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 8th August 2019, 03:03 PM   #161
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,860
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Given that the DNA of a zygote is different to that of all the other cells in your body, your argument is specious.
False. By that logic a virus is a father if it infects a woman. After all, it is introducing new genetic material.

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
If a woman wishes to terminate her pregnancy then I guess that it is usually best to allow her to do so but don't provide her with silly rationalizations for it.
I am not doing so. It appears you can't read.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 8th August 2019, 03:07 PM   #162
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,673
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
False. By that logic a virus is a father if it infects a woman. After all, it is introducing new genetic material.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 03:16 PM   #163
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,538
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
We live in this thing called a "society" and as such what people are allowed to do, including with their own bodies in private, is something that we as members of society may seek to regulate, within the limits of permissible interference in personal autonomy and freedom.
I have snipped the last part as it goes into topics I'd rather not divert the thread to, especially since it's already well off track for the most part.

So.. I'm mostly just going to point out that being part of a society doesn't actually create a right for members of that Society to tell others in the Society how they are to use and what they can and can't do with their own bodies. You are merely making the assumption that it does without explaining why it should be that way. The fact is that we are getting away from the position that Society has that right in many things that involve our personal use of out bodies because it's seen as wrong.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 8th August 2019, 03:30 PM   #164
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 16,186
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
So a relatively simple question with what is probably a nor so simple answer.

If you are a man and disagree with Abortion, can you express what you think gives you the right to dictate how a woman who is unrelated to you, and not in a relationship with you, should have to deal with her own body?

And so as not to be totally sexist, if any of our woman posters disagree with abortion, free feel to come to the table and express why you think you have the right to dictate other women's action with their own bodies too.
Haha! Anyone who thinks husbands should have any rights over their unborn child would probably be savaged.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
Vixen 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 8th August 2019, 03:32 PM   #165
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,978
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Given that the DNA of a zygote is different to that of all the other cells in your body, your argument is specious.

I too am having trouble what you are trying to say here.
__________________
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 8th August 2019, 03:37 PM   #166
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,978
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
False. By that logic a virus is a father if it infects a woman. After all, it is introducing new genetic material.

You and psionl0 seemed to have jumped the track.
__________________
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 8th August 2019, 04:54 PM   #167
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,673
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
I too am having trouble what you are trying to say here.
Who else is having that trouble?

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
You and psionl0 seemed to have jumped the track.
Not really. The question is whether men have a right to deny women the right to an abortion, not if the unborn child is human or not. (But I can't resist when a specious argument is presented).
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 05:50 PM   #168
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,853
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
A cell. The religious argument is that a cell has a soul. Given that we all kill millions of our cells every day as a matter of course, that argument is specious.
I'm not asking what kind of tissue it is. I'm not even asking you if it's A human. I'm asking if it's human life. It's not horse, is it? It's a human cell. One that grows into an actual human. So while I'm in favour of abortion I find the claim that it's not human life rather disingenous.

Quote:
The bottom line here is that there is no easy way around the issue of defining "personhood".
Of course not. But I didn't ask whether the Zygote was a person. I asked whether it was human life.

Quote:
As a man, and a father, I have absolutely no right to dictate anything to any woman. Period.
And yet we dictate things to one another all the time.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 8th August 2019, 05:52 PM   #169
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,853
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Who else is having that trouble?
Actually, I'm not entirely sure what either of you is saying to the other. Would you mind clarifying your side of it?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 8th August 2019, 07:05 PM   #170
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,978
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Who else is having that trouble?
Never mind what I said about this, just let other people identify themselves if they care.

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Not really. The question is whether men have a right to deny women the right to an abortion, not if the unborn child is human or not. (But I can't resist when a specious argument is presented).
I don't get the part in parentheses but that's OK.
__________________
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 8th August 2019, 07:15 PM   #171
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,673
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Actually, I'm not entirely sure what either of you is saying to the other. Would you mind clarifying your side of it?
What's not to understand? An unborn child is nurtured and incubated inside of a woman. However, it is not a part of her body. It is a separate and distinct human life.

And only an idiot would call it a disease or a virus.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 8th August 2019 at 07:16 PM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 11:30 PM   #172
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 18,475
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I'm mostly just going to point out that being part of a society doesn't actually create a right for members of that Society to tell others in the Society how they are to use and what they can and can't do with their own bodies.
It does in the one I live in. Also the one you live in too.

You apparently don't think it should.
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 11:33 PM   #173
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 18,475
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Haha! Anyone who thinks husbands should have any rights over their unborn child would probably be savaged.
OP seems to be about persons unrelated to the woman. But yes.
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 11:59 PM   #174
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,975
Has been mentioned, but we have a bill going through parliament that will move abortion from being a criminal issue (no one has been charged and the women can't be. It is the abortionist, if procedure isn't followed properly), to a health issue.

Personally find it laughable to call it a health issue. It is about as much a health issue as not required for reconstruction plastic surgery.

It is purely an ethical issue.

One of the parties are refusing to vote for it (It's a concious vote) without a public referendum and there are people saying only women should allowed to vote in it, which I thought was pretty funny.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz 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 9th August 2019, 12:02 AM   #175
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,538
Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
It does in the one I live in. Also the one you live in too.

You apparently don't think it should.
Just because it does, doesn't make it right. Pre-the 1980's most Societies considered Homosexuality wrong enough for it to be illegal, a lot of societies still do.

The question is not one of does society do so, but should it? What is the reasoned and rational argument behind it. For the most part I only see a religious one, and personally, despite being a Christian, I personally believe that no Law should be made on the basis of any Religious belief, and in the US such practice would be a violation of the 1st Amendment.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 9th August 2019, 12:07 AM   #176
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,975
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Just because it does, doesn't make it right. Pre-the 1980's most Societies considered Homosexuality wrong enough for it to be illegal, a lot of societies still do.

The question is not one of does society do so, but should it? What is the reasoned and rational argument behind it. For the most part I only see a religious one, and personally, despite being a Christian, I personally believe that no Law should be made on the basis of any Religious belief, and in the US such practice would be a violation of the 1st Amendment.
I have meet quite a few pro life people who are in no way religious.

Think that is an easy label to put on those who disagree with it.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz 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 9th August 2019, 12:30 AM   #177
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I'm not asking what kind of tissue it is. I'm not even asking you if it's A human. I'm asking if it's human life. It's not horse, is it? It's a human cell. One that grows into an actual human. So while I'm in favour of abortion I find the claim that it's not human life rather disingenous.
With respect Belz this is all just playing around with words: "a human", "human life", "human cell", "an actual human", albeit with the word "human" omnipresent. That doesn't validate the concept of "human life" though as you see it. And even if it did, what's the significance of a living cell, for example, that happens to be "human", over and above any other living cell? What does the fact that it's a "human" living cell somehow confer on it compared to a "non-human" living cell?

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
What's not to understand? An unborn child is nurtured and incubated inside of a woman. However, it is not a part of her body. It is a separate and distinct human life.
Only when it's born, or at least capable of supporting itself (I'm sure there's a medical term!). If the prospect of a particular pregnant woman dying means that her unborn foetus/baby would inevitably also die, that can hardly be construed as a separate and distinct human life. Only when it is capable of self-sustainment can it be deemed a separate and distinct human life. Maybe that should be the threshold for termination, at least for convenience?!?
__________________
"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 9th August 2019, 12:40 AM   #178
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 18,475
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Just because it does, doesn't make it right. Pre-the 1980's most Societies considered Homosexuality wrong enough for it to be illegal, a lot of societies still do.
Agreed. Works both ways too until about the 1980s it was legal to smoke tobacco on public transport including planes and in many public spaces and now it isn't.

Quote:
The question is not one of does society do so, but should it? What is the reasoned and rational argument behind it. For the most part I only see a religious one, and personally, despite being a Christian, I personally believe that no Law should be made on the basis of any Religious belief
I think it is human rights which is ethics and morality but not simply religion (IE arising from unproven belief in a deity--which becomes the mechanism by which those who argue it is religiously inspired then argue to dismantle it)

For example, I am not religious but I would have a very hard time with the conclusion that someone unrelated to me should have the freedom to terminate/kill/whatever-you-call-it a foetus/baby/whatever at any point up until it draws breath one or whatever. So some time before that it is not OK and I don't really know when. Absolutist arguments do not seem any less silly whether they are pro or anti.

But this is beside the point you asked by what means should unrelated members of society express and enact restrictions and this seems rather uncomplicated to me.

Aside from that and where abortion is fully legal and so on, I think I can agree with the view that the views of biological putative fathers should have no legal force in the matter
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 12:48 AM   #179
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,975
Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
Agreed. Works both ways too until about the 1980s it was legal to smoke tobacco on public transport including planes and in many public spaces and now it isn't.

I think it is human rights which is ethics and morality but not simply religion (IE arising from unproven belief in a deity--which becomes the mechanism by which those who argue it is religiously inspired then argue to dismantle it)

For example, I am not religious but I would have a very hard time with the conclusion that someone unrelated to me should have the freedom to terminate/kill/whatever-you-call-it a foetus/baby/whatever at any point up until it draws breath one or whatever. So some time before that it is not OK and I don't really know when. Absolutist arguments do not seem any less silly whether they are pro or anti.

But this is beside the point you asked by what means should unrelated members of society express and enact restrictions and this seems rather uncomplicated to me.

Aside from that and where abortion is fully legal and so on, I think I can agree with the view that the views of biological putative fathers should have no legal force in the matter
I fall into this category

Atheist. No problem with pro-choice, but when you start over 20-25 weeks I definitely start to get some mixed feelings over it, unless there is a genuine medical need, like danger to the mother or the baby is found to be obviously going to be born in a freakily abnormal in a bad way, with no quality of life
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz 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 9th August 2019, 12:54 AM   #180
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,673
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
Only when it's born, or at least capable of supporting itself (I'm sure there's a medical term!). If the prospect of a particular pregnant woman dying means that her unborn foetus/baby would inevitably also die, that can hardly be construed as a separate and distinct human life. Only when it is capable of self-sustainment can it be deemed a separate and distinct human life. Maybe that should be the threshold for termination, at least for convenience?!?
I can see the cutting of the umbilical cord as a logical (as distinct from moral) threshold for the right to life. But depending on how you define "self-sustainment", you could be arguing that a child would have to be several years old before it can be deemed a separate and distinct human life.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 01:14 AM   #181
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I can see the cutting of the umbilical cord as a logical (as distinct from moral) threshold for the right to life. But depending on how you define "self-sustainment", you could be arguing that a child would have to be several years old before it can be deemed a separate and distinct human life.
I mean not reliant on the mother per se - which essentially means some time before birth (with intervention). I realise that's somewhat ambiguous (I don't know how early a motherless foetus is capable of developing into a baby with external intervention - possibly the full term for all I know - but I'm talking 'natural' development, however that can be defined). Not easy is it!
__________________
"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 9th August 2019, 01:46 AM   #182
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,538
Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
Agreed. Works both ways too until about the 1980s it was legal to smoke tobacco on public transport including planes and in many public spaces and now it isn't.
This is a non-equivalent argument. Second hand smoke from smokers causes cancer in those that choose not to smoke themselves, but have to be confined in public spaces, such as public transport, with those that do. Thus smoking in public is actually hurting other members of society. Terminating your pregnancy doesn't cause another person to have their terminated.

At best there is the argument for the fetus being alive and harm is done to it, however this is a very hard place to define "alive" as for much of the gestation the fetus would die without the mother as an incubator, so is that really a human life?

Quote:
I think it is human rights which is ethics and morality but not simply religion (IE arising from unproven belief in a deity--which becomes the mechanism by which those who argue it is religiously inspired then argue to dismantle it)
This really makes little sense, you might have missed a word or two? However, where do you think Human Rights come from? Or Ethics and Morality for that matter...

Quote:
For example, I am not religious but I would have a very hard time with the conclusion that someone unrelated to me should have the freedom to terminate/kill/whatever-you-call-it a foetus/baby/whatever at any point up until it draws breath one or whatever. So some time before that it is not OK and I don't really know when. Absolutist arguments do not seem any less silly whether they are pro or anti.
Personally I'd put it at the point at which the fetus can live without the mother being an incubator for it.

Quote:
But this is beside the point you asked by what means should unrelated members of society express and enact restrictions and this seems rather uncomplicated to me.
Less what means should they express, and more by what right do they think they have to create law for it.

Quote:
Aside from that and where abortion is fully legal and so on, I think I can agree with the view that the views of biological putative fathers should have no legal force in the matter
The father's views and rights is an entire other kettle of fish that I'd rather not get into and derail this thread with.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 9th August 2019 at 01:49 AM.
PhantomWolf 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 9th August 2019, 01:50 AM   #183
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 18,475
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I can see the cutting of the umbilical cord as a logical (as distinct from moral) threshold for the right to life.
Sometimes this snaps during delivery, sometimes it may not be completely cut on the first attempt, some recommendations involve leaving it intact a few minutes etc.

Absolute definitions don't work all that well
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 02:03 AM   #184
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 18,475
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
This is a non-equivalent argument.
It is an example of society increasing regulation on others behaviour. I never said it was equivalent to anything. I will not be pursuing it further though.

Quote:
This really makes little sense, you might have missed a word or two?
No I don't think so. I also reject that ethics come from religion BTW.

Quote:
Personally I'd put it at the point at which the fetus can live without the mother being an incubator for it.
I think that can be shown to be 20 weeks or less in some examples. Anyway this is not really relevant and medical viability is certainly not an absolute point in time.

Quote:
Less what means should they express, and more by what right do they think they have to create law for it.
Already covered by me (well more by Arcade22)

Quote:
The father's views and rights is an entire other kettle of fish that I'd rather not get into and derail this thread with.
It is covered by your opening post so not a derail in any sense. You do not have to address it of course.

Last edited by Francesca R; 9th August 2019 at 02:05 AM.
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 02:24 AM   #185
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,793
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
Only when it's born, or at least capable of supporting itself (I'm sure there's a medical term!). If the prospect of a particular pregnant woman dying means that her unborn foetus/baby would inevitably also die, that can hardly be construed as a separate and distinct human life. Only when it is capable of self-sustainment can it be deemed a separate and distinct human life. Maybe that should be the threshold for termination, at least for convenience?!?
The term usually used to describe this is viable. It doesn't really satisfy hard core abortion advocates or opponents, although it does have popular appeal for people in the middle of the debate as a practical compromise. As a matter of principle, it's not really an ideal solution, because when a fetus becomes viable outside the mother is very dependent upon medical technology. Premature births can already survive much earlier today than even 50 years ago, and it's reasonable to expect that future advances will push it even earlier still.
__________________
"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 9th August 2019, 02:26 AM   #186
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,853
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
What's not to understand? An unborn child is nurtured and incubated inside of a woman. However, it is not a part of her body. It is a separate and distinct human life.
Well I wouldn't call it separate. It's literally directly connected to and dependant on it. That's why viability is my cut-off point.

I'll give you distinct, however.

But I think I understand your point about DNA. However it's not entirely correct. Your reproductive cells don't have the same DNA as the rest of your body, but they are still you.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 9th August 2019, 02:28 AM   #187
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,853
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
With respect Belz this is all just playing around with words: "a human", "human life", "human cell", "an actual human", albeit with the word "human" omnipresent. That doesn't validate the concept of "human life" though as you see it. And even if it did, what's the significance of a living cell, for example, that happens to be "human", over and above any other living cell?
Well, it's not just any old cell, is it? Especially since it becomes more than one rather quickly.

And it's not semantics. "A human" and "human life" aren't the same thing. I consider every point after conception to be "human life", but only after viability does it become "a human" in my opinion. I'd think that would be a very important difference.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 9th August 2019, 02:45 AM   #188
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,777
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
A cell. The religious argument is that a cell has a soul. Given that we all kill millions of our cells every day as a matter of course, that argument is specious.



Then that cell divides and becomes 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 cells and so forth. At what point in that trajectory does it become a person?



Nobody can reliably define that.



Most jurisdictions that allow abortions use viability as a threshold. To me, that seems a best compromise (or least worst) for setting a term limit in a legal sense. Of course, viability is becoming earlier and earlier as medical technology advances.



The bottom line here is that there is no easy way around the issue of defining "personhood". Legally it is fraught with difficulty. Add to that the problem that the laws lag almost a generation behind the current facts on the ground just compounds the matter at hand.



Women (and their babies) have died because of this ineffectual legal futtering around.



As a man, and a father, I have absolutely no right to dictate anything to any woman. Period.
It's a tad more nuanced even for the RCC, so much so we even have a word for it ensoulment and theologians have been "discussing" it pretty much for all of recorded history.

Most religions have historically picked an arbitrary point, but seem to usual pick around quickening.

Although some ancients decided it was at the moment of conception I'd say it's really only very recently become the claim of many Christians.
__________________
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 9th August 2019, 04:26 AM   #189
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,860
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
What's not to understand? An unborn child is nurtured and incubated inside of a woman. However, it is not a part of her body. It is a separate and distinct human life.

And only an idiot would call it a disease or a virus.
Super. Just invent an argument that nobody made out of whole cloth. Then pretend you are "winning"......something.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 9th August 2019, 05:31 AM   #190
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Well, it's not just any old cell, is it? Especially since it becomes more than one rather quickly.
This is the case with any cell - "human" or otherwise.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
And it's not semantics. "A human" and "human life" aren't the same thing. I consider every point after conception to be "human life", but only after viability does it become "a human" in my opinion. I'd think that would be a very important difference.
Fine - you might consider it to be "human life", but you haven't explained what that means, other than saying what it isn't, namely "human". What, exactly, do you mean by "human life", if not simply a bunch of human cells that, before a certain point in time, bear no resemblance, either functionally or physically, to a fully-formed human being?
__________________
"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 9th August 2019, 05:34 AM   #191
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,443
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
An unborn child is nurtured and incubated inside of a woman. However, it is not a part of her body. It is a separate and distinct human life.
It's called a fetus, not an "unborn child". That's just emotional Christian ********.
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr
Arcade22 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 9th August 2019, 07:01 AM   #192
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,443
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
So.. I'm mostly just going to point out that being part of a society doesn't actually create a right for members of that Society to tell others in the Society how they are to use and what they can and can't do with their own bodies.
You may argue that but in actual practice people do take this right upon themselves.

Quote:
You are merely making the assumption that it does without explaining why it should be that way. The fact is that we are getting away from the position that Society has that right in many things that involve our personal use of out bodies because it's seen as wrong.
I'm not saying it's "right", rather I'm saying they claim that right for themselves. All societies do to one extent or another. One of major drawbacks of living in any society is that the line between "private" and "public" isn't neither clear nor is it unchanging.

As society must renew its population in order to sustain itself, this necessarily means that sexual relationships, procreation, child rearing and such is something that society would concern itself with to one extent or another.
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr
Arcade22 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 9th August 2019, 07:02 AM   #193
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,853
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
This is the case with any cell - "human" or otherwise.
Absolutely not. A skin cell will not grow into a full human, nor will a fish zygote. Human zygotes grow into humans.

Quote:
Fine - you might consider it to be "human life", but you haven't explained what that means, other than saying what it isn't, namely "human".
Correction: they are not a human, because I define a human as a person, and as I've stated, that comes at viability.

I believe I have stated what I consider to be human life. In the post you quoted, in fact.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 9th August 2019, 07:18 AM   #194
rockysmith76
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 60
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
So a relatively simple question with what is probably a nor so simple answer.

If you are a man and disagree with Abortion, can you express what you think gives you the right to dictate how a woman who is unrelated to you, and not in a relationship with you, should have to deal with her own body?

And so as not to be totally sexist, if any of our woman posters disagree with abortion, free feel to come to the table and express why you think you have the right to dictate other women's action with their own bodies too.
Its not that basic a thing. Yes, ultimately it's the Woman's choice, but also her responsibility. One edge of the sword is that if she chooses to end that new life she is responsible for creating that is on her, and if bringing a new life into the world isn't something she's ready for, then imo, it's her responsibility to not put herself in a position where she might. Both Caveats apply here.
rockysmith76 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 9th August 2019, 02:40 PM   #195
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,673
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
I mean not reliant on the mother per se - which essentially means some time before birth (with intervention). I realise that's somewhat ambiguous (I don't know how early a motherless foetus is capable of developing into a baby with external intervention - possibly the full term for all I know - but I'm talking 'natural' development, however that can be defined). Not easy is it!
For me the difference in DNA is sufficient to establish that there are two different human entities - regardless of the state of development of the unborn child. But you are right. You can make this so complicated that even you don't know what you are talking about.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the child's right to life (if any) nor if anybody has the right to interfere with a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy or carry it to completion.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 9th August 2019 at 02:58 PM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 02:51 PM   #196
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,673
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
It's called a fetus, not an "unborn child". That's just emotional Christian ********.
Which of the terms such as "zygote", "embryo" or "fetus" we use depend on the length of incubation. I use "unborn child" if in the context of what I am saying, the length of incubation is irrelevant.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 9th August 2019 at 03:07 PM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 04:15 PM   #197
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
For me the difference in DNA is sufficient to establish that there are two different human entities - regardless of the state of development of the unborn child.
That's a very 'scientific' viewpoint - arguably not very helpful, though, in the context of the topic.

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You can make this so complicated that even you don't know what you are talking about.
I assume you mean 'one' rather than 'you' (i.e. me), but I suppose I could make it so complicated that even I could become confused, although I believe I'd still know what I'm talking about!

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Of course, none of this has anything to do with the child's right to life (if any) nor if anybody has the right to interfere with a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy or carry it to completion.
Oh I think it does, in the case of right to life. Whether or not the entity forming in the womb can be considered to be part of or separate from the mother is arguably fundamental to the debate, at least for some.
__________________
"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; 9th August 2019 at 04:19 PM. Reason: Clarification
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 9th August 2019, 04:17 PM   #198
Southwind17
Philosopher
 
Southwind17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,152
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Which of the terms such as "zygote", "embryo" or "fetus" we use depend on the length of incubation. I use "unborn child" if in the context of what I am saying, the length of incubation is irrelevant.
I think you mean the stage of incubation rather than length per se. Length is, of course, irrelevant, but stage of development is the key issue.
__________________
"Always" and "never" are two words that you should always remember never to use.
"For successful technology reality must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." (Richard Feynman - Challenger Accident Presidential Commission Report)
"Life is but a gamble ... let flipism guide your ramble." (Donald Duck)
Southwind17 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 04:31 PM   #199
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,673
Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
Oh I think it does, in the case of right to life. Whether or not the entity forming in the womb can be considered to be part of or separate from the mother is arguably fundamental to the debate, at least for some.
If your definition is "not reliant on the mother per se" then I don't see how.

Originally Posted by Southwind17 View Post
I think you mean the stage of incubation rather than length per se. Length is, of course, irrelevant, but stage of development is the key issue.
Correction accepted.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 04:38 PM   #200
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,538
Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
It is an example of society increasing regulation on others behaviour. I never said it was equivalent to anything. I will not be pursuing it further though.
There is a difference between the calling of regulating behavior that can be harmful to you, and demanding the regulating of behaviour that has zero harmful effect on yourself.

Quote:
I think that can be shown to be 20 weeks or less in some examples. Anyway this is not really relevant and medical viability is certainly not an absolute point in time.
Which to me is why is should be left to the Doctors to make the call. If they believe that the fetus would be viable and there is no excessive risk to the mother, then any termination at that point should be an induced birth or c-section. If the fetus isn't viable then the doctors always need the option to abort when when there is risk to the mother to continue the pregnancy.

Quote:
Already covered by me (well more by Arcade22)
And already responded to by me, that's what started this conversation, merely pointing back to what has already been rejected only leads us in circles.

Quote:
It is covered by your opening post so not a derail in any sense. You do not have to address it of course.
It was covered in being specifically excluded from the conversation.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 09:31 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.