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 15th August 2019, 12:01 AM   #321
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,802
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
That's not arbitrary - how many more times ...???
For most people that believe that abortion should be allowed there is a point in the development of a baby after which they will say "abortion is no longer allowed". And people try to come up with all sorts of criteria of why their opinion on where the line should be drawn is rational /objective/measurable/ethical and so on. They are fooling themselves that such a line exists, all such lines are arbitrary in the meaning of there is no way to determine that that line is the right/correct/ethical decision. Therefore policing abortion, the legislation required and the checks and so on becomes very messy and we end up with the usual way we deal with these issues I. E. you can abort "23 weeks minus 1 day" but not "23 weeks plus 1 day". In the case of abortion this is even less objective than we usually have because we might have no actual way of determining is it 23 weeks or 23 weeks minus a day.

All I am saying is that there is a line that can be objectively determined for every single baby there has ever been and ever will be and therefore can be straightforwardly policed , defined in legislation and so on.

What you don't understand about that is now beyond my understanding.
__________________
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 15th August 2019, 12:37 AM   #322
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
For most people that believe that abortion should be allowed there is a point in the development of a baby after which they will say "abortion is no longer allowed". And people try to come up with all sorts of criteria of why their opinion on where the line should be drawn is rational /objective/measurable/ethical and so on. They are fooling themselves that such a line exists, all such lines are arbitrary in the meaning of there is no way to determine that that line is the right/correct/ethical decision. Therefore policing abortion, the legislation required and the checks and so on becomes very messy and we end up with the usual way we deal with these issues I. E. you can abort "23 weeks minus 1 day" but not "23 weeks plus 1 day". In the case of abortion this is even less objective than we usually have because we might have no actual way of determining is it 23 weeks or 23 weeks minus a day.

All I am saying is that there is a line that can be objectively determined for every single baby there has ever been and ever will be and therefore can be straightforwardly policed , defined in legislation and so on.

What you don't understand about that is now beyond my understanding.
You're saying something different now, which makes more sense (or maybe you're just saying what you said before, but more clearly).

To verify: you're saying that, regardless of where one draws the line, it is arbitrary in the sense that no one position of the line is any better than another position. Whilst I disagree with that notion, that's different from saying that a line drawn by reference to factors that can be determined objectively can also be said to be drawn arbitrarily.

Your 'abortion line' might well be an arbitrary line (in your opinion - not in mine), but is wasn't decided upon arbitrarily (you rationalised its position - by reference to the time of birth).

So, now that we've outstayed that interesting sojourn, are we to focus on the arbitrariness of your reasoning?

Well, as I wrote earlier, whilst birth undoubtedly constitutes a significant event in the reproduction process (as a minimum emotionally and practically), I see little justification in it forming the demarcation between the right to abort or not. It might be absolutely objective, and even convenient (for some), but a '0th' birthday is really no different from a 1st birthday, or any other birthday for that matter. Is it reasonable to confer the right to 'abort' based simply on reasons of practicality and convenience? I don't think so.

The problem is your arbitrary line presupposes aborting a 'birth', like an airline pilot aborting a landing. What we're talking about here is aborting the development of a human being. To continue the analogy - aborting the holiday completely. Problem is, the holiday has already begun. All we can do is return home as though nothing had ever happened. That's fine unless we've passed to point of no return (insufficient fuel to turn back). The question is: what's the point of no return? I don't know, but it's certainly not the point just before landing at the original destination - it's clearly way before then!
__________________
"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 15th August 2019, 02:48 AM   #323
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,802
Didn't say anything different.

That aside, I've given why I think the birth is the point at which the baby gains the "right to life" (not sure if that is a USA human right but it is in my country) and all the other human rights we decide to give ourselves.

Indeed I'd say we already tacitly do that. For instance we know there are many things a woman can do during pregnancy that can harm the baby that we would not allow the woman to do once the baby is born. For instance we don't stop women drinking alcohol during a pregnancy however we would stop a woman giving her baby an alcoholic drink the day after it was born.
__________________
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 15th August 2019, 03:30 AM   #324
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Didn't say anything different.
Let's just say that you said it differently then.

Originally Posted by Darat View Post
That aside, I've given why I think the birth is the point at which the baby gains the "right to life" (not sure if that is a USA human right but it is in my country) and all the other human rights we decide to give ourselves.
So what, exactly, does that 'right to life' entail? Sounds to me as though it really means 'right to live', given that its 'life' (as in attaining life) is patently already fulfilled. In other words the right to live one's life, i.e. not be unlawfully killed. That's very different from a right to attain life, which gives rise to the abortion conundrum.

Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Indeed I'd say we already tacitly do that. For instance we know there are many things a woman can do during pregnancy that can harm the baby that we would not allow the woman to do once the baby is born. For instance we don't stop women drinking alcohol during a pregnancy however we would stop a woman giving her baby an alcoholic drink the day after it was born.
Yeah this seems to confirm my 'right to live' interpretation. But I'm not sure your example is a good one. Legislation governing a woman's right to drink alcohol during pregnancy is prone to different considerations from those applicable to plying a baby or child with alcohol, some of which are patently obvious.
__________________
"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 15th August 2019, 03:51 AM   #325
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,802
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
Let's just say that you said it differently then.





So what, exactly, does that 'right to life' entail? Sounds to me as though it really means 'right to live', given that its 'life' (as in attaining life) is patently already fulfilled. In other words the right to live one's life, i.e. not be unlawfully killed. That's very different from a right to attain life, which gives rise to the abortion conundrum.





Yeah this seems to confirm my 'right to live' interpretation. But I'm not sure your example is a good one. Legislation governing a woman's right to drink alcohol during pregnancy is prone to different considerations from those applicable to plying a baby or child with alcohol, some of which are patently obvious.
Article 2 of the ECHR https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arti...ts?wprov=sfla1
__________________
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 15th August 2019, 04:07 AM   #326
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Yep - seems I'm pretty much correct
__________________
"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 15th August 2019, 07:30 AM   #327
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,691
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Given that the DNA of a zygote is different to that of all the other cells in your body,
No.

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
your argument is specious.


Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
If a woman wishes to terminate her pregnancy then I guess that it is usually best to allow her to do so but don't provide her with silly rationalizations for it.
Silly rationalisations like the risk to her health, or her right to bodily integrity.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 15th August 2019, 07:32 AM   #328
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,691
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Bwahahahahaha!

No. You're the one who won't discuss the actual argument about age discrimination.


You. Obviously.
What a masterpiece of rational discourse.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 15th August 2019, 07:33 AM   #329
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,691
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Yes, your argument was eye-poppingly silly.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 15th August 2019, 07:34 AM   #330
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,691
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Who else is having that trouble?

Not really. The question is whether men have a right to deny women the right to an abortion, not if the unborn child is human or not. (But I can't resist when a specious argument is presented).
No. You made a claim
Quote:
Given that the DNA of a zygote is different to that of all the other cells in your body, your argument is specious.
regarding abbadon's argument and are now trying to avoid justifying it.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 15th August 2019, 09:16 AM   #331
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 14,692
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
No.
So we can't identify humans from their DNA anymore?

Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
Silly rationalisations like the risk to her health, or her right to bodily integrity.
Look at those goal posts go!
__________________
"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 online now   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 12:40 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.