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

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


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 , abortion laws

Reply
Old 16th May 2019, 11:59 AM   #321
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Again women should not have to wait over control over their own bodies while you dot every "i" and cross every "t" in your Philosophy 101 essay problem.
I have already addressed that point when you first raised it.
phiwum 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 16th May 2019, 12:00 PM   #322
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 13,491
We just need a reality show where the audience can vote for which fetuses (feti?) shoudl be saved and which can go.
__________________
Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together. - Eugene Ionesco
Hellbound 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 16th May 2019, 12:02 PM   #323
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
It makes no sense to imagine something that cannot happen.
An abortion is the decision of the pregnant women not to carry the child to term. Depending on viability, this might or might not require the termination of the pregnancy.
But the state simply has no right to force a person to risk their health.
The point of the fantastic hypothetical is to test whether one's stated principle really matches their moral intuitions. If the principle seems to produce strongly counterintuitive results in some hypothetical situations one should consider whether the principle really reflects his views or not.
phiwum 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 16th May 2019, 12:05 PM   #324
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
For me the question hinges not on viability but on burdening another being. An unwanted pregnancy is parasitical upon the hosting mother. She can terminate the pregnancy on the grounds of its negative impact upon her own body, not because she or anyone can decide whether it's sufficiently personlike or not. Were the fetus to leave her body on its own she wouldn't be allowed to then kill it, as the burden had been removed already.

Which again means technology will resolve this. As soon as unwanted fetuses at any stage of development can be beamed out via teleporters that's how unwanted pregnancies will be handled. Although hopefully by then we'll have infallible birth control so the situation won't arise much.
Judith Jarvis Thomson produced an argument along these lines, though her conclusion was a bit more nuanced. It's a good read, easily accessible, if you're interested.
phiwum 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 16th May 2019, 12:06 PM   #325
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,909
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
The point of the fantastic hypothetical is to test whether one's stated principle really matches their moral intuitions. If the principle seems to produce strongly counterintuitive results in some hypothetical situations one should consider whether the principle really reflects his views or not.
"Hi I'm a twelve year old raped by their father and now I'm pregnant."
"Okay what are your opinions on what happens when I fire Zeno's Arrow from the Ship of Theseus into Plato's Cave?"

This is just Bobbing with more words, an appeal to some arbitrary categorization we have to treat with absolute consistency above all else.

My only "moral intuition" is to do things that do the most real world good and it matches up with my "states principles" just fine.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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 16th May 2019, 01:03 PM   #326
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 49,059
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
A born child is still a burden on somebody, though. It may have left its mother's body, but the mother is still on the hook to support it for another decade at least.
Social burdens are not the same as physical burdens.

Quote:
Maybe I don't quite understand the policy you're arguing for here. It seems to me that if a post-partum mother has a moral burden to care for her child, that cannot be discharged by killing it, a pre-partum mother may in fact have the same burden.
It's just about sharing the body, for me. All the rest is a different situation.

Quote:
Unless the unwanted fetus is teleported to someone who's going to raise it and care for it, it's just a fancier form of abortion.
I'm presuming a society advanced enough to have teleporters would also have pretty good social services.

Quote:
As long as humans are involved, it won't be infallible.
Opt-in fertility (i.e., everyone's sterilized at birth and the procedure is temporarily reversed when people want to breed) would be as close to infallible as to make no difference.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 16th May 2019, 01:07 PM   #327
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,846
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
...and yet the vast majority of people elected support the views of those so-called religious fanatics. Gerrymandering would only be a factor if the parties had differing policies in the state w.r.t. abortion.
You are ignoring the problem: the word, 'vast'.

A small majority supports making abortion illegal, not a vast majority. And the larger the population polled, i.e. the country instead of the states passing these laws, the majority supports pro-choice laws.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger 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 16th May 2019, 01:10 PM   #328
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
"Hi I'm a twelve year old raped by their father and now I'm pregnant."
"Okay what are your opinions on what happens when I fire Zeno's Arrow from the Ship of Theseus into Plato's Cave?"

This is just Bobbing with more words, an appeal to some arbitrary categorization we have to treat with absolute consistency above all else.

