posted
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;.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Not that this has any real bearing on the discussion, I just thought about little Rumaisa while reading the thread.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
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.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. David, have you always agreed with me on abortion, even on the specifics? I didn't realize.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
As a teratoma is essentially a freakish cloney cancer, Sara, I don't think it's really a morally-equivalent issue.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. It is far too common for someone to say something as if it is obviously true, when it is not at all. You said:![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
