Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 26, 2014 - 01:59pm PT
|
"Bookie dances all around the questions without even seeing that he/she is really providing NO answers at all. He/she thinks that further CLAIMS constitute answers. He/she thinks that by "turning the tables" and asking his/her own questions, he/she can DODGE the fact that he/she has no answers."
please, repeat the questions i have not answered
here's one you did not answer: if the fertilized egg is a life (which, again, has been conceded on this thread) then why is it acceptable for a woman to END THE LIFE that is simply the NATURAL, and entirely predictable, result of a decision she willingly made?
please, provide a quote in which i promoted celibacy or any other form of asceticism; because i do not share your celebration of sexual debauchery (whatever, whenever, however, with whomever) does not mean i'm opposed to sex or even sex for pleasure; that's your entirely bigoted and ignorant interpretation of my straightforward comments--this is sully's problem with shakespeare; he reads the words but ignores what they actually mean preferring instead his own beliefs; i bet he thinks he's really clever when he teaches his students that shakespeare was a great feminist writer--i've never said you should stop having sex; i simply believe you should accept responsibility for your decisions...the horror, the horror
"dingus isn't mean enough"
when have i called anyone a "fuked up pathological whack job", or any other name? that's a liberal tactic and proof of the absence of rational argument
"bookworm and his Klan"
ah, the racism card has been played...how predictable, even in a discussion that has nothing to do with race and directed toward somebody who has made no comments about race
"drop it with the bigotry crap"
you're the one who assumed by arguments are religiously based...ever heard of hippocrates...he developed an oath for doctors long before anyone had heard of jesus...take a look at #4:
"I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion"
so, even if the fetus is a life, it does not necessarily have rights...hmmm, where have i heard that reasoning before? some lives are more equal than others...stephen hawking is entirely dependent on others to remain "viable"--i guess he doesn't have any rights either...margaret sanger must be square dancing in her grave
by the way, what is scientific about rights, anyway? let me guess, you think the government gives us our rights (including the right to life)...what Gov giveth, Gov can taketh away
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2014 - 02:02pm PT
|
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2014 - 02:08pm PT
|
madbolter, please change yer avatar to COGENT1.
Not Concise1, but we'll overlook that. ;-)
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 01:29am PT
|
madbolter, please change yer avatar to COGENT1.
Not Concise1, but we'll overlook that. ;-)
LOL.... My favorite professor as an undergrad had a mantra: "There is no good writing. There is only good rewriting." Sadly, my first-pass posts here lack the elegance that I might manage with rewriting. Sorry to foist off on you only first-pass stuff; all I have time for.
But thanks.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 02:03am PT
|
Now to business....
please, repeat the questions i have not answered
Well, for one, let's bring in your next point, which will provide the springboard from which I can remind you.
if the fertilized egg is a life (which, again, has been conceded on this thread) then why is it acceptable for a woman to END THE LIFE that is simply the NATURAL, and entirely predictable, result of a decision she willingly made?
Okay, the primary question I asked you, which you have not yet answered, is the same one that instantly emerges from your "point" just stated: "Given that there is no debate about the fetus being a "life," and there is no debate about a skin cell being a "life," HOW do you claim a fetus has certain "rights" that you do not agree a skin cell has?
THAT is the issue here. The issue is not "life" per se, as there are all sorts of cells and even entire species that you would not hold in any special regard. However, let this ONE CELL get fertilized inside a woman, and suddenly (still waiting to hear how), THAT ONE CELL has all sorts of "rights" that none of these other "lives" seemingly have!
Amazing!
I'll ask again: HOW do these rights suddenly obtain? WHAT are the morally-relevant metrics by which this is determined? And THESE questions are the ones that you PRESUME have good answers, although you have never shared these answers with us!
Now, to answer YOUR question (again):
There is NO problem in principle with "ending a life." We end ALL SORTS of "lives" in all sorts of contexts. So, I have no special burden of proof to explain this or that particular ending of a life. YOU are the one that says that this PARTICULAR sort of cell enjoys special privileges not enjoyed by ANY other single cell on Earth. So, my answer is to say, "I don't buy it. The burden of proof is on YOU to explain what the nature of this 'specialness' IS and how it obtains."
Please proceed to do so.
i simply believe you should accept responsibility for your decisions...the horror, the horror
I agree, and more than you realize, given that you don't know me nor have you followed my many (and usually very non-concise) posts on Libertarianism. But I don't see how YOU get from the laudable principle of personal responsibility to the claim that abortion is wrong.
so, even if the fetus is a life, it does not necessarily have rights...hmmm, where have i heard that reasoning before? some lives are more equal than others...stephen hawking is entirely dependent on others to remain "viable"--i guess he doesn't have any rights either...margaret sanger must be square dancing in her grave
Wow... I'm stunned by the conflations here. "Some lives are more equal than others?" Uhhh... YEAH! Among the many "lives" that populate planet Earth, we certainly DO think that, for examples, amoebas are FAR less "equal" than, say, WE are.
