 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| sherrife wrote: | Dave mate, your logic rambled a bit and i think its worth you taking another look at the arguments... your older and wiser i hope... You double back on yourself a few times, i'msure you can do better.
I'd like to see a direct response to my post...
|
So, that's your view of my whole argument. Not even one point worth discussing.
I'm sorry mate, but could you be a bit more specific? Because if my argument is so utterly and completely flawed, you should be able to respond to it pretty easily, right?
| sherrife wrote: | The point here is not that you shouldn't stay plugged in, or even that it wouldn't be good if you DID stay plugged in, but simply that it is not an absolute moral obligation to do so. There is no way anyone has the right to demand that you continue to keep Peteralive.
The philosopher (Judith Jarvis Thompson, for more info http://mwillett.org/atheism/abortion.htm) here makes a distinction between morally obligatory and morally preferable behaviour. Eg. no one would argue that everyone HAS to donate 100% of any income they earn over $100,000, although it might (!!) be preferable if everyone did so voluntarily.
What do you think? Can I seriously force you to look after Peter if you don't want to? |
Sherrife this is a pretty complex argument and I think it would take a lot of serious thinking to come up with an appropriate answer. It raises the question, for example, of what morality even is... I can sort of see your point now, but, in a more realistic scenario, would a siamese twin have the right to kill his brother to guarantee his own autonomy? Because, basically, that's what you're saying, right?
I'm not saying I've got any answers. I just don't think it's that clear-cut.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
 |
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
David, by arguing that the development process is a linear process beginning at conception, that there is no point in that continuum where you can say 'life' mystically begins, even by using the notion of 'potential life' and then arguing that such potential can not ethically be interfered with, you are effectively arguing that life begins at conception.
Your whole choice of language is interesting here. For example, read the following sentence from your essay:
"What we have to accept is, that up until the child becomes an adult, it is constantly developing. We continue to grow, between conception to late teenage years. "
Your use of the term 'child', and your suggestion that 'we continue to grow, between conception to late teenage years' clearly indicates an underlying assumption on your behalf that 'life' begins at conception.
Where I said you were setting up straw men, I actually meant to say that I don't know many 'pro-choicers' that would argue life only begins at birth. Most people I know that defend the right to abortion do so reluctantly and accept that life begins well before birth.
My own position on this is that life begins at a point where the foetus/unborn child becomes a viable lifeform in its own right - that is, where it can sustain life independent of the mother. This is generally accepted to occur between 20-27 weeks. In my opinion, there is an unquestionable right for the women to abort before this point. Afterwards, then the rights of the women and the child need to be taken into account. This is not to say that abortion after this point should not be a right, just not an absolute right. Generally, this is pretty close to how the law views abortion at present.
In my opinion, you can't get away from the need to identify a distinct point in time where life begins. By arguing that, you can't do so, in my opinion you are making your decision.
Related to this, I think the following is another example of you setting up straw men:
"Argument 2) It's a decision everybody has to make for themselves, or "If you don't want an abortion, don't have one."
The latter line is especially idiotic, yet it is used by many pro-choicers.
Let us assume, just hypothetically, that unborn babies were 100% human and thus had all the rights of a human being (many Christians believe that the former is the case)
Therefore, we would be talking about killing people.
"If you don't want people to die, don't kill anyone."
That is the logic of the argument
or...
"It's a decision everyone has to make for themselves (whether they want to kill someone or not)"
This is the problem with such statements. They are completely nonsensical justifications, and would not work with any other arguments."
The argument is only "idiotic" is you accept your basic assumption that "unborn babies were 100% human". If, as some pro choice advocates argue, that the foetus only becomes 'human' when it is viable (able to survive separate to the mother) then the argument that termination before this point is legitimate makes perfect sense. |
|
|
|
|
Pa Marmo
Side by Side
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Location: Nicks BB member #617
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nomadjack wrote: | | My own position on this is that life begins at a point where the foetus/unborn child becomes a viable lifeform in its own right - that is, where it can sustain life independent of the mother. This is generally accepted to occur between 20-27 weeks. |
Thats funny, I know of no instance when a child has been able to survive on its own at 20-27 weeks or even at full term for that matter. The simple fact is the baby is reliant on the mother from conception right up untill it is able to feed and care for it self at a later age. By your argument a 1 year old is not a viable life form as if it is left to its own devices it will certainly starve and die.
_________________
Genesis 1:1 |
|
|
|
|
~Madness~ 
...The Cat...
Joined: 29 May 2001
Location: Melbourne, Vic, Au
|
| Post subject: | |
|
with all due respect (dont you love that quote)
infact, nope, I wont post that bit.
This is a personal choice. One which no one would know about until faced with it. We can all have an opinion, but until faced with it, will never know the dilema.
_________________
"whaaa whaaaaaa! |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nuxta wrote: | | nomadjack wrote: | | My own position on this is that life begins at a point where the foetus/unborn child becomes a viable lifeform in its own right - that is, where it can sustain life independent of the mother. This is generally accepted to occur between 20-27 weeks. |
Thats funny, I know of no instance when a child has been able to survive on its own at 20-27 weeks or even at full term for that matter. The simple fact is the baby is reliant on the mother from conception right up untill it is able to feed and care for it self at a later age. By your argument a 1 year old is not a viable life form as if it is left to its own devices it will certainly starve and die. |
Read the sentence again Nuxta. I didn't say survive on its own, I said survive independent of its mother. An example may be where a baby is born premature at 28 weeks and is able to be kept alive on life support while he or she further develops (ie the baby is not dependent on the mother). |
|
|
|
|
Proud Pies 
Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Location: Knox-ish
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| joffa corfe wrote: | | Proud Pies wrote: | | joffa corfe wrote: | | Fantastic debate..now who among us have been touched by this subject via family or friends ? |
probably everyone, but i believe that's too personal a question to ask in a public forum Joffa and i could so far to say
IT'S ALSO NOBODY'S BUSINESS EXCEPT THE PERSON INVOLVED. |
Its too personal to ask if anyone may have been touched by this issue in the real world ?
It ceases to be a true public forum because in a sense many users in this public forum remain anonymous!! |
yes, i believe it is too personal to ask if anyone has been touched by this in any way shape or form.
Why do you need to know who's been affected by it? Is it so you can judge people by their choices, or the choices of their family and friends?
No, it's nobody's business but the people involved.
Have the debate, but nobody needs to know who's been affected by this.
_________________
Jacqui © Proud Pies 2003 and beyond |
|
|
|
|
Pa Marmo
Side by Side
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Location: Nicks BB member #617
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nomadjack wrote: | | Read the sentence again Nuxta. I didn't say survive on its own, I said survive independent of its mother. An example may be where a baby is born premature at 28 weeks and is able to be kept alive on life support while he or she further develops (ie the baby is not dependent on the mother). |
Legally, when a doctor takes a baby from inside its mother the doctor is acting in loco parentis. Without a parent in one form or another this baby no matter how healthy will not and can not survive. Whether it be a parent or a doctor or ADOPTIVE parent this child is reliant on others to sustain its life.
_________________
Genesis 1:1 |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nomadjack wrote: | David, by arguing that the development process is a linear process beginning at conception, that there is no point in that continuum where you can say 'life' mystically begins, even by using the notion of 'potential life' and then arguing that such potential can not ethically be interfered with, you are effectively arguing that life begins at conception.
My own position on this is that life begins at a point where the foetus/unborn child becomes a viable lifeform in its own right - that is, where it can sustain life independent of the mother. This is generally accepted to occur between 20-27 weeks. In my opinion, there is an unquestionable right for the women to abort before this point. Afterwards, then the rights of the women and the child need to be taken into account. This is not to say that abortion after this point should not be a right, just not an absolute right. Generally, this is pretty close to how the law views abortion at present.
In my opinion, you can't get away from the need to identify a distinct point in time where life begins. By arguing that, you can't do so, in my opinion you are making your decision. |
But, you yourself just admitted that there was no distinct point when life began. You gave the figure of 20-27 weeks (the point when the baby can survive independently of its mother) but then said that abortion would still be acceptable in some cases afterwards. Surely, if there actually was a point when 'life' began, then it would be an all-or-nothing thing. Once 'life' began, the fetus would have the rights of a full human being. The only reason why abortion laws are so vague is because they realise there is no exact point when life begins.
Anyway, ability to survive independently is a bit of an arbitrary marker, isn't it? Couldn't you have chosen, for example, the moment when the fetus gains its senses? Or when it starts to feel pain?
I stand by my argument. There is no point when life begins, it is all a gradual development, that I would argue, culminates in adulthood.
| nomadjack wrote: | Related to this, I think the following is another example of you setting up straw men:
"Argument 2) It's a decision everybody has to make for themselves, or "If you don't want an abortion, don't have one."
The latter line is especially idiotic, yet it is used by many pro-choicers.
Let us assume, just hypothetically, that unborn babies were 100% human and thus had all the rights of a human being (many Christians believe that the former is the case)
Therefore, we would be talking about killing people.
"If you don't want people to die, don't kill anyone."
That is the logic of the argument
or...
"It's a decision everyone has to make for themselves (whether they want to kill someone or not)"
This is the problem with such statements. They are completely nonsensical justifications, and would not work with any other arguments."
The argument is only "idiotic" is you accept your basic assumption that "unborn babies were 100% human". If, as some pro choice advocates argue, that the foetus only becomes 'human' when it is viable (able to survive separate to the mother) then the argument that termination before this point is legitimate makes perfect sense. |
I'm sorry, perhaps Sherrife was right. I really did not set that out as well as I could have.
What I am trying to convey is this: stating "If you don't want an abortion, don't have one", is stating "If you don't agree with action x, don't commit it". Replace action x with murder, rape or tax fraud, and you see what I'm saying. That's why it's idiotic.
I would argue that the merits of abortion, just like anything else, are something that must be decided by a society. It's not good enough to say "It's a decision everyone has to make for themselves."
Also, nuxta has something of a point. The only reason babies are able to survive outside their mother at 28 weeks is because of medical technology. If this technology advanced to a point where a child was able to survive at, say, 15 weeks, would you then say that that was the point when it became human?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Last edited by David on Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:41 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
joffa corfe
PREMIERS 2010
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Proud Pies wrote: | | joffa corfe wrote: | | Proud Pies wrote: | | joffa corfe wrote: | | Fantastic debate..now who among us have been touched by this subject via family or friends ? |
probably everyone, but i believe that's too personal a question to ask in a public forum Joffa and i could so far to say
IT'S ALSO NOBODY'S BUSINESS EXCEPT THE PERSON INVOLVED. |
Its too personal to ask if anyone may have been touched by this issue in the real world ?
It ceases to be a true public forum because in a sense many users in this public forum remain anonymous!! |
yes, i belie
ve it is too personal to ask if anyone has been touched by this in any way shape or form.
Why do you need to know who's been affected by it? Is it so you can judge people by their choices, or the choices of their family and friends?
No, it's nobody's business but the people involved.
Have the debate, but nobody needs to know who's been affected by this. |
Unless we know what really occurs with people who face the emotional decision of the reality of abortion unables us to fully understand its consequences of such a decision or act.
We can all opinionise and speculate on many things we can all stand the high moral ground and thump our fist until blue in the face.
So your saying that this debate shouldnt occur because none of us have been affected by a real life decision to abort or non abort, so i guess your saying we shouldnt debate anything.
Lets bring the debate to another level....
Whats the difference between capitol punishment and Abortion now have a good think before posting ?
Keep your personal bitterness away from this debate jacqui your actually sounding quite silly!!
In a sensible debate such as this no one gets judged infact with all sensible debates we can all learn and understand we can actually break down barriers we can at the end of the day understand each other a little better.
If anyone doesnt like the way the discussion is heading its simple..dont particiapte!
Infact i have a real life story re abortion it changed my way of thinking probably forever and as the self elected chairman of this discussion i will tell that story when this debate has come to an end.
It would also be good for others to comment if in any shape or form personal opinions have been changed ar altered somewhat due to this discussion.
We can all learn from each others opinions if we really want to!!
_________________
Football is Greatness
http://youtu.be/tJwoKbPOsQE |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nuxta wrote: | | nomadjack wrote: | | Read the sentence again Nuxta. I didn't say survive on its own, I said survive independent of its mother. An example may be where a baby is born premature at 28 weeks and is able to be kept alive on life support while he or she further develops (ie the baby is not dependent on the mother). |
Legally, when a doctor takes a baby from inside its mother the doctor is acting in loco parentis. Without a parent in one form or another this baby no matter how healthy will not and can not survive. Whether it be a parent or a doctor or ADOPTIVE parent this child is reliant on others to sustain its life. |
This has got absolutely nothing to do with the context of my original point Nuxta, which was about when a foetus becomes a viable form of life, ie when it can survive independent of the life support system provided inside a mothers womb. Surviving without parents or some form of adult help in the manner you describe is a completely different and irrelevant argument that has nothing to do with abortion.
I'm also not familiar with your use of the term in loco parentis in this context. Normally, as far as I'm aware, it is only used in the context of teachers fulfilling the role of a parent in the absence of the latter, not in the way you describe. |
|
|
|
|
Proud Pies
Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Location: Knox-ish
|
| Post subject: | |
|
[quote="joffa corfe"][quote="Proud Pies"] | joffa corfe wrote: | | Proud Pies wrote: | | joffa corfe wrote: | | Fantastic debate..now who among us have been touched by this subject via family or friends ? |
probably everyone, but i believe that's too personal a question to ask in a public forum Joffa and i could so far to say
IT'S ALSO NOBODY'S BUSINESS EXCEPT THE PERSON INVOLVED. |
| joffa corfe wrote: | Its too personal to ask if anyone may have been touched by this issue in the real world ?
It ceases to be a true public forum because in a sense many users in this public forum remain anonymous!! |
yes, i believe it is too personal to ask if anyone has been touched by this in any way shape or form.
Why do you need to know who's been affected by it? Is it so you can judge people by their choices, or the choices of their family and friends?
No, it's nobody's business but the people involved.
Have the debate, but nobody needs to know who's been affected by this. |
| joffa corfe wrote: | Unless we know what really occurs with people who face the emotional decision of the reality of abortion unables us to fully understand its consequences of such a decision or act.
We can all opinionise and speculate on many things we can all stand the high moral ground and thump our fist until blue in the face. |
Again Joffa, why do you need to know this? you do not need to know why people make the choices they do. Everyone's reasons are different.
| joffa corfe wrote: | | So your saying that this debate shouldnt occur because none of us have been affected by a real life decision to abort or non abort, so i guess your saying we shouldnt debate anything. |
Read my post....i said, go ahead, have the debate, but it's nobody's business why people make choices.
| joffa corfe wrote: | Lets bring the debate to another level....
Whats the difference between capitol punishment and Abortion now have a good think before posting ?
Keep your personal bitterness away from this debate jacqui your actually sounding quite silly!! |
Ahhhh see, because i said it was nobody's business, now the personal attacks and judgements have started on me.
| joffa corfe wrote: | | In a sensible debate such as this no one gets judged infact with all sensible debates we can all learn and understand we can actually break down barriers we can at the end of the day understand each other a little better. |
Sensible debate? your take on a sensible debate is only if they agree with you and answer the questions you pose.
| joffa corfe wrote: | | If anyone doesnt like the way the discussion is heading its simple..dont particiapte! |
So you make the rules now on what's allowed to be said in a debate on this site?
| joffa corfe wrote: | | Infact i have a real life story re abortion it changed my way of thinking probably forever and as the self elected chairman of this discussion i will tell that story when this debate has come to an end. |
we don't have chairpeople on this discussion board Joffa.
| joffa corfe wrote: | It would also be good for others to comment if in any shape or form personal opinions have been changed ar altered somewhat due to this discussion.
We can all learn from each others opinions if we really want to!! |
as long as they agree with yours huh Joffa?
Why do YOU want to know people's personal information???????
It's only YOU asking for people to personally comment on if it's affected them.
_________________
Jacqui © Proud Pies 2003 and beyond |
|
|
|
|
joffa corfe
PREMIERS 2010
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
[quote="Proud Pies"][quote="joffa corfe"] | Proud Pies wrote: | | joffa corfe wrote: | | Proud Pies wrote: | | joffa corfe wrote: | | Fantastic debate..now who among us have been touched by this subject via family or friends ? |
probably everyone, but i believe that's too personal a question to ask in a public forum Joffa and i could so far to say
IT'S ALSO NOBODY'S BUSINESS EXCEPT THE PERSON INVOLVED. |
| joffa corfe wrote: | Its too personal to ask if anyone may have been touched by this issue in the real world ?
It ceases to be a true public forum because in a sense many users in this public forum remain anonymous!! |
yes, i believe it is too personal to ask if anyone has been touched by this in any way shape or form.
Why do you need to know who's been affected by it? Is it so you can judge people by their choices, or the choices of their family and friends?
No, it's nobody's business but the people involved.
Have the debate, but nobody needs to know who's been affected by this. |
| joffa corfe wrote: | Unless we know what really occurs with people who face the emotional decision of the reality of abortion unables us to fully understand its consequences of such a decision or act.
We can all opinionise and speculate on many things we can all stand the high moral ground and thump our fist until blue in the face. |
Again Joffa, why do you need to know this? you do not need to know why people make the choices they do. Everyone's reasons are different.
| joffa corfe wrote: | | So your saying that this debate shouldnt occur because none of us have been affected by a real life decision to abort or non abort, so i guess your saying we shouldnt debate anything. |
Read my post....i said, go ahead, have the debate, but it's nobody's business why people make choices.
| joffa corfe wrote: | Lets bring the debate to another level....
Whats the difference between capitol punishment and Abortion now have a good think before posting ?
Keep your personal bitterness away from this debate jacqui your actually sounding quite silly!! |
Ahhhh see, because i said it was nobody's business, now the personal attacks and judgements have started on me.
| joffa corfe wrote: | | In a sensible debate such as this no one gets judged infact with all sensible debates we can all learn and understand we can actually break down barriers we can at the end of the day understand each other a little better. |
Sensible debate? your take on a sensible debate is only if they agree with you and answer the questions you pose.
| joffa corfe wrote: | | If anyone doesnt like the way the discussion is heading its simple..dont particiapte! |
So you make the rules now on what's allowed to be said in a debate on this site?
| joffa corfe wrote: | | Infact i have a real life story re abortion it changed my way of thinking probably forever and as the self elected chairman of this discussion i will tell that story when this debate has come to an end. |
we don't have chairpeople on this discussion board Joffa.
| joffa corfe wrote: | It would also be good for others to comment if in any shape or form personal opinions have been changed ar altered somewhat due to this discussion.
We can all learn from each others opinions if we really want to!! |
as long as they agree with yours huh Joffa?
Why do YOU want to know people's personal information???????
It's only YOU asking for people to personally comment on if it's affected them. |
welcome to the ignore list jacqui sorry but no other options here...your ability to destroy a topic has become legendary...no one has forced you to join this discussion all debates move along to different stages jacqui thats what debates do they move to different levels.
So i asked if anyone who has been affected by abortion to have a say.. no one has... the debate has moved on since that request, it was a request not a demand.
The issue needs to be discussed from every angle to create an interesting debate..now i suggest you go head hunt your old sparring mate eddiesmith as i can no longer acknowledge your replies your now wasteing your time 
cheers
_________________
Football is Greatness
http://youtu.be/tJwoKbPOsQE |
|
|
|
|
Proud Pies
Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Location: Knox-ish
|
| Post subject: | |
|
so i'm NOT entitled to an opinion in this debate?
Grow up Joffa, ooops, you can't read it because i'm on the ignore list because i have an opinion different to yours.
There is no requirement to get personal information from people. That appears to just suit YOUR curious nature Joffa and yet, you haven't answered the question on WHY you want to know.
This isn't a debate Joffa, this is Joffa's thoughts on a subject and if you don't agree with them, well bad luck other people have opinions and believe it or not, they dont' all agree with you.
What i have contributed to this debate was MY personal opinion and feelings.
_________________
Jacqui © Proud Pies 2003 and beyond
Last edited by Proud Pies on Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:14 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| A deeper algorithm is needed to respond to that correctly. Do you prefer books or TV? |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Proud Pies wrote: | so i'm NOT entitled to an opinion in this debate?
Grow up Joffa, ooops, you can't read it because i'm on the ignore list because i have an opinion different to yours.
There is no requirement to get personal information from people. That appears to just suit YOUR curious nature Joffa and yet, you haven't answered the question on WHY you want to know.
This isn't a debate Joffa, this is Joffa's thoughts on a subject and if you don't agree with them, well bad luck other people have opinions and believe it or not, they dont' all agree with you.
What i have contributed to this debate was MY personal opinion and feelings. |
The irony is, Joffa has barely even contributed to this thread, even though he started it. Most of the actual debate and discussion has come from nomadjack, nuxta, sherrife etc... and yes I agree, why should people be made to feel they have to talk about their personal experiences on this subject? I don't really see the need for it.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
