Home
Search
Register
Log inRight to Life VS. Right to Choice
ISSNH Alliance :: PUBLIC :: FUN STUFF :: Psycho Ward
Page 1 of 1
Right to Life VS. Right to Choice
by IronSmith Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:03 pm
WARNING
THE FOLLOWING DEBATE IS ABOUT THE US SUPREME COURTS RULING ON ROE VS WADE. THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO START AND ARGUMENT OR PUSH FORWARD ANY ONE POLITICAL POINT OF VIEW. THE FOLLOWING DEBATE TOOK PLACE SEVERAL MONTHS AGO DURING THE EARLY STAGES OF THE US PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES. I SIMPLY POSTED THIS BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS AN EXCELLENT DEBATE IN WHICH BOTH SIDES STATED THEIR ARGUMENTS VERY WELL WITH A MINIMUM OF PERSONAL ATTACKS (WHICH IS A RARE THING).
....
No, he was suggesting that the branches are supposed to be equal.
In that the Court can't make law as they did in Roe v. Wade and that a President should use his power (Congress as well) to disprove them of the notion they can create laws.
Congress makes laws
The Court determines the Constitutionality of laws
The President applies the laws
The Court violated the Constitution and stole the right of Congress by creating law out of thin air.
abfdrumz (7 hours ago)
Agreed in the case of Roe v. Wade, actually (though I'm strongly pro-choice). My point was simply that, formally speaking, the President *has* no power once the Court has ruled, apart from the power of appointments. As it should be.
dharmamarx (7 hours ago)
Is it really so implausible that there is an implied general right to privacy in the Bill of Rights? That implied "right to privacy" seems plausible to me. So how was this the Court overstepping its boundaries?
abcmole (7 hours ago)
It overreached by determining not 'privacy rights', but when a human life became human life.
They determined that the age of a human determined it's right to life and it was without precedent in law.
apeppink (3 hours ago)
Give me a break. You're not serious. Thats lawyerese if ever I've eard it. Is it possible you're a lawyer?
apeppink (3 hours ago)
For Dharma. Also 'heard' (above).
rudydpimp (7 hours ago)
The court interprets the Constitution also, cool guy. That's what it did in Roe (right to privacy, etc.). Roe is bad law, but it is hardly a usurpation of legislative power egregious enough that it requires the executive branch to ignore it. As Romney rightly points out, that would set a dangerous precedent.
abcmole (7 hours ago)
I disagree totally.
It created law out of whole cloth.
It decided to determine the definition of human life; the Court does not and never had that right. And in doing so they determined that the specific ages at which a human life should be treated as a human life. That is overreaching by any measure and is the job of Congress not a Court especially when NO LAW existed to make that determination.
rudydpimp (6 hours ago)
abcmole, like I said, I think the decision is stupid but it is not really that different from many other decisions. The right to contraceptives in Griswold? And where exactly in the constitution does it say that nude dancing joints are ok? I'm fine with 9 smart people making decisions. Much better than these morons we have representing us in Congress.
abcmole (6 hours ago)
lol
It's unconsitutional. That's the reason.
And it's better Congress amkes the law because we can throw those bums out and change the law, the Justices are there for life. And most importantly it's not their job to create law.
It's as they they said in the old days, taxation without representation; or in this case, creation of law without representation.
moveoverdotorg (6 hours ago)
all that I said is that it is interesting
moveoverdotorg (6 hours ago)
I think that a womans right to choose should be excercied prior to conception. by the time conception has occured she has already made her choice. in cases of rape or incest I would support the morning after pill, adoption and civil damages to the victim.
dharmamarx (6 hours ago)
That's a weak argument; she may not have chosen to get pregnant, and people change their minds all the time (Mitt seems to have changed his!) and we still think their choices should be respected. You need a secular justification for defining the fetus as a full person. You don't have one.
dharmamarx (6 hours ago)
But every law requires interpretation. Are you sure that privacy isn't implied in the Bill of Rights? I'm sure most Americans are very happy w/ the reading that says that it is implied.
abcmole (6 hours ago)
What was the law they interpreted? There wasn't one, they created it. Privacy 'rights' do not supercede another person's right to live.
dharmamarx (6 hours ago)
abcmole, but there's 2 questions: 1. is there a right to privacy implied in the Bill of Rights (I find it plausible) and 2. is the Court's definition of human life (viability) plausible? I don't think viability is plausible, but it is much more plausible than the Right's "life begins at conception" position (which is a clear violation of the separation of church and state).
abcmole (6 hours ago)
1.) Only through the philosophy of right to property. If you consider a child as property without rights, a slave, then sense could be made in the issue of abortion.
2.) I disagree, scientifically, every piece of information that differentiates you as unique and human, DNA, is present at conception. As to whether infants can survive without care is irrelevant, newborns can't either. And that is the job of Congress to determine, anyway.
dharmamarx (6 hours ago)
But we mean much more by "person" than speck of DNA in a petri dish. I can't remember the last time I tried to engage in a conversation (or any exchange) with a speck of DNA in a petri dish. The scientists are talking about something very different than we are. You've offered no good explanation why a fetus should be considered more than an object. My hair has my dna; I treat each strand of it as "my hair" not as my twin (who would also share my dna).
abcmole (5 hours ago)
Scientifically, the difference is expression of the genome, or phenotype - constantly changes throughout a person's life, while the DNA remains relatively stable, sans mutation. So the only constant from conception to death is genotype.
At conception the individual is the cell(s), you are a collection of cells, the difference is phenotypic expression.
And hair is already dead except for the root...
We are discussing ending a life, not severing a piece of flesh from the organism.
dharmamarx (4 hours ago)
abcmole, "Life" is a moral concept; biologists talk about "life," but they do so in ways that make it clear that their concept of "life" is not the ethicist's concept. Ordinarily people define life in terms of consciousness and hence death as the cessation of consciousness. A fetus has a very limited consciousness, and at conception, none. 2 identical twins share the same DNA and are both living; we think of them as separate persons, though, b/c they do not share the same consciousness.
abcmole (4 hours ago)
Not to disclose too much information, but I am a biologist.
Life to me is that which can grow, adapt and reproduce.
And since the life to which we are referring, is human, all benefit of the doubt in every circumstance should be given to itthat life.
abfdrumz (4 hours ago)
abcmole: yet what you're also talking about is sending many more people to prison at taxpayer expense -- bearing in mind that we're already the world's number-one per capita incarcerator -- and subjecting many desperate women to potentially deadly black-market procedures. (The wealthier ones, of course, will get what they need.)
Pragmatism, man. You can try for the Platonic ideal, but you will fail as surely as the drug warriors have, and the collateral damage will be
abcmole (3 hours ago)
Personally, I could care less who has sex with whom, assuming legal ages.
I posted my compromise below, if you can find it (lol), look at that and post a suggestion please.
I don't want to punish anyone for enjoying sex, but I do respect life more than believing it should be wasted for the lack of effort to avoid pregnancy.
abcmole (5 hours ago)
And I let one slip by me, oops.
Separation of church and state exists nowhere in the Constitution or law.
I believe what you are referring to is the establishment clause, which only refers to the creation of an official state religion, not that a law cannot reflect morality or philosophy found in a religious philosophy.
