Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evangelical Switch from Pro-choice to Anti-abortion
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 196 of 441 (837524)
08-04-2018 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by ringo
08-04-2018 11:40 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
ringo writes:
Exactly. So "harm" is a term that doesn't have much meaning. One woman might think it's "harm" and another woman in the same situation might not think it's harm.
Of course 'harm' has a meaning, it's used in our courts everyday. And it doesn't matter much what an individual thinks or feels about the harm, it's the overall consensus that matters. Just because a psychopath doesn't see harm in murder doesn't mean that there is none.

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 192 by ringo, posted 08-04-2018 11:40 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by ringo, posted 08-04-2018 2:05 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 197 of 441 (837525)
08-04-2018 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Percy
08-04-2018 12:03 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Percy writes:
Is there?
Yes. I've explained why it is, perhaps you could say why it isn't a harm to end a potential life.
You're talking about feelings and laws based upon feelings. It's subjective. Different people will feel differently.
Yes I know. There's really no need to keep repeating this. All our laws are based on harms and the feelings we have about them. There is no objective way of calculating the punishment for *any* harm, but we manage to work it out.
Right and wrong moral positions aren't objective. Different people will feel differently.
Ditto above.
Why? Because you think it's a harm?
I *know* it's a harm and I've explained why. But more importantly society as a whole also has. Again, if there wasn't a problem here, we wouldn't be talking about it.
By leaving them as personal decisions.
So is it ok for an individual to terminate a pregnancy one day before her expected due date?
Mathematics and moral decisions are based on feelings? Really? Well, you're half right.
Now you're just being deliberately daft. Read the sentence again.
The majority of the South felt slavery rightfully moral. That does tell us things, but not about how rightfully moral slavery was.
Improvements in our societies are developmental. Enslaving people is another obvious harm that we eventually grew up enough to overturn.

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 193 by Percy, posted 08-04-2018 12:03 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Percy, posted 08-05-2018 2:32 PM Tangle has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 198 of 441 (837527)
08-04-2018 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Tangle
08-04-2018 1:35 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:
Of course 'harm' has a meaning, it's used in our courts everyday.
I meant, of course, that the way you are using the word in this thread, it has no meaning.
Tangle writes:
And it doesn't matter much what an individual thinks or feels about the harm, it's the overall consensus that matters.
But on the subject of abortion there is no consensus about harm. The only consensus is that the decision should be an individual one.
Tangle writes:
Just because a psychopath doesn't see harm in murder doesn't mean that there is none.
And if a psychopath sees harm in abortion, that doesn't mean there is harm either.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Tangle, posted 08-04-2018 1:35 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Tangle, posted 08-04-2018 5:53 PM ringo has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 199 of 441 (837535)
08-04-2018 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by NoNukes
08-04-2018 12:11 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
NoNukes writes:
That is a beginning, yes. But is it the point a which the fertilized egg is a human being?
No, it's obviously not a human being, but it *is* a potential human being. We don't consider harm to be something inflicted just on people. Torturing a dog is a recognised harm, throwing a brick through a window is a harm. Killing a baby just before birth - even in a medical emergency - is a harm but it's one we justify.
We kill non-human plants and animals all of the time. We don't consider sterilizing medical instruments a "harm" even if millions of instances single-celled life are ended. We don't consider excising a cancerous tutor to be harm.
Sure, swotting mosquitos is a harm, it's just one that we don't feel matters. Unless you're a Janeist.
Given that, I suggest that your definitive beginning point is just a convenient point to discuss because you don't have any better information.
I don't have any better information? No one has any better information, or ever will. But at least the moment of conception is definitive.
But that is not good enough. It's just a way of deciding the debate in the way you want it decided.
How do I want it decided?

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 194 by NoNukes, posted 08-04-2018 12:11 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by NoNukes, posted 08-04-2018 7:54 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 200 of 441 (837537)
08-04-2018 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by ringo
08-04-2018 2:05 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
ringo writes:
I meant, of course, that the way you are using the word in this thread, it has no meaning.
So help me out, what's wrong with the way I'm using the word?
But on the subject of abortion there is no consensus about harm.
There is, it's in our laws.
The only consensus is that the decision should be an individual one.
Only up to a semi-arbitrary date.
And if a psychopath sees harm in abortion, that doesn't mean there is harm either.
Correct. And also pointless.

