Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evangelical Switch from Pro-choice to Anti-abortion
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 413 of 441 (838173)
08-15-2018 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 393 by NoNukes
08-14-2018 12:35 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
NoNukes writes:
I think your complaint's a red herring distracting from the real issue, that the point of viability cannot be objectively established.
Not a red herring. For a large number of folks in the US, we can say a lot about the available technology and about what would constitute viability of the unborn. In fact, our jurisprudence uses rough rules of thumb regarding viability, with the envelope being pushed in the states as technology improves.
I keep saying I don't know. If our jurisprudence knows then obviously it knows some things I don't know. Please enlighten me and dispel my ignorance.
Yes, there is some "variability", but we have some basic and objective ways to talk about viability. You are simply incorrect about that.
It's pretty hard to be incorrect about things not said. I never said there were no efforts to bring some objectivity into the determination of viability, but consensus is lacking, especially worldwide.
I've said many times that I don't *know
Yes, you have said that. I maintain that there is not much doubt about the issue for which your own answer is "I don't know."
It's an incongruous reality that certainty and lack of facts seem to go hand in hand. The more facts the less people feel they know. It feels to me that the certainty felt by so many reflects a lack of objective data.
Is US law based upon fact or upon feelings and opinions?
Of course, there is some opinion involved. Hopefully, it is informed opinion.One thing we can say with regard to the legal definition is that it does give us an answer. Your own answer uses the term personhood. I asked you if you meant something other than the legal definition, and instead of either answering or helping me understand what you meant, you posted this question. How does that help?
I don't understand all the attention being given legal opinions. Legal opinions are as capable of being wrong or uninformed or underinformed or misinformed as any other opinions. You were the one who seemed to have some awareness of the concept of personhood as a legal construct, so naturally I asked you a question. And your answer was the one I expected. To the extent that personhood is part of our legal foundation it's subjective.
For my part, I doubt personhood is in any objective way entwined in our laws. Wikipedia says (bold in original):
quote:
Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law and is closely tied with legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by NoNukes, posted 08-14-2018 12:35 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 418 by NoNukes, posted 08-15-2018 2:22 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 415 of 441 (838175)
08-15-2018 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 409 by Tangle
08-15-2018 4:22 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:
Percy writes:
Percy doesn't know if there is.
But you agree with the Roe verdict!!
I agree with the portion of the Roe v. Wade decision that was quoted in the Abortion in the United States article you cited, and I don't agree with the layers of interpretation you piled on top of it. One thing Roe v. Wade said is:
quote:
We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
So the Supreme Court conceded that it isn't known when life begins. You reinforced this by never responding to the many times I asked you when life begins. Here's a link to Roe v. Wade. The word "harm" only appears twice and not in the context you've been using it. Many uses of the word "compelling" place it in quotes, including the first use:
quote:
Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term.
How does placing "compelling" in quotes affect its meaning? I don't know and the decision doesn't say.
The verdict that says it's wrong to kill a baby after x weeks. We both agree that. How can you agree and then say you don't know?
The decision doesn't say that. It does take a trimester approach and says that the compelling interest is stronger in each succeeding trimester. It also says there is a compelling interest in maintaining the life of both the fetus and the mother that must be balanced.
I agree with their decision that was made in the absence of objective knowledge, and the decision makes clear that they are doing the best they can without such knowledge.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by Tangle, posted 08-15-2018 4:22 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 416 by Tangle, posted 08-15-2018 8:52 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 419 of 441 (838198)
08-15-2018 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by Tangle
08-15-2018 8:52 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:
Percy writes:
So the Supreme Court conceded that it isn't known when life begins. You reinforced this by never responding to the many times I asked you when life begins.
Jesus, Mary and Joseph! I've said over and over again that not only do I not know when life begins but that nobody knows nor will they ever know.
Since you don't know, why do you keep asking me why I don't know?
The only thing we know for sure is that the path to a baby starts at conception. (And not when gandad says hello to grandma.)
And yet if grandpa never met grandma, no baby.
Here's a link to Roe v. Wade. The word "harm" only appears twice and not in the context you've been using it. Many uses of the word "compelling" place it in quotes, including the first use:
And here's what the judgement comes down to
quote:
So, rather than asserting that human life begins at any specific point, the court simply declared that the State has a "compelling interest" in protecting "potential life" at the point of viability.
