Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How exactly are you heeding a rape victim when you tell them they cannot have an abortion?

You're not telling they can't have one. You're telling them you're not providing one. Sorry to be pedantic but sloppiness in one place leads unravelling of arguments elsewhere. Better to start as we mean to go on

A rape victim will have lots to speak of, not just a desire to have an abortion. My wife worked for the rape crisis centre as a counsellor. So this much I know.

Are there services for women who don't want or can't handle the pregnancy? The only one I can think of is abortion.

I don't know. But they could be provided. That's not to say they can ensure every woman can handle every pregnancy.

Oh a chance is it? How much of a chance? And what about the women who don't have that chance, who don't overcome that trauma? They just have to suffer it?

When you've got my world view you add the life of a child into the mix. You don't factor that in - which is fair enough. But your outrage isn't going to have the same effect on me since I'm dealing with a different mix. So there's not much point in it.

There's a chance you could overcome the trauma of the government forcing you to give half your liver to someone in need. Should we test that chance?

There's argument elsewhere about that. Pick it up if you want.

So you advocate what is in fact an abortion, but with semantics, you call it something else. FFS you are even using word games to try and hide from your god what you admit is abortion. How moronic do you think your god is?

God isn't a Catholic. I don't think he'd have a problem with a life saved when two were on the way out.

Which flavour of christian are you?

Every Christian is his own flavour. Each operates according to his own model of God.

Let's say I'm on the opposite side of the globe to Catholicism though.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Then quite playing stupid games and answer Stupify's question:

It would be best for our intercouse if you rein it in a little.

You want abortion banned because you see it as a sin.

I see it as ugly, obscene, open to increasing acceptance (rendering utterly depraved the reasons people will have abortions), a travesty.

That's the flavour of sin alright.

Except you don't seem to care much if it happens outside of the country.

I haven't a vote in another country. I have here and so can influence things.

A kind of "out of sight, out of mind" worldview. Which makes your supposed objective morality about as consistent as a fart powered motorcycle.

I don't see anything inconsistent about a fart-powered motorcycle. Provide enough farts and it'd win the TT.

It's clearly getting late for you. And for me too.

G'night.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're not telling they can't have one. You're telling them you're not providing one. Sorry to be pedantic but sloppiness in one place leads unravelling of arguments elsewhere. Better to start as we mean to go on

You may think you can fool your god with semantics, but you wont get anywhere with me. Just because you know that these woman can circumvent you telling them they can't have an abortion (assuming they can afford one) doesn't change the fact that you are telling them they can't have and abortion.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't know. But they could be provided. That's not to say they can ensure every woman can handle every pregnancy.

So you aren't assuming that everyone woman can be councelled to accepting the pregnancy, you just don't care as long as you get to play semantics with your morality.

antiskeptic wrote: »

When you've got my world view you add the life of a child into the mix. You don't factor that in - which is fair enough. But your outrage isn't going to have the same effect on me since I'm dealing with a different mix. So there's not much point in it.

Not an answer to my questions, try again.

And just, so you know, I do factor in the life of the feotus. I am anti abortion, but I'm just a little bit more anti torturing of women.

antiskeptic wrote: »

There's argument elsewhere about that. Pick it up if you want.

You mean the argument you have been having in the last few posts with Stark? Quite trying to weasel out of every point, it makes you seem incredibly disingenuous.

antiskeptic wrote: »

God isn't a Catholic. I don't think he'd have a problem with a life saved when two were on the way out.

Again, not an answer to my question. Not only have you been showing how uncaring and inconsistent your views in abortion are, but you are now advocating a system where anyone can weasel out of any sin with semantics. On ever level, from the factual to the philosophical to the moral, your position is only consistent in how full of **** it is.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Every Christian is his own flavour. Each operates according to his own model of God.

Let's say I'm on the opposite side of the globe to Catholicism though.

Does your flavour have a name?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

It would be best for our intercouse if you rein it in a little.

It would be best if you actually answered questions with honesty and even a hint of confidence in what you are saying

antiskeptic wrote: »

I see it as ugly, obscene, open to increasing acceptance (rendering utterly depraved the reasons people will have abortions), a travesty.

That's the flavour of sin alright.

I haven't a vote in another country. I have here and so can influence things.

Exactly, you don't care about sin that happens abroad (Your god apparently recognises human legal jurisdictions). You don't care about all the ickle bwabies killed where you can't see them, not even by people who would do it here if they could. You only care about playing semantics, because semantics is enough for you to inflict torture on someone. Semantics is enough for you to call that torture a gift.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see anything inconsistent about a fart-powered motorcycle. Provide enough farts and it'd win the TT.

It's clearly getting late for you. And for me too.

G'night.

Ah yes, the ultimate avoidance of a question you don't like - the logging off (with a hint of an insult).

Turtwig

Mark Hamill wrote:

You don't care about all the ickle bwabies killed where you can't see them, not even by people who would do it here if they could..

Genuine question : Do you?

Mark Hamill

Jernal wrote: »

Genuine question : Do you?

Yes I do, I said as much in the post previous to the one you quoted:
I am anti abortion, but I'm just a little bit more anti torturing of women.

In an ideal world, no one would ever get raped, pregnancy would be a walk in the park and social and psychological support for those who fall unexpectedly pregnant would be perfect and so abortion would simply never need to be considered.
I don't want anyone to want an abortion. But the way to achieve that is to fix all the problems that lead to people wanting abortions, not to forcibly prevent people from having abortions. Semantic is no shield against suffering.

Nodin

antiskeptic wrote: »

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?

Advocating choice. Hardly a bad thing.

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

The state won't be. Medical professionals will.

Nodin

antiskeptic wrote: »

I see it as ugly, obscene, open to increasing acceptance (rendering utterly depraved the reasons people will have abortions), a travesty.

That's the flavour of sin alright.

........

I see the mask has slipped.

ShooterSF

So anti-skeptic what is your world view on constitutional republics?

MrPudding

Stupify wrote: »

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.

This is kind of my view. I don't get hung up too much of the person / not person argument. I approach it as a conflict of right issue, and I happen to be of the opinion that when dealing with a conflict between the born and unborn, the born win. That said, I am not a particular fan of abortion, and would be against late term abortions without good reason.

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

In many cases it does.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Force implies effort and action on someones part - whereas nothing need be done for the pregnancy to be gone through. It's happening and will continue to happen without anyone doing anything.

By refusing to provide a method to avoid a particular situation you are forcing a person to endure that situation. I know you like your word play, but you are wrong here. There are different kinds of force, as you well know.

MrP

MrPudding

Oh, and with respect to worldviews informed by religious belief, I will leave the response to that to President Obama:



MrP

antiskeptic

MrPudding wrote: »

Oh, and with respect to worldviews informed by religious belief, I will leave the response to that to President Obama:



MrP

Go on then: explain why refusing to provide abortion violates some principle accessible to people of all faiths. And not just those of no faith at all.

antiskeptic

MrPudding wrote: »

In many cases it does.

Sure. But not in every case.

By refusing to provide a method to avoid a particular situation you are forcing a person to endure that situation. I know you like your word play, but you are wrong here.

The by all means qualify the use of the word. Forcing by doing nothing.

antiskeptic

Nodin wrote: »

I see the mask has slipped.

The mask wasn't up to slip down.

antiskeptic

Nodin wrote: »

Advocating choice. Hardly a bad thing.

The question had to do with what lies behind your advocacy - if not a worldview. And if but a worldview then join the crowd.

The state won't be. Medical professionals will.

As an arm of the State :rolleyes:

MrPudding

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sure. But not in every case.