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 198 by ringo, posted 08-04-2018 2:05 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by ringo, posted 08-06-2018 12:27 PM Tangle has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 201 of 441 (837543)
08-04-2018 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Tangle
08-04-2018 5:41 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
No, it's obviously not a human being, but it *is* a potential human being.
Yes. And that makes a world of difference. The title of this subthread assumes that we are ending a human life. If we accept that for the purpose of argument, then you'd be onto something.
But there is, in fact, a difference between preventing a potential human from being a human, and ending a human life. If there is not, then all contraception is harm using your definition.
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 199 by Tangle, posted 08-04-2018 5:41 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Tangle, posted 08-05-2018 3:02 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 202 of 441 (837546)
08-05-2018 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by NoNukes
08-04-2018 7:54 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
NoNukes writes:
But there is, in fact, a difference between preventing a potential human from being a human, and ending a human life.
Yes and that's why killing a baby is called murder and killing a foetus before a semi-arbitrary date is not. So long, of course, that it's done legally.
If there is not, then all contraception is harm using your definition.
A sperm or an egg can not develop into a human being. Only a fertilised egg has the potential to do that. So no, contraception that prevents the egg and sperm meeting can not be a harm using this definition.

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 201 by NoNukes, posted 08-04-2018 7:54 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by NoNukes, posted 08-05-2018 2:30 PM Tangle has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 203 of 441 (837549)
08-05-2018 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Tangle
08-05-2018 3:02 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
A sperm or an egg can not develop into a human being
Not without some additional steps and conditions, no.
Only a fertilised egg has the potential to do that.
Not without some additional steps and conditions, no.

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 202 by Tangle, posted 08-05-2018 3:02 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Tangle, posted 08-05-2018 3:57 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 204 of 441 (837550)
08-05-2018 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Tangle
08-04-2018 2:03 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:
Percy writes:
Is there?
Yes. I've explained why it is, perhaps you could say why it isn't a harm to end a potential life.
What is a potential life? You're arbitrarily defining the potentiality to begin at conception. I thought Ringo's referencing when grandma and grandpa met made the necessary point.
You're talking about feelings and laws based upon feelings. It's subjective. Different people will feel differently.
Yes I know. There's really no need to keep repeating this.
There is equally no need for you to keep ignoring it.
All our laws are based on harms and the feelings we have about them.
I've never heard it claimed that all our laws are based upon harms before, but I'm not a lawyer. But I do know that there are often court cases to determine whether a harm has been done and if so to what extent. What is a harm and what isn't is not as black and white an issue as you make it out to be.
There is no objective way of calculating the punishment for *any* harm, but we manage to work it out.
I hope you're just speaking for the UK, because here in the US we still have Texas, capital punishment overachiever.
Right and wrong moral positions aren't objective. Different people will feel differently.
Ditto above.
I'll repeat it as often as you claim there are hard answers to inherently unknowable questions.
Why? Because you think it's a harm?
I *know* it's a harm and I've explained why.
You *think* it's a harm and you've explained why you *feel* this way.
But more importantly society as a whole also has.
Society as a whole? Really? In any case, the number of people sharing a subjective feeling has no bearing on reality.
Again, if there wasn't a problem here, we wouldn't be talking about it.
Is there a real problem? Or do you just think there's a problem?
By leaving them as personal decisions.
So is it ok for an individual to terminate a pregnancy one day before her expected due date?
When does life begin?
Mathematics and moral decisions are based on feelings? Really? Well, you're half right.
Now you're just being deliberately daft. Read the sentence again.
I already did my best with your sentence, I think you should be the one to read it again, and if you find you had a clear meaning then you should state it. Clearly this time. Here's your sentence:
Tangle in Message 187 writes:
er, right. But this if human life we're talking about with all its messiness, not, as I say, mathematics and moral decisions are based on feelings.
Moving on:
The majority of the South felt slavery rightfully moral. That does tell us things, but not about how rightfully moral slavery was.
Improvements in our societies are developmental. Enslaving people is another obvious harm that we eventually grew up enough to overturn.
But your claim was, "How the majority feels, tends to give us our answers." Obviously how the majority feels does not necessarily give us correct answers. That we're rejecting desperate Central Americans at our borders now just as we rejected desperate Jews from Germany and Eastern Europe before WWII tells us that we're not really growing up. We're just riding a pendulum back and forth.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Tangle, posted 08-04-2018 2:03 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Tangle, posted 08-05-2018 4:51 PM Percy has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 205 of 441 (837551)
08-05-2018 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Faith
07-27-2018 6:13 PM


