Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

abortion terminology

Page 8 of 12 [ 182 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

20 May 2009, 2:31 pm

ed wrote:
As for attacking the premise "abortion is murder," that is like this: :wall:

Their religion (or their own sensibilities) says that life begins at conception, and destroying that life is murder. Nothing you or I or anybody else can say can change their minds on that point. I think it is a waste of time to continue to butt heads on that.

Well, it's the only intellectually honest way of addressing the issue.

Look, it's like this:
Premise 1: Fetuses are human beings.
Premise 2: Killing humans is wrong.
Premise 3: Abortion kills fetuses.
Conclusion: Abortion is wrong.

I don't see any flaw in the logic there, so if you want to attack the conclusion, you're not going to succeed by criticizing pro-life reasoning, you have to dispute one or more of the premises. Premise 3 is just fact, that's pretty much the definition of abortion, and you won't succeed in disputing Premise 2. So, you're left with Premise 1. Reject Premise 1, or accept the pro-life conclusion, there really aren't any other options.

Most people would agree with you that a newly-fertilized egg is not human. A blastocyst similarly is not typically recognized as human. But an 8-month fetus usually does seem human enough that people will object to abortions at that stage of development. It becomes a decision of where to draw an arbitrary line separating human from non-human. To me, it seems fairly reasonable to draw the arbitrary line at the end of the first trimester.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


ed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: Whitinsville, MA

20 May 2009, 2:32 pm

Orwell wrote:
Now look, "separation of church and state" means that the government can not enforce any religion.


Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


A law codifying religious beliefs is an obvious violation of that Amendment.



cognito
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 675

20 May 2009, 2:34 pm

Orwell wrote:
ed wrote:
As for attacking the premise "abortion is murder," that is like this: :wall:

Their religion (or their own sensibilities) says that life begins at conception, and destroying that life is murder. Nothing you or I or anybody else can say can change their minds on that point. I think it is a waste of time to continue to butt heads on that.

Well, it's the only intellectually honest way of addressing the issue.

Look, it's like this:
Premise 1: Fetuses are human beings.
Premise 2: Killing humans is wrong.
Premise 3: Abortion kills fetuses.
Conclusion: Abortion is wrong.

I don't see any flaw in the logic there, so if you want to attack the conclusion, you're not going to succeed by criticizing pro-life reasoning, you have to dispute one or more of the premises. Premise 3 is just fact, that's pretty much the definition of abortion, and you won't succeed in disputing Premise 2. So, you're left with Premise 1. Reject Premise 1, or accept the pro-life conclusion, there really aren't any other options.

Most people would agree with you that a newly-fertilized egg is not human. A blastocyst similarly is not typically recognized as human. But an 8-month fetus usually does seem human enough that people will object to abortions at that stage of development. It becomes a decision of where to draw an arbitrary line separating human from non-human. To me, it seems fairly reasonable to draw the arbitrary line at the end of the first trimester.

at the end of the first trimester, the fetus cannot surivive out of the womb, an 8 month old fetus can. And your premise is flawed, using your logic, if I cut my hair, I am a murder because I am killing the same size and type of cells a fetus has.


_________________
I am a freak, want to hold my leash?


Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

20 May 2009, 2:35 pm

ed wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
You never did answer my question about what the punishment should be for attempted suicide.


I didn't think you were serious :)

I don't think attempted suicide should be considered a crime at all.

I don't either. I think it resembles abortion a great deal more than abortion resembles 1st degree murder. I wouldn't say there should be no penalty for abortion, but life imprisonment is almost certainly way too much.

The other thing your argument seems to be missing is that doctors could be punished as well -- if they could lose their license to practice, I don't think jail time would be needed to keep most of them from doing it. (Although I think jail time would be much more likely to be justified in their case.)


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


cognito
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 675

20 May 2009, 2:38 pm

okay, I will make you a deal, we can ban abortion but we raise taxes and give money to the people who can't afford to raise a kid that they now have to because the thought of killing off zygote makes you cry at night, deal?


_________________
I am a freak, want to hold my leash?


ed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: Whitinsville, MA

20 May 2009, 2:38 pm

Awesomelyglorious, if you read the first two pages of this topic, you will find that you did an excellent job of stating the pro-life position. Sorry if I was wrong, but I think a reading of your posts will show that I had valid reason to believe that.

The other poster was Shadowgirl, who wrote

Shadowgirl wrote:
To me abortion is murder and it should be counted as so.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

20 May 2009, 2:38 pm

cognito wrote:
okay, let me use small words for you, people don't agree on poltics, people don't agree on religion, so why on earth do you want to mix the two? Also, the reason religion makes a sh***y political argument is becuase NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES IN YOUR FAITH! example, lets say we put prayer in school, however it is a muslim prayer praising allah. now explain to me why that is bad WITHOUT saying that its because islam is false, because the same logic can and will be applied to your false god as well.

Orwell's point is simple: he cannot do politics without involving his faith.

So, it isn't that he wants to mix the two, he cannot reasonably hold to a religious conviction without doing this, which is why he invoked freedom of religion.

In your given case, the issue is clearly the 1st amendment. However, let's just say that a Piggivist believed that pigs are in fact people, and wanted to ban the consumption of pork. Could this be argued without reference to the religion? No. Could this Piggivist ignore the fact that others are murdering pigs? No, of course not, as their religious conviction informs them about the moral fact that pigs are people. Is this a problem? Well..... not really, because our ethical principles are generally made up bits of nonsense slung together, and really there is no way to argue with a person who has different ethical principles. So, the socialist who believes in outright income equality as essential, and the Objectivist who believes that individual rights are so absolute that government must be reduced to nothing, both end up having a dispute between each other and their societies that is ultimately not resolvable by any appeal.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

20 May 2009, 2:38 pm

cognito wrote:
okay, let me use small words for you,

You'll want to refrain from insulting my intelligence in the future.

Quote:
people don't agree on poltics, people don't agree on religion, so why on earth do you want to mix the two?

An issue being contentious does not automatically bar it from consideration.

Quote:
Also, the reason religion makes a sh***y political argument is becuase NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES IN YOUR FAITH!

OK, and that's why not everyone has to share political views that I form on the basis of my faith. Do you have a point?

Quote:
example, lets say we put prayer in school, however it is a muslim prayer praising allah. now explain to me why that is bad WITHOUT saying that its because islam is false, because the same logic can and will be applied to your false god as well.

It's bad because it violates freedom of religion by allowing the government to mandate a particular religion. I oppose mandatory prayer in public schools, no matter whose prayer it is. Read some Locke to get a feel for the reasoning why. I'm not interested in forcing my religion on anyone else, but I can and will make decisions based on it for myself, and yes, my personal decisions include political action on issues that I feel are important.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

20 May 2009, 2:39 pm

cognito wrote:
twoshots wrote:
cognito wrote:
okay, let me use small words for you, people don't agree on poltics, people don't agree on religion, so why on earth do you want to mix the two? Also, the reason religion makes a sh***y political argument is becuase NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES IN YOUR FAITH! example, lets say we put prayer in school, however it is a muslim prayer praising allah. now explain to me why that is bad WITHOUT saying that its because islam is false, because the same logic can and will be applied to your false god as well.

Similar objections apply to political ideologies.

actaully, they don't. because logic is used. Communism has a logic to it, that if everyone gets an equal share, no one will go hungry. Capitilism has logic, if only the best market ideas survive, then innavtion is spawned. conservatives say less spending on welfare helps save money, liberals say personal rights are more important. Religion makes no sense except "IF you don't believe every single word I say then you are gonna burn in hell when you die!"

But at their core political ideologies rely on non-positive claims which cannot be proven right or wrong. A religious person has X set of values (it doesn't really matter how; values derivation varies by sect, running the gamut from natural law theory to divine command theory), which likewise aren't really grounded in anything substantial. Why does it matter if the person admits that they have no decent source for values or if their values derive from a hokey superstition?


_________________
* here for the nachos.


Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

20 May 2009, 2:39 pm

cognito wrote:
Religion makes no sense except "IF you don't believe every single word I say then you are gonna burn in hell when you die!"

You are debunking a straw-man. This is not what religion says, this is what you fantasize that religions say.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

20 May 2009, 2:43 pm

cognito wrote:
Orwell wrote:
ed wrote:
As for attacking the premise "abortion is murder," that is like this: :wall:

Their religion (or their own sensibilities) says that life begins at conception, and destroying that life is murder. Nothing you or I or anybody else can say can change their minds on that point. I think it is a waste of time to continue to butt heads on that.

Well, it's the only intellectually honest way of addressing the issue.

Look, it's like this:
Premise 1: Fetuses are human beings.
Premise 2: Killing humans is wrong.
Premise 3: Abortion kills fetuses.
Conclusion: Abortion is wrong.

I don't see any flaw in the logic there, so if you want to attack the conclusion, you're not going to succeed by criticizing pro-life reasoning, you have to dispute one or more of the premises. Premise 3 is just fact, that's pretty much the definition of abortion, and you won't succeed in disputing Premise 2. So, you're left with Premise 1. Reject Premise 1, or accept the pro-life conclusion, there really aren't any other options.

Most people would agree with you that a newly-fertilized egg is not human. A blastocyst similarly is not typically recognized as human. But an 8-month fetus usually does seem human enough that people will object to abortions at that stage of development. It becomes a decision of where to draw an arbitrary line separating human from non-human. To me, it seems fairly reasonable to draw the arbitrary line at the end of the first trimester.

at the end of the first trimester, the fetus cannot surivive out of the womb, an 8 month old fetus can. And your premise is flawed, using your logic, if I cut my hair, I am a murder because I am killing the same size and type of cells a fetus has.

It would be helpful if you could break it up into
premise
premise
conclusion
so that it's a bit clearer what you're talking about. I'm fairly certain you aren't using the same logic I am, but rather are just drawing a false analogy.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Last edited by Orwell on 20 May 2009, 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: Whitinsville, MA

20 May 2009, 2:43 pm

Orwell wrote:
cognito wrote:
okay, let me use small words for you,

You'll want to refrain from insulting my intelligence in the future.


I agree. That comment was unnecessary and cruel.



cognito
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 675

20 May 2009, 2:44 pm

what I am saying is that making policy for a group of people based on religion is nonsensical! Take prop 8 in California, the only opposition to it is on the grounds of religion and tradition, the same two reasons that wanted slavery to remain legal since it was a white man's god given right to have slaves. And Orwell, I said small words to ensure you grasped my concept, since you seem fit to twist whatever I say.


_________________
I am a freak, want to hold my leash?


ed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: Whitinsville, MA

20 May 2009, 2:46 pm

Orwell wrote:
Cognito, you suck at analogies. Break it up into
premise
premise
conclusion
so that it's a bit clearer what the hell you're talking about. I'm fairly certain you aren't using the same logic I am, but rather you just have incredibly sh***y reasoning skills.


So was that.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

20 May 2009, 2:49 pm

ed wrote:
Awesomelyglorious, if you read the first two pages of this topic, you will find that you did an excellent job of stating the pro-life position. Sorry if I was wrong, but I think a reading of your posts will show that I had valid reason to believe that.

The other poster was Shadowgirl, who wrote

Shadowgirl wrote:
To me abortion is murder and it should be counted as so.

Well, yes, of course I did. The issue is one of posting style, as I often will argue defending positions that I do not agree with, simply to make sure that they are defended and considered in the face of those who argue against them, as I tend to work somewhat as a devil's advocate, unless I feel like the position put forward is made in a well-considered manner.

In any case, I think I hinted at the fact that I was not pro-life with this comment: "I am just describing a worldview", which suggests some level of personal detachment from the position argued.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

20 May 2009, 2:50 pm

cognito wrote:
what I am saying is that making policy for a group of people based on religion is nonsensical!

To you, perhaps, but there is no Constitutional or other legal barrier to individuals voting on the basis of their religious beliefs. People vote on policy decisions for all kinds of nonsensical reasons. In any case, I have already established that non-theistic opposition to abortion is completely possible and, to me, seems just as strong as the religious objections.

Quote:
Take prop 8 in California, the only opposition to it is on the grounds of religion and tradition, the same two reasons that wanted slavery to remain legal since it was a white man's god given right to have slaves.

Prop 8 was stupid. But check your history for once, the abolitionist movement in the United States argued against slavery on religious grounds, while the arguments for slavery were primarily economic.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH