Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Stupify

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.

Athesim is based on a lack of belief.

DB21

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.

Ah yes, the "worldview" argument again.

Here's the thing; my worldview, which happens to be similar to many other's around here is based on science. Yours is based, as it would seem, on a 2000 year old fairy tale. You see the problem here? It's quite distinct. Our "worldview" can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, yours cannot.

So your one argument thus far in this thread is null and void. Your move

Stupify

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 ..

You can still see the child as a person and be pro-choice tough

The child, as you call it, may indeed have a right to life but not at the expense of any of the mother’s rights. The mother has a right to her own body, she doesn’t have to share that body with another.

That could be someone’s point of view. It's not mine but someone could come to that conclusion.

antiskeptic

swampgas wrote: »

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.

For religious belief insert worldview (for that is what a religious belief is). Now tell me what's behind your advocacy. Or don't you realise you are advocating too?

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

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.

Give at least a nod to the impression you haven't jumped into this discussion without any reading back and I'll entertain a response.

antiskeptic

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.

The fact I can understand the framework you're operating by doesn't mean there isn't more informing me.

You cannot argue the case for your worldview, you can only assert it based on dogma. There is a big difference.

Or the problem might lie in your lacking the insights I have. How would you suggest we find out with whom the problem lies?

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

Your position is only supportable insofar you assume the framework you operate by covers all ground. You don't know that it does, nor can you demonstrate that it does.

Don't be fooled into thinking tentive science can give you an absolute answer to such questions. It can't - nor will it ever.

antiskeptic

Nodin wrote: »

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

The mother can make choices. My position is that it's not the States business to terminate (what I consider) life.

antiskeptic

Stupify wrote: »

Athesim is based on a lack of belief.

So? An atheist might lack a belief in God but he doesn't lack beliefs

antiskeptic

Stupify wrote: »

That isn't very clear.

I said:

"And where those two are held of equal value then you've a stalemate situation when it comes to actions the State can initiate."

In other words, where the two lives are held of equal value, the counselling service can't conclude abortion the best option because it's determing one live more value than the other.

antiskeptic

DB21 wrote: »

Ah yes, the "worldview" argument again.

Here's the thing; my worldview, which happens to be similar to many other's around here is based on science. Yours is based, as it would seem, on a 2000 year old fairy tale. You see the problem here? It's quite distinct. Our "worldview" can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, yours cannot.

What are you proving beyond all reasonable doubt? That a person is what your worldview holds it to be (e.g. science is the way to Da Trooth)?

That's quite circular

So your one argument thus far in this thread is null and void. Your move

When you're argument is circular, your move hasn't yet been made.

Stupify

antiskeptic wrote: »

So? An atheist might lack a belief in God but he doesn't lack beliefs

Yes but the whole point of the atheist "worldview" is that its based on a lack of belief.

And its not just one god, its every god. An atheist doesn't believe in any higher power.

Also, what beliefs do you suggest would influence a atheists viewpoint?

Stupify

antiskeptic wrote: »

I said:

"And where those two are held of equal value then you've a stalemate situation when it comes to actions the State can initiate."

In other words, where the two lives are held of equal value, the counselling service can't conclude abortion the best option because it's determing one live more value than the other.

So then where does that lead. Are you saying that in every situation counsellors would have nothing to suggest?

antiskeptic

Stupify wrote: »

You can still see the child as a person and be pro-choice tough

You can indeed. The way you do that is to see one person as less equal than the other. Just as you suggest here.

The child, as you call it, may indeed have a right to life but not at the expense of any of the mother’s rights. The mother has a right to her own body, she doesn’t have to share that body with another.

The superior right (to life) is subjugated to lesser rights (the right to control the motions of your own body)

antiskeptic

Stupify wrote: »

So then where does that lead. Are you saying that in every situation counsellors would have nothing to suggest?

That State abortion wouldn't be an option wouldn't mean there is nothing to suggest.

DB21

antiskeptic wrote: »

What are you proving beyond all reasonable doubt? That a person is what your worldview holds it to be (e.g. science is the way to Da Trooth)?

That's quite circular




When you're argument is circular, your move hasn't yet been made.

No, science is not the way to truth. Philosophy and religion are. Science, my confused friend, is the way to fact. Now, Science has proven beyond reasonable doubt that a fetus has not got a brain before 12 weeks, and therefore is incapable of thought and feeling. Therefore it is not living, and therefore not a person.

Now, I admit my argument may seem circular, but it is simplistic and fact. Yours is parroting a phrase time and again without meaning. So please try to respond to my point properly this this time. No "worldview" stuff. No religion. I want a factual reason why something without a brain can be considered a person.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Give at least a nod to the impression you haven't jumped into this discussion without any reading back and I'll entertain a response.

Are you under the impression you've already posted something that constitutes a response to what I said? Because I've followed this thread from the start, and read all your responses along the way and I didn't see anything that did, hence my post.

Are you going to continue with wordplay or are you going to respond?

antiskeptic

Stupify wrote: »

Also, what beliefs do you suggest would influence a atheists viewpoint?

Rationalism? Empiricism? Naturalism? That Science can provide answer to all questions that can be asked?

eyescreamcone

DB21 wrote: »

No, science is not the way to truth. Philosophy and religion are. Science, my confused friend, is the way to fact. Now, Science has proven beyond reasonable doubt that a fetus has not got a brain before 12 weeks, and therefore is incapable of thought and feeling. Therefore it is not living, and therefore not a person.

Now, I admit my argument may seem circular, but it is simplistic and fact. Yours is parroting a phrase time and again without meaning. So please try to respond to my point properly this this time. No "worldview" stuff. No religion. I want a factual reason why something without a brain can be considered a person.

...because the Pope said so. And he's infallible???

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Are you under the impression you've already posted something that constitutes a response to what I said? Because I've followed this thread from the start, and read all your responses along the way and I didn't see anything that did, hence my post.

Are you going to continue with wordplay or are you going to respond?

When you read that support services be installed to help the mother overcome (without abortion) the trauma of a rape pregancy you computed not giving a crap about the mother?

If you figure giving equal value to both lives (that neither is to be preferred) as not giving a crap about one life then you need to up the ante in your argumentation. I'm not much in the mood for football terrace level rhetoric..

Honestly.

Stupify

antiskeptic wrote: »

You can indeed. The way you do that is to see one person as less equal than the other. Just as you suggest here.




The superior right (to life) is subjugated to lesser rights (the right to control the motions of your own body)

That isn't what i argue at all.

In law there is a thing called necessity, it allows police to kill in america without being charged with murder.

The child in the case I argued isn't being given lessor rights but the fact that it is infringing on the mothers rights then the mother could by necessity abort the child.

Not my view but its a view that lies in your "worldview".

antiskeptic

DB21 wrote: »

No, science is not the way to truth. Philosophy and religion are. Science, my confused friend, is the way to fact. Now, Science has proven beyond reasonable doubt that a fetus has not got a brain before 12 weeks, and therefore is incapable of thought and feeling. Therefore it is not living, and therefore not a person.

Er.. a fetus is living. Biological fact.

Your conclusion (bolded) is the product of a philosophy. This philosophy holds that personhood is a product of that which is purely biological.

Would you permit another philosophy to come to another conclusion?

Now, I admit my argument may seem circular, but it is simplistic and fact.

I didn't use the word seem. Your's is a circular argument. You've done it again above - jumping from science to philosophy. So seamlessly you don't appear to realise that you've done it

Which is why I'm here. To point you to where the wheels come off your position

Stupify

antiskeptic wrote: »

Rationalism? Empiricism? Naturalism? That Science can provide answer to all questions that can be asked?

An atheist would be lead to all those beliefs from a lack of belief in a higher power.

An atheist's "worldview" all comes from one thing, a lack of belief.

This contradicts what you said before i.e. "all worldviews stem from a belief".

antiskeptic

Stupify wrote: »

The child in the case I argued isn't being given lessor rights but the fact that it is infringing on the mothers rights then the mother could by necessity abort the child.

An attempt at abortion infringes on the childs rights. No? And if we're deciding the childs infringement on the mother less an infringement than an abortion then no abortion. No?

Not my view but its a view that lies in your "worldview".

I'm not sure I get this.

antiskeptic

Stupify wrote: »

An atheist would be lead to all those beliefs from a lack of belief in a higher power.

Many atheists would say it's those beliefs that lead to atheism. The vacuum called "we can't believe in nothing" has to be filled with something. For nature abhors a vacuum.

antiskeptic

eyescreamcone wrote: »

...because the Pope said so. And he's infallible???

He is?

Stupify

antiskeptic wrote: »

When you read that support services be installed to help the mother overcome (without abortion) the trauma of a rape pregancy you computed not giving a crap about the mother?

If you figure giving equal value to both lives (that neither is to be preferred) as not giving a crap about one life then you need to up the ante in your argumentation. I'm not much in the mood for football terrace level rhetoric..

Honestly.

There are problems with the consistency of your "worldview".

You think that in a case where a girl has been raped and has gotten pregnant the child has equal rights. You think that because the child has equal rights she cannot have an abortion.

But what if the mother gets on a plane and goes over to England and gets an abortion, then what? Should she be charged with murder when she returns, she she not be allowed go in the first place?

Stupify

antiskeptic wrote: »

An attempt at abortion infringes on the childs rights. No? And if we're deciding the childs infringement on the mother less an infringement than an abortion then no abortion. No?



I'm not sure I get this.

The rights of the child are being infringed by necessity, that's why it should lie in your "worldview". I'm trying to argue it from your "worldview" where it would be acceptable to have an abortion.

antiskeptic

Stupify wrote: »

There are problems with the consistency of your "worldview".

You think that in a case where a girl has been raped and has gotten pregnant the child has equal rights. You think that because the child has equal rights she cannot have an abortion.

I don't think that. I think that the State should do everything in it's power to help the woman overcome. But stop short of providing abortion services.

But what if the mother gets on a plane and goes over to England and gets an abortion, then what? Should she be charged with murder when she returns, she not be allowed go in the first place?

On murder. That would be a matter for the authorities in the jurisdiction where the abortion was carried out.

If the person a minor then the parents/guardian would decide on things. I don't see how you can prevent someone travelling out of the country to do something that is legal elsewhere.

eyescreamcone

antiskeptic wrote: »

He is?

Everybody knows this to be factual ahem!

When he sits on Peters chair and wears a funny hat he becomes infallible.
Great to watch I'd say.

antiskeptic

Stupify wrote: »

The rights of the child are being infringed by necessity,

I don't get the necessity. Just because someone is infringing on your rights doesn't give you the right to kill them