Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Delirium

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.

Does that mean that prior to that point you would consider it a parasite?

Stupify

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.'

That is their intention. Most animals have sex to get pregnant.

Stupify

koth wrote: »

Does that mean that prior to that point you would consider it a parasite?

I wouldn't but thats just my view and I keep it consistently.

Do you apply it consistently?

Stupify

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So was death from what are now curable diseases.

Doesn't change the fact that sex in the natural worlds primary function is to conceive.

Mark Hamill

Stupify wrote: »

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.

Again, analogies aren't supposed to match up on every aspect, only on the ones central to the point being made (in this case, how you are attributing responsibility). Pointing out that the analogies aren't the same is moot, you need to explain why the differences negate the point I'm making.

Stupify wrote: »

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.

Again with ignoring my point in favour of disputing irrelevant aspects of the analogy. Try reading the sentenes in that paragraph which you didn't respond to:
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."

Stupify wrote: »

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.

So why take so long to admit this? Why respond to so many posts disputing the argument you put forward, if you were simply doing it on antiskeptic's behalf? Why didn't you just say from the start that you weren't making the argument, but patronising it to make another point?

Mark Hamill

Stupify wrote: »

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

So what's the point in your defending arguments you don't agree with?

swampgas

Stupify wrote: »

That is their intention. Most animals have sex to get pregnant.

Except that animals don't know that - they're just acting on instinct. Humans are different - the know they want sex, however they also know whether they want to get pregnant, and by and large they have the technology to have one without the other.

Delirium

Stupify wrote: »

I wouldn't but thats just my view and I keep it consistently.

Do you apply it consistently?

Honestly don't know as it doesn't factor into my opinion on abortion, the beginnings of a person is what determines what I'm currently okay with regarding abortion.

Mark Hamill

Stupify wrote: »

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

Stupify wrote: »

Its the primary reason, taking all animals into consideration.

These two positions contradict each other. Without a higher power to answer to, no biological act has an inherent reason.

Flier

Stupify wrote: »

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

Stupify wrote: »

Taking all animals into consideration.

Read the post.

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

You're confusing the basic primal instinct of sex in order to ensure the survival of the species with the point of sex. Most people have sex because they enjoy it, just like most people go to a nice restaurant for a good steak, not because they need to eat to survive. There is a difference.

Mark Hamill

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.

I think most pro-choice people would be against (non medically required) abortion after the point the foetus could survive outside the womb.

Mark Hamill

Stupify wrote: »

That is their intention. Most animals have sex to get pregnant.

Most animals don't consider sex and pregnancy on the same intellectual levels that humans can. Most animals have sex simply because they are horny.

Stupify

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Again, analogies aren't supposed to match up on every aspect, only on the ones central to the point being made (in this case, how you are attributing responsibility). Pointing out that the analogies aren't the same is moot, you need to explain why the differences negate the point I'm making.

Thats why they aren't great to use during a discussion.

I know what analogies are meant to do.

And I already explained why it makes it moot. If the third actor, the child, is given rights it throws that whole analogy on its head.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Again with ignoring my point in favour of disputing irrelevant aspects of the analogy. Try reading the sentenes in that paragraph which you didn't respond to:
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."

You don't get to dictate what I respond to but I will take a look at it in a minute, I have more than you demanding answers.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So why take so long to admit this? Why respond to so many posts disputing the argument you put forward, if you were simply doing it on antiskeptic's behalf? Why didn't you just say from the start that you weren't making the argument, but patronising it to make another point?

I admited this not long after the discussion, I have repeatedly said that the view wasn't my own.

Neither am I doing it on antiskeptics behalf. I continued the discussion to see what its like from his point of view.

I have never been patronising during this discussion.

Mark Hamill

Stupify wrote: »

Doesn't change the fact that sex in the natural worlds primary function is to conceive.

And eating in the natural world's primary function is to sustain us nutritionally. Doesn't mean most people don't eat, at one time or another, simply for the enjoyment of eating.

Stupify

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So what's the point in your defending arguments you don't agree with?

I have told you why, I was trying to get into a mindset where the foetus has rights.

Stupify

swampgas wrote: »

Except that animals don't know that - they're just acting on instinct. Humans are different - the know they want sex, however they also know whether they want to get pregnant, and by and large they have the technology to have one without the other.

The technology isn't perfect.

Stupify

Mark Hamill wrote: »

These two positions contradict each other. Without a higher power to answer to, no biological act has an inherent reason.

I do believe in the instinct of survival, does that need a god now?

Stupify

Flier wrote: »

You're confusing the basic primal instinct of sex in order to ensure the survival of the species with the point of sex. Most people have sex because they enjoy it, just like most people go to a nice restaurant for a good steak, not because they need to eat to survive. There is a difference.

And after that I said taking all animals into consideration, the quote your taking is older than the one I'm talking about.

I never said people didn't use sex as enjoyment but that we as humans have attributed that secondary meaning to it.

Stupify

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And eating in the natural world's primary function is to sustain us nutritionally. Doesn't mean most people don't eat, at one time or another, simply for the enjoyment of eating.

Attributing a secondary function as humans like with sex. I never said one can only have one function for each activity

Stupify

I have to go, I have other obligations. But I will return tomorrow evening to answer anything else you want to bombard at me.

Goodnight.

Mark Hamill

Stupify wrote: »

And I already explained why it makes it moot. If the third actor, the child, is given rights it throws that whole analogy on its head.

No it doesn't because, as you said, your initial point was to convince someone that abortion after rape was allowable. If the foetus gets rights simply because its considered a child, then it has that rights in the rape scenario too. If you can ignore those rights there, then they can ignored elsewhere.

Stupify wrote: »

You don't get to dictate what I respond to but I will take a look at it in a minute, I have more than you demanding answers.

Oh come off it, you responded to the rest of my post, quoting every part of it. You just thought you could fob off an easy response to that paragraph and got picked up on it.

Stupify wrote: »

I admited this not long after the discussion, I have repeatedly said that the view wasn't my own.

Neither am I doing it on antiskeptics behalf. I continued the discussion to see what its like from his point of view.

But why bother? You don't understand the view well enough to defend it and you don't understand our arguments well enough to dispel them(hence your defences have been reduced to "I don't hold this view" or "if you see the foetus as alive, then it muddies things").

Stupify wrote: »

I have never been patronising during this discussion.

I didn't mean that in an insulting way, more of a devils-advocate kind of way.

Bannasidhe

Stupify wrote: »

That is their intention. Most animals have sex to get pregnant.

Even homosexual ones?

Flier

Stupify wrote: »

And after that I said taking all animals into consideration, the quote your taking is older than the one I'm talking about.

I never said people didn't use sex as enjoyment but that we as humans have attributed that secondary meaning to it.

Enjoyment is the primary reason for most sex acts. Only persons who are actively 'trying for a baby' have the primary reason of creating life. It doesn't matter what order you said it in. It's still not true.

Mark Hamill

Stupify wrote: »

I have told you why, I was trying to get into a mindset where the foetus has rights.

By trying to defend a view you don't understand, hold or agree with? Would it not be better to simply ask someone who has that mindset to explain it?

Stupify wrote: »

I do believe in the instinct of survival, does that need a god now?

Yes, if you want to argue that something we have evolved to do is something we must do. As a species, we evolved to get pregnant via sex, but that doesn't mean that, as individuals, we must aim to get pregnant each time we have sex.

Stupify wrote: »

Attributing a secondary function as humans like with sex. I never said one can only have one function for each activity

But you are saying the primary function must be adhered to each time the activity is enjoyed.

Stupify

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Even homosexual ones?

I did say most you know.

Bannasidhe

Stupify wrote: »

I did say most you know.

Dikat by majority so...

I seriously doubt that most humans only have sex for the purpose of procreation. If they did there would be no market for the multi-billion euro contraceptive industry.
I would posit that the vast majority of humans actively try and avoid procreating.

Stupify

Flier wrote: »

Enjoyment is the primary reason for most sex acts. Only persons who are actively 'trying for a baby' have the primary reason of creating life. It doesn't matter what order you said it in. It's still not true.

Taking all animals in the world, which is what I was saying, most engage in sexual activity for the survial of their species. So for most thats its primary function.

This is starting to lead too far away from the discussion.

Stupify

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Dikat by majority so...

I seriously doubt that most humans only have sex for the purpose of procreation. If they did there would be no market for the multi-billion euro contraceptive industry.
I would posit that the vast majority of humans actively try and avoid procreating.

Again, I wasn't just discussing humans, if you read my posts it was with regard to all life.

Stupify

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No it doesn't because, as you said, your initial point was to convince someone that abortion after rape was allowable. If the foetus gets rights simply because its considered a child, then it has that rights in the rape scenario too. If you can ignore those rights there, then they can ignored elsewhere.

If you go back and read through those posts you will see that in the case of rape I was still giving the foetus rights. I was trying to argue that the woman did not owe a duty of care as she did not consent to sex.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Oh come off it, you responded to the rest of my post, quoting every part of it. You just thought you could fob off an easy response to that paragraph and got picked up on it.

having read over that again I appears I did answer it to my satisfaction.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But why bother? You don't understand the view well enough to defend it and you don't understand our arguments well enough to dispel them(hence your defences have been reduced to "I don't hold this view" or "if you see the foetus as alive, then it muddies things").

I understand both views fine.

Where am I lacking in understanding?

People who believe the foetus has rights don't want abortions, fairly simple.

People who see the foetus as a clump of cells don't see a problem with it.

It isn't hard to understand. My defending of someone with the view that a foetus has rights was adequate, nothing you said would have changed their mind.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I didn't mean that in an insulting way, more of a devils-advocate kind of way.

I think it fairly obvious you meant it in a negative way.

Bannasidhe

Stupify wrote: »

Again, I wasn't just discussing humans, if you read my posts it was with regard to all life.

But we are discussing humans.

This discussion is about whether female humans should have access to abortions. Some say absolutely not, others say in very limited circumstances where the life of the mother is at risk, yet others say the decision should rest completely with the pregnant woman but most of them have set a time-limit except in extremely extenuating circumstances.

What is irrelevant for the latter group are the circumstances during which got pregnant in the first place.

What happens 'in nature' or 'among the majority of animals' is not relevant to this discussion at all - not even those animals that re-absorb a fetus (i.e. terminate/abort their own pregnancy) if the conditions into which the young will be born are not ideal.