My only "moral intuition" is to do things that do the most real world good and it matches up with my "states principles" just fine.
This approach of your utterly fails to settle disputes. A pro-lifer could just as well say, "I have convictions that abortion is murder and we can't wait for a perfect argument while thousands of fetuses are killed." Indeed, this may well be the view of the majority of folk in Alabama. Nothing you've said gives your personal view any priority over theirs.

If abortion is murder, then the most real world good is to end the practice. If it isn't, then the most real world good is done by ensuring it is safe and legal. Your disregard for addressing any actual arguments or applying clear reasoning is nothing more than an insistence that of course your opinion is correct and important and why the heck would anyone disagree?

Sorry, Joe, but I don't regard this as a particularly reasonable approach. I tend to think that, if morality matters at all (and I reckon everyone up in arms about the horror of the new Alabama bill thinks it does), then careful thought is preferable to a rejection of principles. Careful thought hasn't settled the issue, not by any means, but it beats eenie, meenie, miney mo.
phiwum 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 16th May 2019, 01:11 PM   #329
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 24,710
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
What is the argument in favor of that point? Does it have unfortunate consequences for conscious humans requiring life support? What does "surviving outside the womb" mean? No extraordinary medical intervention (like life support) or something else?

None of these questions should be taken as a rejection of that being the right point, but we need some good argument why it's right.
There will never be a good argument that leads to 'right'. 'Right' is an unattainable ideal. There will always be a pragmatic compromise or an absolute ban.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 16th May 2019, 01:13 PM   #330
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,846
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
....

So, while I don't agree with the pro-life position, I understand it fairly well and don't think it's a stupid position to take nor that pro-lifers are motivated by misogynism. (I'm sure some are, but some people are just bad people.)
If this were true, why do these people want to make abortion illegal when legal, safe and rare is a goal which will actually decrease abortions, while the evidence is that making abortion illegal only makes it less safe?

Same with defunding Planned Parenthood, how does that decrease the number of abortions?

The first goal of making abortion illegal isn't to prevent abortion. It's some kind of perverse satisfaction labeling people as criminals.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 16th May 2019 at 01:16 PM.
Skeptic Ginger 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 16th May 2019, 01:21 PM   #331
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,793
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
If this were true, why do these people want to make abortion illegal when legal, safe and rare is a goal which will actually decrease abortions, while the evidence is that making abortion illegal only makes it less safe?

Same with defunding Planned Parenthood, how does that decrease the number of abortions?

The first goal of making abortion illegal isn't to prevent abortion. It's some kind of perverse satisfaction labeling people as criminals.
It is a deontological ethical position.
BobTheCoward 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 16th May 2019, 01:21 PM   #332
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,846
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
This is obviously a question that everyone with an opinion on abortion must answer, not just the pro-life camp. Why, indeed, is the living thing before viability or birth or the second trimester or whatever okay to kill but the living thing after that not okay?...
Why is it OK to force a woman to get an illegal, less safe abortion but it's not OK to fund pregnancy prevention?

Effective Planned Parenthood and ineffective abstinence only campaigns come to mind.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger 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 16th May 2019, 01:25 PM   #333
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,203
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
"Hi I'm a twelve year old raped by their father and now I'm pregnant."
"Okay what are your opinions on what happens when I fire Zeno's Arrow from the Ship of Theseus into Plato's Cave?"

This is just Bobbing with more words, an appeal to some arbitrary categorization we have to treat with absolute consistency above all else.

My only "moral intuition" is to do things that do the most real world good and it matches up with my "states principles" just fine.
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
This approach of your utterly fails to settle disputes. A pro-lifer could just as well say, "I have convictions that abortion is murder and we can't wait for a perfect argument while thousands of fetuses are killed." Indeed, this may well be the view of the majority of folk in Alabama. Nothing you've said gives your personal view any priority over theirs.
I'd say the problem is even more extensive than that. Even if you don't accept the abortion is murder approach, it's still not cut and dry.

