I made a comment on the other side that made me wonder ... are there any American political groups that take a reasonable, moderate position on religion?
Basically, all I see on one side is the Religious Right, which is all about the promotion of a single conservative religion — one that I often take serious exception with, and which doesn't particularly respect my beliefs, or the beliefs of other minority religions (or lacks thereof).
Then on the other side, I see the folks who tell me that I have no business allowing my religion to influence my political opinions, that the mention of God invalidates any idea as religious imperialism or fanaticism, and that religion should be a private thing that you keep hidden from public life, much like an unsightly sore.
I don't agree with either of these positions. I don't think that evangelical Christianity should dominate American law and culture, but I also don't think that religion should be dismissed from the public forum or treated as an ugly, destructive influence. Is there anyone out there who actually agrees with that position? Or am I alone?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's my position.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
We need to start a Dagonee Party! Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Personally I'm a fairly religious Jew, but I don't think laws should be made with any relgious beliefs in mind. There are a lot more Republicans with this mindset than people are lead to believe due to the high volume of anti-homosexual rhetoric.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
I actually suspect that most people have a moderate view on religion, just like most people have a moderate view on most issues. The voices in politics are divided, but the people aren't.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
I like the Puppy Party better.
It's got cuteness! Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
Puppy, that would describe my feelings to a T. I am very bothered by the Right who insist the US is a "Christian " nation, and who try to use that to influence legislation about, for example, what adults choose to do in their bedrooms. But I cannot seperate my faith from my political beliefs- for example, Christ spoke often about the poor, which means I would not vote for a candidate whose policies would making life harder for the poor
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
quote:I actually suspect that most people have a moderate view on religion, just like most people have a moderate view on most issues. The voices in politics are divided, but the people aren't.
i think Lady Jane is right. Moderates aren't good press.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:We need to start a Dagonee Party!
A hard-line pro-life, anti-gun control, near-absolutist free speech, generally pro-free market with regulations designed principally to allocate true costs and provide accurate information, pro-school choice, anti-federal investment and interference in local concerns, in favor of converting all civil marriages to civil unions with equal access to same sex couples, squishy on the death penalty and pro-drug rehab programs but otherwise very tough on crime and criminals, pro safety-net-only direct welfare benefits, pro-government investment in economic infrastructure including job training, with a foreign policy skeptical of the UN or international governance party?
I'd get like 3 votes. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I might not agree with everything but it is a lot closer than anything else out there. Make it four votes Dag.
AJ
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I'm already a member of the Dag cabal or I'd join again. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Then on the other side, I see the folks who tell me that I have no business allowing my religion to influence my political opinions, that the mention of God invalidates any idea as religious imperialism or fanaticism, and that religion should be a private thing that you keep hidden from public life, much like an unsightly sore.
That is the moderate (gutless) position. The radical (correct) position is that freedom of religion was a necessary step on the way to freedom from religion.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
At first, I didn't see Dag's last line, Banna, and I thought you were voting multiple times. In that case, you should move up to Washington, that's how we do it here
Dag, I pretty much fall in line with a lot of what you're saying ... though I may be somewhat squishier on abortion and gun control, and I don't know where I stand on the UN. I have been annoyed recently at conservative commentators jumping on the Oil-for-Food scandal as an opportunity to just say "Abolish the UN!" I can't help but think that would be a huge step backwards ...
Mostly, though, I am a proponent of high expectations and standards of behavior for individuals, particularly the expectaion that people will take personal responsibility for their actions. That position informs a lot of the rest of my opinions ...
Anyway, getting off my own subject, I guess Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Except for gun-control and the lack of squishyness on the death penalty I would say that's the closest thing to an accurate description of my political views I've ever seen.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Except for the marriage part, I'm right there with you.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Better than the other choices out there Dag. Not 100% with you of course, but you'd still get my vote.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Would like to point out that the loser of the presidential election was the sort of person puppy seems to be looking for. Religion influences personal life, and is a major part of his private life, and effects the way he views policy, but does not allow religious teachings to create policy.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
The problem with Kerry's approach in my opinion, was that while I agreed with him in principle, he was willing to take that principle so far as to endorse actions he believed were wrong simply because his beliefs were based on religion. While I don't let religion influence my political view, I still see abortion as wrong. Kerry was never capable of considering that abortion might be wrong from a secular standpoint.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
NFL, you're pro-gun control? I didn't know that.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Not with you on abortion or gun control (depending on your definition of "gun control") but I like the rest.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Oh, while we're all defining our political positions, I forgot to mention that I'm less firmly-decided about gay marriage than Dagonee is ... though I'm certainly in a more moderate position than, say, OSC Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I am ambivalent on the gun thing as well. I think everyone should be able to have a gun, but I think quantity and type should be able to be regulated.
P.S. And I hold the line on marriage as well. I know it personally hurts people that I feel this way, but I support the war in Iraq too and that actually kills people.
[ January 17, 2005, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I could amend gun control to "anti-gun most ownership restrictions or prohibitions but pro-registration and dealer regulation."
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I am, although the last time I posted in a gun control thread however, you were probably a year away from joining Hatrack. My ideal would be only police, military personel, and those who need guns to hunt for business purposes (food and clothing although not entertainment) would be allowed to have guns. I don't see that as a realistic possibility however, so I only really advocate tough control as opposed to a full scale ban.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I support gun ownership because it is an equalizer for women. (Granted that I've spouted the maxim "don't carry a weapon you don't want used on you".)
But I don't like the carnival style marketing of guns.
P.S. I see squishy on the death penalty, what does that mean? I'd like to see no death penalty but also more life without parole.
[ January 17, 2005, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Kerry was never capable of considering that abortion might be wrong from a secular standpoint."
I think thats because, secularly, its very obvious that legal abortion is a necessary ill that must be available to maintain the structure of a free and equal society. As well, I think its very likely that this is a question Kerry wrestled with as a much younger man. He's been a senator for a long time, after all, and has been in public service since he joined the navy over 35 years ago. In a presidential election, its very very rare to hear explanations for positions that politicians adopt, and asking Kerry to explain the other side of one of his positions, during election season, would have garunteed he lost... after all, the whole Bush campaign was geared around making Kerry sound as if he couldn't make up his mind.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'm curious, mothertree, since its also something currently being discussed on this thread, how you feel about abortion? Abortion has DEFINETELY been an equalizer for women, to a far greater extent then gun ownership has been.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think thats because, secularly, its very obvious that legal abortion is a necessary ill that must be available to maintain the structure of a free and equal society.
If by "obvious" you mean no reasonable, secular case can be made for banning abortion, you're dead wrong.
quote:I see squishy on the death penalty, what does that mean? I'd like to see no death penalty but also more life without parole.
It means I think the current death penalty system needs abolition or reform, that I'm not sure I'd vote to keep it in my state, but that the State has the moral authority to execute criminals.
See? Squishy.
Dagonee
[ January 17, 2005, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Dag, that's awesome. Despite the fact that you are far better-informed than I am about just about everything, we have the exact same position on the death penalty, as far as I can tell. Ie, that the state has the authority to institute the death penalty when necessary ... but that I would personally rarely judge it necessary.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
There are many logical adjuncts to abortion, just none that the dominant category of politicians is willing to enact on their own sex.
As a Christian, I find an enthusiasm for guns and the death penalty to be as problematic as gay marriage. I don't see how the right can promote their ideal as a Christian nation.
Paul: I believe life begins before birth. I don't know when, exactly, and until science has determined it I consider abortion to be killing an innocent baby. Effectively, I'm a "from conception" advocate. The fact that it has economic benefits for the mother (in 95% of cases) is not relevant in my view.
[ January 17, 2005, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"If by "obvious" you mean no reasonable, secular case can be made for banning abortion, you're dead wrong."
I've never seen one. I've also seen about 50 attempts. Every so called secular argument I've seen for banning abortion comess back to a belief that abortion, at any stage, is murder... and that position relies on religious beliefs. Philosophically, there's no reason to call an embryo a person, unless you invoke a soul. Because murder is the killing of a person... not the taking of life, and in order to ban abortion, you have to establish that an embryo is a person. A person is a being with rights and responsibilities, subject to the protection of the law. Further, there's no way to ban abortion and enforce that ban without violating several tenets of what I, and most americans, consider to be reasonable secular principles.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: I believe life begins before birth. I don't know when, exactly, and until science has determined it I consider abortion to be killing an innocent baby. Effectively, I'm a "from conception" advocate. The fact that it has economic benefits for the mother (in 95% of cases) is not relevant in my view.
That pretty much sums up my view on abortion. I would rather err on the side of caution and not risk killing something that could be a life than take that risk in favor of economical consideration. I don't see why religion is necessary to believe a baby that is not yet born is valuable as a life, but religion isn't necessary to to believe that a baby that is born is valuable as a life.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I think the initial post seriously mischaracterizes the position of 99.9% of people who believe that the state has no business promoting religion, and misunderstands why many people have a problem with the use of God *solely* to support an idea.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I was going to say the same thing, Storm.
Geoff, I suspect that the modern Democratic party is far, far closer to your interpretation of a "moderate" religious position than its detractors would have you believe. I know it's far too religious for me, for example. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*would probably vote for Dag* But, i don't believe the state has the right to execute people. I don't think that banning abortion will get rid of it, only pull it underground and people who can afford it will still get them. it would be best to promote education instead of just banning it out right. I don't think that any church should be allowed control of government policies, but, it's still important to look at all perspectives when considering what is best for the country. Promoting abstinence only is not enough, telling kids "don't have sex" doesn't work when you have half naked people sauntering around all over the media as appealing as warm fresh cookies. Kids must also be taught about contraceptives, about saying no if they don't want to have sex and about alternatives. It's not about moderation, more about what works best. It is unfair to deny gays the right to civil union or marriage when they pay their taxes and work like straight people do. As long as a person is not a convicted criminal their rights should be upheld.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Storm, I'm sure the first part of my post also sounds like a mischaracterization to conservative evangelical Christians. However, this is how both sides come across to a person who is standing between them, rather than on one side or the other. I know there are plenty of reasonable people on both sides who don't quite mean it the way it gets said, but that doesn't mean I don't feel dismissed or alienated Or even that I shouldn't.
Quoting Paul (the hatracker, not the apostle) ...
quote:Every so called secular argument I've seen for banning abortion comess back to a belief that abortion, at any stage, is murder... and that position relies on religious beliefs.
Only in the sense that it relies on a person presuming to know what cannot be proven scientifically — that an unborn human should or should not be valued as equal to or nearly equal to an independent, living human.
It can't be proven scientifically because whether you take a position for or against abortion, it is all about values.
Science can only describe how the world functions. It can declare odds of survival at different stages of development, for instance. It can record and describe the behavior of an unborn human and make guesses as to its level of consciousness, if any.
But what it cannot even begin to do is determine what we, as morally-conscious beings, should value. Do we value this incipient human life more highly or less highly than we do the freedom and convenience of its mother? Does that value change with that unborn human's level of development, or with the mother's situation, at what point, and why? These are questions we can only answer by our consciences, and not by any scientific study.
So in a sense, yes, it always comes down to "religion" ... if by "religion" you mean "all things that humans determine as a matter of faith and conscience, rather than through science" ... but it always comes down to that on BOTH sides of the debate, not just on one.
[ January 17, 2005, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: all things that humans determine as a matter of faith and conscience
I think what makes me uncomfortable is the use of the phrase "faith and conscience," as I consider the two things to be remarkably dissimilar. I'm perfectly happy with humans relying on conscience when making ethical decisions; I'm not a fan of faith, though, as an alternative to conscience.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
So anyway, Paul, my point that directly addresses yours is, I don't think abortion is murder. I think it's wrong, but not because I think I've found a way to construe that existing murder statutes apply to unborn humans in some incontrovertible way.
Rather, I think that we have laws disallowing murder for a reason, while we also have laws permitting the death penalty and war for a reason. We have determined, as a society, that human life is worth protecting by law, but that there are controlled situations in which lives can be taken for the sake of some higher value.
I, personally, have made a similar determination about abortion. I think those incipient lives are worth protecting by law, though there are situations in which their value is outweighed by some other consideration (a threat to the mother's health, for instance, or the aftermath of a rape). Why do I value the lives of unborn humans this way, while many people value other considerations much more highly? That would take years to explain.
But it can't be dismissed as simply as, "You can't prove it's murder, so it's all right!" Murder isn't the only action in the world that is morally and ethically wrong. It IS possible for something to be wrong without it being murder.
And using the reasoning you're using, really, it's possible to declare that ANYTHING should be legal, since at their roots, all of our laws are based on shared values that cannot be proven "true", and that cannot be founded solely in other proven laws.
[ January 17, 2005, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Tom, to make you more comfortable, that line could easily have read "faith OR conscience" and meant the exact same thing to me People couch their conscientious decisions in different language, based on their background, and I wanted to cover all bases — both religous and irreligious — since I believe that ultimately, at their core, both groups make these kinds of decisions in similar ways.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I wanted to cover all bases — both religous and irreligious — since I believe that ultimately, at their core, both groups make these kinds of decisions in similar ways
See, I don't believe that. If you make a decision because it seems like it'll produce the best outcome, you're acting based on logic. If you make a decision because it seems like it's the most moral of the alternatives, you're making a decision based on conscience. What role does faith play in either of these? (Answer: none.)
By this standard, faith just adds an extra element to either of those two approaches; it gives you another reason to believe that your approach is the logical one (like OSC's stand on gay marriage), or gives you another reason to believe that your approach is the moral one (like most people's opposition to abortion.)
At best, then, faith is merely a factor in a larger decision; that decision still comes down to conscience or logic. Which is a good thing, IMO.
[ January 17, 2005, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I don't think that any church should be allowed control of government policies, but, it's still important to look at all perspectives when considering what is best for the country.
Practically nobody in America would disagree with that, it seems to me.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Would you consider the perspective of a neo-Nazi? A Communist who believes Stalin was the greatest-ever leader of a nation-state? A headhunting, illiterate cannibal who believes cars are evil spirits?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Tom -- from what you just posted, it sure sounds like you agree, except for where you said you don't agree.
[ January 17, 2005, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Cool it, KoM. Or which religious people on this board would you say are in any way as delusional as your examples -- whom, it may be noted, are also free under our system to vote according to their beliefs, right or wrong?
------
"Tom, from what you just posted, it sure sounds like you agree, except for where you said you don't agree."
Again, that's because I don't think we should be equating faith with conscience. The two are hugely different things; if anything, the former is merely a modifier of the latter.
[ January 17, 2005, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Why not? If a communist has an interesting perspective on a certain thing, if a cannibal makes a fascinating point, it happens. Good ideas can come from anywhere, no reason to dismiss them if they are rational and logical. Even wise people can come up with ridiculous ideas. It varies.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"But it can't be dismissed as simply as, "You can't prove it's murder, so it's all right!""
I didn't say abortion is all right. I said it shouldn't be banned. There is a huge gulf in between those two positions.
" Why do I value the lives of unborn humans this way,"
I value unborn humans too... but here's the thing. I can't find a reason or way to ban abortions, from secular grounds, without putting a higher value on unborn humans then on many other principles that the vast majority of americans would say are "reasonable" and important principles. In the end, every argument I've seen that seeks to ban abortion, values the unborn human higher then those principles because of a view that the fetus or embryo already has a soul, or the equivalent.
As a society, we ban things because they are more destructive to society if we allow them, then if we ban them. Not only that, the practice has to be abhorrent. And, according to our constitution, has to be banned in such a way as to preserve american principles. Otherwise, we simply shun them, or regulate them in some way.
In order to be FOR banning abortion, you have to value the unborn human MORE then constitutional principles. (Insert conservative rant about privacy, insert comments that privacy was an established constitutional principle by the early 1800's, insert whole slew's of side bar about constitutional principles). Thats tough to do, without viewing the embryo as already having a soul. In fact, so far, I've found it to be impossible.
"Murder isn't the only action in the world that is morally and ethically wrong"
Yes, but whether an action is morally and ethically wrong isn't the determining factor in whether we ban it. Besides that, why do we consider many actions to be morally and ethically wrong? Why do we consider abortion morally and ethically wrong? Why is abortion viewed to be SO morally and ethically repugnant that people want to ban it? My contention is that people who view abortion to be morally and ethically wrong enough to want to ban it... do so based off of their religious beliefs, or from osmosified (word? Is now!) religious beliefs.
"And using the reasoning you're using, really, it's possible to declare that ANYTHING should be legal"
Ah, no. The reasoning I'm using in my above post is simply that the arguments for banning abortion rely on abortion being murder, and that this is in fact the only secular justification for banning abortion, as other principles are involved that as a society we value highly enough that they are only overturned in order to prevent murder, and that this secular definition is never achieved because the only way to show abortion is murder is to say the embryo has a soul.
(Use of murder in this post ignoring legal definition of murder and using ethical definition of murder).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Perhaps I should have added "without comparison otherwise". I merely meant to make the point that there are indeed some points of view which we do not seriously consider. Now, I do believe that any sort of religious faith should belong to that category, but that's not what I was saying, merely that there is indeed a line drawn.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Tom, the reasoning behind my use of those words was that religious people typically see their faith as being inextricably tied to and informing their moral decisions, and more readily think of moral decisions as "matters of faith" while non-religious people do not. Again, I was just trying to be clear that I was covering both viewpoints, in a couple of words, and was not trying to launch a semantic argument over the role of faith in decision-making
That said, I agree with your assessment. I just think you're being too picky with my word choice.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Why not? If a communist has an interesting perspective on a certain thing, if a cannibal makes a fascinating point, it happens. Good ideas can come from anywhere, no reason to dismiss them if they are rational and logical.
Yes, but we were discussing the shaping of society as a whole, or at least I was.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Now, I do believe that any sort of religious faith should belong to that category
And therefore I cannot take any of your views seriously on the subject of allocation of power and influence in a democratic society.
Dagonee
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well then, we have the same sort of feelings about each other. What do I care for the opinion of a religious person?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I value unborn humans too... but here's the thing. I can't find a reason or way to ban abortions, from secular grounds, without putting a higher value on unborn humans then on many other principles that the vast majority of americans would say are "reasonable" and important principles.
Well, yeah. That's why I said people want to ban abortions — because they DO value unborn humans more highly than the competing considerations that you're citing, and consider them to be an overriding exception, much the way avoiding murder is often an overriding exception.
I mean, the fact that a principle is considered "reasonable" or "important" to a vast number of Americans does not automatically imply that it will be considered MORE reasonable or MORE important than any other given principle you put in front of the same Americans.
You, personally, do not value these unborn humans more than the competing considerations. Fine. That doesn't mean that therefore, anyone else who comes to a different conclusion must be basing their opinion solely on religion. The system of values you espouse is a subjective thing that you determined on your own, based on your own conscience. You should not be surprised or need to explain it away when other people come to different subjective conclusions from the exact same set of facts and considerations. That's how humans work. We think differently.
quote:Why is abortion viewed to be SO morally and ethically repugnant that people want to ban it? My contention is that people who view abortion to be morally and ethically wrong enough to want to ban it... do so based off of their religious beliefs, or from osmosified (word? Is now!) religious beliefs.
And I contend that your contention is highly simplistic, to the point of absurdity. People who have different values from you only ever have them for ONE reason, and that ONE reason should not apply to the debate, and therefore no one should disagree with you? It's a very self-serving position that shows quite a bit of disrespect to your opponents.
quote:the arguments for banning abortion rely on abortion being murder, and that this is in fact the only secular justification for banning abortion, as other principles are involved that as a society we value highly enough that they are only overturned in order to prevent murder, and that this secular definition is never achieved because the only way to show abortion is murder is to say the embryo has a soul.
Your argument implies that the only reason that murder is illegal is the fact that murder victims have souls. Otherwise, proving that unborn humans do or do not have souls would have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not killing them would count as murder.
I contend that the presence or lack of a soul has nothing to do with our ban against murder, and that the presence or lack of a soul has nothing to do with my own reasoning when I consider my personal opposition to abortion. If we were somehow to prove the existence of a soul, and could determine when exactly it showed up, then it could become a consideration. But until then, the whole argument must be based on something else.
Probably the best way I can describe my conscientious impressions about abortion is this (and bear in mind that I consider this explanation to be imperfect):
If human gestation took five seconds from conception to birth, then I don't think there would be any question that killing an unborn human during those five seconds would be wrong. The technicality that this person isn't "really born" yet would be almost meaningless, since everyone would know that within moments, a fully-developed human would be right there, ready to grow up and experience a life every bit as valuable as yours or mine.
From that perspective, to me, it seems like the length of time between conception and birth is irrelevant to the value of the unborn human. That human may still be in the process of taking the first step through the threshold from unlife to life during the nine months while it is in the womb, but that does not give us an excuse to kill it just because that first step is incomplete. Once the step IS complete, that human will be every bit as capable of living a full and valuable life as you and I are right now, and WILL deserve whatever protection we do. That potential, to me, makes the incipient human almost as valuable as the complete human, and makes the idea of destroying it for our convenience abhorrent.
Now, you may disagree. But note that at no point does the presence or lack of a soul come into this ... UNLESS you already believe that fully-developed humans are protected because THEY have souls, and for no other reason.
[ January 17, 2005, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Here's another example, to see if I can make this clearer:
Let's say you have a patient on an operating table that goes into cardiac arrest — a condition that, according to most definitions, makes that person technically dead. IE, when someone's heart doesn't beat for five minutes, they say later, "I was DEAD for five minutes!"
What if you happened upon this patient while the doctor was still getting out the defibrillator to revive him? Would it be okay to whip out a knife and stab the patient several times in the heart, making revivification impossible? Technically, they're dead. All you're doing is preventing them from coming back to life, right? It's not murder.
But to most observers, the fact that this person had the potential to come back to life made them every bit as valuable as a living human, and taking it upon yourself to destroy that potential does, in fact, make you a murderer.
Similar reasoning applies to humans who are not yet alive, but who are in the process of coming to life. Killing them just short of the point when they come to life, and thus destroying their potential for life, is very similar to actually destroying a life. It's not the same thing, but it is close enough that I cannot justify it while disallowing murder.
Anyway, again, that's just me, so you don't have to agree — but do note that I'm speaking ethically, without the benefit of religious reasoning.
[ January 17, 2005, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Fully-grown humans are protected from murder because, if I don't recognise your right to life, why should you recognise mine? Embryos have no such protection, in that they cannot threaten to kill anyone. Power and ethics spring ultimately from the barrel of a gun. The state, the entity with a monopoly on legitimate violence, enforces whatever we want it to enforce. (Please note, these are descriptive statements, not prescriptive.)
Your five-second example is interesting, but I think wrong. I have to think a bit about how I want to argue against it, though; I'll post later.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Fully-grown humans are protected from murder because, if I don't recognise your right to life, why should you recognise mine?
That has been a consideration at the foundation of many of humanity's legal decisions throughout time. But in the modern era, most particularly in the western world, we have made many laws designed specifically to protect those who cannot protect themselves or threaten anyone, based on the idea that all human beings should have equal value under the law, even when they cannot enforce that value themselves. This is why I have trouble understanding why abortion advocacy is such a shibboleth for American liberals, who rely so heavily on this principle for the rest of their platform.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
There are other positions between "no abortion should ever be allowed" and "abortion should be available at any time for any reason," you know.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Guns take many forms. If you do not recognise the value of my children, why should I recognise the value of yours? Similarly for animal rights, a fairly clear-cut case of a small but vocal pressure group forcing their wishes on a larger but less committed group.
As for the liberals, you are focusing on the embryo while they are focusing on the mother, who is (presumably) an adult with a vote right now.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: Fully-grown humans are protected from murder because, if I don't recognise your right to life, why should you recognise mine? Embryos have no such protection, in that they cannot threaten to kill anyone. Power and ethics spring ultimately from the barrel of a gun.
Once we evolve past the state of nature that's no longer the case. Otherwise, why do we protect minors from abuse let alone death from their parents? Theoretically a sixteen year old could also pose a physical threat to your being, but a newborn can't. Those who oppose abortion say that an living entity outside of the womb is a person, but a living entity inside of the womb is just a fetus or embryo.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Otherwise, why do we protect minors from abuse let alone death from their parents? Theoretically a sixteen year old could also pose a physical threat to your being, but a newborn can't. Those who oppose abortion say that an living entity outside of the womb is a person, but a living entity inside of the womb is just a fetus or embryo.
What's theoretical about the threat of a 16-year-old? Hulking toughs, many of them. As I say, we extend protection to the children of others because we want protection for our own children, even from ourselves. I certainly hope that if I was irrational enough to mistreat my child, that child would be taken from me. Your last sentence appears tautological, and also irrelevant. What were you trying to say?
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:There are other positions between "no abortion should ever be allowed" and "abortion should be available at any time for any reason," you know.
Who was this aimed at, twink?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: What's theoretical about the threat of a 16-year-old?
Because as you yourself has sort of implied, the real power in today's society is the vote. Minors do not have the vote, therefore, there is no obligation to protect them.
quote: As I say, we extend protection to the children of others because we want protection for our own children, even from ourselves. I certainly hope that if I was irrational enough to mistreat my child, that child would be taken from me.
None of that provides a reason why we would protect newborns from ourselves, but not fetuses.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Who was this aimed at, twink?
It was aimed, shotgun-style, at pretty much the entire thread.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:None of that provides a reason why we would protect newborns from ourselves, but not fetuses.
We do not start to become psychologically attached to the embryo / child at the moment of conception. For some people, it never happens; for many, it occurs at birth. There's a reason newborns and babies are so excruciatingly cute : Children whose mothers did not find them cute had less chance of surviving. I suspect that the earliest moment at which a pregnancy becomes emotionally real is when it start to show. By an interesting coincidence, that's also approximately when the limit for abortions is set.
Sixteen-year-olds come under the same protective umbrella as children : If you protect mine, I'll protect yours. And a vote acquired in two years is not so theoretical as all that, even in today's shortsighted political environment.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Some people are emotionally attached the moment they know they are pregnants so you still haven't shown a real reason why we shouldn't have the same protection for newborns and the unborn except that the former is excruciatingly cute.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, we are now in the realm of assertion. You assert that some people are emotionally attached from the moment of conception. I assert that if so, they are plainly in a minority. In fact, perhaps they are the minority pushing for sharper limits on abortion?
Further, like it or not, men still have an impact on our alws out of proportion to their actual numbers. And I think there are few men who would consider a pregnancy real emotionally as well as intellectually until they could, at the very least, feel the fetus kicking.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:There's a reason newborns and babies are so excruciatingly cute : Children whose mothers did not find them cute had less chance of surviving.
The problem with this theory is that all newborns are amazingly ugly. My kids were the most beautiful newborns ever born on earth, and they were still ugly.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You refute your point in your own words. You felt an immediate attraction, right? Hence 'the most beautiful newborns'. So their propaganda worked. You would have fought a tiger to save them, yes? Newborns without that defense were eaten by tigers.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Newborns without that defense were eaten by homicidal psycho jungle cats.
There, fixed that for you. Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
You know, John Kerry actually had a moderate position on religion. He's Catholic and he holds certain personal views about abortion, and other subjects. However, as a President, he doesn't feel it's his job to legislate his religious beliefs. He believes what he believes and thinks others should be allow to believe what they believe, even if it something he disagrees with.
I agree with him. While I'm not personally in favor of abortion, I don't feel it's my right to legislate my moral beliefs on the whole county.
Isn't that the middle ground?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:He believes what he believes and thinks others should be allow to believe what they believe, even if it something he disagrees with.
Even those of us that you would consider to have an extreme position on religion agree with that.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:You refute your point in your own words. You felt an immediate attraction, right?
Absolutely not. My first reaction to my first child was that he was hideous. I seriously thought there was something wrong with him. He looked like a purple Yoda.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well then, for you the emotional attachment came later. For a large number of people, though, it occurs at the birth, at least by popular accounts. Either way, though, you're proving one of my points : Either you were strongly emotionally attached at the moment of birth, or not too long after, as I've been arguing with you. Or you weren't, which proves the point I made to nfl, to wit, that the emotional attachment doesn't necessarily happen at conception.
Posted by Mr.Funny (Member # 4467) on :
I would so vote for Dagonee if I could vote.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
quote: I value unborn humans too... but here's the thing. I can't find a reason or way to ban abortions, from secular grounds, without putting a higher value on unborn humans then on many other principles that the vast majority of americans would say are "reasonable" and important principles.
I don't think financial gain or status is worth even a potential life. It's funny, we were discussing "Indecent Proposal" on the Q&A thread. (For the very young, that was a movie where a young couple facing bankruptcy are offered $1,000,000 if the wife sleeps with Robert Redford. Actually, I think it was they got the million either way, but they would roll the dice and if they won the million was unencumbered but if they lost she had to... anyway... there are more important things than money.)
The 5% of abortions that are due to rape, incest and even severe deformity (which I can't imagine doing but wouldn't excoriate someone else choosing) could be initiated at a doctor or legal order. I don't believe abortion should be a consumer initiated service.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
The problem is, those 95% of abortions aren't all about financial gain, or status.
I'm going ot put on the record here that I have a hard time with your stances on guns, and abortion, given the way you phrased the gun position. Abortion has been far far more important to women's rights and equality then gun ownership. And guns kill actual people, rather then potential people.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: And guns kill actual people, rather then potential people.
None of my guns have. And yet every abortion kills.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Following the theory that aborting a pregnancy from the point of a zygote on is murder, what's to stop us from taking it one step further?
A child was previously a fetus, was previously an embryo, was previously a blastula, was previously a zygote and before that was previously a sperm and an egg. Thus the theory follows that any destruction of sperm or egg cells is also murder. After all, that's potential life you are throwing away there.
So from now on, when you speak of abortion being legal or illegal, you must also include the legality and morality of male masturbation and female birth control.
Call if ridiculous if you want, but it's really just taking it one step further. A zygote is just the combined formation of a sperm and an egg, so why aren't those considered just as sacred? A zygote is no more a life than a sperm is. A blastula is no more well formed than cancerous clump of cells, or a parasite.
So if terminating a pregnancy a day after it has been diagnosed is murder, so is masturbating and letting all those little sperm die.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Straw Man
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
And not a new one, or a particularly good one from the past either.
You could have at least said something about cells being cells, and therefore brushing your teeth is murder...
It would have about the same amount of truth to it, and it is something that the search option wouldn't have found 300 times.
quote: What do I care for the opinion of a religious person?
Depends on who he is, I suppose....if he is a good person, an intelligent one, or one who is pretty tolerant of other peoples opinions you might take another look.
Perhaps you could learn something from him.
It seems that your aversion to religion, and religious people, is every bit as irrational as you think their beliefs are.
[ January 18, 2005, 02:22 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Did I just get dissed? It felt like it, but didn't overtly look like it.
(And there is a difference between sex cells and every other cells in your body, such as those in your teeth, which you should very well know if you speak about it with confidence. Sex cells have only half the chromosomes, and the linkage between sperm and egg sex cells creates a cell (zygote) that is similar to but not identical to the parent cells. Thus killing a tooth cell would be tantamount to killing a potential clone of yourself, and not the possible creation of a new person. So yes, there is a difference, which is why I didn't make that connection on my post)
Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
quote:It's funny, we were discussing "Indecent Proposal" on the Q&A thread.
Not the first time in my life I confused "Indecent Proposal" with "A Modest Proposal". For a split second, I thought we were talking about eating one-year-olds.
And I do believe, Paul, that there are non-religious reasons to be anti-abortion, since I happen to be both. I think both Tom and I have provided examples of such in past abortion threads.
[ January 18, 2005, 03:44 AM: Message edited by: Mean Old Frisco ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:(And there is a difference between sex cells and every other cells in your body, such as those in your teeth, which you should very well know if you speak about it with confidence. Sex cells have only half the chromosomes, and the linkage between sperm and egg sex cells creates a cell (zygote) that is similar to but not identical to the parent cells. Thus killing a tooth cell would be tantamount to killing a potential clone of yourself, and not the possible creation of a new person. So yes, there is a difference, which is why I didn't make that connection on my post)
Then, along that same line of reasoning, uncombined sex cells do not represent genetically distinct individuals, and therefore also do not warrant the same consideration as a zygote
Convenient when the builders of straw men volunteer to take them back down again on their own
[ January 18, 2005, 03:54 AM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Fully-grown humans are protected from murder because, if I don't recognise your right to life, why should you recognise mine?
No-- fully grown humans are protected from murder because murder is wrong, and civilizations recognize it.
Honestly-- ~10,000 years of human history, and the only thing that's been keeping mass, rampant murder in check is the idea that 'you might get me before I get you?' What a sad thought.
Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
There's also that five-day waiting period.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
'Forsoothe! I wouldst purchase yon crossbowe!'
'Havest thou thine identifying marke?'
'Behold it, sirrah.'
'Goode. Now thou musteth wait for half a fortnight.'
'What deviltry dost thou mutter? Give me yon crossbow immediately!'
'I will not.'
'I tell thee, give it me now!'
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I agree with him. While I'm not personally in favor of abortion, I don't feel it's my right to legislate my moral beliefs on the whole county.
Isn't that the middle ground?
No, because we're talking about the law, not just personal beliefs. The middle ground would be somewhere between unfettered access to abortion, which, for legal purposes, we have now, and absolutely no abortions. The lines can be based on fetal age, reason, etc.
Anyone with a line between these extremes is in the middle ground, although I freely admit my middle-ground is almost as close as you can get to one extreme end: physical threat of severe injury or death the only reason.
Dagonee
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
1. Have I mentioned how hilarious ScottR is?
2. It's true - white babies are ugly and wierd-looking for the first couple of weeks. Black babies, however, are beautiful. White babies look weird because of their coloring, but darker babies come out looking perfect.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:The middle ground would be somewhere between unfettered access to abortion, which, for legal purposes, we have now,
In many states that's not true. And if you're looking for a nation-wide ban on late-term abortions, that won't even happen if Roe v. Wade is reversed. Abortion will always be legal in (eg) New York.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:physical threat of severe injury or death the only reason.
It seems to me that in cases of rape the "famous violinist" example applies. If people abduct you and hook up your kidneys to a sick violinist, so that he'll die if you disconnect him, you have the right to do so at any time. You didn't sign up for the hardship of filling in as his life support.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yeah, the comedy stylings of Scott R aren't too bad sometimes. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: 2. It's true - white babies are ugly and wierd-looking for the first couple of weeks. Black babies, however, are beautiful. White babies look weird because of their coloring, but darker babies come out looking perfect.
Well, it looks like I'm forever doomed to have ugly babies. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It seems to me that in cases of rape the "famous violinist" example applies. If people abduct you and hook up your kidneys to a sick violinist, so that he'll die if you disconnect him, you have the right to do so at any time. You didn't sign up for the hardship of filling in as his life support.
It seems to me that if you just disconnected yourself and allowed him to die, you are guilty of murder. The moral thing to do would be to give doctors the opportunity to put him on a kidney machine before you left.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In many states that's not true.
Under Roe and Casey, a mother can abort upon threat of harm to the mother's health. Harm to the mother's health includes psychological harm. In essence, anyone can legally get a late term abortion with little or no difficulty. Some states lack "sufficient" abortion resources, but that's not a legal bar.
quote:And if you're looking for a nation-wide ban on late-term abortions, that won't even happen if Roe v. Wade is reversed. Abortion will always be legal in (eg) New York.
I think I've been upfront about what I'm looking for, a ban on all abortion except in cases of physical threat of severe injury or death to the mother.
quote:It seems to me that in cases of rape the "famous violinist" example applies. If people abduct you and hook up your kidneys to a sick violinist, so that he'll die if you disconnect him, you have the right to do so at any time. You didn't sign up for the hardship of filling in as his life support.
I'm really not here to argue my position; I stated it in the interest of clarity, and am interested in clarifying the extent of the possible positions.
Dagonee
Posted by SausageMan (Member # 5134) on :
Hmmmm...
I'm religious (Evangelical Christian), and yes I'm a conservative (stereotypical, I know), but...although I would say that my religion does affect my political views, it's not in the way you might expect. The thing is, my faith precludes everything I do. I strive to not make a single decision unless I know that it's pleasing to God (although I do fail often ), and so I often make moral decisions without, at first, knowing why. I know that God wants what is best for me, so I often have to obey Him without question. So sometimes it's not for a while before I realize why He put certain rules in place.
So in that since I sometimes do take the "Bible tells me so" way of looking at morality, but I always strive to learn why the Bible says certain things. After that, I have to determine whether or not certain morals are 1) practical to legislate, and 2) practical to uphold as law.
For instance, the Bible says that you are not to sleep with anyone but your wife (before or after marriage). Now, I know for a fact that society as a whole would be better off if everyone followed this rule. But there is no way in the world that this could possibly be carried out as law, as it would be nearly impossible to track everyone down who was involved this and punish them all.
But I know, because I know who God is, that a society that perfectly followed God's law would be a perfect society. Granted, this is an impossible scenario, but it would be true.
The problem is not in trying to force people to do what they don't want to do, but in changing people's hearts so that they desire to do good. So my greatest task is evangelization, not legislation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I know that God wants what is best for me, so I often have to obey Him without question."
Out of interest, have you ever acted in a way that you thought God wanted, but which turned out to be wrong?
Posted by SausageMan (Member # 5134) on :
I've wondered.
I think for the most part I've had to make simple enough moral decisions that I knew for sure whether it was God's will or not, though I sometimes still make the wrong decision.
Otherwise, He usually shows me where I've gone wrong when I've misinterpreted.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Destineer:
quote:It seems to me that in cases of rape the "famous violinist" example applies. If people abduct you and hook up your kidneys to a sick violinist, so that he'll die if you disconnect him, you have the right to do so at any time. You didn't sign up for the hardship of filling in as his life support.
I'm trying to imagine how awful I would feel about disconnecting the sick violinist knowing that if I would just wait a matter of months, he would be well enough to continue on his own without me. That might make beauty out of a situation I didn't ask for, didn't want, wouldn't have chosen if I had had a choice.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What if the violinist insists on playing only baroque era music?
Can I disconnect then?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
That would only endear him the more to me. I like baroque era music. Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
I just wanted to state that every one of my six caucasian babies was absolutely beautiful from the moment of birth and then proceeded to become even more beautiful.
That is all.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: Then, along that same line of reasoning, uncombined sex cells do not represent genetically distinct individuals, and therefore also do not warrant the same consideration as a zygote
But they are genetically distinct. Random mutation has already occurred when the sex cells are created, and they are thus distinct. And since the argument against killing zygotes is that they are potential human beings anyway, the sex cell are still potential human beings, so the argument still holds.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Lyrhawn, left to themselves, a single egg or a bunch of little squirmers will never develop into a human being. Without outside interference ( ) causing them to join and fertilize, they can only die. There is no other option. They will never spontaneously, in and of themselves, become a baby.
A zygote, without outside interference, in most cases will become a baby.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Actually, in most cases, a zygote won't. something around 70% of conceptions abort.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:A zygote, without outside interference, in most cases will become a baby.
A zygote does require some significant and active outside support. It's not just a matter of leaving it to its own devices.
(I know that isn't what you were claiming -- just making a clarification.)
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
CT, yeah...you know what I mean, right? Yes, it takes support, but since it took that support to create it in the first place, as long as it isn't treated to a hostile environment, most of the time it will do just fine.
Paul, that is beside the point. There is a significant difference between someone who dies of natural causes and one who is killed in a nuclear explosion, wouldn't you say?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Yes, there's a difference. I'm just pointing out that most conceptions never become a person, and so its incorrect to say that left to their own devices, most zygotes become babies. They don't. About 50% of conceptions are never detected, and another 15-20% abort in the first 6 weeks after being detected. I also think this is a point that has to be considered when discussing when a zygote becomes worthy of legal protection.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I think it's worth keeping in mind that sustaining a pregnancy is an active process. It means responsibility, not just "letting it happen."
That is, I'm not really disagreeing with you, moreso elaborating on what you said. Keeping the environment non-hostile to the developing fetus takes consideration -- refraining from substances which could pass the placenta and damage the fetus (alcohol, nicotine, over-the-counter medications, antihypertensives, etc), staying sufficiently hydrated, eating enough calories and vitamins to allow both of you to grow and develop normally, avoiding radiation from X-rays or certain work environments, etc.
A lot of these are things which we would well do anyway to take care of ourselves. Certain necessary medications (anti-seizure meds, e.g.) might be damaging to the fetus but helpful to the mother, but most of it is just good healthy living. On the other hand, we all make choices about where to scrimp on resources when things are tight, be it money, time, or what have you. We make choices about whether to stay hydrated if there isn't a clean bathroom around, whether to deprive ourselves of sleep in order to get a particular task completed, whether to restrict calories in order to fit into a paticular dress, and so forth.
Gestating a healthy baby does take active participation, both in doing certain things and avoiding others. Whether a given person has a responsibility to do so is a different matter than whether she has to do so to achieve an optimal outcome, if she chooses to carry to term. I just don't want to conflate these two separate (even if related) issues.
As the contrast was drawn to "They will never spontaneously, in and of themselves, become a baby," I just wanted to clarify that the spontaneous part of it is rather more involved than that in the other case, too. And, as noted, ~70% are thought to end in misscarriage.
However, I'm not disagreeing -- just elaborating.
[ January 18, 2005, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Paul, if more people died of unnatural causes than natural, would it then make sense to legalize murder?
CT, thanks for that clarification. I really don't want it to sound like it's no effort at all to be pregnant. It is inconvenient a lot of the time and doesn't feel all that great for most women. But it's of such short duration in the grand scheme of things. And putting up with that discomfort while being hospitable to the little guest (and sometimes not a very gracious guest, especially at 3am when the aerobics class starts) inside has such long term results.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While he may want to extend an argument relating to it at some point, he was just pointing out a factual innaccuracy.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Paul, if more people died of unnatural causes than natural, would it then make sense to legalize murder?"
Thats the question, though, isn't it? At what point does something become worthy of legal protection?
In this case, we're discussing the legality of killing something that, first off isn't a person in any secular manner (Since a person has rights and responsibilities. a zygote clearly has no legal responsibilities). It also won't survive on its own, and if left to its own devices, will die. Even with proper care, more then half of them will die. Under the law, if you don't take proper care of a person, and he dies, then you're guilty of negligence, and responsible for that persons death. This is usually some form of manslaughter. Are we willing to throw millions of women in jail for manslaughter? If not, then, clearly, we're already not applying the same standards to zygotes and people.
In pointing out that most pregnancies are naturally aborted, I am not asking whether or not its a person, but whether or not its practical to consider protecting a zygote at the stage, and whether it makes legal sense to do so. I think, though, the fact that 70% of pregnancies are spontaneously aborted, clearly indicates that the zygote/embryo is not a person, and, as such, not worthy of strenuous legal protection, although it may be worthy of certain protections. (Animals aren't people, either, but we grant them certain limited protections). Ability to survive is an important determination in the legal defintion of personhood, and always has been. Of course, that has nothing to do with it religiously, but I'd point out that jewish custom until the 1900's in europe didn't consider newborns to be full fledged people, either.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, but not a highly relevant factual error, since by the time abortion is an option 50% that fail to implant are not part of the population under consideration.
It might be applicable to a debate on the morning after pill or the generic question of if human life begins at conception, of course, but not on what most people consider abortions.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In pointing out that most pregnancies are naturally aborted
Based on the last time we discussed this issue, I believe medically a pregnancy does not begin until the zygote implants. Therefore, most pregnancies are NOT aborted.
Am I misremembering, Sara?
Dagonee
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
In that scenario, you still end up with something near 50%.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Yes, but not a highly relevant factual error, since by the time abortion is an option 50% that fail to implant are not part of the population under consideration."
I consider it to be a highly relevant point, since it says a lot about legal protection for zygote/embryo/fetus and whether its practical, as well as a legal understanding of what a person is.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Paul Goldner, modern-day Spartan. Seriously (just ribbing you), I find abortion wrong for the same reason I find murder and rape wrong: I abhor the acts viscerally... they are violent impositions of one person's twisted power and control on another organism of the same species. I'm enough of a relativist to understand that there is no cosmically applicable natural law against murder, rape, abortion, infanticide, etc., but enough of an idealist to find such acts barbaric, animal-like, and worth of being expunged from the repertoire of human activity.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Paul, if no one knows about the existance of the zygote, not even its host, how can it be relevant to the question? Currently we can't practically examine the possibility, so it really is irrelevant.
I was wondering where your line of logic was leading, and hoped it wasn't the fear that suddenly, by giving zygotes legal recognition and protection insofar as against actively hostile environments, women who have miscarriages would be sent to jail. For one, what purpose would that extreme serve? It couldn't happen -- no one would stand for it, not even the most extreme of pro-lifers.
It's not a difficult thing to define the difference between abortion and miscarriage. Abortion is a willful act intended to bring about the premature end of a pregnancy, resulting in the death of the zygote/fetus. Miscarriage is not an act of will and there is no intention to end the pregnancy.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:No-- fully grown humans are protected from murder because murder is wrong, and civilizations recognize it.
Indeed? In the trivial sense that 'murder == wrongful killing', yes, all civilisations have considered murder wrong. If we go to a slightly less non-tautological definition, then you should keep in mind that
Some cultures practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism (ritual or otherwise).
Many civilisations had a code duello.
Most if not all cultures practice infanticide, including ours if you count abortion.
All civilisations practice war.
I think it is not obvious that humans, even civilised humans, recognise killing as wrong. Certainly we can't agree on when it is.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
How is murder=wrongful killing trivial? I'll cede that it may be tautological (before going on to point out that all moral pronouncements are tautological on a cosmic scale, as humans themselves determine human morality), but that certainly doesn't make it trivial. Every society has to decide where to draw the line here, of course, but again, that's not trivial. Comanche, Spartans, early pre-colonial Ibo: all these groups drew the line on the beginning of viability in a different place (and using a different definition) than we do, but that doesn't make the present need to define that line trivial. In fact, it is the opposite of trivial: it is the sort of thing that being human is all about... we need, we crave, those lines of demarcation.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I meant that, if you define murder as wrongful killing, then it is trivial to say that all civilisations have disapproved of it; it's like saying 'we disapprove of things we disapprove of.' Well, yes, we do, but it doesn't add much to a discussion, does it? I did not mean to imply that deciding where to draw the line is a trivial task.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Do you judge the worth of others in society by what they can or cannot provide you?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Do you often come up with total non sequiturs instead of responding to actual arguments?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Is it possible to believe in the inherent value of human life regardless of its use to society and not be in any way religious?
I ask this because I thought the answer was yes. I stated that I didn't let religion affect my politics, but my politics are certainly affected by the above statement. So does this mean I'm really a religious extremist?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I think I missed something.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
nfl, in my original post on this subject, I clearly stated that my view of the laws on murder were descriptive. That is, this is the way I think things are, not necessarily the way I think they ought to be.
That said, yes, I think you can view human life as valuable without being religious; you can make a conscious decision that 'humans are pretty cool, I won't kill any without good reason'. But maybe that isn't what you meant by 'inherent' value. I don't think anything in the Universe has a value other than what humans (or other intelligences) choose to put on it, no. And I would indeed characterise such a belief as mystical, if not religious.
PSI-T, maybe you missed the discussion on the previous page? People really ought to stop posting a whole page of stuff while I'm at work, it's a terrible habit. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
KoM: You'll find that blood oranges, especially those you might buy in an Italian open marketplace, are especially good when served with a strong, aged parmesean.
I think my question is valid-- it prompts you to answer how you, personally define humanity.
Your ideas about why murder is frowned upon leads me to believe you favor utilitarianism. So-- do you define 'humanity' by what the creature can do for you?
By the way-- I think one of the great things about our modern civilization is just how far we have extended the definition of humanity. To include folks who were not previously considered human-- like the mentally deficient and so forth.
What do you think?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Then why is it supposedly impossible to extend that worth to a unborn child without religion? Why is it impossible to believe that there isn't a barrier between life that exists only between the one second where the baby begins to emerge from the womb? If you don't agree with Paul, then don't feel obliged to answer that.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Please keep in mind my statement was that no secular argument can be made for banning abortion... not that any of the less extreme legal positions that could be taken do not have secular arguments.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, in fact I don't think it impossible. In fact, isn't an abortion pretty difficult to get after the twenty-sixth week or so? I'm pretty sure Norway at least draws a line there. So clearly we do extend humanity, or at least legal protection (animals have rights too, remember) a good bit before birth. On the other hand, while in principle we could certainly extend protection to fertilised egg cells, it's a bit like saying we could extend protection to individual sperm cells. Yes, we could, but why would we want to? And I think that's what Paul is arguing too.
I define humanity much as I define science fiction : "Whatever I'm pointing at while using the term." I am prepared to point at the mentally handicapped, late-term embryos, and desperately poor people in Sudan, so I am forced to the conclusion that I do not define humans by their utility to me alone.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While my position has never been for abortion in an abstract sense, I have generally tended towards a position that legal abortion is an unfortunate necessity, similarly to war.
I still think it is, currently, but I have generally come to the conclusion that this is not inevitable and we are near to making it no longer so.
Specifically, I feel that were the government to undertake significant , but not overly extreme, reform (read in large part, better funding, eliminating certain barriers involved (though paying close attention to the safety of the child)) of adoption and foster care systems, I would be happy to support a ban on abortion given certain, and I feel reasonable, exceptions (some specific ones: the ban must not include abortifacients which operate before implantation, must include allowances for the physical danger of the mother, that sort of thing).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Scott, interesting as the definition of humans is, I still think you haven't responded to what I posted about civilisations recognising murder as wrong. Have you lost interest in that part of the discussion?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Paul, it could just as equally be said then that there are no secular arguments to be made for banning murder. Secularly, murder is infringing on another human their right to life. A fetus/zygote is alive. It is a human life -- it must be, for it is both alive and made from human seed. Really, there can be no logical argument FOR legal abortion except to say that the rights of some humans supercede the rights of others.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Except that its not clear that what's genetically the same as a human is human. For instance, an organ can be kept independently alive, but we wouldn't call it a human. You're ignoring a huge body of philosophical contention; while one side or the other may be wrong, its not obvious at all.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
jen, I thought I just made a secular argument for banning murder. To wit, I don't want to be murdered, and neither does anyone else; the simplest way for us all to achieve our aim is to agree to enforce a no-murders rule, and pay specialists to do it for us.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Paul, it could just as equally be said then that there are no secular arguments to be made for banning murder"
No, it can't.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
KoM, what I said was essentially the same thing, but not quite so self-focused. We societally recognize a right to live.
fugu, no matter how long you keep a kidney alive, it will never, even given the most hospitable of environments, be self-sustaining.
Paul, would you care to elaborate?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
A kidney most certainly can be made self-sustaining. Put it into a human. Try that with a fetus.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
KoM, I wish we could.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'll start with a few simple reasons. I'm going to miss some, and there will be objections to others.
1) There are serious legal difficulties in enforcing an abortion ban. None of these exist for killing people.
2) While I will concede that an embryo or fetus is human life, it is hardly obvious that, in particular, the embryo is a person, while it is blindingly obvious that, for example, you are a person.
