 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
J. Sloan
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Fri Sep 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 433 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Sat Nov 29th, 2008 06:16 am |
|
prodomal wrote: tiny thinker wrote: prodomal wrote: tiny thinker wrote: Why not give adequate attention to both (groups)?
One has actual needs and actually exists. The other is hypothetical.
When I'm determining who to give my help to, I prefer to help those that are living and are in need now.
Yes, of course, there is nothing living and growing in the uterus of a pregnant woman. It's just a speculation until something pops out of the vagina. Until then the idea that there is a developing human organism in the woman's body is just an educated guess. I suppose by this logic we should save a LOT of money by getting rid of/ceasing to encourage prenatal health care.
Clearly you are unfamiliar with hydatifdform moles. Look it up sometime.
You spelled hydatidiform wrong. But come on, NO ONE is talking about this when discussing the abortion issue.
____________________
Slimmy soars with the eagles!
|
prodomal
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Nov 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | Atlanta |
| Posts: | 360 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Nov 29th, 2008 06:20 am |
|
J. Sloan wrote: prodomal wrote: tiny thinker wrote: prodomal wrote: tiny thinker wrote: Why not give adequate attention to both (groups)?
One has actual needs and actually exists. The other is hypothetical.
When I'm determining who to give my help to, I prefer to help those that are living and are in need now.
Yes, of course, there is nothing living and growing in the uterus of a pregnant woman. It's just a speculation until something pops out of the vagina. Until then the idea that there is a developing human organism in the woman's body is just an educated guess. I suppose by this logic we should save a LOT of money by getting rid of/ceasing to encourage prenatal health care.
Clearly you are unfamiliar with hydatifdform moles. Look it up sometime.
You spelled hydatidiform wrong. But come on, NO ONE is talking about this when discussing the abortion issue.
Fixed. And it was in response to TinyThinker's sarcastic statement: "there is nothing living and growing in the uterus of a pregnant woman."
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 725 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Sat Nov 29th, 2008 10:44 am |
|
J. Sloan wrote: There's no such thing as a perfect analogy, because the very concept of an analogy is that it compares dissimilar things. The analogy between, say, "a consenting adult who chooses to drink" and "a consenting adult who chooses to spray-paint a car" isn't perfect. Saying your analogy is not perfect is an understatement -- it is a bad analogy.
It really isn't. For the purpose of pointing out that unpragmatic laws shouldn't exist, it works just fine.
You're implying that the reason the analogy is flawed is that it's a matter of degree: that I'm comparing a petty wrong to murder. More than that -- that you are comparing what a consenting adult does to taking the life of an innocent human being.
An analogy is not a thorough comparison: an analogy only examines one aspect that two things hold in common.
If I say "playing the piano is like riding a bike: it's muscle memory that you never forget," I do not mean to imply that a piano has tires.
But you haven't - and can't - establish that abortion is murder. Not without using an extremely non-standard definition. And adding the word "unjustified" is no help at all, because justification is entirely subjective. Murder is defined as: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought If the human being inside the womb is a person, then abortion is murder. Now the law says one thing, whether the law is right or wrong is what is being disputed.
Well, you've pretty much already pointed out the two ways that abortion doesn't satisfy that definition: it's not illegal, and a fetus is not considered a person. That is to say: it's not considered a person under the law, and many people do not philosophically consider it a person.
Your original argument "it's wrong and therefore we should ban it" was no good, because we do not as a matter of policy ban things for being wrong. And your follow-up argument - "it's basically murder and therefore we should ban it" was no good either, because it doesn't fit any common definition of murder. You have to use your own, special, pro-life definition to get there. My argument is that there is a human person in the womb and that taking her life is murder. Murder is one prime example where we do have policies based on what is right or wrong. I do not have to use any special definition of murder, I only have to argue that the human being inside the womb is a person and that the law is wrong about the status of that human being.
Laws against murder are not based solely on "right and wrong" - they're extremely pragmatic. Society would utterly and completely collapse if murdering each other were normalized.
But laws against abortion are the opposite of that: completely unpragmatic. Not only does society not collapse in their absence, but when they're present, they don't fix the problem they're meant to solve, they put women at risk, they punish doctors for trying to help their patients, and they encourage the spread of organized crime.
And, yes, you're using a special definition of murder when you decide you can define the words in its definition as you please. You're defining "unlawfully" as "done in such a way that I personally think should be unlawful," and you've taken it upon yourself to select one definition of "person" out of many, the majority of which do not lead to the conclusion you're drawing.
And, intellectually, it is every bit as easy to claim that every soldier should be executed or imprisoned for murder or attempted murder than it is to claim the same of desperate unwed mothers. It is not even close -- another bad analogy from you.
Of course it's close. You don't even have to fiddle with the definition as much to reach that conclusion, because the victims of soldiers are inarguably people.
So, what, all I have to do is say "War should be illegal," and then I have free reign to claim that all soldiers are murderers?
Because that's pretty much what you're arguing.
Last edited on Sat Nov 29th, 2008 10:46 am by AyHyperbole
|
J. Sloan
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Fri Sep 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 433 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Nov 29th, 2008 05:19 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote:
It really isn't. For the purpose of pointing out that unpragmatic laws shouldn't exist, it works just fine.
Now you just sound like a broken record. Taking innocent human lives is not comparable to an adult who chooses to drink. The reasons are obvious -- one is a consenting adult and the other is an innocent human being. The fact that you think we should not stop killing humans for pragmatic reasons shows how desperate you are in your argument.
An analogy is not a thorough comparison: an analogy only examines one aspect that two things hold in common.
If I say "playing the piano is like riding a bike: it's muscle memory that you never forget," I do not mean to imply that a piano has tires.
Your analogy is not even close -- it compares a cognitive adult who chooses to drink with killing innocent human beings.
Well, you've pretty much already pointed out the two ways that abortion doesn't satisfy that definition: it's not illegal, and a fetus is not considered a person. That is to say: it's not considered a person under the law, and many people do not philosophically consider it a person.
Stop hiding behind the law. Everyone knows what the law says -- that is not the issues. The issue is whether the law is correct in its definition of what constitutes a person. Medically, there is no difference in kind between a human being in the womb and a newborn baby.
Laws against murder are not based solely on "right and wrong" - they're extremely pragmatic. Society would utterly and completely collapse if murdering each other were normalized.
Who are you trying to fool? Murder, rape, molesting children, etc. are ALL based on moral notions of right and wrong.
But laws against abortion are the opposite of that: completely unpragmatic. Not only does society not collapse in their absence, but when they're present, they don't fix the problem they're meant to solve, they put women at risk, they punish doctors for trying to help their patients, and they encourage the spread of organized crime.
I.e. Killing human beings is easier so let's kill them and keep it legal. That's a bad argument. If we killed criminals, society would not collapse so why not legalize that? And the majority of women are not at risk in the least, another weak argument from pro-choicers.
And, yes, you're using a special definition of murder when you decide you can define the words in its definition as you please. You're defining "unlawfully" as "done in such a way that I personally think should be unlawful," and you've taken it upon yourself to select one definition of "person" out of many, the majority of which do not lead to the conclusion you're drawing.
I used a standard definition of "murder" and explained why it should be used.
Of course it's close. You don't even have to fiddle with the definition as much to reach that conclusion, because the victims of soldiers are inarguably people.
So, what, all I have to do is say "War should be illegal," and then I have free reign to claim that all soldiers are murderers?
Because that's pretty much what you're arguing.
Once again, one is a consenting person and another is a innocent human person. One kills, one does not. One makes choices, one has no choice. Your analogies make about as much sense as comparing apples and oranges because they are both food.
____________________
Slimmy soars with the eagles!
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 725 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Nov 29th, 2008 11:49 pm |
|
An analogy is not a thorough comparison: an analogy only examines one aspect that two things hold in common. If I say "playing the piano is like riding a bike: it's muscle memory that you never forget," I do not mean to imply that a piano has tires. Your analogy is not even close -- it compares a cognitive adult who chooses to drink with killing innocent human beings.
You don't seem to have any understanding of what an analogy is. If I made an analogy between a piano and a bicycle for the sake of talking about muscle memory, that would be valid.
Apparently, you'd come back and say "That's not even close!! A grand piano is worth ten times more than a bicycle!"
But that's missing the point. Cost is not a factor in the analogy.
Well, you've pretty much already pointed out the two ways that abortion doesn't satisfy that definition: it's not illegal, and a fetus is not considered a person. That is to say: it's not considered a person under the law, and many people do not philosophically consider it a person. Stop hiding behind the law. Everyone knows what the law says -- that is not the issues. The issue is whether the law is correct in its definition of what constitutes a person. Medically, there is no difference in kind between a human being in the womb and a newborn baby.
Hiding behind the law? You're trying to prove that abortion is by definition murder. To do that, you provided a dictionary definition that very clearly laid out the fact that abortion by definition is not murder.
It was kind of a ridiculous thing to do.
Laws against murder are not based solely on "right and wrong" - they're extremely pragmatic. Society would utterly and completely collapse if murdering each other were normalized. Who are you trying to fool? Murder, rape, molesting children, etc. are ALL based on moral notions of right and wrong.
