quote:I do understand what you are saying. I guess the sticking point is where I would have to force people to follow my views, my own beliefs and make them follow a course of action they don't believe in. Probably because of my background in medial protocols I have a very strong feeling regarding a patients right to decide what is best for themselves. I am particularly leery of allowing the government to interfere with this, as I don't think the government has a clue regarding medical decisions most of the time, and I feel this is irrevocably tied to the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" we are all promised.
The problem is that, to pro-lifers, it's not (always, or just) about forcing people to 'follow their views'. It's about saving lives.
And the truth is, you really don't have any problem at all forcing other people to behave differently, in the correct circumstances. You even discussed it somewhere in this thread: about what you would do if someone was being attacked in front of you, for example.
If you were walking down the street and saw someone brutally kicking a puppy, would you let your reluctance to force other people to adhere to your beliefs stop you from physically stopping that person from abusing that animal?
What's the difference? On a 'people doing what I believe' basis, that is. There is no difference, except the 'nebulous possibility'.
Well, why do we stop people from driving drunk? There is only a possibility they will be in an accident. A guy might drive drunk for years without ever hurting anyone. And yet when we find out about it, we stop him (or we should). Why? Because it's an unnecessary risk to permit go unchecked.
What if in the future there comes substantive scientific evidence (somehow) that that cluster of human cells is in fact human? What will we as a society say if that happens?
I'll tell you what we won't be able to say with a straight face: "We had no idea!" or "How could we have known?"
---------
And before anyone freaks out, I am not likening pro-choicers to drunk drivers, or suggesting their stance is morally akin to supporting drunk driving.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if in the future there comes substantive scientific evidence (somehow) that that veal or lamb chop is in fact human? What will we as a society say if that happens?
I'll tell you what we won't be able to say with a straight face: "We had no idea!" or "How could we have known?"
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In all seriousness, though, Rakeesh's point can't just be dismissed as ridiculous. In order to counter it I think you either have to argue that it's already clear they aren't human or to question what it means to be human and how that morally affects abortion.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I don't for pretty much the same reason that we don't have to counter Hindu that believe that cows are sacred before eating a tasty prime rib or hippies that believe that Mother Gaia gave all animals a soul so we shouldn't harm any animals, period.
Or to spell it out, if you really look at Rakeesh's point, it reduces to "What if X is true? You'd better do Y just in case." It is just Pascal's Wager in a different form.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or to spell it out, if you really look at Rakeesh's point, it reduces to "What if X is true? You'd better do Y just in case."
That's an truncated restatement of my point, which was more accurately, "What if X is true? We can do either Y or Z, both of which pose the same risk, but if we do Z and it turns out X is true, we'll have been killing lots of people."
It's not just 'do this in case of that'. It's 'each response to that has the same risk, so why not do the more cautious thing?"
So yeah, you need to dig a little deeper there, hoss.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And how is that different from the naive wager? "What if Christianity is true? We can either believe in God or not, both of which cost the same, but if we do not and it turns out God exists, we're going to Hell."
Or for that matter, "What if Babe the talking pig is real? We can either eat prime rib or pork chop both which cost the same, but if we eat pork chop and it turns out Babe is real, we just ate a talking pig!"
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:"What if Christianity is true? We can either believe in God or not, both of which cost the same, but if we do not and it turns out God exists, we're going to Hell."
Not a valid comparison, for many reasons. First, not a (possible) life or death situation. Second, more than belief is required anyway. Third, it's a matter entirely of the individual's concern in either instance. That's just a few reasons.
quote:Or for that matter, "What if Babe the talking pig is real? We can either eat prime rib or pork chop both which cost the same, but if we eat pork chop and it turns out Babe is real, we just ate a talking pig!"
Well, actually prime rib and pork chops don't cost the same. Second, while there is a lot of uncertainty with when precisely human life begins prior to birth, there is absolutely zero uncertainty about whether or not Babe is a real pig and does, in fact, talk.
Do you have any real questions?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Not a valid comparison, for many reasons. First, not a (possible) life or death situation. Second, more than belief is required anyway. Third, it's a matter entirely of the individual's concern in either instance. That's just a few reasons.
It is a valid comparison for many reasons. First, its even better than a life or death situation. Its a *after*life or death situation, the stakes are even higher. Second, are you actually familiar with Pascal's Wager? The wager relies upon mere belief to satisfy God, otherwise the costs would not be the same. In fact, the criticism that religion requires more than just mere belief (e.g. tithing, time, social problems) is actually a criticism made by atheists about the wager. So, good job critiquing the wager, you're on your way to a better way Third, thats entirely a matter of perspective.
quote:Well, actually prime rib and pork chops don't cost the same. Second, while there is a lot of uncertainty with when precisely human life begins prior to birth, there is absolutely zero uncertainty about whether or not Babe is a real pig and does, in fact, talk.
Well, actually they do cost the same depending on portion size. Second, there is actually much uncertainty about whether Babe is a real talking pig. After all, have you checked all pigs in the world to see whether they can talk? Perhaps the talking pig has turned invisible, or perhaps the talking pig is actually a part of everyone? Perhaps the story of Babe is actually an allegory and simply requires the proper interpretation. In fact, I find your statement about my belief in the sacredness of pigs offensive and I demand that you cease eating pork in front of me just in case pigs do have souls.
In fact, what would you say if God appeared tomorrow and declared that pigs had human souls? What would you say to the thousands of pigs that you had murdered to satisfy your own appetite? "We didn't know!"
Well, that would be a fair response. But the answer to that reply must surely be, "You weren't sure...so why not err on the side of caution?"
quote: Do you have any real questions?
Do you have any real objections?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:First, its even better than a life or death situation. Its a *after*life or death situation, the stakes are even higher.
Yes, but we view threats against someone's life much differently than 'spiritual' threats. One has the force of law arrayed against it, the other does not.
So no, it's not better for that reason.
quote:Second, are you actually familiar with Pascal's Wager? The wager relies upon mere belief to satisfy God, otherwise the costs would not be the same. In fact, the criticism that religion requires more than just mere belief (e.g. tithing, time, social problems) is actually a criticism made by atheists about the wager. So, good job critiquing the wager, you're on your way to a better way [Wink]
How droll. The point was that this isn't like Pascal's Wager for the reasons listed.
quote:Third, thats entirely a matter of perspective.
Not really. Not when it comes to bringing the law to bear.
quote:Well, actually they do cost the same depending on portion size.
*rolleyes*
quote:Second, there is actually much uncertainty about whether Babe is a real talking pig. After all, have you checked all pigs in the world to see whether they can talk? Perhaps the talking pig has turned invisible, or perhaps the talking pig is actually a part of everyone? Perhaps the story of Babe is actually an allegory and simply requires the proper interpretation. In fact, I find your statement about my belief in the sacredness of pigs offensive and I demand that you cease eating pork in front of me just in case pigs do have souls.
OK, so finally you're out with it:) You're going to insist that we pretend that there is, in fact, a chance that Babe is a real talking pig, or was based on a true story because we haven't scoped out every single pig alive and dead to make sure.
Honestly, it would've been less wasteful for both of us if you'd simply cut to that chase early and saved us each some time. That objection of yours has its place in a discussion of theology and religion and atheism, but in this discussion about a hypothetical situation it's just plain tedious.
But let me cut through the haze you're putting out here with a direct question: do you believe there is a real chance that Babe is a real talking pig? If so, do you believe that chance is equivalent to the chance that, at some point during pregnancy, something that was once a cluster of cells becomes instead a human being?
quote:Do you have any real objections?
Yup. I've listed them repeatedly. Feel free to 'rebut' with a silly hypothetical though and consider me answered.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question of when a cluster of cells becomes a human being depends on how you define a human being.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I honestly don't believe that it is a human yet, and I feel that it can't be proved otherwise by anything other than religious reasons, which is not even close to being socially accepted as proof.
Also, kicking a puppy doesn't affect a persons body, or their right to decide which medical treatment they receive, so it is a poor example at best. At worst it completely ignores almost every single point I have been trying to make since I entered this conversation.
The argument of erring on the side of caution is used every time some politician wants to remove a right, or impose a penalty for an action they disagree with. While I personally do not approve of abortion, my approval should not matter to someone who wants one, or God forbid needs one.
It IS a matter of degree, of course. The difference between this and drunk driving is that drunk driving places multiple humans at risk. A more proper comparison would be if there was a surgery to permanently remove the effects of alcohol for someone...should we force someone to have it if they get a DUI?
While it would be expedient, I would NOT be in favor of it. It goes too far, and violates their freedoms too much. Free will comes wiht a cost....that cost being that people are allowed to have choices.
Mucas....one of the criticisms of those atheist's arguments against Pascal's wager, is that a lot of people don't consider those other aspects of religion as wasteful or undesirable. There have been PLENTY of studies regarding the effects of religion on a society's stability, and there are a lot of really good non-religious reasons why religion is a good thing for most societies.
People tend to be happier, more productive, and society as a whole tends to function well when a religion helps to hold a society together.
And that is all without even considering God's opinion. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Yes, but we view threats against someone's life much differently than 'spiritual' threats. One has the force of law arrayed against it, the other does not.
Actually, *neither* abortion OR 'spiritual' threats have the force of law arrayed against them. Try again.
quote:How droll. The point was that this isn't like Pascal's Wager for the reasons listed.
And my point is that it is in fact like Pascal's Wager *for* the reasons you listed. Same basic claims create the same basic flaws.
quote: But let me cut through the haze you're putting out here with a direct question: do you believe there is a real chance that Babe is a real talking pig? If so, do you believe that chance is equivalent to the chance that, at some point during pregnancy, something that was once a cluster of cells becomes instead a human being?
I think that the probability of a real talking pig existing is definitely higher than that of God both existing AND him showing up personally to declare that a human fetus is a "human being", whatever that means.
Appending to what Threads said, for someone that doesn't believe in souls the question of what a human being is merely a question of definition and of the law. When does a pig fetus become a "pig"? When does a seed become a plant?
quote:Feel free to 'rebut' with a silly hypothetical though and consider me answered.
The fact that you view this as a silly hypothetical is encouraging since I'm drawing a parallel with a silly hypothetical in the first place.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, *neither* abortion OR 'spiritual' threats have the force of law arrayed against them. Try again.
I didn't say abortion. And actually, a sign of how dysfunctional we are on the matter, in some cases abortion does have the force of law arrayed against it. So I don't need to try again.
quote:I think that the probability of a real talking pig existing is definitely higher than that of God both existing AND him showing up personally to declare that a human fetus is a "human being", whatever that means.
That's a clever way to dodge the question I actually asked without ever answering it.
quote:The fact that you view this as a silly hypothetical is encouraging since I'm drawing a parallel with a silly hypothetical in the first place.
By all means, continue to seize on that hypothetical instead of answering other questions.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I didn't say abortion. And actually, a sign of how dysfunctional we are on the matter, in some cases abortion does have the force of law arrayed against it. So I don't need to try again.
Actually, you did in your original hypothetical to which I am comparing the wager. Unless you're referring to something other than abortion when you said "millions of millions of humans killed for the sake of keeping another person's right to kill them safe" which is also a strange failure to understand the reasons why someone might go through abortion.
Also, if we're going to be picking and choosing backward states where "the force of law [is] arrayed against it" we can also note that there are states where spiritual threats also have the force of law arrayed against it and in a much more substantive way too.
quote:That's a clever way to dodge the question I actually asked without ever answering it.
Thank you, especially since the question you asked was just a dodge in order to avoid addressing the actual issue we're discussing.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, if we're going to be picking and choosing backward states where "the force of law [is] arrayed against it" we can also note that there are states where spiritual threats also have the force of law arrayed against it and in a much more substantive way too.
*snort* At least you're letting your real feelings show with this remark:) And anyway, I didn't mean that, I meant places where crimes against pregnant women carry stiffer penalties, especially if the child/cluster of cells is harmed.
Actually, your real feelings were clear already when you chose Babe the talking pig as opposed to something equally unlikely but less silly.
quote:Actually, you did in your original hypothetical to which I am comparing the wager. Unless you're referring to something other than abortion when you said "millions of millions of humans killed for the sake of keeping another person's right to kill them safe" which is also a strange failure to understand the reasons why someone might go through abortion.
I don't even address here the reasons why someone might go through an abortion, Mucus. What part of that statement do you think makes that point exactly?
In the hypothetical I made, we were talking about someone being killed, not just abortion.
quote:Thank you, especially since the question you asked was just a dodge in order to avoid addressing the actual issue we're discussing.
It wasn't a dodge. I rejected the entire 'issue' you brought up to discuss as irrelevant to the larger discussion, Mucus. I did then and I still do now. I didn't 'dodge' it, I called BS on it and gave a list of reasons why.
By all means, continue to say, "N'uh!" and consider me well answered. But say it to someone else, because I've gotten thoroughly tired of going around the bush with you.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The hypothetical assumes that we consider humanity to be inherently superior to other species. I do not - I judge each creature's moral "worth" by their capacity to suffer, and their capacity to experience joy. I do think that "potential" enjoyment of life is something to consider, but in that regard there's no difference between choosing to abort and choosing not to have a child in the first place.
Every individual case is different - there are feelings of the mother, the father, the ability to raise the child, rape, etc that can never be answered with a blanket "Abortion is always wrong or always permissible." But for legal reasons, For legal reasons, the line needs to be drawn somewhere, and the development of the central nervous system is the only place that line makes sense to me.
In any case, I care far more about the millions of pigs who are treated cruelly and then killed than I do about unborn humans who can't feel pain yet. Whether those pigs can talk or have souls is irrelevant to me.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:If obstetrics practitioners have to be concerned that practicing the best medicine for their patients may be second-guessed in court- could, indeed, get them incarcerated- those numbers are going to get much, much worse.
I'm not sure why this issue, in the hypothetical situation, couldn't be very easily addressed with clearly written laws on the matter.
Because even in the hypothetical situation, there may still be cases where an obstetrician has to weigh the risks of trying to deliver a child alive (or, presumably, bring out a living fetus alive for long enough for it to be transferred to an artificial womb) against the health, or life, of the mother. And if there's a professional judgement, there will be those who question that judgement.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: The hypothetical assumes that we consider humanity to be inherently superior to other species. I do not - I judge each creature's moral "worth" by their capacity to suffer, and their capacity to experience joy. I do think that "potential" enjoyment of life is something to consider, but in that regard there's no difference between choosing to abort and choosing not to have a child in the first place.
Every individual case is different - there are feelings of the mother, the father, the ability to raise the child, rape, etc that can never be answered with a blanket "Abortion is always wrong or always permissible." But for legal reasons, For legal reasons, the line needs to be drawn somewhere, and the development of the central nervous system is the only place that line makes sense to me.
In any case, I care far more about the millions of pigs who are treated cruelly and then killed than I do about unborn humans who can't feel pain yet. Whether those pigs can talk or have souls is irrelevant to me.
It is only irrelevant to you because you were born though.
I DO hold that a human life is worth more than other animals, and I find arguments to the contrary to be slightly silly, and usually hard to take seriously. But that doesn't mean I have the right to force you to believe otherwise.
However, if you were to act in a manner that placed a human life in jeopardy because of your views, you could (and would) be prosecuted.
And while I appreciate your support, your claim about "not feeling pain" completely depends on which stage of gestation the fetus is in.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I went back and forth between giving a lengthy treatise on my entire moral system and the shorter statement I actually made, where I just touched upon the issues at hand. I decided to go with the latter, mostly because introducing myself to a forum with a huge wall of text seemed unwise.
quote:I DO hold that a human life is worth more than other animals, and I find arguments to the contrary to be slightly silly, and usually hard to take seriously. But that doesn't mean I have the right to force you to believe otherwise.
Among the caveats I didn't mention is that I DO assume that humans have some traits that make them more valuable than many animals. We can find happiness in a variety ways that animals (presumably) can't - reading poetry, unlocking secrets of the universe, etc. Our intelligence also means we have the potential to bring about great good for the entire world (although so far, I'd say we've been failing to do that). But saying humans are automatically better than everyone else strikes me as self centered.
quote: However, if you were to act in a manner that placed a human life in jeopardy because of your views, you could (and would) be prosecuted.
Of course. But I think your misunderstand those views (understandably, since I didn't explain them well). I don't think humans are "only" animals. I think all creatures are worthy of respect, humans included, and I do my best to make the world a better place for everyone.
Again, going into a lot of detail here will detract from the point of the original post.
quote: And while I appreciate your support, your claim about "not feeling pain" completely depends on which stage of gestation the fetus is in.
Agreed. My point was not that humans are not "people" until after they're born, they're "people" (or should be legally) when their central nervous system is developed, which begins around week 6. I do not know precisely when it's developed enough to feel pain, but at the very least I see no moral qualms with an abortion before then.
Regardless, I find it ironic that many of the most vocal abortion opponents, who keep reminding us to "choose adoption," have yet to adopt themselves. There are approximately 500,000 children in the foster care system. Abortion opponents point to the waiting list to adopt infants, ignoring the many older children waiting for a home, let alone the (approximately) 18,000 children who die every day of starvation.
That, more than anything else, is why the "hypothetical" question will remain just that. No matter what advances in science we make, providing a home for every child will not be possible unless people across the globe are willing to sacrifice many elements of their lifestyle. I don't see that happening anything soon.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The hypothetical assumes that we consider humanity to be inherently superior to other species. I do not - I judge each creature's moral "worth" by their capacity to suffer, and their capacity to experience joy. I do think that "potential" enjoyment of life is something to consider, but in that regard there's no difference between choosing to abort and choosing not to have a child in the first place.
Actually, for me the matter is simpler. Humans are animals with needs just as the birds in the sky and fish in the sea. Animals take what they need when they can. Where we go wrong is not in the taking, but in going beyond what we need.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
