Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Bannasidhe

Nodin wrote: »

So essentially you only want medical professionals to offer advice and support that follows a certain ideology. Lovely.

He wants medical professionals to act in a way which ensure the so called equal rights of the unborn trumps the so-called equal rights of the already here.
All things being equal is impossible in some circumstances but he wants a situation where the woman always loses.
That is not equality. That is privileging the unborn over the born every time

swampgas

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wouldn't see the role of support services to involve recommending abortion.

The issue of abortion involves the life of the child as well as the life of the mother. And where those two are held of equal value then you've a stalemate situation when it comes to actions the State can initiate.

And when you follow that right down, it means the person prepared to commit suicide must hold both their life and the life of the child of equal value. To the point of choosing to destroy them both.

The State has no role to play when it comes to that question (other than the people of the State deciding to retain (or otherwise) the status of equal value of life.

Nodin wrote: »

So essentially you only want medical professionals to offer advice and support that follows a certain ideology. Lovely.

The real problem is that this ideology is written into the constitution. If it were just the position of one or more religions it wouldn't be an issue. Instead we are all stuck with it - Rome Rule, indeed,

antiskeptic

Stark wrote: »

Right. So should that be a general principle in medicine? "What's happening to you is a natural event, therefore we have no moral obligation to treat you".

The point was quite narrow - accurate use of language. No mention was made of morality.

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's a worldview speaking. And there are other worldviews that hold other than you do. The ease with which your worldview permits you to dispose of persons need not the same for all worldviews.





Again, other worldviews differ. My worldview sees so much of what you value as a mere vehicle for the most valuable aspect of the person and sees our experiences in this world as but a precursor to the "main event".

From my worldviews perspective, what you consider the measure of personhood are (relative) trifles.

It is John Waters.

Nodin

antiskeptic wrote: »

And the difference between you and me is?

Where have I ever stated that I had some foregone conclusion in mind?

You suggested the provision of counselling and advice rather than abortion. I asked the obvious question - what if the conclusion of the counselling and advice is that an abortion is the best option?

antiskeptic

swampgas wrote: »

The real problem is that this ideology is written into the constitution. If it were just the position of one or more religions it wouldn't be an issue. Instead we are all stuck with it - Rome Rule, indeed,

We're all stuck with it, whoever's view holds sway.

Sheesh, do you guys ever examine your arguments for even the most basic of flaws?

Nodin

antiskeptic wrote: »

We're all stuck with it, whoever's view holds sway.

.......

Not if abortion on demand comes in, not when the various cases ruled on by the supreme court are legislated for.

antiskeptic

Nodin wrote: »

Where have I ever stated that I had some foregone conclusion in mind?

Abortion an option follows from an ideology.

You suggested the provision of counselling and advice rather than abortion. I asked the obvious question - what if the conclusion of the counselling and advice is that an abortion is the best option?

I gave you an answer based on a worldview which holds the childs life equal value to that of the mother. Which puts the ball in the mothers court. Not the court of anyone else.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Jimi, that's one red card. You'll be banned if your next post is as silly as that last yawner.

Apologies Robin. My Obviously Reprehensible Offense was Needless.

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

We're all stuck with it, whoever's view holds sway.

Sheesh, do you guys ever examine your arguments for even the most basic of flaws?

You consider a fetus to be a human being with all the rights of a human being from the moment of conception.

You equate a clump of cells without awareness which is incapable of thought or self-sustaining life as not only equal to the owner of the womb in which it resides but as taking precedent.

Has it occurred to you that that argument is flawed?

Nodin

antiskeptic wrote: »

Abortion an option follows from an ideology..

An inclusive liberal one.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I gave you an answer based on a worldview which holds the childs life equal value to that of the mother. Which puts the ball in the mothers court. Not the court of anyone else.

If you prevent access to all advice and opinions - ie rule abortion out from the get go - then no, you're not placing the choice with the mother.

swampgas

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's a worldview speaking. And there are other worldviews that hold other than you do. The ease with which your worldview permits you to dispose of persons need not the same for all worldviews.