Joe's hypothetical strikes a little close to home, because that is what happened to a relative of mine. She was raped by her father, and became pregnant. And her father took her to get an abortion. The abortion didn't save her from anything. It enabled the father to conceal what he did, and to keep doing it. He got away with raping her for years, and many years later she committed suicide. I don't know for sure that things would be any better if she had carried the baby to term, but I also don't know that they would have been any worse.
__________________
"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 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 16th May 2019, 01:26 PM   #334
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,203
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Why is it OK to force a woman to get an illegal, less safe abortion
Who is forcing women to get illegal abortions? Are gangs running around, kidnapping pregnant women, and performing abortions on them against their will?
__________________
"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 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 16th May 2019, 01:27 PM   #335
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
If this were true, why do these people want to make abortion illegal when legal, safe and rare is a goal which will actually decrease abortions, while the evidence is that making abortion illegal only makes it less safe?
Because if you think that abortion is murder, you don't think that the appropriate response is to make it state-sanctioned and safe murder, even if it decreases the number of abortions.

Quote:

Same with defunding Planned Parenthood, how does that decrease the number of abortions?
Defunding Planned Parenthood is a matter of not wanting taxpayers to fund abortions. If I thought it was murder, then I too would think it's beyond the pale that I'm forced to fund it.

Note: I am strongly against the defunding of Planned Parenthood. I'm just saying that I can understand why pro-lifers favor it. Even if the taxpayer money doesn't go directly to abortion services, the fact that they receive it frees up other money for those services.

Quote:
The first goal of making abortion illegal isn't to prevent abortion. It's some kind of perverse satisfaction labeling people as criminals.
Sure, because them folk are just plain evil.
phiwum 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 16th May 2019, 01:28 PM   #336
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,604
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
This approach of your utterly fails to settle disputes. A pro-lifer could just as well say, "I have convictions that abortion is murder and we can't wait for a perfect argument while thousands of fetuses are killed." Indeed, this may well be the view of the majority of folk in Alabama. Nothing you've said gives your personal view any priority over theirs.
All of this is why the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was about an individual's rights. There is no conflict once you've accepted that a person has the right to choose what happens in their body. In other words, all of your philosophical handwringing is irrelevant because it should be none of your ******* business.
Babbylonian 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 16th May 2019, 01:29 PM   #337
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,909
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
This approach of your utterly fails to settle disputes. A pro-lifer could just as well say, "I have convictions that abortion is murder and we can't wait for a perfect argument while thousands of fetuses are killed." Indeed, this may well be the view of the majority of folk in Alabama. Nothing you've said gives your personal view any priority over theirs.

If abortion is murder, then the most real world good is to end the practice. If it isn't, then the most real world good is done by ensuring it is safe and legal. Your disregard for addressing any actual arguments or applying clear reasoning is nothing more than an insistence that of course your opinion is correct and important and why the heck would anyone disagree?

Sorry, Joe, but I don't regard this as a particularly reasonable approach. I tend to think that, if morality matters at all (and I reckon everyone up in arms about the horror of the new Alabama bill thinks it does), then careful thought is preferable to a rejection of principles. Careful thought hasn't settled the issue, not by any means, but it beats eenie, meenie, miney mo.
And this is why navel gazing is useless, it always leads back to a limp dishrag "Oh well we can't say for sure...." And I find apologetics as much or more distasteful then then the things they are apologizing for.

Neither I, the 12 year old rape victim, or the law does or should give a Hersey Squirt about your moral conundrum.

I can say "Hey here's a radical idea, a raped 12 year old shouldn't be forced to carry her rapist's child to term" without showy moral hairsplitting. You apparently cannot. I think my logic and my morals are coming out on top on this one.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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 16th May 2019, 01:30 PM   #338
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Why is it OK to force a woman to get an illegal, less safe abortion but it's not OK to fund pregnancy prevention?

Effective Planned Parenthood and ineffective abstinence only campaigns come to mind.
I think that effective pregnancy prevention would be a bipartisan issue if not for the fact that the biggest provider also provides abortion services.

Look, please understand that I'm not supporting the pro-life position. I'm just arguing that I don't think that the claim abortion is wrong is obviously stupid and when you try to see it from the perspective that abortion is like murder, you can understand their actions without attributing them to malice, misogyny and evil.

And, if they would take the time to see that the pro-choice side is not obviously stupid, they would not regard their opponents as evil baby-killers.
phiwum 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 16th May 2019, 01:31 PM   #339
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,909
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Who is forcing women to get illegal abortions? Are gangs running around, kidnapping pregnant women, and performing abortions on them against their will?
By not allowing women access to legal abortion, (g) you are pretty much forcing that on them as the only option.

Again unless "Hey 12 year old just carry your daddy-rapists child to term" is a viable (no pun intended) option you can't ban abortions, only the legal and safe ones.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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 16th May 2019, 01:34 PM   #340
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
All of this is why the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was about an individual's rights. There is no conflict once you've accepted that a person has the right to choose what happens in their body. In other words, all of your philosophical handwringing is irrelevant because it should be none of your ******* business.
I never thought that the right to privacy argument was very persuasive. If the fundamental question is whether or not a fetus has a right to life, how the heck is privacy concerns of the woman all that relevant?

A genuine question: Is euthanasia of those in a permanent vegetative state legal in every state? If so, was this because of laws passed or because of family members' right to privacy to decide what to do with their loved ones?


Let me take this line of reasoning back. I still don't like the argument in Roe v. Wade, but I have been dragged off the point I originally attempted to make here. That point is merely that the right-to-life argument isn't obviously stupid and that if you look at things from the perspective that a fetus is a person, most of the positions by the pro-life camp are fairly reasonable.

But I think your argument here isn't at all the kind of argument I was trying to dispute. You're right that no amount of philosophical babbling have settled this question and the law can't wait. This is a kind of settlement, though, of course, it would also be a kind of settlement to say that we ought to minimize damage done legally in the state, so abortion should be outlawed. Your argument is not at all dismissive of the other side as ignorant Bible thumpers, so I don't think I really have a beef here.

Last edited by phiwum; 16th May 2019 at 01:51 PM.
phiwum 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 16th May 2019, 01:36 PM   #341
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,846
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Who is forcing women to get illegal abortions? Are gangs running around, kidnapping pregnant women, and performing abortions on them against their will?
Is there a point to ignoring the point?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger 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 16th May 2019, 01:38 PM   #342
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,909
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
If the fundamental question is whether or not a fetus has a right to life, how the heck is privacy concerns of the woman all that relevant?
That's NOT the fundamental question down here in the real world. It's an excuse used by people who obviously don't believe it because they can't account for the most fundamental, as in real world fundamental, problems with that approach.

An aborted fetus is not more special then the countless billions upon countless billion of fertilized egg shells naturally expelled every year.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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 16th May 2019, 01:40 PM   #343
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 43,927
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Who is forcing women to get illegal abortions? Are gangs running around, kidnapping pregnant women, and performing abortions on them against their will?
One of the reasons I am no longer a conservative is the way that those who are not that religious themselves have become supporters and apoligists for the religiout fundies.
It's also a major reason that a lot of free market small government advocates call themselves "Libertarians" rather then conservatives.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 16th May 2019, 01:42 PM   #344
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,846
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Because if you think that abortion is murder, you don't think that the appropriate response is to make it state-sanctioned and safe murder, even if it decreases the number of abortions.

Defunding Planned Parenthood is a matter of not wanting taxpayers to fund abortions. If I thought it was murder, then I too would think it's beyond the pale that I'm forced to fund it.

Note: I am strongly against the defunding of Planned Parenthood. I'm just saying that I can understand why pro-lifers favor it. Even if the taxpayer money doesn't go directly to abortion services, the fact that they receive it frees up other money for those services.
IOW they don't care about saving fetuses, they care about punishing women and doctors.

Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Sure, because them folk are just plain evil.
Some of them are. Some simply use cognitive dissonance to ignore the effects of their position like your rationalizing suggests.

They choose to pay attention to one aspect while ignoring the reality that their actions are not decreasing abortions.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger 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 16th May 2019, 01:53 PM   #345
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
That's NOT the fundamental question down here in the real world. It's an excuse used by people who obviously don't believe it because they can't account for the most fundamental, as in real world fundamental, problems with that approach.

An aborted fetus is not more special then the countless billions upon countless billion of fertilized egg shells naturally expelled every year.
I don't suppose I can respond to you without doing philosophy, which you loathe, so perhaps we should let this discussion drop.

If, of course, you want to hear my response, I'll provide it, so long as you don't complain that I'm discussing an ethical issue using ethics.
phiwum 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 16th May 2019, 01:57 PM   #346
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,684
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Social burdens are not the same as physical burdens.



It's just about sharing the body, for me. All the rest is a different situation.
Fair enough, I guess.

But I tend to see physical burdens as social burdens. If you're drowning and I try to save you, I don't get to change my mind halfway through because the physical burden is too inconvenient. A firefighter doesn't get to opt out of carrying people from a burning building because "lol people are heavy".

Anyway, if your criteria is "sharing the body", does that mean you would allow abortions of convenience up until the moment of birth?

Quote:
I'm presuming a society advanced enough to have teleporters would also have pretty good social services.
Technological advance and social safety net don't seem to be well correlated in fact or fiction. The Soviet Union was plenty advanced, with nuclear power plants, probes to other planets, supersonic aircraft, space stations, computers, etc. But their social services were pretty bad even by the standards of the day.

The Klingons have warp drives, teleporters, and cloaking devices. But are their social services up to your humanitarian standards?

Quote:
Opt-in fertility (i.e., everyone's sterilized at birth and the procedure is temporarily reversed when people want to breed) would be as close to infallible as to make no difference.
Well. If you don't make it mandatory, you'll have conscientious objectors who opt-out. Hell, even if you do make it mandatory, you'll still have people opting out. Look how well that works with vaccination and home schooling.

Then there's all the idiots who think they want to breed, and then change their mind halfway through. Or who kept meaning to reverse the reversal but never get around to it, and go on having sex anyway. Even in a world of condoms, easy-access birth control, and the old standby of abstinence, we still seem to need abortions of convenience on the regular. I don't think foolproof technology is going to be the right answer for solving human problems.
theprestige 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 16th May 2019, 02:09 PM   #347
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,203
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
By not allowing women access to legal abortion, (g) you are pretty much forcing that on them as the only option.
Carrying to term is an option. It may not be an option you like, but it still is an option.

Quote:
Again unless "Hey 12 year old just carry your daddy-rapists child to term" is a viable (no pun intended) option you can't ban abortions, only the legal and safe ones.
See my previous response to this point. You aren't as clever as you think you are.
__________________
"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 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 16th May 2019, 02:10 PM   #348
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,203
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Is there a point to ignoring the point?
Try making your point better, if you have a valid one.
__________________
"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 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 16th May 2019, 02:41 PM   #349
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,909
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
See my previous response to this point. You aren't as clever as you think you are.
Dismissing "The opinion that women shouldn't be forced to carry their rapist children to term" as nothing but "being clever" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) is unbelievably callous.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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 16th May 2019, 03:18 PM   #350
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,486
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Carrying to term is an option. It may not be an option you like, but it still is an option.



See my previous response to this point. You aren't as clever as you think you are.
No. An option means "a thing that is or may be chosen". When the option of abortion is denied, there is no other option than to carry to term. Well, there is one and one that has been chosen bymany women throughout history: suicide.
Stacyhs 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 16th May 2019, 03:19 PM   #351
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,684
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
No. An option means "a thing that is or may be chosen". When the option of abortion is denied, there is no other option than to carry to term. Well, there is one and one that has been chosen bymany women throughout history: suicide.
Illegal abortion is also an option.
theprestige 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 16th May 2019, 03:25 PM   #352
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,481
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
The traditional argument that the fetus has a right to life because it's a potential person and potentiality is enough to grant such a right is an example of a non-religious argument.

A better argument is Marquis's argument that what makes (most) killing wrong is that it deprives one of a "future like ours", that is, all the future experiences which one would have enjoyed but for the premature death. Abortion also deprives one (the fetus) of a future like ours, so abortion is wrong for the same reason that killing a normal adult human is wrong. The article is titled "An Argument that Abortion is Wrong".

I have a scan of it if you're interested in a non-religious argument regarding abortion, but if not, no worries. I'm not assigning homework.

Marquis's argument pointedly avoids the question of who has rights, instead asking what makes killing a normal human wrong and then determining that what makes killing wrong is also a feature of abortion. It is a decent argument, whether you agree with the conclusion or not. I find it difficult to dismiss.
An argument based on "potential" is a weak argument. Depriving a potential person of "a future like ours" sounds like another version of the potential argument. And killing an adult or a child is wrong for reasons besides those. That's not the only reason why killing is wrong.

Forcing a woman (say a rape victim) or girl to become a single mother also deprives her of "a future like ours". You've taken away 20 years of her life. Anyone who feels so strongly about this that they would deny abortion to a rape victim or a single woman in a difficult situation should prove it by "putting their money where their mouth is" so to speak and adopting a child or two. If you're not willing to take on that burden yourself, then you have no right to impose that burden on someone else.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow 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 16th May 2019, 03:32 PM   #353
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,486
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Illegal abortion is also an option.
NO...that's being left with NO choice but to go to some butcher in a back alley room or sticking a coat hanger up themselves. Choices which often end up with the woman dead or unable to have children in the future. Thanks to laws like Georgia's and Alabama's and people who think their own personal beliefs should control what a woman does with her own body.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 16th May 2019 at 03:33 PM.
Stacyhs 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 16th May 2019, 03:32 PM   #354
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,846
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Fair enough, I guess.

But I tend to see physical burdens as social burdens. If you're drowning and I try to save you, I don't get to change my mind halfway through because the physical burden is too inconvenient. A firefighter doesn't get to opt out of carrying people from a burning building because "lol people are heavy".
That is a ludicrous analogy.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Anyway, if your criteria is "sharing the body", does that mean you would allow abortions of convenience up until the moment of birth?
And this is a propaganda falsehood. Of course you have to get past the anti-abortion propaganda pages and all their fear-mongering to find the facts.

Women don't just change their minds mid-pregnancy and casually decide to abort viable fetuses. Late abortions are almost always because either the mother's life is in danger or the fetus is so seriously malformed as to make continuing the pregnancy futile, for example, a fetus that has anencephaly. Rarely a girl who has been in serious denial about her pregnancy might show up for a third trimester abortion.

Mother Jones 2013: Who Still Does Third-Trimester Abortions? - Just these four doctors—and here’s why they’re desperately needed.With only four doctors still performing third-trimester abortions, there certainly couldn't be thousands of abortions of viable fetuses as one of the anti-abortion websites claimed.
Quote:
One can understand the decision of the expectant mother after she learns that even if her baby were to survive delivery, his life would be short and marred by seizures and suffering. One can sympathize with the god-fearing couple whose unborn child is revealed to have terrible deformities and little hope for any real quality of life. And it’s not difficult to comprehend the choice of the young woman who became pregnant after being raped. But then there are the women who just waited—in denial, out of fear, or for some other private reason. No matter the case, the decision to undergo a late-term abortion is a complex moral dilemma for patients and doctors alike.
Quote:
...
In medical school, Warren Hern started out as an obstetrician because he loved delivering babies, calling it a joyful and miraculous experience. Then he did a stint in the Peace Corps in an impoverished part of Brazil, working with post-natal women and also women recovering from illegal abortions—nearly half of whom died, he told the filmmakers.
Quote:
What I believe is women are able to struggle with complex ethical issues and arrive at the right decision for themselves and their families. They are the world’s expert on their own lives. So if somebody comes in and says, “I want an abortion,” whether or not she is articulate about it, let alone she has a great story to tell, isn’t the point. The point is that she has made this decision…For me, if I’m going to turn down a patient it should be because I think it’s not safe to take care of her. I think that is really the only reason that it’s fair to turn a patient down.

From a clinic that does the procedure:
Quote:
Patients coming in for very late abortion - over 26 menstrual weeks' gestation - are almost always seeking services for termination of a desired pregnancy that has developed serious complications. This usually means the discovery of a catastrophic fetal anomaly or genetic disorder that guarantees death, suffering, or serious disability for the baby that would be delivered if the pregnancy were to continue to term. Occasionally a woman presents at this stage for pregnancy termination because of her own severe medical illness or a psychiatric indication. (See "A Special Note About Fetal Anomaly")

NPR: 2019: Abortion In The Third Trimester: A Rare Decision Now In The Political Spotlight
Quote:
However polarizing third-trimester abortions might be as a political issue, as a medical procedure, they are relatively rare. According to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights, a little more than 1 percent occur sometime after 21 weeks, which is still well within the second trimester.
Once you subtract women whose life is at risk and fetuses who will not be viable outside the womb, how many of these abortions are the actual infanticide scenario the fear-mongerers claim? It's an incredibly small number.

But then you have the fanatics:
Quote:
Some abortion-rights opponents argue that women facing life-ending fetal diagnoses should still go through with the pregnancy.
They don't give a **** about that woman or fetus, they have a knee-jerk rationalization that they have a right to tell someone else what to do in such a personal situation.

For example, WTF does this person know about how someone else should feel?
Quote:
"The woman would have the opportunity to hold the baby, to say her goodbyes to the baby. And I think that's a much more humane situation for that woman and for that baby," Skop said.
I read that **** and it pisses me off.


Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Then there's all the idiots who think they want to breed, and then change their mind halfway through. Or who kept meaning to reverse the reversal but never get around to it, and go on having sex anyway. Even in a world of condoms, easy-access birth control, and the old standby of abstinence, we still seem to need abortions of convenience on the regular. I don't think foolproof technology is going to be the right answer for solving human problems.
That's one strange world you live in there.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger 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 16th May 2019, 03:33 PM   #355
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,203
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
No. An option means "a thing that is or may be chosen". When the option of abortion is denied, there is no other option than to carry to term.
You cannot simultaneously claim that women are forced to have illegal abortions and that they are also forced to carry to term. These are mutually exclusive possibilities.
__________________
"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 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 16th May 2019, 03:36 PM   #356
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,203
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Dismissing "The opinion that women shouldn't be forced to carry their rapist children to term" as nothing but "being clever" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) is unbelievably callous.
You didn't read my earlier post, did you? You certainly show no signs of having done so.
__________________
"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 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 16th May 2019, 03:36 PM   #357
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,486
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You cannot simultaneously claim that women are forced to have illegal abortions and that they are also forced to carry to term. These are mutually exclusive possibilities.
No, they're not. If a woman does not want to endanger her life or future fertility by getting an illegal abortion (having been denied a safe and legal abortion), then she is forced to carry to term.
Stacyhs 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 16th May 2019, 03:41 PM   #358
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,203
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
No, they're not. If a woman does not want to endanger her life or future fertility by getting an illegal abortion (having been denied a safe and legal abortion), then she is forced to carry to term.
In which case she isn't forced to get an illegal abortion. So yeah, mutually exclusive. And that's ignoring the fact that you had to insert an "if" and a "want".
__________________
"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 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 16th May 2019, 03:42 PM   #359
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,684
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
No, they're not. If a woman does not want to endanger her life or future fertility by getting an illegal abortion (having been denied a safe and legal abortion), then she is forced to carry to term.
I count at least three options, and no force.
theprestige 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 16th May 2019, 03:51 PM   #360
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,486
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I count at least three options, and no force.
Some "choices"!
1. carrying to term against her wishes
2. committing suicide
3. endangering her life with a botched, illegal abortion
4. endangering her future ability to have children from a botched abortion

Yep, women will really have some great options there!

I wonder how you'd feel if you ever had to face an unwanted pregnancy at 12, 13, or 14 years old after being raped by daddy and then kicked out of the house when mommy doesn't believe you. Oh, wait...you'll never face that, will you? It's easy to tell others what to do and get on your moral high ground when it's all just something you'll never face.
Stacyhs 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 » USA Politics

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 08:33 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.