Now what possible thing can the state have a compelling interest (in quote marks, note) in protecting the potential life from? Well, the answer is from harm. The harm being to kill it. There's no other possible conclusion.
A minor note about your quotation marks comment: Realize that you're not quoting from Roe v. Wade. You're quoting from the article you cited, Abortion in the United States. The phrase "compelling interest" doesn't appear between quotation marks in Roe v. Wade. There's the link, look it up.
Here's a portion of Roe v. Wade addressing this issue. It runs on much much longer but is more detailed and interesting:
quote:
IV
  1. The American law. In this country, the law in effect in all but a few States until mid-19th century was the pre-existing English common law. Connecticut, the first State to enact abortion legislation, adopted in 1821 that part of Lord Ellenborough's Act that related to a woman "quick with child." 29 The death penalty was not imposed. Abortion before quickening was made a crime in that State only in 1860. 30 In 1828, New York enacted legislation 31 that, in two respects, was to serve as a model for early anti-abortion statutes. First, while barring destruction of an unquickened fetus as well as a quick fetus, it made the former only a misdemeanor, but the latter second-degree manslaughter. Second, it incorporated a concept of therapeutic abortion by providing that an abortion was excused if it "shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such mother, or shall have been advised by two physicians to be necessary for such purpose." By 1840, when Texas had received the common law, 32 only eight American States [410 U.S. 113, 139] had statutes dealing with abortion. 33 It was not until after the War Between the States that legislation began generally to replace the common law. Most of these initial statutes dealt severely with abortion after quickening but were lenient with it before quickening. Most punished attempts equally with completed abortions. While many statutes included the exception for an abortion thought by one or more physicians to be necessary to save the mother's life, that provision soon disappeared and the typical law required that the procedure actually be necessary for that purpose.
    Gradually, in the middle and late 19th century the quickening distinction disappeared from the statutory law of most States and the degree of the offense and the penalties were increased. By the end of the 1950's, a large majority of the jurisdictions banned abortion, however and whenever performed, unless done to save or preserve the life of the mother. 34 The exceptions, Alabama and the District of Columbia, permitted abortion to preserve the mother's health. 35 Three States permitted abortions that were not "unlawfully" performed or that were not "without lawful justification," leaving interpretation of those standards to the courts. 36 In [410 U.S. 113, 140] the past several years, however, a trend toward liberalization of abortion statutes has resulted in adoption, by about one-third of the States, of less stringent laws, most of them patterned after the ALI Model Penal Code, 230.3, 37 set forth as Appendix B to the opinion in Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 205.
    It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most States today. At least with respect to the early stage of pregnancy, and very possibly without such a limitation, the opportunity [410 U.S. 113, 141] to make this choice was present in this country well into the 19th century. Even later, the law continued for some time to treat less punitively an abortion procured in early pregnancy.
...
X
In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches [410 U.S. 113, 163] term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.
This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [410 U.S. 113, 164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
I think if the Supreme Court had harm in mind that they would have said harm. I suspect the wording was carefully chosen.
I agree with their decision that was made in the absence of objective knowledge, and the decision makes clear that they are doing the best they can without such knowledge.
So, like I say, you agree with the decision. But simultaneously claim you don't know.
I'm fine with the Roe v. Wade decision, which just like me claims they don't know.
If all you're saying is that you don't know whether the baby is alive or a person or whatever before birth, well ok, that's a dumb argument but ok, but if you're saying because of that, you don't know whether it's right or wrong to kill a baby just before birth - whilst agreeing with Roe - I just don't know what to say.
I think you're taking things you feel are true and mistaking them for things you know are true. Roe v. Wade clearly expressed the great amount of uncertainty. The justices had to make a decision, even in the absence of certainty. I don't have to make a decision, but I'm fine with Roe v. Wade. I do think it would be improved if this part were modified, because it's the part that allows abortion clinics to be shuttered by forcing upon them too-stringent requirements (this also appeared as part of the long quote above):
quote:
Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by Tangle, posted 08-15-2018 8:52 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 422 by Tangle, posted 08-16-2018 3:40 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 420 of 441 (838201)
08-15-2018 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 418 by NoNukes
08-15-2018 2:22 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
NoNukes writes:
I don't understand all the attention being given legal opinions.
I asked you for your definition of personhood. You are the one who introduced the term into our discussion.
Why would I have my own definition of personhood? I already said I'm using the one from Wikipedia. I quoted this portion back in Message 413, which says:
quote:
Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law and is closely tied with legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty.
Later in your message you talk about the legal definition of personhood, and apparently there is one here in the US. In the section under American Law it says:
quote:
In Federal law, the concept of legal personhood is formalized by statute (1 USC 8) as a "member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development."
So obviously a fetus, having by definition not yet been born, is not a person. But does the fetus have some of the rights of personhood?
That's what the Wikipedia article on human beings was commenting on that I quoted back in Message 336, that "various levels of personhood" are extended to fetuses in some jurisdictions. It doesn't say that they extend personhood to fetuses, just "various levels of personhood":
quote:
The zygote divides inside the female's uterus to become an embryo, which over a period of 38 weeks (9 months) of gestation becomes a fetus. After this span of time, the fully grown fetus is birthed from the woman's body and breathes independently as an infant for the first time. At this point, most modern cultures recognize the baby as a person entitled to the full protection of the law, though some jurisdictions extend various levels of personhood earlier to human fetuses while they remain in the uterus.
I'm interpreting "levels of personhood" to refer to some of the rights of personhood, such as the right to life.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by NoNukes, posted 08-15-2018 2:22 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 421 of 441 (838202)
08-15-2018 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 414 by Tangle
08-15-2018 7:44 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:
Percy writes:
I'm trying to understand why you don't realize you don't know, either.
I know that it is wrong to arbitrarily kill a baby immediately before is born and if you don't then I'm at a loss to know what to say next that isn't simply offensive.
Earlier you confused two different senses of the word "alive", and now you're confusing two different senses of the word "know". There's knowing something in a factual sense, and there's knowing something in a moral sense. I've been saying I do not know in any factual sense when life begins, and you're concluding that that means I don't know in a moral sense whether murder is right or wrong. Of course murder is wrong, but murder requires taking a person's life. Is a fetus a person?
They said that because they feel it is wrong, not because they can prove it is wrong.
'They feel it's wrong'. Of course they feel that it's wrong! You can't prove that first degree murder is wrong or rape is wrong either. Or that anything is wrong for that matter. These are all moral decisions based on our feelings about harm. Scientific proofs aren't possible in forming these judgements.
More clearly, they said that because they feel it is wrong, not because they can prove a fetus is a person.
But you've invented your own Roe v. Wade interpretation, which I don't agree with. I agree with the actual language of the ruling, not all the things you claim they implied.
How can you agree with Roe which says it's wrong to harm babies after a given time but not agree with Roe saying that?
I assume you meant to say that Roe v. Wade says it's wrong to harm fetuses, not babies. Here's another part of Roe for you to ponder:
quote:
In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by Tangle, posted 08-15-2018 7:44 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 423 of 441 (838212)
08-16-2018 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 422 by Tangle
08-16-2018 3:40 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:
Ok Percy I give up for now. I can only take so much equivocation and avoidance.
Oh, okay. Too bad. I thought we were just beginning to get into enough detail to make it interesting.
I do think it worth repeating that Roe v. Wade quote again:
quote:
In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Tangle, posted 08-16-2018 3:40 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by Tangle, posted 08-16-2018 11:11 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 430 of 441 (838230)
08-16-2018 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 424 by Tangle
08-16-2018 11:11 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:
Percy writes:
In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth.
Could I get your permission to edit your post so it doesn't credit me with authoring this paragraph of Roe v. Wade?
Ok, I'll bite.
Why do you think this matters to the question you have difficulty answering?
Okay, if you're going to insist on "pissing contest" mode, why are you not able to see the obvious?
If you don't know that killing a baby just before it's born is right or wrong, I simply don't know how to respond. It's so self-evidently an enormous wrong.
And yet you can only declare your position, not explain it.
It really troubles me that you're still trying to find legal/scientific definitions of words when both science and law have said that they're not possible.
What should really trouble you is how you've become so confused.
We don't intellectualise crimes like murder and rape - we can't prove that they're wrong, we just know they're wrong and society as a whole has accepted it.
I've said as much. Perhaps you should expend more of your effort reading what I write and less in posturing.
Meanwhile the law says that even though they can't yet give un-born babies all the protection of born babies you still can not kill a baby at that late stage because it's quite obvious to them that it's wrong. Why it's not to you is a mystery - especially when you agree with the Roe verdict.