Laws against murder, rape, and child molestation all lie on the intersection between morality and pragmatism. That is to say: not only are they moralistic, but they're also practical. Society could not survive without them.
There are also innumerable wrongdoings that society couldn't survive with laws against. And for that reason, we don't have laws against them.
And abortion is one. Whether you consider the practice immoral or not, the fact remains that passing the law would do society more harm than good, and societies should not have laws that harm themselves.
But laws against abortion are the opposite of that: completely unpragmatic. Not only does society not collapse in their absence, but when they're present, they don't fix the problem they're meant to solve, they put women at risk, they punish doctors for trying to help their patients, and they encourage the spread of organized crime. I.e. Killing human beings is easier so let's kill them and keep it legal. That's a bad argument. If we killed criminals, society would not collapse so why not legalize that? And the majority of women are not at risk in the least, another weak argument from pro-choicers.
If we killed everyone who committed a crime, society would indeed likely collapse. There have been hundreds of rebellions throughout history based on what was perceived as draconian enforcement of law.
If a woman takes an abortion into her own hands, or seeks non-professional help, she is absolutely at risk. And that was a main reason Roe v. Wade was passed in the first place: there were women bleeding to death in dirty alleys, and there were doctors saying please let me help with this.
And, yes, you're using a special definition of murder when you decide you can define the words in its definition as you please. You're defining "unlawfully" as "done in such a way that I personally think should be unlawful," and you've taken it upon yourself to select one definition of "person" out of many, the majority of which do not lead to the conclusion you're drawing. I used a standard definition of "murder" and explained why it should be used.
But you used non-standard definitions of the words in that definition - which makes the definition itself non-standard.
It's like if I said a dog was a bunny slipper, and I said: "Dog. N. Any carnivore of the dogfamily Canidae. Oh, but by 'carnivore,' I mean 'bunny slipper.'"
You literally defined "illegal" as "something I disapprove of." In what way is that standard?
Once again, one is a consenting person and another is a innocent human person. One kills, one does not. One makes choices, one has no choice. Your analogies make about as much sense as comparing apples and oranges because they are both food.
Bullshit. Half a million women, children, and noncombatants have been killed in the Iraq war alone. Saying that war only kills the consenting is an outright lie.
Besides - there's nothing in the definition of "murder" about "consenting." If you said "Please kill me," and I did, that would be a murder: there's no law that allows us to do that.
|
tiny thinker
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Fri Jul 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 62 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Nov 30th, 2008 04:04 am |
|
prodomal wrote: J. Sloan wrote: prodomal wrote: tiny thinker wrote: prodomal wrote: tiny thinker wrote: Why not give adequate attention to both (groups)?
One has actual needs and actually exists. The other is hypothetical.
When I'm determining who to give my help to, I prefer to help those that are living and are in need now.
Yes, of course, there is nothing living and growing in the uterus of a pregnant woman. It's just a speculation until something pops out of the vagina. Until then the idea that there is a developing human organism in the woman's body is just an educated guess. I suppose by this logic we should save a LOT of money by getting rid of/ceasing to encourage prenatal health care.
Clearly you are unfamiliar with hydatifdform moles. Look it up sometime.
You spelled hydatidiform wrong. But come on, NO ONE is talking about this when discussing the abortion issue.
Fixed. And it was in response to TinyThinker's sarcastic statement: "there is nothing living and growing in the uterus of a pregnant woman."
Which only sidesteps the point- whatever ones position on abortion, from zygote through fetus there is a living and developing human organism. The point when one decides this individual organism merits some form of acknowledgment as a person and thus deserving of some corresponding legal status obviously differs from the extreme pro-life to the extreme pro-choice polls, but there is no serious argument about the basic biological identity here.
My sarcasm was taking your own statement seriously - that the unborn are "hypothetical", not "living", and not "in need" - which you made in response to my suggestion that we give adequate attention to the born and the unborn. If that is not what you meant or if you wish to rephrase or clarify your statement, that is up to you. Otherwise, what's the problem? Why would one advocate prenatal care for hypothetical, non-living entities that are not in need?
____________________
Life does not accommodate you; it shatters you. Every seed destroys its container, or else there would be no fruition.-Florida Scott-Maxwell
|
prodomal
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Nov 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | Atlanta |
| Posts: | 360 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Nov 30th, 2008 05:27 am |
|
Which only sidesteps the point- whatever ones position on abortion, from zygote through fetus there is a living and developing human organism.
So is the hydaditiform mole. It is an embryo. Shall we give it rights?
The point when one decides this individual organism merits some form of acknowledgment as a person and thus deserving of some corresponding legal status obviously differs from the extreme pro-life to the extreme pro-choice polls, but there is no serious argument about the basic biological identity here.
I'm with ya.
My sarcasm was taking your own statement seriously - that the unborn are "hypothetical", not "living", and not "in need" - which you made in response to my suggestion that we give adequate attention to the born and the unborn.
Your concern is not just with the girls who go into the clinic today. It is also with the girls who may go in tomorrow, next week, or next year. In addition, the pro-life camp is concerned with stem cell research which has the potential to improve the lives of the already living. Those "unborn" are hypothetical. Why not worry more about the ones that are here, about the women who find themselves in these situations, and about the people who are suffering NOW from diseases we might be able to alleiviate or cure?
Why would one advocate prenatal care for hypothetical, non-living entities that are not in need?
We are not discussing prenatal care.
Why is the pro-life camp not against fertility treatments? (as an aside.)
(Is there some sort of spell check thing on this board?)
Last edited on Sun Nov 30th, 2008 05:29 am by prodomal
|
tiny thinker
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Fri Jul 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 62 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Nov 30th, 2008 06:56 pm |
|
prodomal wrote:
Which only sidesteps the point- whatever ones position on abortion, from zygote through fetus there is a living and developing human organism.
So is the hydaditiform mole. It is an embryo. Shall we give it rights?
Nowhere in this thread have I laid out a case for how to determine a specific set of rights. Nor was that my goal. My statement was in response to people being concerned at neglecting either the born or the unborn, and it was "Why not give adequate attention to both?" This is the basis of all my comments which followed. I fail to see why this would be perceived as being strictly "Pro-Choice" or "Pro-Life".
prodomal wrote:
The point when one decides this individual organism merits some form of acknowledgment as a person and thus deserving of some corresponding legal status obviously differs from the extreme pro-life to the extreme pro-choice polls, but there is no serious argument about the basic biological identity here.
I'm with ya.
Nod.
prodomal wrote:
My sarcasm was taking your own statement seriously - that the unborn are "hypothetical", not "living", and not "in need" - which you made in response to my suggestion that we give adequate attention to the born and the unborn.
Your concern is not just with the girls who go into the clinic today. It is also with the girls who may go in tomorrow, next week, or next year. In addition, the pro-life camp is concerned with stem cell research which has the potential to improve the lives of the already living. Those "unborn" are hypothetical. Why not worry more about the ones that are here, about the women who find themselves in these situations, and about the people who are suffering NOW from diseases we might be able to alleiviate or cure?
There are diverging threads of thought here so I will separate and reply to them individually:
1) How do you know what my concerns are beyond attempting to provide adequate health care at all phases of life?
2) What does a generalization about the Pro-Life camp and stem cell research have to do with my basic premise?
3) Again, without clarification I refute your characterization of the unborn as non-living or hypothetical. By general standards for "living" or for "real", the unborn qualify. My definition of the unborn as being a) real, b) human, c) living and d) individuals is readily verified by biology. As I said, when and to what extend rights should be accorded to such developing human organisms may vary by political philosophy, but the basic material facts of the case upon which the philosophies argue is consistent. They may diverge when arguing (whether to consider) spiritual evidence or assumptions, but biologically the unborn are real, human, living, and individuals. As for your previous example of a chromosomal abnormality resulting in an ultimately unviable organism, I can tell you about several more conditions, some of which do not permit development beyond a particular stage (zygote, blastula, etc) and others which will die at or soon after birth with no hope of medical intervention. In some cases because certain cell populations do not migrate properly the head does not form properly and you have what looks like a giant clam sitting on the fetus's shoulders. These examples of the unborn are also real (you can see them, touch them, etc), human (check their DNA), living (cell division, cellular respiration, etc), and they are unique, i.e. individuals. That doesn't mean they can or should be brought to term, but that in turn doesn't deny those four facts about their identity.
4) My suggestion is to make sure that adequate attention and care be supplied to all. Again, what people would consider adequate can vary but my premise is rejecting an either/or perspective.
prodomal wrote: Why would one advocate prenatal care for hypothetical, non-living entities that are not in need?
We are not discussing prenatal care.
Why is the pro-life camp not against fertility treatments? (as an aside.)
(Is there some sort of spell check thing on this board?)
In order, that would be:
Prenatal care is part of what I am talking about.
Again, what does a generalization about the Pro-Life camp and stem cell research have to do with my basic premise?
Not that I am aware of.