But you don't mean THAT by "lives," do you? No, because you are SMUGGLING in the point you presume but have not demonstrated, namely that the FETUS is a "special life," while the amoeba is not. But THAT is the very point under contention. So, again (and again), the burden of proof is on YOU to explain HOW and by what metrics that ONE CELL that matters so much to YOU is somehow different in principle from an amoeba.
If you say, "But, but... it's HUMAN! Duh!" I will respond: so are the many skin cells that I intentionally "murder" every day. What makes a fertilized ovum SO dang special and nothing at all like THOSE human cells?
I'm sure that YOU are in shock and horror at the thought that such a question could seriously be raised. But people on your side of the debate NEED to stop PRESUMING that your intuitions are right, such that ALL you can do is respond with shock and horror at people that don't share your intuitions. Again, YOU just "know" something, and you can't imagine how what you "know" isn't universally known. But it is NOT universally known. So buck up and start producing some EVIDENCE to support your position: empirical, reasoned, or (as I said above) even Scriptural.
I put it to you that you have NONE of the above. You have ONLY your intuitions, and they are NOT widely shared in this present society.
by the way, what is scientific about rights, anyway? let me guess, you think the government gives us our rights (including the right to life)...what Gov giveth, Gov can taketh away
Oh, the irony!
As others on this thread can tell you, I am well known in the various politard threads for my "originalist" constitutional perspective, my libertarian political philosophy, and my natural rights perspective of distinguishing between negative and positive rights.
I am about as FAR from your accusation of believing that the government grants rights as I could possibly be!
YOUR problem in arguing with me is that I am quick to see how you smuggle in your question-begging presumptions. So, to help you out a bit, you should know what you are up against, so that you don't keep accusing me of literally the opposite perspectives from the ones I have.
I have a Ph.D. in analytical philosophy from UC Santa Barbara. My areas of specialization (and in which I have primary taught and written) are in ethics and political philosophy. I mentioned above what my political perspectives are. And my ethical perspectives are that I am an objectivist and absolutist about the metaphysics of moral facts. Technically, that makes me a moral realist.
So you are not dealing with just some clueless yahoo here that has some undeveloped and fluffy notion of ethics and just some undifferentiated and thoughtless "failure" to share your intuitions on the subject of abortion.
YOU have a big problem on this subject, and that problem is that apparently nobody has ever really PUSHED you on this subject before. You are used to getting onto venues like this and manhandling the subject; but that approach will not fly here.
As I said, you need to BUCK UP and provide evidence to sustain your intuitions. IF you could do that, you might just sway some minds. But so far, you have dismally failed to do so.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 04:48am PT
|
Okay, the primary question I asked you, which you have not yet answered, is the same one that instantly emerges from your "point" just stated: "Given that there is no debate about the fetus being a "life," and there is no debate about a skin cell being a "life," HOW do you claim a fetus has certain "rights" that you do not agree a skin cell has?
THAT is the issue here. The issue is not "life" per se, as there are all sorts of cells and even entire species that you would not hold in any special regard. However, let this ONE CELL get fertilized inside a woman, and suddenly (still waiting to hear how), THAT ONE CELL has all sorts of "rights" that none of these other "lives" seemingly have!
I thought I answered this. One has a soul, and one does not.
I find you annoying. Why do constantly bring up your educational background? Do you find that this makes you feel superior?
Hint - it makes you appear arrogant and less legit.
EDIT: There is NO problem in principle with "ending a life." We end ALL SORTS of "lives" in all sorts of contexts. So, I have no special burden of proof to explain this or that particular ending of a life. YOU are the one that says that this PARTICULAR sort of cell enjoys special privileges not enjoyed by ANY other single cell on Earth. So, my answer is to say, "I don't buy it. The burden of proof is on YOU to explain what the nature of this 'specialness' IS and how it obtains."
A baby is the epitomy of innocent life. It should be guarded carefully.
A criminal or terrorist is the epitomy of criminality and should be dealt with as such.
One is guilty, and one is innocent.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 05:00am PT
|
I'm here for your entertainment. Enjoy the show, Johnson.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 07:07am PT
|
I thought I answered this. One has a soul, and one does not.
I thought I made it clear what a useless statement that is.
How about THIS useless (and comparable) "argument" of mine?
1) Everything in the universe is doubling in size each second.
2) If this sort of doubling is going on, then we simply MUST have laws in place to prevent the rich people from EVER doubling their wealth!
------
3) So, we MUST have laws in place to prevent the rich people from EVER doubling their wealth.
