| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/27/2012 10:44:31 PM · #451 |
Yes, Robert is right. It was just a quip about the millions of sperm absorbed back into the body every day or the millions that don't fertilize an egg, etc. if my position necessitated that they are persons, i would consider it a fatal flaw in my position.
I only have energy for two questions. First, I would love to hear from Judith about what extra is required for personhood since she feels my definition is not enough. What would be the minimum?
I'm also curious to hear from Ray or Robert who can understand the "embryo as person" argument but would consider themselves pro-choice. Is it because you understand but reject the position (in which case it would be interesting to hear your own personhood position), or is there another means of remaining pro-abortion? |
|
|
|
02/28/2012 10:05:23 AM · #452 |
Understanding is not the same as agreeing Doc.
Also, let's get the semantics right. Pro-abortion and pro-life both seem to be misnomers to me. Is anyone thinking "hurray abortion!" or "booo life!" here?
Come now.
I see it this way. Some people think that personhood begins when a child can survive outside of the womb. Some people think it begins at fertilization. Some people think it begins with the heartbeat. Etc.
I can understand all of these positions. That's why I'm pro-choice (NOT pro-abortion).
Some people seem to only agree with one position and think they have the right to decide for everyone else. Anti-choice (NOT pro-life, esp. if they support war and the death penalty).
Semantics are a wonderful thing when used correctly. Propaganda terms really skew the reality of a debate.
Message edited by author 2012-02-28 10:07:34. |
|
|
|
02/28/2012 11:16:55 AM · #453 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Also, let's get the semantics right. Pro-abortion and pro-life both seem to be misnomers to me. Is anyone thinking "hurray abortion!" or "booo life!" here?
I can understand all of these positions. That's why I'm pro-choice (NOT pro-abortion).
Semantics are a wonderful thing when used correctly. Propaganda terms really skew the reality of a debate. |
Right. But "pro-choice" is also a propaganda tool. I guess it's all propaganda, just depends on what side you on.
Really, when you say "pro-choice" what is the choice you're making?
I'm all for choice. Apparently it's only people who get to make the choice. Does the unborn have a choice?
|
|
|
|
02/28/2012 11:41:38 AM · #454 |
| Yes, I agree with you Monica. Really I'm just being lazy and using shorthand, but don't think I don't agree with the first half of your post. I don't like bumper sticker designations either but sometimes they are easy (especially when typing on an iPad) |
|
|
|
02/28/2012 05:29:31 PM · #455 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Does the unborn have a choice? |
At what point is the unborn capable of making any choice?
|
|
|
|
02/28/2012 06:05:36 PM · #456 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Does the unborn have a choice? |
At what point is the unborn capable of making any choice? |
When they turn 18 or become emancipated. |
|
|
|
02/28/2012 08:08:20 PM · #457 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Does the unborn have a choice? |
At what point is the unborn capable of making any choice? |
When they turn 18 or become emancipated. |
I really hate to break the news to you my friend, but in today's economy, most 18 year old opt to stay home and sponge off of their parents until such time as they (the parents) die and they inherit everything.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/28/2012 08:47:34 PM · #458 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Does the unborn have a choice? |
At what point is the unborn capable of making any choice? |
When they turn 18 or become emancipated. |
I've never heard of any 18 year old unborns. ;P |
|
|
|
02/28/2012 10:24:56 PM · #459 |
Some vegans and vegetarians think eating meat is murder, and they make a good case. If they were able to impose their moral standards on everyone else, how would that go over? There again is a moral ground that is quite fuzzy, with good arguments on either side. So each person decides for themselves.
Before I get anyone arguing that I'm comparing the unborn to livestock, it's quite the opposite. Some people think that animals have a right to life just as much as humans, a free one at that, not just one locked up and eating corn and standing in manure all day. To them, seeing a "pro-lifer" chowing down on some steak is as stomach churning and viscerally revolting as the thought of abortions to the Christian right.
Who is right here? No one can say objectively. I respect people that are "pro-life", I respect vegans, I respect meat-eaters, I respect people that are pro-choice.
That's the choice. The choice is where your morality lies. You do not get to decide that for other people in an issue that has such legitimate view-points on both sides.
|
|
|
|
02/29/2012 12:56:57 AM · #460 |
I disagree with you at the end there Monica. Society has, aNd always had, the right to decide what rules it will operate by. There are arguments for not paying taxes that are every bit as powerful as a vegan argument (they both may be weak). But I don't think we can seriously apply your "I respect all positions" approach at a societal level. If we all did that, we would not have a society. We can't (and don't) look at the tax shirk and say, well that's ok if that's how you roll. I understand your opposition to the war and so you can not pay your taxes.
I do like your bringing up animal rights because I find it an interesting paradox of animal rights/pro-choice. It's the left wing version of capital punishment/pro-life (another seeming paradox). |
|
|
|
02/29/2012 10:06:25 AM · #461 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Some vegans and vegetarians think eating meat is murder, and they make a good case. If they were able to impose their moral standards on everyone else, how would that go over? There again is a moral ground that is quite fuzzy, with good arguments on either side. So each person decides for themselves. |
This brings us back to my original scenario of a vegetarian restaurant and the government telling them they had to sell meat.
Yes, you can decide if you want to eat and work at a vegetarian restaurant, but if one of the perks is to have free meals, can you force them to cook you meat? Can the government force the vegetarian restaurant to sell meat?
The government then compromises by, forcing the vegetable growers to include meat in their shipments. You won't have to pay for it. |
|
|
|
02/29/2012 02:46:31 PM · #462 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Some vegans and vegetarians think eating meat is murder, and they make a good case. If they were able to impose their moral standards on everyone else, how would that go over? There again is a moral ground that is quite fuzzy, with good arguments on either side. So each person decides for themselves.
Before I get anyone arguing that I'm comparing the unborn to livestock, it's quite the opposite. Some people think that animals have a right to life just as much as humans, a free one at that, not just one locked up and eating corn and standing in manure all day. To them, seeing a "pro-lifer" chowing down on some steak is as stomach churning and viscerally revolting as the thought of abortions to the Christian right.
Who is right here? No one can say objectively. I respect people that are "pro-life", I respect vegans, I respect meat-eaters, I respect people that are pro-choice.
That's the choice. The choice is where your morality lies. You do not get to decide that for other people in an issue that has such legitimate view-points on both sides. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I disagree with you at the end there Monica. Society has, aNd always had, the right to decide what rules it will operate by. There are arguments for not paying taxes that are every bit as powerful as a vegan argument (they both may be weak). But I don't think we can seriously apply your "I respect all positions" approach at a societal level. If we all did that, we would not have a society. We can't (and don't) look at the tax shirk and say, well that's ok if that's how you roll. I understand your opposition to the war and so you can not pay your taxes. |
Well, first of all, we have laws in place already that state when abortion is permissible and when it is not, so there's no question that we're already controlling it at the societal level. But I think what Monica is implying (and she can correct me if I'm wrong) is that perhaps we ought not go any further in restricting it because (1) there is no broad consensus about the issue we've been discussing (when does personhood ensue); (2) it's fundamentally a philosophical debate and probably ultimately unprovable; and (3) basing further restrictions on the "personhood begins at conception" belief will render impermissible things such as in-vitro fertilization and certain forms of contraception, both of which have great positive social value and that are overwhelmingly supported by the society at large. (Abortion also has great positive social value, but we can put that argument aside for the time being.) So perhaps in the case of abortion the better option is to allow people to act on their own beliefs and in accordance with their own conscience.
Message edited by author 2012-02-29 15:01:25. |
|
|
|
02/29/2012 02:54:02 PM · #463 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Well, first of all, we have laws in place already that state when abortion is permissible and when it is not, so there's no question that we're already controlling it at the societal level. But I think what Monica is implying (and she can correct me if I'm wrong) is that perhaps we ought not go any further in restricting it because (1) there is no broad consensus about the issue we've been discussing (when does personhood ensue); (2) it's fundamentally a philosophical debate and probably ultimately unprovable; and (3) basing further restrictions on the "personhood begins at conception" belief will render impermissible things such as in-vitro fertilization and certain forms of contraception, both of which are overwhelmingly supported by the society at large. So perhaps in the case of abortion the better option is to allow people to act on their own beliefs and in accordance with their own conscience. |
Just to muddy the waters up a bit more, since Monica's already invoked the carnivores=murderers scenario, and since we seem to have a core group "abortion is OK, it's a personal decision" people, where do we all stand on voluntary euthanasia of the elderly and terminally ill? Or do we need another thread for that?
R.
|
|
|
|
02/29/2012 03:04:05 PM · #464 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
... where do we all stand on voluntary euthanasia of the elderly and terminally ill? Or do we need another thread for that?
R. |
Yes, we need another thread? A friend of mine (ER Doc, photojournalist) has written a book on the subject: A Chosen Death: The Dying Confront Assisted Suicide (not a direct link -- click on the button to the left) ... |
|
|
|
02/29/2012 03:07:40 PM · #465 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Just to muddy the waters up a bit more, since Monica's already invoked the carnivores=murderers scenario, and since we seem to have a core group "abortion is OK, it's a personal decision" people, where do we all stand on voluntary euthanasia of the elderly and terminally ill? Or do we need another thread for that?
R. |
Wow, that's opening up a can of worms. Probably another thread is a good idea. :-) |
|
|
|
02/29/2012 03:22:44 PM · #466 |
|
|
|
02/29/2012 03:45:53 PM · #467 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Well, first of all, we have laws in place already that state when abortion is permissible and when it is not, so there's no question that we're already controlling it at the societal level. But I think what Monica is implying (and she can correct me if I'm wrong) is that perhaps we ought not go any further in restricting it because (1) there is no broad consensus about the issue we've been discussing (when does personhood ensue); (2) it's fundamentally a philosophical debate and probably ultimately unprovable; and (3) basing further restrictions on the "personhood begins at conception" belief will render impermissible things such as in-vitro fertilization and certain forms of contraception, both of which have great positive social value and that are overwhelmingly supported by the society at large. (Abortion also has great positive social value, but we can put that argument aside for the time being.) So perhaps in the case of abortion the better option is to allow people to act on their own beliefs and in accordance with their own conscience. |
These isn't bad thinking Judith. Clearly it currently is permissible and I agree there is no broad consensus. But that seems to me to allow either opinion to prevail. I suppose the pro-choice argument could argue the status quo, but liberals always like change, right? ;) I'm not sure what you mean by "unprovable" because most philosophical debates fall in that category unless you mean something else by that word. Finally I just don't think 3) is valid. It smacks too much of "the ends justify the means" and I think that is a poor way to derive morality. |
|
|
|
02/29/2012 04:06:41 PM · #468 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Well, first of all, we have laws in place already that state when abortion is permissible and when it is not, so there's no question that we're already controlling it at the societal level. But I think what Monica is implying (and she can correct me if I'm wrong) is that perhaps we ought not go any further in restricting it because (1) there is no broad consensus about the issue we've been discussing (when does personhood ensue); (2) it's fundamentally a philosophical debate and probably ultimately unprovable; and (3) basing further restrictions on the "personhood begins at conception" belief will render impermissible things such as in-vitro fertilization and certain forms of contraception, both of which have great positive social value and that are overwhelmingly supported by the society at large. (Abortion also has great positive social value, but we can put that argument aside for the time being.) So perhaps in the case of abortion the better option is to allow people to act on their own beliefs and in accordance with their own conscience. |
These isn't bad thinking Judith. Clearly it currently is permissible and I agree there is no broad consensus. But that seems to me to allow either opinion to prevail. I suppose the pro-choice argument could argue the status quo, but liberals always like change, right? ;) I'm not sure what you mean by "unprovable" because most philosophical debates fall in that category unless you mean something else by that word. Finally I just don't think 3) is valid. It smacks too much of "the ends justify the means" and I think that is a poor way to derive morality. |
You said in post #417: "The idea of "personhood" is not provable in a scientific sense," and I agree with you. :-) Meaning that a consensus may never be reached on that question.
I don't know what you mean that 3) is an ends-justifies-the-means argument. I'm saying that a consistent stand on your belief that personhood begins at conception will have certain costs to society that the overwhelming majority of us would not be willing to pay. How would you deal with that in the real world?
Message edited by author 2012-02-29 16:07:08. |
|
|
|
02/29/2012 04:22:30 PM · #469 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
(3) basing further restrictions on the "personhood begins at conception" belief will render impermissible things such as in-vitro fertilization and certain forms of contraception, both of which have great positive social value and that are overwhelmingly supported by the society at large. (Abortion also has great positive social value, but we can put that argument aside for the time being.) So perhaps in the case of abortion the better option is to allow people to act on their own beliefs and in accordance with their own conscience. |
These isn't bad thinking Judith. Clearly it currently is permissible and I agree there is no broad consensus. But that seems to me to allow either opinion to prevail. I suppose the pro-choice argument could argue the status quo, but liberals always like change, right? ;) I'm not sure what you mean by "unprovable" because most philosophical debates fall in that category unless you mean something else by that word. Finally I just don't think 3) is valid. It smacks too much of "the ends justify the means" and I think that is a poor way to derive morality. |
You said in post #417: "The idea of "personhood" is not provable in a scientific sense," and I agree with you. :-) Meaning that a consensus may never be reached on that question.
I don't know what you mean that 3) is an ends-justifies-the-means argument. I'm saying that a consistent stand on your belief that personhood begins at conception will have certain costs to society that the overwhelming majority of us would not be willing to pay. How would you deal with that in the real world? |
He's saying that he doesn't think moral imperatives should be based on pragmatic considerations such as "cost to society". You said, basically, that the "better option" is to let people act each according to their own conscience because the alternative is too expensive. He doesn't agree with that, necessarily.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/29/2012 04:42:49 PM · #470 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
(3) basing further restrictions on the "personhood begins at conception" belief will render impermissible things such as in-vitro fertilization and certain forms of contraception, both of which have great positive social value and that are overwhelmingly supported by the society at large. (Abortion also has great positive social value, but we can put that argument aside for the time being.) So perhaps in the case of abortion the better option is to allow people to act on their own beliefs and in accordance with their own conscience. |
These isn't bad thinking Judith. Clearly it currently is permissible and I agree there is no broad consensus. But that seems to me to allow either opinion to prevail. I suppose the pro-choice argument could argue the status quo, but liberals always like change, right? ;) I'm not sure what you mean by "unprovable" because most philosophical debates fall in that category unless you mean something else by that word. Finally I just don't think 3) is valid. It smacks too much of "the ends justify the means" and I think that is a poor way to derive morality. |
You said in post #417: "The idea of "personhood" is not provable in a scientific sense," and I agree with you. :-) Meaning that a consensus may never be reached on that question.
I don't know what you mean that 3) is an ends-justifies-the-means argument. I'm saying that a consistent stand on your belief that personhood begins at conception will have certain costs to society that the overwhelming majority of us would not be willing to pay. How would you deal with that in the real world? |
He's saying that he doesn't think moral imperatives should be based on pragmatic considerations such as "cost to society". You said, basically, that the "better option" is to let people act each according to their own conscience because the alternative is too expensive. He doesn't agree with that, necessarily.
R. |
Okay. Well, I don't see any inherent reason to exclude pragmatic considerations from questions of morality, and there may well be very good reasons to include them. |
|
|
|
02/29/2012 05:45:13 PM · #471 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Okay. Well, I don't see any inherent reason to exclude pragmatic considerations from questions of morality, and there may well be very good reasons to include them. |
Possible, but some of the worst activities of the last century have been undertaken on pragmatic grounds. This is partly why I'm so leery of them. It clearly benefits society to remove the weakest/costliest members, but that doesn't mean I want any part of it. |
|
|
|
02/29/2012 05:48:41 PM · #472 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Okay. Well, I don't see any inherent reason to exclude pragmatic considerations from questions of morality, and there may well be very good reasons to include them. |
Possible, but some of the worst activities of the last century have been undertaken on pragmatic grounds. This is partly why I'm so leery of them. It clearly benefits society to remove the weakest/costliest members, but that doesn't mean I want any part of it. |
Amen to that. "Pragmatic morality" gives me the cold shivers. Shades of that wannabe-artist guy (I won't kill the thread by mentioning his name) who set about reorganizing things in Europe 70 years or so ago...
R.
|
|
|
|
02/29/2012 07:01:33 PM · #473 |
| Picasso? Ya, he was the worst! :P |
|
|
|
02/29/2012 07:12:57 PM · #474 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Picasso? Ya, he was the worst! :P |
Wasn't he, though? Couldn't even SEE straight, dayum...
|
|
|
|
02/29/2012 09:10:29 PM · #475 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Okay. Well, I don't see any inherent reason to exclude pragmatic considerations from questions of morality, and there may well be very good reasons to include them. |
Possible, but some of the worst activities of the last century have been undertaken on pragmatic grounds. This is partly why I'm so leery of them. It clearly benefits society to remove the weakest/costliest members, but that doesn't mean I want any part of it. |
Wow, that's quite a leap to make based on my statement. I wasn't saying anything of the kind. |
|
