result in pregancies because they never implant, and are therefore expelled during menstruation? To be consistent with your idea that life begins at conception and it all needs to be protected, we would need to protect this "life", no? Also, do you reccomend that we make IUD's illegal, because they prevent pregnancy by not allowing the fertilized egg to implant into the uterine wall? Should we protect ectopic pregnancies which will kill the mother if allowed to continue? What about a woman who's life is threatened by carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth? Would you be willing to send doctors, nurses, and women to jail to serve life sentences for murder because they either performed, assisted in, or underwent, an abortion? Do you feel that the state has a right to force women to carry all pregnancies to term? Do you feel comfortable with the knowledge that, if the state were to regain this power, that many women would die, bleeding to death or dying from infections from back-alley, coathanger abortions? On a different note, there is no shortage of unwanted children who are already alive. If we increase their numbers singnificantly, who is going to raise them and pay for their educations, etc? Lastly, you seem to be saying that at the moment a sperm combines with egg, the rights of that "sperm + egg" supercedes that of the woman to control her own body. If you are a man (sorry, it's a safe assumption), what medical procedures and descisions that you make about yourself do you think the government should supercede your or your doctor's judgement? Would you allow the state to have control over any aspect of your fertility?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by leekim:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by bretheweb: [B]Howdy Lee, //The key question to the debate on abortion is when one feels life begins.// Not for me. The key issue in this debate is about the governments attempted removal of a womans reproductive rights. -----But one never gets to the issue of a woman's "reproductive rights" if you determine that life begins at the time of conception. Any rights a woman has are trumped by the "life" inside of her (the only time a woman should have a "choice" are in those very limited circumstances where a mother's life is at significant risk). If one determines that a "life" is truly inside her corpus at the moment of conception, than "reproductive rights" becomes a moot issue.[/QUOTE] You are a man, aren't you? Since when is any human in the US EVER required to set aside their rights in favor of another's rights?? I understand that this is a relatively new concept when applied to women. After all, the term "marital rape" hasn't been in existence for very long. That doesn't mean that women weren't being raped by their husbands for thousands of years before this affront to their rights was recognized as such.
quote: The constitution also mentions "liberty" as well as "life". How is the state promoting "liberty" if it forces all women to carry all pregnancies to term?
quote: We will not go back to coathanger abortions. Making abortion illegal will not end abortion. It will only increase the number of unwanted children, abused and uneducated and underfed children (at risk for engaging in criminal behavior). It wall also increase the number of women who suffer and die from backalley procedures. It will also increase the number of infanticides. I wonder if you have considered coming at this problem from another direction. Have you ever considered working to make it less necessary? Educating children about sex and reproduction, and the many kinds of birth control which exist and responsibility, teaching boys to respect girls and girls to respect themselves, etc.? Safe, legal abortion is a sign of a society which treats women as full and equal citizens. I have to tell you that reading your posts makes me want to go write checks to NARAL and NOW. We will not go back.
quote: Um, yes it is, and you just said that a women's rights are automatically negated at the moment a fertilized egg exists inside her.
quote: Why? Why are the rights of the sperm + egg so much more valuable than a woman's rights that her rights are negated? You have not justified this statement; you have simply asserted it. This sounds like fetus worship to me. Allison [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-28-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
leekim Inactive Member |
quote:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024