Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardI think it is permissible to abort fetuses that have yet to develop the capacity to suffer. If you are asking why I think this is permissible, the answer is simply this: the permissibility of abortion is an entailment of what I take to be the most plausible ethical theory. I reached this conclusion by thinking a lot about theoretical ethics. You may think you have "pointed out" that justified beliefs regarding ethics can't be had, but I have yet to see your argument for this claim. If you think you have a good argument for this claim, present it. What is the first premise of this argument?
I understand that you think you have the right to kill a fetus that has not yet developed the capacity to suffer. But then the question becomes: where did you get this right? Where did you determine that this is moraly right? As I have already pointed out in the abortion thread; you cannot know what is moraly right or wrong so you must have based this right on some irrational belief. (since it can certainly not be justified with empathy)
Originally posted by bbarrBbarr: "I was never first or second trimester fetus. My body was once a first or second trimester fetus. I have always been a person, because I am essentially a person."
[b]Your life starts when your mothers egg is fertilized by your father’s sperm so from this point you can die/be killed/murdered.
Well, this is one place where we disagree. My life didn’t start when the body I now inhabit was created, my life started when the person who is me came into existence, and that didn’t happen until the body I inhabit had suff ...[text shortened]... ant. When a woman uses protection during sex, she is explicitly not consenting to get pregnant.[/b]
The basis of this statement is the assumption of the alleged separation between body and "who I am".
Originally posted by ivanhoeSo what?
Bbarr: "I was never first or second trimester fetus. My body was once a first or second trimester fetus. I have always been a person, because I am essentially a person."
The basis of this statement is the assumption of the alleged separation between body and "who I am".
Time and time again I am astounded by the claim pro-abortionists put forward against pro-lifers that they "impose" their ideas on others. They are forgetting it is THEY who impose their will on the unborn unwanted undamaged child by not wanting it to live. They are denying it the most fundamental right there is. The Right to Life. Why ? Simply because it is unwanted. Thàt's why.
Who is the one imposing his or her views on another human being and person here and therefore infringing on their rights ??
The trick to escape this contradiction in their thinking is a trick performed many times in history. You simply declare the living being as not being human or not being a human person. After gone through this procedure, of which you can observe many forms in the abortion debate also on these forums, it is all right to kill this unwanted section of the human family. Some of the methods to achieve this are downright irrational but some try to give a rational face to this idea by constructing all kinds of pseudo-scientific philosophical theories, the more complicated the better, to make this unacceptable division in the human family acceptable.
Originally posted by ivanhoeWho has "simply declared" anything? There has been a long discussion in this thread and others over what it means to be human, and what it means to be a person. Everyone on the "Liberal" side of the debate would agree that is a complex issue and central to the issue of abortion.
You simply declare the living being as not being human or not being a human person.
You seem determined to caracature "Liberals" as conceiving of rights in the same way one might conceive of dollar bills. To say somebody has a "right to life", for example, may just mean it is wrong to kill them. It does not need to have ontological implications.
Originally posted by CanadaguyRead the US Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the British North American Act of 1867. These all were written by Liberals.
I'm interested in knowing what you left wingers actually believe in. All my life all I've ever heard is snide comments and conservative bashing from you guys. Never have I heard what you actually want from this world and what you believe to be true and right. Here is your chance to sell me on your beliefs.
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellDottewell: "Who has "simply declared" anything?"
Who has "simply declared" anything? There has been a long discussion in this thread and others over what it means to be human, and what it means to be a person. Everyone on the "Liberal" side of the debate would agree that is a complex issue and central to the issue of abortion.
You seem determined to caracature "Liberals" as conceiving of rights ...[text shortened]... mple, may just mean it is wrong to kill them. It does not need to have ontological implications.
Please read the rest of my post.
Dottewell: "Everyone on the "Liberal" side of the debate would agree that is a complex issue and central to the issue of abortion."
Everyone ? If I read the posts on this forum I get a rather different picture. Of course in order to get that picture you have to read the posts who are relevant in this regard.One opinion more than once expressed by a pro-abortionist : Un unborn child can be killed during all the nine monts of the pregnancy. Even abortion doctors practise this idea.
Originally posted by dottewellDottewell: "To say somebody has a "right to life", for example, may just mean it is wrong to kill them. It does not need to have ontological implications."
Who has "simply declared" anything? There has been a long discussion in this thread and others over what it means to be human, and what it means to be a person. Everyone on the "Liberal" side of the debate would agree that is a complex issue and central to the issue of abortion.
You seem determined to caracature "Liberals" as conceiving of rights ...[text shortened]... mple, may just mean it is wrong to kill them. It does not need to have ontological implications.
What does this mean and what are the implications for the abortion-debate ?
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeOkay, everyone on the "Liberal" side worth listening to would agree etc. etc. Certainly bbarr, for example, was putting forward a well-argued position of when personhood is attained. You have not yet addressed his position (e.g. with reasons why personhood is obtained earlier, or alternatively why human life has value before personhood).
[b]Dottewell: "Who has "simply declared" anything?"
Please read the rest of my post.
Dottewell: "Everyone on the "Liberal" side of the debate would agree that is a complex issue and central to the issue of abortion."
Everyone ? If I read the posts on this forum I get a rather different picture. Of course in order to get that pictu ...[text shortened]... be killed during all the nine monts of the pregnancy. Even abortion doctors practise this idea.[/b]
Instead you continue to caracature your opponents and judge what you describe the "Liberal" position by its weakest/most extreme supporters. It demeans someone as intelligent to you and it devalues this discussion.