For example you couldn't condone or refuse to enforce law on murder simply because it says, 'Thou shalt not do murder', in the Bible.
dharmamarx (5 hours ago)
There's no problem w/ a law "reflecting" religious teaching; but when that law is grounded on religion and incompatible w/ secular reasoning, you're doing some very serious violence to both reason and to the way the vast majority of people in our society define ourselves. You really want to try out the 30 Years War again?
abcmole (5 hours ago)
It's not alien from secular reasoning to promote the defense of life.
dharmamarx (4 hours ago)
abcmole, it is "alien to secular reason" to promote a defense of "life" when that defense is implicitly religious and incompatible w/ any plausible secular ethical theory.
abcmole (4 hours ago)
You make a gratuitous assertion, and in logic all such assertions can be equally gratuitously denied.
Answer me, please, why is it alien to secular reason that life begins at conception.
Life by definition, of science, is that which can or has the potential to grow, adapt and reproduce.
dharmamarx (4 hours ago)
B/c we are obviously relying on a moral definition of "life" not a biological one. DNA is a recent discovery, but people have been making moral arguments about "life" for a very long time. Those arguments almost always implicitly arguments about experiences: choices, judgments, sensations of pain and pleasure, etc. Biological definitions of life (capacity for movement, adaptation, reproduction, growth) are clearly not what people are ordinarily mean by "life."
abcmole (3 hours ago)
You were arguing the secular position, the purely secular definition of life is the one I gave, the scientific definition.
And again, you are arguing about self-awareness not life.
Morally, since we are discussing human life, should not the benefit of the doubt when dealing with it always go to preservation of that human life?
dharmamarx (3 hours ago)
abcmole, we can fight over definitions all we want to, but I see no reason to abandon the moral definition of these terms for biological ones that are more than a little behavioristic. I would insist that the biological definition of life is not "the secular" one, but merely a secular one (and one that you're misusing here), and that it is also a discourse relative definition, one useful for biologists but useless for ethicists.
abcmole (3 hours ago)
It is ethical to kill that which you do not understand?
The truth is we know next to nothing about the adult brain, to say nothing of the developing brain. As a scientist studying the brain said, "If the human brain were simple enough for us to understand, we would be too simple to understand it."
dharmamarx (3 hours ago)
I'm, of course, going to suggest that the word "kill" is a morally loaded term, and the whole question we're trying to determine is whether aborting a fetus qualifies as "killing." I assume you also oppose killing non-human animals for exactly the same reason? Outlawing the slaughter of cows b/c we don't know if their conscious experiences are identical to ours? Cats and insects having a right to life as well?
abcmole (3 hours ago)
Murder would be a morally loaded term, not kill.
To kill is to end life. To murder is to kill an innocent human.
I am *typically* against the killing of animals soley for the sake of killing, yes. I will not equate a human life with an animal life, however.
Cows, since you used the example, have no capacity for self-awareness or understand time in relation to life and cession of life, nor do they have that potential. Humans, on the other hand do.
dharmamarx (2 hours ago)
abcmole, if "life" is a moral term so is "kill". Your distinction between human and "animal", of course, cannot be maintained b/c humans are animals (which is why I'm writing "animal" in scare quotes). Again, you do not know for certain what cows possess. You only know what the evidence suggests cows possess; the evidence also suggests that fetuses do not posses self-awareness. You must choose: is the evidence good or not?
abcmole (2 hours ago)
It's a question of potentiality.
A cow does not have potential, unlike a human.
Life isn't a moral term. You tried to assign a special characteristic of awareness to life, but nearly all life has no self-awareness. I think perhaps you are confusing life and humanity or self-awareness.
The science that shows cows lack self-awareness is excellent.
The studies that show human infants, in utero, lack self-awareness have conflicting studies.
dharmamarx (2 hours ago)
I know how you're using the term "life"; I've argued the word is discourse-relative. This is interesting, though: "The studies that show human infants, in utero, lack self-awareness have conflicting studies."?!? I'm very suspicious of it, though. My understanding was that the experiments put self-awareness well past birth. Are you confusing the ability to feel pain/pleasure with self-awareness? I'm separating them.
abcmole (2 hours ago)
I'll be honest, you and I know the studies involve abortion politics.
Being that it is a human we are talking about, I'm not sure you can separate totally pain and some type of awareness.
One dubious study I read tried to equate thumbsucking in utero with self-awareness, I forget the details, but yes claims have been made. Again, the potentiality is enough for me.
dharmamarx (1 hour ago)
abcmole, ok I'll accept that as a credible answer. It does seem to me, though, that connecting pain/pleasure to "some type of awareness" would carry over to non-human animals.
abfdrumz (5 hours ago)
Separation of church and state exists nowhere in the Constitution or law.
Well, of course it doesn't. How would you codify such a thing? The Constitution and Bill of Rights do, however, tend to look unkindly upon some of the things that faith-based "conservatives" want to do. Hence the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment, no? (BTW, folks who want that had better step it up. Your window of opportunity is rapidly slipping away.)
abcmole (4 hours ago)
Not exactly on topic, but I disagree the with Marriage act as well. It's not the government's responsibility or right to restrict marriage, as it's purely a religious institution.
Let churches decide their policy on marriage.
If the government wants civil unions as a government sanctioned 'marriage', so be it, but it seems redundant and useless to me.
PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY EMOTIONAL RESPONSES TO THIS DEBATE. AND, REMEMBER NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY YOU ARE LIABLE TO UPSET SOMEONE.
THE FOLLOWING DEBATE IS ABOUT THE US SUPREME COURTS RULING ON ROE VS WADE. THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO START AND ARGUMENT OR PUSH FORWARD ANY ONE POLITICAL POINT OF VIEW. THE FOLLOWING DEBATE TOOK PLACE SEVERAL MONTHS AGO DURING THE EARLY STAGES OF THE US PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES. I SIMPLY POSTED THIS BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS AN EXCELLENT DEBATE IN WHICH BOTH SIDES STATED THEIR ARGUMENTS VERY WELL WITH A MINIMUM OF PERSONAL ATTACKS (WHICH IS A RARE THING).
....
No, he was suggesting that the branches are supposed to be equal.
In that the Court can't make law as they did in Roe v. Wade and that a President should use his power (Congress as well) to disprove them of the notion they can create laws.
Congress makes laws
The Court determines the Constitutionality of laws
The President applies the laws
The Court violated the Constitution and stole the right of Congress by creating law out of thin air.
abfdrumz (7 hours ago)
Agreed in the case of Roe v. Wade, actually (though I'm strongly pro-choice). My point was simply that, formally speaking, the President *has* no power once the Court has ruled, apart from the power of appointments. As it should be.
dharmamarx (7 hours ago)
Is it really so implausible that there is an implied general right to privacy in the Bill of Rights? That implied "right to privacy" seems plausible to me. So how was this the Court overstepping its boundaries?
abcmole (7 hours ago)
It overreached by determining not 'privacy rights', but when a human life became human life.
They determined that the age of a human determined it's right to life and it was without precedent in law.
apeppink (3 hours ago)
Give me a break. You're not serious. Thats lawyerese if ever I've eard it. Is it possible you're a lawyer?
apeppink (3 hours ago)
For Dharma. Also 'heard' (above).
rudydpimp (7 hours ago)
The court interprets the Constitution also, cool guy. That's what it did in Roe (right to privacy, etc.). Roe is bad law, but it is hardly a usurpation of legislative power egregious enough that it requires the executive branch to ignore it. As Romney rightly points out, that would set a dangerous precedent.
abcmole (7 hours ago)
I disagree totally.
It created law out of whole cloth.
It decided to determine the definition of human life; the Court does not and never had that right. And in doing so they determined that the specific ages at which a human life should be treated as a human life. That is overreaching by any measure and is the job of Congress not a Court especially when NO LAW existed to make that determination.
rudydpimp (6 hours ago)
abcmole, like I said, I think the decision is stupid but it is not really that different from many other decisions. The right to contraceptives in Griswold? And where exactly in the constitution does it say that nude dancing joints are ok? I'm fine with 9 smart people making decisions. Much better than these morons we have representing us in Congress.
abcmole (6 hours ago)
lol
It's unconsitutional. That's the reason.
And it's better Congress amkes the law because we can throw those bums out and change the law, the Justices are there for life. And most importantly it's not their job to create law.
It's as they they said in the old days, taxation without representation; or in this case, creation of law without representation.
moveoverdotorg (6 hours ago)
all that I said is that it is interesting
moveoverdotorg (6 hours ago)
I think that a womans right to choose should be excercied prior to conception. by the time conception has occured she has already made her choice. in cases of rape or incest I would support the morning after pill, adoption and civil damages to the victim.
dharmamarx (6 hours ago)
That's a weak argument; she may not have chosen to get pregnant, and people change their minds all the time (Mitt seems to have changed his!) and we still think their choices should be respected. You need a secular justification for defining the fetus as a full person. You don't have one.
dharmamarx (6 hours ago)
But every law requires interpretation. Are you sure that privacy isn't implied in the Bill of Rights? I'm sure most Americans are very happy w/ the reading that says that it is implied.
abcmole (6 hours ago)
What was the law they interpreted? There wasn't one, they created it. Privacy 'rights' do not supercede another person's right to live.
dharmamarx (6 hours ago)
abcmole, but there's 2 questions: 1. is there a right to privacy implied in the Bill of Rights (I find it plausible) and 2. is the Court's definition of human life (viability) plausible? I don't think viability is plausible, but it is much more plausible than the Right's "life begins at conception" position (which is a clear violation of the separation of church and state).
abcmole (6 hours ago)
1.) Only through the philosophy of right to property. If you consider a child as property without rights, a slave, then sense could be made in the issue of abortion.
2.) I disagree, scientifically, every piece of information that differentiates you as unique and human, DNA, is present at conception. As to whether infants can survive without care is irrelevant, newborns can't either. And that is the job of Congress to determine, anyway.
dharmamarx (6 hours ago)
But we mean much more by "person" than speck of DNA in a petri dish. I can't remember the last time I tried to engage in a conversation (or any exchange) with a speck of DNA in a petri dish. The scientists are talking about something very different than we are. You've offered no good explanation why a fetus should be considered more than an object. My hair has my dna; I treat each strand of it as "my hair" not as my twin (who would also share my dna).
abcmole (5 hours ago)
Scientifically, the difference is expression of the genome, or phenotype - constantly changes throughout a person's life, while the DNA remains relatively stable, sans mutation. So the only constant from conception to death is genotype.
At conception the individual is the cell(s), you are a collection of cells, the difference is phenotypic expression.
And hair is already dead except for the root...
We are discussing ending a life, not severing a piece of flesh from the organism.
dharmamarx (4 hours ago)
abcmole, "Life" is a moral concept; biologists talk about "life," but they do so in ways that make it clear that their concept of "life" is not the ethicist's concept. Ordinarily people define life in terms of consciousness and hence death as the cessation of consciousness. A fetus has a very limited consciousness, and at conception, none. 2 identical twins share the same DNA and are both living; we think of them as separate persons, though, b/c they do not share the same consciousness.
abcmole (4 hours ago)
Not to disclose too much information, but I am a biologist.
Life to me is that which can grow, adapt and reproduce.
And since the life to which we are referring, is human, all benefit of the doubt in every circumstance should be given to itthat life.
abfdrumz (4 hours ago)
abcmole: yet what you're also talking about is sending many more people to prison at taxpayer expense -- bearing in mind that we're already the world's number-one per capita incarcerator -- and subjecting many desperate women to potentially deadly black-market procedures. (The wealthier ones, of course, will get what they need.)
Pragmatism, man. You can try for the Platonic ideal, but you will fail as surely as the drug warriors have, and the collateral damage will be
abcmole (3 hours ago)
Personally, I could care less who has sex with whom, assuming legal ages.
I posted my compromise below, if you can find it (lol), look at that and post a suggestion please.
I don't want to punish anyone for enjoying sex, but I do respect life more than believing it should be wasted for the lack of effort to avoid pregnancy.
abcmole (5 hours ago)
And I let one slip by me, oops.
Separation of church and state exists nowhere in the Constitution or law.
I believe what you are referring to is the establishment clause, which only refers to the creation of an official state religion, not that a law cannot reflect morality or philosophy found in a religious philosophy.
For example you couldn't condone or refuse to enforce law on murder simply because it says, 'Thou shalt not do murder', in the Bible.
dharmamarx (5 hours ago)
There's no problem w/ a law "reflecting" religious teaching; but when that law is grounded on religion and incompatible w/ secular reasoning, you're doing some very serious violence to both reason and to the way the vast majority of people in our society define ourselves. You really want to try out the 30 Years War again?
abcmole (5 hours ago)
It's not alien from secular reasoning to promote the defense of life.
dharmamarx (4 hours ago)
abcmole, it is "alien to secular reason" to promote a defense of "life" when that defense is implicitly religious and incompatible w/ any plausible secular ethical theory.
abcmole (4 hours ago)
You make a gratuitous assertion, and in logic all such assertions can be equally gratuitously denied.
Answer me, please, why is it alien to secular reason that life begins at conception.
Life by definition, of science, is that which can or has the potential to grow, adapt and reproduce.
dharmamarx (4 hours ago)
B/c we are obviously relying on a moral definition of "life" not a biological one. DNA is a recent discovery, but people have been making moral arguments about "life" for a very long time. Those arguments almost always implicitly arguments about experiences: choices, judgments, sensations of pain and pleasure, etc. Biological definitions of life (capacity for movement, adaptation, reproduction, growth) are clearly not what people are ordinarily mean by "life."
abcmole (3 hours ago)
You were arguing the secular position, the purely secular definition of life is the one I gave, the scientific definition.
And again, you are arguing about self-awareness not life.
Morally, since we are discussing human life, should not the benefit of the doubt when dealing with it always go to preservation of that human life?
dharmamarx (3 hours ago)
abcmole, we can fight over definitions all we want to, but I see no reason to abandon the moral definition of these terms for biological ones that are more than a little behavioristic. I would insist that the biological definition of life is not "the secular" one, but merely a secular one (and one that you're misusing here), and that it is also a discourse relative definition, one useful for biologists but useless for ethicists.
abcmole (3 hours ago)
It is ethical to kill that which you do not understand?
