Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8857 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2018 2:27 AM
203 online now:
Heathen, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 200 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 837,098 Year: 11,921/29,783 Month: 943/1,642 Week: 51/306 Day: 6/45 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1920
21
2223
...
30Next
Author Topic:   Evangelical Switch from Pro-choice to Anti-abortion
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5973
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 301 of 441 (837745)
08-08-2018 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Stile
08-08-2018 11:56 AM


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

"Massive" inconvenience now? That's what I'm saying.
I thought you were saying it was a "simple" inconvenience.

It's an inconvenience having children. It's also amazing, rewarding, expensive, heart breaking etc etc. But it's also an inconvience because it interferes with your life when you don't want it to. If you chose to abort a pregnancy because, say, you want to go to college or get on with your career you are chosing not to be inconvenienced by by a baby.

Thank-you for agreeing with the point I was trying to make.

Try not to be childish.


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 298 by Stile, posted 08-08-2018 11:56 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Stile, posted 08-08-2018 12:58 PM Tangle has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5973
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 302 of 441 (837746)
08-08-2018 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by ringo
08-08-2018 12:09 PM


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

There is no such thing as "the" law.


I really don't recommend testing that idea.

There is nothing absolute about it.

Sure there is, if you drink drive you'll lose your licence. If you steal you'll be punished. If you murder you'll go to jail.


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 300 by ringo, posted 08-08-2018 12:09 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by ringo, posted 08-08-2018 1:06 PM Tangle has responded
 Message 318 by jar, posted 08-08-2018 5:23 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3223
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 303 of 441 (837747)
08-08-2018 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by Tangle
08-08-2018 12:23 PM


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

If you chose to abort a pregnancy because, say, you want to go to college or get on with your career you are choosing not to be inconvenienced by by a baby.

The word "inconvenience" generally implies a limited or small interference.
The use of a phrase such as "massive inconvenience" would therefore be an oxymoron.

Your insistence on using a term that adds confusion to the scale on which the decision is being made says more about the motives for your argument then it does about any honest search for reality or truth attached to the situation.

I've said my piece on this side-issue, your call on how you'd like to proceed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2018 12:23 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2018 1:06 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5973
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 304 of 441 (837748)
08-08-2018 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Stile
08-08-2018 12:58 PM


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

The word "inconvenience" generally implies a limited or small interference.
The use of a phrase such as "massive inconvenience" would therefore be an oxymoron.

I said you would quibble about what 'inconvenience' meant.

Your insistence on using a term that adds confusion to the scale on which the decision is being made says more about the motives for your argument then it does about any honest search for reality or truth attached to the situation.

The majority reasons people give for aborting their baby are ones of lifestyle - people simply don't want the baby at that particular time because it interferes with what they had planned. I call that an inconvenience you can call it what you like, the fact is they are choosing their planned life over their baby's life.

I've said my piece on this side-issue, your call on how you'd like to proceed.

That's up to you.


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 303 by Stile, posted 08-08-2018 12:58 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14920
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 305 of 441 (837749)
08-08-2018 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by Tangle
08-08-2018 12:30 PM


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

Sure there is, if you drink drive you'll lose your licence.


Did you deliberately pick a bad example? Drunk driving laws vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, just like abortion laws. There is no universal agreement.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2018 12:30 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2018 1:09 PM ringo has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5973
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 306 of 441 (837750)
08-08-2018 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by ringo
08-08-2018 1:06 PM


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

Did you deliberately pick a bad example? Drunk driving laws vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, just like abortion laws. There is no universal agreement.

So what? Any place you go the law there is absolute and real.


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 305 by ringo, posted 08-08-2018 1:06 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by ringo, posted 08-08-2018 1:36 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17584
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 307 of 441 (837751)
08-08-2018 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Tangle
08-08-2018 9:50 AM


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

Percy writes:

Can the unborn be considered citizens if they have no birth certificate?


Both our societies have decided that the unborn child has rights. I agree with that.

Interesting to know.

Which unborn should society protect? Zygotes? Blastocysts? Embryos? Fetuses?

Or answering the same question again but based on time instead of state: After 1 week? 5 weeks? 10 weeks? 20 weeks? 30 weeks? 40 weeks?

Or answering the same question again but based on developmental characteristics: At conception? When there's a ball of cells? At implantation? When there's a head? When there's a heart? When there's a heartbeat? When there are fingernails? When it begins moving?

I think we have it about right now.

Who has it about right? The US, where each state brews their own abortion laws within the Supreme Court framework? The UK, whose abortion laws I'm unfamiliar but which unless there's some remarkable coincidence are not the same as the US? The EU? Saudi Arabia? Iran?

I'm pretty sure it's the same as religions, where since they can't all be right they must all be wrong.

Isn't the answer obvious?

No. Obviously not.

So why isn't it the women's choice? Should it become publicly known that a woman is seeking an abortion in a country where it is illegal, should she be locked up until she gives birth?

How about the rights of the father?

Yes, what about those rights? Do they override the woman's rights? Can the father force the mother to give birth?

How about the rights of the unborn child?

When does life begin?

When is it alive? You can only kill what is alive.

Are you saying that a baby moments before birth is not alive?

I am not, as you might have guessed, asserting anything. I asked you a question, the same question I've asked you many times. When does life begin?

So are you saying that life begins before birth? When, precisely?

The opposite of alive is dead, are you saying that the baby that has a beating heart a functioning brain and in 1 minutes time will be deserving of a birth certificate is dead then miraculously becomes alive?

I am not, as you might have guessed, asserting anything. Are you saying that life begins at the moment the fetus's heart begins to beat and brain begins to function?

Jar and I *have* answered the question many times (we don't know). I'd like to answer your question, I really would, but in practical terms I don't see how it's possible to terminate a pregnancy just prior to the moment of birth. Let's say the woman is 10 cm dilated and the crown of the head is visible, likely just a very few more pushes are necessary, but suddenly the woman announces, "I'd like to terminate." How would that work exactly? That's a rhetorical question. I'm just trying to be clear about why I don't see how terminating a pregnancy just before birth is possible.

I do not believe that you think that it would be ok for a mother to terminate/abort/kill her unborn baby just before birth.

Terminate and abort are synonyms, kill is not. Believe what you like, I still think what I do and what I've described here.

And you ignored the main gist of what I said, despite quoting all of it: abortion isn't really possible at this point, so continuing to include it in your "scenario" doesn't make sense.

If a woman stuck a knitting needle through her cervix and skewered her baby moments before it was born you could not be philosophically neutral about it - could you?

Okay, so possibly because you do recognize that abortion at this point makes no sense, you're going with the kill scenario. Is the fetus alive at this point? Despite that you won't answer this question, everything you say points to you believing that the fetus is alive just before birth. If you are correct then that means it *can* be killed (as opposed to things which are not alive and so cannot be killed), and killing it would be murder.

Could you say that it's a woman's choice to do that?

If you are correct that the fetus is alive, then since it would be murder the woman cannot purposefully kill the fetus without committing a capital offense.

Please don't reply that in this circumstance the woman is likely to be mentally ill.

The thought hadn't occurred to me. That such a silly possibility concerns you tells me you're really not listening to me. For me it really really really really does come down to when life begins. Start believing that I believe that, because until you do you're going to continue to just be flat out bewildered and stupefied.

I'm trying to establish that you do know, it's just that you can't trust your feelings about it.

I do not, as you might have guessed, know when life begins.

In a more general sense you are correct. I do not trust my feelings to inform my knowledge. I rely upon facts for that. Just as I could not be in favor of vaccination laws without facts, I cannot be in favor of abortion laws without facts.

You keep insisting you know my thinking, so let me comment a bit about your own. You think that because you haven't been able draw an admission that life begins at conception that you'll go around the back door and attempt to draw an admission that certainly life has already begun by the time birth is imminent. Once you obtain that admission you'll push for earlier and earlier admissions of when life began until you reach conception. And you're somehow going to do this based upon how you feel.

I won't argue about the degree to which feelings govern our current laws, but will just say that we should strive for objectivity as opposed to subjectivity in our laws.