____________________
Life does not accommodate you; it shatters you. Every seed destroys its container, or else there would be no fruition.-Florida Scott-Maxwell
|
prodomal
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Nov 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | Atlanta |
| Posts: | 360 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Nov 30th, 2008 08:26 pm |
|
I see the problem here Tiny Thinker. You took issue with my statement specifically, when I was speaking more generally about the pro-life camp.
I pretty much agree with what you've laid out. An actual fetus is not hypothetical, obviously. I was speaking more to the general attitude of the Pro-Life campaign.
Adequate attention can be, and should be given to both. A woman who wants to carry her fetus to term should receive pre-natal care. Abandoned children should be given adequate attention.
But Pro-Lifers want to stop all abortions. They want to protect life that hasn't even been conceived yet. Their concern lies not with preventing the pregnancies, just with stopping anyone from getting an abortion (I know some Pro-Lifers do not fall into this category). They invest a lot of time and money to prevent an egg that has not been fertilized from being aborted.
I feel that time and money would be better spent on education and on children who are here now, and suffering.
Did that clarify my point any? I know I wasn't very eloquent.
And, I misunderstood where you were coming from when you replied to me. Apologies!
|
tiny thinker
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Fri Jul 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 62 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Nov 30th, 2008 08:37 pm |
|
prodomal wrote: I see the problem here Tiny Thinker. You took issue with my statement specifically, when I was speaking more generally about the pro-life camp.
I pretty much agree with what you've laid out. An actual fetus is not hypothetical, obviously. I was speaking more to the general attitude of the Pro-Life campaign.
Adequate attention can be, and should be given to both. A woman who wants to carry her fetus to term should receive pre-natal care. Abandoned children should be given adequate attention.
But Pro-Lifers want to stop all abortions. They want to protect life that hasn't even been conceived yet. Their concern lies not with preventing the pregnancies, just with stopping anyone from getting an abortion (I know some Pro-Lifers do not fall into this category). They invest a lot of time and money to prevent an egg that has not been fertilized from being aborted.
I feel that time and money would be better spent on education and on children who are here now, and suffering.
Did that clarify my point any? I know I wasn't very eloquent.
And, I misunderstood where you were coming from when you replied to me. Apologies!
I am sorry as well for my sarcastic tone - it creeps in from time to time. The problem you are describing is a fear of the slippery slope - the paranoia that if you give "the other side" an inch they will take a mile. The nuance of actual pro-life and pro-choice positions held by individuals as opposed to major organizations is quite amazing. But you have to have numbers to get things done in politics, which means many on both sides of the fluctuating line between pro-life and pro-choice feel they must hold their noses and go along with one movement or another. Obviously this isn't a problem for those who are not anywhere near the line, but it seems like many are within spitting distance.
____________________
Life does not accommodate you; it shatters you. Every seed destroys its container, or else there would be no fruition.-Florida Scott-Maxwell
|
prodomal
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Nov 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | Atlanta |
| Posts: | 360 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Nov 30th, 2008 08:53 pm |
|
Re: Sarcastic tone - Don't sweat it. I'm fairly sarcastic myself. 
I'm certainly well aware that there exists a whole spectrum of opinions in regards to abortion when one is looking at individual opinons. I'm all for Pro-Lifers who think the legislative route is not the best route and seek to end abortions through education about sex and birth control. In my opinon, this route has benefits that wil reach beyond the abortion issue.
I suppose my view of the Pro-Life movement has been colored by not only living the South, but also by living in Birmingham for the past four years. I'm sure you're aware of the clinic that was bombed in Birmingham in 1998. That clinic was right next to my parking deck and I walked by it every day.
The amount of effort and vitriol coming form the pro-life protesters that I saw seemed ridiculous to me. A few hundred yards away there was a Ronald McDonald house. Less than half of a mile away was Children's Hospital. I couldn't help but think to myself that all that energy, time, and money they spent could be going to help people who were suffering now.
Most of the women they yelled at for going into the clinic were likely not getting abortions. The clinic was a women's health clinic that happened to perform abortions. Go figure. 
Anyways, I'm not sure what most of that had to do with anything. Just thought I'd expound on where I'm coming from, even if it's not the most objective view point.
Last edited on Sun Nov 30th, 2008 09:04 pm by prodomal
|
Torquemada
Yoda
| Joined: | Mon Aug 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 963 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Dec 1st, 2008 10:35 pm |
|
| This looks like a good organization. I might consider getting involved, since I lean more Libertarian than Republican these days.
____________________
-=- Where the donkey goes, the ass will follow. -=-
|
Current time is 12:57 pm | Page:   1 2 |
|
|
|
|
