Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

nozzferrahhtoo

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

I used the same citation as you. How is continuing something already exists the same as forcing you to do something?

I am not saying it is the same. I am saying the word "force" is valid to use in both contexts due to the definition I provided. It would really help if you could start keeping up with the conversation and stop questioning things I did not say, and ignoring the things I did.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

You are already doing it, how can I force you to do something in which you are already doing?

I dunno, maybe ask someone who was making that point I was not. What I DID say however was that I can force you to CONTINUE to do something you are already doing, even if you yourself might wish to stop. And that is a valid use of the word "force" whether you personally like the definition or not. It will not go away.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

What is an unborn person in the context of this definition within the dictionary??
Unborn people don't exist in your world, so why is it in the dictionary?? If the dictionary defines a child as an unborn person, then what does this mean?

Ask the dictionary. If a person is a person 5 seconds after birth however then I see no reason not to consider them a person 5 seconds before birth. Do you think "personhood" is mediated by location?? That would be weird. I do not think personhood is an attribute that is acquired along the birth canal.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

It means a person before they were born, which means FETUS. Oh boy.

Is English your first language, because you really do not understand a lot of it. It DOES mean "a person before they were born". It does not mean the ENTIRE time before they were born however. It literally means right there before they were born. 5 seconds after conception is also "before they were born" but there is no basis to allocate person hood then.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

We've already established that personhood is an abstract opinion of what it means to be a human being. An unborn child is a human being in every sense of the word.

And we have also established that merely calling it "opinion" does not get to the substance of any particular position. "Opinion" is just a placeholder you are using in lieu of engaging in any level of discussion on the matter.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Your definition of human being is less arbitrary than mine, even if you say definitions surrounding abstract metaphysical concepts that are scientifically impossible to prove can be more or less equal. Science has told us NOTHING about OBJECTIVE morality.

Why would it? Science only talks to us of things we have reason to think exist. Since you have not offered any reason to think objective morality exists, why would science have anything to say on the matter at all? Are you even trying to make sense any more at this point?

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Of course it does. Assigning value based on the consensus of the collective bias of human beings does ZERO to answer the reality of objective morality. It is more an argument for utilitarianism or simply as appeal to the majority.

Nope it does not. And merely asserting "of course it does" does not magically make it so. Again if two people express different opinions, and one can explain the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning behind that position...... and the other can merely assert that position and run away.......... the two positions are clearly not equal.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

You dont like my definition of "person", an a human being.

It has nothing to do with "like" and everything to do with the complete lack of substance it comes with. You are merely throwing the word out there and barely defining it at all. The simple fact is however that the attributes generally associated with person hood are the ones that are simply lacking after 12 weeks of pregnancy. There is little more basis to apply the word "person" to it as there is to a rock at that point.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

You need to ascribe personhood to given biomarkers based on your own perception of what you deem to be valuable.

Not what I deem to be valuable as I already said but you have ignored. But to things like the very source of "value" in the first place. If we as humans are to "value" anything or think anything can be valued, then the very thing that does that valuing, invents the concept of value, has to be core to that process. If every sentient agent in the universe died tomorrow there is no reason to think there would be any value, valuing, valuation, or anything to value.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Is your assertion human value is dependent on the perception of other human beings?

Nope. Not even remotely similar to what I said at all. My position is the one I just described in the paragraph above.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

If someone is in a comma, and lacks the mental faculties to do anything, are they less valuable?

Nope, nor are you less valuable when you are asleep under the position I just espoused. The faculty that does the valuing is still there, even if it is currently off line or compromised. You are still a sentient entity even if your sentience is compromised. A fetus is not. The difference between a coma patient and a fetus is that one is a sentient agent with sentience off or compromised, the other is no more sentient in ANY sense than a rock to our knowledge.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Perhaps not in your opinion, but we are trying not to argue for arbitrary definitions of when someone is valuable.

If by "we" you mean "you" then yes, you really are. But you can keep me out of your "we" as I can speak for my own positions thanks very little.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

I am answering the challenge by beginning with a question.

Except you are not answering it, after not 1 or 2 but now 3 challenges to you. I am still waiting for this alleged argument against abortion which you have simply not yet presented despite claiming to have. You have been asked multiple times for it now. It ain't here yet.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

You keep saying this, but it is simply your opinion of what you deem to be worthy of valuable. It isn't an objective truth.

I never claimed it was? Again by passing what I said by rebutting things I never once did.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

My entire premise is based on deductive reasoning. You have come to a different conclusion. What evidence do you have for human value not being arbitrary without using an appeal to emotion, an appeal to the majority or utilitariansm?

Your sentence here parses weirdly. My position is not that it is arbitrary. So why would I offer evidence for "human value not being arbitrary"? I openly acknowledged the subjective and sometimes arbitrary nature of human value. What I did say however was that not all arbitrary and subjective positions are equal. Some are grounded in argument, evidence, data and reasoning. Others are not.

So I am not sure what you are asking me for evidence for here.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Morality ISN'T a thing unless it exists in real; not imagined or in the mind. Otherwise it is merely opinion. There are millions of people, and plenty of cultures who disagree with you, and their reality is no less valid than yours in the objective sense.

All of what you write there is perfectly congruent with the position(s) I hold.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Oh come on. For all your blabbering on I thought you were a bit smarter than this. Your entire premise for morality is the collective illusory opinion of humans and a biased opinion of what it means to be "better". Are you trying to make a similar argument to Sam Harris here? I can use this same line of reasoning to justify why abortion is "bad", but I won't jump the gun.

When two people come together in a relationship they establish the rules of that relationship. Be it a friendship, a business contract, a marriage, or whatever. They establish the boundaries between them for what they think the best course is for that relationship. None of it is objective or required. For example "Monogamy" is a common trait in romantic relationships. It is not a required or objective one however. The people IN that relationship over time establish the best rules and procedures most conducive to the well being of the relationship and the people within it.

"Morality" so far as I can see is a simple buzz word we use to describe that process at the level of society. Just like any relationship it is an ongoing conversation based on arguments, evidence, data, observation and reasoning for how best to work towards goals. The most commmon goal being the survival of the relationship itself.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Ethical nihilism is the rejection of objective morality.

That is a definition. I gave you another one. How many times are we going to do this where you focus on ONE definition of a word and act like it magically precludes the others. I have already lost count on how many times you have done this, and I have called you on it.

I will simply therefore repeat the bit you edited out of your reply to me and ignored. As I said one definition of the word is "the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.". Since I do not reject ALL moral principles, I therefore do not identify myself with the term. If you want to then by all means do, but that would be talking at me and past me rather than with me. A more mature approach to conversing with other human beings is to see how they define themselves, not how you wish to have them do so.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

As per the definition YOU provided (the definition) if I violently assault someone to relieve my pent up anger and feel better. Is this medicinal?

You will have to ask the people who made the definition. It is not my problem. The ONLY point of my citing the definition is the point you are deflecting from and ignoring by this line of questioning. Which is that you offered a definition of medicine and acted like it was the only one.... a tactic you have used multiple times now.... and I am merely showing you other definitions not only exist but one of them DIRECTLY negates your assertion to exclusivity. And from a respected source.

nozzferrahhtoo

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Please don't be so arrogant and rude to respond to a direct conversation between myself and a question by another poster.

This is a public forum and all conversations are communal. I can, in other words, respond to what I please. For people who wish to have a 1:1 conversation the forum very helpfully and at their own expense provide and maintain a private messaging system. Use it if you like.

But when you post on thread, you are talking to everyone, and anyone can respond, and often will and do, at any time they please. You have no control or say over this, and it is in fact common and not at all rude or arrogant to do so. Especially as your post in question to which I replied contrived to include a few snide side digs at users like myself which therefore INVITED reply. Your fault not mine therefore.

If however you doubt any of this,there is a report function, and the moderators who are a VERY helpful bunch here, are likely to move to clarify further.

But it is, I grant you, a nice little dodge of everything I just wrote in that post to you.

Also a helpful side note which you might like since you appear to be relatively new to the forum.... it is generally considered a no-no to quote an entire post to reply to only one small part of it, or in this case absolutely none of it. Because many people use the "touch" version of this site and when you do that, like you just did above, it really really makes their life hard.

aloyisious

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Hi Aloyisious, thank you for your polite message and sincere questions.

Yes I probably would have.

It was more a logical conclusion using deductive reasoning.

If there is no objective morality, then I must concede nihilsm, which means that morality is merely illusory; subjective opinion which differs from person to person. There is no objective or universal right or wrong as people's opinions contradict this.

In order for secular morality to be "universal", it has to applied to all humans beings as to add caveats is to be contradictory.

It doesn't mean the law should indulge my emotional bias; it needs to be equally applied to all human beings.

Re your "If I forcefully prevent you from the act of killing your child, this is not the same thing as saying I am forcing the biological process of your pregnancy to continue", IMO that just means you would forcibly do your utmost to prevent the pregnant person from following her own moral view and [now] legal right to access an abortion because you believe your opinion and moral view on abortion outweighs her opinion and moral view on abortion thereby doing your utmost to forcing her to continue with the biological process of her pregnancy against her own choice.

Your action would be a block on the pregnant person ending, terminating or aborting her pregnancy thereby ensuring the continuing of the pregnancy. It doesn't matter how long your act of prevention lasts, it matters that you actually prevented the end of her pregnancy.

Re your: "Yes I probably would have. t was more a logical conclusion using deductive reasoning". It's my bad for asking if you saw the old law as moral or immoral. I should have just asked if you saw it as immoral, so I'll have to ask you to answer that specific question, if you would.

Re your: "If there is no objective morality, then I must concede nihilsm, which means that morality is merely illusory; subjective opinion which differs from person to person. There is no objective or universal right or wrong as people's opinions contradict this. In order for secular morality to be "universal", it has to applied to all humans beings as to add caveats is to be contradictory. It doesn't mean the law should indulge my emotional bias; it needs to be equally applied to all human beings". IMO. it's an actuality that there will never be a universal morality as each person has freedom of choice and alternatives to choose from but just because that's a fact of life doesn't mean humanity is a hotbed of nihilism. We've got brains to help us get around that. In any case IMO that deserves a thread of it's own outside this debate.

Fuddyduddy

aloyisious wrote: »

Re your "If I forcefully prevent you from the act of killing your child, this is not the same thing as saying I am forcing the biological process of your pregnancy to continue", IMO that just means you would forcibly do your utmost to prevent the pregnant person from following her own moral view and [now] legal right to access an abortion because you believe your opinion and moral view on abortion outweighs her opinion and moral view on abortion thereby doing your utmost to forcing her to continue with the biological process of her pregnancy against her own choice.

Your action would be a block on the pregnant person ending, terminating or aborting her pregnancy thereby ensuring the continuing of the pregnancy. It doesn't matter how long your act of prevention lasts, it matters that you actually prevented the end of her pregnancy.[/QUOTE]

Yes, the law exists to prevent people from committing immoral acts and to hold people accountable for committing immoral acts. We impose our morality every day.

"Yes I probably would have. t was more a logical conclusion using deductive reasoning". It's my bad for asking if you saw the old law as moral or immoral. I should have just asked if you saw it as immoral, so I'll have to ask you to answer that specific question, if you would.

Yes, I would have seen it as immoral. But then I reasoned that we impede people's bodily autonomy all the time for things far less valuable than preventing the death of other innocent human beings. So saving a life justifies it, in the same way I would physically restrain you from hurting yourself or anyone else.

IMO. it's an actuality that there will never be a universal morality as each person has freedom of choice and alternatives to choose from but just because that's a fact of life doesn't mean humanity is a hotbed of nihilism. We've got brains to help us get around that. In any case IMO that deserves a thread of it's own outside this debate.

I mean we have freedom of choice under our current system which is great. It isn't a "right" under an umbrella of nihilism though. "rights" are merely privileges afforded to you by government and upheld through violence (law enforcement).

So I will continue to advocate for the idea that humans should be viewed as being intrinsically valuable under the eyes of the law, and the pro-choice side can advocate that only born people are valuable and the unborn are only valuable if people want them or not.

Fuddyduddy

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is a public forum and all conversations are communal. I can, in other words, respond to what I please. For people who wish to have a 1:1 conversation the forum very helpfully and at their own expense provide and maintain a private messaging system. Use it if you like.

But when you post on thread, you are talking to everyone, and anyone can respond, and often will and do, at any time they please. You have no control or say over this, and it is in fact common and not at all rude or arrogant to do so. Especially as your post in question to which I replied contrived to include a few snide side digs at users like myself which therefore INVITED reply. Your fault not mine therefore.

If however you doubt any of this,there is a report function, and the moderators who are a VERY helpful bunch here, are likely to move to clarify further.

But it is, I grant you, a nice little dodge of everything I just wrote in that post to you.

I never said you couldn't, I just said you were being arrogant and rude for doing so.

nozzferrahhtoo

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

I never said you couldn't, I just said you were being arrogant and rude for doing so.

And I have explained that simply is not so. I know how the forum works. Been here for over 10 years. You are quite literally the first person to EVER take an issue with this in my presence let alone directly to me. The etiquette here does not match the one you are inventing. Perhaps you are drawing on an etiquette in play on some previous forum you were part of. Welcome to boards.ie

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Yes, the law exists to prevent people from committing immoral acts and to hold people accountable for committing immoral acts. We impose our morality every day.

Which is a good thing! But that brings with it a lot of responsibility. Primarily including that we have good reasons and arguments to impose any one moral precept, or for thinking it "immoral" in the first place.

With the termination of the fetus in or before 12 weeks for example (remember, what this thread is actually about????) the arguments as to why we should consider it immoral to do so are thin on the ground in the thread as a whole and entirely non-existent in your own posts thus far.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

I reasoned that we impede people's bodily autonomy all the time for things far less valuable than preventing the death of other innocent human beings.

Ah "innocent" is one of those great words to smuggle in like "person" that imparts more emotive responses to the fetus than is actually warranted. A new born is "innocent" in a useful application of the word. A fetus is "innocent" in exactly the same way as a rock is "innocent" however.

So when you say "far less valuable" I wonder what specifically you are referring to. As I fear some of the things you are deeming "less valuable" are actually things that are relevant to the rights and well being of ACTUAL sentient creatures. Which would not be "less valuable" at all, but the exact opposite.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

So saving a life justifies it, in the same way I would physically restrain you from hurting yourself or anyone else.

I trust you are vegetarian or more then? Given "saving a life" is apparently the core of your approach to this?

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

So I will continue to advocate for the idea that humans should be viewed as being intrinsically valuable under the eyes of the law, and the pro-choice side can advocate that only born people are valuable and the unborn are only valuable if people want them or not.

Oddly though I can only think of TWO people on this forum ever who have held the position of "only born people are valuable". And it turned out one of those was a POE of the pro-choice position and the moment the referendum was announced he flipped instantly to quite an extreme anti abortion position.

I certainly have not seen it as a position of "The pro-choice side" though.

To whom specifically are you referring therefore???

Fuddyduddy

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not saying it is the same. I am saying the word "force" is valid to use in both contexts due to the definition I provided. It would really help if you could start keeping up with the conversation and stop questioning things I did not say, and ignoring the things I did.

Yet you haven't provided one citation where force is used to continue an existing process. I will concede it if you do.

Is the government forcing one not to rape by outlawing rape?

I dunno, maybe ask someone who was making that point I was not. What I DID say however was that I can force you to CONTINUE to do something you are already doing, even if you yourself might wish to stop. And that is a valid use of the word "force" whether you personally like the definition or not. It will not go away.

Please provide a citation showing that you can force an existing and ongoing process to continue to occur.

Ask the dictionary. If a person is a person 5 seconds after birth however then I see no reason not to consider them a person 5 seconds before birth. Do you think "personhood" is mediated by location?? That would be weird. I do not think personhood is an attribute that is acquired along the birth canal.

I already said they are a person before birth. You are the one who disagrees with this. And you disagree with the dictionaries definition of child, which INCLUDES the unborn LOL

Is English your first language, because you really do not understand a lot of it. It DOES mean "a person before they were born". It does not mean the ENTIRE time before they were born however. It literally means right there before they were born. 5 seconds after conception is also "before they were born" but there is no basis to allocate person hood then.

HAHA, wow. Talk about inventing your own definitions. Where does it specifically state that unborn means "right before they are born"? You are clutching at straws. It means from fetal stage (9 weeks) onward. Oh man. Obtuse.

I don't want to be snarky, but you continue to be that way with me, so please try to think a little bit harder.

And we have also established that merely calling it "opinion" does not get to the substance of any particular position. "Opinion" is just a placeholder you are using in lieu of engaging in any level of discussion on the matter.

But discussing this topic further is merely attributing our own values onto something. No matter what way you cut it, it is opinion.

We can at least agree that a human being is formed from conception, the difference is when they attain "personhood". I believe that beginning at conception (potentially implantation - I need to think about this more) to be the most reasonable and non-contradictory answer and you don't.

You don't value my value system and I don't value yours. In the absence of objective right and wrong, neither one of us is more right or wrong than the other.