3) There is no apparent societal harm, other then the nebulous "respect for life" argument, in having abortions be legal, while there are tremendous societal harms in allowing people to be killed. The respect for life argument, to be consistent, requires either that we not eat, or that we recognize the embryo as a person, which again is only even remotely obvious if you assume a soul. On the other hand, if murder is legal, society cannot exist.
4) Legally, a person is a being accorded legal rights and responsibilities. REligously, a person is a being with a soul. Secularly, then, to define an embryo as a person, you have to figure out what responsibilities it has that only beings accorded protection from being killed it has under the law.
5) There are societal goods served by having abortion be legally available (legal abortion, along with legal contraception, made the women's lib movement possible. Without those, the movement never succeeded to the degree it has). There are no societal goods served by having murder be legal.
1, 3, and 5 are the most important of those listed.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Now, I'm only playing devil's advocate here - but I think there are a few goods that can be had from legalising murder, without society collapsing. More specifically, I'm thinking of a code duello. If duels are rare, then society will survive their existence. The goods provided are a court of absolute last resort : There would be limits on personal courtesy and treatment of others, past which one could not step except at risk of life and limb.
I do agree with our current legal code, which says that these goods are not worth the costs. But that's not the same as saying there are no goods at all.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I'm trying to imagine how awful I would feel about disconnecting the sick violinist knowing that if I would just wait a matter of months, he would be well enough to continue on his own without me. That might make beauty out of a situation I didn't ask for, didn't want, wouldn't have chosen if I had had a choice.
Sure, that's probably how I'd feel too (if I were a woman etc). But I think it's pretty clear you should have the legal right to be callous and disconnect the violinist.
Anyway, not to make myself sound like a pro-choice partisan or anything. I don't really know what to think about abortion. My hope is that the issue will go away as birth control becomes easier. I am entirely for every woman (and man, if/when that becomes possible) going on birth control from the moment they hit puberty until they decide to have a child. That'd solve the whole problem, without any religious/philosophical wrangling.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: the Bible says that you are not to sleep with anyone but your wife
Really? Where ?
Covet someone elses wife, that I remember....
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Um, there's a whole adultery one, if I recall correctly.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
KoM, if that was legal you would have been called for it at least twice in this thread alone.
Personal civility indeed...
It is only adultry if you are married...so if you are both single.....
[ January 18, 2005, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Paul:
Re 1: Difficulty of enforcement has rarely been a hinderance to the passage of laws. It's impossible to enforce a ban on spam, yet we benefit by its illegality because that makes it prosecutable.
Re 3: I think the word "apparent societal harm" is debatable. The most obvious harm to society is the tens of millions of potential tax payers that were never born because they were aborted.
Re 5: Legal abortion was not a boon to women's liberation and equality. Female contraception, without question, was. I contend that *no* societal good comes from killing fetuses simply because they are not wanted by their mother. This is a value judgement, as is the converse.
[ January 18, 2005, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: jeniwren ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Don't think I've been particularly rude in this thread, have I? Espoused controversial opinions, sure, but not rudely, I hope. Of course, precisely that argument is one of the reasons I don't think the goods of duels outweigh the ills : It permits people who feel strongly about something to shut the opposition up in a final and unarguable manner.
jeniwren, for all practical purposes abortion is a form of contraception. That's not how it's supposed to work, but some women do use it that way. If contraception is good, then why is abortion, with pretty much the same effects, bad? Particularly if you define the morning-after pill, which (as far as I know) has no side-effects, as abortion.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
KoM, to be honest I was just busting your balls.
But since you mentioned it, you have been a bit rude.
Calling others religious views equal to superstition isn't exactaly polite, you know. You DO like to get people worked up a bit, don't you...and I know it isn't something that is all in my head, because others have commented on it in the past.
You definately were rude to Dag.
No big deal...I could care less what your personal views are on my religion, but I am pretty sure that what matters in my life is what I think, bit what you think.
I am willing to listeen to anyone, religious or non-religious, as long as they play well with each other.
Kwea
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Difficulty of enforcement has rarely been a hinderance to the passage of laws. It's impossible to enforce a ban on spam, yet we benefit by its illegality because that makes it prosecutable."
Not the legal difficulties I'm necessarily talking about. Its impossible to enforce a ban on abortion without getting rid of doctor/patient confidentiality, removing the right ot privacy (a right that has been recognized by the courts since the early 1800's, to one extent or another), and starting a government observation program that would destroy the fourth amendment. If you CAN"T enforce such a ban equally, then you run afoul of the equal protection clause.
"I think the word "apparent societal harm" is debatable. The most obvious harm to society is the tens of millions of potential tax payers that were never born because they were aborted"
Right. This is another part of why a reasonable secular argument for banning abortion is impossible. You value a few tax dollars, which may or may not be paid (how many abortions are on children who would be born into circumstances where the liklihood of them paying taxes that outweigh their consumption of public dollars?) over several principles that people of our country find to be extremely valuable... such as the right to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches.
In the case of abortions, these harms are judged by possible future losses, whereas in the case of murder, they are judged by definitive present and future losses, as well as undermining the very structure upon which society is built.
"Legal abortion was not a boon to women's liberation and equality"
No? I don't think there are very many people who were active in the women's liberation movement who would agree with you. The fact is that without the ability to end unwanted pregnancies, women are forced out of the workplace for a certain amount of time, which costs them with respect to men in terms of seniority, pay, promotions, and career choice. These effects are fairly well documented.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Lryhawn, I have a question...What is a "tooth cell"?
Every cell has a copy of your DNA in it, which is why DNA is so valuable to law enforcment people.
Your arguments were unoriginal, and didn't pass intellectual muster for this thread. It helps that we have heard it about 30 times, so we have our counterarguments right at hand...lol...
Sperm cannot ever make a complete human being, whereas a fertilized egg can...so the argument doesn't hold up at all.
That is why no one but you is trying to defend it.
Kwea
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think you'll find that I haven't used the word superstition in this thread, even though it's pretty accurate. As for Dag, well, he'd just dismissed my views on pretty much everything. So if I was being rude to do the same, why, he started it. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
No, but you strongly implied it was the same...so lets not split hairs on the subject, ok? I got what you were saying....and so did Dag, and others in this thread.
You said that one of the defining characteristics he prides himself on was worse than useless, and that we would be better off without it...and said that with luck it would soon disappear.
Or something like that.
Feel what you like, but to dismiss someone just because they are religious is more than disrespectful....it is down right ignorant.
Some of the best minds of all time were religious...does that mean you don't have to care about their ideas and theories either? Just a bit heavy-handed, don't you think?
I love the irony of you playing a Paladin, though...talk about type-casting!
[ January 18, 2005, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As for Dag, well, he'd just dismissed my views on pretty much everything. So if I was being rude to do the same, why, he started it
I dismissed your views based on your dismissal of mine, so nyeah!
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Paul- So if 70% of an endangered species dies due to natural causes anyway, are we under no obligation to protect the other 30%? Most species have way more waste than that, of course.
I can't believe we're going over the whole beginning of life argument again. We don't agree. I can live with it. Let's move on. If my reason for thinking life begins before actual birth is scientific and not faith based (and my final answer is somewhere between conception and 7 weeks) then can you consider that I have a secular, ethical opposition to abortion solely for financial equalization?
I know the original issue (between Paul and I) was the consistency between me supporting gun rights and not abortion rights. I think there should be active regulation of both;.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Exactly Jeni, but notice you didn't specify that. Furthermore, then what about people who aren't self sustaining? How dependent does one have to be on something before one is no longer self sustaining. The question is not clear, and glossing over it like it is undermines the credibility of one's position.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
First, I apply different standards to less technologically and philosophically advanced people. Jefferson had slaves, to use a tiresomely familiar example; but I don't consider the Declaration of Independence invalid.
Second, it is clearly possible to be brilliant in one subject, and a bit potty on some or all others. You'll note, for example, that I have never denigrated Dagonee's expertise on legal matters. Similarly, Newton believed in alchemy in his later days. I don't discard his mechanics for all that.
Third, Catholics hold beliefs implying that I deserve to go to Hell and burn there for all eternity. I consider that a bit worse than merely being denied civil rights for a few decades.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
So after reading (or at least scanning) the entire thread, I conclude that the answer to the thread title is:
No.
Well, not really, but it always amazes me how fast discussion becomes argument when religion is identified with single issues.
[ January 18, 2005, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Arnold ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
fugu, I'm not qualified to write laws, obviously. If you're going to hold me to writing as if my posts, word for word, would be put into law, I might as well concede right now. If you honestly misunderstand the point I'm trying to make, I'd be happy to clarify, but nitpicking wording against what seems to me to be obvious intent is argument for argument's sake. Which can be fun, if that's what you want.
Paul:
Re 1: Prior to Roe, abortionists were convicted for performing abortions. I fail to see how difficulty arises now when we used to do it. Are you saying that doctor/patient confidentiality was thrown out the window prior to Roe? Obviously the 4th amendment existed then too. We just ignored it?
Re 3: I only pointed out tax dollars lost because it was easy and obvious. I did not say that I equate life with dollars. Nor would I. Regardless, it is as speculative for you to say that there is no societal harm as it is for me to speculate that there is much. (Though, personally, how anyone could say that those 10s of millions of lives would have had zero positive contribution to society is interestingly pessimistic. I've always thought of you as a fairly positive person.) Neither of us bring religion into the equation, though both arguments are equally valid.
Re 5: It's equally well documented that abortion rights = womens liberation is a reasonably new concept begun only around the time it became legal. Suffragists and early feminists almost unanimously abhored abortion. A strong case could be made that women suffer greatly on a personal level as a result of the legalization and popularity of abortion as a solution to equalization. Certainly, the potential women who were never born because they were aborted suffer 100% catastrophic loss.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
KoM:
quote:I still think you haven't responded to what I posted about civilisations recognising murder as wrong. Have you lost interest in that part of the discussion?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It was a serious question. If you have lost interest, just say so.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, no, its not about writing laws. Its a bit of a nitpicky point, but its a nitpicky point that really bugs me . It is far too common for someone to say something as if it is obviously true, when it is not at all. You said:
quote:aul, it could just as equally be said then that there are no secular arguments to be made for banning murder. Secularly, murder is infringing on another human their right to life. A fetus/zygote is alive. It is a human life -- it must be, for it is both alive and made from human seed. Really, there can be no logical argument FOR legal abortion except to say that the rights of some humans supercede the rights of others.