The truth is we know next to nothing about the adult brain, to say nothing of the developing brain. As a scientist studying the brain said, "If the human brain were simple enough for us to understand, we would be too simple to understand it."
dharmamarx (3 hours ago)
I'm, of course, going to suggest that the word "kill" is a morally loaded term, and the whole question we're trying to determine is whether aborting a fetus qualifies as "killing." I assume you also oppose killing non-human animals for exactly the same reason? Outlawing the slaughter of cows b/c we don't know if their conscious experiences are identical to ours? Cats and insects having a right to life as well?
abcmole (3 hours ago)
Murder would be a morally loaded term, not kill.
To kill is to end life. To murder is to kill an innocent human.
I am *typically* against the killing of animals soley for the sake of killing, yes. I will not equate a human life with an animal life, however.
Cows, since you used the example, have no capacity for self-awareness or understand time in relation to life and cession of life, nor do they have that potential. Humans, on the other hand do.
dharmamarx (2 hours ago)
abcmole, if "life" is a moral term so is "kill". Your distinction between human and "animal", of course, cannot be maintained b/c humans are animals (which is why I'm writing "animal" in scare quotes). Again, you do not know for certain what cows possess. You only know what the evidence suggests cows possess; the evidence also suggests that fetuses do not posses self-awareness. You must choose: is the evidence good or not?
abcmole (2 hours ago)
It's a question of potentiality.
A cow does not have potential, unlike a human.
Life isn't a moral term. You tried to assign a special characteristic of awareness to life, but nearly all life has no self-awareness. I think perhaps you are confusing life and humanity or self-awareness.
The science that shows cows lack self-awareness is excellent.
The studies that show human infants, in utero, lack self-awareness have conflicting studies.
dharmamarx (2 hours ago)
I know how you're using the term "life"; I've argued the word is discourse-relative. This is interesting, though: "The studies that show human infants, in utero, lack self-awareness have conflicting studies."?!? I'm very suspicious of it, though. My understanding was that the experiments put self-awareness well past birth. Are you confusing the ability to feel pain/pleasure with self-awareness? I'm separating them.
abcmole (2 hours ago)
I'll be honest, you and I know the studies involve abortion politics.
Being that it is a human we are talking about, I'm not sure you can separate totally pain and some type of awareness.
One dubious study I read tried to equate thumbsucking in utero with self-awareness, I forget the details, but yes claims have been made. Again, the potentiality is enough for me.
dharmamarx (1 hour ago)
abcmole, ok I'll accept that as a credible answer. It does seem to me, though, that connecting pain/pleasure to "some type of awareness" would carry over to non-human animals.
abfdrumz (5 hours ago)
Separation of church and state exists nowhere in the Constitution or law.
Well, of course it doesn't. How would you codify such a thing? The Constitution and Bill of Rights do, however, tend to look unkindly upon some of the things that faith-based "conservatives" want to do. Hence the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment, no? (BTW, folks who want that had better step it up. Your window of opportunity is rapidly slipping away.)
abcmole (4 hours ago)
Not exactly on topic, but I disagree the with Marriage act as well. It's not the government's responsibility or right to restrict marriage, as it's purely a religious institution.
Let churches decide their policy on marriage.
If the government wants civil unions as a government sanctioned 'marriage', so be it, but it seems redundant and useless to me.
PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY EMOTIONAL RESPONSES TO THIS DEBATE. AND, REMEMBER NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY YOU ARE LIABLE TO UPSET SOMEONE.
IronSmith- Co-founder
- Number of posts : 430
Age : 43
Handle : IronSmith
Timezone : UTC - 6 MDT Mountain Daylight Time
Registration date : 2008-05-17 -
Re: Right to Life VS. Right to Choice
by IronSmith Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:05 pm
PART 2
_____________________________________________
dharmamarx (5 hours ago)
A law that presupposes a specific religious system and that only makes sense to those citizens who subscribe to that religious system certainly looks to me like an attempt to establish a "state religion."
abcmole (4 hours ago)
What law are you referring to?
One that says life begins at conception.
It makes sense logically, scientifically and religiously.
The genotype is the only constant in a human's life. The phenotype changes over time, and the law deals with preference of the life due to phenotypic expression, not life.
dharmamarx (4 hours ago)
Nope a definition of "life" at conception doesn't make sense "logically"; that's why you'll be hard pressed to find a respected ethicist who makes that case. The DNA is the same between me and my twin; and yet we are separate people b/c we have different experiences. It the "experiences" that ethics is concerned w/, not the DNA. (The DNA is an ad hoc attempt to shore up a religious argument.)
abcmole (4 hours ago)
Not at all. Conception is the point at which a new life is formed and begins to grow.
You are not arguing life, you are arguing self-awareness.
You cannot know when the life becomes self-aware, and that makes it a type of pseudo-religion.
And the DNA of maternal twins is NOT purely identical, there are mutations and differences in the DNA itself from the time of cleavage. While, I do agree it is extrememly limited, it is not exactly identical or the same.
dharmamarx (4 hours ago)
Scholars normally take these problems as a sign of there is something wrong with the the concept of "identity," that it is a buggy pseudo-religious concept to begin w/. The conventional understanding of "life" is one related to experience. That you cannot know when something is self-aware is not entirely true. At a bare minimum self-awareness is closely connected to language; do you really think a fetus cares is thinking "don't kill me"?
abcmole (3 hours ago)
What I think is irrelevant, it's what we know.
Do we know for certain the infant does not have awareness?
I think a better question, anyway, is why destroy that potential?
As for language, that is an interesting point, but I will note many animals, parrots, apes and so on have been taught rudimentary language/words without them gaining self-awareness.
dharmamarx (3 hours ago)
Can we completely prove that a fetus isn't self-conscious? I suppose not. I suppose we also cannot totally disprove pan-psychism (but once we venture into that territory we probably have to dispense w/ the moral categories of life and death completely). I'm talking about pain/pleasure in addition to self-knowledge, but these should be things that we could take some pretty decent guesses at are error well on the side of caution over.
dharmamarx (3 hours ago)
Peter Singer suggests that even a year after birth would be cautious; he's a medical-ethicist so I assume he's up on the relevant science. And you're begging the question when you talk about "the weakest members of society"; the issue is whether the fetus qualifies as a member of society. I've seen no reason to think that it does. I would also assume that you are also a complete vegetarian? "Animals" are the weakest members of our society.
abcmole (3 hours ago)
No, animals are not members of our society.
They are not human, and lack self-awareness. You assign attributes to animals they do not posess, it's called, anthropormorphism and that IS actually related to religion.
dharmamarx (3 hours ago)
Are you sure you're a biologist? In anycase, your claim "animals are not members of our society" "They are not human" is pure speciesism (species membership as a prerequisite to moral worth). When did I accuse "animals" of possesing characteristics they didn't? We care about our pets; the smarter ones seem to recognize us; it's hard to know how far our feelings w/ our pets are reciprocal. But they're certainly members of our society.
abcmole (3 hours ago)
Yes, last time I checked I was still a biologist. lol
You said they were members of our society, that is an anthropormorphic notion. That would entail some understanding of rights and responsibilities in a society, a culture. Are you seriously saying a cow understands it's role in our society and human culture?
Speciesism? Umm...guilty as charged, I guess.