I think if you take things down an emotional notch and attempt to engage the discussion sincerely and dispassionately that you might find the understanding you claim you seek.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by Tangle, posted 08-16-2018 11:11 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 431 by Tangle, posted 08-16-2018 4:22 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 432 of 441 (838242)
08-16-2018 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 431 by Tangle
08-16-2018 4:22 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:
Well I tried,...
You tried to badger instead of discuss and persuade.
...but I'm sorry Percy, I"m no longer interested in discussing this with you,...
You already weren't discussing this with me.
...we're not going to make any progress,...
That would all be up to you. This is the third time you've declared you're exiting the discussion. These multiple exits feel very familiar.
...it'll just annoy both of us.
I'm not annoyed. I don't mind repeating explanations, but it could be that "I don't know" is not an answer you could ever find yourself able to accept.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by Tangle, posted 08-16-2018 4:22 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by Tangle, posted 08-17-2018 4:17 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 434 of 441 (838255)
08-17-2018 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 433 by Tangle
08-17-2018 4:17 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:
But instead of answering what I believe ro be core questions about the issues you came back with more equivocation and avoidance.
I think progress is possible if you ended all the dramatics and accusations and instead focused on sincere, good faith discussion. You seem to find disagreement with you base and a sign of immorality.
So yeh, I'm now withdrawing from discussing this with you for a while longer.
I'll just keep a count of your withdrawals: that's number 4.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by Tangle, posted 08-17-2018 4:17 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 437 of 441 (838261)
08-17-2018 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 436 by Tangle
08-17-2018 9:55 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Gee, the similarity is uncanny. Glad you two are besties now.
If you're just here to misrepresent then denigrate your fellow debaters maybe it would be best if you did actually finally do what you've been saying you're going to do and withdraw from the discussion. But if you'd like to constructively discuss the topic then I am here.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by Tangle, posted 08-17-2018 9:55 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by Faith, posted 08-17-2018 10:39 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 439 of 441 (838317)
08-19-2018 7:11 AM


Side Issue: Is the World Getting Better or Worse
There was some discussion up thread about Stephen Pinker's thesis that the world is on an improving trend of declining violence. Not that this isn't true, but it's an emergent property of increasing wealth. If/when wealth declines so will the trend of declining violence, along with other positive trends, such as declining wars, declining poverty, improving health and longevity, etc.
Ted Talks runs a weekly radio show of interviews and Ted Talk excerpts of people who have given Ted Talks, and this week's included Stephen Pinker talking about his book The Better Angels of Our Nature, the one that Tangle referenced up thread that sparked this side discussion.
Also on the show was Paul Gilding, former Greenpeace director and a Fellow at the University of Cambridge's Institute for Sustainability Leadership. Gilding spoke about his book The Great Disruption: Why the Climate Crisis Will Bring On the End of Shopping and the Birth of a New World. Gilding's thesis is that The Earth is Full (the title of his Ted Talk), and that a number of current trends are running in the wrong direction, climate change being the most significant driver of change, but sustainability of resources, food production and pollution also being important. Gilding is optimistic, believing that civilization will survive, though not without massive catastrophes first.
Some conclude from Pinker's ideas that mankind is getting better, that we are learning. We are not. Evolution doesn't work that fast. We're still the violent, brutish thugs we were 200,000 years ago. Our wealth (i.e., our improving ability to take advantage of natural resources) has enabled us to evolve increasingly enlightened societies that emphasize freedom, happiness and health. But there's only one Earth, and as Earth's human population presses toward and then past 8 billion it will reach its limit of how much humanity it can sustain, particularly as we spectacularly fail to address climate change.
It cannot be predicted whether this will happen as a gradual decline or as a crash. I suspect the former, but punctuated by spectacular disasters of both climate and food. But whatever the pace of this change, it will bring with it increasing violence and decreasing freedom, happiness and health as nation states battle over resources with the nuclear threat ever present. Our primary hope must be that science and technology somehow win the race against climate change, but this possibility is in the hands of politicians who in many western countries, by far the most powerful block of countries in the world, are given power by electorates too dominated by blockheads swayed by the arguments of populists, scare mongers, haters and reality show hosts.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by Faith, posted 08-19-2018 10:09 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 441 by Tangle, posted 08-19-2018 2:31 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024