This is not true. It assumes something (the humanity or personhood of fetuses) that not all people are willing to proclaim. In fact, I predict I could come up with examples (as I've been doing) which are difficult (not necessarily impossible, but difficult) to explicate for any definition of human/person you can find that fits fetuses. There are other problems with the statement as well, but that's a big one.
Dismissing without due consideration one side of an argument which has been going on for hundreds or possibly thousands of years (what is a human/person?) is one reason that argument is still going on. To resolve differences effectively does require understanding why those differences exist, and I feel your statement ignored the possibility of such an understanding.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I think the view that a fetus is not a person until it breathes is superstitious and spiritualistic.
My view on personhood is based on the persons contribution to the genepool, which for a female fetus is in place by the 7th week of gestation.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: Its impossible to enforce a ban on abortion without getting rid of doctor/patient confidentiality, removing the right ot privacy (a right that has been recognized by the courts since the early 1800's, to one extent or another), and starting a government observation program that would destroy the fourth amendment. If you CAN"T enforce such a ban equally, then you run afoul of the equal protection clause.
First if what you say is true then we can't legally stop euthanasia. Right of privacy there is, but you can't kill your kids despite the privacy of your home. Furthermore, the concept that abortion is wrong is based on the idea that the unborn baby is its own person, and the right to privacy does not extend to allowing you to kill other people even if they are within your own body. I don't see why we need a government observation program for abortion anymore than we currently need one for euthanasia. It would be illegal for a doctor to perform an abortion. Just like its illegal for a doctor to knowingly prescribe drugs to a patient who doesn't need them and its illegal for the patient to take them.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
fugu, I hope you will notice that I have never, not once, referred to a zygote/fetus as a person. I referred to it as human. Perhaps it would be clearer to say that I am using the word human as shorthand for homo sapien. That's a clear scientific classification, not a subjective label. Personhood is not at issue. I won't touch that debate.
I am not assuming anything here. I'm asking if a human zygote is one of the earliest forms of a human and it is alive, how can it not be a human? This isn't like saying flour is an early form of bread so it must be bread. A zygote, given a natural course of environment and nurturing, may well become a baby. It's a stage of development, nothing more. I'm not a baby, but I'm human. My daughter is a toddler, but she's human. When she was in the womb kicking the hell out of my ribs, she was human. Presumably I did the same thing to my mother. You can't start out as a human kidney and grow up to be a man. If a canine zygote could be implanted in a human womb, it would not come out human. It would still be a dog. By the same token, if a human zygote could be implanted in a dog, it wouldn't come out a dog...it would still be human.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, by that definition, I suppose a fetus is human, but so what? The question is whether or not we extend it legal protection. For that debate, this technical definition of 'human' is irrelevant; we extend some protections to orangutans, after all.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
KoM it is relevent because it illustrates the total arbitrariness of protecting human life only after birth. Why there? It makes no sense. We either value human life and see it as worth protecting, or we don't. It really isn't any more complicated than that. Attributing more or less value to various stages of human development starts us on a slippery slope, which is the crux of this argument, IMO.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Attributing more or less value to various stages of human development starts us on a slippery slope, which is the crux of this argument, IMO."
The state executes people. War is considered legal. Self defence is legal.
Its justifiable to kill certain PEOPLE, and a person is more protected then a organism that happens to be our species.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, but protecting human life at all is totally arbitrary. What have you ever done for me, that I should value your life? I agree with you that drawing a boundary at birth is arbitrary, I just don't see it as a problem. Conception is equally arbitrary. The current compromise of 26 weeks seems to satisfy most parties (here I speak of Norwegian politics), so it suits me.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
The smallest baby ever to survive weighed 8.6 ounces. Less than a can of Coca Cola.
Not that this has any real bearing on the discussion, I just thought about little Rumaisa while reading the thread.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
But Jeniwren,
There is a very real and logical reason to make a distinction at birth. A fetus, although human and alive, is completely dependent on its mother for existance. We have no alternative technology to reliably provide life support to the fetus. As a result, the rights of the fetus and the rights of the mother often conflict with each other.
Unlike many pro-choice advocates, I do not believe that the mothers rights should always trump the rights of the child, but I also don't see that it is easy to draw the line. In my discussions with many people I have found that there is no consensus on which if any of the mothers rights should outway those of the fetus. I know those who argue that abortions are immoral and should be illegal if if the mothers life is in imminent danger. Those that view severe but non-life threatening health damage to be sufficient reason to allow abortion. Those who would find it acceptable in the case of rape and those who would not. And those who think that abortion is acceptable for any reason the mother chooses.
To argue that there is no difference between protecting the life of a fetus and the life of a newborn, ignores the very real difficulty that arises because the fetus' life and rights can not be cleanly separated from the life and rights of its mother. To argue that there is no difference, denies the very real difficulties that arise when the life and rights of one person come in direct conflict with the life, rights and freedoms of another.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
In that case your argument breaks down wrt murder. More explicitly, this ceases to be clear (at all):
quote:Secularly, murder is infringing on another human their right to life.
(that is, you make the sort of hand waving statement I am talking about there).
[ January 19, 2005, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It was a serious question. If you have lost interest, just say so.
Oh, KoM. Let me explain-- this is a bulletin board. Not a chat room. When someone doesn't reply immediately to your posts, it may simply mean that they are heading out to dinner with their spouse, and have no time to address any of your points in a serious, thoughtful manner.
Of course, you're NOT going to get seriousness or thoughtfulness from me anyway. I don't DO those things-- quite incapable, really. . .
Anyway, on to your question.
quote:I still think you haven't responded to what I posted about civilisations recognising murder as wrong.
Said post being:
quote: If we go to a slightly less non-tautological definition, then you should keep in mind that
* Some cultures practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism (ritual or otherwise). * Many civilisations had a code duello. * Most if not all cultures practice infanticide, including ours if you count abortion. * All civilisations practice war.
I think it is not obvious that humans, even civilised humans, recognise killing as wrong. Certainly we can't agree on when it is.
We agree that even our society has defined acceptable ways and whens to kill certain people.
But you miss the fact that murder is a whole 'nother bird entirely.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:There is a very real and logical reason to make a distinction at birth. A fetus, although human and alive, is completely dependent on its mother for existance. We have no alternative technology to reliably provide life support to the fetus. As a result, the rights of the fetus and the rights of the mother often conflict with each other.
While this is true for the early stages of pregnancy, at about 24 weeks the fetus has a sporting chance of surviving in an incubator. With early deliveries routinely resulting in healthy and surviving babies, there is no need to equal "birth" with what traditionally happens after a full nine months pregnancy. Afterall, with the possibilibies of cecarians and induced labours, a "birth" can be as much a result of deliberate human involvement as an abortion. If a line has to be drawn when it is OK to kill the fetus, isn't it more logical to draw it at the point where it would be possible for it to survive without its mother's assistance? Or is the medical procedure of removing the fetus from the womb alive more inconvenient for the mother than an abortion?
[ January 19, 2005, 08:37 AM: Message edited by: Tristan ]
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: There is a very real and logical reason to make a distinction at birth. A fetus, although human and alive, is completely dependent on its mother for existance.
Of course, after birth, the baby is still completely dependant on the mother or someone for existance.
quote:The current compromise of 26 weeks seems to satisfy most parties (here I speak of Norwegian politics), so it suits me.
KoM, would Norway ever reconsider that age based on improved techniques for saving premature babies. As Tristan pointed out, they are able to be saved as early as 24 weeks now. I personally know a little girl who was born at 25 weeks and she's a happy, healthy 2-yr old now.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Them: "Yeah, yeah, it's a human, but we have legal killing of humans anyway, and besides, it's all arbitrary and it's okay with me so what's the big deal, get over it."
Me: "What a lot of ****ing sick, cold, methodical and stomach-turning Machiavellian bullshit."
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
DB, re-reading this and sort of digesting the general content overnight, I agree with you. It comes down to visceral gut level belief -- which you can't argue with. And that this is a truism on both sides of the fence. Until the visceral level feeling that "a 'woman's right to choose' is the only RIGHT way" gets questioned, none of the other stuff will matter.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'd just like to point out that I'm not arguing for abortion, I'm arguing against conducting an argument in a certain way, if that was directed at me, DB.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"hem: "Yeah, yeah, it's a human, but we have legal killing of humans anyway, and besides, it's all arbitrary and it's okay with me so what's the big deal, get over it."
Me: "What a lot of ****ing sick, cold, methodical and stomach-turning Machiavellian bullshit.""
Its a human thats as close to me as a blade of grass is... actually, its a lot further. It only counts as a member of our species in the most abstract sense. Frankly, I'm more inclined to protect a cow then I am an embryo... at least its actually performing the functions of a living being. Do you eat meat? How about vegetables? They were once alive too... and being a lot more alive then an embryo is.
*Shrug* As fugu said, I'm not advocating for abortion. I think its a necessary evil... sortof like you argue, David, that the Death Penalty is necessary. Frankly, I think anyone who supports the death penalty, but wants to ban abortion, is a friggin huge hypocrit, and isn't worth my time... but I try to take you guys seriously even though the position is indefensible that you get to kill someone who's obviously a person to everyone, but some woman you've never met can't kill something that isn't nearly so obviously a person.
Oh, don't call my position machivellian bullshit, and I won't call yours hypocritical arrogant self righteous bullshit.
[ January 19, 2005, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: Paul Goldner ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
(I'm not even saying abortion is a necessary evil)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Frankly, I think anyone who supports the death penalty, but wants to ban abortion, is a friggin huge hypocrit, and isn't worth my time...
Frankly, I think anyone who thinks this is trying to be ethically obtuse.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I agree in general, Dag, but I would say that anyone who supports the death penalty as generally practiced in the US, particularly 2 or 3 years ago, and opposes abortion is most likely a hypocrite.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Or ill-informed, which I guess could be taken to mean they don't support it as practiced but rather as they think it's practiced.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*nods* that's how I would take it, though I also generally tend to think that on something as important as the death penalty there is a certain responsibility to not be ill informed, particularly in the case of, say, politicians.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, absolutely.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Frankly, I'm more inclined to protect a cow then I am an embryo... at least its actually performing the functions of a living being.
What functions does a thing need to perform in order to merit your protection, Paul?
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Yeah! I still know how to push Paul's buttons... I thought I possibly had lost my touch.