To be clear, I oppose causing pain or abusing animals, only because as humans we can make that moral determination.
dharmamarx (4 hours ago)
abcmole, I'll put the same point differently. We generally think it's fine to kill (but not to torture) an adult cat; this is despite the fact that an adult cat is more intellectually developed than a human fetus. The treatment of the cat revolves around the cat (and the fetus') experiences; not the DNA. We wouldn't disqualify adults with mild genetic mutations from being human b/c their DNA was not the same as most humans. The DNA is irrelevant.
abcmole (4 hours ago)
All humans have varying degrees of mutation. All humans.
I would further say, all human life should be treated with more deference than any other animal.
DNA is the only unchanging factor of the human organism.
Phenotype (expression of the DNA) changes continously from conception to death, so DNA should never be discounted it is consistent factor and that which makes a human, human - or at least the potential.
dharmamarx (4 hours ago)
abcmole, why should "all human life be treated w/ more deference"? This looks to me like smuggling religion in the backdoor again.
abcmole (3 hours ago)
No, it's called being human.
I have empathy for other humans. I wish to treat them, morally, as I would like to be treated. The way a society treats its weakest members is a reflection of how civilized that society is.
I believe to err on the side of the proundly innocent is the greatest positive reflection of any society.
someone (28 minutes ago)
According to the American Heritage dictionary and any scientist `Life` is :
The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as ...growth, reproduction,...originating from within the organism.
It's clear to me that you're rationalizing.
rudydpimp (6 hours ago)
I think privacy is implied. But I'm aware that my definition of privacy is different from other people's definition of privacy. That's my point. It's all made up. But like I said before, I'm cool with it. The people acting like this decisions was anomalous haven't read enough con law.
dharmamarx (6 hours ago)
I'm unsatisfied with "all made up"; some answers are more respectful to the text than other answers. Some answers (life begins at conception) clearly violate church/state separation. But merely appealing to authorial intentions simply doesn't work (often b/c those intentions weren't there).
dharmamarx (6 hours ago)
I'm not convinced that defining "human life" is overstepping. There are very few plausible definitions of "human life." What you find offensive is that the court tried to determine a secular definition of "human life" (they are bound to respect the separation of church and state) and you want a religious definition.
abcmole (6 hours ago)
The definition they chose is irrelevant, it's unconstitutional that they make such a definition, that is the issue.
And further, the age at which they determined life begins is in dispute even within a secular definition. And even if it wasn't that is the job of Congress not the Court.
dharmamarx (6 hours ago)
Why? They needed a definition. Otherwise they could not talk about a "person" at all, let alone a "person's" right to privacy, and if that right was implied so was the person. They actually did not do too much work defining the "person" (I would do more). All they really did was exclude the first 2 trimesters; I don't see why that's not plausible. I'm not sure why I should trust the masses to decide what the definition of "person" is either.
abcmole (5 hours ago)
So, you're a totalitarian or you would believe all rights reside in the masses, including the right to decide the constitutional definition of life.
Why stop at the first two trimesters? Why not make it six year-olds, or sixty year-olds? Biologically, a person is useless after they produce and raise offspring, why not kill people after they reproduce and raise offspring all they do from that time forward is waste resources? Using secular reasoning, of course.
PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY EMOTIONAL RESPONSES TO THIS DEBATE. AND, REMEMBER NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY YOU ARE LIABLE TO UPSET SOMEONE.
_____________________________________________
dharmamarx (5 hours ago)
A law that presupposes a specific religious system and that only makes sense to those citizens who subscribe to that religious system certainly looks to me like an attempt to establish a "state religion."
abcmole (4 hours ago)
What law are you referring to?
One that says life begins at conception.
It makes sense logically, scientifically and religiously.
The genotype is the only constant in a human's life. The phenotype changes over time, and the law deals with preference of the life due to phenotypic expression, not life.
dharmamarx (4 hours ago)
Nope a definition of "life" at conception doesn't make sense "logically"; that's why you'll be hard pressed to find a respected ethicist who makes that case. The DNA is the same between me and my twin; and yet we are separate people b/c we have different experiences. It the "experiences" that ethics is concerned w/, not the DNA. (The DNA is an ad hoc attempt to shore up a religious argument.)
abcmole (4 hours ago)
Not at all. Conception is the point at which a new life is formed and begins to grow.
You are not arguing life, you are arguing self-awareness.
You cannot know when the life becomes self-aware, and that makes it a type of pseudo-religion.
And the DNA of maternal twins is NOT purely identical, there are mutations and differences in the DNA itself from the time of cleavage. While, I do agree it is extrememly limited, it is not exactly identical or the same.
dharmamarx (4 hours ago)
Scholars normally take these problems as a sign of there is something wrong with the the concept of "identity," that it is a buggy pseudo-religious concept to begin w/. The conventional understanding of "life" is one related to experience. That you cannot know when something is self-aware is not entirely true. At a bare minimum self-awareness is closely connected to language; do you really think a fetus cares is thinking "don't kill me"?
abcmole (3 hours ago)
What I think is irrelevant, it's what we know.
Do we know for certain the infant does not have awareness?
I think a better question, anyway, is why destroy that potential?
As for language, that is an interesting point, but I will note many animals, parrots, apes and so on have been taught rudimentary language/words without them gaining self-awareness.
dharmamarx (3 hours ago)
Can we completely prove that a fetus isn't self-conscious? I suppose not. I suppose we also cannot totally disprove pan-psychism (but once we venture into that territory we probably have to dispense w/ the moral categories of life and death completely). I'm talking about pain/pleasure in addition to self-knowledge, but these should be things that we could take some pretty decent guesses at are error well on the side of caution over.
dharmamarx (3 hours ago)
Peter Singer suggests that even a year after birth would be cautious; he's a medical-ethicist so I assume he's up on the relevant science. And you're begging the question when you talk about "the weakest members of society"; the issue is whether the fetus qualifies as a member of society. I've seen no reason to think that it does. I would also assume that you are also a complete vegetarian? "Animals" are the weakest members of our society.
abcmole (3 hours ago)
No, animals are not members of our society.
They are not human, and lack self-awareness. You assign attributes to animals they do not posess, it's called, anthropormorphism and that IS actually related to religion.
dharmamarx (3 hours ago)
Are you sure you're a biologist? In anycase, your claim "animals are not members of our society" "They are not human" is pure speciesism (species membership as a prerequisite to moral worth). When did I accuse "animals" of possesing characteristics they didn't? We care about our pets; the smarter ones seem to recognize us; it's hard to know how far our feelings w/ our pets are reciprocal. But they're certainly members of our society.
abcmole (3 hours ago)
Yes, last time I checked I was still a biologist. lol
You said they were members of our society, that is an anthropormorphic notion. That would entail some understanding of rights and responsibilities in a society, a culture. Are you seriously saying a cow understands it's role in our society and human culture?
Speciesism? Umm...guilty as charged, I guess.
To be clear, I oppose causing pain or abusing animals, only because as humans we can make that moral determination.
dharmamarx (4 hours ago)
abcmole, I'll put the same point differently. We generally think it's fine to kill (but not to torture) an adult cat; this is despite the fact that an adult cat is more intellectually developed than a human fetus. The treatment of the cat revolves around the cat (and the fetus') experiences; not the DNA. We wouldn't disqualify adults with mild genetic mutations from being human b/c their DNA was not the same as most humans. The DNA is irrelevant.
abcmole (4 hours ago)
All humans have varying degrees of mutation. All humans.
