The quantification of life

[dan-cat]

I'm sure some of it is bureaucratic, but for me, it's far more on the human side.

I'm hoping you are right. The idea that law in general does not have any moral grounding was quite depressing.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

This is something I wrestle with philosophically.

Take a wall-lamp that is not switched on. When it is not switched on does it cease to become a wall-lamp or is it still a wall-lamp that is currently not switched on?

A womb is simply a womb thus contraception doesn't change any current state. [EDIT: Scratch that lol] Abortion is different by it's very definition. It alters a current state. When the sperm and egg have fertilized and the development cycle is in process does the resulting entity, the clutch of cells, not become something more than it's current state?

The lamp not emitting light is still a lamp. Why does the definition of the clutch of cells NOT leap beyond it's current state like the lamp does?

My consideration is this. The definition of the clutch of cells DOES leap beyond it's own definition, in the same way as the lamp, at the point when a woman first considers abortion. That the scientific definition of 'alive' MUST be an afterthought to soften the premise for the decision. The decision to not want something that is alive.

Im guessing you've been wrestling with this since the 70s?

 

[Adam Caramon]

Forgive me for thinking, that if religious folk advocated contraception generally, then the abortion debate still wouldn't be over. You can pretend otherwise, for whatever reason you wish.

Black and white thinking on such a topic never works. If religious institutions advocated for contraception, the abortion debate would still be around, but they would be less culpable in the overall problem.

And again forgive me but I dont think my ramblings or supposed misunderstanding of disenfranchisement, has any real influence on your lack of ability or willingness to acknowledge the two (even forgetting the innocent to be allowed to live or not) sides to the age old thorny problem of whos rights to decide supercede whos in abortion.

"Supposed misunderstanding"? I'll gladly listen to your explanation for how the use of the word 'disenfranchisement' in the context that you used it in was appropriate.

We have strayed off topic anyhow, into abortion debate 101 for your benefit.

Abortion debate 101? So essentially what you're saying is I should try to ignore the actual arguments you're presenting and view them in the spirit of what you're trying to say? If you're not capable of presenting a logical rationale for your side in a debate, why should anyone waste anytime listening?

As an aside, I think someone mentioned that you were likely the previous Pauldo person or whatever the name was. I seem to recall that name being attached to a lot of non-sequitor arguments, so I'm seeing why someone made the guess.

That the scientific definition of 'alive' MUST be an afterthought to soften the premise for the decision. The decision to not want something that is alive.

I suspect you're likely right in many of the cases, but people are quick to use such a statement as a rationale for why a law should be a certain way, which is why other people are quick to come up with more palpable explanations.

 

[dan-cat]

I suspect you're likely right in many of the cases, but people are quick to use such a statement as a rationale for why a law should be a certain way, which is why other people are quick to come up with more palpable explanations.

I'll try to present my argument for why it would be correct in MOST cases. That is to say my attempt to make it more objective.

Now, I know pro-choice has the potential to be abused and is abused. There are definitely people who have had multiple abortions without any feeling of regret involved. I believe this is a very small minority of people. I believe most people who have had abortions go into serious thoughts and considerations before coming to that conclusion.

From this we see that multiple abortions by any one individual becomes unacceptable. What is the factor that is being incremented that results in unacceptability? If this factor is severed completely from the notion of life how can it be incremented to unacceptable.

Does it not hold that there is a link between life and abortion in each and every case and that is why multiple cases by an individual 'grow' in our perception to unacceptability?

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Black and white thinking on such a topic never works. If religious institutions advocated for contraception, the abortion debate would still be around, but they would be less culpable in the overall problem.



"Supposed misunderstanding"? I'll gladly listen to your explanation for how the use of the word 'disenfranchisement' in the context that you used it in was appropriate.



Abortion debate 101? So essentially what you're saying is I should try to ignore the actual arguments you're presenting and view them in the spirit of what you're trying to say? If you're not capable of presenting a logical rationale for your side in a debate, why should anyone waste anytime listening?

As an aside, I think someone mentioned that you were likely the previous Pauldo person or whatever the name was. I seem to recall that name being attached to a lot of non-sequitor arguments, so I'm seeing why someone made the guess.



I suspect you're likely right in many of the cases, but people are quick to use such a statement as a rationale for why a law should be a certain way, which is why other people are quick to come up with more palpable explanations.

I wasn't eloquent at all. You can use that excuse to be as dumb as you want if you wish. Why you would choose that is up to you. I think Bob saw you coming in his opt out at post 2.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

You dont seem to hold anyone responsible for their own actions - instead shifting the blame to religion.

Anthony, you missed where I blamed society for allowing a "love 'em and leave 'em" attitude to persist. Religion IS to blame because it is inconsistent. Many modern religions have a double standard regarding men and women and their responsibilities. Devout (extremist) Christians look at Corinthians as evidence that women are somehow inferior and BELONG in the home making babies.

And I'm sorry to say that your logic is most notable in its absence. If you don't want women to have abortions then figure out realistic ways to prevent them from getting pregnant. When you do, PLEASE don't give me that stupidity called "just say no." In the phase of life where a young woman is more likely to get preggers, she is also in the phase of life that is most likely to experiment and least likely to have figured out all of the consequences. You can advise "just say no" but based on statistics, that might well have been the stupidest idea of all time.

You would disenfranchise those with the earliest start of life surely?

Typical for a non-thinking, knee-jerk type. No, removing the restrictions on when you can have an abortion does NOTHING repeat NOTHING to people who believe that life starts earlier and act accordingly. Just because we take away the rule that says you can't have an abortion in third trimester, that would not mean that you had to get one. It would mean that if your religion allowed it late in gestation, you could still act according to your religious beliefs. And if you believed that life starts at conception and really wanted to follow that belief, you just wouldn't get the abortion. But you see the "late term abortion" phrase and go into a tizzy. Sorry, but that tizzy was your problem not mine, because it was self-imposed.

Bang another drum.

In your case, it seems to be a gong, signifying nothing.

Thereby giving one latter sides right to abortion over the earliers idea of right to life.

Ah, you tipped your hand here with the word "idea." You are avoiding the fact that you want the right to stop someone else whose beliefs differ from yours. In other words, you cannot accept another person's differences. So much for the idea of religious freedom. You want everyone to be free to follow YOUR idea of religion. Gee, thanks, pal... but no thanks. And if you can't see that, you remind me of the saying about the mote on someone else's eye.

Forgive me for thinking, that if religious folk advocated contraception generally, then the abortion debate still wouldn't be over.

I don't want religion to advocate contraception. I just don't want them to block schools from teaching kids (of the appropriate age) about the concept. What I really DO want is an acknowledgment that "just say no" doesn't work and if you want to address the problem, you have to try something else.

Given a society that is multi-cultural in nature, where the rights of others to have varying beliefs must be preserved, do you or don't you want to reduce the number of abortions? I didn't say this before, but I really DO want to reduce the number of abortions by finding ways to not let it get that far. Because (check your history books on this) abortions have been around as long or longer than the Bible itself. You ain't gonna stop the now. So if you want to do something constructive, do something that has a chance of working. Stop trying things known to not work.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Religion IS to blame because it is inconsistent. Many modern religions have a double standard regarding men and women and their responsibilities.

I dont disgree with what you are saying - its where you focus your argument rather than looking at the wider picture.
Its not like wider society has that problem too? Not just religion.

And I'm sorry to say that your logic is most notable in its absence. If you don't want women to have abortions then figure out realistic ways to prevent them from getting pregnant. When you do, PLEASE don't give me that stupidity called "just say no." In the phase of life where a young woman is more likely to get preggers, she is also in the phase of life that is most likely to experiment and least likely to have figured out all of the consequences. You can advise "just say no" but based on statistics, that might well have been the stupidest idea of all time.

I have - its called contraception? Readly available contraception, even widely advocated - doesn't stop unwanted pregnacies - despite you pretending otherwise. Theres no lack of logic in that on my behalf.

Typical for a non-thinking, knee-jerk type. No, removing the restrictions on when you can have an abortion does NOTHING repeat NOTHING to people who believe that life starts earlier and act accordingly. Just because we take away the rule that says you can't have an abortion in third trimester, that would not mean that you had to get one. It would mean that if your religion allowed it late in gestation, you could still act according to your religious beliefs. And if you believed that life starts at conception and really wanted to follow that belief, you just wouldn't get the abortion. But you see the "late term abortion" phrase and go into a tizzy. Sorry, but that tizzy was your problem not mine, because it was self-imposed.

It clearly infringes on the peoples right to preserve what they consider to be human life., let alone the unborn childs right to live. As much as it enables those who dont consider it life to terminate it. Moving the time limit anyway infinges on someones supposed rights.

I merely stating bother sides of the argumnent. Its you who is non thinking and see it as a settled argument. I'm for abortion to a certain time, probably where teh baby could survive outside the womb. But I'm not going to pretend, those who beleive life has already begun, dont beleive a baby is being killed and their rights to preserve human life are being infringed upon, let alone the rights of the unborn child. JUst as someones rights to terminate may be infringed upon in the opposite opinion.

Ah, you tipped your hand here with the word "idea." You are avoiding the fact that you want the right to stop someone else whose beliefs differ from yours. In other words, you cannot accept another person's differences. So much for the idea of religious freedom. You want everyone to be free to follow YOUR idea of religion. Gee, thanks, pal... but no thanks. And if you can't see that, you remind me of the saying about the mote on someone else's eye.

Exactly wrong - its not my idea at all. I'm just acknowldeging both sides to the argument, to make a reasonable assessment of whose supossed right may be infringed. Failure to do so - would be to ignore peoples ideas, and their perceived rights. Failure to accept other peoples differnaces - is embodied by your statements - of not even acknowledging the truely held, perfectlly logical and valid differnaces of opinion. Not achkmowlding someone elses opinion and feelings allows enables you to trample all over them guilt free. It may feel reasonable to you, but actually its ignorant.

I don't want religion to advocate contraception. I just don't want them to block schools from teaching kids (of the appropriate age) about the concept. What I really DO want is an acknowledgment that "just say no" doesn't work and if you want to address the problem, you have to try something else.

Yes why not - I wouldn't blame religion for the failure of non religiuos views to get their points across. Thats a failure on their behalf just as much, (if you really beleive bothe sides are allowed an opinion). Maybe its a failure or the US government and secular society generally, just as much.

Given a society that is multi-cultural in nature, where the rights of others to have varying beliefs must be preserved, do you or don't you want to reduce the number of abortions? I didn't say this before, but I really DO want to reduce the number of abortions by finding ways to not let it get that far. Because (check your history books on this) abortions have been around as long or longer than the Bible itself. You ain't gonna stop the now. So if you want to do something constructive, do something that has a chance of working. Stop trying things known to not work.

Yes I agree -society isn;'t religion, its wider than that. Which is why your focus on religion and its lack of acceptance of contraception, may help in some areas. Its not really looking at the full picture.


Judging by your response - to automatically assume I'm religiuos, wanting to push my ideas above others, when actually all I am doing is making sure both sides of the argumemant are put forward. (Its the same when any semi religiuso thread opens) Would rather indicate to me, its you who is intolerant of others opinions or beliefs. I dont advocate them - I merely state them.

THis may indicate why true religiuos peoples dont bother argueing on here and the debate gets nowhere.

What you actually want - or certainly all you acheive is to shut debate down. That comes from a non religiuos, pro abortion standpoint. Ignore that opinion if you want, but dont you and Adam pretend its you who is tolernat and reasonable.

 

[Adam Caramon]

It clearly infringes on the peoples right to preserve what they consider to be human life., let alone the unborn childs right to live.

And this would be Exhibit A in the case Anthony v. dictionary. To disenfranchise someone, you have to take away a right they have. No one has the right "to preserve what they consider to be a human life" in another person.

But I'm not going to pretend, those who beleive life has already begun, beleive a baby is being killed and their rights to preserve human life are being infringed upon, let alone the rights of the unborn child.

Here is more rambling. If I'm reading you correctly (and I definitely wouldn't bet on it), you're asserting that a person who believes that life starts at conception has their rights infringed upon when anyone in the world decides to abort a baby. If I am correct, then all I can suggest to you is that you learn the difference between a "right" and a "belief".

They say that in conversations you should always try to find common ground with those you're speaking with. I think we've found some: We both agree that you're not eloquent.

What you actually want - or certainly all you acheive is to shut debate down. That comes from a non religiuos, pro abortion standpoint. Ignore that opinion if you want, but dont you and Adam pretend its you who is tolernat and reasonable.

If someone is not able to defend their side in a debate, then the natural conclusion is that the debate is "shut down".

Dan-cat and I agree on some things, and disagree on others. Even when I disagree with him, its pretty clear that he is putting together logical, rational points. He presents his side of the argument in a way that makes sense and has merit. In the end, neither of us may change our minds, but the debate is useful to see other viewpoints beyond our own.

I don't see the same value in your postings.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

And this would be Exhibit A in the case Anthony v. dictionary. To disenfranchise someone, you have to take away a right they have. No one has the right "to preserve what they consider to be a human life" in another person.



Here is more rambling. If I'm reading you correctly (and I definitely wouldn't bet on it), you're asserting that a person who believes that life starts at conception has their rights infringed upon when anyone in the world decides to abort a baby. If I am correct, then all I can suggest to you is that you learn the difference between a "right" and a "belief".

They say that in conversations you should always try to find common ground with those you're speaking with. I think we've found some: We both agree that you're not eloquent.



If someone is not able to defend their side in a debate, then the natural conclusion is that the debate is "shut down".

Dan-cat and I agree on some things, and disagree on others. Even when I disagree with him, its pretty clear that he is putting together logical, rational points. He presents his side of the argument in a way that makes sense and has merit. In the end, neither of us may change our minds, but the debate is useful to see other viewpoints beyond our own.

I don't see the same value in your postings.

Your completely incapable of seeing a opinion other than your own.
Your problem not mine. As is your lack of civility in all you say.

 

[dan-cat]

In the end, neither of us may change our minds, but the debate is useful to see other viewpoints beyond our own.

Exactly. I brought it up because I read another discussion on another forum with very bright people who viewed 'pro-lifers' as lacking intelligence.

My gut reaction to abortion is for it to be discouraged but I wanted to throw my reasons up against the wall to see if there was anything blindingly obvious that I hadn't understood.

So far, correct me if I'm wrong, it seems that my view is reasonable as long as it isn't imposed on an individual's freedom. That is to say my arguments are sound but do not outweigh the rights of the individual.

 

[jamesmor]

I'd have to agree that they are reasonable, though you're discussing a topic in which reason rarely ever makes an appearance.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Its not like wider society has that problem too? Not just religion.

Anthony, despite the ideal case, I must say that many of our modern society's views do in fact come from a religious origin. I will acknowledge that it is difficult to disentangle them from each other.

It clearly infringes on the peoples right to preserve what they consider to be human life., let alone the unborn childs right to live.

This is a presumed right that doesn't exist in law. It only exists in religious beliefs. Also, a quibble. Technically, there is no such thing as an unborn child. It is correctly called a fetus. Use of the term "unborn child" betrays an attempt to sway the argument by defining the fetus to be something it is not.

Readly available contraception, even widely advocated - doesn't stop unwanted pregnacies - despite you pretending otherwise. Theres no lack of logic in that on my behalf.

Readily available, but not in the Bible belt. Widely advocated, but not in the Bible belt. Contraception doesn't stop squat if you don't know about it and don't use it. Explain to me how THAT is illogical.

Would rather indicate to me, its you who is intolerant of others opinions or beliefs. I dont advocate them - I merely state them.

Let's see... intolerant of others' opinions... but I'm the one who pointed out how the current limit on abortion ignores the religious beliefs of some denominations.

Adam Cameron seems to see the point I'm making in a way that you do not. Your eloquence on this subject leaves much to be desired. I'll not be so intolerant as to hold that against you, though.

Moving the time limit anyway infinges on someones supposed rights.

The operative word here is "supposed." Moving the time limit doesn't MAKE someone do anything. It doesn't infringe on anything except someone else's outraged sensibilities. But it infringes on no rights that an unrelated third party actually has. The move of that time limit allows a person to act within the confines of their conscience. It offers the widest possible tolerance of the beliefs of others. Do you not see this?

The fact that someone makes a choice that you yourself could not make doesn't say anything about either of you except that you are different from each other. You may offer an opinion that someone is wicked or evil for making that decision, but that is your opinion, not guaranteed to be a fact.

Anthony, we take a different world view. In my world view, I am not my brother's keeper. My brother neither needs nor wants nor deserves a keeper. I have no right to claim to be a keeper. The ONLY legit person who COULD make such a claim in this context is the pregnant woman, who is the keeper for the gestating fetus.

Earlier in this thread, someone commented on parental rights of the father. I'll pass a comment on that one, just to stoke the flames a bit more. I fully agree that the sperm donor who WANTS to be a father should indeed have a say in the matter. But here, I am mindful of the yin and yang that applies. With every right, there is a responsibility. With every privilege there is a duty.

When men run away from their pregnant previous partner, they abrogate their rights at the same time they abrogate their responsibilities. And Anthony, here I will agree with part of what you said: Society LETS this happen. That is just wrong. If a guy donated sperm to someone he wouldn't be caught dead with, why did he donate in the first place? If he was that desperate, he should have used a manual method. I will strongly agree that this society allows irresponsible people to contribute to unpleasant situations that have no answers of universal appeal. Having said that, I have to ask: Once you are between the rock and the hard place, who has the right to fault you for your choice if they aren't going to help you? (Offering platitudes in the name of advice is NOT help!)

 

[Adam Caramon]

Exactly. I brought it up because I read another discussion on another forum with very bright people who viewed 'pro-lifers' as lacking intelligence.

I think this comes from an individual's refusal to see reason. If you find someone who is not religious but is extremely pro-life (very rare), their arguments tend to gravitate towards wanting to punish the irresponsible mother. They will point out that it was an active decision to engage in intercourse, the availability of protection, etc.

These are all logical arguments, but they are geared towards punishing the mother by forcing her to keep her baby that she does not want. I cannot imagine how horrible of a life that would be if you were that kid. So, from my point of view, you're not really punishing the mother, you're punishing the kid.

The more typical pro-lifers are the religious variety. Their arguments tend towards the "every life is sacred, god acts in mysterious ways" mantra. They have a hard time understanding that not everyone follows their religion, and thus should not be constrained by their beliefs.

My gut reaction to abortion is for it to be discouraged but I wanted to throw my reasons up against the wall to see if there was anything blindingly obvious that I hadn't understood.

I think everyone agrees that abortion should be discouraged (though those who are pro-choice are discouraging it by encouraging sex education, contraceptives, family planning services, etc).

That is to say my arguments are sound but do not outweigh the rights of the individual.

Based on what I have read of what you've posted so far, I'd agree.

 

[Vassago]

Let's not take any responses personal and follow through with personal attacks.

I would love to hear from someone who is "pro-life" when a ra** occurs and a fetus is concieved. What are your opinions in this situation?

 

[Rich]

I would love to hear from someone who is "pro-life" when a ra** occurs and a fetus is concieved. What are your opinions in this situation?

I believe the pro lifers opinions are that it's just unfortunate for the mother but she should learn to forgive and put the child up for adoption

 

[Vassago]

I believe the pro lifers opinions are that it's just unfortunate for the mother but she should learn to forgive and put the child up for adoption

I want to hear from them. There are many different beliefs and ideas that qualify as "pro-life."

 

[Rabbie]

Something has been bothering me recently and it has to do with how developed countries determine the sanctity of life.

The two elements that hinge on my point are abortion and the death penalty.

The principle behind outlawing capital punishment is the sanctity of life. That is, that life itself is immune from the remit of punishment because it is held higher in value than the value of punishment. However in nations where this is upheld in law, why is it that the same principle tends not to be applied to the issue of abortion.

If the sanctity of life is given enough credence to outlaw capital punishment where is the same credence for outlawing abortion?

We can see the same thing in reverse in the US where capital punishment is given credence by the state but the issue of the legality of abortion is still under much debate.

My point is not to argue the pros and cons of abortion and the death penalty in themselves though that may follow but rather the contradictory approaches of the developed world when determining the value of life when dealing with these two issues.

My objections to capital punishment is not based on the "sanctity of life" argument but on the fact that it is irreversible and there is no scope for correcting a mistake if it becomes clear that the conviction was unsound.

As regards to abortion I believe it is justified as a last resort depending on the circumstances

 

[Thales750]

My objections to capital punishment is not based on the "sanctity of life" argument but on the fact that it is irreversible and there is no scope for correcting a mistake if it becomes clear that the conviction was unsound.

Equally as important are cases where there may be coconspirators. McVeigh will never tell us who conspired to kill those people in Oklahoma.

Also everyone ignored my previous post about the father having no rights in this whole process.
It doesn’t seem like men should even engage in this discussion, being as it is, completely about women.

 

[Vassago]

There have been cases where men have successfully been able to block abortions in certain situations through legal means. At any rate, I think it's certainly an important topic of discussion for everyone to be involved in, not just women. Using your argument, non-gays shouldn't have any discussion on whether or not gay marriage is okay because it doesn't involve them.

 

[Thales750]

There have been cases where men have successfully been able to block abortions in certain situations through legal means. At any rate, I think it's certainly an important topic of discussion for everyone to be involved in, not just women. Using your argument, non-gays shouldn't have any discussion on whether or not gay marriage is okay because it doesn't involve them.

I completely agree. Why would any straight person give a second thought to gay marriage?