Again, other worldviews differ. My worldview sees so much of what you value as a mere vehicle for the most valuable aspect of the person and sees our experiences in this world as but a precursor to the "main event".

From my worldviews perspective, what you consider the measure of personhood are (relative) trifles.

Would you at least accept that your worldview is based on religious belief?

I can't see any other reason to insist that a fetus and a person are equivalent. The problem here is that effectively you wish to continue imposing a religious worldview as state law, rather than accept that such a position should really be self-imposed by the followers of that religion.

If you can come up with an argument for giving the lives of the fetus and mother equal weight that is not based on religious beliefs, I'd like to hear it.

antiskeptic

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You consider a fetus to be a human being with all the rights of a human being from the moment of conception.

You equate a clump of cells without awareness which is incapable of thought or self-sustaining life as not only equal to the owner of the womb in which it resides but as taking precedent.

Has it occurred to you that that argument is flawed?

It's not an argument. It's a worldview.

swampgas

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's not an argument. It's a worldview.

A worldview that should be imposed on everyone? Even if you refuse to provide an argument to support it?

antiskeptic

swampgas wrote: »

Would you at least accept that your worldview is based on religious belief?

I've no problem accepting that. Since all worldviews are based on belief I don't see that as giving your position a leg up.

I can't see any other reason to insist that a fetus and a person are equivalent. The problem here is that effectively you wish to continue imposing a religious worldview as state law, rather than accept that such a position should really be self-imposed by the followers of that religion.

You want to impose your worldview as State law.

The fact that my worldview 'imposes' itself on all isn't really an issue since all sorts are imposed by the State irrespective of the worldview of the folk on whom it's imposed.

If you can come up with an argument for giving the lives of the fetus and mother equal weight that is not based on religious beliefs, I'd like to hear it.

I'm not sure I need another argument than the one I already have. Although it's not an argument as such, it's a worldview.

Just like your argument.

Nodin

antiskeptic wrote: »

..............
You want to impose your worldview as State law.

............

Considering that the law would allow choice, describing it in such a manner strikes me as rather dishonest.

antiskeptic

swampgas wrote: »

A worldview that should be imposed on everyone? Even if you refuse to provide an argument to support it?

I'm simply cutting to the chase. Your argument is sourced in a worldview too.

I don't see a problem imposing the protection of life on everyone. Since I see the child as a person

Why not save everyone time in seeing what lies at the root of your position. And try see if you can differentiate your position from mine then. Forgetting your position is sourced in a world view which see's the child as a blob, then getting all worked up about imposition ..

antiskeptic

Nodin wrote: »

Considering that the law would allow choice, describing it in such a manner strikes me as rather dishonest.

You don't want the law to give choice to the child. Because the child isn't a person. That's an imposition on the child.

Or rather, an imposition of what your worldview says the child is.

swampgas

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've no problem accepting that. Since all worldviews are based on belief I don't see that as giving your position a leg up.

You want to impose your worldview as State law.

The fact that my worldview 'imposes' itself on all isn't really an issue since all sorts are imposed by the State irrespective of the worldview of the folk on whom it's imposed.


I'm not sure I need another argument than the one I already have. Although it's not an argument as such, it's a worldview.

Just like your argument.

There are many things we can agree on without bringing religion to the table. We do not live in a theocracy, it is not reasonable to advocate for a position on state law because of a religious belief.

Do we need religion to legislate for the age of consent? For drink driving? For property rights? For libel? For murder? I don't think so.

Just because your religion equates abortion with murder doesn't make it a sufficient reason to make it law. You need a better argument than that.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see a problem imposing the protection of life on everyone. Since I see the child as a person

Why don't you "impose" it on the mother then?

You see, this is the reason why your arguments are full of crap, you say you are protecting the unborn, but you don't give a crap about the mother. You can't deny the stress caused by pregnancy, so you use word play to try and assume innocence when you impose that stress on those who can't or don't want to suffer it.

swampgas

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm simply cutting to the chase. Your argument is sourced in a worldview too.

I don't see a problem imposing the protection of life on everyone. Since I see the child as a person

Why not save everyone time in seeing what lies at the root of your position. And try see if you can differentiate your position from mine then. Forgetting your position is sourced in a world view which see's the child as a blob, then getting all worked up about imposition ..

I can argue the case for my worldview in terms that we can both understand, and in terms of a modern understanding of biology and human rights.

You cannot argue the case for your worldview, you can only assert it based on dogma.

There is a big difference.

Just because you admit that you are asserting an otherwise unsupportable position does not magically make your position as valid as mine.

Nodin

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't want the law to give choice to the child. Because the child isn't a person. That's an imposition on the child.

Or rather, an imposition of what your worldview says the child is.

.......the foetus never has a choice in the matter. I would aim to give the mother one, something you refuse to do.

Turtwig

swampgas wrote: »

I can argue the case for my worldview in terms that we can both understand, and in terms of a modern understanding of biology and human rights.

You cannot argue the case for your worldview, you can only assert it based on dogma.

There is a big difference.

Just because you admit that you are asserting an otherwise unsupportable position does not magically make your position as valid as mine.

To be pedantic and utterly useless here. It is your worldview that deems his position to not be as valid as your own i.e it is your belief that an argument must be supportable.

swampgas

Jernal wrote: »

To be pedantic and utterly useless here. It is your worldview that deems his position to not be as valid as your own i.e it is your belief that an argument must be supportable.

Yes, but you're prepared to provide arguments to support your position, which antiskeptic is not.

antiskeptic seems to think it's okay to say "my religion says you're wrong, QED", rather than actually provide arguments of his own.

robindch

swampgas wrote: »

antiskeptic seems to think it's okay to say "my religion says you're wrong, QED" [...]

In his religious terms, such relativism-based points of view are ok. If you think you're informed by the creator of the universe, could one hold a less arrogant point of view?

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

In his religious terms, such relativism-based points of view are ok.

and therein lies the problem.

swampgas

robindch wrote: »

In his religious terms, such relativism-based points of view are ok. If you think you're informed by the creator of the universe, could one hold a less arrogant point of view?

Indeed.

I think there's a big difference between discussing something like the existence of God and discussing changing the law of the land. If there is to be any kind of freedom of religion, then the law of the land should not be predicated on religious principles.

It's one thing for someone to explain why they believe something to be right or wrong, for it to be acceptable as a basis for law then they need to explain why I should believe it too.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

swampgas wrote: »

We do not live in a theocracy, it is not reasonable to advocate for a position on state law because of a religious belief.

For what it's worth, the Constitution invokes the Holy Trinity as the ultimate source of legitimate human authority, and the Courts have acknowledge the State to have a Christian character. As it stands, judicial deliberations may draw on religious beliefs in certain circumstances.

I'm not necessarily saying this has enormous practical implications. It's just to point out that there isn't, at present, some firm boundary that puts religious belief on one side and State law on the other. If the issue was to be the general exclusion of religion from deliberations on State law, it goes beyond this single issue.

swampgas

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

For what it's worth, the Constitution invokes the Holy Trinity as the ultimate source of legitimate human authority, and the Courts have acknowledge the State to have a Christian character. As it stands, judicial deliberations may draw on religious beliefs in certain circumstances.

I'm not necessarily saying this has enormous practical implications. It's just to point out that there isn't, at present, some firm boundary that puts religious belief on one side and State law on the other. If the issue was to be the general exclusion of religion from deliberations on State law, it goes beyond this single issue.

True enough, and I'd like to see those references removed. I have to say my first reading of the preamble to the constitution was an entirely disheartening affair.

Stupify

antiskeptic wrote: »

I gave you an answer based on a worldview which holds the childs life equal value to that of the mother. Which puts the ball in the mothers court. Not the court of anyone else.

Is that where you suggested this:

antiskeptic wrote: »

The issue of abortion involves the life of the child as well as the life of the mother. And where those two are held of equal value then you've a stalemate situation when it comes to actions the State can initiate.

And when you follow that right down, it means the person prepared to commit suicide must hold both their life and the life of the child of equal value. To the point of choosing to destroy them both.

The State has no role to play when it comes to that question (other than the people of the State deciding to retain (or otherwise) the status of equal value of life.

That isn't very clear.