I would further say, all human life should be treated with more deference than any other animal.
DNA is the only unchanging factor of the human organism.
Phenotype (expression of the DNA) changes continously from conception to death, so DNA should never be discounted it is consistent factor and that which makes a human, human - or at least the potential.
dharmamarx (4 hours ago)
abcmole, why should "all human life be treated w/ more deference"? This looks to me like smuggling religion in the backdoor again.
abcmole (3 hours ago)
No, it's called being human.
I have empathy for other humans. I wish to treat them, morally, as I would like to be treated. The way a society treats its weakest members is a reflection of how civilized that society is.
I believe to err on the side of the proundly innocent is the greatest positive reflection of any society.
someone (28 minutes ago)
According to the American Heritage dictionary and any scientist `Life` is :
The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as ...growth, reproduction,...originating from within the organism.
It's clear to me that you're rationalizing.
rudydpimp (6 hours ago)
I think privacy is implied. But I'm aware that my definition of privacy is different from other people's definition of privacy. That's my point. It's all made up. But like I said before, I'm cool with it. The people acting like this decisions was anomalous haven't read enough con law.
dharmamarx (6 hours ago)
I'm unsatisfied with "all made up"; some answers are more respectful to the text than other answers. Some answers (life begins at conception) clearly violate church/state separation. But merely appealing to authorial intentions simply doesn't work (often b/c those intentions weren't there).
dharmamarx (6 hours ago)
I'm not convinced that defining "human life" is overstepping. There are very few plausible definitions of "human life." What you find offensive is that the court tried to determine a secular definition of "human life" (they are bound to respect the separation of church and state) and you want a religious definition.
abcmole (6 hours ago)
The definition they chose is irrelevant, it's unconstitutional that they make such a definition, that is the issue.
And further, the age at which they determined life begins is in dispute even within a secular definition. And even if it wasn't that is the job of Congress not the Court.
dharmamarx (6 hours ago)
Why? They needed a definition. Otherwise they could not talk about a "person" at all, let alone a "person's" right to privacy, and if that right was implied so was the person. They actually did not do too much work defining the "person" (I would do more). All they really did was exclude the first 2 trimesters; I don't see why that's not plausible. I'm not sure why I should trust the masses to decide what the definition of "person" is either.
abcmole (5 hours ago)
So, you're a totalitarian or you would believe all rights reside in the masses, including the right to decide the constitutional definition of life.
Why stop at the first two trimesters? Why not make it six year-olds, or sixty year-olds? Biologically, a person is useless after they produce and raise offspring, why not kill people after they reproduce and raise offspring all they do from that time forward is waste resources? Using secular reasoning, of course.
PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY EMOTIONAL RESPONSES TO THIS DEBATE. AND, REMEMBER NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY YOU ARE LIABLE TO UPSET SOMEONE.
Last edited by IronSmith on Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
IronSmith- Co-founder
- Number of posts : 430
Age : 43
Handle : IronSmith
Timezone : UTC - 6 MDT Mountain Daylight Time
Registration date : 2008-05-17 -
Re: Right to Life VS. Right to Choice
by IronSmith Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:05 pm
PART 3
____________________________________
abfdrumz (5 hours ago)
abcmole...sure, the "slippery slope" angle. Ultimately, though, a compromise must be reached. You say a day-old fetus is a life, and I can't prove you wrong. But I've also got a pretty good idea what happens to our criminal justice and public health systems when we start forcing one-week-pregnant women to become, effectively, incubators for the state. (The end of the GOP, for one thing, but that's a whole 'nother story.)
Letting the states decide is fine by me. They effectively are anyway.
abcmole (5 hours ago)
So far as compromise, how about free condoms, free and low cost over-the-counter emergency contraceptives and greater education.
Hospitals and doctors, in emergencies such as rape/ncest, could give free no questions asked D&Cs or vaccuum aspiration to any woman within the first 36 hours (but no later).
As after the sperm reaches the egg, an abortion/abortifacient would be necessary; so it would require some low level of concern from the woman after sex to avoid pregnancy.
abfdrumz (4 hours ago)
abcmole...now we're talking. You've already gone further than many pro-lifers are willing to go, and for that I salute you. I can't meet you on the "emergency"-only 36-hour proposal, though. (So, let's see, the courts later decide that it was not rape, so the woman and her doctor go to prison...wow, this is going to be a whole lot of fun for our judges and juries, isn't it?)
abcmole (4 hours ago)
At the 36-hour mark the sperm would not have reached egg.
The proceedure is 100% effective at preventing pregnacy, and that is why I suggested it's use for rape or incest victims.
I see no reason to disclose any information, except in the procecution of an offender. I would even go further and allow more time for the D&C or vaccuum aspiration, IF the woman was physically unable to get treatment sooner AND the police are notified of the assault.
dharmamarx (5 hours ago)
Nope. My position is Kant's: Treat a person's mere rational capacity ("humanity") to choose in oneself or in another always as an ends and never as a means. I'm a little more uncomfortable w/ the "in one self" as I'm inclined to defend suicide, but Kant's pretty good; and he's secular. The difficulty is that a fetus does not seem to have a "mere rational capacity to choose." It has no concept of itself and no concept of life or of death.
abcmole (4 hours ago)
Kant believed in deference to that which we do not know or understand, to err on the side of caution.
I prefer Locke myself, but he was also an influence on Kandt's philosophy.
Do you presuppose life does not enter a human infant until birth? That would seem religious, and not scientific to me.
How did you determine their humanity? Extensive interview processes?
Regardless, my compassion for living creatures, especially for human life, is not limited to my estimate of it's intelligence.
dharmamarx (4 hours ago)
Kant's focus was on the capacity to choose, and as far as "life" is a morally relevant concept for Kant it would have been related to choice. Kant's point was that we regard our choices as good. The problem w/ a fetus is that it doesn't regard its choices (or anything for that matter) as good. I see no plausible secular grounds for equating a barely conscious fetus w/ a fully conscious adult woman.
abcmole (4 hours ago)
The choice is between killing the woman or the infant?
No, but the choice is life or death. I agree that is a moral choice, but morality is secular as well, it is securing the rights of others, weaker, so that you too may enjoy rights.
And Kandt was also a believer in the rights of man, life being chief amongst them, just as did Locke, from whom Kandt secured much of his philosophy.
dharmamarx (3 hours ago)
Sure Kant was a defender of "life." We all are. But again your biological definition of "life" and "death" is obscuring the real issues here. Most of us regard our deaths as the cessation of our experiences; a fetus in its early stages is barely conscious (I would thus object to calling the abortion of a pre-conscious fetus "death") and it is certainly in no position to care about its life. We kill adult cats all the time.
abcmole (3 hours ago)
Cats do not have self-awareness, humans have that potential.
So long as that life has the potential to be human, you have no right to kill it...that was my point.
I will agree that human life is more complicated than that which the traditional biological definition would cover, but that only gives more creedence to the position that all innocent human life should be protected, as you would want to be protected.
dharmamarx (3 hours ago)
abcmole, you do not know "for certain" that cats do not have that potential. You've stepped inside the head of a cat lately? The same arguments which establish non-consciousness for cats obviously carry over to fetuses (and then some). I would have much more respect for your position if you defended the preservation of experience itself. As is, I'm going to call your argument speciesist (which is, of course, an implicitly religious position).
abcmole (2 hours ago)
lol
No, my position is purely scientifically and philosphically based, your position is anthropormorphism which is purely religious, actually much like Hinduism or ancient paganism.
