Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Mark Hamill

Stupify wrote: »

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

Its a terrible analogy. Most analogies are.

I didn't make an analogy about a car crash, I made an analogy about someone running over someone else by accident despite taking every precaution.
Even if I did, the issue isn't the child, its how the driver/sexual participants are treated and their responsibilities are measured.

In both cases someone undertakes an act with a small possibility of a negative outcome, takes every reasonable precaution, but **** still happens. If you are going to say that a pregnant person must be treated as if they intended pregnancy (because they understood that there was a possible risk), then you must also say that the person who ran someone over intended that also (because they understood that there was a possible risk).

Most analogies are not necessarily terrible, its just that most people are terrible at reading analogies.

paulap

i hope being pro choice that respect for life is always a priority. abortion i dont feel should be used willy nilly as the women who go through this suffer after but it is their choice and they need to feel they have the support of those around them to get through the loss. often these women are felt feel less of a woman because of what they have felt they needed to do. once the information and support is there i believe it should be available and that counciling pre and post be part of the proceedure
women need to feel that thier choice is thiers and if possible with thier partner right for them both

swampgas

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

Nor do you. If you can't demonstrate it to me empirically, I'll assume you're probably just imagining it. Either way, if you're "detecting" something using religious faith, how on earth do you figure out which religion or religious person is detecting it correctly? With some kind of evidence, perhaps? Oh, wait ...

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?

But how we can we debate and come to a consensus on issues where we have philosophic differences - say when deciding law - unless we stick to what we agree upon. I assume you do not deny the empirical / rationalistic viewpoint has some merit?

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.

I could say the same, you know I could suggest that you are seeing things that aren't there simply because your brain hasn't learnt to see how it's fooling itself.

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.

And your worldview with respect to a fetus being a person is based on religion. And I repeat my assertion that state law should not be based on religion.

The same process has been worked through with contraception and divorce, and the law of the land has (painfully slowly) moved away from enshrining religious dogma and towards human rights.

Why should abortion be any different? Why shouldn't the legislation move the same way - away from faith-based proscription to secular law?

Bannasidhe

Stupify wrote: »

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

Does that argument also hold true for AIDS and other STDs?

Should medical treatment be denied as they knew the risks and if the condom breaks well... tough?

DB21

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.

Sadly for you, science doesn't care about views or beliefs, it cares about facts. The fact is, before 12 weeks, an embryo/fetus has no CNS. Therefore it is incapable of sentience, thought, feeling, or any other myriad of things associated with people. It is just a clump of cells. This is a fact. This is not a philosophy, it is not a belief, it is not a worldview.

Stupify

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I didn't make an analogy about a car crash, I made an analogy about someone running over someone else by accident despite taking every precaution.
Even if I did, the issue isn't the child, its how the driver/sexual participants are treated and their responsibilities are measured.

In both cases someone undertakes an act with a small possibility of a negative outcome, takes every reasonable precaution, but **** still happens. If you are going to say that a pregnant person must be treated as if they intended pregnancy (because they understood that there was a possible risk), then you must also say that the person who ran someone over intended that also (because they understood that there was a possible risk).

Most analogies are not necessarily terrible, its just that most people are terrible at reading analogies.

Most analogies are terrible.

The analogy of two people, one driving a car the other a pedestrian, getting into an accident where they both took the upmost care only has those twoactors. The persons broken leg isn't an actor.

The case where two consent to sex and one gets pregnant, some people would consider this to have three actors, others two actors, depending on what sideof the fence you’re on.

The only thing linking the two is that they were both careful and that’s not enough for a perfect substitution.

Where you say the issue isn't the child, it could be for some people.

It also has to be said none of what I’ve said is my view. This all started from me trying to argue the point where abortion would be acceptable where thewoman was raped, I was doing that to try win antiskeptic over to accept that araped woman has no responsibilities to the child she is carrying.

People who see the child as a person of its own right after conception will not see a right for the woman to have an abortion just because the contraception didn't work.

Bannasidhe

paulap wrote: »

i hope being pro choice that respect for life is always a priority. abortion i dont feel should be used willy nilly as the women who go through this suffer after but it is their choice and they need to feel they have the support of those around them to get through the loss. often these women are felt feel less of a woman because of what they have felt they needed to do. once the information and support is there i believe it should be available and that counciling pre and post be part of the proceedure
women need to feel that thier choice is thiers and if possible with thier partner right for them both

If I was going to respond to the highlighted statement with the first thoughts that went through my head I would be site banned.

How dare you state what will and will not make women 'feel like less of a woman' especially in the context of a debate when many of the women posting here have said they are made to feel like nothing more than mobile incubators and the owners of bodies which others believe they have every right to control the use of.
Women here are complaining not about anything that 'makes them feel like less of a woman' - we are women- we cannot feel like anything but women regardless of the circumstances - we object to being made to feel like 2nd class human beings who are incapable to deciding for ourselves what we do with our bodies.

:mad:

Stupify

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Does that argument also hold true for AIDS and other STDs?

Should medical treatment be denied as they knew the risks and if the condom breaks well... tough?

STDs are diseases, are you classifying pregnancy as a disease?

Zombrex

Stupify wrote: »

STDs are diseases, are you classifying pregnancy as a disease?

No, she is pointing out that in no other area of medical life do we abandon people by say "well you made your bed so now go lie in it", or attempt to punish someone for having sex by forcing them to face a consequence that can still be avoided, so why would we do it with pregnancy and abortion?

Not sure you were arguing counter to this (this thread has got awful confusing), but that I think was her point.

Stupify

Zombrex wrote: »

No, she is pointing out that in no other area of medical life do we abandon people by say "well you made your bed so now go lie in it", or attempt to punish someone for having sex by forcing them to face a consequence that can still be avoided, so why would we do it with pregnancy and abortion?

Yes but the two aren't the same. If you view the foetus as having rights then it complicates things.

STD's don't have rights.

Mark Hamill

Stupify wrote: »

Most analogies are terrible.

The analogy of two people, one driving a car the other a pedestrian, getting into an accident where they both took the upmost care only has those twoactors. The persons broken leg isn't an actor.

The case where two consent to sex and one gets pregnant, some people would consider this to have three actors, others two actors, depending on what sideof the fence you’re on.

The only thing linking the two is that they were both careful and that’s not enough for a perfect substitution.

No, people are just generally terrible at reading analogies. They do what you are doing, attempt to match every single aspect of the main point to the analogy, instead of just picking up on the single point the analogy is trying is make. Analogies aren't supposed to be perfect substitutions, if they where, then what point would there be of making an analogy? If someone can't understand one situation, they are not likely to understand another exactly the same situation, but with different labels.

Stupify wrote: »

Where you say the issue isn't the child, it could be for some people.

Except its not in the original point you made. The issue is purely about the responsibility of the people undertaking the act while knowing of a possible danger. They "must accept the risks associated with pregnancy. They accepted by consenting." Like a driver accepts by getting behind the wheel of a car.

Stupify wrote: »

It also has to be said none of what I’ve said is my view. This all started from me trying to argue the point where abortion would be acceptable where thewoman was raped, I was doing that to try win antiskeptic over to accept that araped woman has no responsibilities to the child she is carrying.

Except that you made the point that a person who consents to sex should be forced to endure an unwanted pregnancy. Thats how your first post (on this tangent) comes across. Do you think that people who get pregnant through consensual sex should be forced to endure the pregnancy?

Mark Hamill

Stupify wrote: »

Yes but the two aren't the same. If you view the foetus as having rights then it complicates things.

STD's don't have rights.

So why don't you stop beating around the bush and tell us if you view the foetus as having rights.

Bannasidhe

Stupify wrote: »

STDs are diseases, are you classifying pregnancy as a disease?

The analogy could be easily made.

swampgas

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The analogy could be easily made.

This is waaaay off topic, but anyway:

In some ways, technically speaking, a fetus is very similar to a parasite. I can't find the reference now, bit in terms of evolution, there are genes which compete - some to make the fetus grow bigger (to the advantage of the fetus) and some to make it stay smaller (to the advantage of the mother).

Stupify

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, people are just generally terrible at reading analogies. They do what you are doing, attempt to match every single aspect of the main point to the analogy, instead of just picking up on the single point the analogy is trying is make. Analogies aren't supposed to be perfect substitutions, if they where, then what point would there be of making an analogy? If someone can't understand one situation, they are not likely to understand another exactly the same situation, but with different labels.

You have just said wht analogies are terrible. Because that don't match up exactly in most cases analogies form a weak argument. And thats why they really shouldn't be used in arguments. I use them myself but even when I use them I know they are weak.

I already picked up on the point you were making before the analogy. And the two situations aren't the same as I have said.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Except its not in the original point you made. The issue is purely about the responsibility of the people undertaking the act while knowing of a possible danger. They "must accept the risks associated with pregnancy. They accepted by consenting." Like a driver accepts by getting behind the wheel of a car.

Again with the analogies here. As I said, I'am trying to argue from the view that the foetus has a right to life in order to get into that mindset.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Except that you made the point that a person who consents to sex should be forced to endure an unwanted pregnancy. Thats how your first post (on this tangent) comes across. Do you think that people who get pregnant through consensual sex should be forced to endure the pregnancy?

Yes that was to continue the discussion I had the previous night with antiskeptic. I was trying to see it from his point of view and trying to argue that even with his worldview he could allow a woman who was raped have an abortion while the child still retains a right to life.

Bannasidhe

swampgas wrote: »

This is waaaay off topic, but anyway:

In some ways, technically speaking, a fetus is very similar to a parasite. I can't find the reference now, bit in terms of evolution, there are genes which compete - some to make the fetus grow bigger (to the advantage of the fetus) and some to make it stay smaller (to the advantage of the mother).

Yup, the 'organism invading host body, creates conditions beneficial to its own survival which have a negative impact on the host body' route.

Ticks all the boxes...

Stupify

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So why don't you stop beating around the bush and tell us if you view the foetus as having rights.

I haven't been beating around any bush.

My view is that abortion should be legal in Ireland.

If it's legal in England then not having it here isn't saving anyone.

Plus I don't have a hugher power to answer to so my trying to prevent it from coming in here has little meaning

Flier

Stupify wrote: »

.... the whole point of sex in this world is to create life.....

Well, I'm not too sure you'll get many people to agree with you on this point.

Stupify

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The analogy could be easily made.

It could be made but it wouldn't be a good fit.

Bannasidhe

Stupify wrote: »

It could be made but it wouldn't be a good fit.

I disagree.

Stupify

swampgas wrote: »

This is waaaay off topic, but anyway:

In some ways, technically speaking, a fetus is very similar to a parasite. I can't find the reference now, bit in terms of evolution, there are genes which compete - some to make the fetus grow bigger (to the advantage of the fetus) and some to make it stay smaller (to the advantage of the mother).

Thats probably true. But if you start giving the foetus human rights, like religions do, then it muddies things up.

Stupify

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I disagree.

Then we will have to agree to disagree.

Stupify

Flier wrote: »

Well, I'm not too sure you'll get many people to agree with you on this point.

Its the primary reason, taking all animals into consideration.

Flier

Stupify wrote: »

Its the primary reason, taking all animals into consideration.

Maybe in your life, but not in mine. And pretty much everyone I know.

Stupify

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yup, the 'organism invading host body, creates conditions beneficial to its own survival which have a negative impact on the host body' route.

Ticks all the boxes...

If you accept this then wouldn't you also accept that its a parasite when its fully grown and capable of life outside the womb. It still ticks the boxes there too doesn't it?

I wouldn't call a child in the womb which is capable of life outside the womb a parasite.

Bannasidhe

Stupify wrote: »

Its the primary reason, taking all animals into consideration.

I'll make sure I point that out to the Labrador and his buddy the Jack Russell next door when they get frisky again. I'll say 'now boys, stop that unless you intend to make puppies.'

Bannasidhe

Stupify wrote: »

If you accept this then wouldn't you also accept that its a parasite when its fully grown and capable of life outside the womb. It still ticks the boxes there too doesn't it?

I wouldn't call a child in the womb which is capable of life outside the womb a parasite.

Well teenagers can suck the life out of you.

Stupify

Flier wrote: »

Maybe in your life, but not in mine. And pretty much everyone I know.

Taking all animals into consideration.

Read the post.

A long time ago it was the case for humans too.

Stupify

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well teenagers can suck the life out of you.

True...

Bannasidhe

Stupify wrote: »

A long time ago it was the case for humans too.

So was death from what are now curable diseases.