Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
an abortion referendum
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Christianity is usually a blanket term for all religions that follow the teachings of Jesus. While it's not a religion per se, the fact that almost everynoe who is Christian is involved in an organised movement (be it Protestant, Catholic, etc), technically makes it a religion, IMO.Originally posted by Elmo
They say that about Christianity or is it more it isn't a religion, its a faith?
Absolutely. But TomF's point was that everyone was coming from some religious viewpoint. THe fact that the number 13 has for him a significant bearing on this discussion, causes me to disregard his comments now, unfortunately.Anyway even if you don't beleive in a god of any kind, it doesn't mean you don't have humanity or morals. I am sure their are many atheists that don't beleive in abortion either just as there are many others that have some type of beleif that agree with abortion.
(And for the record, if I had to choose a lucky number, it would be 13
) 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
I'm talking about Irish law. What the law says shouldn't form the basis of a purely moral decision (and quoting laws isn't a gentlemanly way out of answering a question about ethics).Originally posted by Sparks
JustHalf,
I never argued that the conferral of the legal status of person should take place at conception. And several legal systems agree with that.
I think we all agree that if a foetus is a person then elective abortion constitutes murder.Originally posted by Sparks
Further, you're going off down the route of using language like "murder" again. Which assumes that a foetus is a person.
The points I've been making have all been similarly conditional. If you won't accept the statement in italics, then there's no point in arguing with you.
I think most people would disagree with you there, and would say that "eh, yeah, children are people".Originally posted by Sparks
(BTW, I see no dichotomy in being a member of homo sapiens but not being a person. Neonatal infants, for example, are members of our species, but we don't consider them people in that we don't confer full responsibility for their actions on them for 16 years, we don't expect them to know how to speak, to remember things, or even to control their bodily functions.)
If you remove your first list item ("confer full responsibility...") the exact same argument could be used to say that severely disabled human beings are not people.
Sure, they're of the same species, but we don't expect them to know how to speak, to remember things, or even to control their bodily functions.
You get my point?
Yeah, Occam's razor is used far too much as a "formal proof". Too often I've heard my answer is right because it's simplest.Originally posted by Sparks
And if all this seems terribly complicated compared to your "egg meets sperm and wham! a person is created" solution, I'll just point out that occam's razor doesn't apply to social or moral problems under most circumstances.
By the way, I'm only stating the legal position (as I understand it). I was quite clear that I was talking about the laws of this country, not about what really happens, which should be pretty obvious.
I'm in the "I don't know exactly, but it's better to play it safe" boat. My gut tells me conception, but this is hardly a basis for a decision.
I presume you'd pick the second one in this list then, because it's more grey?Originally posted by Sparks
In fact, I can think of very, very few social problems that are black-and-white and simple to express. Most are terribly gray and complicated.
Which to me says my solution is more accurate than yours. Your solution, to me, seems like a first-order approximation - a decent rule of thumb, sure, but you wouldn't want to risk much based on it.
* Eating ebola bad
* Eating ebola is good sometimes, bad other times0 -
-
sceptre,
Quite right, and thanks for that.
JustHalf,
Gentlemanly is an odd term to be using here, no?I'm talking about Irish law. What the law says shouldn't form the basis of a purely moral decision (and quoting laws isn't a gentlemanly way out of answering a question about ethics).
And the problem of making a decision on this based on moral or ethical grounds is that those grounds are different for everyone. For example, for me it's perfectly ethical to abort a fetus that can't survive in an incubator, and it's immoral to condemn someone for doing so. Paddy20 on the other hand, seems to fall into the camp of those whose ethics allow them to happily stand on O'Connell Street with placards and posters of aborted foetuses condemning anyone that undergoes an abortion, assists in one, provides support to someone that undergoes one, refuses to condemn the practise or even thinks about it.
That said, I wasn't actually using the argument that "it's okay 'cos the law says so". Legality is a somewhat ancillary point to the "right thing to do" in most countries, but especially in this one.
I can wholeheartedly support this principle.I think we all agree that if a foetus is a person then elective abortion constitutes murder.
Thing is, I don't believe that a foetus is a person.
Then why do we have legal concepts in just about every western country like minors, the age of consent, and age ratings in censorship and other such measures?I think most people would disagree with you there, and would say that "eh, yeah, children are people".
Because while we look at a child and our genes say "that's not food", we equally recognise that the child is not yet a full person in it's own right.
Hell, even the concept of adulthood is based on that recognition.
Indeed, but I left that phrase in the first place on the list for a reason. And that list isn't even complete.If you remove your first list item ("confer full responsibility...") the exact same argument could be used to say that severely disabled human beings are not people.I presume you'd pick the second one in this list then, because it's more grey?