Why would it? Science only talks to us of things we have reason to think exist. Since you have not offered any reason to think objective morality exists, why would science have anything to say on the matter at all? Are you even trying to make sense any more at this point?

Again with the snark.

My point is that if science cannot tell us anything about personhood, then your assertion that evidence, discussion, reason etc etc. as being more objective for when value is placed on another organism is still completely completely subjective and arbitrary as it follows the bias of your own value system. Your value system is objectively no more reasonable than mine.

Nope it does not. And merely asserting "of course it does" does not magically make it so. Again if two people express different opinions, and one can explain the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning behind that position...... and the other can merely assert that position and run away.......... the two positions are clearly not equal.

Now you're spouting conjecture. I put forward my reasoning why I believe life has value from conception and you put forward the same level of analysis. You didn't provide any additional reasoning or data (what do you even mean by data surrounding personhood? data containing what exactly?). You simply don't value my conclusion, but you haven't offered anything different.

It has nothing to do with "like" and everything to do with the complete lack of substance it comes with. You are merely throwing the word out there and barely defining it at all. The simple fact is however that the attributes generally associated with person hood are the ones that are simply lacking after 12 weeks of pregnancy. There is little more basis to apply the word "person" to it as there is to a rock at that point.

A rock is an inanimate object with zero potential to be anything else. An unborn human contains the gene expression from conception to drive it's entire development from that point until inevitable death. Are you being facetious or intentionally dull?

Not what I deem to be valuable as I already said but you have ignored. But to things like the very source of "value" in the first place. If we as humans are to "value" anything or think anything can be valued, then the very thing that does that valuing, invents the concept of value, has to be core to that process. If every sentient agent in the universe died tomorrow there is no reason to think there would be any value, valuing, valuation, or anything to value.

It depends on where you draw the line. The embryo has the capacity to do this, it doesn't have the current ability until it matures. There are born people who lack this capacity; either short-term or long-term. They don't forfeit their personhood.

Are you pro choice up until a point or only until 12 weeks/viability?

Nope, nor are you less valuable when you are asleep under the position I just espoused. The faculty that does the valuing is still there, even if it is currently off line or compromised. You are still a sentient entity even if your sentience is compromised. A fetus is not. The difference between a coma patient and a fetus is that one is a sentient agent with sentience off or compromised, the other is no more sentient in ANY sense than a rock to our knowledge.

This is simply manipulation of the word sentient. It means to perceive or feel things, respond to or conscious awareness. See Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionaries.

The person is not able to do any of this; they are disabled. A fetus DOES respond to stimuli, but it isn't sentient in terms of being aware or conscious. If consciousness and responsibility are conditions of sentience, then being in a deep coma means you aren't currently sentient for that period of time.

Except you are not answering it, after not 1 or 2 but now 3 challenges to you. I am still waiting for this alleged argument against abortion which you have simply not yet presented despite claiming to have. You have been asked multiple times for it now. It ain't here yet.

This entire exchange is an argument, you simply don't agree with my reasoning.

I never claimed it was? Again by passing what I said by rebutting things I never once did.

So your "evidence" and "reasoning" for defining personhood is no more logical than mine. It is simply your opinion.

Your sentence here parses weirdly. My position is not that it is arbitrary. So why would I offer evidence for "human value not being arbitrary"? I openly acknowledged the subjective and sometimes arbitrary nature of human value. What I did say however was that not all arbitrary and subjective positions are equal. Some are grounded in argument, evidence, data and reasoning. Others are not.

So I am not sure what you are asking me for evidence for here.

What evidence, data and reasoning do you have buttress the assertion that the point in which one can reason or value, is a superior notion for personhood that the virtue of being a human being from conception.

When two people come together in a relationship they establish the rules of that relationship. Be it a friendship, a business contract, a marriage, or whatever. They establish the boundaries between them for what they think the best course is for that relationship. None of it is objective or required. For example "Monogamy" is a common trait in romantic relationships. It is not a required or objective one however. The people IN that relationship over time establish the best rules and procedures most conducive to the well being of the relationship and the people within it.

"Morality" so far as I can see is a simple buzz word we use to describe that process at the level of society. Just like any relationship it is an ongoing conversation based on arguments, evidence, data, observation and reasoning for how best to work towards goals. The most commmon goal being the survival of the relationship itself.

You keep saying evidence, data and observation but don't offer any. Your morality is perfectly reasonable in a secular world. It is no more reasonable than the notion that human life is intrinsically valuable.

Adding a caveat justifies logically unravelling the entire game. It is contradictory.

You will have to ask the people who made the definition. It is not my problem. The ONLY point of my citing the definition is the point you are deflecting from and ignoring by this line of questioning. Which is that you offered a definition of medicine and acted like it was the only one.... a tactic you have used multiple times now.... and I am merely showing you other definitions not only exist but one of them DIRECTLY negates your assertion to exclusivity. And from a respected source.

Why can't you answer my question? In your opinion and with this definition in mind, am I practising medicine by violently assaulting someone for my own well-being?

robindch

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Please don't be so arrogant and rude to respond to a direct conversation between myself and a question by another poster. We literally have an existing conversation between ourselves going on, we don't need the entire thread clogged with your text because you feel your opinion is so important.

That's not how things work here in A+A. Please read the forum charter, with particular reference to Rule 1.

Fuddyduddy

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And I have explained that simply is not so. I know how the forum works. Been here for over 10 years. You are quite literally the first person to EVER take an issue with this in my presence let alone directly to me. The etiquette here does not match the one you are inventing. Perhaps you are drawing on an etiquette in play on some previous forum you were part of. Welcome to boards.ie

It's rude to do in person, and comes across as arrogant here too.

