Abortion

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Would I have to go through wizard training?

No wizard school, just Post-Secondary School, but with just one requisite, you must GRADUATE!

0 Replies

@Ruthless Logic,

A valid answer to this question might be possible if people accepted the same basis of analysis - but with some arguing from a scientific point of view, others religious, others still secular ethical, and then logical, and or admixtrures of these, there's no possibility of agreement, but another 30 pages of contending opinion would still result in nothing more constructive than acromony. Maybe that's the purpose...

Personally I don't think myself qualified to say anything much about abortion. I'm not a woman or a medical doctor - what do I know about it? I'm pro-choice by default - have I said this before? It might give me an opportunity to ridicule people who think that life begins with a divine spark at conception...is that the purpose? If it is...carry on regardless, but if it is to come to a valid understanding and agreement on the question, it seems to me that the first order of the day is to decide basis of analysis.

iconoclast.

2 Replies

@Ruthless Logic,

Ruthless Logic wrote:

Gather the courage to test your own beliefs, otherwise continue your approachments comprised with the credulous affirmations of naiveness.

P.S. I am truly becoming quite bored.

From what I have read of Aedes opinion of morality, it ventures a good deal away from those individuals whose names he brought up.

Quote:

No wizard school, just Post-Secondary School, but with just one requisite, you must GRADUATE!

At this point I stand a better chance of graduating wizard school.

0 Replies

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

A valid answer to this question might be possible if people accepted the same basis of analysis - but with some arguing from a scientific point of view, others religious, others still secular ethical, and then logical, and or admixtrures of these, there's no possibility of agreement, but another 30 pages of contending opinion would still result in nothing more constructive than acromony. Maybe that's the purpose...

See, I agree very much with Aedes that all of these reasons are mostly ad hoc justifications to unconscious moral sympathies (my apologies if I have mischaracterized your opinions, Aedes). People draw their moral judgments from the same place, but perhaps cultural norms that they have been subjected to cause them to offer up different reasons behind their opinions.

The thing is, I am also of the belief that these moral sympathies are mostly biological in nature and that they are near universal as a result. This topic throws a monkey wrench into that idea because it would support the variety of viewpoints, but not the variety of opinions.

Perhaps it is not specifically the morality of abortion that comes into play here (people aren't judging abortion on its own merits), rather an aversion to the taboo. It seems that unconscious recognition and subsequent adherence to certain cultural memes is a vital and prominent part of our morality and social nature.

1 Reply

@Ruthless Logic,

Ruthless Logic;23424 wrote:

Gather the courage to test your own beliefs, otherwise continue your approachments...

Approachments is an archaic word that is synonymous with the plural noun approaches... surely you're searching for a different word here...

Quote:

comprised with...

Comprise is not generally followed by a preposition, because that is embedded in the etymology of the word (the com- root). So it would be grammatically preferable for you to say approachments that comprise the credulous affirmations of naiveness -- that is should you ever find yourself in the position of writing such a sentence.

Quote:

the credulous affirmations of naiveness

Do you mean naivete?

Quote:

P.S. I am truly becoming quite bored.

As of this reply your last 45 consecutive posts have been in this thread, comprising a cool 45% of your 99 in total on this forum. Bored though you may be, I'd encourage you to explore other discussions on this site so that you may find other interlocutors who, unlike myself, are up to the daunting intellectual standard you set for us all -- and thus you'll find refuge from said boredom engendered by my naivete.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power;23434 wrote:

Perhaps it is not specifically the morality of abortion that comes into play here (people aren't judging abortion on its own merits), rather an aversion to the taboo. It seems that unconscious recognition and subsequent adherence to certain cultural memes is a vital and prominent part of our morality and social nature.

That's part of it, but an unrecognized element is the effect of choosing to follow the viewpoints of those with whom we're politically sympathetic. I mean do you think it's inevitable that anti-abortion people should be in favor of intervention in Iraq and skeptical about anthropogenic global warming? It's not -- but it just so happens that these are the majority views among Republicans, and the contrary are the majority views among Democrats. Ruth's first major thread here, which he started, was entitled "The Defects of Liberal Thought," the premise behind which suggests quite inaccurately that liberal thought and conservative thought are homogeneous entities. In reality viewpoints associated with liberals or conservatives mostly develop by accretion -- because they stick to one party or another and it becomes politically expedient for a party to aggregate around one view or another.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

That's part of it, but an unrecognized element is the effect of choosing to follow the viewpoints of those with whom we're politically sympathetic.

I agree with you to an extent, but to cease at this point really fails to answer the question. We must ask how we get to be politically sympathetic.

If we become politically sympathetic by having similar moral standings, we suffer from circularity, if we become politically sympathetic as a matter cultural associations (such as a club or team mentality that you see out of the various political groups), then it falls into the category that I was describing before: agreeing with moral norms because we are programmed to not disagree with the social group we (at least try to) belong to.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Approachments is an archaic word that is synonymous with the plural noun approaches... surely you're searching for a different word here...

Comprise is not generally followed by a preposition, because that is embedded in the etymology of the word (the com- root). So it would be grammatically preferable for you to say approachments that comprise the credulous affirmations of naiveness -- that is should you ever find yourself in the position of writing such a sentence.

Do you mean naivete?

As of this reply your last 45 consecutive posts have been in this thread, comprising a cool 45% of your 99 in total on this forum. Bored though you may be, I'd encourage you to explore other discussions on this site so that you may find other interlocutors who, unlike myself, are up to the daunting intellectual standard you set for us all -- and thus you'll find refuge from said boredom engendered by my naivete.

I use "comprised" (past tense) not comprise (another careless observation), which was fully appropriate within the context. Yes, I do mean naiveness, which also is completely appropriate. Also the usage of approachments reflects the concept of intellectual understanding, something you have great difficulty with, by virtue of incorrectly attacking the sequence and choice of the composition, then the actual knowledge that is conveyed within the written words.

P.S. I was getting bored, Now I am bored!

1 Reply

@Ruthless Logic,

MFtP,

I think Aedes and Ruthless Logic are beyond establishing a common basis of analysis - and so reiterate:

Quote:

but another 30 pages of contending opinion would still result in nothing more constructive than acromony. Maybe that's the purpose...

Folks like to argue. Why do we pretend we don't? I suggested a viscious arguments section - where I think Aedes and Ruthless Logic's correspondance would be better conducted. They could then dispense with the pretence of critique, and just slag eacother off directly.

:devilish:

iconoclast.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

iconoclast;23453 wrote:

Folks like to argue. Why do we pretend we don't? I suggested a viscious arguments section - where I think Aedes and Ruthless Logic's correspondance would be better conducted.

Well, embedded in some of my posts is 1) an effort at acquiescence from time to time, and 2) occasional acknowledgement of agreement on the rare instance that it happens. You can see how well he reciprocates that. I like to argue. He likes to posture. I wouldn't say I'm bored, but I'm getting war-weary.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

The problem with saying that is that your argument rests on the risks you are trying to argue for. If I am correct these risks do not actually exist.

The risk is pregnancy, and the existance of another human life which will need to be accounted for in future decisions made.

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Don't know.

Do you care? If not, we probably won't get much farther than we already have...

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

A valid answer to this question might be possible if people accepted the same basis of analysis - but with some arguing from a scientific point of view, others religious, others still secular ethical, and then logical, and or admixtrures of these, there's no possibility of agreement, but another 30 pages of contending opinion would still result in nothing more constructive than acromony. Maybe that's the purpose...

I somewhat agree with you, but not 100%... I think people can have different core values, but reasonably discuss practical comprimises with those who have other values. And if both sides are willing to think through things from the other's set of values, rather than just attack, a healthy situation can evolve.

0 Replies

@NeitherExtreme,

NeitherExtreme wrote:

The risk is pregnancy, and the existance of another human life which will need to be accounted for in future decisions made.

But to me, the risks of a pregnancy are medical bills.

Quote:

Do you care? If not, we probably won't get much farther than we already have...

Of course I care, but this is not a question I can answer. It is like asking when I became an adult: I know I am an adult now, and I can remember when I was not an adult, but there is not a day that I can recall where I can say "On that day I became an adult".

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Well, embedded in some of my posts is 1) an effort at acquiescence from time to time, and 2) occasional acknowledgement of agreement on the rare instance that it happens. You can see how well he reciprocates that. I like to argue. He likes to posture. I wouldn't say I'm bored, but I'm getting war-weary.

Excuse me! You do NOT argue, just oppose and I might add with the deftness of a bull in a china shop.

0 Replies

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Of course I care, but this is not a question I can answer. It is like asking when I became an adult: I know I am an adult now, and I can remember when I was not an adult, but there is not a day that I can recall where I can say "On that day I became an adult".

The difference between this question and the question of when you become an adult is that in this instance there is a huge discrepency in how you are going to treat the child/fetus, as opposed to the more subtle changes in stature at adulthood. In this case, at one stage you'd "terminate" them with no remorse, at another stage it would be murder. So while there might not be any concrete specific point for you, I think you can see the need to address the question rather than just shrug it off. If you are going to have strong opinions on the subject, and attempt to have discourse with others about it, I would sugest that you take some time and really think about when you think a child/fetus is important as a human being. At least get a ball-park time period or stage of developement. Obviously you don't have to pick the same point I would. Frankly, you could choose anything from conception to some point in adulthood, but I think you owe it to yourself (and anyone you're going to discuss this subject with) to figure out when you choose to start caring about the child/fetus.

2 Replies

@NeitherExtreme,

NeitherExtreme;23563 wrote:

In this case, at one stage you'd "terminate" them with no remorse

Who says there's no remorse? Don't forget that you took care to point out that many women suffer emotional consequences as a result. And do you have any basis to assume that these procedures are performed coldly and without any sort of solemnity?

Quote:

I would sugest that you take some time and really think about when you think a child/fetus is important as a human being.

It's an evolution, it's not a sudden change. A Homo sapiens life begins at conception. A human being is a philosophical entity, though! As I mentioned there is NOTHING in our general society outside of one situation -- obstetrical care (and merchandising) -- in which a fetus is a legitimate entity. The fetus has zero legal status by any other measure. Once a baby is born you can get a tax deduction for a dependent, you can get it a passport, give it an official name, a birth certificate, an address, assign custodianship, a social security number, etc. So in the United States a human being exists at birth.

And at the level of an individual mother or couple, the reality and humanity grows through the pregnancy -- as you see it more on ultrasounds, as you choose a name, as you feel it moving and kicking, as you prepare your house and your life, etc. Trust me, I've been through this recently. But what about mothers who don't go through this process, who don't humanize the baby? The baby's biological identity doesn't change, but its extrinsically projected humanity does.

Quote:

At least get a ball-park time period or stage of developement.

Here you're guilty of the "ought from an is" effect. How do you possibly derive a moral out of biology? And given how different embryonic and fetal development is from the rest of human life, why must we have a single moral that transcends both pre- and post-natal life?

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes...

That last response wasn't directed straight at you, or women in general. I was talking to Mr. Fight the Power, who has appeared to unapologetically consider the fetus unworthy of any rights or care. Of course that's his buisness, but I am challanging him to give some more thought to the "when", since it has a lot to do with this topic.

I realize, don't deny, and have pointed out quite a few times myself, that there is not some concrete point of change. (Unless you're willing to accept conception, which I'm not going to demand of everyone.) That doesn't mean it's a meaningless or futile task to attempt to find some meaningful cuttoff, even if it is somewhat general. Yes, it would have some arbitrary quality to it. Such is life... I thought we arlready went through this? Also, I'm confused about your idea that a fetus has no status in society. I realize a lot changes at birth, but seems to be more pragmatic than a statement of existence. (How exactly do you give a passport to a fetus, and what would it mean anyway?) We talked earlier about how a person can be charged with murder for killing a fetus, so it certainly has some status. And this isn't just about when a mother "humanizes" a baby. If simply being considered unimportant or unwanted by others invalidates a human life, we're in big trouble.

And, not trying to be annoying, but if you're going to get real "biological" about this argument, morality and humanity have no inherent meaing or value, and right and wrong disapear entirely. In such a case, a woman's autonomy means no more than the fetus' life, so this whole thing would be a waste of time. I'm opperating under the assumtion that at some point, and for whatever reasons, Mr. Fight the Power and I both care about humans, their well-being, their lives, their autonomy, etc. I'm not taking "ought from is", I'm assuming we both have those values and I'm saying "when" is a pivotal question to ask yourself.

1 Reply

@NeitherExtreme,

NeitherExtreme;23584 wrote:

That last response wasn't directed straight at you, or women in general.

I know, but you're sort of "leading" the question by attaching the "remorseless" element to it.

Quote:

Also, I'm confused about your idea that a fetus has no status in society. I realize a lot changes at birth, but seems to be more pragmatic than a statement of existence. We talked earlier about how a person can be charged with murder for killing a fetus, so it certainly has some status.

Right. There is that. And what else? Is there ANY other evidence that society gives rights, identity, or even acknowledgement to a fetus? Anything at all? I'm not making an argument about right/wrong here -- I'm just asking you to tell me what other status a fetus has in society.

Quote:

If simply being considered unimportant or unwanted by others invalidates a human life, we're in big trouble.

And we're also in big trouble if we 100% completely synonymize prenatal versus postnatal life. So, I again ask you why a moral MUST always be completely equally applicable to a fetus? The societal, biological, and personal differences are so great that it's only natural that moral judgements are different.

Quote:

And, not trying to be annoying, but if you're going to get real "biological" about this argument, morality and humanity have no inherent meaing or value, and right and wrong disapear entirely.

They have enough value that we have 30-something pages of this thread, though.

Quote:

In such a case, a woman's autonomy means no more than the fetus' life

But they DO have meaning to people and to society, so ultimate meaning is a non-issue. And weighing one priority against the other is THE debate here.

Quote:

I'm opperating under the assumtion that at some point, and for whatever reasons, Mr. Fight the Power and I both care about humans, their well-being, their lives, their autonomy, etc. I'm not taking "ought from is", I'm assuming we both have those values and I'm saying "when" is a pivotal question to ask yourself.

And I'm challenging you to explain to me why on earth it has to be a specific "when". Because the "when" is biologically defined, and you're trying to force Mr. FtP to pick a biological milestone for his moral. That is simply an ought-from-is, which I know you don't adhere to.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

That is simply an ought-from-is, which I know you don't adhere to.

No, I don't. What I'm saying is that if you, or society, care about humans, then it is only consistent to decide when you care. That's all. I'm not trying to argue for a basis of morality here. That would be pointless because modern thought gives no basis for it. I'm trying to take what we have in common and work from there.

That said, I think I'm out of this one unless there's an honest question about something I said that hasn't been covered already. I've given my thougths, but I'm not going to force them.

1 Reply

@NeitherExtreme,

NeitherExtreme;23600 wrote:

No, I don't. What I'm saying is that if you, or society, care about humans, then it is only consistent to decide when you care.

It's possible to care all along, but have the nature of that caring change and evolve. And there need not be a discrete, defined transition.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know