First of all, to clarify my position on the death penalty: I only believe it should be used when there is incontrovertible evidence (DNA, recordings, large number of witnesses, etc.) and when the killing is of a egregious, society-damaging nature. My support of the death penalty has nothing to do with preventing future crimes (other than those potentially carried out by the now dead killer), but in removing a harmful element from society and providing catharsis for those hurt by his acts.
Secondly, your post demonstrates further that your position is, indeed, cold and Machiavellian, in that you estimate the value of a fetus by utilitarian means (hence your preference for the well being of cows). By refusing to even entertain the idea that abortion cannot be framed in these terms, but instead must be debated keeping in mind 1) the intrinsic value of life and 2) the need to respect the emotions of your opponents vis-a-vis potential people.
My irritation in my last post stemmed from your hard line. I personally want to keep abortion legal in the first trimester, because I see a societal need for people to correct unexpected mistakes; however, beyond that third month, I think it becomes increasingly monstrous for us to allow abortions (though I am comfortable with allowing some legal loopholes for medical reasons and rape), and by the sixth month, it ought to be simply illegal, barring a waiver from a three-judge panel.
So, you see, I am not some over-the-top anti-abortionist. I *do* believe, however, that you've presented your position in a pretty much over-the-top sort of way.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I did not realize that I'd missed David Bowles.
Good heavens. I may have a virtual heart after all.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Wow. David, have you always agreed with me on abortion, even on the specifics? I didn't realize.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Yes, Tom. And (get this) I'm not terribly found of Bush either, despite having voted for him. We're getting closer all the time. Soon we'll be indistinguishable, and we will then be able to combine names and be "Davidson Tombowles."
Scott, I virtually believe you, too!
[ January 20, 2005, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: David Bowles ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
This has been a good read, in more ways than one.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I personally want to keep abortion legal in the first trimester, because I see a societal need for people to correct unexpected mistakes; however, beyond that third month, I think it becomes increasingly monstrous for us to allow abortions (though I am comfortable with allowing some legal loopholes for medical reasons and rape), and by the sixth month, it ought to be simply illegal, barring a waiver from a three-judge panel.
Quoted for great justice.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Keep your virtual belief, send cash instead. . .
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Frankly, I think anyone who thinks this is trying to be ethically obtuse."
Nope, I'm not... the death penalty is the deliberate killing of a person. If you're for banning abortion, you ALSO think this is deliberate killing of a person. If you want to make exceptions for vengeance, but can't make other exceptions, you're a hypocrit. Well, either that or bloodthirsty.
"My irritation in my last post stemmed from your hard line. I personally want to keep abortion legal in the first trimester, because I see a societal need for people to correct unexpected mistakes; however, beyond that third month, I think it becomes increasingly monstrous for us to allow abortions (though I am comfortable with allowing some legal loopholes for medical reasons and rape), and by the sixth month, it ought to be simply illegal, barring a waiver from a three-judge panel."
David, this is pretty damn close to my position as well. My argument on this thread has entirely been about BANNING abortion. I do not, in any way shape or form, think that abortion is a good thing, that it should be something we desire, or that there are not moral problems with abortion.
I do not judge the worth of a fetus by utilitarian means... however, the law must. Thats what the law does. Is something more harmful to society then the good it generates? That we start putting restrictions on it. If allowing something would destroy society, then we ban it completely. Abortion, by a utilitarian measure, MIGHT, MIGHT be more harmful to society then the benefits we gain from keeping it legal and available. In which case their should be restrictions. But the only possible way abortion destroys our society is if we get a civil war between the christian right and the secular left. The act of allowing abortion itself does not, apparently, intrinsically damage society, as its been legal for some time not, and I think you'd be hard pressed to make a case that abortion is the cause of ANY of the societal ills we face, since pretty much all of them existed prior to abortion being legal.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Nope, I'm not... the death penalty is the deliberate killing of a person. If you're for banning abortion, you ALSO think this is deliberate killing of a person. If you want to make exceptions for vengeance, but can't make other exceptions, you're a hypocrit. Well, either that or bloodthirsty.
If you really tried, I'll bet you could come up with other reasons besides hypocracy and boodlust. It's not very hard. It's hard to see somebody not being able to come up with other reasons unless they are not very bright or are being deliberately obtuse.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
I'm sorry, Paul, but I simply can't keep silent anymore. I must speak up, however presumptious it may seem. This has bugged me the entire four years during which I've had the pleasure of reading your posts.
quote:Q. What is the difference between then and than?
A. These two words are quite different!
Their only similarity is in the way they sound. Than is used to compare or contrast things, as in "He is a lot smaller than his older brother." Then refers to time or consequence: "And the Canaanite was then in the land" (Gen. xii. 6.); "If all this be so, then man has a natural freedom" (Locke). So if one thing follows or results from another, use then.
Than is also used before a pronoun, as in "Paul loves pizza more than me."
quote:I do not judge the worth of a fetus by utilitarian means... however, the law must.
Yet, this passage. . .
quote:Its a human thats as close to me as a blade of grass is... actually, its a lot further. It only counts as a member of our species in the most abstract sense. Frankly, I'm more inclined to protect a cow then I am an embryo... at least its actually performing the functions of a living being.
Please explain why you think 'law' must be utilitarian.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
I'm with Scott on the law's not needing to be utilitarian, but for the sake of argument, I'll put that aside for a sec.
quote:I do not judge the worth of a fetus by utilitarian means... however, the law must. Thats what the law does. Is something more harmful to society then the good it generates? That we start putting restrictions on it. If allowing something would destroy society, then we ban it completely.
To me, the problem lies in that you're looking at the issue from the wrong end. Why was abortion made legal to begin with? That's what you ought to be considering. What are the benefits to society of *allowing* abortions, not of restricting them or banning them? So you start with a corpus of law, constitutional and otherwise, you consider the rights humans are given and (as the ancient Greeks would've insisted upon) the commonplace beliefs of the majority of individuals in the society, and you analyze whether there is sufficient urgent need to justify the destruction of 1.5 million humans a year.
This is good. I finally understand how you and I can hold the same position, yet feel so at odds with one another. I'm questioning the reasoning that *led* to the present laws, while you're questioning the reasoning that would *alter or end existing ones.* :nods head: Progress.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
David- I look at law from the standpoint of "Everything is allowed... now, lets figure out what shouldn't be." The only way I find myself capable of what the law should be is by starting from zero.
MPH- I can come up with exceptions for why the death penalty should be legal, but my point is that to allow certain exceptions, and condemn others for thinking different exceptions should be made, is hypocritical.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Paul -- you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I still want to know how we make sense of what to do with a teratoma in the contexts of the various moral positions on voluntary abortion.
I'm not bringing this up to be difficult. it is a real issue for me, and it's one that has troubled me for some time. It seems to me that "human life" isn't a sufficient threshold for protection, as we seem to predicate the claim to protection on a certain structure and level of organization of the living human tissue. But how, then, do we avoid the sort of issues that sndrake would rightly raise?
How do we make sense of this?
[ January 20, 2005, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
As a teratoma is essentially a freakish cloney cancer, Sara, I don't think it's really a morally-equivalent issue.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
It is human (by DNA) and living (by standard definitions). SO what is it over and above being "human life" that is needed to justify a claim for protection?
I'm not trying to be obtuse. I promise. I'm trying to figure out how the unstated assumptions work.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Does it have different DNA from the person it's in?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I don't think so. I'm not sure why that would be relevant, though, as an in vitro procedure with a cloned zygote would be presumably be treated the same as any other pregnancy -- i.e., it would be just as wrong (or not) to voluntarily abort it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Let me emphasize: I'm not trying to be a jackass or score a snippy point. I'm really concerned about how to puzzle through this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think the potential for independent thought is ultimately essential. I'm not sure if even sndrake would advocate keeping a brain-dead fetus on life support indefinitely on the grounds that it might wake up someday.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Since I haven't formed a stance on cloning, I'm not sure I can give an opinion on that.
However, I'd have to go with Tom on the freaky tumor thing.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I was going to say the potential to grow to its own independance, but you're right. That puts us back to a place where sndrake would have to soundly kick my rear.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think our concept of "human" is also inextricably tied up with the concept of "individual." A being who can never be an individual, by definition, is not considered human. And since the ability to make a decision is essential to our definition of individuality, a functional brain -- or at least a potentially functional brain -- is one of the first requirements.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Nope, I'm not... the death penalty is the deliberate killing of a person. If you're for banning abortion, you ALSO think this is deliberate killing of a person. If you want to make exceptions for vengeance, but can't make other exceptions, you're a hypocrit. Well, either that or bloodthirsty.
Of course, by this logic, all exceptions must be allowed if any is. Which is patently absurd.
You have problems with a particular exception, yet want to grant another one. I have problems with the one you support, yet am in theory OK with the one you oppose. (Assuming you oppose the death penalty - if not,for purposes of illustration, pick a mythical "you" who supports abortion rights but opposes the death penalty.)
There are certainly reasons other than hypocrisy and blood lust to support a particular exception to a general moral rule. Otherwise, every moral system is based on hypocrisy and blood lust.
Dagonee
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Thanks for the thoughtful replies. And thanks for not just assuming I'm being a jerk. I appreciate both efforts, believe me.
I have to go do some job-work and answer some emails, but I'll give it some more time and come back later with more questions (which any given person can chime in or not, no matter).
See y'all in a bit.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Oh, KoM. Let me explain-- this is a bulletin board. Not a chat room. When someone doesn't reply immediately to your posts, it may simply mean that they are heading out to dinner with their spouse, and have no time to address any of your points in a serious, thoughtful manner.
I did give you a fair amount of time to respond, and I believe I asked quite politely whether or not you wanted to continue the discussion. I do not think it entirely reasonable to accuse me of demanding instant answers.
quote:We agree that even our society has defined acceptable ways and whens to kill certain people.
But you miss the fact that murder is a whole 'nother bird entirely.
Here I think you need to define your terms. I am using 'murder' to mean 'killing humans', with 'humans' defined as above : Whatever I'm pointing at when I use the term. It seems to me that you are using 'murder' to mean 'killing that is against the law', which I don't think is a useful definition in this case, since it is then tautological to say that civilisations disapprove of it. So how are you defining murder?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
EDIT: Nevermind.
KoM: In light of your terms, I am not interested in continuing this discussion with you.
[ January 20, 2005, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
As you wish. I hope I didn't say something to offend you?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)