Which is a good thing! But that brings with it a lot of responsibility. Primarily including that we have good reasons and arguments to impose any one moral precept, or for thinking it "immoral" in the first place. [

With the termination of the fetus in or before 12 weeks for example (remember, what this thread is actually about????) the arguments as to why we should consider it immoral to do so are thin on the ground in the thread as a whole and entirely non-existent in your own posts thus far.

Are you morally opposed to abortion after 12 weeks?

Ah "innocent" is one of those great words to smuggle in like "person" that imparts more emotive responses to the fetus than is actually warranted. A new born is "innocent" in a useful application of the word. A fetus is "innocent" in exactly the same way as a rock is "innocent" however.

A living organism vs an inanimate object is a false equivalency. A fetus is innocent; not culpable of responsible for their own existence. If they were responsible for it, they would literally be God.

I trust you are vegetarian or more then? Given "saving a life" is apparently the core of your approach to this?

No, I've drawn a line in the sand at human beings as you have drawn a line in the sand at mental capacity.

volchitsa

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Yes I probably would have.

Would have what?

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

It was more a logical conclusion using deductive reasoning.

If there is no objective morality, then I must concede nihilsm, which means that morality is merely illusory; subjective opinion which differs from person to person. There is no objective or universal right or wrong as people's opinions contradict this.

By that logic, the fact that Islam, Judaism, Christianity (to name but three of the many moral frameworks which humans currently live by) have widely differing interpretations of many "moral" issues must mean either that all but one are wrong (and presumably demonstrably and perhaps deliberately wrong) or else nihilism. Is that really your argument?

In order for secular morality to be "universal", it has to applied to all humans beings as to add caveats is to be contradictory.

Well, religious too, presumably, since they don't all agree on what is moral. It's quite ok in Islam to have sex with four women as long as the man has contracted a religious (but not necessarily official state sanctioned) marriage with them - one that he can end by saying "I divorce you" three time.

And then he can replace her by marrying a 12 year old as his fourth wife, as long as she has had her first period. But if he hadn't divorced one of the first four previously, then that would be immoral.

Universal morality you say? Really? Where?

Fuddyduddy

volchitsa wrote: »

Would have what?



By that logic, the fact that Islam, Judaism, Christianity (to name but three of the many moral frameworks which humans currently live by) have widely differing interpretations of many "moral" issues must mean either that all but one are wrong (and presumably demonstrably and perhaps deliberately wrong) or else nihilism. Is that really your argument?








Well, religious too, presumably, since they don't all agree on what is moral. It's quite ok in Islam to have sex with four women as long as the man has contracted a religious (but not necessarily official state sanctioned) marriage with them - one that he can end by saying "I divorce you" three time.

And then he can replace her by marrying a 12 year old as his fourth wife, as long as she has had her first period. But if he hadn't divorced one of the first four previously, then that would be immoral.

Universal morality you say? Really? Where?

I'm not arguing religion I already said this to you before.

The existence of an objective metaphysical right and wrong has got nothing to do with the validity of current religions. It's simply saying that a notion value that is morality cannot be "objective" in the absence of such. We are merely trying to put forth our own ideas of morality that we deem to be the most logical.

nozzferrahhtoo

As you continue to repeat yourself within your multi quotes, I shall try to make reading my response easier for OTHER readers by compressing them together.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Yet you haven't provided one citation where force is used to continue an existing process. I will concede it if you do.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Please provide a citation showing that you can force an existing and ongoing process to continue to occur.

I already discussed this in TWO posts for you now and you have dodged it both times. I will repeat it a third time. The definition I provided is INDEPENDENT of that constraint. As in the definition does not limit itself to one or the other. It is perfectly valid on both. So please try to think a little bit harder.

So you are asking for a definition I do not require, for a point I am not actually making. It is you and you alone that is bringing this "new process / existing process" distinction into it and demanding it be a requirement. But it isn't one and never has been. Only in YOUR head. That is the problem with your fails here. So please try to think a little bit harder.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

I already said they are a person before birth. You are the one who disagrees with this. And you disagree with the dictionaries definition of child, which INCLUDES the unborn LOL

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

HAHA, wow. Talk about inventing your own definitions. Where does it specifically state that unborn means "right before they are born"? You are clutching at straws. It means from fetal stage (9 weeks) onward. Oh man. Obtuse.

Oh the distortions of my position are coming hard and fast from you now, even to the point of directly claiming things about my position I ONLY JUST clarified. No I do not disagree with the definition of child. Never have never did. So please try to think a little bit harder. And I also agree they are a "person before birth" and I would add "a child before birth".

What I am distinguishing on is HOW FAR before birth. The zygote after conception is "before birth" but I see no basis to call it "child" or "person". That is the locus of my point. Not "before birth" but specifically WHEN before birth. In or before week 12, to try and call this thing a "person" is really trying to force definitions in that are hardly valid at all, and are designed and chosen mainly for their emotive content.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

But discussing this topic further is merely attributing our own values onto something. No matter what way you cut it, it is opinion.
We can at least agree that a human being is formed from conception, the difference is when they attain "personhood". I believe that beginning at conception (potentially implantation - I need to think about this more) to be the most reasonable and non-contradictory answer and you don't. You don't value my value system and I don't value yours. In the absence of objective right and wrong, neither one of us is more right or wrong than the other.

And as I said the distinction THEN comes when we sit down to provide the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning for our positions if we have any. I have already laid out mine and how I ground it. But above here you just wave yours as a flag without the substance behind it. And that is the distinction I focus on. When I say I focus on the rise of sentience as my mediation point for affording the fetus moral and ethical concern.......... I explain why. When you say "conception" above..... nothing. No explanation as to why. No substance. No grounding or foundation. You just throw it out there and leave it hanging.

So we can shout "opinion" at each other all day if we want but there is a reason why you are taking that approach and I am not. And I suspect we both know why that is. "Oh man. Obtuse" as you so.... maturely.... put it. Or LOL i suppose. Equally erudite. Again with your snark in both cases.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

My point is that if science cannot tell us anything about personhood, then your assertion that evidence, discussion, reason etc etc. as being more objective for when value is placed on another organism is still completely completely subjective and arbitrary as it follows the bias of your own value system. Your value system is objectively no more reasonable than mine. Now you're spouting conjecture. I put forward my reasoning why I believe life has value from conception and you put forward the same level of analysis. You didn't provide any additional reasoning or data (what do you even mean by data surrounding personhood? data containing what exactly?). You simply don't value my conclusion, but you haven't offered anything different.

Who says it can not tell us anything about personhood??? You just brought that in out of nowhere. It can tell us a lot about it, depending on how we define it. For example if we agree that only sentient entities can attain person hood, then science can VERY much inform us as to when in the process such a faculty comes online in the development of the fetus.

I can think of no part of the human make up at all that is beyond the purview of science to our knowledge. There are of course parts of it that are CURRENTLY not covered by science, and that is certainly an issue I can concede we need to deal with. But there is nothing at this time saying science can not do so.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

A rock is an inanimate object with zero potential to be anything else. An unborn human contains the gene expression from conception to drive it's entire development from that point until inevitable death. Are you being facetious or intentionally dull? It depends on where you draw the line. The embryo has the capacity to do this, it doesn't have the current ability until it matures. There are born people who lack this capacity; either short-term or long-term. They don't forfeit their personhood.

Now who is spewing the snark? No the "dull" is coming from you as you are ONCE AGAIN taking issue with my point on the basis of something that has nothing to do with my point. How and why? Well because the point I was making had NOTHING WHATSOEVER AT ALL to do with "potential". I was comparing the 12 week old development NOW to a rock NOW, and both of them NOW have pretty much the exact same attributes of person hood. None at all. So you can point out all you want that one has the potential for it later on, but that just makes my point for me that it has none of it NOW.

Which brings us to the point the user EOTR usually runs away from the conversation. Which is his assertion based on nothing that something with the potential to become sentient automatically has the right to attain that potential. HE has yet to ground that assertion in.... well anything at all ever. I suspect no one ever will.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Are you pro choice up until a point or only until 12 weeks/viability?

I am pro choice up to the point that there is ANY reason to think that the living organism we are about to terminate is likely to be at any level a sentient human entity. Until it has reached such a point however, or we have any reason to suspect it has, I see it as the moral and ethical equivalent of a rock. Not just in isolation, but also specifically in relation to the rights, well being, freedoms and choices of the ACTUAL sentient agent that contains it.... the pregnant woman.

In all my years (decades in fact now) discussing the topic of abortion by choice, I have yet to have ONE person give me a basis for affording rights, or moral and ethical concern, to a non-sentient entity, let alone to do so in any way that curtails those of an actual living sentient entity.

That is, in a few short sentences, my ENTIRE position on the abortion debate.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

The person is not able to do any of this; they are disabled. A fetus DOES respond to stimuli , but it isn't sentient in terms of being aware or conscious. If consciousness and responsibility are conditions of sentience, then being in a deep coma means you aren't currently sentient for that period of time.

So does an amoeba respond to stimulus. Yet we do not consider it sentient generally, let alone afford it moral and ethical concern. Hell we hardly do so for the cows that went into our last burgers and they ARE sentient where a fetus simply is not at all.

Sentience and response to stimuli are not remotely the same thing. Do not red herring one into a conflation with the other.

Coma or not, you still ARE a sentient entity with the faculty of sentience. A fetus is not. It lacks the faculty entirely. Equivocating over the current operational capacity of an individual coma patient ignores the fact one HAS it the other DOESNT.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

This entire exchange is an argument, you simply don't agree with my reasoning. So your "evidence" and "reasoning" for defining personhood is no more logical than mine. It is simply your opinion. What evidence, data and reasoning do you have buttress the assertion that the point in which one can reason or value, is a superior notion for personhood that the virtue of being a human being from conception. You keep saying evidence, data and observation but don't offer any. Your morality is perfectly reasonable in a secular world. It is no more reasonable than the notion that human life is intrinsically valuable. Adding a caveat justifies logically unravelling the entire game. It is contradictory.

Well for a start "conception" is not unique to our species. Essentially all mammals do it for example. And yet our moral and ethical concern varies MASSIVELY throughout the animal kingdom. So the notion we are grounding this in "conception" is faulty from the outset when we demonstrably are not. If "conception" was the point justifying moral and ethical concern, then anything that comes into being through "conception" would have to be treated equally.

So there must be some other variable by which we are mediating the differences not just between our species and all the rest, but also between that rest. If you ask 1000 people what they would save running out of a burning building..... a snail or a frog.... a frog or a cat..... a cat or a chimp...... I think you and I both know all 1000 or very close will choose the latter in all three choices. I suspect that we both know why too.

Further if we were to instantiate an artificial intelligence that was NEVER conceived by biological conception.... and it had all the capacity to suffer or achieve well being as you or I.... and to value itself and others and everything as you and I......... should have n moral and ethical concern for it? OR would we not only have some, but know EXACTLY why too?

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Why can't you answer my question? In your opinion and with this definition in mind, am I practising medicine by violently assaulting someone for my own well-being?

I absolutely CAN answer it but I am refusing to on point of principle that you are asking it specifically to dodge the point I was making by producing that definition in the first place. The question you are asking is NOT EVEN tangential to that point. The point is, was, and will continue to be that when you declared that "Medicine by definition it the treatment and prevention of diseases" you were providing only ONE of the valid definitions of it. And your "question" is a deflection from acknowledging and accepting that point.

Acknowledge and accept the point and I will happily answer your question.

nozzferrahhtoo

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

It's rude to do in person, and comes across as arrogant here too.

To you. I now live in Germany. Many quirks of local culture here seemed rude and arrogant to me too when I first arrived. But I did not inform the germans they were rude and arrogant. Why? Because I knew I was the outsider and it would in fact be ME being rude and arrogant to role in and tell the locals their ettiquette was poor.

Yet you a seeming newbie to the forum are doing that to me. This speaks volumes.

Further I would not advise bringing the etiquette of "in person" into the online world. It is rude "in person" because humans generally are not capable of holding two conversations with the same person at the same time, let alone with several people independently at the same time, so we build our etiquette around that in the real world. In online forums however we very much do have that capability. So the pressures on the etiquette of discourse are very much unconstrained by your off line sensibilities.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Are you morally opposed to abortion after 12 weeks?

If it is illegal then yes, I am morally opposed to breaking the law.

If it is not illegal then no. I am morally opposed to abortion only at the point where we have ANY reason to suspect the thing we are terminating might have become a sentient entity at any level.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

A living organism vs an inanimate object is a false equivalency.

Not necessarily. The validation of an equivalency depends not on the things being compared, but the basis upon which they are BEING compared. It might seem weird to compare a fish and a truck for example. But if I am comparing them under the rubric of "Things which are grey" the comparison becomes valid.

The mediation point of my comparison here is sentience. And it is perfectly valid to compare a non-sentient living organism with a non-sentient inanimate object on that basis. Because they are both NOT sentient so the comparison holds.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

A fetus is innocent; not culpable of responsible for their own existence. If they were responsible for it, they would literally be God.

Yet it is still a different application of the word "innocent". There is a difference between being not guilty of crime or offence and not being in ANY way capable of it. A rock is not capable of it. So it is "innocent" by one definition. But clearly not by another. I would say a cow just before the slaughter is more "innocent" tan a 12 week old fetus in this regard.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

No, I've drawn a line in the sand at human beings as you have drawn a line in the sand at mental capacity.

Then your appeal to philosophy is based purely on taxonomy. With no substance being presented as yet to explain the leap between them. At least my position has that, regardless of your opinion of it.

robarmstrong

Summary of this thread the last few pages

nozzferrahhtoo

Yea they have their function but I do fear SOME people use them to try and basically wear down the opposition so they simply give up and stop replying. I am, as many people will know, not the right person to try THAT on My endurance is not in question I think.

But above I did try to compress it down a bit, I can hope the user replies in kind and we can work towards something smaller, as many of the multiquotes were merely repeating the same point made already in the same post, only a couple of quotes before.

Timberrrrrrrr

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yea they have their function but I do fear SOME people use them to try and basically wear down the opposition so they simply give up and stop replying. I am, as many people will know, not the right person to try THAT on My endurance is not in question I think.

But above I did try to compress it down a bit, I can hope the user replies in kind and we can work towards something smaller, as many of the multiquotes were merely repeating the same point made already in the same post, only a couple of quotes before.

Honestly

I wish wish really wish i had your patience and indeed your intelligence to debate with these deluded fools. Fight the good fight sir, you have made this thread 10x more interesting.

nozzferrahhtoo

"It takes a lot to make me blush...."
--- Christopher Hitchens

Mark Hamill

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

You really need to pay attention to definitions. Spontaneous death is not the same as murder; in fact it's not even the same as intentional homicide.

Some death is an unavoidable part of life. Having a spontaneous heart attack is not the same as me actively and intentionally ending your life, as is the case with abortion.

How do you know if a death is intentional or spontaneous without investigation? Even spontaneous heart attacks are investigated just confirm the cause of death. If a child just dropped dead should that not be investigated, even just to rule out foul play or avoidable accident?

Hotblack Desiato

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

The right to life supersedes bodily autonomy.

Actually it doesn't. I can't be obliged to donate a kidney for instance, even if it is certain that another person will die if I do not. I can't even be obliged to donate blood to save a life.

The only situation where some believe that bodily autonomy can be set aside is pregnancy, why is that?

It is disproportionate and irrational to kill an innocent human being

You are just spamming the forum at this stage with "innocent human being" yet you have not established why a fertilised ovum instantly becomes a "human being". Constitutionally and legally it is not. Doctrinaire RCs are one of the very few religions who actually claim that a fertilised ovum is a human being.

Most of these "human beings" go straight down the toilet btw.

for temporary infringement of your bodily autonomy; especially in cases where it is self-inflicted (99.5+% of pregnancies are through consensual sex)

Ah the old slut-shaming again. Pretty tiresome at this stage tbh. I humbly suggest that the contents of other people's uteruses and their consensual bedroom activities are none of your damn business.

aloyisious

@Fuddyduddy. With reference to your mention of universal morality and how it should order how all humans view abortion and how your argument in respect of it is outside of religion, can I take it that includes persons of religious faith not offering up their views on abortion as religious office holders without reference to a religion-based morality, but instead as humans the same as all other humans?

It seems to me that a large amount of the Pro-life morality professed here in Ireland issues from religious instruction morality and not from thought-through morality. Would you agree with that?

Each time some-one presents a view on abortion which is outside that of the religious morality - usually that of the catholic or universal church - they have to expect a counter statement from a person based on religious morality so I'm surprised [but maybe shouldn't have been] that some of those who debate here from that religious point of view opposing abortion haven't posted something opposing your view on abortion but instead have remained quiet or instead given your views on non-religious abortion universal morality the thumbs-up.

PS, despite me putting a @ in front of your avatar, my post is open to the floor in respect of anything other debaters want to or feel obligated to take me to task for mentioning.

.......

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yea they have their function but I do fear SOME people use them to try and basically wear down the opposition so they simply give up and stop replying. I am, as many people will know, not the right person to try THAT on My endurance is not in question I think.

I bow to your patience and articulation.