On the last point, the relevance is just that most of us "Liberals" have a much more sophisticated notion of what a "right" is than you might imagine. I do not frame my morality in terms of people's "rights". That doesn't mean they don't have them. But almost invariably a moral discussion based on "x's right to y" and "z's right to a" lacks sophistication. To suggest abortion is just a matter of balancing two competing rights is too simplistic.
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellDottewell: "You have not yet addressed his position"
Okay, everyone on the "Liberal" side worth listening to would agree etc. etc. Certainly bbarr, for example, was putting forward a well-argued position of when personhood is attained. You have not yet addressed his position (e.g. with reasons why personhood is obtained earlier, or alternatively why human life has value before personhood).
Instead you c ...[text shortened]... ation. To suggest abortion is just a matter of balancing two competing rights is too simplistic.
I have adressed his position extensively in other debates/threads.
Dottewell: "Instead you continue to caracature your opponents and judge what you describe the "Liberal" position by its weakest/most extreme supporters."
Allow me to disagree. Please read all of my posts.
Dottewell: "To suggest abortion is just a matter of balancing two competing rights is too simplistic."
This is an interesting, constructive and inspiring position you take. Can you elaborate on this ? What are the elements you want to introduce to the debate ?
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoe(a) Why not address his position here, for the benefit of us who have not read your previous words of wisdom? A cut and paste job would do.
[b]Dottewell: "You have not yet addressed his position"
I have adressed his position extensively in other debates/threads.
Dottewell: "Instead you continue to caracature your opponents and judge what you describe the "Liberal" position by its weakest/most extreme supporters."
Allow me to disagree. Please read all of my posts.
[b ...[text shortened]... ou take. Can you elaborate on this ? What are the elements you want to introduce to the debate ?[/b]
(b) I have read all of your (recent) posts and stand by my words. Please give an example of a post where you have taken the time to explain and constructively criticise a sophisticated liberal view.
(c) Well one very obvious example would be the consequences to the mother, baby and others of going through with an unwanted pregnancy and birth. The moral relevance of this will vary in different situations (just one extreme example - if the mother has been raped). Obviously no good for framing general moral principles, or laws, but relevant nontheless. You _could_ bundle such things as "a woman's right not to...etc.", but to do so is unhelpful as it encourages over-simplification.
2 edits
Originally posted by dottewellDottewell: "(a) Why not address his position here, for the benefit of us who have not read your previous words of wisdom?
(a) Why not address his position here, for the benefit of us who have not read your previous words of wisdom? A cut and paste job would do.
(b) I have read all of your (recent) posts and stand by my words. Please give an example of a post where you have taken the time to explain and constructively criticise a sophisticated liberal view.
(c) Well one ...[text shortened]... woman's right not to...etc.", but to do so is unhelpful as it encourages over-simplification.
You first need to know what Bbarr's previous words of wisdom were and the corresponding Neo-Kantian personhood theory. Maybe Bbarr can give a link where you can find this. However, I cannot give any garantees as to my reacting to it. The available time I have is very limited at the moment. I'm sure you can investigate, criticise and comment on this theory without me having to prompt you.
Dottewell: "Please give an example of a post where you have taken the time to explain and constructively criticise a sophisticated liberal view."
.... an example of a post where I .... criticise a sophisticated liberal view ? ..... a sophisticated liberal view ? No, there aren't any such posts of mine. You're intelligent enough to know the reason why.
Dottewell: " Well one very obvious example would be the consequences to the mother, baby and others of going through with an unwanted pregnancy and birth. The moral relevance of this will vary in different situations (just one extreme example - if the mother has been raped). Obviously no good for framing general moral principles, or laws, but relevant nontheless. You _could_ bundle such things as "a woman's right not to...etc.", but to do so is unhelpful as it encourages over-simplification.
... it encourages over-simplification. There is something I don't understand. You criticised the debate so far as dealing with the fact that the abortion-debate is not just about two rights of two different people being weighed. I asked you to give us your thoughts on this but you come to the conclusion these thoughts and notions will over-simplify the debate. I don't understand this. Can you clarify why you stated the abortion debate is more than what we were talking about ?
To place things in the correct perspective I will quote from one of your previous posts:
Dottewell: "On the last point, the relevance is just that most of us "Liberals" have a much more sophisticated notion of what a "right" is than you might imagine. I do not frame my morality in terms of people's "rights". That doesn't mean they don't have them. But almost invariably a moral discussion based on "x's right to y" and "z's right to a" lacks sophistication. To suggest abortion is just a matter of balancing two competing rights is too simplistic."
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoe(a) I am fully aware of bbarr's theory, which was clearly stated in this thread. Yours remains a mystery as you are clearly too busy to actually contribute positively to this or any other thread by stating a position.
[b]Dottewell: "(a) Why not address his position here, for the benefit of us who have not read your previous words of wisdom?
You first need to know what Bbarr's previous words of wisdom were and the corresponding Neo-Kantian personhood theory. Maybe Bbarr can give a link where you can find this. However, I cannot give any garantees as to my reacting ...[text shortened]... ion. To suggest abortion is just a matter of balancing two competing rights is too simplistic."[/b]
(b) Your habit of failing to give other people's views your full and honest scrutiny may amuse you but is a failing nonetheless.
(c) What don't you understand? I did not say that the debate on abortion COULD not be characterised as a weighing of different rights. I said it was not helpful to characterise it in such a way. It encourages the very sort of simplistic posts that you seem to be encouraging (and in some cases writing). And for me, there are cases of late-term abortion that are more acceptable than others because of the circumstances.