The law is a combination of subjective and objective. We feel bad about both rape and murder but rank murder worse. Punishment is arranged in ladders of increasing harm. It's a rational system based on feelings. Feelings are real too and can, if necessary be measured objectively.

We can probably only agree that there is subjectivity in our laws. We probably will never agree that that's a good thing.

Uh, I think a strong argument can be made that theft is objectively wrong.

And how would we know? The test is whether it harms another.

"Harms another"? As in another living human being who has experienced birth?

How much is the harm? Is it worse than rape? Is stealing from a pensioner worse than stealing from a bank?

How is this relevant? And aren't these hypotheticals much too vague? Is the theft of some unnamed thing that could be anything from a stick of gum to a cure for cancer worse than rape? Who could know? Is stealing from a pensioner worse than stealing from a bank? Got me. Was the pensioner tricked out of his entire retirement by an Internet scammer, while the bank just lost a few hundred from a teller's window? Was a gun involved? Etc.

I think killing an unborn baby moments before it is born one of the worse crimes a person could commit, you can't decide whether it's a crime at all.

Yeah, I was already pretty sure you felt that way.

You keep switching back and forth from one message to the next between killing versus aborting the baby. Those are not the same thing, so which one are you arguing?

Yes I know. The reason is that abortion is a euphemism for killing.

This is the language of pro-lifers, and you also seem to be sliding a bit toward their type of tactics (painting gross images like skewering the fetus with a knitting needle). You're trying to persuade by arousing emotional reactions in people. I think the issue is better discussed if kept dispassionate and focused on facts and what we know.

Let's quit messing about, the termination of a foetus kills it. Cells are alive, cells can be killed. Whether we call that 'life' as in an independent, living organism or not, what we're doing is killing the developing foetus.

Good to know where you stand.

If the law of the land were that men must be circumcised by age 12, how would men feel about the law's right to say what they should do with their bodies? Should there be such a a law?

Is a foreskin the equivalent of a human foetus?

No, of course it isn't. So how would men feel about the law's right to say what they should do with their bodies? Should there be such a a law?

In the same way, if the law of the land said that women have no say about terminating their pregnancy after some point that society chooses, how should women feel about the law's right to say what they should do with their bodies? Should there be such a law?

That was the case for many years. In the end society decided that it was less harmful to allow regulated abortion. That seems a reasonable outcome.

But how should women feel about the law's right to say what they should do with their bodies? Should there be such a a law?

Maybe there should, but then society has to answer the question: When does life begin?

It wasn't necessary to answer that question when introducing the current policy was it?

I wasn't involved in any policy, not the current one or any predecessor. It seems to me essential to making laws regarding abortion to know when life begins.

Or rather, we decided to fluff the question and say that termination could be allowed at 12 weeks which was the point that medics decided they could keep a baby alive outside the woman. We don't need an answer to your question to do what we feel is right.

If you're doing what you feel is right does that makes it okay?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2018 9:50 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2018 1:49 PM Percy has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 14920
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 308 of 441 (837752)
08-08-2018 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Tangle
08-08-2018 1:09 PM


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

Any place you go the law there is absolute and real.


And different. Don't lose the plot here. We're talking about when a fetus becomes human and when terminating it constitutes "harm". There is no universal agreement on that. There isn't. There really isn't. Even you should be able to see that right here in this very thread.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2018 1:09 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5973
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 309 of 441 (837753)
08-08-2018 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by Percy
08-08-2018 1:19 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Percy.
I'm going to ignore most of your reply because it's all been done several times. And I'm bored with it. I'll pick out a couple of points.

You keep insisting you know my thinking, so let me comment a bit about your own. You think that because you haven't been able draw an admission that life begins at conception

I don't think life begins at conception and I've never said that life begins at conception. Moreover, even if I did think that life begins at conception I've said that it would be irrelevant to the debate.

Ok?

Once you obtain that admission you'll push for earlier and earlier admissions of when life began until you reach conception. And you're somehow going to do this based upon how you feel.

Weird how we can discuss this for so long and you can be as wrong as this. Which you'll now say is all my fault...

