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 13th August 2019, 04:45 PM   #281
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,983
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
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.
How can human rights attaching at conception make any sense at all? How can something that can't think anything or do anything other than cellular division exercise a right?
__________________
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, 05:31 PM   #282
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,562
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
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.
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The person who has the most to lose is going to be the baby, depending on how the antecedent question is resolved.
You consider that re: slavery laws, the person with the most to gain or lose is the slave owner, vs. the slave.

Yet when you consider abortion, you assign the baby as the person with the most to lose.

I know this is a side issue (to a side issue), but why don't you think that the person with the most to gain/lose under slavery laws is ... the slave?
Minoosh 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
Old 13th August 2019, 05:41 PM   #283
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,562
I think conception is too early and actual birth probably too late to draw the "personhood" line. Yet those are the points mentioned in the last page or so of this thread. Two biology-based options are quickening and viability, which, it is true, are also arbitrary, but they make the most sense to me. Quickening because apparently it served for centuries as a reasonable proxy for personhood. Viability, because I don't think it's going to be pushed back much further - I think it's going to be fairly firmly lodged at the present state.

In the case of near-viability terminations of pregnancy: From a public policy standpoint, perhaps the best thing to do in that case is pay a woman to carry her baby a few more weeks, vs. trying to save a very premature baby. It might rub some people the wrong way, but it might be cheaper and lead to better outcomes.

That's if the fetus is on track to become a healthy newborn and risk to the woman is low. In cases of severe health risk to the mother or likelihood of a short, painful life for a medically fragile fetus, leave it up to the woman and her medical provider.

None of this has anything to do with men's abortion rights, whatever those are.

I think civilization is or maybe should be past the point of punishing people for having sex that results in an unwanted fetus. If a healthy newborn-to-be has a good shot at a loving home with whoever then I don't mind offering incentives to facilitate this. Bringing unwanted and probably doomed infants into the world ... well, if someone is genuinely right-to-life I kind of respect that, but not with the judgmental overtones about who "should" bear responsibility etc.
Minoosh 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
Old 13th August 2019, 06:16 PM   #284
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
How can human rights attaching at conception make any sense at all? How can something that can't think anything or do anything other than cellular division exercise a right?
How does a one-day old baby exercise its rights?!?
__________________
"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, 06:50 PM   #285
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,983
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
How does a one-day old baby exercise its rights?!?
I have no idea. What is that supposed to mean? You said conception.
__________________
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, 06:51 PM   #286
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,892
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
You consider that re: slavery laws, the person with the most to gain or lose is the slave owner, vs. the slave.

Yet when you consider abortion, you assign the baby as the person with the most to lose.

I know this is a side issue (to a side issue), but why don't you think that the person with the most to gain/lose under slavery laws is ... the slave?
It's a little more nuanced than that. There are two questions.

First, the humanity of the baby/slave is in question. The mother/plantation owner gets to decide what the answer is. They have the most to gain or lose from the question, and therefore have a conflict of interest in deciding the question.

Second, obviously, if the baby/slave is human, then they stand to gain/lose the most from the next question - should they live or die - because there's a human life in the balance now.

Obviously the slave is going to insist that they're human, and it shouldn't be up to the slave owner to decide that they're not, just because it's convenient for him.

And presumably the baby would as well, except that it has even less power in this situation. It is generally considered a virtue of our society, that we try to ensure that even the powerless and voiceless have an advocate for their wellbeing.

Giving one person the privilege to decide that someone is not human, simply to realize some convenience for themselves, seems like a bad idea.

To be clear: If the baby isn't human, then it has nothing of significance to gain or lose from the question of whether it should die. The problem is deciding who gets to answer that first question.

In the case of the slave, we might say that the slave gets to answer that question. But actually we've already agreed that the slave is human. We've already agreed that the slave owner cannot unilaterally declare otherwise. We've already agreed that he does not in fact own the slave.

We've agreed to none of the relevant stipulations about the baby. Francesca and others want to avoid the question of human life and death entirely, by simply letting the mother decide if its human or not. I think that is a mistake. No one person should get to decide if another person is human. Especially if denying the other's personhood stands to benefit them in some way. We don't do that with slaves. We don't do that with soldiers. We don't do that with prisoners. I don't see why we should do it with babies.
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, 07:51 PM   #287
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31į57'S 115į57'E
Posts: 14,697
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
What's got you confused with what I posted?
You either said that human rights start at conception and human rights start at birth in two separate posts or you put up a strawman argument in which my post said nothing about "deserving of human rights".
__________________
"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
Old 13th August 2019, 07:58 PM   #288
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,983
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You either said that human rights start at conception and human rights start at birth in two separate posts or you put up a strawman argument in which my post said nothing about "deserving of human rights".

Or you misread what he said. Or, more likely I think, you're reading your own preconceptions in to his words. Go back to the post where you put his two sentences side by side and read them more closely.
__________________
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, 07:58 PM   #289
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
I have no idea. What is that supposed to mean? You said conception.
And you said birth. So I'm asking you - in what way is a new-born baby able to exercise its rights different from a fetus?
__________________
"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, 08:08 PM   #290
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,983
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
And you said birth.
WTF does that mean? I only used the word birth in one post in this thread. And it was questions about what you said about birth. Why the heck does that stop you from answering my question?
__________________
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, 08:25 PM   #291
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,794
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
WTF does that mean? I only used the word birth in one post in this thread. And it was questions about what you said about birth. Why the heck does that stop you from answering my question?
He did, in a way. A one day old baby is commonly considered to have the right to life. But it cannot do much of anything to exercise that right, except not spontaneously die. An embryo, if it has a right to life, need not do anything other than not spontaneously die to exercise its right to life either.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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, 08:38 PM   #292
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,983
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
He did, in a way. A one day old baby is commonly considered to have the right to life. But it cannot do much of anything to exercise that right, except not spontaneously die. An embryo, if it has a right to life, need not do anything other than not spontaneously die to exercise its right to life either.
OK. That's not much beyond trivially true though. Not sure he said that either.
__________________
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, 08:52 PM   #293
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
He did, in a way. A one day old baby is commonly considered to have the right to life. But it cannot do much of anything to exercise that right, except not spontaneously die. An embryo, if it has a right to life, need not do anything other than not spontaneously die to exercise its right to life either.
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
OK. That's not much beyond trivially true though. Not sure he said that either.
Thank you Ziggurat - nicely summarised.

But if all that is is 'trivially true', RecoveringYuppy, then similarly trivial is your rhetorical question above, to which I was responding:
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
How can human rights attaching at conception make any sense at all? How can something that can't think anything or do anything other than cellular division exercise a right?
__________________
"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, 08:57 PM   #294
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,983
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
Thank you Ziggurat - nicely summarised.

But if all that is is 'trivially true', RecoveringYuppy, then similarly trivial is your rhetorical question above, to which I was responding:
That doesn't answer my question or clarify.

Are you trying to tell me that rights are vacuous? That's the only take away I can think of from what you're saying.
__________________
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, 09:32 PM   #295
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
That doesn't answer my question or clarify.
Why - because I answered your question with a question? (Oops - there's another one!)

Seriously, you're going to have to clarify what question you believe I haven't answered yet - I thought I had.

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Are you trying to tell me that rights are vacuous? That's the only take away I can think of from what you're saying.
Not at all. My focus hasn't been on the rights per se, but on the relevance of the ability to exercise rights - a notion that you essentially introduced, and that I challenged.
__________________
"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, 09:52 PM   #296
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 8,328
Since the Abyssinian house cat shares 90 percent of its DNA with humans, shouldn't it have 90% voting rights?
And since we probably share even more genes with pigs, should I remove my pork chops from the freezer and give them a proper burial?
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann 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, 10:00 PM   #297
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by dann View Post
Since the Abyssinian house cat shares 90 percent of its DNA with humans, shouldn't it have 90% voting rights?
And since we probably share even more genes with pigs, should I remove my pork chops from the freezer and give them a proper burial?
In all seriousness, what your satirical contribution highlights is that we shouldn't place too much emphasis on DNA, or more broadly medical science, in this debate, or otherwise that, as a race, we are overly disingenuous towards other species, and should maybe bring them into the discussion!
__________________
"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)

Last edited by Southwind17; 13th August 2019 at 10:02 PM.
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, 11:19 PM   #298
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,810
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
There's the problem right there, and probably the best oxymoron I've see for some time!
There was no oxymoron in my statement.
__________________
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, 11:33 PM   #299
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,810
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
How can human rights attaching at conception make any sense at all? How can something that can't think anything or do anything other than cellular division exercise a right?
Rights are something we make up and only exists because our society agrees they exist. Problem with all the definitions people come up with that seek to say there is an objective clear none-arbitary line that makes a developing baby/fetus/zygote have human rights is that they are kidding themselves that there is some mysterious bright line/point where something become human, it's the "now human minus 1 day" v "now human plus 1 day". There is no such line, all such lines are what we use as a practical necessity so we can police abortion.
__________________
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, 11:36 PM   #300
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,810
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You either said that human rights start at conception and human rights start at birth in two separate posts or you put up a strawman argument in which my post said nothing about "deserving of human rights".
No I didn't, I said that we recognise conception as when a human being begins, and we recognise birth as when human rights begin.
__________________
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, 11:56 PM   #301
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
There was no oxymoron in my statement.
I consider that anything determined on the basis of arbitrarinessdict cannot also be said to have been determined objectivelydict. In fact, I consider the two to be essentially contradictory - hence an oxymoron.
__________________
"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 14th August 2019, 01:36 AM   #302
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,794
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Rights are something we make up and only exists because our society agrees they exist. Problem with all the definitions people come up with that seek to say there is an objective clear none-arbitary line that makes a developing baby/fetus/zygote have human rights is that they are kidding themselves that there is some mysterious bright line/point where something become human, it's the "now human minus 1 day" v "now human plus 1 day". There is no such line, all such lines are what we use as a practical necessity so we can police abortion.
If you donít police abortion, then youíre just policing infanticide (assuming you donít allow that). Saying the line is arbitrary isnít much of a strike against it, since the only way to not have an arbitrary line is to have no line at all. And good luck trying to argue for that position.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 14th August 2019, 01:41 AM   #303
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,794
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
There's the problem right there, and probably the best oxymoron I've see for some time!
I donít think it is. A line may be arbitrary in that where it is drawn was picked arbitrarily, but it may be simultaneously objective in the sense that, once the line is picked, which side of the line any particular thing is on may be determined objectively.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 14th August 2019, 01:47 AM   #304
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31į57'S 115į57'E
Posts: 14,697
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
No I didn't, I said that we recognise conception as when a human being begins, and we recognise birth as when human rights begin.
So strawman it is. You ignored "(deserving of human rights)" in my post to make a statement about something different entirely.
__________________
"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
Old 14th August 2019, 01:55 AM   #305
sphenisc
Illuminator
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,834
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
No I didn't, I said that we recognise conception as when a human being begins, and we recognise birth as when human rights begin.
In which case they're not human rights, they're birth rights.
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc 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
Old 14th August 2019, 03:58 AM   #306
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,810
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
I consider that anything determined on the basis of arbitrarinessdict cannot also be said to have been determined objectivelydict. In fact, I consider the two to be essentially contradictory - hence an oxymoron.
Of course it can. For example a tennis court has an arbitrarily decided size and we mark that with lines. We can objectively tell when a ball goes outside those arbitrarily decided lines. We do this all the time.
__________________
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 14th August 2019, 04:00 AM   #307
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,810
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If you donít police abortion, then youíre just policing infanticide (assuming you donít allow that). Saying the line is arbitrary isnít much of a strike against it, since the only way to not have an arbitrary line is to have no line at all. And good luck trying to argue for that position.
Which is way I think we should use a line that we can actually objectively measure rather than one we can't.
__________________
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 14th August 2019, 04:01 AM   #308
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,810
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
So strawman it is. You ignored "(deserving of human rights)" in my post to make a statement about something different entirely.
Nope.
__________________
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 14th August 2019, 04:04 AM   #309
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,810
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
In which case they're not human rights, they're birth rights.
What's the difference you are trying to illustrate?
__________________
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 14th August 2019, 04:18 AM   #310
sphenisc
Illuminator
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,834
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
What's the difference you are trying to illustrate?
That human rights are assigned to all beings that we regard as human, birth rights to those which have been born.
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc 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
Old 14th August 2019, 04:40 AM   #311
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,810
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
That human rights are assigned to all beings that we regard as human, birth rights to those which have been born.
Sorry but still can't see the point you are trying to illustrate. What difference does it make if we call them birth or 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 14th August 2019, 05:26 AM   #312
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I donít think it is. A line may be arbitrary in that where it is drawn was picked arbitrarily, but it may be simultaneously objective in the sense that, once the line is picked, which side of the line any particular thing is on may be determined objectively.
Well if that objectivity was a factor in drawing the line then it wasn't arbitrary. If it wasn't a factor, and just happens fortuitously to afford that objectivity, then so be it, but that's not Darat's position - on the contrary.
__________________
"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 14th August 2019, 05:50 AM   #313
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Of course it can. For example a tennis court has an arbitrarily decided size and we mark that with lines. We can objectively tell when a ball goes outside those arbitrarily decided lines. We do this all the time.
You're conflating two entirely different things there - the arbitrary determination of the court line positions and the objective rules of the game.

The objective rule governing when a ball is deemed to have landed out of play pays no regard to arbitrary determination of where the lines are, but only where the ball lands in relation to the lines. The lines could have been determined arbitrarily in any position, but the objective rule would be the same. Flipping this around, the arbitrary determination of the position of the lines pays no regard to the objective rule governing when a ball is deemed to have landed out.

In contrast, you've drawn your abortion line with regard to the 'rules' - is the baby in or out! That's not an arbitrary determination.

Do you see the difference now?
__________________
"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)

Last edited by Southwind17; 14th August 2019 at 05:54 AM.
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 14th August 2019, 06:03 AM   #314
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Which is way I think we should use a line that we can actually objectively measure rather than one we can't.
"Objectively measure" meaning what, exactly? I think you mean a line that determines a status - born and un-born. I'm sorry, but that's not an arbitrary line. And neither, or course, is the line that determines the status as between pregnant and not pregnant, i.e. conception, but arguably all lines in between are arbitrary. They're all of the potential lines, however, that you seek to avoid.
__________________
"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 14th August 2019, 06:05 AM   #315
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Sorry but still can't see the point you are trying to illustrate. What difference does it make if we call them birth or human rights?
It's not what we call them that matters - it's when they're conferred.
__________________
"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 14th August 2019, 11:59 AM   #316
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,810
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
Well if that objectivity was a factor in drawing the line then it wasn't arbitrary. If it wasn't a factor, and just happens fortuitously to afford that objectivity, then so be it, but that's not Darat's position - on the contrary.
Absolutely wrong. My position is that if you support abortion, you are going to have to set an arbitrary line. An example already suggested to be used in this thread is "quickening" as the point after it starts that you can no longer abort the baby, yet quickening can't be objectively defined, for some combinations of woman and baby it can start weeks before it does for another. My arbitrary line has the advantage that there is an objective test that would work I. E. Has the baby been born, if so you can't abort.
__________________
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 14th August 2019, 12:01 PM   #317
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,810
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
You're conflating two entirely different things there - the arbitrary determination of the court line positions and the objective rules of the game.

The objective rule governing when a ball is deemed to have landed out of play pays no regard to arbitrary determination of where the lines are, but only where the ball lands in relation to the lines. The lines could have been determined arbitrarily in any position, but the objective rule would be the same. Flipping this around, the arbitrary determination of the position of the lines pays no regard to the objective rule governing when a ball is deemed to have landed out.

In contrast, you've drawn your abortion line with regard to the 'rules' - is the baby in or out! That's not an arbitrary determination.

Do you see the difference now?
I've maintained all along that I've chosen a line that we can objectively determine has been passed.
__________________
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 14th August 2019, 12:01 PM   #318
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,810
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
It's not what we call them that matters - it's when they're conferred.
And?
__________________
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 14th August 2019, 04:22 PM   #319
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Absolutely wrong. My position is that if you support abortion, you are going to have to set an arbitrary line. An example already suggested to be used in this thread is "quickening" as the point after it starts that you can no longer abort the baby, yet quickening can't be objectively defined, for some combinations of woman and baby it can start weeks before it does for another. My arbitrary line has the advantage that there is an objective test that would work I. E. Has the baby been born, if so you can't abort.
That's not arbitrary - how many more times ...???
__________________
"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 14th August 2019, 04:31 PM   #320
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I've maintained all along that I've chosen a line that we can objectively determine has been passed.
No you haven't - you're trying to restate what you wrote now in different terms. To be exact you wrote this ...
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
In what way? Seems a very clear and quite objective arbitrary line to me.
It's the claimed arbitrariness that's out of place - not the objectivity. But this is just becoming a debate over language now. I understand your position, but your insistence that you're correct on ancillary matters needed checking.

I believe were done now.

Originally Posted by Darat View Post
And?
And what? I'm just trying to clarify matters. It's not for me to lead a debate on the conferring of rights to humans - I'll leave that to you, if that's what you're seeking.
__________________
"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 07:18 PM.
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.