Reply
Mon 31 Jan, 2005 11:18 am
By Paul Andrew Bourne, MSc. (candidate); BSc. (Hons); Dip. Edu.
According to WHO (World Health Organization) post the 1980s, Reproductive Health is not primarily about the absence of diseases but social, psychological and physical well being of the individual in addition to having the right to decide when, frequency and number of children a woman wants to have. Therefore, if a woman has the right over her own body, then "why is abortion an external issue of debate?"
I am requesting a critique of the abortion phenomenon. Is it wrong and-or right? Based on your response to the question asked, justify your stance with unbiased arguments.
Re: "Abortion"
paul andrew bourne wrote:justify your stance with unbiased arguments.
I'mn having a hard time determining what makes an argument biased, do you just mean without begging the question?
An answer regarding something like abortion cannot help but be biased. Anyone who can answer this question, "Is it right or wrong?" without being biased will win my undying admiration.
Kristie wrote:Anyone who can answer this question, "Is it right or wrong?" without being biased will win my undying admiration.
I'll have a go at it:
No, morals are human constructs, and not ontologically real.
Thats moral relativism for you, no bias what so ever. Did I win the prize?
wait, did you answer no, it's wrong or no, it's right?
Kristie wrote:wait, did you answer no, it's wrong or no, it's right?
Q: Is it right or wrong?
A: No, it is not right or wrong, there's no such thing as right or wrong ontologically speaking.
Ooohhhh........ok. My brain is apparently much smaller than yours...
Well, that didn't really answer the question. Sort of went around it. You could say you won on a technicality.
Kristie wrote:Ooohhhh........ok. My brain is apparently much smaller than yours...
Well, that didn't really answer the question. Sort of went around it. You could say you won on a technicality.
YAY I WON!
Seriously speaking though, morals are either pure axiomatic systems or pseudoaxiomatic systems (dunno if that's a word but hey). This makes it impossible to answer moral questions without begging them on some level, that is unless moral axioms are provided in the question (begging it for you).
Paul Andrew Bourne, MSc. (candidate); BSc. (Hons); Dip. Edu.
I am wholeheartedly sorry for using the terminology critique and argument simultaneously without a definition of the former. A critique is not simply forwarding thoughts on an issue but by way of using scientific and other documented arguments to substantiate your position. I have deliberately not use the word fact as that term is absolute and this discourse is relatively absolute.
Now that I forwarded a working definition for a critique, I am excepting arguments within that construct.
I'm confused, are you wanting everyone opions on this topic?
Einherjar wrote:No, morals are human constructs, and not ontologically real.
That's begging the question.
Einherjar wrote:Thats moral relativism for you, no bias what so ever.
Moral relativism is nothing
but bias.
ABORTION IS WRONG!
THE ONLY WAY I CAN SEE JUSTIFYING ABORTION IS IF THE MOTHERS LIFE IS AT RISK
Well I am pro Choice.. I myself couldn't do it, but it is your choice, everything happens for a reason. Certain situations, if certain people where not able to have this choice then the babies life could be ruined.... or if you are raped or your life is at risk. All reasons for abortion, but like I said I myself could never do it (unless I was raped or my babies life was in danger)
joefromchicago wrote:Einherjar wrote:No, morals are human constructs, and not ontologically real.
That's begging the question.
Einherjar wrote:Thats moral relativism for you, no bias what so ever.
Moral relativism is nothing
but bias.
I've been told off for hijacking this thread once already (sorry paul), I'll answer this on a separate thread.
I thought I'd link to an old post where I sort of get into the abortion question. I'll answer questions, but I'm not about to write an essay. Perhaps I'll rephrase the argument and weed out the stem cell stuff some day when I am les tired. That is, unless you are able to grasp my take on abortion from the post linked.
Very old post
Paul Andrew Bourne
How can you substantiate a moral position by using scientific arguments?
Do you think possible to give a scientific demonstration that abortion is good or bad?
Any position you assume on this matter is always related to your moral values.
Anyway, if you think you can give that demonstation, I hould be glad to read it.
I believe, that before the time that the fetus is "developed significantly," that is, with distinguishable human characteristics, such as a beating heart, etc, that the mother should have the choice. If you are raped, you sould be able to choose by then, and there is always the morning-after pill...
"WOW!"
By Paul Andrew Bourne, MSc. (candidate); BSc. (Hons); Dip. Edu.
If a woman has the right to determine her health to which reproduction is a critical aspect, why are we limiting that opportunity to rape? Furthermore, now that we have added life to this discourse. Firstly, when does the feotus become a human life? Secondly, who is a human? Thirdly, why should abortion be a judicial matter? Lastly, democracy afford human certain rights and provide clauses on which those may be rescinded, why are those on abortion not defined by the statutes.
Re: "WOW!"
Paul Andrew Bourne
The right to determine her health is a criteria to abortion only in cases were that health is at risk. But abortion can be done because of many other reasons.
Your questions can only be answered according to a system of values. The definition of human life depends of those values.
Yes. If you believe in Roe v. Wade, then it doesn't matter when the abortion occurs (can be very nasty if close to term), but if you believe the Petterson trial, then every life is precious. It is all a matter of individual perspective.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace