Abortion and Morality

[palerider]

You have an interesting definition of "lies". Well you're infallible so I guess if you say I have "seething rage" it must be a figment of your imagination. Lots of men are not the bigoted misogynists that your posts make you out to be.
My posts seem pretty calm, Pale, maybe the seething hatred is yours and you are just projecting it onto me rather than doing a little painful self-examination.

Interesting in that it comes from the dictionary? And it is obvious that you are a very angry person mare. I don't know what happened to you to leave you like this but it is truely tragic. You are so angry with catholics that you beleive that simply mentioning catholic is argument enough to prove your point. Well, it isn't.

I don't know, Pale, it sure doesn't seem like it.

Of course, you can't explain why.

Just as soon as you demonstrate a deliberate lie on my part I will apologize to you. Don't hold your breath though unless you look good in blue.

I already have mare. And I really didn't expect an apology anyway.

You're the scientist, you presented the hypothesis, now present your proofs. Especially #3, I think that living without suffering might trump the right to live in some cases, people should not be forced to live against their will nor in the face of the kind of pain that you would inflict on them in torture. Again we have another piece of Catholic dogma, life is to be preserved at all costs, suicide--even in the face of intolerable pain--cannot be accepted, but the torture of people IS acceptable. Wow! And you call ME a nut?

Look to our founding documents mare. The founders stated that we come into being with the right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. In that order mare. And the order is important in legal writing. In legal writing, when you put items in a list, the list places the most important first and each item after that is in decending importance. And The order here is self evident.

Of what value would a right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness be without first having a right to live. And of what use would a right to pursue happiness be if you didn't first have the right to be free?

Do you really believe that the founders of this country were agents for the pope? My argument comes directly from the constitution and the founding documents mare.

I have noted your Catholic principles all along, clearly, concisely, and with no rancor (or maybe just a little), if that isn't enough send out a plea on the thread for some Catholic to come and rescue you by showing that I'm wrong--oooh, wouldn't that be fun for you?

You keep saying it but to date, you haven't brought a single catholic document here to compare to my postion. If you can't back up your postion then it is worthless. Clearly you don't know jack about catholic dogma (neither do I) but you are so violently anti catholic that you believe that if you can attatch catholic to your argument against me that you win by default. Sorry mare, you don't.

Apples and oranges, no corollary, sorry Pale, it won't work. You can't frame the discussion and throw out all the information that doesn't fit your tidy little religious framework.

Sorry mare. You don't get to just dismiss a question and assume that you have won the point. If you don't believe that the analogy is proper, then it falls to you to explain exactly why it fails. To date, you haven't done that eitehr. You just toss in religion and assume that you have won.

I'm not Armchair, and I don't agree with your "logic" since you throw out at least half the equation to come up with your answer. What do you call a scientist who throws out the data so that he gets the answer that he wants? From my post #74 on this thread.

It doesn't really matter whether you agree or not. If you can't defeat it, then you have lost.

It's right there in the Holy Book, #6 of the Ten Commandments. Check it out.

But those words were given to Moses. Are you claiming that Moses was a catholic?

I have pointed out your religious-based arguments all through the exchange of posts--if you didn't notice, then you should go back and reread because you can't hope to hold up your end of the "discussion" unless you actually READ what I write.

You have said that my arguments are religious based. To date, you haven't proven one whit of your claims. Just saying so doesn't constitute proof of any sort mare.

 

[ArmChair General]

Throughout history men have given what appeared to be fine and well though out reasons that it was OK to kill members of a certain group. Yours is just one more. The fact remains that in this country, human beings have a right to live and unborns are undeniably human beings.

Tell me armchair, do you believe that I would be "morally innocent" if I denied you the potential to become whatever you grew to become? Would I be "morally innocent" if I denied you the capacity to have a family, to enjoy relationships, to learn, to simply live? The decision to kill a human being isn't captured in the moment that the killing takes place and held there forever. When you kill a human being, you deny them every event that would have happened in their lives from that moment on.

I don't know what you do for a living, or who you know, or what good or bad you have done in the world, or what you may do. But since the time you were concieved, your life began moving forward and the range of things you might have done was infinite. And to the best of any of our knowledge, you only get this one time around. To deny you that, whether you were aware that you were being denied or not, can not be morally justified.

I am grateful that my parents brought me into this world. However, I am grateful because this life that I have was their gift, not their duty.

Sure, I could look back and say, "If my mother had an abortion, then I would not be here." Some people take this perspective, then as you have done, harvest the horror of not having existed to manufacture a sentiment against abortion. I can just as easily look back and say that if my parents had not had sex, then I would not be here. This does not allow me to imply that their having sex on that particular occasion was their duty, and that they would have wronged me if they had not done so.

I am certain that I have at least one ancestor who was the offspring of rape, or incest or sex between a master and slave. If this had not occurred, I would not be here. This does not give me reason to argue that we should pass laws punishing those who would interfere with rape, incest, or slavery.

At one point, I acquired a functioning brain, I acquired desires, and I acquired morally relevant interests. This fact has moral bearing on the legitimacy of anybody coming at me with an axe (or a scalpel).

Even though I had interests, and those interests had moral weight, there are still certain things that one person may not do to another person in defense of his interests. My interest in living did not give me the right to commandeer somebody else's body and to use it for my benefit without their consent.

 

[palerider]

ISure, I could look back and say, "If my mother had an abortion, then I would not be here." Some people take this perspective, then as you have done, harvest the horror of not having existed to manufacture a sentiment against abortion. I can just as easily look back and say that if my parents had not had sex, then I would not be here. This does not allow me to imply that their having sex on that particular occasion was their duty, and that they would have wronged me if they had not done so.

There is a fundamental difference between never having existed and being killed that simply can't be escaped.

Even though I had interests, and those interests had moral weight, there are still certain things that one person may not do to another person in defense of his interests. My interest in living did not give me the right to commandeer somebody else's body and to use it for my benefit without their consent.

Another flaw in your reasoning. You didn't "comandeer anything. You were placed in a position of dependence through no fault of your own and you came into being with a right to live. Rules are rules. If they are to be changed, then the change needs to be written down and voted on.

 

[ArmChair General]

There is a fundamental difference between never having existed and being killed that simply can't be escaped.

what benefit comes to a person who, instead of being conceived and aborted, was not conceived at all? I do not see how anybody is made better or worse off by either action.

Another flaw in your reasoning. You didn't "comandeer anything. You were placed in a position of dependence through no fault of your own and you came into being with a right to live. Rules are rules. If they are to be changed, then the change needs to be written down and voted on.

I deny that sex immediately results in a being with interests being dependent on another for survival.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Originally Posted by Mare Tranquillity
I'm not Armchair, and I don't agree with your "logic" since you throw out at least half the equation to come up with your answer. What do you call a scientist who throws out the data so that he gets the answer that he wants? From my post #74 on this thread.

It doesn't really matter whether you agree or not. If you can't defeat it, then you have lost.

You STILL didn't answer the question.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I don't get into "snits". I am cold and emotionless. Remember. You said so yourself.

You DON'T get into snits? You are practically snit-central on this thread. You still don't read what I write, do you? I said you were cold and emotionless when it comes torture, but I also said (twice) that around abortion your emotions run over the top of your intellect like a bus over a ground squirrel. Do you think that denying the religious intent of your arguments makes them logical or scientific?

You are a piece of work, Pale, deny the existence of the real problems, go for the quicky answer and then claim that you are winning the argument. I love it. Of course if you can do it, so can I. You are obviously not capable of addressing my points so I win--try to be as gracious in your defeat as I obviously am in my success.

 

[palerider]

what benefit comes to a person who, instead of being conceived and aborted, was not conceived at all? I do not see how anybody is made better or worse off by either action.

Again, faulty reasoning. You must compare being concieved and living to being concieved and being killed. One is most certainly better off than the other.

I deny that sex immediately results in a being with interests being dependent on another for survival.

You may deny it, but you can't prove it. A denial without proof doesn't make a very convincing case.

 

[palerider]

You STILL didn't answer the question.

What question.? It is very difficult to sort through catholic dogma this and catholic dogma that to get to your points.

Or should I do like you and simply say "wrong question mare" and carry on as if that were a valid answer?

 

[ArmChair General]

Again, faulty reasoning. You must compare being concieved and living to being concieved and being killed. One is most certainly better off than the other.

No its not faulty reasoning. You are assuming that as soon as an entity acquires a particular set of properties (life, human DNA, etc) that it acquires a corresponding moral property of "personhood" as well. Personhood is said to "supervene" on these physical properties.

The task, then, is to discover just which set of physical properties entails this moral property. So far, nobody has been able to come up with a clear answer. There are problems with every proposal.

You try to analyze this problem by saying that "personhood" is like "game". Try to give me a precise set of attributes where anything that fits into this description is properly called "a game", while, at the same time, it does not end up including things that are not commonly thought of as games. You will certainly fail.

I do not think that this analysis works. The reason that we have no precise definition of "game" -- the reason that the term is vague -- is because we have no use for a precise definition. Giving a term a precise definition and promulgating that definition is a lot of work, which is only worthwhile if we can gain a corresponding benefit from the more precise communication this allows. Science does this, because science recognizes a substantial benefit from doing so. Mathematics does this as well. For "game", there are insufficient benefits to compensate for these costs.

For "personhood," there is value in having a precise definition, but we cannot seem to find one that works.

The reason for this is because “personhood” is a moral term. That is to say, it is an “ought” term. To say, “X is a person” is to say that certain things ought not to be done to X and that one has obligations to treat X in particular ways. At the same time, all of the physical properties that this ‘ought’ term is supposed to supervene on are “descriptive” physical properties. The tell us what is true of the entity – that it has distinct human DNA, that it has a brain with desires, that it has blue eyes, or whatever different people use in claiming that it is a “person”.

The philosopher David Hume warned us in one of the most famous passages in moral theory of the difficulties in deriving ‘ought’ from ‘is.’ The difficulties of this derivation are what stands in the way of defining a set of physical properties on which moral value supervenes. In short, this inference cannot be made.

I deny that no set of "is" statements entails an "ought". I hold that "is such as to fulfill the desires in question" entails an "ought." I know that many would dispute this. However, for the purpose of this issue, it is not important. The supervenience of personhood on some set of natural properties raises exactly the types of problems that Hume was warning us about.

For the most part, the is/ought problem tells us that the standard “personhood” debate is a waste of time. We have to look elsewhere to find answers to the questions.

Debates on personhood are never going to go anywhere.

I beileve my reasoning is sound, and my point stands.

You may deny it, but you can't prove it. A denial without proof doesn't make a very convincing case.

As of yet you haven't rebutted any of the points I've made. I've already proved it. Thought it would seem to me, that the onus would be on your end to 'prove it'.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

Originally Posted by Mare Tranquillity
I'm not Armchair, and I don't agree with your "logic" since you throw out at least half the equation to come up with your answer. What do you call a scientist who throws out the data so that he gets the answer that he wants? From my post #74 on this thread.



You STILL didn't answer the question.

What do you call a scientist who throws out the data so that he gets the answer that he wants? Ooh! Ooh! I know!

Al Gore! Errrr, that's wrong. He's not a scientist.

 

[heyjude]

When I said a woman could not be forced to have surgery to save the life of an unborn child, I was stating what I believe is a fact. Not taking a moral position. Some people here don't seem to be capable of separating fact from emotion.

An adult in this country cannot be forced to save someone elses life. If two men walk by a swimming pool and see a year and a half old baby fall in it, there is no law that can compel them to pull the baby out. That is a fact. That is is reprehensible is also a fact. Personally, I think that the Dr.s in England who separated e co-joined twins, knowing one of them would absolutely die, commited cold blooded murder.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

What question.? It is very difficult to sort through catholic dogma this and catholic dogma that to get to your points.

Or should I do like you and simply say "wrong question mare" and carry on as if that were a valid answer?

You've got to stop spanking the monkey, Pale, you're going blind. My post #175 had almost nothing in it except the BOLDED AND UNDERLINED question--and you missed it? Okay, let's try it again, they say the third time is the charm:
Originally Posted by Mare Tranquillity
I'm not Armchair, and I don't agree with your "logic" since you throw out at least half the equation to come up with your answer. What do you call a scientist who throws out the data so that he gets the answer that he wants? Originally from my post #74 on this thread. Can you find the question, Pale?

What do you call a scientist who throws out the data so that he gets the answer that he wants?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

what benefit comes to a person who, instead of being conceived and aborted, was not conceived at all? I do not see how anybody is made better or worse off by either action.

Again, faulty reasoning. You must compare being concieved and living to being concieved and being killed. One is most certainly better off than the other.



You may deny it, but you can't prove it. A denial without proof doesn't make a very convincing case.

An assertion without proof doesn't make a very convincing case either.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

What do you call a scientist who throws out the data so that he gets the answer that he wants? Ooh! Ooh! I know!

Al Gore! Errrr, that's wrong. He's not a scientist.

Good one! Maybe you could help our Pale friend find the question, he seems to be going blind--maybe hysterical blindness from his overwhelming snit.

 

[palerider]

What do you call a scientist who throws out the data so that he gets the answer that he wants?

If the data are correct, I would call him right so long as no one is "throwing out" more powerful credible data that conflicts what he is trying to prove.

If his data is incorrect, or made up, then I would call him a fraud.

And it is interesting how you feel that you need to charactarize data that I have "presented" as having been "thrown out" as if "thrown out" data is inherently wrong and thus, you are relieved of the necessity to actually argue against said data.