You argue using talk of souls like I argue using size-doubling.
You argue from vague claims about fetal "rights" like I argue from vague claims about the "rich."
Your attempt to move from such claims to assertions about public policy is like my attempt to move from such claims to assertions about public policy.
Your ongoing attempts to violate the actual rights of real people is akin to my argument's assertion that we must violate the actual rights of real people.
So, either explicate this "soul" and "baby" business, or admit that you have only vacuous claims to offer in "support" of your attempts to take over female reproductive rights.
I find you annoying.
Increasingly: Ditto!
And so what?
Why do constantly bring up your educational background? Do you find that this makes you feel superior?
I wouldn't say that "constantly" is legitimate. If you look at the actual context, you'll see that it was appropriate in responding to the so-called "bookworm" (who quite apparently isn't).
"Superior?" Don't know what you mean. I would say: more studied on this subject. Absolutely yes. You and bookie quite clearly are not. And you SHOULD be before you try to pontificate AS THOUGH you actually do know what you are talking about. Unlike you, I actually do.
Hint - it makes you appear arrogant and less legit.
Oh well.
You appear "less legit" because you simply cannot produce a shred of evidence to sustain your oft-repeated and question-begging claims.
A baby is the epitomy of innocent life. It should be guarded carefully.
So you SAY. But the real question is: What entitles you to call a single, fertilized cell a "baby?" When you can (perhaps, finally) answer that simple question, we might be able to continue a discussion. But your endless repetition of your "soul" bit is NOT an explanation; it is merely another CLAIM that you offer zero support for.
A criminal or terrorist is the epitomy of criminality and should be dealt with as such.
Again, so you SAY. I don't get where this non-sequitur is supposed to fit in.
One is guilty, and one is innocent.
Wow... SO many problems with that statement that I'm groping for where to start!
Okay, how about here? You've started with a useless tautology: "One is guilty," referencing a criminal. Yessss... by definition a criminal is "guilty," so what's the point of this statement? What actual informational content are you conveying?
And you seem to mean something by "guilty" that would itself be contentious, as I think you are smuggling in moral guilt rather than just legal guilt. At least that wouldn't be tautological. Sigh.
Next is your question-begging. "One is innocent" would be better stated as: "One is nothing at all" in a moral or legal sense. YOU have never established otherwise.
Again, the burden of proof is on YOU to explain why a single, fertilized cell is anything different from a skin cell. And your endless appeal to "soul" is just in need of its own explanation, which you never provide.
I could just as well ask it this way: WHAT leads you to think that a skin cell has no soul?
But, I predict that your "answer" to that question would just lead back into the small-circle that you call "reasoning."
When I first started discussing this with you, I had the sense that you were honestly trying to think this through. Now it seems instead that you are simply dogmatic and/or literally do not understand the nature of the vast shortcomings in your "explanations."
If that statement itself sounds "arrogant," so be it. I really don't care about your slippage into personality-talk. All I care about are truth-claims and the truth-conditions that would render them true. So far, you are offering neither.
Normally, like many threads in which I've taken a stab, I would just let this go as not worth the time and effort. But the problem here is that people like you are SERIOUSLY and continuously trying to establish public policy that would horrendously violate the KNOWN rights of real women. I'll fight that to the ends of the earth. If a philosopher and ethicist has any remaining value in the world, surely it would be in such a fight.
And if YOU intend to fight your fight for the "rights" of the "unborn," then you'll have to do a MUCH better job of explicating some very basic concepts your perspective depends upon. So far, you are quite obviously (to any unbiased mind) flailing!
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 07:16am PT
|
|
|
anita514
Gym climber
Great White North
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 10:49am PT
|
how predictable: a bunch of old white guys arguing about abortion and what a woman should or shouldn't be able to do with her own body.
|
|
anita514
Gym climber
Great White North
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 11:02am PT
|
I don't think very much, Bruce
women do/say lots, they just don't waste time arguing back and forth on the internet with a bunch of doofuses
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 11:06am PT
|
LOL .....
Anita just called Bruce a doofus.
3 ... 2 .... 1
Bruce will start flapping his keyboard mouth any second .......
|
|
anita514
Gym climber
Great White North
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 11:22am PT
|
btw I don't think Bruce is a doofus at all, but the rest of you...
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 12:17pm PT
|
Whoa John M quite uncivil.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 12:17pm PT
|
Sully, as someone with Severe Reading Incomprehension Syndrome I want to know
why I should feel as insulted as John M does. I'll get back to my Sigrid Unset book now.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 12:26pm PT
|
Cool. It was just so very surprising coming from you.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 01:53pm PT
|
and what is the point of this thread?
John M wrote:
basically Reilly, I can't have an opinion on anything that happens to a woman because I'm a swinging sausage and have never experienced what they go through. So I have no f*#king say over whether a child is born or not. Since I am a male who found out later I had a child, but that child was aborted. I just have no say and she doesn't give a sh#t. Thats f*#ked up. Women want respect. Then they have to also offer it.
I don't know if he had created a fictitious event or not, but I'll respond to his scenario. If you claim to be in a relationship with a woman that would convey an equal say in the outcome of a sexual encounter, it is hard to understand how you might have not been involved in the decision. On the other hand, if that "relationship" was defined only by the sex it is not surprising at all. Respect is mutual, as you point out, and if you do not respect the fuller responsibility of the act then you might not be a part of the decisions regarding the outcome.
You might also not be deemed trustworthy in terms of the 18 year commitment raising a child to adulthood conveys. All a hypothetical discussion, of course. After all, commitment is best demonstrated by actions, and one's actions can often be contrary to one's talk... if there is any talk at all.
As for the question, "what does science have to do with it?" as far as the morality of abortion, one might look at the "natural history" of human reproduction for at least a baseline of what to expect in a "normal" pregnancy.
31% of all conceptions end in miscarriage naturally
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM198807283190401
only 50 to 60% of all conceptions advance beyond 20 weeks of gestation
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra000763
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscariage
these estimates may be on the low side
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm
"Around half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant."
This is not to demean the feelings of the "sanctity" of a person, or the potential represented by every conception. However, the most likely outcome of a conception is miscarriage, also referred to as "spontaneous abortion." And it is not uncommon among animals whose reproduction includes similar pregnancies. Humans are not exceptional in this regard, the biology of reproduction is shared across species.
And while I don't think it is necessary to have a religious or philosophical answer to the question: "why is spontaneous abortion so common?" it would seem to be a legitimate question in the context of these debates. Not to make too fine a point of it, one could make the case that "nature" is the largest "abortionist" (using the contemporary rhetoric). Why would that be so?
I fully recognize the complexity of the issues regarding individual liberty. Here the liberty of the mother is balanced against the liberty of the potential person. "Viability" seems to be the current boundary, if there is a societal interest, it cannot extend to the time before the "potentiality" of the person is real, that is, a viable life independent of the mother. The above statistics indicated that independent of the mother's intent, most of the conceptions do not result in persons. Does this mean that society should pursue a program of decreasing the rate of spontaneous abortions to zero in order to assure the liberty of a "potential person"? How that question is answered has to be relevant to this discussion. Taken to its extreme are all gametes subject to protection because they all have the potential to create a person? Should all mothers be provided with free health care, and supported throughout their pregnancy to bring it to a successful conclusion by the society that expresses the interest in that outcome? If society isn't going to do it, does it have any weight in the decision?
It is a complexity that does not spare the woman who must make the decision, either, though that voice is often drowned out in the debate. It is certainly an important voice to hear. My limited experience discussing this decision with women who are confronted with it has me conclude that it is an extremely difficult one, made with all the consequences understood, including the uncertainties related to the "potential person," and the commitment being a mother implies. In a strong relationship, the input of both partners in the decision is common. None of the decisions are easy to make, and "society" is fully represented in the manner of expected behaviors, cultural, philosophical and religious views, and an awareness of the immensity of the decision.
Reducing the discussion, as this thread does, to what are essentially trite one liners with out-of-context supporting evidence from rather dubious reporting in the press offends me (but I'll get over it). In particular, to politicize the issue for the purpose of defining voting demographics seems a horrific perversion of democracy. But such is our times.
Bottom line, science tells us that "spontaneous abortion" is not at all rare, it is actually common.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 02:30pm PT
|
"your theorizing is incomplete."
no doubt, but the entire human species has depended on the ability to assess the consequences of having sex. And rather sophisticated behavior has evolved even though individuals may not have been "intellectually engaged" in the process (the wonders of evolution, this extends farther back than the human species).
You talk of "love", what's love go to do with it? Even before the concept of love there was reproduction... or not, depending on the consequences.
There is no reason to assume that those assessments were not fully considered in the scenario you have outlined even if neither of the parties were aware of it intellectually.
The consequences of sex are not the same for the male and the female (independent of the species). I don't see your argument for the idea that the decision should include equal weights from male and female participants. It has never been that way in natural history.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 03:11pm PT
|
John M. you seem to have taken this very personally... which is one way of generating passion, but that can get in the way of seeing the larger issue.
If you want to make it a matter of personal responsibility, you had the opportunity to express that when you had sex, apparently in a manner that might lead to conception and pregnancy. Are you saying you had no responsibility at that point?
What were you thinking?
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 03:16pm PT
|
Ed your post higher up the page is truly excellent. Also, how the hell did conspiracy theory chat turn into abortion chat?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!