On this subject (and perhaps on others) I often just want to point at your posts and say "what he says - he says it better than me too".

nozzferrahhtoo

Ah here, MODS can you delete this stuff before I start believing it and go more egotistical than people like Pete already think I am

Thanks lads. It is good to know when I write insanely long posts that sometimes someone actually does read them

aloyisious

aloyisious wrote: »

@Fuddyduddy. With reference to your mention of universal morality and how it should order how all humans view abortion and how your argument in respect of it is outside of religion, can I take it that includes persons of religious faith not offering up their views on abortion as religious office holders without reference to a religion-based morality, but instead as humans the same as all other humans?

It seems to me that a large amount of the Pro-life morality professed here in Ireland issues from religious instruction morality and not from thought-through morality. Would you agree with that?

Each time some-one presents a view on abortion which is outside that of the religious morality - usually that of the catholic or universal church - they have to expect a counter statement from a person based on religious morality so I'm surprised [but maybe shouldn't have been] that some of those who debate here from that religious point of view opposing abortion haven't posted something opposing your view on abortion but instead have remained quiet or instead given your views on non-religious abortion universal morality the thumbs-up.

PS, despite me putting a @ in front of your avatar, my post is open to the floor in respect of anything other debaters want to or feel obligated to take me to task for mentioning.

The thumbs up/thanks most likely come from eotr, who thanks every pro life post even those that resulted in out right site bans for the users who posted them due to their content including that women should left to die rather than be allowed have an abortion to just outright hateful crap.

Expecting a reply against pro choice posts to be based on a religious ground could be perhaps that for the majority of the population some form of religious beliefs inherited from their upbringing even if they now state that they are an atheist.

Personally I only knew one family growing up who were all atheists from the parents who were Norwegian to all the kids who weren't baptised.

volchitsa

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How do you know if a death is intentional or spontaneous without investigation? Even spontaneous heart attacks are investigated just confirm the cause of death. If a child just dropped dead should that not be investigated, even just to rule out foul play or avoidable accident?

It's even more rigorous than most people imagine : when a close family member of mine was basically sent home from cancer treatment because nothing more could be done, it was explained to us that when she died we should not be surprised or upset to be questioned by the police if a doctor hadn't seen her in the last I forget how many hours now, maybe 48 or maybe it was longer. (That's not what actually happened in the end which is why I can't now remember what the legal delay was.)

Point is though that even a person who has basically been sent home to die will still be the subject of an automatic investigation into their death if it occurs in circumstances that are even slightly unclear. Age is also irrelevant.

There really is no assumption that it was probably natural. Even when it obviously was.

But for miscarriages, well, either prolifers don't really care about those fetal deaths, or perhaps they would love to imprison women for possible undeclared illegal abortions, but they don't want to show their hand because in Ireland that would turn people against them completely. Not prolife enough it seems.

aloyisious

This Journal.ie report is from approx midnight last night according to it's timeline. It seems some-one in the Rotunda was afraid its staff would face criminalization if they started a procedure after 11 weeks. The report includes a separate Irish Times report from last month on the issue. The Health Dept CMO wrote a "helpful" letter to the Rotunda to provide "clarity". and the minister pointed out the cut-off for abortion procedures in the law was 12 weeks, not 11 weeks.

https://www.thejournal.ie/rotunda-hospital-abortion-services-4480304-Feb2019/

Would I be right in thinking the cut-off point is when the actual procedure itself starts and not the start of the 3 day cooling off period procedure laid out in the law?

amcalester

aloyisious wrote: »

This Journal.ie report is from approx midnight last night according to it's timeline. It seems some-one in the Rotunda was afraid its staff would face criminalization if they started a procedure after 11 weeks. The report includes a separate Irish Times report from last month on the issue. The Health Dept CMO wrote a "helpful" letter to the Rotunda to provide "clarity". and the minister pointed out the cut-off for abortion procedures in the law was 12 weeks, not 11 weeks.

https://www.thejournal.ie/rotunda-hospital-abortion-services-4480304-Feb2019/

Would I be right in thinking the cut-off point is when the actual procedure itself starts and not the start of the 3 day cooling off period procedure laid out in the law?

I thought it’s the date of the procedure that’s relevant too, not the initial consultation.

Hotblack Desiato

The 3 day wait is patronising bollocks.

Loafing Oaf

aloyisious wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/rotunda-hospital-abortion-services-4480304-Feb2019/

Would I be right in thinking the cut-off point is when the actual procedure itself starts and not the start of the 3 day cooling off period procedure laid out in the law?

My understanding is the 'confusion' arose over the abortion possibly taking a few days to complete.

aloyisious

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

My understanding is the 'confusion' arose over the abortion possibly taking a few days to complete.

Yes, that's what I was thinking. I'll have to look at the law to see if it says the abortion procedure begins when the pregnant woman is with the doctors requesting an abortion, at the start of the 3-day cooling off period.

If it's the cooling-off period, then that could be day 7 of the 12th week which could put the actual use of the pills on a later date [12 weeks + 3 days]. If it's the supervised use of the pills, then the latest a pregnant woman would have to be with the doctors to request an abortion procedure would be 3 days before the end of the 12th week. I suppose this has already been seen and covered by the law wordsmiths as it's so obvious, though it might be fluid.

volchitsa

I think the 3 day period is almost certainly not the issue the Rotunda were concerned about, not because it won't be a problem for some women (it probably is) but because it's fairly logical from the doctor's position that a woman asking for an abortion is not already having one.

I think their concern was more likely to be about what happens when a termination of pregnancy has some sort of complication, and does not complete, ie woman given the all-clear and sent home, by the 12 week+0 days date limit.

I see they complained that the HSE and CMO had failed to reply sufficiently clearly to their requests for clarification, and that it took the intervention of the minister for this to happen.

It would be ironic if this led to the whole procedure being redefined so as to effectively give women a 12w+3d time limit. But so much the better if so.