Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

In my worldview you are affecting someone else. And so, according to your worldview, I shouldn't grant choice.

Until the foetus develops a brain, it is being effected by the choice about as much as a foot is effected by its own amputation. Its ability to be effected is massively compromised by virtue of the nature of its own existence. Your worldview effects the mother far more than the foetus, which still puts your worldview at a far lower level than ours.

Its amazing how you don't care about this someone else being effected, once they are out of the country :rolleyes:

Mark Hamill

Stupify wrote: »

But the person in the car crash case can't run over someone if they were following all the rules of the road and so was the pedestrian. An accident always has a cause and the cause of the accident takes responsibility.

In the case where the cause was a broken condom, the two consenting adults knew that was a risk.

Brakes never fail? Road lights never fail? Third party road users never drive dangerously? There are plenty of possibilities that are analogous to condoms failing (ie both parties do everything right, but an accident still happens).

antiskeptic

DB21 wrote: »

Of course, this is me being obtuse in return. Not everything that's alive has a nervous system.

The issue is personhood, what it is and when it starts. In my view that's at conception and isn't reliant on stages of physical development.

Flier

Stupify wrote: »

... An accident always has a cause and the cause of the accident takes responsibility.

In the case where the cause was a broken condom, the two consenting adults knew that was a risk.

Great - I hope Durex have really good childcare facilities!

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

koth wrote:

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

That's called anarchy

Been thinking about this. You call it anarchy when people live according to their own worldviews, therefore you say they should live according to your religiously inspired one - a theocracy, in effect. But, you have pointed out that you are a christian, but don't follow the teachings of any one specific church. This would make your theocracy, a theocracy subject to your, singular, personal worldview. Everyone living according to one single persons enforced point of view.
That would be a tyranny, wouldn't it?

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Until the foetus develops a brain, it is being effected by the choice about as much as a foot is effected by its own amputation.

If taking a naturalistic, utilitarian view on what constitutes personhood - with all the tragic history that that world view allows in the door.

Naturally that's not my perspective and so the argument doesn't float for me. No matter how many times it's repeated.

doctoremma

antiskeptic wrote: »

The issue is personhood, what it is and when it starts. In my view that's at conception and isn't reliant on stages of physical development.

So at conception, the single cell's right to life is equal to an adult's? Their inherent values are equivalent?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

The issue is personhood, what it is and when it starts. In my view that's at conception and isn't reliant on stages of physical development.

Then why does it start at concept and not before? Why not value all the millions of sperm or the eggs wasted, if you don't care about stages of physical development?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

If taking a naturalistic, utilitarian view on what constitutes personhood - with all the tragic history that that world view allows in the door.

Naturally that's not my perspective and so the argument doesn't float for me. No matter how many times it's repeated.

Its repeated because you deny it without logical response.

Stupify

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is a difference between the right not to have someone kill you and the right that you be offered life saving treatment.

The mother is just refusing to allow her body be used as an incubator for the baby in this case.

Same as the person is refusing to allow his organs to be used to save someone.

In both cases an innocent dies but it isn't the fault of the other person.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Been thinking about this. You call it anarchy when people live according to their own worldviews,

If permitted to do so utterly and totally. Koth meant it in more restricted vein, which wouldn't be anarchy

therefore you say they should live according to your religiously inspired one - a theocracy, in effect. But, you have pointed out that you are a christian, but don't follow the teachings of any one specific church. This would make your theocracy, a theocracy subject to your, singular, personal worldview. Everyone living according to one single persons enforced point of view.
That would be a tyranny, wouldn't it?

It would were it to ever come about. But it won't. My voice will pile in with all the other voices and a result will ensue.

antiskeptic

Stupify wrote: »

The mother is just refusing to allow her body be used as an incubator for the baby in this case.

Same as the person is refusing to allow his organs to be used to save someone.

In both cases an innocent dies but it isn't the fault of the other person.

In the one case, disease killed the person. In another a person killed the person.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its repeated because you deny it without logical response.

The response is that I have my own worldview. There isn't any point in you arguing as if I were looking through your spectacles.

antiskeptic

doctoremma wrote: »

So at conception, the single cell's right to life is equal to an adult's? Their inherent values are equivalent?

Exactly. Although I'd use a different measure of personhood than merely majority cell rule.

Stupify

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Brakes never fail? Road lights never fail? Third party road users never drive dangerously? There are plenty of possibilities that are analogous to condoms failing (ie both parties do everything right, but an accident still happens).

But in the case where both parties do everything right and something like the brakes fail then theres insurance. Abortion can't be seen as acceptable insurance surely?

With sex there is no insurance, the whole point of sex in this world is to create life. The whole point of driving is to get somewhere. If you go racing on a track in a car and die you took that chance, same if you get pregnant from having sex.

I'm trying to argue from a different viewpoint to my own here.
This car crash analogy doesn't overlap at all with sex.

Stupify

Flier wrote: »

Great - I hope Durex have really good childcare facilities!

Durex have the risks on the box don't they?

Stupify

antiskeptic wrote: »

In the one case, disease killed the person. In another a person killed the person.

In both cases the person wasn't able to live without taking something from another.

doctoremma

antiskeptic wrote: »

Exactly. Although I'd use a different measure of personhood than merely majority cell rule.

Some time earlier in this thread, I posed a dilemma. You have to make a choice to rescue a grown (or, at least, born) person or a cryotank of IVF embryos from a burning room. Your choice?

antiskeptic

Stupify wrote: »

In both cases the person wasn't able to live without taking something from another.

That much is identical. But I gave a place where they are not identical. And where not identical then there is no need to tar with the same brush.

antiskeptic

doctoremma wrote: »

Some time earlier in this thread, I posed a dilemma. You have to make a choice to rescue a grown (or, at least, born) person or a cryotank of IVF embryos from a burning room. Your choice?

How many of the IVF embryos are you granting will be brought to term?

Stupify

antiskeptic wrote: »

That much is identical. But I gave a place where they are not identical. And where not identical then there is no need to tar with the same brush.

Yes and it is the rapist who is the murderer.

Someone attaches someone else to me without my consent. If that person could then not be removed without that person dying, I still have a right to remove that person. The person that attached the person is the murderer.

doctoremma

antiskeptic wrote: »

How many of the IVF embryos are you granting will be brought to term?

Only the potential parents of said embryos could know that.

But for the purposes of debate, let's say...one.

ShooterSF

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

Great so how do you suggest our constitutional republic legislate for a woman's right to abortion if her life is at risk through suicide as they are entitled by our constitution?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

The response is that I have my own worldview. There isn't any point in you arguing as if I were looking through your spectacles.

Which is not a logical response. If you say "I believe X" and someone says "What about Y", and you respond with "I believe X", you aren't engaging with the debate.

Mark Hamill

Stupify wrote: »

But in the case where both parties do everything right and something like the brakes fail then theres insurance. Abortion can't be seen as acceptable insurance surely?

With sex there is no insurance, the whole point of sex in this world is to create life. The whole point of driving is to get somewhere. If you go racing on a track in a car and die you took that chance, same if you get pregnant from having sex.

I'm trying to argue from a different viewpoint to my own here.
This car crash analogy doesn't overlap at all with sex.

Insurance is just so you can afford (financially) to have medical treatments, its not a treatment itself, so its not analogous.
For many people, the point of sex is to have sex (cause its enjoyable). For many people, the point of driving is to drive, because that is enjoyable. An accident happening in one (despite all precautions being taken) is analogous to an accident happening in the other.

Mark Hamill

You may have missed it antiskeptic, but can you respond to this post.

antiskeptic

doctoremma wrote: »

But for the purposes of debate, let's say...one.

Then I'd save the adult since I've more chance of ending up with a living being afterwards.

doctoremma

antiskeptic wrote: »

Then I'd save the adult since I've more chance of ending up with a living being afterwards.

But if you take the tank, you are saving thousands of not just living beings but persons?

Stupify

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Insurance is just so you can afford (financially) to have medical treatments, its not a treatment itself, so its not analogous.
For many people, the point of sex is to have sex (cause its enjoyable). For many people, the point of driving is to drive, because that is enjoyable. An accident happening in one (despite all precautions being taken) is analogous to an accident happening in the other.

But the actors are different; there is no substitute for the child in the car crash analogy.

Its a terrible analogy. Most analogies are.

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sorry, I thought you meant allowing people to live by their own worldview on all matters.

no problem.

Since the State very frequently doesn't allow people to live according to their own worldview on a whole host of matters, then each instance need be examined on it's own merit.

In this instance, I don't see an issue with the State not permitting each to their own.

Of course you wouldn't as your POV is being imposed on all pregnant women. But like all discussion people need to expand their thinking if others are to understand why they are for/against something. I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why an embryo is a person for example.

It doesn't matter that they don't agree since there is no intrinsic need that all agree before a certain worldview is imposed on all.

Of course, but if there isn't a consensus then it opens things up for change.

Their imposing their worldview on the child. And the way around that is to pronounce the child not a child.

Not true. An embryo and probably the very early stages of the foetus are not sentient. To use the word child is to evoke the idea it is a self-aware being, i.e. a person, that it can feel pain/process thoughts/remember etc. A child is more than the sum of genetic material of it's parents.

To say that you are killing a child by aborting an embryo would be the equivalent of saying that turning off life support on a brain dead patient is murder.