But that isn't what you said, "Just because someone is infringing on your rights doesn't give you the right to kill them." You implied ever. Now, who was it who was recently telling people off for not being accurate in what they said...

antiskeptic wrote: »

The by all means qualify the use of the word. Forcing by doing nothing.

Ok. From the Cambridge Online Dicitonary:

Force, verb (give no choice)

to make something happen or make someone do something difficult, unpleasant or unusual, especially by threatening or not offering the possibility of choice

I have taken the liberty of highlighting that part I feel is relevant.

MrP

antiskeptic

MrPudding wrote: »

But that isn't what you said, "Just because someone is infringing on your rights doesn't give you the right to kill them." You implied ever. Now, who was it who was recently telling people off for not being accurate in what they said...

I stand corrected.

Ok. From the Cambridge Online Dicitonary: I have taken the liberty of highlighting that part I feel is relevant.

See above.

antiskeptic

ShooterSF wrote: »

So anti-skeptic what is your world view on constitutional republics?

They're a grand thing. A place where people get to rule themselves.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Exactly, you don't care about sin that happens abroad (Your god apparently recognises human legal jurisdictions).

It's not that I don't care, it's that I accept my ability to constrain the advance of sin has limits.

aloyisious

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was objecting to the choice of langugage. There is a difference between forcing something to happen and not preventing something happening.

(when the aim of the objector is to ensure his/her end is met (the prevention of a female having an abortion) the method used does not matter when the result is the same. It would just be semantics)




There is no mention made of person C. Person A very often steps in front of person B to protect person C. It's only by dispensing with person C altogether that your argument holds true. Which might be fine for you, but not or me. And so your argument falters before me.

It's your worldview which determines whether person C exists or not, and since worldviews themselves can't appeal to any absolute (in the sense of being agreed upon by all) justification, discussion becomes fruitless

Wbich was the point I was originally trying to make.

Your argument seem's to be that the embryo in a woman's womb is a person (person C) and you (possibly) view yourself as person A. Well, you're entitled to your belief.

I don't believe that one's right to hold a belief mean's that a third party can have their future decided for them. In using the term "third party" I mean a pregnant female who has decided to have an abortion. I DO NOT mean the foetus in the female's womb, so there will be no use in you using it in a "protecting person C" rebuttal to what I have written here.

When I use the word "person" I am solely referring to a female human capable of pregnancy. I am not in any way referring to a foetus in the womb, incapable of pregnancy. The female human capable of pregnancy can conceive again, where-as the foetus in the womb DOES NOT have that capability.

It would be pure supposition to equate the foetus in the womb with the female human capable of pregnancy (in the case of making a decision on the medical necessity of an abortion) if one proposes using the argument that the foetus would, in the future, be capable of pregnancy. Abortion is a time-specific here and now operation, and cannot have regard to what chance may allow a foetus in the unknown, unseen, future.

As for legislation, in the cold light of day, it's meant to be enacted by legislators for ALL of the people, not just a particular section or creed.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You may think you can fool your god with semantics, but you wont get anywhere with me. Just because you know that these woman can circumvent you telling them they can't have an abortion (assuming they can afford one) doesn't change the fact that you are telling them they can't have and abortion.

There is a difference between telling someone they can't have an abortion and telling them you're not going to provide one. Semantics isn't always a dirty word

So you aren't assuming that everyone woman can be councelled to accepting the pregnancy,

Of course not. Some women might commit suicide

you just don't care as long as you get to play semantics with your morality.

And some women won't

And just, so you know, I do factor in the life of the feotus. I am anti abortion, but I'm just a little bit more anti torturing of women.

Fair enough. The point stands: our respective positions depend on how equal we make the lives in question. I'm sure you have your reasons for tipping the equality in favour of the woman.

You mean the argument you have been having in the last few posts with Stark? Quite trying to weasel out of every point, it makes you seem incredibly disingenuous.

...

Again, not an answer to my question. Not only have you been showing how uncaring and inconsistent your views in abortion are, but you are now advocating a system where anyone can weasel out of any sin with semantics. On ever level, from the factual to the philosophical to the moral, your position is only consistent in how full of **** it is.

...

Does your flavour have a name?

Not any more it doesn't. With the passage of time I've come to view any banner as one which I'll disagree with on points. Additonally, every attempt to escape the corruptions that come with a particular banner results in a new banner which in time also sullies.

The term 'evangelical', for instance, was an attempt by some Christians to distance themselves from what they considered the questionable theology of the organised churches. And now evangelical is associated with American Fundamentalism - which itself has a seriously questionable theolgy.

I'm a Christian. A follower of Christ

antiskeptic

aloyisious wrote: »

Your argument seem's to be that the embryo in a woman's womb is a person (person C) and you (possibly) view yourself as person A. Well, you're entitled to your belief.

Thank you.

I don't believe that one's right to hold a belief mean's that a third party can have their future decided for them. In using the term "third party" I mean a pregnant female who has decided to have an abortion. I DO NOT mean the foetus in the female's womb, so there will be no use in you using it in a "protecting person C" rebuttal to what I have written here.

You're entitled to your beliefs.

When I use the word "person" I am solely referring to a female human capable of pregnancy. I am not in any way referring to a foetus in the womb, incapable of pregnancy. The female human capable of pregnancy can conceive again, where-as the foetus in the womb DOES NOT have that capability.

You can define personhood anyway you like. So can I. And so we both do.

It would be pure supposition to equate the foetus in the womb with the female human capable of pregnancy (in the case of making a decision on the medical necessity of an abortion) if one proposes using the argument that the foetus would, in the future, be capable of pregnancy.

I've not used that argument.

The argument (or rather worldview) I've presented rests on the view that the foetus is a person. I care as little about you not accepting that as you care about me not accepting your worldview.

Abortion is a time-specific here and now operation, and cannot have regard to what chance may allow a foetus in the unknown, unseen, future.

As for legislation, in the cold light of day, it's meant to be enacted by legislators for ALL of the people, not just a particular section or creed.

Indeed. And I'd like the legislation forbidding abortion to apply to all the people. Not just people of a particular section or creed.

Stark

antiskeptic wrote: »

Of course not. Some women might commit suicide

So "collateral damage" in other words. Charming. Pro-life my hole.

Obliq

Stark wrote: »

So "collateral damage" in other words. Charming. Pro-life my hole.

There's some charmers about alright. :mad:

swampgas

antiskeptic wrote: »

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 don't want to impose my worldview as such - I want the state to support as many worldviews as possible, by providing choice. If religiously motivated worldviews are inconvenienced by that, I don't see how that's a problem for the state.

You don't have to eat fish on Friday, but it's not the role of the state to forbid it, nor to make it compulsory. The state should allow its citizens to choose for themselves which religious restrictions they wish to apply to themselves.

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 ..

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

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

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.

My view is that laws should be made where the worldviews of the people overlap, i.e in the common ground of beliefs.

When you say that "The fact I can understand the framework you're operating by doesn't mean there isn't more informing me." simply states that you have religious beliefs which are not shared by me. There is a reason we label such beliefs as religious, it's because they are not evidence based and cannot be proved one way or the other. I fully support your right to believe anything you like, but I don't agree that your religious beliefs should have a role in defining state law.

If we step into a medical ward together, for the most part we see the same things. Reality, in other words. If we get the scanner out and look at a week old embryo, what we both see, and agree on, is that there is a small bunch of cells, a "blob" to use your words.

Now at this point we diverge. I see the blob, as do you, but you now assert that there is more - a soul, perhaps - that you cannot show me. This soul, you assert, magically gives the embryo the same right to life as a fully grown adult.

At this point we have strayed from the common ground of shared worldviews and into religious ideology. At this point I think you should accept that your assertion of the embryo having a soul and equal rights is something that should be a voluntary self-imposed view - not a view that should be imposed by state law.

antiskeptic

Stark wrote: »

So "collateral damage" in other words

..in the process of the most lives being saved, for I don't suspect anything near as many would die by their own hand as would under the alternative.

Not that it's a numbers game.

antiskeptic

swampgas wrote: »

I want the state to support as many worldviews as possible, by providing choice.

That's a worldview which you want to impose.

You don't have to eat fish on Friday, but it's not the role of the state to forbid it, nor to make it compulsory. The state should allow its citizens to choose for themselves which religious restrictions they wish to apply to themselves.

When you consider the foetus a person you're doing no more imposing than you would in protecting anyone elses life against a worldview that would seek to destroy it.

My view is that laws should be made where the worldviews of the people overlap, i.e in the common ground of beliefs.

You'll have remarkably few laws I would imagine.

When you say that "The fact I can understand the framework you're operating by doesn't mean there isn't more informing me." simply states that you have religious beliefs which are not shared by me.

Indeed.

There is a reason we label such beliefs as religious, it's because they are not evidence based and cannot be proved one way or the other.

Ditto your views on what constitutes a person. Those a philosophical notions, as unprovable as are my religious ones. You might see a blob of cells and say "that's a blob of cells". But you can't say all there is is a blob of cells - for you don't know what you might not be detecting.

I fully support your right to believe anything you like, but I don't agree that your religious beliefs should have a role in defining state law.

I don't agree your philosophical viewpoints on personhood should have a role in defining State law.

And so we campaign against one anothers worldviews holding sway using whatever means we think will work

If we step into a medical ward together, for the most part we see the same things. Reality, in other words. If we get the scanner out and look at a week old embryo, what we both see, and agree on, is that there is a small bunch of cells, a "blob" to use your words.

Now at this point we diverge. I see the blob, as do you, but you now assert that there is more - a soul, perhaps - that you cannot show me. This soul, you assert, magically gives the embryo the same right to life as a fully grown adult.

Spoken like a man who finds the empirical / rationalistic philosophical framework adequately explains the reality he experiences. But what if you find it doesn't. And find that the religious framework explains your reality better?

At this point we have strayed from the common ground of shared worldviews and into religious ideology.

I've merely left you behind. You stop seeing at a certain point. And the fact that the empirical fails to detect says nothing about the presence of the non-empirical reality.

You're making assumptions about the reach of your philosophy. But need to accept that it may have limitations. Not for nothing, the biblical contention of men being blind.

At this point I think you should accept that your assertion of the embryo having a soul and equal rights is something that should be a voluntary self-imposed view - not a view that should be imposed by state law.

You'd have to provide an argument to enable me to do that. Simply asserting that the blob isn't life because your worldview doesn't hold it so isn't an argument. It's a worldview.

Nodin

antiskeptic wrote: »

As an arm of the State :rolleyes:

No, on behalf of the woman.

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's a worldview which you want to impose.

Is it not better to allow people to live by their own worldview? With the scenario that swampgas suggests, you could make decisions in keeping with your worldview and others that have a different perspective could also do so. How you can say it is a worldview to be imposed is strange as it essentially boils down to "you can decide for yourself".

The anti-abortion side would rather they tell women what they can or can't do with their body should they become pregnant. That is a better description of imposing a worldview.

antiskeptic

koth wrote: »

Is it not better to allow people to live by their own worldview?

That's called anarchy

With the scenario that swampgas suggests, you could make decisions in keeping with your worldview and others that have a different perspective could also do so. How you can say it is a worldview to be imposed is strange as it essentially boils down to "you can decide for yourself".

The mother aborting is deciding for another. The abortee.

The anti-abortion side would rather they tell women what they can or can't do with their body should they become pregnant. That is a better description of imposing a worldview.

It is of course imposing a worldview. But the pro choice is doing the same