Okay, so possibly because you do recognize that abortion at this point makes no sense, you're going with the kill scenario. Is the fetus alive at this point? Despite that you won't answer this question, everything you say points to you believing that the fetus is alive just before birth. If you are correct then that means it *can* be killed (as opposed to things which are not alive and so cannot be killed), and killing it would be murder.

Of course the foetus is alive the moment before birth - how could it not be. Is it dead? Does it only come alive after birth? What an insane question.

My question is not a real scenario, it's a moral thought experiment, like the trolley problems - it's intended to unpick this dilemma. If you allow the woman to skewer the baby the moment before birth because you believe it to be the woman's choice, why do you not allow it a moment after? What has changed? It's a big moment, on one-side is death on the other is life. Why has the moral imperative changed?

If you're doing what you feel is right does that makes it okay?
Not I, we. The collective, majority opinion. We try to do what's right given what we know and feel when forced to make a decision/policy. That's all we can do.

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 307 by Percy, posted 08-08-2018 1:19 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Percy, posted 08-08-2018 3:12 PM Tangle has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17584
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 310 of 441 (837754)
08-08-2018 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Stile
08-08-2018 10:12 AM


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

Percy writes:

If you look at Table 2, the top four items seem to fall into the category of inconvenience:


How so?
Notice how the numbers don't add up to 100%.

Obviously this is a tally where each woman entered multiple answers.

Yes, obviously. Here's the link again in case anyone wants to see the full table: Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives

Over three-quarters agree that their lives would be "dramatically changed" (well, duh...) and you think they consider it "an inconvenience?"

The text used a form of the word "interfere" 16 times, including in a couple of the items in the table. Forms of the word "dramatic" only appeared 5 times. Draw what conclusions you will.

Again, it's a simply question:

Do you agree that taking care of a child is a 20+ year, life-changing commitment?

You never stop worrying about your kids.

If yes - then obviously the child is more than an "inconvenience."

Sure, that's the reality after the fact, but how many women view it that way or think it through in detail beforehand?

The people who took the survey did not choose to write the survey.
They did not choose the words to report in the final tally, either.

All surveys have this quality.

But the only way an abortion can be decided on because the baby is an "inconvenience" is if the woman is unaware that a child is a 20+ year, life-changing commitment.

Not unaware, but not really thinking about that in any detail.

Otherwise, it's a very important decision and some people simply value their time and resources more in what they have planned rather than an un-planned 20+ year, life-changing commitment.

I don't think all women contemplating abortion view it as "a very important decision." I think there's a great deal of variety in how women feel about it.

Find one woman who thinks raising a child "takes up no time at all" or "hardly any additional effort required" or "barely noticeable" and I'll agree with you.

I think many parents enter parenthood from a very naive standpoint. I know we did. We felt we wouldn't let parenting affect our lifestyle, and for a while we were right. We were young with plenty of energy, and taking care of a baby was easy. My son, our first child, went to the US Open (tennis, Flushing Meadow in Queens) when he was one month old (mostly slept). He went to the movies when he was five months old (slept). But as he grew older the demands of parenting gradually increased and our naiveté slowly melted away. By the time he left home we were totally exhausted.

What I'm trying to say is that before you're a parent you don't have a very good understanding of the time and effort required by parenting. It's all unknown and hypothetical.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Stile, posted 08-08-2018 10:12 AM Stile has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17584
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 311 of 441 (837755)
08-08-2018 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Tangle
08-08-2018 1:49 PM


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

I'm going to ignore most of your reply because it's all been done several times. And I'm bored with it. I'll pick out a couple of points.

I thought you said you were done two or three days ago - I was surprised when you kept going. Sorry I'm boring you.

You keep insisting you know my thinking, so let me comment a bit about your own. You think that because you haven't been able draw an admission that life begins at conception

I don't think life begins at conception and I've never said that life begins at conception. Moreover, even if I did think that life begins at conception I've said that it would be irrelevant to the debate.

But you did call it things like a "potential human life" and a "potential human being", and you called conception the definitive event, and then you called aborting it a harm when harms only apply to actual human beings. Are you sure you're not hiding your true feelings, maybe even from yourself?

Maybe inside you believe abortion is wrong but that it's impractical to ban it. So you rationalize that though it's a harm (a wrong) it's one we feel guilty about, and as long as we feel guilty we can keep doing it.

Once you obtain that admission you'll push for earlier and earlier admissions of when life began until you reach conception. And you're somehow going to do this based upon how you feel.

Weird how we can discuss this for so long and you can be as wrong as this. Which you'll now say is all my fault...

I would only fault you for telling me how wrong I am and then not providing the correct information. If my surmise is wrong then explain where you were going with trying so determinedly to extract an admission that killing a fetus just before imminent birth is a harm? Weren't you just going to extend that harm, in gradually diminishing amounts, back along your continuum to conception?

Sorry if I'm wrong, but it seems a natural conclusion. You were arguing forward from conception, and I didn't find that persuasive. Then you suddenly began arguing about birth, and I naturally assumed you had decided to start at the opposite end from conception and argue backward from there.

Okay, so possibly because you do recognize that abortion at this point makes no sense, you're going with the kill scenario. Is the fetus alive at this point? Despite that you won't answer this question, everything you say points to you believing that the fetus is alive just before birth. If you are correct then that means it *can* be killed (as opposed to things which are not alive and so cannot be killed), and killing it would be murder.

Of course the foetus is alive the moment before birth - how could it not be. Is it dead? Does it only come alive after birth? What an insane question.

Yes, I know it's a possibility you have difficulty entertaining. There's a familiar feel to this, to be discussing with someone who simply declares things so while calling other people's inquiries insane.

My question is not a real scenario, it's a moral thought experiment, like the trolley problems - it's intended to unpick this dilemma. If you allow the woman to skewer the baby the moment before birth because you believe it to be the woman's choice, why do you not allow it a moment after? What has changed? It's a big moment, on one-side is death on the other is life. Why has the moral imperative changed?

Because after birth it is a living human being. Before birth I don't know.

If you're doing what you feel is right does that makes it okay?

Not I, we. The collective, majority opinion. We try to do what's right given what we know and feel when forced to make a decision/policy. That's all we can do.

There's a significant problem with this. Part of it lies outside the scope of this discussion, so as briefly as possible, the laws of a region don't necessarily reflect "collective, majority opinion." If you're watching the primaries here in the US then you understand that, and if you're not then I'll just say that only a small and usually more extreme subset of voters tend to vote in primaries, and it isn't an unfrequent occurrence for the candidates in the main election to represent the fringe elements of their respective parties. This is the choice Republican voters faced with Trump in 2016 - Trump didn't represent anything resembling the mainstream of the party, but the only alternative was a Democrat, so most voted for Trump.

I think you experience the same thing on your side of the pond when coalition governments become necessary and small parties have a disproportionate sway over governance.

These issues with representative government mean that our laws are only inconsistently representative of the "collective, majority opinion." Some pretty horrible things have been done by supposedly representative governments that, by the laws they instituted, were perfectly legal.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2018 1:49 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2018 4:05 PM Percy has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5973
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 312 of 441 (837758)
08-08-2018 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by Percy
08-08-2018 3:12 PM


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

But you did call it things like a "potential human life" and a "potential human being", and you called conception the definitive event, and then you called aborting it a harm when harms only apply to actual human beings. Are you sure you're not hiding your true feelings, maybe even from yourself?

Nope, I'm saying what I feel and what is known. Conception is a definitive point and is the start of potential human life. As such there is a harm involved in interfering with its development. That harm increases from the negligible to the most extreme.

Maybe inside you believe abortion is wrong but that it's impractical to ban it.

No again. I believe abortion is a wrong full stop. But it is a justifiable wrong up to a point. It's always a harm but the harm is on a continuum from almost none - the IUD - to murder. - killing a baby just before birth.

So you rationalize that though it's a harm (a wrong) it's one we feel guilty about, and as long as we feel guilty we can keep doing it.

Close. But not quite correct. It's a wrong but it's a necessary wrong that we have to live with. But we should always know that there's a harm here.

Yes, I know it's a possibility you have difficulty entertaining. There's a familiar feel to this, to be discussing with someone who simply declares things so while calling other people's inquiries insane.

And yet you still can't explain why a baby is not alive a moment before birth but alive a moment after. Why not?

Because after birth it is a living human being. Before birth I don't know.

Exactly what information are you lacking? You know that if the baby is removed from the woman it will be what you call 'alive'. You seem to know what alive is but not what 'dead' is. It's binary you know.

There's a significant problem with this.

Yeh, it's called the human condition. Like I've tried to say, it's not mathematics. Nevertheless, we have to deal with it.

Part of it lies outside the scope of this discussion, so as briefly as possible, the laws of a region don't necessarily reflect "collective, majority opinion." If you're watching the primaries here in the US then you understand that, and if you're not then I'll just say that only a small and usually more extreme subset of voters tend to vote in primaries, and it isn't an unfrequent occurrence for the candidates in the main election to represent the fringe elements of their respective parties. This is the choice Republican voters faced with Trump in 2016 - Trump didn't represent anything resembling the mainstream of the party, but the only alternative was a Democrat, so most voted for Trump.

I think you experience the same thing on your side of the pond when coalition governments become necessary and small parties have a disproportionate sway over governance.

Of course, it's an imperfect system. but it's what we've got until we improve it. By and large we get the will of the people and our institutions reflect our feelings. Hence Texas, hence guns. Hence Sweden publishes it's citizen's tax returns but your president doesn't. The American culture is what it is - generally right wing, strangely religious and conservative religious at that, fearing liberalism still dreaming of the frontier and individualism. Not all want that but just at the moment that's where you are and your wackier laws reflect it.

These issues with representative government mean that our laws are only inconsistently representative of the "collective, majority opinion." Some pretty horrible things have been done by supposedly representative governments that, by the laws they instituted, were perfectly legal.

Of course, but I've lost your plot.


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 311 by Percy, posted 08-08-2018 3:12 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by ooh-child, posted 08-08-2018 4:20 PM Tangle has responded
 Message 320 by Percy, posted 08-08-2018 7:48 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
ooh-child
Member
Posts: 187
Joined: 04-10-2009


(1)
Message 313 of 441 (837761)
08-08-2018 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by Tangle
08-08-2018 4:05 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
It's always a harm but the harm is on a continuum from almost none - the IUD - to murder.

Maybe you missed it the first time I corrected you, so I'll say it again - an IUD prevents fertilization, it does not prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, it does not cause abortions.

I find it somewhat amusing watching several men discuss women's reproductive decisions. Keep on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2018 4:05 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2018 4:37 PM ooh-child has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5973
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 314 of 441 (837763)
08-08-2018 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by ooh-child
08-08-2018 4:20 PM


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

Maybe you missed it the first time I corrected you, so I'll say it again - an IUD prevents fertilization, it does not prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, it does not cause abortions.

The original IUDs prevented implantation. The modern ones now contain progestin which prevents fertisation or copper which has a similar effect. Neither do that perfectly but the IUD also has the original affect of irritating the womb lining and preventing implantation of a ferilised egg.

Do you wish to split hairs further or do you have a material point to make?

I find it somewhat amusing watching several men discuss women's reproductive decisions.

I'm glad to hear you're entertained.

Did the woman become pregnant on her own? Has no one else got a stake in the game?

Keep on.

No guarantees.


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 313 by ooh-child, posted 08-08-2018 4:20 PM ooh-child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by ooh-child, posted 08-08-2018 4:46 PM Tangle has responded

  
ooh-child
Member
Posts: 187
Joined: 04-10-2009


Message 315 of 441 (837764)
08-08-2018 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by Tangle
08-08-2018 4:37 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Not splitting hairs, I just think you should be using the correct information regarding IUDs. If you could show me medical literature describing this "irritating the womb lining and preventing implantation of a ferilised (sic) egg" scenario I'd be enlightened.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2018 4:37 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2018 5:00 PM ooh-child has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1920
21
2223
...
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