The Pro Life arguments quickly become a Pro Choice argument.
quote:
I would argue against abortion myself except where the mother's life is threatened, and as Tangle pointed out, it would still be a "harm" even for that reason.
In Texas, there are 36 maternal deaths for every 100,000 pregnancies (when there is no abortion) and it is cut down to 0.2 per 100,000 when there is an abortion (the earlier the abortion, the safer).
1 death for every 2,800 pregnancies.
A female that has 10 pregnancies (and with no abortions) has a 1 in 280 chance of loosing her life.
(ironically I just got punched in the back - 13 times AS I FINISHED THE ABOVE SENTENCE - by a playful 10 year old girl (SHE LIKES BEATING ME UP!) who just walked in, and I just asked her dad how many children he has. He said 13.)
Poor females tend to get pregnant in relatively high numbers and (as legendarily uninsured Texas shows us) can get some crappy health care.
I think you might want to consider that the Surgeon General under Ronald Reagan (C Everett something was his name) said that all pregnancies are a risk to a mother's life.
He was Pro Life but the dangerousness of pregnancy to all pregnant females cause most people personally opposed to abortion to support legalization (and access).
I don't like abortion myself, but feel it should be legal till the first 12 weeks (and frankly, though I find it gruesome , I currently support abortion up to 22 weeks - like the Supreme Court has decided it should be in ANY case - if access is so limited that it is difficult for a female to get the procedure in 12 weeks) in ideal circumstances, though the terrible (and very dangerous) problem of access in the United States is so bad that it needs to be legal far beyond 12 weeks.
Keep in mind that any limitations on abortion WILL HAVE the potential to cause females to be forced to carry a child that they don't want, and will lead to dreadful health consequences both for her and the developing child. (smoking is common for poor females that are seeking to terminate a pregnancy, even when it looks like a doctor can't be found and even in late term pregnancies)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 07-27-2018 6:13 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 206 of 441 (837553)
08-05-2018 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by NoNukes
08-05-2018 2:30 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
NoNukes writes:
Not without some additional steps and conditions, no.
The absent additional steps are critical. Without them there are only two independent cells with no more potential to create a fullgrown human than a skin cell and of no more importance if one is killed

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 203 by NoNukes, posted 08-05-2018 2:30 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by NoNukes, posted 08-05-2018 7:48 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 207 of 441 (837556)
08-05-2018 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Percy
08-05-2018 2:32 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
I deliberately picked conception as the beginning of a potential human life because it is definitive and is the point when a potential goal new life physically starts. Cells do not start dividing and differentiating when people say hello.
I've never heard it claimed that all our laws are based upon harms before, but I'm not a lawyer. But I do know that there are often court cases to determine whether a harm has been done and if so to what extent. What is a harm and what isn't is not as black and white an issue as you make it out to be.
No harm, no damages or punishment. Some laws are based on potential harm - speeding, conspiracy etc. Most harms are not controversial.
I hope you're just speaking for the UK, because here in L US we still have Texas, capital punishment overachiever.
I’m talking of all law in democratic countries. More or less the laws of the country are based on the moral values of their society - how the majority feel about a harm. That explains Texas. Like it or not.
In any case, the number of people sharing a subjective feeling has no bearing on reality.
I think that if you asked those in death row in Texas whether what they face is reality or not you’ll get a very clear answer. You are confusing science with society and individual behaviour. We have to make decisions on inadequate data.
I already did my best with your sentence, I think you should be the one to read it again, and if you find you had a clear meaning then you should state it. Clearly this time. Here's your sentence:
Tangle in Message 187 writes:
er, right. But this if human life we're talking about with all its messiness, not, as I say, mathematics and moral decisions are based on feelings.
I’ve put an unecessary comma into the sentence, does that help?
But this if human life we're talking about with all its messiness, not, as I say, mathematics, and moral decisions are based on feelings.
But your claim was, "How the majority feels, tends to give us our answers." Obviously how the majority feels does not necessarily give us correct answers.
In democracies it gives us the best answers our institutions are capable of at the time. We *do* make moral progress despite many false steps. It’s developmental.
That we're rejecting desperate Central Americans at our borders now just as we rejected desperate Jews from Germany and Eastern Europe before WWII tells us that we're not really growing up. We're just riding a pendulum back and forth.
You’re hoping for objective, scientific answers in systems that can’t provide them. That’s futility.

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 204 by Percy, posted 08-05-2018 2:32 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Percy, posted 08-05-2018 6:51 PM Tangle has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 208 of 441 (837560)
08-05-2018 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Tangle
08-05-2018 4:51 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:
I deliberately picked conception as the beginning of a potential human life because it is definitive and is the point when a potential goal new life physically starts.
"A potential goal new life"? You maybe mean "the goal of a potential new life"?
We could probably agree that conception is easy to identify, but I could't agree that it is definitive about the origin of new life. I don't know what you mean by potential new life, since for you a zygote is potential new life while a sperm or egg is not. You're drawing distinctions without justification.
Cells do not start dividing and differentiating when people say hello.
But meeting for the first time is definitive, one of your criteria. And there is potentially a future baby.
I've never heard it claimed that all our laws are based upon harms before, but I'm not a lawyer. But I do know that there are often court cases to determine whether a harm has been done and if so to what extent. What is a harm and what isn't is not as black and white an issue as you make it out to be.
No harm, no damages or punishment. Some laws are based on potential harm - speeding, conspiracy etc. Most harms are not controversial.
I thought you were telling me something you knew about the law, that all our laws are based upon harms, but looking this up it seems you were exaggerating. Plenty of laws have nothing to do with harms.
This doesn't speak to the topic but more to your reliance on spurious arguments.
I hope you're just speaking for the UK, because here in L US we still have Texas, capital punishment overachiever.
I’m talking of all law in democratic countries. More or less the laws of the country are based on the moral values of their society - how the majority feel about a harm. That explains Texas. Like it or not.
No no, you misunderstand. I was commenting on where you expressed the opinion that we manage to work out an "objective way of calculating the punishment for *any* harm." Clearly we don't manage to work it out, and Texas is a prime example with their many executions, disproportionately black. How can we trust governments that believe life worth so little to be involved in decisions about when life begins or the rights of the woman?
In any case, the number of people sharing a subjective feeling has no bearing on reality.
I think that if you asked those in death row in Texas whether what they face is reality or not you’ll get a very clear answer.
Well, that was random and irrelevant.
You are confusing science with society and individual behaviour.
You're making things up again. You're the one throwing around words like "definitive." You've been expressing your claims as if they had scientific certainty when all you really have is your feelings.
We have to make decisions on inadequate data.
Why we? We're both male. Women should have the right to make decisions about their bodies, not men or governments.
I already did my best with your sentence, I think you should be the one to read it again, and if you find you had a clear meaning then you should state it. Clearly this time. Here's your sentence:
Tangle in Message 187 writes:
er, right. But this if human life we're talking about with all its messiness, not, as I say, mathematics and moral decisions are based on feelings.
I’ve put an unnecessary comma into the sentence, does that help?
But this if human life we're talking about with all its messiness, not, as I say, mathematics, and moral decisions are based on feelings.
I can't even parse this as a complete sentence. Is this some uncommon example of British syntax? Or did you perhaps mean "is" where you say "if"?
But now that you've put that necessary comma in I think I get your meaning. Yes, of course life is messy. That's why your expressions of certainty are so out of place.
But your claim was, "How the majority feels, tends to give us our answers." Obviously how the majority feels does not necessarily give us correct answers.
In democracies it gives us the best answers our institutions are capable of at the time.
I don't think "the best answers our institutions are capable of at the time" is a particularly strong endorsement. No matter how bad any answer from any point in history you could merely justify it as the best they were capable of at the time. But the evidence strongly suggests that such institutions are capable of coming up with horrible answers any time. US internment of Japanese Americans during WWII is an example. Justifying torture during the Iraq war is another example (the current head of the CIA ran a unit in Thailand that used torture).
We *do* make moral progress despite many false steps. It’s developmental.
That would be nice, but history doesn't support this position. More likely the general worldwide trend toward greater respect for life and freedom is a reflection of increasing wealth and prosperity. If/when wealth starts decreasing this trend will reverse.
That we're rejecting desperate Central Americans at our borders now just as we rejected desperate Jews from Germany and Eastern Europe before WWII tells us that we're not really growing up. We're just riding a pendulum back and forth.
You’re hoping for objective, scientific answers in systems that can’t provide them. That’s futility.
I don't know what you're reading, but it isn't anything I said. I'm commenting that we're exhibiting the same lack of empathy and compassion that we exhibited 80 years ago. Trump's election and Brexit's passage was assisted by anti-immigrant sentiment. We've learned nothing. I do not share your optimism.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Tangle, posted 08-05-2018 4:51 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Tangle, posted 08-06-2018 3:34 AM Percy has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 209 of 441 (837563)
08-05-2018 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Tangle
08-05-2018 3:57 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
The absent additional steps are critical. Without them there are only two independent cells with no more potential to create a fullgrown human than a skin cell and of no more importance if one is killed
I agree. That is why I noted that both cases require additional steps. Let me detail some of them.
The newly fertilized egg requires the woman's body in order to develop into an embryo which will at some point become a human being. Upon conception, the newly fertilized egg must travel down the Fallopian tubes to reach the uterus, and then attach itself and then draw sustenance in order to continue the development that began at fertilzation.
At no point in the process is the ferttilized egg inevitably going to develop into a human being. It is has the potential to do so, yes. In fact, every sperm ejaculated to begin the path towards an ovum has the potential to begin the process.
Now you can choose to focus only on the potential, but not on any of the ifs. In fact, you do that when you want to make a point, and avoid it in response to my challenges emphasizing lesser probability potentials. But in fact, all of the ifs that intervene prior to a fertilized egg becoming a human life are factors in deciding if what we are doing constitutes harm.
And after deciding that an action is a harm the analysis is not over. Competing harms and benefits must also be analyzed in order to make a complete case. Trying to avoid all possible harms is neither rational nor is it the way society functions.
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 206 by Tangle, posted 08-05-2018 3:57 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Tangle, posted 08-06-2018 2:42 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 210 of 441 (837571)
08-06-2018 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by NoNukes
08-05-2018 7:48 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
NoNukes writes:
At no point in the process is the ferttilized egg inevitably going to develop into a human being. It is has the potential to do so, yes.
Ok
In fact, every sperm ejaculated to begin the path towards an ovum has the potential to begin the process.
But on it's own the sperm can not become a baby. It only has a lottery ticket. Only a fertilised egg can become a baby. Conception is the only point in the process where you can say that a baby will be born if all goes perfectly.
Now you can choose to focus only on the potential, but not on any of the ifs. In fact, you do that when you want to make a point, and avoid it in response to my challenges emphasizing lesser probability potentials. But in fact, all of the ifs that intervene prior to a fertilized egg becoming a human life are factors in deciding if what we are doing constitutes harm.
They do not because the ‘harms’ you describe of non-implantation, sperm not finding eggs etc are natural occurrences. It’s only when we intervene by destroying the embryo that harm occurs.
Catholics take the view that any unnatural interventions between egg and sperm is harm. But they are inconsistent in recognising withdrawal and sex outside fertile periods as allowabl birth control. This is muddled thinking. If the intention is to prevent birth then by their definition, those are harms, though they plainly are not.
And after deciding that an action is a harm the analysis is not over. Competing harms and benefits must also be analyzed in order to make a complete case. Trying to avoid all possible harms is neither rational nor is it the way society functions.
And that is exactly my case. I say that the harm involved in preventing the fertised egg developing is on a continuum, from almost negligeable (use of IUD) to murder (killing a foetus an hour before birth). There are also valid arguments for killing the foetus to save the mother's life or to prevent th birth of deformed and damaged children. But these are very hard decisions.
My original point was that abortion at any stage is a harm that we should recognise and be honest with ourselves about. That there are often good reasons for what we do does not let us off the moral hook.

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 209 by NoNukes, posted 08-05-2018 7:48 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by NoNukes, posted 08-06-2018 8:49 AM Tangle has replied
 Message 213 by Percy, posted 08-06-2018 9:03 AM Tangle has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024