I do know that no cat has the potential to have self-awareness. I can say that with fact, why? Because of their brains, consciousness is an artifact of the abnormally large frontal lobes of the human brain. Cats and other animals, except *perhaps* for the Bonobo ape are incapable of self-awareness.
dharmamarx (2 hours ago)
abcmole, sorry but you've only demonstrated correlation between frontal lobes and self-consciousness (not causation) (and you haven't even done that for certain). As you say, the brain is mysterious: kittie self-consciousness cannot be completely ruled out by external examination. What have I said that is anthropormophic?
abcmole (2 hours ago)
Well, for one you said animals are members of society.
Would you like to serve as the subject in an experiment to test for causation? lol
Feline self-awareness does not exist and can be ruled out, until the next evolution of the species, of course.
I suggest, respectfully, looking into comparative psychology and anatomy, more specifically, cognitive ethology. Perhaps with Cetaceans or Bonobos...but cats, no.
dharmamarx (2 hours ago)
abcmole, I repeat that only demonstrates correlation not causation; I'm referring to a famous attack on reductive physicalism by Hillary Putnam. I agree that kitties almost certainly aren't self-aware. My point was that you were applying a looser standard of certainty to non-humans than you are to humans, and that's speciesist. Whether "animals" (note the scare-quotes) are members of "society" depends, of course, on how one defines "society".
abcmole (1 hour ago)
How would you define society?
There is much evidence to show that the superior frontal gyrus effects awareness.
No it's not, we know all humans have potential for self-awareness, only a few species of animals can the same be said, and even in those species the individuals are thought to be restricted to a 'few'. I compare it to trying to make a 386 computer process information like a Pentium IV. The 386 is a good computer, but it isn't a Pentium and it never will be...until it upgrades.
dharmamarx (2 hours ago)
abcmole, I am, of course, again suspicious of your refusal to admit the wealth of evidence that suggests that infants (let alone fetuses) do not possess self-awareness.
abcmole (2 hours ago)
There is conflicting evidence.
And where there involves human life and uncertainty, I prefer to err on the side of humans.
I would want that courtesy, wouldn't you?
dharmamarx (2 hours ago)
Yes of course I would, but I'm massively suspicious or your suggestion that there is "conflicting evidence." (My bet is that self-consciousness is a product of language.) Assuming there really is conflicting evidence, though, the question becomes at what point does that evidence start to emerge? It's surely not there at conception.
abcmole (1 hour ago)
Surely the beginning of life is at conception.
I don't believe that language is a prerequite, it is, however, needed to communicate that fact to another and study it.
Assuming that language is needed, however, would you support the decriminalization of killing infants until they speak their first words?
abfdrumz (1 hour ago)
I don't believe that language is a prerequite
Well, I mean, you wouldn't.
dharmamarx (1 hour ago)
Peter Singer justifies infanticide up to one year past birth (he calls that being on the "safe side") provided that the killing was painless and w/ the parents' consent. (Other cultures have and do practice infanticide). I've seen feminists argue for the moment of birth as the cut off point: the moment the fetus fully enters a community. I'm content w/ noting that both points are post-viability.
abcmole (56 minutes ago)
Pete Singer is a souless ghoul it appears. Wow.
I'm not sure what your trying to convey but it shows the lack of concensus up to what would you call that the pro-infanticide fringe?
I will not also note, not all cultures are equal.
someone (37 minutes ago)
I agree with your political view on this subject but you did make a mistake. I would like to point out that no law, nor judge, nor president, nor congressman has the ABILATY determine when life begins whether or not the constitution declares it to be so. Self awareness maybe, but life, no. BTW, science says life exists in even one cell (amoebas anyone), religion says life can exist without cells; in either case that would go to show the Supreme Court was wrong.
apeppink (3 hours ago)
Roe vs. Wade was a clear, and by far the most egregious imposition of judicial social engineering, which has become so prevalent in the judiciary. And people have been dumb enough to so sheepishly accept it, and for so long now. It's pretty dismaying.
abcmole (3 hours ago)
Well said.
dharmamarx (3 hours ago)
apeppink, I have lots of problems w/ Row v. Wade, but I assume they're different from yours. Define what you mean by "social engineering"; I'm suspicious of the phrase.
PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY EMOTIONAL RESPONSES TO THIS DEBATE. AND, REMEMBER NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY YOU ARE LIABLE TO UPSET SOMEONE.
____________________________________
abfdrumz (5 hours ago)
abcmole...sure, the "slippery slope" angle. Ultimately, though, a compromise must be reached. You say a day-old fetus is a life, and I can't prove you wrong. But I've also got a pretty good idea what happens to our criminal justice and public health systems when we start forcing one-week-pregnant women to become, effectively, incubators for the state. (The end of the GOP, for one thing, but that's a whole 'nother story.)
Letting the states decide is fine by me. They effectively are anyway.
abcmole (5 hours ago)
So far as compromise, how about free condoms, free and low cost over-the-counter emergency contraceptives and greater education.
Hospitals and doctors, in emergencies such as rape/ncest, could give free no questions asked D&Cs or vaccuum aspiration to any woman within the first 36 hours (but no later).
As after the sperm reaches the egg, an abortion/abortifacient would be necessary; so it would require some low level of concern from the woman after sex to avoid pregnancy.
abfdrumz (4 hours ago)
abcmole...now we're talking. You've already gone further than many pro-lifers are willing to go, and for that I salute you. I can't meet you on the "emergency"-only 36-hour proposal, though. (So, let's see, the courts later decide that it was not rape, so the woman and her doctor go to prison...wow, this is going to be a whole lot of fun for our judges and juries, isn't it?)
abcmole (4 hours ago)
At the 36-hour mark the sperm would not have reached egg.
The proceedure is 100% effective at preventing pregnacy, and that is why I suggested it's use for rape or incest victims.
I see no reason to disclose any information, except in the procecution of an offender. I would even go further and allow more time for the D&C or vaccuum aspiration, IF the woman was physically unable to get treatment sooner AND the police are notified of the assault.
dharmamarx (5 hours ago)
Nope. My position is Kant's: Treat a person's mere rational capacity ("humanity") to choose in oneself or in another always as an ends and never as a means. I'm a little more uncomfortable w/ the "in one self" as I'm inclined to defend suicide, but Kant's pretty good; and he's secular. The difficulty is that a fetus does not seem to have a "mere rational capacity to choose." It has no concept of itself and no concept of life or of death.
abcmole (4 hours ago)
Kant believed in deference to that which we do not know or understand, to err on the side of caution.
I prefer Locke myself, but he was also an influence on Kandt's philosophy.
Do you presuppose life does not enter a human infant until birth? That would seem religious, and not scientific to me.
How did you determine their humanity? Extensive interview processes?
Regardless, my compassion for living creatures, especially for human life, is not limited to my estimate of it's intelligence.
dharmamarx (4 hours ago)
Kant's focus was on the capacity to choose, and as far as "life" is a morally relevant concept for Kant it would have been related to choice. Kant's point was that we regard our choices as good. The problem w/ a fetus is that it doesn't regard its choices (or anything for that matter) as good. I see no plausible secular grounds for equating a barely conscious fetus w/ a fully conscious adult woman.
abcmole (4 hours ago)
The choice is between killing the woman or the infant?
No, but the choice is life or death. I agree that is a moral choice, but morality is secular as well, it is securing the rights of others, weaker, so that you too may enjoy rights.
And Kandt was also a believer in the rights of man, life being chief amongst them, just as did Locke, from whom Kandt secured much of his philosophy.
dharmamarx (3 hours ago)
Sure Kant was a defender of "life." We all are. But again your biological definition of "life" and "death" is obscuring the real issues here. Most of us regard our deaths as the cessation of our experiences; a fetus in its early stages is barely conscious (I would thus object to calling the abortion of a pre-conscious fetus "death") and it is certainly in no position to care about its life. We kill adult cats all the time.
abcmole (3 hours ago)
Cats do not have self-awareness, humans have that potential.
So long as that life has the potential to be human, you have no right to kill it...that was my point.
I will agree that human life is more complicated than that which the traditional biological definition would cover, but that only gives more creedence to the position that all innocent human life should be protected, as you would want to be protected.
dharmamarx (3 hours ago)
abcmole, you do not know "for certain" that cats do not have that potential. You've stepped inside the head of a cat lately? The same arguments which establish non-consciousness for cats obviously carry over to fetuses (and then some). I would have much more respect for your position if you defended the preservation of experience itself. As is, I'm going to call your argument speciesist (which is, of course, an implicitly religious position).
abcmole (2 hours ago)
lol
No, my position is purely scientifically and philosphically based, your position is anthropormorphism which is purely religious, actually much like Hinduism or ancient paganism.
I do know that no cat has the potential to have self-awareness. I can say that with fact, why? Because of their brains, consciousness is an artifact of the abnormally large frontal lobes of the human brain. Cats and other animals, except *perhaps* for the Bonobo ape are incapable of self-awareness.
dharmamarx (2 hours ago)
abcmole, sorry but you've only demonstrated correlation between frontal lobes and self-consciousness (not causation) (and you haven't even done that for certain). As you say, the brain is mysterious: kittie self-consciousness cannot be completely ruled out by external examination. What have I said that is anthropormophic?
abcmole (2 hours ago)
Well, for one you said animals are members of society.
Would you like to serve as the subject in an experiment to test for causation? lol
Feline self-awareness does not exist and can be ruled out, until the next evolution of the species, of course.
I suggest, respectfully, looking into comparative psychology and anatomy, more specifically, cognitive ethology. Perhaps with Cetaceans or Bonobos...but cats, no.
dharmamarx (2 hours ago)
abcmole, I repeat that only demonstrates correlation not causation; I'm referring to a famous attack on reductive physicalism by Hillary Putnam. I agree that kitties almost certainly aren't self-aware. My point was that you were applying a looser standard of certainty to non-humans than you are to humans, and that's speciesist. Whether "animals" (note the scare-quotes) are members of "society" depends, of course, on how one defines "society".
abcmole (1 hour ago)
How would you define society?
There is much evidence to show that the superior frontal gyrus effects awareness.
No it's not, we know all humans have potential for self-awareness, only a few species of animals can the same be said, and even in those species the individuals are thought to be restricted to a 'few'. I compare it to trying to make a 386 computer process information like a Pentium IV. The 386 is a good computer, but it isn't a Pentium and it never will be...until it upgrades.
dharmamarx (2 hours ago)
abcmole, I am, of course, again suspicious of your refusal to admit the wealth of evidence that suggests that infants (let alone fetuses) do not possess self-awareness.
abcmole (2 hours ago)
There is conflicting evidence.
And where there involves human life and uncertainty, I prefer to err on the side of humans.
I would want that courtesy, wouldn't you?
dharmamarx (2 hours ago)
Yes of course I would, but I'm massively suspicious or your suggestion that there is "conflicting evidence." (My bet is that self-consciousness is a product of language.) Assuming there really is conflicting evidence, though, the question becomes at what point does that evidence start to emerge? It's surely not there at conception.
abcmole (1 hour ago)
Surely the beginning of life is at conception.
I don't believe that language is a prerequite, it is, however, needed to communicate that fact to another and study it.
Assuming that language is needed, however, would you support the decriminalization of killing infants until they speak their first words?
abfdrumz (1 hour ago)
I don't believe that language is a prerequite
Well, I mean, you wouldn't.
dharmamarx (1 hour ago)
Peter Singer justifies infanticide up to one year past birth (he calls that being on the "safe side") provided that the killing was painless and w/ the parents' consent. (Other cultures have and do practice infanticide). I've seen feminists argue for the moment of birth as the cut off point: the moment the fetus fully enters a community. I'm content w/ noting that both points are post-viability.
abcmole (56 minutes ago)
Pete Singer is a souless ghoul it appears. Wow.
I'm not sure what your trying to convey but it shows the lack of concensus up to what would you call that the pro-infanticide fringe?
I will not also note, not all cultures are equal.
someone (37 minutes ago)
I agree with your political view on this subject but you did make a mistake. I would like to point out that no law, nor judge, nor president, nor congressman has the ABILATY determine when life begins whether or not the constitution declares it to be so. Self awareness maybe, but life, no. BTW, science says life exists in even one cell (amoebas anyone), religion says life can exist without cells; in either case that would go to show the Supreme Court was wrong.
apeppink (3 hours ago)
Roe vs. Wade was a clear, and by far the most egregious imposition of judicial social engineering, which has become so prevalent in the judiciary. And people have been dumb enough to so sheepishly accept it, and for so long now. It's pretty dismaying.
abcmole (3 hours ago)
Well said.
dharmamarx (3 hours ago)
apeppink, I have lots of problems w/ Row v. Wade, but I assume they're different from yours. Define what you mean by "social engineering"; I'm suspicious of the phrase.
PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY EMOTIONAL RESPONSES TO THIS DEBATE. AND, REMEMBER NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY YOU ARE LIABLE TO UPSET SOMEONE.
IronSmith- Co-founder
- Number of posts : 430
Age : 43
Handle : IronSmith
Timezone : UTC - 6 MDT Mountain Daylight Time
Registration date : 2008-05-17 -
Re: Right to Life VS. Right to Choice
by Guest Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:44 pm
I think this is a great debate, and that it is wonderful that all of you my friends are so very passionate and intelligent! I would just like to add that the houses of congress and the supreme court were set up, in a manner that the founders felt achieved one thing over all others as best they could -- balance. No it is not a perfect system, and I have serious issues with putting justices in those chairs for life the same as I have in not putting term limits on members of congress; but the system will not inherently fail as it is set, it is a workable system.
Keep this up!
Keep this up!
Guest- Guest
Re: Right to Life VS. Right to Choice
by IronSmith Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:54 pm
I'd like to note that none of the people in this debate belong to this alliance. (except one but you'll never know who)
IronSmith- Co-founder
- Number of posts : 430
Age : 43
Handle : IronSmith
Timezone : UTC - 6 MDT Mountain Daylight Time
Registration date : 2008-05-17 -
ISSNH Alliance :: PUBLIC :: FUN STUFF :: Psycho Ward
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum