ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags abortion issues , adoption issues , sexism issues

Reply
Old 12th August 2019, 07:49 AM   #241
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,892
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Because it is unwanted and we allow people to abort unwanted babies.
I guess that's part of what's being debated, though.

A common argument for abortions of convenience is that the thing is not actually a baby yet.

Here's an example of that argument being deployed:
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
It's called a fetus, not an "unborn child". That's just emotional Christian ********.
The way I see it, you could argue in favor of exterminating unwanted people. But that's a fairly difficult argument to make. It's a lot easier to arbitrarily declare that some things aren't people yet, and therefore the entire argument is moot (and you hate women if you even think about it).

For me it's not even a religious problem, nor even a problem of women's rights. At this point, my entire objection is skeptical: Abortion policy is being argued in favor of an arbitrary line that exists purely to allow abortions of convenience without having to engage in any of the tough moral thinking that should go with it.

There is, morally, no objective difference between abortions of convenience and infanticides of convenience. Just arbitrary semantics and regional customs.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 08:03 AM   #242
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 14,695
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I guess that's part of what's being debated, though.

A common argument for abortions of convenience is that the thing is not actually a baby yet.

Here's an example of that argument being deployed:


The way I see it, you could argue in favor of exterminating unwanted people. But that's a fairly difficult argument to make. It's a lot easier to arbitrarily declare that some things aren't people yet, and therefore the entire argument is moot (and you hate women if you even think about it).

For me it's not even a religious problem, nor even a problem of women's rights. At this point, my entire objection is skeptical: Abortion policy is being argued in favor of an arbitrary line that exists purely to allow abortions of convenience without having to engage in any of the tough moral thinking that should go with it.

There is, morally, no objective difference between abortions of convenience and infanticides of convenience. Just arbitrary semantics and regional customs.
Perhaps it is more a question of the degree of humanness. Rather than suddenly becoming human (deserving of human rights) at some point during pregnancy, the developing child starts off as almost not human at all and gradually becomes more human as the pregnancy progresses until it is almost completely human when birth becomes due.

That would make it more difficult to define a hands off date though. Probably the person most suited to deciding whether the unborn child is not sufficiently human and can still be killed would be the pregnant woman herself.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 08:26 AM   #243
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,892
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Perhaps it is more a question of the degree of humanness. Rather than suddenly becoming human (deserving of human rights) at some point during pregnancy, the developing child starts off as almost not human at all and gradually becomes more human as the pregnancy progresses until it is almost completely human when birth becomes due.
Sometimes it seems to me that most people don't become almost completely human until their late teens or so.

Quote:
That would make it more difficult to define a hands off date though. Probably the person most suited to deciding whether the unborn child is not sufficiently human and can still be killed would be the pregnant woman herself.
I don't know about "probably". I feel like there's probably something not to like about giving the person with the most vested interest in declaring someone "not sufficiently human" the most standing to so declare.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 11:37 AM   #244
applecorped
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,621
it
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 11:50 AM   #245
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 18,476
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I don't know about "probably". I feel like there's probably something not to like about giving the person with the most vested interest in declaring someone "not sufficiently human" the most standing to so declare.
You seem to be weaving your way around to a destination of telling women what to think and do.
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 12:10 PM   #246
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,892
Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
You seem to be weaving your way around to a destination of telling women what to think and do.
Turns out it's a place I never really left.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm applying my principles without regard for gender.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 12:25 PM   #247
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 18,476
I think you specifically find “something not to like” about the woman carrying the pregnancy having the most agency to make the decision.


*wince*
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 01:35 PM   #248
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,892
Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
I think you specifically find “something not to like” about the woman carrying the pregnancy having the most agency to make the decision.
What is the nature of your concern?

Do you think it's not possible to have a non-sexist position that the people who stand to gain the most from dehumanizing someone should probably not have the final say in that dehumanization?

Do you think it's possible to have such a non-sexist position, but that's not the position I've taken here?

Do you think it's possible to have such a position, and that I've taken such a position here, but my motives are secretly sexist anyway?

Do you think something else that I've failed to account for above?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 01:53 PM   #249
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 18,476
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Do you think it's not possible to have a non-sexist position that the people who stand to gain the most from dehumanizing someone should probably not have the final say in that dehumanization?
I don't think you can transform views about pregnancy and abortion into a sex-neutral consideration. You are not speaking of people you are speaking of women. (I suppose you could posit that if men got pregnant instead then you would be saying this about men; I guess that's why you consider this not sexist. I disagree)

Also "the people who have the most to gain" [from abortion] is a strangely bizarre comment to insert in my opinion. Or at least also recognise that these people (women) also have the most to lose. (So, they have the most agency).

Last edited by Francesca R; 12th August 2019 at 01:54 PM.
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 02:42 PM   #250
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,212
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
There are two people involved. Society does - and should! - mediate disputes between two people.

I have yet to see you even acknowledge this argument.
That's probably because you're begging the question.


Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
I don't think you can transform views about pregnancy and abortion into a sex-neutral consideration. You are not speaking of people you are speaking of women. (I suppose you could posit that if men got pregnant instead then you would be saying this about men; I guess that's why you consider this not sexist. I disagree)

Also "the people who have the most to gain" [from abortion] is a strangely bizarre comment to insert in my opinion. Or at least also recognise that these people (women) also have the most to lose. (So, they have the most agency).
Absolutely women have the most to lose, including their life especially if they carry to term.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 03:22 PM   #251
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,892
Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
I don't think you can transform views about pregnancy and abortion into a sex-neutral consideration. You are not speaking of people you are speaking of women. (I suppose you could posit that if men got pregnant instead then you would be saying this about men; I guess that's why you consider this not sexist. I disagree)

Also "the people who have the most to gain" [from abortion] is a strangely bizarre comment to insert in my opinion. Or at least also recognise that these people (women) also have the most to lose. (So, they have the most agency).
So? White male plantation owners in the Antebellum South had the most to gain, and the most to lose, on the question of dehumanizing their labor force. I think it would be perverse to the point of obscenity to grant them the predominant agency over the fate of African visitors to their fair country.

Is that a misandrist view, because we're necessarily talking about men in that context? Or is it just racist, if we acknowledge that there were occasionally white female plantation owners?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 03:29 PM   #252
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Not accepting what? That my arbitrary line is different to yours?
No - that yours is untenable, as I said.
__________________
"Always" and "never" are two words that you should always remember never to use.
"For successful technology reality must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." (Richard Feynman - Challenger Accident Presidential Commission Report)
"Life is but a gamble ... let flipism guide your ramble." (Donald Duck)
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 03:31 PM   #253
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
That's odd because I would have thought that what Darat suggests is precisely "up to a certain stage of development" which according to you should render it tenable and justifiable.
No it's fully developed - that's why it's ready to be born.
__________________
"Always" and "never" are two words that you should always remember never to use.
"For successful technology reality must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." (Richard Feynman - Challenger Accident Presidential Commission Report)
"Life is but a gamble ... let flipism guide your ramble." (Donald Duck)
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 03:33 PM   #254
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
And it's a line that is a lot more objective and easy to determine than the ones we set now.
How convenient!

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
The "the line" Dara set is right at the point the baby is no longer part of the mothers body which is a key point.
You're not wrong there!
__________________
"Always" and "never" are two words that you should always remember never to use.
"For successful technology reality must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." (Richard Feynman - Challenger Accident Presidential Commission Report)
"Life is but a gamble ... let flipism guide your ramble." (Donald Duck)
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 03:35 PM   #255
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,892
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
That's probably because you're begging the question.
Sure.

On the other hand, PW is also begging the question that there's not two people involved. Either that, or he's preparing an argument that even though there's two people involved, society should give one of them absolute authority over the life and death of the other.

The entire question hinges not on a matter of human rights, but on an entirely arbitrary rule about what it means to be human. So I'm not going to let PW steal a base and try to win the argument by simply begging the actual question. Or if he gets to steal a base, then so do I.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 03:39 PM   #256
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Probably the person most suited to deciding whether the unborn child is not sufficiently human and can still be killed would be the pregnant woman herself.
Perhaps we could take that argument beyond birth then - you know, in case the mother decides motherhood is simply not for her, or if the baby's the 'wrong' sex, or just plain ugly?!?
__________________
"Always" and "never" are two words that you should always remember never to use.
"For successful technology reality must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." (Richard Feynman - Challenger Accident Presidential Commission Report)
"Life is but a gamble ... let flipism guide your ramble." (Donald Duck)
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 04:50 PM   #257
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 14,695
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
Perhaps we could take that argument beyond birth then - you know, in case the mother decides motherhood is simply not for her, or if the baby's the 'wrong' sex, or just plain ugly?!?
Only if you want to argue that the child is not completely human after birth. (Yes, I know, what about the day before birth? Yadda yadda).
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 05:43 PM   #258
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Only if you want to argue that the child is not completely human after birth. (Yes, I know, what about the day before birth? Yadda yadda).
OK I can accept why birth can be considered by some as an appropriate time to deem an entity a human being. I still struggle to see the significance of the location of the baby (in or out) and detachment from the mother in the context of whether it should be allowed to continue to live.
__________________
"Always" and "never" are two words that you should always remember never to use.
"For successful technology reality must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." (Richard Feynman - Challenger Accident Presidential Commission Report)
"Life is but a gamble ... let flipism guide your ramble." (Donald Duck)
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 07:04 PM   #259
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 14,695
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
OK I can accept why birth can be considered by some as an appropriate time to deem an entity a human being. I still struggle to see the significance of the location of the baby (in or out) and detachment from the mother in the context of whether it should be allowed to continue to live.
That's because you ignored the first part of the post that you quoted which argued that there is no magical point where a child (born or not) suddenly becomes human.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 07:19 PM   #260
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
That's because you ignored the first part of the post that you quoted which argued that there is no magical point where a child (born or not) suddenly becomes human.
No I didn't, and you're wrong in any event.

Darat stated that for him/her everything changes when the baby is born. I'm challenging the relevance of that event, although I accept that when a baby is born it can be argued that then, and only then, does it constitute a human being (as distinct from being human).
__________________
"Always" and "never" are two words that you should always remember never to use.
"For successful technology reality must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." (Richard Feynman - Challenger Accident Presidential Commission Report)
"Life is but a gamble ... let flipism guide your ramble." (Donald Duck)
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 07:26 PM   #261
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 14,695
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
No I didn't, and you're wrong in any event.
So what is the magical point then?

Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
Darat stated . . . . .
Er, my handle is . . . .
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 07:54 PM   #262
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,982
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
Darat stated that for him/her everything changes when the baby is born. I'm challenging the relevance of that event, although I accept that when a baby is born it can be argued that then, and only then, does it constitute a human being (as distinct from being human).
The birth makes it a human being you don't think birth is relevant? WTF?

And, it's a minor point compared to what you just said, but why does birth make it a human being?
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 12th August 2019 at 07:55 PM.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 09:34 PM   #263
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 18,476
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
So?
I merely refer you to my prior post.

"theprestige has the most to gain and lose from a decision about whether theprestige be allowed to reply any further on this topic. It is perverse to the point of obscenity to suggest therefore that theprestige be the one to decide whether or not theprestige is permitted to participate in this discussion any more after this point. There would be something not to like about that"

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Arguments by analogy always fail. If you can't argue the thing in its own terms, you can't argue it at all.
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 11:53 PM   #264
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
The birth makes it a human being you don't think birth is relevant? WTF?
'Human being' is just a term that we use. I've used it to differentiate between the human entity in the born and unborn state. IMHO being 'human' is the important distinction, and I wouldn't like to even suggest when that status is achieved in embryonic development, or thereafter.

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
And, it's a minor point compared to what you just said, but why does birth make it a human being?
See above. There seems to be a distinction between the terms 'human' and 'human being'. As with many inanimate things, until they are 'born' they only exist as a work in progress, or a collection of parts incapable of full function. One cannot really call a car a car (in its original guise) if the wheels remain to be attached in the factory. It wouldn't function very well as a car - in fact not at all!
__________________
"Always" and "never" are two words that you should always remember never to use.
"For successful technology reality must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." (Richard Feynman - Challenger Accident Presidential Commission Report)
"Life is but a gamble ... let flipism guide your ramble." (Donald Duck)
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 03:36 AM   #265
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,810
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What is the nature of your concern?

Do you think it's not possible to have a non-sexist position that the people who stand to gain the most from dehumanizing someone should probably not have the final say in that dehumanization?

Do you think it's possible to have such a non-sexist position, but that's not the position I've taken here?

Do you think it's possible to have such a position, and that I've taken such a position here, but my motives are secretly sexist anyway?

Do you think something else that I've failed to account for above?
Who is dehumanizing anyone in regards to abortions?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 03:37 AM   #266
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,810
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
No - that yours is untenable, as I said.
In what way? Seems a very clear and quite objective arbitrary line to me.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 03:39 AM   #267
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,810
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Perhaps it is more a question of the degree of humanness. Rather than suddenly becoming human (deserving of human rights) at some point during pregnancy, the developing child starts off as almost not human at all and gradually becomes more human as the pregnancy progresses until it is almost completely human when birth becomes due.



That would make it more difficult to define a hands off date though. Probably the person most suited to deciding whether the unborn child is not sufficiently human and can still be killed would be the pregnant woman herself.
Why not just accept its human from the moment of conception? Seems much more sensible to me.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 03:40 AM   #268
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,810
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
Perhaps we could take that argument beyond birth then - you know, in case the mother decides motherhood is simply not for her, or if the baby's the 'wrong' sex, or just plain ugly?!?
Could do that or as I think is more sensible and straight forward and just say human rights start from the moment of birth.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 03:44 AM   #269
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,810
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
'Human being' is just a term that we use. I've used it to differentiate between the human entity in the born and unborn state. IMHO being 'human' is the important distinction, and I wouldn't like to even suggest when that status is achieved in embryonic development, or thereafter.





See above. There seems to be a distinction between the terms 'human' and 'human being'. As with many inanimate things, until they are 'born' they only exist as a work in progress, or a collection of parts incapable of full function. One cannot really call a car a car (in its original guise) if the wheels remain to be attached in the factory. It wouldn't function very well as a car - in fact not at all!
At some point we say human rights apply. And indeed I would say we already do actually tend to use birth as one of the stages at which we recognise someone has human rights.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 11:12 AM   #270
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 14,695
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Why not just accept its human from the moment of conception? Seems much more sensible to me.
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Could do that or as I think is more sensible and straight forward and just say human rights start from the moment of birth.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 11:39 AM   #271
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,892
Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
I merely refer you to my prior post.

"theprestige has the most to gain and lose from a decision about whether theprestige be allowed to reply any further on this topic. It is perverse to the point of obscenity to suggest therefore that theprestige be the one to decide whether or not theprestige is permitted to participate in this discussion any more after this point. There would be something not to like about that"
The forum question is already decided. The owner has clear and well-established rights and privileges. Furthermore, none of those entail having authority over whether I am human, and whether I live or die.

In the case of fetal humanity, these questions are still being debated. I think question of human life should not be unilaterally decided by the one person who has the most to gain.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 11:58 AM   #272
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
 
The Greater Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posts: 3,922
Deleted. I think I missed sarcasm or absurdism.
__________________
- "Who is the greater fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the fool?" [Various; Uknown]
- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']
The Greater Fool is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 12:17 PM   #273
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,982
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
What in the world is that supposed to mean? Darat's statements make perfect sense. Did you misread them?
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 01:33 PM   #274
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 14,695
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
What in the world is that supposed to mean? Darat's statements make perfect sense. Did you misread them?
Not if you look at what he responded to.
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Rather than suddenly becoming human (deserving of human rights) at some point during pregnancy . . . . .
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 13th August 2019 at 01:36 PM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 01:36 PM   #275
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
 
Silly Green Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,705
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The forum question is already decided. The owner has clear and well-established rights and privileges. Furthermore, none of those entail having authority over whether I am human, and whether I live or die.

In the case of fetal humanity, these questions are still being debated. I think question of human life should not be unilaterally decided by the one person who has the most to gain.
What about the person who has the most to lose? Certainly we can agree that people who have little to lose or gain have no part in the decision.
__________________
Normal is just a stereotype.
Silly Green Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 01:40 PM   #276
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,982
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Not if you look at what he responded to.
He wasn't responding to that for one of those quotes. And the post of yours he was responding to was nonsense.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 04:05 PM   #277
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,810
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
What's got you confused with what I posted?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 04:06 PM   #278
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,892
Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey View Post
What about the person who has the most to lose? Certainly we can agree that people who have little to lose or gain have no part in the decision.
The person who has the most to lose is going to be the baby, depending on how the antecedent question is resolved.

And no, we can't agree on the other thing. Appeal to a disinterested third party is a well recognized solution to the problem of disputes between vested interests.

Look at how we treat children after birth. We give parents a lot of authority, but not absolute authority. Parents still have to answer to the rest of us, about how they treat their children, even though we have little or nothing at stake in the outcome.

Even in scenarios where we grant life and death authority to an individual as a necessary expedient, such as for self defense, that's still a decision we've made collectively. And we still expect that individual to be able to justify their use of that's authority. We still sanction misuse of that authority.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 04:27 PM   #279
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
In what way? Seems a very clear and quite objective arbitrary line to me.
There's the problem right there, and probably the best oxymoron I've see for some time!
__________________
"Always" and "never" are two words that you should always remember never to use.
"For successful technology reality must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." (Richard Feynman - Challenger Accident Presidential Commission Report)
"Life is but a gamble ... let flipism guide your ramble." (Donald Duck)
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 04:33 PM   #280
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Could do that or as I think is more sensible and straight forward and just say human rights start from the moment of birth.
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
At some point we say human rights apply. And indeed I would say we already do actually tend to use birth as one of the stages at which we recognise someone has human rights.
For the avoidance of possible doubt I'm staunch pro-abortion, including for convenience, but surely human rights conferring upon conception rather than birth is the most 'sensible', albeit certainly not straight forward. I don't think straightforwardness should trump ethical and moral challenge and dilemma - that's just dodging the issue.
__________________
"Always" and "never" are two words that you should always remember never to use.
"For successful technology reality must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." (Richard Feynman - Challenger Accident Presidential Commission Report)
"Life is but a gamble ... let flipism guide your ramble." (Donald Duck)
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:53 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.