* Eating ebola bad
* Eating ebola is good sometimes, bad other times
Yes actually, I do. Two scenarios spring to mind -
1) Self-administered euthanasia
2) ingesting contaminated material to effect an emergency version of quarintine, in a similar fashion to the american tradition of throwing yourself on a grenade to save more lives. (frankly, I've always thought a beefier helmet would be a better solution myself, but who listens to me?)
And that's after precisely four seconds of thought. I would imagine I could increase the list a lot further if necessary.
See my point?0 -
-
“I never used the law in my argument, and the law would agree with me on that one” - Haha, classicOriginally posted by Sparks
I never argued that the conferral of the legal status of person should take place at conception. And several legal systems agree with that.
They’re considered people though, so I don’t really see the point in your analogy.Neonatal infants, for example, are members of our species, but we don't consider them people in that we don't confer full responsibility for their actions on them for 16 years, we don't expect them to know how to speak, to remember things, or even to control their bodily functions.)
It depends on how you define your morality. Yours appears based on utilitarianism. You weigh up the pros and cons of one option over another. From a humanistic viewpoint it does tend to be rather black and white, in that human life supersedes all other rights to the point that one would rather assume that someone or thing is human rather than take the risk that one would commit murder.I'll just point out that occam's razor doesn't apply to social or moral problems under most circumstances. In fact, I can think of very, very few social problems that are black-and-white and simple to express. Most are terribly gray and complicated.
Given a humanist philosophy of morality, such a value system is abhorrent. Otherwise it is perfectly reasonable as long as it is practiced rationally, such as the basis for the various eugenics programs that have been practiced in countries, such as Sweden, in the past.Originally posted by bonkey
Sure its more practical, but the logical conclusions reachable from such a policy would again prove devestating. Such a law automatically presupposes that the foetus is a life, but decides that it is a "lesser life" in terms of priority when a crunch arises along the lines of "someone more important than it thinks it should be dead". You look at this purely in view of abortion, but unless you specify that this "untermensch" category is purely applicable to the unborn, then you are opening a whole can of worms.
To say that it opens up a whole can of worms is a rather sweeping assumption. Certainly there would be evidence for this, but there’s ample evidence for any moral code resulting in a can of worms being opened.0 -
-
Not what I said TC, as is obvious from the quote you put up.Originally posted by The Corinthian
“I never used the law in my argument, and the law would agree with me on that one” - Haha, classic
:mad:
Which is something JC said too - but you both missed the point.They’re considered people though, so I don’t really see the point in your analogy.
We have adults, minors, and children, as well as a few other forms of subdivision, enshrined as fundamental classifications of person in law.
Which implies that we think of person as being something other than a single homogenous group. It's not a binary thing in other words, it doesn't apply instantly to an entity (other than a legal construct like a company).
Which in turn means that you can't say a foetus is a person, because not only do you not have a solid definition of what a person even is, you've no idea of what class of person you want to call it.
Again TC, you're abusing the term humanism. And probably the term utilitarianism too.It depends on how you define your morality. Yours appears based on utilitarianism. You weigh up the pros and cons of one option over another. From a humanistic viewpoint it does tend to be rather black and white, in that human life supersedes all other rights to the point that one would rather assume that someone or thing is human rather than take the risk that one would commit murder.
EVERY moral choice is made by weighing pros and cons, nothing in moral terms is ever black and white outside of a textbook.
And your calling it a utilitarianist set of ethics is ignoring completely the damage done to the mother by forcing an unwanted pregnancy on her, which is not a medically risk-free procedure, even if she resigns herself to it, which she shouldn't have to.
JC talks of human rights, but what he should say is really person's rights, since human generally means "a member of the species homo sapiens", but that's a bit misleading in this specific discussion.
And what you're doing TC, is saying that weighing the humanistic interests of the mother and the foetus is a utilitarian choice - which pretty much ignores the fact that the mother's rights are clearly established but the foetus' aren't - and you're giving unestablished rights priority over established ones by ruling abortion unethical.
If you could prove the foetus is a person, it'd be different; But you cannot, and in the last hundred years or more, noone else in the entire human race has been able to either.
All that has been proven is that neonates don't exhibit self-awareness. And that does not support the theory that the foetus is a person.
JC,
Why?In terms of the unborn.....if you don't consider it a human life, then I would strongly suggest that you consider when it becomes one. If you can't draw that line clearly, then the obligation should be there upon us to draw it no later than at the latest point where we are certain it is not a human life.
Who says that the right to life has to be tied to self-awareness instead of self-sustainability?
I'm arguing (and have been consistently), that the foetus shouldn't have any legal rights until it is capable of existing outside the womb - after that, it ought to be given the right to life. But that doesn't require it to be a person. After all, a child is a person, but we don't demand income tax from it, do we? And we rule it an offence to torture animals and demand they be treated ethicly, but we don't recognise them as people, do we?
The two issues (the right to life and the legal (and moral) status of person) are seperate ones and need have no connection.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement